Montgomery County Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our July 30th Planning Board meeting. But before we get started on our agenda, just a couple of announcements. The first, I'd like to congratulate Commissioner Hedrick for being reappointed to the Montgomery County Planning Board. So congratulations. And also, I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge some special people. Today is National Intern Day, if you didn't know about it, right? And we have been honored. this summer at Montgomery Parks, planning the commissioner's office to host over 50 interns this summer. This included high school students through Summer Rise and Liberty's Promise, vocational program youth bill, and college students at the undergraduate and graduate level coming from all over the US and studying a wide range of subjects. We've also hosted another 50-plus interns throughout the school year. These interns have maintained trails, removed non-invasive species, created training programs, coordinated volunteers, analyzed data and mapped results, evaluated impact of master plans, ran social media campaigns, researched a variety of housing and transportation-related issues, connected with residents, and so much more. It is especially our honor to partner with programs that provide internships for young adults and especially those with intellectual challenges, immigrant youth, and youth needing an alternative path to a traditional high school. These interns make our work possible. Please join me in taking a moment to thank all our interns for sharing their skills and passions with us. So thank you. And now we'll get started with our commission matters. The first is adoption of resolutions. We have seven. Staff has been working overtime to get these done for today. They are popular growth sketch plan amendment, popular growth preliminary plan amendment, popular growth site plan, popular growth forest conservation plan, Washington Episcopal Day School preliminary plan, Washington Episcopal Day School site plan, and Washington Episcopal Day School final forest conservation plan. Do I have a motion to approve all seven of these resolutions? Move to approve all seven resolutions.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. We have it 5-0, and we have two minutes to approve this morning. It's the minutes of May 28, 2026, and the minutes of July 9, 2026. Do I have a motion to approve these two minutes? Move to approve the May and July minutes. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. And this morning, we have the Silver Spring Design Advisory Panel appointments, where staff is recommending approval of the appointments. And so there are three for the Silver Spring DAP, Peter Noonan, Sandeep Walia, and Bill Bonstra. And there's one for the Bethesda DAP, which is Sandeep Walia doing double duty there. Do I have a motion to approve the recommended design panel appointments? I'll move to approve the DAP appointments.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. The next is Record Platts. We have two this afternoon, Subdivision Platt Boland Subdivision and Subdivision Platt Kings Crossing, where staff is recommending approval. Do I have a motion to approve these two record plots? Move to approve the record plots.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. The ayes have it. And next we have four regulatory extensions. It's the Big Woods Manor Subdivision, Administrative Subdivision and Preliminary Plan Extension Requests. The Nepal Education and Cultural Center, request number two. The third is Starbucks Germantown Square, request number two. And the last is 2300 to 2350 Century Boulevard site plan amendment, where it's regulatory request number one. Do I have a motion to approve these four regulatory request extensions? I'll move to approve the four regulatory extensions.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. So thank you for those preliminary matters, events. And we're going to take a short break and start with our next item, which is continued from July 16, 2026, the Clarksburg Library Mandatory Referral Water Quality Plan and Final Forest Conservation Plan. Thank you. Good afternoon. Again, we're on item number five, continued from July 16th, 2026, the Clarksburg Mandatory Referral Water Quality Plan and Final Force Conservation Plan, where staff recommended approval with conditions on all of these. So today we have Josh Penn, again, presenting this item. Welcome, and we look forward to your presentations.

Thank you, I'll keep it short today since this is a recap, but we do have Clarksburg, I'm sorry, Josh Penn for the record. We do have Clarksburg Library continued from the 16th. There are two mandatory referrals, one for the site acquisition and one for the library, a forest conservation plan and a water quality plan. These are the recommendations, as you mentioned, there were approval with comments or approval with conditions depending on the applications. We are located at the corner of Stringtown Road and Maryland 355. There are two parcels involved. Just about five acres in total site in the Clarksburg Special Protection Area zoned CRT. The existing kitchen, there's 3.36 acres of forest on site. There's no stream, wetlands, or floodplains, but there is the Clarksburg Historic District Day House on the corner, which actually did get its historic area work permit approved by the council last night. So just refresh, 31 is for the acquisition of the parcel and 30 is for the Clarksburg Library building itself. At the July 16th hearing, this is what staff heard of some of the concerns and we shared these with the applicant after the meeting. timing of the project, the choice to switch locations, feasibility studies for both sites, what will happen with the 1.1 acre property in the town center, why is it disconnected from the housing component, thoughts about bringing more complete cohesive development plan for the five acres in front of the board instead of separately, tree variance, explanation of the acquisition process and why they are seeing the mandatory referral after the fact of the acquisition, and then, Most importantly, we were continued to allow DGS to prepare a response to some of the stuff they heard in testimony. And I believe Greg Assant is here to speak today. And that's where staff will leave it and let DGS and Greg come up if they want to speak.

Why don't we do that and we'll have public testimony versus the other way around.

Good afternoon. Greg Assant. I'm the Deputy Director of the Department of General Services. Just got a brief statement, and I'll be available to answer any questions. As Josh mentioned, in addition to the July 16th packet, we've included some supplemental materials. There's a cover memorandum from DGS. We've also included the Affordable Housing Feasibility Study that was submitted to the county council and subsequently approved, a copy of the approved CIP project, and several concept test fits for both the Town Center site and the Stringtown site. It's important to note that the materials are not chronological, specifically the feasibility study, but it provides an excellent overview of the project's background and the evolution of our decision making. In 2015, as a condition of Elm Street site plan approval, the county accepted the dedication of a one acre civic use site. Elm Street eventually dedicated the property in 2020, which is about the time that DGS received its funding to begin the planning and design process for the new library. As part of every capital project, DGS evaluates the feasibility of incorporating affordable housing and or child care into the project. These analyses are typically conducted during site selection and facility planning, but in this case, however, both the site and the program have already been established, making the introduction of an affordable housing component significantly more challenging. The design team evaluated numerous development scenarios, including multifamily buildings, townhomes, two-over-twos, garden-style apartments, and even podium configurations. Samples of these evaluations are included in your packet. Although the concepts varied, the conclusions were consistent. In every case, incorporating housing on the town center site with the library would have substantially increased project costs, negatively affected libraries' operations through reduced parking, staffing challenges, and a smaller library program generally, delayed delivery of the library, and ultimately produced a relatively small number of affordable housing units. Before considering an alternative location, DGS worked extensively to determine whether these challenges could be resolved. In fact, we met with Elm Street to explore opportunities to address the parking limitations through a shared parking agreement. Those conversations evolved along with Elm Street, and we evaluated whether the library and or a housing component could be integrated into their retail center development. Unfortunately, the site's configuration and building types and depths prevented us from developing a viable solution in collaboration with Elm Street despite considerable effort. At that point, we expanded our search beyond the town center. Because the county already owned the property at 355 and Stringtown, we began evaluating that location and determined that with the acquisition of the adjacent parcel, we could create a site approaching five acres, the new site being only 1,200 feet from the original site. The concept studies included in your packet demonstrate the advantages of this location. The larger site accommodates the single story library preferred by the Montgomery County Public Libraries, while supporting a significant affordable housing program across multiple housing typologies. It provides greater flexibility in design, meets parking requirements, offers superior visibility and accessibility, and is well served by multiple transportation options. After reviewing the analysis, the county executive concurred with DGS's recommendation and submitted a CIP amendment to both fund the adjacent property acquisition and accelerate the project schedule overall. The county council subsequently held a public hearing, conducted community work sessions, and ultimately approved the executive's recommendation. These deliberations occurred two and a half years ago. Since then, the design team has been advancing the project while balancing a number of important and sometimes competing priorities. First and foremost is the community. Through public engagement and listening sessions, we continue to gather input on what residents want to see in their new library. And that feedback directly informs the design. We work closely with our client, Montgomery County Public Libraries, to deliver a facility that supports outstanding library services, programming, and future operational needs. Because this site is located within a historic district and includes the historic day house, we've worked extensively with the Historic Preservation Commission. The commission has jurisdiction over the library's siting, architectural design, treatment of the day house, even grading and tree removal. We've completed five preliminary consultations, and we are pleased to report, as Josh mentioned, that we received our historic area work permit last night. Finally, this project advances the county's affordable housing goals. In addition to delivering a modern library that reflects community priorities and supports library operations, relocating the project to 355 and Stringtown Road creates the opportunity for a meaningful affordable housing development, one that can deliver substantially more units than would have been possible at the original town center location. Over the past six years of planning and design, and designing this project, meeting with the community, listening to their feedback, and participating in policy discussions with the county executive and the county council, we appreciate the lingering concerns about the shift in sites, but the result will be a superior public facility and more housing opportunities. As the staff packet notes, the county has met all standards and regulatory requirements and is recommended for approval. This is a long overdue public library, and we'd ask the planning board to move the project forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Austin, for providing that thorough information and a lot of great background information that we didn't have last time. So before the board asks any questions, I'd like that we have two people here today representing Elm Street to provide some public testimony. Thank you.

Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Bob Harris, a Lurch Early Brewer, here today representing the Clarksburg Town Center project and really the residents of Clarksburg Town Center. After many years of working on this project, I'm so glad that it's nearing its completion, but there is this one issue to address. I'm here to respectfully question the proposed relocation of the Clarksburg Library from the long-planned location in the town center. beginning with the 1994 Clarksburg Master Plan and continuing through the many, many development approvals for Clarksburg Town Center. The library has always been designated in that town center area because it was deemed to be a vital part of the whole town center. I appreciate that since 2023, the county has a policy to evaluate the possibility of co-locating housing when they build other county buildings. But that is really constrained by the requirement that it's gotta be feasible and meet other requirements. The objective of co-locating housing should not override Basic planning principles, long-standing master plan recommendations, environmental policies, and really simple practicalities. Location, co-location is but one option. We've built firehouses, schools, office buildings since 2023 in the county without co-locating housing. It is not a mandate. Here, the county indicates that the town center site is too small to co-locate both the library and affordable housing. I don't disagree. But that conclusion ignores the obvious reality that the town center's location itself already has extensive housing resources, including affordable housing, and is adjacent to retail uses, to a town square, and all the other amenities. To me, that makes it the poster child for co-location, not at the corner site that is not part of any of that. I also note that the new alternative site is in an environmental special protection area and is covered by nearly three and a half acres of forest, all of which would have to be removed. Now, as somebody representing the private sector normally, I kind of like the idea of that precedent because that I can take out all the forest to build something. But I think in this case, there is a win-win situation. As an aside, I note that the proposal today doesn't include any housing at all. So the co-location thing is, in theory, what would happen. We don't know how many units. We don't know when or even whether they would. So I'm not buying the co-location objective as the main ingredient here. If the county were to proceed and put the library where it has always been planned, they would have the entire Stringtown Road site to put as much affordable housing there as they wished. Doesn't that maximize both the ability for the library in a good location and affordable housing? It would also ensure the symbiotic relationship between the library and the variety of uses that are in the town center today in a very walkable, location that whereas at the corner that they're talking about, at least today, it'd be a 13 minute walk from the town center. In all due respect, I just think the county should reconsider and do the bifurcated approach where they can get both and as I call it, a win-win or a one plus one equals three situation. But Kate would like to say a few things as well.

Thanks, for the record, my name's Kate Cubitt. I'm with Elm Street Development. I was here a couple weeks ago, so I will try to keep my comments relatively brief. I just wanted to go ahead and share with you a couple pictures because last time I only talked. I think for me, at least visually, it's important to kind of understand where the library was located initially with all the Clarksburg Town Center planning since 1994 and why it is where it is. On your screen is a picture of the Clarksburg Town Center Retail Corps. This is the plan that was approved in 2015 and reapproved in 24 and then in 25 and so on and so forth. The plan, the red star is where the library is located and we spent hours with staff and with the community to try to pick the exact location to create cohesiveness and a symbiotic relationship between the library and the Clarksburg Town Center Retail Corps. If you think about what the master plan was trying to envision for Clarksburg way back in 1994, they wanted a civic and community hub, and that hub was Clarksburg Town Center. It was not at the corner of Stringtown and 355. So with this particular plan, we located the library at the end of St. Clair Road which kind of tees into Clarksburg Square Road in the retail core. It is surrounded by 1,100 existing housing units in Clarksburg Town Center. And in this plan, you can see right across the street is 189 townhouses, I mean, I'm sorry, multifamily units, including 24 MPDUs that will be built as part of our Clarksburg Town Center retail core project. That project is currently underway, and we expect those units to get under construction here this fall. So the St. Clair Road was supposed to terminate into the library. It was a focal point of the termination of that road. Immediately next door was an amphitheater, an outdoor amphitheater, to also help program that space and bring some enlivenment and some activity into that part of the community. And right across the street from both of those is a splash fountain, so people could take their kids to library story time and take them across the street.

Could you show with your cursor where you're talking about? Also, if you could show the new proposed location of the library on this map also.

Okay, so the Splash Fountain is... Can you see my cursor? It's right here. Yes, we see it now. It's right next... Okay. And then the new location is not... This is St. Clair Road. It kind of turns into Stringtown Road. The new location is basically... It's not on this site. It's basically down over here. As Bob had mentioned, it's about a 13-minute walk from the existing library and the retail core. But as you can see, this is very thoughtfully planned per the master plan for every plan that was approved. And there's 50 of them in DIAC. So if you look at all the development plans that are in DIAC for Clarksburg Town Center since 1995, there are 50. Every one of those plans shows a Clarksburg Town Center. Next page, just briefly, I'm not going to go through all of these. This is direct quotes from the master plan of Clarksburg Town Center, where it talks about civic uses in the town center, trying to create an activity center so that neighbors could congregate and get to know each other and get together and enjoy each other's company. I'm not going to go through all 50 plans. This is the 1995 preliminary plan. The red square is around the civic building that's in the Clarksburg Town Center retail core. It's not you know, a 13-minute walk away, it's centered to the retail core. It creates a relationship between the grocery store and the retail core and all the other housing and elements around it. 2008 is when the civic building turned into a library. Again, this is part of the retail core. This is a plan that this board approved in 2008, which showed this is kind of the northern part of the retail core. Everything's planned south off the page is retail. Again, part of the retail core. 2015, 24, 25, again, part of the retail core. That's part of the plan I showed you. And this is what exists today. I mean, this is kind of looking plan northwest. You've got 1,100 houses. You've got a library parcel that's fully developed, including the parking lot, which is basically this area right in here. You've got an amphitheater, which is programmed by the HOA. You've got 189 multifamily units that are going to be across the street, including 24 MPDUs. So you've got plenty of housing around it. And then you've got the retail core. So symbiotic relationship between the community, the civic use, and also the retail core. One of the things that is important in my world, maybe not quite as important in other worlds, is just the cost of this library. Back in 2020, the CIP had budgeted $15 million to build a library on the free site at Clarksburg Town Center. The Clarksburg Center site was fully developed. It had all the forest conservation associated with it paid for. All the stormwater management has been paid for. The site is fully ready to go. It could turn key. They could get started building and building on it tomorrow. That $15 million, honestly, is probably $20 million today with inflation. But the CIP back in 2020, it was 15. Today, without the cost to co-locate the housing is $40 million for the library alone. It's $3 million to buy the land, and it's another $5 million I think they have budgeted for the development costs of the ground. But that doesn't include the development costs to build the housing. It's only for the library.

Is it a bigger library? Maybe it's a bigger library that they are doing.

The size of the library is 20. The size is about the same. It's just one floor versus two.

Can you explain what is now proposed in the town center and why it has to be a library there? Why can't be another like a park? or something to create the hub. I don't know what is proposed now if the library is moved.

So right now the library is, right now it's just a parcel. And there's been some discussions on whether or not to make that something else. It's my understanding, and Mr. Austin can correct me if I'm wrong, that the parks looked at this, they were not interested. And it's too small to build a rec center or any sort of other public facility. So what we're asking today is if you decide that the library needs to be relocated, we would like the parcel back to try to work with the community to come up with something, some sort of civic or community use or some other sort of use that could be complementary to the other uses in Clarksburg Town Center. But our first, obviously our first goal would be to keep the library in Clarksburg Town Center because of all the careful planning that has occurred to date and construction that has occurred to date to get that to happen.

Okay, so one thing, are you finished with your, Okay, I'm not rushing you, but I'm just saying if you're done, I just wanted to have Mr. Arsene either address any of your questions or your comments before the board.

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And could you also respond that what is your plan with the town center?

So as it relates to the town center site, as I mentioned in my remarks, it's dedicated for civic use. The CIP had it as a library for many years until the CIP was amended by council and moved the location. So the civic use parcel still belongs to the county. We can still use it for a civic use. Ms. Kubit just said that it's too small for any facility. rec center along those lines, which presumably means a library too, just validates our point. But the fact remains is that the county can continue to use the parcel for any sort of civic use and will work with the community, and Elm Street obviously is a vested stakeholder to do that. We haven't been able to get to that conversation because the library is the priority right now. And so that is the answer for the town center site. The other point that I need to make, and there's been a lot of information, some of it's accurate, some of it's not. But I do want to remind the board that the applications in front of you have nothing to do with you picking which site you prefer for this library. I don't want to relitigate the issue. The fact remains is that the county council decided this 2 and 1 half years ago. It's in the CIP. It's in your packet. That was a resolution of the county council as recommended by the executive and adopted by the council. That is our Bible. I'm just the guy that builds it. I build it where they tell me to build it. And that's where it's supposed to go. So I don't want you to be confused that this is somehow a public hearing on where the library should go. We had those public discussions for many years, three, four, five years ago.

Can I ask one question on that?

Um, so first, thanks. Thanks for being here. Um, thanks for coming back. Um, it does sound like you had a lot of public discussions a couple of years ago. It'd be, I want, I want to explore a little bit more about kind of Elm streets involvement in that or other people who live in the town centers involvement. But I'm just setting that aside for a second. Um, the mandatory referral process is a part of the public conversation, correct? the mandatory referral for the acquisition of the property, typically that happens when the acquisition is being considered. And so although it's not regulatory, although it's just advisory, we are advisory to the county council, which is not to say that they would take our recommendation or advice on anything. They're not beholden to that, of course. And we understand kind of the purpose of the mandatory referral process, but we had no idea this was happening. And the mandatory referral, which we talked about for the first time two weeks ago, was two years after the fact. And so although I take your point that this isn't about which site, the conversation, the applications in front of us are not choosing a site. We are asked to approve the mandatory referral retroactively on a site that we may not actually have agreed with two years ago. So I guess my question is why, Why did that not happen two years ago? Why did DGS not bring the mandatory referral to us two years ago? And what was that conversation like?

Sure. Very simple answer. We have been working with the planning staff and the board on this acquisition for many, many years. It was not a secret. You're right, the mandatory referral application for property acquisition was bundled with this entire packet that's in front of you because we knew that ultimately we would need to do that. As you point out, it's an administrative advisory and it could have been issued earlier, but we just bundled it all into one application that you have in front of you today. But that is not to say that this is the first time that the board has been notified that this is happening. Council, the executive, the budget process itself all include notifications, and so this was well established, plus the community meetings. So it wasn't a secret, Commissioner, but certainly to your point, we just felt it was easier to bundle all of these at the administrative level.

Yeah, it wasn't. You're 100% right. The CIP, of course, is a public process. Council discussions are a public process. It wasn't a secret in that regard. But in terms of the topics and the issues and the things that we consider as a group, we talk about and consider those things that are brought on the agenda. That's what's public for the purpose of the planning board. And that's when we can receive additional public comment. That's when we can discuss as a group and also consider the planning related items that Elm Street talked about today and the history. And I just feel like the process was sort of degraded in that way, and we were not able to consider all the things that have been discussed today and were discussed two weeks ago because the mandatory referral for the acquisition did not happen at the time or before the acquisition. So I just wanted to note that I hope that in the future, even though it's advisory, I hope that the process can be followed because it allows for a healthier and more robust conversation where all these things can be considered, you know, we are, this is the land use kind of component of county decision making, at least on an advisory level with with regard to manager referrals, and but that just didn't happen in this case. And so we're left with a site and a partial design that doesn't include the housing, which was the motivation to move it in the first place. And I think a lot of these things, we would have kind of wanted to talk about a lot more, but we didn't have that opportunity.

Sure, and message received, and absolutely, I have no doubt that our next effort will run more smoothly in terms of process and procedure. You mentioned the timing in not seeing the affordable housing. We've included some concepts and some test fits for your benefit. We use those internally, Grimm and Parker, our design team. put those together early on. We use those to demonstrate our ability for different types. And so there are two main reasons for why you don't see an actual housing development, a subdivision at this point. First and foremost, as I mentioned before, we are under very clear direction that this library is the priority number one in Clarksburg right now. This library, as Ms. Kubit noted in her presentation, has been on the books for decades, and we have been directed, as I mentioned in my comments, that the executive accelerated this project by a year, and the CIP Council mandated that through their action, and so first and foremost, we have been full steam ahead on the library site, and as I also mentioned, we've been going through HPC for about the last year, working through those issues to better project as a result, and so that has been our focus. But the other part is we have, and this gets to some of the comments that you heard earlier, We are not in a bubble. The application in front of you, both the water quality and the forest conservation, tees up the affordable housing development. We knew that we had to put a road through the middle of this site in order to connect it to the town center. That's how I get to the town center in 1,200 feet. But more importantly, It creates essentially three pad sites. If you split the site into a cross, the day house and the library will be in the southwest corner. And then above it, we put the garage parking underneath the building, which creates, in between us and the Buffington property, a site for housing. And then on the other side of the bisecting street will be another site for housing. Both the roadway, the stormwater management, the tree variance, as well as the water quality plan all contemplate development of the rest of the site with affordable housing. So it's not as if we haven't thought about it. It's not been in a bubble. We are absolutely teeing it up. The other part is, as I'm sure all of the commissioners can appreciate, Home builders, and especially affordable home ownership builders, need to know what they're getting into upfront. And we're trying to take care of as much infrastructure and delivers a turnkey site so that they can just go vertical as opposed to having to come back to the county, renegotiate, have the county chip in through another CIP to run more storm water, to run more infrastructure, et cetera, et cetera. So those are the two reasons why we don't see the affordable housing. We're just not there yet is the first one, but it's not an afterthought. We are planning for it, and we will have it ready to go immediately following approval of this library.

Two, thanks for talking that through. Two more just quick things on my end. It's hard to track some of these things as it relates to the feasibility study that you did on the previous site and which were contributing to which, I guess, levels of decision making. You mentioned tucked under parking, which as I read the feasibility study was one of the reasons why you said that the previous site was infeasible. Because all the renderings you showed for the previous site showed surface parking. And if I'm reading this correctly, it's because you thought that tucked under parking was cost prohibitive, essentially. And now in this new site, you're showing tucked under parking there. Is that accurate? No.

The reasons I cited in my earlier statement, there were multiple reasons why the town center site doesn't work. Parking was one of them. We couldn't do anything on the ground. That's why we went to a podium. We were running out of parking for both the library and the affordable housing if we were going to try to do it. That's what those test concepts show. With the new site, we are, again, preserving as much land as we possibly can for affordable housing. The cost of the project, the other part is, Library operations, the Montgomery County Public Libraries weighed in on this heavily with the county council and the county executive in their deliberations. Two-story and three-story libraries are operational nightmares for these departments. They have to hire staff. Double and triple staff in order to perform their day to day functions, and so they are big fans of one story libraries, which is what we've got here. And so, in order to get that parking underneath the building and and frankly we're using the grades are very different on this site than they are in the town center so it's a very different site and we were able to come up with a very creative solution, thanks to our design team. but one is not necessarily consistent with the other. It's apples and oranges, quite frankly, but that's the reason behind it.

One more quick thing.

Can I just say one thing? Just looking at the CIP budgets from the previous CIP where the library was located in Town Center and the new CIP, at least in the operating budgets shared on the CIPs, the operation budgets are the same for libraries in both locations. I know that the library staff has mentioned a preference for a single-story library, But at least the budget is the same for both locations, the operating budget.

At the risk of counterpoint, don't be misled. Our budget office takes the old and inserts it with the new. And until we actually operate the new, they will approve a new operating budget, which will be different than what is in the actual CIP and shown in the budget books.

I think everyone supports the library as quickly as possible. It's been waiting for 30 years. So this, at least from my standpoint, these questions are not coming from a place of trying to delay the delivery of the actual library. The design of the library, as you've presented, is wonderful. I know we haven't kind of focused on that as much, but it's a great building. And I think what we're trying to understand is obviously the site location, but also why was it not possible even with a prioritization of the library in the CIP, at least work in construction. And I think like Elm street, you all can attest developments are often phased, but sometimes they present a single site plan. I think I'm still failing to understand why the housing component wasn't presented on a site plan or why DGS or through an RFP didn't put out something to request a holistic site design. And this isn't in a vacuum because, you know, a couple years ago, we saw another mandatory referral for a parking garage in downtown Silver Spring. And that was, you know, it was a deal negotiated with United Therapeutics at the time for a land swap. And on the new site, a parking garage was going to be built, but there was supposed to be an affordable housing component to that site as well. And we had a similar conversation that affordable housing wasn't part of the design. There was a small piece of the site that was sort of leftover. And one of the concerns we had at the time was sure, you know, there's land available, but we have no idea if it's constructible. We have no idea given potential partners, what they feel is feasible there or what they can design there to be compatible with. In that case, what is a parking garage? In this case, there's a little bit more flexibility in room. But I think I failed to understand then, and I failed to understand now, why there couldn't be a single proposal with a prioritization of the library. And there's public-private partnerships all the time to build these kinds of sites. And the county, it seems to me like the county could have taken ownership and responsibility for all the things you mentioned, the library, the grading, the infrastructure, the road, through some sort of arrangement agreement with a private or even non-profit partner, but presented something together so we could at least understand how it comes together and also have confidence that the housing is gonna come. To my knowledge, who knows when the housing on the downtown Sever Spring site is gonna come. I have no idea if DGS has released an RFP for that. The garage is almost done. But we've heard from you kind of all these reasons and I think some of them make sense and I'm not sort of challenging some of them. I just don't understand why we couldn't do this together. We haven't heard anything from you about like when You know an rfp is going to go out for the housing because I think that's that's that was the reason for the change in sight. And it's a really important part of this process.

So let me just go here, so I appreciate your comments your sentiment so I. I visited the slide and look through some other materials and I did clarksburg. Well, first of all, I feel that it appears that with doing really a site fit that the proposed library would be very challenged to fit on the original site and provide housing. This new site, it is an easy walking distance, regardless of whether we're judging is it the right, but it's easy walking distance from the town center. Just very, very easy walking distance, and it'll have a connection. I think with this site, it has extra room for housing. I feel that based on all that's gone on in Clarksburg over the past 20, 30 years, that it's very, It's important to the community to have these public amenities there as quickly as possible. The council went and did the work to test fit, got money approved, moving forward with the library there. I'm supportive of that. And I feel the board should just move forward with, yes, I think DGS knows. And then next time, Mr. Arson, we would be OK with you coming. As soon as you are going to buy something, bring it to the board. And even if that's just the phase one, and there will be other phases in the future to come to us, we would just enjoy, because that's part of our process. There's more room here for housing when the housing comes. It appears you're working on that now, but the key, after talking to some others and talking to you and some of the council members, it's important to have this library as quickly as possible. I feel that you should move forward with it because the community is looking forward to that amenity. Regardless of what happened in the past, we're here where we are now. It would be after I recommend that we move forward, voting in support of, I don't know if we had any comments on the library design itself. Did we have any additional than what was in the package last time? I can't recall. I didn't think we did. And we needed the water quality approval to go with this because it was in, I think, the special protection application. area, and there was a forest conservation. And I looked, even in the way the build-out was, they had a, what do you call it, a site limit of disturbance. It seems like they weren't going beyond that, not taking out, I mean, the forest conservation plan was as if everything was being removed, but the limit of disturbance for the library was much smaller, so they wouldn't have to take out all those things. I'm recommending we move forward. The other question, Ms. Kubit, about what would be planned in the future on that site, I'm hoping that you could work with the, I mean, I think the community, it sounds like the community wants something there that's for the community, and I think the county wants something there for the community, too, so I'm hoping that you guys could, as a developer, as you know, and working with the county and the community working with the county to come up with some, through discussions, figure out what's best for that site that's remaining. So I'm recommending that we move forward with an approval of these or, yeah, not necessarily, but moving forward our comments to the next steps on the mandatory referrals and also approving with with any conditions, the water quality plan and the forest conservation plan. That's what I recommend.

Well, I want to- Mr. Chairman, may I make one brief comment? I'm sorry, Commissioner Peterman. May I make one brief comment?

Okay.

Trust me, we do not want to stand in the way of the library being constructed ASAP. We want it as badly as anyone. We question the co-location justification for this, but I'm hearing what you're saying, and we don't want to put you in a difficult spot. But at a minimum, to be honest with you, we can't trust the county now. We would like the land to be given back to us. It was given to them for the library, and they're not using it for that. they should give it back to the developer so that the developer can work with the community on an expedited basis, not a 10-year basis, and find something put there that is meaningful. It might be a daycare center, it might be something else, but it doesn't, and if we want to approach the county for funding, we should be able to do that, but we shouldn't be held hostage any longer.

How are you hostage? I don't understand that. Let me just say my point that It was a master plan to have the town center to be the activity center. Somehow the county decided that the location is not a good location for the library. And also, I guess that although it's not mandatory, they suggest that to have co-location. I was part of that study, the white paper that was suggesting that all the public facilities, they need to look into the co-location. So that was something that we had to do, but then you had to show that what are the possibilities. I think that we could still have the town center to be the hub. And regardless who owns the land, do the right thing for the people there. This library has been promised for a long time. I think it's completely wrong to keep the library hostage for housing or anything else. We all want affordable housing, but at the same time, we want to have the public facilities available for people to use. And this library has been delayed for a long time. And in regard to answering the Commissioner's linden, that why we didn't bring both of them, because it's a nightmare. It's a nightmare to have two different completely, you know, a public building that it's going to be funded by government and is the priority. We leave that to be done at the same time with Getting an RFP and finding a partner to mingle these two together, it's going to delay the project much more longer. By the way, we may not get the best location for the public library as we have right now. We have been here witnessing that a lot of odd parcels come in front of us and the creativity of the developers create a beautiful land and housing development around the existing constraints that may exist on the site. And I agree and I support Chair Harris' recommendation that we shouldn't keep the library hostage. I agree that the mandatory referral for land acquisition, it should have come to us before the fact of happening. And it's sort of a little bit disheartening that right now we have a very good developer that is not in the agreement with what it has happened as part of the development for the Clarksburg. But if we all have the best interest of the Clarksburg community regardless, who owns the land, we should work together to create a good public amenity there. I do not know if open space is good or whatever that they want, but Mr. Austin, maybe that we have to have a project that look into what would be in place of the town center that people would be happy and create an activity center for town center. Maybe this is something that we should do now rather than later to expedite to happen. But we should accept and move forward with the Chair Harris recommendation and get the library, approve the mandatory referral for the library as is.

Yeah, I'll make my points very quick. The timing doesn't hold water for me. I don't think the explanation makes any sense. You went from a site that you could have proposed a library and parking lot with no housing, done the analysis and said it doesn't fit on the site and move along with our lives and brought it to us as a mandatory referral for a Libraries surrounded what will be surrounded by housing without an additional $3.4 million purchase. The clearing of three and a half acres, I think, worth of forest and a site which also had a historic designation, which you had to go through and you admitted took quite some time. I still don't understand that, and I don't think any explanation here has made that clear to me of why that wasn't done. I'm concerned about connectivity for the potential housing. There's only one road in what you've provided here that goes through, and it's on the version that has the least amount of housing. There's only one where the road goes through. The other, it's blocked. The bisecting road is blocked by stormwater, at least in the architectural drawings provided. And the other one, the amount of housing increased is not that high, and I don't think it's high enough to justify the cost. And I haven't heard any arguments for any of those issues here today. I think this was a poorly done situation, and we haven't been given the information that we need to make the decision here. And to the point, the mandatory referrals are advisory, but they should come before us so we can have these conversations before we're two years into a process. And the second thing is we do have regulatory control of the Forest Conservation Plan. And if you want to collaborate with us, I think you need to bring those things to us well before this. I still don't have good answers for any of those questions. On the other hand, the purchase is made and the library needs to get built. I still don't see any good explanation of efficiency or timing. For having moved this location, for having purchased this location at all, it's further away from more housing where housing will be. It's across the street from what's essentially an empty lot. It's got all the issues of historic designation. You're not getting that much more housing, which we're not even guaranteed we will get. We're getting that housing at the sacrifice of several acres of trees that have to be put down for a more expensive lot in a place that's further away. And I don't see in the architectural drawings, again, the connectivity that we're being told will be there. You don't have to do them all at one time, but you got to do something together with this. We keep saying we're going to prioritize affordable housing and we do stuff like this. You know, it's brought to us as essentially a fait accompli. There's no reason to blow it up at this point. But I still don't understand, and I don't have a good explanation for why these things were done. So Commissioner Hedrick.

Let me have Commissioner Bartley. I'm sorry.

I appreciate the comments of Elm Street and Mr. Harris and Ms. Kubit. I think that their request for the return of the parcel back to them is a fair and honest request. It's almost as if it was a tax to get something done and then they agree to the tax and then the promise from the county to deliver wasn't met and it won't be met and there's no plan for it to be met. And they contributed significant resources and capital and they made promises to the community And the community has been reliant upon those promises. And as far as the community is concerned, they not only hold Elm Street development responsible for it, but the fact of the matter is Montgomery County is responsible for it. And they failed to deliver upon a promise that they made to Elm Street and the citizens who purchased properties there. And the idea that the property can't be given back to Elm Street and it's not part of the discussion or presentation of Mr. Austin is curious. And the fact of the matter is that there's nothing future planned with specificity in that spot is also curious. One of the things that we look for in this county is private investment. Private cooperation and private companies to deliver housing and amenities so that our citizens can live their best lives in the best county in Maryland. And when the county doesn't live up to those promises, it's very problematic for me. being a private business owner myself, and I think that some discussion needs to be had as to how that property can be re-delivered back to Elm Street development. I am for the construction of a library, and unfortunately, I think Commissioner Hedrick said it best in using a term that I hate to hear, but it was fait accompli, this application, and Mr. Austin has done an excellent job to point out that we're a tool of the county, and that the only thing before us today is the application and whether or not we approve it. But nonetheless, I think that it's very problematic that the county has failed to deliver on the promises to Elm Street and the citizens who purchased homes in that area.

Okay, so why don't we just parse this out into a couple different things. So we can talk about the land, the original parcel on the end. So there's There's four things in front of us, and then there's the parcel. So on the acquisition, I think, I don't know how we say this in the legal way, but in the future, you need to come to us, Mr. Hassan, when you want to buy us something. Our role is to come to the board before for a mandatory referral of the acquisition. Let's save that. How do we respond to that? Because we don't have, I don't think, but I want us to, the mandatory referral for the design of the library, I want a motion to approve the mandatory referral for the library, the mandatory approval for the forest conservation, the mandatory approval for, I mean, no, the approval for the forest conservation and the water quality plan, and we can come back to the first one. Can that work for now?

Ali Myers, the Office of General Counsel, just to, I think, weigh in on the approach. I think that makes sense. I think the board can certainly, as part of its transmittal letter for the mandatory referral dealing with the acquisition, The board can choose to vote however it votes, but the board can also decide by consensus additional comments to include in that letter. If one of the comments is regarding procedural concerns, certainly the board is free to include that in the letter. So that could be part of the motion, perhaps, on the mandatory referral, the 30, or no, 31 for the acquisition. Looking at Mr. Penn.

Do we even need anything for acquisition? Because it's already acquired. We could just say that, well, this is acquired and this is our comments. Do we need approval or anything? Because it's after the fact.

I would recommend that the board at least vote to take a position of some kind that would be then reflected in the transmittal letter. So whether that... So that there is some vote to show that this is the decision of the board, whether that vote is we vote to approve, disapprove, we vote to take no position but offer the following comments for the acquisition mandatory referral.

Yeah, I would think to say on the acquisition, we vote to take no comments on the acquisition. But in the cover letter saying we took that because it was not brought to the board.

You mean no position. We vote for no position. Okay, because you said no vote.

I mean, just to kind of show my cards, I'm going to vote no on the acquisition MR. Obviously, the MRs don't change anything. This is advisory, but I think my position on the MR is that there's a procedural complaint, but there's also a substantive complaint, which is the conversation we had today I think had we had it a couple years ago in more collaboration with all the partners, but also potentially county council, we could have found a solution that kind of checked more of these boxes and actually led to some housing as part of an application instead of what we see here today, which is no housing at all. And so I would actually recommend we, we vote no on the acquisition.

Okay, let's just take a vote there.

Well, the motion, let me just do this. Let's do the ones that I would love for us to start with. Are they in opposite order? What is this 30? Is 30 the design? The building.

It's the library.

30 is the library. 31 is the acquisition. The numbers are reversed. Okay, so let me, I would love to vote on the 30, the library design. Is there a motion to approve approval with comments on the library itself? When you say the library itself? I mean, the design of the library. Like, we would do a school. Like, you know, not is it the right location for this, but does it have the right sidewalks? And, you know, does it need to be?

I have a question. If we approve the design, isn't it de facto approving the location where the design is to be implemented because approval of the design is intimately associated with the land in the parcel. So if you prove the design, the design doesn't necessarily get placed in a different parcel and you have to go through the whole process, correct?

No, no. You're proving design at that, wherever that location is. You know, I mean, it's not proving the location. You're proving that design. They brought a design for that location. You're proving that design.

So if you approve the design for the location, aren't you approving everything? How is it different? Because the design is only designed for that location.

Because the location was approved by the county council two years ago. And that is not in front of us. It's already approved.

Yeah, and I would point out there are many things that come before the board for mandatory referral. And there was a process and a decision that went through and a location was decided, a school location. And we don't question when that mandatory referral comes before us, well, why didn't you choose this other location? We have a mandatory referral for a library on this Stringtown location. And that's what you should just be looking at right now for that mandatory referral.

But I think we've been deliberating for two separate sessions. And we've been deliberating because there are board members who agree that the parcel and the location of the library is important. is incorrect. And so if you approve the design, you are de facto approving the location and the parcel. And to say that they're different and they're not associated with one another is, I don't think people listening at home nor this board member understand how they're separated.

So it would be hard for me to argue that context is not applicable to design. But what I would suggest, what I'm kind of hearing here, if the board thinks that the location is not appropriate and the process by which that was done, you could vote to disapprove the mandatory referral for the acquisition, if you're not happy with the way that was also done, and then vote separately on just the design at this. So I think you can separate those. Opposition to the acquisition or the development at this particular site can be done through the mandatory referral for the acquisition.

Well, yeah, and I'm, Not saying I disapprove of the location of it. As I said, I don't think you could fit all the box in that site, personally. As a developer, you just can't fit it in the box. The box is not big enough, in my personal opinion. But I feel that we can vote on my is to put out there that given where the library, the land is purchased for the library, where it's going to get, the staff went through and looked at that and said, they looked and checked all the boxes and they said, they had some minor comments, but they said approval with comments. And I'm for moving forward with that because I think it's the right thing to do. And as I said before, some of the things is contextual. This community needs some public amenities, and this is a spot for that public amenity for that community. And it also has land left over that can be used for housing so much more than the other site. And so I would... would want to make a motion. Is there a motion to approve of the Stringtown, the design that was brought to us last week, the staff reviewed?

And that's what my— So there's an A, B, C, water quality plan, and then D, the conservation plan. Which one of these is the motion addressing, the first motion addressing? The first one. B.

The B.

No, it's B.

No, the first bullet.

It says the 30 on this has Clarksburg Library. Yes. Am I?

Yeah, it's MR2026030. Is that what the motion is regarding?

Yes. The site acquisition is 31, according to this.

Site acquisition is 31. The building is 30. I put up this change slide here.

And I just want to add something while we are doing that. This acquisition and change has been, you know, discussed by the developer, by county, by council for two years. or more, I don't know how long it took. Had a lot of public opinion and everything and eventually they got to here. We just heard this two weeks ago and now and we are making decision that this may not have been the right decision to do for something that is not even in front of us. So, you know, I truly believe that we should go ahead for the mandatory referral for the library. And then for acquisition, because it has come to us late, then we could talk about our positions.

Yeah. So I think because we've got other things to do today. Yeah. It's a long day. We should move on. So I have a motion to move forward to approve the With transmitting comments to the, does it go to the hearing examiner? Where does it go? Back to the county.

To the county council.

Yeah, to DGS, which is the MR 202630, which is the Clarksburg Library, where staff is recommending approval to transmit the comments.

I move for the approval of the Clarksburg Library and with the recommendation of sending a recommendation to the county.

Is it MR20260?

That's the B. That's the B on the paper.

I will second the approval to transmit comments for MR2026030, Clarksburg Library. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. All opposed?

Opposed. Opposed. Because it doesn't have a housing component as part of the plan.

Okay, great. So next, is there a motion to approve the water quality plan for the proposed library?

I move to approve the water quality plan for the library.

Second. OK. All in favor? Aye. Aye. OK, great. 5-0, is there a motion to approve the Forest Conservation Plan 2026 where staff is recommending approval with conditions.

I move to approve the Clarksburg Library Forest Conservation Plan with recommendation.

I'll second the Forest Conservation Plan.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. All opposed?

Opposed because we're being asked to approve a plan for an area that doesn't include any development on that part of the plan, which is the housing component.

I abstain. Okay, so 3-1-0. Okay, let's go back to 3-1-1. I'm sorry, 3-1-1. Let's go back to the mandatory referral for the acquisition. So that right here, oh, is there... Is there, what I hear is that we can, there's two things, Alex, is to just say we're not making, what did we say before, not making a recommendation. No position. No position.

The board could vote to neither approve nor disapprove, but issue comments, I think. And the comments could relate to the procedural concerns. But the board should determine by consensus if those comments differ from the comments that included in the staff report. the board should be clear as to what additional comments it would like to include in the transmittal letter.

Okay, so I would recommend we take a vote of not taking a position, and the comments in the transmittal letter would be that it came to us after the fact. And that would be my reason.

I'd like to include, particularly by consensus, comments on the fact that using affordable housing as an excuse to move and delay a project is becoming a consistent feature from the county government. And I'd prefer that we stop doing that. I'd also say on the acquisition, I would move for a check, but I'll go with a no approval. But the real issue is using affordable housing excuse to move a project and then not including affordable housing in that project or that site plan given the size, delaying the plan by purchasing a historic site, which causes delay, still not including housing in that plan, and then still including housing designs in here that don't show any considerably more housing than would have been available on the other side. I think there should be more depth of comments on not only procedure, but the actual substantive issues of the co-location of housing and the process which brings us this fairly these incomplete projects that are being brought to us.

Well, I want to say it in a different way, that I don't believe that the co-location should be studied, but it's not a mandatory, okay? That's number one.

Well, studying it is, like having a opinion is mandatory.

It has to be studied. but it doesn't have to make the project move.

Exactly.

It has to be studied. I know, but that didn't come to us. Now, after the fact, what we could ask that the county to do as fast as possible to design affordable housing and include it in the design that the affordable housing comes right around the same time, or at least the design should start right around the same time that the library is going to be operational. So we want the county to expedite the affordable housing. We don't want the library to be there and takes a few years until the affordable housing comes. So some kind of time, I do not know what is a proper thing to say. Can we say that the design with the RFP in place, a partner has been selected, and by the time that the operation, a library comes to operation, they can at least, at minimum, start the design?

Yes, so I think that that's a great idea to see, to... vote the not take a path but in the reason why we didn't but and asked to expedite the housing on this project. I think that would be a great compromise here that shows that we it's important for us to have that housing in it. Commissioner Hedrick, I don't I feel that if what the council does and what our county exec does really well is promoting affordable housing and spending a lot of money on deeply affordable housing. And so I don't want to send the signal that, you know, but I would, I mean, I would take another, I mean, maybe tacked at it, but I like Commissioner Petum's, but in the comments about make best efforts or whatever to, catch the housing up on this release, because that's where you go through the final design and the site plan and all this other stuff to make sure that it is, you're moving along the housing piece with it.

I only would like to make the comment that on previous mandatory referrals, we were told that the county had not even provided specs necessary to make the parking garage capable of supporting affordable housing on top of it, which is why we were brought a garage with no possibility of affordable housing. Now we're being told affordable housing was the reason we moved and then delayed a project that we were said was a priority and needed to be done quickly. I am just concerned that affordable housing keeps being the thing that gets dropped in these mandatory referrals, and I keep getting different reasons for that.

Okay.

So that's my, if that's not the consensus of the board that we write it up that way, my concern is less this individual project because the overall amount of housing difference, the delta between site one and site two, I think a much more reasonable thing would have been site one can't support housing. Let's put a library on it and move on with our lives because it's going to be surrounded by multifamily and townhomes in the first place. Instead of purchasing something for $3.4 million, it's going to be more expensive and it's going to have barely more housing than it could fit in the first place. But my concern is that of the mandatory referrals that we continue to get, it keeps being the affordable housing that falls out of them. Sorry.

Mr. Austin, what could we say that you could also put forward as your recommendations? pushing to get housing along with the library, moving forward the design or whatever so that they are truly compatible and you aren't spending more money to do the housing because things weren't thought out ahead of time.

Certainly, and this goes back to Commissioner Linden's question about how the housing moves forward, why wasn't it RFP? As you know, I work at the direction of the County Executive. You are transmitting comments to the County Executive. And I sense that there is an urgency to get that RFP on the street so that when we are under construction with the new library or well into construction of the new library that we have a housing partner and things are in sync. And I think that's a more than appropriate comment back to the county executive. We're happy to take that back and work on a solution of that. So we're good with that. However, it's been said, Commissioner Hendrick, that those are all fine comments that we would receive well at the executive branch.

I'm okay expressing urgency around getting the rfp I think whether or not we want to include this in the comments I I still believe the rfp should have been issued already. I think you could have done it before you even design the library, but certainly after you design the library before you brought it here and certainly you don't have to wait any longer. I would also for for for including comments, the county executive. Similarly, I would also, I know it's not part of this project, but to Commissioner Hedrick's point, we've seen other mandatory referrals that affordable housing was kind of, for lack of a better phrase, dangled as part of the mandatory referral application. The downtown, the garage in downtown Silver Spring being one of them, I would urge urgency around getting that RFP released too. That garage is almost done. Same situation. I don't see any need. It didn't have to wait until now. It didn't have to wait until two years ago, to be honest. So in general, I think urgency around getting these RFPs out there for the affordable housing component, more specifically, or I guess more generally in the future for co-located public facilities, I think we're missing a large opportunity to do something special on these sites, to have a singular design. You can go around the country and go around the world and see really fantastic examples of public facilities built within or around or it's a nicely integrated design with not just housing, but all sorts of other nice amenities or open space or you name it. And so I know that's not largely how we've done things, although I can think of several exceptions in this county. Gesundheit. So I think that's my general comment too, that I think this is an exciting opportunity in the future if we could think a little bit more broadly and more creatively about these sites. But I second all the comments Commissioner Hedrick made as well previously. I'm okay with sending comments and taking no position on this.

So maybe Mr. Arsene, I know that your staff do amazing job. I have seen it in a close. Maybe when the time is right, you could bring us in regard to the affordable housing that were supposed to be done with the other public facilities. Just give us some update because I'm sure that if it was a promise, you guys have some programs to start working on them. So just bring us, if you get the chance, that would be a very good thing that people see that what is going to come in future with those public facilities.

So I made a motion to make a no comment on this, and the comments, no decision. And the reasons are, one, they've already purchased the property. Two, we want to expedite the housing piece on this property as well as in the future on on other co-located properties so that they come in together. And is there, do you make it?

I am making a motion for the site acquisition mandatory referral with no position with the conditions that just Chair Harris said. I don't want to rephrase that.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, 5-0. Now let's go back to the last piece. We got everybody. I got everything. There was a comment about, but in either our letter, I would like to, it's really important that for the community and the county and Elm Street that the parcel that was dedicated is is activated and that the community gets this benefit. And I don't know how the comments on how they is. Can we put in the letter that I know that I'm just looking for opportunities short of you got to give them back the land. I don't know. It could be work to either give them or some mutual agreement on how to work together on. activating that piece for the community. I don't know how to, I mean, is there any comments there? Mr.

Chair, I'll give a thought. One way could be to amend the motion on that most recent mandatory referral for the acquisition to add that as a comment to be included within the transmittal letter as it deals with the overall acquisition of the new property and pertain to the the prior property as well. Because otherwise there's not like a transmittal letter or a format to really formalize that comment.

Yes. I recommend amending it.

So we could make the motion again as amended.

Okay, I move to amend our comment for the site acquisition mandatory referral to include activation in any shape and form that county works with the developer to activate the town center piece of property with the best use for the community as soon as possible.

I'll second and Can I just add one small suggestion to that? The land should not remain vacant. And I want to make that clear in the letter too. So discussion, needed discussions, conversations.

Could be a part. You mean, it could be a part.

It could be a lot of different things. It should not and must not remain vacant and also explore all, as many possibilities as possible to include giving it back to Elm Street.

Yeah. Well, when we said activated, that could include everything else. In any shape and form, yeah, that meant the same thing. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Moved in a second. Moved in a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. The ayes have it. All right. Thank you so much.

If I could, I just want to make sure I have the... on 31-5-0 with comments, and then I didn't catch the action on 30, mandatory referral 30, the library design. Okay, 3-1-1. That was approved. And then water quality 5-0, and then 3-1-1 on the forest comment.

That's correct. Okay. At the end of the day, we all want the same thing. I think we all want the same. We want a library for the community, We want an activated space out there. And I know, Mr. Ahsan and DGS, I've worked with you over my 25 years in development. And you are very, very good in moving forward these projects with the county. So I really appreciate that. And I appreciate Elm Street coming out. And I appreciate all the comments of the board today. So thank you. And we're going to take a two-minute break and start with our next item. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome back. We're on item number seven, Emory Grove Village Preliminary Plan, Site Plan, and Forest Conservation Plan, where staff is recommending approval with condition. And we have Philip Estes from the Planning Department presenting this item. Welcome.

Good afternoon. My name is Philip Estes with the review team for Emory Grove Village, where staff is recommending approval of all the applications before you today. First, we just want to take a moment to note some of the partnerships and some of the goals behind this application. This project is a collaborative effort by HOC and the applicant along with state and county and other supporters to provide affordable housing in Emory Grove. It's also important to note that this project is 100% for sale, 30% of which are MPDUs. This project will in some way begin to help make up for The urban renewal program that displays the historic community that used to live in this area. Emory Grove village is phase one of a larger project which includes phase two called Henry or heritage Emory Grove. which was just filed. It is located across Washington Grove from this site, which we expect that to come before your board later on this year. And that project is expected to add another 39 for sale townhouse units, including 30% MPD use. Just for the record, the applicant has met all the signage and noticing requirements. The public hearing notice was mailed by staff and staff did not receive any correspondence related to the application. It shows the subject property located in the middle here in the blue outline. It is 8.18 gross acres located at the intersection of Washington Grove Lane and Mid-County Highway. Presently, there is an existing apartment building and parking lot. The surrounding uses are residential, mostly townhomes and some single-family houses. And Emory Grove Church is noted there across from Washington Grove Lane. There's also the Upper County Community Rec Center located to the north. And also to the north is a MNC PPC site, a natural nature conservation area called Mineral Springs. The zoning of the property is R30 and also the surrounding zones are residential R60 as well as some CRT, a little sliver of CRT along the county highway and RT and also R90. This diagram shows the proposed preliminary plan, which will create all the lots and parcels for all the dwelling units as shown. This will total 156 dwelling units, which include 80 townhouses, one duplex building, and then the lot for 74 multifamily units. As I mentioned, this is a highly affordable project with a minimum of 30% MPDUs. That would total 47 of the 156 dwelling units. The applicants proposing private roads and alleys. There will also be separate parcels created for the open spaces. I just want to note that, as I mentioned, this project itself is also phase one and phase two. Phase one shown in the blue outline and phase two shown in the pink, that would be for the multifamily units. So the site plan application before you is phase one, which would include 82 total units, the 80 townhouses and one duplex unit, 30% MPDUs, and the applicants also creating these open spaces as noted, which will include a central community park with a playground and picnic seating, a terraced garden and open lawn, linear open lawn area and then a pedestrian Plaza that provides access to and connects with the linear open space and the sidewalk network system, the open spaces are all well connected to the pedestrian circulation system and the public realm. Just want to highlight some of the image, some of the amenities and these are the applicants precedent images they provided with the application, which show the to to picnic seating areas, the playground area and the terrorist garden area showing. The concept materials and the functions of those amenities. The architecture rendering shown here for a townhouse string, the architecture provides gabled roofs and bay windows using traditional materials such as clobbered siding, stone and brick veneers. All of the units are rear loaded with garages access from the alleys. And also note that the overall layout of the community contains shorter walkable blocks that will help to promote both connectivity and safety. The proposed street network internal street network is shown here permit primarily vehicular access is provided from Washington grove shady spring drive. So mentioned the internal streets will be private roads and alleys the applicants, providing a six foot sidewalks with a six foot wide buffers and also will provide 52 on street parking spaces. The applicant will complete these furniture improvements improvements will be made at the intersection of mid county highway, which will reduce speeds of turning vehicles and improve pedestrian safety. Along Washington grove lane and shady spring drive sidewalks will be upgraded, which will improve pedestrian connectivity for the project. staff analyze the potential impacts traffic based in part upon the changes in the dwelling unit types and quantity as shown here, because the project is below the 30 net new trip threshold, the project is exempt from further la TR study.

Hello, this is Molly Stamets with the Environment and Climate Division, and I will be discussing some of the environmental components of this plan. So starting with noise, a traffic noise impact analysis was prepared due to the proximity to Mid-County Highway and Washington Grove Lane. And this analysis found that some units will be impacted by noise above the recommended level for this area, but the noise will be attenuated through architectural fittings of these units. A portion of open space will be impacted by noise above the recommended level. If you look at the graphic that's pointed to in red intersecting with the light blue in that center area, but this impacted area is where a stormwater management facility is proposed, so this won't impact recreation area. The applicant has submitted Final Forest Conservation Amendment number F-2026-0450. And in 2019, there is Final Forest Conservation Plan number SC-2019-005, which covered 3.63 acres of the property and satisfied the mitigation requirements at that time of its approval. So with that, the net tract area for this amendment is 5.52 acres, taking into consideration the 3.63 acres that have already been mitigated for. With that, 0.83 acres of afforestation is required and proposed to be provided by the applicant. The applicant has also submitted a variance request and has proposed to impact three protected trees which are shown here in the yellow Xs on the screen and the removal of two protected trees shown in red Xs. The applicant has made all the findings required to be granted a variance and will be providing six three-inch caliber trees to be planted on the property in order to mitigate the loss of those protected trees.

Okay, thank you, Molly. Staff has one recommended revised condition. This is for preliminary plan condition number three. This relates to the schedule for planning the subdivision. This revised condition reflects that the record plans must be recorded, not the building permits issued within the preliminary plan validity period and the applicant concurs with this revision. Staff's analysis finds that the project substantially conforms to the master plan and satisfies all applicable development standards, codes and regulations, and therefore recommends your approval of the applications before you. This concludes our presentation.

Thank you so much. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Please.

Good afternoon. I'm Bill Commoners, attorney with Lurch, Early, and Brewer for the applicant. With me, Jay Shepard from the Housing Opportunities Commission, Richard Thomas from Haley Development, and representatives from Habitat for Humanity. We're here on behalf of the applicant for HOC. We were here just 13 months ago on the pre-preliminary plan for this. as you may recall, to get advice on some critical threshold issues. As a result of the board's advice at that time and working closely with your staff since then, we believe this project can fulfill its affordable housing goals using the R-30 optional method of development for providing 30% MPUs and be the first step, as Mr. Estes mentioned, in the larger Emory Grove project for revitalization and restorative justice. For these reasons, we're particularly pleased to be here today with our client and helpers to replace the obsolete existing development with a new combination of new townhouses, multifamily apartments containing 30% affordable residences. With that, what I will do is turn it over to Mr. Shepherd from HOC, and when everyone is finished speaking, I'd like to come back and talk about that. There's one condition that has been evolving, shall I say. Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much, Bill. And for the record, my name is Jay Shepard, and I'm a housing acquisition manager with HOC. And I wanted to thank the staff for their presentation and for the work that they've been doing so far in helping us get to the point that we're at right now. The redevelopment, and I'll just provide a brief overview to kind of compliment some of the stuff that Mr. Estes has provided. The redevelopment of HOC's Emery Grove Village, which was 54 units in Camp Hill Square, which comprised the two parcels that make up this site, was, again, the genesis of the working relationship with the Emery Grove United Methodist Church and HOC, and in turn, That collaboration really brought together an aggregation of the county's parcels, as mentioned, as well as park and planning that allowed us to create this heritage Emory Grove re-concept to bring back the idea of the historic Emory Grove. HSC is simply acting as master developer of the overall concept and redevelopment plan and fulfilling its obligations under the contract for sale to Haley Development to deliver the HSC sites pad-ready. HSE spearheaded the ZTA approvals to allow for the redevelopment of the site to be remade into a mixed income, mixed product residential community that provides housing for a wide variety of residents. at various income and affordability levels, including, as mentioned, a 30% MPDU component, and that's to be built by Habitat, who's here today, and also a 30% component for the future multifamily phase of the community. A critical framework for achieving this affordable housing mix is that the product and project must have the project design and development costs to remain cost effective to allow for the project to be financially viable. As we work through binding elements that can be relied on through the duration of approvals and build-out process, a conscious recognition of these costs these teams incur is vital to the long-term success of the work. And we really do appreciate the partners that we've had to date helping us work through that process. So thank you. I will pass it along now to Ron Spear, who's with Habitat for Humanity in Metro Maryland. And he's going to provide you some background of what they're providing to the project.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ron Spohr with Habitat for Humanity Metro Maryland. Habitat for Humanity is excited and honored to partner with HOC and Emery Grove Village development team to advance the Heritage Emery Grove project, a transformative initiative creating new housing and supporting community revitalization in a historically African-American neighborhood impacted by urban renewal policies in the 1970s. As Habitat's contribution to the larger effort in the initial phase, Habitat will develop 25 permanently affordable homes for income qualified homeowners as part of a broader mixed income community. Habitat is grateful to DHCA for working with us to ensure that the Habitat model for the 25 homes will also satisfy the NPDU requirements. Homeownership is one of the most effective tools for building long term financial stability and generational wealth. Habitat's affordable homeownership model removes many of the barriers that prevent low income families from purchasing a home by providing a zero interest 30-year mortgage with monthly housing costs that do not exceed 30% of household income. This enables families to build equity, establish financial security, and create opportunities that benefit future generations. Since 1982, Habitat has partnered with the community to provide homeownership opportunities and home preservation services to more than 1,000 local families. We look forward to partnering with the community in Emory Grove to provide these additional 25 homeownership opportunities. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Rich Tomitz. I'm with Haley Development. Background on us, we've been in Burtonsville forever since the Dutch market was there, late 90s. Been involved with Montgomery County even before then. By last count, we've been part of delivering over 400 MPDUs very quietly, project by project. over the decades, and this will add to that pool, and we're very proud of that. I actually did not qualify for an MPDU coming out of college, and I lived in the basement of my college roommate's MPDU in Gaithersburg, so it's personal to me to deliver more and those that can be qualified. We also have an affiliated business, Efficient Home. We provide energy efficiency renovation services, in particular for limited income weatherization programs, and under the MEEHA programs for multifamily LIHTC oriented limited income projects based out of Burtonsville. We work with a lot of the county agencies and housing agencies and Habitat in that capacity as well. So we're not just residential new developers. We're really integrated within the community and fabric of working with existing housing as well for residents of different income levels and different housing types to better their their way of, quality of life. We also own one of the few Light Tech, co-own one of the few Light Tech properties for seniors up in Frederick called Creekside Manor, which is, we're very proud of having that. On this project, we've worked with our various partners under the guidance of HOC and the vision here to be able to deliver a project that has a mixed income and a mixed housing product perspective. We're very proud of that. We started with this ETA feedback and input for HOC's team. Our goal was to keep project design costs viable and while delivering a product with 30% affordable and MPDUs units. It fits within the greater Heritage Emory Grove concept and vision as initiating the Heritage Emory Grove vision for rebuilding this historic Emory Grove community. The pre preliminary plan was important for us, we sought binding elements to have a confirmation that the plan we were looking at delivering would be cost effective and viable and that we would be able to deliver it. All those balancing acts we have to do and looking at costing out a community with what we're committing to delivering and we appreciate that process and going through that with the binding elements. The preliminary plan and detailed site plan before you is delivering on that as well. All these plans are consistent really with the original ZTA concept and with the pre-preliminary plan, which again balances out delivering a variety and diversity of housing options for a range of income levels and needs. And we've relied on the cost considerations, cost-effective considerations, through which the binding elements were approved at the pre-preliminary plan. So a key request we are going to have today is just one condition that's evolved, and it involves part of the infrastructure improvements related to this project. Bill Commoners will be getting into that. But it is important for us to be able to rely and stay consistent with the binding elements on infrastructure improvements. We think we have concurrence with agencies on that as of this morning. And so I'd like to turn it back to Bill as we make that one request to the board for a slight modification on one condition, but it's really important for us in delivering this project. So we thank you for your consideration and time, and also we thank staff. This has been a really, collaboratives, that word's overused, this has been a nice collaborative process, refreshingly, for us with staff, where everyone's rowing together, even when they have differing perspectives on how to deliver this project. going back through the pre-preliminary process also. It's been very refreshing for us to go through, so we really want to thank you all.

That's it. Thank you, Rich. The condition that is at issue is in the board's condition number four, where you have reviewed and accepted the letter from the Department of Transportation indicating its recommendations. And its recommendation 1B is the question and issue that's on page one, which is their letter is attachment D to your staff report.

Could you put that on the screen? Put it on the screen.

You're referencing condition four, the preliminary plan?

So condition number four essentially adopts the recommendations of the Department of Transportation in their letter as the board's conditions. And that letter requires that the applicant improve the corners, the handicapped ramps, curb radius, et cetera, for the four points of the intersection with Washington Grove Lane and Mid-County Highway. That was inconsistent with the pre-preliminary plan as binding element that we brought to the board, which indicated there would be improvements along Washington Grove Lane and along Shady Spring Drive, but nothing at Mid-County Highway. applicant has tried notwithstanding to meet the county halfway on what their desire was in offering to improve the cornerware of the subject property and directly across Washington Grove Lane for that in addition. That ties into where the other project that Mr. Estes mentioned that's just been submitted. After a lot of back and forth with the county, We have, as of this morning, as Mr. Thomas mentioned, come up with what we believe clearly is the solution where the department has agreed that we would only have to improve those two corners that we have proposed to improve. And I believe that the email on this from DOT has been placed in the record, but I have copies for that. And what that says is that we agree that the applicant will be responsible for the intersection improvements at Mid-County Highway and Washington Grove Lane. This responsibility is limited to the two quadrants along Washington Grove Lane that are adjacent to the project site. So they have dealt with and resolve the question as we had requested for that purpose. Now, because that is just in the email message and it will be in the record, we were concerned about how to make sure that was perpetuated and visible to people looking at this in the future. And we have a suggested modification to condition number four, which I don't think you have or... Now, we just put it together this morning after we got the email from the Department of Transportation.

Yeah, please. And staff, can you put the site plan and point out the pieces that Mr. Commoners is talking about?

Yeah.

While Mr. Cronenberg is handing those out, what this is is a copy of your condition number four with some language in red as a suggested modification. And what that modification would do would continue to incorporate the information from the DOT letter except recommendation 1B, which the board modifies to reflect the clarification by MCDOT as follows. The applicant will be responsible for the intersection improvements of Mid-County Highway and Washington Grove Lane. This responsibility is limited to the two quadrants along Washington Grove Lane that are adjacent to the project site, tracking exactly the language that DOT has sent. We also added that the applicant must comply with each of the other recommendations so that it's consistent with that change. We believe that this revision of the condition makes it very clear in the future that the DOT letter recommendations are still included as conditions except for this one, and in substitution for that one is a very clear description of what it is the applicant requires.

If I may, Mr. Chair. I believe we have someone from, we have Deepak from DOT on the line, and of course staff's preference would be to update the letter instead of kind of inserting this into a condition, but it'd be nice to hear from DOT on this one. Great, thank you.

Oh, this is Deepak with Montgomery County DOT for the record. As The applicant mentioned about improvements within that intersection. That was my letter did not specifically say that all four coordinates need to be improved. The only condition I put in was DPS will determine it because we didn't have enough information at that time to make the call. whether two quadrants or four quadrants of this intersection need to be improved. So that was the reason why the condition was put in such a way that DPS has control over it to determine whether to do two quadrants or four quadrants of the improvement. And also, I just wanted to put it on record that all these improvements are determined at preliminary plan stage and not at pre-preliminary plan stage. In this case, since we got the documents the supporting documents are to determine whether two quadrants or four quadrants were were needed to be improved. Once they submitted these documents, myself and DPS, we came to the conclusion that two quadrants is what is needed for this improvement at this point. That's why the email was sent out this morning. And I apologize for the delay in responding to that because I just came back from vacation this morning. So after the discussions with DPS, we determined that two quadrants was enough. And I'm happy to change the letter to include that. Didn't have the time to modify the letter and send it out since I was not in town.

For the record, Richard Brock, my transportation planning supervisor. Yeah, we didn't see this language that was proposed. I'd like to have MCDOT look at it. I mean, it basically is the email that was sent this morning, the same language. But again, I think the preference would be just to have an updated letter rather than putting it in the condition.

Yeah, and with the... One of the, I'd like you to explain what this is. Can you just point out what was the issue, and you talk about now two instead of four, and then yes, I would agree if the applicant's okay with that, just as the letter, whatever, as modified, whatever, but when can this letter, it can reference to a future letter? How would, but you said,

Mr. Chair, if I could weigh in. Allie Myers with the Office of General Counsel. So the condition as written does allow for future revisions by DOT to its recommendations. This particular condition references the June 11th recommendations, though. So they could, after this, if this is approved and the resolution is approved, they could issue a revised letter as long as it doesn't conflict with any other of the board's conditions. So in a way, it does leave open the opportunity for a future revision. but especially because in this case, the resolution is being prepared and is proposed to be adopted simultaneously with the approval. We couldn't put a date of a future. If DOT were to revise the letter tomorrow and submit that letter, that could not be included in the resolution because the board's approval is based on what is in the record today. So if the board wanted to memorialize this condition change, the proposed language from the applicant to modify condition four would be the way to do that today. OK.

Right. I mean, as long as staff is fine with it.

I mean, it sounds like DOT is... Yeah, I think this reflects what was in the email that was already transmitted. So, again, we would have liked to just get the updated letter, but since that's not possible, yeah, I think we're fine with it.

Yeah, and I'm fine with native pay. And could you just go over again, just specifically point out what this is all about?

So this is about the intersection with Mid-County Highway and Washington Grove Lane. Rather than improving all four corners of the intersection, this would just require them to improve two of those corners. These two? I defer to DOT on which specific corners. Deepak, if you're still there.

Yeah. Deepak again. Yeah. These two corners, as you see on the plan here, which is along their frontage as well as right across from there. What would you see right now? Not another side of.

Right. Not on the west side, whatever it is. Yes. Okay, great. I'm fine with that at the board. Yeah, this is, you know, to get it done today, and yeah, we have the meeting of the minds. I mean, if they come up with something different, then it's, that's not what we're thinking, but he's not here, yeah.

And we understood that, as DOT referenced, that they would normally make this decision at the permitting stage, but given the affordability levels in this project and the cost to reach that stage, it was imperative that the applicant know what their exposure was before that to know whether it was going to significantly adversely affect the project and need to know that now before spending the more money just to find that was gonna be a problem. So it was important to clarify this at this point to know what's going forward. And in fairness, DOT, given Mr. Deepak's vacation, they didn't have time to change the letter, even if they wanted to. So they tried to address it that way. Thank you.

Thank you. Hearing, are you finished with your presentation?

No, I just want to say that with the amendment to that condition, all the other conditions in the preliminary plan and the site plan are acceptable to the applicant. And that we believe that based upon the materials of the application, the staff report, the testimony presented, that the applicant has satisfied the standards for the approval and asked that you approve the three applications and the two subdivision waivers. before you with the conditions proposed by the staff and the amendment to condition number four. Thank you. That concludes our presentation.

Okay, great, thank you. Did I remember the subdivision waivers were there?

Yes, the preliminary plan recommendation includes two subdivision waivers for the private roads.

Okay, for the private roads. Okay, great, thank you. questions or comments, it's greatly needed affordable, other than saying it's greatly need affordable housing in the community, and I know the Emory Grove folks are really interested in redevelopment in many aspects in their community, from the park side, ball fields, housing, and others, so it's great that all of this is coming together, and look forward to phase two. Is there any reason why phase two isn't part of this, or is at this point, Decided curiosity.

Different applicants.

Okay.

Or I should say different partners with HOC. I see. And different projects, different timing.

Okay, great, great. Thank you. Fellow board members, any questions or comments?

Just a small one. Agree, it's a fantastic project. I remember the pre-preliminary that we talked about a year ago and I remember this question came up for me then, and I apologize, I can't remember the answer. I think there was an answer. I just wanted to refresh my memory. There's the U of the private street that kind of curls around where the community park is gonna be. And I was just curious, it feels like a lot of pavements that to my mind doesn't provide a lot of kind of connectivity value. for people circulating over to the right side of the site and the townhomes over there or coming back out. And I was curious just from the applicant's perspective or from staff's perspective, what was necessary about having kind of that entire U going around the park? And was it considered to kind of just expand the park, like maintain some connectivity either on the left side or the right side, but just expanding the park and kind of having less pavement?

Thank you for the question. Yes, the circular road was discussed quite a bit with staff and the applicant. There are some limitations in making connection with Main County Highway. In fact, There was not an ability to do that. This loop road also serves and provides fire department access to the multifamily units and also the townhomes. So that was, I believe, primarily the driving force behind that access, how that's designed.

So they need the ability to go both on the left side and the right side?

For fire department access, yes.

The left side is necessary for the... Phase two units?

Correct, yes.

Okay. Yes. Okay. Okay, got it, yeah.

Hi, Kevin Foster with Good Chickaloo and Weber. Actually, you had a very good memory from the original preliminary plan, pre-preliminary plan. Back then, there was actually a driveway that connected the dead end, and there was a suggestion of, gee, what's all that paving needed for? And we took that seriously, and we took that out. The circular U Road provides fire access. for the townhomes, the multifamily units. So that was the major part of what that loop is for, is circulation, fire access for those units in there. And it was really the driving force by that new design in there.

Okay, thank you. Just to clarify, those future, I know we don't have a plan in front of us for those units, but the idea is that those units on the right side of the phase two would be facing the park. Some of those units, so their entrance would be facing the park.

Yes, all of those units, they're alley-loaded in the back, so units either face Washington Grove Lane or the park.

Okay, yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining that. Any other questions or comments from the board?

Mr. Chair, I want to clarify one thing, because I misunderstood the question that you asked me, and so I answered it incorrectly. I was envisioning phase two as being the other project that Mr. Estes mentioned, as opposed to our phase two. Our phase two is coming later because of the challenges of multifamily housing and financing and rent issues in the county right at the moment. Mr. Thomas could speak to it more, but that's the short answer. And that's related to our phase two. I apologize. I misspoke before.

Patrick Butler here. I was also about to clarify that. We have Heritage Emery Grove currently under review. Just went to DRC a couple days ago. And so, yeah, thank you. Mr. Commoners, I was going to also make that, clarify that fact. So we do have multiple projects under review by the applicant at the moment.

Thank you. Hearing no other comments or questions, I guess we need to make three motions or two. Would you like?

Mr. Chair, I think three motions in this application also, each approval has a draft resolution that can be adopted today as well. So each motion could include the approval and the adoption of the resolution. For the preliminary plan, that would be consistent with the amended conditions three and four as discussed today.

So do I have a motion to approve the preliminary plan where staff is reckoning approval with conditions and adoption of the resolution and amended conditions three and four?

Yeah, I'll move to adopt the preliminary plan with conditions including the updates today as well as the adoption of the draft resolution.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. The ayes have it 5-0. Is there a motion to approve the site plan where staff is recommending approval with conditions and adoption of the resolution. Move to approve the site plan with conditions and to adopt the resolution.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0, and is there a motion to approve the forest conservation plan where staff is recommending approval with conditions and adoption of the resolution? I'll move to approve the forest conservation plan with conditions and to adopt the resolution.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. The ayes have it. Thank you so much. I look forward to you moving forward with your project and phase two coming through shortly. And we're going to take a two-minute break and then start item number eight, Dickinson Power Plant Forest Conservation Plan. Thank you. Welcome back, everyone. We're on item number eight, the Dickinson Power Plant Forest Conservation Plan, where staff is recommending approval with conditions, and we have Amy Lindsey presenting this item. Welcome.

Good afternoon. For the record, Amy Lindsay with the Environment and Climate Division. This is a slightly unusual item in that we are not proposing any development at this time. So just up front, staff recommends approval with conditions of Forest Conservation Plan number F2024062A. So this is a preliminary forest conservation plan only, not a final, just a preliminary. No development is being proposed or approved. This is for the phasing of forest conservation requirements only because this is one legal property. Final FCPs will be submitted with any future land use and must be approved by the planning board prior to the land use being approved. And the forest conservation requirements are based on zoning and potential clearing, but all of that will be finalized with the final forest conservation plans. The requirements for the IH zone property will be met on the IH zone and variances will be handled with the final FCPs as that is when the LOD will be approved. So just to orient you to where we're talking about, this is the location of the subject property. And this shows the vicinity. Now, there are a lot of industrial uses right in this area. So for example, we have the Montgomery County incinerator. And we have a compost facility. These large gray splotches are an ash management location. We've got several sets of railroad tracks running through and as well as the large Dickerson substation. The outline in red is the subject property. This shows the property itself. It's a total of 679.1 acres. 239.3 acres are zoned IH, that's the industrial heavy zone, with 439.8 acres zoned AR. You can see the division line here. The property is surrounded by natural features, and they run through it. So you see the Potomac River, the little Monocacy River, which is actually not connected to the Monocacy River. It's a completely separate river. I don't know if you knew that. which has, there are floodplains, wetlands, buffers, a lot of very, very steep slopes back there. I don't think you can get across the little Monocacy River in this location. There are a number of streams on the property, but not as many as this aerial would suggest. We did look at the area directly around the IH area to make certain, but this is the layer. But there are a number of streams. So this shows the basic phasing plan. There are three land bays and then the AR zoned property. And this shows the location of the land bays. So we've got one in the turquoise, two in the green, and three in orange with the AR zone property sort of surrounding all of them in yellow with the property So even though this is shown with the blue line, that's just showing the demarcation between the industrial zone property and the AR zone property. That is not the property line. So with the forest conservation plan, so all forest conservation requirements are being met on site. Each land bay area, I need to correct that, it does not, if you were to take each individual land bay separately and separated, it would not, in all cases, meet the forest conservation requirements. So land bay one does not. But taken as a group, they all meet the requirements together of the IH zone. Each land bay will be covered by a separate final forest conservation plan, which you will only see when and if that land bay comes in. All Stream Valley buffers will be planted as part of this except where they're impeded by something like a railroad track or a land feature that does not allow for planting. The final forest conservation plan for the AR zone may be setting up a forest conservation bank, so the conditions of approval do allow for that, and you can see the potential forest bank areas here shown in green. So this shows how the land base, what each net tract area is, and how it totals up on the end. And taken in total, they satisfy the forest conservation requirements for the IH zone. So I do have some condition corrections and I have to apologize for the confusion here. So on land bay one, you can see the corrected numbers here in red. That land bay one, the final forest conservation plan must include 25.8 acres of forest retention and seven acres of forest planting. And on land bay three, It must include 10 acres of forest retention and 3.9 acres of forest planting for a total of 13.9 acres of forest retention and planting that will be covered in a category one conservation easement. We also have an addition so that no one else does not make the mistake that I made. So before certification of F2024062A, the applicant must remove all references to proposed land uses and other forest conservation plans and must label the land base on all the plans and resolve discrepancies between the plan sheets. And with that, staff recommends approval with the corrected conditions of Forest Conservation Plan F2024062A.

Thank you so much, Ms. Lindsay. I only have one question. Thank you for those corrections, because it was good to see those. Now, would any user, these are not unique to the current proposed user of the site, any user would have to follow the same forest conservation plan?

That is correct. That is one of the reasons why I would like all references removed to any future plans, because what is in front of you right now were just the land bays. And that's all based on the industrial zoning, not on any proposed land use.

Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. That was very informative because I was confused.

Okay, thank you. I'm still confused. Could you? I'm sorry. So what is the reason for this first conservation plan? Is there any existing use or proposed use? What is the plan?

So right now, this is all one property. And so if anyone wanted to come in and do development on this property, any part of it. The entire property would be subject to the Forest Conservation Plan, and that one applicant would have to fulfill all the requirements for forest conservation on the entire property, because it is one property. And so all this is doing is phasing the forest conservation conservation requirements. I think this is going to be a model that we may use on future land development plans when we're talking about an extremely large property where we may have a number of different land developers coming in at different times and so that the first person in is not having to fulfill all of the forest conservation requirements up front and that way it we still stay ahead of the game so if for example if land bay two came in and land bay one came in, the forest conservation requirements for the entire property are still being met. even if Land Bay 3 doesn't come in.

So who decides on where this land base would be located? Is it coming from you that what is the best way to do that? Or does it have to come from the developer that what makes sense to be developed? How do we decide where these bays are? What is the boundaries of these bays?

So in this case, and I think will be true of all future cases, it is the development, the property owner who is setting up these land bays. It is not coming from us.

So do we have a good reason sometimes to change some of these boundaries that makes sense for the reforestation purposes?

I believe that the various interested parties discussed this carefully and looked at it and agreed to any potential phasing plan. If they wanted to change it in the future, I mean, we'd be amenable to bringing an amendment in. That would be my next question. That's not an issue.

I really like what you're doing. That's the first time I say something like that. It totally makes sense. I don't know if you have done it before or not, but that's the first time it comes in front of us. And it's a very logical way of protecting and also taking the burden from the, you know, who comes first. So that helps a lot.

We have done phased plans before, but what often ends up happening on the phased plans is that... we find that if they, that we don't get ahead of the game, that we end up and that final phases never get done and we're, we don't end up with all of the requirements fulfilled. In this case, it makes an awful lot of sense because we are protecting all of the, most of the forest on the site, certainly on the AR property, that is true.

yeah okay thank you yeah and just to follow up on quick i mean this is this is more analogous to a subdivision style where the applicant itself is making the the division of the land or something like that whereas that is correct yeah so it would be something you know preceding a development or a subdivision something like that yes and you are you have potential force at bank areas because that's the you couldn't do anything else there other than put

forest there, right?

Well, it's an existing forest, and it's outside of the Stream Valley buffer and above their requirements, so we very much support the development and protection of this as Forest Bank, and there are some areas, for example, I don't really know how you would get over there, but it's not really developable property. It's very steep.

Right, so yeah, and And the IH area is probably the only place someone could develop, right?

Yes, that's essentially correct.

OK. Great. Thank you. And any other questions or comments from the board? All right. So do I have a motion to approve the forest conservation plan for this site with the conditions in the report?

I move to approve. Sorry, I was going to my cheat sheet to see if we don't have a resolution for this, sir. I've got to get my count out a little bit. Move to approve.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. So we're going to just really, a little behind, so we're going to just take a one-minute break and start with our next item, which is the Shady Grove Life Science Center Parcel 7A Site Plan Amendment, where staff is recommending approval with conditions. Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome back. We're on item number six, Shady Grove Life Science Center Parcel 7A Site Plan Amendment, where staff is recommending approval with conditions. We have Adam Bossie this afternoon presenting this item.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Board. Happy to be here today to speak with you about this site plan amendment for Shady Grove Life Science Center Parcel 7A. And just for the record, Adam Bossie with the West County Planning Team. So the property that we're speaking about today is located at 9950 Medical Center Drive. This is in the 2024 Great Seneca Plan area, and this is a property that zoned Life Sciences Center and is in the Great Seneca Life Sciences Overlay Zone. So this is a property covered by a site plan. There are two abutting properties identified here that are within that site plan area. We have ownership lots 7A and 7B, which combine for a total property area of about 8.4 acres. So the original site plan and its early amendments that were approved by the planning board set the stage for the existing development that we see out there today. Amendments C and E were later approved by the planning director and allowed minor modifications on both ownership lots. And this amendment is focused on ownership lot 7A, which is about 4.05 acres, and this is the property that's outlined in black on the image here. Ownership lot 7A is fully developed with an 85,000 square foot facility, parking, and other site features. The existing approved uses for ownership lot 7A are research and development, office, lab, and manufacturing.

Why do you call them ownership lot? That's the first time. Why don't you just call them lot A and B? What does it mean that you add an ownership to it? Is it different?

So my understanding of it is it's one lot, one parcel altogether. It was known as parcel seven originally in the preliminary plan that was approved. We have two different ownership entities that have divided that property with each having kind of exclusive rights to each of those ownership as they've become known.

So you mean that the owner of lot B and 7A are different owners?

That's correct, yeah. It's different entities that own 7A versus 7B. Yeah, similar to like a condo regime. So here's an existing aerial image of the site showing our subject ownership lot 7A centrally. Excuse me, an ownership lot 7B to the left of it. This is a property that's surrounded by a mix of uses beyond the property. Here in the image, we see the Travalia Gateway. That's an R&D-focused campus. And then flanking the development really on either side of this image are other institutional commercial uses. What you don't see here in the image are other nearby uses that are townhouses, life science, and educational institutions. So the request before the board here today consists of the component shown here. The first one is a change in use that's requested for ownership lot 7A. This is considered a major site plan amendment that requires planning board review and approval. And this is really the reason the application is before the board today. All the other requests that I'll be speaking about are really minor in nature and can generally otherwise be reviewed by the planning director, if not for the change of use that was proposed with this. The second item here is a request to reduce the amount of parking that's required and provided on ownership lot 7A, as well as to make some minor site improvements to the rear end east of the building, which we'll see in an upcoming image. And then the third item is to correct an error with the previously approved amount of public use space for both ownership lots. So I'll walk through each of those items here. The first item, the change of use is requested for life sciences. And again, this is for ownership lot 7A only. So the existing approved uses, as I mentioned before, are R&D, office, lab, and manufacturing. The requested use to life sciences is frankly a housekeeping type item. The life sciences use allows for lab, manufacturing, office, and R&D functions, which are already approved for the property. And consolidation of those into that single defined use really clarifies what the actual use of the property is. And it makes processing any future zoning or building entitlements more straightforward for the applicant and public agencies.

So it's not really changing the type of use, it's just changing the name?

Correct.

And it had to come to us?

Correct, yes.

That's strange because it's the same thing. Okay, that's fine.

Yeah, and I think this is a product of just how the prior approvals were worded back. The first one dates to the late 1990s, and the second one is the early 2000s. So they specced that kind of laundry list of different uses.

Yeah, yeah, I understand that, but I'm sorry it had to come to us, create a lot of work for you. I don't know.

No, appreciate that. Thank you. Again, so again, this is a housekeeping item. The applicant here is AstraZeneca. They are a company that specializes in developing and manufacturing treatments for health challenges. Again, they shared with us that life sciences is more in line with their actual use of the property. The second item I'll speak to is the parking adjustment. So the request both lowers the minimum number of vehicle spaces required and provided on ownership lot 7A only. There's no change in bike parking or loading spaces or things of that nature. The parking requirement for ownership lot 7A was set under the 2004 zoning ordinance at a rate of two spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area as shown in the left column here on the image. The proposed reduced parking requirement follows the 2014 standards. Our zoning ordinance does allow for such parking adjustments to be made under the current standards. That requirement is one space per thousand square feet of GFA, so about half of what was previously approved. So this request, again, would cut down that minimum requirement to the 85 spaces that we see here, and the applicant is proposing to provide 166 spaces. They have 171 now, and the minor site improvements, which we'll talk about in a second, would necessitate the removal of five spaces.

So what are we going to do with that? So these are all existing.

Yep, there's 171 spaces existing on site. The minimum required by prior approvals is 170, so they've stayed in conformance with that requirement. And they're proposing now, in accordance with the current zoning ordinance, to reduce the required number of parking spaces. That would be down to 85. and they'd like to shave off five spaces of what they already have, meaning they'll be providing 166 at the end of all this.

Yeah, but what are they going to do with that five? Is it going to be just?

So that's a perfect segue into the next slide here. The minor site improvements that are proposed, there's a series of items. The first one is adjusting utility yards. These are located to the rear of the building, kind of on the lower left side of the image that we see here. Trying to move the cursor over here. Basically anything you see with the red line there is something that's proposed to change. So the utility yards would be adjusted by moving around different electrical transformers and dumpsters and adding some new equipment in those areas. There is already screening provided with those, generally consisting of fencing and landscaping that would remain. There's some safety and security features that are proposed to be added to the site, generally consisting of gates, bollards, things of that nature to the east and south of the building. There are also some pedestrian improvements, new crosswalks and ramp cuts at the rear of the building. As part of this, they'd be relocating bicycle parking that is currently existing proximate to the main entrance of the building. They'd be shifting that kind of in the southeast direction, so it would still be proximate to the main entrance of the building, but allow for some of their security improvements to occur. The five parking spaces that would be removed are generally in this area here where I'm moving the cursor. These would be relocated to make space for, I believe it's a new electrical transformer here, as well as bring out the curb over here with that parking lot island. So there'd be a total of the five spaces that would be removed, and there'd be two parking lot island trees that are going to be relocated as part of that. So there'd be no loss in trees, just relocation of them. So all of these changes and accumulatively are minor. There's no significant impact on the existing approved implemented site design. Regarding the public use space correction, the 2004 zoning ordinance required this type of development to provide public use space that's similar to open space that we see required for developments today. The applicant identified what they believed was an irregularity in the amount of public use space that was shown on the certified site plans with amendments D and E. So at their request, we did do a deep dive into that, which is summarized in the staff report. and we did concur with the applicant that we did find an error on the CSP data tables relative to amendments D and E. Essentially what looked like it happened was a transcription error in that, In Amendment D, the public use space requirement was increased, it looks like erroneously, by about 12,000 square feet. The scope of the D amendment should have reduced that by 2,000 square feet. So what we've brought forward today, the numbers at the bottom of the screen with our current amendment, would be a total public use space requirement of 104,823 square feet. And that's broken down between ownership lots 7A and 7B, with 7B providing 80,000 square feet. That reflects that 2,000 square foot reduction that should have occurred with D. And then with 7A, we see 24,823 square feet. This is slightly more than the prior requirement of 24,719. And this reflects the applicant's due diligence. They went out there and actually measured what's out there and found that there's 104 more square feet of public use space. So those are the numbers that we believe are correct and are recommending the board adjust with this application. Regarding community outreach, the applicant did satisfy all noticing requirements. We didn't receive any questions from the community on this application. And with that, staff is pleased to make the following recommendation. The site plan amendment does satisfy the applicable use and parking standards of the 2014 zoning ordinance, as well as the applicable development standards of the 2004 zoning ordinance. The application also substantially conforms with the 2024 Great Seneca Plan as conditioned. We're pleased to be recommending approval with modified conditions that are outlined in the staff report, and also pleased to be recommending adoption of the resolution today as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bossie. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Philip Hummel. I am land use counsel for applicant AstraZeneca. Sitting at the table with me to my right are Omar Melendez and Scott Berth of AstraZeneca, and also attending remotely are our project engineer and project architect. First, I want to take the opportunity to thank the West County planning staff for their attention and response in this to this case. We really do appreciate it. And Mr. Bossie just gave an excellent report. So I don't have too much more to say beyond that, except that the intent of the amendment, I mean, Mr. Bossie accurately characterized what the purpose of the amendment is. The intent here is really to support the safety and efficiency of AstraZeneca's operations for developing cutting edge, lifesaving therapies for treating cancer, which is a very important and worthy goal. So with that brief introduction, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Melendez.

Good afternoon, as Phil mentioned, my name is Omar Melendez. I'm the facility lead for RMC. We use words or letters, you know, in the industry. It's Rockville Manufacturing Center. We're part of the cell therapy industry for AstraZeneca. So I really, on behalf of AZ, I just want to give you thank you for the support, you know, to the board, to the staff, to support us and the partnership in all this process, and definitely the responsiveness of cooperating with us and fulfilling the timelines that we have and making it as much as possible, you know, to be a smooth process. Definitely we're presenting this side amendment because within the long terms of AZ trying to save life and provide cell therapy industry business, we're trying to do it in a way that we can save life, we can do it fast, and we can do it reliable. So definitely This site amendment is gonna support our bold ambitions and the future for the site and obviously any future capabilities and innovations that we can do for our site. So I really appreciate for your support, your time and consideration.

Thank you. Just very quickly, we've reviewed the recommended conditions of approval in the staff report. We agree with them and respectfully ask the planning board to approve the site plan amendment and adopt the accompanying resolution. Thank you very much and we're here to answer any questions.

Well, thank you for presenting. AstraZeneca is very important to the health of the county, so thank you for continuing to operate well and grow your business. We really appreciate that. Just out of curiosity, so I'm assuming there's a land use table and the current R&D office lab manufacturing wouldn't fit in the same, I'm just asking, the same land use side as life sciences? You couldn't be inferred that it's life sciences? I'm not sure.

So the request would be to formally change the use, to change it to the life sciences use. So the prior uses, in all practicality, the same things are allowed under the life sciences use that AstraZeneca is The uses that already exist on the property, the things that AstraZeneca is doing out there wouldn't change. The life sciences use under the zoning ordinance just better encapsulates all of the functions that they're doing instead of having it spelled out as different uses in the board's prior decisions.

And what is the major use of being considered life science use? I mean, is there in our zoning?

So the change of use itself is considered a major site plan amendment. That's what triggers planning board review for this particular application. All of the other things that were requested, the minor changes, changes and things like that. No, I understand.

But what is the benefit? By changing the life to the life science category, do you get more density? You get more, I don't know. What do you get?

I can try to answer that. So first, just as a housekeeping matter, it best reflects the operations, the occupancy, the maintenance of the building as currently used by AstraZeneca. There is a parking benefit because the parking requirement is lower. It means that AstraZeneca can provide its use with less parking, utilize the site, expand the building without necessarily needing to provide more parking, or use portions of the site for other things that would otherwise be used for surface parking. And then just for permitting an entitlement that says cleaner, if you're a life sciences use, rather than a mix of office, lab, and light manufacturing.

Okay, great. I'm supportive of all the... recommended approvals here. Thank you. Any other questions or comments?

So if at one point you decide that you don't need 160 and you need to take some more parking to do something else, you can do that? Or do they have to come to us? Because they are... We say 85, but they're doing more. So right now they just needed to use five of them for... may come in future that they want to do something else. Do they have to come back to us if they want to get five more parking?

If it's just the reduction in parking that they were coming back for, that could be reviewed as a minor site plan amendment.

OK. OK. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

No, thanks for explaining this. And the need for it, I must say I'm a little excited to approve something that reduces parking, even though, you know, it's not for, you know, for the other reasons. But it's good to have a little bit less parking. I understand the reasons you're doing it. And, yeah, thanks to AstraZeneca for all the work you do. Glad you're in the county.

Yeah, and being proactive, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, all good. We have a motion to approve the Shady Grove Life Sciences site plan amendment where staff is recommending approval with conditions and adoption of a resolution. We even have something else for you today. We're very excited. To take home with you. Thank you.

It's like a parting gift. All right, I'll move to approve with modified conditions the site plan amendment and also the adoption of the resolution. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye, the ayes have it. Thank you, thank you so much.

And have an enjoyable break too.

Yeah, thank you so much. We're gonna take another couple of minute break and come back with our last item of the afternoon, which is the Darnestown Road site walk water quality plan and mandatory referral where staff is recommending approval with conditions and adoption of resolution for the water quality plan and transmitting comments on the mandatory referral, thank you. Well, welcome back, everyone. We're on our last item of the afternoon before we go on recess and then our evening session. It's item number nine, Darnestown Road Sidewalk Water Quality Plan and Mandatory Referral, where staff is recommending transmitting comments on the mandatory referral and on the water quality plan approval with conditions and adoption of the resolution. So this afternoon, we have Sophia Aldridge presenting this plan.

Great, for the record, Sophia Aldridge with the Transportation Planning Division. Joining me today here at the table is Hallie Johnson from the Environment and Climate Division, and she'll be presenting on the Water Quality Plan, and Devang Dave from MCDOT, and Mike Mercado, MCDOT's consultant. So as part of this, both item A and B, We'll go through the description of the project. We then, as part of the mandatory referral, talk about master plan consistency and adherence to transportation best practices. And actually, I think our layout, I changed it a little bit. I think I put historic preservation in parks before. And then Hallie will do the environment leading into the water quality plan review and recommendations. And then finally, we'll have a wrap-up of our mandatory referral comments. And item A, the water quality plan, is a regulatory item. So very good. So this is a great project. It is a very small project. The reason we're here is because it's in a special protection area. It requires a water quality plan, which is a regulatory item. This is such a small project, if we could not come and do this, we would like, you know, it would be great, but we are required to do that legally, so we are here. But this is a great project because it's completing a missing sidewalk link, and we have so many of these. This is a small one, a really good one. This project's going to be a simple project, essentially a five foot wide sidewalk with a two foot wide buffer. There is currently a curb. I believe it'll just sit on top of what now is an existing grass berm. And it completes a missing connection for about 1,000 feet heading towards Shady Grove Road. So in terms of master plan consistency, the first thing we look at is the master plan of highways and transitways. Providing a sidewalk to complete a missing link is substantially consistent with the master plan of highways. I will note, however, that the existing speed limit on this road, which is a town center boulevard, is 40 miles an hour. The master plan target speed for this road is 30 miles an hour. So the recommendation we have related to this is for the applicant to consider ways to reduce the design speed of Darnestown Road down toward 30 mile per hour. The next master plan consistency is looking at the overall area master plan, the Great Seneca Plan. And again, this project is substantially consistent with this plan. It completes an interim sidewalk between two existing protected crossings, and it complies with an environmental goal to use the best available stormwater techniques in the Piney Branch Special Protection Area to protect the watershed's headwaters. What I did mention in the project description is the sidewalk is gonna have pervious pavement, which is wonderful. And again, as noted, the existing speed limit is 40. The target speed is 30. That's really just a repeat from the previous slide. Looking at some of our functional plans, the pedestrian master plan, by increasing pedestrian connectivity on Darnestown and improving pedestrian safety by implementing a sidewalk, because now they have to walk on grass or on the shoulder or wherever. The proposed project advances the pedestrian master plan goal and is therefore substantially consistent with the pedestrian master plan. In a similar vein, while the project is not building a side path, it does not preclude one from being built in the future. And there will be some people, hopefully only small children, who will use the five foot sidewalk as a bikeway. So building it at this time is really beyond the scope of work for the limited improvements proposed by this project. But as we mentioned, it can be built at a later date as part of a larger project. So we find that this project is substantially consistent with the bicycle master plan. In terms of transportation best practices, we often go right to the Complete Streets Design Guide. This project is an interim improvement, as we mentioned. However, the cross section for complete streets typically requires a default sidewalk width of 10 feet with an eight foot minimum in sensitive areas, which this would qualify, and a default street buffer of eight feet, six foot minimum as well. And so the project is less than that. The project with a five foot sidewalk and a typical buffer of two feet does not meet these, I call them standards, but they're also guidelines. Next we look at pedestrian level of comfort, which was a major accomplishment of the pedestrian master plan. What we find here is the existing pedestrian level comfort score on this section with no sidewalk is not very good. It has a score of five, which essentially means it's undesirable. and the sidewalk once, I think it's actually worse than undesirable, and then the sidewalk once built would be classified as undesirable per the methodology because it's a narrow sidewalk, it has a very narrow buffer, and it's alongside a road with a fairly high travel speed. So there's some level of discomfort that pedestrians would experience. However, it would be better than what happens today. And there is a typo in here. My apologies. So while this project does not achieve comfortable or somewhat comfortable scores, it does improve the existing pedestrian level of comfort score from a five to a four, which is an improvement and does not preclude a more comfortable sidewalk or side path from being constructed in the future. Certainly bicycle level of traffic stress, the stress today is high on Darnestown in this section. Bicycles basically have to share the outside travel lane. No bike improvements, so no changes in the level of traffic stress. And again, as we mentioned, a bike facility could be built on this road at any point in time. This does not impact any of that. The Historic Preservation Division as part of our team reviewed this project and they found that the project area is not in the vicinity of any identified historic resources, archeological sites, cemeteries, or Maryland inventory of historic properties and will not require review by the Montgomery County Historic Preservation Commission. And finally, this project has no proposed parkland impacts as there are no adjacent parks or streams or things of that nature. So now, Hallie.

Thank you. Hallie Johnson, environmental regulatory reviewer with the Environment and Climate Division, for the record. This project is in compliance with the environmental guidelines by minimizing imperviousness with a small, tight LOD. The property is not subject to forest conservation law under Chapter 22A-4D, which provides that the law is not applicable to a mandatory referral on attractive land under 40,000 square feet. The tract area for this project is 11,313 square feet. The proposed sidewalk will increase pedestrian connectivity, helping to reduce reliance on motor vehicle travel in the area. The project is located in the piney branch SPA on public property where land disturbance is proposed and therefore requires approval of a water quality plan. The piney branch SPA has no impervious cap and the applicant has limited imperviousness to the sidewalk connection itself. MCDP TPS and MCDP have reviewed and conditionally approved the elements under their approval. The condition with the water quality plan is one the planning board accepts the recommendations of the Montgomery county department of permitting services. Water resources section in its combined preliminary and final water quality plan letter dated June 4 2026 and hereby incorporates them as conditions of the water quality plan approval. The applicant must comply with each of the recommendations as set forth in the letter, which may be amended by MCDPS, water quality resources section, provided that the amendments do not conflict with other conditions of the water quality plan approval. Here I will pass back to Sophia.

Great. Thank you, Allie. So in conclusion, on the mandatory referral, which is item B, staff recommends approval of the Darnestown Road sidewalk mandatory referral, MR-2026021, and transmittal of one comment, which is that The applicant should consider ways to reduce the design speed of Darnson Road to 30 miles an hour, consistent with the area's town center designation and 30 mile per hour target speed in the 2024 Great Seneca Plan. I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chair, for questions.

Thank you so much, and thank you to MCDOT for moving forward this project. Greatly needed that connection, and it's happy to hear that you're also using pervious pavement. which is, we've been talking about that for a while, so thank you so much. But before I get my thank yous in it, would you like to make a presentation? That's okay. No, no, we're just, you know, you're here, you know, so yeah.

I'll stay with him for a minute, sure. Okay, Michael Mercado with Mercado Consultants. Yeah, we're very excited for the project. To be honest, I've been out to this site now three or four times, and I've walked along that grass strip where this is going to go. This is going to be really well needed. It maybe wasn't fully shown in there, but the university parking garage is right at the end of this. So if anybody's trying to walk along Shady Grove right now, they have to go all the way through and around this pond system there. They'll be able to take a straight shot there. along Shady Grove Road, and along Darnestown, depending on which way they're going. So I think it's going to be a great project. It works really well with the contractors the county has. The pervious pavement, we worked really well with DPS on this, and it's going to be for about a quarter of the length. So it's going to be, I think, a really good stormwater solution, easy to maintain. It's not as large as some of the other BMPs. So we're excited for the project.

One thing I will mention is that The pedestrian plan highlighted that there are all these little places around the county where we have these little places of discontinuity where we don't have sidewalk connections. Establishing one of these does so much to the network just to expand accessibility for people. I wish we could do more of these and one of the reasons why we have all of these little missing links is because there's usually some little hang up like it's in an SPA or it's there's some environmental issue or we need a little bit of right away or something. So again, this is a great project. Thanks.

So let me ask you this. This is an SPA. I understand that the water quality had to come to us. But why do we have a mandatory referral? It's a small project. If it was that this project, it was not in SPA, it wouldn't have come to us, correct? It was just a sidewalk to go, but because they're bringing it for water quality, why do we have to request for a mandatory referral for something that we don't have to review?

Unfortunately, I think it's part of the SPA environmental law. if there was a way to actually have an expedited review in these kind of situations?

I think we should create one. This is something that I'm going to probably put it for Jason and Robert. We want this project to come, okay? And I agree with you. It's very close to my house. That missing link is not there. And I know that with DOT has sidewalk programs that they just go build it, if it is no right of way required, if it's no SPA. And we should make these projects easy for them to do it. Maybe they just have to be a water quality review that it comes to us, or we could make, if it is such a small thing, the water quality could be approved at the director level. I'm all for it. This is me, I guess the rest of the, Commissioner, you know, they can talk about it, but we need to make the process easier, streamline, that we can have more of this project done, and the money would be spent on construction.

So, Commissioner Robert Cronenberg, for the record, when I read the report, my first question is, why are we bringing this to the board? Yeah. So the response I got, which is still the response that we have, is because it's in an SBA and because it's part of Chapter 19 in terms of what we review, we have to take it to the board. So we're required to. It's such a small project that in any other case, we probably would not have even taken that through a mandatory referral for a sidewalk project. But because of it being an SBA, we had to.

Yeah, I understand that. I totally understand. I'm just saying that this is a very good candidate for the streamlining for future.

Agreed.

That's where I'm talking about, that if whatever we need to do, I don't know you guys know better. put it in your bucket to streamline.

So there are streamlining available. So it is the Department of Permitting Services' decision as to whether to do a water quality inventory or a water quality plan. They make the decision. And Chapter 19 is the chapter of the county code that dictates that it gives the approval of a water quality plan to the planning board, not to the planning director.

But then you need to talk to DPS. We have. We have. That is their decision. Maybe I should step in.

If only we knew a director. Yeah, maybe that's something where you guys have quarterly or meetings with DPS, and maybe that's something you could put on your radar.

We'll talk with them again. I think it was at the direction of an attorney that they made this determination, but we will certainly— I know, but there is something—I'm not trying to say anything against attorneys.

Attorneys' advice but they don't tell you what to do. You take their advice, and then you make the decision, or you work with the attorney to make it possible.

I agree. Sorry. I agree.

We will take it up with the Department of Permitting Services. Okay, great.

He's a lawyer. So why don't we move forward, duly noted, and we will have two votes here. You have the floor, and then we're going to vote.

My bad. I'm so sorry. I was trying to say something, but... But first of all, thank you so much for listening and seeing our presentation. We really appreciate it. I just want to add my two cents that this project is for kids, kids' safety, you know, public safety. And again, I heard from Commissioner Mitra saying that, hey, if we can streamline process and if we can get a little bit of, you know, quicker way to leverage to MCDOT so MCDOT can go ahead and build more this type of missing sidewalk connection. That would be really appreciated. And in the future, then we have a more leeway to shorten the time and we can put more construction out there quickly.

It would have been built by now. I know that.

I don't want to delay our vote, and we have an important pre-long evening dinner to get to. I just had a question around, I know it's right next to the university, and so there's a lot of foot traffic in general in this vicinity. There's no entry points, obviously, given everything you talked about. There's no entry points from this stretch of Darnestown Road into the campus. So I'm trying to understand kind of like the use case, like who do we think will be using the sidewalk? Who currently uses the sidewalk or who uses the desire line of where the sidewalk should be? Because it looks like, you know, If they're coming from the parking garage using this new sidewalk, the next intersection they get to is kind of the far end of campus, whereas currently perhaps they could navigate internally within campus to get there as well, which isn't to say the sidewalk is not needed. It's a good connection. I'm just trying to understand kind of who's going to use it. Like, how would people use this?

I think that movement, you're right. I think going through campus may be a little faster. There are shops at the end of Treville Gateway. It's probably the same distance if they walk through campus or around. Another thought might be those who are not necessarily in campus but maybe they live down Shady Grove Road or they're further down Darnestown and they just want to be able to travel on that side without having to cross campus. at the Shady Grove-Darnestown intersection, which is quite big. So it would accommodate those individuals as well.

It is used a lot. I have biked around that. It connects to Millennium. the trail that Rockville has. So if you are living where I'm living and you want to go to the Millennium Trail, this is the way that you can go right now. We go through the side roads because there is not really a good side path or bike that is safe that you could just come straight and go there. So just across the street, if you go a little bit further down is connection to the Millennium Trail for city of Rockville. That is a beautiful trail. That is my favorite trailer that I use and this provides connection to that.

And if I may add that if you are coming from Travella intersection, this is on the south side of the Durnestown road, so if you are coming from Travella and heading towards the intersection, you are basically at some point dead end, like 565 feet you can walk, after that it's dead end. So we must have to put this connection in order to reach to the intersection.

Yeah, thanks. I, I hope that at some point it can get expanded a little bit, five, five feet, two feet away from 45 miles an hour moving cars is that's pretty, that's a pretty tight, uncomfortable squeeze. And I think it's telling that the, uh, the plaque still erase it basically at the bottom of the, of, of the, of the list. I understand the reasons why you can't go further. Um, it's just kind of unfortunate that we're, it's just kind of unfortunate we're spending a lot of money on something that will still be very uncomfortable for, it'll be accessible, which is good, but we're also kind of putting those folks in a tough spot considering how it's designed. I understand why it's the limitations, but just sort of, I guess I'm just kind of howling at the moon at this point that it's unfortunate that this is the way it is, but hopefully, you know, other sidewalk projects obviously will have more room or space to make that buffer a little wider. So yeah, thanks for bringing this forward.

Okay, great. Any other comments, questions? Okay, so we have two motions. One is for the, is there a motion to approve the water quality plan where staff is recommending conditions, approval with conditions and the adoption of the resolutions?

I'll move to approve the water quality plan with conditions as well as the adoption of the resolution.

I second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. The ayes have it. 5-0. Is there a motion to transmit the comments on the plan for the mandatory referral?

I'll move to approve the mandatory referral and transmit all the comments.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. The ayes have it. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this to us and look forward to getting it built speedily. Thank you. We're going to take a break and we'll be back at 5 o'clock for our evening session, Friendship Commons Geico Site Sketch Plan, Preliminary Plan, Site Plan, Forest Conservation Plan. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Thank you. See you then. Good evening, everyone. I'm Artie Harris, chair of the Montgomery County Planning Board. On behalf of my planning board colleagues and staff, we're delighted you're here this afternoon, either in person or online. We're going to begin with our next item, which is item 10. Friendship Commons Sketch Plan Number 3-2026-0030, Preliminary Plan Number 1-2026-0140, Site Plan Number 8-2026-0120, and Forest Conservation Plan Amendment F-2026-0070. So if you're not here for this item, this is the time to go to where you're supposed to be. So before I begin, I want to go over a few items. The order of the evening will be a presentation from staff on the project, followed by public testimony. We will then hear from the applicant, and then the board will begin their discussions. We have almost 60 people signed up to speak, either here or online. Therefore, I'm requesting the following. Please aim to keep your remarks to under two minutes for an individual and under four minutes for a group. Representatives. under four minutes for group representatives or elected officials. When you reach that point, a timer will go off. Please conclude your remarks. If you previously sent in written comments, we have reviewed those, all of them. Please feel free to just reference them and highlight your most critical points. Finally, we're here this evening to specifically review the sketch plan, preliminary plan, site plan, and forest conservation plan amendment for Friendship Commons. If you have comments to share on any other aspects of this project or other activities incurring in Friendship Heights, please submit those to our email, mcp-chair at mncppc-mc.org. I will now turn it over to staff for their presentation.

Thank you, Chair, members of the board. For the record, Eliza Heisler-McCoy, Chair of the West County Planning Team. To my left is Carlos Pazmino with the Transportation Planning Team. Amy Lindsay, Regulatory Supervisor for the Environment and Climate Division. In the audience, we have from Transportation Planning, Regulatory Supervisor Richard Brockmeyer, from the Parks Department, Darcy Buckley, from the Environmental Team, Molly Stamets, and from MCDOT, Deepak Samarajan. So we are here to answer your questions. So in addition to thanking all those folks for all of their hard work, over the last seven months. The Friendship Commons proposals are a large, complex, and important project on a large, complex, and important site. There were many priorities that the team had to balance to get here today. And for the last seven months, the team has been meeting and working with the applicant agencies and residents to address issues and have improved the plan in terms of building and site design, transportation improvements, tree preservation, and parks and open space. So having said that, let's get started. So Friendship Heights is located in the Down County area along Wisconsin Avenue where it crosses from the district into Maryland. And Friendship Heights is covered today by the 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan. So this is an image of Friendship Heights. It is one of the county's central business districts. It is a cross-jurisdictional downtown shared with Washington, DC. There are a number of municipalities, including the village of Friendship Heights, which is across Willard Avenue from the site, the town of Somerset to the north, Chevy Chase Village across Wisconsin Avenue. with single-family residential neighborhoods at those edges. So in this image, the site is outlined in red. The village of Friendship Heights, for reference, is outlined in blue. So the site itself is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Willard Avenue and Friendship Boulevard and downtown Friendship Heights. You can see Willard Avenue here along the top. and Friendship Heights to the right, Western Avenue, the boundary with DC on the bottom, and then Brookdale neighborhood to the west. The entire site is 29 acres. You can see the proximity to the Friendship Heights metro station, which is now a very important stop on the red line. Everybody, all the trains stop at Friendship Heights these days. So in terms of zoning, the site is split zoned CR3, C2, R1, H100T, and R60TDR11. The sketch plan is limited to the CR portion of the site. You can see sort of this orange boomerang shape along Willard and Friendship is zoned CR3. And the yellow area with the purple hatch is the R60TDR11. So the sketch plan is limited to the orange boomerang. But all of the other applications, preliminary plans, site plan, and forest conservation plan amendment, apply to the entire site. OK, just for some context in terms of what surrounds the site, you have the single family homes to the west. But along Willard and Friendship, you have much taller buildings. So this first image is looking from the intersection of Friendship Boulevard and Willard Avenue to the west. You have the Willoughby Condominium, which is about 20 stories, looking the other way on Friendship towards Western Avenue. You have a recent development. It's about 15 stories. And then at the western end of Willard, looking back across the site, there are high rises ranging from 15 to 20 stories. And I'll turn over to Amy to discuss the natural features of the site.

For the record, Amy Lindsay with the Environment and Climate Division. So the site is currently developed with one signature building. There is about 120 feet of linear feet of stream. It's a fragment of a stream that comes from a pipe and then flows into another pipe. But it is an above ground stream with associated buffer. There's approximately 0.13 acres of forest, which we'll talk more about later. But really, when you look at the property, the thing that's going to jump out at you most are the 203 significant and specimen trees on the property and surrounding it. It is one of the sites with... one of the greatest amounts of tree cover that we would normally see due to its existing use. In order to understand the property, it's important to see what the topography of the site is like. Now, on a lot of properties where we're looking at them in two dimensions, and so it's very hard to visualize this, but I think it's very important to understand this property's relationship to its surrounding neighbors. So you can see that along the backside of the property, we go from 282 feet to 268 feet in a very short distance that's because the property was contoured for this existing land use and it works very well for this particular land use, so that they were the site is contoured to allow. For example, a loading dock to be lower than the front of the building and same for. the front of the building, as you enter the site off of Willard Avenue, it really dips down and you can see that with the contours where we go from 284 to 270 and then 260, all in a very short period. So they really contoured the site to fit this particular land use. Next. These are some sort of three-dimensional images of the topography that let you visualize it even more. Where you're seeing the much darker side, that's showing you a steeper slope. So in this case, we are looking across the parking lot to the back of the site where it's meeting the neighborhood park. And that's where you can see how what the slope is leading down. You can also see that along the frontage, that the site is depressed from the road frontage. And so that will be a really important feature as we talk about this property and redevelopment moving forward.

Amy, could you use your cursor to show what you're talking about? I appreciate that.

Actually, Elsa will have to. So Elsa, if you can point at the stream on the lower left. So that is that stream channel I was talking about, the 120 or so linear feet of stream. And that is the rear of the building. You can see the park just to the north there. And if you go around to the other image, Elsa, so this is looking um and i apologize i believe this is looking essentially south at the building you can see the difference between the park and then if you look at the base of the existing building yes just like that um you can see the difference in topography just to help you visualize. And if you could, from the road, if you can see those, how that's dark there, what that's telling you is that there's a significant slope down from the road to the subject property. And that was used very well by the Geico building to sort of create the whole business campus and to kind of separate it. Does that help? Okay, all yours.

Okay, so moving on to the proposal, there are a few previous approvals that have been bestowed on the site. The first is a local map amendment from 1998. The council rezoned about 9.9 acres of the property from R60 TDR to TSM, so this is the sort of the boomerang area that we were talking about earlier. There were binding elements listed in very tiny text in the bottom left that addressed numerous aspects of the Envision development, including on property not included in the local map amendment. So this is sort of the larger property, and this was the area for the local map amendment. So the binding elements, the preamble to the binding elements states that these binding elements will remain in full force and effect in perpetuity unless the 26.5 acre site is rezoned or this development plan is modified by means of a development plan amendment approved by the district council. With the 2014 district map amendment following adoption of the new county zoning ordinance, the TSM portion of the site was rezoned to what it is today, CR3C2R1H100T. Pursuant to the language in the preamble to the binding elements, the 2014 rezoning negated the continuing application of the binding elements on the property. Binding elements addressing the R60TDR11 zoned property were not legally part of the area rezoned in that local map amendment, nor did they contain any recorded covenants related to the binding elements or other development restrictions, and so do not apply. Additionally on the binding elements, the zoning ordinance section 59771B5A says that any development allowed on property where the zoning classification on October 29th, 2014 was the result of a local map amendment must satisfy any binding elements until the property is subject to A sectional map amendment that implements a master plan approved after 2014 and obtains approval for development under the SMA approved zoning. Two, the property is rezoned by local map amendment. Or three, the binding element is revised by a development plan amendment under the procedures in effect on October 29, 2014. So although the development plan for the site, G760, was approved before October 29th, 2014, this section does not apply to the subject application because the specific preamble language for the binding elements takes precedence, and the subject applications are not based on the approved development plan, but instead are new sketch preliminary and site plan applications based on the current zoning. Therefore, the applications must comply with the current requirements of Chapter 50 and 59, including substantial conformance with the recommendations of the 98 Sector Plan. There's also, just a year later in 1999, the Planning Board approved a preliminary plan for 810,000 square feet of office, shown here along Friendship Boulevard. 300 multifamily units shown here along Willard Avenue, 200 townhouses in the center of the site, the Brookdale Park and the ball field on Western Avenue, and also included demolition of the Geico headquarters building. So the the building was not designated historic and has not been proposed as such because in 1999 the planning board approved its demolition. So this preliminary plan which remains current today will be completely superseded by the current application should the board approve it and the staff recommendation includes a condition to formally abandon this preliminary plan approval. And then I'll turn it over to Amy for the final previous approval.

The final forest conservation plan, FCPF 20260070, was approved to allow for the demolition of the existing GEICO headquarters. So this was approved in March of 2026 at the staff level. This is a standard practice to allow for the demolition of the existing building and the associated parking structure. And it includes stabilization of the site only. It does not include mass grading of the property. It doesn't include the removal of the surface parking lots. It is just for the demolition of the building and site stabilization as that is required as part of a demolition plan. It did include a variance for the removal of seven and impacts to 13 protected trees. I will say that in speaking with the forest conservation inspector, who's been out there a multiple of times, they were able to save a couple of trees through minimizing disturbance, but there were a couple that needed to be removed because the damage they would be left in an unsafe situation. So the inspector has been on top of this and has been monitoring this. The mitigation plantings will be handled as part of the amendment to the Final Forest Conservation Plan.

Thank you, Amy. So the proposal is to redevelop the GEICO headquarters site, shown here outlined in white. The proposal is for a mixed-use development with up to 486,000 square feet of multifamily residential uses and up to 356 units, both rental and condominium, in three buildings, up to 5,000 square feet of commercial uses, 180 townhouses, a minimum of 17.5% MPDUs, three future development sites, dedication and payment for an improved Brookdale Park, and associated private open space roads and alleys. By way of orientation, this is the rendered site plan. So the two condominium buildings are here along Willard. The multifamily rental building developed in coordination with the Housing Opportunities Commission is closer to the intersection with Friendship Boulevard. The townhomes in the central part of the site The future development sites shown along friendship boulevard and Western avenue so they're included in the preliminary they're included in the preliminary and site plan, but there's no density allocated to them. And then brookdale park. So for housing, as I mentioned before, with the agreement of DHCA, the development overall will provide a minimum of 17 and 1 half percent of the units as MPDUs, so up to 94 units. 10 MPDUs at minimum will be in the for sale townhouses. The rest will be in the multifamily rental units. In the multifamily building, there will be a minimum of 10 three-bedroom MPDUs and six four-bedroom MPDUs, and two-thirds of the MPDUs on the multifamily buildings will be for folks earning 50% of the area median income, up to 57 units. And then in the TDR overlay zone, which is where the townhouses are, the applicant is purchasing up to 47 TDRs for the 180 townhomes. So in terms of the architecture, the multifamily rental buildings are seven stories with about 250 units. The 5,000 square feet of ground floor retail commercial space will be in this building. Staff worked with the applicant to ensure that the frontages are activated on both sides with entry points, ground floor walkout units, a pool deck, and commercial space. In the multifamily condominium buildings, there are two six-story buildings, each with 48 units. Again, activated frontages on both sides with entry points, ground floor walkout units, and artwork panels. And then the townhomes will be four stories with integrated alley parking in rear and have an architectural language of sort of the traditional New York brownstone. So just to this slide talks about the building height transition from the Brookdale neighborhood out to this. In this case, this is the Willoughby condominium on the north side of Willard Avenue. Sector plan made very particular recommendations about building height in in order to achieve this, but I wanted to illustrate sort of where we are based on the proposal so we're starting in brookdale with a two to three story homes allowed up to 35 feet in the our 60 zone. The townhomes then go from 35 feet to 45 feet with one more story for the condominium buildings up to 80 feet. These are the buildings that are along Willard Avenue. Then up to 90 feet, one more floor for the multifamily building. And then across Willard Avenue, the existing building, right at the corner is 20 stories, about 200 feet, but they range between 14 and 20 stories along that edge. In terms of parks and open space, the applicant will be dedicating to Montgomery Parks and making a $1.65 million payment for the improvement of Brookdale Park. So Brookdale Park today is leased from GEICO, and so this will be dedicated to the Parks Department, which is definitely something that was a recommendation in the 1990s. 98 plan very desired uh there's a greenway buffer that runs along uh sort of the northern um edge of the um of the brookdale community and and carlos will get into some more detail about that um on the on the cr zoned portion of the site they're providing 10 public open space about 30 000 square feet and then in the townhome portion of the site They're providing 30% common open space in excess of the 20% requirement over almost 160,000 square feet of common open space there. Here's some images of the open spaces. And then I'll turn it over to Carlos to talk about transportation. Thank you, Elza.

For the record, my name is Carlos Pazamino. I work in the Transportation Planning Division under the Regulatory Review Team. The application proposes several public frontage improvements centered in Willard Avenue, Friendship Boulevard, Dalton Road, Cheryl Avenue, Saratoga Avenue, and five-feet right-of-way dedications in Dalton Road and Cheryl Avenue. The public frontage improvements include a 10 foot sidewalk with a four foot pedestrian bicycle buffer and a six foot street buffer on Lord avenue a two way separated bikeway I trail connection to willard park and some new signal new signal on street a and enhanced pedestrian crossing. Several enhanced pedestrian crossings, including protected pedestrian crossings. On Friendship Boulevard, there is an interim to a way bicycle facility that connects to Jennifer Street bike lane in D.C. and a 7.5 foot sidewalk and a 6.5 street buffer. Western Avenue is under D.C. right of way and also connects to Maryland Highway 355, but it will be providing access to the Greenway. And Dalton Road, Cheryl Avenue, and Saratoga Avenue will have ADA access into the site through the Greenway Trail. The private streets are designed under the neighborhood street complete streets guidelines, and they are consistent with county guidance. Private Street A will have a 55-foot minimum. It's a 55-foot minimum parcel with a six-foot sidewalk and a five-foot streetscape buffer. Just to generally summarize, the street buffers have variable widths, but Private Street B has a 10-foot side path, that basically acts as a continued connection of the Greenway and Brookdale Park. Street C has a five-foot sidewalk and a six-foot streetscape buffer, and the buffers also incorporate storm management features that are within the buffered zones. The Greenway, formerly known as Willard Avenue Trail in the Bicycle Master Plan, will provide ADA connections on Charlotte Avenue, Saratoga Avenue, and Dalton Road. Initially, in the master plan, there was an additional discussion with the applicant about a Baltimore Avenue connection, but it was determined infeasible due to impacts in property and environmental impacts like tree removals. We also are asking for... several ongoing reviews and certified set at the site plan stage that will include submitting a site distance analysis, demonstrating compliance with AASHTO shared use path standards, providing a minimum of two foot buffers throughout the greenway. And that includes railings in areas where there is slopage and along the Brookdale Park feature zone that need to be consistent with AASHTO shared use path. and ADA compliance. We are also requesting to install lighting throughout the trail corridor that is consistent with MCDOT street light design requirements. And lastly, the greenway must remain open and lit from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. There are several network impacts. Under our initial review, we found that the project provides a net decrease of 240 trips in the a.m. peak hours and 209 p.m. peak hour trip reductions. We also acknowledge that in the LATR guidelines, there is an FAR non-retail adjustment. To do due diligence, staff did review and added the 5,000 square foot retail and still found that there's a net decrease of 219 a.m. peak hour trips and a reduction of 165 p.m. hour trips, and that is based on the existing p.m. trip adjustments from the former GEICO site to the new proposals. We want to be very clear. Any proposed addition to the development through an amendment will require the entire site to be reassessed for trip generation and a possible LATR requirement. In summary, the proposed improvements create a safer and accessible and a better connected pedestrian bicycle and transit network in the friendship heights. Community and it is it is substantially consistent with the friendship heights master plan and complete streets objectives. The right away the dedications of this and transit improvements the bicycle facilities safety enhancements and the green with connectivity are all but net benefits under our review. The applicant is requesting two waivers. The first one, the most pressing is Street B Horizontal Alignment Waiver. The applicant requests a waiver to reduce the required 100 foot minimum centerline radius to 50 feet for a segment of Street B. For those unfamiliar, horizontal alignment is basically the curvature of the road and how tight a curve can be on a Tight tangent. A centerline radius is the measure in which we review and assess the curvature of the street. Under our code requirements, Montgomery County Code requires a minimum 100-foot centerline radius for neighborhood streets, which all the private streets should be designed under. The applicant's proposing a 50-mile-per-hour design speed for the one-way uphill operation of that street However, staff recommends maintaining the 100 foot minimum radius required by code, and to be consistent with NCDOT's finding that the neighborhood streets, one, are generally designed at 20 miles per hour, and two, a 50 mile per hour operating speed is difficult to achieve and enforce. Obviously, the planning board will make the final determination on whether this waiver is granted. I just want to point out and orient the board on where this waiver is being reviewed. Street B is within this general quadrant of the site, within the center of the site. Street B is within this green arrow tangent. If we look into the profile, the portion of Street B that will be reviewed is within the square highlight. And the slope of Street B is within the circular highlight There is an 8% grade within the street. The 8% grade is not dissimilar from the Dunkin' Donuts parking aisle right next to our building. The applicant is requesting this modification for Street B. They are proposing a one-way orientation uphill and adding several design features, including a... A narrowing of the intersection in the lower end of the hill and also adding signage like do not enter signs and no right turn signs on street see. The impact if we were to approve and maintain the code for for horizontal alignment of 100 feet. would be primarily on lot 70 where the curb line and the back of sidewalk are dimensioned within this bend. And we're open for questions and any ongoing clarifications if necessary.

Yeah, we'll discuss that when we, after the applicant makes their presentation.

But make sure you put a pin in that. You got it. Thank you. The second waiver request involves a truncation corner. For the layman's terms, corner truncations focus on sight lines at intersections to accommodate for traffic signals and cabinets. Our code requires a 25-foot truncation for for sight distance. Staff does support the waiver generally among the private streets. However, staff does not support the waiver at two locations on Willard Avenue and Friendship Boulevard. To orient the board, the truncations are within the red circles. We are supportive of waiving it in the green circles within the private roads.

Once again, for the record, Amy Lindsay with the Environment and Climate Division. We want to make certain that we are talking about climate impacts with every development plan. So I just want to talk with you a little bit about what this development plan brings to the table. So on the one hand, we've got a lot of tree removals proposed with this development. and there's a lot of soil disturbance. Both of those do impact climate change and our CO2, how that gets stored. But on the other hand, we've got redevelopment of an existing developed site We do have a lot of proposed plantings in an urban forest area. We've got a stream valley buffer that's going to be planted. We've got development that's in close proximity to transit. As well as this housing type uses significantly less energy than single family homes do. You know, as we move forward, each development plan does contribute towards meeting the county's climate change goals, and we just want to make certain that we're hitting this on every plan.

Next.

Next. Final Forest Conservation Plan Amendment number F2026007A is, once again, a slightly unusual plan in that we are proposing the use of an urban forestry treatment to meet much of the forest conservation requirements. There's 0.13 acres of forest are proposed to be cleared, and an urban forest to be planted along the back of the property, and then also an area of dense tree cover.

Next.

So the plan by the numbers includes 0.13 acres of forest clearing, which has a 0.28 acres reforestation requirement within watershed. They'll be meeting that on site. There's also a 3.66 acres afforestation requirement. So that's a total of 3.94 acres planting requirements. that will be met by 0.76 acres of tree cover credit, which is 20% of the afforestation requirement, which is allowed because this is an urban site. It is a redevelopment, and it is a high density residential development. So that does meet the requirements for that. And then 2.09 acres of urban forest planting, and finally, 1.09 acres of offsite mitigation credit in Forest Bank to meet the final bit of afforestation. Next. So what do I mean when I talk about urban forest? So this is going to be a managed planting area, not just randomly planted trees, shrubs, and herbaceous layers. This is going to be layered. It's going to be designed for safety, visibility, aesthetically pleasing. native plantings where we're really looking at the ecosystem services of each tree so that we're looking at plantings for, are they providing food sources? Do they serve as host plants for for like butterflies and things like that? Are they providing habitat? You know, specifically looking at the Lepidoptera family because that is sort of a keystone requirement for a healthy ecosystem. This area will be protected by a covenant that will not conflict with the utility easements and right-of-ways. Now, in urban areas, it's very difficult to put a Category 1 conservation easement, as we might do in a more suburban area, because there are a lot of utility easements and right-of-ways and lines running everywhere. However, this protective covenant will require maintenance and management and replanting, And so we think that this is a really good solution for an area that is not necessarily suitable for planting a standard forest. We believe that we can get the same ecosystem services and have it be an area that people can use and have access to and have it protected.

Next.

So I keep mentioning the 0.13 acres of forest. A forest conservation law defines a legal forest as being a minimum of 10,000 square feet. 0.13 acres is not 10,000 square feet. So why do I keep calling it forest? Well, forest gets defined at the time of the natural resource inventory, and it does not take property lines into effect. So, as you can see, there's some forest that's on unbuilt lots two and three. And taken together, they do make up an area that meets the legal definition of forest. However, the portion that's on the subject property does not. We would not want to put an easement over 5,600 square feet it would not be forest, it would not be tree cover. And while that seems unfair and that we're penalizing the applicant for having this small area that we would not accept in easement, I will say this happens often because it could be that this would be located next to, say, a property that did have an easement on it. So we have to apply the same rules. And if If it is part of a larger area that meets the terms of forest, it is considered forest at the time of NRI. But if we cannot put an easement over it because either it is too small, then that is considered forest cleared. Next. That becomes important because the portion of the property that is zoned R60 is subject to the minimum retention requirement because this is using an optional method of development for a single-family zone. So the 0.13 acres of existing forest is below the 20 percent conservation threshold, 2.92 acres, as well as the 15 percent afforestation threshold of 2.19 acres. However, you know, the law says that if existing forest is less than the minimum required retention, All forest must be retained, and on-site afforestation up to the minimum standard must be provided. If existing forest is less than the applicable afforestation threshold in here, which is 2.19 acres, the afforestation threshold is the minimum on-site forest requirement. However, the law does allow for some flexibility. So if the forest retention is not possible, the applicant must provide the maximum on-site retention in combination with on-site reforestation and afforestation, not including the landscaping. So the applicant is proposing to clear the 0.13 acres of forest because we would not consider that to be forest retained. And they are meeting the minimum afforestation on site through the planting of the urban forest. So we believe that the planning board should grant the flexibility in this case because the 0.13 acres of forest does not meet the minimum standard definition of forest on site. Next. This 0.13 acres of forest is located within a priority urban forest area. And so that means the planning board needs to make the findings that the development would make maximum use of any available planning and zoning options that would result in the greatest possible forest retention. As we've stated, that taken on its own on this property, it does not meet the legal definition. that reasonable efforts have been made to protect the specific areas and vegetation, and that the development proposal cannot be reasonably altered. Next. Actually, if we can go back to the plan of the forest conservation. Yes, there. So as you can see, the area of forest that 0.13 acres is located in what is the phase one of this development. And it does not seem to me that there is an easy way to actually move the development if it was possible just to move the development 20 feet. If, for example, the land was flat, and didn't require a lot of grading, then we could talk about easy ways to move the limits of disturbance. However, in this case, we think that the proposal of planting a more substantial amount of urban forest along that edge serves the community better than the 0.13 acres that doesn't meet the legal definition of forest and retaining that. There is a variance request with this application for the removal of 34 protected trees and impacts to 49 protected trees. So the findings that will not confer on the applicant a special privilege that would be denied to other applicants. In this case, most of the tree removal is due to grading and it is because of that of the existing grading on the property that no matter what the development proposal was any sort of redevelopment of this property would require a significant amount of grading regrading because of the existing grading on the property there have been you know, is not based on conditions or circumstances which are the results of the applicant, actions by the applicant. There are places where we have worked with the applicant to restrain the limits of disturbance and to minimize the impacts, which I know 34 protected trees and impacts to 49 does not sound like it, but the applicant has worked with us to retain as many trees as possible. is not based on a condition relating to land or building use, either permitting or nonconforming on a neighboring property. No, the variance is related to the grading that was done to the subject property. And it is the grading needed to redevelop the property to create a community that is causing most of the tree removal. This shows you an overall plan of both the impacts and removals. Now, I will say that the Parks Department's sort of late-breaking news about removing disturbance from the park will change this. Those trees will not be impacted, but we have to go with the plan that was submitted at the time, and so that's what we're here with. So this will be reduced by the time the plans are certified, and we will, of course, look at this to reduce the impacts as much as possible. you'll see that we have the tree removals on the interior of the property. And as I mentioned before, the relationship between the road and the property is, the property is quite depressed on that side as well as on the rear of the property where it backs up to the park. And so that creating any sort of grading that meets at the property lines is what is generating the impacts and removals. But as I said, this will be reduced through the certified plans. Next.

Thank you, Amy. Many of the comments we received addressed master plan conformance, and the staff report has 12 pages of very detailed analysis of how the proposal substantially conforms to the recommendation of the master plan. I'll say that the project is not a 100% match with all of the recommendations and guidelines in the plan, but it does not have to be. If in 1998 they knew in 2026 what was going to work, that would be a lot of foresight. The standard here is Substantial conformance and the proposal substantially conforms to the vision goals area wide and site specific recommendations and guidelines it redevelops the geico headquarters site into a pedestrian oriented mixed use neighborhood connecting brookdale and the downtown. It transitions building heights from two-story homes in Brookdale to 14- to 20-story buildings on Willard Avenue and Friendship Boulevard. It provides housing choice with new townhomes and multifamily apartments with expanded affordability, as I've already mentioned, dedicates and makes a payment for an improved Brookdale Park, and provides new landscaped open spaces, including the greenway that Carlos talked about, and the future development sites offer flexibility for uses moving forward. So as the board, we're prepared to go into every last recommendation. I wanted to keep it simple. We have a lot of folks here who have things to say to you tonight, but the proposal more than substantially conforms to the recommendations and the design guidelines in the plan. So noticing and correspondence. So the applicant has complied with all submittal and noticing requirements and held a pre-submittal public meeting in February. Over the course of the review, staff has met with the Little Falls Watershed Alliance, the Citizens Coordinating Committee, on Friendship Heights, the Brooktown neighborhood, the Willoughby condominium, 4620 North Park Avenue condominium, and the Washington Area Bicyclists Association. And staff used the Friendship Heights e-letter to let the subscribers know where to find application materials online when they were initially submitted and then later updated. At time of publication of the staff report, staff had received over 700 pieces of correspondence, and we read through all of them about the applications. The major themes of the correspondence were tree preservation that Amy has talked about, performance with the sector plan, which we just talked about and can talk about some more as well as those design guidelines, concerns about open space, applicability of the binding elements, which I've already addressed, traffic impacts, and demolition of the existing buildings. And so the ones that we haven't already talked to we'll go into just briefly now. Amy, do you want to take this one?

Sure, as previously mentioned, the property has approximately 203 large and specimen trees that are on or directly adjacent to it. It really is very impressive. But many of these trees are integrated into the headquarters. And they followed the topography of the existing development. The topography will be altered through the redevelopment to connect the new development to the existing, the surrounding community. And it really is the regrading of the property that will result in the loss of the trees adjacent to the former GEICO headquarters site. Many of the trees located on the edge will be retained. But just want to be absolutely candid. Yes, in order to redevelop this property, it will require the removal of the trees, and that would be with any redevelopment.

Thank you. In terms of open space, the project proposes open spaces and related amenities for residents and visitors that substantially exceed the minimum required 25% common and 10% public open space. As I mentioned before, the most significant public open space is the 2.35 acre Brookdale Park. which is being dedicated and a payment to the Parks Department for upgrades and then additional open spaces, including the Greenway along the Brooklyn Dale neighborhood and others. For traffic impacts, Richard.

For the record, Richard Brockmire, Transportation Planning Supervisor for the Transportation Planning Division. So in response to neighborhood concerns about traffic impacts and at the request of DOT, the applicant did prepare a traffic operations analysis. As Carlos mentioned, they did not trigger an LATR study, but they did do a traffic operations analysis, which included a signal warrant study for both the proposed redevelopment and as well as a hypothetical full build-out scenario. The analysis found that the proposed development would generate fewer peak trips than the existing office use for the proposed redevelopment and maintains an acceptable intersection operation at both sort of the Friendship Boulevard and Willard Avenue intersections. And it supports MCDOT's recommendation for a new traffic signal to enhance safety and access at the Willard and Street A intersection. And even under full build-out conditions, the transportation network is projected to operate within acceptable standards. And with any future redevelopment or development requiring a separate transportation review and approval would be required. So if there's any amendment to add a future phase, the entire site would have to be analyzed.

Thank you. And then finally, for the GEICO headquarters demolition, the demolition is not part of the applications currently under review. As Amy mentioned earlier, a planning staff administratively approved forest conservation plan in March. To address the environmental impacts associated with the external demolition work, the Montgomery County Department of Permitting Services issued a demolition permit for interior demolition earlier this year and that work is underway and demolition is proceeding in accordance with all of the applicable rules, standards, and guidelines. Okay, so we mentioned earlier that there are a lot of moving parts, this is very, this is almost 30 acres, hundreds of units, roads, trees, there's a lot going on here. And some of those parts were still moving after we posted the report 10 days ago. So we have one correction and then some modifications to the conditions we're gonna go through now. Richard, I think you're first.

Yeah, as for correction, the staff report misstated the number of parking spaces proposed and the maximums allowed. The parking numbers may change still as the unit count changes and the internal and the applicants can probably speak to this more than I can, but sort of determining the insides of the townhomes specifically. And so that will be finalized at a certified plan stage. The correction does not change the findings that the project meets parking requirements. But just to be clear, the maximum allowed is 945 they can go above that with meeting certain conditions, but they're not proposing to do that. They're providing 670 total parking spaces.

Thank you. Okay, so revised conditions. Sort of generally, I think there were some typographical and numbering errors that will be updated at the time of resolution. And sort of more generally, we want to add the word final before references to the final. to record plat, we expect there to be interim, an interim platting to address sort of closing issues, but when they come back for final plats that will be buildable, so we're adding final in front of record plat. Okay, so revised conditions in preliminary plan were updated, the DOT letter was updated on July 20, so we're changing that. For other approvals just clarifying that the clearing and grading. Before certified site plane is only as allowed per the existing for us conservation plan approval. And then we've got some transportation updates.

And this also mentioned that the numbering get a little tricky with how many changes there are so I did try and adjust this to be clear of what was posted in the staff report. So we're modifying condition 15 basically what we're doing is separating out the lighting requirements for the private streets versus the private trails and pathways and how those must be designed and what criteria, they have to meet. This next one is a lot of text, but this is basically fixing an issue with the initial staff report where we had mistakenly put the total pavement width as the total minimum width of the parcel that the private roads are within. So this just clarifies that the minimum parcel width is 55 feet in the case of private street A, and then we call out the specific dimensions. And we do that for each of the private roads and certain sections of private street B. That continues on on this next page. The most substantive changes are on E and F. We're removing the conditions about the private alleys. That's not something we typically include as an alley dimension. So that's been removed. And then fixing the phrasing on G to correct that that should be the centerline radius rather than the horizontal radius. We also removed private street B and private street C. There's not a tabletop proposed there, so that has been removed. And then we have some changes on the Greenway trail system, just to, rather than call out specific locations, just to ensure that the Greenway meets ADA and AASHTO trail compliance. And then we have, again, something related to the street lighting, so that it meets street lighting warrant criteria from the MCDOT streetlight design requirements. As Carlos mentioned about the corner truncation, we are supportive of having that waiver except for two locations. And so rather than calling for standard truncation at those locations, which is 25 feet, we've changed that condition to be a 10-foot truncation. And that's after coordination with MCDOT and the applicant. Then we have a condition added to ensure that the Greenway meets AASHTO design guidelines for widths and shoulders, providing railings along the trail adjacent to any drops and stairs, and providing a lighting plan for the Greenway that is consistent with the criteria of MCDOT streetlight design requirements, and that such lighting can be via solar fixtures, or there will be solar fixtures.

Thank you then under parks condition 22 just clarifying that the requirement to have a park permit is really sort of as applicable any activity or work so it's just sort of clarifying that it may not be necessary, but only if it's necessary. So for the record, for the record plats, there was language addressing easements. And so this is a little hard to read, but I'll read the final version. The record plat for any building lots containing existing easements to be abandoned shall include a note that the building permits for such lots may not be issued until the identified easements are abandoned and or terminated. I revised site plan conditions so at the time of publication we had not received approval from. Fire and rescue at DPS we did receive that on July 26 so we are adding the standard condition for that. for open space site plan condition 6A and for the incentive density, adding that in addition to the 2.35 acres and the amount of the dedication was a little bit in flux during the closing days of the review, clarifying that the applicant will have to improve a minimum of an additional 0.65 acres adjacent to the dedication area. some clarifications on when dedication and payments have to happen, tying them to building permits, deleting a condition for a park construction permit since the applicant will not be doing, since the Parks Department would be making improvements to the park in the future. Richard, back to you.

So the first change is just to say a minimum six integrated aggregate base for the subgrade of the private roads and then within the pet bike circulation section. Changing our standard condition language a bit to just clarify where the bike long term bike spaces are located for the multifamily in the condo buildings. And then some clarifications or some modifications just to properly describe the Willard Avenue frontage improvements. Then we're adding two conditions to that, just again, updating the lighting plan per the preliminary plan conditions that we went over, and stating that the Greenway must be open and lit between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m., as Carlos mentioned. And providing a table with the certified set of the site plan, a table that provides the amount of vehicular and parking provided for each building and the proposed townhomes to confirm the proposed parking totals.

Thank you. So in conclusion, as conditioned, the sketch plan, preliminary plan, site plan, and forest conservation plan amendment applications each satisfy the applicable standards of the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and forest conservation law, and substantially conform to the recommendations of the 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan. Staff recommends approval as conditioned.

Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Elzehizel-McCoy and the planning team for the presentation. So what we'll now do is we'll move on to the public testimony portion. But before, like a little housekeeping, if you have to use the restroom, I just want to let you know where they are. Just go out this door on the right pass where you come in from the elevator. There's some pictures on the wall and make a right. Go whenever you need to go. This will be a long time we're in here, so So I'll call up the groups in six, six people at a time. You come up to the front when your names are called, and then we'll then hear your public testimony, and each member of that group will be... And then before you start, make sure you turn on the microphone. There's a microphone down here, and it states your name, but please aim to keep your remarks to two minutes for individuals, four minutes for groups or elected officials. When you reach... The point where the timer goes off, you know it's in your time, please conclude your remarks. As I said before, if you previously sent in comments, we've reviewed them. Please feel free to just to reference that or highlight your critical points. So now I'll call in groups of six. And I'll also call the next six so you'll be ready to come up and be prepared when it's your turn. So the first six are County Exec Mark Elridge, Francine Klein, Natalie Avery, Addison Huntley, Zahra Ahmed, and Lelebar O'Connor. But third, we'll put in Dave Brown, who is with the Village of Friendship Heights Council. He's on team. So I called up six. And then the next six will be Amelia O'Connor, Sarah Moore, Kerry Kosicki, James Thurston, Allison Fultz, and Michael Mezzi. OK, so let's get going. Welcome County Exec, Mark Eldridge.

Good evening, I guess, and thank you. And I'm here today because of the gravity of this issue. I'm profoundly concerned about planning staff's decision and the planning board's acquiescence to move forward with this plan before addressing some fundamental process and legal issues. I'm not here to discuss the specifics of the proposed development. That would be a lot longer. I'm here to urge you to honor the process and acknowledge that the binding elements that accompanied the original project approval need to be adhered to. In fact, last November, the board voted to allow this project to move forward under the 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan. The board decision states, and I quote, the applicant must comply with the binding elements of county council resolution 131461, approving local map amendment G760. The world hasn't changed since you passed that. Any changes to the binding elements must follow the process that's been outlined in other testimony, and that requires first involving the Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings and the County Council. You're facing a lawsuit on this very issue. You can't simply wave away these requirements by making assertions in the report and then voting them as true. I've criticized the planning board decisions before, but this level of disregard for a meaningful planning process is kind of breathtaking. You also have an obligation to ensure that this project is in substantial conformance with the existing sector plan, which is in the 1998 plan. Your staff has chosen to dismiss parts of the sector plan or simply assert conformance, neither of which is acceptable or accurate. The complete disregard for the process is a culmination of action over the last 10 years by the planning board to replace the highly regarded planning process that used to exist in Montgomery County, in which businesses, residents, and community organizations met with staff, and staff served these people as technical advisors, and where community representations voted on plans. I served on these kind of committees for the county, so I know what planning used to look like here, and this isn't it. You now have a process that's top-down, predetermined, and dismissive of community concerns where input is limited to post-it notes on the board. Your decision last November to allow part of the approved GEICO project to move forward at the same time that the sector plan was under active review has created a confusing process for residents who don't know what they're supposed to weigh in on and when and whether the input makes any difference. To date, their concerns have mostly been dismissed and minimized. You're going to hear from numerous residents today about an array of concerns. And you have to carefully review and consider the issues they raised. I served on the council for 12 years, also served on the Fed committee. I've had a planning board staff member, a former planning board member, work in my office for over 12 years now. And I had a former director, assistant director of the planning board work for me. So I don't come to these issues without some planning experience. You're not here simply to facilitate a developer's proposal, which is kind of what it sounds like. It's every time there's an environmental problem, it's like, well, it doesn't fit with the plan. And so what gives is not the plan and make amendments to the plan. What gives is things like tree cover. I support development of the Geico property. I believe it can be done well and successfully in collaboration with the neighbors. The agreements negotiated in 98 reflect the hard work of both sides working together and finding compromises. Now the developer proposes substantial changes that not only disregard standing agreements, but seek to alter the established process used to craft them. It's up to you to address this underlying corruption of this process. The property is by far the largest, most important parcel within the sector plan boundary and beyond. How the process is handled is critical to preserving the rights of residents to be involved in planning for the future of their county and to plan the future in a way that makes sense and makes us a better and more successful county. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Francine Klein. Could you... Excuse me, we won't... Save your applause till everybody finishes, please. So, Francine Klein, please go ahead. We'll be here all night. We want to hear your comments. You came here. We appreciate that, but we have to be efficient in here. So, Francine, please.

Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Francine Kerner-Klein. I'm a council member for the Village of Friendship Heights. I serve as vice chair of the council and chair of the advisory committee on development. Prior to running for the village council, I was an attorney for the federal government for over 45 years. My last 23 years in federal service were spent at the Transportation Security Administration as its chief counsel, providing legal advice to agency leadership. My husband and I have lived in Montgomery County since 1985, where we raised two children who received a wonderful education in Montgomery County Public Schools. In 2013, my husband and I moved to the village of Friendship Heights. Our fifth floor condo at the Elizabeth on North Park Avenue faces south, looking at the Geico headquarters building and the tree canopy on the property. My husband is from Chicago, and I never try to keep it a secret I'm from New York. We chose the village because it is a cohesive urban neighborhood. As a taxing district, the village funds The village council funds a village center, provides extensive programming for the community, and runs a shuttle service from village buildings to local destinations, including the metro. We have never regretted our decision to live in Montgomery County. That's why it's so disappointing to see the approach taken by the planning board staff on redeveloping the Geico site. Unfortunately, the staff has chosen to ignore the parameters for development established by the district council and reconfirmed by the planning board itself in November of 2025. By chucking the binding elements at the behest of the developer, the agency staff defies a provision in the 2014 zoning ordinance requiring compliance with binding elements established on or before October 29, 2014. By way of legislative history, that provision came into place because Patricia Baptiste, a former member of this council, from 1991 to 1998, and a resident of Chevy Chase Village identified a problem with binding elements, possibly as a result of an unintended consequence being negated under the zoning clarifications being considered. The council agreed to Ms. Baptiste and enacted a provision to ensure that the existing binding elements would not be upended by the zoning. So they took the position, yes, we want to do a rezoning, but we don't want unintended consequences. And it couldn't be clearer that the provision that they put into place was designed to make sure that binding elements were retained and were not negated as a result. Moreover, in November of 25, I was here to testify about the GEICO development when you gave them a new, you extended their plan, their development plan. And you then, in condition 21, told them that they had to comply with the binding elements. Under provision 10 of those binding elements, GEICO has to comply, and they didn't object, and they have an obligation under provision 10 that any contract for sale must be subject to the binding elements. So you're not just relying on what the council told you in 2014, you are also relying on what you yourself did in November of 2025, and what is the obligation of GEICO to make sure that binding elements continue. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is, please, please, please, Next is Dave Brown.

He's on Teams. Dave Brown, Council for the Village.

Mr. Brown, could you hold one second, please? Why don't you start again, sir? Sorry.

All right. Chair Harris, members of the board, good evening. David Brown, Council for the Village. I regret being unable to be there in person. I have a lot to cover. Having just gotten at the deadline for filing written testimony, a seven-page single-spaced rebuttal letter from the applicant's legal counsel. I hope to keep to my deadline, time deadline, but I'd very much appreciate your indulgence if I go over a minute or two. This hearing should not have been allowed to begin. Finding elements imposed on the Geico property are still in effect. Compliance with them is mandatory unless amended by the district council, which has not happened or even been attempted. The board should not indulge the applicant, the FCP, who wants you to approve here today how it has changed the binding elements to suit its plans. Cutting the district council out of the process this way would be an unlawful expansion of the board's statutory authority. Under state law, rezonings and rezoning conditions are under the authority of the district council, not the board. This should come as no surprise to you in light of what you've already heard from the county executive and village vice chair Klein. Due to the fact that nine months ago, you told GEICO that they had to comply with the binding elements. So all you really have to do today is confirmed, reaffirmed that that condition in your approval from last November and suspend this proceeding until FCP has sought and obtained the approval of the district council on whatever binding elements it wants amended. And of course, your awareness of the proper proceeding is nothing new either because as Ms. Klein pointed out, this is exactly the process that you followed in DPA 2525, 2021 when Willow Manor and Clarksburg sought a binding element amendment. Request was filed with OSA, referred to you for an advisory recommendation, which you provided and sent to the hearing examiner, and we then submitted her recommendation to the district council for final action, all before any amended plans could be submitted to you for review and decision. Are you Both the staff and FCP have claimed that you can go forward now on plans that repudiate the binding elements. None of those claims hold water. I've addressed most of them in the 25-page legal memo that I submitted to you, and you've heard more about that today. I won't repeat what you've heard already. But I do want to mention that Just because FCP has become a contingent purchaser of the property, that doesn't mean it's not bound by the binding elements. The non-zoning case law they cited in their letter does not support this outlandish claim. A district council decision was made in 1998 as to the content and scope of the elements and accepted by the property owner and rezoning applicant GEICO. In zoning cases, What Maryland case law does support is that this was a final decision binding on GEICO unless lawfully terminated or until GEICO seeks and obtains the district council's approval to amend the binding elements, which although it had the right to do so, it never did so over the next 28 years. Staff echoes this point by claiming there's no recorded covenant protecting the binding elements. upon sale of the property. But as Vice Chair Klein pointed out to you, there's a provision in the binding elements that requires notification that those binding elements apply to all subsequent purchases of the site and their development on the site is subject to those requirements. The bottom line here is that FCP has exactly the same rights as GEICO has under the binding elements as accepted. That is to go back to the district council and seek the changes based on change conditions and circumstances. FCP can even request that the district council release FCP from all of the binding elements. But those are questions for the district council, not the board.

Mr. Brown, can you wrap up your presentation in the next 30 seconds, please?

I'll end by saying thank you. And I would be very happy to answer any questions you may have either before or after the FCP presentation.

Thank you. Next is Natalie Avery, please.

Chair Harris and members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Natalie Avery, and I am the executive director of the Friendship Heights Alliance, a cross-jurisdictional placemaking nonprofit founded in 2022 to help revitalize Friendship Heights. I'm here to offer strong support for EYA's plans for redevelopment of the Geico site. From the start, the Alliance has engaged a range of community stakeholders to better understand shared priorities. What we hear most often is a desire for more neighborhood serving retail, more public gathering spaces, and more walkability. This project delivers all three. Adding 520 new homes and over a thousand new residents is exactly the customer base that helps attract and retain the kinds of shops, services, and restaurants so many people have told us they want to see more of. EYA's plans include green spaces and gathering spots off the main thoroughfare, better access to Brookdale Park, and better connections to transit. This project means more people get to enjoy all of this while also adding to the fabric that supports vibrant streets and thriving retail. Losing tree canopy to make way for new homes and paths on this site is real and it isn't something to wave away. But it isn't the only thing that we should be measuring. EYA is planning to plant 650 new trees, nearly five times as many that are there already. Those trees, along with the many trees this plan will preserve, will grow for decades, providing shade for generations of future residents and habitat for wildlife. It's important to think about who isn't in this room today. Future residents, including young people growing up in the neighborhood, for whom finding housing in places near jobs and transit is a huge challenge and likely to stay one. Every additional home that is built here in Friendship Heights eases pressure on the whole regional housing market, including the market for homes that are more affordable. Building homes on sites like this where people don't have to depend on a car for daily life is one of the best tools we have for not only expanding housing opportunities, but for preserving streams, forests, and wildlife. Every home built here eases the pressure to build further out where residents too often have no choice but to drive long distances just to get to work. This is also personal for me. My father and my sister live at the Carlton with a direct view of the site. My father raised his family in the neighborhood and being able to downsize into a high rise without leaving the community he loves, live car free and age in place in this neighborhood has been incredibly valuable to him. as it has to many other village residents. The neighborhood's mix of housing and walkability makes it both a great place to raise a family and to age in place. This project is a chance to keep offering both to the many people who would love to call this walkable, transit-rich neighborhood home, if only there are homes there for them. None of this happens if this project gets whittled down floor by floor and unit by unit in the name of compromise. This is how good projects quietly stop being able to deliver the public space, the affordable homes, and the housing opportunity our neighborhood is asking for. I had asked the board to protect the scale of this project and not to chip away at it. Badly needed housing is not a threat. It's one of the things we need most to support thriving retail and give more people the chance to build a life in this transit-rich and opportunity-rich place. We owe as much to future residents as the people that are already here. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your presentation. Next is Addison Huntley.

Good afternoon, Chair Harris and members of the board. First off, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinions. My name is Addison Huntley. I'm 18 years old, a recent graduate from Bethesda Chevy Chase High School, and I've lived in Brookdale for the past six years. When I was growing up, I always dreamed of living in an area just like Friendship Heights, a place with a reliable public transit, shops, restaurants, and parks within walking distance, and the kind of place that people could build a life in, not just pass through. Unfortunately, though, that dream is becoming further and further from reality. While my family was fortunate enough to build a life in Friendship Heights, as I prepared to leave for college, I worried this kind of community won't be available to me in the future due to the lack of housing being built. Right now, the median home price in Montgomery County sits around $620,000, with homes in the Friendship Heights area running well over a million dollars. This isn't just about college graduates who can't afford an apartment in the area. It's about families who can't afford starter homes. This development offers hundreds of new homes, homes that let people become a part of the community that built Friendship Heights. Chipping away at that number, cutting a few units here and there, doesn't protect this neighborhood. It shuts more people out of it. This isn't only about affordable housing, it's about more housing overall. Everyone in this room knows what it's like to love living in Friendship Heights. Building more housing here means more people and future generations will have the same love for their community. This project offers a chance to make Friendship Heights more accessible, not just for families, but for people my age hoping to build a future here. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to approve this development for the families, the young people, and the future generations who deserve the chance to call Friendship Heights home. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next is Zahra Ahmed.

Thank you, Chair Harris and the members of the planning board. My name is Zahra Ahmed. I'm 18 years old and I just graduated from the Desert Chevy Chase High School. I've been a resident of the Willoughby in the Village of Friendship Heights since 2019. I'm testifying in support of EYA's plan. Living directly across from the Geico site, I've witnessed firsthand the understandable concerns of my fellow residents. However, I joined the Friendship Heights Youth Council to amplify voices like mine that are often less heard or included in decisions like these. My generation is the one that will inherit Friendship Heights. And in 10 to 20 years, I hope I can still afford to live in a walkable, transit accessible community. What the EYA is planning is an opportunity for that. Today, when I look out my window on the 23rd floor, I want to see people. I want to see liveliness, booming businesses, and community. Yet, I am mostly met with empty space and concrete. Bringing hundreds of new residents to this site will draw more gathering, support for local businesses, and help restore the energy that Friendship Heights has lost as office buildings have emptied. When my grandfather moved here decades ago, one of the biggest reasons he chose Friendship Heights was its walkability and access to Metro. He could step outside his door, meet neighbors, and support his local businesses, easily traveling throughout the region without relying on a car. This connection and activity is what made my neighborhood special, aspects that I hoped my generation can continue to experience and build upon. I also believe this plan proposes a balance. The proposed residential buildings are about half the size of the buildings across the street, and the tallest building is comparable to the height of the former GEICO office building. Rather than dramatically changing the neighbor's scale, neighborhood scale, it replaces an office campus with homes that reflect the community's future needs, our future needs. Friendship Heights has an opportunity to evolve into a more vibrant, sustainable, and friendly neighborhood. As someone who hopes to build my future here, I ask you to support this project and invest in the next generation of residents. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next is Lelabar O'Connor.

Hi, my name is Ayala, but you can call me Allie. I'm eight years old, go to Westbrook and live in Brookdale on Baltimore Ave, right behind Geico. When I was in kindergarten or first grade, we learned about trees and how they give us oxygen to breathe. and give animals a place to live. This got me really interested in science, and since then, I've loved trees, all types. They help the environment around us. I love to climb trees. I want to plant trees, and I really want to save the trees, especially the ones in my neighborhood. The trees that EYA are asking you to take down are a part of our community. They are on the edge of Brookdale Park that I have been playing in since I was a baby. They're also on the walkway past Geico, which used to be my favorite place to go search for mushrooms and where I started learning to roller skate, bike, and skateboard. Later, I learned that being in the shade of trees can help prevent you getting skin cancer. No wonder my mom loved taking me to Brookdale Park because it's so nice and shady. We could play longer because we wouldn't get hot. It would be safer from the sun as we played. I got so into science, I wanted to learn more about the trees. I found out that trees prevent soil erosion They act like a sponge to prevent flooding, and they filter more air pollution. The older trees are better at doing this than any new planted trees, and those young trees will take years to grow to give us any shade. I'll probably be an adult by then, so it won't help me to have a safe place to play. That's why I'm asking you to save the huge older trees to keep our community green and help us all have a happier life. I'm not the only one asking. Many kids in our area couldn't be here but wanted to save the trees and made drawings to show you. Yeah.

So wonderful. Thank you for coming out and speaking on behalf of yourself and your friends. Thank you. So the next group is Amelia O'Connor, Sandra Morris, Carrie Kosicki, James Thurston, Allison Fultz, and Michael Mezzi. And after them are Judy Rivlin, Robert Cope, Robert Banach, Julia Lane, Jim Curtin, and Robert Pestronk. Okay, so when we get going, Ms. O'Connor.

Good evening, my name is Amelia O'Connor and I'm a resident of Brookdale for the last 45 years. I grew up there and now own my family home. Since my mother and brothers and I moved to Brookdale, my mother has been active in meetings about the plans for development in our area and has fought to ensure that growth in our area preserves the green spaces and builds responsibly to fit the needs of our community. She's 79 years old and recovering from surgery, but wanted you to know that she hopes we all will continue to fight and that the county will honor the promises it has made to our community over the years. Like my daughter, I grew up playing in Brookdale Park and exploring the area around Geico and enjoying the safety and comfort of our green spaces have given us. Sadly, we've lost many trees over the years to storms and preparation to fight against power outages. This has diminished our ground cover significantly and we as a community hope that EYA would invest in maintaining the green spaces and adding to them as opposed to tearing them down in promise of new trees and enhanced green spaces that keep getting smaller and smaller. Not only won't those trees provide ground cover, many will have limited lifespans due to how they plan to add them in the storage management areas. This is not equal to the trees that we have now, like the willow oak number 46 whose carbon reduction and flooding prevention are multiplied by their age and size. It baffles me as to why they would not want to keep these trees as they will make their properties more attractive by adding character, reducing cooling demands, contributing to noise reduction, and ultimately could increase their property value. Lastly, for the sake of future residents, current residents and taxpayers, please take heed to how they want to amend the width of the Greenway buffer. This will be a space for many to access these areas, and we have a very diverse age group using these walkways. It is critical that the buffer be kept to the current Friendship Heights sector plan. My mother would be using it with a cane or a walker. My daughter, skating or walking with friends. I would use it to stay fit and reach our shops and amenities. And so many other young and old deserve safe spaces to walk, bike, and play. The changes means there is little space for adjusting to the different types of users, especially when not all of them have great reaction time or reasoning when faced with sudden adjustments to things like e-bikes or even just a dog. As a mom, an MCPS teacher, property owner, and a county resident, I choose to live and work in Montgomery County for a reason. I've always trusted that Montgomery County has been looking out for our best interest. Please prove me right. Honor the sector plans, save the trees, preserve the green spaces, and restore our faith in your commitment to our community. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Sandra, Sarah Morse, please. So yeah, you have four minutes.

Yeah, I have an exhibit. Sarah Morse, right?

Do you have her exhibit up?

Promise me they will put it there. Hi. I'm Sarah Morse, and I am the Executive Director of Little Falls Watershed Alliance, and I represent our 5,000 plus members. We're an environmental stewardship group for Little Falls Watershed. We were founded almost 20 years ago by a group of neighbors who just love being outside in nature. Our interest in this project is in making sure that the environment is protected to the maximum extent possible, given the very strong environmental laws and guidelines that we have in Montgomery County. I'd like to insert here that we do not oppose this development. We just do not think that it needs to be done at the expense of the environment. There's a lot of good examples in Montgomery County where people have merged the environment right into it. You can look at Somerset House to see the trees that were saved. So as you know, the Geico Parcel is unique. It's a downtown urban campus with hundreds of trees. This is not the West Bar redevelopment site, which transformed a huge parking lot into a lively community, but a beloved wooded campus where neighbors walk their dogs, children sledded down the hills. The trees made walking to the metro the best part of the morning for some people. Walking past the campus to Montgomery, to Wisconsin Avenue is always a treat for me. Here are the birds that were singing to watch the colors change in the season. Just a treat. The parcel also includes a wooded buffer and a small park, a place to sit and rest, stroll. There's a little playground there. We are asking you to save these trees. And we mean all the trees, regardless of their size. It's unfortunate that the county focuses only on saving large trees. LEAF will recognize that all trees are important, the 3-inch ones, the 22-inch ones, the giant ones that are over 100 years old. They're all necessary for a healthy urban Kennedy. We made this map to show you the extent of the tree's loss. The base of the map is the conservation map from 1998 when GEICO first filed for redevelopment. It shows 585 trees plus the priority urban forest. Yeah, we know it's not the most accurate map. Trees have died, but trees have been planted. So it probably balances out. And it's the best inventory we have of every tree. This map has the three inch ones, the four inch ones, it's very detailed. On top of the 1998 map, we overlaid the proposed plan. The circles are the trees, the red Xs are all the trees that are being removed. You can see that on the original Geico campus, the northern part of the map, all the trees are being removed. All the ones in the parking lot, all the ones in the building, all the ones lining the sidewalks, all the ones on the sledding hill. The dark ribbon in the south part is a proposed greenway. You can see that almost all the trees along either side of this half mile neighborhood buffer are being removed too. We are removing all the shade on this path. Yeah, I know the developer has pledged to plant new trees, lots of them. And as they are very proud to point out, not just puny saplings, but three inch trees. however, will be decades before it's the same, and who knows if the new trees will even survive. Studies show that only one out of every two new urban trees will live past 15 years. By the way, because of the statistics, we feel the applicant should be required to maintain their new trees for 15 years to make sure they all make it to the next decade. Trees are a big deal for us. As the neighbors, stewards, and yes, tree huggers, we are passionate about these trees. But we are fortunate to live in a county that is also passionate about urban trees and recognize the pressing need for healthy urban canopy. have the climate action plan we have thrive montgomery we have pedestrian master plan we have the silver springs streetscape i could list them but you guys were on the poets that wrote these things and you know how important they are that's our ask we want the county to step up honor their commitment to urban trees and deny the applicant the majorities needed to remove the big trees and hold them to the law and preserve the priority urban forests. You guys wrote those laws, and we want you to step up and enforce them. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your testimony. Carrie Kosicki, please.

Good evening. My name is Carrie Kosicki, and I'm testifying on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. CSG is the leading organization advocating for walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all. We count over 4,000 supporters across Montgomery County. And we are here tonight to ask you to support the plans before you. This is not the first time you've heard me testify about a development or about a plan, but this one is especially meaningful to me because when I first moved to Maryland after college, I lived right in this area. I was participating in a year-long service corps program that included housing on Western Avenue just down the road. I got to know my neighbors well, and I absolutely loved living here. It is a fantastic community. But at the end of my fellowship, I had to move away because as a 23-year-old committed to working in a string of nonprofit advocacy jobs, which is not particularly lucrative, I could not afford housing anywhere in the area. So I live now in downtown Silver Spring. The average rent there is around $2,000, and the average home value is $730,000. In the community trends area, that includes Friendship Heights and Brookdale, the average rent is $3,000. The average home value is nearly $1.4 million. And that last number has increased over 54% just since 2010. There's a reason that it's expensive to live in Friendship Heights. It's because it's a really great place to live. But it's also because the housing that we've built hasn't kept up with the number of people who want to live in walkable transit connected places. That is why CSG is urging you to approve this project. We cannot miss this literally generational opportunity, generational as in the redevelopment has been envisioned since 1998, which is before I was born. I was born in 1999. So we can't miss this opportunity to get the site right and to build for the sustainable and equitable future that we want to see and provide new homes and community spaces right near transit. This development will be within easy walking distance from the Friendship Heights Metro, a major ride-on and metro bus station, and numerous grocery stores, shops, and restaurants. It's a match for neighborhood character. The frontages with multifamily buildings are across from existing residential high-rises and will provide new dedicated affordable housing, community spaces for new and existing residents, and safer bike and pedestrian connections for everyone in the area. It is not every day that you see a project that so embodies what smart growth stands for. There are enormous climate and equity benefits to allowing more people to live in such close proximity to top tier transit connected to jobs and to friends, family and opportunities throughout our region. without needing to depend on a car for every trip. These benefits are proportional to the number of homes that we build and any reduction in the height of this project or the number of homes provided would very directly mean that fewer people can benefit from these opportunities. Finally, I want to touch quickly on tree preservation and I want to thank Sarah who is sitting next to me and Michael from Little Falls Watershed Alliance for taking me on a walk earlier this week through the site. I deeply appreciate that they made the time for that. There are some really beautiful trees on this property and walking the site with them, I understood and I felt for myself the heartbreak at the thought of these trees coming down. And I don't take that lightly. And I know that the planning board will not take that lightly. I hope you do not. You have a wealth of testimony and detailed staff analysis before you. If there's a better solution, I trust that you'll work to find it. But that being said, I am terrified of the climate future that we are hurtling toward right now. I'm 27, I'm very scared of what this means if I decide to have children and I'm scared of what it means for my parents who are just retired in their late 60s, what it will mean as our climate warms and as they age. So we absolutely need shade and we need healthy trees, but we also need to change the fundamental patterns that led us into this climate emergency. Transportation is the largest driver of carbon emissions in Maryland and those emissions are aggravated by the patterns of development that require more car trips. Building in a more sustainable way is climate action. There's not a path to addressing our climate crisis without fundamentally changing how we build and making it much easier for people to get around safely by bike, walking, and transit. This development is a chance to act on those commitments. It's a chance to course correct from decades of car-dependent sprawling growth and build something that is really good and really needed. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next is James Thurston.

Yeah, Chair Harrison, members of the Planning Board, my name is James Thurston, and today I'd like to speak about the role that community experience and community input should be playing in your planning judgment on the EYA proposal. I'm the chair of the Willoughby Condominiums Neighborhood Development Committee. As you've heard tonight, the Willoughby sits directly across Willard Avenue from the GEICO headquarters. Our committee was created by the condo board to help ensure that our community remains informed and constructively engaged throughout this redevelopment process, and we have been. Rather than repeat many of the specific planning legal and technical issues that others are addressing and will address, what I'd like to focus on is one issue that I believe is central to your decision, the role community experience and community input should play in your planning judgment. I hope that perspective will help frame your deliberations and inform the judgment you ultimately exercise. The Willoughby is home to more than 1,600 residents. Many residents have lived there for decades. Others, including my husband and me, chose Friendship Heights as the place where we hope to call home for many years to come. We all want this neighborhood to be as vibrant, healthy, and livable as it can be. And redevelopment of the GEICO site is absolutely a part of that. No one has a greater long-term interest in getting this planning decision right than the people who have chosen to make this community their home. When many people look at a multi-story building like ours, they simply see a building. But we see and we live in a neighborhood. That lived experience is why our Willoughby community has been so deeply engaged throughout this entire process. The staff report reflects a significant amount of technical analysis and a lot of planning judgment from planning staff and the applicant's consultants. That work is important, but community experience and input complete that record. Our concerns sometimes have been answered with additional technical analysis, but that analysis has not resolved every question before you as you now exercise your own planning judgment. Many of the decisions that remain require judgment informed not only by technical expertise, but also by the lived experience and remarkably consistent input of the surrounding communities. Technical review helps us understand what can be built. Communities help us understand what those choices will mean in daily life. Your planning judgment is where those two equally important forms of knowledge come together to determine what should be built. For example, planning staff conclude that the proposed balance of open space and tree preservation is appropriate. Many residents believe a different balance is both possible and more consistent with the long-term character of Friendship Heights. Likewise, while a traffic study has been prepared, residents continue to question whether concentrating access primarily along Willard Avenue represents the best long-term planning outcome for surrounding neighborhoods. Finally, the staff recommendation concludes that the proposed heights represent an appropriate evolution of the site. The community input you received has been remarkably consistent in reaching a different planning judgment. Residents have consistently questioned whether those proposed heights provide the right transition along Willard Avenue, and many remain unconvinced that the record demonstrates why that proposed transition is the right one. These are not simply different technical conclusions. They reflect different planning judgments about what kind of neighborhood Friendship Heights should become. That is the role only the planning board can perform to exercise independent planning judgment about the future of Friendship Heights. Our community has taken its role in this process very seriously. Hundreds of residents have attended meetings, submitted testimony, met with the applicant, met with the planning staff. More than 500 Willoughby residents and owners signed a petition asking for a different planning balance on exactly the issues before you today. The question is not whether community input exists. It clearly exists. The question is what weight will you give it as you exercise your planning judgment? So as you reach your decision, I respectfully ask that you give meaningful weight to the lived experience and remarkably consistent input of the surrounding communities. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And last, oh no, and then it's Alison Foltz, please.

Good evening, Chair Harris and members of the Planning Board. I'm Allison Ishihara-Foltz, a vice president of the Brookdale Citizens Association, and I'm here today speaking as its representative. My family has lived in Brookdale since 1994. It's a terrific community, and residents like me with tenures spanning decades are not unusual. Brookdale is the community closest to the Geico site, which abuts the neighborhood along the entirety of Geico's southwest boundary for a distance of about four-tenths of a mile. The Brookdale Citizens Association appreciates this opportunity to be heard. I've also submitted written testimony into the record and I refer the board to that. And I would like to say that having served as the chair of the Board of Appeals for several years, I have also been in the decision maker's seat on land use matters in the county. A thorough record is essential to a well-reasoned and supportable outcome in a deliberative process such as this proceeding. And as I will demonstrate, you do not have such a record before you today. Brookdale Citizens Association supports development on the Geico site in accordance with the required 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan parameters. We do not seek concessions or additional elements. We simply request that the Planning Board ensure that this proposal substantially conform to the 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan. I further note that Brookdale Citizens Association joined as co-plaintiff in the Village of Friendship Heights Circuit Court complaint for declaratory relief. That matter remains pending before the Circuit Court, which means that we are all here today prematurely. You've just heard from David Brown on behalf of Friendship Heights Village, and Brookdale Citizens Association is in full agreement with his testimony. So I have before me or with me a board displaying a rendering of the GEICO preliminary plan for G760, and it will be familiar to you because you just approved it only in November of 2025. This is what a site plan looks like that conforms to the 1998 sector plan's open space element. Note in particular the ball field along Western Avenue and the active recreation space north of Brookdale Park here in the center of the site. Any plan that lacks these elements does not substantially conform. The applicant voluntarily submitted its application under the explicit understanding that it must substantially conform to the 1998 Sector Plan, and the staff report lacks detailed analysis to explain why staff believes this application meets the substantial conformance standard despite its significant deviance from the 1998 Sector Plan. I also would like to note that the process to update the current sector plan is underway and is relevant to today's hearing in that what happens to this proposal will affect and constrain planning considerations for the new sector plan. That will in turn form the basis of Friendship Commons partners anticipated Friendship Commons phase two. So as to the specific comments of the necessary elements, I've also brought with me for verification a rendering showing Friendship Commons partners current proposal and as well an overlay that shows in the yellow regions that shows, oh, this is collapsing, shows in the yellow regions what is currently proposed and notably excludes significant open spaces that are fundamental parts of the French and Pied Sector Plan that was published in 1998. And so... There's no analysis in the staff report to explain why these deviations have been permitted, why they are justified. And so I will simply leave you with the thought that the board does not have the information and analysis it needs to find that the current proposal substantially conforms to the 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan. Please postpone your vote until you do. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next. Next is Michael Mezzi.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Michael Mezzi, and I am here representing the 550 residents of the 4620 North Park Condominium. Our building is situated across Willard Avenue from the GEICO site and directly across from the two proposed condo buildings as well as what is planned to be the main vehicular entrance and exit from the new development. As such, our residents have a number of concerns about the current plan. First of all, we concur with the suggestion from previous witnesses about the need to conform to the elements of the sector plan, the binding elements, in terms of building heights. The buildings should be four stories tall. They're now six and seven stories tall. except we support Mr. Brown's view as well as the village's view that this is not in substantial conformance with the sector plan. A small suggestion, no matter how high these buildings are, we ask that the developer take steps to abate the noise that will come from the rooftop HVAC compressor units and that they deploy some aesthetically pleasing coverings for these and other mechanicals that will be on these roofs. My second concern is traffic. By adding 540 additional residential units and 5,000 square feet of commercial use, the proposal will bring increased traffic into our already congested Friendship Heights neighborhood. The village of Friendship Heights already has the highest population density of any incorporated census designated place in the United States. even Manhattan. Willard Avenue, the northern boundary of the Geico site, is very busy and often congested, with traffic traveling between Wisconsin Avenue and River Road at all times of the day, and particularly during the morning and evening rush hour. The current plan places the main vehicular exit and entrance for the new development at the T intersection where North Park Avenue terminates at Willard. There are three garage entrances and exits from existing buildings as well as loading areas in close proximity to this intersection. Cars entering and exiting from North Park to Willard or from the garage entrances often face significant wait times and dangerous conditions as they attempt to join the road. The additional traffic in and out of the project will only exacerbate an already dangerous condition for cars and pedestrians. The current plan calls for one additional exit onto Friendship Boulevard. The existing exit on Western Avenue will be closed. Retaining that entrance would alleviate some of the issues with the current plan, but we still believe that staff has underestimated the increase in car traffic that will come from this development. Parking is always an issue in our community. The current plan has no strategy for dealing with the extra cars that will come to the area as a result of the development and as a result of the increased commercial activity that is presumed to be a benefit of the new development. The absence of parking, the lack of a county or other subsidized parking facilities will exacerbate the problem. Finally, we concur with all those who are concerned about the tree issue and the loss of the trees, which was supposed to be preserved by the 1998 sector plan. The developer's information indicates that of the 150 trees on the site, only 68 will survive, and the green space available will be reduced. will be contracted as well. So in conclusion, I think we understand that the site is going forward. We'd like people to be more concerned about the traffic implications, the sector plan requirements, and also with the traffic congestion that is likely to occur. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. The next group is, folks, could you please, we need to move forward expeditiously on this. And I understand you're going to clap and stuff like that, but let's move through the folks. Let's get everyone to be able to speak and get you out of here in a timely manner. So next is Judy Rivlin, Robert Cope, Robert Banach, Julia Lane, Jim Curtin, and Robert Pestronk. Then the next six, so you get ready, are Maria Grant, Tina Calabia, Michael Makuk, Emmanuel Ochoa, Clara Lovett, and Christine Knauer. Thank you so much. So we'll start with Maria Grant, please. No, no, I'm sorry, Judy Rivlin, sorry.

Thank you. My name is Judy Rivlin. I've lived in Brookdale for over 35 years and walk in Brookdale Park daily. I expect the planning board to adhere to the binding elements spelled out in the 1998 sector plan. However, EYA's proposal for the GEICO property ignores and disregards many of the details set forth in that plan, and the staff report recommends that you allow EYA to develop the lot irrespective of numerous discrepancies. While the staff boldly claims that EYA proposal is in substantial conformance with the 98 plan, I disagree. The staff report does not follow the 98's plan requirement that the Geico property, quote, retain the park-like characteristics of the site, preserve existing mature trees where possible, and expand the amount of usable green space to meet residents' recreational needs. One of the many shortcomings of the proposal concerns the green buffer that's supposed to separate Brookdale homes from the new, more dense development. The EYA proposal reduces distance set forth in the 98 plan. During its presentations to the community, EYA showed drawings with images of serene, shaded trails winding around tall trees with no buildings in sight. Instead, EYA wants to cut down nearly all the trees near the intended trail and elsewhere. The new trail is too narrow and is pushed up to within just a few feet of the property line of the Brookdale Homes on Dalton, contrary to the 98 plan. Also, Brookdale Park is now 3.77 acres, but the staff supports a reduction to, according today, which has been revised, about three acres. Moreover, the 98 plan anticipated one more acre would be added to Brookdale Park, as Allison's map showed. In all, the EYA proposal removed nearly two acres, or about 25%, from what we expected. And hundreds more people from the new development will be using this now smaller park. I urge the planning board to deny variance as EYA seeks to remove trees. Two white pines were recently cut down between Brookdale Park and the Geico Power Plant. Until just last week, high-rise buildings on Willard were obscured by the pine trees, but no longer. Aside from the violations of the plain language in the 98th sector plan, it's just bad policy to allow the removal of so many trees. Finally, the meetings and comment period dealing with this matter seem to have been nothing more than a procedural necessity. Development along the lines of the 98th sector plan is what we expected, and I urge you to require EYA to step back and follow the 98th sector plan. Thank you.

Thank you. And next is Robert Cope.

You have four, sir.

My name's Robert Cope.

In the early 90s, I was president of Brookdale, and then I became chair of the coordinating committee during the sector plan. And then Norman Knopf and I represented Brookdale at the zoning hearing in 1998. As I listen to what you're being presented, how can you make a decision today? You have to say it's substantial compliance. I heard a statement, well, the sector plan says the buildings next to Brookdale should be 35 feet. And, well, we're going to stagger them, whatever. That's all that was said. You need to see the heights of those buildings. And I really think that if you look at the sector plan, the sector plan lays out about 10, 15 requirements for Brookdale. You've only heard two of them. So how can you make substantial compliance? Number one. Number two, the 1998 zoning case. In the 1998 zoning case, when it was rezoned and we negotiated the binding elements, the county council, when it approved the zoning, said these binding elements assured that the sector plan's guidelines will be properly implemented and that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on its neighbors and we will be served by adequate public facilities. That's what the county council said. Now, we then go into the 21st century. And we're at 2014 when, I guess, your predecessors rewrote the zoning code. And then they converted the zones. There's some discussion about, well, they wrote the zoning code. And then they converted the zones, and so the conversion was later. And so it did away with the grandfather clause, which says binding elements still apply. The effective dates, the effective dates of both of those documents is the exact same date. And the county council did that for a reason. When you look at the 2014 rewrite It wasn't a rerun, I mean, zoning case, when they redid the zones. It wasn't a zoning case. It was a conversion. They were converting the old zones to the CR zones and the new zones. They told us, specifically told us, it's apples to apples. There will be no increase in density. There will be no increase in height. It's apples to apples. All we're doing is converting zones. And if you're converting zones, then don't come here and tell me that this changes everything on the binding elements. That makes absolutely no sense. The final part, and this has been made last November, when you granted the GEICO application, you specifically said the binding elements will apply. These are elements that were negotiated with GEICO. These were elements that the parks department looked over and they added the diagrams for the baseball field and so on, and it went to the planning board and then went to the county council. So as I look at all this information, it seems to me that number one, some of it is misinformation, but the real problem is the lack of information. You need to make a finding of substantial compliance with the sector plan, which has not even been really discussed at this meeting. So I urge you to please take that into consideration. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Next, Julia Lane.

My name is Julia Lane, Brookdale residence, Perth.

Yeah, please, I'm sorry.

For 34 years, three kids, I'm speaking here as an economist. If you could share my screen, I'd appreciate it. So can we start the? Great, okay. So economists famous for saying no such thing as a free lunch and effectively this is kind of the discussion that's going on here which is trees versus residents and low income property. I want to point out that the economic climate is not particularly strong in Montgomery County. Employment is declining. The job space is disappearing. If you compare the alternative, that's what we think about, opportunity cost, the developers have a much better environment to go to in Northern Virginia than they do in Montgomery County, Virginia ranks number three, Maryland number 36 in opportunities. Friendship Heights is pretty blighted. You've got a mausoleum in Chevy Chase Pavilion, Norton Taylor. I don't need to go through all the situations. The Friendship Heights vacancy rate is between 20% and 25% relative to the other places. The residences at Matza, 44% occupancy, two to three months discount on the rents. And those are your low-income properties. So I think the world has changed more than a little bit. There's no such thing as a free lunch. It's trees, residences. You've got to kind of make those balanced decisions. So what kind of compromises could be made? Well, I think we should be thrilled to have EYA here. We should be thinking about ways of keeping them and building. Maybe allow them to have high-density buildings or, since trees are important, maybe have an amenity tax on Brookdale residents to pay for a little bit of that lunch. Delays are very costly. In 2021, you had the Courtyard Marriott. That was delayed. It's still not built. 300 units. Thinking about the younger people who were speaking, not the older ones who were worried about getting houses in that area, that's 300 units. That's about 100 low-income families who are not getting places to live. Take a look at the... The literature, the mean starts is 45% lower, which in cities that have more extensive regulations and the time delay process that you see in Montgomery County, northern Virginia.

Ma'am, could you wrap up your presentation in the next 30 seconds, please?

Will do.

OK.

Many of you will recall Kelvin, who lived in this tent outside Friendship Heights for a very long time. People were saying, well, why weren't people doing something for him? The low-income housing is one of the biggest policy interventions that you can make, Raj Chetty, all the work that's been done for low-income people to give them a chance. You heard that from the younger people here today. This is the kinds of things that you can do for people like Calvin and others. There's both economic and social costs associated with your decision.

Thank you so much. The next is, I've passed Mr. Banach.

It's Banach.

Banach, I'm sorry. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Bob Bannock, and I've been the CCCFH's TMD member for nearly 10 years. Not sure of the future with the July 1 change, with the funding, but we're told that there might be something. Anyway, I've lived in Brookdale since 2009. I just wanted to raise three issues for consideration. On traffic, oh, I'm the TMD representative. I guess I should talk about traffic. I'm concerned, maybe I misread the report, but I'm concerned with the light for Road A at Willard and the amount of traffic that will be leaving that one entrance until phase two is completed and the Friendship Boulevard entrance is created, unless I read that wrong. Page 80 has referred to a drop in vehicle traffic, but I'm assuming that is versus pre-COVID times and not now, since I didn't see a date for the analysis. And GEICO has never returned to full employment, which is why they moved to Bethesda, because they only needed a couple hundred people, not the 3,000 people that used to work there and drive there and park there. And then there's no mention of what will occur on Western Avenue. I know that's DC. But the existing light at the GEICO driveway, will it be removed? I don't know. When? And it needs to factor in the potential closing of two lanes on Western Avenue due to the proposed protected bike lanes by DC. And there should be some reference to the DC activity so residents know the total impact to the neighborhood, especially Brookdale where I live. We're affected by what DC does as well as what Montgomery County does. On recreation, I'm very concerned about recreation because I see on the updated plan that EYA isn't going to upgrade Brookdale Park, but in figure 19 on page 38, it shows the park will go from two courts now for basketball and tennis, volleyball, pickleball, to just one court, yet with likely 2,000 more residents in phase one, and maybe 2,000 more in phase two with a poorly equipped and under-resourced Wisconsin Place Recreation Center provided by the county that the CCCFH and the neighborhoods fought for when that property was redeveloped and it has limited programming if you compare Wisconsin Place to other county rec centers, it would seem to me that removing a court for a Greenway is not wise unless it's replaced. In fact, we likely need more courts. Maybe we need to factor in the Willard Avenue Park and the Brookdale Park in combination to provide the right number of amenities for this significant increase in residents in the area. I know page 65 and other people have mentioned it mentions possible small ball fields, but I know that doesn't occur until phase two and doesn't mention anything about the reduction in playing courts in the existing Brookdale Park. And then on the tree canopy, thank God for the stream that exists on the property because that's where all the shade trees will live. All the shade trees that exist in the neighborhood are coming down and EYA in their presentation to the neighborhood said look at Park Potomac as an example. Park Potomac is 20 years old now and if you look at the trees in Park Potomac, none of them are shade trees. They're small trees and it's been 20 years. So they can say they're planting as much as they want to say, but they're not shade trees, which is what exists today. So I'm not saying you need to keep all of the shade trees that are there, but they need to plant new trees that will become shade trees 20 years down the line, and that didn't happen at Park Potomac. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next is Jim Curtin.

Is the mic on? Good. My name is Jim Curtin, and my message is simple, more open space. I've lived in the Friendship Heights neighborhood for 44 years. I'm a retired environmental lawyer. I'm not against redevelopment of the GEICO site. I believe in smart growth. However, regarding open space, the Friendship Commons proposal is seriously flawed. Its two salient features are, one, a wall of mid-rise apartment buildings along Willard Avenue that creates a physical and psychological barrier between the village of Friendship Heights and the 28-acre Geico site. And two, a super dense infill of townhouses on virtually every remaining square foot of the site. It seems like the overriding design principle was simply to squeeze into these 26 acres as many housing units as possible. This is not smart design, this is accounting. To be genuinely smart and not just bottom line smart, at the very least, the planning board should require that the Friendship Commons plan include, one, a generous open park space at the corner of Willard Avenue and Friendship Boulevard that reflects the open park space on the intersection's other corners, two, A generous park-like setback along Willard Avenue, not simply a pedestrian promenade that reflects and doesn't simply bulldoze existing land contours and preserves mature trees to act as a buffer. between Friendship Commons and the existing high-rise apartment buildings, and three, significant open space located centrally or elsewhere in the development in addition to the existing Brookdale playground to break up its unrelenting density and provide recreational opportunities. Some of this can be achieved by removing some of the townhouses or by relocating the mid-rise buildings to Friendship Boulevard. As we meet the historic Geico building is being demolished, very soon ground will be broken. This is your last chance to ensure that this Friendship Heights treasure will be redeveloped in a manner commensurate to its history and worth. Thank you very much for considering these comments.

Thank you so much. Next is Robert Pestronk. Pestronk.

Yes, thank you. My name is Robert Pestronk. I've lived for 18 years across from Willard Avenue from Geico. I support but suggest some additional conditions to planning staff's otherwise excellent recommendations. The final plan should detail how the traffic signal at the intersection of North Park Avenue and Willard Avenue will enable exit from the resident parking garage for Willard Towers. It should require a grassy strip out the front and back doors of each Commons residence so that new residents' pets will vacate intestinal and bladder waste in front of their owners' residences rather than on public spaces. require a dog park at the intersection of Western Avenue and Friendship Boulevard or work with D.C. government to place one on the rooftop of the new Metro parking garage, perhaps on the Lord & Taylor site, extend the southeast end of Private Street A to provide automobile access to or from Western Avenue, provide details of and penalties in the maintenance and management agreements so we know how, to what standard, and by whom new forests, green space, and bike and pedestrian trails will be maintained, including for removal of snow, ice, litter, and other obstructions Reserves should be required for these purposes with certification to the planning board every two years. The five-year limitation should be extended. Apply the fee in lieu of payment to county parks or mitigation credit for Willard Avenue Neighborhood Park or Vinton Park forest improvements. Assure trees and plantings across site will be native species. Grow to the height and canopy size of the specimen trees being removed and provide shaded cover for pedestrians. require all street and sidewalk lighting to be focused and downward facing to prevent light pollution of the sky and glare into neighboring buildings in the village of Friendship Heights. And at the property's northwest end on Willard Avenue, give credit for useful adult exercise equipment, seating, non-smoking signs, and contemplative shaded space. Thank you.

Thank you so much. The next group consists of Ms. Grant, Mr. Kalabia, Mr. McCook, Mr. Ochoa, Ms. Lovett, and Ms. Knauer. And backing them up are Sebastian Rodriguez, Kaz Kabariele, Gerald Richmond, Dominique, Rychick Marvin Mostow, and Dawn Calabia. Welcome, Ms. Grant. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Maria Hatsiola-Skrant. I'm an ecologist, a retired climate and environment specialist at the World Bank, and a longtime resident of this community. In fact, I grew up on the DC side of Friendship Heights and now live in Chevy Chase Village. So I know the neighborhood very well.

My comments focus on climate change

climate resilient and sustainable plan for Friendship Commons. Climate change impacts are intensifying across the country and around the world. The wildfires raging in Europe are a stark look into the future that is now upon us. In addition to extreme heat, weather extremes will also result in more intense and extended bouts of rainfall, causing greater stormwater runoff, flash floods, and contamination of waterways flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. Future growth has to be climate smart. Besides reducing CO2 emissions, any development plan must also increase community resilience by including measures to reduce the local impacts of climate change. Trees are essential elements of this toolbox for all the reasons cited prior. Wooded areas also offer people a place to escape the hustle and bustle of urban living and reconnect with nature, so important to well-being and quality of life. Removing canopy trees and degrading urban forests to accommodate development is not smart growth. It is replacing valuable natural capital, which will serve the public good for generations, with built capital whose value is privatized and whose lifetime is limited. There is little in the current plan for Friendship Commons to suggest that climate impacts have been adequately assessed or taken into account in the design and review of this project. Instead, the project presents a maximalist development approach that prioritizes housing density and commercial activity over a more balanced approach to growth. It's clear from the site plan and variance requests that EIA sees trees as obstacles to be removed rather than as assets to be preserved. EYA cites the need to cut down over 80 mature trees to achieve its high-density building objectives on the site. The proposed reforestation strategy will not compensate for the loss of these canopy trees. It will take decades for these young trees to mature and provide the kinds of ecosystem services that will be lost. Revising the footprint of the current plan to save more trees and reduce... Ms., could you wrap up your presentation, please? and reduce the project's 58% impermeable surface area, which significantly exceeds county standards, should be on the table. The bottom line is that this site is inappropriate for the proposed redevelopment project. I urge the board to reject the current plan in favor of a revised project that conforms to the 1998 sector plan binding principles. Miss, can we wrap up your presentation, please? And would incorporate. all of the elements of a resilient community and climate-smart growth. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Calabria, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry, sir. Yes, please, you're too.

Yeah.

I've served at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and in HUD's Fair Housing Unit. I came away very wary of some investigated, including a few developers. Yet I stand here in support of developer EYA's plans. Why? I advocate our county's MPDU program. EYA's track record tells me it'll benefit MPDU-eligible families. But you heard opponents of EYA depict EYA as a bulldozer of trees. This is my first time ever focusing on trees while advocating plans affirmatively affecting folks I advocate for. Climate change is getting worse. Look, here's last Saturday's Post article in which it forecast 121 degrees Fahrenheit for California just last weekend. In the future, crane company Eurostar connects London to Paris and beyond. It's requiring the newest trains to withstand up to 131 degrees Fahrenheit and be delivered around 2030. In 2030, 131 degrees? How much hotter will the weather be in 2040 and 2050? Can today's canopy trees at GEICO survive them? And AI came up with the answer from Wikipedia. shade trees may struggle to recover from the effects of extreme heat due to quick deterioration of leaf tissue. So can the Geico trees survive 130 degrees Fahrenheit and far, far hotter temperatures in years to come? My answer, no. What's yours? Thank you.

All right. Next is, thank you, Mr. Makuch.

Thank you. It's Michael Makuch. And full disclosure, I'm also an officer of the Brookdale Citizens Association. I understand you've all been in session since this morning. That's a long day. Thank you for your continuing attention. After coming from DuPont Circle in 1991, my wife and I, along with our six-month-old daughter, found Brookdale and Friendship Heights to offer most of the amenities that we were used to there. Plus, we were thrilled to find a serene forested park practically in our backyard. We supported the 1998 Friendship Heights sector plan with its plan for a 3.77 acre park. We agreed then and we agree now with development near the metro. Whether or not the 98 plan and its binding elements still control An expanded park, bordered by a substantially wide greenway, is critical for the existing Friendship Heights neighbors and for our coming new neighbors in Friendship Commons. We all should be able to enjoy watching kids play in the children's area, walks in the park, games, picnics, and maybe, even as we did several years ago where half the neighborhood gathered pre-dawn to watch a meteor shower. I appreciate the $1.65 million upgrade, but this does not remedy the proposal for only 2.35 acres. New development, yes. Higher density, yes. That'll be more uses, yes. This all calls for more park space. Expanding the park beyond the current proposal to north of three acres is just the right thing to do. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Manuel Ochoa.

Good evening, Chair Harris and members of the planning board. Today, you have before you the most significant redevelopment opportunity in Friendship Heights in nearly three decades. My name is Manuel Ochoa, and I live at 5329 Willard Avenue in the Brookdale neighborhood, less than 100 feet from the Geico property. My wife and I have lived in Friendship Heights since 2011 and on Willard Avenue since 2014. I am also the founder of Ochoa Urban Collaborative, a planning community and economic development firm. For more than two decades, I have worked on planning housing, and community revitalization projects. We chose Friendship Heights because it's a walkable, transit-oriented neighborhood. We also believe that one day the GEICO property would become the vibrant mixed-use community envisioned by the sector plan. After years of anticipation, that opportunity has finally arrived. We strongly support the Friendship Commons proposal because it transforms an obsolete office campus into a complete neighborhood with new homes, neighborhood serving retail, public open space, and improved pedestrian and bicycle connections. Most importantly, it expands housing choice where it is needed most. I especially commend EYA for increasing the affordable housing commitment to MPDUs, as well as its commitment to increasing affordability with other programs in future phases. If Montgomery County is serious about addressing its housing shortage, we must build housing for all incomes in places where people can walk to Metro, jobs, parks, schools, and neighborhood services. Sites like these are exceedingly rare. and this project will provide opportunity for teachers, first responders, young professionals, and the many healthcare workers in Friendship Heights who should be able to live in one of the county's premier transit-oriented communities. I also want to recognize the proposed bicycle and pedestrian connection between Willard Avenue and Western Avenue. This is a much more than a recreational trail. It is a critical investment in the county's multimodal transportation network that will safely connect residents to transits, parks, and schools. I appreciate EYA's willingness to work with the community to refine the alignment and encourage the board to also support a safer pedestrian crossing at Willard Avenue. Every redevelopment project requires balancing competing priorities, including forest conservation, site design, housing, et cetera. In my opinion, EYA has done a good job adapting a vision first conceived nearly three decades ago.

Mr. Ochoa, can you wrap up your presentation?

Planning ultimately is about leaving communities stronger than we found them, and Friendship Commons will do just that. I respectfully urge you to approve the sketch plan and preliminary plan with conditions that improve the plan. Thank you for the opportunity today.

Thank you. Next is Clara Lovett.

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to address the board. My name is Clara Lovett. I'm a resident of the village of Friendship Heights. condo owner in the village since 2003, full-time resident of the village, and Montgomery County voter since 2012. I'm also serving as a member of the board of the Montgomery Parks Foundation, and I am a member of the Advisory Council to the Friendship Heights Urban District. council that was established by the county council in 2023. My village was the first cluster of high-rise dwellings built within walking distance of the metro red line. Critics of the development in the 70s described the emerging village as a sore thumb that stood out in an area of single-family homes and shaded streets. The sore thumb came together. It now is home for about 5,000 residents, different age ranges, different origins, different professions. It brought together people who either could not afford to buy a single family house, didn't need one, were downsizing it, or were younger people who were just beginning in the workforce. Investors provided the necessary capital at that time and a few modest amenities. Local and county leaders played the key role of transforming a cluster of buildings into the community that it is today. Montgomery County right now needs that kind of development more than it did in the 1970s. And that is a compelling reason for supporting the GEICO development. We understand that there are challenges, legal, logistic, environmental. The challenges can be addressed if the stakeholders come together. Litigation is not necessarily the best way to come together. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I appreciate your comments. And the last in this group is Christine Knauer.

Good evening. I'm Christine Knauer. I am co-chair of the Village of Friendship Heights Ad Hoc Committee on Climate Change and Environment. And I am here representing that committee tonight. Our Climate Environment Committee is very concerned about the impact of GEICO site development plans on preserving the existing canopy trees for shade, protecting native species, stormwater runoff, traffic, and other environmental issues. Once we learned of the GEICO EYA plans to cut down all of the native mature shade trees on this site, we voted to send a letter to Aaron Gerard, who was the counsel and contact person for these entities. We sent this letter to her on May 13, 2026, asking them to preserve numerous very large willow oak trees on this property because of the special value of these oaks as keystone species with an outsized impact on our environment. We never received a response from them at all. As for me personally, why do I care? I'm a tenant in Willard Towers. I do not own any real estate here or anywhere in the country. So I have no financial interest in what happens across the street from my apartment building. But I do care because I grew up in wooded northern Wisconsin, have been a lifelong conservationist, and I am an active birder. You would be surprised how many beautiful warblers use the canopy of big trees in Brookdale Park this spring to rest along their migration to resting areas in the north. Some of these birds are still there and are nesting right now. Because of a loss of habitat, the United States has lost three billion birds since 1970, according to Cornell Ornithology Lab. So what are the main issues our committee is concerned about? First, we want to see the big specimen trees preserved because of their great value in providing habitat shade and absorption of stormwater runoff. We want these trees to be preserved in the spots that they live in right now with adequate space around them to keep them healthy. Oaks, the keystone species especially, can live for three or four hundred years. Now the report you received from the applicant's arborist was dated March 31, 2026. Its description of the health of these trees may not be accurate because we had a bad winter this year, as you may remember, and our trees didn't leaf out until late March, early April. So how could they judge on this topic by March 31st?

Secondly,

The replacement of existing canopy trees with new trees in small curbside boxes, similar to those in the EYA development in West Bard, is a bad choice for several reasons. The new trees in their planting document are mainly small ornamentals. The few oaks, sycamores and poplar trees they include will not thrive in these small boxes, and more importantly, will not provide shade for years, if ever. This month alone in our neighborhood, we had heat waves due to climate change that brought temperatures to 104 degrees. Without shade trees in the new development, this site will become a heat island that will force people to stay indoors and hope that their air conditioning will protect them. Our other concern due to climate change is the possibility of very heavy rainfalls in a short period of time, which results in severe flooding. We have seen that in our own, I think I have four minutes because I'm speaking on behalf of an organization. Yes, you have four minutes. Thank you. My building, Willard Towers, along with Willard Avenue Park and the Green Acres neighborhood are all below the Geico site in a floodplain that is at risk from stormwater runoff. Right now, there are a lot of trees on the Geico site whose canopy of leaves slow down the rains and whose root systems can absorb water that would otherwise run off. We do not know how or if the little stormwater planter boxes along the new streets they propose would work. They may also need future repairs and maintenance, and who is going to do that? One of our chief concerns now is the attitude of disrespect we have felt from both the GEICO EY applicants and the planning board itself. The GEICO EYA people never acknowledged or answered our May letter about the trees. Last week, I was shocked to see that GEICO's demolition workers were already cutting down some large specimen trees, even though they had not yet received final approval from you and this public hearing had not yet taken place. Why have a hearing tonight if the damage is already done? And that's a picture of the trees now on the site. And there's a picture somewhere of the logs from that big, there it is. Those are the logs that were cut down or left from the large poplar tree that was cut down before this hearing. So they already have the chainsaws out there. In addition, how does your approval of this site plan comply with the December 2025 Montgomery County Forest Conservation Law, which seeks to protect champion trees in this county? What justification do you have for approving the clear-cutting of all existing mature specimen trees on this site?

Can you wrap up your presentation?

I will. Thank you. We understand that one of your goals is the promotion of new housing close to public transportation. We are not opposed to the development of new market rate and affordable housing on this site. What we are opposed to is allowing EYA to cut down all existing trees to cram too many homes into this property. You can tell them to build fewer homes and save the big trees. GEICO and EYA will be gone long gone when the effects of this decision are felt. I will no longer be around, but you and my grandchildren will still be here. Will you be proud of what you did?

Thank you. Thank you so much. Next, our next group is Sebastian Rodriguez, Andre Bedard, Shaka Beyeri, Gerald Richman, Dominique Richick, Marvin Mostow, Don Calabia, and after them are Lynn Tobias, Mark Winsek, Mr. Mathias, Evan Smith, Mikel Moore, and Valeria Orlandini. Thank you. So why don't we go with Sebastian Rodriguez.

Thank you. Can you hear me before I get started if I can ask the board to consider young families in the timing of these hearings I don't think it's a coincidence there's been one child here and that's because people with young children such as myself cannot make it to these hearings at the times that you're selecting so please consider that if you want to be more inclusive with your input. I live in the Brookdale neighborhood with my wife and two young daughters. We chose Brookdale because it offers something that's incredibly rare, and that is a neighborhood where children can grow up with access to nature and open space. The greenways aren't just amenities for us. They're part of our daily lives. They're where my children wait for the bus to go to school. That's where they play over the weekends. And the canopies and everything that's really important from a climate and sustainability perspective, that's already been talked about. but I'd like to reinforce that we support thoughtful development and we're excited about the new investment, the housing benefits and everything that's been discussed, but good planning needs to be done responsibly and make sure that there's parks and open space that make a community livable. The sector plan, previously prioritized that. It's been discarded, and I truly don't understand why, and I'd ask you to reconsider that. The proposal today adds 500 new homes in the first phase alone, with the additional development anticipated later, and you're asking the same park space, and actually less, as was discussed earlier, to accommodate all of that. On the trapping point, in good faith, I would like you to explain to my daughter, who's six years old, who learned to ride her bike in those streets, how 500 additional housing units now and more in the future reduces park space. If you're going to accept these proposals, just be honest with us about the impacts. Be honest with us about the trade-offs that you're making and that you're willing to accept. That way we can have a real conversation. I feel like you're not doing that. I also just want to say that I really think that we need to ensure future residents also have access to parks. When you've made a commitment to adapt park space and the current development has scattered development sites, scattered landscaping, and tries to add it all together, it just doesn't make sense. Please stay true to your word. Please stay true to the intent of it. And think about young families and the humans that live here and have an honest and straightforward conversation with us. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next is Andre Bedard.

Good evening, members of the Planning Board. My name is Andre Bedard, and I'm a resident of the Brookdale community and the father of two boys. Thank you for the chance to speak tonight. I'm here to ask you to save and preserve multi-sport recreational space for the families of this great community. The 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan envisioned A small league-sized playing field right along Western Avenue and a large recreational space near Brookdale Park for sports and active play. They were meant to be real spaces, large enough for children and families to play, to have sports, and to simply to get together. And this now is cut by half. As a father of two boys, I've seen firsthand what sports can give our children. Sports teach teamwork, discipline, perseverance, and how to deal with both success and failure, both on and off the field, just to name a few benefits. And this will get our children outside, keep them active, and build relationships and give them a sense of belonging to their community. We're now about to welcome hundreds of new homes and new residents into a community that is already home to thousands of people. That makes these multi-sport fields not less important, but more important than ever. Just imagine seeing children playing, seeing neighbors and families communicating and working together. That's what creates a strong community and a great quality of life. And that quality of life also has economic value, because vibrant, active communities attract families, encourage businesses to put down roots, and contribute to its long-term economic growth. As a father, I want my children and future generations to have the same opportunities that I had when I was growing up. So please, let's honor the commitments that were made to this neighborhood many years ago. They're even more important today because our community has grown and will continue to grow.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Ms. Borelli? Thank you.

My name is Shaska Byerly. My husband, Gonten Shankar, and I own a house in Brookdale and are long-time MoCo taxpayers. We welcome EYA's future residents and this development. But the question is not to build or not to build. The question is, do we live in a democracy in Montgomery County where the rule of law, regulations, procedures and binding decisions are taken into consideration and carried out? That means that the binding elements are not null and void in this proposal for this development, which we welcome. You are obligated, under your authority, to adhere to the 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan, i.e. Plan. Three quick points, because I don't have much time. Ensure that the area of Brookdale Park to be dedicated to the county is 3.7 acres, which is necessary to serve Friendship Heights' needs and encourage families to move here. Both the sector plan map and conditions 1C and 1D of the sector plan require an additional acre to be dedicated to the park. Two, maintain the widths and clearances for the Greenway buffer set forth in the 1998 plan, which specifies that the minimum widths of the Greenway are 50 feet from Western Avenue to Sherrill Road and 70 feet from Sherrill Road to Willard, page 69 of the 1998 plan. Preserve and expand the green areas in mature trees as specified in the 1998 plan and deny EYA variances to remove the healthy mature trees. EYA's preliminary plan application fails to preserve the vast majority of specimen trees which you've heard and is seeking variances to cut down the majority along the Greenway in the Brookdale Park. If we want to create a habitable, friendly environment for EYA's future residents and everybody in the Friendship Heights area, including children and elders, we need to stick to the binding elements of the 1998 plan. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next is Mr. Richmond.

Good evening. My name is Jerry Richmond, and my wife and I have lived in Brookdale for over 43 years. I'm also on the board of the Brookdale Citizens Association, and I have submitted written testimony in this case. Now, I don't oppose the project, but I do have strong reservations about its impact on the greenway buffer between Brookdale and the Geico property. As we just heard, the 1998 plan requires specified minimum widths with respect to various aspects of the greenway. Unfortunately, applicants' plans for the greenway don't comply with these requirements at all, let alone substantially comply. The much narrower widths proposed by applicant will necessarily lead to extensive removal of mature trees, eliminating natural habitats, adversely affecting stormwater management, and causing the entire trail to be devoid of shade. Now, I understand that applicant is planning to plant replacement trees. But these effectively will be saplings that will take years or maybe decades to achieve the existing level of canopy. Now, ironically, the staff report, while supporting the applicant's proposal for the greenway, provides a very cogent explanation of why mature trees should not be removed. Staff explains at page 46 that mature trees store more carbon than young trees, have larger canopies that provide greater shade and cooling effects, provide more habitat for a variety of wildlife, that filter more pollutants from the air. Staff there also notes that mature trees have extensive root systems that reduce erosion. So with respect to the greenway buffer, I think the planning board should not accept staff's recommendation, but should adopt staff's analysis of the importance of retaining mature trees. Finally, I think the board should condition its approval on applicant's compliance with the 1998 sector plan and applicant's consent that county employee arborists and engineers oversee applicants' creation of the Greenway and the Hiker-Biker Trail. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I appreciate your testimony. Next is Dominique Rychik. Rychik?

Good evening. I'm Dominique Reichlich. I grew up in Brookdale, and I still own a home there as does my uncle just a block away from the GEICO property. I'm also a real estate agent. I'm excited about the project but concerned about the variance request regarding the forested area buffer between GEICO and Brookdale. In March 1998, this very board approved the Friendship Heights Sector Plan following extensive community engagement. That plan sets out a specific vision for the Geico property, a 50 to 70 foot greenway buffer along the Bookdale boundary, a hiker-biker trail set back approximately 30 feet from the property line, and a one acre expansion of Brookdale Park to the north and a ball field near Western Avenue. These were not casual suggestions. They were the negotiated terms under which this community accepted redevelopment of a commercial site adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The 250 foot plus line of trees behind Courtland Road properties were planted many decades ago as a buffer between Geico and Brookdale. In fact, this area was the example that guided those discussions for the buffer that would be a linear park. The width from the property line to the sidewalk is about 45 feet. The trail would go where the current sidewalk is. That's what everybody has been expecting for the last 28 years and have relied upon. as the development plans have moved forward. This is the very green buffer envisioned in the 1998 sector plan. It has since grown into a small forest that provides many environmental benefits like shade, wildlife habitat, but also a significant buffer for the neighborhood from the noise and dust and disturbance that this development will bring. And it benefits the new townhouses too. EYA plans to take over this forested buffer for townhouses, utilities, and other infrastructure despite knowing about the buffer when they pursued this project. Removing this buffer will expose the neighborhood to a huge visual downgrade and much noise, dust, and disturbance during development. This will affect values and quality of life. No replanting can replace this. New plants will take decades to mature. I urge you to deny the variance request to cut down tree number eight and include in the conditions for approval that EYA must pull back the development to the north side of the sidewalk and preserve the little forest. The planning board has a responsibility to protect Montgomery County residents and not just developer interests. Honor the 50-foot buffer. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next is Marvin Mostow.

Hello, my name is Marvin Mostow, excuse me, and I lived in Friendship Heights for more than 14 years. I taught in Montgomery County schools for over 30 years, and I agree primarily with the younger people that spoke earlier about the benefits of having development in Friendship Heights. In March of 2024, there was a study called the Friendship Heights Urban Development Study. And there are several paragraphs that state that beginning in 2023, Park and Planning made serious efforts to determine, quote, how stakeholders feel about the urban area. This July, Park and Planning staff presented to the board a document called the Working Draft of the Sector Plan. To prepare this draft, Park and Planning had several meetings starting in 2024 with Friendship Heights residents. These meetings allowed Park and Planning staff to understand the priorities, concerns Friendship Heights residents had about possible future. Chairman Harris actually was quoted saying, it's very apparent the abundance of community engagement. And this year in February, EYA revealed to Westland Middle School their plans to build on the Geico site. It is disturbing to me, first, that earlier today you used EYE's renderings and some of their pictures in their draft, and it's disturbing that Park and Planning has not chosen to have any community engagement meetings when it comes to this very wealthy construction company in Geico. I question why there have been zero meetings when it involves this very large site. In the past, Park and Planning went to great lengths, as stated in the 2023 study, to determine Quote, how stakeholders feel about the urban area, or as Chairman Harris said, to have abundance of community engagement. I hope you have been listening to those who spoke before me this evening. Letting a very wealthy developer being able to modify for their benefit the original sector plan will affect in many harmful ways those who live in friendship heights. Please consider the 1998 sector plan and the binding elements.

Thank you so much. And last of this group is Dawn Calabria.

Thank you. I'm Don Colabi. I'm a 31-year resident of Bullard Avenue. So I'm intimately relating to the whole question of redevelopment. I'm here to support the redevelopment of the site as a mixed-use site that would have a combination of market rate housing, moderately priced development units, and also some 5,000 feet of commercial development. While the plan in general is supported, there are obviously questions raised by this hearing and by all the witnesses who came before the committee. But I think it's really important that if you look at the topography of the site in question, there was never any belief that it could be entirely developed and maintain all of the trees. I think people here have raised legitimate issues about the importance of trees and the desire of the community for as many trees as possible to be saved and preserved. But I also note the concerns that have come up about traffic. I question not having more access to the site from Western Avenue, and I also worry about the impact of the people who actually live on Willard Avenue, including myself and others. Will we be able to get our cars out of the garage? I hope so. I appreciate the county's planning staff's efforts to work on the safety and security of pedestrians in the proposed development area and to some traffic calming measures and crossing lights. I have questions about how the amenities which have been pointed out, the private streets, the greenway, which are highly desirable elements obviously, but how they'll be maintained when the developer is no longer active on the site and at the end of the five years of the program. I think it's very important for the county to continue and for the citizens of this county to work to make mixed-use developments work and make them profitable. One of the things I was extremely relieved about after GEICO announced that they were going to leave that property, was that property going to be vacant for years? Was it going to sit like Lord & Taylor's is sitting now? Was there going to be problems with incursions? Was there problems with dereliction? And so when the GEICO, when EYA did its public presentation, I felt somewhat reassured that here we had a developer who was ready and willing and committed to the site in a way I had never heard a developer talk about a site, watching it for 30 years and finally being able to get it to market. And I hope that the community will work with the developer and with the board so that we can have a kind of development that will give opportunities for our children and our workers in the county to live close in an area that's well served by transportation. Ma'am, could you wrap up your presentation? Yes, where our schools have additional capacity and where most of the citizens of the area have showed their willingness and their desire to remain in this community. And I thank the board for its work here today, and I'm very proud to be part of the citizens group of this county. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And the next group is Lynn Tobias, Mark Winsek, Ms. Matias, Evan Smith, Mikkel Moore, Valeria Orlandini. And back them up are Brad Moore, Russell Strum, Linda Hallman, Michael Freeman, Olivia Moy, and Barbara Butera. Thank you. So, Mr. Moore, you can start us out, and then followed by Russell Strum. No, I'm sorry. Yeah, Lynn Tobias and Mark Winsick. Good evening. Yeah. Okay.

Good evening. I'm Leanne Tobias, a 32-year Bethesda resident. While I'm testifying in my personal capacity tonight, I also chair the Citizens Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights, an alliance of 18 community associations, including neighborhoods bordering on the Geico site. I strongly endorse the economic development and housing objectives of the preliminary plan, but believe that it would be a mistake for the planning board to approve it today. First, I concur with the testimony of others on the need to retain existing forest. My written testimony has more detail. Secondly, the planning staff is mistaken in concluding that this site was rezoned in 2014. The county's own records state that the 1998 zoning was reclassified, not changed, to correspond to a countywide zoning code update. This reclassification is ministerial, not a rezoning approved by the district council. The departure of the current plan from the binding elements of the 1998 sector plan is therefore unlawful and would deprive current and future residents of light, views, and recreational space. These benefits are necessary as the area is redeveloped and population added. As others have testified, OSA hearings are the correct forum in which to consider any changes to the 1998 binding elements. The OSA process was invoked under parallel circumstances in Clarksburg as recently as 2025. Following OSA's review, the District Council can reconsider the underlying zoning. It is important to maintain these procedural safeguards in order to adhere to the county's existing requirements and to honor the planning board's November, 2025 decision in this case. In approving redevelopment of this site under the 1998 Sector Plan, the Planning Board stipulated in Condition 21 that the 1998 binding elements would remain in force. Absent a rezoning by the District Council, These conditions should continue to govern new development. In sum, the planning board made the correct decision in November 2025 to retain the binding elements of the 1998 sector plan. Without a formal rezoning of the site by the district council, there are no grounds to revisit that decision today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next is Mark Winsick.

Hi, Mark Winsick.

I'm also a Willoughby resident. The developers have tried to say that the 1998 sector plan and required elements are simply out of date, because there's been so much change in 28 years. Certainly, there's been change, but the question is whether there has been relevant and meaningful change that causes the 1998 plan to be out of date. There has not been. Let's review the facts. What about county revenue? There's currently a great need to expand the tax base for more revenue, but that's not new. As detailed in my written statement, the county was already strongly focused on the necessity of expanding the tax base in 1998. But the 1998 plan takes that necessity into account in a balanced way. What about the need for increased housing near Metro? That too is far from new. It goes all the way back to 1964 and became a formally adopted planning mandate in 1974. The 98 plan reflected all of that history and included a strong emphasis on housing near Metro. But again, it was thoughtfully balanced with avoiding excessive density impacts on Friendship Heights Village and Brookdale, exactly the kind of balance that's needed today. Developers like to point to the ball field, one of the required elements, to claim that the 98 plan is obviously out of date. But it's not just for baseball. It's a flat field with no fence and is fully suitable to a great many uses. Soccer, touch or flag football, lacrosse, field hockey, European handball, kickball, dodgeball, badminton, frisbee, playing fetch with your dog. It's a multi-purpose field. What the developers' criticism of the ballpark is really all about is trying to reduce recreation space and put in more houses. There's one change from 98 that is extremely relevant, global warming. We've heard about that a lot today, and that favors the 98 plan. Lastly, we appreciate the kind attention today, which acknowledges that listening to residents never goes out of date. The board did that superbly in 1998 with an impressive and balanced compromise. Protect that compromise. Strictly apply the 98 plan and required elements. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next is Ms. Matias. And I have some slides as well.

And two minutes. Good evening, Chair Harris and members of the Planning Board. My name is Maritza Mateos. And I live in the Willoughby, directly across from the Geico property. And I support redevelopment. I respectfully ask the board to look beyond the minimum compliance and consider whether this proposal fulfills the environmental vision of the 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan. Slide two, please. The sector plan envisions a greener community with the elements listed on the slide. These are not incidental recommendations. They are central to the plan's vision. These are not my words. They are the vision this board adopted for Friendship Heights in 1998. The redevelopment proposal replaces much of that mature landscape with buildings, roads, smaller landscape areas, While attractive, these spaces cannot provide the same environmental benefits as established trees and canopies. Next slide, please. Planning staff acknowledges that the site contains approximately 203 large and specimen trees that redevelopment will require removing most of them. Staff also recognizes that mature trees provide the benefits listed on the slide. These mature trees are protected under Chapter 22A of the Montgomery County Code. Tree replacement is important, but replacement is not preservation. A 60-year-old oak cannot be replaced by a newly planted small tree. As climate change accelerates, preserving mature trees and canopies are one of our most effective climate investments. Slide four. Housing and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. The question is not whether to build, but how to preserve more of what already exists. I respectfully ask you to require a revised plan that preserves substantially more mature trees and contiguous open space than the proposal before you today, even if that requires fewer dwelling units. This is the balance envisioned by the 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan. It advances Montgomery County's climate, sustainability, and quality of life goals, and it is the legacy that this board has the opportunity to leave. Last slide, please. And I leave you with this. The legacy you leave today will grow or disappear for generations. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you so much. Next is Evan Smith, please.

My name is Evan Smith. I've been a resident of Friendship Heights for 20 years. The planning board staff has observed that Friendship Heights is noticeably missing educational and cultural ties. In response to our Village Council sent a letter to the planning board requesting a public library and performing arts center. EYA executives say they would support a public-private partnership that would build that facility in Friendship Commons. Under phase one, funding of $1.65 million will be available. The plan is to pay that money to Montgomery Parks for intended improvements to Brookdale Park. However, those improvements may result in the loss of many of the park's magnificent trees. Over 500 letters have been sent to the planning board opposing those improvements. I respectfully suggest that a better use of the money would be to hold it in reserve for a public library and performing arts center to be built in phase two of Friendship Commons. That would avoid unpopular loss of trees in Brookdale Park, and produce the popular and needed public library and performing arts center in Friendship Heights. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next is Mikael Moore.

I have some slides, but okay, that's great. They might not be in the right order. I'm going to go with it anyways. Hi, my name is Michael Moore. I'm a Brookdale resident. We back up to Brookdale Park, which is lovely. And I'm also on the board of the Little Falls Watershed Alliance. Since I live right on the park and we walk in the buffer area regularly, I decided that I wanted to make sure people knew about the buffer and the trees. So for the last three months, I have been leading community walking tours of the buffer. And here's my sign-in sheets. I've led more than 16, 17 tours. I've had more than 130 people attending. And they've been great events of just talking with people and walking around with the development plans. It's really hard to see these plans just on paper. It makes such a difference to walk around and see the conditions on the ground. And so it's been a great opportunity to have those kinds of conversations with people. Because you all are going to be making a really enormous decision tonight on a site that I don't think you're that familiar with. And you're just making it off paper. And that misses a lot. I just want to be clear that I'm not against this development. Friendship Heights needs this site redeveloped. We need additional housing. And I don't oppose the density, except where the density encroaches so far into the green buffer that it squeezes and constricts the green buffer and causes pinch points. So there's been a lot of talk today about the tree loss, and I'd actually like to show you where you have an opportunity to save some trees tonight. Without much, with minimal impact to EYA's overall plan, these are trees in the buffer, and these we can save. So if I had you with me back in Brookdale, I would take you on a tour, and I invite you to come on a tour at any point, but I'd like to take you on a virtual tour, and boy, that went fast. So you can see on the map here, I would like to point out that the... The forest that Ms. Lindsay showed looked like a tiny little square, but the forest actually is a forested buffer that Dominique talked about. And it extends for 250 feet. And here's a photograph of it here. It's extensive. It just doesn't show up on a flat map. So it's an extensive forest of trees and shade and wildlife habitat. That's one pinch point. The other one is at the crazy S curve. One is at one side of the site. You can continue on. There is a magnificent willow oak tree, tree number 46. And The EYA will tell you that the reason that the trees are coming down in both of these areas are because of building the trail.

Ma'am, I understand. I saw this in your written testimony, but your time is up, and I gave you an extra minute. So I appreciate you coming out. I appreciate you presenting this information. So next is Valeria Orlandini, please.

Good evening. My name is Valeria Orlandini, and this testimony is especially for you, Arlie Harris, and Elsa Gisele McCoy and Amy Lindsey. I sent you so many emails in the last two months and a half, so I'm going to make it really, really brief. Air quality, air pollution, contaminants. We had a demolition for six weeks without a permit. It was a violation. I know we are not talking about demolition tonight. I know Francine claimed. I know we are not talking about demolition, but how long is going to take all this development? Is EYA getting a free tax for 20 years? There's a lot of questions that we could not really address here in these 109 pages and in drawings or paintings that are not real plants. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Thank you so much. The next group is, as I said before, Brad Moore, Russell Strum, Linda Hallman, Michael Freeman, Olivia Moy, and Barbara Butera. And the next In waiting are Michael Olowa, Esperanza de Castro, Carl Moore, Betty Cook, Peter Gray, and Vanessa Brown. Thank you. So why don't we start with Brad Moore, please.

Good evening. Good evening, Chair Harris and members of the board. I'm Dr. Brad Moore, an internal medicine and lifestyle medicine physician. I lead the lifestyle and longevity medicine program on the Sidley Memorial Hospital campus. I'm also a clinical associate professor of medicine at George Washington University, where I taught preventive medicine in the School of Public Health for 16 years. I live here in Montgomery County, my family's home of Butts Brookdale Park, three doors from the buffer we're discussing tonight. Let me be clear from the outset, I support this redevelopment and I support the housing EYA proposes to build. My concern is narrow and it's a health concern, the Greenway buffer. As our summers get hotter, a mature tree canopy is not landscaping, it's a public health infrastructure. Extreme heat is among the deadliest environmental threats we face and it is rising. Maryland recorded at least 27 heat-related deaths last year and the great majority were older adults, the same population that fills so much of Friendship Heights. The difference between full sun and mature shade on a summer sidewalk can be 20 degrees or more. 650 saplings, however welcome, will not deliver that shade for a generation. Those same trees buffer this neighborhood from significant road noise. Chronic traffic noise is not only unpleasant, the evidence ties it to higher blood pressure, heart disease, and disrupted sleep. A wide planted buffer is one of the few things that measurably reduces it. A shaded, quiet, green trail is what actually gets people outside walking, especially older residents. Physical activity and time in green space are two of the best evidence lifestyle interventions I have to offer a patient. This corridor either invites that or it doesn't. So I'm asking you, hold the buffer at a full 50-foot width. The community was promised in 1998. Keep the mature canopy and the only true stand of forest left on the site. Build the housing and save the forest. Once this corridor is set, we live beside it and walk through it for the next 100 years. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next is Russell Strum.

Thank you, Chairman. Thanks for your attention over a long, long day. I appreciate that. I'm Russell Sturm. I raised my family in Brookdale. My life's work has been devoted to sustainable development and climate mitigation. I salute the county's efforts to densify residential development near transit quarters. It's critical to the future of the county. And the GEICO site provides an extraordinary opportunity to address the housing crisis while demonstrating how new development can be the foundation for great communities and a sustainable high quality of life. We need partnership with developers to realize that potential, and those developers bring expertise, they bring capital, they bring resources, and their access to capital depends on their making money. That's a reality of the world. That's the deal, that's our system. Realistically, their job is to push the limits in order to maximize that profit. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you guys do your job. I've walked the property with Michael, with a map of trees in my hand. And yes, some of the trees you reference that are coming down are because of regrading. But there's a good number of them that are going to be the victim of the profit ambitions of EYA to expand their profitability. For example, small example, they've extended three of the townhouses where the largest, highest profit units will be. into the buffer zone. If they were the regular sized units, not the highest end of them, that buffer zone would be preserved. It's three buildings. The Geico site provides an unusual opportunity to meet the objectives, the development objectives of the planning board and the county precisely because it holds a priceless treasure trove of mature trees that buffer the already well-established development site, bridge to the new neighborhood with the mature, thriving community of Brookdale, and provides a highly efficient, effective natural infrastructure delivering clean air, natural cooling, and water management. The trees on the GEICO site offer the fully functioning foundation of a highly livable, shade-enriched, desirable new community. So let's consider a few things quickly in summary. Would preserving the priceless resource reduce slightly the immediate profits of EYA? Yes. Is EYA's proposed plan to plant young trees in constraining cement boxes within the parking lots and small open areas a realistic substitute for mature trees? No, not during our lifetimes, not ever. Third, the incursion into the buffer is unnecessary. Would limiting the development to the originally conceived footprint that respects the mature trees still create a financially viable development? Yes, it would. So let's be clear eyed about what's at stake here in summary. The county needs to deploy realistic cost benefit analysis that values what is lost when these mature irreplaceable trees are sacrificed in order to enable EIA to squeeze a bit more profit from a good project. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Linda Hallman.

Hi, thank you for the opportunity. My name is Dr. Linda Hallman. I'm a 26-year homeowner in Brookdale and live on Dalton Road, about a block from the GEICO site. I'm also a business owner in Friendship Heights with my practice in the Chevy Chase building. I support the redevelopment of the GEICO site. We welcome the addition of affordable housing to help with the shortage of workforce housing in the area, which is of concern to many business owners given the cost of living in Friendship Heights. My reason to present today is concerning the green space and the tree buffer, like many others. I was horrified to learn about how substantially EYA has deviated from the original plan that was agreed upon by the community in 1998. The original plan had a green buffer zone of 50 to 70 feet, set back 30 feet from the Brookdale property line and a hiker biker trail in the plan. It also had a one acre extension of Brookdale Park to the north and a ball field along Western Avenue, as many others have mentioned. The current EYA plan falls short of this with the pathway narrowing to 30 feet in areas to its load to two to three feet from a residential property line. At points, this is less than half of the agreed upon width. This leaves a pathway that is narrow with pinched S curves, no shoulder, and providing a significant safety hazard for pedestrians and bikers. As part of EYA's plan, the forest buffer or evergreen tree row, which you've just seen pictures of by Michael, will be demolished, which conflicts with the county's own state of priorities forest retention and climate resilience. There is currently a paved pathway adjacent to the forest buffer. Rather than destroying the forest buffer to construct the hiker-biker trail, use the current paved pathway and allow this designated forest to remain as it is. We are asking, pleading with you to hold EYA accountable and to comply with the 1998 sector plan that has been agreed upon with the community and reapproved in 2025 and maintain the green buffer zone. Demand that EYA deliver on the one acre extension of green space, including the ball field, from the original plan. Your building here is a LEED platinum certified building, so I know you understand and appreciate the toll our building plans take on the environment. The GEICO site is no different. It will take a significant toll on the environment and the community, the residents, the wildlife, water runoff, climate control. and the pure joy of living with the peace that a green space can bring. We are asking and pleading with you to maintain the greenway buffer and existing forest buffer as originally promised and do the right thing for the community and the environment. Live by the mission of the planning department from your own website, protect and steward natural, cultural, and historic resources and provide leisure and recreational experiences. Hold EYA accountable and also comply with your mission and maintain the originally planned greenway and forest buffers. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next is Michael Freeman.

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to give my testimony. I'm Mike Freeman. I live in Brookdale since 2001 with my wife, my three sons, and over the years, my five dogs. I moved to Brookdale from Peachtree City, Georgia, which is a plant community that took extraordinary efforts to retain tree canopy and green space, all while allowing development. I'm here to support my neighbors while also imploring you to have the GEICO EYA development to follow the negotiated plan from 1998, all which is re-approved in 2025. You guys are our gatekeepers, and we appreciate that. Anyone who visits the area remarks about our tree canopy, and recently my grandchildren, ages seven and five, visited from Colorado Springs, Colorado. We use the local Brookdale Park every day, and also the new playground at West Park, the site of a different EYA development. West Bard, no shade. Grandkids had to use sun protection. Slides and playground equipment were scorching hot. It was over 100 degrees many of the days. Brookdale, we walked from our home, spraying each other with bubbles, and we all enjoyed the park for over two hours without fear of sunburn or the 100 degree temperature days. Please, we retain that specialness, that Brookdale and Chevy Chase. Again, you guys are gatekeepers. We're asking you to do that. Finally, a week and a half ago, I had prostate cancer surgery at Sloan Kettering up in New York. And as I stand before you today, I'm two days from having a catheter removed from my body. No fun, I might add. In the 15 blocks from our downtown New York City hotel to the Sloan Kettering Surgery Center, there were no parks, there were few trees, and dogs walking on hot pavement. Linda and I remarked how different beautiful Chevy Chase is compared to New York City. I love that I can walk out of my home on Dalton Road, walk two blocks, have a beautiful tree-filled park where I can walk my dogs, stay out of the sunshine, meet neighbors who are also walking their pets, or simply enjoy our parks from their local apartment or condo. I don't want to live like New York City where the trees are concentrated in one central park. We need you, our gatekeepers, to join us in telling the developers that the 1998 agreement must be followed to retain the green space in Chevy Chase. And just one final note. I have a good friend who's a part of the Lurch Early group, and Lurch Early has been very involved with EYA. He told me that EYA is a company that does things right by the community. I'm asking EYA to consider some changes to their plan to allow the changes to happen significantly. You don't need to have those additional units. Sir, could you wrap up your presentation, please? Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. All right, next is Olivia Moy.

Hi there, my name is Olivia Moy. My family has lived in Brookdale since 1998 and I'm here today to plead for tighter environmental regulations as demolition and construction proceeds at the old Geico location. I grew up on Western Avenue just a block away from the Geico building and I spent my childhood playing with friends and riding my bike in Brookdale Park and to this day I walk my dog there almost every evening. Some of you might recognize Cassie, my giant Great Dane. And this year alone, I've encountered deer, foxes, and rabbits using the park's tree for cover and even witnessed like a National Geographic episode live while I was trying to befriend our neighborhood crows and they were dive bombing at a red-shouldered hawk. I recently returned to the DMV from Montreal, where I studied wildlife biology at McGill. My time in Montreal taught me many things, including how nice it can be to live in a dense, walkable urban area where green spaces are preserved. Montreal is full of parks and community gardens tucked in alleyways where people come together, and tons and tons of old trees that turn the city a vivid amber during Canada's brief autumn months. With the latest demolition plans at the Geico site, so many trees are planned to be killed, causing drastic disruptions to the local ecosystem. I'm not sure if any of you have spent a morning sitting on the benches in that park, but I guarantee if you do, you'll be serenaded by the orchestra of songbirds that call the surrounding trees their home. Last fall, I was even lucky enough to catch a flock of cedar waxwings lounging in one of the white pines that have, as of last week, been cut down. I currently work at an entomology lab at UMD, so I get very close and personal with the insects in this area. And I know that there have been drastic decreases in insect populations, though I don't think it takes a scientist to notice this. And deforestation and habitat loss play a major role in this decline. I've encountered so many native bees and fireflies in this park who need these trees for shelter. Just to end my testimony, there was something that I learned early on during my studies that has stuck with me to this day. And that is that there are sprawling networks of roots and fungi beneath our feet in which trees use to communicate. Each individual tree, especially the older, more established trees, are vital to sustaining the environment, ensuring that newer saplings with their shorter roots are getting enough water and nutrients. Thus, simply planting new trees while cutting down established ones is, quite frankly, not a proper solution and does not offset the vast environmental destruction.

Ms. Moy, can you wrap up your presentation, please?

That is and will be occurring. I empathize with my fellow members of Gen Z testifying here today as someone who cares deeply about creating more affordable and public housing, but I refuse to allow developers to slowly but surely manufacture consent for housing that cuts corners, is often not actually affordable, and prioritizes profit over our planet. As EYA continues with these plans, I urge the board to consider not just the feelings of us members in Brookdale, but also the flora and fauna that call this area home. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next, Barbara Butera.

My name is Dr. Barbara Butera. I live in Bethesda, and I worked as a school psychologist in MCPS for 39 years, and I'm really here because of my love of children and realizing how important the trees are for their mental and emotional and physical health. But I'm going to talk about a detail, which should be within the two minutes, so you'll be glad to hear that. One of the details in EYE's plan is that deserves a second look. The street trees that are being planted to replace the number of trees that are being destroyed, they're being planted inside the stormwater boxes, which are small filtration boxes that catch runoff and clean it. My concern is kind of a space problem. The plan puts big shade trees like sycamores and willow oaks inside these curb-cut bioretention cells at the street edge. Now, a large canopy tree needs somewhere between 600 and 1,000 cubic feet of soil to reach full size, and one of these curb-cut cells offers only a fraction of that with a liner. It's like a liner in a drain pipe. It takes up what's left. And a tree in that space, it might not die, but it stays small. The second problem is maintenance. These cells are filled with engineered soil, like a special sand and compost mix. Over time, it clogs, and it gets dug out and replaced. That's part of the design. Every 15 or 20 years, they'll be dug out and replaced. So it's not a flaw in the design. It is the design. But a willow oak needs 40 years to become a real shade tree. The growth process of the tree would be disturbed long before it reaches full potential. And this is where it matters for the county's climate goals. Climate action plan doesn't run on tree count. It runs on canopy, actual shade over actual sidewalk. A sapling kind of checks a box on a planting plan, but a sapling that stays stunted or gets dug up every 20 years never becomes the big shade tree that does the work. Uh-oh. I thought I was going to be better than this. I'd also ask staff to concern one thing. Is the same square footage being counted twice, once for the street tree requirement and once for stormwater? If so, the plan claims two public benefits from one piece of ground. The fix is simple, but the canopy trees in their own beds space so the crowns can eventually close over the street and that the stormwater cells do their job without a tree's root system in the middle. It's really a quality of life issue. The only thing that makes our urban areas walkable for three to four months of the year is shade from canopy trees.

Thank you. The next group is Michael Oliwa, Esperanza DeCastro, Carl Moore, Betty Cook, and then we'll go to the teams with Peter Gray and Vanessa Brown and Barbara Wagner. So why don't we start with Michael Oliwa.

There we go, thank you. Hi, my name is Michael . My family and I have been residents at Brookdale and Friendship Heights for 23 years. Our house is on Dalton Road and is directly across from Brookdale Park. I see it every day. I know it well. I see the Geico headquarters every day right through the park. Our kids have played there. We walk our dog there. Plenty of neighborhood activities. Seen a tremendous amount of wildlife that really surprise you what shows up. Today we've heard many specifics about how we need to protect the park, the old growth trees, to keep the buffer between Brookdale and Friendship Commons, the open spaces, and other essential points exactly as outlined in the binding elements of the 1998 development plan. That plan and its binding elements have been integral to making Friendship Heights the kind of neighborhood where current and future residents want to live. On many occasions, this plan has been reevaluated and has withstood review. We've all trusted this plan, and we've all trusted that this plan, and especially its binding elements, would be upheld when GEICO property was redeveloped. This is the reason why we're here today, many, many people together, to insist that the board enforces the 1998 plan and does not allow any variances that violate the binding elements. Today we're living in an era where people's trust in government is probably the lowest that it's ever been. We must make sure that no part of Friendship Heights is harmed by developer overreach. As much as we need to protect the park, the trees, the buffer, and the experience of living in Friendship Heights, we also need just as much to protect people's trust that our local government will keep its word. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Next is Esperanza DeCastro.

Good evening, chair and members of the planning board. My name is Esperanza Pastor Nuno de Castro, and I am resident of 4620 North Park Avenue. While I support thoughtful redevelopment of the former Geico site and understand the need for housing and revitalization, redevelopment should add to a community's quality of life, not take away one of the few places where people can still experience nature, safe, and peace in their everyday lives. The green corridor along Willard Avenue is not simply undeveloped land. It is part of our daily experience. It is where people walk in the morning, where neighbors take their dogs, and where residents returning from work can slow down beneath dead trees, and even for a few minutes, leave behind the noise and pressure of the day. That small connection with nature brings peace and happiness. In an area already surrounded by traffic, concrete, and tall buildings, it is not a luxury. It is part of what makes our neighborhood livable. The proposed buildings would place large structures directly along Woodland Avenue and opposite existing residential buildings. They would transform an open three-line corridor into a wall of buildings facing buildings. reducing sunlight, open sky, and the feeling of space that we experience today. According to the plan, 80 trees are going to be removed. Out of those, 39 are protected trees. 49 are going to be affected. Many of these mature trees have taken several decades to reach their current size. Buildings can be redesigned, but once these trees are removed, that decision cannot be reversed within our lifetime. Those trees are protected for a reason. Please do not take away their protection. i therefore ask the board to require a substantial redesign the large condominium and rental buildings should be moved away from willard avenue and further into the center of the development they should be limited to forest stories and designed with smaller ground level footprints so that more mature trees and meaningful green space can be preserved most importantly please preserve the willard avenue corridor as a continuous linear park a place where current and future residents can experience the peace that nature brings. Please ask the applicant to return with a better balanced plan, one that leaves future generations not only more homes, but also mature trees, open sky, and a place to breathe. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next is Betty Cook. Is Carmore here? Oh, I'm sorry. You weren't...

Okay, fine, please.

Why don't you go, and then we'll go to Carla.

Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Want me to go?

Please, please.

Okay. My name is Betty Cook. I live at the Willoughby, which is the condo most affected by the project. I retired in 2022 after 23 years as an investment advisor. As such, my focus most of the time is on people's assets, income, affordability, and taxes. I offered this introduction as to have you understand why I am talking about the project on a topic that has not been covered so far. Our neighborhood is heavily populated by senior citizens. Many are retired, some without pensions or wages. The project is going to increase the monetary cost to them. The streets do to increase people, will cause a problem of maintaining the streets beyond what we have to now. Security will have to be secured and there has to be consideration for the need to provide resources for the education of the students that will be coming in. This is having... I can't read my writing, I'm sorry. Will increase taxes that many cannot afford. Are areas having populated by senior citizens Let's see. That cannot afford. Okay, I'm going to go off my notes and just wind up with...

But take 30 more seconds and complete everything.

Obviously, we're all being impacted by the cost of this project. The GEICO project owners have a right to... build on their property. But we should, as citizens, also be considering not just the trees that we all talk about, but the senior citizens' lives and how they're impacted. And I think that we do need affordable housing, but why is affordable housing being done in an area that is so expensive? Why isn't affordable housing being considered in a more affordable area, such as maybe Rockville? So the planning people should be considering these things and thinking about the senior citizens who are living in this area and who cannot afford to move out. It's not like the young people who can move out. The senior citizens were stuck with apartments that have dropped greatly in the past year. Our condos in the Willoughby are far lower than what they were a year ago.

Yeah, ma'am, we need to, because there's some other people need to come behind you. Thank you for your presentation, okay? Thank you. So, Carl, why don't you go next, please?

Good evening. My name is Carl Moore, and I grew up next to the Geico site and the Brookdale Park. Back in 1998, this community showed up again and again and negotiated something specific, a substantive green buffer and a trail running the length of the Geico property and protecting the neighborhood behind it. That promise is written into the 98 sector plan in black and white. It's been 28 years. People who fought for that buffer have literally grown old waiting for it. Now, in 2026, EYA wants to build under that same 1998 plan. But you shouldn't get to pick and choose the parts of a 28-year-old promise that help you and conveniently ignore the parts that don't. The staff report itself admits the ball field that plan called for is gone. The park extension north of Brookdale Park, also gone. I'm not asking for more than what was promised. I'm asking the county to keep its word on the one piece of that promise that's still achievable, a real green buffer, not a sliver of one. I'm not against this development. I understand the need for housing and the density that comes with it. What I'm asking for tonight is narrow and specific. Hold EYA to the buffer width mandated by the sector plan. Finish the site distance and encroachment reviews before approval, not after. Apply tree-by-tree scrutiny to every removal request, not just the ones that happen to clear a size threshold. And don't let a forest get bulldozed and rebranded as a stormwater solution or a planting plan. The corridor you approved this week is going to be here for 100 years. I'm asking you to make sure it's the version promised to the community. For the next three years, the Friendship Heights and Brookdale community are going to suffer a lot of collective distress as we endure the challenges of living in a huge construction zone and as we witness the violent destruction of places where we have made cherished memories. Please grant the community a little bit of light. Include the maintenance of the 50-foot green buffer in the conditions of approval and save those trees. The forested buffer behind Cortland and tree 46, the magnificent willow oak that you saw before. Thank you for your time and your attention.

Yeah, thank you so much. Appreciate it. We're in the homestretch now. We have our team presenters. The rest of the folks, unless I'm wrong, are on Teams, and the next person is Peter Gray from the Washington Area Bicycle Association, who has four minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, Planning Board members. My name's Peter Gray, and I am testifying on behalf of the Washington Area Bicycle Association. and the hundreds of WABA members who live in Montgomery County, plus the thousands of other county residents who joined in actions to support better bicycling in the region. WABA is very supportive of the shared use path designated in the 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan, further described in the Forest Conservation Plan before the board tonight. The trail plan also conforms to the county's 2018 Bicycle Master Plan. Ideally, the trail should be part of a 70 foot wide greenway or linear park between Willard Avenue and Friendship Boulevard. We support a trail that is at least 10 feet wide with at least two foot buffers on either side to comfortably accommodate the expected mix of people walking and biking. As pictured in the Forest Conservation Plan, the trail appears to directly abut some buildings in one set of stairs by Brookdale Park. The planning board must ensure that the setback from the trail is at least two feet from any structure or retaining walls in order to be compliant with AASHTO recommendations. WABA strongly endorses requirements that the developer provide site distance markings to make sure cyclists traveling at 15 miles an hour, the recommended design speed, are able to react to any oncoming pedestrian or bicycle traffic with sufficient time to stop or pull off the trail. WABA also recommends additional signage, particularly at the intersection of the trail and Willard Avenue, where those biking will have to slow down either to cross over Willard Avenue or to connect with the trail there on the other side, or to make a sharp right turn onto the protected bike lanes on Willard itself. Rumble strips at that intersection of the trail and Willard are also recommended. Additional signage to instruct trail users to slow down may also be implemented as the trail goes by Brookdale Park. Lastly, there's an older tree, number 46 in the plan, which we hope would be preserved if possible with potential alterations to the path of the trail if need be. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. And next we go to Vanessa Brown.

Hi, my name is Vanessa Brown and my husband Alan Bender and I are homeowners of 5333 Saratoga Avenue. Our property shares the boundary with the former Geico site. So our project So the project will have material impact on our property in 2016 we testified before the Montgomery county board of appeals on a related matter geico's obligation under the 1967 agreement to maintain a six foot high cedar fence along this boundary. The board upheld that obligation, recognizing the need for the fence to be maintained as agreed. Today, our concern is that the same protective fence and buffer zone will be lost since the proposed bike path will be immediately adjacent to our property. The new proposed bikeway appears to eliminate the 30 foot setback envisioned in the sector plan, bridging a heavily used public trail much closer to our backyard. This changes the character of our property and raises real concerns about privacy, safety, and quality of life. A secure, intact, six-foot-high cedar fence and buffer zone as specified in the sector plan along the boundary is not a cosmetic matter. It's what allows children living there to play safely in the yard without a parent stationed at the property line watching for cyclists or anyone else moving through what will become a far more heavily trafficked public path. We respectfully request the board require as a formal condition of any approval that the redevelopment plan include an ongoing maintenance and where needed construction of a continuous adequately secure six foot cedar fence along the residential boundary consistent with the fence maintenance obligations GEICO had under the 1967 agreement and reinforced by the board in 2016. This should not be treated as optional or deferred to future maintenance decisions by the developer or the HOA that will follow it. We also ask that the buffer zone be maintained with a 30-foot setback of the pathway and a minimum 70 feet between the building and our home and our neighbors' homes that sit on the property line. We are also in agreement with the Brookdale Property Association around the trees maintenance. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Ms. Brown. Next is Barbara Wagner.

Hello. I'm Barbara Wagner, a resident of the . Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I love the Brookdale neighborhood park located on the Geico site, and I unequivocally support the draft sector plan's recommendation that the park be transferred to the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. This will provide long-term public stewardship and preserve this important community asset for future generations. But beyond the Brookdale Neighborhood Park, we have heard the GEICO campus is an interconnected green landscape with mature canopy trees that provides environmental community benefits. It's the last significant expanse of contiguous green space in Friendship Heights. The draft sector plan specifically recommends protecting natural resources such as canopy trees, wooded areas, and streams. That recommendation recognizes the important role these natural resources play in creating a sustainable, healthy, and resilient community. However, the EYA proposal does not adequately address the importance of preserving the Geico park-like setting. Instead, the proposal depicts a landscape with small, isolated lawn areas and ornamental street trees lining concrete walkways. These features are not equivalent to preserving the ecological value of an established lawn landscape. The proposal is inconsistent with the draft sector plan's recommendation to protect these natural resources. But for the nearly 30 years, the 1998 sector plan has successfully guided our community's growth, its development, and public investment, creating the balance and character that residents value today. As you evaluate this proposal, I respectfully ask you to ensure it is consistent with the binding recommendations and long-term vision of that plan. Consistency with the sector plan is fundamental to sound planning, predictable decision-making, and maintaining the public's confidence in the planning process. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you so much. Next is Susan Spock.

Hello. I'm having some technical problems, but here I am. My name is Susan Spock. I'm in Maine for my father's memorial, but I frequently spend time in Friendship Heights, and I know we need housing on this site. So let's assume you will approve the project and think about the future. The bike trail and the greenway is a part of a large bicycle network meant to eventually connect to the Capitol Crescent Trail, where I frequently walk and have been almost hit by bikes speeding several times. I'm grateful, therefore, that Carlos tonight has introduced a number of new safety conditions that meet many, although not all, of my concerns about safety. but as part of a larger trail network this trail should be maintained by the parks department as envisioned in the sector plan and not left to a homeowners association This is not a new suburban project with a little trail for residents. If I were buying one of these homes, I certainly would think twice about being burdened with expense and liability associated with a public hiker-biker trail lined with canopy trees in the middle of a dense urban community. I can't understand why this critical point has not been addressed by staff. It's so important. If you leave this trail and greenway management to the HOA, then the five-year tree maintenance agreement in the current plans is insufficient. It might be okay if EYA were passing the trail to the Parks Department, although 15 years would be better. But if the trail goes to an HOA, maintenance should be conditioned in perpetuity, and the HOA document should reflect that responsibility. Mature canopy trees need vigilance to avoid harm to passersby, and their shade is important. When I walk home from Friendship Heights in the summer, areas without shade are almost unbearable. Please ensure that the new trees along the trail will grow to full height and create a canopy that will last for decades by conditioning approval on EYA's careful tree selection and proper installation with the latest techniques, many of which are outlined in my written testimony. Decisions now will help parks or the HOA with maintenance in the future. Thank you for staying so late, and Chair, thank you for your kindness to the witnesses as you make your decisions that will affect us all greatly in the future.

Yes, thank you so much. Next is Abba Blum.

Hi, good evening. I'm Abba Blum, and I'll be very brief. is I grew up in Friendship Heights, right on North Park Avenue across the street from the Geico property. And not to give away my age, but as a youth, I'd watch the Jennifer movie theater. And that movie theater has been closed since 1994. But in walking to it, it was catty corner to the Geico property. So I remember walking along the sidewalks without the trees and walking through the parking lots without trees to get to the theater. or sometimes a restaurant's up there. And so I wanted to speak to get my support and how excited I am for this redevelopment and what EYA's vision is for this site. The opportunity to liven up the area, bring in more interesting retail, allow a diversity of families, a wide range of housing choices that are not found now, like townhomes, some are smaller seven-story apartment buildings, workforce housing, so it's a greater, more vibrant community, the parks and walking trails that are being planned, the closeness to transportation, and the idea that this community that could be built may be able to support a movie theater coming back to the area again. I started my life in the Friendship Heights area, and I really look forward to having the opportunity to purchase a home in this new development close to the Brookdale Park and all the trees that are there.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Next is Matt Pacinelli.

Thank you all for your time. Good evening, I'm Matt Pacinelli, and I'm a commercial real estate professional and a resident and former board member of Brookdale. I remain supportive of the redevelopment of the GEICO headquarters by EYA. who I consider one of the premier urban residential developers in the region. However, I'm deeply disappointed that GEICO and EYA have taken advantage of the community's goodwill and consistent support over many years to present a plan that deviates from the sector plan and all related agreements between the parties, which were affirmed by this very body just last year. While there are many elements of the plan that concern me, given time limitations and our prior comments this evening, I would like to provide an example of noncompliance by directing you to the height of the proposed townhomes, which Mr. McCoy described earlier as being 45 feet tall. I don't know if you can see the, you probably cannot see my exhibit, so I think I can share that. I'd like to direct you to this. This is page A306 of the actual plans presented by the applicant. While there is a reference here to 45 feet, there's also a reference, if you can see here on the left, to 60 feet, which actually stops just before the high rise portion of the building, which by my estimation shows that the actual height of this building is more than 70 feet tall. That's twice. twice the size recommended in the 1998 sector plan and twice the height allowable in the adjacent Brookdale neighborhood. I urge this body to ensure that this project conforms with the 1998 sector plan guidelines, including the specific building height guidelines. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Next is Is PA Brown online or?

Yes, thank you. Okay, thank you.

I am online. Okay, thank you.

Please go ahead. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and board members. Thank you for your leadership. My name is PA Brown. I strongly support this project and urge your approval. My family and I rented in Friendship Heights for over 17 years before we had to relocate. Both of our daughters now in their 20s went to MCPS schools and graduated. The county executive said tonight that the world has not changed since 1999. Of course it's changed. We are dramatically short of housing today, in part because of decisions taken in the past. The 1998 sector plan does not reflect today's world. Binding conditions from 1998 may or may not still be relevant today, but the balance today should prioritize as much housing as possible. We need developers to build housing. Here we have a developer committed and ready to move forward and bring new residents to Friendship Heights. So it is unfortunate that there are legal challenges to delay or stop the development. And I find particularly rich the two condominium associations across the street from this project, both in tall buildings, commented on the appropriate height of these buildings, which are much, much lower than theirs. Are they afraid of losing their views? On balance, I would say that we need as much housing as possible. Friendship Heights needs to be as vibrant as possible in the neighborhood. On open space and trees, no one has commented on another big green space near the Geico site. I would draw the board's attention to the Wellard Avenue Park along the Little Falls Creek Watershed. Wellard Avenue Park is right across Wellard Avenue. It has lots of trees and sufficient open space for a sports field. Perhaps park and planning could look at putting a field there. While a buffer is very important, this is an urban district and the balance toward housing is appropriate. At the same time, I would encourage the board and the planning staff and maybe EYA to also look at the buffer that exists between the Chevy Chase connection development and Chevy Chase Village right across the street on Wisconsin Avenue. How wide is that? Is it 50 feet? Who maintains it? Housing development is personal for me. I don't know if our daughters are going to be able to afford housing in Montgomery County on their minimum wage jobs, but I know that new projects like this one with MCDUs would provide some hope for them, and hope is important. Thank you for all you do.

Thank you so much. Next is Daniel Cody.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony this evening. Can you all hear me? Yes. Great. Yeah, my name is Daniel. I'm actually reading on behalf of Arthur Perry, a career urban planner and resident of Friendship Heights Village, who unfortunately was unable to present tonight. His testimony concerns the forest conservation plan for the site. The contract owner of the 26-acre Geico site in their final forest conservation plan, which is dated in March of this year, is proposing to save only 13 out of the 203 trees on site. That translates to 190 trees or 95% of the existing trees being destroyed. The proposal would destroy the forest canopy, the understory, and microclimate for the remaining trees. According to the Maryland Code on Natural Resources, Section 5-1606, a forest conservation threshold for this type of development site would be at least 15% retainment, which on this site would be no less than 30 trees. Removal of 95% of the trees on this site is tantamount to clear cutting and will damage the health of the surrounding ecosystem. Five of the trees proposed to be saved in the plan are near Brookdale Park. And that plan is good. But on the Brookdale side alone, there are seven additional trees that would excellently complement the canopy and microclimates in the Brookdale Park area. Arthur's written testimony has specific trees numbered. The other eight trees the plan proposes to save are mostly along Willard Avenue near Shoemaker Farm Lane. The Willard Avenue side of the plan has serious environmental shortcomings, and the existing Excuse me. It's important to preserve the healthy trees along Willett Avenue, specifically the specimen trees 100 and 102. There are other large trees that Arthur outlines. Their canopies, microclimates, and sustaining systems are threatened by removal, which would achieve no community benefit. I'm wrapping up soon, so just a few more seconds. I also want to highlight that the plan for tree planting at Friendship Commons primarily involves container plantings. This deeply flawed and environmentally destructive practice provides only short-term beautification without achieving long-term forestation and actual canopies for the site. This has been mentioned many times with many of the people who've spoken about the tree canopies tonight. The trees constrained within concrete containers of very limited dimensions are doomed to disease and short lives.

Sir, could you wrap up your presentation, please?

Yeah, absolutely. The bottom line is that the final forest conservation plan for this site eliminates too many mature trees and replaces them with small container trees doomed to abbreviated lives with no replacement. Without plan modification, while development of the commons is not devoid of some benefit for, as other people have brought up this evening, those benefits do not outweigh detriment to the area's ecology and the existing community.

Sir, you had to cut your, thank you. All done, thank you. All right, okay. The next is Tom Quinn. Go ahead, sir.

Good evening, members of the Montgomery County Planning Board. My name is Tom Quinn, and I'm an advisory neighborhood commissioner representing single-member District 3E04 in Washington, D.C., which covers both sides of Friendship Heights along Wisconsin Avenue from Harrison Street north to Western Avenue, and I'm testifying tonight on behalf of ANC 3E. Our ANC and my single member district is immediately across Western Avenue from the Geico site and includes single family homes and no green buffer to the site. ANC 3E is not taking a formal position supporting or opposing these development plans, but offers up a number of suggestions that we believe would make this a stronger and more appropriate proposal. At its properly noticed public meeting on July 21st, ANC 3E passed a resolution containing our suggestions. I have submitted our resolution to the record. but will capture both the sentiment and as many details of our resolution as possible in my testimony. ANC 3E believes the current phase one plans for the site are flawed for the following reasons. The lack of community amenities, given the vastness of this site and potential for significant housing, we believe the redevelopment of this parcel should include significant community recreational amenities. We believe an appropriately dense site plan that utilized vertical real estate would have left room for much needed regulation sports field. It could have also served as a buffer to the single family homes in Brookdale. Within the current proposal, we believe there is still room for at least some of these publicly accessible recreational amenities. An accessible playground for all abilities. Bodyweight exercise equipment, a small turf area with sports goals, fenced in green with lawn games. a dedicated retail kiosk area, a dog park, and I'm deviating from my comments, but that dog park should not go on the roof of a building on the D.C. side adjacent to single-family homes. It should go in this development. A skate park, bocce courts, pickleball courts, a disc golf course, potentially also utilizing Brookdale Park and Willard Park, a splash park, a mini golf course. We believe phase two must include a significant recreational amenity and that an outdoor public swimming pool would be the optimal amenity. This site has too much parking and not enough housing for this transit rich location. A mere 520 units is inadequate for a 26 acre parcel. As an example, the recently delivered Wardman Park development in Woodley Park in Washington DC sits on 9.5 acres and holds nearly 900 units. This proposal is an inefficient use of precious urban space. The GEICO project, even with merely 2,000 to 3,000 units, would still have ample outdoor space and community amenities. The approved plans for 5333 Wisconsin Avenue and Friendship Heights includes 350 units and one building taking up one acre of land. Townhouses and relatively low-rise buildings two blocks away that are across the street from 50-year-old 20-story buildings represent a missed opportunity. ANC3 also supports the bike lanes currently included in the site plans for this proposal along Friendship Boulevard and Willard Avenue that will connect to future bike lanes in DC on Western Avenue and Jennifer Street and urges EYA to make accommodations for this bike in for as soon as possible. We believe the site plan is thoughtful and appreciate the linear park to the West of the site as well as the well designed plans for pedestrian circulation. We share concerns expressed about the loss of mature trees in the buffer zone to the west of the project and urge EYA to find ways to preserve as many of these trees as possible. ANC 3E respectfully asks that Montgomery County and the developer revise the plans to ensure the 26 acres adjacent to a major urban transportation center are used in a more appropriate manner and specifically request that the heights in the two multi-unit buildings be greatly increased to match the heights of the existing buildings across Willard Avenue. and the proposed heights we are presuming are coming in phase two. Thank you for staying late tonight and thank you for the opportunity to testify before you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. I think we have two more. Is Janina Mira in?

Yes, good evening. How are you?

Wonderful.

I bet, after a very, very long day. I am messaging today because, in theory, I would be one of those people that would benefit from this development. I am a part of the sandwich generation. I have 10-year-old twins and have my older parents that come to visit and definitely appreciate that now I am near transit. I own a home in Up County, but this was too far for my current commute, and so I'm currently a renter in the Willoughby. And I... wholeheartedly agree that we need more housing, as does everybody that has called into this. But I think, I don't know if any of you guys have 10-year-old boys, but they sure like a lot of green space to run. And I was really disappointed to hear that that baseball field isn't going in And, you know, all that green space that was supposed to be part of that development is no longer going to happen. And instead, it's just going to be kind of chaos around here for the next little bit. And then instead of maintaining the character of Montgomery County, maintaining the trees, maintaining kind of that urban feel, but still a little bit of the suburbs with that greenery, it's just going to become more and more like the urban center. And then what I guess... It just loses that character that draws one to this location to begin with. So I would say, even though in theory this would be a benefit, I disagree with the changes that have been proposed for the plan and really wholeheartedly endorse that 98 plan that had been proposed. Agree to and it sounds like by a lot of people and also earlier times for kids with parents wouldn't be really beneficial to be able to hear everybody. So thanks very much for your time. Appreciate it. And just stick to the word of Montgomery County Planning Board and stick to the plan.

Thank you for your testimony. The last person we have is Trey Holloway.

Oh, boy. Last, I get to wrap it up. Thanks so much for the opportunity. So my name is Trey Holloway. I have lived in and around this area for 20 years, and I currently live in the Green Acres neighborhood right off of River Road. And I'm speaking tonight to express my strong support for the Friendship Commons project and respectfully request your approval of the sketch and site plans. My wife and I are parents to three children, ages 7, 11, and 13, and in our 20 years in the area, my family has experienced housing from every angle. We've leased and owned both condominiums and single-family homes, and we've done so both on the D.C. and Maryland side in Friendship Heights, including in the Willoughby Building. Given this experience, we know firsthand just how scarce quality housing options have become in this part of Montgomery County. somewhere where someone can easily rely on public transportation to commute into downtown D.C. Friendship Commons directly addresses this challenge by putting new, diverse housing right where it makes the most sense, a five-minute walk from a metro station. I also have a unique perspective on this specific property. As a consultant, GEICO was one of my clients. I worked on projects inside the Geico building for years and literally watched as fewer and fewer people populated its halls, leaving a massive prime piece of land sitting almost completely inactive. Leaving a site like this underutilized in this way doesn't serve the neighborhood of Friendship Heights and it doesn't serve the county as a whole. If you look right across the border at Northwest D.C., you see investment, new retail and modern growth. The Maryland side of Friendship Heights deserves the same. Thoughtful reinvestment like Friendship Commons will revitalize the area, strengthen our local tax base to support public services, and bring the foot traffic that our neighborhood serving businesses desperately need. This plan also delivers more than just housing. There's public open space, play areas, significant consideration and accommodation for pedestrians, along with the thoughtful planting of hundreds of new trees and plants. As pointed out by staff earlier in the night, this includes layers of trees and shrubs that emphasize native plantings that create food sources and promote natural habitat. In short, this project delivers across the board. Change is inevitable, but this is good change. Friendship Commons will breathe new life into a property that is ready for its next purpose and will help ensure Friendship Heights remains a vibrant, welcoming, and sustainable community for generations to come.

Thank you. Thank you so much. So this is what we're going to do. We're going to take a two-minute stand-up break. And you can use the restroom while the applicant comes up and gets ready for a presentation.

So we'll be back in two minutes. You can keep it running if you like.

But we'll see you in two minutes, OK?

to get your feedback and thank you.

OK, it's time for the applicant to make their presentation. And I'm going to ask, as you do, if you can address as many of the questions or concerns that were brought up by the constituents. So thank you. The floor is yours. Please introduce yourselves and get going. Thank you for coming out tonight.

Wonderful. Well, thank you very much. My name is McLean Quinn, and I'm the president and CEO of EYA, and we're the applicant here at Friendship Commons. And I'm joined by a couple of our teammates, Aaron Gerard, our land use attorney, Pat LaVey, our civil engineer, and Katie Wagner, our transportation consultant. So I just want to just take a moment to thank everyone who was part of getting us here today and the incredible work that we had in partnership with the staff, with the community, and with our team to bring forward a plan that we are very proud of. And we'll talk about why in a minute. And at the same time, I also want to acknowledge that we heard a lot of concern from our neighbors here. We think of the residents of this neighborhood as our neighbors. I personally think of them as my neighbors. I live very near the site myself. And we take very seriously their concerns about having a community that feels like it is additive to their neighborhood. And that's something that we think that we are doing here, and we'll talk about that in more detail. As we jump into our brief presentation, given how late it is, I want to just touch on a couple of things about why this is such an important opportunity for us. You heard earlier that this is a site that EYA has looked at and thought about for 30 years, and that's true. Our founder, Bob Youngentob, who passed away last year, actually consulted with GEICO on that 1998 sector plan almost 30 years ago and helping them envision a plan for what the redevelopment of GEICO's headquarters could eventually be like. And when we think about that redevelopment, we think about how do we create a lasting legacy in that neighborhood that will serve the community for the next 100 years. And so that is sort of anchored our ideas for this property. And so there are a few comments that I heard in the presentation that I'd like to proactively address before we roll through our slides, because I think that maybe there's some misinformation or misunderstanding that I can try and address. First, the thing we heard most tonight was about trees. And I just want to start by saying that we don't want to cut down a single tree on this site that we don't have to. We have been working very hard to design our site to deliver what we think is a really important community for this neighborhood while preserving as many of the trees as we can. You heard earlier from Ms. Lindsay about the challenges of the topography of this site and how when you stitch together a redevelopment of this site into the existing fabric, some of those trees cannot be saved. And that is true. But I want to provide a little bit of more information about that, because the majority of the trees that are being removed as part of this development are being removed for two reasons. The first is the demolition of the existing GEICO headquarters building. As you saw in those plans of where those existing trees sit, they sit in close proximity to the building. They sit in the little landscape medians in the parking lot. They sit adjacent to the foundation of the building. Those trees cannot safely be maintained while that building is removed and while the surface parking is removed. Their critical root zones will be impaired. It would not be safe for them to stand. They must be removed. So that is a significant component of the tree loss associated with this site, simply comes from the demolition of the existing improvements. And then the other significant part comes from the pedestrian infrastructure improvements that have always been, since 1998, a critical part of this plan. That includes the promenade along Willard Avenue, which provides that 40-foot setback landscaped buffer with the sidewalk and the bike path and the green that will separate our development from the street. and in the buffer zone, the Greenway buffer that runs behind our property and Brookdale. And you heard a little bit about the challenge of grading these properties out. I mentioned the challenge of tying into the streetscapes. But the grades that exist along the back of the site, along Brookdale Park, are also very, very significant. And to create an accessible Greenway Trail that is available to bikers, that is handicap accessible, that will provide the connectivity that I think many people in this community have wanted for 30 years, we will have to do significant grading in there. Whether there was the original configuration of the Greenway Trail, our proposed configuration of the Greenway Trail, the buffer as it existed in the 1998 plan or the buffer which is actually bigger today that we are proposing now, that grading would take place and tree loss in that location would happen. That said, we are very committed to doing everything we can during construction to walk that site with county staff to try and preserve every single tree that we can during construction to make extra efforts to do so. Many folks said that in order to our benefit to try and do that, we agree. We think it will make a better community. We think it will make us better neighbors. But there are real constraints about saving those trees, and I just want to be real with folks. with our community and our neighborhood about those challenges. I also want to briefly address the park size questions. The size of this park is something that we have worked very closely with the Parks Department on. Parks Department actually picked the boundary of the park. They also picked the public access requirements that would extend the public accessibility across that park. And so the park that has been created that will preserve the great tree canopy in Brookdale Park park today that will create that wonderful resource long into the future has been designed in close coordination with the parks department. And it will be supplemented by a whole variety of new open park spaces that will be publicly accessible that I'll show you pictures of in just a second. And then the last thing that I want to address is some of the concerns about stormwater management on the site. We are taking a site today that has zero storm water management on it, that sheet flows runoff into the storm drain system, and we are maximizing the environmental site design features that will capture, retain, treat, and slowly release that water on this site. And yes, that does mean that we will have some concrete storm boxes that have trees in it, but we have hundreds and hundreds of trees, over 650 new trees going into this site, many of which will be large canopy trees which are not in stormwater management areas. And so A, we'll see a huge improvement in the runoff in stormwater from this site. B, we will make a huge investment in the tree canopy on the property. And just to put a number to it briefly, The American elm species, we're going to plant 95 American elm, which are big trees that won't be in bioretention. And that's just one of the many tree species that we're planting. So I just wanted to provide a little bit of data and a little bit of context before jumping in.

Are they shade trees? A lot of questions. That's some of the trees. Maybe you want to address that. So they're going to be good shady trees to provide. OK.

We'll have hundreds of shade trees. We have some exhibits about that tree growth. But we'll be planting larger caliper trees, so 3 and 1 half inches. Small compared to the trees that are out there today, but large for a new tree that goes into the ground. And we have some exhibits that demonstrate how that canopy grows from five years to 10 years. But absolutely, the amount of tree canopy that will be provided on this site will meet or exceed the amount of tree canopy that's on the site as these trees mature. So absolutely. So with that, I'd love to just kind of jump in to a quick presentation. And this is another thing that we heard a lot about tonight that we've thought a lot about. We have been, as I mentioned, looking at this site for 30 years. Our founder helped consult with GEICO as they were thinking about how to design a future for this campus. And we've been watching it ever since. The plans that you see on the left-hand side of the screen here are the approved preliminary plan and the 1998 sector plan vision for the site. What you see on the right in black and white is our plan. While there are differences, and we aren't trying to hide those differences, we believe that we are substantially conforming with the vision of that sector plan, that we are keeping many of the same principles that were so important to that plan front and center in our design work. We are creating the connectivity through the neighborhood and around the site. We are providing the same diversity of housing types. We are providing great parks that we hope will invite our neighbors into the community. And we are delivering an exceptional mixed income life within walking distance neighborhood that we think the whole community will ultimately feel very proud of.

What is in that corner that you have ball field, but on the right side bottom, what is there?

Yes. So in our proposed development plan, on the right-hand side of the screen, we have what looks like two or three white large boxes on Friendship and Western. You could use your cursor. Yes. So these white boxes along Friendship Avenue Friendship Boulevard, these are parcels where the replacement GEICO headquarters was once envisioned, which we are not pursuing any approvals on today. These properties we intend to pursue approvals on after the sector plan process is complete. But those were originally envisioned for 810,000 square feet of office, which we no longer think is appropriate. On that parcel at the corner was where the ball field location was in the old plan. And in our internal visions for what this could be, we still view that as an active recreation zone. We'll just, that'll be part of something we'll submit after a sector plan process.

Thank you.

So we haven't talked about the why behind some of the decisions in the plan, and I want to do that really quickly, but I think they're important because I do think that they're in keeping with the original vision, and I think they're in keeping with what creates a great urban place. When we started looking at this site with fresh eyes and we began to engage with the community, we heard a couple things were most important to folks. We heard that the porosity and connectivity of this site was really important. We heard that the folks who live in Brookdale have for their whole lives been walking through this site, you know, with Geico's permission, going to the metro, going to the grocery store, teaching their kids to drive or riding their bikes, but but that crossing through this site has always been something that has been a true amenity to Brookdale. And we started thinking about how do we create those connections that link this property to the rest of Friendship Heights. And we did that with three primary pedestrian connections, one on Willard in the center of the site. I'll use my cursor. I apologize. One at the main intersection of Friendship Boulevard and Willard Avenue. We call this our green spine. This is a continuous pedestrian plaza that runs all the way through the site and links to Brookdale Park. And then another one here out to Friendship Boulevard. And the county's rec facility is right here. So we thought about bringing pedestrians in and through our site as a sort of primary design element. We also heard that it would be really important to neighbors to be able to connect directly to the Greenway. And so we've been working with DOT to make sure that we can create as many of those connections as possible from the existing neighborhood to the Greenway, which will facilitate pedestrians moving through the site. We also heard that a lot of people in the village of Friendship Heights didn't know that Brookdale Park existed, which seems funny if you look at it on a map. But if you go out there and realize that the Geico building sat in front of it and shielded it from public view, it's not surprising. And so we thought about how do we open Brookdale Park to the broader community. That led us not only to think about those pedestrian connections, but also to create a road network that actually could bring people to the park and make it feel public and not like a private amenity. So those were many of the things that we thought about. And then the last two I'll just throw out quickly. We did think about the housing types and the way the heights would step through the plan. I don't know what the gentleman who testified had pointed to regarding a 60 or 70 foot height for the townhouses. They will be four story townhouses, the 45 to 50 foot range. They will not be that tall. But we've thought about having our higher heights out on Willard Avenue, stepping down to the townhouse use as you move further into the site. And then we've thought a lot about this greenway buffer, how we can create the greenway that runs between the neighborhood, provides that connectivity from Western to Willard, preserve trees where we can, and create those connection points. So I want to just talk very briefly now through a couple of what we think are some of the big attributes of this site that maybe haven't gotten as much airtime today as we think they should. And the first is maybe the most significant, which is we are proposing to increase the amount of affordable housing provided on this site by 40%, from 12.5% in the original plan to 17.5% today. And that includes the provision of three- and four-bedroom family-sized affordable units and the provision of two-thirds of that multifamily affordable housing being provided at the 50% or below AMI levels. We have designed what we believe will be an incredibly enhancing improvement to the pedestrian infrastructure on this site with the promenade envisioned in the sector plan for a bikeway and a 10-foot sidewalk in this 40-foot promenade that will run the entire length of Willard Avenue. And it will tie into a similar pedestrian improvement that will run all the way down Friendship Boulevard, connect to Western, and connect to the Greenway. And to put that in context, you'll have about a mile continuous pedestrian network with two curb cuts crossing it. So a pretty incredible place to ride the bike, go for a walk, and something that we're really excited about. And one of the things that we've been working on recently has been adding exercise equipment to the Greenway. That's something we heard from the community. We heard it again tonight. So that's another feature that will be part of this pedestrian network.

So this is the Greenway that runs the length of the park or the promenade off of Willard Avenue, I'm sorry.

There we go. This image here represents the Willard Avenue promenade, which is 40 feet and connects to the 10-foot-wide Greenway path, the paved path that will run through the Greenway buffer. Okay, thank you.

Does the Greenway connect to anything else? Does it connect to Capitol Crescent, right?

The Greenway does not connect directly to anything else other than the Western Avenue sidewalk, the neighborhood at various connection points throughout the neighborhood, Willard Avenue. And then we are going to be installing a pedestrian flash signal. I think you used to call them hawk signals to make a connection across Willard Avenue to the existing Willard Avenue Park, blanking on its name. No, Little Avenue Park.

It's across.

The park directly across the street at the northwest end of the site. That's going to be Great. We've worked very closely with your staff on the design of the architecture as it meets Willard Avenue and the promenade to ensure a very activating and inviting streetscape with doors, windows, activation zones, pedestrian connections. that link the buildings to the streetscape. One of the challenges along Willard Avenue on the other side of the street is you have a lot of blank garage walls and unanimated building faces. And working closely with your team, we've been able to address and animate those walls. And then we've thought about the architecture carefully along Willard Avenue, where we have four multifamily building expressions, even though we only have three multifamily buildings. So we've created distinct architecture as you move down that street for each building. And then for our larger multifamily building, we've actually broken that facade into two distinct architectures to break its scale down further. One of the things that we heard from members of the community was that while they were really excited about the open spaces and the park spaces, they'd love a place to grab a cup of coffee or have more retail activation on the site. And so we have introduced a 5,000 square foot retail ground floor use in the multifamily building closest to the Willard and Friendship intersection. That, we hope, will be joined by more ground floor street activating retail in a phase two subject to the sector plan in the future. One of the elements I described that drove our vision was creating these direct pedestrian connections from the outside neighborhood into Brookdale Park. One of the places that we rendered here is what we consider our grand stair, which will be a stair linking Willard Avenue directly into the community. And the trees you see in green at the sort of background of this image are two blocks away from Willard Avenue. They are Brookdale Park. So this is a direct connection through the community to Brookdale Park. This is one of many small open spaces throughout the entire site that will be available to the public that in totality help us deliver more than twice the required open space on the property. This image here is another one of those key pedestrian linkages. This is a rendering of the green spine, which is that continuous pedestrian connection that will take you from the intersection of Friendship Boulevard and Willard all the way through the site to the entrance to Brookdale Park. And here is another one of the numerous pocket parks that we've provided throughout the community, supplementing the existing Brookdale Park with new public open spaces. And again, while... The site plan is so large that when you're looking at 30 acres from above, it's hard to see these spaces. We have delivered in this plan double the open space required and really some terrific places that we hope all of our neighbors will enjoy in the years ahead. And finally, that access to Brookdale Park we think will benefit the village of Friendship Heights, will benefit visitors to Friendship Heights, and will benefit the entire community. And so having a new front door to Brookdale Park as part of this project will really transform what has been a hidden resource into one that more people can enjoy. So we're really excited about that. And the ability to not just donate the land for that park to the Parks Department through dedication, but also funds to improve that park. This is tens of millions of dollars of value being contributed to the Parks Department as part of this project. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Aaron, but we are happy to answer as many questions as we can. We have the technical experts here to do it, and we very much appreciate your patience tonight.

Yes, and I'll try to be brief. We submitted letters to the board on Tuesday, one of which detailed kind of high-level things. There were some exhibits attached as far as TreeSave and the Greenway. Hopefully you got a chance to review those. Again, we'll go into as much detail on those things as you want. But there's a couple things we wanted to hit first for as far as we've come, and we've had so many conversations and reached so many compromises on so many issues. It seems that we have three things to talk about, which seems like a lot, but given how big this project is and how many moving parts there are, it's kind of incredible that there's only a couple things that we need to talk to you about tonight, and they all deal with transportation. So earlier it was mentioned about the horizontal alignment, which for Street B, and it's very technical, but we're gonna try to boil it down quickly to give you a sense of what this means, because we do think it's a big safety issue, One thing I did want to be sure to mention to you is that how important safety is in this context. And actually there was, we are installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Willard and North Park, even though it's not warranted. And I was before you a couple weeks ago arguing about that. We are doing that here. We conceded that a long, long time ago because we do think it's important here. There's a lot of moving pieces, and so that was a concession that we made very early on. But there is something safety-wise we did want to bring up as far as horizontal alignment, so I will turn it over to Pat and Katie.

Sure, Pat LaVey for the record with MHG. The first item is the request from the staff to redesign a segment of Street B to achieve 100 foot radius, which is based on a 20 mile per hour design speed. What we're simply asking here is to maintain the current design, which is intended to serve a 15 mile per hour operating speed, given the specific setting here. And if we can just go back a couple slides, I think it would help. to an image. I wanted to just bring this up. And Mr. Quinn walked you through that major pedestrian connection. That one right there is good. The major pedestrian connections we have here from Willard up to Brookdale Park. And if you can go forward a couple slides. I just wanted to point out one more. So the area in question is, there's a little bit of a delay here. is right here. And you actually can't see the street, but this is all occurring right here at this major point of pedestrian connection to Brookdale Park. So it's very important that we try to design for as low speed as possible. I also wanted to point out that the request to design to 15 miles per hour is based on the same published engineering criteria that the 20 mile per hour radius is designed from. And it's not unique either. There are a lot of recent examples of projects just like this that have been designed to 15 mile per hour speeds. And in fact, the board saw a case and approved this morning, the Emory Grove Village project, which had a curve that only meets a 15 mile per hour design speed. So just wanted to point that out. Can we go back to the... just to give you a quick um i think everybody one more i think everybody there we go this is where uh this is located on the site so the street b the street in question is highlighted in red on the right side and then the left side of the screen is sort of a zoomed in view of this location with the 50 foot centerline radius which is designed for a 15 mile per hour speed and as you can see there that the sort of circled area on the left represents this major point of pedestrian connection where the sidewalks coming up from Willard cross over into Brookdale Park. I think everybody probably knows what horizontal alignment is and what a radius looks like, but this is just a very large view of one in the street. Generally, centerline radii generally follow the double yellow lines in the street. Not always if streets aren't symmetrical, but just to give you a sense of what that looks like, this is a much larger street. For a local context, this is just north of the property. So on the left side, running east-west on the page, is Willard Avenue. This is actually where the new traffic signal will be located. And Street A intersects just south on the page here. So this is North Park Avenue that you're seeing here. And that's an existing street. It actually has a steeper gradient than this project. But the center line radius of that roadway is 45 feet. So it's actually less than what we're proposing on the site. And that's a much larger street. I think it's 45 feet from curb to curb. It has parking on both sides. And again, it's a steeper road than this site. This is an example actually in the district, but we think this is a really great sort of contextual example of something similar. This is O Street and 26th in the district. And just like this location, there's a curvature. There's a park directly across the street. And you can see here there's major sidewalk connections through there. In this case, they actually installed stop signs, which actually we proposed at the location as well, but that was not accepted by the staff. But I think this is a very similar example where you can imagine that you want traffic to be operating as slow as possible. So just to give you a zoom-in view here of the project specifics, on the left-hand side is the current design. And again, you can see the curve and street B just south of the word street. On the right hand side is just a quick diagram to show you what that would look like if that were increased to 100 foot radius. So as you can see that the curve gets bigger. Bigger curve, bigger speed, or higher speed. And then in the purple there, you can kind of see the resulting sidewalk. So if we maintain the same buffer from the roadway, the same sidewalk width, you can see where that pulls back into the townhome lot. So not only do we end up with a road that's less safe in our opinion, but we also end up losing a lot based on that. Turn it over to Katie now.

Yep. So Katie Wagner with Grove Slade for the record. So now I'm going to dive in a little bit into why design speed is so important and kind of what happens when we increase roadway speeds. So as you can see here, the driver's peripheral vision increases with a lower speed. The stopping sight distance is reduced when we have lower speeds. And the crash risk and severity of crashes increases. is also significantly reduced, just even that 10 to 15 mile per hour roadway versus the 20 to 25 mile per hour. So design speed is the speed used to determine the roadway features, just as Pat has described, such as curves, visibility, and other design elements. It guides how a roadway is designed, but is not necessarily the posted speed limit. Again, as Pat just said, higher design speeds require larger and wider curves, while the lower speed streets have smaller and tighter curves. The design speed, as Pat has mentioned, of 15 miles per hour really better reflects the actual use and context of Street B than the default higher speed neighborhood street condition. The proposed design speed is the one that matches the street's function and context. Here, the street's role is slow local access in an urban and residential context. AASHTO and Montgomery County's Complete Streets Design Guide emphasizes roadway design and responds to context surrounding land uses and desired target speeds. Street B's design is consistent with those principles by aligning roadway geometry with its neighborhood park-oriented setting. The Street B's design warrants approval as it's consistent with sound engineering principles supported by AASHTO's guidance, advances the objectives of Montgomery County's Complete Street Design Guidelines, and appropriately reflects the function and context of this neighborhood street.

How wide is the street?

The travel lanes are 10.5 feet wide, so the travel way is 21 feet wide.

It's one way, but it's 21 foot wide.

Well, we'll get into that here. So the, some of the things we, on the left hand side, it gives you a listing of some of the measures we've introduced to reduce speed here. And some of this was already in the design of the project, but some of it's been introduced in an effort to sort of meet staff halfway here. So as far as vertical goes, on the left hand side, we have a tabletop treatment at what's labeled as number one, and that's actually not the intersection in question. But that's downhill a bit. And then location number two is also a tabletop condition. So just to give you, I think you're all familiar with it, but out front of this building, there's a tabletop condition where the pavement is flush between this building and the park. That's the same treatment we're going for at this location. So there's a flush connection. Not only does that facilitate pedestrian movements, but also slowing cars down. I think I ran an experiment myself the other day coming here and just driving over that tabletop there.

On purpose?

Yeah. I could only go about 12 miles per hour before it felt pretty uncomfortable. So anyways, also this location is, as Katie mentioned, is a fairly steep gradient. And that's been one of the concerns from the staff. So to mitigate that, we have introduced the idea of treating Street B and this location as one way. And the one way direction would be uphill. traveling uphill, you're expected to go slower versus downhill. So by making it one way uphill, that alleviates some of the concern about perhaps going downhill around this curve. To answer the question about the width, we still do need to maintain fire access through the zone. So we still have a minimum apparatus operating area of 20 feet. and the 21 feet is just consistent with the 10 and a half foot travel lanes that we've been requested from the rest of the community.

So it is 21 feet goes 8% uphill and it's 25 foot wide and we want to make them to go 15 mile per hour. Do you think they're going to listen?