you you you you you you you you you you Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to show you how to do it. That's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. I. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just going to say it's not a problem. I'm just going to say it's not a problem. I'm just going to say it's not a problem. I'm just going to say it's not a problem. I'm just going to say it's not a problem. I'm just going to say it's not a problem. I'm just going to say it's not a problem. I'm just going to say it's not a problem. I'm just going to say it's not a problem. I'm going to have to see the other side. People like this. They're trying to find something. Oh, yeah. We'll do this out. Okay. I just need that. You can take a picture. Yeah, I was having a big party. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. Good morning, everyone. It's 930. I want to welcome you to our May 17th public hearing. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mayor Gaskins. Here. I smell back. I smell some in a Gary. I smell some in Chapman. Councilman Elnubi. Here. Councilman McPike. Here. Hey, welcome. We're going to dive right in. At this time, I will entertain a motion to consider Docket item 20 out of order. So moved second. Okay, there has been a motion by vice mayor Bagley and a second by councilwoman green to consider item 20 out of order. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. The eyes have it. Madam Clerk, please call item 20. Presentation of a proclamation recognizing older Americans month. Okay, at this time, I have asked my colleague Councilman Aguirre to lead us in a proclamation recognizing older Americans month. If you're here for the proclamation, we ask that you please come to the front. We'll do the reading of the proclamation and then we'll do a picture with the council. All right, good morning everyone and welcome to Older Americans Month. I'm going to go ahead and read the proclamation. We'll let everybody introduce themselves and then we'll kind of take it from there. So, whereas the month of May is Older Americans Month and whereas Older Americans Month was established in 1963 with President John F. Kennedy, Designating May, as Senior Citizens Month, which later became Older Americans Month. And whereas the purpose of Older Americans Month is to serve as a time to acknowledge the contributions of Older Americans, especially those who have defended the country, and to highlight the importance of healthy aging and community support. And whereas the 2025 Older Americans Month theme, flipped the script on aging, focuses on transforming how society perceives talks, perceives talks about and approaches aging. It encourages individuals and communities to challenge stereotypes and to spell misconceptions. And whereas the local national and international contributions of older persons in history deserve recognition and celebration. And whereas local leaders such as former vice mayor and council member Dell Pepper exemplify the contributions of older Alexandrians to the vibrancy of Alexandria and to the health of all Alexandrians. And whereas older adults who are family caregivers, approximately 70% who are women provide the backbone of the US care system, allowing parents, spouses, and other loved ones to live and age independently in their homes, providing about 600 billion annually in unpaid labor. And whereas, all people benefit from the profound and undeniable impact of the Older Americans Act, and older persons continue to make profound contributions to the growth and strength of both our city and Commonwealth. Now, therefore, I, Khanika Girder, on behalf of the Leagascans, Mayor of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. And on behalf of the Alexandria City Council, you hereby proclaim the month of May as older Americans month. In the city of Alexandria and reaffirmed the commitment of the city to expand the leadership of older adults and their involvement in public service positions and do commend all citizens to commemorate this month in gratitude. For those older persons who have contributed to the life of the city and the nation, We're by right a position of equality, fairness, justice and freedom. And witness where I have here unto you set my hand and caused a civil and Alexandria to be affixed this 17th day of May 2025. And the key wetsu for the recognition. Thank you for flipping the script. My name is Michael Schruz-Stromen, chair of the commission and aging and canning didn't mention that he's also part of our commission. So I think we have a quorum for this meeting. I'm Bob Iford. I'm with at home in Alexandria. And I would like to mention that's Michael Schuster also received the any be rose lifetime achievement award from the on Aging this last week. So congratulations to you for your outstanding service. And I knew nothing about it, but the mayor did it, apparently. It was a wonderful surprise. And with that, Madam Mayor, I would move the proclamation. There has been a motion, is there a second? Second. Oh, yeah. Actually, there has been a motion by Councilman Ingari and a second by Councilman Nick Pike to prove the proclamation recognizing older Americans month. Is there any discussion? Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. The aye. Pavit and the proclamation passes. Yeah, hold on a second. Okay. Madam clerk next item. Public discussion period. Okay, so we are now going to pivot to our public discussion period. I want to take a moment at the outset to remind everyone who is present that our public meeting. This is a public meeting of the City Council and it is convened for the purpose of conducting business of our city. We welcome and encourage public participation, but we also must ensure that the meeting proceeds in an orderly and respectful manner. Disruptive behavior. So shouting repeated interruptions or other conduct that interferes with the orderly conduct of the meeting is not prohibited individuals engaging in such conduct will be warned and if the behavior continues they may be removed. So we ask that everyone conduct themselves in a manner that allows for the meeting to proceed effectively and respectively for everyone in attendance. And we're going to continue to read this at every meeting just so that we can normalize the sort of rules of the the chamber. And so and attendance and we're going to continue to read this at every meeting just so that we can normalize the sort of rules of the chamber and so we are then going to get started. The way this will proceed if you are new to us is the clerk will call the names of each speaker and you will have three minutes to speak. As a reminder we will hear the first 15 and then the remaining speakers will be heard at the conclusion of docketed items. So with that, I guess one other thing, if you are in the room, please recognize you can use both podiums on the left and the right. Madam Clerk, please call the first three speakers. Excuse me, John D. Lawrence, Alison O'Connell and Eric Lips. Thank you Madam Mayor. I'm vice mayor, members of the council. I'm John Lawrence, I'm the chair of the Northern Virginia Juve and the Tension Commission. Most of you will come by and you've seen the facility. So thank you and I'm going to keep sending out invitations. We'll get all of you there, staff included. Like I said, if you want to, I just want to come up here every once in a while and give you an update on what's going on. I want to be positive. They're only coupled. sending out invitations will get all of you there, staff included. Like I said, a few months ago, I just want to come up here every once in a while and give you an update on what's going on. I want to be positive. There are only a couple bad things, not bad, but anyway, first on the budget. We obviously didn't get what we asked for, but given what's going on across the river with Trump and Musk and their flying monkeys, you were very generous. So we're're gonna make it work and we appreciate what you did. I've spoken to you before about USDA. How DJJ was announced a few months ago they were getting out of the business of being the facilitator. We are still trying, along with a few others in the state to figure out how to become our own authority to administer USDA funds. It's not looking good. Frankly, there's more movement than progress on behalf of the state and I don't think it's going to happen. So that'll be about $100,000 whole in our budget combined between the center and shelter care. And obviously, food is not optional so so that whole will be filled. On the concrete slabs, you've all been out there and you know how horrible they are and how much I hate them. We started to take one apart to actually find out how it's built so that we know how we can take it apart. You know, is there rebar? What is it? But we've started on getting rid of them. We have a sample of a bed we're're going to use an ideally, what we're going to have is we're going to have a bed low, a cubby, a desk, a chair, all indestructible bolted to the floor, and cubbies on the wall. So it has more appearance of a room rather than a cell. So that is started. We had a job fair a couple of weeks ago for the first time ever, two days. We a bunch of people come. So fingers crossed this will help start to put the dent in our recruiting and retention. The only negative thing is the storm last night we had a microburst and a large tree right next to the our parking lot in the apartment building next door came down took out a fence, landed on a car. Nobody got hurt, so that's the only thing that really matters. One thing I wanna talk about is, and the commission hasn't gotten a copy of this, they're gonna get this weekend, we just got it. In the fall, Mike Mackie, who's been an incredible resource to me, put me in touch with Chelsea Icarth in DCHS, because I wanted to learn more about trauma and for informed care. She offered to send out a team to assess the center and coincidentally they came out with Mr. McPike was out there for a tour. So he got to see the first hour of what they heard and saw and what they asked and they were great questions. We just got a 23 page single space report with practical ideas as to what we can do. Some are already underway, but I can't thank them enough and I wish I hadn't run out of time because I would have told you all three of their names. Thank you for your time, John. I guess what I would ask, can you circulate that report to the council? Absolutely. Once the commission gets it, I will extend it to you because it is, it's absolutely amazing. And and I'll just take this chance, Erica Kleiner, Noreng Bitar and Chelsea I-Carts. I mean, the amount of time they spent to do this report and to get very practical in terms of what we can do, what we have done, and what we should do. It was amazing. And speaking on behalf of myself and Janice our executive director, there's nothing here we don't want to do. I think it would be helpful for us to be aware of kind of what those things are, what it's being thought about and kind of the costs that we can move forward on some of those things. I also wanted to reiterate, I know that we are following closely the challenges you mentioned with USDA. And we mentioned in our budget work session, we agree this is non-negotiable, this is not directional. So I know the manager, and I believe deputy city manager non-lambart are supposed to be working with all of us to continue to keep us updated. So thank you. Yeah, it's just where we're still hopeful, but honestly not very hopeful. Yeah, I think I heard councilman McPike. I was asking, that's the same thing. So that's right, okay. All right, well thank you for your testimony. All right, Madam Clerk, next speaker. Alison O'Connell, Eric Gibbs, Janice Grenadier. The morning, I want to start by saying thank you to Mayor Gaskins and Councilman Anubi. I'll be sorry for coming out to Dr. Concerties hearing on Wednesday. We are very grateful that you both listen to the community about why this case was so important and came out to support our neighbor. Dr. Concerty was very clear that since he was a political prisoner, he needed political support and I'm glad that he got it from both of you. Dr. Surrey was granted bond on Wednesday, released in Texas, and flown home to be with his family, which is wonderful news and a huge relief. The effort to get him released and return home was truly a collective one. His wife and family and friends did the heaviest lifting as did his legal team, but there was also a concerted effort by faculty and students at Georgetown, Democratic political leadership, advocates and ordinary community members across Virginia to bring awareness to his case and fight for his freedom. It might be more comfortable to frame his unlawful detainment as simply about free speech, but it wasn't just about that, and Dr. Concerty has said so himself. He spoke out against the genocide of the Palestinian people, and this administration labeled him a terrorist for that. That is why he was stolen from his home and his family, and he paid a very high price, eight weeks, and ICE detention, and says he will not back down all the same and will continue to speak out about this genocide, because he must, and we all must. In the past 24 hours, over 115 Palestinians have been murdered. All of Palestine is on the brink of famine, and elderly children and disabled community members are already starving to death. So when we talk about why Alexandria should divest from genocide and apartheid, we are referring to the same type of collective initiative as came together around Dr. Surrey. One where no one party is the hero, but we all work together to do what's right. Alexandria should divest because over $12 million of our tax money goes to find Israeli occupation and palace we all work together to do what's right. Alexandria should divest because over $12 million of our tax money goes to fund Israeli occupation in Palestine and Israeli weapons that are murdering Palestinian children. We should divest because our retirement funds and city contracts flow through companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Amazon, which profit off the destruction of lives and homes. We should divest for the sake of our collective souls and we should divest because it will make a material difference. But we should also divest as part of a larger project. When one city moves towards justice, we empower other cities, municipalities, and counties to follow our lead and be brave. Something horrific is happening in Palestine and is not removed from us. It would be easier if it was, but this genocide is funded by the U.S., it is endorsed by U.S. politicians, and it would stop if our leadership stopped it. It's easy to feel helpless in the face of brutality beyond imagining, but we are not helpless. If we come together as a community and say we will not support or endorse genocide in any way, and therefore we will not invest our collective funds in it. We can be leaders in Virginia. Listen to your constituents and I have us now. Adam Clark, next speaker. Eric Clips, Janice Grenadier, Glyan Ply. Hi, how are you? Thank you for being here and thank you for having me here. You won't remember what I say today, not important, but I'm going to try to help you feel a tiny bit. Welcome. Welcome to the right side of history. Today is day 586 of the most recent iteration of the genocide that most of you approve of. But we welcome Aliyah and Abdel-Rakman. Thank you so much for finding your humanity and showing up to support Dr. Badar Khan Suri. Welcome to the majority US public opinion and welcome to the majority US public opinion and to the right side of history. Now we expect you to show up for local students, local families, Alexandrians of Conscious, and any of us who end up wrongly accused, detained, or disappeared. The rest of you, Sarah, Kahnik, John Jacinta, McPike, shame, fail. Just like the rest of you have failed to divest. Quote from this body's statement in 1985, as Americans and as Virginians, thus devoted to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we cannot ignore gross and unconscionable violations of human rights in other parts of the world, particularly when the policies and programs of our city may through its investment provide support for the continued violation of those rights. So please, please divest from the apocalyptic apartheid investments in the Alexandria Supplemental Retirement Plan, the overly generous genocidal investments in the local government investment pool, LGIP, the appalling apartheid based investment in the Virginia Retirement System, which I had to get all of my money out of after working in public schools here in the crackpot killer city contracts. Last part, the Nucba. The Nucba. What do you know about it? Probably not that much. The Israeli, UK, American colonizer lie is that it ended, but it never ended. The current version is just so brutal and genocidal that no human being of conscious can ignore it. But just like the Kashmir, the Congo, Cuba, Myanmar, Haiti, Palestine, all of these are one issue and we would like to help support you in ending elite white supremacy, apartheid and genocide wherever it exists. Thank you. Councilman on Newbie. So typically we don't comment on comments or public speakers. Just one say one thing. While I appreciate people realizing or thanking the two of us who are being there that morning, I refused the framing of, you know, we're the only two who care about human rights here. I know my colleagues, because typically we don't comment or not, going to defend themselves, but I'm going to speak up for them. I think my colleagues care about human rights and the fact that they weren't there this morning does not mean they don't care. I almost didn't make it because I had work commitments and it was just you know stroke of luck that I was able to make it and I'm glad I did but the fact that my colleagues did not make it that morning out there I refused about I refused that framing that they don't care so I just want to say that. Thank you councilman on newbie. Madam Clerk next speaker. Janice Grenadier, Glen Pine, Nikki Enville. I want to start out this morning congratulating officer Goodroom who just got compensated 7.25 million for the discrimination that he had to endure in the police in the city of Alexandria Police. It's another example of the black on black discrimination which is also white on white discrimination. It's social hierarchy here in the city of Alexandria discrimination. And once again, we care about other people more than we do our own citizens. Everybody's out on the thing. Let's fight for these immigrants. Well, what about the citizens? The citizens of the United States of America deserve due process just as much as these other people do. But in state of Virginia, from the hierarchy, social hierarchy of discrimination is one of the worst, which I have had to live, which each and every one of you. And the monthly videos of me coming here shows the amount of criminal activity of when one person decides who has the power, what's going to happen to you. In my situation, not only does it include everyone up on that diocese, it includes all of them prior from 2010, who have been given notice of this. This discrimination includes the judges, the fixer judges that are chosen by our Supreme Court, the clerk of court who allows documentation of my home to be filed when he knows he has first-hand information that it's been robust signed, that the bar number on it belongs to a judge in Florida that the Wells Fargo bank has stated that they have nothing to do with it, but yet my house is in their name. We have a problem, and all of you are staying silent about it. And our city manager has all of the documentation and the proof in his hands. Our sheriffs are involved, our police are involved, our Commonwealth attorney is involved. And it goes all the way up to our state legislature. We have no separation of power who chooses our judges. So our judges have now become tools for the elite to get what they want in the courts, especially in the equity courts. Our children, our parents, our grandparents, when it comes to guardianships are not safe here in the city of Alexandria because of the judge sees they have any money. They're going to put in a nursing home, they're going to get a guardian, their funds are all going to be taken and their children and their grandchildren are going to be left with nothing. And they're basically going to be murdered in that nursing home, not said properly, not given the proper dietary needs that they have. discrimination has gone on for too long. And we now have a case that sets presidents in the federal court. Thank you for your time. Next speaker. Go ahead and find Nicky in film, Melissa Albert. Good morning. I'm a Jewish Alexandria resident. For over 500 days, we've been told that the US enables genocide of the Palestinian people is not a local issue. Local issues are things like schools, not millions of people and babies that we're starving and blowing up on the other side of the planet. What perhaps I'm hoping that some of you are starting to realize is that it's all connected. That this is a local issue in so many profound ways. Dr. Consuri and Arlington-based Georgetown professor was abducted by his home from masks' ICE agents in March. The Trump administration has been kidnapping even legal residents of the street in broad daylight for being sympathetic to the Palestinian play for opposing the horrific slaughter and starvation of millions. Dr. Consuri's play and our email campaign spurred Councilman Elnubi and Mayor Gaskins to show up at court for him this week, which was meaningful and important. Councilman Elnubi even spoke there correctly citing the threat to free speech, although being careful never to mention Palestine. But Dr. Constory wasn't abducted over a free speech issue in the abstract. It was Palestine speech. He spoke out for Palestine specifically, and that is why he was abducted. We need to exercise our free speech rights on the subject of Palestine. Including you on City Council, you need to normalize free speech on Palestine by speaking out about this genocide. Folks, did you think that if we were all cool with the US enabling a genocide in the Middle East, if everybody turned away and said that that's not a local issue, did you think that none of that genocide will hatred, none of that political violence, none of that fascism would be turned here on people in the US, turned even on peace studies professors at the local school, Georgetown. This is a local issue. One of the more profound rallying cries at Propalestinian rallies is one that says, in our thousands, in our millions, we are all Palestinian. I take it to mean that we must be brave, and we have to embody their relentless struggle for self-determination in the best way we know how. But it also reminds me that we can't pretend like this genocide is removed from us. Our society and our locality are both causing and impacted by this genocide. Our local weapons manufacturers are selling the tools that maim children. The underlying fascist ideology is turning on us as well. And the local families and friends of those murdered are struggling right here in Alexandria. This is a local issue. It's clearer than ever. Where is your red line? Diveast. Thank Madam Clerk, next speaker. Nikki and Phil Melissa. I'll put her to tell. I'm going to do variation on the theme that will feel familiar to anyone who is sentient in the 90s. You're definitely a Holocaust and I are if you were currently wrinkled over the fact that I just used the word Holocaust to describe what we're doing in Palestine Because it turns out the Europeans don't have a monopoly on that word and what we are witnessing what your silence is encouraging is in fact a Holocaust You're definitely a Holocaust denier if you're still calling it a war Calling what's going on in Palestine a war is like having the winning Super Bowl team go full chest against a bunch of Kindergarteners with a ball and pretending it's an even match. Few start sentences with words like, when someone tries to explain the actual history of the situation, how this didn't start on October 7th or with Trump, or how this isn't a religion of thousands of years old religious fight. And the only thing this has to do with religion is that the racist apartheid state known as Israel manipulates Judaism in the most disgusting way to justify its colonial occupation and slaughter. Remember kids, the bad guys use Christianity just by slavery. You're definitely a Holocaust janitor if, after 19 months of everyone from us, your employers, to the International Criminal Court, drawing a cray on map explaining how Zionism is nothing more than a racist, white supremacist, land-hungry political ideology that distorts, manipulates, and weaponizes Judaism and its history to justify its atrocities, and you still refuse to acknowledge this fact. If you still think those of us fighting for Palestine, even those who practice Judaism, if upon learning how much goddamn money we have and continue to send to Israel to conduct its illegal and immoral colonization and now Holocaust and you don't want to throw things at other things out of rage. If you still care a single solitary, hmm, what other Holocaust deniers think about you? Just like being a homophob or a racist is one's defining characteristic and nothing one could possibly have to say about anything, much matters because their bigotry has rendered them irrelevant. One should wear being hated by our modern day Nazis as a badge of honor. But if you're still worried about what the worst people on the planet think of you, it's probably because you're one of them. And finally, you are definitely a Holocaust an IR if you are still staying silent. It does not matter one single IOTA if you don't like what's happening, but if you refuse to speak out against it, you are encouraging it. If there are nine people at a table in one Zion Nazi and the other nine don't say anything, what you've got is a table filled with ten Zion Nazis. For the love of everything sacred and holy, stop denying this Holocaust, stop funding this Holocaust, stop encouraging this Holocaust and join us to help stop this fucking holocaust. Thank you Madame Clerk, next speaker. Melissa Albert, Paul Hurtell last speaker. Okay, do we have Melissa Albert online? Hi, I didn't think I was going to be able to speak but suddenly I have a microphone. I am, I don't have a speech prepared. I'm calling you from my home because I'm making up time for work. I was one of the organizers of the rally for Dr. Huntsbury that we held on Wednesday outside of the federal court. And I just wanted to thank the mayor and thank up Dellell for showing up and so showing support for this resident. A lot of you have heard me talk about the fact that my own family left a country that was abducting and disappearing people in a really brutal regime. And it has been incredibly chilling to watch this starting to unfold here in the US. So I just wanted to extend my thank you to you all who showed up and express my disappointment and those who didn't. I think that now is the time for everyone to show up and get loud. you know, we've been coming to you for over a year, expressing our horror at an unfolding genocide, but the fascism that we've been supporting as a country and in the West abroad is coming home now to find us here. And so I would really urge everybody on City Council to start showing up and getting loud because we are next. I'm here making up time for work that I missed on Wednesday. It's a Saturday. It's beautiful outside and instead I'm here. And I'm just, I'm stressing that point because I understand what you're talking about when you say that some people don't have the luxury of taking time off to show up for their fellow citizens. But I did it. I did what I could and I expect all of you as elected officials to speak out. This is your moment. And if you miss this moment, you will regret it. Fascism leaves no one behind, and we're all next. So, you know, thank you to all of my friends who are there in person today. I was with you all and thank you for your beautiful speeches. And I just want to support everyone's call for divestment. Thanks. Thank you. Madam Clerk, next speaker and I think this is our last week. Paul or tell. Madam Mayor Gaskins and members of the City Council. I reside in Mount Vernon, but I'm here because I'm being directly affected by your actions. company with Fairfax County in moving airplanes to fly over my house. As a community member directly affected by aircraft noise, I want to raise a serious concern. The current draft study on Southflow departure at DCA overlooks something critical. The duration of noise, not just as volume matters. While areas like Old Town endure short-sharp bursts of airplane noise, communities near Mount Vernon experience long sustained overflight that wear on people hour after hour. Our neighborhood is already significantly impacted by low altitude arrivals that bring for long noise throughout the day. Yet the study relies solely on Elmax, the metric that captures only the loudest instant of noise event. It completely ignores how long that noise lasts and how deeply it disrupts daily life. For us it's not just how loud it gets, it's how long it stays. Learing outbound the parkers onto an already burdened arrival path creates a compounded impact that the study fails to recognize. We need a smarter, fair approach, one that reflects lived experience and uses metrics like DNL and SEL to capture cumulative effects. Not just brief peaks, thank you. And I would like to say that the year ago, I brought this up to your attention. And I submitted a comprehensive noise study. And all that was ignored for political expediency. Because once you use DNL and other metrics, or let me put it this way, the LMAX is such a poor metric. It covered up at all. And I find that that's a shame because you had an opportunity to really do a comprehensive noise study by hiring this, not this, but the consultant who could have mapped out entirely. But instead, you chose to use an LMAX. And I'll provide you also a more detailed study on this. Thank you. Thank you Paula and if you want to leave the additional study or the comments with the clerk happy to take a look and we'll also have staff follow up with you and make sure that the council has an update on this process. Thank you. Paula is our last speaker. I will entertain a motion to close the public here. There has been been a motion by Councilman Chapman and a second by Councilman Elm Mubi to close the public discussion period in the discussion. Okay, all those in favor say aye. Any opposed say nay. All right, the eyes have it. Madam Clerk, next item. Action consent calendar planning commission four through eight. Okay, I want to pull item 5 and then I need to pull item 8 because we have a speaker signed up. So and 7 so that's 7, 8. So there's your motion and I approve item 4 and 6, so there's a motion by Councilwoman Green to approve the action consent items four and six. Is there a second? There's been a second by Vice Mayor Bagley. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay, action consent items four through six are passed. Madam Clerk next item. Special use permit 2024-0034. parcel address 4,800. Kim Moore Avenue the Launtay apartments. Plane commission action recommended approval. 7 is a okay. I don't need a presentation on this. I wanted to pull this for two reasons. The first is I just wanted to highlight this is a really good project. This is a project that is taking advantage of our zoning for housing tools. It is also taking advantage of delivering on some of the things that we just set forth in the small area plan. So I think it's important to take a minute to highlight that when the policies we pass are having a direct impact on our goals for more homes, especially homes near transit and leveraging tools that allow more homes to be built, honestly without a lot of city investment. The second reason why I wanted to pull this is because I think it's also important to highlight and I said, share this with staff in my briefing, my frustration towards the lack of progress on getting our dashboard up. I think when we passed zoning for housing, we were really clear that we want a space where we can lift up things like this are happening, where the public can see, here's the policies that are being used, here's the activity that is happening, here's the number of units we're getting, here's where it's happening. I think we spent a lot of time back and forth giving recommendations on what we wanted to to see. And now we have a moment where this could be up on our website and people could be watching it. And I know a lot of work has happened. And I know a lot of work has happened. And I appreciate that, but it doesn't seem like we're any closer to getting that up in a transparent and clear way. So I really just want to say that this is a moment where we should be holding ourselves accountable, because it's helpful for the public, but it's also helpful for all of us as we we look at future that leverage zoning for housing tools, as we go into the housing master plan, as we do some of the other things in our long range plan. So I know there's work, I appreciate the explanation that I was given, but I just really hope that we can accelerate on moving that work through the website. So folks can see when good projects like this move. Karl Moore,itz, Planning Director, and I just want to say thank you very much for that encouragement to act on this very important concept. And even to underline sort of the importance of what you're saying in doing the summary update that we prepared for council, it highlighted that there is a lot more going on that people would be interested in knowing about. So you have our commitment to act quickly. I appreciate that. Other questions or comments on this one? Vice, your hand. Vice Mayor Bagley. I appreciate that we're going to keep moving without the presentation, but I just wanted to highlight what the success that the mayor is referring to and that took place here is one of the modifications and zoning for housing was to modify the number of units per acre allowed on a project and this was a building that went through a renovation that created more interior space opportunities to have more apartments and the thing that had kept them that would have kept them from converting that to housing was that prior limitation on units per acre. So having changed that in zoning for housing and then to the credit of the ownership at the site and our staff marrying that concept together resulted in more units inside and existing building with nominal impacts to the surrounding community, this surrounding community, but creating more housing, which was the intent of zoning for housing. So, just wanted to express, you know, my enthusiasm for the project and encourage other, you know, multifamily owners in our city for, you know, to look into these possibilities, you know, are there other opportunities in your buildings that zoning for housing creates or on your land that the changes we made creates because I'd love to see more projects like this that create more housing without needing more money, without needing substantial impacts from a construction perspective. And, you know, more housing of any kind is a necessary tool in combating our housing crisis. So thank you to staff. Councilman Chapman. Unless there's other questions, I'll just go ahead and put a motion on Florida initiate. I thought initiated a recommended approval for this tax amendment. Okay, there has been a motion by Councilman Chapman and a second by Councilman Aguirre to move approval for this tax amendment. Any discussion? Councilmanal maybe. Thank you, Madam Marrages. I wanted to add one more thing and echo what what my colleague said here. The other thing because we don't have a presentation that I want to highlight the public is the type of housing that's being created here because a lot of times when we're approving new developments, some of the things that we hear is these are on the high end housing, these high end units, but those ones that are being created are not high ends. People who don't know where these apartments are, they're right off seminary behind them. These are middle you know regular market rate apartments that in that middle middle of the market so they're not expensive they're a lot of time starter apartments for folks who came in from outside of the city or small families that are starting off so we're creating in this case those those housing that we really need in the city to be inclusive and for those who can't afford you know in most cases the apartments and the housing that are created when we approve new developments. Thank you Councilman O'Neubi and I'm going to go back to Councilman Chapman because I forgot about closing the public hearing. I need to- Madam, just to adjust my motion to also close the public hearing as well. Okay, and I assume your second, accept that. Okay. Yeah. And so we have a motion by Councilman Chapman, and a second by Councilman Aguirre to close the public hearing and to approve special special use permit number 2024-0034. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed say nay. The ayes have it. Madam Clerk, next item. Special use permit 2024-00063. Carlyle's John Carlyle Street and Eisenhower Avenue. Carlyle Block P, Planning Commission Action, recommend approval seven is zero. Okay, Councilman Chapman. Thank you, and I know, in my briefing, I talked to staff, but I also wanted to raise this publicly. I think one of the, I don't say challenges, but maybe the hesitations on moving forward with this while I probably will support it, is looking at where we have, particularly for this property set. Carlaw plan was probably back in the early 2000s. If not earlier than that, I can't remember. And at that time for folks who don't already know, the affordability of kind of affordable housing funds were already set. And the runway for development was quite some time. And so I think for me, a lot has changed between then and way back then. And now, and so looking at properties that still have not developed around our affordable housing policy, some other other policies, what has changed, and is there any way to make sure if what has changed, we are still keeping up with that. I know that affordable housing for the entire car law area has been paid, but my question to staff was if we are going to continue down a road where we are approving these items that have not developed. Why not kind of unravel these parcels that are still not developed because much of car law, as we already know is developed and some properties are looking at their second redevelopment. Look at unraveling some of these properties that still have not developed and and looking at some new planning opportunities for them where we can capture probably better community benefits because our formulations have changed over time. I think I will if this comes back and I'm on council this comes back again I will not support it and ask my colleagues not to support it so we can take that step. I do think with things that are still outlying in Carlaw, we need to have a new vision that is accurate for where we are now as a city and the landscape is as well. Thank you, Councilman Chapman. Are there other comments or questions on this item? Councilman Aguirre. I just wanted to speak in support of my colleagues' comments. I think it's very poignant that if we approve something 10, 15, 20 years ago and clearly over that amount of time, things change. I believe if we're giving continuations, if we're looking at different things, then we need to also adjust for that time period. Thank you, Councilman Aguieri. Is there a motion? Vice mayor back. Thank you. And I wanna join to a degree in my colleagues comments. This is as I discussed in my briefing as well. And I think this is the second or third time now. And my, what is my second term that these extensions have come up. And I know I've asked similar questions about what is our practice and why is this happening and what does it mean in terms of not benefiting from potentially ways in which we've updated policies since the initial project was granted? But given that this is the first extension, given that this project does involve senior living, which is an absolute need in the community as well. And at this time, I'm comfortable moving to approve the extension of the special use permit for the three-year extension. But I'm comfortable moving to approve the extension of the special use permit for the three-year extension. But I'm inclined to just express that it may be a different conversation, you know, to my colleagues' point in three more years if this were to come back again. So that's a motion on the table. Would you be open to putting in your motion a closure of the public hearing? I'm going to get this right eventually folks. Yes. So Madam Mayor, I move to close the public hearing and to approve the consideration of a special use, a move to approve the special use permit for a three year extension of the previously approved SUP 2020-0065 for block P. Second. Okay. There has been a motion by Vice Mayor Bagley and the second by Councilman Mick Pike. All those in, well, any other discussion? Right. Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Right. The eyes have it. Madam Clerk, next item. Special use permit 2025-009-1101 Finley Lane Planning Planning Commission Action Recommend approval 7-0. Okay. Do we need a presentation? If not, I will go. We have one speaker assigned up. Okay. So with that, I'm going to go right to our first speaker and that is Mr. Duncan Blair. Mr. Duncan Blair speaker form should have said in the event the item is taken off the consent calendar. Evidently it did not. I will refrain from elephant discourse. Okay. Well, do you have any, I have any questions for Mr. Blair? Okay. Is there a motion to close the public? Yeah. I'm there. I'm there. I'm just public hearing and move approval of the S.U.P. There has been a motion by Councilman Chapman and a second by Councilwoman Green to close the public hearing and to move approval of special use permit number 2025-009. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right. The eyes have it. Madam Clerk, next item. Roll call consent calendar 9th and 10th. Is there a vote? Okay. Councilman Chapman. Move approval of the roll call consent calendar. Okay. There has been a motion by Councilman Chapman and a second by Vice Mayor Bagley to close the public hearing and to approve the roll call consent calendar. This is a roll call so Madam Clerk please call the roll. Councilman Chapman. Okay. Vice Mayor Bagley. Mayor Gaskins. Hi. Councilman McGuirey. Hi. Councilman Elnubi. Hi. Councilwoman Green. Hi. Councilman McPike. Hi. Okay. Madam Clerk next item. Public hearing and consideration of a five year license agreement with the Alexandria Seaport Foundation for docking the maritime heritage center, one and two within the city of Marina. Councilman Chapman. I could go ahead and put a motion on the floor to close public hearing and approve and authorize the city manager to execute a five-year license agreement substantially similar to attachment one with a Alexandria seaport foundation. Okay, there has been a motion by Councilman Chapman and a second by Councilwoman Green. Any discussion? Okay, hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The aye has had it. Madam Clerk, next item. Resoning 2025-00001 development special use permit 2024-10010126 long view drive in 29-21 Naviocourt Westridge Towns planning commission action recommend approval 6-0-6-1. I think we are going to start with a staff presentation on this one. I think we have a brief presentation and then we'll go to our speaker. Good morning Mayor Gaskin and members of the 2921 NAPILE CORE. Through the items we'll be talking about today. Today's request is for consideration of a rezoning and development special use permit for 19 townhouse style units in three multi-unit buildings and one single unit dwelling. The project details have not changed since the council deferred this project last month. The action requested of the council is approval of the rezoning and DSUP. He points include the project includes rezoning of a portion of the site from R8 to R8 and includes the provision of one on site for sale three bedroom affordable unit at 70 to 100% of AMI and modifications to and S U P's are also being requested. The project site, the location, includes spans the distance between Navio Court and Longview Drive, which is north of Duke Street, between Bishop Arerton High School and East Taylor Run Parkway. The site is within the Taylor Run Duke Street small area plant. As stated previously, the project includes 19 townhouse style units with rear-facing garages in three multi-unit buildings and one single unit dwelling. The particular access for the townhouse units is from Nabiou Court and the single unit dwelling. The Hicular Access for the Townhouse units is from Nobhul Court and the single unit dwelling fronts on and is accessed from Longview Drive. There's no vehicular connection between the two. Townhouses are four stories and 35 feet in height and the single unit dwelling is two stories and 24 feet. They can prize a total of 36,000 net square feet of development. 12,000 square feet of privateUPs are requested for the townhouse style units for compact parking space sizes and garages and also for bonus density as provided at section 7700 of the zoning units. Now we're ready for key findings. Some highlights of the project include what the plan achieves improvements to storm water quality and provides quantity reductions through onite by a retention and other BMPs and will exceed the required phosphorus load reductions by 14%. When constructed, the development is anticipated to generate up to three students, which will attend Douglas MacArthur Elementary, George Washington Middle and Alexandria City High Schools. Regarding traffic, the proposal did not trigger a traffic study with an estimated peak AM trips at the average of 11 and PM trips that average of 12. Added benefits include one on-site for sale, three bedroom affordable unit at 70, 100% AMI, monetary contributions to the city housing trust fund of $143,000 and public art fund of $12,000. Also, the buildings were designed with consistent with the 2019 green building policy. My colleague Nathan Randall will now provide further information. Good morning. The project was discussed with the community on four occasions. The applicant presented it to the Longview Hill Citizens Association in two meetings in June and October of 2024. The Alexandria Housing Affordability Advisory Committee endorsed the Affordable Housing Plan element of the project at its September meeting. The Federation of Civic Associations heard information about the project and Zoning Ordnance notification requirements were adhered to. In addition, five letters of opposition and four letters of support have been received from the community. This case was originally heard at the April 1st Public Hearing of the Planning Commission between that hearing and the April 26th City Council hearing. Staff learned of a noticing matter from a neighbor in which the site address was listed on the required signpostings as being Longview Terrace instead of Longview Drive. The applicant subsequently corrected the signposting. Council voted to defer the request from its April 26th City Council hearing given this noticing matter. The case was reheard at the May 6th hearing of a planning commission, which voted six to one to recommend approval of the rezoning and DSCP requests. No changes to the case have been made to the substance of the proposal since the planning commission first heard it on April 1st. We recommend that Council approve the rezoning and DSP requests. Subject of conditions contained in the staff report. We welcome any questions you may have. Okay, at this time are there questions for staff? Okay, so with that, we will come from Chapman. So the only question I'll start out with is under if we were not to read it on this property and the folks wanted to still go forward with redevelopment, what does that look like? I think there were particularly things that we talked about in my briefing regarding kind of the density on the project but also parking concerns and parking. Sure. So there could be several different layouts or development proposals and one of them that was discussed briefly at the planning commission meeting was perhaps fourplexes or a series of fourplexes could be proposed. Four know, four plexes, consistent zoning for housing wouldn't necessarily require parking. There's a question also came up about lots without frontage. There need to be some site layout issues sort of worked out. So it could be a, although there could be many proposals, the one that was talked about I'll say the most, would have been different from what you see before you today. Thank you. Councilman Aguirre. And not so much a question, just wanted to raise something to the public's attention. Because as Councilman Chabin noted, there was some concerns around parking. I just wanted to highlight condition 124A where the principal use of garage parking spaces shall be for passenger vehicles garaged at the address. And I think this will definitely help with concerns around overflow of parking and folks parking on the streets and taking up some of those spaces. So when folks are encouraged and away mandated to utilize the garage for those for those parking spaces, then I think that'll help with some of the concerns there. I have, I'm just going to go. Just to follow up to that. Yes, come to the chat room. And I forgot to ask this and I appreciate my colleague mentioning that. How do we enforce that? We're not going to peep in everybody's garage every night to make sure they park their car, but how is that enforced if we're going to mandate that? So the typical or standard wording of the condition has enforcement lying with the HOA. So and it would be required to be a part of the HOA documents. I'm so Karl Morris Plane Director. If there is a 3-1-1 or a complaint received by staff from a neighbor, in case the neighbor doesn't contact the HOA, we also have the ability and responsibility responding. three quick questions before we go. One, I was reviewing several of the letters that we had received from residents who expressed concerns with the project. I think one of the main concerns was as it relates to the new density on the property. Can you kind of just walk through how staff has determined, and I guess the majority of the planning commission determined that this project while adding additional density would still be consistent with our requirements for residential low. Certainly. So, you know, one thing that was sort of in maybe an overarching idea here was that the others higher density residential near along Duke Street zoned RC and there is of course mostly single family sort of to the north. We saw this as a bit of a transition zone where where something that was you know townhouse but still meeting the residential low designation for the property in the small area plan. It would be appropriate. And so what we we looked at that there were other areas there's a townhouse community on Nabil Court, Meal Meal to the West, that was also designated for residential low. We generally looked at the FAR and compared it and we think that the FAR that's proposed here would be consistent with residential low. So on balance, we see this as a bit of a location that and that this FAR and this proposal would be consistent with residential low. The other thing that came up consistently in the resident letters that we received was regarding the setbacks. Can you just kind of talk through, but a council and for the public. How do we like what criteria do we look at? How do we look at what's a reasonable modification? How is that determined? Sure. I think that, so one of the things that we look at when we look at modifications is whether there are still a reasonable amount of land area or setback in between the property that's being, the building that's being built and its neighbors, you know neighbors, whether such that the original purpose of having a setback would still be retained, white and air. And in this case, we found that. There has been discussion about the setbacks to the north and at one point because of the way that the building is oriented its 10 feet, but it actually widens up to 15 feet for the majority of the length of that. And we also looked at whether the, what the setback is on the other side for the other house and we estimated is around seven or eight feet. So when you put the two together, we were comfortable with the, the, the setback modification being requested. Okay. And then this is a followup on some of the parking questions. I know in other developments we've talked about sort of what conversations we might need to have with neighboring properties and I know the apartment building also sometimes has parking that spills over into the neighborhood. What conversations have or are planned with them to kind of talk about making sure residents are parking on the spots designated for them. So I know that the applicant has discussed a variety of topics that came up in the or a few topics, excuse me, they came up in the community meeting and they I don't recall for sure, but they may have also talked about parking. You know, I'll also add that the Nabil Court on street parking does not have a residential. It's a spot where residential parking permits would be allowed, but the neighbors have not requested it. So they haven't had the, you know, gone through the motions, right, to request it yet. And so, you know, there are things that can be done. Maybe the applicant may be able to speak to any conversations they've had with the residential apartments to the south. All right that's helpful. No, I want to just make sure I feel like that was a consistent theme and I think hearing the different layers at which this is being approached from the garages to the HOA enforcement to potentially a residential parking zone should the neighbors wish to pursue that to also working with the neighboring properties. So I just want to make sure there's multiple levels of enforcement there. And then the last question I had and then we'll go to the public hearing chair. Chair McPant, she mentioned in hers a request for staff and the applicant to review planning and lighting plans. I know this would happen as part of the final site review, but I'm just curious as any conversation happen to date about what might be possible there as a way to provide additional screening for the adjacent residents. So although detailed discussions have not been held yet with the applicant, it's something that we feel comfortable is easily remedied as part of the final site plan. Thank you. That question comes from Shannon. Can staff talk to me? A couple of things that we came up in my briefing. Talking about other properties or other townhouse communities where we've had the policy around or made the exception around kind of garages for compact cars. I think we talked about that. My briefing and staff said said they were gonna kind of let me know some of those other areas in the city where we've done that. Sure, you know, one thing I'll start off by saying is that, you know, there are projects that have requested a parking reduction in the number of spaces, right? And, but the question more specifically, I think that, that you and others have had is about whether the, are there any examples of projects where compact size spaces were recommended, were requested and recommended for approval? And we do know of at least two. One is westridge, sorry, Edward Towns, Stevenson Avenue, and the other is the South Patrick Street Town Houses, and I think it's 206 through 212 South Patrick Street. Okay. And, you know, with those approvals, I'm assuming maybe we're seeing, let me start here. So I want to make sure as we're giving this exception to these garages for smaller cars, we are actually seeing smaller cars as some connection with what we're seeing and what we're doing. Because if cars are getting bigger and we are now giving exceptions for more smaller car garages, the two are not going to mix and then we're going to exacerbate at least at my opinion. We're going to exacerbate the parking issues because somebody with a Hummer is not going to be able to fit in their garage, right? And I think the goal here is to fit cars, as we've said, in their garage. And these are sizeable garages for two cars. And so hopefully both individuals who have cars are able to fit them in there. And so I want to understand kind of the data points that we are seeing that says this is something that's actually going to work out not only for the approval time that we're doing it now, but as we go into the future because as I drive around I'm seeing bigger cars, not necessarily smaller cars. Well one thing that I can say is that I don't believe and others with planning and zoning can jump in if they've heard differently. I don't believe we've heard any complaints for instance for those other locations or at least I'm not aware of any complaints. Rob Kern's planning is zoning. I think one of the things I heard in the zoning for housing conversation was challenging staff to try and be creative about providing various housing types and options for people. And while the compact space option may not be fit everyone, it does as I think Chairman McMahon stated in the planning commission, we're providing two spaces instead of one. If we just sort of tried to standardize the car size, we sort of lose that opportunity for two smaller cars. So here we're also providing a home that's probably at a lower price point than others in the marketplace. So all these sort of fine grain decisions lead up to try and providing options in the marketplace. While we inform the owners, these are compact spaces. We, you know, so that people are aware of the size of unit, just like they're aware of the size of bedrooms and bathrooms and other things in their unit, like by the thing that's gonna work for you the best and at the price point that you can have. And so I think what you're seeing us in real time trying to provide those different options for people to choose. I appreciate that answer. I think the challenge with that for me is one, I think the market in Alexandria is just very interesting as it leads to price points. And so I don't know even with some of the decisions we make up here in exclusions and exceptions that always kind of relates to what's happening in the market. I would also say that, you know, while I hope folks are looking at everything that they need to do or way they need to adjust their life to fit into these spaces such as having compact cars. I don't think we have the care and the stick, they're in place to make sure that happens, right? Because again, if I have a Hummer and I don't want to fit it in next to my wife's Prius, I can park it on the street, right? I think that's a challenge that the neighbors are looking at. What is going to make sure, ensure that someone who has a little bit bigger car or regular size car actually uses the space they have? And so I think that's where kind of my question is, kind of what we're seeing and how we're seeing it, as it relates to what we think is going to happen in the future. Or is there, you know, we're providing the creativity and the carrot to allow for this, but where's the stick to make sure this is actually happening? Yeah. I would just add, I think you were a really good point because this is playing out in the life of Cameron station where you have smaller garages and a lot of people have bigger cars. I think this is where the HOA comes in and is really important. I mean, I can tell you in careman's station, people who have now been using their garages for storage are now getting fines and violations because it was agreed that that is where your car's supposed to be. So I don't know how that will play out here, but I heard the HO enforcement, but I do think it is something that if someone's not paying attention to, it does become an issue because people aren't using the space as intended. Let me one brief thing and hopefully people don't beat me up about this. I'm not a big fan of leaving it to the HOA. I think I've heard enough horror stories of some of how some of those different opportunities and relationships and things work and so I'm always nervous about just saying, hey, we're gonna kind of give it over to them to make sure everything goes right. And I 100% get that I want to just raise it as an example. It is playing out in real time. And this is the way I think all of those pieces interact because the other thing that becomes, as I think we talked about, the enforcement. I can tell you in Kermann station, if you then park in the city spots, you can only be there for so long, and then they come around and they give you a ticket, and then they move you. And so there's many lovers of how it interacts. Vice Mayor Bagley and then Councilman Alnubi and then I do want to go to the public area. I mean, to this end, I'm just to pick up on what Mr. Kerns was getting at too. You know, we sort of got ourselves into this housing crisis as a country in part by establishing a lot of minimums that made lot sizes really big, that made minimum, you know, house sizes really big, that required certain things. And this is part of an effort to acknowledge that, that if we, if we establish baselines, that set, you know, the house lot has to be this big. That means it's going to cost this much because the land is expensive or if we establish certain requirements. So I'm not to minimize, you know, the enforcement, but I do want to acknowledge, you know, the council themselves has certain in the marketplace and one of them is allowing different things to be built. And some of them will be smaller in recognition that, you know, the buyer will have that option to buy something smaller. I own a car and I'm a buyer in the marketplace. And, you know, if it's the overall product is smaller and then more affordable and my car will fit in it, I'd rather buy that than another house that's larger with a larger garage and justifiably a larger cost. So the enforcement and the practicalities around parking are real, but I wanted to just indicate my support for what staff express, which is they're responding to what we are saying about creating choice in the marketplace, thinking about what is necessary versus what is, I mean, necessary is, you know, storm front, you know, necessary is safety and, you know, the building standards, you know, these are necessary. And then there are things that are more market optionality, creating different products. So we don't want to create things that are unsafe, that don't align overall with a good, deliverable product. But I share or I want to agree with staff sentiment that they are responding to what we expressed over a year-long process and zoning for housing, which was to create optionality where possible. And smaller garages for better or worse are part of that optionality that we've talked about. Councilman Elnubi. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I guess I have two box of questions, parking and then student generation. Let me follow up on the parking. And if people start parking in the street and we see spillage, they're not, you know, in the H way, let's say, is not enforcing, is that a situation where we can do a parking permit program to mitigate that spillage? Yes, since it's, since this area is zoned for that, the residents would have to sort of get, kind of get together and put in a petition for it, but that is an option. Okay, appreciate that. Because I think that I'm trying to think what tools does the city have in case the HOA to councilman Chappen's point does not do what they're supposed to do. So I appreciate that because I think that I'm trying to think what tools does the city have in case the H.O.A. to Councilman Chapman's point does not do what they're supposed to do so I appreciate that answer my second question is on the student generation piece you said three students that's at any given point right so we're assuming that at the light and I know we talked about this in my briefing it's the life of the development correct, correct? At any point. That's right. At any particular point, on average, we would expect three students from this project. And my question would be, are there any, it struck me as low? So my question is, are there any comparable communities somewhere that we can look at to validate that number. Yes, there are. Last time that we did sort of a test case, particularly for townhouses was a while ago, but we are engaged with the school system on updating the student generation rates. So this is a good time for us to also see if we can ease out some specific townhouse communities and make sure that there's not a lot of differential, but the update will look specifically at all the townhouses in Alexandria and how many students are living in them. So you will be getting with the update every time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think I appreciate that. If I could just add to that, it might be helpful, Carl, because we do have new member, we're a new council to kind of update at some point in a memo on how we do this process, sort of beginning in the beginning of the year with ACPS going through. I always, it's such a weird, the cohort survival rates, all of these different pieces, and then also talking through what's the data that goes into the student generation rates, because we are in the process of updating that ratio for all of our properties. So it may just be helpful so everyone's on the same page. Okay, sure. I'll appreciate that, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, so with that, we're going to turn to the public hearing. And since we've been here, we've had another person sign up. So I'd like to start with the start with the resident um if we could call her first. Julie Vaughn, Soundbush? Hi there. Thank you very much for letting me speak today. I wanted to touch on a couple of things. I think largely on the kind of understanding and assessment that the proposed development and and higher density is in keeping with the neighborhood and comparable to the existing townhouses on Nobhill Court. And I think for those who have visited the site, the Nobhill townhouses are about the third the density of the proposed. And I think one of the other key differences is that it does actually extend the existing fabric of the neighborhood where those townhouses are facing the street and enforcing the kind of existing fabric and grain of the neighborhood. Whereas the proposed development has two of the townhouse buildings are really kind of counter to the existing fabric where the front of some of the houses are facing either the side yard or rear yard of existing houses. And I think I'd also just like to highlight, I think my biggest concern is with the setbacks and the relationship between giving setback allowance when something is much higher. One of the other key differences with the Nobhill townhouses are two to three stories, Max and most of the residential neighborhood is one to two stories. So it is lower than allowed, but it makes the difference between what is proposed a lot more stark. So when you combine, reduce setback with something that is higher, it's more noticeable. And I think the other concern I have with the way that the setbacks are proposed and the development is laid back. What is left for setback in several locations is more hard-scaping and doesn't allow for vegetative buffer, which again, if you are doing reduced setback allowing for some sort of buffer is important. I think those are some of my main concerns. I did also want to touch on some of the kind of process of this. I know the developer did have two community meetings. We were explained that the review of Planning Commission and the Town Council meeting that's ongoing, where are our opportunities to give feedback. And I think that's very disingenuous that because the plan is already baked and up at this point, but it's not really an opportunity to give feedback at this point. And then I also do want to point out that for those meetings, both were virtual despite the fact that we as an association requested in person given that a large number of the community members are elderly and not terribly tech savvy. And I know for the second meeting I was unable to join because I sat for twenty years. Thank you. Ms. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Do you have kind of a closing sentence? Thank you. I thought I'm gonna go to the next speaker. Good morning Duncan Blair wire Gill representing old Creek homes. Matt Gray is the developer of old Creek clones and the first thing I'm going to say is parking, Matt, did the Stevens and Avenue houses, which are again, developer of old creek clones. And the first thing I'm going to say is parking, Matt, did the Stevens and Avenue houses, which are again kind of entry level housing, when Stevens and Avenue, they've sold, the garages have compact spaces. It was not an impediment and those spaces are being used. With regard to the term compact spaces, We may want to just change that nomenclature because in many ways, we think when in the 80s, when compact spaces were alive, we were thinking of Lincoln Continental town guards and a Volkswagen. That's not the case today. The Hummer is probably the house outlier, but what Matt had found in selling these homes, the standard car that most of us drive it, is a compound car and fits within a space that's nine by 16 and a half, as opposed to 10 by 20. So the size garage is not the Montgomery County issue of people not being able to get out. They are size to fit most cars. The other thing that's staff didn't say and is that if this were not a multi-family building because it's a condominium, in townhouses, single-family houses and two-family houses, we would not be asking for this special use permit. They are permitted to have compact cars without a separate special use permit. With that said, the last thing I would say, this project is a transition. We worked very hard to transition from the housing Alexandria garden apartments. I did talk to John right after our first community meeting and said, John, you need to look at your residents parking. I think what's happening is for some other residents, it's, it's a place on the street or a parking garage, the space, they're going to park on the street just because human nature. But housing Alexandria is aware of it. We see this as a transition between the different types of housing on Nop Hill Court, but we also see it as an opportunity for the city to look at a piece of property that can be redeveloped with entry level housing with one onside affordable housing for sale unit in a substantial contribution in a character that fits within the neighborhood. Be glad to answer any questions. Are there questions for the applicant? I have one quick question. It was brought up by the neighborhood. Be glad to answer any questions. Are there questions for the applicant? I have one quick question. It was brought up by the speaker, and you heard me raise it earlier around vegetation, plantings, and a lighting plan. I just want to bring that back to you. Yeah, at the city, at the Planning Commission meeting, a chairing man suggested that we look at lighting. Lighting is a big topic as we all know, to make sure that the lighting does not spill and it's not glare already working with those fixtures, with regards to planning, the area is ever suggested, will be augmented. And this may sound disingenuous, but it's not. It's in that interest also to provide good transition landscaping and to have a community that's well landscaped. Thank you for sharing that. I just want to go on record. I do agree with the residents on this one. I'm glad to hear that conversation are happening. I think this is really important. So where we can minimize the hardscape and put whatever plantings and native plantings that we can, I think it'd be important for also consistent with the fabric of the neighborhood, but also just to alleviate some of these concerns. If there are no further questions for the applicant, then I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. There has been a motion by Councilman McPike and a second by Councilman Chapman to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Right? The public hearing is closed. Is there any additional questions or discussion or comments from my colleague? I'm going to pull up my staff work for a second a little bit long. The applicant asked, or mentioned, housing Alexandria and staff kind of talked to me about kind of the any conversation and communication with them. I know they've got a number of, once I park in the spaces and as was kind of stated, are people using those? Are they spilling out into the street already? I tried to drive by at a reasonable hour to kind of see what parking looks like, but I don't want that just to be the only kind of data point if there are others as well. So we've also heard the potential for car spilling over and the applicant just spoke to that. I don't have specific numbers for you on that. We'd be happy to follow up with Housing Alexandria, a little bit more on that point. Yeah. I just want to have a wee talk. Sorry, we are already close to public hearing. Oh, I have a speaker. Hey, Councilman McPike. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would move to approve. This is item number 12. I had moved to approve. Resoning to 2025-001 and DSP 2024-0010 as reported by the Planning Commission with the staff's conditions. Okay, there has been a motion by Councilman McPike and a second by Vice Mayor Bagley to to approve the rezoning number 2025-0000 1 and DSUP number 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 and based on the staff report and the discussion at the hearing any additional discussion. All those in favor say aye aye any opposed? We have one nay for the motion carries 6 to 1. It is Councilman Chapman. Okay, Madam Clerk next item. Thank you. So I'm in text amendment 2025 that's 0 0 0 0 3. Playing Commission actions initiate and recommend approval 7 to 0. So this is item number 13. Yeah. Yes, we have several public speakers. Before we go to the public comment period, I need to make a quick statement. First is a statement about my own personal participation in this one. I have been advised that due to the broad changes proposed in zoning text amendment 2025-00003, including amendments related to the lighting under zoning ordinance section 6-403F, I can vote on this matter. However, I want to be clear that I have decided to recuse myself from the vote on item number 14, SUP 2025-0021, the Episcopal High School Athletic Field Lights SUP, because my husband is an athletic coach at Episcopal High School. And also, for the council and for the public, I need to make a statement about the docket order since we received some questions about this. Council's docketcket today, specifically items 13 and 14, item 13 is a zoning text amendment that includes a proposal to amend the SUP criteria for lighting of congregate recreational facilities and dog parks and the proposal would delete the 80 feet height limit on light poles item 14 is an SUP that is specifically a proposal by the Episcopal High School to install field lights at heights both below and above 80 feet. The city has docketed matters in the same way in the past. And so consistent with the law and estated in the staff report, if the tax amendment and the SUP are approved, The lights exceeding 80 feet cannot be installed until the council adopts the zoning tax amendment implementation ordinance and the consideration of which will be scheduled for council's June 14th meeting. So my understanding is that staff are going to be proposing condition language that will make this clear and clearly show the inner section between 13 and 14. So with that, I'm gonna go, we have several speakers signed up for item 13. So we're gonna open our public hearing and I'm gonna ask the clerk to call the first three. Roy Shannon, Junior, Chris Hansen and Carter Fleaming. Great, do we have Roy in here? More to Madam Mayor and Council members. My name is Roy Shannon with the law from a Shannon right and I'm representing property owners on frost. Regarding this. Not good item 13 the talking point so I think everyone remembers 2018 and the amendment where this came into place and the height limits was critical. I think the way this is being pushed through the staff report says it recommends minor updates to the zoning ordinance to correct typos, incorrect cross references and emissions, as well as the proposing updates to clarify language, codify current staff interpretations and address unintended consequences. I assure you that when this went through in 2018, this was not an unintended consequence of 80 feet. 80 feet was very specific. In fact, when you look at six-403 F2D, that's the setback requirements of 35 feet. So right now, they're not putting a limit on how high the poles are. They're just erasing that limitation. So before you had 80 feet and you had to have 35 from the setback from right-of-ways. Here, you 35 feet and no limit. So you could have 150 foot pole within 35 feet or at 36 feet of a property line. That's crazy. That is not what was happening in 2018. This is not what should be happening here. This is a major change. This isn't an insignificant little minor change. So right now it seems, I mean to say that 13 is not part of 14, I think, I think you have to say they are this point a bit. And the whole point of the 100 feet is for the fee for requirements for their training facilities. Well, what about the city's requirements? Why is the city bowing to fee far? Are they going to bow to the other organizations that come up. It just, it doesn't make any sense. Right now, the setback again, 35 feet is what it calls for in Part D. That was tied to the height, as with a lot of setback provisions, deal with the height of the building, the height of the structure. So for all of a sudden, for staff to say, well, we're just putting this minor addition of eliminating the height restriction. Again, there's no cap. We're just going to eliminate it. This isn't minor. This is absolutely significant. And it should be carefully considered. Not by council here who are not lighting experts, or staff, necessarily, for that matter. You bring in people and you do a very big text amendment and you do a big change that has big consequences. And this is going to impact at least the 51 fields that are already in place and anywhere else. So again, I would encourage you not to approve this one minor section of a number of issues, but this doesn't fit on its face with an emission across reference to typo or anything like this. This is a significant change even with the cap and there should be the due diligence and the studies that go into it, not just throwing it up there because we're trying to get FIFA lights in for their standards, their training standards. The FIFA would probably have to meet or snot feed button. That's another story. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Madame Clark and Madame City, question for you. I realize that I jumped right into the public comment without the staff presentation. Do we have the ability to pause? I just want to make sure everyone's on the same page. Can we pause this? Yes, you could pause the public hearing and ask for the staff presentation and then go back. Okay. Do I need a formal vote to pause it or I can just know you can pause it. I'm going to pause the public hearing just so that staff can set the ground level on what are all of the different things that are being proposed. Sorry, Mr. Shannon, but I can tell from your comments that you have read the presentation and then we will resume. morning. Sam Shelby with planning and zoning. And so this is one of our regular, you know, we do this a couple times a year, we go through the zoning ordinance and look for opportunities where there could be more clarity or we find a, we come across a regulation that is not quite serving us the way we thought it would. And so this has this proposal has a variety developments that are on the screen here and I'll just go through each one one by one. Can we have the next slide please. Okay, so the first piece is the accessory dwelling unit requirements. When we passed the, or when council passed the policy in 2021, staff had recommended a permit requirement, and this is an administrative permit that is only, it's the first stop kind of for an ADU applicant. And it's an administrative permit that's approved by planning and zoning only. We, we issue the approval. It is reviewed by other departments. But we originally proposed this because we found that it was a common practice for other cities and jurisdictions that had ADU policies. And we also thought it was going to be a great opportunity to have another venue to explain a new policy to residents who are interested in building AD use. And we thought it would also help to have this standalone permit for tracking purposes. But it, you know, four years into the policy, four and a half years into the policy. We found that it's basically making cities to have a look at the same material a couple different times, which is not necessary. We have a robust system for tracking, and so we're finding that, you know, this, we're recommending that we remove the standalone ADU policy that it would only be, you know, that the ADUs would still require all sorts of building permits and mechanical permits, any sort of other code requirements would still be, you know, thoroughly reviewed in that. This would just save some time for residents, and it would also save a little bit of money. And also just, you know, it wouldn't, it would reduce some of the redundant reviews that are happening with accessory dwelling units now. The other piece is, been at the 80U policy was passed. Council added a condition that required an owner to be, to use the subject property as their primary residence when they apply for the ADU permit. And the genesis of that requirement was concerns about the use of ADU's as short term rentals. and also a little bit of nervousness about developer speculation that having an ADU would encourage developers to purchase homes and the city and construct an ADU and then rent out both the main house and the ADU. We are at this point suggesting that we remove this requirement. We have a brand new short term rental policy, so any short term rentals would need to be registered through that and you know reviewed and monitored through that program. And you know we've been keeping track of this again since the policies inception and we haven't seen evidence of this fear come into fruition with the developer speculation and it's a complicated role to enforce. So we are also asking for this to be removed. We can go to the next slide. Before we go there are two questions on that point. Vice mayor Bagley and then councilman Chapman. I think to the mayor's point earlier about sort of dashboards and tracking with relatively new policies, I just thought this gives us a little check and opportunity to ask how have our, and since you're sort of touching on what you're seeing in the market and your expectations, can staff just speak briefly to what their expectations were of ADUs being built and where we're at? So we sort of forecast that we would get about 15, 80 years a year, and I would say miraculously, it's almost exactly what we've gotten. I think we're at 78 since 2021. We're a little bit mark there, but so and we're getting a little bit more than we expected, but basically that's where we're at that we've got that many units. No, I appreciate that. I mean, I think it's a nice moment to highlight sort of a quality forecast. And so I'm gonna ask a follow up question, which is what's your forecast in light of these changes? How does it change your forecast? Right, so this is a little, it's not that scientific. It's kind of just facing our experience and the number of inquiries we've had from different types of applicants and those that have sort of informally told us whether or not they would apply for an ADU. So I'd kind of forecast that this would be another three to five, 80 years of years, removing this policy. Councilman Chapman. Can you give some specifics about the complications that you just mentioned at the kind of tail end of what you were talking about? Yes. So, you know, for example, some of the applications we've had for ADUs are from homeowners who are renovating their whole house. And so when they apply for the ADU permit, there is sometimes there's no house to live in because there's no house on the site or there's no because the house is being demolished and rebuilt. That's one of the examples. Another example is if the property is owned by an LLC, it's really hard for staff to determine the entities of that LLC and where those people reside. You know, basically our only ability to determine if somebody is using a property as their primary residence is who's listed on the owner of the property. And if that matches on the application, then we'd have to ask for mortgage statements and all sorts of stuff to actually verify somebody's primary residency. Comes with any gear? Thank you Madam Mayor. I'm not opposed to this in any way, but it's given that we're considering taking this restriction off. And I know we talked about this dashboard, but I just like a 12 month check-in probably, I don't know, in a year's time, let's see if the numbers are kind of according to what we thought there would be. Sure. I think that's a great idea. Next slide, then. I don't have the controls. Can we do the next slide, please? So this is another sort of minor update here. The right now churches are permitted in sort of a random smattering of zones and it just needs to be more consistent that they're allowed in all zones where other similar uses are allowed. So if a church is not like not currently listed in a in a zone for example but a public school is or something with somewhat similar impacts then churches should also be listed in that zone as a permitted use. The second piece is that right now in an old building that was built before 1963, if you hit the renovations that you're doing if they exceed a certain amount, then that whole site has to be brought into parking compliance no matter how long it's been there. And so there's churches that are, you know, churches pre-date 1963. And we had a, you all actually saw a case pretty recently where a church was adding structures and ramps and stuff for people with disabilities to access the church. And those things are expensive. And it hit that target where it needed to be then the full parking requirement needed to be triggered and applied for. So they had to seek especially use permit for a parking reduction because they were adding improvements to the building that would trigger the parking requirement for this provision. So what we're recommending is that only changes to a church that would actually increase the parking requirements so that they were making sanctuary bigger or their auditorium bigger or adding more classroom seats for their daycare programs or whatever. Those are the only things that would trigger actually the parking requirement rather than, you know, we having a building or that kind of thing. And this is, we're starting with churches because it's sort of a use that we've seen recently with this exact thing. It might be something that we return to you later as a broader recommendation about changing this for other uses too, because it just, it seems like if you're not changing the building in the way that makes the parking requirement higher, then maybe we don't need to actually have that building comply with parking. And that's not part of the proposal today. I'm just giving a little preview there. Okay, I'm ready for the next slide, please. Okay, this is right now we, you need a full hearing special use permit for light poles at an athletic field or a dog park. If the light poles exceed the height limit in the zone of that the property is located in. And that is going to remain. We're not changing the requirement for a special use permit. You still need a special use permit for light poles on an athletic field if the height of the poles exceeds the height that's allowed in the zone. Right now, there is a limitation that prevents the high pull application to have high light pulls that even that exceed 80 feet. And this is regardless of whether or not an applicant has demonstrated to satisfactorily to counsel that light impacts can be addressed with the application. When we recommended this 80-foot limit, the technology was newer and is evolving. What we've learned over the years is that taller light poles better focus light and reduce light spillage impacts than shorter poles. and this still, so we're recommending is getting rid of the 80-foot height limit, is removing that restriction. Council could still say no to a light pole that's too tall. If it's too close to a property line, either staff or planning commission or city council could say, this is looming too close to a property that light pole needs to be shorter. There's still very broad discretion for council to adjust location height and and and make sure that the any sort of potential impacts are thoroughly addressed without the without the height limit. The setbacks would stay the same the 35 height foot setback would stay the same. There is an upper limit on how tall a pole could be without additional requests needed. For example, if a light pole were 100 feet, and there's basically just a two-part setback limit. There can never be closer than 35 feet, but a lot of the other zones establish So if in those high or those setback requirements are based on height. So if you had a taller pole, then you would need to have a larger setback than 35 feet. And the applicant could have, you know, could ask for a modification from that. But then again, council would have to find that there's no, it's not going to, you know, cause undue impact or or loom over adjacent properties. And you know just to highlight some recent recent poll light poll approvals there's we now have lights at Francis Hammond middle and Simpson Sadie M and Jefferson Houston and these are all you know special use permits that have been approved by Council over the last two to three years. One second, Mr. Shabbat. Question from Councilman Chappell. Yeah, for that last point, do we have either the heights of all of those are the highest one? Yeah, so these are all, let's see, the tallest one is that the Parker Ray Stadium and that some of those are 80 feet tall, the rest are 60-ish feet tall. Councilman on Newbie. Thank you Madam Mayor. Where did the number 80 come from? Why is 80 not 60 not 100? I'm going to start a car on where it's planning director. The very often our zoning ordinance changes are driven by examples that we have before us. And this is not a bad idea in most cases, right? Because we'll bring forward, like we did with Alexandria City High School lights, it was Contraversial. The neighbors were very interested in the impacts, the potential impacts. And the proposal at the time indicated to us that 80-foot high poles were adequate to light Alexandria City High School and indicate the light spillage to the maximum extent possible. So we structured our text amendment in order to not go beyond what we felt was the minimum necessary to accomplish what we thought was the goal there. And over time, clearly 80-foot poles are useful, but we have learned since that our exploration of just how taller poles could go and still have their impacts mitigated was not extensive. And it is only now with this additional analysis related to the application, where we have come to understand that the industry standard allows us to go higher in order to achieve better light mitigation. I appreciate that. And you touched on it. We're probably talking about the application, but since we're talking about this here, because we have to make a decision on the 80 feet. I know to tell you change and all of that. And that's why this is a good case of us, a deck to the times and also trying to streamline how we do things. So the height is not the only thing we look at. We look at other factors. We're part of a study. So can you talk to me about that? What else do we require that we use to make a judgment, whether this slide or these polls are going to have any adverse impacts? Hi, Bill Cook, staff planning and zoning. Some of the things that are also evaluated when, first of all, if the lights are approved through an SUP process, there still is a building permit process that has to come in. So when building permits are submitted, there's a requirement not just by planning and zoning, but from other city agencies such as Tess, there's a requirement that, you know, the plans demonstrate that they comply with city ordinances. So we do have an ordinance in the code of ordinances, which refers to foot candles and how much light shines onto to an adjacent property. So the way that we measure that is the application includes photometric diagrams, which are also a requirement for DSUPs when they come in. So, you know, this will show the level of light on the area being lighted as well as what the light level would be outside of a property line. So we'll see the property lines. So in addition to the photo metrics, typically, usually, particularly this vendor musco, they have some, They usually provide these very colorful heat maps. So to speak, where they show the light intensity of various degrees and where it is on the site. So we take a look at all of that as well as the other city departments. And depending on the light bulbs that they're using, how it's being directed, all the technology that's being used, all that impacts all these measures. So it's not just the height, there are so many other factors that impacts all these measures. And we explore that and we go through all these measures to measure the impact. So the height is just one factor, but there are so many other factors that potentially make the height irrelevant. Correct. The biggest impact that we have seen through studies that we've evaluated is, sorry, to describe, the additional height cuts the appearance of what we would call glare. So you still may see the source of a light, but the higher height just allows for a more precise focus, if you will, so that the light lights what's intended to be lighted and not other things. And there's less of a, you know, I'm trying to, it's easier to focus and to focus. Yeah, you're not as aware of where the light is coming from. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. And I guess if I could just put a finer point on this, I think you're getting at bullet number three, which is that whatever we decide, there's still a set of criteria that has to be reviewed and evaluated to make sure that we are minimizing impacts. And in some cases, this will not be a good fit for everywhere. Councilman Green, and then we'll go back to the presentation. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was just wondering, can you tell me, are we going off of the study that we did for Alexandria City High School lights back in 2017, 2018, or did we, is there another consultant that came in to do a study? I can comment. The study is, you know, individual to the site. So the Episcopal High School site is, you know, it's all completely new and different. I'll just note that the contractors, the same the contractor who did the design and will do the installation is to the best of my knowledge. They're like the premier sports lighting consultant and contractor and they do public schools. They do professional sports stadiums. That's all athletic to my knowledge, that's their specialty. And what is the height requirement for lights for FIFA? There's a, I, I, I. I believe their requirement is 100 feet. Got it. Thank you. You know, actually, when we get to the Episcopal Apple. I was going to say, if we could hold that one, I can't participate in that one. My apologies. You're going to hold that one. I'm going to hold the next conversation. Next slide. Okay. This next piece is right now that electric vehicle charging equipment is not allowed in a required setback. And that's a little bit unfortunate because a lot of people's driveways are in setback setbacks are I mean driveways are permitted thing in a setback because People's driveways tend to be in front yards or side yards are that sort of thing. So what we're proposing now is to allow EV chargers in those required yards so they can be near the driveway. Next slide. This last piece is just, there's essentially three subsections within the historic district provisions or the historic preservation provisions of the zoning ordinance. There's the old and historic district, there's Parker Gray, and then there's 100 year old buildings. And they should be sort of formatted and structured similarly. So they read logically it makes sense. So that's part of the proposal here. The other is to clarify the administrative appeal process and just to make sure that that's consistently applied across the three different types of historic properties that the article 10 regulates and also to specify the appeal process for administrative decisions in the parkour-grade district. Next slide please. Councilman Chapman. I think I just missed this when you first started speaking on this. So if you go back to that last slide, so with what we're doing with parkour-grade in relation to old and historic district. We are bringing them, we're bringing, so I want to make sure. So we are changing what we do in historic park a gray to match what we're doing in Old and Historic. We're not really changing what we're doing. We're doing what we're supposed to be doing now. We're just making sure the regulations match how the provisions were meant to be applied. Okay. I thought when we had the conversations, the staff correct me if I'm super awful on this, when we had conversations about actually bringing the two, I want to say the two BARs together. I think that was the last time I remember having conversation about what appeals processes look like and things of that nature. So I just want to understand kind of what happens there now that we have this joint BAR that deals with both. And we are now adjusting the appeal process for Parker Gray. So right now, it's the Parker Gray provisions don't specify an appeal process of administrative decision. So we had to sort of lie the other districts provisions to that to make sense. And so it's basically just writing that down and making it listed. So we're not making an interpretation that it's actually the law. Yeah. Thank you. Yep. Any other questions for staff? OK. So then, oh, Councilman Gari. Thank you. So specifically around the EV chargers in front yards, well, I'm not opposed to it. I did raise concerns when we were talking about EV chargers in general in the city, around standardization and what they look like. Because my concern is that if we allow it, and we're gonna have all kinds of different posts and people's yards, which again, I want people to charge and utilize a yard, but are we looking at what they're going to be looking like, how they're standardized, that they actually work within the grid system and pulling energy and everything. Yeah, so this is another thing to sort of monitor. We do have some guard rails in place. So if especially in some of the zone where you might not expect to see a big flashy charter in it, likely that wouldn't be allowed. Because any sort of screens or advertising would count as signs. And depending on the zone you're in, sign limitations or and how the property is used, the sign limits are pretty low. So if they if they needed or if they if a resident wanted to install an EV charger that was perhaps like a little too, you know, something extra to not compatible with the neighbor. 15 feet on lights. Yeah the lights. Yeah. That kind of thing we could still, there's still some guard rails to require additional approvals from that applicant or to say no. OK, so I just want to make sure that that was still kind of in place because, again, not against having it, just want to make sure that it doesn't kind of get out of control when start looking kind of crazy in people's yards. Yeah. Thank you.. So with that, I'm going to go back to the public hearing and we're going to start with our next two speakers, Chris Hansen and Carter Fleming. Good morning. My name is Chris Hansen. Thank you for having me. First off, I want to thank Alvie for being here. It's a very nice day out there. It's a farmer's market. There's a lady selling baked goods. That's where I sort of wish I was. But I realized sitting here that you guys are giving up a lot of Saturdays over and over and over again for us. And I appreciate that. I appreciate one of you in particular, Councilman El Nubi. In the last couple days, my wife called all you guys. I know you're very busy, having had a chance to call it back. But you did, and happy life, happy life, and so I very much appreciate it. I had some stuff prepared here. But in sitting through this process, I realized that number 13 is sort of a classic way of getting something through government, which is put something controversial amongst some many things that are non-controversial. And I'm like, cool, I for the church thing, I'm for the adieu thing, I'm for the electric carpet. We're gonna change the height limit for the whole city on lights and bundled into this sort of, what we usually call when I used to work on a hill like this Christmas tree bill, which is like, yeah, we're gonna make it hard for people to vote against it because there's so many things we vote that we'd like for it. And I think that is just bad process, at least to bad outcomes in the long term. This isn't a minor change. This is a significant change. And I think should be well and duly considered. My wife and I are the property that will be the most affected by what Episcopal is asking for. And I think we actually have a reasonable position. We're not anti-light binding stretch. We just were alarmed by how quickly this process came about because they're asking for 47 light poles, which are just feet away from our property. To give you an example, we're talking about the setbacks here and currently is 35 feet for the 80 foot. I mean, I think if there was an 80 or 100 foot pole, the distance between that wall and that wall is where my children's bedroom is. and the way the business used to be done from a fiscal, my understanding, because we've lived there about a little less than a year now, is that the head of school would come and talk to the neighbors, talk about what they wanted. That's how they got the track built. There was no opposition. We got a certified letter just a couple of weeks ago saying this is what we're doing. So it was, to me, it feels like a rush process. And this is going to go citywide. And I don't think people are well aware that this citywide change is going to take effect. And I think hype is important because if you come to our property, there's these beautiful trees that have been there a long time. The lights that are applied for here are going to be taller than all of them. So you may think that we are protected by the trees. We're not. If they're 100 feet of 150 feet, I mean, they could be as you could end up saying, at some point, cool, we're going to put a 100 feet of pole here, put a antenna on top of it. And now this is what we're doing where you have stadium lights. And so I'm just very alarmed by the process. I point. Cool. We're going to put a hundred feet full here, put a antenna on top of it. And now this is what we're doing where we have stadium lights. And so I'm just very alarmed by the process. I think me and my neighbors have a very reasonable position. We're not anti-lights by any stretch. We are, we love living next to a physical because it's a vibrant place. We have kids that are playing baseball. It's fun. But we just want it to end before bedtime. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your time today. Next speaker please. Carter Fleming Frank Putsce Stephanie Sparks Smith. Okay. Is Carter online? Some lines just needs to unmute his microphone. Okay. Her. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Great. Let me. Yes, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. Sorry. Ms. Fleming. Yes, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Great. Good morning. I'm Carter Fleming and I'm speaking on behalf of the board of the Alexandria Federation of Civic Associations, also known as AFCA. So I would like to request the five minute limit. The AFCA board would like to express our concern for and opposition to the text amendment to remove the current 80-foot height limit for light poles in congregate recreational facilities. While AFCA appreciates land use division chief Tony LaCola's recent presentation about this bundle of text amendments at our April 30th AFCA meeting. We do not agree with the city's designation of this change as a minor text amendment as Mr. Shannon pointed out earlier. Staff states that such lighting projects will still require an SUV and therefore staff will still have the ability to decide what an appropriate height for future lighting projects is. But we know that the lighting companies will no longer have any incentive to find a plan that will work within a height limit in the city code as there will be none. The elimination of the height limit will have impacts across the city and as such, Africa believes this should have been and still should be the subject of robust community education outreach and public discussion. At our Africa meeting, none of the civic association members had heard about this text amendment prior to Mr. LaCola's presentation. To bury this amendment in a bundle of other text amendments does not demonstrate transparency to residents across the city who will one day wonder how a 100-foot tall light poles are looming over their homes. Staff's proposal, as is often the case, is focused on making it easier for applicants to propose light poles of unlimited height, rather than setting a standard that is reasonable for residents who live next to a school or recreational facility. The 80-foot height limit for light poles in the R20 zone is already double the height allowed for any other non-residential structures. This amendment will allow a musco who is the lighting company used by all recent lighting projects in the city, to present drawings and data that require polls of 100 feet or more in every location. Staff and applicants do not have the expertise to challenge such technical conclusions, and thus musco's recommendations will become the new city standards for lighting with little ability for residents to challenge whatever height is proposed as there will be no limit. My own neighborhood is quite familiar with Musco due to their lighting plans at Parker Gray Stadium. We have 80 and 90-foot tall poles behind our homes. Muskos plans showed that all glare miraculously stopped at our property lines. This is not the case for at least one home on Bishop Lane that has been subject to extreme glare since the day the lights were put up. ACPS who owns and operates the lights states that this glare is perfectly acceptable and requires no adjustment. Based upon this experience, counsel and staff should question whether muskows, diagrams, and specifications can actually be relied upon by the city or of its residents. Moreover, on page 158 of the application for the lights at Episcopal High School, which you will hear in the next docket item. Musco states that quote, in some cases, city ordinance or other factors require the use of shorter polls. A challenge that experienced manufacturers can typically resolve with customizations like additional polls or creative aiming strategies to achieve your lighting goals on and off the field." But somehow we never hear about those creative aiming strategies and the solution is always to go higher and higher. That is the easy way out. The adoption of this text amendment will simply remove any incentive for applicants or the city to challenge Moscow to find those creative solution to reduce the impact of towering banks of lights, dominating the field of vision in residential areas across the city. AFCA, therefore, asked council to reject the unlimited height in this text amendment and retain the current 80-foot limit. Applicants would still be able to request a variance to this limit when necessary, as TC Williams did, and a Piscable High School could have done. But applicants should not be able to take the path of least resistance and construct 100 foot poles by right in every location if you approve this text amendment. Thank you very much for your attention. Okay, thank you Ms. I know. I know Councilman Chapman has a question for you and then I have a couple follow-up questions for staff. Thank you, Ms. Fleming, for your comments. I was trying to picturing the site, picturing the stadium. You mentioned in your comments one particular house that is still having kind of huge glare issues. I don't necessarily want to know the house number, but I'm trying to understand where on the the neighboring property would be because I just want to understand that for kind of the potential case we do not get at next. Yes. Thank you, Councilman Chapman. Yes. One house that is directly opposite the playing field on Bishop Lane has glare throughout their yard and they truly can actually read magazines in their breakfast room without lighting because of the light shed from the Parker Gray stadium. We have asked over and over for the school system to come and adjust this and modify it. And they have said, no, this is within the normal bounds. But I'm just pointing out that for future neighbors, if this is the attitude that, oh, that's normal, you can have that glare, even though Musk goes drawing said the glare stopped exactly at the property line. This is a concern that should be concerned for everybody in the city. So to try to clarify, maybe we're not asking the question right. So to clarify what I'm looking for, is it knowing Bishop Lane like I do, is it, are we talking directly behind the center of the stadium, are we talking the western edge closer to your home, not to put you out there, but are we talking the eastern edge of the property? More than eastern edge of the property. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. I have a quick clarifying questions by staff. When a testimony, it was stated that this would be setting out by right approvals for for lights. Can you speak to that? Yes. So there were every single light pole that exceeds the height limit in the zone. So if it's taller than 40 feet, would need full hearing, especially use pervert approval. So planning commission and city council. Okay. So they still have to go through our process. Yes. So when you speak to, I know you outlined that council has a role to weigh in and part of that process, we will do the review and the criteria. It also seemed like there was an assertion that that means residents won't have a piece in that process, talk through how residents would be engaged or their opportunity to weigh in since we still have to review every one of these. Right. So the applicant often conducts community meetings that are, you know, also attended by city staff and encouraged by city staff. You know, there's, depending on the applicant and I, you know, I might turn to my colleagues behind me to go over kind of I don't want to go too close to Episcopal, but you know, that's like that would be a good example of the community outreach that is done for these types of things, but they're the citizens or residents have the ability to write to city staff at any time to include any any kind of written statement with a staff report. You know, we're available for meetings. And then obviously there's venues that both the hearings for speakers to speak as just happening today. Yeah. I think I just want to be clear that even if we approve this, you don't get like light poles popping up all over the city. You still have to go through the same lengthy process that my colleagues are going to go through for the next item. Right. That's not being changed. Okay. The other question I have, can you speak to and I'm trying to remember if it was Toyota or if it was Lindsey Lexus, but I know in that case, there was a lot of discussion about creative light modification. And in fact, I think there are actually still like modifications and changes going back. I think it might be helpful to give another example of a process of where we had to go out to the property. We had to go over the lights. We had to modify the lights. We've had to continue to do adjustments because I think it's important that all that still remains and all that would still be fired and necessary. Right, Joe Carmel, it's a plane director. So yes, with the Linti Lexus case and some others, there is an ongoing process by which the impact of lighting on an adjacent property and is managed. So the city staff is involved in helping mitigate those issues. So if a neighbor reports that despite best efforts, they are being negatively impact by lights from an adjacent property, it goes in their bedroom window, for example. The staff does get involved and works with both the property owner and can work with both the property owner that has the lights as well as the property owner that is experiencing the impact to resolve those issues, adjust the where the lights are pointed, adjust the brightness of those lights, et cetera. And I guess just to follow up on this filming's point, I heard she has spoken with ACPS. If there's a role that we need to play in follow up, can we make sure that we do that follow up? Yes, as I was listening to that, I was trying to determine if we had been received that complaint. I didn't see that, but we are now happy, now alerted to be part of it. Okay. I'm going to go, sorry, we have a question. Vice mayor Bagley. No, I, and to put just two finer points on what the mayor has just said, one is, you know, this is an example where, you know, the mayor and I and perhaps others visited the site as part of that follow-up and have seen mitigation, you know, take place to some residents satisfaction to a degree. It's ongoing. And then I just want to I want to say another way what the mayor just said about what's happening here to sort of to if we pass 13 full package, including light calls. We will still hear 14, which is proof of the concept we're describing. If every poll above the base 40 feet allowed did not require, it's a separate SUP. Otherwise, if we passed 13 including this change, 14 would just come off the docket because it would become a by-right use. So we have a real time example here that if we pass this package, including this change in the allowable request, it still requires and we're gonna have an immediate example that each poll over the base height in the zone to have its own hearing. So I want people to see that to connect that. Is that my colleagues making a face? But is that a fair statement? Yes, yes. Thank you very much. We're like a few days. Now we'll now go to our next speaker, Mr. Frank Putsu. Good morning. I'm speaking on behalf of Seminary Hill. I request five minutes, though. I don't think I'm going to need it. The. I'm Frank Putso. I live on Juliana. I'm speaking for Seminary Hill in support of the current section six, tack 403F in urge caution. If not outright rejection of the proposed text amendment. We note that the current section was adopted in 2018 granted relief from height requirements for public congregate facilities. At the October 23rd, 13th, 2018 Council hearing there was a full and robust discussion on this specific issue including detailed explanations of why the specific 80 foot height 35-foot setback were selected. It's interesting the discussion you all just had, same discussion in 2018 except 80 feet. During the discussion council stated that its athletic lighting was closed to public rights of way and residences recognized potential negative impacts and determined it was critical to provide assurances that polls will be no higher than 80 feet. And then only upon a specific showing of light and glare. In other words, the 80 feet height requirement itself was considered extraordinary relief from normal height restrictions under very narrow circumstances. I did look at the council discussion then and council cautioned against viewing adoption of high relief for athletic lighting for these facilities as approval of lighting every potential field in the city up to 80 feet in reality that's precisely what happened. Every poll now starts at 80 feet and comes down from there and it's just simply an assumption. Council, we chat and you in particular were very critical about the staff putting the text amendment under the radar within sufficient public engagement and disclosure. The lights at the high school was the subject of a great public debate, but the text amendment did not conduct any meaningful outreach, especially something that was going to impact every partfield in the city as misflemming testified. Rest of the city found out from us in the last few days that this text was even on the dock. Here we are again. I would like to quote from the staff report in 2018, multiple speakers addressed the issue. There are hundreds of pages of documentation, lots of technical analysis. And the staff report said the amended section permits a maximum height of 80 feet for congregate recreational facilities and dog parts with SUP. Quote, this height has been found to be the industry standard for the type of facilities and areas that are exist and anticipated in the city. And so the staff report went into detail yet this skeletal staff report you have today, they never mentioned anything about 2018 that hundreds of pages, everything that went on the record. It simply refers to it as a minor update. I won't hammer that you've heard. This is not a minor update. There was no public outreach or public disclosure on this exactly what was warned about. In the next item, right, these two items are inextricably intertwined. They are. They just are. In fact, if item 14 didn't exist, we wouldn't be talking right now. There's no other reason to move forward with the text amendment. You've also heard some testimony this morning and you asked a great question, Councillor Lagrain. What are the FIFA requirements? We looked them up, FIFA requirements for polls, for training fields are 22 to 25 meters, which translates to 72 to 82 feet. We don't know where they're getting this 100 feet from. A little bit concerned that the universe of technical analysis is coming from the company that are selling the polls and And that's it. That's not an analysis. That's not a basis to do something. I did want a couple of other points to make with this. We did do some homework. This would be ground breaking. We're not aware of any other city or county in the United States that has unlimited height for for lighting polls. 80 feet is actually already on the way high end of what other jurisdictions permit. And there's a reason for that as disclosed in the 2018 2018 letter. I did want to emphasize with Mr. Shannon said that 80 feet is right is correlated to the 35 foot setback. Those numbers were not picked out of the air for no reason. And so I'd again urge you, disappointing that you were not informed of what happened in 2018 and what the full nature of the record is, that would have been very informational for today. I think moving forward about why that all came about. And we've had lighting issues now. I would point out in the staff presentation, they pointed to other lighted facilities on the field. They're all 60 or 80 feet. That 80 and 35 feet were picked for a reason. It was to stop these lighting discussions once and for all, right? You either meet heightened setback or you do not. Thank you, Mr. Putsy. All right. Thank you so much. Okay. We have another speaker, Ms. Smith. Yes. Thank you for your time and I'll speak more on Docket number 14, but Sefi sparks with General Counsel for Episcopal High School. I'm going to try to separate this and and talk broadly. And I come to you as the General Counsel, also some news served on an NCAA Rules Committee for O.F.A. but Ceph East forks with General Counsel for Episcopal High School. I'm going to try to separate this and talk broadly. And I come to you as the General Counsel and also some who served on an NCAA rules committee for over 10 years and has looked at lots of different field designs and placements of various items. And I wish Musco who might be listening was here themselves to be able to defend some of the ethical attacks against their engineering degrees and sort of the good faith in which they work with proper owners. I do want to, there's been a lot of stones thrown out of Piscool and I'll take the time and docket 14 to address those in a respectful manner. For now what I want to address is the ones that are specific about larger fields, right? Like where does ADP come from? I imagine that experts were consulted in 2018 and ADP, as is an expert letters that we submitted to city council comes from a typical height was sort of standard setbacks for a standard size football field with a narrow track. Other fields such as one that's at issue in docket 14 are large and we want to use correct soccer terminology pitches with a very wide track. In order to actually put lights in the best interest of neighboring areas and reduce glare and minimize any type of impact that could possibly have with spillover or other issues, it is trigonometry in terms of moving things back and they have to go higher. I would imagine that Alexandria City High School, where I think those lights have brought tremendous spirit to their students. I imagine that if they were higher, the individual who's having some glare issues may not be having those issues. To give you an example in our project, because a lot of people are speaking about our project, there are other FIFA standards besides the ones that were cited and different ones used in evaluating our project, but it's not about FIFA. And I'll talk more about FIFA and it actually being a positive light instead of throwing in the cast of a negative light in these discussions. But it's actually about the engineering eluminating engineering society standards. And it's also about general sport governing body standards. Like the NCAA, the MLB people who want the best lighting, safest lighting for student athletes and professional athletes to be able to compete under. And then how do you match that with the engineering standards that exist within the illuminating engineering society? And I think one really sort of clear point that's gotten lost in this, that people I tried to describe it in the board commission, meaning is when we had our field, the specific field looked at, the ideal height was about 120 feet and we pushed that. We're not interested in order, I think property owners in general are interested in having large poles. None of our other poles are higher. And in fact, if we didn't do anything with any support governing body standards and did standard light, the ideal light starting point was 90 and 100 because of the actual size of the field in the track. So we can push them down and push them down, but it's going to sacrifice lighting standards and it's going to sacrifice. Being able to actually meet the type of glare and spillover standards that we want to meet. And I would. I have a question for you from Councilman Chapman. And I will say, I think you and the next person were given three minutes for this one because there isn't on, this is a staff proposal. I do know in the next one, because you are the applicant, you will have a different amount of time during the next document. I just wanted to say that. Councilman Chapman. So I just wanted to ask, one of the concerns that was raised here was about kind of communication with neighbors. Do you guys as an ordinary as a school have kind of communication standards where the neighborhood, particularly the folks around the property in terms of anything that's going on or changes like this. What are those standards that you. Yes, I'm not as familiar with sort of the head of school discussion with local neighbors, but we have tried to be very friendly navels. I'll talk about that more in Docket 14. We generally go through the Seminary Hill Association. And that is what we have done with the track project before and other projects. So happy to sort of discuss that more related to fiscal. I don't want to confuse it. And I would just ask if I can have the one closing statement that you offered. Others before closing. There's been a lot to talk about good governance. And what. to fiscal, I don't want to confuse it. And I would just ask if I can have the one closing statement that you offered others before. There's been a lot of talk about good governance and what has seen this bad governance. And perhaps I have more good faith than the city of Alexandria than others do. I think good governance is when new technology and new information comes that would otherwise have ordinances that stand in a barrier from property owners trying to do good things with their property and also things to protect the neighboring areas as much as possible. And then they relook at oranges. I think that's actually good governance. It's significant not because of its breath. It's not going to apply too many. It's significant so it doesn't serve as a barrier for people actually trying to do this process in the thoughtful manner. Thank you. So we have one more speaker in our public hearing and that is Mr. Blair. And as I mentioned Mr. Blair, you'll also be timed at three minutes. Sorry. I look forward to the challenge of being held three minutes, but I'm ready. I haven't had to use my gavel yet. I'm ready. All right. Duncan Blair, wire gill, you're speaking on behalf of the School of High School and connection with this request. Mr. Petsley was right in on October 13th, 2018, the first real lighting of athletic field was approved, approving TCU AMS high school at the time. There was not a real light standard at that time on height and it was established by a text amendment, heard the same day. The robust discussion did occur mainly on the application like the one you'll hear next. The polls were said at 80 feet. But the special use permits still have the limitation. The applicant shall demonstrate that the increased poll height will mitigate the impact of whiting in terms of spillage and glare. That's especially used permit required. What the Planning Commission and the staff is saying is that like many prescriptive rules, they can be the booby prize because you limit what may be better technology. Eight years ago, AD seemed to be a number. Eight years ago, they didn't have the illuminating, illuminating engineer society creating standards. And as they said, and I find it hard, we use simple tricky and not trigonometry. I don't know any simple trigonog in my mind. But they use that to determine the most efficient way to safely light a field for the athletes to reduce glare with a zero-foot candle outside of the field. So if you use, and as I understand, Hammond High School, one of the issues I kept on reading about, Their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile, their profile I understand Hammond High School, one of the issues I kept on reading about, Their profile was right next to the track and maybe encroaching on to the track. That was a safety issue, and could be because you have the foundations of an overrun for the field. Probably because of the 35-foot setback, they could not put the poles on the outside of the field. Trigonometry tells us that if you put them on the outside of the field to get the same focal point of only lighting the field, that additional setback and additional height provides safer environment for the athletes, does not like the track and does not do and it does eliminate the glare. Piscola High School, if you will hear, has only a few color polls most are substantially less. I look forward to answering any questions. Thank you Mr. Miller. That is our last speaker of the public comment period. Second there has been a motion by Councilman in Curie and a second by Vice Mayor Bagley to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed say nay. Okay The eyes have it. We can now resume discussion. Vice Mayor Bagley. Thank you. Can we actually return to the EV charger slide for a moment? And I don't believe we had any speakers on this item. OK. But I have a practical question. Now, and if the answer is to be determined, that's okay. I just, for the benefit of, there's interest about this in the community, I think, for people who have invested. Can you all go to the EV charging slide? Oh, they're trying. I'm sorry. Thank you. Does this address in the ordinance? Because I appreciate like we're looking at a bullet here that may not be the complete language. Does it address? Plugs, wires running across sidewalks to your, you know, like when you say off street parking is located. Are we getting into that yet? And how we're addressing somebody who puts one on their front yard and then charges a car on the street. There's I believe there are provisions in the city code about things that cross public sidewalks and that kind of thing that you can't have those. I don't I don't I said but I believe there are provisions in the city code that prevent things from going across the public right away without permission. Okay so the without without permission might be a key element to what you said there. What I'm trying to get at is I appreciate I think this change is designed with the concerns like councilman McGarry expressed, you know, to allow more chargers to be placed in homes where people want them to be mindful of standardization. To the extent they don't have a driveway, though, because we have homes, single family homes with front yards without driveways. Where will this leave a person in that scenario? What will their options be to install in their yard, but stance, this wouldn't really help them. They would need an encroachment to use, you know, to cross the sidewalk with the right away with the charger. And maybe what we will, I'm sorry, a car march will do is provide a more thoroughly answer for a council on that subject. Okay, I appreciate that. And I don't mean to get too far in the weeds, but this is moving in the right direction. I think of facilitating this and I would appreciate if you can like a follow up memo with maybe a breakdown of, you know, if you're in this circumstance, this is the process either as an encroachment or maybe this is a next iteration, you know, of our policy is starting to envision ways to address this scenario. Can I move on to another area you want to start with? No, you. Well, actually, I do think, are there any more EV charge or questions? Because I think for the sake of organizing this discussion. Okay, it looks like Councilman on Newbie has a question on this and then Councilman Gary and then we can move to another topic topic. Thank you Madam Mayor. Say my echo my colleagues comments I think this is a move in the right direction if we are really serious about trying to be a sustainable city making it easier for residents to install EV Charters is the right move so So they can invest in EVs. Obviously, my question, so again, please keep moving in that direction of streamlining these kind of things. My question is, what does it take now for someone to install an EV Charter? Is it a DSUP? Is it just simple application? What do they have to go through? What kind of costs that they have to incur with the city? I'm not talking about how much they have to install it. If it's like a typical single unit dwelling like a regular house and they wanted an EV charger and they're set back, they would have to go to the border zoning appeals. There's there's you know, kind of the answer kind of depends, but one of the simplest, like, straightforward house would go to the border zoning appeals to ask for a variance and it would be very difficult to obtain. If, in normal cases or in which cases? In all cases. In all cases. Well, I mean, they could have it. If they could have a Navy charger if meets the setbacks. So like they're permitted outside of a setback, but if they do not meet the setback, then they need a special permission from the border zoning appeals. Even if they have a driveway, right? Okay. Councilman Aguirre. Everyone, okay. I'm gonna go back to Vice Mayor Bagley for her next topic. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. I'm looking back at my notes. I've only talked about lights. Some of the speakers towards the end here. And I appreciate the speakers, Mr. Putsu and others who have brought us back. I think it's valuable. I think maybe only one of us sitting here now was actually on council, maybe councilman Aguera was. And yeah, just the one, no, I say that not to put my colleague on the spot, but to reiterate, like, it's a valuable, just really said in context for all of us, to sort of the last time we did an evaluation like this. But for me, I think to my colleague's point, I think it was in this dialogue, it's been a long meeting already folks, about science sort of and allowing that to help guide us to some extent in our policy making. One thing it brought to mind is actually this conversation about garages earlier and sort of what we accept as the proper size. And again, I live in Old Town, and there's some teeny garages that would have been perfectly acceptable that we would sort of scoff at now. And we've gotten bigger. And now we get smaller again. So I think what I would like to put back to staff because there were sort of from speakers and references to sort of our ability to process, consider, respond to science, respond to the state of technology. And so if just a member of staff can address the role that science or research or advances and technology are informing the change in position from 2018 to now. And just to put it another way, to the extent the 80 feet in 2018 was driven or not by science. Can somebody just kind of try to put a fine point on that? Certainly, sorry Karl Moritz again and I alluded to this a little bit in my response to Councilman El Nubi when I pointed out that at the time of 2018 certainly there was a value assigned it was not a science-. It was a political value, I would say, to the importance of only allowing the minimum height necessary to accomplish the goals that we had before. The polls, lighting of Alexander C. High School athletic field Field and perhaps other similar situations. So in that case, we did not build in what we might do in other situations, which is flexibility to anticipate that technology improvements will occur. There are any number of analogies in land use regulation that I can point to over the course of my time here where we have been super prescriptive in the moment because it was important to provide that assurance. But then we found ourselves having to revisit because for whatever reason a market condition or technology had changed the circumstances to a point where we had to reconsider it. And so what we felt in this case was the issue of the process is the right moment when a city council, the public, can evaluate a specific situation in a specific time and take into account the technology available at that moment. And so putting a restriction in the ordinance is not as important as having a robust discussion when we are considering an issue P. Thank you for the answer. And I think with a phrasing, I think you said not a science-based value, it was more political value and I don't want to misquote you, but I mean. Yes, I mean there was there was reasons why we there were science-based reasons why an 80-foot pole would work, but I feel we were also wanting to excuse me to assure the public at the time that what we were doing then was limited. And just so for me, and just, you know, starts, you know, socializing the dialogue, I guess my colleagues, I asked the briefing, and you know, I asked the question, and my briefing I sort of went, well, why do we still need an SUP? Like, you're taking away a restriction, and you're telling me I'm still gonna vote on all of This dialogue, I think, is helping both me understand and what I hope is helping the community understand. So by eliminating a fixed number as proposed, it's to avoid the specifics of the technology in any given year time things we learn. But by maintaining a requirement for an and S for anything above the zones base, you maintain the ability to always be specific to that situation, that neighborhood, the technology available at that time. And that's how I'm sort of reconciling the idea of we're eliminating, we're creating sort of an unlimited option, but retaining a very specific requirement of approval of each poll. Thank you. I just have a few quick comments and then I'll open it up if there's still more questions. I want to pick up where Vice Mayor Bagley left off. I think as I've been following the comments we've received the dialogue that's happened today, for me, if you told me on the lights that this was by right and we're just approving these holographic city, I would not support that. I think the ability to then come through and I might even ask staff, I think the criteria you walk through, that should be like a checklist on the website. So any resident who's impacted, they can go back and say, did you cover this? Did we go through this? How was this evaluated? From the time I heard time, condition, location, technology, setback. Sure, if we go through the recording, there's a lot more. But I think knowing that we have the ability to continue to go through that, I think is really, really important because everyone of these do have a different context. I also think making sure that we are doing our role to follow up with residents that if somebody is impacted that we continue to do those creative modifications or mitigation, I think is really important. The other thing I wanted to speak to is I heard a couple of comments about our process. It is not unique to this case that we have asked staff to go back and say our zoning code is a lot. There's so many layers and screens and so how do we begin to simplify and bring forth a package of things. So I understand that. I'm also empathetic and I've even watched it in this conversation that it is a lot to follow bouncing from issue to issue to issue. And so what I would like to propose to the council, I know I can't make a motion but this would be my proposal. I I actually think that we should take this one at a time. Like we should go to the first slide and we do a vote on the, I've lost what was the first one. We have the ADUs that lights the historical changes and so it is very clear what we are voting on and how the council, how the council is looking at this. And then I guess for future when we pull together a package like this, maybe there's a way to categorize them by topic or theme so that it's just kind of easier to see the intersections between this. But that would be my comments on this. Councilman Chapman. Thank you Madam Mayor and I appreciate the opportunity that I know one of my colleagues will make the motion. I just wanted to give some context and history about how we got here. I think with in respect to the speaker as well. I do. I think council was intentional several years ago about bringing these Texan amendments together as a group. And I think the speaker hit it on the head because some of these issues. We view as very minor, kind of easy changes that are updates. And then in those, in discussion of those with the community, some of them pop up and attract more attention. And I don't think, I think staff to their credit, try to understand kind of what is going to be small big or what not. But it is really until we get that conversation with the community that we find out that something is a bigger issue. We're going to have more speakers on something than other things. And so it's not an idea that we are trying to hide anything. It is that we're going to bring it forth and bring it to the community. We may have a number of pastors that come in here concerned about changes to what we're doing with churches, right? We don't know until it kind of comes out to the public. And so it is not an intentional way to hide what it could be a controversial issue. I would say also with the timing of this, why we have 13 and 14, I think is intentional to and to counsel's benefit, to do it that way because I have found in my time here, we have done sometimes done text amendments on one public hearing and then the next month, the reason for that public, for that text amendment comes forward and they're not together, they're not aligned. So the public has no kind of understanding that we've done a text amendment to make this massive change on something. And I think the property around the Mark Center Helton was the last time we did something like that, where we had a discussion in one meeting and then had some real action in another meeting. And I don't think that's frankly transparent for the public and they, you know, people aren't gonna, they don't have to come here two months in a row to follow something. And so doing it right after the other might seem rushed, might seem, if folks wanna say calculated, it's not intended to be that way. It is hopefully more transparent that folks can kind of follow the conversations while we're doing the policy change as well. And so I just wanted to add back to the conversation. Thank you, Councilman Chapman. Other comments, questions. So all three hands. Mike Councilman, I'll newbie and vice mayor back. Thank you, Madam Mayor and thank you to everyone who spoke and staff and folks who worked on this. I do think we have good sets of zoning text amendments here. I'm very excited about the ADU provisions that you're bringing forth. I think we do encourage the construction of ADUs around the city and love the I notion that's going to bring three or four more per year in talix andrii. I really appreciate the EV charging element and on the lights I agree with the mayor right this is not a by-right tool that we're giving folks will have to come to us it will not be going before the planning commission be considered and so if it's you know mechanically appropriate to do it this way I would like to move approval of zoning tax amendment 2025-0003 as presented in the staff report but with the question divided so that we vote on each component separately. Madam City attorney, would we then go through and call a separate one for each? What's the what's the cleanest way? I'm going to ask WCD attorney Christina Brown to walk through how we're going to break this down. She's been assigned to this tax amendment case. Okay. So I think what it would be the clearest to do is by subject matter. If you want to actually, you could actually follow the notice that might be the sort of clearest way that would differentiate between the specific ones for one you could have for instance a motion to correct the technical errors and make clarifications and articles for five, seven and 10 and then you could work through that notice for each of the the numbered provisions, I think. And it, and for it, that walked through those in the presentation and specifically highlighted, you know, the church parking and the lights is number four, for example, and for each one, the action of council would be an approval, a disapproval or a referral back to planning commission for further study. Okay, so just to repeat it back, would I would be seeking an emotion is that someone would do number one, number two, all the way down to number eight? I think that would be the clearest way to have the vote proceed. Well, is the council will have a committee? Yep. Hold on a second. Can I actually ask for clarification? Because I think there are only actually, some of these were eliminated from the text amendment. So I think I'd need staff's assistance to identify which ones were actually pulled from this zoning text amendment proposal. I'm sorry. Can we say that again? Some of the, what was originally noticed? Staff decided to, at this point, they weren't ready to proceed on some of these corrections. So I'm going to have them identify if any of those subsections need to be pulled so you don't have to vote. You shouldn't vote on those items. Two in the. So numbers two and eight are ones that aren't going forward today. So those can be struck. Should be taken on those because we're not proposing. We're not making any proposals. After this, I hate to make it more complicated for us. I just want to make sure because it's really important to me to make sure that we are as clear to the public. If certain things were pulled, can you explain to me when they were pulled and why they still ended up on our official docket? So the legal ad, the thing that goes in the newspaper and we, those items that gets decided like a while back in order to meet the nosing requirements. And those are, that's before the staff report's released. And we, for the legal ad, we want to make sure it has as much information as possible. And so if things are, it's much better to not consider something and have it listed versus not having it listed and considering it. So, you know, through the staff report, you know, as we're producing it, we realize we need more time for something or we need to make it, you know, just think about it some more than we, we've, they don't come off the legal ad. Okay, this may be something for the manager and the clerk and the city attorney I'd like to address us in the future. I mean, because I would hate, it's just 1214 if somebody came here to sit to talk about murals and townhouses, they would have spent a lot of time on a Saturday going through something that we weren't going to hear. Councilman Chapman. Thank you Madam Mayor and I would I would do to your comments and I appreciate that you're going to meet with staff, but we definitely need to make sure this is very clear for the public. There's nothing in the presentation that says that these things are pulled. I did not see anything in staff can correct me in the staff report that said that these things were pulled up front for counsel to see or the public to see. So that definitely needs to be figured out a way to highlight that because that definitely is a big misstep. Yeah, this should not happen again. Councilman McGarry. Yeah, I'm not too happy about that either. Additionally, well, I understand my colleagues want to go down this one by one. I think that's an inefficient use of our time. I would prefer that we do it in block and then if there's something something that there's disagreement on that we just pull that one item. So in this scenario, we would be pulling, I believe, two, six and eight, two and eight because they were pulled six because I believe Councilman Chaman would like to have a separate vote on that. But if there's something else that that my colleagues would like to pull out for an individual vote. But that's just my opinion. I was tracking that folks also wanted to pull the lights, so that would be four. What I'm sorry. Yeah. Why is it. Okay, then I'm going to go back to Councilman McPite. All right, then sort of let's take care of the ones that are clear. Okay. I think one by one is that less messy. Very clear. All right, let's do it. And it doesn't have to be inefficient folks pay attention. Okay, then I will I'll start with number one. I move that we approve section one, the correction of technical errors and clarifications included in zoning text amendment 2025-00003. Second. There has been a motion by Councilman McPike and a second by Councilman Chapman to correct the technical errors and make clarifications. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. All right motion carries. Councilman Mike would you keep on. I move that we approve section three to amend Article 345 and 6 to add churches as a permitted use in a variety of zones as included in zoning tax amendment number 2025-00003. Okay, there has been a motion by Councilman McPike and a second by Councilman Chapman, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, motion carries. So quick question for the city attorney. Do we have to make a motion on two just saying that it has been removed? Just note it for the record. I'd like to note for the record to the clerk that we have removed item two, the amendment of sections 3-606 and 3-706 to clarify open space requirements in the RA residential multi-unit and RB residential townhouse zones. Councilmember McPike. All right, then I would also move that we approve section four, do amend section six, dash 403, to remove height limitations for lighting permitted, with special use permit approval for congregate recreational facilities and dog parks in zoning tax amendment number 2020 25-003. There has been a motion by Councilman McPike and a second by Councilman Chapman. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye, the ayes have it. All right. Staying down, I move that we approve section five to amend section seven, two zero two to allow electric vehicle charging equipment in any required yard in zoning text amendment 2025-0003. Second, there has been a motion by Councilmember McPike and a second by Vice Mayor Bagley. Any discussion? Mayor Bagley, I may ask and thank you. Just a brief, I just want to put a finer point with staff that should this pass in a moment. I really think there's some equity issues involved in not resolving how people who don't have a driveway can charge their vehicles. This has been solved in other cities and counties around the country. And rather than sort of a passive dialogue, I'd like to indicate, hopefully, with my colleague support, a more proactive resolution is pursued on this item. I'm sorry, Karl, more quickly, the opposite climate action was texting me that they are already working on something. Two, we are mobilized. No, Councilor Nuby. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I echo that actually not everyone has a driveway. So there are cities that have these covers that go over the cables, so if we can look into that kind of stuff and hopefully that would help us allowing people who don't have driveways to charge their cars on the street because like I said, I mean I appreciate that you bring it this forward. I mean honestly when I saw it I was like I couldn't even believe that we weren't allowing people to put chargers in their front yards especially if they have a driveway. So the more we keep moving in that direction, make it more equitable for those who have the ability to do it, but the city's not permitting it, using these kind of solutions that are already out there. The other cities are using, I think, is certainly proactive and equitable. So I would appreciate it if we thank you, Madam. Thank you. So there has been a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Hi. Any opposed? The eye tavit. Thank you. Okay, so there has been a motion and a second all those in favor say aye Any opposed the eyes have it all right next one Madam mayor I move that we approve section six of zoning texted in mid 2020 2020 2025 dash 0 0 0 3 To amend section 7203 to relate to accessory volume is to leap permit requirements and use limitations Okay, there has been a motion by councilmember Pike and a second by Vice Mayor Bagley. Any discussion? Councilman Nguiri. So to staff, I know that I said 12 month review if for whatever reason within six months, you just start to see something drastic. Please come back to us. And I see everyone's had nighaming and sometimes yes, we'll hear from staff. They didn't know that we were all in agreement. I think everyone's in agreement. We'd like to see something in either six or 12 months depending on. Thank you. All right. Any other discussion? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries six one with a no vote from Councilman Chapman. Next item. Finally, Madam Mayor, I move that we adopt Section 7 of zoning tax amendment 2025-00003 to amend Section 8200F to exempt churches from certain parking requirements. Okay, there has been a motion by Councilman McPike and a second by Councilwoman Green. Any discussion? Councilman on Newby. I tried to do say this earlier, but we've took quickly. And I emailed Steph about this. I know we're using the term churches, but this applies to all places of worship, right? And is this something we're going to look at just from an inclusive standpoint? Yes, that's right. We want to make sure that our zoning ordinance reflects, it is more equitable in its language. And so we are intending to replace the word churches with places of worship. Thank you. Does that need to come back for a separate text amendment, or can we make that now? This is a future. Or a future. It is a future initiative of ours. By the way, Bagley, but to that end, should a place of worship that does not identify itself as a church, be able to make use of this provision until we make the further tex amendment to make the language more inclusive. Yes, we're covered with the definition of churches as the the harm churches. Yeah. I'm really glad this was raised, and'm glad the C-stats provide to the working on it, but to be clear, all places of worship can benefit if this passes in a moment. Can I make them one other quick comment? So I also just wanted to, I really appreciated Councilman DeRuchatman's comments earlier about somehow the sometimes the timing things, how what looks like a series of non-controversial items with one controversial one slid in. To that end, if this package had come forward three or four months ago when we were literally doing an SUP for a church in this scenario, it would have looked like it was aligned more to that pressing matter. And so I just wanted to raise that. We have voted on something that was impacted because this language didn't exist. I'm saying a few months ago, but times sometimes it's weird and maybe it was a year ago. But so I wanted to highlight that. I thought he made a very important point and we had a good recent example of it. And then separately on what is my theme of today, apparently, this is another really good example of listening to the community on all sides to expedite our permitting process, reduce the costs of building things and doing things. And so for what it's worth to the extent a church is not in our pipeline, our SUP staff pipeline to taking up time, that's clearing the queue for other things moving through that pipeline. So where we can eliminate the requirement for an SUP on an older church making renovations to not have to come into line with our parking requirements, where staff time is not being spent on that and fees to that place of worship is not being spent on that. So this is, you know, if you step back and take a holistic view of what this means, it doesn't just benefit the individual places of worship making renovations, but it has impacts downstream on staff time and how long it takes to process an SUP and to go from idea to reality in the construction context. So just adding that into something that might seem very specific has related impact. Kelsmyn Chapman. Thank you. I don't want to kind of go back and forth and don't mean to disagree with my colleague. I appreciate her comments. I think overall for me, I want to, one of have folks understand when we talk about fees, for me every opportunity to reduce a fee is not necessarily to me a good one because we do have staff doing that work. And as we continue to talk about compensation of staff and things of that nature, some of these fees, frankly, offset the amount of personal property taxes, residential property taxes. We are putting towards the kind of employee compensation. And so I do look at fees a little bit differently. I appreciate the kind of business interest of decreasing fees and making sure, but I also want to make sure as we have staff do work, some of those charges to their time or are brought in by fees. So I do think there's there's some context that we we should look at as we talk about fees and just generally. So there has been a motion by Councilman Mike and a second by Councilwoman green on item seven. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Right. The I's have it. And then I want to note for the record that item eight create provisions for a mural program has been struck. OK, at this point, Madam Clerk, next item. Special use permit 2025-0021200 N. Lankin in 4200 West Bratwick Road, this whole high school athletic fields, planning commission action, recommend approval 7-0. Okay. As I stated, I'm going to recuse myself since my husband is an athletic coach at a physical high school. I'm going to hand the gavel over to Vice Mayor Bagley. Then for my colleagues, I'd like to recommend after this item, we hear 15 and then go to lunch. So we can discuss what I get that. All right. So I would kick off first by just asking for everybody's patience. I don't fill this role often and I'll do my best to run this process efficiently. I would I assume my colleagues would agree that we'd like to begin with a staff presentation. All right. If staff could cue that up for item number 14. I'm not sure you actually called the item. Did you call it before the mayor recuse? Okay, just checking it. I don't want that to be my first blunder. All right. Sorry about that. Good afternoon, Mayor Gaskins and Council. My name is Bill Cook with Planning and Zoning Laney Services Division. Pescoble High School is requesting, especially use permit to install athletic lighting on their campus at 1200 North Quaker Lane. Next slide, please. The nozzle is for a campus wide lighting plan for several athletic fields located primarily on the west side of the 130 acre campus. The staff report notes that the private high school is operated on this site for many, many years and is contiguous with Virginia Theological Seminary to the south and residential neighborhoods to the west and north and south west with points of access from west Brannock Road and North Quaker Lane. Next slide please. Property is on one more slide. Yeah, the property is owned are 20 which permits private schools with an SUV the staff a series of SUPs and DSUPs, the most recent of which governs the entire campus currently. The R20 zone limits building heights to a maximum of 40 feet for church and school uses. Those height limits apply to all structures, therefore an SUP is required to permit light poles to be constructed taller than 40 feet for certain recreation uses, as athletic fields. Next slide. The campus proposes a total of 47 light poles to be constructed among the various athletic facilities at various heights ranging from 40 feet to 100 feet. Staff notes that a few light poles as proposed would not comply with required 35 foot setback or such equipment. These are located along the west side of the property servicing the tennis courts and softball field. Therefore, condition has been included so that these locations can be adjusted before any construction permits are issued. The tallest poles proposed are located at the homoble track field and adjacent practice field. As noted in the staff report, these fields are anticipated to be used as practice fields by an international soccer team coinciding with tournament events, tournament events in the region this in next summer. These fields are furthest away from adjacent residential areas in a budding West Braddock road. In evaluating the SUP criteria for lighting for this use, staff notes that the experience and familiarity with such systems and the installation contract variation that these systems to be focused so that overall glare and lights village on to adjacent properties is mitigated. Additional height for the light poles minimizes glare and allows the most efficient and precise list light distribution while minimizing disturbance to neighboring properties. Next slide. All light installations require building permits and any future building permit must comply with the existing zoning ordinance provisions specifically pertaining to lighting and conditions the SUP. According to the applicant lighting in these areas is planned in the longer term. So staff is comfortable that this condition allows the applicant to proceed with construction of the lighting for the fields to the north, the three large fields, so that the school can phase their improvements and coordinate funding. The applicant has met with a Seminary Hill Association and has discussed plans directly with neighbors. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend a SUP approval subject conditions mentioned. Thank you. And if you could advance forward to the very last slide. And we'll just hold there. That concludes the presentation. I do have this graphic. We'll probably refer to it later in the discussion, as well as the conditions. Thank you. Thank you, staff, for the presentation. And I actually appreciate that you're going to leave this up for the conversation, you know, as as my colleagues, if they point to it. Many of my colleagues have questions at this time for staff or shall we move to the public hearing. All right. So with that, if, if the clerk could please call the first speaker and the names of the next two so they can get queued up. Okay. Ryan Katz, Megan Hansen, Sean McLaughlin. Ryan's online. Just need to unmute. Okay. Mr. Katz, can you unmute and let us know you're there. Okay. Theoretically you have to figure it out. Can you hear me? We can hear you're right. I mean, you're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. resistance to this SUP exists. And the issue at hand here is whether or not the city will respect the principle of community impact in the approval of this SUP. A few facts. This SUP seeks to approve 47 light poles ranging from 40 to 100 feet across eight fields and 12 tennis courts. Episcopal has represented on multiple occasions. They're only currently planning on installing 10 lights across three fields. Both their general council here today and the associate head have misrepresented the scope of this SUV to several groups. presenting the scope of the project is 10 lights across three fields. The city typically restricts a timeline for an SUV to three years, but in this case for some reason decides that they need a 10-year window to be improved. And the city's own fields that have lights installed are subject to limitations on use to balance the community impact. And there are literally no restrictions in any form on the Episcopal field. And it will exacerbate the impact from noise, lighting, parking, and traffic. And so my question is, why would the standard that the city applies to the city is not the same as the city's. and it will exacerbate the impact from noise, lighting, parking, and traffic. And so my question is, why would the standard that the city applies to its own fields be completely disregarded for Episcopal? If the city limits the approval to the 10 lights across the three fields, which is the current plan in the works, and the one they represent that really the only one they're planning on doing anytime soon, it'll preserve and uphold the principle of engaging the community in the SUP process. If there's truly no community impact, they represent. There should be absolutely no concern in the future, should they choose for additional lights through another SUP? And if there is a community impact, the school needs to engage with the neighbors impact to define common ground and to mitigate the concerns about the impact. The city, of course, will retain the right to evaluate it. And if we disagree, they can make a decision at a later time. And clearly, the burden's going to be on neighbors at that time because the city would effectively is effectively now giving them carte blanche on the project. While they're probably the richest organization in the city and the largest landowner with more than 130 acres of land, I don't believe that those factors should afford them any special treatment. And I'm hopeful that you see this similarly. So my specific ask is the City Council restricts the approval today of the SUP to the currently planned 10 lights across three fields. It will respect the principle of evaluating community impact as a part of an SUP process. And absolutely doesn't limit their right to pursue additional lighting approvals in the future. I appreciate your consideration today. I hope you choose to implement a reasonable restriction on the SUP approval, which would be approving 10 lights across three fields and not a carte blanche, 10 year approval of 47 lights, 37 which are not even planning right now. By your own hands. Thank you, Mr. Kats. Thank you. Megan Hansen. Good afternoon, and thank you you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you am speaking to you today to strongly, for you to strongly oppose the permit as written because it significantly departs from precedent is too expansive in scope and has been rushed through to meet the school's agreement to host FIFA events next month. Most special use permits are for 36 months. This permit being considered today is for 120 months or 10 years. If the council approves the permit is written, my neighbors and I will lose the right to speak up about how this project is affecting our lives and properties. Additionally, the permit would allow the school to install and use 47 lights simultaneously seven nights a week with the only restriction being that the lights must be turned off by 10 pm. The lack of usage restriction is outrageous. And additionally, the permit does not require a visible to offer its Frazier, Frost, and Lawrence neighbors any light and noise pollution protections. There is a precedent for light limitations as evidenced by the final agreement on the lights at Alexandria City High School. We ask for the same light limitations in our neighborhood. Additionally, why are we rushing this huge project through? I understand the need to install six lights around the track so the FIFA events can proceed in June. But why does that mean we need to rush it to give the school expansive power to install the additional 41 lights and breaks city precedent? And you know, the neighbors have, when we've asked the school about what the plans are, it does, it takes a while to get information back and the information is not specific. So we feel a bit of a loss of, we don't, we're being asked to trust an entity that we don't feel like we can trust right now. And so we're asking the city council to help us through this. Now I'll add that while I guess I'm speaking on behalf of my family's personal situation, I would all citizens in Alexandria to consider what would mean for a 10-year special use permit to be passed today. This specialist passes, they will now be precedents in the city to grant other 10-year-long permits that strip citizens right to public input and don't require the city to do really significant check on how a project is progressing. In closing, I urge the city council to amend the staff recommendations as written and adopt the conditions. As outline, I actually have in a handout that includes some of the points that Mr. Katz made earlier. And I think if I can go put it in the bucket, I'll do that. These are reasonable requests that ensure a measured smooth transition of lights installation while also making sure that a Piscable can can have a you know a vibrant great community with lights and accommodate the FIFA use in June. Thank you. Thank you Miss Hanson. Yeah, if you could pass copies of the proposed language to the clerk, she'll pass them to us. You could call the next speaker. Okay, Sean McLaughlin, Liz Chiminto, Amy Katz. Good afternoon, dear Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Sean McLaughlin and I live at 1615 North Frost Street. I have lived in Alexandria for over 43 years and at this address for the past 20 years. I speak on behalf of my family in opposition to this SUP application. Other speakers will or have addressed the noise and light pollution concerns. I agree with those sentiments, but would like to address a critical community situation that has been trampled upon in this application, namely community and neighborly conversation and that respects the rights of law abiding Alexandria residents or the Alexandria way. Many of you will recall our late mayor, Patsy Ticer. I had the great honor of serving as Patsy Ticer's campaign manager when she first ran for mayor. I adored Mayor Ticer. She often spoke about the Alexandria way, which simply meant working through difficult issues with your neighbors and respecting opposing opinions. The Alexandria way was not perfect, but in a small community like ours, it is vital to prevent overreach and hostility. This application has violated the Alexander away at nearly every turn. No direct outreach to those of us as immediate neighbors until 7 a.m. this morning. Last minute switches in the number of light poles and heavy-handed tactics that leave you as a long time and pleasant neighbor, wondering what you did wrong to receive this type of treatment. For the record, when a peskable wish to receive permission to build their current track, I was invited to dinner as a direct neighbor, where the headmaster and the then CFO briefed me on their plans and asked for my feedback. I had no opposition, but I felt heard and respected. In other words, the Alexandria way. Why not do the same treatment this time for a project with a much larger impact? I respectfully ask you to hit the pause button and require a Piscopal High School to limit their application to 10 polls on three fields on Braddock Road and require them to sit down for an overdue conversation. This is not too much to ask and still allows a Piscopal High School to install lights in time for the fee-foot practices. It also allows the Alexandria Way to return to the table and common courtesy and respect to be honored. I know Episcopal high school graduates are some the most incredible students. Many of them are here today and they've gone on to become honorable and notable citizens. I suspect Episcopal high school will recognize my request for honesty and fair play. After all, it is enshrined in their honor code. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We can call the next speaker. Mr. Minto, Amy Katz, Roy Shannon. Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Chimento. And I'm here to speak in favor of the applicants proposal. I'm a long time resident of the city. I had to actually use my calculator to get 33 years out of that. But for the past 22 years, I've lived on Fort Williams Parkway, which is directly across Seminary Road from both the theological seminary and part of the high school. And in my experience, I have found the high school to be an excellent community partner and neighbor. I've never had any issues or concerns with any kind of overflow from campus events. They are a very vibrant and busy campus, 12 months a year, not just when the students are here in the fall, winter, and spring. And we have found them to be great neighbors in a couple of ways. One in addition to the beautiful surroundings, the well-maintained campus and the good management of such a large and fulfilling space, we have also found them be great community partners with regard to some of the athletic needs of our community that quite frankly we can't always meet with our existing facilities and fields. And so while I understand their first priority is to their own students, they have been wonderful in making their fields available and accessible to other athletic uses throughout the year. And also bringing some of the special uses that they already have without the lights with professional sports teams last year in the year before they had professional teams training there during the day from the Champions League and the number of the soccer players in our community were invited to come and help set up for the training, meet the players and in one case do some sample coach development by playing for those teams coaches. So we have found the Episcopal usage and access to be a really great part of our community experience here. The other thing I did wanna add in addition to providing a little bit of a safety valve, if you will, and some added access to opportunities in the community, having just attended the Economic Development Summit. I'm very excited about the opportunity. Start bringing these FIFA teams into our community, housing them in North Old Town, where my parents live, and they're accessing all of our fine other tourists and residential and restaurant facilities will be a great thing for our community. And so I think we have to look at this in a broad context of all the possible ways that this will enhance our community. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. The next speaker, please. Amy Katz, Roy Shannon Terry, Andrews. Hi, my name is Amy Katz. And I am a lifelong member of the resident of Alexandria. I was born at Alexandria Hospital, and I attended George Mason Elementary, GW Junior High, and I graduated from TC Williams. After college, my husband and I returned to Alexandria to raise our four children, and we've greatly benefited from everything the city has to offer. We have lived just across the street from a Piscopal High School's athletic fields for almost 20 years. My husband and I have always been good neighbors to the school and have appreciated the vitality that comes with having a school nearby. However, I am deeply concerned that the school, our neighbor, did not reach out to us, even though our front door is in clear view of the fields. And we are mere feet from the campus. It was only through the Seminary Hill Association, SHA, and a neighbor that we recently learned of the proposed lighting plan. Initially, an EHS representative of the SHA board communicated a plan that involved 10 light poles. Imagine our surprise when just days later we discovered that the special use permit submitted by the school actually requests approval for 47 poles and some within the setbacks. This lack of transparency is traveling and raises serious concerns about how these plans are being communicated to those who will be most affected. Additionally, some of these light poles are proposed to be 100 feet tall, much higher than the 80 foot poles that were settled on for the Alexandria City High School's football field after a seven year legal battle. The language in city zoning regulations is being permanently altered and the height restrictions abolished. The discrepancy raises important questions about fairness and consistency and how we treat different institutions. Furthermore, Episcopal High School has requested a 10-year special use permit, which is highly unusual. Special use permits are almost always granted for 36 months. A 10-year request would essentially remove the opportunity for the surrounding neighborhoods to provide input for an entire decade, creating an unnecessary and undemocratic gap in community oversight. If approved, this would set a concerning precedent allowing other institutions to request long-term permits without adequate community engagement or oversight. We must be careful not to open the door for more projects that bypass essential input from the very people who will be affected. As a neighbor and longtime resident, I'm concerned about the lasting impact of this proposal. The additional polls and lighting will extend activity late into the evening, multiple days a week, increased traffic and contribute to light and noise pollution. It will change the dynamics of our area in ways that cannot be easily reversed. This isn't just about my neighborhood. It's about the importance of community outreach. You can finish your session. Okay. Outreach and input in the decisions that affect us all. Thank you. Thank you. For Shannon, Terry, Andrew, Frank Putz. Good afternoon, council. I'll try to be quick here. The only time is limited. When we first talk about what this intensification of use because the staff report then talk about this much in order to the application. The intensification of use when you put lights on till 10 o'clock from six to 10 o'clock a night, that's the quiet hours. That was a big issue with the Alexandria City School that that's when people are having dinner doing homework going to sleep and the intensification of use is you have all these lights on now. You have players out there. VFA, the soccer players are going to be screaming and yelling. There's nothing in this staff report. And I don't blame the staff report because the application was woefully deficient. Right now the city staff report says the SUP 2011-0017 is controlling. The application says the SCP-2019-002-6 is controlling. The one that Episcopal says is controlling regard is involving two dorms, two dormatory buildings. That has nothing to do with the outdoor athletic space in the stadium. The stadium events they can have there. We went through this extensively with Alexandria High School. Wonder the light's going to be on. Wonder they're going to be off? Who's responsible for that? If you have sight lighting, there's going to be a ton of sight lighting. You can't just have the lights go off and kids running around in the dark. So the sight line is not playing for in here. This is so woefully deficient. It says that there will be no change, increase of patrons, no increase in personnel, no increase of trash. The staff report says are not the staff report. The application says 19 times it refers to DSUP 2019 0 0 0 2 6 that there will be no change in conditions. That's not true. I mean, that's a falsehood. There's going to be significant changes if you're going to have fields lit up at night. There's going to be more times used because the fields aren't used right now at 9 o'clock, but they're going to be. So again, this is a falsehood that was put forward. So I don't know, again, I don't blame staff because the application was deficient. The application also points out 2017-21, that was mentioned twice, 2018-21 was mentioned 12 times, and 2017-22 was mentioned 15 times. These are all different. These all matter. The S.U.P.s have built up on each other matter. And right now, there is no conditions that are put forward on this project. There's 250 pages, 20 of substance in the beginning. And then there's a bunch of musco light specs, right? Right now, the three fields for 10 lights, the neighbors wouldn't be opposed to that. That would be a green light. but the fact that matter is they asked for the other ones and even if they pull them back now, they're like, well, we'll get to them in the future. The sad thing was the staff reports like, well, we have other departments that will look into that we'll keep on working with them. No, this level specificity is needed now. Now, not down the road, so the three fields, 10 poles, that's best if it could be there, and that could be approved. But the other ones, that's not there. What's interesting is staff, the city council just passed, talking item 13 that says, you guys are going to do this in the SUP process. You're going to look into the details. Well, here's your opportunity. The conditions need to put in there. No conditions. Go look at TC lights. There was like 130. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Next speaker. Terri Andrews, Frank Putsu, Gray Gibbons. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Terry and Rose Frank put to gray Gibbons. Lou. Terry and Rose. I'm also a lifelong. Alexandria resident born in Alexandria hospital graduating from T.C. And I returned from college to teach in the ACPS until my daughter was born. Since my daughter was born, I have been volunteering in both the recreation and academic realms. And I'm saying this only to demonstrate that I've been committed to the betterment of this city. And I'm committed to doing my part to making living here a positive experience for everyone. And I mean everyone, it's a very big city. Growing up here, I never paid much attention to a Piscobal or what was behind those gates. It wasn't until my son decided to go there for high school that I realized what a gem we have right here in the middle of the heart of our city. More importantly, I learned how generous EHS is in opening their gates to their community, sharing their incredible resources and going out of their way to accommodate their neighbors when approached to help fill some need. They are good neighbors with incredible facilities. It seems ashamed that those facilities can't be used for many hours of the year because of lack of lighting. Even though they open their fields to the extent of community looking for extra space, their ability to share is limited due to lack of lights. It is perfectly reasonable and good old common sense to allow them to light their facilities to maximize their use. It would not just benefit the school, but the community, the entire community, not just their neighbors. With all the latest technology and lighting, it just seemed silly for any high school in this century to not have lighted fields. They're asking for extended time to design, plan, and implement light. Sounds the lights. Sounds right to me. They clearly want to do this thoughtfully because that's who they are. That's who I learned they are. And that's how they do things. Time permits that. As a citizen and a neighbor, I fully support a physical light in their fields and know that they will do so responsibly and respectfully. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker please. Frank puts two great givens or warm again. Good afternoon. This time. I'm actually representing Seminary Hill. I do ask for five minutes, although I don't think I will be taking all five. I appreciate that, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I'm speaking on behalf of the Board of Seminary Hill Association and in support of the members of our association who live directly next to a physical high school. Seminary Hill Association for decades has had a constructive collegial and close relationship with the Piscopal. The school holds a seat on our board and our bylaws include all of their permanent campus residents as members Seminary Hill Association. The representative for the last seven years has been very effective. In fact, I would say exemplary, in keeping us surprised of developments. And she has supported our community sentiment on the major issues we have taken up that are of interest to our community. Similarly, we've been very supportive of the construction projects that, at a physical ball of stake, about a couple of months morning the dormitory just as a good example. And we were inclined to support this one too. We told the applicant officials when we met with them on April 21st at their fields. The SHA me that meeting included seven senior Episcopal officials, including the headmaster, almost half of our board members and several of our members who live across West Brattich Road from the school. Left clearly under the impression that the three fields along West Brattich were the principal focus of the field lighting SUP application. The attendees at that meeting spent the entire time asking questions about the lighting of those fields, make sense, including the placement of the 10 light poles. The answers were generally satisfactory and the board members who attended left inclined to support the project. Early this month, we started the neighbors received a certified letter telling them the full scope of the application that's before you today and we have never we had not seen that application those of us on the board and we started hearing from pretty frantic residents along there about holy smokes what's the scope of this we thought it was about the three fields this is this is entire campus. When we access the application of the staff report, that's when we learned the SUP was or fully appreciated the SUP was going to run for 10 years and allow the school to erect 37 other light poles on several more fields and tennis courts, but in consultation only with city staff. This SUP, if approved as is, would cut the neighbors out of the discussion on those future lighting projects up to nine plus years from now, on fields and courts much closer to those neighbors than the original three, with on some polls, potentially within the 35 foot setback. And I know there's issues associated with that. I share some of the speakers. I have less concern about the current of Peskyville management, not failing to consult with us. I think, you know, of course, we have no idea who's gonna be at the school in 10 years. They're just gonna have this SEP in front of them that says, hey, you just need to talk to this person over the city staff and just go ahead and not having any background. They're not gonna know about this. That just doesn't seem fair or right. And frankly, we are a little bit disappointed that this process jammed the neighbors. And ultimately, you've been this position in the last couple of weeks before this meeting, right? Before we really appreciated the full nature and scope of this S.U. For that, those reasons, our board voted to endorse the Episcopal application with a condition, the same one you've heard, that the S.U.P. be limited to the lighting of the three fields along West Braddock Road, and only those fields are now without provisions for future lighting projects. Importantly, there's nothing unusual about that. I would ask one of the one of the and you'll hear this again, is they need the three fields and the ten poles to support activity for FIFA and some of the other ones that we've been talking about. Well, when you ask the follow-up question, well, what about all the other fields? The answer is, well, we have no plans. We're never going to build that many poles. You poles. You get things like that. So it's very confusing. I would ask you, when you get to the 10 year of to just press it, what is it that you need? What is your need? Not what you think might happen in eight years. I mean, in eight years, I might get a Lamborghini, right? Anything could happen in eight years. So it's highly speculative. And frankly, in my experience and my career, I've never seen an SUV quite like this one, that here's what you need in 10 years, just game out and we'll give you an open-ended authorization over the course of the next 10 years that you can't tell us what it is. I do want to emphasize one final point, Mr. Shannon made. The SUP application itself is very strange. It's skeletal. I seriously doubt there's not going to be any change in noise, in usage, in capacity, in trash. I mean, obviously there's going to be a change from the citation from what it is today. And we should go forward. Thank you, sir. That's your five minutes. Thank you. Appreciate it. Next speaker, please. Great Gibbons or McGowan, anything you've been familiar with? Good morning or good afternoon. Hi. Thank you first for your time today, considering a Piscowals proposal and for the opportunity to talk to you. My name is Gray Gibbons. I'm a junior from New York at a Piscowals. I play soccer and tennis and I run track. This past fall, I was injured, so I watched from the sidelines as my soccer team played under the lights during the one Friday night lights game per year. We alternate each year with the girls' varsity field hockey. So as I watched, I knew that I would never get to play a game under the lights. Being on the sidelines gave me perspective and allowed me to understand how impactful this now opportunity was for a community to grow together. I remember watching EHS students cheer on my team and seeing the radiant smiles that my teammates exuded as they heard encouragement from their friends, classmates, teachers and coaches. Being away from home can be lonely and I think that playing sports and watching games are a way for people to bond in support of something greater. They're shared a physical pride. Games like Friday Night Lights spark joy, laughter, feelings of overcoming challenges and shared losses among students. Additionally, emerging scholars as a program were a piscable students like myself, tutor kids from the local Alexandria community who would not otherwise have access to tutoring resources. We focus on academic work and also spend time just playing games with them. They love to play lacrosse specifically and they have a summer day camp at Episcopal where they use the fields. One way that I think the lights could be an incredible opportunity for these kids would be to organize events for them to play lacrosse game or capture the flag under the lights. I know that as a kid this would be an exciting and powerful moment and how cool would it be if a bunch of Episciscable students were out there sharing for them. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker please. Arora McGowan, Nathaniel Family Lou, Gracie Boxton. First, I would like to say thank you to the members of the City Council for letting me speak today. I'm Arora McGowan and I from a Piscool High School, and I'm a sophomore right now. So I live on campus, and I am used to the neighborhoods of Alexandria. Also, I play for Alexandria Soccer Association, which is a nearby soccer club, who a Piscool also has a community impact in bond with. This past spring, we have been practicing at a Pisc-1 Wednesday night. I will say we are not that loud, so that may be a positive. And it's really, and it's been really inspiring and interesting to see how PISC-1 isn't closed off and is involved with community organizations. As we enter falsies in the Sun will set earlier, which is difficult for a Pisc pool to open up their fields for access. With lights at night, a Pisc pool will be able to give the community and other sports teams an opportunity to practice at a Pisc pool, which would be super helpful during a busy time of soccer season. I really hope you all consider these lights, to become my teammates and I would love to continue our club experience at beautiful fields out of Pesco. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. At next speaker. Thank you, Femaloo, Gracie Boxton, Burnham, DeBose. Good morning. I'm Nathaniel Fomalooa, a junior student at a Pescoville High School. I want to start by thanking you all again for taking the time to hear me speak and for considering our school's current application. I think one of the strengths that EHS offers is its diversity, not only in where the student body comes from, but in the way we come together as a community. I personally am from El Paso, Texas, and my classmates represent 27 different states and 24 countries across the globe. So this wide reach truly enriches our experience. However, it means that families live far away from campus and face real challenges, attending games and supporting their children, especially when these athletic events occur primarily in daylight hours from four to six p.m. Now installing lights on our athletic fuels allows the school to host more evening and weekend games. These are times when families, both local and far away, are far more likely to be present, as parents do not have to leave work early to support their kids. And their presence is meaningful. If aster's connection, community building, and a deeper sense of belonging. Now these events at Phase Value just may be athletic competitions, but they are also shared moments that help shape the identity and strength of a place 460 students call home. And as mentioned before, the benefits of these lights go beyond just our school as well. Local youth soccer teams and groups such as my colleague mentioned earlier, emerging scholars rely on our fields and lights would give them safer and more flexible access to these facilities. I am 100% sure that EHS will commit to this project responsibly and with full respect towards the city of Alexandria and the broader community. So thank you again for your time and your consideration. Thank you, sir. Next speaker please. Gracie Boxton Burnham, but DeVos Kira Lamptey. Hi, I'm Gracie Buckston and I would first like to start off by thanking you for having me here. I'm from Oklahoma City and I'm a junior at Episcopal High School. Oklahoma City is a three hour flight away. There's only one direct flight a day, leaving at noon, central time, and landing here in DC, around 4 p.m. East Coast time. With possible delays, troubles with baggage claim the commute from DC from DCATHS, it is rare that one arrives on campus before 430. You're probably wondering where I'm going with this, but who'll get there? I'm a part of the varsity Philochi and LaCross teams at Episcopal and being on this being on these teams comes with great privilege, responsibility, and most importantly, fills me with pride. My parents love to support what I'm passionate about, but it is very difficult when my games occur either at four or four 30. I stated before, there is only one direct flight that my parents can take to see me play. But in the event that they do fly here, they usually miss a significant amount of my games. If a physical were to install lights on athletic fields, it would be more accessible for parents from across the country to watch their children play. Because if these new additions, athletic games, a few athletic games would be pushed back to times most if not all parents could attend. Being from Oklahoma, my parents rarely attend my Philo-Aki and LaCross games because of the early times conflicting with flights. I hope that for my senior year, my parents will be able to see a whole game at a fiscal high school. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bucksdon. Next speaker please. Burnham DeBoes, Kira Lampe, Bowen Daringer. Good afternoon. My name is Burnham DeBoes. I am a junior currently at a High School, and I'm from Charlotte, North Carolina. First and foremost, I would like to personally thank all the members of the City Council for taking their time to consider our school's proposal to light up our athletic fields. I also appreciate the opportunity to speak to you for a couple of minutes as a student athlete at Episcopal High School. So currently I'm a junior and next year I'll be going to my senior year at Episcopal. And the one night out of the year, when two of our teams play underlights is undoubtedly a highlight of the year and the defining moment when our school spirit comes to life. Because it's later in the day, most students can actually go and support the games as well as parents. It's one of the purest and most authentic experiences as a student here because everyone is able to attend and support. As a soccer and tennis player, being able to play on the lights would be a dream come true. It's every kid's dream to play at night with a big proud cheering you on. Additionally, I'm so excited to see this proposal is not just for light for the football field or soccer field, but for other athletic areas of the physical as well. Being a part of the tennis team, getting lights on the tennis courts would be amazing because it shows the school's commitment to each of its teams as well. The school is able to attain approval to light their athletic fields, rest assured that we aren't going to be out there every night. I know one of the gentlemen here was concerned about his kids bedtime and we have bedtime too. So, rest assured, we aren't going to be out there, you know, late into the night. Overall, having these lights out of Piscobo, we bring our community close together. Night games of school spirit, the potential for some competitive dorm activities and extra practice time when the days become shorter. What more could a kid ask for at a home away from home? So thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeBos. Next speaker please. Lampty, Bowen Daringer, Michael Hanson. Good afternoon and thank you for your time. My name is Kyra Lampty and I'm currently a junior at Episcopal as well. However, I am not a student that uses one of our fields. I am a dancer, I dance on campus as well as off campus at a local studio because of that I often return from campus fairly late and miss a number of our games that happened during the day. On the other hand, when I dance on campus, my dance teacher often has to deal with students wanting to go to games during practice versus having practice. Episcopal is a community, it's a family. One of the biggest joys at Episcopal is going to games and supporting your friends. with the addition of lights we'll be able to have games later in the day so everyone that's not a student athlete at a Pisc pool could also go and experience supporting a team on the field. In addition, I'm a local student. I live in Maryland. And you would think that since I am so close, my family would be able to come and support my friends as well. However, with their jobs, they're both government workers. And because of their strict time constraints, it is often that they're unable to make it to games since they're so early in the day. And they get off of work around four o'clock, which is most of our games are. I know personally, my roommate is not local and often her family can't come see her play games. So my parents will be her second family to come watch games for her instead. However, often they're unable to support her as well because her games are show early in the day. So with the addition of lights, it would not only be supporting student athletes, it would be supporting the community, allowing people who don't play sports to come and support people who do. As well as it would open up a fiscal to the surrounding community and also surrounding families who want to come and learn about a fiscal and the community. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Lampty. Next speaker please. Bowen Duringor, Michael Hanson, Chris Hanson. I just want to thank you guys for being here today and letting me speak. I want to lead off with that. I'm an Alexandria resident and I actually met our fact live in the seminary hill area and just want to mention that my parents are in full support of this and so my, but as I've sat here for over just over three and a half hours, there's one word that occurs to me more than any other that I've heard. Councilman Chapman say, Mr. Hanson, Mrs. Hanson, Mrs. Katz and many other people say in that word is community. And a pistol really embodies this word. They not only just do nine months out of the year, they do 12 months out of the year, they host summer camps, they support nine months as a student. And I remember when I was a young child, I attended Douglas MacArthur Elementary School and ACPS School. There was a faculty kid, just like Aurora McGowan, my classmate invited me to watch the the Friday night lights game against St. Stephen's. And I remember just seeing all of it and watching a piss will just cross St. Stephen's the... matter of fact, I did 10, I did 10 St. Stephen's as well. Fifth through eight. So during my time at Epis way and during my time at Douglas MacArthur and St. Stephen's, I noticed how strong this Alexandria community is and how much Epis way does for it. They not only just do nine months and 12 months, they do practices at night for other teams. They help with emerging scholars. They help with numerous organizations that I help out with, like one love and all different things. And I think with this ability of getting lights, We could have so much more to offer, not just from when the sun rises and when the sun goes down, but after the sun goes down. And I've been playing sports here my whole life. I grew up playing Alexandria LaCrosse, ALC, Witter, Fort Ward, so many different places that all have lights. And I always wondered why Pissible doesn't and now that we're finally here and that we're finally in this discussion I urge you to just think about how much more this does for not just the Pissible students but for the community Alexandria community, but the Virginia community, and the world community, considering FIFA is coming here. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And as we continue to move through this to the speakers. I'm not really a big fan of the community. I'm not really a big fan of the community. I'm not really a big fan of the community. I'm not really a big fan of the community. I'm not really a big fan of the community. I'm not really a big fan of the community. I'm not really a big fan of the community. and it's something we all support. And so I just wanted to take a bead and just acknowledge y'all's patient waiting here three and a half hours and speaking on behalf, that's not to... youth into this building and it's something we all support. And so I just wanted to take a bead and just acknowledge y'all's patient waiting here three and a half hours and speaking on behalf, that's not to minimize any of the adults here and the content of the speech, but I think it's important as a city that we acknowledge the role that youth play. And so, appreciation to you. Next speaker, please, Claire. Michael Hansen, Chris Hansen. Good afternoon, council members. My name is Mike Hanson, and I'm going to offer a little bit of a different perspective than you've heard today because I'm not from Alexandria. I'm visiting my brother for the weekend. And honestly, this is how I'm spending my vacation. I'm I'm from California and I didn't think I would be doing this today. So I just wanted to share, you know, little perspective of maybe someone from the outside looking in. But before that, I also have a little bit of a coincidence. So I am the land east attorney in California. I am a land east consultant, and I am formerly the planning director of the city of San Diego, and was a deputy chief of staff for the mayor of San Diego. So I've kind of been in the different roles of the different people sitting here. And it's, and some of these kind of fun for me to watch this, but also not like I mentioned right. And the one thing that is is jumping out of me that I just wanted to share with you on you know other than the church calling religious facilities churches the the one thing that does kind of strike me is, you know, from my perspective, almost unthinkable is the treatment, the generous expanse of treatment in the conditions that are being offered to a private school that is not offered to the Alexandria City Public Schools. The hours of operation, the days, the expansion of the permits to 10 years, from my perspective and the roles that I've served, from where I come from, I don't even think that would the very important thing to do. The expansion of the permits to 10 years. From my perspective and the roles that I've served from where I come from, I don't even think that would have been considered. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hanson and welcome to our city. Please take advantage of all we have to offer a tour during your visit. And I just want to put a pin in if staff could make a note. I want to keep moving to the hearing, but that's a point I'd like to address when we close the public hearing if we can. Thank you. Next speaker please. So I'm back now that we're getting to know each other. My, I wanted to move back to San Diego. My wife wanted to live in Alexandria, so we compromised and we live in Alexandria. I love seeing the students up here. I got into government myself. I ended my time in government as a chief staffed United States senator because I came to something like this, did this kind of stuff back in the day. And I think their input is almost the most valuable because they've actually given us a path forward. We are not against the Episcopal use of this. We want, my understanding is there is often restrictions on the students of the school using this. And we talk about bedtime. I don't know when the Episcopal bedtime is. I mean, can point of order, when is it? Because study halls, study halls at 8. Then why don't we turn them? So if study hall is at 8, then why don't we turn the lights off at 8 or 8 30? I mean, I believe our neighbors, and just because our neighbors are the only people with homes up on the screen right now, are coming to this from an extreme place of reasonableness, having full use for 10 years with no restrictions, all the way until 10 is unreasonable. I wish I could have brought my kids to speak here, but they're five, three, and 10 months. It would have been wild, but probably not as productive. With their comments, to me, the North Star is what they're talking about. Kids at Episcopal should be able to use it. What we fear is it turns into a lacrosse tournament factory night and night out throughout the summer, throughout the weekends, unending. And I think that is inevitable, if not with this current administration at the school, with the next one, because it'll just be like, wow, we have this field, these lights, and let's go until 10 p.m. It is loud on our property. It was so loud at the, whatever softball game was held there recently, we couldn't be outside. So we just went to the softwa game and it was fun because we love Episcopal the vibrance that they bring where it over in the property to the softwa game. And it was fun because we love a Pisc pool, the vibrance that they bring over and the property all the time walking around. We just, from a point of reasonfulness, think that it should have restrictions. We should do the lights that are, that we all agree on here. And then wait on the other ones to see how it impacts us and then have a conversation about it and have restrictions on how late it can go and who can use it. So thank you for everything. I think the farm market's closed, but we'll see ya. Thank you for your time, sir. Madam, thank you, speaker. Stephanie Sparks and Duncan Blair. I think they're gonna flip their order if that's not a problem. And as the applicant, can you just refresh all of us what the time limitation is if? Or turnies, there's no no limitation. Just wanted that to be also be clear to the public if there doesn't. If you don't hear a bell ringing in three minutes, it's because these are speakers on behalf of the applicant. I will be very brief. I'm still Duncan Blair wirekill. It's kind of hard to follow the speakers That talk so eloquently about what this will do with their lives impact the campus and also They're involvement in the community through mentor programs and others. So I'm gonna be very brief. I'm gonna trust 10 years What is 10 years and what does this especially use permit? Most special use permits are permit. If you have a special use permit for a restaurant, it never ends. It changes if you increase or enlarge or expand, but it's there forever. Why is a pistol asking for 10 years? Disappresident Ford and that the lights that were approved at Howard Ontania avenue for Patrick Henry GW high school The Houston Elementary School Soon to be maybe a middle school, GW high school. Those were approved in 2022. They were given five years, not for the duration of how long the lights could be there. They were given five years to budget, plan for the future, knowing that they're able to do it. And in this case, this is a condition, condition number two that has us continuing to work with staff. And I'm under no disillusion that if you work with staff, that means we'll work with the community on the additional lights near the tennis courts. It was late, no doubt, but we had a study. We must have came back out, looked at the setbacks, the lights in that area went from 16 to 6. But the 10 years gives us the school the ability to plan to work with the minion power to figure out what's the light load, the maximum load that can come needed to all the lights in a plan in the future. If the lights aren't implemented fully within that period of time, you would come back, need to come back to get an extension of the approval for the lights that are subject to appropriation and complete design. Other than that, the school is requesting is a special use for it in itself. You need a special use for it to be a private school academic with more than 20 students. Disclub has over 400 and about 200 people on campus all the time. So we're adding accessory lights, which are permitted in the code, especially used for mid is for the increased lights, polls, which we just talked about. And we are working with the best company in the United States to minimize what the ordinance looks at, the layer and spill. And again, the other SEPs approved in 2022, unlike TC Williams, some right across the street from neighborhood, do not try to put restrictions on the number of times the light can be used, number of teams that can use it, it relies upon the judgment of ACPS and I can promise you that a fiscal high school has greater concerns about over usage of its fields. Having people on the campus, you heard this study how I was from eight to 10. They are going to monitor, control, and police use of the field to make sure that it's a safe and nurturing environment for all the students and the family that live there. I'll be glad to answer any question. And Stephanie Sparks, Smith, who is the General Counsel of the Episcopal High School is going to talk next and she can provide more information about the technical issues outreach and other issues. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Blair. Do my colleagues want to hear from Smith before we pose any questions? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, please. Thank you very much for your time and patience today. Especially your patience and listening to like the heart and soul of our campus, which is our students and appreciate that they have this opportunity to kind of see civic engagement in action, including people who oppose our position here. And I think that's important for them to see people, reasonable people can disagree about matters. And you can do it in a civil manner and seeing really sort of government in action. So thank you for that opportunity. Again, Stephanie Sparksmith, General Counsel for Piscal High School. I've had the fortune, good fortune this process to meet many long-term residents of Alexandria. I myself grew up in a small town in New Hampshire, but about in the winter of 2013 my husband I moved from DC to Old Town and purchased a property here with our brand new newborn baby at the time. We now eventually found our way to a Piscola High School's campus where we live with four of our kids who my daughter actually demanded and wrote an entire speech to come and want to give on today and my husband shut her down that it was nepotism and she wouldn't be able to speak. But I think there'd be sort of lots of it'd be fun to kind of see the youth before you. I do want to I do feel like it is an obligation in my position at the school to just sort of give more information. I'm not going to say counteract. I'm not going to attack sort of the accusations that have been laid against me throughout this process. And some of my colleagues in terms of misrepresentations, I'm just going to provide you more information and let you guys determine your own determination in terms of this. Before I start and sort of talk about it as well, I do want to say that both of our head of school is Charlie Stilwell and our assistant head for advancement, Christina Haldald who serves as the board member on the Seminary Health Association Board are both here present today and support of the school's position and have been engaged throughout this process. Some people have said this process has seemed very rushed for someone who's been living and breathing it. What's felt like 24-7 for several weeks and months it is not felt rushed at all. It's actually felt long and thoughtful and purposeful and a lot of what we've done. Some of you might know more about Episcopal than others on the City Council. So I just wanted to give you sort of some general information about some of the work that we do in the character we are. Since that is coming to question at points during this document discussion. We believe we are extraordinary neighbors. We've heard feedback about communication and we take that to heart and I'll give examples of how we actually have responded since to try to increase that communication. But in terms of being sort of well-kinged of community, I want to give you a sense of some of the things that we do for the City of Alexandria. There's been a a lot of talk about FIFA which I'll address. There's been a lot of talk about, you know, all these teams using our facilities, people and some of these processes have said like, and you know, you make money off of people running your fields. There's nothing wrong with running out your fields as a private property, but more importantly, it looks, it totally overlooks sort of all the work we do with nonprofits and all that we do for the city of Alexandria. To give you some examples, we let routinely Alexandria city's firefighters, police, people from K9 to active shooter to CSI units all do their training on our space. We understand that we are very fortunate to have amazing facilities and to have over 130 acres of land. We use that to actually help support our community, our neighbors, the youth. Beyond law enforcement and firefighters, we recently hosted a mock trial to help sort of with expert witness of fire marshals and firefighters. We, in terms of Alexandria City High School, we allowed them to use our field house for many of their indoor track meets. And all of these things I'm listening, we do not charge. We do it. Not because we're required, or we're mandated to do it. We do it to be good neighbors and good citizens and community supporters of the city of Alexandria. This past year, it was a perfect example as Alexandria City High School who built that beautiful new building across this street from us, which is super exciting. I had sort of construction issues in terms of parking, right? Where were some of their teachers going to park and have parking? We offered spaces at a physical high school for them to park so that the teachers could get there on time and also so that the neighborhood was not actually having park cars in random places in order for our teachers and the city to be able to teach at the high school. Beyond that, we try to host a series of community events whether it's like triathlon, not triathlons. You know, these are outdoor pool for that type of, but more of, I'm blanking on sort of, we have a biking group that comes in, doesn't nonprofit. So that's what I was thinking of. But sort of the 3K races or different things like that for supporting local organizations. We recently hosted the Special Olympics, which has become sort of an annual tradition that we do over here. And all of these things are not to, again, make money and using our facilities. It's a way for us to actually have our students involved in community service. and for them to see the model of why it's important to be a good neighbor. Now, I think we recently did the Charlie Hill cleanup day park. students involved in community service and for them to see the model of why it's important to be a good neighbor. I think we recently did the Charlie Hill cleanup Bay Park and other service to have our students exposed to sort of the dedication it takes to serve in public service and people who lose their lives and when they're serving as firefighters or police officers. I think in terms of like our youth organizations, I think we do a pretty incredible job. And one of the things about our auxiliary uses is that I could give you pages and pages of all the groups that we have to campus. People seem surprised in this process that we've had professional teams. Now you're going to have professional teams all the time. We've had professional teams on our campus for years. Okay. All of our neighbors have my cell phone number. No one called me about the soft phone there is the other day. I've said, call me if there's complaints. In our acceleruses, we have not received complaints at all. If we have, right, if we would, were to, we would address them. That's like actually how the responsible neighbor that we are. It's not that I could, and I don't want this to be read at all as, but if I appreciate your statement only because the day is getting long and I want you know I want you to have the benefit. If you if there's technical things because Mr. Blair alluded to the fact that you might address some of the technical elements and I don't I don't want to dissuade you from your statement at all. But to the extent my colleagues are interested in sort of any of the technical discussions about the lights themselves or the planning that are in your statement. I would love to hear that part and then perhaps circle back to the larger dialogue. I'm pleased I want to interpret that as any diminishment of the story. Not a lie. I think we all appreciate the story that you're telling. Not all. In terms of, I think, I don't know if this would be relevant. I can talk about sort of why lights, why we want to do lights, why we're asking for 10 years for all the fields. So that'd be something helpful. In terms of why lights internally, first and foremost, it's for our students. So we've heard this sort of like FIFA and FIFA needs these three fields. Anyone who knows professional soccer players no one wants to play an artificial turf. Two of those three fields are artificial turf. Those are entirely for our internal use in the way to support youth organizations that we help support in the city of Alexandria. In terms of the 10-year permit, I mean I think it's well-established in 11506 C2A that we are permitted to ask for that. I think it's rare that people do that because they don't necessarily have the type of land that we do in the city of Alexandria. A reason for that 10 years and why sort of we're going for all these fields is you heard it from one of our students ourselves. We have lots of different teams. One of the things about running temporary lights is we've had to limit what teams each year could use it. We want all of our students to know that well we might not have official concrete funded plans to put lights on the baseball field. Note that is something of interest. And in part of the planning in 10 years, is there's an economies of efficiencies. And I've been told by neighbors in sort of berated ways, like there's no economies of efficiencies. Well, when you're putting in electricity, and you're trying to predict whether you're going to have other leading lighting needs, it is a big expense to go back and revisit those site plans and to redo that. If you know that you have permission, whether you end up absolutely doing it or not and we're putting a limit and if the council wants to consider lower than 10 years, which I don't think is necessary, we're certainly open to that. We're not trying to have this, you know, crazy long leash. What we're trying to do is be thoughtful. So there are a lot of efficiencies. you don't want to be redoing the site plans. When we look at landscaping, we put in that middle Cox field that's called Cox field the turf in the middle of those three fields. We put a big berm there and we've heard from neighbors on West Braddock road that that's been tremendously helpful in terms of any noise just noise during the day. If we wanted to do further landscaping or do berms along sort of the baseball soft full tennis court, that takes time. That's an investment from the school. That is thousands of dollars. It would, it's hard to, as a school commit to do those types of resources knowing that you are not able to put lights on those fields. So it's a lot of sort of that planning and infrastructure. And it's a streamline of the process. Quite frankly, it's also a transparency to the city. We did talk to the city in terms of I also looked at sort of what other higher education schools do because quite frankly the size of our school, the residential aspect is much more like a small college than it is sort of a high school campus. You do have to plan ahead with development plans. You do have to do that type of extended planning. So that definitely factored into sort of the like, why all these? What our neighbors are absolutely clear about what we said to them is we don't intend to install 47 light poles. In fact, as soon as within 24 hours of receiving an updated plan from our lighting company, because we said, take a look at these setbacks. We know that these were preliminary plans, but we want to make sure people know We're not trying to encroach on any setbacks. We ask them take a look at the polls. We haven't done a full efficiency of all of those ones that we could do, but we did tell them, okay, we can actually eliminate 10 from the 10th court. We could just do six of the courts that are the most internal part that are furthest away from the proper line. Actually, email that to the neighbors this morning. When did we find that out yesterday. So part of the plan is we don't have some of official funded plans, but the reason we put all the scans in is because we're serious about it, right? We want to consider it. We want to see how these ones go and then through the building permit phase, we'll do sort of the official ones. But I think the proof is actually in what we submitted for the three fields for the building permit. No one asked to reduce the number of poles on this field. But what do we do with the middle field? We're lighting the middle field by the poles on the outer two fields. No one asked us to make sure, and you can see it in the expert engineering letter. No one asked us to say, make sure you have the minimal number of poles again. What do we do? We tried, we could have done more poles on either the fields. We push must go. What is the lowest height we can go and still have the maximize mitigation for any effective neighbor areas. And we've done that with these three. So that should be sort of a good face showing that yes, we don't have official plans, but we show these scans and show yes, we're still going for the zero spillover. You sort of get caught here where we provide too much detail so like it's 47 pulls and then we don't private enough detail like sort of you get caught kind of in the middle where we're just doing a good faith effort to say city council instead of coming back to you over a year we're saying this is our plan for our lighting. Instead of we want these two fields and then next year come back again surprise we forget Let's tell you about this one. Because we think as part of being informed is for you to know actually our full plan. And no one is going to worry if we don't decide to light a softball field or some tennis courts or one of the field hockey fields. But if we don't ask for it now we can't plan for it and we're not actually being transparent to the council as a whole. So that's in terms of sort of the why the lights. is there in terms of the technical, I'm happy to speak to anything else. I'm happy to speak to our communication and happy to speak about FIFA. I think the main point I want to make at the end really that I think is important before taking your questions is like the idea of limits. You know, many of the city fields with lights do not have limits. They are on automatic timer some some go on and off, consistently in terms of the same times. We have said we will have ours off by 10. We have our own internal limits. We have study hall from 8 to 10. We will have no noise. We don't allow our outside groups not to use music on our fields during the day. Yes, we have some of our teams do during game warmups. I've heard some recent things about some of our kids having playing music out on some of the areas that's disturbing to the neighbors and it's something we're going to address. That's the first time we've... during day warmups. I've heard some recent things about some of our kids having playing music out on some of the areas that's disturbing to the neighbors and it's something we're gonna address. That's the first time we had kind of heard of that recently. But we are gonna have our own internal limitations. We have 24 seven security. Anytime we have an auxiliary event, we have security present. We have EHS personnel present, right? That's how we manage things. all of our parking is all within campus with any event that we have. With the exception of we host the citywide track meet, and that sometimes spills over, but we've even been trying to line new areas of our campus to actually maximize the parking we have. We've said to the neighbors, we'll give you a 24-7 number you can call with any complaints. We had temporary lights since 2009. We heard complaints about them because they weren't the best technology. We tried to fix those. We were responsive. So our internal limits, and I think our own check counts in, and I've heard a lot about yes, the neighbors are close, and I brought tons of pictures so you can kind of see, but right to that right at the bottom of the screen, okay? We have over 700 people that live on our campus. Over 460 students, including minors, we have 234 residents of Alexandria that are families. There are newborn babies and plenty of little kids and the dorms and residences directly next to that field. If anyone has done to any of our faculty meetings, you can be rest assured that we will get a lot of complaints from our own internal community. If we are allowed, if our lights are on affecting bedtime, and well, yes, the neighbors are close, I think they've underestimated. I did some measurements myself. It's less than 150 feet from that field to those residences with dorms and little kids. So we are thoughtful and respectful. We're going to do that that way. And we believe our internal limitations and our record of history as a citizen of Alexandria in the school since 1839 should serve as record of that. No, I appreciate that, Ms. Smith. I think if we can pause here, I know at least two of my colleagues have questions. And if I could start with Ms. Smith with Council Member Chapman. Thank you, Ms. Vice-Mayer. going back to the last I got item I wanted to kind of understand your communication and I think it's it's appropriate for this I Thank you very much, Mayor. Going back to the last I want to kind of understand your Communication and I think it's appropriate for this Docket item. With the neighbors, I know I've heard Various situations around communication. I did forget to ask the representative from Somebody of hell is about where they place in that Communication. So can you kind of help me understand how the school communicates, how you receive, you've talked about receiving complaints, conversations, how does that all work? Which I want to be very clear. Yes, I can speak. I have no personal knowledge of the dinner. That was reference. So I'll say that, but I can tell you communication that we have done in this instance. And then communication that I personally have done throughout this process. And about a year ago, a Piscival, our representative of the San Mary Hill Association Board brought to their attention that we were going to explore lights. And in that time, full transparency, we were thinking about Humble Bowl, our football stadium. And the reason for that is that was the one that we'd had the temporary lights on since 2009. As we have sort of dug into this process and realized how advanced technology is, we know one of the reasons we have not done it earlier is because we were used to the temporary lights. And in our campus, anyone who's been to it, we care about aesthetics, certainly. And so for our own 700 people who live on our campus, the idea of having lots of lights, right, with worries of spillover glare was a high concern. As we sort of dug into this, we realized that actually, you know, we should actually take a closer look and consider. And yes, it was thinking, okay, which fields do we do next, right? Is there sort of an efficiency about this? Is there an interest in a lot of teams that actually come, including sort of being named a training site for the club cup and then being named a training site next year in June, 2026, you know, should we think more seriously about our grass field? Like our software teams would love that too. So we'd expanded and we thought, you know, it's probably wise after talking the parks of recreation, the city doing our own expression of sort of what higher ed schools do that are more of the size of our type of campus and planning that it would be wise for us to actually do this at once. My understanding is there was an update in the fall that was before we made this decision. And then the Seminary Hill Board Association meeting, I believe it was April 10th. Our board member and I had emailed a copy into the city and the city council in terms of the slides that were presented. The focus was absolutely on the three fields. The minutes show that we said a 10 year permit we're going for, it has lit. I know it has the same pictures that we submit in the application because I did the Adobe red edition of labeling the fields. Those and I sent them to our board representative to put on the slides. So I can share the slides if you haven't received them. They show all those fields. But of course, our focus was on which are the ones that we know the exact number of poles at this point which are the ones that we're going to do right away if we get permission. It's these three, but the permit is for all of the athletic fields. That was a communication we did. We had, we might have won in person on April 21st. Again, we're over about three fields. fields are head of school did say the permittance for all the athletic fields we don't have any official plans of a timeline for those exactly right now the three We're over about three fields. Our head of school did say the permit is for all the athletic fields. We don't have any official plans of a timeline for those exactly right now. The three that we're gonna do immediately are these. And yes, all the focus was on those. We didn't talk about 47 polls because we don't intend we've already reduced the number of polls, that's not our intention. Those are the placements of ones that we wanted. And then we had continued communication. Any individual outreach, we did the legal outreach by notice through Mr. Blair's office. I believe we complied with all of that as we're instructed to do. And then any individuals who called, either Mr. Blair reached out to the school, we personally called back. And actually there's a neighbor here tonight who a alumnus connected us with us with and our head of school reached up them offered to talk before today. They said they were traveling the assistance that they were traveling that they would get back to them on Monday. But any individual I met with these neighbors. I've done follow up an email. I'm happy to share any of those communications. Thank you. Councilional nudie. Thank you Madam Vice Mayor.. You two remember of all that I'm mayor. What should the Apple can to to to to the extent that you are aware of that you know that you can walk us through what would be your timeline for a 10 year installation for this project like I know you said you're going to start with the first three fields, but how would it, how would it advance from there for each of the other fields? I can answer you on it, answer first. I would say that what we've talked about is actually likely to have sort of the baseball softball Brian field. But it's a little bit dependent right on how we see sort of our use, whether we feel like our teams would benefit more from the turf, that Brian field in the middle is a natural grass. So that has sort of more dormant elements of it. So we're going to sort of see the use, but I imagine we've thought about it in potentially three phases. Some of the timeline has to do with honestly funding people and sort of the neighborhood made a lot of comments in recent private meetings about our like funding and we have this campaign which are things really toward dorm and health center. Sometimes it depends. Sometimes you have some new super interested in doing tennis. Okay, so our our drop right now is to do sort of the big planning in terms of electricity, landscaping, those types of things, and then evaluate kind of the needs of the school where we can best support the community. The natural grass field, for example, Brian, there is a lot of interest in terms of next June. We don't foresee that we would put lights on those by next June, but we are kind of evaluating in that way. to, I mean, people are saying we're not giving sort of specific enough answers. It's because we're just being honest that we don't have evaluating it in that way. So it's hard to, I mean, people are saying we're not giving specific enough answers, it's because we're just being honest that we don't have a set timeline or framework. No, I hear you. And what I'm trying to get is like, because you asked for 10 years, so I'm trying to think about how long would it take to do all 47? Like would it take 10 years? And how would it look like? like you're one, two, three, you're doing this and that field, you're two, four, five, six, you're doing the other fields. Like, you know, is there a potential, you're doing this in that field, year two, four, you're four, five, six, you're doing the other fields. Like, you know, is there a potential that you can finish that before 10 years? That's this kind of what I'm trying to understand. I mean, I wouldn't say there isn't the potential. But it seems like you don't have all these answers, right? Like it's gonna be more of like, you know, as things progress, right? But you're trying to give yourself the maximum possibility. So you are able to make decisions as more information of. Yes. Okay. I would say that. I would say that's accurate and that we, we will do our best to try to sort of decipher as we go through with more clarity. But it's absolutely to have some of that flexibility given the nature of sometimes the needs can change as a school or the funding related to certain projects can adjust. But we'd wanna start in terms of the infrastructure and the site plan that we could actually plan in terms of landscaping and electricity and things like that, that we would have that grounded kind of immediately in some of our immediate plans. Okay, I appreciate that. And I have more questions for staff, but just one related to a point that was brought up by the applicant. Typically it's a three year SUV. In this case, they're asking for 10. If I'm not mistaken, I read in the staff report, I think that there is a provision that allows properties over a certain size to ask for that exception. That is specifically allowed in the zoning ordinance, yes. overset, like not everyone can ask me. There is a specific section that provides that for the larger properties. Yes. And would you tell me what is the reasoning behind that exception for the goals of larger properties? So I think in the reason for that is because the potential for offsite impacts is so minimal and also because a property of that size is going to need if the SUV is covering a complicated type plan that more time is going to be needed for that to be implemented. Which is going to what we have here. Right? Right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Madam President. Are there any other questions? Council Member Green? So Mr. Moritz, would that also equate to Alexandria City High School? Well, it could. But I will note since we're on it that, I would say that Alexandria City High School was a very specific set of conditions underlying that review. And so the 2022 reviews of Hammond, Patrick Henry, Jefferson Houston, etc. I think is a better analogy. And we approved a five year issue P for those. They are not in that they don't have as many fields of course as what is being proposed at Episcopal. But I also point out and I think Mr. Blair made this point. We only had one condition on those approvals. It was a single condition and it was that the approval was for five years and it had to be consistent with the lighting plan. So my colleagues might have other questions for staff, but are there any other questions for the applicant or other members of the public at this time? And if not, I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing. I would say I got a motion by Council Member McPike and I saw a second by Councilman Aguirre. I need to go ahead, Mr. Cahne. Real quick discussion. I don't know if I see Mr. Putsu still here, or did he had our, that did have a question for Representative of Seminary Hills. That did wanna understand, okay, I'll just say this publicly, I wanted to understand their position and their relationship and the communication with the high school as well, because I think there were some inferences that folks from the high school chat with similar hills and then similar hills hopefully disseminates that to the community. I know they've expressed to us on many occasions they represent the various neighbors in that neighborhood and so I want to understand how they're communicating views. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on that. So again, we just moved here last year. I didn't know the Seminary Hill Association existed until we found out that this will get the notice for the special meeting. meeting and I was out in front of my house with my kids and another seminary Hill board associate member had Bill Resello who's ahead of it on the phone and meeting and I was out in front of my house with my kids and another seminary Hill board associate member had Bill Rosello who's ahead of it on the phone and she came over and she was like the fence I said are you aware of this? Are you aware it's 47 polls and Bill Rosello was not, which I think is the substance of what is is that seminary Hill leadership and this I heard this also when I joined the Zoom the following week when I heard the board members of Seminary Hill Association, recall their meeting with Episcopal where it was discussed to get the approval, there was definitely a very big misunderstanding of the scope of the project. And that frustrated Seminary Hill Association because they felt misled, they felt that Episcopal didn't convey the full scope of the project. And it was only when the neighbors who found the special use permit found the visual showed it to them and they were like, oh my gosh, we had no idea. So I can speak from that experience of being out in front of our house and then joining the zoom hearing and seeing their reactions to when they realize the scope of the project. Thank you very much. I do have kind of one last question for you in regards to that because I did have that written down. Is there any clarification you can give me your insight you can give me on kind of that miscommunication between what was said at the meeting and what was taken away from the meeting. Obviously people might take different things away from the meeting but I just want to make sure I'm understanding kind of what the communication was to to Sumner Hill. Yes and I'm happy to provide the City Council with our board members talking points. She read them at that zoom and repeated them. I think the misunderstanding existed that there was a lot of talk about the three fields. The minutes of the meeting show that we said someone asked so all athletic fields and our person says yes. We have the slide to show it, but I think because so much of the talk was about the three because we have so many of those final details because we've submitted a building permit for it that that was more of a focus. But at no point where we're ever trying to hide the idea that we were doing all of the athletic fields, everything is public record. And when I was asked when I met the neighbors, Like Hanson was kind of to root out to me. I followed up with her. We communicated back and forth, I think in a very timely manner. She, I am. Everything is public record and when I was asked when I met the neighbors, my handsome was kind of to reach out to me. I followed up with her. We communicated back and forth, I think in a very timely manner. I invited her over to campus. She brought neighbors over to campus. At no point when they asked me, is it all the fields? Did I say no, it's not all the fields? I said it is all the fields. These are the three that we would start with. So I'm not sure I promise you that I've tried to, and I've documented evidence to show it. I've tried to now be as communicative as possible to show that that's how we operate. And I'm remiss that that wasn't, as it was before, that was never our intention. We felt like we were communicating. But I've done that. I'm following them up the tennis change this morning, like I said. I've also we also offered earlier this week and a response to a request from them. We offered to set up some formal type of communication beyond the Seminar Hill Association. So that as we move forward with this, if approved and I put if approved as we move forward with this, we can figure out a more formal mechanism so that this type of thing doesn't have it again. I haven't heard back about that. We mean that and good faith and good intent. We want to have good neighbors. We want to be good neighbors. And we also understand that lights are a big deal and that reasonable people can disagree on that and have sort of strong feelings about that. We hope that our implementation, I want to cut you off. I want to just, is my colleagues, feels his questions been addressed? Okay, so with that there's a motion on the floor, just because I think the answer had been addressed. I have, I have Mr. Puzzo is available on phone call. He's following, but he had to leave. I mean, he has a statement that I could read or... Sorry about that. I think the neighbor was able to help me on kind of where I said she was in. I'll text the message right here. Appreciate it. Thank you. So there's a motion to close the public hearing on the floor and a second any further discussion. Hearing none all those in favor of closing the public hearing. Hi, any opposed any abstentions? Okay, we're closing the public hearing and then I'm just going to make a quick PSA for anybody in the room who might be here for a later item when we do vote on this matter, we're going to quickly take up item 15 and then we will be taking a break. So 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 will all be heard after our break. So I just want to give a fair heads up to anybody who's in the room and didn't hear the mayor make that announcement about two hours ago. Madam vice mayor. I don't know if potentially instead of 15, taking up 15 that we break for lunch after this item. Let's see. Yeah. I appreciate that. Let's see where the dialogue now takes us and the time it takes us and we'll invite maybe perhaps our mayor back at that point to help address that. And... All right. Art Felida. Okay, so with that, any questions for staff, Mr. McPike? Thank y'all very much. Appreciate the presentation several hours ago about this proposal. When we're discussing this, a lot has been made about sort of the amorphous nature of the lights beyond the first 10. But there's sort of, there's a vision to have lighting at all the sports fields, but not specific locations. There's not a building plan that's been submitted. How unusual is that for a project like this of this scale? Bill Cook, staff. I would say that, or this type of, this application is a little bit unusual because it's an SUP and not a DSUP. A DSUP would typically have a lot more conditions related to the construction. So I think, and as was mentioned, the lights which were done on the other fields, Hammond Simpson, George Washington, Houston, all those, that only had one condition. With this one, we did put in the condition for the longer period of time, as well as the condition about making adjustments to some of the setbacks. I think that condition came out of experience with DSU-P applications. And I'm thinking of situations where we wanted staff, wanted the applicant to work on architectural adjustments and things like that so that we can get the approval and still allow for some flexibility to make changes. With regards to this plan, I would just say that the numbers, you know, the locations of the polls and the heights of the polls, if either the for to decrease decreases in height that will be fine and if they became farther away from the adjoining properties. for to decrease decreases in height that would be fine. And if they became farther away from the joining properties that would not be a serious significant issue either. If the polls as presented were to increase in height or were to get closer to the properties, then that would likely trigger an amendment to an approved plan. And if I may, because I agree with everything that the Mr. Cook said, but to summarize also is that there are standards within our ordinance for the impact, the potential impacts that lights could have. And so while some adjustment is possible about where a specific poll may be located, I'm the standard of mitigation of light is actually in the ordinance. And so it's going to have to be met whether it's year two or year eight or year nine of this issue P. Now, you say that some of the polls that are sort of not part of the building plan for the three fields at the north end of the property. Some of the lower poll lower down polls are not meeting the current setback requirements. What is going to happen with those as this process move forward? Well, and those are identified on this map. It's hard to see here. We tried to make this compact and efficient. But ones where the numbers are underlined, those are the ones that are for adjustments. So we're, you know, you're looking at the ones the tennis courts. Yep. And there's one poll, I think associated with softball fields. So either, you know, that's going to have to be relocated so that it meets the setback or what we're hearing is the applicant is proposing to eliminate some of them all to cover. It sounds as though they've eliminated the tennis court lights in their sort of planning. It's now six lights, but regardless of what we do today and those light poles be built if they violate the 35 foot setback. No, because they would not be in compliance with the zoning order. So we cannot get permission to build closer to 35 feet in what we're voting on today. No. All right. Councilman Elnubey, thank you. Thank you, Madam. And thank you to my colleague. I had that question as well. So I appreciate staff addressing this. So I'll ask another question about. What we heard about the time of day. And I just want to preface with this. I think. Personally, as I was thinking about it and hearing the conversations about the time of day and hours of operations, I was thinking about days like, you know, where we are now, where it's like sunset at eight o'clock, right? So, but there are days where sunset's seven, six, five, and that's where it really becomes important to have lights to maximize the effectiveness of having such fields. With that in mind, what will be, if you can clarify, because we heard so many things, what will be the permitted hours of operations for this, or for these fields, and how does that compare with, forget about ACHS, it's an outlier, with all the other lighted fields that we have in the city. Staff could put a pin in that for one second. My running around was related to, I know as we rolled into this, I indicated we'd be take 15 and then we would take our lunch break. But there's been some polling of the group and some checking in with staff. And we're going to push 15 to after the lunch break. And there was a public speaker on that item. And if they're in the room, I wanted to say that now before they that item and if they're in the room, I wanted to say that now before they sat through whatever remains of this dialogue. So for the whole room, this item we're currently doing is our last item before the lunch break and then we will take up 15 after a brief lunch break. So thank you to staff. I hope you've got the question still in your mind. I think so. So in response to the question, the different facilities would all be managed by different entities. So I'm not sure that there's a universal role that applies to all of them. I believe that in the case of fields that are managed by RPCA, I believe their time limit is like 10 PM, maybe a little bit. So let me, let me, let me, let me, let me clarify my question. So in this SUP, this SUP does not impose any time limit. No, it does not address the time limit. This SUP leaves it open. It's managed by other things. Correct. Got it. Okay, appreciate that. All right. I think those were my questions and look forward to the conversation. I'm sure my colleagues have more questions. I'll remember Chapman. Thank you. Thank you. I first want to start off by and hopefully with the support of staff correcting me in several places with kind of the context and kind of differentiation between what I see as this request from Episcopal and kind of what we did with ACH. Because I do think there are some meaningful contexts, particularly I appreciate the former planning director from San Diego kind of looking at this. But I think there are some historical contexts that we took with our city's only high school versus what we're doing with a potentially private entity. For that context, I think for me being on council, there was a lot of conversation prior to this wide community discussion about a a supposed contract of sorts with the African American community that was right by the high school and the city. There's an unfortunate history of taking of land and doing some other things in particular around our high school. So I think that drove much of the conversation with the community around impacts that not only the folks on Bishop Lane feel but also the folks and I forgot those kind of small name of community there. Thank you. What's place? I'm a given trouble. Had there and I think that drove a lot of our individual conversations with community members there, but also had a different tone to it as we specified some of the details around what we were going to allow on that particular field. Again, it is our only high school and so we don't have other high school sites particularly to mirror it in the city and provide a different context or different level of policy as it relates to that type of land use. And so I do want folks to understand that that is not the underlying context when we talk about Episcopal High School. Even though it's been here since 1800s, that's not what we're talking about with this specific use and this specific site. And so I do think, at least for me, I look at it in a different way, having been there through the conversation of 2018. I do want to kind of start my comments out about the communication, because that is something that does need to be strong as we heard from students, as we heard from neighbors, as we even heard from the school, we are a community, particularly I live in the middle of the city as well, not too far from Episcopal. And the expectation is that we talk to each other, right? I think there are some things that hopefully we can mandate from our, our purge to say, this is the expectation of the city as you work together regardless of what we approve or don't approve today We did do some of that as a related to when we approve the lights. We made a you know a single phone number Something that folks had the opportunity to we also with no disrespect to to my colleagues who have served on the school board, we did take a look at the history of the high school and their relationship with neighbors. It wasn't perfect. It wasn't. And some points great. I haven't heard that in the conversations today that there is a a history of miscommunication and whatnot there. And so I am also looking at that as well as part of this conversation because as we move forward, that communication has to be strong. Neighbors have to be able to rely on the school to be reactive and proactive as it relates to any impacts, whether they be light or noise. Some of the other impacts that folks talked about, I do want to separate out with this being a private facility. I'm not expecting to weigh in on trash. I would hope that a Piscobal would take it upon itself to handle trash within its site. That's something that we had to look at when we talked about the public high school. Capacity of your buildings and things of that nature, having lived in this city all my life, I know what happens when you have folks come to the track meet and kind of have a lot of folks on the property and how that's managed. And so I don't necessarily see that as being an issue as well. I do and I appreciate the extended conversation around the 10 year SUP. However, I appreciate applicants that come with a very clear understanding for council of what they are going to do on their property. I do realize that that is not perfect. Obviously market conditions and other things will help define that. But for me, having a 10 year runway to kind of figure things out on the back end, I think is is little much for me. For me personally, I would prefer a three to five year, as you've already heard today, we do extensions. Those extensions, staff's policy and the city's policy is pretty routine. Obviously there are situations where if that extension is kind of out-of-line with current thinking we don't know what happens with technology in the next five years. And so there could be opportunities to adjust or even the city with its priorities has for you know certain things whether it's certain LED lighting or environmental standards of the school that we're trying to do on a public sphere as well. And so, you know, it's a much shorter time frame. I don't think inhibits you from the kind of full planning that you're talking about, but it does as relates to us kind of lock you into what, frankly, we are held accountable for by our residents that you are doing on your property. And so I wanna to be very specific. I love when applicants are very specific for that fact because I'm going to have to chat with neighbors whether they have concerns or whether I just see them in the grocery store about what is happening on that property and I want to be able to understand exactly what's happening there and be able to talk about it. As was mentioned, I think earlier, opportunities to build in landscaping. I hope continued work with the city allows for that to continue to be something that can naturally provide some barriers. And hopefully some sound. I appreciate the conversation about a berm and doing that. I know we've done that in other projects and other places here in the city. But those are some of the things as I look at what we're looking at here. I'm not necessarily comfortable with the 10 year SEP. I appreciate that you do have the option to ask for it. But what I'm hearing as well is that there is a lack of concreteness as as you get into the out years. So if that is still the case, I do want to see somebody come back to council, whether or not I'm here, but council to have a conversation with them about exactly what is going to be moving forward on the property. That's it for me for now. All right, I appreciate that. Any other questions for staff? Councilman, I'll move you. Thank you, Madam Vice-Mare. I tend to agree with my colleague, Mr. Chapman. I would be able to shorten the timeline to five years for the reasons that he stated. So if I think what I'll do at this point, I'll put a motion on the floor to approve the SUP with five years. Before we get a second, I wanna check with Madam City Attorney, if that's a sufficient amount of language. There was also a condition as well that was put forward. So I think that needs to be addressed. Yeah, if that's so with with all staff's recommendation, except for the one condition about the period would change that from 10 to 5. With the addition of the condition that that we've profored and that was that. I just want to make sure that's clear and that that's in there. Is there a second to that motion? I'll second that. Right. So there's a pending motion on the floor. And I want to just give my colleagues an opportunity to be clear that they understand the motion and what it includes. And this will be the opportunity, I guess, to raise any questions or ask for any clarifications in the motion on the floor. Okay, so there's a motion and a second pending and hearing and see. I want to go ahead, Council Member Jam. Let me ask staff this because we know we close the public hearing already. We did. Sorry. Let me ask staff this question. While our folks are still continuing to talk, I want to make sure for staff's knowledge, what is the number of polls that are being asked for today? I've heard a couple of varied numbers and but I want to understand specifically even after I guess today's communication, what is that specific number? If you have to chat with applicant about that, feel free. Well, it's 47 further application. So we're with that. Okay. If there's no other comments or questions, there's a motion and a second on the floor, all those in favor of the Councilmember McPite. Any other comments or questions, Councilman McGuirey? Yeah, just real fast. If this passes, I brought up the staff during the briefing, when you're coming up early street, it's been reported to me in apologies, I don't have days or times for when this is. It might have been because they were utilizing temporary lights. I don't know. Let's ensure that if this passes and someone's driving up early street, they're not blinded by the lights. Yes. Thank you, my councilman Aguiree. Oh, councilman Alnubi. Thank you. I'll just add one more thing. I also, I mean, I appreciate everyone who came and spoke today and the concerns that we're raised, but I also appreciate appreciate the fiscal putting in the effort and the work on this and the fact that part of this is the whole FIFA conversation. I think that that's also, I know it's not the driver here necessarily, but that's a big deal. Like having some of these world class teams come to Alexandria to practice in Alexandria, it's going to happen this year and my understanding we haven't been matched for a team next year, but the World Cup is one of the biggest events in the world. And to have a team come some of these top-of-top players and fans and everything come stay in Alexandria, that is a good thing for our city. So I also wanted to put that out and thank this school for helping us with that because that's the field that people thought is a world class field that can, no one looked at our high school field, little other field, so I appreciate the effort in that regard. Councilwoman Green. Thank you, Madam Vis, I'm here. I'd like to put out and thank you everyone for being here on this marathon of a meeting today. Especially the students, you guys are so very impressive. We're very proud of you. I would like to make a condition for approval for the time that the lighting would go out. 945 during the week and 1030 on weekends. So are you requesting a friendly amendment to councilman El Nubies? If that would be a friendly amendment, yes, I think it would be appropriate. Councilman El Nubie, are you accepting that request to amend your motion? So the seconder will have to agree as well, but if my colleague can just explain a little bit more and can staff tell us if we have the power to put that in the SUP because it's sounded like- And we can find that out, but currently that's what happens at games at Alexandria City High School, not that compares, but just in respect for the neighbors and all that we've heard today. And I am so providing it has brought so much to our high school, new school spirit, and for our athletic department and the neighborhood as a whole. But I do think that that stipulation should be put in. So before I respond to that, I'd like to hear more from my colleagues, if my colleagues would be also enabled to that, because we accept this amendment and it doesn't pass them. Thanks, Muncham. Sorry. So I want to be clear, we are setting kind of a time limits for lights, specifically lights on the field that they need to be in. And what was the time, did you say again? 945 during the weekend, 1030 on the weekends. You said 1030 on the weekends? It did, Friday's weekend. What do we have? And we have nothing on the books now, right? Or nothing within the application, it would be they could have more than 1 a.m. We do not have a time limit. So we don't have it. I'm sorry. Bill, would you answer that question? Yes, we do not have a time limit associated with this issue. In terms of, you know, the time of use, we've sort of it, we have accepted the applicant's explanation of the nature of a residential campus and some of the limiting factors of that. Right. And I think that's where where I wanted to get clarity on. I understood that to be around 10 on a weekend as well. So I don't get it in mind. Public hearings, check with the Vice Mayor. May I respond? For the time being, I'd like to sort of resolve the questions that we're having the conversation with staff. And if that leaves a question for the applicant, we'll go there. So, sorry. So was the, if I remember the question, it was related to the hours of use by the, by the high school. Right. I'm trying to align what I've heard in terms of the hours of actual use and willing use by the high school with what we could potentially do in terms of setting it in time for lights. I believe they stated that their curfew is 10. Is that correct? Is that mismanagement? Do you? I believe the previous test was 10 o'clock. That's right. So I don't know if I'd be comfortable with what we're defining on the weekend. I would try to keep it aligned with kind of that school, school timing. Because even if there is, let's say, looking at the extreme use, if there is an outside use, I would not want that to go past what is already expected of the campus. And so if they're renting out people, it's not until 11 or even 10, 15, 10, 45. It needs to be less than that. I'm good with 10 across the board. Okay, but the matter is currently requested as an amendment to the pending motion. So there our first step is is Council Mental Nubie accepting the amendment to his motion, which would limit the weekday hours to 10 p.m. and the week end hours to 10 30 p.m. So it's 10 across the board. Okay, so are you amenable to adding that element to your existing motion? Yes. And is the seconder? Since it conforms with the school's curfew, yes. Okay. Madam City Attorney, I just want to confirm that as currently amended, we can move forward with a, yes. Any discussion on the motion as amended? Councilman Chapman. So another thing that I would add to the, hopefully add to the motion by an amendment is when I asked staff particularly about kind of how we mandate types of communication and what does that look like? I do wanna make sure and I appreciate the school's interest in communicating with the neighbors, but again, I want to need something that we can hold folks accountable for. And so at what level, and I'm trying to remember back in what we did in 18, I can't remember that. I know the school has already said that they have a number that people can call, but mandated meetings or things of that nature. I know we've mandated stuff like that in the past as well. Two kinds of things like that, we have it. In many cases had a condition where there is a single point of contact has been established and their contact information is widely circulated so that the members of the community can contact them at any time, that's a one condition. We have periodically but far less frequently required regular meetings because oftentimes a regular meeting is only required when there's a problem, but we have in-mereications required a quarterly meeting or something like that. So I appreciate the answer. I don't think I would want to require quarterly meetings, but I do want at least, I would recommend to my colleagues, at least in annual meeting. I would hope that's being done now, but at least in annual meeting with a budding neighbors, particularly on the side that's affected by this SUP at least once a year to kind of discuss what may go on during the year or what changes need to be made or what have you. That does not seem to be a stretch, but I'll leave that up for the body as well as adding in something about ensuring that there is a single point of contact, who that person is, what their number is, and that expectation. Just for clarity, say, though, you're not seeking to further amend the motion, you're expressing what you'd like to see as a best practice as an implementation. I am. Yeah, so I'm actually looking to amend the motion. I'm sorry. Sorry to make it tough for you on the restaurant. I'm doing it. I do want to see these things.'m I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I? And okay, so I've been asked to restate the full motion and I think everybody understands why, so I'm just gonna ask for everybody's patience as I bring up the docket. It's item 14. Okay, so this might take a minute and I'm going to ask the city attorney and everybody to listen carefully. So there has been a motion by councilmember Anubi. I'll be seconded by councilmember McPike to approve the item docket item 14, the special use permit to add accessory lighting above 35 feet tall and athletic fields at a private school. It has been moved with the requested conditional language as circulated to counsel that the approval of the lights that are 80 feet or less is effective upon approval of the S. U. P. approval of any lights that exceed 80 feet is effective upon adoption of the implementation ordinance ZTA 2025-003. That motion also includes a restriction on the lights to be turned off at 10 p.m. daily. And it further includes a requirement to meet annually with the residents and to provide a single point of contact information. Madam City Attorney is not the motion as you understand it. The five years. So close. It modified the application in one key way, which is to make it a five year SUP. An emotion and a second and a statement of the motion, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay, there are none. There's no abstentions and the motion passes unanimously 6-0 and I'm inviting our mayor to retake the dies. Thank you. All right. With that, as you're exiting, if you could please, please lower your voices and keep your conversations to minimum, Council is going to go into recess and we will return at 305. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you Okay. Okay. It is 305 exactly. So we are going to come back from recess and get started with that. Madam Clerk, please call the next item. Special use permit 2025-00825 Mount Vernon Avenue, playing a mission action, recommend approval 7-0. Okay, does the council need a presentation on this one? No, okay, so then we're gonna go right into the public hearing and there are now two speakers signed up. So we will start, I'm sorry, misplaced her name. Do we have a med of Fifi? Oh I'm this time it's my fault do we have Mr a med of Fifi? Okay then we're going to go to our next speaker which I believe is is the attorney for the applicant, Ms. Pascar. Good afternoon, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. For the record, my name is Kathy Pascar with Walsh Kluci, and I am in here before you today regarding this project to convert the existing building at 2525 Mount Vernon Avenue from commercial to residential. We do have the support of the Delray Citizens Association and the Delray Business Association. We did have two meetings with the Delray Land Use Committee. We had a meeting with the overall Delray Association. We met with the Delray Business Association and most importantly, coordinated very carefully with the most immediate neighbors. If you've been out to that site, you can see that the building kind of wraps the side yard and backyard of one home and the backyard of another. So we worked with them, made revisions to the plan in response to concerns that had been raised. I know I've received some questions about parking and how parking works. I will say that a few years ago we had an effort to try and actually demolish this building and rebuild a new building and just given the site constraints and the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the sentiment of the community, we backed off of that. I now have a new client who's looking to reuse the building for ground floor retail restaurants and daycare with residential units above. Now the use is a multi-unit residential building, right? That's what you come in with as your request because that's, it's just a residential building. I will say that the current plan and I told the neighbors this was that we are proposing to do short-term residential rentals. There are 30 units and those short-term residential rentals. They already exist in the building at above the 2400 block where cheese teak and peace out are there are 17 short term residential rental units there. These units are about 475 square feet for the 26 one bedroom units and about 700 square feet for the two bedroom units and I say that because they're very small units they're almost built to be the short term residential rental. In the 2400 block, there are some spaces that are reserved for the short term residential rental units in that building. And if you were to go over to that parking lot, you would see that many of them are empty most of the time because most of the people who come for these short term residential rentals are coming by Uber or they're coming to the Metro and walking. I've actually asked people who I've seen coming out of the building. I've had people tell me that they're here because they have families that live in the neighborhood and they just stay at the short term residential rental because it's more convenient. So we have people who are coming here through other means and don't have cars. We are providing parking in the lot for the daycare. So long as the daycare is on the site, there will be dedicated parking because daycares need kind of concerted pickup drop off. And so we're doing that. Now, if this building in the future were to convert, let's say to just regular apartments, right? And there are 30 units and the question is like, well, there's no parking. What we don't want to do is hamstring the parking lot in the 2400 block by having to reserve parking spaces for this building. However, there is a lot of parking in that lot. There is actually parking below grade and parking at grade. And our hope is that if someone, most of all we think because of the size of the units and the proximity to transit right, we're near Metro, we're near BRT, we've got a walkable neighborhood that has everything we could need in it. We have you know scooters, we have bikes and we have Uber that we think that if this did go long-term residential because of the small size of the units, it'll clearly be more affordable and that some people may be carless by choice. But for those who are not carless by choice, there would be an opportunity for them to have access to parking in the property to the south if they could work out a rental agreement at that time. But the current anticipation is that it will be the same operation that is running. It's Kasa who is running the short-term residential rentals in the block to the south. They also have short-term residential rentals in the old, oh gosh, where the streets market was, that Delray Tower, they have some units there too. And so parking just isn't in high demand. And so if it were to go long-term residential, we still think that there's adequate parking to serve that future apartment use if and when needed. Councilman McGarry. I guess what intent, if any, does your client have of really looking at this and making this potentially long-term residential? They don't have an intent to make it long-term residential right now. It is going to be Casab but just by the very nature of the use, right? you have to have a multi-unit residential use in order to get to the short term residential rental and just from a use standpoint it could be long term it could be long term rental it could be long term condos or it could be short term residential rental if we follow all the requirements of the city but their intention is short term residential rental through Casasa. Thank you. So I guess to my colleagues, I would say my concern here, I really don't have any issues with the short term rental. I think the conversation changes, however, if this becomes long term residential. At that point, I wouldn't necessarily want to move forward with granting this. I would want them to come back to us if they're going to shift their model from short term to long term. But I just want to make sure that my colleagues, you were I stood on that. Did I mention that we had the support of Delray Citizens Association and Delray Business Association? Okay. Yes. Okay. Other questions or comments for the applicant? Okay. If not, then I will entertain. I'm just so we're clear. This means afterwards are no more questions from the press car. Any more questions or comments? Okay. So then is there a motion to close the public hearing? So. There's been a motion by Councilman Chapman. It's our second and a second by Councilman Green to close the public hearing. Any discussion? Okay, hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, the eyes have it. The public hearing portion is closed. Councilman Chapman. Question for staff to my colleagues point. Do we have any kind of history or examples where, You know, there's been that type of change from a short term used to kind of a more longer term use where we've had somebody come in or is there any issues with us doing that? Because I share the same concern with him and it's not about the kind of overall use. I think that's fine. I think what I want to understand is normally up here, you it's a short-term use, we're not as worried about kind of people parking and things like that because people come from Uber and they come from Airport or what have you. But with a longer term use, how many of those folks are gonna have a car? And what are the expectations around parking and parking infrastructure that we're gonna have for that? So this is Sam Shelby with Planning Planning and Zoning. This would be one of the first cases that's come forward under the, well, the short term rental policy is actually still not active, but that's the short term rental policy created another parking requirement, a different parking requirement for short term rentals versus multi-family rentals. So we don't have any history of a use. I mean, it has probably been, there have probably been cases where units have been switched between long-term and short-term rental. And there's no, there wouldn't have been a city review of that because the parking requirement would have been the same. And when does the new short-term rental policy go into effect? Don't know the exact date, but it's September of this year. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Onnubia. Thank you. I also agree with my colleagues. I think if this will change to a long term, then I would like it to come back to Council. I don't have a a problem with it for the short term. Also, I saw there was one condition that said if a park impairment residential program would be implemented, that building would not be eligible. Can staff clarify for me is that only under short term or even if it's converted to long term, these residents would not be eligible for the park impairment program. Any residents new yeah, I under short term or even if it's converted to long term these residents would not be eligible for the park impairment program. Any residents. Yeah, I mean short term renters would not be eligible. That makes sense. That's what I thought. I just want to clarify. That also kind of like gives me a little pause. I worry that that would cause people would come in, you know rent and then start parking the streets and then at a point if a program occurs then they'll be out of luck and they'll be stuck and they probably won't understand. They won't realize they're not going to read the staff report and realize that this is not that building is not eligible for a parking permit. So that also gives me pause. So I'm in agreement with my colleagues about the long term that I would want the applicant to come back if it's converted to long. So I think we need a little clarity on what is being proposed here and whether or not that is possible. So Meta Mayor Christina Brown from the City Attorney's Office. What's being proposed right now is a parking reduction for a multi-unit residential use. And so that's basically a parking, that has a higher parking requirement. And so where she's asked, a parking reduction is being sought. This is an SUP, so it's applicant-driven and applicant can request it. Now the fact that they've asked for that basically sets it up so that it's possible that they don't have if they if so basically what you're proving would allow them to have a multi well let me back up. So the multi unit residential is a by right use. So the use is already and what you're looking at is just the S.U.P. for parking. just to set the baseline. So that parking standard is higher and what's being sought is a relief from that standard. The short-term rental parking standard is lower. So they're asking basically for essentially they could they could switch back and forth with the use if they've gotten this parking reduction and they're asking for the multi-unit residential. So you would need to deny that portion of it and then the applicant could agree to seeking something less or the applicant could come back and make another application for a only short termterm rental reduction from those standards, if that makes sense. It does, as I said, by one as you kind of walk through, because I think to sewer on the same page here. I know Councilman Chapman had a question on this point. That was question. Okay. Um, fights mayor Bagley. Yeah. And and I appreciate Ms. Brown. I'm enunciating essentially that the parking reduction here is not tied to the short term rental policy. It's being sought relative to the requirements of the multi family requirements for parking. So the representation about the actual usage is not what's driving the request. They're saying multifamily requires us to do X. We're asking for a reduction from that. But by the way, we're planning on using it for another permitted use. So to the extent like my colleagues were discussing wanting to have it back, should it be used the other way? For me, I'm not supportive of that because essentially that's what we're doing here today. We are saying, okay, if it's a multifamily building, this is what would be required and this is the reduction they're asking for and these are the reasons they're asking for it. So if and when it ever became a multi-family building, they'd come in and say the same things essentially they are saying today, which is, if market forces or our residents or our leases require us to reserve what we know we have somewhat available nearby and we can do that, but we're asking for this reduction because we believe market forces and demand is going to allow us to fill this building without setting aside these spaces, which I often see available for other public uses and not sort of taken off the parking inventory. So that's what I thought the important clarification is we'd be doing the same analysis if they came back later to say we're going to be multifamily but that's the analysis we're doing today essentially. Is that misbrowness that a fair statement? That is what has been requested as part of this SUP is to an analysis under the multi-unit standard. Come to the Gary. I hear my colleague is saying where I would disagree is that we're putting ourselves in a position where we're allowing an applicant to basically switch without then coming back towards for something. And that's what I am not liking. So I see this as a way to try and forgive my language here, but to try and sneak something in. Kind of mayor. OK. So while I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the usage and with the parking reduction necessarily, what I take issue with is, well, if I want to switch, I could just switch and not have to come back and say anything. I could just do whatever I want essentially. And since, as Mr. Shelby said, this is essentially the first time that we're kind of doing this, I don't want to set us up with a precedent that, okay, now anybody else can kind of come back and do something similar, which we would hope, if something were to go wrong with here, I'm not saying that there is, but then, you know, I would hope that we would learn our lesson and do something differently, but if we're setting that precedent, people are gonna come to us and say, well, this is what you did before. Okay, here's what I'm gonna do. I think you're looking to respond to, I'll go to Vice Mayor Bagley and then I typically like to just keep it closed so that we continue to have this dialogue. But I think since there are questions about the intent of your proposal, I am going to come back to you. Thank you. So, Vice Mayor Bagley. So, to my colleagues point, we addressed today's request in the terms that it's being requested, which is a variance from the multifamily requirement, and we don't have to approve it. I mean, so I hear you. I almost don't care that she's saying to us, but we're, you know, our, I think this is almost like the Episcopal Lights a minute ago. It's, you know, we have a rubric to do it under, and the applicant is also giving us sort of of in full disclosure, an element of usage that they actually intend to do, but the metric before. under and the applicant is also giving us sort of in full disclosure, you know, an element of usage that, you know, they actually intend to do. But the metric before us is I'm required to do X under multi-family, which is a higher standard. I'm asking for a variance from that. And we don't have to give it today. I mean, to be clear, we could say we're uncomfortable that if you in the future use it in a multi-family way, this won't be sufficient parking. So that's the rubric that I'm sort of going to make a vote today, whether I'm comfortable giving a reduction to a building with a multi-family use. Appreciate sort of the full disclosure element from the applicant that by the way, that's not quite what what we're doing, but that that's how I'm trying to examine as a due do I believe that this parking reduction is appropriate if this with 30 long term lease units. Okay, I'm going to go to Ms. Pustcar if you could just address the piece about the intent. So, Councilman McGuirey, I think it's the opposite of what you're saying. Is we came in and requested, as Ms. Bagley said, a conversion of this building to multi-family, multi-unit residential with ground floor retail. I wasn't sneaking anything in. I was actually being honest with the community that this is going to be a multi-unit building. However, my client's current intent is to do it as short-term residential rentals. Because I did not want to come to you and get approval of a multi-unit building with a parking reduction, and then all of a sudden be doing short-term residential rentals and have the community go, well, wait a minute. You told us you were doing multi-family. And so I actually did the opposite. I said, you know, our current intent is to do short-term residential rentals, but for the use of this building, because the only way I get to short-term residential rental is through the multi-unit building. And so we are coming to you and saying, we're looking to do a multi-unit building that has a parking reduction associated with it. So the parking reduction we're requesting is associated with a multi-unit building. And I could have just come and we could have been talking like we did when we do one on King Street and we have the same conversation about, people here are carless by choice transit issues, but I did, I was very forthcoming with the community about the intent to do short-term residential rentals. And I think that's what's causing a little bit of the confusion. Councilman Elnubey. Thank you for this back and forth. I think it helped clarify for me. And I think I agree more with the framing of my colleague, the vice mayor. However, I think even if we're approving it under the higher standard for long term residential, I still would be hesitant to provide that exception. Also, question for staff, can you walk me through the rationale for adding that condition that that building will not be eligible for the residential parking program if it gets implemented in the future in that neighborhood. It's a standard condition for multifamily residential. It's almost every project that asks for a parking reduction is Council's ask us before to add it in. And now it's become something that we routinely include multi-family parking that the residents are exempt from the not allowed to be part of the it's a whole it's a policy to tini s has. Sam what might be Mr. Shelby sorry what might be helpful is can you explain why like the intent behind? Yeah it's it's meant so the the a new, you know, the residential parking permits are to put, you know, are there. So residents don't have to compete with heavier, you know, more parking intensive uses, restaurants and commercial uses generally, but inserting a multi-family building into a neighborhood that has a residential residential parking permit can cause unnecessary impact on the neighborhood they have to then compete with the building's occupants for the street parking. And the, I think that might be it. Yeah, that's helpful for me to frame my thinking. And with what you said for me, I see, I worry if we grant that relief here, that we are creating a situation where residents of that building will be competing for parking. So the way I look at it, I probably would support personally granting the exception if we grant father in that building into any future parking residential program. That's how I would look at it, but that's just me. I guess let me try explaining it in a different way. So if you're asking for a parking reduction, I think the thinking is we're not going to grant you that reduction and then allow you to add additional spaces and spaces, spaces, but on the streets. Because now you're saying you need less parking, but then in the same sentence you're saying, but I also need more parking. So I think that's where it's coming from. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. But the way I'm looking at is may not happen, but I worry about a situation where people rent in that building and park on the street in the residential neighborhood around this. And I think it probably will happen. And if we exempt it, it will happen. But then if it comes up point where we apply a residential program, then those people are out of luck. And I wonder about that situation and that's where I'm coming from. Like, well, I think like them to be. Yeah, no, I think you're exactly what's going to happen. I think the thinking behind it is when you are making a decision about living in a place like this and you know that parking is not coming from it, coming with it or you're in a high transit area, that we are in some ways incentivizing you or trying to put forth apology, a policy that would encourage a different type of behavior. Instead of saying we want you to bring the cars, we're going to give you an extra spot, we're gonna give you a street spot and it's, it's, it's, it Let me get to Councilman Gari and then my favorite. Yeah, I mean, I was just going to use a more solid example of the Alexa. Right? We just recently got a 3-1 issue around it, right? The Alexa was built out specifically so that there was enough parking for those residents so they wouldn't spill out. But of course we know what happens, right? Because you have to pay for those spaces, not everyone can afford spaces. So then when they end up doing the parking on the street, then that's what creates the, you know, point of conflict with residents that are already parking on the street. So definitely something that we want to try and avoid. Thanks very badly. And to take it a step further, I appreciate what the mayor is saying about incentivizing non-car uses, but the other thing this makes clear to the development community is, you need to do your math right. Because if you build a building and especially ask us for a parking reduction and sell it to your clients and price you're building, and then those people end up on the street, We're gonna ticket them. We're not gonna give them residential parking permits. And now you're dealing with unhappy residents who are saying to your point, well, I didn't know when I came into your building and I liked that it was cheaper because it didn't build parking that I wasn't gonna be able to park. So I love the mayor's comments about incentivizing other uses, but the policy also exists so that the builders build the building in accordance with the proper expectations of how much parking they need. So I feel pretty strongly that if a situation like this where somebody in Lexin Florence a great example, where somebody's asked for a reduction, I would not want those specific tenants to get access to a parking permit. I appreciate an individual might be surprised by that, but he's going to have to take that up with his landlord, you know, with their marketing department, with the choices he made when he came into the building. Sorry, done. Councilman McGarry. So going back to kind of the framing of the conversation, and then I appreciate where the vice mayor was trying to put this, I think the issue that I then take there is sometimes our policies or regulations that we have in place aren't prepared to deal with the things that we're dealing with. So while I get, you know, we're approaching this, from this lane, I feel that this is a lane that doesn't totally exist for us. And that's why I'm uncomfortable with it. But to your point, we don't have to approve it right now, right? And so if there is an way where we can put in a condition to say that if a decision is made at a future point to convert completely to long-term residential, then I would be in favor of denying this. Okay. I want to restate it and then I think Ms. Brown, we might have a question for you. I think what my colleague has just said is that if there's not a way to put in a condition that would bring this back before us, that then you would be in favor of denying. Okay, so I think the question we would all need so that the rest of us can move the conversation forward is, is there a way to put in that condition? And if so, what is that like? Because I think I think I heard earlier, there's not a way to do that, but I just wanna. Correct, I don't believe there there a way to put in the condition and if so what is that like which because I think I heard earlier there's not a way to do that but I just want to correct I don't believe there's a way to because it is being at this is what is being asked at the moment is for that reduction at that standard so yes there's no way to condition it to come back. Is everyone clear? Okay. Given that, now that we've clarified that issue, are there other questions that need to be addressed by staff or comments that folks would like to make? Okay. Given that now that we've clarified that issue, are there other questions that need to be addressed by staff or comments that folks would like to make? I'm sorry, backly. I mean, in an effort to just continue the dialogue to perhaps get everybody to yes, if there is a possibility is the specifics of the reduction in terms of like sheer numbers. I'm just curious if we open a dialogue at all about the extent of the reduction, if that would at all change my colleague's position, because I'll indicate I'm keen to see the building put to use. We've been through this before. I know my colleague is keen to see it put to use. And so is there a conversation to be had there about the extent of the reduction? I see the applicants head, but I just wanted to put it to staff first who would have engaged with the applicant on this point. Is there any flexibility in the extent of the reduction such that we could not fully grant a full reduction, but require a certain amount so that we know we have it and I guess can staff address the extent of the reduction. I'm going to start and then I might ask Christina to weigh in the city attorney to weigh in one more time but basically the required parking for the multi-family use is 20 spaces and the space required for the short-term rental or nine. So that's the different, that's just that helpful. A little bit. And are there essentially no spaces on the site itself? There are zero spaces on the site itself. So for this to be used in any way, residentially, there has to be a reduction. Right. Okay, and I wasn't trying to play bait and switch in that, but I wanted to try to take it at face value. This is again, the respecting my college concern. This is for me how I'm framing it is. We want the use activated. We want residential uses. There is no way to do that one site without tearing the building down and putting parking on it or underground. Those are the facts as I understand them. For the purposes of sort of moving the conversation forward, oh, I'm sorry, can I put a motion on the table or? Yes, you can. Okay. No, I mean, I don't want to. We can call for discussion after the book. Okay, so I'm sorry. I was in the staff report. Okay, so I'd like to move, move for approval of docket item 15, a special use permit for reduction of required parking for retail restaurant, multi-need dwelling uses and modifications to the front and side yard setback requirements, open space requirements and to permit a six foot fence within the secondary front yard to facilitate conversion of existing non residential building to a mixed use multi unit residential building. Second. Sorry. Okay. There has been a motion by Vice Mayor Bagley and a second by Councilwoman Green. Any discussion? Councilmember Chapman. Thank you. My question centered around the loading zone. So as I understand it, they would be taking the current kind of back parking lives all right. Turning that into a loading zone. It's on Stewart Avenue and that would become a loading zone. Okay. And then the, I think, Sherry McMahon had a question about kind of the drop-off pickup for the daycare if, as it remained. So the daycare, there will be spaces dedicated to the daycare in the parking lot at 1 in the 2400 block. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. The daycare, there will be spaces dedicated to the daycare in the parking lot at 1 in the 2400 block. I'm Councilman on Newby. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think I appreciate again, appreciate the framing of the vice mayor of this and it's really helpful. So it I would love to get to you. I mean, I am I am trying to think about this practically. And the way my colleague framed it, without tearing down the building, there's no way to add parking. So I wonder question to staff, can we add a condition there that the landlord, the management company, whatever, let's people know before they rent there. If the city implements a parking permit program, they are not eligible. So we're clear, we're transparent on the front end so people don't get into that positions that situation. I'm just looking so condition number four says the applicant shall provide information regarding alternative transportation options and nearby obstreet parking facilities with lease purchase agreements. We could amend that language to say, you know, to be clearer that it says that you're not eligible for the that the landlord is responsible for telling that. I guess. And then we can come back to Council on Newview. I guess before we go around the path of amending the condition, we have many buildings that fall into this category. So what is the standard practice that we currently deploy today? What's in front of you? And okay. And do we have feedback on how that's working or not working or? I can't answer that right now, but we can definitely find out. Okay. I guess I hear where you're to my colleague. I hear where you're getting at and you know I can't make the motion so I'll proposal I guess what my hesitancy would be on something like that is This comes up so frequently before the council. I don't know how I feel about having this building as like a one-off with a separate condition When we when we face this frequently throughout the city and I wonder if this is the path we want to go down Is there a different type of communication or practice that needs to happen versus kind of a one-off condition on this property? But back to you, Councilman, on your behalf. No, I take your point. I wonder if it's an end. If we can do this and figure out a way, moving forward, like a policy change or something where we figure out how to solve this problem at large. So I wonder if we can do both. So I would be supportive if my colleagues would be unable to friendly amendment to add that condition. I would be supportive of the motion. And then if we can have staff come back to us with something, how to address these situations, holistically in the future. Hold on, Madam City Attorney wants the way in and then I will go to those who made the most. So what I'm hearing is I'm not sure that I'm hearing a amendment to a condition. I'm hearing that you would like staff to do something additional. So I don't think we need to amend the condition. I'm asking for both to amend the condition and separately, you know, council, given direction staff to come back with something in the future to address this problem in a systematic way in a over arching way. But in this certain case, I'm asking if my college would be able to a friendly amendment to add a condition SM explain to make sure the landlord, the property owner. explicitly tells those who are going to rent there if a program gets implemented, they are not eligible for it. So. Okay, so just okay, so I want to make sure we're all tracking the same thing. So Sam, can you restate the language and then Councilman on Newby, I'm going to ask you just so it's clear as possible. I'd like you to state the amendment that you are trying to put forth and the recommendation to staff. Then I will go to vice mayor bagley and council him green and see if they are amenable to that and we can have discussion on that. So condition number four as proposed says the applicant shall provide information regarding alternative transportation options and nearby off street parking facilities with lease or purchase agreements. Okay. So my amendment would be to add to condition four and explicit and inform potential residents if the city implements a parking program in the future, a permit part, a residential permit program, parking program in the future, they would not be illicit for such a program. Not a mayor, I may have some language if you're interested. Okay. Yes, I would be just so we can weigh all our options here. It's really breaking my rules here about you getting to speak again. Well, I thought the point was to move things forward. I don't know why there's rules when, like the applicant, group sale. What is the proposed language? The applicant shall provide information regarding alternative transportation options, comma, nearby off street parking facilities, comma, and the fact that residents are not eligible for RPP permits with lease and purchase agreements. OK. Vice Mayor Bagley, are you amenable to that? And then that. I'd like to indicate my amenability if I could hear Councilman Aguirre's position on whether that does anything to his amenability. Councilman and Curie. I'm still a little bit reluctant only because and I have faith in staff coming back with something. So it makes me a little bit better that we're going to try and work on something. I still am a little bit cautious and have reservations. So I'm not sure. Yeah. Now I think I mean part of why I said that again to everybody's point, I'd like to, you know, if we can get everybody to yes, but I think what I'd like to do for today is leave the motion as written and the condition as written. And with an understanding that we're going to continue as requested to get ourselves to where our conditions moving forward, our policies moving forward are very clear on this point. So that would allow, you know, obviously I understand my colleague may still need to vote against the matter, but I feel like it's cleaner for the time being and forces us to not do this application at a time to have a better policy moving forward to address this matter. But so that's where I am. I'd be curious to hear Councilwoman Green who I think was my second. I'm fine with that. By the way, the way you stated it. Okay. So then that I think it's friendly and then that counts. Councilman on newbie, do you have an option you could still offer it and see if you get a second or you could choose to vote how you wish with on the current motion. I mean, doesn't hurt to offer it's all the opposite. Motion, if there's a second. Okay, there has been a motion as proposed with the language presented by the applicant. Is there a second? That motion dies. And so we have a motion on the table that was put forth by Council, sorry, Vice Mayor Bagley, and seconded by Councilwoman Green, which would be to approve the SUP number 2025-00008 based on the staff report and the discussion at the hearing. Any additional discussion, Vice Mayor Bagley. And just to clarify for the community and since we've had a little discussion here is as currently moved residents of this building in the future are not eligible for a residential parking permit. The fact that it won't be stated clearly in condition doesn't change the fact that they will not be eligible. We're all clear on that and that's a accurate restatement. Yes. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Seeing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Okay. So the motion carries a five, two. All right. Madam Clerk, next item. Special use from it 2025-00100-311111 Circle Hill Road. Mission Action Recommend approval 7 is 0. Madam Mayor, are there any public speakers? Only the applicant. So if he does not wish to speak, then there are no public speakers. Okay, with that. Then I would move to close the public speaking portion and approval. There has been a motion to close the public speaking portion and to move approval of item 16, SUP number 2025 does 0, 0, 0, 1, 0. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it motion carried. Thank you. All right, with that, Madam Clerk, next item. Development Special Use Permit 2025-1001. 2601, Camera Mills Road, George Mason Elementary School Reconstruction, Planning Commission Action, Recommend approval 6-1. Okay, and for this, we will have a short presentation, and then we do have several speakers signed up. Thank you. Good afternoon mayor Gaskins and members of the city council. My name is Abigail Harbol urban planner with planning and zoning. I'm here today to present the George Mason Elementary Modernization project located at 2601 camera mill Next slide, please. Today's staff will summarize the project location and details noting key issues and benefits of the project, as well as the community input. Next slide, please. The request is for consideration of a development special use permit for the demolition of the existing one story school and construction of a two-story school with additional parking areas, indoor and outdoor recreational amenities, and, thank you. And overall site improvements. The action requested of the commission is a recommendation of approval to the City Council. He points on the project include that the project is providing increased elementary school capacity within a modernized building, which has been designed to meet ACPS and state educational specifications as an incorporated parking and traffic modifications to dress circulation and site access needs. The George Mason Elementary School site outlined in red here is located in the central part of the city in the Northridge neighborhood. The school takes its main access from Cameron Mills Road. The site is also uniquely accessed along the southern property line via two residential streets with Westminster Presbyterian Shores to the North and then surrounded by single family residential properties. A mix of R8 and R12 residential zoning districts. The school was first built at the site in 1939. The project is to demolish the majority of existing school maintaining the original 1939 building facade and construct a new two-story building to accommodate 670 students and 80 teachers and staff. The two-story building will have north and south wings connected by a two-story glass library and multimedia space. The site will provide three on-site parking areas for a total of 60 parking spaces, as well as for a benefit to the teachers and staff. ISPS is also working on an agreement with the adjacent Westminster Presbyterian Church for an additional use of 20 spaces for use during school hours. Utilizing a mix of brick, glass, and natural colors, the two-storey building behind the original facade will continue to design that is in scale with the surrounding residential neighborhood, but allows for modern sustainability and functionality needs. This includes cultural colors. The two-story building behind the original facade will continue to design that is in scale with the surrounding residential neighborhood, but allows for modern sustainability and functionality needs. This includes an interior courtyard at the center of the building that allows for light into the interior classrooms. A second courtyard between the cafeteria and gymnasium wings that merges into one larger open space at the rear of the school. A concerted effort was made to preserve as much of the park open public open space as possible with the attention to blend the building with the surrounding neighborhood. Some highlights of the project include the plan to choose improvements to storm water quality and provide quantity reductions through onsite by retention and other BMPs and will exceed required phosphorus load reductions by 34%. A traffic study found that separating bus and car pick up and drop off would improve the congestion found at the start and the end of the school day. This will be achieved by increasing the Cameron Mills Roadway or bus lay by, as well as an eight car loop that will allow for increased vehicle circulation. What's the problem? Benefits also include increased capacity, a lead gold design and net zero ready building, net zero building that will comply with the city's green building policy, improved recreational and stormwater facility to include new BMPs to address large rain events, replaced pedestrian pathways as needed for better walking and biking up to the school and site from the surrounding neighborhood, added bicycle parking stations on site and publicly accessible restaurants. Starting in 2023, ACPS began community outreach conducting 15 meetings over the two year period. This included supervisor advisory group discussions, community meetings and PTA meetings to connect with families. ACPS also held a community meeting regarding the swing space to be located located at 1703 North Bar Regard, which is next to the existing Ferdinand T. Day Elementary School. All virtual meetings were recorded and posted on the ACPS website along with questions asked and answered during the meetings. During outreach concerns were raised about the loss of open space, traffic congestion, circulation around the site, recreational access and usability, and the coronation of after-school traffic and activity. As discussed in the staff report, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the North Ridge and Rosemont Small Area Plan. The findings can be made for the two requests to special use permits, and therefore recommends approval of the project's subject to conditions of approval. The planning commission voted 6-1 in recommendation of this approval. This concludes staff's presentation and we're available to answer your questions. Okay, any questions for staff if not we'll go right to the public here. Councilman Aguirre and then Councilwoman Greene. Thank you Madam Mayor. Staff can you tell me a little bit two questions. First what's kind of the standard for a maximum number of students at an elementary school? I am not aware of a standard ACPS. We coordinate with ACPS on their capacity needs. Okay, well, let me frame this differently and why I'm asking. So I think a thousand is probably too big for elementary school, but seven or eight hundred maybe. And then especially with the concerns around open space, why didn't we go to three stories? Yeah, that was discussed a lot. And I believe ACBS could speak to it more, but our understanding was for since it is elementary and the children are younger, they would like to prefer to keep it to in cases of emergencies that exiting was easier as well as navigation of the building. I mean, you would have a smaller footprint and I get coming down the stairs will be take more time in terms of emergency, um, egress, but you know, the whole point is you would put the older kids on the top floor, right? You would put fifth graders on the third floor. Yeah. And then tear that down, right? Uh, at least in my opinion, I'm not an expert in this, of course. But again, I mean, I feel a lot of concerns could have been asswaged if we had a gun up on more story. And it even potentially opens up capacity for even more students. So I mean, I'm not against this project, but I just feel that we had some missed opportunities there. That's hard. And this was discussed a lot at the community meetings and the supervisors advisory team meetings that was especially the supervisor advisory group that was discussed a lot our planning commissioners signed was also sorry supervisors. The there was a group of appointed people to advise the school on the project. Supervisor. I think our superintendent should I be saying to a it's a superintendents. Okay, sorry. Oh, yeah. Say no more. I apologize. Thank you, Mary. I do have a question since this is my first one during this where it's between our two bodies. I'm wondering because some of my colleagues' questions, I think are really appropriate maybe for somebody from ACPS to speak to. I guess do we have an ACPS representative? Okay, for the purposes of today, are they able to come up with staff and we can sort some of these questions? I don't know. Sophie, here. So, if did you wanna come up? Okay, well then, yes, then I would like to invite you come up. It looks like there's a microphone on one of these sides. I think it'd just be helpful because I imagine there's probably some things you can speak to more. Okay, well then yes, then I would like to invite you to come up. It looks like there's a microphone on one of these sides I think it would be just be helpful because I imagine there's probably some things you can speak to more more directly And so before I go to councilwoman green I Do you want to follow up on where councilman a Gary started us and if you can speak to maybe how you came to the option How is that you? How you How you how it's if you have came to the options they did and what was explored or not explored. So that we have that full context. Sure. So I'll speak to the two and three story for building and we also have our architect here, Brian Gritzmacher with VMDO Architects. You can probably talk a little bit more about the height of the, you know, what the maximum height allowed in the district would actually be. There's, I believe there's a special exception for schools to go up to Abigail 60 feet. Yes. But the main reason was one contextual contextuality with the neighborhood. Not even the, I think the church spire is about at 60 feet, but not something that would overwhelm Cameron Mills. I feel like we would have a lot of neighbors here speaking about the height of the building as well. So that was one of the reasons. The other reason is what Abigail spoke to with navigability of the school, but also the ability to put solar panels on the roof. This way we're gonna be able to get all those panels onto the roof for the building. Councilor McGarry. So such that you're saying a larger surface area for solar panels? Yes. Okay. I still feel that that could have been workable with a third floor, but I'm not an architect. Councilor McGarry. Thank you, Mayor Gaskins. So you probably know I know a lot about this. And even on the school board side, this always worried me. So 80 staff in the school, 60 parking spaces, can you clarify that I think you said something about a 20 additional parking spaces? I just really worry. You know, and I know it's different high school to elementary school, but you know, currently at many how they're having parking issues. So it's just really good to make sure that, you know, particularly if we're going to have more students in the school, that would be more staff. And how do we make sure that we have enough parking spaces as the school continues to grow? Yes, ma'am. I'll start. So if you can jump in, the goal was for ACBS to provide 80 parking spaces for the 80 max teachers. They were aiming at 100% capacity. The idea was to reduce the amount of surface and asphalt and built environment to maximize amount of green space on there. They wanted to take advantage of the fact there's a surface parking lot for Westminster, Presbyterian Church, just to the north. So they are working on our agreement for 20 spaces. That combined with the 60, they are providing at the three different parking areas would provide that 80 total. Thank you. Oh yes, Councillor Noguria and then Councillor Noguria. Thank you Madam Mayor and I think again to that point with the surface area. You have a smaller footprint with three floors. You have more open space. Okay, Councillor Noguria. Thank you Madam much. I'll get to that Councilman on the gear. I have a question for staff on the parking point. I know the planning commission made an amendment to staff's recommendation on parking. Can you explain to us what it would look like if we approve with the planning commission's recommendation and without the recommendation because it has to do with the agreement with the church. Correct. Yes. They had made an amendment to limit the amount of parking on site to 60 spaces. We had added additional language saying that if the agreement could not be made that administratively we could work with the schools to add the additional spaces on site and And the Bahanna Commission was not in favor of that and struck that language. I think ACPS is fairly confident and so if we can attest to this that they are going to achieve that agreement with Westminster, we'd hope to do it for a while and you know how those negotiations can take a while. So I think everyone is anticipating that it's going to work and they have full faith that the 80 spaces will still be provided. Thank you for that. Just for the record for my colleagues, I personally, when we come time to vote, I would be in favor of not taking the planning commission's amendment. I don't see where it hurts if they can't get the agreement to come back and try to work with staff on finding more parking to my colleagues points. The other thing on the three versus two, again, when I was in the school board, this, this, this didn't come to the school board to vote on on two versus three. That decision for the community is just public, you know, for those who haven't been following this, this, this, this, this, I, I'm personally very disappointed in that. I wish there were more options that came to the school board that had three floors or that staff had gone to the school board and asked if the school board wanted three floors before it was too late, um, to do that. Um, because when that went to the school board, um, with three designs, all two floors, um, and some school board members, including myself at the time and my colleague Councilman Green, asked for more designs. We were told it's too late and we have to move on. Otherwise, this will impact the project overall. So I think this remains to be a problem and it's clearly it's gonna create more problems and I was really disappointed how that worked out. I think the school board is a representative of the community. I would have loved for ACPS to go to the school board and ask if the school board wanted to see three story buildings, because how many stories is MacArthur? Two or three. Yeah, MacArthur is three stories, but it's also only four acres. Right, but if we wanted to save open space here, we could have gone to three. so it's not like we don't do three, we do three. And in this case, staff just made an executive decision to go to two stories. But if we wanted to save open space here, we could have gone to three. So it's not like we don't do three, we do three. And in this case, staff just made an executive decision to go to two stories. And I still have a problem about that. Not that I won't approve this project today because of this. I just wanted to raise it for the record and for the awareness of those who may be just tuning in right now. Another question for staff. for the public engagement and someone go to back with that slide. How many of those community meetings were in person and don't count the PTA meetings, because PTA meetings are not necessarily community-wide meeting. All these community engagement meetings, how many were in person? My understanding is none, but Sophie, can you confirm that? That's correct. The rural virtual. Yeah, and I have a problem with that too. Like, these were one hour Zoom meetings where 45 minutes or 40 minutes of presentation. Then a couple of questions that were picked from the chat. I don't even know if all the questions were answered from the chat. No opportunity for back and forth with the community. I know the planning commission wrote a letter about this. And again, I'm raising this. This project had so many missteps from ACPS, and I'm really disappointed in how this project unfolded. So I'm putting that for the record. I'll have more questions after this, but I don't wanna hug the mic for my call. So I'm gonna go to Councilman McPike before I do. I do think there's a couple things for the conversation moving forward. We have the project we have in front of us to address today. So I hear you and I think maybe I know community engagement's a piece. The design pieces, there's a lot. I think we also need to spend some time on today and what we have to go down, but I think maybe I know community engagement piece. The design pieces, there's a lot. I think we also need to spend some time on today and what we have to vote on, but I think the piece about where we go moving forward is gonna be really important because I know council, we have put forth a lot of things around our expectations for community engagement, what we're looking for, how we wanna see these meetings play out. And I think for projects that are for the whole city across our two bodies, we do need to make sure those pieces are being followed. Before I go to Councilman Peck, I think Councilman Chapman has a question right on this point. Yeah, just to just to follow up with you and I appreciate your comments, but I view my colleagues comments and if I made some, I was thinking about making some towards what we've seen as just another indicator of kind of the disconnect in terms of the conversations and the cooperativeness of working together with our school system. You know, it is pretty rare and staff correct me if I'm wrong that planning commission is weighing in on kind of our partners, right, the school system. They usually don't weigh in on those processes. We're at commission, weighed in on kind of the open space. And I don't feel in talking to the school board members like I did that those concerns were necessarily taken seriously. Unfortunately, none of them are here to kind of hear me say that. I think, but I do have to kind of have the responsibility of putting on a record because I don't think their staff should have been and the folks the architecture had been in that position. Those policymakers heard very clearly from the community as well as many of us about the opportunity they had because in the end we are funding this school building to build three stories, to save open space, to do some of the things that frankly are the expectation of the neighborhood around them and they chose not to do that. And I think we would be kind of frankly irresponsible if we did not voice that because as we will have future conversations with school board, we don't want them to forget that while we, while the community has expectations, we have expectations to, and there does have to be some form of listening to that. And we should be able to see that in the projects that come in front of us as well. So, you know, I'll talk later about some other issues, but, you know, having a certain standard around kind of the expectations, I think is a continuing issue that we are working with this particular applicant. Yes, and I should be, I have no means saying that we should avoid that. I think it's critical and I think that's going to come up on many issues without this conversation. I think what I'm trying to get at is we're also going to have to make a decision one way or another on this. And so let's also,'s also be holding both on, we're not doing this again without alignment on our standards. Here's how we'll hold each other accountable to that, but then also what do we need for today? Councilor McPick. I don't want to labor anything. I am going to move forward beyond this topic, but I was actually on the advisory committee and there was a great deal of frustration that the public, the schools obviously had a building and we have a need to serve the students are going into that building. The public had a variety of concerns whether regarding the historic facade of the current building. Some folks are concerned about height. Some folks are concerned about open space and there was disappointment amongst myself and other members on the advisory committee and the public at large that all options that were presented to the advisory committee took the same trade off. They took the trade off of cutting into the open space as opposed to going up. And I think that has actually colored the entire discussion that we've had since. And I do hope that future projects that go through the school system, when they're getting to the stage, or getting public feedback, will take, will offer different trade-offs and not just pick the trade-off that's going to be acceptable and present that point forward. That being said, I want to talk about the project that's in poorest now, not the decision that was made in the fall. The layout that was made in the fall, or presented in the fall, for this sort of basic side of the two long, every what they call this one, it's not open heart, is it? No. It's a combination of a few. Okay. One of the, one of the, you know, it has changed over time. So how has it changed, this, what we're looking at now, how has it changed based on, compared to what was presented in the fall? Whoever wishes. Sure. I can, yeah, sorry, it's weird to speak as the applicant, but also from here. So the number of things have changed. One, we rotated that the southern leg, I'm going to call it, it's a kind of open up that open space, as well as the, so the open field, we definitely heard the community on that. It's no longer a multipurpose turf field, which would have met our educational specifications. It's an open grass field with a reoriented baseball diamond in the correct north-south orientation. We've considerably shrunk that turf field as well to have more of a contemporaneous play area. I would say those are some of the major changes and then of course we work through conditions with planning and zoning staff to really refine a few things. I hope that there's... Yes, no, and I wanna say, I think there's a lot of appreciation for the effort that you all put in there that the shrinking of her field, the fixing of the baseball diamond direction, that's a lot of appreciation for that. And I'm glad to see those, that progress we made. And the maintenance of the field, the field also now has fencing around it. Could you describe like what the fencing or staff describe? What the fencing is going to be like? The fent field is currently not fenced. So they're proposing. And the proposals, what are yet? Yes. Okay. Based on what they're proposing, it is a six foot tall, rot iron fence that would go around the open space, to be be within the pathways that go around the open space. So the community, there's a lot of walkways that go around the open space on both the north and south sides as well as the rear. Those would be outside the fence area, but the diamond area and the open space, everything within the red square on the interior would be fence stand. What does does rock iron fencing mean? Like what does that look like visually? It's black with gaps in between it. It's not chain link. It's very similar to what was done at MacArthur Elementary School. And you said, presently, there is not a fencing around the field. Correct. There is just some perimeter fencing. And how is the field currently used by the school system? And it's day to day activities. Jack, would you like to speak to that or so? Sure, I'll start out in Abigail. I don't know if you want to check, but I believe it's like some sort of aluminum composite, but it's a tubular. Okay. And it's like, no, I'm so this is somebody crashes into it. It's not going to break and hurt somebody, right? So the fencing, as it's proposed, is a six foot tubular fence around the baseball diamond around the turf field and around kind of just like encompassing that back area. I do have an exhibit. I don't know if anybody. Yeah, I think that'd be helpful if you want to. How'd we go? I think somebody else. Abigail, could you put them in the back, please? So currently, so as you know, there is a playground that is fenced in at George Mason. There's also some hard-scape area. When I was speaking with Kristen Donnelly, who's our head of physical education, I asked about the fields and what do they do for part of their PE curriculum. She told me that they make do, that they still have a lot of folks kind of approach kids on site. There's a lot of people just kind of meandering throughout the school yard through the day. There's dogs that come onto the field. And so from a monitoring and just a safety standpoint, it's very defined times. It's not used for just recreation time. Like you would have dug some cart there where the kids can just run onto the field place awkward during the day during their recess time. So it's very tightly programmed. I guess before my colleague continues, I just have a question about, because I hear in your response that there are concerns maybe about safety and how this operates. I guess before my colleague continues, I just have a question about, because I hear in your response that there are concerns maybe about safety and how this operates. I guess my question would be, is there are many other schools across our city that also have kind of this shared open space? Like I live down the street from Samuel Tucker, where there's a fence on the outside, but it's kind of completely open for people to come in and out. Yet I haven't heard a proposal that that school would be fully you know, fenced in. I think about Jefferson Houston where there's openings on the other side. I just I have a little pause with the safety argument if there isn't an standard ACPS safety protocol for all the school so that every child is getting that thing. If not it feels like we're kind of picking and choosing where where might be, especially in a place where it's been without offense for over 80 years. And we have not been made aware of this multitude of instances. Sorry, we're going through most of my. Thank you Madam Mayor for making the points that I was going to fall with. That is my questions for now. I might have more. Okay. Well, I guess I would be, and then I know council and Chapman's running, I guess I would be curious, like is there a standard safety standard? And is this something we're gonna expect to see at all schools, whether a proposed modernization or not, and what happens to the ones where we currently have fencing, but we don't have it all around. Yeah, so I think we're also touching on a couple future things for ACPS in terms of developing either new ed specs or a long range educational facilities plan that comes out of that. But right now, so the video you guidelines for school facilities and safety say outdoor spaces intended for student use during school hours must be part of a defined instructional or recreational area that is both secure and easily supervised with access controls in place to prevent allotment on authorized entry or community traffic through student zones. And then there's also a very similar ACPS policy. I could find it very quickly on my phone, but that essentially models that language from VDOE. So I guess I would have two follow-up questions. One would be, do the schools that don't currently have that, does that mean they're all out of compliance? So they are guidelines, not like strict, you know, because the VDOE has to apply to many different school districts. I will say that it is a statement from our safety and security team that if they that they would like fences that are enclosed for pretty much all of our areas, the field areas. I can't speak to specific incidents unfortunately, but you know it does create a sense of safety on the field, especially, you know when there are multiple points of egress from the site. some of them Douglas MacArthur does have an eight foot fence mostly around its perimeter with they believe a four foot fence in the back, but there's another fence set back off of it from the park. I will say Samuel Tucker, that is also a city of Alexandria Park. George Mason Park is not a city of Alexandria does a game park, right? I guess what I'm trying to get at and we'll probably have more discussion around this is I'm a big. Unfortunately so you don't have to sit through all of these every weekend, but I just big believer of consistency. And I think if I look at the goals ACPS has set forth as it relates to equity, I don't want us passing something where we're saying, okay, this is what safety means for one set of kids and then other kids don't have that same sort of safety requirements. I guess the other thing is that I'm trying to balance here while it may not be a, I guess a city-owned park in the same way that Samuel Tucker is. I think a lot of these spaces we've envisioned as community amenities as well. And there has been kind of the shared functionality. And so I mean, we're going to have public testimony. We'll have a lot more comments on this. I'm not saying no fence. I just I am very uncomfortable with the fence as is with this much of the space. Essentially, the community is just limited to the walking path. And I think there's a way to scale that fence back. But Councilman Chapman. Thank you. Madam. For the fence for staff or whoever can answer this. How much, how many trees are impacted by the fencing just by itself? The fence, none. So as this fence is built, no trees are impacted that are impacted. I'm sorry, one second. We just got a message that the online streaming has gone out. Can we just pause for a minute until we get this back? Okay, several participants are saying what's going on. Okay. I guess what I would just ask let's just pause for two minutes just because I know this was a challenge with Um, it looks, it looks like based on what we're calling up, the stream is working. Okay, let me just send a quick question. Um, they're still sending pictures of it out. Why don't we. Yeah, let me ask more breaks. Thank you everyone for your patience. Okay. Is there a Zoom Zoom is working based on our information. Okay. Can you do me a favor, please? Let's put in the Zoom that folks can also switch to Alex TV so that they continue and then that way it's out there and we'll resume and then we'll just keep monitoring if it goes out again. Okay. With that, sorry to cut you off, Councilor Chapman. Oh, where is. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think I got the question out. Did I or didn't I need to clarify? Hi, apologies. Do you mind repeating? So the question was, um, the fencing and how much is it actually put in the fencing? many freeze are impacted that are currently there. Correct. None would be impacted by the proposed fence. Okay. as you put in the fencing how many freeze are impacted that are currently there. Correct, none would be impacted by the proposed fence. Just a comment. As we look at the fencing while I live near Douglas MacArthur, I think my standard has been less fencing. I see now remember when He's just did Hammond, the Hammond field and kind of enclosed that and lock that. I think my challenge is how does the applicant ensure that this fencing that's proposed is available to the public? I mean, I do appreciate the idea of having it open right after maybe three or after school programs. 30. But I do want to understand how what happens then if the person that's responsible for opening it. That happens. You know, that I say that because after him and was closed, we got a number of three one ones or incident or calls or emails about that fence that that field being closed off to the community and it was locked and people weren't able to access it when school wasn't there and so I don't want to have the community have to jump through hoops to get to a field that's not being used after school. I think what we have at Jefferson Houston, where you have openings in the fence, allow for some flow of, and no extra burden on that staff or staff to make sure that's open for the community. Whether it's a holiday, whether it's a weekend, whatever it is, they don't have to worry about going to unlock the park and dealing with that. But there is kind of delineation of what's available for the school, what's available for the public in terms of walking around the site. If there are entrances that are kind of made into the fence that allow them to kind of move through the space. I do understand and you know realize that there are some irresponsible dog owners that should know better because most school sites in the region don't allow dogs on them at all. So I think that that's an education piece with our our RK 9, maybe well, I guess I kind of own it own you own Jana. You're not deny him. And he's good. Sure. When he's barking. No. But but kind of understanding that that that should be something that we can get across the community, but I don't think it should be kind of the reason that we kind of Vincent these fields that my also my worry also is on the opposite end we are now keeping everybody within that field space you know there are no ways for kids to get out unless something is already unlocked and open and so that would be my concern as well If there's a reason to leave the site, the back way and the fence is not already open and somebody doesn't already have a key that's leading a group of kids or staff members or whatever, we now have a situation. If there's a six foot fence around the property that does not already have those openings, I think I have some concern about that. I would appreciate a much lower fence if we're going to do a fence and then openings in that fence to really have the fences delineation between the property. Again, in some folks have noted, you know, we haven't seen and I'm not requesting a large plan for ACPS to come back and fence in all these properties. I do think we've been able to, where ACFES has been able to kind of handle and manage the various school sites appropriately over the last several decades. And so I'm not one for fences, haven't been one for fences. So I'm not a big fan of those, but I certainly understand some of the security issues there. So I'll stop right there. What I'm going to do then, I'm going to go to the public hearing. I know I have eight questions on trees, but I want to give folks time who have been here and then we can come back to more questions. It's like Sophie had a comment first and then I'm going to, while we're doing that, let's go ahead and tee up if Harry's in the room and Harry will marry Patrick McCusker. Go ahead and team them up. Oh, I'm sorry one second one second Sophie can you sure I just wanted to respond directly to one of the questions that Mr. Chapman had about emergency egress they have they will have push bars on them so that even if the doors are locked that you will be able to egress the site. This is for anybody that is using our site. Okay, thank you. I'm going to go now to our public speakers. First to our Harry Wilmer and Patrick McCusker. Harry, you can begin whenever you're ready. Thank you so much. I'm speaking via Zoom here. Before I begin, I like to note that I am a new board member of the Northridge Citizens Association and a member of their Education and Schools Committee. So my words will represent our association and I'd like to ask to be given five minutes as allocated for Citizens' Associations. Yes. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Mayor Gaskin, Vice Mayor Bagley, esteemed council members. Thank you so much for your time and for allowing allowing me the time to speak about my concerns at this project. My name is Harry Wilmer. I'm a graduate of George Mason and ACPS and I'm a father of two future George Mason students. I'm speaking today to advocate for tree preservation and fence line adjustments that will protect this valuable community resource. As Mary Gaskin's mentioned for over 80 years, the field behind George Mason has functioned as a rare open access green space shared by both the school and the community. And actually in just the past few weeks, I've witnessed school classes walking on that community pathway and laying out blankets for outdoor learning in the shade of the many old trees that surround the field. On any given evening, you can find a dozen sports practices and kids of all ages laughing and running free. It really breaks my heart and it frankly boggles my mind to think that ACPS would want to destroy everything that makes this place special. This space has always been a versatile open community center natural green space. This week I walked to the path with a member of the tree stewards of Alexandria. He confirmed that many of the 108 trees marked for destruction are at least 60 to 80 years old, and that these old trees are crucial for the local ecosystem because of all of the activity from birds, bugs, and other local fauna that all inhabit them. You may have heard that the current construction plan will result in a 6% net increase in tree canopy. It's very important to bear in mind, please, that these will be new plantings, and it will take at least 30 years for them to mature into the tree canopy comparable to what we have today. Importantly only about 20 mostly newish of the 108 trees slated for destruction are being removed for the building itself. All of the old growth trees are being destroyed for parking lots and path improvements. I'd also like to just learn a bit more about how they're saying that the fence isn't impacting any of the trees. Maybe it's the path improvements themselves, but certainly if you look at the map, they're removing many, many trees all around where that fence is lined up to go. So I'm asking you to please amend their proposal and preserve dozens of old growth trees that avoid this needless destruction of nature and hold these developers to their words of making this a so-called green project. It also likes you to please reconsider the fence line and fence height that is planned to surround the field. I was told by Arthur Carpenter Holmes, who's the senior capital program manager at ACPS, that the plan fence would be 8 feet high. I'm now hearing 6 feet, which is better, but I want to emphasize that there are no streets adjacent to George Mason field making Fence of that height completely unnecessary a shorter fence would still protect student safety while keeping this face open and inviting to the community and more consistent with other recent school renovations, for example, Miss Humor just mentioned the four foot fence at MacArthur on the side that backs up to the wooded area behind the school Finally, the proposed fence will surround the entirety of the field, creating a physical and psychological barrier to the community. We have asked many, many times to preserve access to what will be left of our park after this construction. This can be accomplished if the fence line is moved to surround only the artificial turf and paved play areas. Mr. Holmes mentioned to me that if he were asked to move the fence line up, he would leave the entire back half of the park alone. This is a win-win solution. ACPS saves a lot of money on fencing and tree removal. The community saves several dozen old trees and preserves park access. The city maintains much of its old tree canopy, and the children at the school still have access to a natural shaded green space in the way they do today. The decision you make today is about future generations growing up and going to a school where they can play in the grass and among trees that are older than any of us. It is about sending the right message to preserve the environment, support our students, and enhance our communities rather than giving it to destruction for the sake of expediency. Let your legacy be we want to supporting our community and the environment. And I also just want to point out that no one from our community had seen the scope of these plans until they were made public on May 6th that the planning commission hearing was buried on page 58 of 124 page document all the plan tree destruction. But despite the lack of transparency and short timetable provided to review the details of these plans, plans. Our community our Jamaican part, garnered over an additional 400 signatures in just the past seven days, bringing the totals over 900, including those gathered in person. Also want to echo the point made earlier by our council members, that the community has repeatedly requested the opportunity to vote on a design that built up rather than out and that that request was denied in the fall. Our community has shown over and over how passionate we are about preserving the screen space, and we hope that you will take action to adjust the fence line, preserve the old growth trees, and save the fall. Our community has shown over and over how passionate we are about preserving the screen space and we hope that you will take action to adjust the fence line, preserve the old growth trees and save this special piece of Alexandria. Thank you so much for your consideration of this matter. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Wilmer. Next speaker, Mr. Mr. McCusker. Okay. Next speaker. I'm on. Can you hear? Oh. Jessica. Okay. Next speaker. I'm on. Can you hear me? Wait. Yes. Yes, we can. Thank you very much. God, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I've lived in the neighborhood near George Mason Elementary for 13 years raising two boys with my wife Jenny. As a rec soccer coach with ASA, I've run countless practices on that field, often alongside other teams, all sharing the same open space. We've launched model rockets, headpickness throwing frisbees, played football on the snow, when we trained for their first turkey trout reran the loop, 25 times, five miles. My son, Scout Troop, Troop 129, also holds activities there. It's not just a film. It's a part of our family story. It's part of this community story. Before I hear my concerns about the project, I want to recognize the dedication and efforts so many have put into it. I know the work comes from good intentions, but large, complex projects sometimes drift from their core purpose. When I asked my son, what he thought about the plan to cut down the trees, shrink the field, fence it in, et cetera, et cetera, he said it doesn't make sense. And he added that would have ruined a big part of my childhood. And that stuck with me. Despite all the best consultants, the studies, the meetings, somehow we've ended up with a design that few can clearly explain or wholeheartedly defend. We often lean on data to justify decisions, but sometimes the numbers miss the point. We rely on public endpoint, but even democracy doesn't always yield wisdom. Some decisions have to come from within by asking, what is right, what is good? George Mason Park isn't just good, it's a gem. One of the last open natural spaces in this part of Alexandria. We often hear concerns about overdevelopment, about developers chasing quick profits, about paving over everything in the name of progress. Today, this council has a chance to prove the skeptics wrong to show that Alexandria protects what truly matters. Not for us, but for the children who will inherit this place. In Alexandria, we put children first. We've all seen the headlines. America's children are struggling physically and mentally, but the science is clear. Access to nature, sunlight, open fields, and real trees enthruse their health and well-being. If schools exist to support children, why are we removing the most rare and valuable thing that George Mason has? Grass, trees, space? Kids don't need more plastic turf or fences or outdoor classrooms in concrete courtyards or a security desk at the school entrance or a green roof. I'm so much sure what that is. But I know this, real grass growing in the earth is better for them. If a full redesign is impossible, I ask this, preserve what you can, eliminate the court yards, reduce the building footprint, remove the fences, save the tree canopy, keep the field open. Thank you again for the chance to speak. I'm not just a parent, I'm someone who loves this neighborhood and wants our children to grow up, all the children with room to run, to breathe, and to be free. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, Mr. McDonald. Mayor Gaskins, Vice Mayor Bagley and members of City Council. I'm not sure I could say anything more eloquent than the previous two speakers, honestly. But I will try to put some context into things. I mean, Alexandria on a per capita basis has far too little open space and green space. Of a recreational type and of natural resource type. And one of the things that we've tried to do in the last few years, I think, was to have a team of people in the Parks and Rec Department who worked on natural resources. Rod Simmons, you know, is the most recent person to run this. And I think it was in 2014, he did a study looking at all of the natural resource areas around the city. And there's a very special area, including this George Mason Park. There's about two and a half acres there that are part of the old remnant ecosystem of Alexandria. Of course, the community just sees it as a lovely place to take their kids and play and observe nature and enjoy the outdoors. And I think it's a terrible shame and I think a number of members of the council have made this point, that these facts that this importance of open space, importance of preservation of nature, wasn't made a greater priority in the planning process. Clearly there are designs here that would have helped us preserve more of this open space and wouldn't be in this discussion right now. I don't know what the answer is, but I think the community would like you to step back a little bit here and say to the School committee, say to the school board, we want you to preserve more of the ecosystem that's here more of the trees, math changes Fence changes and do your best to preserve more of it for the community. We don't have enough parks in the city We don't have enough nature and it's becoming increasingly difficult to add more. The cost is just so high. So what we need to do is preserve what we have. And if you look at number three, one of the rule, one of the special use permits says, will substantially conform to the master plan of the city. A goal of the Northridge Rosemont Small Area Plan is to reserve existing open space and expand the amount of recreational open space in the area. Well, I don't think this project accomplished that goal. So I think it's really in violation. So one could actually turn it down and say, come up with a better design. But I realized we're down the road. We want good schools for kids. My stepson went to MacArthur when it was not quite as modern and as nice looking, but we did have that park in the back. And the kids enjoyed it. And I think what you're hearing from the community is we need to do better to work with the school system, to work as a community, to preserve these natural areas and open space. And I obviously try to add more to it. So I hope you will figure out a way here to do a little bit to mitigate what I think were some pretty bad design decisions. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. McDonald. Next speaker is Allison Frazier. Hi can you hear me? Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Allison Frazier and I'm a mom of three current and former George Mason students who love the playground field in woods. I also grew up in the neighborhood and I attended George Mason myself. I can't imagine having a more sentimental attachment to that field and I completely understand members' concerns about these changes. But I'm here today to ask the council to allow the school modernization to proceed as planned and on schedule, including offence in field, whether that's six feet or four feet. We in the George Mason neighborhood are extremely privileged, and I do use that word deliberately. While almost every other part of Alexandria has changed significantly in recent decades, our neighborhood has remained virtually the same. Now it's our turn to make some changes. It's no longer realistic or fair to keep this field as it has always been. If you see a current George Mason recess, the paved area is packed with kids running around. It's a joyful but chaotic scene, and mirror yards away sits in enormous empty field. The George Mason population is expected to double in the new building, including pre-K students and kids in special education programs. These kids need space to play so they can get the full mental and physical health benefits of recess. But ACPS safety requirements prevent students from having free access to an unfenced area's common sense. It only takes a second for a child to wander off into the woods, talk to a stranger, or be approached by an overly enthusiastic dog. With dozens of energetic elementary schoolers running around, it's not fair to place the burden on a handful of staff members when a simpler solution exists. If you drive by Barrett, Brooks, MacArthur, and Mount Vernon during the day, you'll see kids running around with their friends and taking a break from the structured classroom environment. In contrast, our field is severely underutilized during school hours. After the early morning dog walkers, the field is basically empty for the rest of the school day. When I walk on the public path, I rarely see more than one or two people on the field. Sometimes no one. Any class use of the field is also minimal. I checked with my two second graders and they have not been on the field during school hours this entire year. It seems incredibly wasteful to close off this space to most of the student body just to preserve the way it's always been. Our kids deserve the same space to play that other schools have. This field will still be available to the public after school and on weekends for all the wonderful activities mentioned by the other speakers. With offense, students will also have the opportunity to make memories on the field. This benefits everyone. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. I just had a quick follow up. I know Sophie, you so much for your time. Thank you. I just had a quick follow up. I know Sophie you were looking for what I knew told us the video e requirement and you were looking for the ACPS requirement. Do you have an update on the ACPS safety requirement? If not we can keep going with more. I'm sorry. Please keep going and I will have after the next speaker. Thank you. Okay, then we will come back to that. Next speaker looks like Danielle vote. Hi, my name is Danielle Sims vote and I'm a mom to a second and fourth grader at George Mason as well as the current PTA president. As a parent and community member, I respectfully request that the city approve the George Mason project and support the installation of a fence around the entire field at the modernized George Mason. The modernization of George Mason is a long awaited investment in our children's education, but to fully realize its benefits, we must ensure the outdoor spaces are safe and accessible to the students during the school day on school property. Currently, that is not the case. As it stands now, students are largely unable to use the field regularly during school hours for research. during the school day on school property. Currently, that is not the case. As it stands now, students are largely unable to use the field regularly during school hours for recess or PE due to the lack of fencing. There is a risk that students can wander from the unfenced field as well as the risk of unauthorized individuals entering the fields while the children are playing, which does happen. This concern becomes even more pressing considering that the student body at George Mason is expected to double in size. With the significant increase in enrollment, space will be at a premium and without access to the field children will be restricted to a much smaller and more crowded area limiting their ability to safely run, explore and engage in physical activity. Moreover, the field which is school property is currently open to the public at all hours, including during the entire school day. And while we all appreciate and love the George Mason field, the use of the field during instructional hours by unrelated individuals, including frequently those with awfully stods, poses a real safety concern and prevents the full use of the field during the school day by students. On Friday, I was at the school and while the kids were playing outside on the black top, there was an unauthorized woman on the field with two awfully stodgs. This is unsafe. Fencing the field does not mean shutting the community out. The proposal would allow continued full access to the field. During early mornings, evenings, weekends, holidays, and all school breaks, all summer, all winter, just like the modeled other ACP schools, ACPS schools like MacArthur and Brooks. Why should George Mason be treated differently? And how is it fair or okay that our children do not get full access to their school campus during the school day? Fencing the field allows us to expand student access. We are making sure our children can play and learn in a safe, secure environment during the school day, just as kids do at other schools. This is common sense. Please approve the George Mason Modernization Project in full, including the perimeter fence around the entire field. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Simms vote. Beaker is Parker wise. We'll keep going. Next one is Mary Jane Kane. Hi, it's Mary Jean. That's okay. I just wanted to say that the last time I was at one of these meetings was about a year and a half ago. And I think the atmosphere here has been so positive, even though we've all had differing opinions. So I wanted to thank all of you for that. Anyway, so regarding the issue of the George Mason sense and trees. You know, I'm here to advocate for tree preservation and fence line adjustments. Northridge is one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the city of Alexandria. Preserving this will not just happen automatically as we are presented with the needs and issues that our community faces. It takes careful, thoughtful, and jujicious planning and especially collaborating with the residents of our community. I can't stress that enough. There has been a lack of transparency regarding these important changes and this is not the first time in the last two years that a lack of transparency has been at issue. Let's see. Alexandria is a relatively small city. And I think why can't we get the processes by which James comes about right? Getting it right means giving ample time and transparency for community input. I think that's really been a shortcoming of our city for many issues for a very long time. I'm also disheartened to learn that all three of the proposed modernization designs for George Mason include that over 50 trees will be destroyed so that they can replace the walking path and make improvements to the existing natural features around the park. Many of the trees slated for removal are 80 plus year old oaks and walnuts that are crucial for the health of the local environment. And I wanted to say that we in Northridge have been working very, very hard to replace the tree canopy. Thanks to the efforts of two residents, James Stewart and Lynn Gas. And I hate to see those efforts thwarted by cutting down so many trees. And even though the plan says that we'll actually gain by planting new trees. We all know how long it takes for a tree to mature. It seems to me that people are leaning in the direction that I would lean in terms of the fence and making it lower since there are no high traffic streets adjacent to George Mason Field. So it seems that a shorter fence in height would would do the job. The community has asked many, many times to preserve access. Okay, nothing more. Do you want to finish? Go ahead and do. Okay, I'll ask. Anyway, defense line being lower and to surround only the artificial turf field and paved play areas would allow greater access to the park. And I hope you will take my comments on transparency and collaboration with the community seriously. And I thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Matt Heckle. I think he's walking towards us. Thank you. That's okay. My name is Matt Heckle. I live at 2503 Taylor Avenue, which is immediately next door to the school on its sound side. I have two children who are alumni and I have a wife who's taught there for six plus years, 20 years in the ACPS school system. I'm here today as I was for the school board meeting and the planning commission meetings to speak in favor of the George Mason Elementary school modernization. While in the favor, I do have a request in regards to quality of life issue. It might seem small to most, but to those of us who live on the side of the school where the dumpsters and the delivery dock will be located, it's not. It's an issue that can potentially great on one psyche day in and day out. The issue is noise, but not noise in general, just noise that occurs at an unreasonable hour of the day. If you review the proposed special use permit, condition C19 speaks to noise being generated during construction activities. It considerably restricts noise to after 7 AM on weekends, weekdays, and 9 AM on weekends. However, when it comes to ongoing school operations, once the school is open for say the next 70 years or so, there's on a single condition imposed to limited. Within the SUP application, ACPS answers questions 8 and 14 by saying there will be on average five trucks arriving at the school each day to deliver supplies or pick up trash and recycling. Due to the size of the parking lot, these arrivals will require the trucks to back up, one or possibly two times to get into position, and then the real noise begins. Question 14 concludes by asking, when will these activities occur? ACPS answers by saying prior to 7 a.m. I want to let that sink in for a moment. In case you're wondering, there is no way to sleep through this. It's literally next door to our homes. While the proposed SUP doesn't restrict times for these activities, oddly enough, the current SUP that the school operates under does have a restriction. Simply put, they can't come prior to 7 a.m. Why wasn't this restriction included in the new SUP? I would ask the city council to inquire about this and push hard on its submission. While one hour doesn't seem like much, when it comes to sleep, I think we can all agree that it is. I ask the council members to put yourselves in my neighbors in my position and ask yourselves, do you want to be forced to wake prior to 7am on week days as long as you own your current home? About 6am. How about five? As written, there is nothing controlling these activities and therefore everything is in play, nothing is out of bounds. However, the proposed SUP does speak to Rex for EV charging stations and even a bicycle fix at station. But nothing that ensures the quality of life for me and my neighbors. We tried in vain to get all of this located to the north side where no one would be bothered. We failed. To date, I've attended all seven of the community meetings held by ACPS to collaborate with the community. However, to date, not a single suggestion of ours has been taken. Therefore, I ask the council let today be that day and require ACPS to be courteous and conscientious of its neighbors by restricting these activities to after 7 a.m. Thank you. Thank you. Come to the chat. To staff any kind of reason why that wasn't carried over is there something policy there? I don't know. No, I'm not aware of either. I'm trying to lift it up. I wasn't aware of any. Right. Thank you. I definitely want to make sure we don't lose sight of that. So we'll make a note that we come back to that point and see what's on the box. We have Miss Elancedi. Who's our next speaker? Hello. My name's Luis Elancedi. I'm a very long time resident of the city. I actually went to Charles Barrett. And I'm a tutor now at the George Mason. And I could repeat many of the things that have been said, I call it sometimes false transparency because I feel that there is meetings that can be pointed to surveys, et cetera. But sometimes it doesn't seem as though there's an engagement and also an engagement in a relevant or timely way. So for sure, there's not much to be done now in terms of the design or the capacity of the school. But with that said, the hope is that going forward, it might work better so that the engagement can be substantive and again timely. I do want to just reiterate some things I had in my comments, which are number one, green space matters. Again, we're going to limited area in terms of what we can do. But if the pathway could have fewer revisions as a way to can maintain or keep more trees while still allowing good access, I also agree with lower fencing and some access points and signage, of course, can be a very effective educational tool and one to create guidance. And other than that, we also, at least to my knowledge, everyone supports the modernization of the school and maintaining a good and strict construction schedule. So it's not a matter trying to derail anything. Thank you. Thank you so much for your comments. Okay, so the next speaker is Miss Sophie. I'm behalf of the applicant. I'm so sorry to interrupt my thing. Would you like to hear the policy before I speak as the applicant? Yes, let's do that. Let's have you do the policy and then I mean I sure just hold you in. Yeah, no, it's okay. I'm happy to be here. So I will say that the policy, as I say before, the fence is for a number of things, not only safety, but this comes from our buildings and ground security and our vandalism policy. It says all property must be maintained and the secure and control managed prevent unauthorized access to ensure safe learning environment that applies to the indoors and outdoor spaces. And then additionally policy, JFC and JG emphasize importance of structured, supervised environments during the school day to promote safety and accountability. OK, and so then so for the other spaces that don't maybe have a fence all the way around there. I'm assuming different policies or on site policies that meet these goals around a safe and secure and controlled manner. That's correct. I think. Right. And then the way we do. I don't know if you've been with us all day, but the applicant. You have as long as you need to speak. Yes. All right. Good evening, afternoon, Mayor Gaskins and members of City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Sophie Humor and I'm the director of capital programs planning and design for Alexandria City Public Schools. And we respectfully see your approval of our site plan for the red development of George Mason Elementary School. As many of you know this red development is a comprehensive long-term planning process supported by Alexandria's Capital Improvement Program budget and the site plan before you is backed by new years of needs assessment facility evaluations and community feedback and reflects a substantial investment in public education when we will believe will benefit not only students and educators, but also the broader community for decades to come. I want to touch briefly on the green space. It was a priority that was raised by the public not only during this process, but also during the 2019 facility studies. And when the school board finally adopted the plan, the feasibility plans in 2021, it was chosen that the school would be replaced where it stands in order to try to preserve as much as possible that rear open space, which is why the building is cited where it is as well as the incorporation of the historic facade. So as we went through this process, rather than proposing the large multi, the large multi-purpose field turf that would align with our ed specs, we made a deliberate choice to scale that back. And instead of prioritizing flexible natural grass field and work with our PCA on the details of that. The goal is to create a green space that serves multiple purposes, structured physical education, outdoor learning, and unstructured recreation for children throughout the day. We believe this approach respects both the educational needs of students but also the communities wish to maintain a more natural, accessible environment. We've also heard the communities questions about fencing. I will clarify that this is, is this provokes as a six-foot fence, similar to those at other ACPS schools. And it's not the wall of the site, but to ensure safety and security throughout the day. Most importantly, the site will remain a community resource, the fenced areas like the baseball diamond and playgrounds. We've closed during the school day, but open to the public after 3 p.m. on weekdays and on weekends. And we're committed to clear signage and guidance around that as the school system. We're also working with design teams to ensure that the fence blends naturally into the environment. The use of natural materials, layered plantings and thoughtful placements. We aim to maintain it open and welcoming feel on the campus supporting both safety and community access. I will speak to the trees a little bit since they've come up. So we agree that trees are vital to the ecosystem and to the biodiversity, especially around George Mason Elementary and neighbor brought to our tent to him that there was a back colony living in the chimneys of George Mason and they have safely been relocated. So I so very happy to report that. But given the property and the need for construction there, there are plant site improvements that will need to be removed some trees and we work closely with the city's arborists to identify areas that we could save trees. Some trees are unhealthy, some are of an invasive species and then some conflict with with the development, though I said we've worked with the city artists on that. We also have a break, a detailed breakdown of the tree removal plan, but we do estimate that by not doing a planned 10 foot path around the field or we're I'm sorry, improving the paths to 10 feet instead, maybe just doing some patching to make sure that they're okay, that they are traversable by stroller bike. We may be able to see 14 to 15 trees if we do not make those kind of comprehensive improvements. So we're also open to working with staff on that through the final site plan. I'll just conclude by saying that we do believe that the school reflects our values, sustainability, inclusivity, safety, and academic excellence. And we thank you for this consideration. And we respectfully ask for your support and bring this transformational project to life for our students and community. Thank you. And I want to thank you again for being here and answering all the questions. I do have a couple before you sit back down. Most related to the trees and the tree removal plan. I guess when I was reading through this, it appears to me that there are several different reasons that are impacting the trees. There's the construction, there's the parking, there's the walking path. Do you have a breakdown of kind of how many trees are impacted for each of these different types of things? I do. And I'm trying to see if this is the best site plan to look at while I go through it. But if you need, we can request to a different slide or that tree removal. Oh, that's not. OK, I'm sorry. Sorry. So I'll just kind of go through it. So there's five trees in the northwestern area. We initially hope to preserve, but the city landscape and architects recommendation. Said that they likely wouldn't survive construction. So that's kind of a breakdown there. Nine trees on the north side have to be removed to install stormwater management system, which will improve city water quality. And then eight trees are going to be removed to create the south east parking area, providing off street parking. And then we're trying to preserve, or we will preserve the growth of trees to the south with remaining removals limited to areas along the north and south side for parking and the middle for the building footprint as well. Okay. So then so it's five for construction nine for stormwater eight for the southeast parking area. Does that mean all the rest are for the walking path? That doesn't sound quite right. There's about 80 trees that will be removed. I want to be transparent on that. And some are you know we subinded to the planning commission a very detailed analysis of some certain trees. And it has to do with just like the critical root zone of those trees and the impacts that they will feel during construction, they wouldn't be safe in the future. And they need to be replanted. I guess what I'm trying to get at in short, we can give you time. It is a direct impact to this. this. To me, it feels like there are certain things where we know there's going to be some impact, like stormwater or construction or the parking. But I'm wondering if the majority are in regards to the walking path. Is there a different plan that we could explore for a walking path that would result in less impact to the tree camp? Yes. So if we don't impact the paths at all, like if we don't patch them or anything, we can save about 14 to 15 trees of the 80. Yes. Okay. Well, yeah, 80. I don't have a calculator. I'm gonna be like, we've all established on this diet, mental math, not my best. Okay, so then what number is that? So we'd be at 42 total impact trees. That sounds about correct. Yeah. Oh yeah. We'll give you a chance to we can all triple track that before I go to my colleague though. I know you This is probably a question for Jack or our parks and recs team. I know you mentioned some trees have been explored or looked at by our arborists are all trees and good health Or is there still another Impact that we have here. I'm just kind of get a total impact of the truth Right, what we can do is an actually all deferred of Beth Snyder Snyder's I'm sorry Jack Rowan with the Department of Recreation Deputy Director for Park Services. The trees are all inventory for any development project school city you know private development and they're given a rating and based on that rating trees that are in you know decline or unhealthy will get a lower rating and in most cases those will be removed as part of the construction. And then we also have invasive species throughout the city. That's also an opportunity for us to remove trees at that time, to preserve the natural habitat, and then also an opportunity to replant. But Beth has been looking at the plans today and maybe able to shed some additional light on that. Thank you. Thank you for the record. That's neither sick with recreation, parks, and cultural activities. And as Jack mentioned, we do have several categories of reasons why trees are slated for removal on this project. Some are the construction impacts, which we have more control over. Some are for invasive species removal which we coordinate in compliance with our city's landscape guidelines and then the other ones we slate for removal are related to the condition of the trees. As mentioned as part of the landscape guidelines, altrees are inventory and given a condition rating and there are notes identified in each one of the, for each one of these individual trees stating not only what their condition is, but then if there are other indicators such as dead branches in the canopy, rot in any of the roots or in the trunk itself and things of that nature, which would help us to identify that these would be things we want to remove for a safety aspect. Okay. Mr. Nider said, while we're doing the rest of the questions, is it possible to get the number that are proposed to move because they're invasive and the number that are proposed to remove because of their condition? We could try to tell you that for you quickly because I think it was super helpful to have the construction, the stormwater parking, if we can get a total number, then I think we can figure out what's a path forward that allows us to save. Councilman Chapman. No, I think you met a mayor for kind of running through that list. I think one of the things that we might, I think probably on our side, on the city side, We might want to work with applicants on in the future when they do have to remove trees as being able to talk about this like this because I think what went to the community or what the community has at least emailed us is a full number of trees that are being removed regardless of the reason. And so if you have a bunch of disease trees, that needs to be something that community knows, that hey, these trees that are being removed due primarily to this instruction are actually disease and might not survive. That conversation needs to happen so that people have a full understanding of what's going on. And I don't think we can necessarily rely, and this is not against the applicant, rely on an applicant an applicant to do that messaging. I think we have the ability because we're already doing some of the inventory. I think we have the ability to really put out that information in a strong way. We have had projects in the past, not necessarily with ACPS, but with private entities and applicants Where that has been the case as well and we've never told that story And I think it's in our best interest to tell that story because it's our community That's that's reacting to whatever happens and so if we you know have a building If we're renovating something if we're tearing down something and we have opportunities to tell why specific trees or groups of trees or types of trees are being taken away, I think it's in our best interest to do that regardless of the applicant. So are there more questions for the applicant? I'm going to go to Vice Mayor Bagley, Councilman Elnubey, and then what we might do, since you've been here, this will close the public hearing and continue discussion. So Vice Mayor Bagley. In my apologies, if in the running around that you've seen me doing, I missed if there was a discussion on this, but one of the elements that we didn't inventory in the discussion of trees was the geothermal project. And I'm just wondering, can you speak just to that in a little detail? Is there a proposal for geothermal and how does it impact at all tree canopy? Yeah, of course. So geothermal is proposed for this project. It's essential in getting us to a lower UI on the building. That is proposed And I lost Brian maybe. It's generally in the area of the the northern side of the property generally in the area of the field. Yeah, yeah, it's the center of the field so there isn't really an impact to the trees on that. A lot of this a lot of the tree removal is one related to the building footprint or storm water grading, as I previously mentioned. Okay, so I just want to be sure I understand. So the geothermal project does not explicitly itself require us a set number of trees. Okay, I just wanted to clear that piece as I looked over the project description. I'll justubi. We can I don't have questions for the African's logo comment towards their part. So I think we have to close the public frame. Yes, would you like to make a motion to close public? Make a motion if not my colleagues have anything. All right, motion to close public hearing. All right, there has been a motion by Councilional Nubi and a second by Councilmemic Pike to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right, the aides have it. So the public hearing is closed. We will continue with discussion. Do you want to start Councilional Nubi? Yes, thank you Madam Mayor. We start with the fields. I have several volumes. I'll go through. So with the fields, I appreciate ACPS calling back the artificial turf. I, one of the biggest concerns I had and this, you know, as we saw now, this was just an option and by no means we had to do it. So I'm glad they pulled it back because that would have been a deal breaker for me on this project So I appreciate that again goes back to if we would have done three stories We would have had more space to do these other things But again, not gonna beat this dead horse any longer About the fence I appreciate what my colleagues Commented about the fence I agree. I'm in agreement with my colleagues I don't agree with a SPS solution for the fence I appreciate where SPS comes from and safety and security I from my perspective as a council member is a member of this body we need to look at the impacts of these solutions broadly and how they impact the broader community where I appreciate where SPSPS is coming from, from their perspective, from my perspective, this solution is not the right solution from a community perspective and help impacts the community. And I'm not going to repeat what my colleagues said on the fence. Actually, let me stop here and ask our staff, planning and zoning staff. If we would would at the time to make a motion, if you would want to add a condition to pull that fence back, where's that in the conditions? That was 13, I believe, can you correct me now? Yes, sir. It was 13 if you wanted to add it. That's where all the landscaping conditions are. If you wanted to add a D, you could add it there. You would add a D, thank you for that. All right, pickleball. I will add this for all seriousness, that tennis court will have pickle ball lines attitude. As we're doing, we know it's popular. It has demand. However, what I will ask our RPC staff, I see you guys are here. I know we're going through revising the master plan for parks and correct. So what I would ask is we would evaluate the standards for how close multi-use courts are to residential dwellings. Because like in this case, I know, and I want the Google Maps and measure there are several houses within 100 feet. It's different when it's tennis, when it's pickle pickleball. It's very different sound and very different disturbance to the neighbor. So I would ask that we evaluate from that lens as we look at our courts and our master plan. Yes, absolutely. You can guarantee that we will do that. Thank you. All right, we'll guarantee you, rather. Appreciate that. OK. OK. I appreciate that. All right. That's all I have for now, Madam Mayor. I'm going to say my comments and I'll call the rest of you because I am navigating my child cares running out. So my children might be coming back here. So just trying to figure that out. I guess a couple things. One, there were comments raised about off-leash dogs. I just want to be clear to the public, but also to staff. And I know, Mr. Manager, we talked about this. We had some of the public hearing. The off-leash dogs are not acceptable periods. That's the requirement of all of our parks. And so whatever we need to do from an enforcement standpoint, we need to make sure we're getting and not taking care of. So I don't know if staff wants to comment or what the plan is, I think that's when we just need to make very clear. I mean, yes, there is definitely a problem throughout the city, all over the city with dog owners taking liberty, and I think their dogs run off leash where they choose. So that is something that we continually work with our neighbors when we're out in the field. We talk to our animal enforcement officers to try to assist. We just can have to continue with the educational campaign to try to get that point across. That it is not the appropriate thing to do on school property and also in areas that are not designated for that purpose. So I would say let's figure out both the educational campaign but also what is the enforcement campaign so that we are a little more I mean we have the roles we got to enforce the roles and I guess going back to the trees I know we'll have more dialogue and there's more questions. I just for my colleagues know where I am at on this I I would like to, I think, again, as I mentioned, there's some that just are going to be impacted from the construction, the stormwater, the parking. I'm still waiting, I guess, on the number on the invasive and conditions, but I think where other trees can be saved, I think we should make that a priority. And so if there's a way to come up with a different walking path solution, or even we just don't address the walking path, I think that is necessary to save the trees. On the walking path. I think that is necessary to save the trees. On the fencing, I hear the concerns of the parents about safety and so I'm not saying no fence. What I am thinking is that I still think there is a way to meet the needs of the school while also with the community. And I think having a scaled back fence does not mean that children cannot play. So I just think that there has to be a way that we can move this back. My recommend, I mean, I can't make a motion, but my thinking or thoughts on this would be, I think there's an opportunity to fence in the things that are near the school, the turf, the playground, the gray box court over there and have great signage and there can still be shared use opportunities, but that still allows the field to be more more open. And I think that is consistent what we've seen with other other places as well. I still, I think we're waiting on an answer about with the the gentleman raise as regards to loading and trucks and noise and the SUP do we have an update on that? Yes, I looked at a prior There was a prior approval for the additions to George Mason back in 2012 It refers to hours of operation that are similar to our current noise ordinance Which is what the conditions say they have to comply to so So there's no changes in how they should be operating where there's no deliveries before 7 a.m. Okay, so just to make sure that I repeated back. So because of the noise ordinance, we have an ability to enforce that if deliveries start coming before 7 a.m., there is an enforcement mechanism that says that is not allowed. Correct. Okay. And should the resident have concerns or experience this? Is that a 3-1-1? Is it what department? How does that work? Who should they, I wanna make sure they have the clearest contact. Yes, I believe 3-1-1 would probably be the best to do that. Okay. Thank you. Then let me return to my colleagues for questions or comments. Vice Mayor Bagley. Thank you, Mayor Gaskins. And to take that a step further, I think through one's a great resource. But as we've talked about other projects today, having a point of contact just right there at the school, I don't think is asking too much in terms of being neighborly. So I think we've had other projects today that have offered, I think it's cool said that they have, you know, staff on site. So I would just ask that somebody a phone number and email address be designated, you know, as the community contact and it might already be. But I just like to take that a step further. I love 311, but if it's a neighbor to neighbor issue, let's speed it up. Okay. Councilman Chapman. Oh, sorry. You have more. Go ahead. It wasn't on that Councilman Chapman. It wasn't on that or can I go to something else? Let's speed it up. Is that okay? Councilman Chapman. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. It wasn't on that Councilman Chapman. Was it on that or can I go to something else? I mean, you should. Yeah. Oh, so my colleagues are saying to me, it's like, you know, be clear about, is this someone, is it a principal, the school, is it a facilities maintenance person? But let's try to resolve maybe before we all leave today, potentially just your ideas on who that contact person can be. If you're able to speak to it now, I mean that would be great. Sure, yeah, I mean three, three one ones are obviously forwarded onto ACPS. We do have the ASCAT ACPS which will then immediately be forwarded to my team. The deliveries that are related with the school are most, I would say mostly for school nutrition services to bring food onto the site during the day. So we will obviously comply with the noise ordinance. The principal, this is the school information is obviously on the website. The principal should know to contact facilities, but my contact information, and I just want to offer that personally, is on the website as well. So I can, I like to steer people where they need to go. So I can offer that. And then I'll also just say during the point of construction, where there will be a lot of, you know, either noise issues or something like that. We worked very closely with code enforcement. We will also be having a point of contact with our construction manager as well as APCPS staff. So I just want to let everybody know that that will be plastered everywhere. And thank you. And I mean, sometimes what our mayor does is, you know, you're here, the gentleman's here. If it's possible, you know, I mean, just to connect with each other. and I appreciate what you're saying during construction. I assume there will be a standard posted construction site with the required notification. here, the gentleman's here, if it's possible, you know, I mean, just to connect with each other. And I appreciate what you're saying during construction. I assume there will be a standard posted construction site with the required notifications on it that we see all over the city at construction sites. So that's that was my comment there. And then shifting back to the trees, I wanted to just ask him and I hope there are people working on the math or you know, aligning things, but I actually want to take this just a step further because I think it matters. If it's possible, not just 14 are invasive and 12 are dying, but actually like of the eight for the parking, this many, this, that and the other, and of the five for this, because I do actually think that kind of matters in addressing what is the general community concern about taking down trees. And, you know, it would be nice if the eight coming down for parking, if most of them fell into, you know, the invasive category or the disease category, or you see what I'm getting at and so some of these things are nice to have the pathway alterations and some of them are a little little necessary to have depending on your point of view stormwater construction parking and so are we moving in that direction I saw some papers being passed to sort of address those figures. Thank you for the additional layer of questioning. Right now we were able to do some of the math and come up with that higher level. The answer for you is that we have approximately 43 invasive or unhealthy trees. And we believe that also includes a few trees that are already dead on site. And that would leave 37 trees, which include 15 for pathway improvements, five unhealthy in the northwest corner, eight in this southeast parking area, which would be impacted by that, southeast parking lot, and nine impacted by storm water management. So then. Okay. Say, I guess let me tell you what I'm trying to get to. I want it and then started to wrap, but I just want to make sure I'm tracking the math and then maybe you can help me play this back. If we want to limit the impact on trees as much as possible, and potentially doing something different with the walkway, since that seems to be the space, given the number of invasives, the construction, the stormwater, and the parking area, how many untouched trees would that leave if we don't do the pathway improvement. So if I may just to say it a slightly different way, if we looked at alternate options, which ACPS has indicated they're willing to work with the city during final site plan, we would be able to potentially not impact up to 15 trees. Yes. Correct. Yeah, you can just pass. Yeah, and that's because you said 43 in base ever on healthy. And I think that like that's a good pause moment also as well for the community. Like anytime an application, a development happens in the community, tree inventory is done. To varying degrees, we're always doing tree inventories, but we can't be everywhere all the time. So especially when an application comes forward, the tree inventory is done. And it discovered 43 invasive unhealthy. So for better or worse, like these are trees that we would have gotten to it potentially at some point anyway, discovered their invasive species and our arborist would have you know suggested or moved forward with removal. Is that a fair statement? No, it's a good question and yes for the city's landscape guidelines, when a case comes forward for approvals, we ask for invasive species to be removed from the site and this applies to both herbaceous and trees. And so for that, sometimes there is a phased approach where we would be taking down trees over a few years as new trees are planted to maintain canopy coverage. But in the interest of trying to create the best ecosystem we can in Alexandria, we are working with all our partners and development cases in order to remove invasive species from sites. Okay, so the 80 is 43 invasive healthy, invasive unhealthy plus 37 healthy. That's how we get to 80 trees impacted. Yes, and I will just go ahead and clarify that we're doing the math very quickly. But the the architects team is pulling those numbers for us and they are saying that we have 43 invasive slash unhealthy trees. Okay. So there's some little bit for me, there's a little bit of good news in what we're parsing out here, you know, which is the, it's a smaller number of healthy non-invasive we're talking about. And then what I've also just heard is of the 37 healthy proposed to be impacted as many as 15 could be saved with a different approach to the pathways. So that takes us down to 22 healthy trees now potentially impacted by southeast parking stormwater construction impacts. I believe that's correct. Okay. I'm I'm proud proud of the math I'm doing an hour eight and just okay that's my question for the moment. No it's helpful and I do still think and I'm glad to hear the openness to looking at a potential different solution or design for the walkway because I know we're doing this quickly but who knows that might even eliminate additional opportunities. Any other questions or comments? Okay I see Councilman McPike. Well having taken in the conversation that we've had on the day S or native my friend I think we put together a motion that reflects where the council is so So Madam Mayor, I move that we approved DSUP number 2025-1001 based on the staff report and discussion with the following condition changes. Revert condition 14 that the planning commission changed to the staff version. A men condition 13 to add a section D that moves the fence line to between the playground and the field and work with ACPS to adjust and instruct staff to work with ACPS to adjust the walkway to save as many healthy, non-invasive trees as possible. Okay. There has been a motion in a second. Councilmember McPike, can I just ask you to repeat section the change to section D again? I just want to make sure I capture it off. A men condition 13 to add a section D that moves the fence line to the border between the playground and the field. Madam Mayor, if I could, if you would like to revert, it's actually condition number three. I apologize. No, I just want to make sure we get it correct. So condition three to the staff version. Thank you. And is there still a sabagal? Is there still a section D on that? Or is it just condition three? Condition three is related to the unchanged language from piece. Oh, the other one. 13D is the new one related to the fact, I believe. Okay. So there has been a motion and a second to approve development, special use permit number 2025-1001. With the following conditions, it would be changing condition three back to the staff recommendation. It would be changing condition 13 to add a section D that moves the fence line between the border with the playground and the field and then provides direction for staff to go back with the applicant to explore an alternative solution for the walking path. Okay, any discussion? Mr. City Manager. Okay, as you said, did the council want to, my note had something about the onsite point of contact? Yes, which condition will we need to amend to identify an onsite contact? Okay, thank you, Ty. Would it be the preference of the council to add that condition? We have a code section in the end, which references our nose ordinance, noise ordinance that says they have to comply with these Nordic regulations. Does it make sense to add language under that code section saying violations of any issues with this nose ordinance shall be reported to this person, something to that effect? Okay, let me find that for you. Um, I guess my question would be, I think the idea of having an on-site contact would be beyond noise, like any sort of question or concern who are we directing people to. Got it. I would suggest that's probably a new condition based on the conditions I saw that you could write it in line with a senior on-site point of contact would be provided for any issues that the residents may have or any lays out opportunities or discussions, including enforcement activities. Does that language work for the council? For a lead, I guess, a identified liaison to, for resident or community concerns, with a clear single point of contact and phone number and information. And for adding a new condition, it would be number 95. Number 95. Okay. So then I guess somebody else needs to make a friendly amendment to theirs to add number 95. You know, with the agrees woman, our, our, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, will amend our implementation without anybody having to propose it. Thank you for making it easier for me. Okay. Any other discussion? Vice Mayor Bagley. I'm not seeking to amend anything. Just to be clear, but I in response to the just the comment about the invasive and the 43 trees invasive and unhealthy that are going to be removed. I would ask that as in our ongoing communication, whatever if there are construction meetings that now happen with the community, if this ongoing updates, the extent to which our arborist can speak proactively, you said sometimes that's done in phases. Sometimes that we take different approaches. So I would just ask now that we're identifying that over half of these for real health and in its reasons are being removed. But let's proactively communicate, will you see a phased removal and how can a resident tell do you wrap an orange flag around it? Do you tag it in a specific way? Because these neighbors are going to walk around and I think it it could help if they actually see like this one's going, but this is why. An orange tag means X or a blue clip means Y. Sorry, you know, my mic's losing it. To take it a step further, one of the things that we heard in the testimony was about the residents that have worked so hard to help with these trees. I think in some of the written letters we receive, we heard about tree stewards and other groups that are actively working in the community. I think it would be great if there's some sort of partnership and working directly with the residents and their expertise as well, align with our arborist on how we do this in a way that sort of meets our environmental goals and what we're really trying to see her. So, okay, any other discussion? Got some of McPike. I just wanna thank everyone on the staff and at ACPS and in the community who've engaged with us on this and worked with us. I wish this was a three story building because I think a lot of the discussions we're having now would not have occurred. But this is still going to be a great school for the kids who go there. It's going to be, you know, an important mark of investment in our young people and I look forward to seeing the project moving forward and the students in the schools in a couple years in enjoying it and learning it. Thank you, and I'm Councilman Gray. Just really quickly. I also just wanted to thank Sophie and the team for being here all day with us. Thank you. Okay, with that, there's an emotion in the second. And I don't see, nope, I do. I don't see, oh, you're my colon. And I don't see any other discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. The motion carries 7-0. Thank you all for your time. Madam Clerk, next item. Public hearing, second reading and final passage of an ordinance to amend Title 11, Chapter 5, noise ordinance to ban the use of gas power leaf lowers. Okay. Let me check. Let me check with my colleagues. I don't think we need a presentation on this one. Just okay. So with that, we're going to I'm going to give staff a minute to get up here. I don't want to presentation. We're going to go right into the public hearing and And Madam Clerk, I'm going to have you call the speakers. I'm going to turn it over to Vice Mayor Bagley for a second and then I'll be right back. All right. Samantha, don't call to court in Andrew McDonald's. Thanks for the use both lecterns if you're in the room. Thanks. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. I want to express my gratitude to you and to staff for creating this proposal. I also want to recognize the responsiveness to the community in proposing a shortened phase in period of 18 months. I strongly support this band with an 18 month phase in period and appreciate Alexandria serving as the first for genuine jurisdictions who address the problems posed by these machines. Getting here has been a long multi-year process for the citizens. As you may recall, this issue came to the forefront during COVID when the noise from the machines became a significant obstacle to work, schooling, and leisure at home. Since then, gas powered leaf lowers have continued to cause pervasive, overwhelming, and unnecessary noise throughout our communities. They're used across the city, primarily by landscaping companies to move lightweight plant materials seven days a week, nine to 10 months a year. One machine can be heard by neighbors inside their homes blocks away in all directions, which is decidedly unnabrily, I would suggest. Citizens have complained for years, but were advised there was nothing that could be done, as action needed to be taken at the state level. Bill supported by the city was introduced in general assembly in 2022 and failed. So a citizen petition was created and signed by 366 Alexandrians asking the city to use the noise ordinance to limit the use of these machines. But we were told that that was not possible. Here are three of the dozens of comments on that petition. We live in Del Rey and have constantly flowing noise all year long. My husband and I love our neighborhood, but the noise may drive us out. As a new mom who walks her infant in the neighborhood daily, I respectfully request you to take action to eliminate, ask how leaf-flowers these machines are bad for the environment and my baby's ears. The lawn company that manages our rental building spends four to six hours every week using leaf-flowers directly outside of our building is unbearable to all us and we've continued to file complaints. There was no state bill in 2023. In 2024, a bill was introduced again and supported by the city. Residents traveled to Richmond and exercised our right to blast leaf floors in front of the state capital, getting us front page coverage in the Richmond times the stretch. But legislators there told us to go back home and use our noise ordinance. So what you can imagine was quite frustrating for all of us. Finally, delegate Bennett Parker requested an opinion of the Attorney General, his August 2024 opinion sites to cities authority to adopt ordinances for the preservation of the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, morals, and welfare of his inhabitants, and concluded that Alexandria does have authority to ban gas-powered leaf lowers. Since that ruling, I am very grateful that you all have acted swiftly. I recognize that while other jurisdictions in the area and the country have already banned these singularly, obnoxious machines, you are the first to do so in the commonwealth. I strongly support a ban in an 18-month phase-in period as a compromise between citizens and land scapers. Thank you for taking this action to make our city more healthy, peaceable and beautiful place to live. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker is Paul DeCourt. Hello and good evening. I'm Paul DeCourt. I've been a resident of the city homeowner for 40 years. I've worked with many of my neighbors on hopefully banning these gas power to leave floors and yes we did go to Richmond and yes we did run the leaf floors out in front of the Capitol building was quite a day. I want to thank you for considering even banning these leaf blowers and understanding this is an historic opportunity for the city of Alexandria to really set the pace and opportunity to really claim its nickname, Echo City, where the city proclaims in writing, we seek to create an environmentally, economically, and socially healthy city where people can live, work, and play for decades to come. And I must say that it will be so much easier without the noise of those gasp. And it's not just the noise. You've read the literature. I know I've sent you some of that. Those machines are particularly noxious in terms of the pollution and so forth. So we applaud you for taking this off and being the first jurisdiction state commonwealth to do this. I hope you, because I personally hope you will consider a phasing period based of one year, one year, because when we look at the average income or revenues of these, I call them lawn service companies, they are quite wealthy and they can afford to make this transition. And then when you look at the numbers, you'll probably agree it's not a parable hardship to convert to electric. On this one machine we're talking about. And the other piece of this which I don't think has been mentioned yet is about the hours of operation. Law and service companies are allowed to work earlier and later and on Sundays in the city as opposed to say construction contractors. Now you know from the noise of oil sorry the noise ordinance ordinance, what those hours probably are. But I'll just remind you that the law service folks are allowed to start earlier and they're allowed to work later till 9 p.m. and they're allowed to work on Sundays and it didn't always, it wasn't always that way in the city. And as I understand it, there was a change to the ordinance sometime ago, which will basically decoupled the lawn service companies from the same requirements of the construction companies. And I wasn't sure why and I was told by someone with a city that it was to allow the homeowner to be able to cut their grass or have so and cut it on a Sunday evening. Well, it doesn't make a lot of sense for that because if you protect the homeowners right to manage the property and do a little bit of construction work on their home, even on Sundays or cut the grass even on Sundays. You're only doing what they're allowed to do already. In terms of the construction part of the noise ordinance. So I'm just hoping you'll recognize that too. Thank you so much. We appreciate your testimony. Thank you for staying so long for us. Thank you. Next speaker please. Andrew MacDonald Greg DeLawie. Madam Mayor and members of the City Council, I'll very brief. I know you all want to leave. And you've done a great job today. So thank you very much for listening to everybody and taking their concerns so thoughtfully. I support this. I thank the staff and you for promoting this effort and all the community who's been working ban these things. They produce an enormous amount of pollution, enormous amount of noise. And a lot of times they just blow the leaves into the streets where the city then has to come in and pick them up or they clog the storm source. So there's a lot of reasons. It would be great simply to reduce this period of time to a year, I agree. People can use things called rakes and brushes and things. I mean, there are other things. But we have the next three months. We know we can buy the supply chain from China. We have three months. You can buy your leaf blower from China. Steel makes them in the US. So I don't think it would be too difficult to reduce this to one year, but I leave it up to you to decide. But thank you very much for going. Thank you. Next speaker. Mayor city council members. Thank you for staying so late to talk about this issue. My name is Greg Delowy. I've lived in Alexandria off and on since 1988. And I have a question. How do you know it's a beautiful day in Alexandria? It's not just the blue skies, the sun, or the fresh breeze. No, it's because you hear the sounds of two, three, or more gas-powered leaf blowers, like hundred decibel wasps, groaning at you from all points of the compass. These machines are noisy, cause pollution to make it difficult for people to sleep during the day. The noise of these machines is worse than a low flying airplane because it goes on for half an hour, an hour or more. Even when it finally stops, the racket is likely to resume shortly thereafter from yet another yard in the neighborhood. It happens not just in the fall, but in the spring and summer as well. These leaf floors make it hard to enjoy being outside in an Alexandria yard or one of our mini small parks. I'm privileged to be able to sleep mostly at night. Many Alexandria is, however, and not so lucky. They're medical personnel, public safety workers, Pning on watch officers and others who work through the night and have to catch whatever sleep they can while the gas powered wasps are droning on. Imagine this appointment, new parents must feel when they finally get their babies down to sleep in the middle of the day and a gas power leaf blower stops up and interrupts it. A closed window only dulls the sound, it does not block it entirely. The two stroke engine used by these leaf blowers are extremely polluting. You can drive a modern gas powered car for a thousand miles and it will not pollute our air or the Chesapeake Bay as much as one of these machines. They represent a classic economic externality in which the owner of the equipment does not bear the full cost of using it instead the cost and noise, stress and pollution is borne by those of us in the community and the workers who operate them. Electric leafflowers are a lot quieter than the gas version and are a viable alternative. One that would impose a much less significant burden on surrounding neighbors and on their workers. The District of Columbia has imposed a leaf flower plant gas power leaf flower ban for three years, and no one has yet had to fight their way through a pile of leaves to exit from their house or their apartment building. Montgomery County's ban will take effect soon. It's time for us to join these neighboring jurisdictions. I too commend the City Council and the City staff for taking up this issue and for collecting important data before proposing an ordinance. I urge the City Council to pass the draft ordinance on gas power leaf floors and to do so with the shortest feasible phase out period. Doing so would be a big step to implementing our vision of being Ecosidial Alexandria. Thank you so much. Thank you. We have two more speakers. The next speaker is Ms. Susan Davis and then following her will be Mr. Edward O'Keefe. Let's say Susan O'Keefe. Okay. Then we're going to move to Mr. Edward O'Keefe. Hi. Thank you for having me. I spend a lot of time like and painting outside and it's obviously very disruptive to hear the leaf blowers two to three hours a day if it's a nice day outside. But sometimes, you know, like I sit and I watch them and if it's not in the fall, they're just blowing basically dust and dirt around. I see them sometimes they'll come into a neighbor's driveway and they'll blow the dust out onto the sidewalk and onto the streets and then they'll go onto the sidewalk in the street in front of the neighbor's house and just blow that down in front of someone else's house. And then a couple hours later, another lawn care company will come and they'll blow that dust right back in front of the previous person's house. If the problem is that there's some essential nature to these leaf blowers, that they provide some essential utility, which needs a three month phase out period, as the lawn care company is requested. It would be just to blow the leaves when they fall in autumn. But if that's the case, I don't see why we couldn't ban the leaf blower as soon as possible within a few weeks. But allow or approve for this upcoming fall a month or two month period during which the leaf blower may be allowed. Because the rest of the time it is non-essential and extremely disruptive. And also I'd like to add that when I'm like walking around the neighborhood or when other people walk around the neighborhood, all that dust that's gets blown up even in the fall, but especially neat periods when there's no leaves on the ground. It just goes into the air blows up these big dust clouds people to bring that in. It's very unhealthy. That's all. Thank you. And I've just been informed we have one more speaker sign up. All in Clark. No. Okay, then Mr. O'Keefe will be our last speaker. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? All right, there's a motion by Councilman Aguirre. Is there a second? The second by Councilwoman Green. Any discussion? Hearing none? All those in no. I'm sorry. Oh, it was just the public hearing. All those in favor of closing the public hearing. Please say sorry, bye. Any opposed? Okay, the eyes have it. This time we will go to council comments and questions, councilman McPike, and then vice mayor Bagley. So I don't have any questions for staff. I just wasn't here on Tuesday when we discussed this. So I wanted to thank the council for the work that you all put in. I think the compromised position on the 18 months for what they've phased in is the right step. I think that it achieves a good balance between the city's responsibility and residents. And also I'm very happy to see staff brought this to us so quickly and so effectively. We're banging this under the noise ordinance and these truly are 100 decibel wasps. As Mr. Deloie said, but truly I worry about the environmental impact of these devices, not only the just unregulated carbon that they're putting out into the air, the health impacts on the people who are working for hours, breathing in that smog, and the effects it has on their bodies. This is, I think, a great step that we're taking, I hope, late today. And so I wasn't here on Tuesday, but very happy to be here today to vote for your favorite. Okay, Vice-Ware Bagley, I'm in Councilman O'Neubi. Thank you, Mary Gaskins and staff for coming on at 5.30 on a Saturday, after being here all day. So, and thank you to all the speakers. I do wanna take a moment. I know Susan Davis wasn't here to speak, but for anybody who's been involved in this effort, Susan Davis was central to it. And so I understand why she might not be here, but I wanted to be noted for the record that Susan was a huge part of the public advocacy on this. And I certainly appreciate her work. I was hoping staff could just speak to one or two things quickly. One, I just wanted to clarify for the public and I guess, you know, is something that I support. There's a one year offer the city. So the city is going to phase out all of it. There are a lot of our gas powered on leaf lower items within a year. And so as you've heard 18 months kind of talked about today, that's for the city for, you know, non-city owned devices That would be your personal device or a landscaping company's devices. And what I wanted to ask staff is given where we landed sort of on Tuesday and the conversation about incentives in 18 months, I'm just curious if there was any further update dialogue, comment on recommendations or suggestions moving forward on that point. Yeah, I mean, our plan is now after council's action tonight, then spend the summer deciding what those incentives would be. I will say that we just signed an agreement with clean air partners, or we are in the process of executing agreement with them for leaf lower exchange program for residential. So that will hopefully that they have a campaign that's going on right now outside of our support of the city. We're hoping to add additional support to that for the current summer. So that incentive would be available for residential. We have done some analysis of what other incentives are available out there. We're trying to do is figure out who needs the incentives and then what we would be able to incentivize within our existing authority. It's not just obviously the city cannot provide a direct incentive, so we have to find a partner for that. And it's also what level of incentive is available. We had talk to Clean Air Partners about providing some commercial equipment this year. And it's too expensive and they would have to issue tax receipts and things like that, just to recipients. So figuring out the mechanics of what that would be and at what level we would want to provide incentives and we're still working through that. But this initial agreement with Clean Air Partners will help us sort through the mechanics of it. I appreciate that. And I think what I'm hearing is the research on potential incentives and a return to council in the future well before the 18 month periods has expired will happen. The related question I have is, you know, should this ban be successful this evening? What are what steps do you have in mind to begin as promptly as possible communicating, re-communicating to businesses who will be impacted by it. So we aren't having sort of a crush at the end of people expressing a challenge. Jesse mains some more management division chief with us. We are putting together a communications plan. So we will start communicating this to the public. If you all do pass this in plenty of time and start really start this the summer with the communications to make sure that we reach as many folks as possible. Dual language, the whole nine yards working through our communicators in OCC. I think you and I guess if I can look to the city manager, maybe my colleagues, even if it's in an oral port from the city manager at some point, you know, at the end of the summer. But I'd like to know that that comms plan has some urgency to it and that we can get an update on it, not necessarily the voting matter, but just, you know, and have an opportunity to express some feedback or, you know, sign off. And if I could just add that the communication has already begun both between transportation, environmental services, RPCA and the Office of Climate Action. And I forgot to say Ryan Fried, Climate Action Officer, when I started this, but the other thing is we hosted some demonstrations for both staff and contractors with free manufacturers, for manufacturers of gas law and equipment generally. So that communication has already begun and not just talking about what the band might be, but giving them alternatives and hands-on experience with that equipment. The staff has been very proactive with this already. Thank you for that. I'd like to put a motion on the floor. Obviously we can continue the dialogue but given the lightness of the hour. So I'd like to put a motion on the floor. Obviously we can continue the dialogue, but given the lightness of the hour. And so I'd like to move that we approve on second reading and final passage in ordinance to amend Title 11, Chapter 5, no res ordinance to ban the use of gas powered leaf floors. Second, there has been a motion by Byght Bear Bagley. I had a second by Councilwoman Green. Any discussion? You know Councilman O'Neuby had to stand up. Yeah, I had a question for staff. Are there, we received an email from a resident complaining about some electric leaf blowers or as loud as the gas leaf blowers and have like a high pitch and can be disturbing as well. This doesn't cover something like this, the way we're passing it right now because we're specifically saying gas leafflowers is that correct and if that's true, what can we do about the electric ones? Because why we're taking care of the environmental piece here, the quality of life part, we still have those loud things going. It's not mean taking care of it. And Jesse mains with tests. Yeah, so there were some of the studies that we looked at comparing the differences in decibels for gas powered leaf blowers and electric leaf blowers and across the board. You know, there may be some of those outliers across the board. They were showing that the decibels are less for the electric powered leaf blowers. One of the other things that they talked about was the kind of noise, right? So while the decibels are higher for gas power leaf blowers, they also the way the noise is generated in the frequency, I'm not a acoustic engineer, but the frequency of it travels farther and can penetrate more into homes. So just the nature of the noise being generated by the gas power leaf, or the engine itself, it's loud. It's usually typically the decibels are higher and then the way it's generated to it travels farther. But to answer your question, yes, this would not, this would be banning the gas power lead blowers. So what I would, I mean, obviously I'm supportive, hopefully we're gonna pass this. I would say just, we keep on eye out, if we find that there are some electric, electric blowers that are causing disturbance that we find the solution and see if we can, address that in the future. Absolutely noted. Okay, any other discussion? All right, hearing none, there has been a motion by Vice Mayor Bagley and a second by Councilwoman Green. All those in favor say aye. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, this is a roll call, this roll call, this is a roll call, sorry. Thanks for your Bagley. Councilwoman Green. Mayor Gaskins. Councilman McGuirey. Councilman Chapman, Councilman El. Madam Mayor, I move the city council convene and closes the exit session for Virginia code section 2.2-371186. Discussion and consideration of the investment of public funds or company. I'm going to go straight to the next item. I'm going to go straight to the next item. I'm going to go straight to the next item. I'm going to go straight to the next item. Madam Mayor, I move that City Council convene and close the guest's session pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711-A6, discussion and consideration of the investment of public funds or computational bargaining is involved with many public initially the financial interest of the city would be adversely affected. Okay. Okay. There has been a motion in a second to convene in executive session. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Say nay. All right. The aides have it. We are now in executive session. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Thank you. I'm going to have a few of you back. I can't say yes. Come on, come on. We are back from executive session, Councilman Aguirre. Madam Mayor, I move we convene in open session. Okay, there's been an emotion by Councilman Aguirre and a second by Councilman McTike, should we convene in open session. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, I's have it. Councilman Aguirre. Madam Mayor, I move the City Council council adopt the resolution regarding the closing executive session That was previously circulated to the council. All right. Is there a second? All right. There's been a motion by Councilman Aguirre and a second by Councilman Chapman to adopt the resolution that was previously circulated to the council. This is a roll call vote. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Councilman Aguirre. Hi, I'm some in chat. Mayor Gaskins. Hi, I'm Lisa Mayor Bagley. I'm some in El Nubi. I'm some on the green. Hi. call vote. Madam Clerk please call the vote. Councilman Gary. Aye. Councilman Chaotman. Mayor Gaskins. Aye. Vice Mayor Bagley. Councilman Elnubi. Councilwoman Green. Aye. Councilman McPike. Aye. Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? So the second. Oh, that's second. Or correct. There has been a motion by Councilman Elnubi and then second by council in green to adjourn. All those in favor? So any opposed? All right, meeting adjourned. Thank you.