one. Okay, good evening everyone. Welcome to our public hearing this evening. We are doing a public hearing on the Bethesda downtown minor master plan amendment. The plan the planning board's draft recommends technical updates to the 2017 Bethesda downtown plan covering a plan area of roughly 450 acres the planning board draft and attachment can be viewed on the planning boards website a planning housing and parks committee work session is scheduled for March 10th 2025 those wishing to submit material for the council's consideration should do so by the close of business on March 3rd, 2025. As a reminder, for our public hearing, according to our testimony guidelines, your comments must be limited to issues relevant to the public hearing topic for which you are testifying and are appropriate for a public meeting. Tonight you will hear a tone when your time is up and we appreciate everyone abiding by their lot of time. And before we turn to our first panel, I'm gonna turn it over to Council Member Freason, the district council member who'd like to say a few words before the hearing. Thank you, Madam President. Thanks so much. I'm really excited that we're here in the community. This is a commitment that we made at the beginning of this council that this entire council has embraced to be in the communities where we're discussing master plans. So really appreciate that we're continuing that tradition, wanna reiterate, not only March 10th, but March 14th. We're already scheduled both of those, excuse me, March 10th and March 24th, both of those dates at the Planning Housing and Parks Committee will be meeting both of those times and just want to thank the community for being here. Thank in particular the implementation committee for all of your work and coordination and efforts to implement the Bethesda Downtown Plan and moving this forward, Amanda Farber and Jack Alexander. I know are here as the co-chairs and just want to reiterate my commitment to work together with the community to fulfill the vision of the plan as originally moved forward and as we're taking this up I think it's an appropriate time for us to address public amenities and a good time for us to hear from you tonight. So thank you so much Thank you, and I just want to note that our colleague, Councilmember Lori Ann Sales is virtual for the public hearing tonight. We will begin with the first group of folks who are here at Testify and we'll start off with Chair Harris. Yeah, thank you so much. And good evening, Council President Stewart, Vice President Joando and members of the council. My name is Arty Harris and I'm Chair of the Montgomery County Planning Board. I'm excited to be here this evening to testify on the planning board draft of the Bethesda Minor Master Plan Amendment. Today downtown Bethesda is a thriving urban center that is an essential economic engine to the county and is one of its most desirable communities. And the 2017 plan has been a huge part of making that happen. However, as the county grows, it is important that we revisit plans to make sure the goals are being realized. This minor plan amendment makes necessary adjustments that will ensure but as the remains that economic engine and the community has the amenity it needs to thrive. Downtown, but as the minor master plan recommends removing the development cap that in 2020, F5 has become an obstacle to really realizing the 2017 plan vision, increasing the park impact payment rate to help bring new park amenities sooner. Incentives for a new downtown recreation center and maintaining affordability and creating more affordable housing for families and those needing deeper affordability. Montgomery Planning and Park staff work with stakeholder communities, including residents developers and the Bethesda downtown implementation advisory committee to develop the recommendations. In December 2024 the planning board held a public hearing and updated the recommendations based on testimony received from the resident and real estate development communities. These recommendations will help to continue to expand access to the many opportunities and amenities in downtown Bethesda. They will improve predictability of the real estate development market further progress toward new downtown parts and enhance housing affordability. On behalf of the Planning Board, I encourage council members to approve the Planning Board's draft of the Bethesda Downtown Minor Master Plan Amendment. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair Harris. Next, we have Miss Bearweather. Good evening. I'm Jane Bearweather, and I've been a part of the Bethesda community for decades. I am currently the chair of the board of the Art and Entertainment District. It is our mission to bring art to our community and support local artists. I am here tonight speaking on behalf of the Bethesda Art and Entertainment Board, which has an impressive track record for promoting and implementing public art in the Bethesda downtown area. The State of Maryland has designated downtown Bethesda as an art and entertainment district, which is managed by the Bethesda Urban Partnership. But in coordination with Bob, the A&E board fund raises as a not-for-profit organization and champions a diverse number of art and entertainment projects in the district. We attach to this testimony more information on the A&E Board and its work within the district. The A&E Board is here tonight in strong support of the current version of the Bethesda Minor Master Plan amendment that would allow incentive density payments for public art to be made to the A&E board and other responsible civic organizations as part of an anticipated Bethesda Overlay Zone update or the incentive zoning update. The specific language provides the following on page 26 to provide greater flexibility to wrote payments for public art. In downtown Bethesda, the MMPA recommends updating the B.O.Z. to allow fee payments to also be accepted by B.O.P. the Bethesda A&E District or other civic art organizations accepted by the planning staff. This opportunity would encourage more art in the county by facilitating peer-won payments for art or place making to a capable party who then implement responsive projects in the vicinity of the subject development. The A&E board, among others, is poised to receive such funds and utilize them for the betterment of county residents. We hope that the opportunity will remain in the council's final version of the Bethesda Minermaster Plan Amendment and any subsequent incentive density updates to either the overlay zone or the IZU. Up to this point, the A&E Board has worked cooperatively with planning staff to expand the public our incentive density benefit opportunity in Bethesda. And we look forward to working with the council to ensure it becomes a reality. Thank you very much for your consideration and support of these comments. Thank you, Ms. Bolt. Hi, I'm Karen Buldie with the Law Command or Citizens Association. WMCA strongly opposes the MMPA's proposed elimination of the development cap for downtown Bethesda. Removal of the development cap is not a minor amendment and would inappropriately change the key component around which the 2017 Bethesda downtown plan was designed. Namely, the establishment of a 32.4 million square foot development cap that balances new commercial and residential development with the need for corresponding public amenities, parks and green spaces spaces to realize the goals of the Bethesda downtown plan. It is critical to retain the development cap. Removal of the cap would lead to unacceptable harms to the environment from increases in greenhouse gas emissions. As a climate assessment found, all three tested density increases resulted in a 34 to 73.5% increase in greenhouse gas emissions contrary to the county's climate action plan. In addition removal of the development cap would exacerbate traffic congestion. WMCA believes that the projected increases in travel times of around two minutes are significant, not modest. Already, northbound PM peak period travel times have increased up to 40% on Maryland 187 since the installation of the bike lanes between Ryle and Drive and Tilden Lane. Travel delays for the entirety of Maryland 187 are even longer. These increases in travel times are worrisome due to the negative impact traffic congestion has on timely access to suburban hospital and the ability of emergency medical, fire, rescue and police vehicles to reach communities in a timely manner. If despite despite our concerns, the county council decides to raise the development level, the county needs to provide confirmation that the water, sewer, electrical, and broadband infrastructure, storm water management, transportation, roads, and school capacity will be sufficient to accommodate new development. Finally, any increases in the density level should be tied to the delivery of public amenities, parks, and green spaces. As planning notes, while many new buildings have been completed in downtown Bethesda since 2017, there has not been as many new public amenities and no new parks have been completed. We agree with our Chevy Chase neighbors that any increases in density should be contingent on the submission of a detailed plan outlining the delivery of amenities promised in the Bethesda downtown plan. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, next is Mr. Barnes. Thank you. My name is David Barnes. I represent the Edgemore Citizens Association, a community association of a little over 500 homes immediately west of the central business district. About 300 yards from where we're sitting. As I told the planning word in December this minor amends this minor amendment is far from minor. It is a fundamental change in the plan and abandonment of the promises the plan made to keep the amount of density and development in check. Eliminating the Vise density cap may very well generate more parking, back payments, and other to help pay for new amenities, but packing downtown Bethesda with more development in density is a double-edged sword. And the plan gives little attention to the potential downside. I think that the county council should look at both the advantages and disadvantages of this amendment, Especially since the point of the density cap was to assure people who were worried about over development that there was a finite limit and the planners recognized that unlimited development was on wise. That's one of the main reasons why communities like mine supported the plan. I don't believe that this draft makes the case for raising the development cap much less of them than they did eliminating it. It also proposes to continue existing practices for determining and monitoring infrastructure needs. But that practice has been fundamentally flawed for years, especially with regard to schools and a result in a chronic disconnect between new growth in the infrastructure needs to support it. Don't worry, the infrastructure will be there can be the answer every time. The planning board obviously was not swayed by these concerns, but they did make one substance of change after receiving public testimony. Despite promises not to change zoning or heights limits, the board added a new item that did just that. Two blocks of Arlington Road that face our community, they make up those 250 yards that I mentioned. We're excluded from the height incentive area in order to reduce impact on the residential areas. In the final draft, the planning board removed that exemption with no public notice and no opportunity for comment. So I hope you'll reject this draft amendment and demand a better accounting for the reasons and the effects of any change in the plan. If you wanted to set a new cap, fine, set a new cap, clearly explain to residents that why the cap is needed and what it might mean. And don't rely on business as usual and amount of our outcomes, demand a regular and ongoing monitoring process. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next we have Mr. Biagetski. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Rich Biagetski and I'm a resident of downtown Bethesda. I'm speaking today as a representative of Strong Towns. We are an organization with the goal of making our communities more financially resilient and affordable. We would like this to voice our support for the amendment as written. The country is in the midst of an affordability crisis, but the cost of housing being one of the biggest causes. Housing like everything else follows the law of supply and demand. Demand to live in the feds that is high due to the many amenities, excellent schools, ample job opportunities, and proximity to Washington. If supply does not rise to meet that demand, prices will increase. As long as the development cap remains in place, the stagnant housing supply will lead to higher prices as more people compete for the limited supply of housing that is available. That is why we need to eliminate the development cap. Others have suggested simply raging the cap, but we believe that is insufficient. Developers may become reluctant to start projects if it is unclear what and how much they are allowed to build due to a changing development cap. Additionally, if the new cap is reached too quickly, more time would need to be spent by the council on amending the master plan instead of other tasks. To avoid these pitfalls, it would be best to remove the cap entirely. By removing the housing cap, we can work to address the large housing demand by allowing the builders to build the housing that we need to lower housing costs and make Montgomery County more affordable. Others have also suggested that removal of the development cap will lead to ex-access a traffic. I will note though that the newest developments have been multi-family apartment buildings. Many of the residents who live in these buildings do not drive instead relying on walking, biking, and public transportation through the bus and metro system. Causing less traffic than if they had lived in less trains and accessible areas and had to drive into Bethesda or through Bethesda to get through their destination. In addition to the removal of the development cap we believe that the decision to limit PIP increases to match inflation and splitting into PIP into multiple payments is a good proposal. Making these changes changes, developer should be less reluctant to build due to lower profit margins. I would like to thank the Council for affording us the opportunity to speak. Mom, we hope that the Council will listen to our requests and pass the master plan amendment as is. We are in a housing crisis now, and we must act if we are to address housing costs costs and removing the development cap is an important step in doing so. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to our first panel. Next I will call up Keith Campbell, Richard Hoy, Elizabeth Rogers, Zach Trump and Amanda Farber. As a reminder, as folks are coming up, our testimony guidelines ask that your comments be limited to issues relevant to the public hearing topic for which you are testifying and appropriate for a public meeting. And when you hear the tone, please know that your time is up. All right, we'll start with Mr. Campbell. Okay, thank you all. Thanks for having this hearing and giving me the opportunity to speak. I basically echo the strong countscounts perspective that we just heard, and I do it because of my son who is sitting right there and his friends and peers, the younger generation that needs a place to live. I would like them to be able to live here in Bethesda. I'm in Bethesda. I would like him and his friends to be able to do that too. For that to happen, we need to be able to add housing. This is one way to do it. I think there are other ways that you guys are looking at and I appreciate that, but this is one way and therefore I support the proposed liabilities. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hoy. Thank you, Council President, Stuart and Council members. Welcome to Bethesda, my home. and the headquarters for my father's business on Norfolk Avenue for many, many years. He moved his business from the Kumball Park, Carol Avenue to Norfolk Avenue, many, many years ago. I'm a retired firefighter and living Bethesda just outside of the downtown district and support the plan. I live in the house with two housemates. I have a reverse mortgage on it now. And the three of us combined have an income less than the average income that's reported in this master plan of $185,000. None of us drive all of us work or are productive. Making the downtown more walkable and bikeable and transit friendly is a great prospect. It is very uneven in downtown Bethesda. As a cycling professional, I have found that the disaggregated infrastructure sidewalk and bike facilities does not allow me to actually take a tour group of people on rental bikes throughout the amenities of downtown Bethesda. Because you can't get there from here because of one block, one section of the road or section of the downtown or another that is not implemented. So we have lots of work and this plan will help fund and get that work knitted together. I support eliminating the cap on development. I support the BAS plan. I would like to see a high limit increased on the west side of Arlington Road. Arlington Road is a civic boulevard that was said by Fred Kent, a project for public spaces of nationally recognized expert urbanism. Over 30 years ago when he was here on a contract And that is needed to implement that, to flesh that out. We do not have enough completeness in our plan for infrastructure in bike parking. It is hit and miss. With the advent of e-bikes being very practical. Count executive Elrich has two. That we have a problem with many buildings that you cannot safely park a bike in front of. And if you have an e-bike, a little more expensive than a cheap bike you can use, you just are not afforded the opportunity to access that. And that includes. Sorry, our little noise is not working, but your time is up if you can just wrap up that sentence. That includes medical buildings. So I have a few more points, and you'll see that in my writing. Appreciate it. Thank you all, and thank you. Welcome my community. Thank you. Thanks, Rogers. Thank you. Good evening, President Stewart and members of the Montgomery Community. My name is Elizabeth Rogers. With the law firm of Lurcherlian Brewer, I'm providing testimony tonight in support of the Planning Board draft with the beds of minor master plan amendment. I'm testifying on behalf of the owner of several properties located in the northeast quadrant of Montgomery Lane in Arlington, road. The property which is currently underutilized is uniquely situated for residential infill redevelopment given its proximity to the Pfezzan Metro station. However, given that the property is located outside the height and scent of area, there's currently not an incentive to provide for additional MPDUs in connection with that redevelopment today. As the council is keenly aware, the Bethesda sector plan, one of the overarching goals, was to increase affordable housing. Unlike other areas of the county in Bethesda, the threshold is higher to achieve MPDU bonus height you must provide more than 17.5% MPD use and be located in the height incentive area in order to qualify. The height incentive area currently established by the BAS is unnecessarily restrictive along the Arlington Road corridor and we support the planning board's recommendation to address this by expanding the height incentive area shown on page 24 of the planning board's draft in an effort to encourage these underdeveloped sites to redevelop and provide much needed more affordable housing. This extension will not have any impact negatively on the surrounding properties, notably the proposed extension area is buffered from the surrounding residential community by publicly on land, including Arlington Road itself, the Bethesda Elementary School site, the Bethesda Library site, and the closest edge of the nearest single family home as measured to the back of their rear yard is over the length of a football field away over 190 feet. Additionally, the planning board draft recommended limiting that height increase that would be available to 24 feet or two stories. This limitation and combination with the Bethesda design guidelines provide appropriate controls to ensure that that additional height won't have a perceived impact on the surrounding community. I also note that there's a diversity of heights within that area today and only a few remaining development sites that have potential which wouldn't then be out out of character with Australian neighborhood. Yet this change will incentivize additional affordable housing in this downtown transit accessible location. I also wanted to quickly just touch on the park impact payment and the density cap. We support the planning boards recommendation to eliminate the density cap within the Fezda. This change will provide needed certainty to developers to ensure that desirable additional development and all the public benefits including the park impact payment and the like continue to come to Fezda. We also support the planning boards recommendation to stagger the park impact payment into the two payments, which appropriately recognizes the burden that those upfront costs have on new development. I've submitted written testimony which touches on these points in more detail but appreciate your consideration of our comments. Thank you so much Mr. Trump. Thank you President Stewart. Members of the council before I begin I want to state that even though I am a registered lobbyist with the Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors, the views expressed tonight are my own as an individual and a resident of Bethesda. I greatly appreciate you all taking the time to hear from the community about the minor master plan amendments recommended by the planning board. I would like to focus on the issue that underlines all the recommendations, residential development. Very simply, we need more of it. With over 400 MPD use created since 2017, this master plan has been one of, if not the most, successful development plan in Montgomery County. And why shouldn't it be, Bethesda is our economic engine. But we need to do more. The 2017 plan that passed was a hard fought compromise by then District 1 Council member Roger Burliner. I had the privilege to serve on his staff at that time, watching this play out legislatively, and then seeing commuturation over the years has been a treat. But within that compromise, the council lowered the housing targets. They downsize the plan. They reduce heights and density along its edges. Commercial development slows when the residential backbone of an area is not robust. We have all seen this play out in other areas of our county, like the city of Rockville, and I do not want it to happen in my community. Montgomery County needs Bethesda to thrive. I live on battery lane. My unit is a naturally occurring affordable housing unit, and I would kindly ask those battery lane projects not be used to denigrate developers and development projects, as some county officials continue to do in their public comments. I ask that we stop talking about, quote, no net loss policies like they exist in a vacuum and don't affect actual people and actual development. I urge you to pass, if not broadened, the MMPA's modest recommendations of more density bonuses through the PIP and the heightened sense of extension of Arlington Road, as well as the removal of the development cap in favor of a project-specific impact mitigation. We are in a deepening housing crisis. The properties being redeveloped, including my own, are in desperate need of that redevelopment. The single-digit net loss of affordable units in favor of hundreds of new units, Animalities, along with the creation of MPDUs to replace the vast majority of the naturally occurring units, is a feature, not a bug, of a healthy housing marketplace. And the market rate housing built now will eventually become the naturally occurring affordable units of tomorrow. Without this growth, we will simply see the market get more and more prohibitively expensive. The policy literature is near unanimous when it comes to the nexus of economic growth and housing. Juristictions that build housing thrive and jurisdictions that make perfection the enemy of progress crumble. I implore you to take bold and decisive action to create a better housing future for our county. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you to that second panel. Next are our third and final panel in person. Then we'll go to our virtual folks. We have Amanda Farber, Jack Alexander and Rebecca Moses. As a reminder, our testimony guidelines, your comments must be limited to issues relevant to the public hearing topic for which you are testifying. And we are trying to work on the tone for the timer. But when your time is up, we will let you virtual. I have Alexander Campbell wants to come up. Sorry. You want to serve? Okay. So we'll have, sorry, Mr. Campbell, we thought there's somebody else online then. With the name Alexander Campbell, our apologies will have you go first because you were earlier, so we'll start with Mr. Campbell, then go to Mr. Alexander, and then go to Miss Farber and then Miss Moses. Okay. Hello. Okay, hello, so everybody knows my name is Alex Campbell. I'm a student at the University of Maryland and a resident here in Bethesda and I'm here to express my support for the CTA. Removing this cap is essential to achieving the goals laid out the Bethesda minor master plan because it gives developers the certainty. This is something that we're doing. This is something that we're doing. This is something that we're doing. This is something that we're doing. This is something that we're doing. This is something that we're doing. This is something that we're doing. This is something that we're doing. This is something that we're doing. This is something that we're doing. This is something that we're doing. This is something that we're doing. recreation centers, new permanently deeply affordable housing units, and all at no cost to county taxpayers. Beyond deeply affordable housing units, spurring new market rate housing will increase the housing supply and therefore alleviate increasing housing pressures. We have heard concerns over traffic, the environment, and increased public infrastructure. But lifting this cap and boosting housing, density bonuses will address these issues rather than worsening them. This is because increasing density and spring development here in Bethesda will limit urban sprawl. Less cars will have to travel shorter distances. More people will walk and bike and use public transport and we won't have to extend costly utilities and public infrastructure as far. Our county planners, the experts on this matter and these issues, as well as the academic literature, are clear on these issues that we need more development, private and public to address urban issues and realize the goals in the 2017 downtown master plan, plan. Namely, more abundant housing, economic growth, improved public infrastructure. This is a unique opportunity to promote sustainable growth, prosperity, and enhance quality of life for all who call the Thesda home. I urge you all to vote in favor of this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Thank you again for coming tonight and we'll get you home for the Terps game. Next we have Mr. Alexander. Good evening. I'm Jack Alexander. I'm here as my role as co-chair of the Bethesda downtown Implementation Advisory Committee. We testified at the planning board back in December in favor of the Amendment and we're made up of seven commercial representatives and seven residential members and we agree on something. It's rare, but it's good and Tonight I've brought the Michael Jordan of the Bethesda plan Amanda Farber who is gonna expand a little further on what is transpired since December and hopefully So yeah, keep this thing on track. Thank you, Amanda. All right. Well, good evening, everyone. Thank you. All right. All good evening, everyone. Thank you for coming out to Bethesda or participating online. And I am testifying on behalf of the Bethesda implementation advisory committee, as Jack said, who is my awesome co-chair. The committee has made up of both residents and commercial representatives. But more importantly, in my view, it's made up of folks who are incredibly knowledgeable about the sector plan, its history, its implementation, and who are dedicated to ensuring its success, including with this proposed amendment. The IAC provided testimony of the plan board on the draft amendment and then also extensive comments on the most recent annual monitoring report. And we forwarded these more detailed written comments to the council for your review. So tonight I would just like to highlight a couple points regarding the CAP, CARCs and schools. In 2017, the council voted to establish a CAP on development and the PESDA Since then, we've seen lots of construction, mostly residential projects, and we also still have several millions of square feet worth of development that could be approved and built before the cap is hit. That being said, the IAC supports removal of the cap, but we do so in the condition that there's a requirement for additional check-in quaints, included in the Bethesda overlay zone, to ensure community resources like parks, transportation improvements, and a recreation center are keeping pace with development and that the needs of current and future residents are being met and that the policies and funding mechanisms needed to implement the promised infrastructure amenities are established. We want to emphasize that it's important that there be realistic assessments of where things stand, especially with so much uncertainty at this point. In terms of parks, the plan recognized that downtown Bethesda was lacking in parkland and meeting parks the main goal. The last new parkland acquired in downtown Bethesda was over 40 years ago. So the plan recommended 13 new parks and 13 new acres of parks. So far none have been delivered and there's no certainty as to when they might be. A significant portion of the park impact fund $10 million is now tied up in a property that parking can and now says is unviable for a park. We recognize the considerable challenges involved, but also think the county must be better in this area. Lastly, I just want to draw attention to the fact that it does elementary underwent a redistricting just two years ago to manage overcrowding. Yet it's again so overcrowded that the superintendent may be unprecedented move to allow families to change schools mid-year, so that offer did not include transportation and not many families opted to make the change because of that. There'll be another thousand new units coming online in downtown, because in the Bethesda Elementary boundary between now and next school year. And I know there's families there who would like to know the plan for September. Overall, I hope you will review IEC's written comments. And we hope that the IEC can resource to the council because like Jack said, you'll do really work well together. So. Great, thank you Miss. Farmer, Ms. Moses. Good evening, esteem members of the county council. My name is Rabita Moses, and I stand will sit before you today with a resolute commitment to justice, truth and the preservation of black history. I speak on behalf of the Bethesda African cemetery coalition, the the Coalition fighting to protect Moses Cemetery from desecration and erasure. Moses Cemetery is more than a burial site. It's a sacred ground, the final resting place of our ancestors and a testament to both the resilience and suffering of the black community in Montgomery County, Maryland. History has a way of repeating itself. When injustice is not confronted, when injustice is not confronted, once it was the KKK that terrorized Black families in this county, burning homes, stealing lands, and pushing Black communities to the margins through violence and fear. Today, the same race as agenda persists, but the tactics have changed. The white hoods have been replaced with business suits, and the cross-burnings have been exchanged for development projects. That erased black history and displaced black people under the guise of progress. The developers who does create motor cemeteryemetery are no different from the KKK that stole black land in Montgomery County generations ago. The only difference is their uniform. Brother Harvey Matthew knows this history firsthand. The land where the whole foods on River Road stands was stolen from his family by the KKK. That theft of black land and black wealth has never been rectified. And now in the present day, we watch as yet another sacred black space, Moses Cemetery is threatened with erasure. Racism does not disappear. It evolves. The same systems that one sanctioned lynchings and land theft, now sanctioned gentrification and displacement. And silence from those in power only enables it to continue. BACC has already won victories in the Supreme Court of Maryland and the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, proving that what is happening to Moas Assembly is not just morally wrong. It is legally indefensible. And yet, County, County Executive Mark Elbridge and the entire Montgomery County Council have remained silent. Now, one of you has spoken out against a desecration. Not one of you has demanded that this injustice stops. What are you afraid of? Developers? The same forces that have profited from black suffering? The time for neutrality is over. This county cannot claim to stand for racial equity while allowing developers to continue the legacy of KKK under a different name. Supporting this desecration is supporting racism. Along this step to continue its condoning injustice. We are resolute in our demands. The land stolen from Brother Harvey Matthews must be returned. Moses Cemetery must be protected and preserved and the museum be built to ensure that this history is never erased. We ask you, will you stand on the right side of history, or will you allow the same racist systems that have plagued this county for generations to continue unchecked? The choice is yours, but know this. We will not be silent. We will not allow our ancestors to be erased. We will not stop fighting until justice is done. We're just going to take a moment. Thank you to everyone who testified this evening. Those are all our in-person folks testifying. And when we're back up online and we're ready, we are going to have Councilmember Joy White testifying but just give us a moment. All right we're back up and we'll have Councilmember Joy White. Councilmember, are you ready? Okay. Good evening, members of the County Council. My name is Joy White and I serve on the town council for the town of Chevy Chase. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Bethesda downtown plans minor master plan amendment tonight. The town of Chevy Chase supports the goals of the Bethesda downtown plan which aims to encourage substantial growth while improving residents quality of life. life. However, the proposal to eliminate the development cap raises a couple of concerns. First of all, a significant portion of the approved development remains unbuilt, leaving the impacts of the current cap unknown, and secondly, eliminating a comprehensive evaluation process for assessing whether the objectives of the plan are being met is problematic. So without this process, we lose the opportunity to assess the impact of development and to devise timely recommendations for adjustments. So to address these concerns, we recommend implementing a data-driven holistic five-year review process of the cumulative impacts of development projects incorporating opportunities for community input as well. And while current tools like site plan reviews, monitoring reports, and the GIP metrics are useful, they often provide isolated data points or operate at two broader level to offer meaningful insights. For example, the 2024 Bethesda Annual Monitoring Report highlighted existing school capacity and travel challenges provided no opportunity to discuss solutions. Therefore, we urge you to implement a comprehensive five-year reviews that are broader than project by project reviews, and this approach would involve establishing a baseline for current conditions and a framework to assess progress and meeting key goals. And those goals should include maintaining acceptable school capacity, enhancing transportation options, creating parks, expanding affordable housing options, and so forth. A comprehensive review would not only address residents' concerns, but would provide developers with greater predictability. The recent MMPA process underscores the importance of periodic reviews, especially as it yielded several recommendations, such as increasing the PIP and eliminating user-loose provision. These issues would not be identified through project specific reviews or through Git metrics. In future periodic reviews could raise other downtown wide matters such as providing more affordable housing. In conclusion, without comprehensive reviews conducted every five years and with community input, eliminating app prevents us from determining whether the plan is even achieving its goals. Regular reviews based on updated data would ensure that growth is managed responsibly and in alignment with both current needs and future operations. Thank you very much for allowing me to provide these comments this evening. Thank you. Next we have Ellen Godbaw. The turn on. There we go. Thanks very much. Appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm testifying in support of this planned amendment for two reasons. First of all, I support more housing options in this area, especially multifamily housing, so that people at different socioeconomic levels and different stages of life can afford to live here. I think we would have a more vibrant and healthy community if we had more socioeconomic diversity. Secondly, I support the development of a new recreational facility, especially so that young people in our area have more inexpensive options for recreation. And I would hope that with a new facility could also look at expanding hours into weekend evenings so that there is a place for youth to go that's a good place to be and is affordable. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next we have been busy. Good evening, President Stewart and members of the county council for the record I'm here this evening on behalf of ProMark Partners, the owners of just over three acres of land located at the intersection of Montgomery Avenue and Pearl Street. ProMark is in the early stages of planning a mixed use project in this location, but I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight support for several recommendations, including the Planning Board draft amendment. Most importantly, we support the amendments recommendation to eliminate the development cap. ProMark has first-hand experience of the negative effects of the threat of a development cap. It is virtually impossible to provide an investor with the necessary assurances that the cap would not be reached at some point in the approval process. And irrespective of the actual threat of a moratorium that is imposed as a result of the cap, investors are risk averse, and if they have a limited amount of capital to invest, they'll simply divert it to a site and a jurisdiction where there is no cap. In pro-mark situation, the potential investors walked away. But perhaps more importantly the amendment demonstrates that the cap is not necessary and there will be adequate public facilities to accommodate anticipated development in the plan area. Second we urge the county council to exercise restraint in considering an increase in the park improvement payment. The proposed increase to $15.57 represents a 50% increase in the since its inception in 2017. Moreover, the basis for this increase is tied to increases in construction costs, but park improvement costs are different than construction costs. The materials are different, and there's a limited need for specialized labor. Tying the increases to construction costs, falsely inflates the cost of park construction in general. In addition, this accumulative effect of various fees, impact taxes, WSSC fees, off-site transportation improvements, as well as the PIP that can effectively sink a project. In terms of timing of the payment of the PIP, we ask that the county council move the entire payment to the time of final inspection of the building, similar to what the council has done with respect to impact tax payments. Finally, we support the amendments recommendation to eliminate the use it or lose it provision tied to the approval of a site plan. We appreciate your efforts and consideration of these comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Maviazi. And that is it for our virtual participants tonight. And those are all the people we have testifying. Thank you for sharing your feedback on this item. The public hearing is now closed, and we are adjourned.