Good afternoon. We are here for a council session on September 24th. Thank you to Secretary Day, who has joined us in Montgomery County these last couple of days with his entire team to check out some of our exciting projects in Montgomery County done in partnership with the state and with our housing partners. We're going to begin today with a proclamation recognizing the coalition for Green Capital by Councilmember Fondingen-Zellas. She's us. We're family. Good afternoon. My name is Natalie Funning on Salas and I have a great honor of giving a proclamation to an amazing group of individuals who work in Montgomery County and you make this county. And I always hate to call this way, how to call this way, make Montgomery County such an amazing and sustainable place to live. So news for all of you who have no idea, the United States environmental and protection agency APA has announced there were five billion dollars from the National Clean Investment Fund to the Coalition for Green Capital on the Greenhouse Reduction Fund Competition. This award is vital in addressing climate change and fostering sustainable development. The Maryland Coalition of Green Banks including the Montgomery County Green Bank. Thank you so much. In the Maryland Clean Energy Center, in the Climate Access Fund, we will be vital in utilizing this funding to drive significant environmental and economic impact across Maryland. They are pretty much three critical aspects on this award, building decarbonization to reduce emissions from the built environment, destroying clean energy, and electrical cars adaptation. These programs will be implemented strongly emphasizing the benefit of low income and disadvantaged communities. That's why this is so special too. With this I would like to buy some I can perhaps you guys can introduce yourselves and share a few words before we give you the proclamation. Wonderful. Well thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Steven Morrell. I'm the CEO of the Montgomery County Green Bank. We're very excited about bringing this funding from the federal government to Montgomery County and Maryland broadly. So thank you so much. Hi, I'm Bonnie Norman. I'm a former board chair of the Montgomery County Green Bank from fiscal year 21 through 24 ending June 30. So we're really pleased with the progress the Green Bank has made and making a difference to the county and in the community growing 100 fold over that time period in terms of our project investment. Really appreciate this award with 60% of that more than that going to disadvantage communities this year. Hello my name is Taniya McDuffey. I am the Director of Communications with the Montgomery County Green Bank. I'm going to go to the next floor. Hello, my name is Tanaya McDuffee. I am the director of communications with the Montgomery County Green Bank. And we are very proud and this makes us one step closer to reaching the county's climate goals. Hello, I'm Marissa Ramirez. I'm a vice chair with the Montgomery County Green Bank Board of Directors. And I'm also just really honored to receive this proclamation and just really proud of the work that the Green Bank has done in supporting the people and the small businesses around our community. Thank you so much. And with that, I'm going to proceed and read the proclamation. The County Council of Montgomery County Maryland Proclamation, whereas the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced its selection of the Coalition for Green Capital for an award of $5 billion from the National Clean Investment Fund under a competition conducted under the EPA's Green House Gas Reduction Fund. And whereas under this momentous grant, the Maryland Coalition of Green Banks, a collaborative effort between the Montgomery County Green Bank, the Maryland Clean Energy Center, and Climate Access Fund, will be able to leverage the Coalition for Green Capital War into the significant impact for Maryland. And whereas the Maryland Coalition for Green Banks, we use the funding to invest in clean energy throughout Maryland, with at least 50% of investment targeting towards low income and disadvantaged communities, and whereas funding for programming isn't dissipated to be used in three key areas. Building decolonization, distributing clean energy and electric vehicles, adoption, and whereas these programs will be deployed with a significant focus on benefiting low income and disadvantaged communities to promote a just transition to a clean economy. And whereas the collaboration between the Maryland Collision of Green Banks and Collision for Green Capital has been instrumental in driving forward the accessibility and affordability of clean energy and climate resigning solutions for all. And whereas this achievement marks a significant milestone for Maryland. And Montgomery County Green Bank is proud to join forces with Maryland Clean Energy Center and Climate Access Fund in expelling an inclusive transition towards a clean energy future. Now, therefore, we resolve that the Montgomery County Council does you by recognize and command the Montgomery County Green Bank for the remarkable efforts in achievements in securing this funding and their dedication to advancing clean energy and promoting environmental justice in Maryland. And before the resolve that the Council expresses its gratitude to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its support, and commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fostering sustainable development through the National Clean Investment Fund. Presenting on this day, 24th of September, in the year of 2024, by my cell, Council Member Nara Lifani Gonzalez, Council President Andrew Feachon, and the entire Montgomery County Council, let's please smile, take a photo, and I, since where are we, if you want to come? Come on. Come on. Come on. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go our meeting with a proclamation recognizing Commissioner how we dentists my predecessors predecessor as the district one council member and it will be presented by myself and by chair Evan Glass. It is my great honor to be able to recognize a friend, a great mentor, somebody who defines public service and has dedicated his life to over 50 years of public service really at every level of government. At the county level, the state level, and at the federal level working in the United States Congress and here at the county council. No stranger to the day us, no stranger to this body who could have retired at any point in time over the last couple of decades probably, but instead has made additional careers to continue his life and legacy and his commitment to our community, to our county, and to our country. When we faced a significant challenge in recent years where we were threatened by the prospect of a challenging property tax regime to take a bad and broken policy and make it worse, which could have threatened to put a stranglehold on our ability to fund schools and libraries and recreation centers. We joined together as a county and as a council and we wrote a new path forward to not only stop the problem from getting worse but to fix the problem entirely. And we needed to get credibility. We needed to make sure that this was a bipartisan effort. And the first person to raise his hand, the first person to step up, the first person to lend his infinite credibility to this effort was how he done it. It was just the latest in what has been an entire career and an entire lifetime dedicated to serving the community, focused only on what would make our communities, our neighborhoods, our county stronger. I am so grateful to be able to call my friends, so honored to be able to pick up the phone and lean on him for advice. He has been serving as the WSSC commissioner for the last several years. We finally put him out of his misery and let him go on a well-deserved vacation with his wonderful wife who has lent him to us and to the county for so many years. Thank you to you as well for all of your support and to your entire family for allowing all of us among Montgomery County and in our community to benefit from how we Dennis who has truly been the definition of servant leader and the finest examples of a true statement statesmen in our community. With that, let me turn it over to the chair of the Environment Committee, my colleague Evan Glass. Thank you very much, Mr. President. We are all here in Rockville and raised our hands to run for the council because we wanted to help our community. And howie Dennis has been the embodiment of helping his community for decades. And you are, as Council President noted, you are an example for all of us. You are certainly the type of Republican I like. I will say that. And enlightened one, a progressive one, and a one who wants to help everybody in our community. And I hope others take note of that. And while you have served in the general assembly and you have served here on the council, the WSSC post might have been the most challenging because there's a lot of challenges there, but you were there and you raised your hand because we needed you, because everybody deserves clean, safe, drinking water and to make sure that our infrastructure works. But how we sincere thank you for a lifetime of dedication. Thank you to your family for lending him to all of us in Montgomery County for all these years. And we hope you'll continue raising your hand. Thank you. Thank you. It's really cool. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm humbled and grateful by this proclamation. Permit me to introduce my wife, Bebet. The love and mainstay of my life with 38 years. Serving Montgomery County has always been an honor. Serving on the County Council was a special honor. I want to thank Roscoe Knicks of Blessed Memory, who taught me that if you're in the minority of anything, you need allies to get things done. And I want to thank Tom Perez, perhaps my closest colleague, when I was on the council. And I, Leggett, who I served with as well, and who was a council member for three terms, and then a county executive for three terms. I want to thank them for their friendship and comradeship when we were colleagues here. Carpe Diem to all who serve. And may God continue to bless our great county, state, and country. Thank you very much. Thank you for your grace and your class, the things that we don't see enough of in politics. We need more civility and how Edenis is an example of that. And so not only is it important to recognize him at this moment in his career, I think it's more important than ever to be able to recognize and acknowledge him at this moment for our country, at this moment in the state of our political discourse and our politics, somebody who has always done this the right way. With that, Chair Glass and I are going to read this proclamation for the Montgomery County Council. Whereas Howard A. Dennis has dedicated nearly 40 years of his life to exemplary public service, representing Montgomery County with unwavering distinction and integrity. And. Whereas as a Maryland state senator for 18 years, he championed the needs of his constituents, advocating for laws and policies that advanced the well-being of our communities. And whereas how he Dennis further served on the Montgomery County Council for six impactful years where his leadership in land use and planning shaped the future of Montgomery County with thoughtful and responsible governance and Whereas he was appointed as a commissioner to the WSSC water in January 2016, and led the commission as chairman from June 2020 to 2021, and vice chair from 2021 onward, ensuring that the water and sewer services of our region continue to meet the highest standards of quality and sustainability. And whereas his legacy extends to national service, having contributed his expertise and passion for good governance, governance as part of the congressional staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for two decades. And whereas his leadership was also recognized beyond the halls of state and local government, as he served on the Maryland State Lottery Commission, and was a five-time delegate to the Republican National Convention. And, whereas, his dedication to public service is further rooted in his academic excellence Having earned a BA in government and a law degree from Georgetown University And in his life long ties to Montgomery County as a proud graduate of Bethesda Chevy Chase high school like my mother As I'm reminded now therefore be it resolved at the County Council of Montgomery County Maryland hereby celebrates Howard A. Dennis and be it further resolved at the County Council recognizes his remarkable career and expresses our deepest gratitude for his tireless service, leadership and contributions to the betterment of our community, wishing him, his wife, and his family well in this well-deserved retirement, presented very proudly on this 24th day of September in the year 2024 by Evan Glass and Andrew Freedson as Council President on behalf of all of our colleagues on the County Council who will invite down to take a picture. I'm sorry. you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. Thank you again to Howie Dennis for being such a great role model to all of us here, to me especially, and to everybody in public life, really as an example of how to embody true servant leadership. Thank you. Okay. Colleagues, we're now going to move on to general business. I don't believe there are any announcements today and there are no minutes for approval. So we are going to move right along to item number one, a public hearing on a resolution, to approve disposition of county public parking lots 25 and 44 located in Bethesda, Maryland, a joint transportation environment and government operations and fiscal policy committee work session is scheduled for September 30th, 2024, those wishing to submit material for the council's consideration should you so by the close of business today. There are no speakers for this public hearing, so this public hearing is now closed. We're going to move on to item number two. I see Miss Nidoo and Miss Bern are here with us. We'll invite them up to the table. The council will now sit as the district council for agenda item number two A oral arguments and possible action on local map amendment H-149 regarding the property located at the intersection of Randolph Road and Georgia Avenue. So for spring Maryland is part of parcel A, plat number 6337 in parcel B, plat number 8065 in the Americana Glenmont subdivision and the Americana Glenmont apartments subdivision. I'm going to call on Miss Nidoo to provide an overview of the item and the process that we are going to undertake and then we will move on through this proceeding. Mr. Nguyen. Good afternoon council members. So I have a few things to brief you on here. First as noted, LMAH149 is a rezoning in Glenmont. This property is near Wheaton Regional Park and off of Randolph Road. There is a map of an request that was not voted on last week because it and it went to my junk mail folder. Paul, working with IT on that issue. So you will either grant or deny that additional request for oral argument. There are two issues in that request. The first is the proposed connection at Erskin, which you're already hearing arguments on, and then a new issue, which is the walkability from this development to the Metro station. After that, you will need a motion to suspend the rules for the resolutions in the packet, because they're being introduced and acted on on the same day. So that is the procedural stuff. So what actually happened before the hearing examiner is the hearing examiner recommended approval of this application but with a condition. So under the zoning ordinance, the council can only approve, remand, or deny an application. So there are four options before you. Of course, you're always welcome to get creative. If there's an option I didn't think of, feel free to vote for that. These are on page nine of your staff report. So what I've noted is option A is to approve the application. Approving the application in this case would mean as the plan was submitted to OSA so that would be with the through-street at Erskin. Option B is to remand for the limited purpose of a revised floating zone plan so that would be consistent with the HAMI examiners recommendation. The way that would work is you'd have a resolution which is in your staff report and it would be sent back down to OSA. She can open the record and actually have a lot of discussion on whether have additional hearing or not. She could open the record for two days just to get that revised plan that does not have the through street and send that back to council per approval. Option three, you are hearing oral argument today on three or four issues depending on your vote on Mr. Johnston's request. You could remand the application to get additional evidence and testimony on one, two, three, or four of the issues that you hear about today. There are, I should have said some top. There are three draft resolutions in the staff report for you to give you some options. The options C resolution has all four of those issues, but that's something if you want to do just a couple of those, I can make those quick edits here. Option D is to deny the application. There is not a resolution for that option in your packet. It's not something the hearing examiner recommended or something the oral arguments requested but it is still something that the council could do. So if you'd like to deny the application, he would make a motion to straw vote that today and then we'd come back next week and I'd have a resolution for you to deny the application altogether. The legal standard that you will be looking at as you hear these oral arguments is on the second page of the cover sheet. So what the council has to find from this application is that it substantially conforms with the master plan is compatible with adjacent uses in the surrounding area. We'll be served by adequate public facilities and satisfies the intent and standards of the zone. You need a majority vote here. I know that the cover sheet says five. It should say six. Council members is required for approval or any of those other roll call votes. There are also a couple rules for the oral argument itself. Everyone speaking today must stick to what was granted in their initial request. Also, they must stick to what was in the record before the hearing examiner. So Ms. Bern is here and if needed we'll interrupt the speaker if there is something that is outside of the record. So those are all the procedural and legal issues for you today. Thank you. If it is okay with staff, I will call for an accept a motion to grant Mr. Johnson's oral argument request. As noted, Mr. Johnson was made aware of this and so if granted is prepared to speak today. So moved. Seconded by Councilor Funding and Zalos. Seconded by Councilmember Luki. All those in favor of granting this request. That is unanimous. Mr. Johnson will be added to our second panel to testify momentarily before we begin oral arguments. We have a parliamentary procedure to address that we need to allow for the introduction of a resolution to be acted on at this same meeting. So I will accept a motion to waive the rules of procedure, rules 7D to allow introduction and action or resolution to be acted on the same day as it is introduced. So move second. Moved by Council Member Fondin Gonzales, seconded by Council Member Luki. All those in favor, please indicate by raising your hand. That is unanimous. And the rules of procedure have been suspended so that we may act on a resolution on the same day of introduction. Let me now call on Ms. Fern to provide a summary of her report and on the recommendations in that report. Good afternoon everyone. I just want to give you a little bit of kind of a brief, am I, am I, is this better? Okay, give you a little bit of an overview. When you take a look at the hearing examiners report, it's a little daunting to say the least when you take a look at it. So Ms. Lodoo itemized for you those sections in 7.1.2e that talk about the necessary findings that the district council has to make. Not only do you have to make those, but you have to circle back to other sections and 59-5 and 59-6. 59-6 gets into some of the nitty gritty on general development. 59-5 tells you what's the purpose of the zone, what's the intent of the zone, what are the things that you look at? So there is overlap. So there's overlap in 7.1.2e along with purpose and intent. They use a lot of the same language. So when you take a look at the report and the findings in conclusion section, you'll see that there are cut and pasted different sections from those so that we tackle the issues all in one place. So what's being sought is current rezoning from an R30 multifamily to commercial residential floating zone, CRF 1.75, C0.25, R1..5 H 75 feet. Really numbers, right? But when you when you get in there and you look at what the requirements are, that's all contained in the zone. So when you look at the hearing examiner's plan section A of the findings and conclusions focuses on substantial conformance with master plans, neighborhood compatibility, adequate public facilities, general public interest. B gets into intent and purpose of the proposed zone. C focuses on act quick ability of the floating zone. And then D talks about building types uses and development standard for that particular zone. One of the difficulties in the position where you sit is there's a little bit of a chicken and an egg situation. So you're looking at the floating zone plan. You're looking at conformance with master plan, looking at compatibility. You're not getting into how many stop signs are there, what the intersections look like, what the streets are. And in this particular instance, with conformance with the master plan, the sector plan calls for it, right? They've identified those zones that would work here. They've identified the surrounding neighborhood. So the applicant did a really good job of preparing and explaining the transition from the zone and how it would apply. The piece that I struggled with, and this comes from 59-5 and also from 7.1.2 E2, I think it's C or B, and it talks compatibility with surrounding neighborhood. Preservation of adjacent uses. C or B, and it talks compatibility with surrounding neighborhood. Preservation of adjacent uses. When you, the things that I found in, when I made the condition of the no-urskin as a through-street, it's insure protection of established neighborhoods, protect the care of adjacent neighborhoods, and be compatible with approved development. There's only one that doesn't say that one or more required findings is greater than the other. So you have to make a finding independently on each one of those requirements. The sector plan for this particular property 100% calls for this type of redevelopment. Talks about this in density. It's transit oriented density. This is where you want people, right? Close to where you have metro. But the little neighborhood to the right, which is, or to the east, which is our 90, doesn't fall within the 2013 Glenmont sector plan. So it's different. The sector plan does call for through streets, but the impact of a vehicle through street from such a high density area, which will be jumping from 482 units to 2,275 units, has the possibility of creating heavy vehicle traffic in a neighborhood that when you I listened to the testimony of the individuals who live there and the other thing that I found persuasive to me was not only the testimony of how they live and where they live it's unique and if you look at how close the houses are to the street and you look at the housing types, you can tell that they were developed over time. It's almost, there was no development plan for these 20 odd houses between Glen Allen and the subject property. You can tell from the style, you can tell from the distance to the road, you can tell from the mature trees that this is a very different neighborhood than what we have proposed. So in protecting that existing neighborhood and that adjacent, I think the two can live side by side, but how do you ensure protection of the existing compatibility? And one of the questions that I did ask of the expert was, do we always connect through streets, even if the sector plan calls for it? And the answer was no. So the reason is you have to kind of look at the facts and the boots on the ground. So what I found persuasive was the testimony of the neighbors looking at that plan and just looking at the two differences in the development and the fact that this R90 neighborhood to the right wasn't part of the Glenmont sector plan. Those were findings to me that said, you know, would be an issue for compatibility if Erskine were to go through as a through street. Now, pedestrian bike, possibly yes, but I think cars would have the greatest impact. The right of way would be 60 feet if it was developed all the way through and it would have an immediate impact on the adjacent of that neighborhood. In addition, the tree canopy would also need to be altered for, and the environment would, you'd have to take additional trees out in order for this road to connect. Those were the things that I found persuasive in making this requirement, but those particular exhibits and the testimony of the neighborhoods. Everything else lined up. And if you take a look at my findings based on the testimony and the preparation of the applicant, this is the one place I struggled was that compatibility finding. And if Erskine wasn't a through street, you would preserve the character of those 20 houses because you wouldn't have the traffic coming through, you wouldn't change the tree canopy, you wouldn't have the noise, you wouldn't have the impact. That to me was why I made that finding. And as far as I think I'd also like the opportunity to essentially explain how I held the hearing and address some of the issues raised by the opposition as well. There was an allegation of an inability to cross-examine witnesses. The rules give the hearing examiner a broad discretion in how to run a hearing, specifically looking at Section 4.2 allows the hearing examiner to regulate the hearing, specifically looking at Section 4.2 allows a hearing examiner to regulate the hearing, maintain orderly public hearing, take any other action under these rules. Section 4.5 specifically addresses cross examination. This cross examination will be subject to reasonable regulation by the hearing examiner. And ordinary presentation, the order of presentation may be changed by the hearing examiner. In this instance, we had eight individuals who wanted to testifying opposition. When we had the first expert witness come up, I asked was there a spokesperson for the group? Did someone want to ask those particular questions? It was at that point, there was a little bit of back and forth and I said we can take a break. You guys can get together, figure out what questions you want to ask. If there is one person in particular, there was opposition from an individual present who said that not one person could represent everybody else's interests. So what I said, and it's in the transcript, and was, this is how we're going to do it. We're going to let the applicant get through their entire case and chief when each individual person comes up to testify as to what their opposition is. We're going to retain the experts here from the applicant. You can call them at that time, ask them any question that you want. This is in the transcript. This was acknowledged by individuals in the room. No one called any of the experts at the end when they pulled their testimony forward. So I changed the order of cross-examination, but I never denied the ability for anybody to do cross-examination of the experts. What I found when you have a lot of individuals is it can get pretty disjointed when you allow everybody to cross examine at the same time. It's either good to have one or two spokesperson's or to reorganize it. And sometimes it's good to hear all of the testimony from the applicant because there is overlap between civil engineers and traffic experts. So you want to hear it all in order to get those questions formulated. So I want to address that point. The next point was the impact of a Bromell Engineering Report that Mr. Takamoto, an individual neighbor, objected to. He had an engineer review the stormwater management plans that were submitted as part of the application. His engineer was not present. I accepted the engineering report. He testified to it, testified to the credentials of the engineers that put on the case. One of the difficulties when you have an expert witness is they have to be qualified. So when you go through and you look at the transcript, you'll see that the applicant's experts were each qualified. They talked individually about their education, their experience, the number of times that they've testified before panels. And then I make a determination as to, is this person qualified as an expert? Yes or no? When you only have the report and you don't have the person, you can't qualify the person, you can't qualify that person as an expert because they didn't communicate to me what their qualifications were. I can read them on paper and I can take them 100% at face value, but I can't ask them how many times have you testified before this body? Have you testified before other bodies as an expert in stormwater management. So an objection was made by the Appling at the end that I give it the weight that it deserves and not give it the weight of expert testimony, which I acknowledged and understood. The report itself did point out that they disagreed with the applicant's expert on how and where the water flows to and from the site. But both the Brownwell report and the applicant agreed on stormwater management that it's very, very early in the stages and a lot of times the stormwater management will change and it doesn't become final until site plan and then again you have to go through permitting review. Right now there is zero storm water management on the property. It was developed in 1962 so all you have is channeled water. No quality, no efforts to address quality, no efforts to address quantity. Minimal impact, like minimal improvements on stormwater management would be in the public interest. But this site, if redeveloped, will have to come up to both county and state thresholds. But we don't get into the weeds on that here. We just look at, is there a stormwater management plan that's been proposed? Yes or no? Yes. All of the weeds as to how it's constructed, the amount of runoff that it'll address, where those points are, are all developed later with the experts. I'm not an expert. I don't know if any of you guys are experts on stormwater management, but it's at that point that it is addressed. As far as the walkability to Metro, this issue was raised during the hearing. I think Ms. Fregani was the individual who said that it would be challenging at best. I don't think there's her exact words. I think she was a little more passionate about the ability to get from this location to the Glenmont Metro and the challenges that would exist. In the 7.1.2 E2E, it talks about specifically you have to look at vehicle impact. So the LATR, the vehicle impact, it doesn't talk about pedestrian access yet, it doesn't talk about bicycle access yet. So their expert did testify to the reports that were done and then did say what would happen later. The applicant's expert said we have, I think it was 9,900,000 plus that the developer will have to put into improvements off site to develop this property. So what the sidewalk is going to look like, what the access to Glenmont Metro is going to look like for pedestrians and bicycles, we don't know yet. We don't know what that's going to look like or how that's going to look. At this stage, we are only required to look at the LATR and that analysis was done. And that's if anybody has any questions on any of that, I'm here. Open it up to colleagues. If anybody has any for the hearing examiner before we turn it to the panels. Yeah, I don't see any questions right now. It's really specifically for questions. I don't see any questions from colleagues. So we appreciate the summary of your report and your findings. We are going to call each person providing oral arguments up to the table in two groups. Group A and Group B, I'd like to note that Group B will include the applicant if there are any questions for the applicant, but if there are questions for the applicant, it should wait until Group B. Just wanna note that for colleagues, we're gonna allow the panels to all go through there a lot of time and then open it up to colleagues for questions at the end of each panel. So if you do have individual questions for any of those who are sharing testimony, if you could hold it until the end of the panel, then we'll open it up for questions for all of the parties on group A and then we'll call up group B and then we'll allow them to testify and then allow colleagues to ask questions for anybody in group B. Also for the record I want to acknowledge the written testimony that the body has received from Cecilia Anderson, ETN Marco and Lindsay Roe, regarding the proposed through street at Erskine Avenue, which was provided to council members and all parties and will be available to the public on the council's website immediately after this meeting. I'm going to now call up group A. Group A is Linda Bidlach, Leopoldo Villegas, Vicki Vignani. As a reminder, as I'm calling you up to the table, your oral argument must be limited to the allotted time. Also it must be limited to the topic or topics submitted in your request for an oral argument and limited to the record that was before the hearing examiner. Miss Bern is here to interject if any arguments provided today were not part of the record. We'll give you a moment to gather your things. And then Linda Bidlach, you'll have three minutes followed by Miss Leopoldo, Viegas, who will have three minutes. And Ms. Leopoldo, Viegas, who will have three minutes. And then Vicki Verniani will have five minutes based on testimony on two separate items, connection of Erskine Avenue and inability to cross-examine witnesses, two separate issues, and therefore we'll have five minutes rather than three minutes in order to speak to both of those issues. With that, let me turn it to Linda Bidlach. If you're ready, just make sure you hit your button. And when you're ready, you have three minutes. Thank you, Ms. Bern. And to all of you for your patients, this is very important to me. And I can't imagine you hearing these things from a million Montgomery County residents over the years of your term. So thank you. I'm a homeowner on Wallace Avenue, a connected street to Erskine Avenue. I'm speaking in opposition to the opening of Erskine to through traffic. And I grew up in Bethesda, so I've seen how change goes near Metro stations. And I know the kinds of improvements it brings, as well as the downsides. I've lived near Erskine a total of 20 years. Our two dead end streets are a little pocket to ourselves. With a big apartment complex just behind us, so you can't accuse us of NIMBY or not in my backyard. Glenmont Forest is appropriately named its tall, a green oasis worth saving and worth sharing with new residents if sized appropriately. The underlying problem with this application for floating zone is that it will enable the development to increase its density on that parcel four or fivefold. Proposing almost all one-bedroom units, which means every unit will likely have one or two cars. I can't fault the developers for thinking big, and I'm grateful their plan keeps tall structures along Randolph Road. But it fails to meet one essential criterion required, that it be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. And then I quote, as you'll see in my copy, the guide to Maryland's owning that says special precautions are to be applied to ensure that there will be no discordance with existing uses. Erskins existing uses basically a shared driveway serving three or four houses and is not a county road. The county doesn't snow plow it in winter. It connects to the narrow Glen Allen Avenue down to Brookside Gardens with a stream going all the way alongside it and Randolph wrote up here at the top. The tomography alone eliminated it from any planned bike lanes. We invite you to come and see it for yourselves, and we know that's allowed under the rules. See the steep turn involved, which could back up on Randolph, if cars came out of an Erskine at Rush Hour, which is the whole point of the idea in the plan. Watch the crowds of elementary and high school students crossing the streets right there and then step on to Erskine and see the fully grown tree cover that would be cut down. The bottom line is the hearing examiner made the right call. Respectfully, I say that the pressure on Erskin is because the planned project is too big, with too many cars for that parcel, right size the project and there will be no need to ruin our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Leopoldo Viegas, you have three minutes. Thank you, good afternoon. The honorable president Freddon and council members, my name is Leopoldo Viegas and a medical doctor, I live in 2008, Glen Allen Avenue. This is the intersection between asking Avenue with Glen Allen. I'm living with my human and non-human family members since 2001. We are first responders and thank you for this opportunity. The residents of Erskine Avenue include myself strongly support the recommendation of the Sonning to maintain our road as it's always been. You will hear and refer to the 1935 flat which was the first time we have all the wrote. And Erskine was never connected to anyone. Erskine is going through to the east of the Glemmon Forest Development, it grows Glein-A-Lang avenue, and there is another section after that. So we're talking about two sides of Glein-A-Lang. When we have that wrote in 1935, this road is just so unique. And I also applaud your suggestion. I really invite you to go on. If you can't go, just go and go to the glit. You can go and see the environment and you see the soil spatial area. This is a testament to the unique character of our road, which is integral to our community, and we really, really like to preserve it. This applies this. If you check any of the maps that you have in any other reports and the public hearings, and et cetera, you will see that there is a small dirty road connecting Erskine with Wallace. This is seen in 2010 Erskine. In this property, we talked to the neighbors, and we basically used that interconnection between the road to go and visit the neighbors and walk our dogs and pets and just use it as a connection. So we have a really young spatial area there. We sincerely desire to continue living in this smart condition and maintain the unique character of our road. Mr. Friedson and Council members, the proposed Clemón Forest Development process a significant threat to the harmony of our community is outside of the Clemón sector plan, which follows the goal and guiding principles that we shouldn't forget. So it's not only that recommendations is telling you to recommend to connect Erskine and Wallace. It's also including to a balance in the community desire for creating a place for residents with the need of thorough traffic and also minimizing the impacts of developing activities on natural resources to projects and promote human plans and animal life. Opening Earth'sking Avenue would know in Correction Promotes. They are consummables. During these are arguments I would like to emphasize that the majority of resident Earth'sking Avenue stand united in opposition to the opening of the Earth'sking Avenue proposed by the applicant. There is no single resident here that is really supporting this proposal of opening our scheme. As I stated in the OSA recommendation, basically is incompatible with the Agents and the neighbourhood. The proposed development magnitude doesn't consider the negative impact on the surrounding communities. Thank you for your time, honey. Thank you for your test. Thank you. Ms. Vergiani, you have... Vergiani, sorry, apologies. Vergiani. Ms. Vergiani, you have... Thanks for waiting till... I screwed it up enough times that it satisfied the correction. I appreciate that and I apologize. Ms. Vergani, you have five minutes covering multiple top areas, the connection of our Scandinavian and the inability to cross examine witnesses. Thank you. A local map amendment, this particular one is a rezoning request as it had filed under a floating zone, which is designed to give the developer greater flexibility and density. However, in this particular case, we feel that it's been overextend beyond the word of greater flexibility and density. So what I did is I took a look at some of the law around it. I gave you the copies, the citations of the law related to floating zone, which had been discussed, the floating zone issues had been discussed at hearing. Vegan whole V Montgomery County Council, the floating zone must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, blah, blah, blah, and make certain there's no scoreance with existing uses. Also, Chatham Corp V. Beltram, affects upon the neighborhood, our considerations to be weighed. I'm just gonna jump in a little bit, Ms. Burghani. There was a general statement about Maryland case law during the administrative hearing, but there were no specifics about cases before me. So I think generally talking about Maryland cases rather than providing specific citations would be more in keeping with what was before me. Okay, so I think what we need to talk about then is whether or not this particular development is consistent with the two key issues in front of you today, which are compatibility and public interest. So let me go right on to Erskine Avenue to talk with you about that. The issue of the Erskine Avenue is I've lived through three expansions. Randolph Road, Lail Hill Road, Glen Allen Avenue. And they've taken our land in all three cases. And we've lived through that and we are now trying to deal with the issues related to those roads being expanded. Number one, we have serious crime issues. We have people out there who do not belong on the property, who are coming out there to transcend our property, often stopping to sell, use drugs, steal vehicles or steal from the vehicles. We waste a lot of time every day running them off and trying to get police assistance. Noise, the noise has eliminated the ability of some people to sell their units at a reasonable price. Parking. Montgomery County has failed to keep up with societal change. Today, a family that used to see Glenway Gardens condominium as a starter home now has teenagers and kids going to college. So now we have four cars per unit instead of 1.5 when it was built in the late 60s. So we need parking on Glen Allen Avenue. So that's destructive. There's a great deal of road dust that gets raised. We have constant issues with HVAC units because the filters are so dirty and we have to change them continuously. There's an issue of safety. People follow our people into the buildings. We have spent $82,000 just on locks to lock down the buildings. We are paying the price. Our community is paying the price for what's going on there. So the people also follow our people into the buildings. And they come in groups of four to seven. I don't know how many of you are interested in challenging four to seven individuals. Ms. Pergani, I'm going to jump in. Okay. If you could just kind of, you talked about, we didn't really talk about crime and those impacts in the hearing. Okay. Inability to cross-examine the applicant's experts. Oasis governing rules, yes, they can be modified by the hearing examiner, but our rights cannot be run over. The law is very clear with regard to our rights. The opinions of the Maryland Court of Appeals and the Court of Special Appeals clearly states that it supports cross-examination of witnesses as a basic right and requires that cross-examination occur immediately following testimony. I have about six or seven cases quoted in here for you. We were not allowed that. What happened is you might miss the hearing exam or modified the rules told us we weren't going to be cross examining initially. And then later on and that's on page 12, 13, 14, and 15 that I attached to your paperwork so that you wouldn't have to look it up. And then what happened is that towards the end that all of a sudden we were going to be given an opportunity to chat with them. You can't get organized around that. The rules were violated. We were vitiated from our rights to present what needed to be presented to make certain that there's safety in this that we have adequate school occup Possibility for occupancy that we have enough for that we've got saved pedestrian traffic and that there's this specific pedestrian level of comfort to make certain that we have proper stormwater management and Also to make certain with sewers is that we have, I'm sorry, yeah proper pedestrian safety. The other thing I want to remind us, the burden of proof rests solely with the applicant. And if we've been given those specifics, the problem I've been to other hearings, the problem that I personally had and cross examination possible could have solved some of this. We did not get one piece of information. We did on how many what is the capacity of some of the schools kind of in passing, but never a generation rates to see what this community proposed community will generate. What's it going to do with school capacity? What is it going to do with specifically with regard to storm water management? We need to know these things before we say, okay, and then we move on and then we're in a situation. Do we need Brookside Gardens to build a drainage storm water management area? So we request that you deny the application and in the alternative mandate for a proper hearing. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. We've heard from group AM and opened it up to colleagues for any questions of this panel or of the hearing. Examiner related to this panel. I see that councilmember glasses in the queue. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Ms. Bern, for the thorough presentation. And I appreciate the residents for coming and being engaged in their community. Ms. Bidlach, I have a question for you. You noted you live on Erskin, I think you would say. I live on Wallace, which is connected by a gravel drive. And you had noted that one of the roads does not get plowed. Which road was that? Erskins. It is Erskins, which is the road that we're talking about, right? What happens when a road is extended yet, it does not, it's not covered by the county's snow plow services? I don't know. I think the plan calls, I don't specifically know, all I can tell you is the plan calls for Erskine to be a through public street. So then it would get reclassified and then become eligible for snowplow. We work that through. Okay. Thank you. I don't see any other colleagues with questions of this panel or of the hearing examiner related to this panel. So thank you to this panel for joining us and sharing your testimony both written and here as well. Nicole Upgroup B. That's James Johnston who we granted approval earlier, Richard Takamoto, and Glenmont Forest Investors LP. As you're coming up, as a reminder, your oral argument must be limited to the allotted time. It also must be limited to the topic or topic submitted in your request for an oral argument, and limited to the record that was before the hearing examiner, Ms. Bern, as she has shown, is here to interject if any arguments provided today, we're not part of the record and appreciate your acceptance of that and understanding of her need to enforce the rules. James E. Johnston has requested a testifying connection to the connection of Erskine Avenue, inability to cross-examine witnesses and ability to walk to Glenmont Metro Station because it's multiple items. He has five minutes. When you're ready, maybe again. Thank you for hearing my explanation of what I think is going on here. My name is James Johnston and I have been an owner resident of Glenway Gardens condominium for over 30 years. During that time, many changes have been made to our community in the surrounding area and many of the changes in the area are in support of Montgomery County's intent to turn the area surrounding the Glenmont Metro station into a high density population area. I was present at the presentation the applicant made in June of 2024 during which the applicant contended that the walk from the Glenmont Forest property to the Glenmont Metro Station is easy. There was no discussion or identification of any pedestrian path to the metro station. In fact, there are four distinct paths between the Glenmont metro station and the Glenmont Forest property. Had the cross-examination of the applicant. Mr. Johnson, I'm going to jump in a little bit. There were general statements made during the hearing about that it was not walkable, per se. I think specifics in Miss Burgani's testimony were there were, you had to cross 12 lanes of highway and do various things but there was no specific analysis of each and every intersection. Had the hearing before me. Okay. There is a couple of paths that run right through Glenway Gardens. Those are my concerns. May I continue with that line? There was no discussion about walkability through Glenway Gardens. There was a general discussion about safety and how are people going to get from this particular location to the Glenmont Metro? So generally speaking, that's what came up. Right. And so I'm getting a little more specific for case, for the purposes of this discussion. So I think you can limit your testimony to those avenues. Right. Right. Right. So I think the testimony of the walkability through Golan, through your neighborhood would be fine by getting into the weeds about specific analysis corner by corner because there were just general statements made about safety concerns and paths. Okay, because the concern is that the path through Glenway Gardens is actually the easiest and safest path to get from Glenmont Forest to the metro station. That's my concern. I live on that pathway. I am no more than about 30 or 40 feet from the sidewalk where they would be walking every morning and every evening to get through there. As you indicated also, there's safety, there's crime, and there's debris that they always drop when they come through there. Those are my concerns because I live there. I'm going to live this experience. And I would have asked about how many pedestrian paths they'd an online to know all that kind of stuff. And that's outside, definitely outside the scope. Okay. The idea is also for Erskine Avenue, if that were to go through, that would be the route that they would come up to get to Glenway Gardens. They would be coming right up through that corner and right around the corner through Erskine to get to our property. There's no indication in the exhibit 30 that I saw that had any kind of a sidewalk that would take you from the proposed property to the corner of Glen Allen and Randolph Road, which would be the other path is to go around Glenway Gardens and go up Glen Allen Avenue, which has the same consideration for our property because that sidewalk runs right by our properties, right by our people's units. So those are the two main routes that people would probably want to take, because the other two routes that I've identified are either unsafe or run you through shopping centers that are, you know, that you're not going to want to walk through basically. Those are my issues with respect to those particular pathways and the concern obviously is safety of the people that are walking through these properties. George Avenue has like approximately, what did I say, has eight vehicle and entrances of exits crossing the sidewalk, one crosswalk to cross the entrance to the metro, four crosswalks to cross the hill, three crosswalks to cross Randolph Road. Those are the kinds of things that I have not heard any response to as far as defining an easy walk. That's where I get concerned for the pedestrians that are trying to walk that area. And I think that's pretty much what my issues were. So I thank you for your time and your consideration of this. Thank you for joining us. Is Mr. Takamoto here? I don't see Mr. Takamoto, so we're going to move on to believe Mr. Rogers and Mr. Robbins who are here on behalf of the applicant. Good afternoon, President Freighton and members of the council. I'm Steve Robbins here with my co-council, Elizabeth Rogers with the law from Lortrillion Brewer on behalf of the applicant. The LMA provides a unique opportunity to put in motion the county's plans and visions for Glenmont, which is long overdue. The Glenmont sector plan lays out a vision for the transformation of Glenmont, which includes the redevelopment of the property, placing an emphasis on meeting housing needs and providing additional connectivity. The sector plan encourages rezoning of this property in part because it, quote, is in within easy walking distance of the metro. The additional housing and density proposed to this property was specifically recommended by the sector plan, even before the current housing crisis that we're in right now. The project is needed now more than ever. Let me briefly address a few issues raised and misrogest will deal with the Earth's connection. Regarding the procedural issue of cross-examination, the hearing examiner ran a fair and balanced hearing and followed all rules of procedure. She imposed no time constraints on anybody, any of the participants. There was robust dialogue with the community and all reached an agreement on how cross examination would be accommodated. The record shows that. Regarding the weight of the Bremel report, the applicant appropriately raised an objection regarding the weight of the report should be given as the engineers were not present at the hearing. The hearing examiner independently reviewed the report and determined the weight it should be afforded. I would note that the applicant did have an expert witness to testify extensively on storm water management strategies for the project, including that the storm water management for the development would be addressed on site per county and state requirements. None of these issues require or were not a remand. With respect to the urskine connection, the sector plan specifically recommends connecting the new internal streets with Erskine Avenue. The sector plan does not say this connection should be considered, it says it should be made. Despite this explicit recommendation in the sector plan, the hearing examiner concluded otherwise based on the notion that Erskine is incompatible in part because of how the road is being used today. The property, properties on a private use of Erskine gives the impression that it's nothing more than a driveway when in fact it's not. Erskine is a dedicated 60-foot county-owned right-of-way, the connection for which was first envisioned nearly a century ago when the record plat for the adjacent residential community stubbed the roads of Erskine to our property boundary to facilitate this very connection and there's very specific language on the plot to that effect. More recently, this connection was reconfirmed by the council when they thoroughly vetted the sector plan in a very extensive public process. The recommendations of the sector plan do not carry any less weight because that urskine community is outside the sector plan boundary. The council would have considered that impact when making a very specific recommendation. In fact, the plan recommends providing better connections from the core to those outside communities. It's only reasonable to conclude that in recommending this connection, the council deemed it's not only the important but also compatible. The applicants expert witnesses technical staff in the planning board all agreed. Contrary to the testimony that has been given, there's no force that will be removed for the Earth's King connection. The project retains essentially all forest on site and provides a reforistation and protection of the stream valley buffer where none exists today. The applicant's interest in connecting Erskin is not solely for policy reasons, the Lycksector Planck informants. The access is also important from a technical point of view. Respectfully, the hearing examiner seems to have misinterpreted testimony offered by the applicant's transportation expert, Miss Nancy Randall, and concluding the connection would not be heavily used. In Rebuttal, Ms. Randall clarified that the Erskine connection would take about 10 to 20 percent of the project's traffic. This is meaningful. The applicant's experts testify the importance of Erskine for pedestrian bike and vehicular connectivity, providing disbursement of trips to relieve traffic congestion at any one access point, providing public safety and creating the urban street network that is envisioned by the sector plan, particularly given the presence of the grade separated interchange, which restricts access to the property. The importance of connecting communities is in line with long standing county policy as reconfirmed by Thrive 2050. A more connected street grid is one of the most important steps to making street safer and more attractive for pedestrians and cyclists, the Erskine connections in line with this vision. Miss Randall testified that the Erskine Avenue connections, especially important for traffic the council find that flexibility is prudent, we have proposed a compromised condition. That would allow the determination to be made at time of preliminary plan when the other access points will be finalized. And the development program will be confirmed. This would allow the board also to evaluate other changes that may happen like the redevelopment of the Grant Glenmot shopping center. Eliminating the connection at this stage takes away that needed flexibility. Change is hard, we understand that, but to achieve the vision the county is set forth for Glenmont change is necessary and desirable. The council's often tasked with making difficult decisions in which the desires of a few select community are at odds with a broader public interest and this is one of those instances. We would ask that this be approved. Thank you for your test approved. Thank you. Those are all of the speakers on this panel and open it up to colleagues with questions. Let me turn it to the district council member for this particular application councilmember funding and Zalves. Thank you Mr. President President. I wanna start by saying thank you to everyone who came today. One thing that we can all agree on is that we all love this community and we wanna see it succeed and thrive. I'm part of this community. I live only a few steps away, really. And it really is working hard to ensure that Glenmont specifically specifically gets to that great potential that we all know he has. When I think that hearing examiner, you're in a tough job. And as you know, I was on the planning board and I have a long history of dealing with issues and disciplines that talk about, you know, what is it really made to have neighborhood character? What does it mean to be incompatible? Sometimes it's, it depends on who you're talking to and they will give you a different answer. But I know that it's a tough, it's a tough position to have and I think that you have held this whole process very well. And I just wanted to say thank you for the window. You don't take any comments personal. I never do. So that's just my advice. But there's one thing that I'm pretty clear. We in especially today, this worked out so well because today we had an amazing discussion with the state secretary of housing just before this hearing. And we talked about the need of, you know, creating and building more housing, especially near transit. And this is what we're having here today. It is a responsibility. So having my background from the planning board I went to the document the master plan okay so I went to the gleman sector plan I don't page 30 if anybody wants to pull it up it's very clear it says if future rezoning of this property and we're talking about this property is deemed the cerebral it should achieve the funding objectives. Connect, it has a whole list in one of them says, connect new internal streets with Erskine and Wallace avenues. It says arrive there, this council has already worked on different masterplaces we got here, then three at this point, three, yeah, three. And you all know that it takes a lot of effort, a lot of community input just to have the planning board draft that usually takes a couple of years and I done plenty of those. This was a recommendation that was done in coordination with the community years ago. And it applies today. I joined the planning board like months after this plan was approved by the way. But I followed because it was really my neighborhood. It also says preserve as much existing treat canopy as possible. That is now there by accident. It's intentional. So I, and then the issues with the stormwaterwater management those are issues that you see once the application arrives to the planning board and you go to the sketch plan and you go to the site plan and you and you review you know walkability where you're gonna put the protective bicycles lanes if we have them how you're gonna connect from the property to the metro to the school bus and so on and so forth. So those questions and issues that have been raised, they are really important questions right on target, but they're not done in this stage at this point. Having a new or redevelopment application coming in, it's a great thing for the environment. Just the fact that we're going to finally have a stormwater management in this property is a huge thing. And I know I'm getting passionate again. So I'm going to tone it down. And I'm going to say, I'm going to urge my colleagues and I'm going to make the motion right away. Council President, to please, I move forward to approving option A as you can see under staff report on page 9 to approve the application. I think this is the right thing to do by every account that I just mentioned and with that it does a motion for you. Okay we can leave the motion on the floor and allow for other questions to be asked or it can be seconded at this time It it's up to colleagues if they want to wait There's only one colleague in the queue so We could hold on seconding the motion allow for those questions and I'll open it up for a second to the motion if that is Immunable Councilmember sales I'll open it up for a second to the motion if that is amenable. Councilmember sales. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to my colleague for her passionate remarks. I did want to see if there's any feedback that can explain the hearing examiner's recommendation to not connect Earth's kind of avenue. What was the justification to remove Earth's kind of a through-street compatibility? I 100% struggled with this because of what the sector planned called for. Because of thrive with the job that the applicant did. They were very thorough in how they approached it. But I struggled because when you look at the surrounding neighborhood, this little R90 neighborhood to the east is very different from any of the other neighborhoods that surround it. And I guess to me, to me it looks like, you know, it was kind of haphazard development over generations. And it wasn't part of a plan development. So I didn't see that easy connection. And when you look at purpose and intent, and that one section where it said, ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods, this is the one I struggle. I struggled greatly with this looking at the overlay. So if you look at the aerial photographs, even you can see how the houses are turned this way, turned that way, some of them are closer, some of them are further apart. The designs are different and then making that connection through to Glen Allen with a car, that would alter that. So there's a push pull here for me. We're required to make findings that it conforms with the sector and master plan 100% does. Right. And we're also required to make a determination is is it compatible with an adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods across the street? Yes. The other one's like it this little pocket gave me trouble. Yeah. It's like this little pocket gave me trouble. Yeah, gave me trouble because I was seeing on the exhibit submitted hearing the testimony that came through. Planning staff spent a lot of time with the applicant and the applicant did a good job with the buffer, right? The higher buildings are closer to Randolph in Georgia. Within that 100-foot buffer to this residential neighborhood, it's at 45, right? So it grades lower, so the view shed is more compatible. So the design and the location of the building's, yes, but I struggled with the vehicle access. How that would impact the neighborhood to the east, just this little neighborhood. And I found persuasive really the pictures and the exhibits submitted and then the testimony of the neighbors to what their life is like now. Okay, and those the... good I was just going to say if you wanted to respond. The alternative is to create a floating zone plan for this area or an alternate that would remove Earth's what would be the alternative traffic flow? I think that the issue that we have is if our skins remove, the other access points aren't yet approved. DOT has to weigh in and approve those and there's been some discussion as to whether they would approve the right and right out. And whether there would then be adequate transportation circulation to support the density that the county has said they want to see here through the master plan. So certainly the lion's share and that's the testimony of the record is not going to Erskin that's not what the LATR studies show the traffic would go there but that it does take a percentage of that traffic from a disbursement that allows us to get the density on this site that the county is envisioned. Yeah I'm thinking thinking with over 2000 units planned for this site and 5,000 square feet of commercial development. There's going to be quite a bit of traffic going through this community. And so if there aren't any alternatives explored, I'm just wondering how this, why weren't any alternatives explored? So we do currently have a write-in write-out on George. There's a median there, so that access point is restricted to its movements. We are using the full signal at Glenmont Circle, which is the signalized intersection that exists today, and then we are asking DOT to retain our write-in write-out on Randolph Road as well, but we're at a great separated interchange, so our access points which is the signalized intersection that exists today. And then we are asking DOT to retain our right-in right out on Randolph Road as well. But we're at a great separated interchange. So our access points are severely limited to additional access points that we could provide. And like I mentioned, those three, while hopefully they all get approved. And that's what we've proposed to take the majority of the traffic that just is not something that gets finalized until preliminary plan. Yeah I don't feel comfortable approving this plan with the way that this traffic pattern is laid out with the plan development that is expected here. So I yield thank you. Thank you. Just a question from Ms. Burns. So I just want to make sure we put a fine point on this. Your finding is that the Earth'skinthrew Street is compatible with the master plan. Correct. Your finding is that the Earth'skinthrew Street is not in conformance from your viewpoint based on the testimony that you've received with the abutting and neighboring communities. Correct. And your determination is those are two competing dynamics that you have to balance as part of this decision and your determination was that the conformity should be weighted above, perhaps slightly above an a tough decision as you noted, but should be weighted above master plan conformity. I think I have to look at them individually. I have to decide does it conform with master plan, yes or no? Is the plan as presented incompatible with the adjacent neighborhoods. What would make it incompatible is the vehicles that would connect through Earth's skin. That's my finding on compatibility. That in and of itself, that connection is what doesn't, is what is wood. If you look at the purpose, the purpose talks about preserving adjacent neighborhoods being compatible with and creating a, like this was the tough one because I tried to look at each one of those elements independently and the vehicle through street based on the testimony and based on what I was looking at would not be compatible with the neighborhood immediately to the east. That one element everything else it was compatible with. Is there an alternative that would be compatible with the master, sorry, would be conforming to the master plan and compatible to the neighborhood? I think one of the difficulties and Ms. Rogers talked about this, it's a slight chicken and an egg situation because we don't know what transportation is going to require with access and Councilman Femme Femme and Gonzalez talked about it too. It goes before the planning board, but the problem is we have to make a finding on compatibility at this stage. So we won't know how wider our skin is going to need to be. We won't know what the sidewalks look like. We won't know what the traffic's going to look like until preliminary plan when they decide where how all of those other entrances come together, which is why I kind of sped the baby a little bit here and said, yes, it meets everything. But because we had to make a compatibility finding with adjacent neighborhoods on this section, it was the vehicle through street on Erskine that gave me trouble. Now, I mean, Ms. Rogers, if you want to her to explain her alternative, that maybe Erskine doesn't have to go through or maybe could change, but we don't know that at a preliminary plan. And because I can't predict what the future would be, I can only look at the facts in front of me today. It was the vehicle through street on Earth game based on the testimony and the photographs in front of me. So I don't know if you want to hear what her compromise was. Or. Let's hear a summary of what that alternative would be so that it could be considered by colleagues. And then I'm going to turn it to several colleagues who are now in the queue. We proposed an alternative condition that would allow the determination of whether Earth can go through to be determined by the planning board at the time of preliminary plan. The reason why we did that is because we heard the concerns of the community, we heard the concerns of the hearing examiner, but we still understood what the master plan specifically said. And also, I just want to point out that the record plot, which is a public document since 1935, has a dedicated 60 foot right of way for Erskine Avenue. If this is not a situation where you're trying to put in a road where right of way doesn't exist, the record plot specifically has the dedication in place and frankly says when the road is, when the road connects, it stubs out at the Glenmont Forest property and identifies when the road is, when the road connects, it stubs out at the Glenmont Forest property and identifies when the road is connected that it will be a public road. I just want to stick to, right. I just want to make sure that we, I'm going to cut you off. So, respectfully. Okay, I apologize. We propose to allow the planning board to make this determination, because you still could make a compatibility finding right now that the project is compatible with the master plan, including the language. But the allowing the having a condition that would allow the planning board to make that determination would allow for DOT to finally weigh in on whether the right in, right out is permitted or they have problems with it and they wouldn't allow it if it's permitted. And I'll read how if the decision is made that the connection is not needed, meaning the Erskin connection. And the applicant retains the existing right in, right out along Randolph Road, the applicant would remove Erskine Avenue connection from the plan. Should the Erskine Avenue connection be removed, no improvements would be required along Erskine Avenue. So at that time, this all would be thoroughly reviewed and a determination would be made about that connection. And if it wasn't needed, but the right and right out was still permitted, then the connection would be removed. And we thought that was a very reasonable compromise, something that we could support. And we're hoping that the council would support too. Thank you. Are there any procedural concerns? Let me turn it to our council attorney, too. Thank you. Are there any procedural concerns? Let me turn it to our council attorney, Mr. Nidale. If I may, page seven of the staff report has the exact language that the applicant is proposing. So if the council is considering this, then the way it would work for the resolution, assuming you didn't want to tweak this paragraph, is this language would be added to the option A resolution that Council Member Fannie Gondol has made a motion for. So procedurally that's how the compromise works. And given that we don't have a resolution written out for that would we straw vote and come back for a formal vote next week. Since this would be assuming you're not tweaking this language, this is a simple copy paste. I could read it this paragraph into the record and then you could roll call vote it today. Okay. I just wanted to check. So everybody understands process. Let me turn it to Councilmember Balkham. Thank you. I think this is a clarifying question. So I'm trying to reconcile the page for the diagram with the Google map of the area. And so the question is, is the, is the, the through street connection piece that we're talking about, just the small connection onto Randolph Road or is it the connection to the street that isn't there yet? If you look on the packet on page 4. So you see the, that connection isn't there yet. Right. The one that you're looking at. So that would be urskine from Glen Allen would no longer stop, would go all the way through to the new development and then out to Randolph. So that connection doesn't exist. Right. So, would is the decision whether Erskine remains exactly the way it is today, or that it connects to the property, to the new property, but doesn't go all the way to Randolph, if you understand what I mean. I think I do. I think the decision today is that through the alternative that's being proposed, is that the one that you're asking me? I'm just wondering if we, if the connection isn't there, the connection to Randolph, just the connection to Randolph. If that connection's not there, would there still be flow through traffic on Erskine? Or no, not at all. Okay. Not at all. Sorry, it took me a minute. No, no, it's, I was just trying at all. Thank you. I got it. Sorry, it took me a minute. No, no, it's just trying to reconcile what is currently existing to what is proposed. And there are two different, there's a straight line and a curvy line. Understood. Connected. And then also just from the, I understand that during this site plan review, DOT still has to weigh in. And the other, I assume that we don't know the answer to this is the proximity to that connection right in, right out to Glen Allen and whether that's an adequate distance from the Glen Allen Randolph Road intersection. I know sometimes that the DOT would say that that that intersection is too close. I don't know if DOT's weighed in on that. There there weren't any comments made by DOT regarding that. There were comments discussions about the right and right out on Randolph the one that exists today But as far as the earth's connection which would connect to Glenn Allen and then Glenn Allen would then connect to Randolph Road there wasn't any comment raised that that was the proximity of the intersection of earth's can and Glenn Allen being too close to Randolph Road Okay, thank you. Council Member Almanus. Thank you. Not exactly sure where to start, so I'm very familiar with this intersection. I used to be the director of the rec department and our headquarters was literally a quarter of a mile from there and I can either confirm or deny, hit the McDonald's there in the corner of Randolph and Georgia pretty pretty frequently. So I understand the issue. I find the testimony of the residents very compelling. I'm very sensitive to the concerns you've raised. I respect them very much because I'm very familiar with that general area. One of the biggest issues facing that community is pedestrian safety. I've attended a number of memorial services over the years, specifically at this intersection where tragedy has occurred. So, and I know that that's not what we're discussing right now that will still go before the planning board to be able to resolve the issues as part of the process as Councillor Member Fungick once had us is intimately familiar with but I just wanted to start from that place of acknowledging where you all are coming from. I am open to the compromise because I do think that I would hesitate to because the other big challenge that we've had in that part of our community is the need for responsible for development, for more amenities. And specifically for that shopping center that we know has been an ongoing challenge. And I just worry that if we prevent at this stage, this project or cause harm to this project, then will still be opportunities for the community to be able to provide input through the planning process on how wide, on exactly what this may or may not end up looking like. And I do trust my colleagues because I'm very familiar with them on the planning staff, we're very sensitive to these issues as well. So I think that there's no perfect solution here in my opinion that addresses the myriad of needs and challenges that we have before us. But I do just want to let you know that I know this is probably caused a great deal of stress and a lot of frustration on your all's parts. And this is in addition to your jobs and your families that you have to navigate. And this is just like another thing and a very big one. But I just wanted to let you know you have been heard. But I do think that the compromise set forth by Councilmember Funning on Salis that keeps the conversation going is compelling to me as well. So I don't have much more to add at this point. I will still go to that McDonald's because it is a very good one. But I yield back to you, Mr. President, and we'll be monitoring this closely if this compromise amendment does pass. We will be weighing in through the planning process as well. Okay, just for the record, I don't believe Councilmember Fonding-Gazalis has changed her motion. She may have signaled that through body language, but I will turn to her after we go through to formally amend the motion if she so wishes and then ask for a second at that time. But we'll continue through our questions and comments of colleagues and then I'll turn it back to Councilmember Fondingen-Sales once we have gone through those questions and comments beginning with Councilmember Joondo. Thank you appreciate it yet. I think that makes sense. So probably questions for everybody just real quick. If we go with what the hearing examiner and congratulations, we told you this job, you were good for this job. So good to see you back so soon. And Erskine is, there's no roadway connection. There still is a possibility of the project moving forward, depending on what DOT approves as far as the in and out, the other three. Everyone agrees with that? At its current size and scope. Right. Again, acknowledging anything could change when the plane board takes it back up. Major changes don't happen that would impact the road network that would change the test as it is today. If we got that right in right out and retained at the other two access points as proposed, then our transmission is told and has told us that there would be adequate capacity to accommodate the densities we're proposing. Even without the roadway. Without the Earth scan. Yeah. I think that's important for everyone to understand. That is a snapshot today now I don't I it's okay. Let me get to my other questions I understand things could get worse and things could change well there's other development that could be proposed sure There's a lot there's a lot that could happen I understand that and and I think with we're gonna have to be okay with any some level of uncertainty here no matter What which way we go even if we went with the proposal to let the planning board decide it later, which is what I wanted to ask about next. But I just wanna just make 100% clear missed the due into the hearing sample, whoever the proposal for all the units in the bill could still happen without the connection to Erskin. That is, I believe believe all of our understanding based on the testimony that was before the hearing examiner. All right. That was my understanding too, but I just wanted to confirm and obviously circumstances could change. Assuming the right end right out. Right. Yeah. And that's going to be my second point. Part of why this we're making this decision at this point in the process was because we need to signal to the other decision makers here, the planning board DOT about, hey, either this is you can consider the connection or you can't consider the connection, right? And people will proceed with that information. So I think if we said that given the compatibility finding that there should be no connection, that would be our signal to other colleagues who share our goals for mixed use development in more housing and all the things. We're taking up the LATR stuff now and they, excuse me, what's the name of our new committee? Yeah, it should be committee. And so that's all on the table. And I have confidence having appointed all of us having appointed the current planning board. They are on board with wanting projects to move forward. And DOT will work with you guys as well as they are. So that would be our signal to them to move forward. My second question is about your alternative. What you're proposing is to us not to make any finding on that issue. Let me make sure I understand and have the planning board consider it as part of their next review of this in the stage of the process. Is that it? Or if I'm wrong. I think the condition is still making a position. it as part of their next review of this in the state of the process. Is that it? If I'm wrong, the condition is still making a position. It's basically saying if we can get, if the right and right out is approved, and so there's not a need for the connection for Earth's skin, that it would be removed. So that it gives a flexibility should the shopping center redevelop and it change the conditions, you know, and we needed that to be able to support this amount of housing or Should that write it in right out not be approved by DOT that would give the planning board discretion otherwise it would be removed. Right. Got it. So you're saying so a little bit of slightly different from what I said we could either say don't consider it all figured out another way, which is possible, which we have established in my first question, or we could say try to not use it, and if you need to use it, right, you know, it's basically what what's your language is saying. Does that come, Mr. Do, if we said the latter, try to not use it, but if you need to use it, use it. Does that come back to us in any way? No, that option would not come back to the council. So obviously there's some discretion that would be the community may say, well you don't need it or this doesn't work. There could be additional argument. Is there an additional recourse for the community members if that determination is made that it is needed? Could they then again go to the hearing examiner? No, at that time the community members would be presenting their arguments strictly to the planning board. To the planning board, right? Okay, so and they would be the final arbiter of it. There would be no other route outside of that. Yes, that's correct. All right, that was my understanding. So I think given that, I lean more towards the community's point of view here that it's possible to do it without it. We want it to happen. I think it would be a great development. I'm very familiar with that. I lived off Randolph Road for 15 years. That's a unique community. But given the hearing examiner's finding and how just small this street is, I've been looking at it on Google Maps. I know it. I know where it is. I do think that we want this to happen without the disruption to that little street. Go ahead. Are you trying to say something? No. OK. So that would be my view at this point. But I think as a secondary backup, it concerns me that the planning, that it could still be unresolved for the community if we send it back to the planning board. With, you know, so that's my concern with that. Thank you. Thank you. And just to clarify the decisions before us, we could accept and, you know, it could be amended and we'll hear from the mover of the motion that has yet to be seconded of whether or not that's of interest. It could be remanded back to the hearing examiner. It could be remanded back to the hearing examiner with narrow, you know, frames, you know, guardrails around what the hearing examiner may consider or broadly or somewhere in between those two things at the will of the council or we can accept or reject. So, you know, those are our options. I just want to be clear. There are, you know, there's more options than two. Here, there's, you know, four to unlimited options, so to speak, but, you know, fairly narrow set of issues before the body. Does the remaining come back to us? Yes. Yes. Okay. So that, and that's the recommendation that that's B. That's option B. Yes. Right. And so it could be remanded saying we don't want you to use Erskine but come back with another Plan and that would come back to us. Exactly. And it would just be Basically you take the floating zone plan and just they'll just delete that part and then re-submit that. Okay. Thank you Just to remember the limitations that the hearing examiner currently has based on the current information that's before the hearing examiner wouldn't change based on that remaining. It's not like the remand would happen. It would be held another part of the process would take place and then it would come back to us. So it's important just for the body to understand in remanding we would be remanding it at the current stage of the process that we are in, and it would return to us in the current part of the process that we are in with the limitations at this current stage of the process that we have that has been discussed as part of this proceeding. So I just wanted to make sure that was was clear as clear as whatever I just said was But it's important that we we're not remanding it allowing for other parts of the process to take place and then It coming back we have a very specific role here the hearing examiner has a very specific role here And that part of the process in terms of the hearing examiner's role and the district council's role Will not change based on that decision although we can tailor the remanding framework under the things that we want the hearing examiner to consider which is under our purview. Okay, let me turn it to Council Member Mac. Thank you. I wanted to, I like everybody else I think I'm looking at Google Maps and trying to reconcile as come from a welcome aptly put. And so I'm looking at Erskine Ave and there's the part of Erskine Ave that connects to next to Wallace Avenue, which when I look at Google Street View, we can see a car can't drive on that. That's like a gravel path walking, biking, something like that. That piece of earth skin from what I can tell is, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is not represented on the map that's in the packet. Is that correct? That is correct. OK. Is that and the use of that path? Is that something that was considered by the hearing examiner? I think I heard mention of it during residence testimony, but I wanted to see how that did or didn't fit in with the determinations that you reached. That actually was discussed during the hearing and you heard more today, I think from the first individual, about how that little connection is used. When you look at the actual map, Erskine dead, like the record plat that was referred to, Erskine dead ends into this property, Wallace dead ends into that property. Yes, yes. That gravel dirt road isn't part of any set plan. It's just how that neighborhood gets from one another and to each other. So there's no, there's like the plan for Earth Game was simply straight through. And it's, I looked at that as part of the character of the neighborhood. Got it. Got it. OK. Because to the point that was made about pedestrian safety, and I would think that that would be an important part when we're thinking about compatibility and whether and the impact that a connection there would have. And so I would think that it's very wishy-washy because what does compatibility mean and all of those things. And I can certainly see why you're in a very difficult position. This is a nuanced conversation. But traffic analysis, as well as use of that path by pedestrians, all of that seems relevant to the question of compatibility. And whether that connection would be compatible with the way that that area is used now. We have people who are using that to walk. And this traffic flow would create hazards or would not create hazards like that seems like that would be a relevant piece of the conversation. And also something that obviously we're not looking at the data for that. So that seems to me a reason to turn this over to the planning board to DOT to do an assessment of that as well. And I would hope that that would be an important part of what they're thinking about would be the use of that existing street. How would it, I'm trying to ground myself in the, in the plan that we're looking at. What are we possible to describe where that connection is? I mean, on the, I mean in the packet that we have. So I'm looking at page, what is this three page for, at the map there and we see street B, meeting up with Erskine right where it goes out to Randolph Road there, that walking path, which makes up the other portion of Erskine Ave, where is that relative to that connection with Street B. Probably the best place to look at that side by side 57 in your packet. You can kind of see where that old, because it's an overlay of what's projected and you have a better view off to the right of the image of what exists now. So you can kind of see. 37? Yeah, but I want to see how Google Maps overlays with the plan. I see it on Google Maps and I'm trying to figure out. So Circle 57, I see text. Yeah. Just to clarify, are we talking about the you're talking about the gravel connection between Earthskin and Walla? Exactly. So that falls if you're looking at I guess it's page 98. There's an exhibit 40 and there's basically right below to the right of the purple line that repress or the pink line that represents our property boundary. There's one house just south of Erskine. My understanding is to the right of that is a private driveway that's a gravel road that then connects Erskine and Wallace. It's to the right of that one white house. Okay. So you said you're on circle 98? Yes. And okay, I see the pink property line there and right below Erskine Ave to the right of the pink line is that large pink house, and then the grapple path is to the right of that. Is to the right of that. To the right of Erskine and Walsh. Okay, okay. Thank you. That's all. the first meeting. Thank you. That's all. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Again, I think I just want to remind everyone the importance of respecting the master plan. The sector plan. This sector plan calls for this street to be built for this connection. That's why option B is not an option for me because that option, let me put it up again, page 9 says to remove Erkins Avenue, as said through street. That's not an option because he goes against the master plan. But so I would like to go back and I'm going to ask our attorney to please hold me out with a modified option A as stated by the applicant. If you can restate your proposal as a compromise. That'll be great. So to modify option A, you'd be looking at the first resolution in the packet, which would be to approve the application. And you would add the paragraph that's on page seven of the staff report, which reads, at the time of preliminary plan, the Montgomery County Department of Transportation and the planning board will further evaluate all access points for the project and determine whether or not the vehicular connection to Erskine Avenue is needed to accommodate traffic flow. If a decision is made that the connection is not needed and the applicant retains the existing right in, right out along Randolph Road, the applicant will remove the Earth Skin Avenue connection from the plan. Should the Earth Skin Avenue connection be removed, no improvements will be required along Earth Skin Avenue. That is a great compromise for me. It will basically we can make a decision today and let the planning board with all their studies during the sketch plan, or in site plan where you can have community input continue this conversation because that's the right way, that's the process. So with that, Council President Friedson, my motion has been modified based on what the Council staff has mentioned. I can read it if you want me to, but so I move to modify my. OK, so you're pulling back your initial motion. You're making a new motion. The new motion includes the compromise with the language as noted. Do you want to move it now? Yes, second. It's been moved by Councilmember Fonding-Ozell. It's been seconded by Councilmember Lutke. Staff is confident. We fully understand the exact nature of the motion, including what would the contents of the resolution would be? Yes, I'm currently confident. Okay. Let me turn it to Council Member Glass. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the District Council member for offering an amended version based on all the feedback and conversation. I support that. And I just wanna take a step back, Ms. Byrne, I have a question for you. I don't know if we discuss this during the confirmation hearing, but it's clearly central to this conversation where you have interpreted different elements of our law and I use that broadly speaking, and came to the decision that you did. But I think more philosophically, I think there's a concern when a proposal is made that conforms to a master plan, and it seems ineligible or incorrect, thereby throwing off the entire process. I think that systemically is a problem. And the master plan here, the, let me be very specific, the Glenmont sector plan was approved in 2013 predating all of us We might disagree with it and clearly we're hearing some disagreement, but this is the law and It is what we have before us. I Know that this community and I speak more broadly about Glenmont, there's a lot of activity that is taking place from the arcade across the street to the metro station, Cadi Corner and everywhere in between. And I know that a lot of people are wanting improvement. I think everybody, even those who testified today, would like the arcade to be a little better than what it is. I would, I know the District Council member does, and that will require some change. And there are people who are looking at making those modifications, making those proposals. They're not ready for prime time, but there's been a lot of work that's already been done. My concern is that the precedent that would be set if we do not support this throws out years of conversation, financial investment, and everything in between to change, to update, to modernize the arcade, which I'll venture to say there's universal agreement we need to improve. I know people don't like all the cars that are parked in the parking lot. I know that I know people want a little bit more from some of the retail options that might be there. But if we don't approve this or if we don't approve the amended version, it puts all of that in jeopardy because we're throwing away and looking the other way from the 2013 Glenmont sector plan. And I think the proposal that Councilmember Fondingen-Dollis has put forward signals not only to the planning board but the Department of Transportation that we want something else and let's work toward something else. But to throw all of this out, jeopardizes all of the ideas, all of the visions and all of the hopes that a lot of people have. That's my concern. And I think that's the peril that we are in if we dismiss the master plan. It might be deemed there might be other questions and clearly you have highlighted other areas where you think they're incompatible and they might very well be. But this is the master plan we have before us and if anyone wants to introduce something and the planning board wants to revisit this, that's the process. And as we continue, I'll end on this note, we're having lots of conversations on master plan, sector plans, and zoning in general. There's a time and a place for those conversations. I don't think this, for this master plan, this sector plan, is the time or the place. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Rodrona. On the compromised language, and thanks for reading it into the record, the language would mean that if who decides, it reads, transportation and the planning board will further evaluate all access points for the project and determine whether or not the vehicular connection to Erskine Avenue is needed to accommodate traffic flow. So they'll do their studies, they'll be further analysis, they'll be a determination made. We already stated that the project could happen with the other three entry points, but again, depending on what else happens in the community and those things. The planning board is the final arbiter on whether the traffic flow is needed, the question of needed, that's their decision, right? Based on the inputs. Yes, that's a good catch. It does say DOT and planning board will determine whether or not I believe that should ultimately be that planning board would be the one determining. So I can add, well further guy that all access points for the project, comma, and the planning board will determine to make that clear. And the planning board has already determined that they're okay with Earth's skin being the connection. This is true. So the planning board makes a recommendation to the hearing examiner before the LMA and the planning board and planning staff had already recommended that there be a through street. That would that was before the DOT further analysis. That was prior to the DOT analysis. So the planning board has not said anything different since the DOT analysis. The DOT analysis has not happened. I'm sorry. Yes, they have of course because it hasn't happened the Only thing is is it possible to say a little more Just so if a decision is made that connection is not needed Again, you're gonna we're already gonna modify this say it's planning, not DOT. They're going to use analysis, but they're going to make the decision. This says the applicant will remove. So it's kind of just, it's kind of just like you're saying we'll voluntarily do it. Is there a way that we can signal? Is it appropriate? I guess it would be the question. For us to signal that if the analysis says that traffic can happen without this street that we would like them to, like we would like the planning board to remove it. Could you say that? Be more definitive? Yeah, so a bit of a, let's say a little grammar trick here, you could remove the subject. So it says if a decision is made that the connection is not needed, and the existing right and right out along Randolph Road is retained. So that the road connection should be will be removed. Would that be consistent with what you're trying to accomplish here? I have to apologize. I was looking at someone with chair, we were trying to sort of figure out the same issue, but if you could just repeat that one time. Sure. So it would say, if a decision is made that the connection is not needed, and the existing right and right out along Randolph Road is retained. So it ties it back to the planning board decision and just strikes the word applicant from the sentence. What was the last point I'm sorry. It's all right. No, no problem. If a decision is made that the connection is not needed and the existing right and right out, along Randolph Road is retained, the applicant will remove the Erskine Avenue connection from the plan. I mean, that's fine. Or, I mean, we had language that basically just said that if a decision is made that the connection is not needed in the existing right and right out along Randolph Road, what did you have here? You scratched out something. What I heard Councillor Moor Joando saying was the concern over that the applicant would be the one to remove it from the plan. And so what I had modified without a proposed was that the first price sentence would stay. If a decision is made, the connection is not needed and the existing right and right out along, Rand up is retained. Take out the applicant or move and just say the Erskin Avenue connection will be removed. Yeah, that was in addition to the earlier clarification about that the planning board has to determine based on the set. So if I could just friendly amendment to do that. Accepted. All right, I think that makes sense. And hopefully we'll give the community. I know it's not over today, but hopefully we'll give them some some solace and just also know that that last line, there's obviously not gonna be any improvements that are just gonna have new, because if it's removed. So you got to know, we're just making sure we're aware on that. Okay, thank you. So just point of clarification on that. I'm gonna have you read back what, which is to read upon. So why don't you read it back and then I have a clarifying question to what the new language means in practice. I wanna read the whole paragraph if that helps. Please. Okay, further record. At the time of preliminary plan, the Montgomery County Department of Transportation and the planning board will further evaluate all access points for the project and the planning board will determine whether or not the vehicular connection to Erskine Avenue is needed to accommodate traffic flow. If a decision is made that the connection is not needed and the existing right and right out along Randolph Road is retained, the Erskine Avenue connection will be removed from the plan. Should the Erskine Avenue connection be removed, no improvements will be required along Erskine Avenue connection be removed no improvements will be required along Erskine Avenue. Okay, so just to clarify we're essentially asking for Department of Transportation as they would do to analyze the need for this connected through street and the planning board to look at that as well and ultimately deferring to the planning board without prejudice essentially from this body to determine whether or not it is needed to balance the competing dynamics of traffic flow conformity with the master plan and all the other you know dynamics including compatibility with the budding neighborhoods. That's everybody's understanding, that staff's understanding, I just want to make sure in plain language that we discussed the decision that we're going to make. That has been suggested as a friendly amendment, it's now going to be, I'm going to turn it over to Council Morphonic Enzalus to move this adjusted. I'm moving the adjusted amendment, the latest version. Second. All right, it's been moved by Council Morphonic Enzalus, it's been seconded by Council member sales, just read into the record by Miss Nidu as the motion that is before us. I don't see any other colleagues wishing to speak. We have a motion before the body that requires a roll call vote. I will turn it over to the clerk to call the roll. Councilmember Luki? Yes. Councilmember Luki votes yes. Councilmember Mink? Yes. Councilmember Mink votes yes. Councilmember Sales? Yes. Councilmember Lutki votes yes. Councilmember Mink. Yes. Councilmember Mink votes yes. Councilmember Sales. Yes. Councilmember Sales votes yes. Councilmember Glass. Yes. Councilmember Glass votes yes. Councilmember Duwondo. Yes. Councilmember Duwondo votes yes. Councilmember Katz. Yes. Councilmember Katz votes yes. Councilmember Albonus. Yes. Councilmember Albinos? Yes. Councilmember Feining-Gazalis? Yes. Councilmember Feining-Gazalis? Yes. Councilmember Bauchem? Yes. Councilmember Bauchem? Yes. Councilmember Stewart? Yes. Councilmember Stewart? Yes. Councilmember Freeson? Yes. Councilmember Freeson? Yes. Thank you to everybody involved. Thank you to the hearing examiner for your diligent work here. Thank you to all the residents for coming and sharing of your personal time to be here to advocate for yourselves, your families, your neighborhood and your community. We really do appreciate it. I hope you know that you were heard and very much appreciate your participation. Thank you to the applicant as well for being here and for Miss Nidoo for helping us navigate through what always is an interesting dynamic. That is, that is all for the district council's work as a quasi judicial body of all excuse those who have joined us. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. No problem, thank you. Our next agenda item is agenda item number three, the consent calendar. I'll entertain a motion to approve it. Moved by council member Katz, seconded by council member Juwando. All those in favor, please indicate by raising your hand. That is unanimous among those in the room. Tendon nothing. Could we congratulate the assistant chief who's very patiently set there through our hearing? Congratulations. Assistant, congratulations, Assistant Chief. We appreciate your service and we will let you get back to keeping us safe. And I saw grandma knew a director of public libraries and our new libraries director. Congratulations. All right, we're going to move on to item four, which is an interview of the County Executive's nominee for Chief of Behavior Health and Crisis Services. Monica Martin, welcome Miss Martin with Apologies for holding you hostage there a little bit while we went through our formal responsibilities as the district council. Don't worry, we're just as exhaustive as the board of health as we are as the district council. We wear many hats here on this day, us and we tend to run long and all the hats that we wear. We're going to move on to our interview. Let me first turn it over briefly to the Assistant Chief Administrative Officer for some introductory remarks and then Dr. Bridgers if he has any and then we'll move into our questions. All right. Thank you, Council President Pritzell and members of the County Council. On behalf of the County Executive and the Chief Administrative Officer, it's my honor to introduce Monika Martin as the executive's nominee for the division chief of behavioral health and crisis services. Monika is no stranger to the Department of Health and Human Services. She's she's worked there since 2007, principally in the Children, Youth and Families division within DHS Monika served as a senior administrator for Child and Adolescent Services, School and Community-Based Services, and the Manager for the Linkages to Learning and Regional Youth Services. Prior to working for the county, Monica also worked in the community with the Guide Program, Collaboration Council, and as a private practitioner as well. Monica is a licensed clinical social worker and also has a graduate certification in biosecicosocial, child and adolescent assessment and treatment, and she's also a bilingual Spanish speaker, which we always find helpful. And on a sort of personal note, I wanna say over the last several months I've gotten, I've had the honor of working with Monica on a whole host of issues. And I wanna say she's done an excellent job of combining and blending a client-focused empathy and compassion for the work that she does, as well as leveraging those years of experience within the Department of Health and Human Services to understand how to leverage the levers of government to complete procurement contract and other important activities. There are initiatives like the Mountain Manor contract up in Baltimore that will increase our adolescent services for opioid treatment that would not have gotten done, but for the efforts of Monica and her and her team. So I do want to acknowledge that I've had the distinct honor of working with her over the last several months. And so I'll turn over to Dr. Bridgers. Thank you, Dr. Stoddard. Good afternoon, Council President Freason and the Council sitting for this hearings afternoon. Suffice it to say that Monica gets it. She understands crisis and invention. She understands the serious need, the immediate need for adult and adolescent mental health services within the county. She understands how to deploy a crisis now and sequential intercept model. She's doing this as Dr. Stoddard indicated. She also understands the immediate need to partner with our public safety entities. We're doing that as well. There have been recent challenges in the community that we're addressing now and Monica is leading the way. There's nothing acting about anything that she's doing. She's living it right now through all of the work. She works hard with the executive branches. Dr. Staudet indicated and she's worked hard with all of you. Getting things done from a crisis services model and she works very diligently in a side. Alongside with me when we look at operationalizing the work that's been much needed in the community, she's doing it right now. Out in with she gets it. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to dig into the questions. I'll start and then turn it over to colleagues starting with the chair of the Health Human Services Committee. But let me start with my prepared questions and welcome. Please describe your experience background and education as each relate to the position of chief behavioral health and crisis services for the Department of Health and Human Services. And if confirmed, how do you envision collaborating with council members and council staff on constituent issues and shared policy initiatives? Well, first of all, I have to say just thank you to ACO Stoddard for his collaboration and support of the last few months as I've stepped into behavioral health and crisis services and learning the details of the internal operations of the area and its priorities. And of course, the doctor bridges for his leadership and support, but primarily to all of you for the opportunity to interview with you today. You've heard a little bit about me already. I have 28 years of progressively responsible experience in human and behavioral health services. I know you've had the opportunity to look at my resume as part of that. I've been a proud resident of Montgomery County for the past 25 years. I've raised, well, not done raising, right, right, put done, but raising a family here in Montgomery County and one an amazing place to do so. I've served as a supervisor administrator for over 23 of those years and in a senior administrative executive capacity for about 21 of those. Eight of those were in our private nonprofit sector communities you heard about, which I hold in the highest team and to this day feel that we can do better by four and with. And then as an MLS administrator manager here in HHS as you heard for the past 17 years. So across these experiences I've had a track record and in capacity and enriching services and systems that contribute to the well-being of our diverse county residents. Something is near and dear to my heart. I've been learning a lot in the last few months just because you're in a department for 17 years. Does that mean you know any? That was a 14 slip. That, you know, everything. What's happening in every other service area, although might feel like that occasionally. But that's because I really do dig in. And so it's been an honor and I want to just, I need to commend some of the amazing professionals that I've met and behavioral health and crisis services for the last three months who are just completely mission oriented and doing amazing work. So I'm here today because I want to continue supporting their work and lifting it up even more. Prior to this acting gig as you learned I was in children, youth and family services, and the portfolio of what I oversaw there was primarily multi-agency partnerships to support children and families, and in great connection with our school system, with MCPS. So that included a vast majority of HHS resource partnerships that are delivered at our schools. So the link is just learning initiatives and which dwell this most recently in school and community use services and the cluster projects which provides some rapid access to behavioral health treatment in the community as well. In terms of my education you heard that I'm a licensed certified clinical social worker and board approved clinical supervisor. I am a social worker through and through and through so I hate our love social workers. I am a social worker through and through and through. So, I hate our love social workers. I'm definitely one of those. And my, when I say through and through, and my undergraduate experience was also in social work with the Minor Latin American Studies. As a graduate student, I was a clinical specialist. That was my forte, and I landed in school-based treatment work pretty quickly. But prior to that, I was introduced to crisis care as an immediate crisis responder in emergency rooms through sexual assault crisis care and in collaboration also with police department in the rural county of Virginia that I lived in at the time. So I'm not going to go much further. I know we have limited time and we're all tired. So just suffice it to say that my education and extensive and very work in leadership experiences, I do believe, have informed a very cute understanding for me of the interdependencies between our human services, somatic and behavioral health services, and that directly relates to further integrating our public health and human services in the role of the chief of behavioral health and crisis services because no one's Serbisaria can can do it alone In doing that in a vision collaborating with with you and your staff on Constituent constituent issues and policy initiatives really in every way possible as time will allow I want to hear everything that you're hearing from your constituents about their interface with our county's behavioral health system, whether it's a county door that they're entering or another one. And I want to ensure that your staff invited to key meetings, not only those in which we're reporting out on our work, but as contributors to planning and development of the work. And that's to ensure that there's sufficient communication and real initial awareness to address all the policy initiatives at the executive branch and the council need to undertake together to improve services for residents. Thank you for the record. Nobody knows everything, but you're much closer to knowing everything on the subject matter than not knowing anything on the subject matter. So just wanna note that for the record, investment in the county's behavioral health crisis response system has been a priority for the council to provide people in crisis with effective appropriate care and avoid unnecessary use of emergency medical services and law enforcement. If confirmed, how will you support implementation of crisis now and sequential intercept models across departments and nonprofit and health partners to improve service options in the county and avoid unfortunate negative outcomes? plainly not to oversimplify it, but to collaborate in a transparent manner to co-create and co-implement really every aspect of the crisis now model and the recommendations from the SIM report, the sequential interset mapping recommendations. In fact, we have a crisis now. Workgroups reboot meeting tomorrow that I pulled together to really restructure what I saw coming in as what we have in place now as the work groups that focus on supporting our crisis call centers, our crisis outreach teams, and our stabilization centers. And looking at kind of where we started, where we are, what does that look like in comparison with SAMHSA's national guidelines for best practices or behavioral health Crisis System work. We'll have MCPD there, we'll have Fire and Rescue there, we'll have everyone there and other partners. But part of the work tomorrow will be to identify who's missing at those tables and to document and draft some recommendations for the next year or two. Aware that SAMHSA is actually going to issue an update to those best practice guidelines in January and actually in communications with someone who was on the panel who wrote those already or drafted those already to engage them as a consultant expert here at Montgomery County to support our work. With regards to the sequential intercept mapping report, we received that final report from the state late just late last Friday, and I'm excited to support the development specifically of a collaborative reentry work group to oversee reentry process to ensure better communication among stakeholders and really provide a structured framework for cross-sector collaboration as well as forming a multidisciplinary team, which I know our judiciary is ready to go with to coordinate efforts across behavioral health, law enforcement, and all of those intercepts and ultimately promote information sharing and coordinator responses to complex cases so we can continue to do better. Thank you. The mental health of adolescents and teens has grown steadily worse for more than a decade and has only been exacerbated from the COVID-19 pandemic. What are some of the ways that the county can improve its response and treatment for both mental health and substance abuse addiction, including the roles that community-based partners play? And how would you leverage data trends to make decisions and to direct or redirect services to prevent or to reverse overdose. Super important question. So we have many things we need to do, some of which we are doing to some degree and we need to continue doing and some new ones. You know, improving our response and treatment is highly dependent on the availability of treatment and other professionals, which our entire country is struggling with. I know we all know this. So we have to keep advocating for pay equity to address the shortage of clinicians and particular in concert with the cost of living here in Montgomery County. But then once we have them to increase our retention and incentives for behavioral health professionals to stay in the public sector, to stay in the private nonprofit sector. If that's where they wish to be, we know that the alert of private practice and being able to do that remotely and across the country with interstate compacts, it's just really difficult to compete with. Doing all of that, doing all of that really well, will still not get us to where we need to be. So we need to keep increasing the peer workforce in particular both within county government and among our community-based partners and there's some pay equity issues to address there as well as that workforce has started to grow a bit but that is one of the primary ways that we can continue to provide support for diverse communities across our county and we in turn need to recruit for that work first, right? We have again a very diverse community here many of whom may not know or be aware that they can be certified to be a peer specialist and utilize the expertise of their lived experience to help us in combating this crisis. So a lot that we can do on the public information standpoint to work on that. We have to promote behavioral health careers and allied careers with our youth, with MCPS, and Montgomery College. We've got to feed that pipeline. That's part of the work as well. And we have to increase our partnerships with allied partners, so especially organizations, community groups, what happy we have so many people that are vested and interested in this. This is our top public health priority, absolutely. But I do believe that we have other opportunities to call the experience and expertise of organizations that may not have seen themselves as working within a behavioral health space in the past, especially those that have unique cultural linguistic access to communities that are experiencing disparities, and to do so not just in prevention and promotion efforts with us, but also as partners in intervention efforts, like we've done with the pilot substance use intervention and prevention program as of late. So the bottom line is we really can't rely on traditional clinical and medical systems to address the crisis we've got continuing going on. We have to be working much more broadly. And we have many examples in this great county of how we've done that. But we need to continue that work. In terms of leveraging data trends in the particular, that was a two-part question. In late July, the Maryland Department of Health, the Office of Overdose Response in particular, they release an updated enhanced overdose data dashboard, which is an amazing tool to help us combat the opioid crisis and overdose crisis in particular, amazing in particular because it releases data every 30 days for us. So we have access to much more timely data. It's broken down visually by county and by zip code. It gives us information around fatal overdoses, non-fatal emergency run visits and our EMS Naloxone administration. So it has historical trend and demographic insights in there as well. But what it does not have, of course, is any data that we don't really have in a quantitative fashion around the number of Narcan administrations that are occurring in the community, right, but are non-EMS. And so we are working on ways to get more data around that through vending machines that collect data on where people are purchasing and how much. And we have to just hear from our community, right? We have that data and we have to marry it with what we're hearing with our community to make sure that we can be responsive and more flexible. And I think that flexibility, I feel like, will primarily come from those increased partnerships that we need to establish with community-based organizations and procurements that have scopes that are flexible enough to allow them to redirect their energies and efforts with our support to different geographic areas and different target populations and different subcontractors if need be to make that happen. What measures would you take to advance racial equity and social justice to reduced disparities in the behavioral health system in the county? This is a pivotal question to me. This is the crux of all of our health public health work. One thing that I know is not consistently captured in our work, whether we're delivering it directly as county government or through partners is data on outcomes by race. We have data on who we're serving in general, those demographics, we have data on how we're doing with interventions, but we're not readily breaking it down by subpopulations to look at how we're doing, by different communities in our county. So that's command at my number one focus is working with hopefully a new chief information officer at HHS soon to make sure that we can do that. And again, to work with partnerships to redistribute resources via a racial equity and social justice lens accordingly, I'm very concerned about access and wait times, particular for our uninsured populations here in Montgomery County. And I will say another thing that we have to make sure that we're keeping top of mind in this work is beyond lifting up and implementing evidence-based practices that we're also looking at practice-based evidence, which is the practices that are communities, specific cultural communities and others, know to be effective for them and to make sure that we're getting enough information about those to do, again, pilot work that can be innovative here in Montgomery County. Thank you. My final question. Are there any potential conflicts of interest of which the council should be made aware? No great okay let me turn it to the chair of the Health Human Services Committee Council member Almanaz. Thank you so much Mr. President so full disclosure colleagues Miss Martin and I came together in county government around the same time so we've been on several committees over the years together, including the former county executives, positive youth development committee, the Kennedy Cluster Project, the age friendly Montgomery committee, and just about everything in between. So I've seen your work, I've seen your collaboration, I've seen your leadership for the better part of 17 years now, and I was thrilled with this nomination, and this is another great example of the executive branch helping to promote from within to help ensure continuity. And so I did want to ask just a couple of questions, because obviously we're all acutely aware of the challenges before you as we know in a recent resident survey looking at public health in our community mental health was the number one in chief concern across our entire county and that cut across zip codes age groups demographics. It's just top of mind for everyone these days. And that work can be pretty overwhelming, particularly for the people that are on the ground. So in addition to, and recruitment is a huge issue, as you alluded to in your opening comments, but sometimes the best form of recruitment, as you know, is helping to make sure we're taking care of the people that are already on our team. And so how do you plan on supporting your team to ensure that they have the support they need to be able to do their jobs? But then hopefully they'll be able to tell their colleagues in the field what a wonderful place this is to work. Yeah, that's a very good question. And we have decades of experience in research it tells us that the primary reason people say in their jobs is because they're happy with their supervisors and the day-to-day peers and their work culture, right? So I'm not, I'm not going to sit here and say that in the three months that I've been sitting here as acting chief that I've learned what that looks like in every place and space that behavioral health and crisis services conducts its work, but I'm learning, and I'm very focused on that. And so I have started implementing some different strategies to support managers, because it has to start from the top. And I'm listening. And I'm also taking great notes specifically around those pain points that can lead to attrition, especially for people that are mission oriented and really want to do this work. Having said that, there are people, the crisis center is one of those places that in their pathway in terms of becoming a behavioral health clinician, they come into this work to learn. It's not that they're not mission oriented, it is, but they're into this work to learn. It's not that they're not mission oriented, but they're on a path to becoming an independently licensed clinician. And then once they do, so many more doors open up for them and avenues open up for them. So we also need to build in retention incentives that are not just about keeping full clinical rules, but continuing to utilize our expertise and other promotional opportunities that allow us to sustain that work culture that really retains the whole team. So that's what I'm going to be focused on. Thank you. That's a great answer. Just a couple more questions. So, and you alluded to this also in your opening comments, but the importance of partnerships and alliances, the department knows full well that it can't do everything for everyone at all times. Can you talk a little bit about what your vision is for your division and how to enhance some of the collaborations and partnerships we've been able to establish both within County Government with Sister County agencies, such as MCPS, but also our nonprofit providers. And I would say private providers as well. Yeah, absolutely. of the city of San Francisco, and I think that's a great way to get to the city of San Francisco. I think that's a great way to get to the city of San Francisco. I think that's a great way to get to the city of San Francisco. I think that's a great way to get to the city of San Francisco. I think that's a great way to get to the city of San Francisco. I think that's a lot of folks in person and some that I hadn't seen in some time, but there were old friends as well. And it's a great coalition. And again, I see it as missing some of our allied potential, what I call allied partners in this work and expanding the work. So what I see myself doing with some of the previous relationships and connections that I have, or I just say current ones that I've built over time, is doing some of personalized outreach about interest and supporting in this work. And I know everyone's interested, but I just do. I don't know anyone in this county that's not interested in supporting this work, but I don't know that everyone sees themselves in terms of how they fit potentially into this work, so we have to kind of create that vision and those opportunities and talk to people about those potential intersects. So that's what I'm personally invested in to grow those. That's great. And the good news is you already have so many of those relationships that you'll be able to leverage in this new role, which you've been doing very effectively just in the few months that you've been serving in an acting capacity. I'll just close in a personal note, our mutual friend, Fran Brennan, who has of course passed. I know would be tremendously proud of you. And I just wanna thank you for your work, for your commitment, for your public service, for all these years. I look forward to the exciting initiatives and great ideas that you're going to bring to this new role and I look forward to supporting them. Thanks. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Modra and now. Thank you very much. I think it's great I got to go after my colleague on the Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee. I've got to work with you, Miss Martin, obviously, in my role on the education committee over the last six years and now as chair. And don't worry, I'm not going to ask you about the out of school work time report. And I won't, we won't, you know, I'm not going to grill you on any of that. I was very excited to see your nomination, as I let you know. And I never do this, but I turned in my yes vote before you even spoke. And because I know what you bring to the table. So I want to commend the can executive, the head of HHS and ACAO, stuttered for recognizing that you're a great talent and that you care deeply about the work. I just want to flag a few things for you. I'm so happy that you mentioned on your own in the racial equity question about the disaggregation of data by outcome. You know I'm sure and give you a chance to respond that one of the many canaries in the coal mine on this issue is that for Black youth suicide is increasing at a rapid rate while youth suicides are down for every other racial ethnic group. Right? And I had a meeting recently where, you know, where I, someone was sharing some numbers about Montgomery County, which I need to verify, but that we're, we tend not to be out of the norm when things are happening nationally in that regard given our size and our demographic breakdown and how large we are. This is I think among, you know, the surgeon general, as you know, has said there's a mental health crisis not only for youth, but for the parents of youth and caregivers. It is the chief among our issues that we're dealing with and getting a handle on what's happening here and how we can work with the community partners and restructure our response and is going to be key. I just want to give you an opportunity to elaborate on that at all and any thoughts you have about how we might begin to tackle this in addition to getting the data. Yeah, absolutely. This is something that our Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Davis and I have been talking about, a fair amount and had a couple of meetings with some partners to hear some more concerns and information, but the data is where it is. And we're not clear on what all the contributing factors are. We need to hear more from our community about this. I feel like that. We need to hear more from our community about this. But we do have enough data to make some changes and target it out reach and prevention and promotion work in particular because that's what we get the best value for our buck with our African-American male youth in particular. And so we've made some inroads through our prevention of harm reduction office on some more engagement and outreach events that we want to bring to a hyper local level. And that's being done in conjunction with, well, various partnerships with our African-American health program who has a lot of those connections in our community but also with our faith community and with Fire and Rescue and Montgomery College. So we welcome from all of you, any of you please, any other ideas or strategies to make sure that we're kind of honing in on exactly where we need to create those targeted opportunities for prevention and intervention. And it's something we're going to be coming back to this through bulk. I appreciate that. And obviously we'll partner with you to work through those strategies in my role in the committee, but also just in general. One other thing I just want to flag for you is the continued work around crisis intervention you talked about it earlier. This Council, the previous Council, have taken steps to try to move to different models. Obviously, your role is going to be a key collaboration role with the school system as you talked about, you've already worked on that with MCPD, with RACS, with every agency, to change the way we address and respond to crisis. And so I was really happy to hear all your comments on that and look forward to working with you on those issues as you move forward. So congratulations again and can't wait to support you. Thank you, Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, as well. Thank you, Casper Olukey. Thank you, my friends. I'm looking forward to working with you as well. Thank you, Casparo-Lucchi. Thank you, Mr. President. And first, I just want to say thank you for your particular support of my district over the past few days. This has been very challenging. And I greatly appreciate your willingness to collaborate and be there. And I think that's kind of a hallmark of the time you've had with us so far as an acting role in this particular position. So I serve as the council's lead for crisis response. And it's a matter of near and dear to me. And in particular, yes, the adolescent mental behavioral health aspect of things. And I just returned from the Council of State government's conference on adolescent mental behavioral health where I got to go with several members of the Maryland Judiciary. And I'm eager to sit down once we get through all this to talk some more. You can't be everything for everyone at all times, which is something you just said a little bit ago. And yet, someone has to be the captain of that ship, right? And I think you embody that balance. Knowing you can't be all things to everyone at all times, but also knowing that you have to be the leader and the convener of all the disparate parts that play a role together in working through this. And I know my colleague councilmember Albernos asked some questions about collaboration across the spectrum and certainly we've talked about the sequential intercept model and I participated in the in the twoday convening that we had here in the county. What I'd like to know is how do you view your role in this role with Montgomery County from a regional perspective? Since a lot of the things that we experience are not just a county issue, they are cross-border jurisdictional. Yeah, we will absolutely have you, my role, County issue, they are cross-border jurisdictional. Yeah, we will absolutely have you, my rule, is being the point person for the multi-jurisdictional and regional communication, strategies, approaches. And I will say it's something I've begun the foray into, but not deeply yet in particular because I wanted to learn the internal workings of the service area and of course, sustain some immediate projects and bring things to fruition like the residential and patient. Right. So, see, view statements and what have you. But certainly have interface with our behavioral health administration and the state and was at the ribbon cutting for the direct care Center and meeting folks there in Prince Rorge's County also up seeing a stabilization center in Baltimore as well to ensure that I'm connected to partners that are doing this work and have been doing this work longer than we have in some cases but we've been in the forefront in other cases as well. So yeah, I see myself as the person to be out there and engaging with our neighboring jurisdictions around this world. Well thank you for your willingness to step up and we're lucky to have you. Thank you, Councillor Perciel. Mr. President and thank you Monica for taking on this incredibly challenging role but given your resume, I think it's almost six pages, just documents the breadth and depth of experience that you will bring to this role if appointed. And as my colleague, Councilmember Juondo mentioned, you'll be leading the crisis response system within our county. And so if appointed given some of the recent events in our county, can you outline the ideal relationship between MCPD and behavioral health and crisis services to enhance the utilization of the mobile crisis teams during calls involving mental or behavioral health issues, especially when there's a crisis, when there's a safety concern for the crisis team employees. How will you prioritize identifying gaps, strengthening de-escalation, and preventing loss of life in this role? Excellent question. That's on the top of everybody's mind, I know. Mine as well, of course. And what I can share is I've come into the space and again, looking at the inner workings of what our MCOT team does every single day or our teams rather do every single day. Is that that balance is one that is always being refined. It's only been two years since the commentary on this patch protocol was established. And that is the first time that MCOT responses didn't automatically come along with police presence. So here we are because that was the protocol part of them. So here we are two years later. And I'm happy to report that managers of our teams in the crisis center see the shift in the culture with the growth of our peer specialists. They see the shift in the culture on just the number of successes that our companies have had in responding to behavioral health crises without police presence. Having said all that, the safety of of our clinicians as a member of the public is is a priority as well as the safety of all of the members of our public and so I'm again I I'm learning and and it's I'm not using it as an excuse I don't you know there's not like a long ramp up period on this one at all but I will share that our current protocol as you're aware is, if there's been reported or suspected weapon, then we're going to have police with us there and one way or another for the safety of our clinicians. There are various variables in that dispatch protocol that are in place right now to ensure the safety of our clinicians. In situations of high risk and high acuity, the police department and HHS are in conversation right now about reviewing any other opportunities for there to be clinical consultation at other stages of the police response. And when I say other stages right right now M-COTS are involved in, again, the behavioral health crisis evaluation and support. And in situations of high risk, if public safety is a number one concern, especially for other community members not serially and individual who's posing a risk to themselves, then they are called in when it's safe for them to enter that scenario to do so in terms of the in-person interaction. But we are in conversations around if there are opportunities for, again, the clinical disciplines, expertise to inform some of what is happening in those situations, more closely and more integrated fashion, to see if we can continue to improve outcomes in those situations. Okay. Because I think it's important that if these teens are deployed to a scene that they have the ability to communicate with the person in distress, instead of just being a bystander or just being in the vicinity. And so as you take on this responsibility, I hope that there's an opportunity to review and reflect ways that we can respond better to stressful situations, for residents, for public safety officials, and for our social workers that are deployed to the scene. Absolutely. That's our charge. We have to admit, I'm a review reflective, not, if not, do a lot more. Thank you. I look forward to working with you. Thank you. Thank you, customer funding and sales. Good afternoon. I will recently met Ms. Monica Martín and doing another tragic incident. It's a 14-year-old kid who had an overdose of fentanyl and this was a couple weeks ago. And my office contacted Ms. Martín and you immediately responded to the situation. It was quick, it was to the point and we were able to keep treatment to this kid. It happens soft and I, we need people like you that when we call, you understand that this is a matter of urgency and we need action right away. And you have done that and I'm very happy to see you in your position and I'll forward to voting for you. Thank you. Thank you, Kasra Ramanck. Thank you. I was also really excited about your nomination and I have heard nothing but good things. So I look forward to voting for you and I also look forward to you helping us move forward at a rapid pace with what I am grateful to know our shared goals here across county leadership as lifted up by the public. So we're in a uniquely good position here in Montgomery County in which the values really are shared. Everyone agrees that we want to be moving towards a place where residents who call for help Receive support that is most appropriate for the situation that there are we need to have a menu of responses that are available and that we want to provide Collars with you know the least restrictive setting possible with a behavioral health mental health forward response Civilianizing where possible, but then had the full spectrum that's available. And we want all of that to be agile. And we want people to be able to make changes in the decision making in the middle of a call, responsive to the variables that they find on the scene and all of these things. And this is obviously very complicated. And even though we've seen that, even though this is what we all want, we're not very yet. And so we're really looking forward to your leadership to move us faster down that very complex path. So and there's a few pieces in that. We have protocols in place, but they can vary from depending on where people call in terms of what those protocols look like on the ground, whether folks are reaching out to 988 or calling 911 or calling the crisis center. Part of that is capacity. Part of that is the nuances of how you define what does danger mean, what does weapons, presence of a weapon mean. Some of these nitty gritty details can contribute to some real variance there. It's a difficult position. We also don't have the capacity yet to even be able to carry out those protocols to the extent that we want to be able to ensure the speed and the timeliness every time. And so a lot falls on, for example, our CIT officers, who are admittedly, we appreciate that they're CIT trained. We're glad that they're there. But as we have heard that there are some calls where they're like, if we had more MCOTs available, they would be there taking the call. And so they're responding to the calls. So there's that capacity issue. And then there's also ways in which our protocols could potentially be expanded to include more types of calls that could potentially receive a civilian response. So our MCOTs now, of course, are largely for mental health, behavioral health situations. And when we look at other jurisdictions who are using this type of model, there's lots of other types of calls that could potentially be a civilian-only response. So there's a lot of variables on the table here. Can you talk a little bit about your approach? And when looking at the unique challenges of one trying to integrate all of these different responders, including the different nonprofit and potentially private partners that you'll be, you know, hopefully increasing their involvement in this work. How do we integrate all those so that the public on the ground is receiving a consistent response and it's not complicated for them. And then also where do we fit into that the part of it that's looking at how do we expand the type of calls that could receive a civilian only or civilian police joint response. Well let me just start off I say that I'm happy to report you'll hear this on Thursday as well that with the support Kind executive and your preparation into this fiscal year that we will have up to five I'm caught teams operational as a October 1st. It's starting next week And we need to get to seven because that's what was funded but in terms of recruitment and staffing and scheduling That's where where we'll be so we'll have some expanded capacity, which is exciting I do think what you talked about in terms of the integration and interconnectedness between our partners in the crisis response work. I mean, MCOTS are the mobile crisis response entity that they are where there is no other entity that is doing that work specifically. There are other models and other jurisdictions where there are various potential response providers. It's something that could be looked at as well. In terms of the types of calls though, that they respond to, we already have had, so we only let M-COT teams respond to things that are not as immediate high-quality or immediate high risk. So an example of providers in collaborating with our chief of services to end-improvement homelessness and looking at, again, resident affirming ways to support our community who may or may not be in house, but is observantly suffering from substance use disorder just order and sleeping outside behind establishments overnight, that kind of thing. Having peer specialists led teams go out in that situation as long as they're not being called out to a higher-acute situation. So yeah, those limitations do exist. But going out to do concerted outreach and engagement in those kinds of situations and we had success in one location in Silver Spring after a couple weeks of that kind of outreach we had five of those residents who were again using using and sleeping overnight behind commercial establishments connected to treatment and so the limitations that we experience due to kind of staffing protocol what have you there's also another side to that we do have to kind of staffing protocol, what have you. There's also another side to that. We do have flexibility. It does exist right now. And the complicated piece is, yes, being able to in one digestible snippet, make sure that all our stakeholders are aware of all the different options that are available. So thank you for the question, because that's certainly part of our work to make sure that that is a communicated effectively and implemented in a standard manner. There are always going to be situations as you all of these are very complicated situations and some and at many times we're not at liberty to disclose various details about those situations and so that can impede understanding sometimes or communications and follow up, but there's more work to be done as well. Thank you. And I just wanted to lift up to points that you made when we had our last conversation about this one of them being that we need the state to help us to allow us to have our civilian, our MCOT teams. If we want the option for some of those teams to be, for example, two peers and have that be something that can be reimbursed, then we would need state legislation to look at that. If we want that to be a minister menu of options. Right, that's actually a larger, a broader advocacy point around peer specialists in general because those that are focused on recovery, peer specialty work right now, their work is reimbursable by the state but not general at all. And we're kind of Maryland is one of the states where that's the case, so there's many other who that's not the case. So what I've put to early about just increasing our peer workforce in general in our community. Yeah, I think that's a huge part of our ability to staff up quickly. So thank you for raising that and I will just close by saying, please be as transparent as you need to be in your budget. Requests as we're looking at this. I know that that's a huge piece of it and it's a decision that we're all going to have to make. But you know, for all looking to go to a particular place. Let's just give us the hard realities about what we need. If we want to have folks who are able to respond to all of these different types of calls, and I know that they have to prioritize that as part of their responsibility, that's all there's no option there. to be able to respond quickly to a youth truancy call, an intoxication call, all of these different types of calls that we want somebody to be able to be there quickly. And it's a call that doesn't require police. What is staffing like that look like? You had mentioned also collecting data, being a really important part of this. So we look forward to hearing what we're really going to need in order to produce what you want to produce. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bacchum. Thank you. I don't have a question. I just wanted to say I'm really looking forward to working with you. The thing that really jumped out when I looked at your resume was just the breadth of your experience throughout the county. Montgomery County is a very large county and we have a lot of different communities with different needs. And I appreciate that you've had that experience. And so I'm just looking forward to working with you. Thank you. That's very kind. And I'm sorry sorry I've made it to one of the up county youth block planning committee meetings but I've had team members there and we're going to be there. And we appreciate your work on that and I'll be looking forward to it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor McKaid. Thank you very much. My statement is very similar to a council member of welcomes. Monica, your reputation is just sterling. It truly is. And in fact, I'm going to do this quickly. But when we met, I guess the other day, days have a way of hunting together one zoom. And when I came home, I mentioned to Sally, who you know, my wife, I said, you know, I was just want to zoom with. And her statement was what a wonderful job you did when she was with Montgomery County Public Schools and believed me, she said, you are, this, I'm quoting Sally, you are the right person for this job. So congratulations and thank you on behalf of my entire family. I look forward to voting for you. Thank you, that's all the colleagues wishing to ask questions or comment on how great you are, how sterling your reputation is. So those who have not spoken are in agreement and did not need to add their agreement to the kudos that were shared. We will follow up with you. Really appreciate your continued commitment to the county and to serving our residents and our young people in crisis. And so thank you for that. Before we close out, did Dr. Stoddder and did you have something you wanted to do? Yeah, I just very quickly add. Yeah, just on behalf of getting executive and today, I want to thank the council for their expeditions hearing of all these nominees recently, as well as your on a batch of support for expanding our crisis services and crisis prevention. We're our, again, we look forward to you continuing your expeditious process in programming Miss Martin. Appreciate that. Look forward to that as well. We are going to adjourn before we do. Briefly let me turn it to Councilmember Bacchum. Thank you. I would like to be recorded as a positive for the consent calendar as I stepped out. Thank you. Okay, and with that, we are adjourned.