Board of Managers - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded.

So this is our follow-up meeting to our special meeting where the Ad Hoc Committee issued its report and recommendations on the Planning Department's preliminary recommendations for the revised Friendship Heights Sector Plan. So once again, I want to thank the committee for all their hard work. The chair was Jonathan Halperin. We had members Allison DiGiovanni and Bill Van Horn. I think Bill might be on this meeting. Yeah. Thank you for your hard work. So sorry for the short notice for this meeting, but we're trying to respond to the planning department's requested deadline at the end of this week to submit comments on behalf of the village. Preliminary comments. These aren't our only comments ever. This is just a very early stage. Just to let everyone know who's listening in, this is a special board meeting work session. So we won't have public comments, but we did ask for comments at the May 14th special meeting and we received at least 22 households, all of which comments have been reviewed. Some of them have been incorporated. We'll be talking about them today and vote on our letter to transmit to the planning department by the end of this week. So just in terms of what we've done so far, it's really important for everyone to understand that we have our zoning attorney on, Michelle Rosenfeld, and the ad hoc committee has been working proactively together to engage with the planning staff as they were developing their preliminary recommendations. So our engagement continues and the letter the Village Board transmits to the planning department is only the first opportunity for us to weigh in on the preliminary recommendations. the preliminary recommendations are not detailed. So we need way more information and we're going to be getting more information when they have a working draft issued in June. Feel free, Michelle and Shana, to correct me about anything that I'm saying, but I'm pretty sure that the board will submit additional comments to the planning department after the working draft is released in June. So we're getting an early stab at this with this letter. We can't address everything because we don't know everything. The preliminary recommendations weren't detailed, so we're going to learn more. And we're going to inform everybody with weekly email blasts. So we have, let's see, we have Planning Department's June 9th and June 11th presentations of their working draft and residents can submit feedback directly to the Planning Department and always copy Shana Davis-Cook so that we know how the residents are weighing in. So let's turn to Michelle to outline the timeline and the process so far and figure out how we're going to proceed on our letter.

Sure. So the planning staff has been working on preliminary recommendations for some number of months, and we reached out and proactively engaged with them. We have met with them several times, we being the committee, as well as with CCLC representatives. There's been communications by email. There have been meetings to talk about their preliminary recommendations, and we have worked with them to try and weigh in with some of our preliminary input and preliminary concerns so that they could take that information into consideration before they formally produce their first working draft of the amended sector plan. And so this letter is our first opportunity, our early opportunity to get formal comments from the board, raising concerns where appropriate, supporting certain approaches that staff has recommended so that we can try and influence what their draft may look like with respect to certain key elements of the program. And as mentioned, There is a lot that we don't know yet. Their recommendation staff has not yet developed, has not yet shared with us. But we are looking to try and get our comments to them on the elements that we do know about. So that's where we are.

Yeah. And so somebody's going to screen share this letter as we go through. Okay.

And I will screen share and let me know if you can see that. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Okay. And this is a draft that was circulated a little bit earlier. And having looked at it again, there are some additional revisions that have been made, some in response to comments from community members, others, just as we thought more about some of these issues. And let me know how you would like me to go through this. I certainly don't need to read it line by line. but I can highlight the issues that we've, the revisions that we've made, if that would be most helpful.

That sounds good. I think many of the comments I saw were about height and the overlay zone. So I know we have reinforced those issues in the letter.

And I think it's also appropriate to acknowledge that in that lead-in paragraph, I know that Mr. Goodman has requested that we add some additional language that reinforces the village's objectives of wanting the retail areas in Friendship Heights to be successful. And that's certainly striking that balance to protecting the village's interests is of utmost concern. we'll be working to incorporate some additional language in that regard into that introductory paragraph.

Okay. So I see. One of the issues that had been raised by community members or by residents was the fact that the overlay zone really is a critical, critical piece of ensuring that recommendations are actually implemented. Sector plan recommendations generally are recommendations. They can carry great weight, but unless they're incorporated in a zoning ordinance and staff has proposed an overlay zone, then they don't carry the weight of the zoning code itself. They don't have the force of law. So we added additional language reinforcing how important that is to us. and that we think it's an imperative implementation tool and noting that the board's support for key elements of the plan including those significant components of height limits floor area ratio or density and public benefits and which uses will be allowed will depend on the substance of the overlay so we wanted to reinforce that um that that was a critical piece and added that we urge staff to provide a draft of an overlay zone along with the working draft of the sector plan. So we have an opportunity to see the two side by side.

Great, I think that's a great improvement. Does anyone have any questions or comments about this wording of this part of the letter?

Okay, let's move along. Okay, I'm not going to rehash those comments. elements that were discussed and agreed on at the board's last work session. This is the paragraph that talks about the proposed heights and expresses significant concern, reinforces the concern that the heights as proposed by staff are too tall and adds comparative language showing that the treatment along the existing neighborhoods the proposed heights really don't correspond with how heights are treated elsewhere within the proposed plan. So this simply expresses the fact that we would like to see those heights reduced even in the first draft.

Great. This seems like a really good addition to me. Does anyone have any comments or questions about This discussion looks good. So we move down to the public benefits. Here's more of the garage issue, too. So go ahead.

Correct. This is a new section. And there really has not been a lot of discussion about the public benefits themselves. These are amenities or features that a developer could include in a project. that are not required by law, but if they're provided would allow the developer the opportunity to get additional density above what is recommended, what is allowed by right under the zone. And so those public benefits and how they are addressed in the sector plan become critically important. So we would want to see public benefits included in the sector plan that offer benefits that we think would enhance the village of Chevy Chase rather than detract from them. And there were two that really seemed to be of overriding concern. One of them, we would suggest a recommendation in support of a public parking garage. There are none in the current sector plan boundaries, or if that is not possible in the alternative that new development provide publicly available parking within that new development project. There's a serious concern about a lack of a lack of available parking for people coming into Friendship Heights to, for example, see doctors to shop. And there's pressure on surrounding neighborhoods when overflow parking occurs. And we want to mitigate against that in the in the face of potential additional new density. Right.

And also encourage the, you know, we do have a medical corridor right now. And so we don't want to lose that. That's an asset to our community. But we want the people coming to use the doctors to be able to park.

Correct. And then the other is to reinforce that regardless of what heights are ultimately selected, that there really needs to be context sensitive buffering. between existing neighborhoods and the new development, not just through lower heights along the shared boundary of the properties that front on Wisconsin and the existing neighborhoods a block away, but also through context sensitive public open space, vegetated greenways, and enhanced or enlarged public park facilities. So at Those are the two sort of overriding public amenities that we are suggesting the staff really look at closely. There are others, but these seem to be the two that are most appropriate and most needed in terms of potential significant additional density.

Okay. Does any board member have a comment or question or addition to this? Hearing none, we can keep moving.

I'll just jump in to say that it doesn't affect the content of this letter, but just thinking that the experience of the town of Chevy Chase, as they've confronted development along their western edge facing Wisconsin Avenue, and then also the communities, neighborhoods around Chevy Chase Lake that have also confronted this, just the more we can kind of learn from their experience over the next several weeks, how they whether it was with various developers along Wisconsin Avenue in the case of the town, how did they confront the height issues and the buffering issues? And then Chevy Chase Lake, which again was with the Chevy Chase Land Company, where did they see the land company being cooperative and where did they find them to be kind of difficult?

Well, it's good that we're putting the heads up in this letter. So I appreciate that. Thank you. The next one.

Go ahead. The next paragraph in green is not new text. I simply moved it up. It gives the merits of why the parking issue is such a concern. So again, it's not new language. I just moved it so that it would dovetail with the public benefits element of this. There also is a comment here regarding, and this I think is from one of the board members, that depending on how the heights are addressed, we may be open to discussion about the wall, the existing wall. And it says that after the meeting, that as long as we don't say we're open to getting rid of the wall, that it's okay if it were permeable. The wall is a challenging issue. And I think that this is one topic that we could use some guidance with respect to consensus from the board on how, or if you want this language changed.

Yeah. So my sense and I, the board members should speak out, but my sense of the consensus of the board was we don't need a permeable wall up by Oliver. we're in the middle at Montgomery where we have the right of way, it continues to make sense. And then we've got this huge difference in levels because we have a retaining wall at Western from the parking lot up to the park. So getting rid of a retaining wall doesn't make sense. So really the,

terms of permeability we're kind of where we are in the middle at least that's the kind of conversation i've had with board members but i want other people to weigh in and tell us what you think about that well yeah can you hear me this is david yes yes okay so i think this is uh for the people along the buffer zone and for and grove that adjacent to the park i think From what I've heard from John Philbin, from actually Meredith Wellington, who's not in that neighborhood, but a lot of others, the tenants, this is a big issue. I think nobody really wants in that adjoining neighborhood that's most vulnerable to the pedestrians and the people visiting commercial facilities and Chevy Chase Center. Nobody really wants any more permitability between the wall and we, in my opinion, I see this blue edit here. I think we really need to maintain the wall as kind of a separation between commercial use on the west side, Chevy Chase land, single family, residential neighborhood of Chevy Chase Village. I think it would be very dangerous to, from what I'm hearing from the neighbors, to really concede that the village and the board and the community would be willing to see more, you know, more pedestrian friendly passage between the village and the development. Yeah, well, that's what I'm hearing. And exactly. And I think you actually said that. Yeah, you said that basically. But, you know, I see this blue note. I think it's OK as it does not state we're open to getting rid of the wall. I agree with that. I think we ought to That's a comment from Nancy.

The comment's coming out. It's just, it was just an, right? Yes.

Oh, I see. Okay.

Yeah. That comment's not part of the letter. That was just Nancy saying she thinks that this paragraph is okay because we're not getting rid of the wall. Okay. But I think what I've heard anyway from residents and from board members is that Just what this says is the residential streets close to SACS don't really need more access. We've got the access in the middle, and we can't really do the access where we have a retaining wall, or we can't envision that right now without, you know.

So maybe adding another sentence that says, you know, at the moment, it seems impracticable to enhance pedestrian access, Or unnecessary. Not necessary because of the significant grade change in the existing, you know, substantial retaining wall.

Yeah. I think that there's a reason that we historically have had what we have, which is that that's where it made sense to have access. And that's where we continue to have a right of way on, you know, the extension to Montgomery Street is the circle at Saks. Am I right, Shana? Yeah.

It's honestly, it's just to the south of that traffic rotary on Montgomery Street.

Yeah. So, you know, we're going to maintain that as part of our, you know, under our jurisdiction. It is currently right away under our jurisdiction. And that seems like the only historic place along the wall that Cherry Chase Village residents have needed or wanted access. Am I right? Do other board members feel differently about that?

But we've stated positively that we believe that there already is adequate pedestrian access to this space through the Montgomery Avenue area. Village residents readily use it and don't need additional access. So we think it's appropriate to just have that single access point. Moreover, to the Western Avenue side, there's a giant grading issue and we're not going to need it on the other side. Something where we believe there is adequate pedestrian access. You could add if you wanted. There needs to be something worth walking over there for, but people walk through that property all the time.

Yeah, so maybe we could start this paragraph by saying that, that we believe there is adequate pedestrian access.

I think, Alyssa, that's good.

And it's a topic that merits careful consideration, just like you've put here.

And I do think we should say something about the grading issue because it's kind of nonsensical that you're going to have people walking over this giant cliff. And the planning staff, are they not aware of it? I don't know. It just is kind of a crazy suggestion.

So what the planning staff has stated could be achieved there would be some sort of a tiered plaza that could fill in that grade change. between the parking lot that currently exists to the east of the former Amazon Fresh and Western Grove Park. So they acknowledge the great change but are recommending some form of a tiered plaza. If you think even of the tiered plaza that exists currently within the collection parking lot, kind of in the central centered area where it turns from the portion of the interior street that runs parallel with Western Avenue to the interior street that runs parallel with Wisconsin Avenue, there's a tiered plaza there. They have commented to us that is the form of connection that they are thinking about, have not put anything down in writing, but would create a connection while acknowledging that great change.

I don't understand how that creates a connection, and I also don't understand who would benefit from it. I mean, it's not just a parochial thing about people in the village, just... There's already a place to sit on concrete if you want to sit on concrete. And putting another stepped-up thing with more places to sit on concrete doesn't help the commercial people.

I'm not sure it's about sitting on concrete, though. I mean, I've got this sense that a tiered thing would allow more vegetation and would be prettier.

That would make sense.

We don't know enough from what they're proposing.

What the planning staff noted about wanting to create a greater connection to Western Grove Park, they were apparently surprised at the number of people who commented during their initial in-person and virtual work sessions that they were not even aware of Western Grove Park, that it is obscured from the rest of Friendship Heights in such a way that people who live in the urban core of Friendship Heights were not even aware that that park was there and existed. And so the planning staff came up with this concept of trying to more directly connect Western Grove Park to the shopping center as a way to make it more visible and accessible to people in the Friendship Heights area.

Yeah, I guess I just don't understand that. I don't see how you make it more visible without tearing down the, you know, actually providing steps all the way up so that people can walk to the park. That just seems crazy in my mind because you still wouldn't know it existed if you didn't already.

Let's just look at this paragraph and see if we've made headway, though. We believe adequate pedestrian access exists. We're open to discussion. It merits careful consideration. We don't need it closer to the SACS area. And we have grading issues closer to Western. We put a marker down. That's the main thing.

Yeah. Is there any just looking at the say we are open to discussion. Does that help?

That's what I was going to ask.

Yeah, that's just asking for resident anger.

So maybe do we want to say we believe it already exists? It's not needed at Oliver. The pedestrian connections at Montgomery Street exist and are used. And as a practical matter, because of the grade changes, it doesn't make sense. Okay.

That explains our position on the wall.

I can summarize along those lines and send for another review. I'm not going to try and write it just at the moment if that's okay. We got it.

One of the things that the residents who have complained to me about this whole thing, one of the broad things they've said is that they felt like we're we're um giving away too much that could be um and and this would be an example of that just you know sort of dangling this hey you know we're not all that don't care all that much about the wall it's just just not a good good starting point yeah we fix this all right terrific that's that'll be that'll be a three sentence paragraph that'll be very easy to write okay then the next thing is um

It just says you're open to retail as opposed to encouraging it.

Open to it on the Western Avenue. Correct. By Wisconsin. Yeah. Or by what's now Wisconsin Circle.

Okay. I believe Mr. Winstead may have dropped off a call, but I know one of the things that he had expressed to me was wanting this paragraph to make clear that that would need to be balanced against traffic impacts. The reason that the village historically, as I understand the village, the reason the village historically was opposed to retail uses along Western Avenue was due to the potential for traffic impacts. If you had deliveries or customers who were double parking on Western Avenue and could create traffic backups, et cetera. And so I think it would be important, at least as Mr. Winstead relayed to me, to ensure that that statement makes clear that while the village may support retail uses along Western Avenue, that that needs to be done in a careful manner that ensures that there's adequate traffic flow to accommodate it.

Yeah. So it's pedestrian traffic. We're talking about people walking from Metro back to their homes and nobody can stop on Western Avenue. There's just, there's no parking or stopping on Western Avenue. We don't want that to change.

Correct. Now, I would say that there are retail establishments located on roads that don't allow for even stopping or standing where people still do it. So I think we would just want to work with planning to understand how those retail uses could be designed to further prevent people from being able to even illegally stop and stop up the traffic as they're illegally trying to access those retailers.

Right. And then I see at the end, we've added a paragraph about how, well, it's more than a paragraph, right?

It's these last couple of sentences. The first one addresses the fact that there's a lot of information we don't have. Exactly. And highlighted a couple of huge ones, the BRT route and possible elimination of the transit center. And we expect that we'll weigh in in the future on those.

Yeah. Now, does any board member think we need to weigh in before we even know anything? I mean, it's hard for me to imagine weighing in without knowing what they're talking about.

But did I hear?

i would just offer um should environmental considerations be included in this paragraph we need to know more about so i i absolutely am on board with we need to know more but um uh wasn't sure if we've addressed environmental considerations as one of those issues uh that should be mentioned will that be coming in their next um thing yes okay we should put that in too

the things that we haven't heard about yet.

I assume that's a sufficient umbrella term for canopy, maybe stormwater management. Some of the resident feedback mentioned that the streams that are flowing underground and the impact on those and how they're going to be handled going forward.

Environment includes stormwater management as well as any of the vegetative issues, trees, forest cover, that kind of thing. Okay. Thanks.

And Michelle, just a flag. There is some specific language in that regard on page three of the email that we received from Ms. Wellington.

Okay.

Can we revisit just for a second the wording that says we're encouraging or allowing or whatever commercial traffic on Western Avenue? Because I think I'm asking myself, how does that help? And I believe the reason it's there is that right now we have a specific provision against that and we're trying to say, we're not gonna keep insisting on that necessarily, but is it helpful to actually?

Maybe we don't need it at all, but right now what we have is a truck loading zone, which benefits nobody in the village. That's the only thing we have in Western is a big driveway and truck loading.

Yeah, but trying to design what's going to be there in a letter of this kind isn't going to happen, right? Yeah.

I just thought it was a negotiating chip that we were reminding them, you know, we've always been opposed, but if the design were right and traffic considerations addressed, and you're giving us some other things, there might be a benefit to the residents for this issue as well.

They haven't proposed anything yet. So what you're saying, Gary, is eliminate the paragraph because it doesn't say much. We don't really need it right now.

Yeah, that I don't feel strongly about that, but again, the virtue signaling that we're trying to do on this, I don't think is worth much.

So this paragraph was added in response to a recommendation from the ad hoc committee, and it was proposed as Mr. Morse Morse burger just referenced as a way to say, while this has historically been the village's position, you know, we're open to changes in this limitation. to the extent that it will help to promote the commercial viability of the shopping center. You're correct in that it is not.

It is impossible to do that without screwing up traffic on Western Avenue. It's just, that's a fact.

Then we just err on the side of caution and eliminate it unless somebody really.

I'm fine eliminating it myself.

Because we don't know what they're, you know, we'll know more when we get the next step.

Yeah. And, and, and what's going to, what the configuration of the, of the Metro and the bus and all that sort of thing is going to be. We have no idea that, you know, all that might be pulled back so that there's room for.

Yeah. All right. So let's hear from others. Lou said, yes. Gary said, yes. Linda and Saul, do you care about this paragraph or this sentence? It's only one sentence, right?

Sorry. Sounds good. It's everything I agree with Lou and Kerry.

Okay. So we just don't think it's necessary right now. It's something that we can talk about in the future. Exactly.

And also just to confirm, Mr. Winston, are you back on the call?

I am. I apologize. Okay.

Just wanted to make sure that we had you noted. Okay.

Yep.

And you're in agreement with removing that sentence?

Shana, yeah. Okay, thank you. I just got back on.

It's the sentence about Western Avenue, and so we're just eliminating saying that we're open to retail on Western Avenue because we don't need it right now.

It's not actually in the planning department's preliminary recommendation.

Yeah, we don't need it right now. We'll deal with it down the line. Okay. So the things, and we're okay with the things that we don't know yet, but we want to continue to be able to address. The ERT wrote the environmental condition considerations and the elimination of transit. And then the last thing.

That paragraph really was just added to reinforce that although the board is not taking a position on these things right now because there is insufficient information to do it, we do recognize that these are points that we want to engage with the planning department. We need more information and we will be weighing in once we have more information, just kind of a placeholder for those future conversations.

Okay. So I feel like we addressed everything except the possible design advisory panel. Is that right?

Yeah, Michelle, can you just give an overview of how those work?

Sure. A design advisory panel is a committee made up of a number of people from the community and the Chamber of Commerce and various entities within a particular jurisdiction. They have one in Bethesda, and I have heard comments from the planning board that in their perfect world, they would eliminate that in Bethesda. They view it as an unnecessary level of review. It's not required by the zoning ordinance. It's not, they see it as burdensome and costly and time consuming. It's certainly something we can revisit if it comes up substantively as this moves forward. But my instinct tells me it's not something likely to survive planning board review, even if it makes it into a staff draft. So unnecessary for this purposes of this letter to mention. Absolutely unnecessary for this letter.

Okay. All right. So did we get through the letter?

Yes.

Oh my gosh. We're so good.

And then just to confirm, were there any other points that the board wanted to see included in this letter that we had not included? Just want to make sure there wasn't something that fell through the cracks.

no shana i i i don't think so but did you did michelle did you get all of um meredith wellington's you got her input right i did get her input and uh some of what is in this letter reflects some of the comments that she made yeah thank you and and the main thing to remind everybody is that um this is all still

developing and it is going to be a very interactive process and we this is our our first letter in response to the first thing that we've seen we're going to have much more detailed information next all right

Can I ask one question about something we might add? Our comments here are entirely focused on the portion of the Friendship Heights Sector Plan regarding which we care about the most portion on our side of Wisconsin Avenue. is a lot going on on the in the rest of the sector plan and as michelle noted there's litigation should we just add a comment maybe at the end that we have focused our our preliminary comments here on the section relating to our part of the plan but we reserve the right at later by our silence some language that we're not agreeing with the rest of the plan and we reserve the right to make comments on other parts of it during the course of this process, just something to preserve that record in case we do want to do that later.

I think that's a good idea. Sure. Sure. Happy to add that.

It could be tucked at the end. It could be a huge point, but, um,

I think we can just put it here at the very end.

Yeah, I think it folded to that added paragraph.

Yeah, it's a little bit like, you know, we're going to comment on this other stuff, too, that we don't know much about yet.

We also... To that, yeah. Okay. I was... tasked with coming up with some change to the introductory language and in candor, I'm struggling with it a little bit. I don't think it makes sense to try to work that out with everybody on this call, but when we're done, could a smaller group of us just get together and try to nail that quickly? Alyssa, if you're available, Michelle and Shana, maybe we could just get on a quick call and be sure we're comfortable with that. I think it's important, but there's just a bunch of choices we could make there.

And again, just to reiterate, because I don't think we had all of the board yet on the call when we talked about that at the very beginning, and just to be transparent for the public as well. The language that we are suggesting adding to the intro paragraph is non-substantive to the specific preliminary recommendations, but would be a statement that would essentially reinforce that the village board Donna Hershkowitz she, her, her, desires for this area to be commercially viable and that in in improving the commercial viability of. Donna Hershkowitz she, her, these properties, we have to balance that against the interests of the village and preserving our residents interest is that along the lines, is that a fair summary, Mr goodman of the added language we're adding there.

It is. I think we could even maybe broaden it, not just to be the commercial success, but broadly what the staff's preliminary report is trying to do is to revitalize Friendship Heights. There's a commercial component of that, to be sure, but it's kind of broader than that. So I think, you know, language I'm thinking is we strongly support the overarching goal outlined in the planning staff's preliminary report of revitalizing Friendship Heights. And we stand ready to work collaboratively with all stakeholders in developing a sound plan to accomplish that goal. In so doing, we recognize that there will be diverging viewpoints, and there are certain issues on which the village must insist, including appropriate transition between our longstanding residential community and the denser development anticipated in the sector plan. And that's about as far as I got.

I hope somebody wrote that down because that was great.

He definitely wrote it down.

When you have a minute, you can add it to this. Sure.

Send it over.

I think we need to figure out how we're quite ending it, but give me some time after this call. Who am I sending it to?

Michelle and Shana.

Yes, certainly send it to both of us.

But I think we have general agreement that, yeah, we all want Friendship Heights to be revitalized, and we all want an overlay zone that protects us, gives us a cushion, and we will continue to weigh in. We're not waiving our ability to weigh in on all topics.

And just to add to that also that the proposed building heights are too high and that we are not in support of permeability, greater permeability along the border between the village and the sacks and collection properties.

Because it's unneeded. And I think those two, those two points are right on based upon what I'm hearing.

And, Shayna, this is a public meeting, and will this be posted publicly, a transcript of this? Okay.

So the recording of this meeting will be posted on our YouTube channel. It will include a transcript of this meeting. And then, of course, the final letter we will also post to the Village website and circulate it in our BLAST email system as well. so that residents have the benefit of seeing that. Residents can then also amplify what is in the board's letter by writing into the planning staff directly. And that's one thing I will just make a quick plug for while we have an audience here is that it is so abundantly important that individual residents are writing into the planning department directly. While the village board's position statement holds weight Having a volume of letters from village residents going directly to planning staff carries far greater weight. And so the village board can say, generally we're speaking on behalf of our 720 home community, but if they're getting a groundswell of letters from residents directly, that is really going to carry a lot of weight. So residents are encouraged to please write in directly to Atara Margulies, who is the lead planner. Her email address is in the homepage article on our website and has been in our blast emails. Residents are also welcome to copy me so that we have a record of what our residents have been submitting to the planning staff as well. But I just want to take this moment to really elevate that that is critically important in this phase, as well as the next phase when the working draft gets released, which we've also publicized. There will be two meetings, June 9th and June 11th, where the planning staff will be presenting to the public their working draft, which will be the next iteration of what was released in February, and we'll go into far more detail about the proposed sector plan.

And Michelle, who will be copied on this letter, especially among elected officials or potentially elected officials?

Certainly would copy the planning board, even though there are preliminary comments. Beyond that, I'm not sure at this stage how important it is to copy additional elected officials. If we were to include additional as courtesy, we might want to send it to the other municipalities within the Friendship Heights jurisdiction and the county council. But to be quite honest, at this stage, I'm not sure how much attention the council would be paying to this issue.

I'm sensitive to the fact that this is an election year and it will be a different council that votes on this than is considering it this fall.

That's correct.

And we would want candidates in the course of their campaigning and conversations with residents to be well aware of the sensitivity of the village on this. So I don't know, I'm not looking to step over a line in terms of should all district one candidates be copied on this. Or I'm happy and whoever wants to is happy to send a copy after the fact their way, but it just seems like we should be sure that potential members of the council next year should be aware of kind of the issues developing here.

I'm certainly comfortable with making sure that they get a copy. I'm not as comfortable with formally adding them to a CC list. Good.

The letter will be posted to our website. Once it is posted there, members of the community, be they board members or residents, are certainly welcome to forward this letter to whomever they think should receive it, including candidates for District 1 at large, et cetera. Thanks. So unless there are any additional comments on the letter, if we can get a motion, to approve the letter as amended, understanding that we still have some details to add, but we have amended the basic content of the letter. So if we can get a motion to approve as amended.

So moved.

I'm sorry, I'm encouraging the board chair to- No, I hear you.

We are looking for a motion and I hear one from Gary. Gary, go ahead.

So moved.

Thank you.

And all in favor?

I'm sorry, I missed the second. I missed the second. I was the second. Thank you very much. And again, apologies. I did not mean to overstep my role there.

I think all are in favor.

All on the call are in favor of the... Alyssa, can I just make one point? I'm speaking on my own behalf here. since we are developing this position on a public record and we can reasonably presume that other stakeholders will listen to this i think they've heard that at a core we really do want friendship heights to be revitalized and we're willing to work with the other stakeholders but this part we're putting in at the beginning it should be really clear to the other stakeholders there are some lines that we just won't cross we have to address the height issue and we have to have an overlay plan here and if they're hearing something else from us they shouldn't because those those are key elements of this among others that will identify there are points on which we've expressed a willingness to negotiate on this call maybe it won't be in the letter we can talk about it later but there are certain points that are just essential for the village in this process

Right, and I think we all just agreed to a letter that says that the heights and the overlay zone are absolutely essential.

Fine.

So, okay. So, Gary, you could do your thing, I think, right, Shana?

Yes, that's all that we needed to cover. Thank you.

While I reserve the right to have meetings in the future, I move to adjourn this one.

All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Aye.

so thank you and we'll um see this letter when it's all cleaned up thank you yes thank you all very much and again um we appreciate everyone uh being willing to get on this uh this call for such short notice so thank you very much all right thank you everyone bye