Good afternoon. It is June 27th. We're here at 130 for a meeting of the Planning Housing and Parks Committee. We have two items on our agenda. The first is Bill 724, landlord tenant relations, tenant protection and notification. We are joined by a number of folks in the executive branch as well as council staff and we also have two guests with us for this item and one additional guest with us I believe for both items because we're also going to be taking up a continuation of our master plan conversation in Councilmember Katz's district. So we have Councilmember Katz here. We have Vice President Stewart here to talk about her bill, and we have Councilmember Mink, who has an amendment that she'd like to discuss, but I'm not sure it's ready to be forward and formally decided on and voted on today. So with that, let me turn it to Vice President Stewart, if she wants to make any initial comments about this legislation, the impetus behind it, and then I'll turn it over to Council Staff to walk us through the packet with appreciation for a lot of moving parts on this, and I really appreciate all of your work navigating through it. So with that, let me turn to Vice President Stewart. Thank you. Thank you, Council President Freetzin. I'm going to start as well with thanks. Thanks to Ms. McCartney-Green for all of her work on this. And to my colleagues, as Council President Freetzin said, there were a lot of moving parts on this bill. We've been working on it for well over a year because it includes cuts across many of our county departments. Our fire and rescue emergency management, DPS, D-H-C-A, and I just want to thank the representatives who are here from each of those departments for working with this towards our goal of increasing communication to our residents, particularly those who are renters and for improving community planning for emergencies that are so important. I also want to thank the residents of the arrive, the grand and park Montgomery and many, many, many other residents who provided feedback before the bill was drafted and then continue to do so afterwards. Their lived experiences were the impetus of this bill. In particular, after the fire at the arrive and the power outage at the grand. We were talking to residents, we really saw the need to make some changes in our code. And I do wanna especially thank the parents of Melanie Diaz. Melanie was the young woman who died in the AI fire. And through their continued advocacy and work, they're really keeping her memory alive and also helping us improve our community. So I just want to say thank you also to Council President Freetzen because after the URI fire, he held a PHP session that brought together many of the different departments to talk about the issues and that really helped lay a good foundation for what then became this bill. So I just want to thank the PHP committee and look forward to the discussion today. Thank you very much, Ditto, to that, Ms. McArton-Green. Appreciate you navigating all the moving parts on this. There's some complicated issues here, a simple effort and goal, but a complicated way in which we need to get there. So that's what we're here to discuss today. Let me turn it over to you to walk us through the packet. Thank you, Chair Freakson, and good afternoon, Council members, I think, Charlton St. Good morning. Good afternoon, Council members. Bill 724, Landlord Lieutenant Relations Center Protection and Notification was introduced on March 5th. We had a public hearing on April 23rd. With 13 speakers that were in support, there were some variations of amendments or other additions to the bill that were taking consideration as we look at the discussion points. I do want to bring to you attention that there wasn't a dendum to the packet. We've received a letter from Aeoba expressing supports on some of the items but also giving thoughts to one other amendments. And that's in your packet on circle A1 and A2. The purpose of the bill really is to increase tenant protections and communication related to safety of rental housing and expand protection for tenants during emergency situations. Specifically, would expand the contents required in a lease agreement, including the renters insurance, specify whether a building has an automatic sprinkler system and emergency safety plan would be required. It also requires a little lantern to have certain notifications regarding whether they're building wide outage or maintenance or repair of any essential services. And then it also provides that a representative be available at all times that has 24 access to adjust the air-conditioning temperature control. And that's required under chapter 26, which is also chapter 29, both building and under residential buildings as well. Lastly, the safety plan is probably the meat and chunk of this. And after public hearing and speaking with executive branch stance staff, there are a couple of amendments to that. And really that will take us to page five of the packet. We can dive into the issues. Item number one and item number two are recommendations from Council staff on amendments to further improve the plan and some other clarifying amendments and happy to walk through that unless there are any other questions. I don't see any other questions. I think walking through a item by item and opening it up for discussion and decision points would be easiest for us to handle that way. Okay. Louie and Ed. Just note, to colleagues, executive branch staff is here. If you have a question for executive branch staff, you certainly can ask it, but otherwise, they're just available and on call as needed. We appreciate their collaboration and coordination here as well. So page five, referring to number one, actually did a block of amendments because it all related to the same section. And so I'll go through each and we can stop if there's any question. But starting with the first part of the Emergency Safety Plan, originally as introduced, the plan would be required to be approved by the Department of Housing and Community Affairs. That was DHCA. After talking through realizing that actually DPS, Department of Permitting Service would be the more appropriate authority. Currently under current law, DPS approves fire safety plans for buildings that are more than 75 feet in height, and that serve house will for seniors and institutional educational occupancies, but this will now expand that to residential. And so it was more fitting to put that under their authority than under DHCA. With that said, I will say that right now the way how the bill is drafted, it's under chapter 29, landlord tenet. There may be some room for us to also put it under chapter two which is specifically under the fire safety code section And so that's something to consider if we're going to switch the authority under DPS Another clarifying Amendment was that each emergency safety plan should be included in the lease and so that was specifically amended to include that Repart that the plan is renewed every three years. And so as introduced, it did not have an expiration date. And so it's important that that plan is renewed just because things can change and different emergencies will require different considerations. And so it's a three years. Also, if a plan is denied, just because this is a due process part, if a plan is denied amendments are there just a due process part, if a plan is denied, amendments are there just to make sure the landowner has the opportunity to resubmit for reconsideration. If the landlord has the opportunity to resubmit, then the department can consider alternative safety measures that may be approved. If first reasons of the reason why it was denied is because the initial planned in meat standards. They have the opportunity to resummit to consider alternative safety measures. And then an emergency plan must be available for honest or emergency personnel. It's come to my attention that after sometimes an emergency situation, there's a lot of panic, there's a lot of different people that's on the ground and a lot of hands involved. And so, amendment there that Atlanta was make available, their emergency safety plan to the county fire and rescue department, or any other emergency response personnel upon request. And lastly, because of those changes in different inserts, just stylistic and grammatical changes under section 2935. So that was the block of all the changes and so happy to address any questions on those. Any questions or comments from colleagues? Okay, so this was in coordination with the executive branch. There's a agreement that DPS is the more appropriate entity. You raised one point about which area of the code or both. It would be included in. Is there a position of the executive branch that our preference is included in both or only including it in one? Well, the preference was that it should refer to chapter 22. Council staff is going to take a step back to make sure because it's referring to residential property as well. Make sure they tie together. And so I agree that it should be under chapter 22, but I don't want to absolutely leave out chapter 29 because I want to refer that it's referring to residential dwellings and we're talking about landlords and tenants. And so my understanding is for the authority of reviewing the plan, yes, chapter 22. In terms of it being included in the lease, that provision needs to live under chapter 29. And so I don't think there'll be an overlap. I think it's clear under chapter 22, but there may be some reference also to chapter 29. So I didn't list that here, because I want to get the committee to first agree to the authority of moving DPS but at full council you'll see exactly where that is. Okay so we're not going to prove the language as a committee here but we can give guidance on it and that will be a committee decision point that will have been decided and then you can present that the language you can either come back to the committee and share it with us and we can agree that that reflects the committee's view. Okay. You know, I think would probably be the most appropriate way to handle it since we're making a decision to agree on it but we're not going to prove the actual language. Right, and so the actual language is in your packet, so what would be different is just a section that it would go under. So the language is in your packet. So what would be different is just a section that it would go under So the language is that's here in the packet that would stay because that gives Sound sounded like my understanding is you want to include most of the language Maybe all the languages you have here in chapter 22, but there needs to be some reference in chapter 29 Just to reference the inclusion in a lease because chapter 22 doesn't cover leases. Correct. So it would just, what I'm suggesting is the lease language is the language that you'd wanted to share with us beforehand and just where it would be located. And we can just agree to that. But I think we can. Yeah, that's it. OK, so just so it does have to be a major decision point before the council, because we will have already decided that now. If somebody wants to revisit it, that's the prerogative of the full council as it always is. But I just want to make clear that we have the ability to agree to it here. Okay, it sounds like without objection among the two committee members present. We're outnumbered but not outvoted. So, you know, we outvote you to nothing, even though we're outnumbered 3-2. Okay, so we will agree to those, what I would consider to be consensus amendments between the executive branch and council staff and you will share with us just prior to full council the language and exactly what would be located in where in chapter 22 and what would be located at and where in chapter 29. Okay, let's move on. So number two page seven, another clarifying amendment is really focused on the renters insurance. And so as introduced, the language refers to that the lease should contain a statement that a property or liability insurance policy purchased by the landlord does not provide coverage for person belongings and that the statement must specify whether the tenant is required to obtain renters insurance. What it doesn't say is really what's the authority why that would be required. So under state and county law, you're not required to have renters insurance, but a lease agreement may require that. And so there's a clarifying amendment here to remove any ambiguity that this would be under the terms of the lease. I'll stop there because that's the clarifying. What I do know that councilmember cats has another Provision that he would like to add to that but the first point of order is clarifying that that's required under the lease Got it. Okay, so let's turn it to councilmember cats if he is Prepared to discuss and move forward with the amendment. Figure out a little turn on his mic, Hanson. First of all, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Vice President Stuart and Ms. McGurring, to green for all of your hard work on this as well. My concern is I'm a belt and suspender's kind of guy. I believe that it should be noted that someone has seen these types of statements. And I think what happens is, many times, people go through and they are signing off on a bunch of items and they say, well, I didn't catch that one or I didn't remember that one. And I think it should be noted both for the person signing the lease and the people who created the lease that this was actually acknowledged. I did receive information or discussion from G-CAR just yesterday and they believe that this is actually duplicative because in the suggested lease or the lease that is provided, there's a reference to the lease summary in the lease itself. And what was suggested is that we change the clause in the bill to amend it to, if we are going to go forward with this, that it should be that they sign off when the lease summary instead of the lease itself. Do you have an opinion on that when Ms. McGruntney-Green? So while the DHA provides an example of the lease and so, you know, lease summary may be used, but I don't know if that applies overall. And so for consistency purpose, I don't think this amendment made something that's duplicative I think it actually it covers all bases whether there is a lease summary or whether there's not and so I don't think it's harmful our regulations does mention that the landlord should talk about the rental insurance but it's also not consistent as well so I think this covers the gap of those that you are doing and that's what I'm comfortable with. So with that, Mr. President, I'll make the motion. I guess I can. I'm asking my good friend who's sitting right next to me. Oh, he's so nice right now. All of a sudden she and I are buddies. Yes. Thank you, Ms. President. Yep, let me yell to your good friend. The gentle lady from Wee. Very gentle. Yes. Maybe they're not so gentle lady from the saying here. Depending on the day. Depending on the day. Well, I won't comment. I would say, no, I appreciate the amendment proposed by my dear friend Council Member Katz and I move to committee to move forward. Okay, sounds good. Without objection, we will accept that amendment. Let me turn it over to Council Member Mink. The sometimes gentle lady. that sometimes gentle lady. There, I appreciate it. I'll take that as a compliment. That's right. We're going to have emotional and emotional. I just wanted to clarify if we should be concerned about there being consequences that come back to the tenants. If they don't get renters insurance, I just want to make sure that I understand how this water would not or could or could not come back on the tenants. Yes, so this is similar to any other provision that's in Delice. And so it's a contract. And so the presumption is that, read it in a technology. And so this is actually being more specific technology, specific provision. But the tenant is also citing the overall lease at the end of the page of all the documents. And so they would be under the same contractual obligations of duties of knowing and understanding. And so if they were aware of that, this is just a notice provision. Any other library would require other steps. But as a notice provision, there are other things in a lease that attend also signed there's a right on notice there's lead paint notice so there's other provisions that the tenant signs as well and this would just be another one that's added to that list. Thank you. Yeah and the idea of initializing specifically isn't to change the obligation if it's in there and you sign the overall contract you're obligated to everything. Therein it's the idea of making sure that every aspect of those particular aspects are noted specifically so that there's an awareness among the parties or at least for one of the parties if not both. So, okay, we have accepted that amendment. We are going to continue with the items. Mr. McCartney, green. Yep, so one of the provisions in the bill talks about notification of the building-wide outage or maintenance or repairs. It also has a timeframe of when those notices are supposed to be provided to the tenant, specifically concerning, now on page eight eight looking at B. Uh, one of the recommendations, uh, that I have here was that if there is an emergency that, um, that 24 hour period of notice, um, uh, would not apply, uh, for an unscheduled service interruption. And so obviously we know that these are mechanical issues that may happen and may not be aware. So if there's an emergency, the requirement right now or the duty by the landlord to notify at least 24 hours would not apply if there is an emergency, I should say. So that's the amendment there online, 65 through 66 of the bill. Okay, any comments? Okay, without objection, let's continue. The next last clarifying amendment is, as we talked about the notice, the notice is required to be one be posted in somewhere that's accessible in conspicuous location, and it's required to be electronically sent to a tenant, either by email, text message, and some are a little bit more savvy and have an online tenant portal. But the question is if none of those are available, then the amendment here would be if feasible. So the notices still require to be posted, but for the electronic communication, that's if feasible and if that's available. Without objection? that's available. Without objection? That turns us to number three. The amendments by council member Stewart and so I wanna turn that over just to see if there were comments there before I go into the meets. Council vice president Stewart, any comments on these before council staff walks through? Sure, I can give some background on just amendment one, giving notice of leasing hours of operation in the lease agreement. This has come up in a number of our buildings lately that there isn't consistent posting of hours. And it has been difficult for residents. You have to either resign a lease or some of our buildings that are going under construction to talk to folks. People have taken time off from work thinking the leasing office was open or the and then it it's not so we thought having having them post that and put that in the lease would be appropriate. And then amendment number two was just, it was really, I think, probably just an oversight of ours when we were making up the list about timely notification. I can't believe we forgot about elevators service because that is also a big deal. And that was quickly identified by residents who were looking at the bill as well that we should just add elevators. The third amendment, I'm actually going to say that it's not ready yet for prime time the requiring a property owner to report serious crimes at this time. I know a number of residents have talked to us about this, raised the issue. It came up during our public hearings. And this is an area I want to really thank Ms. McCartney-Green for looking at how we could put this in the bill. However, it raises a number of issues, just with how things are reported, who's the jurisdiction of like which police department or emergency services is responding. And then we also have heard from some other folks about potential victims not wanting information out there. So it's much more complex than, I think the initial thought was from many people who we discussed this with. And I also want to note that we have a new police chief coming on board and a new fire chief. Both have said to us in their confirmation meetings with us in their interviews that they are committed to looking at more ways to communicate with the public. And so I think for this item, for this issue, I'd like to table it and work with our new police chief and fire chief and looking at ways we can better communicate with the public on these issues. Thank you. Okay, we're not going to formally table, but we'll proverbially table. We can't table in committee, but appreciate the sentiment and the thoughtfulness of pulling it back since it's not ready for prime time and wanting to take some time to digest it, to provide our public safety leaders who are coming in to have an opportunity to give their input and to provide their perspective and for us to think through that in an additional forum at a later date. So appreciate that. So we have the two amendments, let Council staff walk through the specifics of those. We've already heard the rationale behind them and the general impetus behind them but if you want to share those two that are going to be up for consideration and then I'll turn to my colleague and see if there's interest in moving those four. Yes, so amendment number one that's on page 20. It's very straightforward that if there's an apartment complex that has an operating hours for their leasing office it should be in the lease agreement. And if those hours change during the years or modified, the lease should explain how the landlord will notify the tenants of those new hours. And so that's on page 20 just for. Okay, without, if there's interest, we can do that without objection. Or without objection, yes. Without objection, we'll accept that amendment. Second and the second amendment as mentioned there are already a list of certain services and electricity water heat power generator and now we would be adding elevator to the list of that where we received notifications if they are being serviced or out of service Okay Before we decide on this, let me turn over to Councilor McK. First I'll fully support. Really important and really appreciate the inclusion of the elevator notification also extremely important. Wanted to see the requirement that the landlord must provide notice if there is an interest or if there is in code anywhere that would be implicit here. A time window by which we're saying that they need to have provided notice to all tenants and I would think that that might be different whether it's a scheduled outage or an unscheduled outage and if there are thoughts about whether we could do something like that because I would say that we have pushed some of our landlords to make some of those notifications and by the time we're able to get a hold of them, for example, for an unsk itled outage. The time window has passed by which we would be providing really full convenience to residents. So if there's interest in attaching time limits to those. Go ahead. I just want to clarify what's there and then we can think about building on top of it. So right now the notice is for a schedule service interruption at least seven days before that notice is required. And if it's on scheduled with at least 24 hours absent any emergency. Oh, you already have the time on it. Okay. You just scroll down. Great. I hope you all pass it. Thanks. There you go. So, asked and already answered. So, okay. So, without objection, there's interest from both colleagues here. So, I'll move that forward as well So we have the two sponsor generated amendments the third one is not ready for prime time and is gonna take some further thought and collaboration with relevant stakeholders including our public safety collaboration with relevant stakeholders, including our public safety professionals, to get their input and feedback on how to address the issue that has been raised and that is being explored. Let's continue. Art, page nine, amendments that are proposed by Council Member Mink. Also, wanna see if there are comments there before I dive into anything. Let me turn it over to that Councilmember Mink. You can give some background and then we'll turn it back to Council staff. Great. Thank you. So this one also needs some work before we bring it to full council and obviously I'll bring it to committee prior to that as well. But this is to address an issue that we have seen in my district and then out of now heard has occurred in other instances as well. This is an effort to target kind of our worst offenders of seeing false alarms or maybe not necessarily false arms but repeated fire alarms using an really extraordinary, disproportionate amount of our fire safety professionals time, as well as creating a safety hazard for residents who when these repeated alarms are occurring again and again and again, they stop evacuating the building. And it's important for the county to be able to have partnership with management and or ownership to be able to address some of those issues and come up with a plan Working together depending on what the situation might be that might be a coordinated effort on Education and outreach and management simply letting in Fire rescue to come in and do some of that education and outreach and helping to get word out to residents or there may be other possibilities which could be included there depending on what the issue is that is causing the repeated fire alarms going off. So this is kind of modeled off of the bill that we had passed previously, which had MCPD of course, is enforcing agency for the late night safety plan requirements in which the goal there was to kind of target the worst offenders as well. Where we were seeing really a disproportionate amount of police calls happening and that bill was to really facilitate the conversation. Make sure that conversation was actually happening even with some businesses that might not have been eager to have those conversations but between the county and the businesses. So in this case, we do have some locations where those conversations are not happening And so the goal is to facilitate that. So the way that it's drafted right now is it says that for any properties where there have been 10 or more calls for service for a fire related emergency within 12 months, that would trigger this piece of the plan. Requiring an addendum, basically an additional part of the emergency safety plan, which is to be put together in consultation with the enforcing department and reviewed and so on. I want to make sure that we have the threshold, right, that we are really targeting the kind of slim number of buildings to whom this is really an issue. And also that we have that the list correct in terms of what the plan and the might might or might not include at minimum. And then there are also questions about whether enforcement should be kept under the same department for this piece as well. So those conversations are continuing, but much appreciate the partnership of the executive branch and having those discussions and wanted to bring that to the attention of the committee. executive branch and having those discussions and wanted to bring that to the attention of the committee. Appreciate that. It's essentially it's a building that cried wolf scenario. We don't want a scenario where not only are we taking advantage of scarce public safety resources for repeated service calls, but even more dangerously having residents who are desensitized by drills and just don't respond to them assuming that it's not a serious issue because the time that it is a serious issue of an evacuation that could save lives doesn't occur. We could have a loss of life scenario that is preventable. So figuring that out, working through that, and determining how to handle it is important. Appreciate the additional time to work through that. But you don't want a scenario where residents are so used to having a drill or something that is not a serious emergency issue that they no longer treat what is an emergency as an emergency and therefore could be putting their lives, the lives of their family and potentially visitors and guests and employees in buildings at risk. And then I just wanted to note that it's important to realize also that these aren't all nuisance alarms. They're not all because kids are pulling the fire alarms. It could be because of a faulty alarm. It could be because of old infrastructure that needs to be updated if it's causing gas leaks that continue to be consistent and happening in different areas because that infrastructure just hasn't been updated. We want to make sure that the text has a flexibility for the county department to kind of look into it and then really work with management to figure out what's going to be effective there. On that note, also in my conversations with the executive branch another related issue was brought to my attention that we might want to look into, which is that we currently do have code which allows for fines for faulty alarms, but that's only applicable to burglar alarms. And again, this is not relevant to like nuisance alarms or the other issues that we've talked about. This is specific to like maintenance issues like the alarm is broken in some fashion. And so in the code now under section three, it does allow there's a schedule of fines for that accelerate, when we really get up into those numbers of times that it's creating an issue. So there's an interest in perhaps making this applicable also to faulty fire alarms. Yeah, I think it's a good point. I do think that would be a separate bill because I do think that Perhaps making this applicable also to faulty fire alarms? Yeah, I think it's a good point. I do think that would be a separate bill because I do think that that would be handled a separate chapter in many ways, a different issue, not related to notification. Rights and obligations of tenants landlords and tenants. But I think it's an important issue. I mean, ought to be looked at, we've got public safety chair here as well, but I think that's certainly worth exploring. It is a resource issue. The reason for the fine is that you want to discourage something that is exhausting, significant amounts of public safety resources, where they're being diverted away from actual public safety needs and can have real life and death consequences. So appreciate that. I think it would be helpful as you look through this and potentially bring something back to full council at least from my perspective and I'd imagine the perspective of others. A breakdown as you figure out thresholds and think through thresholds. How many buildings are we talking about that received 10? How many have received, you know, 15? How many have received 20? You know, some breakdown that lays that out in writing based on the data from the fire rescue service or otherwise, I think that would be helpful for us to understand so that we're- Yep, absolutely. And we'll work on that and we'll- We'll work on capturing the right one. So I know that's part of your additional information you're seeking before coming up with what exactly is the best mechanism to address this issue. I think that would be helpful in advance of those discussions for me and for others as we as we consider. Okay, so that is not gonna be moved forward, so I'm not sure it requires further discussion, so I think we can move on. Anything else you wanted to raise or address for our awareness? No, I think you guys have been very efficient thorough. There was multiple layers, but we've been able to at least go through this methodically. Great. Anything else that the council member want me to address? I don't think we have anything else to be addressed, but let me turn it to my colleague, Councilor Fadagin-Sales. I just want to thank Councilmember Council vice president Stewart. It's just I see Councilmember written here and I just keep saying it for her efforts and I'm excited to move forward with this bill as part of the BHP committee and then the full council. Okay great. We'll take a vote on the bill as amended. All those in favor of recommending to the full council. The bill is amended. Please raise your hand. That is two to nothing. We will move the bill forward as amended to full council. Mr. Carton-Green, you will provide us the just language that we can verify and include that as a committee recommendation. And just want to appreciate the sponsor, vice president Stewart. I want to appreciate colleagues for their thoughtfulness and for joining us for this and the executive branch for all the work. I know this has been a lift on your ends. I mean that the executive branch feels very strongly about as well and Miss McCartney Green in particular. I know you've put a tremendous amount of work into navigating these issues and appreciate all the feedback that we've received from property owners from residents from tenants from landlords There's been a significant amount of input and feedback and I think it has helped us to get to a good place today So with that we have a committee recommendation on this bill and we're going to move on to our next item. Thank you to our guests for joining us and we will relieve you of your duty here. Council Member Katz is going to stay with us. We're going to continue on with the continuation of our very robust discussion, thoughtful discussion from Monday on the Great Seneca Plan, connecting life and science. We're going to call up our guests from the Planning Department who are here joining us as well as our Council staff. Appreciate Miss Dunn, Mr. Ali, and Mr. Kenny, I believe. And we will continue on. Miss Dunn, when you're ready, why don't you just quickly give an overview of what we got through on Monday and where we're picking up today just for the benefit of the public and then we can pick up the packet where we left off. Perfect, thank you and good afternoon. On Monday we met to go over the staff report for the Great Seneca Science Master Plan focusing on the life science and center area. There are many elements of this staff report. The plan is organized into themes. They cover the built environment, natural environment, social environment, economic environment, and we, and within the built environment, are the zoning recommendations, the housing recommendations and transportation recommendations, which are quite lengthy. And so we got through the recommendations related to the built environment on our conversation on Monday. We got up to page one second here, night, the bottom, yep, bottom of 18. And we are gonna start today with a review of the opportunity sites. Still under the built environment. We will then cover the social environment, the natural environment, economic environment for the life sciences center and finish up with some conversations about implementation. Sounds good. Great. Thank you. Good afternoon. Can you members? So we'll just go through each of the opportunity sites one by one and then you can open it up for discussion. The first opportunity site called out is the Bellword Campus, which is approximately 96 acres. The plan recommends retaining many of the recommendations for the 2010 plan for the site. There are some approved plans from development plans for the site as well that envision a mix of medical and life science uses as well as adaptive reuse of the historic billboard farm buildings, preservation of open space, and the creation of privately owned public space as well. There's also I think one approved site plan and one sort of longstanding preliminary plan for the site. The historic preservation committee provided a commission provided written testimony in support of the plan's recommendations for the site in terms of preserving the historical buildings and structures on it. And there was also testimony from Johns Hopkins University, which currently owns the site. They had some concerns regarding the impact fee policy area, tree canopy coverage requirements, green cover requirements, and then the requirements for the adaptive reuse of the historic buildings. Will, last week, I think address the impact fee issue, which is that we'll explore that as part of the GIP more broadly. I would have an infrastructure policy. I'm sorry about that. I just, and just to clarify, I appreciate you walking through it. We're on page 20. Yes. Of the packet, just for those following along, since we're picking up midstream, we just want to make sure everybody can follow. We're on page 20 of the packet. We got through 19 pages on Monday and that's where we are. It begins with the Bellword Campus on the opportunity sites. Please continue. Thank you, sorry. Thank you for orienting us to the page 20 of the packet. So yes, the growth in the structure policy discussion, either in the fall will sort of address the policy area concern that they expressed. And then later in the packet, we of address the policy area concern that they expressed. And then later in the packet we'll discuss the tree canopy coverage and green coverage requirements as well. But at this moment the committee may wish to understand specifically what the adaptive reuse requirements are. I think council staff thought it was a little bit unclear. And so it may be worth clarifying and then understanding what whether it should be maintained as written. Please, let's turn it to the Planning Department and you can walk us through what the expectations are on adaptive reuse and we can better understand it and have a discussion about it. Great. Thank you so much, Maureen Hill for the record. Unfortunately, no one from our historic preservation staff could be here today, so I'm going to try to do it justice. But the buildings that are envisioned for adaptive reuse are the bellword, the historic bellword house, Dairy Barn, Milk Barn, as well as a cow barn. And these buildings, as well as a historic footprint around the buildings have been established since the 90s when the preliminary plan for the Bellward campus came in. And over the past several decades, the Great Seneca Science Court or Master Plan from 2010, as well as subsequent site plans and preliminary plan amendments, as well as the design guidelines that accompanied the 2010 plan have reaffirmed both the historic site as well as the adaptive reuse of these buildings. This has also been a community, like a focus of community comments, both during the site plan and preliminary plan processes as well as a focus of the 2010 master plan. So these four buildings are recommended for adaptive reuse but that doesn't mean that it happens all at once. They can be phased and as the you you know, as future development, our site plan or preliminary plan amendments come in that would touch the historic footprint area, that would be an opportunity to address and explore adaptive reuse at that time. Our staff has worked closely with Johns Hopkins University over really decades, but then recently taking them on a tour of examples of adaptive reuse throughout the county of farm buildings. So there's kind of a wide range of what we see as adaptive reuse and ranging from the Art Barn and Gather's Burg which has been adaptively reused as both gallery and theater to kind of more minimal reuse where the historic structures and the interiors remain relatively unchanged but include historic information. And I think that the common thread here is really that community access and that this, the adaptive reuse of the Bellword buildings has been seen and has been talked about as a recreational cultural amenity for the community at large and that has been the understanding of the community over these past decades. community over these past decades. So I don't think I'm missing anything, but our staff has also offered to work with Johns Hopkins University in the future as they explore the adaptive reuse of these buildings and offered as they have with other institutions and groups in the past to connect them with community operators in the future. But recognizing that at this time without a site plan, without a project moving forward, it's difficult to have specific conversations about adaptive reuse, but rather these are the broad understanding of adaptive reuse of these buildings. Appreciate it. Two questions. One is, what building exactly are we talking about? So it's four different buildings. And if you're familiar with the Bellwood site, there's like a road that leads up to historic farmhouse that was used as a single resident dwelling as well as a dairy barn, a milk barn, and a cow barn. So it's four buildings. They're clustered close together and there is an agreement that's like a 10, I think it's a That's like a 10, I think it's a, how large is it? Yeah, it's a seven acre environmental settings footprint that is memorialized not just in the plans, but in the master plans, but in their approved preliminary insight plans as well. Okay, and so it's four buildings is what is under discussion here. Is that the totality of the buildings on the site Because I think that is some of the confusion There are a couple of buildings on the site that are not included in the Historic buildings do we think that the language has included in the plan? Reflects that that the language has included in the plan reflects that? No, I guess not. Okay. I can answer that. Yeah, we can ask them to clarify. I know what I think. I'm just asking what you think. So we're happy to ask. I'm trying not to lead the witness here. I'm trying to. Apologies if it's not over here. So I think we can clarify that it is these four buildings. They're the four buildings that are also mentioned in the Pentex as well. So we could add that language to the description of the site to make it clear that it is the the Bellward House, the dairy barn, the milk barn and the cow barn. Okay, well I think it's important to clarify exactly what buildings were talking about to set reasonable expectations. I think there has been a concern of what was committed and what was not committed previously and what the community expectations and what the property owner expectations are. And I think we need to be as clear on those things as possible because the more ambiguity there is, the more challenges that occurred down the road, and I think that is some of the challenges that we face in this plan, where certain expectations were created, but they might have been different between and among parties. And it's hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube after people for many years expect certain things on both sides of these issues. I think that's one important piece. Before I turn it to the District Council member, my other question is related to what do we mean when we say adaptive reuse and active adaptive reuse? What is the expectation there? I understand that you can only know what you know, and we're at a certain phase of this process, and we're not getting into specifics, but it is important that we at least have categories of this is what we're talking about, and this is not what we're talking about. This is a reasonable expectation and this is not a reasonable expectation so that you know, we don't create unfair expectations on either side of what can What should or what shouldn't be done with these buildings and with this property Thank you, and I'm going to try to do it justice. I apologize for my lack of knowledge in this kind of specific area but you know traditionally this like what exactly adaptive reuse looks like would happen during the regulatory process and as a historically designated site that this would go before the historic preservation commission as part of the hop process, which is governed by chapter 24 A. So, and I think there is some flexibility there. I think the is some flexibility there. I think the real intent of this with adaptive reuse is that it can be active as in kind of what I mentioned when we see the Gathersburg art barn or that there's another example of a school, a Montessori school that's been located in a historic barn. You know, and then there's less active but still adaptive reuse that treats it as a historic site that might be open to the public at certain hours, but is relatively unimproved in the interior. And these historic buildings where they're adaptive or reused are sometimes run by the property owner. I think in Johns Hopkins does have historic sites in Baltimore that they run. And then sometimes they're done in partnership with a government agency or with a nonprofit that can help program or run the site for them. But I guess that was a very long-winded way of saying that adaptive reuse doesn't isn't one single model and could mean a number of things in what is appropriate for each building. So I guess, you know, it's from very active to a community asset that could be open to the community at certain points. But I think that the idea of adaptive reuse is instead of just, these buildings can't be torn down because of their desegregation and the agreements. So it's making sure that they're not just completely mothballed, but that they are, you know, remain a healthy part of the site. Okay, appreciate that. Let me turn to the district council member, Elton Rucke. Thank you very much, Mr. President. And thank you for your thoughts. I have to tell you, it's one thing to have a footprint around the historical buildings. And I understand the preservation part of that, but not all buildings are the same. And you talked about the Kentlands Arts Bar and the Gate of the Bergen. There's a Kentlands mansion which is directly across the little street from that. I actually was involved with those, and that's one expense of gift. And if the government weren't involved in rebuilding it and repurposing it and doing all the things with it, it wouldn't be done. And you see that, you don't have to drive very far from this building to see that where the King Farm home is, where the Lawson King actually lived when the King Farm. And nothing has been done with those buildings because it is so expensive to do something. And of course, they certainly don't have the access for items for a restaurant or whatever to go in there. I mean, I've toured that area as well. I believe that it is one thing to say that the historical buildings need to have an area that they can't be disturbed. It's another thing to say, unless the county wants to take those buildings over and Hopkins wants to donate them, I don't see how we can force that, especially through a master plan. So I believe we have to be very careful on this. Thank you. So are you recommending that that be struck? I'm recommending that it be said that the area itself, that there be a footprint around those property. And it's fenced off area literally around those properties and then have a discussion on what would be done with them. Because unless you know that you could actually repurpose those buildings, I don't know how good Miss Banks house is today. I don't know, you know, and yes, she did have all milk and parlor. And it wasn't like, I don't know how many, it has been 40 years since it would have been used. I don't know what kind of, how good the properties can be used today. Yeah, I mean, I just want to revisit before turning to my community colleague. The 2010 plan, the language is reuse of the belt word form offers opportunities for community serving uses such as a cultural recreational or educational center that could become a destination and offers opportunities for community serving uses that could include active indoor recreation or cultural activities. So that language is aspirational. It notes that that would be a benefit. It does not do what page 57 suggests or actually requires. Require adaptive reuse of the historic Bellward Farm buildings that will remain for recreational educational, social, institutional, or cultural uses that complement the community and new development. So, I just wanted to give context to what the suggestion was from the District Council member. I want to be deferential here to the District Council member. I will note, the biggest concern for the community is that nothing has happened on this site and some of the benefits that were suggested have not occurred in 14 years and don't seem like they're imminent to occur over the next few years. And the challenge is while I am a huge believer in historic preservation and love the idea of adaptive reuse. If that is the net result of getting nothing, you know, in pursuit of, you know, perfection as opposed to getting something in pursuit of, you know, something more reasonable. I think we ought to find language that makes sense and I think that's what the District Council members really getting at to that. Let me turn it to my committee colleague and let's see if we can come up with some language that reflects this because I think at the very least something in between what was in the 2010 plan and what is proposed by the planning board draft could address this where we have what would be the interest here, but not a requirement that could potentially be so onerous that it would potentially be prohibitive. exactly where I was going to. The biggest problem that I have with this language on pay 57 is that we require. And I also is based on my experience when I was in a planning board in dealing with a Kensington mansion. I mean, the historic one, the amount of money that you need to raise to make something functional. We're not talking about a couple pennies. This is big money. And I do understand that the community went to see this forward, but I just cannot put on a master plan that will require. So I, I mean, agreement that we need to have some type of language between the 2010 master plan and what you have here with a being so described. Could I make a recommendation and just see what thoughts are among colleagues and among planning and council staff. If we change the language from required to encourage adaptive reuse of the historic bellward farm buildings, take out that will remain and say encourage adaptive reuse of the historic bellward farm buildings for recreational educational, social, social institutional cultural uses that complement the community and new development. That's it. Just with my sub-war, yeah. Is that reasonable, amenable? I'm sorry. I was just going to mention so that would change what your concerns are with the recommendation on page 57, the explanation where we might want to clarify which ones are the historic buildings occurs under the description of Bellward, where it says those plans and vision development that will include medical and like science uses with amenities such as adaptive reuse of the historic Bellward Farm buildings, comma, which historic, in this case, could mean ones that are designated historic, the four that have been mentioned by planning staff, or it could mean every old building on the property, which is I think why the property owner was concerned, it didn't intend it to mean sheds in other outbuildings. So maybe at that point we could just clarify which ones are the historic buildings. In addition to the change on page 50. I think we should say four buildings and name them. Okay. Yeah. Or, you know, exclude me, make sure we know what we're including or we're not included. Designated. I mean, sheds and outbuildings and the idea that those would be included is, right. Um, is not reasonable. Let's hear from planning. Planning is going to say we need to hear from historic preservation. I think that based on just the discussions, it would be helpful if we could have historic preservation staff work with council staff on language and come back on this. I know that this is something that has been, you know, many decades in the works and it has been, I mean, reiterated in preliminary plan, preliminary plan amendments that this would be used as adaptively reused. So I would just feel more comfortable if our historic preservation staff could work with council staff and come back on the issue. Okay, let me turn it to, I'm going to respond to that, but before I do let me hear from the district council. Yeah, and if in their evaluation, if they could put, how much they believe somebody would have to spend in order to do those adaptive reuses, I think that would be helpful. Thank you. Okay, here's what I would suggest if my colleague agrees, we're gonna have a preliminary committee recommendation on this, but we will welcome feedback from historic preservation and from other members of the planning board and planning staff who aren't here, acknowledging that this is a carryover time that we were supposed to take this up on Monday and they were here on Monday, so it's not their fault that they're not here. But we are going to make a preliminary recommendation and we can come back and change it if there is additional information that is relevant but we will have a two-nothing recommendation from the committee to change the language to encourage adaptive reuse of the historic billboard farm buildings for recreational educational, social, institutional, cultural uses, to complement the community and new development. That would be the edit to page 57. And as noted by council staff, we will specifically note the buildings that are included and not included in the description of the billboard farm property so that we clarify that this is the four buildings that we all agree or what are being discussed here and not sheds and out buildings and other old buildings that are not of cultural value or historic preservation value. cultural value or historic preservation value. Just basically saying only the historic preservation, the ones that are designated by the historic, yeah. The four designated buildings as designated by, yeah. Is that work? Okay, so that will be our committee recommendation and it will be two or nothing. Okay, all right, let's continue. Great. So the next opportunity site is the Trivill parcel. You'll recall that you visited this parcel as a council on the tour on June 12th. There are two buildings that are under construction and nearly complete in the third building that has a pending regulatory application. I think the main opportunity to the extent that that is not an approved plan yet, there may be an opportunity to add a mixed use component with respect to the recommendations in this plan, although it seems like the opportunity is somewhat limited to the extent that there's already development on the site, so just to point that out. Alexandria Arrealist state also provided some written testimony to the council, and they recommend adding some language to the following sentence. Beyond current approvals, this plan imagines that future development could add a mixed use component to the open campus. And ARE, Alexandria Real Estate recommends adding if it is compatible with existing research and development uses. So, you know, the plan is informed by a real estate and land use compatibility study, which not only found that the uses are compatible, but that there's great demand on that urbanized vision, that the plan envisions is in fact a compelling thing to attract new development and keep the area competitive. So, council staff do not recommend, or it suggests you consider just maintaining the language as is currently proposed for this site. Okay. So the idea is the language even though our dear friend and colleague, the District Council member believes in belts and suspenders that this is not needed because it is compatible with existing research and development uses as determined by the compatibility study. Yes. And this is not a requirement anyway. So it's just. Okay. Okay. All right. With that objection, I agree with the Council staff recommendation. Great. Still like that. Yeah. And you look good in them too. Okay. Okay. Great. So the third site is the Decoverley site The plan suggests that there's an opportunity to provide infill life science and residential development a long key west This is the plan also recommends consolidating some of the public open space and providing a street connection Between Omega Drive and Diamondback Drive and pedestrian connection to the downtown crown development and council staff suggest retaining this language as stated in the plan. Without objection. Similarly for a site number four, Montgomery Medical, the former J.H. Johns Hopkins University Medical Center site, the plan recommends infill development to replace the existing surface lot and activate the fronted frontages along Brochart, Blackwell and Key West Avenue, which would be designated as pedestrian friendly urban streets and council staff recommends retaining this language as presented. Without objection. Great. Opportunity Site 5 is a collection of sites. These are all the publicly owned sites. These would also potentially incorporate some of the infrastructure improvements that are called out in the plan. And there's also the opportunity to provide a mix of uses and more housing here. The county may also have the opportunity to present their public leone sites to sort of leverage that public ownership submitted an RFP and have stricter requirements related to the land value of the site potentially to help guide development there. And that sort of called out in the plan as well. And so council staff would recommend retaining the language as recommended without objection. and retaining the languages. Recommended. Without objection. Opportunity site number six is the proposed grove. This is in the sort of northeast corner of the plan area. The plan recommends the continued redevelopment of the aging office buildings that currently exist on the site and incorporating incorporating a sort of mix of uses that include residential and retail and anchor that with public open space. Research the redevelopment also should expand the East West connectivity through the cluster which was described as part of the transportation recommendations. And council staff suggest retaining the description of the opportunity site as stated in the plan without objection. stated in the plan. Without objection. Opportunity site number seven is the Guardian property. There was some discussion of this in the last work session regarding the frontages, the road requirement and the structure parking concern that was raised in the letter submitted to the committee. But the opportunity site recommendation is just to sort of promote a mix of uses, incorporate life sciences and residential uses, and build on the pattern established by the Mallory Square Apartments and Bell Shady Growth Developments. So council staff would recommend retaining the description of the site as stated in the plan. Without objection. The next opportunity site is the Adventist Healthcare site, which was also discussed at the last work session. The plan notes that there's an opportunity to provide increased connectivity through the site, which was discussed extensively. And rather than propose a fine-grain street grid and alley network throughout the campus, the plan recommend one East West street connection in the location of which was discussed extensively at the last work session There was specific design guidance in the plan for this site that does provide flexibility In building placement form orientation transparency Maybe sorry they recommend that there will be design guidelines for the site that don't exist currently. There was some testimony that was discussed and so Council staff does not recommend changing the description of the opportunity site itself. Let me turn to the district council of our councilor. And I appreciate that, but my concern is that we, that we, the committee has received a letter from Chitty Grove Medical Center that says that they have issues with this. And I understand that that when we discussed it last time, they said, well, they don't have any actual plans. They have to have something in order to figure out why they have these concerns. It concerns me that we're putting this in a master plan when we know that a shady grove medical center is not comfortable with what we're suggesting. We can turn to a plan that to provide more clarity, but just to focus on this specific section being the opportunity side section, I think there's just generally calling out that there's an opportunity to provide some of the infrastructure improvements, the specifics of which were sort of called out in the transportation section. And so I think this is more just about the opportunity to provide that infrastructure, the placement of which I think was discussed, but they can elaborate on that. It says, acknowledge their close work with the planning staff and raising the concern about some of the recommended connections through the site, which are addressed in the transportation section of the stay-afry board. I don't understand why we're not working with it. Apologies. I do think that the description is much more broad and vague. So the issues that the Medical Center had was with the placement and alignment of the road, which the PHP committee addressed in the last work session. So the specific language in this description is that there would be one East. The plan recommends one East West street connection as well as bicycle pedestrian connections between Medical Center Drive and Grochart Road, north of the Medical Center's existing patient tower and anticipated service dock in south of the planned extension of Blackwell Road. So the changes that PHP committee made at the last moment. I'm not sure I can take care of this. Well, these are still in line because they are broad descriptions rather than specific descriptions. So I think that the changes that PHP made to the maps would still fit in with the description of the site. If that makes sense. Yeah, it does make sense to me. Does that satisfy the district council member? Okay, let me turn it to my colleague and then I have a separate but not exact but related issue that I want to raise here too. Yes, that's all. Thank you. That was clear to me. The other, when we talk about infrastructure, we'll also talk about parks. And they also had a concern about the location of the park. That's not a dress here. And I don't see it. It should be, in my view, a dress here. So can we address it? Well, we should. I'm not asking. I shouldn't tell you. Okay. We haven't noted that explicitly. So, I don't know if there is planning staff as any comments about the placement of the urban park on the site. We could also revisit that at the next work session just confirm. Yes, but it should be part of this whole paragraph. Even if you come back later, it should say to you because it is infrastructure. It does impact pedestrian connections and bicycles and all that. It's in the pack at circle 18, I think you can reference it. I was going to ask the same thing about the park. So I'm glad we're raising it when we talk about public amenities and public infrastructure here. You answered the question about the fact that we have seemingly addressed the transportation piece with the decision that we made previously that it's consistent because of its broadness in nature, which is good, but did want to hear about the parks and my sense about the park is not necessarily the requirement of the park. I think there's broad agreement on that. It's a question of location of the park and whether or not there is an adequate level of flexibility for the location of the park and whether or not a level of rigidity in the location of the park could have an impact on redevelopment and on the implementation of the strategic plan for the site. I'll note this is really the same conversation that we had on Monday related to the street grid. To say we want to have some level of flexibility so that we can site buildings and plan out the campus in a way that meets the needs of the campus. And of of course planning has an important perspective of we want to make sure that there's a street grid that reflects the needs of the broader community and creates the level of connectivity for all road users through the campus that we can create the type of livable, walkable, accessible community that we're trying to recreate here. It's basically an 80s, 90s style suburban land use pattern that we're trying to reimagine into a 2020, 20, 30, 20, 40, 20, 50 type of road network and street grid network and community based network. But in order to do that, having some level of flexibility to balance those needs, I think makes sense. But I think we need to hear on how we can address that in a way that is practicable and reasonable and thoughtful. So let's hear from planning. So the language in the plan is the plan further recommends a publicly owned urban park, a minimum of half acre inside. Be provided along Brochart Road near the future transit stop. There are two transit stops planned for along Brochart Road in the Great Santa that's the whole western side of their property. So there is some flexibility built in with just the location of this recommendation. I think that one piece that is important to planning and to the parks department is that, you know, this, the half acre in size is within what they would have to provide as public open space. Should they come in for a site plan. So it's within that, you know, that they're already required, the 10% required by the code that they would have to provide. And I think that for park and planning, it's important that that is a consolidated space that is usable instead of broken up into tiny little spaces that might not be, you know. Well one park not a series of pocket parks or yeah I agree with that part. So I have two questions here. One is about flexibility. Two is about, I'm a little confused. So if we say recommends a publicly owned urban park, we are requiring dedication. Correct. And so that is the requirement here that this would require dedication. Yes. Okay. With the. Yes. Okay. Okay. So we do do that in a master's plans, especially with some of our larger sites, when we can get that consolidated park. Right. So privately owned public spaces would not satisfy the master plan requirement and that is the intention here. Correct. Okay. All right. So, um. All right. So, to me, the half acre size, the public accessibility and the proximity to transit are the three things that are most important. Really are the three things that are important, the rest of it to me are details from my perspective. If we address language here, I would just want to make sure that those three aspects are included. I'm not sure if there's any concerns about the the would there be an option to satisfy this requirement that would necessarily be a long brochure set of curiosity not as written in the plan. No, I understand not as written in the plan that someone was asking. are there other other would there be other options that would be in proximity to transit. I think planning staff would have to review unless you I think that you know similar to the con oh sorry Jessica McVary with the Mc County planning division for the record similar to the conversation that we had around the street network and thinking about how that street grid relates to the sort of surrounding context. That's also something that's important as we think about the open space. And the reason that we really talked about and focused on the frontage along Brochart Road was, yes, the proximity to transit. Also sort of thinking about the campus master plan that the property owners shared with us. And then the other component was really thinking about the opportunities that exist on the other side of Rochart Road. That's where those public properties are and thinking about how we could really begin to create sort of a destination within the Life Sciences Center along the spine of Brochart Road that leverages this open space. So thinking about how it fits into the overall context was something that was also important for us. So could I recommend instead of saying a long Brochart Road, which to me sounds like next to the transit stop on Brochart Road, I think to the public probably will sound that way too. There could be a better site for this. I don't know, but there could be. I agree with planning's goal here, by the way, which is we want transit accessible park amenities, which is a goal that we have, which is part of the pros. I mean, there's just a number of areas, you know, it's good land use planning, etc. But there is a possibility that having a building there, for instance, where people work or people live, could make sense on one side of it in the park on the other side of that building where people work or where people play. I just don't know that. So I would prefer saying, instead of a long brochure at road near the future transit stop, I'd prefer saying within a half mile walk shed of the future transit stop so that we ensure that it has transit proximity, but we give some level of flexibility to exactly where it would be. Let me turn to my colleague on the committee here and I can turn it to planning staff after that to see what your thoughts and feedback on that might be. So where on page 59 of the planning was draft for those who are watching, right on top. So yeah, that was the issue that I have because he's very specific, provided on own brochure road. I'm okay saying nearby, very enclosed proximity, something not so descriptive. It's mostly because of that experience that we had in Wheaton, arrived before I left the planning board. It was actually the last item I've ever had on. We actually swapped a property that was on Georgia Avenue with MHP because we wanted to have the buildings on the road and having the park away from the road just because it's safer. It just made more sense. So based on that experience that's one saying, that line be provided alone, brochure row should not be there. But I do agree that it should be near transit, obviously. That was the only concern. Thank you. One thing concern that I think that Parks and Planning staff have is that it does remain publicly accessible and accessible. And especially in light of the conversation at the previous PHP session, where Adventist said that they had some concerns about the infrastructure going through the site and public accessibility through their site. We want to make sure that this park wasn't something that would be internal to the site in a way that even if it was publicly accessible, felt publicly inaccessible. And the idea of locating it along or within eyesight of Brochart Road and transit is that it would be really a true public amenity rather than an amenity that was closed away from the public. And I think that that remains a concern, especially as Adventist has said that they want to kind of limit public accessibility to parts of their site. I was just going to add Carrie Sanders for the record that this site actually fronts a couple of different roadways and each of those roadways has a transit stop. So perhaps the language could be revised to say to take out the specific roadway but rather to say be provided near the future transit stop. That would be probable if we were making revisions. Yeah, okay. So that was kind of the original point that I was trying to make is that there could be other ways to accomplish the goal which I very much share which is we want a park we want the park to be of reasonable size we wanted to have public access along transit and in close proximity to transit okay, so You prefer near the future, I mean, it would have to say near a future transit stop or near one of the future transit stops. Near at least one of the future transit stops. And okay, do we think near one of the future transit stops satisfies as opposed to like within the walk shed of half of the future trends is up satisfies as opposed to like within the walk shed of the Near one of the future trends is tops to give some flexibility to planning also We it's helpful for us to To have it on a specific like Site because then when that site comes in for redevelopment we have that discussion otherwise It's we're having that discussion with seven different sites, but if it is specific to a site, that is very helpful. Okay, so the language would be recommends a publicly owned urban park, a minimum of a half acre in size. And we're saying... Be provided near at least one of the future transit stops. This is my understanding. Okay. Just to confirm, do do you wanted to say publicly owned or publicly accessible? Should we say debt I mean it seems like odd language to me to be honest with you. I mean I'm I'm supposed to say and dedicated public I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm supposed to say, and dedicated public. What do we own different parts? Chuck Kines for the record Department of Parks. I think what's important to our position is that it be publicly owned or dedicated, that it be near transit, that it be fronting on a road. So it appears and functions as a public space as opposed to being internal to the site. Yeah, I think those are the three most important things I think for the Department of Parks. Okay, and you prefer, I mean, yeah. By the way, saying publicly on also could suggest that we're buying it, just to be clear. We can check with other master plan language to make sure that this is in line with the precedent of how we talk about dedicated public urban park. Like, would be more consistent with how we normally talk about these things because that's what we're talking about is a dedication dedicated It allows the the landowner to hold on to the density for the calculation of the density. Yeah, I think for conveyance, conveyance would detract from their density calculation. OK, so I think so plan further recommends a dedicated public urban park, a minimum of a half acre in size. Be provided near at least one of the future transit stops. And fronting on a public road. We're not going to include fronting on a public road. But if it's a transit stop, it would be, you know, a public road. Where else are you going to put a transit stop? Well, it's saying near transit. It's not saying adjacent to transit. Well, you know, it's... Well, I suggested the walk shed. We heard, you know, I don't want to put along, because I think there should be some level of flexibility to understand what makes the most sense in that case. I suggested the walkshake because I think that is what you're trying to, you know, to get at. We heard from your colleague in planning that, you know, we didn't want the walkshake. So I'm fine not putting the walkshake in. If that's the preference of planning, but I wouldn't add the, you know, along the public roadway because there should be some level of flexibility here. Okay, parts are satisfying. Based on discussion. Okay. Planning's done. All right, you're getting most of the loaf here. We're, we're, we're compromising essentially with what the planning board presented to us and the concerns that were raised by the property owner about a lack of flexibility. We did not accept a number of their requests, but we accepted a few. We did not accept all of your requests. We accepted a few. We landed somewhere in the middle. So hopefully we've satisfactorily made neither of you happy. Thus the genius or lack thereof of legislating and compromising. Okay, thank you for that. Thank you for that. Yep, sorry about glossing over the parks issue. The second to last opportunity site is the ProMark Partners site. The plan recommends mixed use redevelopment with residential and life science uses. Also recommending synergies with the surrounding development, improving front edges along medical center drive that integrate the LSC loop and providing one east west connection between medical centerway and black well drive. Testimony from the property owner indicated some concerns with the connections that was discussed at the last work session. They also recommended increasing the map to FAR to 2.0 from 1.5. The committee did recommend that to full council at the last work session, but if you're interested in discussing it further, maybe worth understanding if there are any trade-offs of increasing the density. But I think planning staff at the last work session indicated that they were generally supportive of that. I think we already agreed to that unless there are any concerns. Let's maintain that recommendation and continue. Great. The final one is the Elms at PSTA recommending future infill development on this property. The site of the plan already has a approved site plan and development that's being undertaken. So the council steps just recommend maintaining this language as provided in the plan. Without objection? All right, we're going to move on to the social environment now at the next theme of the section for the Life Science Center portion of the plan. On page 23 of the staff report, and the plan notes that the area currently lacks a wealth of publicly accessible open space and recreational amenities. Although there are some opportunities to meet these needs, there are some publicly privately owned public spaces. In addition, there's the Trivial Local Park, which is currently publicly, privately owned public spaces. In addition, there's the Traveille local park, which is currently an undeveloped MNCPPC park located in the Life Science Center. And there are several community facilities and schools located there as well. The plan goes on to provide an evaluation of the school capacity for the plan area, looking at the two school clusters, and evaluation of the school capacity for the plan area, looking at the two school clusters, Gatheresburg and Wooten, and concludes that their over the life of the plan, there is sufficient capacity within these clusters and potential for students given MCPS's future views on re-evaluating school boundaries. Next, you provide the goals for the social environment recommendations, which are to create parks and public open spaces that serve multiple functions, social gathering, active recreation, access to nature, and environmental stewardship rather than a single purpose. To focus on the specific needs and desires of an increasingly diverse population great places that foster community civic engagement and social cohesion and to develop quality of place based on design sustainability practices anchored by a robust network of streets and public open spaces and council staffs to just support these goals without objection and then it provides several recommendations to meet these goals. The first two really focus on repurposing of travel lanes along Kiwesty Avenue. The second one also is about a portion of Great Seneca Highway used as a greenway. These are tied to the discussions we'd been having before regarding lane reduction in the transportation section of the plan and staff would just make sure that these are consistent with any recommendation by the committee or the council regarding those those travel ways Without objection The next recommendations numbers three through eight I believe The next recommendations, number three through eight, I believe, are also ones that Council staff suggest the committee's support. They basically provide for the implementation of ways to achieve these goals that we just recently mentioned. And they are thorough and are not too prescriptive as to not be able to be met. Without objection. The next is the natural environment. Again, it provides goals for its recommendations to meet the natural environment and those goals are to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, maximize energy conservation and meet energy needs through clean energy generation, conserve and protect water quality, use the best available storm water management techniques in the Piney Branch Special Protection area to protect the watersheds headways, identify heat islands and employee strategies to reduce extreme summer temperatures, improve air quality by reducing ozone and a particular pollution, and protect unique and sensitive biological communities. Of course, a staff suggest that communities support these goals. Without objection. And then the recommendations related to meet these goals are provided in two different topic areas. The first one is energy and design recommendations. These include recommendations related to increasing on-site clean energy generation, engaging the life science community, and advancements of the county's climate action goals, using and incorporating strategies for building energy efficiency, incorporating environmentally sensitive design into the redevelopment of properties, and expanding electric vehicle charging infrastructure and council staffs to just the community support these. Yes. Without objection. The next are the environmental quality and preservation recommendations. And the first one is states that on private property, provide a minimum of 35% green cover of the total site, excluding existing forest cover on the property, which may include the following either single year in combination, which is an intensive green roof, tree canopy cover, vegetative cover, landscape areas, rain gardens and bioswales, solar energy and green roof and onsite energy generation that requires the use of a roof or open space, accommodations may feature, that accommodates these features may alter the 35% green cover. Those are not unlike other recommendations we've seen in other master plans that the committee and the council have recently approved. You did receive a letter from Philip Hummel of Miles and Stockbridge, representative for the Johns Hopkins Bellword property. And there was a crest that a single concept plan and preliminary plan that the minimum 35% recover requirement be implied to the entire property instead of an individual site plan on the property. Given that we had a couple extra days in my initial writing of this, I had not really had a chance to look into the development review phase of this and we can consult with planning steps since they are well versed in this. But wanted to see how that might impact if in fact it was applied. Peace meal across a very large property, a site plan could come in with a much lower level of green cover, much lower than 35%. Council staff suggests that we do not alter the recommendation and the plan based on a larger property as I don't believe that it would fulfill the goals of the plan to have piecemeal development that doesn't have 35% green cover. We require this in most of the master plans that we've been approving lately in places that it is difficult to achieve places that are mainly covered by parking lots in an urban areas and in those places, if we're requiring requiring green cover it seems that we could still require them in other places as well. Can I just ask a question about that? I appreciate the recommendation. I appreciate the rationale behind that. If we require a higher number, would it make sense? Like, could we aggregate? I mean, to me, I understand the idea of you don't want to diminish the recommendation, but if we could get something of value here, which is a higher overall canopy number, like 40%, you know, or some higher number, would it make sense to allow for aggregation of the parcels? So I think one of the issues could be that in a site like Bellward, which is 1.5 million square feet or more, just that is what the site looks like. That you could actually wind up with these pockets that create little heat islands and don't have the green infrastructure on parts of it. I think our idea with this is that we offered a lot of flexibility and even added in some ways that they could meet different environmental requirements through one piece of infrastructure, kind of double dipping with the tree canopy requirements with the rain gardens and bioswales. I think our position is that this would be the most effective way to ensure kind of parity throughout the area. It would align with how we do development review of, you know, environmental standards. And as Ms. Dunn mentioned, it's also in line with previous plans like the Tacoma Park Minor Master Plan, Fairland Bigs Plan, Cheney Plan, Bethesda downtown plan and others. I don't know how we would do that also in terms of saying, you know, this can have 30% but then the next one has to have 40% I think it creates a situation where we might not be achieving the goal of the environmental recommendation. I appreciate that. I mean, you have to the District Council and we're going to have the environmental recommend. I'm going to yell to the District Council and the Rockhead Rockats. We're dealing with a master plan. Why are we suggesting that you, if you're dealing with a master plan, you're looking at the entire site. Why are we suggesting that when you deal with an individual part of that site, that it should be anything different other than with the entire master plan is suggesting. I don't see if it's supposed to be 35% or whatever the percentage is in a master plan and if somebody comes in if they come in with a building that's going to only have the 30% green space and you still have all the they're going to have to come up with the with the other sightings. What difference does that make? Thank you for that question. You know, as we're developing the master plans, we are really seeking to establish guidance for both applicants and our regulatory reviewers as they review development applications. And so this, the way that this recommendation is worded allows that sort of level of certainty both for applicants and for regulatory reviewers with each application to know that they're looking for that 35% green cover rather than being in a situation as Ms. Hill was mentioning where then the sort of the last applicant in the door is left holding the remainder or the balance to achieve the overall goal for the plan area. Let me ask in another way if Hopkins or whoever come in with an overall plan, concept plan, and have 35% on there, and then they come back and say, I'd like to do this part, and you know where the other parts are going to be for the green, is that something that's acceptable or not acceptable to you? Yes, that's acceptable. So to me that's what they're doing. I mean they're allowing the 35% overall. Thank you. Overall, thank you, Mr. President. We have a minute. So you're not recommending any changes to that? I think so. I just want to be clear here because I don't want to think that we're missing what the concern was. So there is language in this plan that states that the providing minimum 35% green cover, it does state excluding existing forest cover on the property. And I think that is where for the Bellwood property, the issue comes to a head. They have some forest stood land on their property that yes, their overall site can easily achieve that 35% because they have the forest to cover. If you exclude that and you're looking at them developing different parts of the site, they're achieving it without counting that portion of their property. I just want to make sure I'm getting this clear because I don't want to walk away from this thinking, oh, we're all okay with this and then they'll be writing back in saying, but we still have a prop. We're still concerned because our site plan wouldn't achieve this because you're not gonna count the forested area along Muddy Branch Road. plan wouldn't achieve this because you're not going to count the forested area along Muddy Branch Road. Yeah well I'll just say I mean you could add in a single owner you know as I was suggesting the concern there's always a concern about the hot potato dynamic where, you know, if you create an aggregate standard with different, you know, potentially different property owners, that the final property owner bears the entire public burden, which is unreasonable and, you know, creates a challenge. It either becomes infeasible and undevelopable, and so you end up with like a dead parcel that can't possibly move forward at any reasonable time frame, because you have prohibitively, you know, sacked it with the burden of all. It's like the, you know, essentially it's like the opposite tragedy of the commons from an economic standpoint where you instead of nobody does anything you require one person to do everything or one entity to do everything. You could address that if it's a single property or that is different to coming in with the Comprehensive Plan. It could be phased in the sense that you can't finance everything all at once but you do have an overall plan for how to achieve things. My suggestion was wondering whether or not getting more is, you know, a possibility as opposed to going parcel by parcel and saying, you must, you know, achieve 35%, maybe one parcel achieves 32%, but if you can get 40% overall, like that could be a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. planning to work with the applicant to basically negotiate and say, listen, we can be flexible, but you're going to have to give something more here in order for us to achieve the public benefit and the environmental needs that we have for the community. That was the only reason why I was suggesting it. And I think, you know, because we're talking about a single property owner for this massive parcel or multi-ag aggregation of parcels, it's a little different than an urban setting where you have every other piece is owned by a different entity. I think we have some late breaking news. Let me turn it back to council staff when ready and we can hear from them and I see Mr. Coneberg has joined us at the table. Thank you for your patience. We're learning more as we walk through this with you So it appears that as I was speaking about the forest cover on part of the property the larger concern isn't that so much as a future site plan on one particular part of the property in isolation wouldn't meet the 35%. And so the idea that if you're looking at the entire concept and preliminary plan, that's where the 35% has determined. And with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Cronenberg because I think he has a lot more experience on how implementation of site plans that follow a larger pre-luminant plan are handled. Thank you for the record Robert Cronberg. So you're all correct I think in terms of where you're headed with this. You're not going to be correct if you're correct if that too. But for a concept plan that comes in it's going to typically take over and plan for an entire site, which could be end up being six different site plans that come in. That concept plan would establish the threshold of 35%. It would establish and identify where the forest coverage going to be and where the green coverage going to be, two separate things, because as Ms. Dunn pointed out, those that's part of the discussion and part of what's laid out in a plan. For each individual site plan that would come in that follows that concept plan or even a sketch plan. If one is 32 percent, one's 36 percent, one's 38, that's fine as long as it keeps to the theme of the overall concept. And I think that that's the intent of what staff is trying to demonstrate here. And I think that really addresses what Mr. Hummel I think wrote in about as well. All right, so we're comfortable. Okay. All right. It's good to flesh that out. Let's continue. Okay. The next one that we're going to talk about is a recommendation related to tree canopy coverage. And it says increased tree canopy coverage by planting trees on public and private land along rights away with open space and in existing neighborhoods. The area of surface parking lot, some public and private properties should provide at least 50% tree canopy coverage of the parking lot area. If it can be demonstrated that 50% tree canopy cover cannot be achieved, the remaining coverage requirement can be met through the installation of solar canopies. So this last part is relatively new. We visited this topic in the Fairland Breaks Cheney Plan recently where the committee and the council was very committed to this 50% tree canopy cover requirement in that plan area. And here what we see is that there's been this addition of something that can help meet that, that we didn't have as part of our conversation under that plan, but seems that if you could even use solar canopies to reduce that helial end effect, you can have a slightly lower tree canopy number because it would be counted toward that, which is a nice flexibility that the prior plan didn't consider. We did still receive a letter again from Miles and Stockbridge asking for greater flexibility for the tree canopy coverage on the surface parking lots and asked if it could read instead if it can be demonstrated that 50% tree canopy cover cannot be reasonably achieved. The remaining coverage requirement can be demonstrated that 50% tree canopy cover cannot be reasonably achieved. The remaining coverage requirement can be met through the installation of solar canopies. Again, this is similar to the conversations we have about what is reasonably mean. Is it practicable? Is it always possible? You could add a qualifier here. I think given that you actually have the ability to go from tree canopy cover to solar canopies, it's a flexibility that other plans haven't even had. I would be fine with leaving the language as is. What how do you set the standard? So I mean, I just think we should talk about that. So if it says cannot be achieved, what does that mean? They come in and they say we can't accomplish it. It's based on what and how do you decide whether that's true or not. What we would do is we'd say show us first how you can't achieve it. And then what are the barriers to not being able to achieve that? And then we look at the flexibility of whether or not it's tree canopy or solar canopies. But does that mean like the roots can't go down far enough? Because there's a possible rock underneath. Does that mean that it's not financially feasible and it kills the project? I mean, what is it all in the above? In this case, I think they're talking about parking lots or part of surface parking where tree canopy would go in as I read this. And if the space is not available for the trees to go in, if it's not wide enough, let's say it's one for versus three or four feet, I think maybe that's not feasible to be able to put in a type of canopy tree. Or here's the amount of space they have for the parking lot. Here's a number of spaces that you're requiring. You can't fit trees and spaces. So it's either let us do fewer spaces. That's correct. You know, tell us we don't have to do all the trees. That's exactly right. you know, tell us we don't have to do all the trees. That's exactly right. Okay. So you think that there already is a reasonableness standard. We do. Okay. We. Indifferent towards that, but we can keep the language as it sounds like that's the consensus. Okay, moving on, we have recommendations under this same section that is on environmental quality and preservation, recommendations three through nine. Again, these cover a lot of the things that the Committee and the Council have seen in prior master plans regarding minimizing impervious surface, increasing the use of biosolous and rain gardens, particularly with the Pine Branch Special Protection Area, protecting forests, planting native vegetation, planting trees, wherever possible to shade paved and hard escape areas, protecting existing sensitive species, and using nature-based climate solutions, including soil improved techniques and landscape where possible, and council staff suggests that committee support these recommendations three through nine. Without objection. So moving on to the economic environment section. This is the plan notes the Life Sciences Center is one of the densest concentrations of private life sciences establishments in the country and this plan is seeking to retain but also attract and grow the life sciences and healthcare industries as well as the educational capacity to support those industries by enhancing the Life Sciences Center as a place in delivering services and amenities and infrastructure that are desired by employers, workers, residents, and visitors alike. The two goals, to support this arch transition, the Life Sciences Center into a vital complete community consistent with the principles in Thrive Montgomery 2050, and to increase the Life Science Center's competitiveness as a major global Life Sciences Innovation Hub, and council staff recommends approving these goals as stated objection There are two or sorry three recommendations related to this So the first is to enhance infrastructure and amenities to attract life science companies residents workers By including housing multimodal transportation public space, recreation and walkability in line with Montgomery County Economic Development Corporation Strategic Plan. And many of the built environment and transportation improvements that are vital to meeting that vision were already discussed. And so Council staff suggests supporting this recommendation unless there are any further questions about any of those elements. That objection? The next recommendation is to facilitate new development and adaptive reuse of existing buildings to meet industry demand based on quantity, type and size of life of the life science real estate. Encouraged development of small and medium scale lab space and not provided by the private market as well. Although there are limited opportunities for adaptive reuse, the plan does encourage development of small immediate scale lab space, not provided by the market specifically, but that's through the overlay zone. And so that will be discussed when we get to that. But as stated, council staff would recommend Supporting this recommendation that objection Great and finally encouraging the placement and design of retail to be integrated with public and private open space Walkability features and other aspects of the size design and relationship to surrounding properties again a lot of these things would be implemented via the overlay zone but as Written council staff would suggest the committee support this recommendation Again, a lot of these things would be implemented via the overlay zone, but as written council staff would suggest the committee support this recommendation. Without objection. And the last section that we'll cover today for the Life Sciences Center area of the plan begins on the bottom of page 27 of the staff report as titled Implementation. And there are a handful of recommendations for the implementation of this part of the plan, the recommendations under the life science center area. The first one is following the plan's approval, the council and the MNCPPC should approve a sectional map amendment that kind of goes without saying. It's great to have it in there but we typically do that so that will happen The second is to establish a life sciences overlay zone that has already been as you know Introduced in a public hearing will be held on the 16th of June July sorry What month are you okay? in July And then this plan recommends that the county establish, this is the third recommendation, establish a place management organization in the Life Sciences Center to implement the master plan recommendations and to perform other supporting functions such as activate program under utilized sites and open spaces, develop a brand for the area and plan for marketing it, coordinate and implement place making public realm and infrastructure improvements, advocate for directly fund or apply for grants for key capital projects in the LSC. As you may recall, the committee had a brief discussion of this implementation idea at its very first work session where the briefing included this information and the committee expressed concern with including language in the plan that is too prescriptive of this entity. So what you will see on the middle of page 28 is a proposed revision to this section of the recommendation, which would instead state as recommended in the life sciences real estate study. This plan recommends that the county establish an organizing entity to help implement master plan recommendations and perform other supporting functions. For the life sciences center, these other functions may include assistance with the activation of programming of underutilized sites and open spaces, development of a brand for the area, and assistance in marketing it, assistance with the coordination implementation of place-making public realm and infrastructure improvements, and efforts to secure funding for the operation of the organizing entity. I appreciate the original recommendation here. I think council staff's suggestion reflects what was intended with some clarifying language. I personally would be comfortable with that. Let me see if colleagues agree both my committee colleague and the district council member. Yes, I raised this issue in the first work session. It was very direct. And I think council staff did a great job to smooth the language. So I'm okay with this. Councilman Rukats. Councilman Rukats seems to agree as well. So we are going to, without objection, accept the Council staff updated language, amended language. Great, thank you. The fourth recommendation is that this plan recommends the county agencies explore the full range of funding mechanisms available to implement plan recommendations, goes on to talk about that and then states within 18 months of plan adoption. It then provides funding mechanisms could explore different federal and state aid and a variety of other mechanisms. I think that again, this section would be coordinated with any changes that we've just talked about to number three, but in particular, I wouldn't include the time for you in a master plan or a requirement that something be done in a certain amount of time. I agree. The recommendation that it should be evergreen so you know obviously we hope that you'll do it in 18 months and expect timely implementation, but this should be a reference for the next 20 plus years and you know having a time stamp like that I don't I don't think is necessary or appropriate in this venue although I appreciate the fact that planning was putting a deadline on itself and on counting government ourselves, which I take to heart. Does planning staff want to provide feedback here? We are comfortable with the changes largely. I think our, we had some plans like White Flint as an example that have had time frames in them, but we understand that sometimes that can not always. That's a lot of work in here. Yeah, so I think, you know, we're open. I think our bigger concern is just the motivation to provide the entity and how that motivation is created. Because we know that like some of these parks are being built now and we want to make sure that there's an entity to promote them and to organize all the different property owners but it sounds like you're largely staying with the recommendation just with some adjustments so I think we're comfortable. Yeah I think my problem is you know know, one, that should be the expectation of all match plans that once they're approved, that you work in earnest to fulfill and implement the recommendations as appropriate. My challenge is it would suggest that after 18 months following passes that you're no longer going to explore the full range of funding mechanisms, which to me seems odd. To me, these should be evergreen recommendations that exist always until there's a new plan for the area, which is probably 20 or 30 years from, you know, it's approval to have something that expires after a year and a half in terms of a recommendation just doesn't make sense. We should be exploring the full funding mechanisms to implement the plan. I will say generally, and this is lost in most master plans, it is not the failure of the private sector to fulfill its obligations. More often than not, it's the public sector to fulfill the obligations because generally in most master plans the huge ticket items are the public infrastructure and the public infrastructure oftentimes doesn't come to fruition certainly sometimes the private sector doesn't fulfill, you know, their side of things that happens but the public side which is not discussed nearly as much as it should be, is very often one of the main challenges. And I don't think that should be a time and place scenario that should be an evergreen scenario. So it sounds like there's agreement here with Council of Staff recommendation. We'll strike within 18 months, but maintain the recommendation, which is an important one. We don't just want to, and this is the reservation dynamic that I always talk about from sign fault. It's one thing to take the reservation with the keys to hold the reservation. It's one thing to make recommendations and we actually have to implement the recommendations or else the master plan isn't really worth a whole lot in terms of benefit to the public and to the county. Great, thank you. We're turning the page to page 29 now, last page of the staff report and there are three more recommendations related to implement, sorry, excuse me, there are five more recommendations related to implementation. The number five is dissolve the Great Senate Conscience Court or Implementation Advisory Committee. It was established by the 2010 plan. This organizing entity would, an organizing entity would be recommended for this plan instead and would supplant this and as we've already talked about that. Number six would be remove the staging requirements that were established by the 2010 plan. And number seven is limit granting adequate public facility validity period extension requests for preliminary plans that were approved prior to October 30th of 2014. And and we just the committee might want to understand which properties would be affected by Recommendation number seven. All right. Let's talk about it Recommendation number seven how many properties are Impacted by this slide that I think this done is going to pull up We have a slide that I think the stun is going to pull up. But just the, briefly, the history of this recommendation is that there are in this area a number of properties that have very long standing preliminary plan and APFO approvals that date back to the 90s in some case the 80s and have received a number of extensions, either blanket extensions from the council that were applied to everyone or extensions that they requested. And one thing that we've seen is that the nature of planning and the values and goals and policies of the county have really changed over 40 years. So some of these preliminary plans do not reflect the current backpressed practices and the intention behind this is to limit that. So I think it's on a single screen back there hopefully the one that's not maybe I could just move over I believe that there are seven properties that are there. There we go. We got it. Oh, and that is not 1931. That is 2031, just for the reference on the second one. But so you can see the acceptance date. These are when these preliminary plans have been accepted. So a lot of them date back to the 90s. Some from 2000. The two at the bottom are recent. so they would, the one at the bottom is recent and would not fall into that. But so you can see that these are the properties, this is what their approved gross floor area and then how much noted a couple of the properties that are planning to submit either a new preliminary plan so this would supplant the existing approved plan or our submitting a request for extension but most of these would go through. All right, it's just clarify the record if you could, besides the 1930 and 1930. Yeah, 19, anything in the 1930s, I think since that is a future expiration date, it is 20, 30 and 20, 31. Apologies. No, no, no problems. That's been clarified and that will be fixed. But just explain if you could, all of these properties would be subject to this recommendation, but then they're the ones with the asterisk you want to just explain. So the ones with the asterisk. I just think some clarity here, so everybody who's watching can understand what we're deciding. These are actually all the existing preliminary plans in the area that are currently valid. So the bottom one that's 4, 6, 20, 20 that would not be subject to this recommendation because it's date is after the October 2014. The others are, you know, were accepted before that date and they would be subject to it. You know, typically when we have adequate public facility validity periods, you know, it can range, I think, from like five to seven years and then there'll be sometimes extensions that range to 12, but a lot of these are at the 30-year mark or more because of the extensions they've received. So the ones that have astrex, I revisited because we created this, we did this research a little while ago, and these are ones that either have then recently expired. As you can see there's one from 519 2024. They were set to expire as well as one from 2023. And so if they have this single asterisks, they they're they're they how do you submit an extension after it's expired? You know what, I would defer to Robert Cronenberg on that. How would you expel an extension request for APFO validity period after it's already been expired? So they have to file a preliminary plan amendment and that amendment would be filed like any other Application for subdivision and it would go through the normal process to Re-evaluate APF for the site because the condition has expired But why are they requesting an extension if it has no practical impact for based on what you just said well, it's And I'm just asking an extension if it has no practical impact for based on what you just said. Well, it's the, I'm presuming that there's a condition that says they have an APF period or a validity period that's expired. And in this case, they'd have to go back and re-instate that validity period. If I'm understanding the question correctly, they'd have to retest for transportation for schools. So why wouldn't they just go back through? I think it's probably, it's, I think you're saying about, I mean, yeah, I think it's, I think it's probably like a technical distinction, whereas part of an amendment there requesting. It's the basic. Okay, so let's just talk about what is the practical impact here? Because like these are like, this chart is based on the technical standards of resubmitting or not resubmitting, and one of the validity period has passed and what they actually have to do or what they don't have to do. We're creating a new standard in this master plan, at least you're recommending to us that we create this new standard. What's the reason for it? I think I know the reason for it is basically put up or shut up, is to put it in blunt terms. That's what you're trying to get at. But one of the goals of the master plan is to create an environment where redevelopment is more likely to occur, right? I mean, to make it more ripe for the modern needs of the current marketplace and the desires of the community, which would lead us to believe that if we approved this master plan that there would be more motivation, not less, after you've approved that's one of the goals. So can we just explain, this is the recommendation, this is why the recommendation is there. These are the properties on that chart. Here's how it would impact them specifically. And then I'll turn it to Councilman Rukhats for a comment. Well, I'll turn it, you can get ready to share that. I'll turn it to Councillor Verkontas. Is this saying that you would not extend the validity period? So if someone has it right now, they still keep what they have. I mean, if it's to 2030, they still, but if they're going to expire, this is saying, because we have a new plan, that we're not gonna extend what you've had, but you're gonna have to come in under what is the new plan. That's correct. And if that's what that's saying, I have no problem with that. I really don't. I would just add, it's for plans that were approved prior to October 30th, 2014. Just to add that clarification. It's for those plans. And have not expired, right? Okay, so any other questions or comments? All right, support from the district council member for the committee recommendation as it was introduced. Support from my colleague. All right. We'll just accept the language as was proposed. Let's continue. Perfect. Thank you. We are on recommendation eight, which is to develop design guidelines. We provide detailed guidance as stated in the built environment section. Again, this is not uncommon when Master Pins are provided. And then lastly, 9 says, opposing an accusation of any portion of the life sciences center, by municipalities. Council staff just knows that historically this has been the epicenter and hub of life sciences in our county. A lot of investment has already gone into this. We support this planning recommendation, but I'm happy to open it up to the committee conversation. Yeah, I'll just say I appreciate and actually agree with planning on this. I would put this into the category of the rent control, rent stabilization recommendation that's a common park plan where I strongly agreed with planning on the substance, but didn't agree on the venue. And so I just, my personal perspective here is, I don't really think that including that language exactly as was proposed of opposing annexation, which is a policy decision of the council and not really specifically a land use zoning question is not necessarily appropriate from my perspective as a venue in a master plan. Having said that, I do oppose annexation for this for all the reasons stated so I actually agree with the substance but just not on the venue. Let me turn it to the district council member. Thank you. I actually believe that this should not be in ever in a master plan. This is when you realize that the municipalities, especially in this case, there are two maximum expansion limits that involve either Gathas or Rockville. And I don't believe that the planning board has the authority to, I mean, you can say we're gonna oppose the annexation, but even if you do, the property owner has a right to, and the county has a right to hold up the zoning for five years. But the property owner has a right to come in to either one of those municipalities. And candidly, and I take great exception that, and I understand people don't want competition, but competition makes you better. And I can live with having a statement in here that says the integrity of the plan needs to be maintained. I can live with all of that. But I believe we're being disingenuous candidly when we're saying that the county has made all of these significant investments. In the case of Gathesburg, AstraZeneca came to the county, not because of the county, but because of Gathusburg. Was Metamune became AstraZeneca. It's now buying or is leasing properties across the entire area. The reason I signed the bonds, the Industrial Revenue bonds, for the Shitty Grove Adventist Hospital. I was a second signer at Borsan and for me, and the reason they're not in the city of Gathasburg, they certainly save lives every day for the residents of the city of Gathasburg, but the reason they're here is because Gathasburg helped. The school, the crown farm area, though they haven't gotten the school yet, the Board of Education hadn't gotten it there, but the reason they got it was because of an annexation agreement. They got free acreage because of an annexation agreement. I can keep going down a list. I believe economic development goes hand in glove with the land a list, I believe economic development goes hand in glove with the land use and I think that's necessary. But the reason the bank farm, the Johns Hopkins didn't come in to Gathesburg and we worked it. I worked it. But they didn't do it because the county was better than we were. When I was wearing the uniform from the other team, the county was better than we were. When I was wearing the uniform from the other team, the county was better than we were. And it was necessary that we both kept a year air feed to the fire. So I have no problem saying the integrity of the plan needs to be maintained. I have a great problem saying that neither Gathesburg Rockford or any other municipality for that matter should not have the authority to annex. Thank you. I'm glad I didn't say tell us how you really feel. I love it. You love it. We put in the mayor into mayor council member cats as he is sometimes referred. So for the record, I agree with that. That's what I was saying earlier that that should not be included in this master plan. I don't believe it should be included in master plans. I do understand and appreciate the substance of the issue, though, itself. And there's room for us to have those conversations. It's just not the right forum for that. I would suggest that we remove this language from this, if there's agreement from my committee colleague, which sounds like there is. So we will remove that. I will turn to planning staff. If you want to suggest and work with council staff on more over arching language that gets to the spirit of what you're trying to accomplish, that doesn't specifically reference this particular issue to talk about, you know, the integrity of the plan and what is necessary to carry that out that that should be fulfilled. I think that is appropriate to have in a master plan. So if you have recommended or suggested language that you want to present to us since we are taking this out, if you have concerns about that, feel free as long as it doesn't reference opposition to annexation because the community does not feel like that should appropriately be in this or other master plans. Is that some reasonable to colleagues? Great. Okay let's continue. We are finished. Fantastic. We will cover the remaining neighborhoods in the plan area. There are several of them. We'll do that on the 8th. And we will also revisit any of the follow-up items that we feel have come in in an instilling time that we should bring up to the committee for clarification or conversation. Great. Okay. Thank you for this. I'm glad we didn't rush ourselves on Monday and came back and had a very substantive Conversation we would have been here till far later than anybody could have been productive So with that we are adjourned we will continue this conversation as noted by council staff and Appreciate the participation of council member cats representing his district Abely I'm my colleague councilmember founding and Zalas as well as the planning department for all of your work the participation of Council Member Katz representing his district Abely. My colleague Council Member Fondingenzal is as well as the Planning Department for all of your work and thoughts appreciate you hustling over here on a Thursday to participate as well and as always to our terrific Council staff for all of your hard work. With that colleagues we are adjourned.