Out of order here I was going to start with with that and move on to the second item. But why don't we start with the CIP conversation. This is the FY25 to 30 capital improvements program for facility planning. So why don't we turn it over to council staff and we can work our way through that packet. Great, thank you. And I don't believe that the conversation with the park's CIP is gonna take very long today. That's why we're doing it first. Move through it and then we'll proceed to the Bethesda Minor Master Plan of Amendment work session. But the first item for the park's FY25 through 30 Capital Improvements Program is in response to the proposed capital improvements program that came from the county executive. And in that, he included a recommended affordability reconciliation project description form that decreases the MNCPPC bonds by $15,000 in FY 29 and $9,000 in FY 30 for a total of $24,000. The MNCPPC didn't provide any recommended changes to their own CIP this year. So this is really the only material change that's being recommended. And the council received a letter from the planning board chair that the board is in agreement with this. But I'm going to turn it over to Parks to comment before the next item. Turn over Parks. Good afternoon, Andy Frank, the Chief of the Park Development Division. Good to be with you. Just a kind of a firm what Pam was saying. We did not have that being in the off year. There are no significant changes to the CIP. We did recognize that through the financial review, relative inflation there needed to be an adjustment in the out years for the park bonds. So we did allocate that and I said it went to the chair's letter but we really didn't have any concerns with that. But we're happy to answer any questions about it. Okay, not a lot to add. We have a committee council staff, excuse me, recommendation, anything else to add from council staff? No. The only thing I would note in the staff report, so you'll have a list of other projects that also could satisfy this out your reduction, but the planning board has requested it from park acquisitions, which doesn't get to any of the level of effort work that's being done by the department. So that's a great choice. And then the second is just to call your attention. As always, when the board sends up information on the CIP on an annual basis, whether it be an amendment year or a full year, they indicate to the council the projects that are pending close out, the projects that are actually closing out. Those are listed for you in the staff report. And then there's just a follow-up reference to the transfer of the park's road PDF, which I know that the council took up at the last CIP. Again, that conversation really revolved around establishing that MOU with the Department of Transportation, that's in the works. It's, I think, the hope was that it would be done by now and so that could get done during the CIP amendment process, not quite there yet, so we will bring that to you when that's completed. But that would cover everything in this staff report for the first item. Great. Okay. On the first item we have what was just referenced by Miss Dunn on page two and the top of page three that highlights the closeouts for FY26. I don't see any colleagues wishing to speak or any questions. So with that we will adopt the recommendation. Great. There is one other park's CIP item. This came separately from the county executive after the recommended CIP was released. It came as one of those follow up individual recommendations for amendment. It's 25-54. It's very perfunctory. It really just changes language that was inaccurately attributed to one to one PDF and should have been attributed to another so it corrects that that's all that is and there's a separate staff report with a resolution for that All right, we have item two that's the amendment to 2554 to the FY 25 to 30 Capital improvements program for MNC PPC facility planning local parks and and I don't see any objections. We have a recommendation on that. I don't see anything to add from parks or from the planning board chair. So we will adopt as recommended. Thank you. So now it takes us to the point. Great. All right. Sorry. I got a little confused because we have the Bethesda Minor Master plan amendment listed up and ready to go for the briefing I'll invite up our guests from Park and Plano. I'm going to turn it over to council staff in a minute did want to make a few introductory comments and did just want to note that we have received a presentation on this the council did a last week in the pouring down rain did a bus tour with council members and council staff along with planning staff of the plan area and the presentation is available for reference but we do not intend to go through the presentation here again. I just want folks to understand why it's up. But appreciate Chair Harris for being here today, as well as the planning staff. Want to thank again the IAC for their careful monitoring of the Bethesda Downtown plan and for their thoughtful input not just on the minor master plan today, but on the ongoing basis in terms of the implementation of the Bethesda Downtown Plan for the past seven or eight years. First, I just want to note that I understand and have heard from many residents as someone who lives in the plan area that there is frustration that public amenities are not moving as quickly as someone who lives in the plan area, that there is frustration that public amenities are not moving as quickly as some would like. And I share in some of that, I agree, I have been advocating feverishly for much of those public amenities. But I also want to note that we have seen a tremendous amount of private investment in Bethesda, amount of private investment that we would love to see in other parts of the county. And while there are opportunities for more public benefits and more public amenities, frankly, the public sector catching up to the private sector investment in a more significant way, the Bethesda downtown plan has been a success in the sense that it has generated a tremendous amount of investment, a tremendous amount of housing, which were key focuses from a public policy standpoint. And we've seen new restaurants, we've seen new retailers, we've seen additional street scape improvements and some multimodal infrastructure improvements and investments, some of which I personally benefit from and the community benefits from each and every day. We continue to be frustrated by the purple line, which we had hoped would have long been operational at this point. When it's complete, it will be a key part of helping us move forward with that new transit option to connect people to jobs and vibrancy. There's a park that is dependent on that opening, the capital Crescent Park, which is by Munimiga B and Landmark and Tukombi, the new restaurant and will be a key aspect of this plan. It's not being held up based on our doing or based on parks doing. It's being held up, unfortunately, based on the delay of the purple line. And there's quite a bit of other efforts that are underway. The women's farm market continues, and there's been tremendous buy-in from the community literal and figurative buy-in, from the town of Chevy Chase, from Bethesda residents, working very hard with parks in the private sector and the executive branch and Department of Transportation to work through what is a very complicated project but will be a major benefit. It was the main stopping point of the bus tour. I look forward to that not being an opportunity of a place for a bus to stop in the middle of a parking lot but to be the equivalent of a new central park that will serve not just Bethesda but the region region. Like many of our parks do, there's work to be done and continue on Veterans Park. I know there's been quite a bit of frustration on that, but I just want to note the efforts that have been undertaken to try to move forward with that recommendation. I think there is an opportunity in this minor master plan that we're here about in a moment to adjust the language to clarify and to be more concise in terms of what the master plan is calling for, what the community wants and expects and what would provide the greatest benefit in terms of the location of the expansion of Veterans Park and where that real opportunity is. I think clarity has been a challenge on that particular recommendation and additional clarity is very much needed. And then I know there's quite a bit of work happening in the Pearl District and acquiring some properties that's expensive, it's complicated, it's time consuming, but I want to note that I know that's happening too. And I just want to highlight that we have taken the PIP and have utilized it in Silver Spring. We have taken what we have learned through this process and actually are using it as a model in other places. You know, we are, you know, and have a recommendation before us on the price of the PIP and there is a sensitivity to what the cost is to development and additional costs that we're putting on housing and other investments. But there's also a need to generate the revenue in order to make these park improvements occur. So I am supportive of increasing that number and making sure that we land in an appropriate place by the end of this conversation. And so we're continuing to work through this. I know construction and growing pains are not easy. I will note that I had put forward a bill in the aftermath of this plan as much of this construction was happening in 2019, Bill 3819. It's trying to address the sidewalks being closed during construction, which should not occur with regularity. It should be very difficult. It should be as difficult to close off a lane of traffic as it is to shut down a sidewalk. There are both important aspects of our transportation, and it shouldn't just be something that we do with regularity. It shouldn't be easy to shut down. Shree parking, it shouldn't be easy to shut down lanes of traffic. It shouldn't be easy to shut down the sidewalk infrastructure that we have. It's caused quite a bit of frustration and concern. I'm hopeful that the loading and unloading study that we have underway that has been a major initiative and a major priority area for the community will continue to move forward. And then I just want to really highlight the inclusion of the Rec Center in this as a key amenity and a key infrastructure project for the community. There's a desperate need for a true Rec Center that actually serves the downtown area. It's the oldest demographic in the county. It's a community that has served significantly by recreation centers. We saw it as much as we've ever seen it before during COVID, but the need was there beforehand. It's even grown since. And I'm appreciative that that is part of the recommendation in this. There is significant and broad-based buy-in from the business community, from the residents, from new residents and long-standing residents. This is something that folks are roundling together to push for. There's buy-in from the Department of Recreation and from the Department of General Services. I look forward to us continuing and including that as part of the conversation. I'll just close and say there are certain aspects of this that we're going to talk about today that may be more appropriate to include in the BAS that will take up subsequent to this as part of the overlay zone. I think we should talk about all of the topics and all of the items because they're related. But I do think in terms of the specificity of the language depending on whether it's more appropriate to have in the master plan language or whether it would be best suited to address in the BAS, I think the amount of time that we spend on word smithing and on specificity, I think we should note that and we can come back with recommendations on the BAS and on the overlay zone at the appropriate time. So with that, I just want to thank everybody for being part of this process. I think it has been constructive and positive. There are a lot of stakeholders here, and I really appreciate everybody's work up to this point. We'll open it up if there are any comments from colleagues. If not, I will turn it over to the plan board chair if he has any initial comments. No initial comments, but already here is chair of the planning board, but we're delighted to be here. This is a very important plan for us and the county. So we're happy to be here to address any questions you may have. Thank you. Great. Let me turn it over to Miss Dunn and Council Staff and I want to appreciate all of the work that our Council Staff has been doing and welcome Mr. Kenney as well who has a role in this as well. So with that, Miss Dunn, I'll take it away. Great. Thank you. And one thing I wanted to start with in the staff report you'll see there's the first four pages at least really provide background for what we're going to talk about today and on the 24th. We do that so that we do have a complete record of somebody where to pull up the staff report. They don't just jump into the recommendations, it tries to provide background for those recommendations. But another thing I want to reiterate is just what a minor master plan amendment is. So like the Bethesda minor master plan amendment, any minor master plan amendment, it revisits a specific part of an approved and adopted master plan and it reexamines certain elements and the term minor doesn't indicate that it is just of a small nature. The term minor just means it is not opening up the entire plan. The minor part could mean that it is very focused on certain recommendations. It could be very focused on a specific geographic region of the prior plan. So just wanted to set that out, because I know there's been a little bit of confusion for people thinking that the conversations we're going to have and the recommendations you're going to take up aren't minor in nature, but in fact, they are in the sense that they are very limited. We are not reconsidering any of the site specific recommendations from the 2017 plan. And so that is, that's not something to take lightly. The specific zoning recommendations are not part of this. This is really about broader plan implementation elements of that original 2017 plan. So with that, I'm going to start on page five of the staff report, which is where we do start with the recommendations for the committee's consideration. And I'm going to turn it to Mr. Kenny to go through the development level first as it is primarily something that has been based on the transportation analysis and transportation recommendations. And so it is more key that he covered that for you. Thank you. So this is, you were starting off here with kind of the primary recommendation of the minor master plan amendment, which is to update the, but as to overlay zone the boss to remove the cap on development imposed in the 2017 plan, affirming the ability of private investment, as you mentioned earlier, along with county investment and policies to deliver needed housing jobs and infrastructure improvements. This recommendation is based on analysis conducted by planning staff that evaluates the ability of infrastructure in downtown Bethesda, with a focus on transportation in schools to accommodate the additional residents that are expected as a result of limit of lifting the specific development level. This analysis is based on three scenarios. They're lifting the cap could result in many different levels of development, but for the purpose of this analysis in terms of evaluating adequacy, planning staff looked at three potential scenarios. These are based on different levels of development that could occur beyond the current 32.4 million square foot development cap. So scenario one is 11 million more square feet. Scenario two is 16 million more square feet. And scenario three is 21 million more square feet. And these are all what is projected to, what would be in these scenarios projected to occur by 2045. So as you hear me reference scenarios one, two, and, in these different layers of analysis, that's the additional development that those are assuming. So starting off with the transportation adequacy analysis, the, there are five specific master plan adequacy metrics that are required to be evaluated through the plan and were kind of what the development level was looking at in 2017. So these are auto and transit accessibility, auto and transit travel times, vehicle miles traveled per capita, non-auto driver mode share, and ADMS, and low stress bicycle accessibility. These are outlined in more detail in the packet as well as in the plan. So on a high level, the analysis by planning staff showed that all three scenarios resulted in increases to auto and transit accessibility, as well as low stress bicycle accessibility due to increased households and jobs in the plan area, essentially greater density leading to greater access between housing and jobs within the plan area as well as in the adjacent communities. Scenarios one and two show an increase in VMT per capita while scenario three shows a decrease as more people choose not to drive due to longer travel times due to increased density. All three scenarios show little change in NADMS, which is expected to remain high at 60%. Transit trips are expected to make up a smaller percentage of trips in all three scenarios as greater density allows for more walking and biking trips as a relative share of the mode split. The packet reflects the, the packet shares the specific increases in auto and transit travel time, both of which increase under all three scenarios by a little under or over two minutes of increased auto travel time and a little under or over one minute of increased transit travel time. slightly more of increased travel time with the higher density scenarios. The complete results of this model are provided on page 13 of the plan with more detailed figures on pages eight and nine of the plan attachments, as well as more data provided in the annual monitoring reports which we'll get into a little bit more in the next section on the transportation recommendations. Any questions before we move on? All right. Moving on to projected schools impact of the increased. Sorry. I mean, it turned out Councillor Ardruanda. Not. Yeah, just not quite sure how we're going through, but I'll stop one. Yeah, I think it's more on like the methodology and on questions of that. I think once we get through that, then we can ask for more. So I'll wait. I'll wait. I'll wait. That's OK. Yeah, we're, OK. This all contributes to the methodology for justifying the decision to raise, to eliminate the development level. So moving on to the projected schools impact, the same three testing scenarios were used to evaluate the adequacy of school capacity in the plan area, based on student generation rates for this infill impact area, the estimated enrollment impact from each scenario by 2045 is included in the table on the bottom of page 6 of the packet, broken down by scenarios and the increased number of students within the plan area for at each level of elementary, middle and high schools. to MCPS projections. The Bethesda Chevy Chase cluster is expected to have 580 surplus seats for elementary schools, 375 from middle schools, and 130 for high schools, meaning that each of these expected levels of increased student generation in these scenarios fall below the cluster level surplus in terms of seats. It's important to know that this surplus relates to the cluster specifically and not to the school or classroom level, each of which may result in different levels of number of seats available. This is due to the fact that over this period, MCPS is expected to undergrow boundary change within your by clusters as well as changes in boundaries within the cluster. So adequacy will continue to be evaluated with the approval of each new project via the growth and infrastructure policy as through school impact access and student generation rates. Next is the carbon analysis. This is required by county law. Planning analysis showed that all three testing scenarios would result in increased carbon emissions overall in the plan area, but would result in reduced emissions per capita, including a 10% reduction for energy emissions. This is partially due to more sustainable building standards for newer construction as well as just generally increased density. Finally, there is a section called measuring the cumulative experience of implementing the plan vision. So this recommendation attempts to go beyond the specific metrics that are included in the master plan with regard to schools, transportation and climate and capture the general cumulative experience of community members as development occurs. So this was added during the planning board's work sessions in response to some testimony. So while capturing the impact of new development on residents is critical, council staff is concerned that this additional layer of analysis is not well defined. So as an alternative council staff suggests the committee support a comprehensive periodic review of plan implementation and metrics to occur every five years. This would enable adaptive and responsive actions to concerns with plan implementation in line with the data that we're able to collect. So Council staff on that note suggests the committee concur with the planning board on the development level recommendations. Aside from this last section in which the Council staff suggests the committee support removing this measuring the cumulative experience of implementing the plan vision section and replacing it with a recommendation for a comprehensive five year review. Appreciate it. This is an area where there's a question of whether the modern report and the specificity around exactly what's included in the report should be in the master plan or in the overlay zone. And the the BAS I think that's something that we should discuss. I do think it's important as we discuss these issues that there's clarity of what we're talking about. So one thing to consider when we talk about where this more specific language on a five year review may end up, one thing, one option would be to put it in the attachments. They're called attachments a lot of times to the master plans we call them appendices. They accompany the plan, they are approved in a sense with the plan, but they aren't part of the plan, so they could be taken up at any point in the future if there is a change that needs made. That's even better than in a sense if you were to put like a detailed outline of something into the overlay zone seems to be a little too specific and not quite appropriate for a zone. But I would suggest there's a great argument for putting whatever you really want that five-year comprehensive plan to be, put general language in the master plan and put a specific section in the attachments related to that five-year conference of monitoring report. And that way it's guidance, it's written guidance. Yeah the goal the goal here is to allow for some flexibility to make tweaks. Right. You know consultation with community members with the IAC with with planning, things change over time, the way you monitor things may change. The methodology of the monitoring may need to be adjusted. We don't necessarily need to open up the master plan to make a change. I think that would be, you know, a mistake. But we want to have something that's specific and we want to have something that's tangible. We want to have something that folks can turn to. So if the attachment is the right place to put it, I personally would yield to recommendation from planning and council staff to come up with how best to do that. I will just note this is really important, something I'm very interested in, something that we heard loud and clear from community members from the IAC with businesses and residents represented there, the folks who are most engaged in the implementation of the plan that this is a very important thing that they think needs to happen. And so I do think it's a very important recommendation that we need to follow through on. I do agree that the measuring the cumulative experience of implementing the plan vision while a valiant effort by the planning board, I think it's a shared interest. It is pretty ambiguous of what that means and what it would actually accomplish. So I do think that the council staff recommendation of changing that language and replacing it, I think makes more sense. I'll just note as we think through what is in the appendix of the attachment, there was the advancing the Pike District 10-year review for the White Flint Plan that was very positively received by those involved in that. It is something that I think really hit a number of the key indicators and measureables. I think that's something for us to take a look at and specifically take out and synthesize what makes sense to include here. Obviously, five years is different from 10 years, but I think it gives a pretty good roadmap. We have obviously the Bethesda Plan Monitoring Reports, the annual reports. There are opportunities to improve and to strengthen that, but I think there's a baseline there to look at. I know there's the master plan reality check that was undertaken something that many of us advocated for and others pushed for. I think that provides a window into some of the opportunities for us to have a robust, comprehensive, serious, regular, five-year review. I think it's more significant than what is being done annually. And I think it's something that we can demonstrate very clearly of what we expect that to look like and what should be included. And if it's included in the attachment, I hear from council staff that that may be the most appropriate and reasonable place to put it But I think it's important to have something very specific to point to that we could show to the community to the IAC to others who have Advocated for this that this is how we're going to Satisfie that need Yeah, we can bring you back something hopefully on the 24th will work with planning staff and we'll consult with the IAC. And the other thing is we can bring back some modified language that would replace the language we're suggesting taking out that would be that broader language that does appear in the master plan that directs somebody to that attachment. So they know that it exists in that the five-year comprehensive review is recommended by the plan. Okay, so if colleagues want to give general direction and guidance that we want to look at new languages, Council staff is recommending. We don't have to agree on the language today because we don't have the language. Before us, we won't make any formal decisions until we come back in a couple weeks. It will give some time to come up. But if there's interest in a comfort level of just providing general direction on that, that is of interest that this language is council staff is suggesting is a little ambiguous and we could be more targeted with that, but then we're going to have to really get a sense of what the attachment is going to look like, what's included, and that will be a more significant opportunity than just wordsmithing at the next meeting in two weeks. Yes, that's fine. So that's fine. Okay, so there's consensus on that at a high level moving forward with the staff recommendation at a specific level, working together to come back with specific master plan language, and then also suggestions based on the feedback you've received on some of these reports that I mentioned and any others that anybody else can think of. I think that's a good start at least, but to come back with us with a specific of what that attachment would look like as part of the plan. Councillor Dronter. Yeah, just on that, just to put a fine bow on it. I think that that's a great recommendation. I too was gonna mention the Pike District work as a potential model in this area. And we heard loud and clear at the testimony and sense and conversations with the IEC that this, you know, they of the frustrations around the no new parks being built since 2017 is like it's one of the many things of why we need to really monitor it as we go and have really robust check-ins. I would say one of the things I'll be interested in hearing is what would be the distinguishing between what you would update people on after a year and what the five year like what what are the just really being clear about what the two different buckets look like and so everyone's just there's no. You know we don't miss anyone in the expectation of what exactly is going to be updated so and we can talk about the what when you come back but I think I think agree with that. Thank you. Great. Okay. Let's continue. Great. Thank you. Moving on to recommendations around transportation and adequate public facilities. We talked previous in the prior section about general master plan adequacy analysis of transportation. This deals more specifically with the transportation recommendations. Largely, this leaves intact the recommendations in the 2017 plan. This does not, this minor master plan amendment does not introduce any new facilities or policies or programs for building out the transportation network. But does make five recommendations to further the goals of the 2017 plan. The first is to continue the local area transportation review via the growth infrastructure policy. I think this is largely to call out that that's how most of the transportation infrastructure in Bethesda that has been built since 2017. That's how it has been funded is through these private development and investment and LATR. We have two recommendations to support implementation of loading management districts as recommended in the Montgomery Planning's 2023 Urban Loading and Delivery Management Study and a recommendation to support the forthcoming planning and MCDOT joint curbside management study. These are targeted measures to address specific resident concerns around inefficient loading and delivery practices with lanes and sidewalks and other transportation facilities being blocked. Yeah, I just want to reiterate, we passed a bill in the last council to try to address this. It has not been implemented as well as I think it should. There continues to be quite a bit of frustration with that. I think the loading and unloading study hopefully will provide some guidance, which is a separate but related issue, because loading and unloading is one of the obstructions. Shutting down a sidewalk because of construction is one major bone of contention and frustration in an area that has seen quite a bit of construction and development. And another is delivery trucks and drop off and pick up blocking entrances and blocking the street and sometimes blocking parking spaces and sidewalks and other dynamics. So I don't have any language for a master plan for that. This is more of an implementation challenge that's not necessarily master plan related, but it is something that we need to address. And as we continue to urbanize as a county, as we continue to do more and more smart growth and infill redevelopment, these issues have to be addressed in a much more robust way than they have up to this point. Thank you, and much to that point. The fourth recommendation calls out the DPSs and MCDOTs manate roles in managing construction related sidewalk closures and the importance of getting that right. And the final recommendation supports MCDOT's implementation of enhanced transit service, connecting Bethesda to nearby residential neighborhoods and regional activity centers, including expanded transit support facilities needed to accommodate enhanced service. That last point about the support facilities was requested by M.Dott, who along these state-owned roadways and the purple line have an interest in collaborating with MCDOT to get those facilities online and working. So these five recommendations, while important in addressing some targeted concerns, largely leave intact the Multimodal Transportation Network and envisioned in the 2017 plan. The plan acknowledges that the facilities proposed in the 2017 plan or outlined in that plan are not have not been constructed as quickly as was hoped, largely due to the inability to quickly implement the Bethesda Unified Mobility Program. So most improvements that have occurred, particularly specifically along Woodmont Avenue is a good example, have been through county Geobons and LATR improvements by developers. So, public hearing testimony reflected a concern among many residents that motor vehicle traffic congestion will worsen in the plan area as new development is permitted without a cap. So Council staff pulled some data from the recent annual monitoring reports that sort of look into this question. Obviously, the previous section we looked into some of the more auto accessibility and travel time which are appear to be adequate as we move into these different development scenarios. But the annual monitoring reports go a layer deeper looking at intersection delay and traffic congestion at some of the most congested intersections within the plan area. This metric, the intersection delay was last measured in the 2022 annual monitoring report that the county or within the plan area. This metric the intersection delay was last measured in the 2022 annual monitoring report that found that all intersections examined met county delay standards and were in fact experiencing less delay than in 2018 or 2020 this improvement in delay standards likely due to a lot of pandemic effects of less traffic. So it remains to be seen as we talked about in the growth and infrastructure policy, whether that will plateau or whether we will continue to see increased congestion as rebounding towards pre-pandemic levels. So there's a chart on the top of page nine of the plan that goes over all of those intersections and what the delay metrics are there. The 2024 annual monitoring report, which came out a couple months ago, did not include this intersection delay data as red policy areas of which Bethesda is one, as through the growth infrastructure policy, are not subject to motor vehicle at the end of this intersection delay metric, and are instead measured through travel time and accessibility. So this is something that Council staff has talked about looking at through this comprehensive five year review, how we might look to take a comprehensive look at monitoring traffic congestion. So that's something that we can take another look at through, you know, as we talk with Planning and Staff about what that five-year review may look like. But as far as these five recommendations in the Transportation Section go, Council staff suggest that Committee support the Planning Board's recommendations. Yeah, I think it's a good opportunity to take a look at what would be an appropriate metric in light of policy changes. So I think that would be helpful when you come back to make sure that you specifically come back with a recommendation on that. Councillor, we're finding ourselves. Can you hear me? I'll just skip this thing wrong. It's still a left right? I want to say something that some people may not like, but I'm okay. Alice is okay by me. Sometimes we, I feel that we talk about congestion in such a negative way. It's okay to have congestion, especially in urban areas, is suspected. What happens when you have congestion, you slow down traffic, and what happens when that happens? People are looking at the stores, people can walk safer, right? Because people are paying more attention. It's not about the needy suspected. It's an urban area. It's off my chest. That's it. Thank you. Councillor Drona. Just on this point to appreciate the, I never know which one to use, but I'll use this one. Coming back, obviously, 2022, as you mentioned, with you're going to be seeing pandemic level, or post, you know, right in the congestion, and obviously we made the change in the GIP. So just to be clear, the 2024 obviously didn't include it because of that. Is there any, you know, even though you aren't required, do you do any analysis of this at all? Or would you just say, it's a red policy area, so we're not even going to look at it or... We see it as useful information to know. Yeah, you know, at times, so with a lot of times we get these counts for the record Jason Sarctori, Plenty Director. We get these counts through the development review process, but because it's in the red policy areas we're not getting traffic counts through that process either. So it is, you know, useful information that we can, you know, we can certainly do on a every so often basis and we can have an effort where we try to get some of the account data and we can take a look at this just to be able to monitor it. But generally we're in agreement with Council Member Fenig and Zalas that in areas like this we are less concerned about the level of congestion and we're more interested in metrics that take a look at pedestrian safety, other modes of travel, and just generally what you would expect in a more urban area. So, you know, there was this big debate around in New York on congestion pricing. Presumably to do that, you have to be measuring congestion. All right. Well the way those systems work generally, you know, it's very similar to what we might have on the whole process. Oh yeah, it's all tolling through, you know, the- Just to be clear, congestion, Regeneration, congestion pricing essentially, and that's what the- It's a real time. The are doing. They're determining how many people are on it. And based on that, it's a variable pricey model. It's not dissimilar to the parking dynamic parking variable parking that was proposed previously that would have a range based on the demand of parking meter usage, with some jurisdictions have done. But that's more of a real time in the moment, to address that. Certainly would be a data gathering method, but that's not, that is a real time. It's for the pricing piece. Yeah, I mean, I think, and I like the idea of the council staff, I said suggested maybe how you build this into the review that you're coming back with. I do think they're what I was asking is if there's, if you see utility in knowing this information outside of what, regardless of whether you agree with it, more congestion is good or bad. There has to be some utility in understanding it to adjust for, for example, you know, we hear, you know, people complain to my office and I'm sure others that, you know, like, you can't get by Marriott because there's like these lanes and, you know, you got bike lanes and so if one truck stops to drop something off, it could be hard to get by, right, you know, or something. And so I think just, but that's okay. We want people to slow down, right? So. to drop something off that it could be hard to get by, right, you know, or something. And so I think just, but that's okay. We want people to slow down, right? So potentially, but I just think there might be some, I guess the question I'm asking is, do you see any utility in knowing this information and using it in any way, even if you think it's okay to have the congestion? I mean, we never really want to turn down data. We like data helps us be able to understand situations better, but it's not something that we feel is a priority in this area at this time. Okay. Yeah, and that's something. It might be one of my questions for the cap in general was going to be related to the capacity for public safety vehicles. This comes up from time to time, right? Whether it be fire, apparatus, police, has there been any consultation or discussion with them and if so, how have they chimed in on any of this? Good afternoon, Elsa Heisselman-Koye, Chief Downing. I'm going to give you the hard question. Planning for the record. This way, everybody looks to the right. Let me stop at the market until you can't go anymore. What do you think about this? So while for a typical master plan, we do, of course, consult with them for this minor master plan amendment. We can reach out to them. Okay, and yeah, I'd appreciate that. I think I recently met with the chief on a whole bunch of items. Some of this, they weren't really aware of fire chiefs, excuse me. So I think it would be helpful to check in and get some feedback, and that's also for council staff. But yeah, I appreciate your feedback. And then just the chair brought up the delivery management study and curfews I manage the study, I think. Again, just emphasizing, I agree with those comments that people are, you know, that's something that we need to watch out for. People get frustrated with that. But I appreciate it. Yeah, I appreciate that. And that is probably more closely tied with the specific Maria example. That is a loading, unloading frustration and question more than anything. And so that plan is important. And the recommendations and that plan are going to be important and that is part of this discussion. I will reiterate the point that I made earlier determining what the appropriate metric is is important and having a justification for what that appropriate metric should be. If it is not traditional congestion metrics, which is really the speed through which cars can make it through intersections. I will note this is a major conversation. You're hearing the rug to a certain extent among colleagues right here that on the one hand, it is a frustration for residents who are trying to get to their jobs and get home to their kids or pick up carpool or do an errand or wherever it is they're trying to get to that the additional delay because of traffic congestion is a frustration. On the other hand, the standard of looking exclusively at speed through intersections to determine whether an intersection is failing or succeeding particularly in an urban area where we are promoting pedestrians, where we are advocating for bike riders, where we want to have parents with strollers walking across the street in a vibrant community, having cars go fast through those intersections is not exactly in line with our broader public policy. This is the rub of finding the appropriate balance and what is the appropriate measure and where do we land on that particular issue? I can speak to the fact that I have worked really hard with the District 16 delegation and District 18 delegation in and around this downtown plan area to slow cars down, to add traffic signals, to make pedestrian infrastructure easier and better, because you shouldn't have to fear for your life to walk to with his elementary school. You shouldn't have to fear for your life to go to the farmer's market. You shouldn't have to fear for your life to walk to your job. So I think it's important for staff to come back with what the appropriate measure is. I think it is necessary to have a measure. I think it is necessary to be accountable to that measure. I think it's important that the measures that we are using actually reflect the public policies that we have. And I think that's the key here, and I think there's an opportunity to adjust and update. We made changes after the original plan moved forward. And so it's a good time to reassess the annual monitoring metrics because we have made different calculations and different priorities based on balancing efficiency and safety. And that is the rub in all of these challenges. All right. So you're going to come back with that information you heard from colleagues. We have the central rub here, but ultimately it doesn't appear that there are any objections to what was included in the transportation recommendations. So we will adopt this recommended. Perfect. Thank you. The next section we're going to cover is the Recreation Center. And as we've already noted, the 2017 plan does have a recommended language related to sites for the viability of a recreation center but mainly focused on the metro station area or the Bethesda Chaviche's Regional Services Center and that this master plan amendment has taken the opportunity to highlight this desire for the recreation center as a top priority. And then in doing so has included four recommendations that are at the top of page 10 to try to achieve that. These recommendations will also modify several tools that are created in the Bethesda Overlay Zone. So that'll again come to you during that review, which would allow the planning board to leverage their development review authority to more actively pursue the construction or at least dedication and or funding for a new recreation center. And with that council staff suggest the community support these recommendations. Well, very excited about this. I've been working very hard on the Rec Center for quite a long time since essentially the day. I joined the council. I have been beating the drum for this and very happy that it is included as a recommendation and some of the adjustments to make it more plausible. I did just want to ask, Silver Spring has been used as the model I have used it myself. It's a world-class facility. It reflects the public-private partnership. That's actually a public-public-private partnership. And I think ultimately that is going to be the best model here, whether it's public- or public private. I think there's opportunities to collaborate county government with public agencies and private developers. I think there's an opportunity for the county just to directly work with private developers. I've had a lot of conversations with community members and with businesses and others to try to push this forward. In Silver Spring, was there a need to increase the height? I'm just curious if that was needed in order to make that project viable. Robert Cronenberg for the record. Yes there was, I believe the developer went through workforce housing and MPDU mixed to increase the height, but that was all intertwined with the other development there. But so they did need the additional height in order to make that possible? I'm pretty sure they did. In order to make that possible. We can double check, but I'm pretty sure. I know they did get a height increase for affordable housing, but I think it came in, if I recall, the center was not part of the original plans. And when I came back with the center, they did need the extra height, but we can check into that. Okay, yeah. If you could just confirm that and then I'll come back. I think it's important, because I think that's a question that will inevitably come up, but I couldn't enthusiastically support this recommendation more more and just appreciate you coming back with that information. We agree. Enthusiastic agreement. I love that. Recreation sentence. That's it. All right. Perfect. This committee loves recreation center because we have the jurisdiction over the Department of Recreation. We left it out of the PHP. It really could be the PHPR committee. And ultimately, this committee has been a long-standing supporter of recreation generally and understands the significance that recreation centers have for our adolescents in particular, for our youngest and especially for our oldest residents and this is an area that has more older adults than any other part of the county. With all that said, let's be clear. The Bass Frex Center right now Montgomery County is a Wheaton Dragon Library Center, honestly by far not because I'm a district council member, but it's just really the best. Well, my colleague will appreciate the fact that I have strongly urged everybody who is considering this, who is looking at it, who wants to understand what a world-class facility looks like. I have suggested going to Wheaton to check it out, specifically. I've also suggested going to Silver Spring as well, but specifically in Wheaton have shared that, and I think the community and the downtown plan area would love to have that opportunity. And I will just note, this is an area where we have been promoting significantly to get more affordable housing, not just MPDUs, but lots of additional housing options to have the only serious recreation opportunities in the plan area to be private facilities that cost 30 or 35 or $40 a class that costs $150 or $200 a month is not acceptable and does not allow us to actually fulfill the type of broader-based amenities that should come alongside affordable housing when we advance it. So I just think it's really important as we talk about that and just wanted to note that. So enthusiastic support from the committee, unanimous and enthusiastic and we will adopt and accept that recommendation. Thank you. The next section is titled Implementation of the 2017 Park Recommendations. And the Minermaster Plan Amendment supports the recommendations in the current plan and talks about refinement of implementation strategies that might be necessary to adapt to changing conditions such as the purple line construction, status and schedule development opportunities and challenges. And anything that's been learned since 2017, these strategies may include providing interim uses on newly acquired parkland when feasible and appropriate. That's pretty straightforward. The next one, though, is the one material refinement to the minor, that the minor master plan amendment recommends, which involves the veterans park civic green as you heard on the tour and as you witnessed. The idea is now to be a little more pointed in saying that the expansion of that should occur to the west side of Woodmont Avenue rather than between Woodmont Avenue and Wisconsin Avenue. And Parkes is here to talk about that, but I think everyone seemed very supportive and understood that the challenges being had between Woodmont and Wisconsin make it likely that this will occur on the west side. Yeah, let's turn it to parks on this. But I'll just note, I think this is a really important and helpful change. I've had lots of conversations with community members on this. There's quite a bit of frustration. And I think clarity is key here here and this clarity will help, but if you could explain how the clarity you believe will help and what this change would mean, I think that's important. I also will note, one of the dynamics here, this site was discussed in the context of the need for affordable housing in one of the most centrally located areas of the downtown Bethesda Plan and public open space. And during the master plan process, none of the three of us were part of that conversation. There was a change to double and triple down on the affordable housing recommendation and to frankly deemphasize the parks recommendation. There are very good reasons why that committee and council ultimately decided to do that, but that was a change and it did and I think does have an impact. So this is an opportunity to adjust the language to be more specific about the location, but also to recognize that there was master plan language and that master plan language did emphasize the 25% affordable housing and PDU requirement and did in the end, as a result, deemphasize the open space parks recommendation here. I just think that context is important with that. Let me turn it over to you. Yeah, Midefigaretto, Parks Director for the record. And yes, I agree with everything that you just described Council Member Friedson. We've also in the intervening years have had a lot of conversations with the community. We've had a lot of opportunities to think through the practicalities of where and how we can deliver on the Veterans Park Civic Green recommendation. There is a very successful public open space that exists there already. And we think that building on that successful open space is probably the best way to deliver on this recommendation over the, you know, medium-long term. So, and we think it also provides just more clarity and direction for parks, more clarity for the community to understand what might happen there eventually, and also for developers in the area who are looking to develop on the block. That's across the street from the recommended location that we're looking at now. Appreciate that. Councillor Modrawanda. Can you just be clear so the recommended location is where again, what cross? Where cross? So it's across woodmont where there is already what looks like a park. It's not park owned, but it's a veterans park on that corner there. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Currently referred to as veterans park. And to current, right, correct. Montgomery Parks property. And it's a successful open space. And we think that at some point expanding on that, taking advantage of the energy that's already there is probably the best way to deliver on this park recommendation. Any other lessons learned from how we got here, you know, just reflecting on the process? You know, the parks department took a risk, tried to do something innovative here that would leverage, hopefully leverage a park on the block that's across the street and acquired property there to try to make that happen. Ultimately, there were a lot of factors in play. The development didn't ultimately move forward there at all. I think we don't want to not be a department that takes risks to sometimes try to make things happen. But we have to recognize that in taking risks, sometimes things don't shake out the way that you expect them to, and you want to be nimble and have an open mind and be creative and ready to move on in a different direction. I appreciate that. Candor, obviously, as was expressed by the chair, like people, you know, were frustrated that this money that was set aside went to that and that didn't go forward the way we wanted. But I'm happy to hear that there's a robust commitment to like let's find something that can work. So appreciate the candor. Thank you. Appreciate it. There's shared interest here in moving forward with this recommendation. And everybody wants to see that happen. I think we can look to the past and relitigate that. I think it's important that we look to the future. I think that this exercise and master plans and minor master plan amendments is about the future. And I think this language adjustment to make very clear of what we expect and where the greatest value would be is really, really important. And I think it does make sense in terms of leveraging what you've got, we already do have public space. I mean, this is an area where every Veterans Day, I speak at a huge one of the largest Veterans Day commemorations right at this site in La Ries and this community, where if you go out on a nice day, you will see lots of people having ice cream and coffee and lunch and gathering in that facility. It's an area that gets activated by Bethesda Urban Partnership and becomes spillover for summer concert series and other opportunities. So there is already a demand. We already see the importance here and expanding that and I will note, we saw the benefit of the streetery during the pandemic. We have opportunities to move forward with some of that master plan recommendation and the thought process of more pedestrian focus, Norfolk Avenue. And this would be a key part of that of having a park at one end with urban park, you know, essentially at the other end and a key connection point with Bethesda cycle track on woodmont avenue. So, we all want to see this happen. We're looking to the future. We're looking forward and really appreciate the language and the updates because I think it will be a positive change. So without objection, we will accept that recommendation. And there's only two other very minor mentions in the Minor Master of Planned Amendment regarding parks and what is to, again, to continue exploring the new and alternative financing beyond the capital budget. There's a reference to special taxing districts and new tax mechanisms, which the parks feels is sort of outside their realm of making decision on things like that. So we'll modify that language slightly. But there's a last recommendation that recommends that parks continue to seek advice from the IAC. And so that's also nice to have that reinforcement in the plan. Appreciate that and I think that's important. The next section is the park impact payment itself. We've already talked about this a little bit that the payment has been very successful and it has been increased when it was established. It was $10 per square foot. There has been a biennial adjustment that was based on the average of the two prior years of inflation, construction inflation, and that increased it to $12.49 per square foot. And then the council revisited that methodology as you're probably aware to determine that in fact this should be and wanted to be using the cumulative methodology for assessing inflation, applying that to the park impact payment would raise the price and is what is recommended in the Minermaster Plan Amendment to $15.57 per square foot. We we did get testimony by a development attorney or two that raised concerns that the jump might make it more difficult for projects facing that park impact payment. And yet there was analysis done by planning staff and their consultants that found that the higher rate would result in only a .2% increase in cost to developers. Thank you for that. So we've received feedback. Some people wanted higher. Some people wanted lower. Welcome to the county council in trying to figure that out. I do appreciate the economic analysis work. Nothing's perfect. I'm sensitive to the cost of housing and the cost of development. I think it's something that we need to be thinking about and focus on. It is a continuous concern that I have. Development is slowing down. Housing is slowing down in this area, so we need to be extra sensitive to it. However, I do think it's consistent with the changes that we've made with other taxes and fees. And I think it's appropriate. I think the economic analysis was helpful. And I personally think it's not as high as someone would want. It's not as low as others would prefer, but it seems to be an appropriate place for us to land. I have questions. Councillor O'Brien. Could you just talk about it and then if there's any feedback on the, I love this pit pops. You didn't get there yet. I was like gotten there yet but absolutely. Okay, okay, when you get there. That's the next bullet. Okay, good. That'll be the next bullet. But agree. So just to be clear for the chair, are we are you seeking to make this recommendation now? To move forward with the recommendation now? On the PIP. This is a recommendation that the Park Impact Payment be $15.50. Based on the cumulative. Yeah, based on the cumulative average. And there's another piece to this. So before you actually take this, it might be useful just to combine it. And the next piece of this is to allow that payment rate to be paid into two parts. This was similar to the recent thing that was passed. So part of the first half of building permit and the second half of use and occupancy. All right, that's a hold on my pit pop. All of that. Can we get there? So there seems to be consensus on the rate. I mean, is this substantial increase percentage wise? I just think we have to note that. I think that's important. This is intended to fund parks. I will note this is not intended to be the only funding source for parks. This is intended to be additive, not a replacement for the other ways in which every other park and every other part of the county is funded. This is supposed to be on top of that in addition to that because parks are such an important part of the master plan's vision for the community as a public benefit and a public amenity and frankly a community need. On the separate amount, I absolutely agree that we should separate this out. It's consistent with other changes that we've made also related to impact taxes. For instance, if the council just approved and agreed frankly to override a veto from the kind of executive, are there other options to split it up further? I mean, I just think that we should discuss. You know, we landed on splitting it up in two parts. I think that's appropriate. I think that makes sense. Are there any other options? Are these really the only two triggers that there are? I just think that we ought to at least entertain and discuss that. Hi, Henry Coppola, a long range planning supervisor for parks. I think we started with this to your point, Council Member, to try to match what's happening with the impact axis and that's sort of split. And so it seems like a reasonable and simple way to divide it out. Are there other triggers that we could potentially consider? I think probably we do use other triggers in conditions of approval for a variety of things, the specifics of what those are and how they affect stuff. I defer a little bit to our colleagues at planning on. But I don't think, I think when we did talk through it, these seem to be the most obvious and appropriate ones to use. Great. Any comments from Plane? It is really more of a regulatory review question than a parks wants as much money as quickly as they can, I think is the answer, right? Understandably, but willing to split it up in a reasonable way in order to not prevent the fees from coming in because we want development to happen, and that's what creates vibrant urban parks, vibrant urban areas. But regulatory review question. Mr. Clerk. So I think it's appropriate. When we look at the regulatory review, we look at kind of what teeth do we have in terms of when to collect the fees, the funds. And it's either usually a first building permit or a stage during the building permit process or use an occupancy. Beyond that, it's really difficult for us to have any kind of mechanism in place or tool in place to collect any kind of fees. So these are the really the two appropriate times to do it and splitting them up would be- This is most consistent with impact taxes and the most obvious tools and triggers to utilize. We think so. Yes. Okay. Great. Agreement on utilizing that and splitting it up. So we've increased it, but we've split it up to make the mountain more like more manageable mole hills, so to speak. All right. We'll adopt that recommendation. Let's continue. Great. Thank you. And so this is the one that Councillor Marigolando was mentioning. There's a third recommendation here which says to allow the current PIP reduction for dedicated open space to apply to land designated in the master plan as recommended open space but that a property owner makes publicly accessible as a privately owned public space or pops under the conditions approved by Montgomery Parks and the planning board which include maintaining the pops to Montgomery Parks standards and ensuring public access. And the council's staff comment here was in reading that, it wasn't clear to me whether the dedication reduction for the park impact payment would be the same for a privately owned open space or the dedication would be given a greater reduction. And so I open that up. All right, let's turn to parks to explain the thought process here. Let's not focus so much on how the language reads. I think that's the second part of it. Let's start with what was the intent of the language. Then we can get into some questions and comments from committee members, and then we can see what makes sense to move forward with language. So for us from a policy standpoint, our general preference is to receive parkland in dedication that we are able to then control and hold in perpetuity for the benefit of the public. But we recognize that there are sometimes particular developments that have particular set of circumstances where to a developer it might be preferable to do a privately owned public space a pops. And the question is what kind of credit, what kind of pip credit should a developer under those circumstances get? You're going to be a POPS. And the question is, what kind of credit, what kind of PIP credit should a developer under those circumstances get? We want to continue to incentivize wherever possible to the greatest extent possible, the dedication of Parkland under the master plan. But, again, in recognition that that might not always happen, we understand that some kind of PIP credit should still accrue to the developer. It just should not be 100% that would take away the incentive then to dedicate Parkland to us. Please. Just to add to your point and question on the sort of the intention in the language here, and we had some similar conversations with staff and with the Planning Board about how to word language and the concerns that we would have about the Director Figuerares point that the Pops and Fult Parkland dedication are different. and the intention is to recognize that and not to provide the exact same type of reduction. There's an existing reduction currently in place for full parkline dedication. And this would be this language and recommendations looking to add the ability to use that tool for POPs as well for a PIP reduction. And we think the point from council staff is well taken that we could go a little further in the language here to make it clearer that a pops and full parkland dedication are different and to make it clear that the intention is that those be different PIP reduction amounts or tools and not a direct equivalent. So just to summarize, the intent and is one that dedication is the preference and having a policy that reflects that being the preference, so the two not being equal, per se. But a recognition that pops are still better than nothing. So there should be, and significantly better than nothing, can be huge public benefit. In fact, there have been significant parts of strategic plans that parks has been part of to identify and recognize the value of Pops County want. So finding language to tell to that. I will also note this is another example, maybe even better example, not in the addendum, although I'll yield to council staff if the addendum is a more profitable place. But this seems to be an area where more specific, but maybe not totally specific language in the master plan would be appropriate to reflect what was just shared here. And then coming back during the BAS overlay zone question for much more specific language that would be implementing language may be appropriate. So I would open that up for thoughts and feedback while you're noodling that and I have a couple other thoughts on this specifically but I want to turn to Councilmember Joandot to ask questions here as well. Thank you. Appreciate the clarification on what you were trying to go for. And I think that answers part of the Council staff question of which was posed in the packet of did you want it to be the same level you're no, you want to be dip. We're not saying what that level is, right? You don't have a suggestion today on the actual, like, what the difference would be? We have proposed language that responds to Council staff's question. Okay. You have it right now? Yeah, we've shared some language that doesn't give a specific reduction, but does make clear that it shouldn't be the equivalent of the credit that's given for full park land dedication. Yeah, I think that's appropriate at a minimum. Obviously, we dealt with this with other spaces that are deemed to be open to the public. I'm thinking I used to work at Discovery Communications and while not a park, if you know that space that's adjacent, there was a lot of back and forth about that this would be publicly used. But it really wasn't. It was gated and there's an entry point you could kind of get in. And it was really just where we went to eat lunch. And it wasn't available to the public. And so I just would want to be clear and make sure the language reflected that it actually would be. And I like the, I think there's some in here about that you'd have to approve the way it happens. And I don't know if we should give a reduction, but I'm open to it, but I'm sensitive to that point, in particular, that it's actually open public space. Definitely, and that would be something that could be handled through conditions of approval. I will say while we prefer full parkland dedication, it a well-designed, privately owned public space that's subject to very carefully thought out conditions is better than no public space at all. So, yeah. Agreed. So, yeah, I think the details will matter, but generally as the master plan, as a minor master plan and limit language, I think I'm open to that, but just wanted to express that concern and that I think you share. So thank you. Appreciate it. Do you want to share the language that you have come up with? I mean, I have. Yep, I have it here. You want. So you're going to share that with council members. All right. I would. I would. I would say I mean there's quite a bit here. I think it's more language than college I'll be able to the part and red at the bottom. Yeah Yeah, so first of all, I think the question is, is this in and of itself sufficient or is there an opportunity, would it make sense to adopt some language similar to this? It might not be this exact language we can word Smith it and we'll have opportunity to review and come back and finalize it. I don't think we necessarily need to word Smith it today, but this is a good starting point to address council staff's recommendation. We can have some back and forth conversations and feedback from council staff and council member and Committee staff on that. Is there a benefit to having specific language, more specific language in the BAS, in the overlays zone? I mean, if you are going to have more specific language, the Bethesda overlays zone would be the place to do it. Because in fact, if for any reason in the future, it's not working, you can do a zoning text amendment to change it where we can't. You shouldn't want to have to open up the master plan for something that small, so. Yeah, my suggestion is that we do that. That we take this up, we include language in the spirit of what was presented here. We can word-smith it later. We're not going to any further detail than that in the master plan because any change to that would require reopening another minor master plan amendment, which I think is probably more rigorous in cumbersome than would be appropriate here. I do think, and we're coming back right after this process to do the buzz and the overlay zone to implement what we're talking about here. I think that would be an opportunity. And I do think talking about it alongside would make sense. I think to me setting a cap, for instance, not to exceed 75 percent, but provide discretion to the planning board in consultation with parks of what that number is based on the level of public benefit and the comparison would make sense. And I throw out 75% not to exceed if it's a higher number fine, if it's a, you know, I think, you know, I yield to where folks are, I don't think there should be a set amount where if you do a pops, you get 50%, or you get 70%, or you get 80%, or you get 20, because to Councilmember Dwarf and those point, not all of these are created equally. And I don't think the answer should be no as a result because we're getting a benefit, but what the benefit should be reflective on both sides to the community and to the applicant. And so providing that level of discretion of where it lands that you can't get nothing because you're doing something and you should get credit for doing something. But you don't get everything ever because it's not as good as the full dedication. We're not getting control of the land, but you're getting something that is reflective of what the actual benefit is. To me, that's what I would personally like to see and hopefully we can come back with an understanding of what that might look like, although we won't adopt the language of that until we take up the buzz in the overlays zone. So I think I understand what you're saying, a maximum of 75% of that total credit that would otherwise apply to a public parkland dedication, but with some flexibility from for the planning board to make the specific determination. So if the planning board is- 75% of the credit. Exactly. And if they're- If- If- flexibility from for the planning board to make the specific determination. So the planning board is- 75% of the credit. Exactly. And if there is a higher number that you think would be appropriate or a slightly lower number that you think would be appropriate, I think giving ample- you don't want to the number too low because you do want to be able to get as much out of this as you can and you don't want to disincentivize. If there isn't a willingness to do a dedication at all and that's a deal breaker, you don't want it not to be worth it to do it at all. Because then we end up with nothing here. You want to make sure that it's better to do a dedication so that you're incentivizing that. but if you're not going to get a dedication that you're getting as you have the opportunity and a tool to get as much out of the pops as possible. So I think thinking through it in that regard, at first I was thinking about setting a minimum and I decided that that I'd rather the planning board have the discretion and not have a minimum so that there is a more appropriate tool. I, that's a, Chair Friedzen, that's a great suggestion and we'll come back to you with specific language, but I think that's a great suggestion to have some discretion. Councilmember Draugner. Yeah, and when you come back, just it would be helpful to know just to see a real life example of what this, how this has been used, like what it called, like just what, you know, maybe a couple of examples of like what it is, you know, so we know what the PIP, the PIP, this exemption is for dedicated land, just so we're doing it in the context of, because the 70% it sounds great, but I don't really, I don't have a concept of how meaningful that is in dollars in in the project. I agree that I think the cap, the not to exceed is the right approach. And then a really probably some standards that you'd have to think about of what, you know, what the situation I described, like if it's like not really available, you know, or if it's small or if it's not like that, like, is that, do you get, you could give if someone 20% cred or 25% credit, or if it's like not really available, you know, or if it's small or if it's not like that, like, is that, do you get, you could give someone 20% credit or 25% credit, or if it's like a really robust space, you get the whole 75. So I think there would need to be some level of standard that you would need to develop over time, but, but you generally, I think that, that sounds right, and that would just be my ask to when we come back to the, when we get to that point. Yeah, I appreciate I appreciate that. And I think even, I think it's good to look at what has happened before. I do think it will change based on if there is a standard that we're setting up here that didn't exist before, you will generate different outcomes by nature. If you're providing a credit or not providing a credit, if you're not providing a full credit, We are incentivizing and disincentivizing certain behavior, which will naturally just change what we get. I also think it would just be helpful how you envision this is the type of pops that would get the 75% amount. This is the type of pops that would get the 50% amount, and this is the type of pops that would get 25%. For instance, in consultation with planning staff and the planning board, I think that would be helpful for us to just process and know to make sure that we're comfortable with that. And I do think it would be helpful, you know, the two things that I heard here, and that I've heard in general about Pops. One is public access should be a key standard. You know, do you have a gate that's not open? That's not particularly accessible. It might be a public space, but if it's a public space, it's only open one hour a week. That's not particularly helpful to the community when they need it. The other is identifying community needs. Does it satisfy a master plan recommendation is identified in parks, community assessment needs, what is being delivered here because not all park amenities are created equally as well. And I don't think it has to be direct. I think the planning board's discretion is going to be important because each one of these projects and each one of these communities based on each one of these side plans is going to be different. And I think providing that discretion is a key part of the implementation here. But having some basis, I think as Councilmember Joondo is noting, I think it would be important of what is the consideration that the planning board is going to base this off of without it being, you get two points for this and one point for that because we've seen with public benefits points and others that that's not always the best way to get the best public benefits on a project by project basis. Does that seem reasonable? Yeah, I think that sounds great. We can definitely work on bringing that back. And I just want to underline the point that was being made a couple of times in the conversation that this is a really useful tool and that the intention of it in the way it's written in the one time that we have used the full Parkland dedication reduction is that this is a tool that incentivizes providing above and beyond the public open space. So the reduction is really a tool and having that extra tool to incentivize uneven bigger pops in the same sort of way that we can incentivize and even bigger. Parkland is a piece of fully dedicated Parkland is very useful and that it does,, to your point, Councilor Murrath, it is currently restricted to have to be a public open space that's recommended in the plan already. So that that piece has already baked in. And there are, like you mentioned, a lot of other things that we can keep working on to continue to make it even more robust. Great. So I think you've heard feedback from committee members. I think there's a general agreement here. We appreciate the direction that is recommended here. There's some refinement of the language. We have a suggestion from the park's team here of what that could look like. We'll provide feedback to Miss Dunn on that in the interven weeks and we'll be ready to adopt actual language. When we come back and we'd also ask the council staff and park staff and planning staff work together to think through what the Bos language would look like and have an understanding of that. We don't have to adopt language when we come back because that could be included in the master plan, but at least a strategic direction of where we're going so that there's an understanding as part of this recommendation. Great. Thank you. The next section we're gonna cover is affordable housing, and as your recall, affordable housing was a key priority in the 2017 plan. The 2017 plan and the BAS both require 15% MPD use for optional method of development projects. This is compared to 12.5% in other places in the county. There's a map in the staff report that shows where we've received regulated affordable units in the plan area. I'll just note, unfortunately, some properties owned by HOC on battery lane were left out of this map, so we'll have an update next time we do our staff report. And just to also note that under the BAS, we have received over 400 MPD using the downtown Bethesda, more are approved for future construction. However, what the master plan amendment notes is that incentives do not specifically address the pressing need for family-sized MPDUs, those that have three or more bedrooms, and nor does it address the need for more deeply affordable MPDUs. And these can be a challenge to have built due to that combination of high per unit cost and reduced rental income. So the master plan amendment has two recommendations related to this and recommends updating the BAS to allow the planning board in coordination with DHCA to extend existing MPDU incentives when you're providing only 15% MPDUs, but providing those family-sized MPDUs that exceed the minimum number required under Chapter 25A and or you are providing deeply affordable MPDUs as defined by DHCA. This is a subtle but important recommendation. I just want to put a fine point on it. The idea of the 17 and a half as part of the BAS was to incentivize going above and beyond the the MPD requirement. And the question is, what does above and beyond mean? Here we are extending the above and beyond to two other priorities that go beyond just percentage. Percentage is a priority. We want as many MPDUs and restricted units as we can noting that the other folks who are living and moving into these units are subsidizing and paying for that, and it's increasing their cost, but it's an important priority in order to get mixed-income communities within reason, within what everybody else in the community can afford that doesn't completely price everybody out, and that's the balance in the rub. What this is doing is extending the above and beyond to include two other key priorities, including some that committee members have advocated for Councilmember Jawanda has advocated in a number of areas for the family-sized units. That would be one of the examples here, which is important and deeper levels of affordability, which all of us have advocated for. The county executive has discussed repeatedly as well, and this would allow both of those to be part of the going above and beyond standard, which I personally think is a really good idea, and I think would be really helpful, and we have some other precedent for pushing and advocating for that as well. I do appreciate that you noted, because I spoke about this in the original briefing at the full council about the HOC properties. I know that it doesn't necessarily – preservation projects aren't necessarily going through the regulatory review process, as they don't always get captured by planning in the same way. But they're important, and they are part of this conversation and part of this narrative. And I think need to be included in that. And I will note the work of this council, the nonprofit preservation fund, is what made a substantial number of those preservation units possible, is the first major project of the $50 million non-procved preservation fund, and something that I think, you know, that I'm proud of, I think something that we all should be proud of as we have advanced that through the process. Let me open it up to colleagues. If there are comments or questions on this. The President is on good. All right, agree to agree. Strong support for this recommendation and thank you for putting it forward and thanks for adding the preservation units as part of H. O. C's portfolio. Right, we will have that updated map for the next time. The next thing is about naturally occurring affordable housing and again this is a term as we've frequently discussed. I came up in the Viers Mill Plan, the Silver Spring Downtown and the Jason Community Plan, and that took Coma Park Minor Master Plan amendment all recently, which included the language to strive for no net loss. And the language that the Master, Minor Master Plan amendment here for Bethesda would recommend is very similar that it would be to strive for no net loss of naturally occurring affordable units within the larger B development, particularly in conjunction with the recommendation regarding the family sized and deeply affordable units. And again, I think it gets to that trade off of whether we're getting more and more numbers versus are we getting something that really benefits a certain segment of our community that we find don't always get as much as the peer numbers would would imply so Council staff suggest the committee support that recommendation Can we hear from planning on this? Lisa Gavoni for the record. So this has been a really important recommendation that has been included in several recent master plans. We think that it's really important to have this conversation here because we are seeing redevelopment. But that's some of these properties are at least approved plans to do so. Councilmember Jawondo asked a question during the briefing, what does implementation look like? The reality is we haven't seen a project come in in any of these plans that has been in a no net loss plan of what that looks like. We would work with the Department of Housing and Community Affairs to figure out what implementation looks like. DHA is also asked for a work group on the topic so that we can work together to figure out further when implementation means. Happy to answer any questions. Councillor O'Rourke, Dronda. Since I was invoked here, I'll speak up. But thank you. And obviously, we had a lot of discussion over the years about strive versus actually mandate. And while we all want this to happen, I think you're underscoring a point like we haven't had a test case yet of this. So I think those are both good ideas, the working group and also just keeping in close touch on it because this is going to come up more and more and more as we go forward. What is the question I did have, and so I'm fine with the recommendation because that's what we've done before, and I think it's good. Obviously, if strive comes to mean we don't do it at all later, I'll have a problem with that, but I don't think that's where we're coming from here. So what is the number of naturally occurring affordable housing within this plan? So Chair Harris asked me to comply on that information. I'm working on that right now. I will have a map along with the numbers by full council. I just don't have that right now. Okay. No, that's all right. You always get turned to. They were turned to right, but then they turned back as soon as I asked that question. So I know you got a lot going on. Okay, so we'll have that by full council, not by the 24th, you think by full counsel. I could probably have a. Yeah. I'm just I'm just curious. I think that's something to know as we're going in, eyes wide open of it bears to the likelihood of it helps to give us a context in which how do we make sure this happens like the striving actually happens and we know how much we're dealing with. So yeah. Alright. Awesome. Thank you. Okay, so we will move forward with that. Hopefully we'll get the information by the 24th if possible, but we would prefer that. Thank you for your work on that. Let's move on to the height and So also related to affordable housing in the 2017 plan, MPDUs in general in the county are allowed to exceed their height to the extent that they need to provide those MPDUs in the, but those to overlay zone. There's a provision that supersedes this that you have to be located within the height incentive area to receive that additional height. This was done really to protect some of the very small-scale single-family housing that really does about the downtown area in Bethesda. And the heightened center area map is shown on page 14 in the staff report. And you can see that what was excluded, and we saw this on the tour. It was referenced. a few block area that is to the east of Arlington Road between Moreland, Dwayne, and Bologna-Gumrie Avenue. During the plan development at the planning board, it was added that there was a recommendation to include this area that had been excluded from the height and center of area map to now become included in that height and center of area. You'll see the adjusted map to show what this looks like on page 15. I know that there could be a discussion of whether we agreed whether height should be or not be allowed to increase in the plan. I will say that this is not a map height, so at least it's not violating the planning board's message that they did not increase the site specific height. This isn't a site specific in the sense that it was map height, but it would be increasing height for this height and set of portion of the bars. So with that, I appreciate that. I'll just note, we've been involved in a number of different conversations that have been occurring over the last many months. As this has come up, even before the decision to make this a minor master plan amendment, which I do think was the appropriate process for us moving forward with this question, I think, has allowed for much more public engagement and discussion as we needed. I will say that there were a number of conversations, this recommendation did come at a significant surprise to the community. There were significant numbers of conversations that occurred with staff that occurred, that occurred with my office, that were relayed to the community, and there was a specific question of whether or not the heightened incentive area would be included as part of this recommendation. It was shared that it would not be included as part of this recommendation. And now it is included as part of this recommendation. I understand that there is a process that the planning board has the right to make any changes as they wish. But from a process standpoint, even though I philosophically agree and would love to see affordable housing here, would have loved to have seen it frankly in the original Bethesda downtown plan, I'm concerned about the integrity of the process when we made certain commitments and shared certain information with the community about certain expectations for what this master plan amendment would look like and what would be included and not included and then it was change and there really isn't adequate opportunity for them to even weigh in to the planning board because understandably because they were told it wasn't included and it wasn't in the staff recommendation. They did not go to the planning board and state their case and share why they didn't think it should be included. So for that reason, I'm not particularly comfortable with this even though I personally philosophically think if we were starting from scratch and deciding the height and scent of area, what should be included and not included, this is an area I think should be included, but that's not what was shared and I think there's a process concerned that I have here that I'm not sure I'm comfortable moving forward with it. I don't know if there are colleagues that want to speak to this or if planning wants to speak, but as noted, it's not a philosophical concern. It's a process-based concern, but I think the process is important. And that's ultimately the issue for me. But let me see if there's any comments from planning and see if there are any comments from colleagues. Yeah, so thank you for the backstory. Well, we didn't know that story then. So, and we thought that this was a great opportunity to provide that additional incentive because there was the boundary between it and the neighboring community. They weren't just built up against it. There was, let me be, what do we say, a half of a football, three quarters of a football field from here to the nearest home. So that's why the board thought it would be a great opportunity to do this. And also to help implement some of the other things you're looking for in the plan, opportunities for maybe a community center, maybe all of those things that you're talking about, this would be also could be a great site, but you would have to give some hype and other things. And also affordable housing, such needed. But I'm saying that, that's why the board voted for this because of those pieces. So I'll leave it there. Yeah. I wonder if there's a, if the committee is interested in the concept, but it's concerned about how this came be in the draft plan. If there could be some compromise language or some consider language that could be added instead of the plan saying that it recommends expanding the heightened incentive area to Arlington Road in this area instead. Because this would have to be implemented through a zoning tax amendment that would change the bus. And I wonder if it could just be that the plan recommends studying the potential expansion of. And that could then ensure that there's a more thorough process before such a change would be implemented. I appreciate that suggestion. I would ask that you come up with specific language and share it with us, and then we can come back on the 24th. If there's interest from the community members and I haven't heard them way in yet, but I would personally, just speaking for myself, and on behalf of the committee, would entertain language that you shared and decide and light of that language of whether or not it would satisfactorily address the process concern. With that, let me turn to Councilmember Fondagin's House. Yes, I think that's a great idea. I think we need to, there's a, because from what I'm hearing, people are concerned about the process, but they may not, they may be okay with the height that you are recommended in the addition. So maybe if we can clarify that especially with the community who's concerned about this, that will be helpful. So we can move on. Appreciate that Councilor Drona. Always happy to review anything. Any recommendation that you bring forward? I think that I also, as with any incentive, the question is always, well, what are you getting for the incentive? So we're giving them, you know, what are we asking for in return? So I would want to evaluate it in the context of that. I share their process concern that the chair mentioned. You know, again, realizing the planning board is an appointed body that can make its own decisions after staff makes recommendations. But I do think particularly this context with the IEC and everyone that was kind of following along, it was not ideal that it happened this way. So yeah, happy to look at it. But could you just talk about, maybe this would be a good time to just ask this question in addition to looking at what you bring. So your thought here was, what would this, let's just state exactly what this would do if we could, it may be council stuff. So, currently the heightened set of mapout that exists on page 14 shows if you provide more than the minimum required, which is required 15 percent MPDs, if you provide more than the minimum required MPDs in your in the heightened set of area, you can get additional height for the provision of. How much more do you have to provide? Doesn't specify. 17.5%. The 17.5, okay. Great, okay. And in the piece that's being considered being added, you would now become part of that heightened incentive map. But for that area, there's further language in the master plan that limits it to 24 feet or two stories. And in the change, so this would be expanding the area that you're allowed to get that extra. Expanding the area and further limiting the amount of the increase that would be allowed. Right. To 20. Two stories or 24? Two story because it's 12 feet per. Okay. In addition to what you already can do. Obviously. Yeah, that's why it's an extra height. Okay. Go ahead. If you look on figures two and three, you could see the what is currently in the height and center of area and if you look on figure three is just that piece Like a two-block error that's filled in that would come on Arlington do you see that yep? That is the area where it would be Okay, but yeah, like I said if you could you're happy to take a look but Share some of the concern, but happy to take a look. Thank you. Appreciate that. Come back with the language. We'll review it and consider it. I understand the philosophical. The issue is the process. And so let's see if there's a way to address that. I appreciate that and reiterate what was noted here. These are single family home structures, but they actually largely house businesses in this area. So, obviously, that may or may not be relevant to folks, but I do think it's important to note and to mention. So I go to some of those businesses. There are some nice ones there. I do too. I walk by this area every single day. If anybody knows what is being discussed here, it's me. This is my regular walk every weekend and most week days. So I am very, very aware of it. And I oftentimes walk through the neighborhood in order to get there. So I certainly – I can tell you how many steps it is from the neighborhood because I'm oftentimes walking through there. All right. Well, I appreciate the suggestion and we'll review it and we'll take it up in two weeks. Let's move forward. All right. The next section we have are all the additional modifications that are really related to the Bethesda overlay zone. We can walk through these step-by-step or we can bring these back next time with you. Yeah, I think we should bring them back next time. I think we have a number of things that we're going to return on that is language that will be taken up ultimately in the BAS. I think it will seamlessly work in that conversation next time. So I think this is a clean place for us to end. So let me turn it over. will be taken up ultimately in the BAS. I think it will seamlessly work in that conversation. Next time, I think this is a clean place for us to end. So let me turn it over to the planning director, if he has any comments here, but I think before we go into each of those item by item, I think this will work well with the return items that we have for next week. Thank you. I just wanted to circle back on something in the conversation we had earlier. We have folks back in who are paying attention to what we're doing here and are feeding us information on the fly I did do want to clarify so the 2024 that as the monitoring report did we did conduct the traffic counts and we did Calculate the delay what we didn't do was compare it to a particular delay standard. So the delay standard had been 120 seconds delay and what we're saying, because we don't do that, set that standard and compare to that standard for, and we don't do it for an element application. The question of failure, the question of adequacy doesn't exist because we haven't set a standard to determine. But we capture the data. So, collected the data, the question is, is it appropriate to set an adequacy standard if we've decided that that's not a standard we think is appropriate for this area? And that's a question that we can have and you know, or whether, you know, we should or shouldn't have that, whether that makes sense or doesn't, or whether there's another alternative standard that we should be using, which is something that I'm interested in having our council staff work with planning staff and getting feedback. I think that would be helpful as well, because there could be another standard that's more appropriate to an urban environment that reflects our safety goals as well as our transportation adipers' procedural. I appreciate it. Thank you for the live update. If it's not super onerous, I would love to just see the apples to apples comparison, even if we're not going to use it. You know, I just, because we had one in the packet that did use that old one, it would just be good to look at and just to know where we are. And if we move to a different standard, which is is more appropriate given vision zero and everything I'm open to that But let's add that as part of the packet or an addendum to the packet for the 24th Well, you have the data. It's already yeah, it's in it's in our actual let's just snapshot it Let's include it in the packet in the yeah Well the monitoring report was a staff report. It's you'll we'll the link. All right. We'll follow up on that. It'll be either included in the packet or as an addendum to the packet for March 24th, so that it's available to the public and to council members and to staff. With that, we'll come back with item seven and the BAS and all the follow items from today. Appreciate planning and park staff and the planning board chair and council staff and colleagues and with that we are adjourned.