Remarks by Josh Linden
96 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 4
- Play at 4:15:41
“Okay. I just have one more, and I promise I'm done after that. So I think after preliminary recommendations, which is when we first heard about the parking recommendation for public parking as part of a future mixed-use or some sort of development, I think I raised at the time, like had we done a parking, was there data, not just kind of what we're hearing from community, but have we done a parking study? You know, did we understand current utilization? I understand there's like, there's private lots, but there's also the SAC site, which is, as you mentioned, a de facto like parking site for…”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 4:19:30
“Yeah, that would be great. And I understand it may not be possible to do something super robust. But we need something, especially if it's going to make it to the priority public benefit stage of things. And I think related to that, I think we need a little bit of clarity that if it does remain in the public benefit package of things for the FAR boost, is it sufficient to get one of those, right? One $150 spot within one development or does it continue after the first go? And I think that harkens back to like, what is our initial analysis of the need? So we really need to ground it in that.…”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 6:25:57
“The, so it's clear that the site was chosen, the location was moved to facilitate the co-location of the library and housing, right? Whereas you assess that the previous location was infeasible. I guess I have two questions. So my first question is, we see the library presented here, And as you just described, there's no current design for the housing component. There's no partner chosen. We have nothing to look at to see how the two will interact. The housing looks like the only location for it is on the east part of the site, which will then be adjacent to or closest to the Clarksburg town…”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 6:28:39
“Well, so I'm still wondering, though, why wasn't the plan... Why wasn't a holistic plan designed to include the housing together and then brought forward to us, obviously, but then kind of through the process? Why are we waiting for the housing? Is something going on where you can't do the housing and the library at the same time?”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 6:30:11
“Okay. I appreciate kind of the context there. I like we're doing this a little bit backwards to me. I understand that CIP projects are distinct. I don't really understand the reason why This couldn't have been a cohesive design together that could have been moved forward. I'm not saying this was your group's charge. I think this comment is maybe more directed at the choice made from others about how to proceed in this situation. But I don't think this is the right way to develop this concept or this site, considering the whole reason it was moved was to have these done together. And we have…”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 6:41:44
“Yes, I mean, I think that's a good enough reason for us to disapprove, to recommend disapproval of the acquisition if the process wasn't followed, saying nothing about why that happened. But if the process, you know, wasn't followed and it didn't give us and staff and other property owners in the area to weigh in at the time, I mean, that feels like a big, you know, and so now we are where we are, where we're trying to kind of retroactively figure out what to do. To me, that feels like a pretty clear case of not approving the mandatory referral for that particular piece of this.”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 6:46:41
“Was there anything in the council bill approving this project that said it needed to happen first, the library needed to happen first before housing?”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 6:47:11
“Those time frames are imposed by the council, correct? So the CIP is updated every two years and the money is allocated to projects within that time frame, correct? And so it's not as though the money goes away, right? It's just that projects are specified to begin within a certain time frame, right? But that can be extended, or that can be modified. Those are all choices that we can make.”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 6:48:06
“100%. I understand that. I think most of these comments, if not all of them, are directed at a different kind of audience, I guess. Can I just say one thing, Vice Chair?”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 6:48:48
“But I think what we have sometimes seen But sometimes we don't see is at least plans that describe both components at the same time. And, you know, two and a half years ago or two years ago, we saw a mandatory referral for the parking garage in downtown Silver Spring. That was part of the United Therapeutics deal that the county had worked on. Right. they said at the time that affordable housing was going to be kind of in the rear of that parking garage. And we, we asked, you know, that was, we asked, you know, we asked a lot of things about that project. Could you put housing on top? Could…”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 6:55:39
“So, sorry, just to clarify, so if the property that you're describing, it would not revert back to Elm Street ownership? The county retains it?”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 6:55:56
“Okay, the county retains it. Yes, that's correct. Yeah. So, I mean, that's another of a series of questions that we don't know if there is a plan for that parcel, given that the location of the library has moved. There's a lot of unanswered questions as part of this. And I think it is, to be completely frank, I think it's sort of the responsible action at this stage to deny the FCP and try to get answers to some of these questions and try to understand what the plan actually is for housing, what the plan is for that site, where it goes, what happens on it. I understand the community has been…”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 7:01:10
“And I think just to build on that just quickly, if we approve the Forest Conservation Plan, which is clearing based on hypothetical housing in the future, but then the housing doesn't come, let's just say, let's just use that scenario. We have massive amounts of forest clearing, no housing. I mean, we understand that the plan is to bring housing, but the Forest Conservation Plan is anticipating housing. We have nothing to sort of... base that calculation on other than we think that it's going to take this area. But we don't have any designs to base it on, correct?”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 7:04:42
“I'm okay with that too. And I think the two kind of big questions on my mind, of course, are, you know, to Commissioner Hedrick's point, you know, can we get assurances about a timeframe to see some movement on the housing component, whether it's a draft RFP, whether it's other parts of the process and when that will start, assurances there. And the other big question is the site that, may or may not get deeded back, or may or may not go back to Elm Street? Does the county have any plans for that site? And if so, can they share?”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 53:55
“Can I ask one question? Sorry to interrupt. No, that's okay. This kind of gets back to the point before about where do these units fall within code? And I'm curious about the parking requirements. Like, do they effectively fall within townhomes type parking requirements where it's two per unit?”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 54:34
“And how many parking spaces per unit are you proposing?”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 54:59
“Yeah, yeah. So is the two per unit for the Biplex, is that, because it's a per bedroom calculation, was that actually the, minimum required, or was this your proposal based on what you think?”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 1:20:09
“Can I just say one thing to that point? This is an extremely wide right of way where it's over 120 feet to cross. crossing two lanes first space, two lanes second. And I think if you talk to any pedestrian who engages in this kind of roadway, a stop sign does not necessarily make them feel safer trying to cross that distance of right of way. Just to say nothing of the compliance, potential compliance or adherence to stop signs or how drivers would negotiate that kind of intersection when the stop signs are so far apart and the stopping distance is so great. So there's the negotiation that…”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 1:21:41
“Okay. Yep. But the warrant does not take into account crossing distance.”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 1:23:19
“So two other things, just with a broader neighborhood. We've seen development applications just to the north of the site. I believe there's a large development to the north of Crystal Rock Drive with a lot of townhomes we talked about last year. Black Rock. Sorry?”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 1:23:42
“Yeah, Black Rock, yeah. There's other things coming online in the area. You talked about projected volumes, but that's directly related to this particular development. Are you taking into account everything in the pipeline?”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 1:24:31
“I think there's there's other things that you want to get to warrants I'm obviously not an engineer, but I have engaged in transportation planning and transportation projects in a lot of different contexts. Warrants can be really frustrating for actual road users when trying to advocate for things that make them feel safer, and for a whole host of reasons. And one of them is because, as MCDOT just described, historically they've been used really for one purpose, to prioritize operational efficiency and the movement of motor vehicles. that's starting to change. And in fact, although it hasn't…”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 1:41:04
“Keep in mind that in six months, we will have a new MUTCD, which has a different... Maybe it maintains existing, but then it adds an additional layer of evaluation to say, yes, you don't only need to use the warrants, correct? But aside from... When it comes to... The trigger thing for me is a little precarious. I don't really understand the mechanism to kind of force them in the future to do it. But the legal argument, I'm not personally worried about the legality of this being challenged. Throughout the county, there are other cases where different traffic control situations have been…”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 1:50:05
“I think the challenge in my mind of having a reevaluation period before the community is actually full of people and before other areas had that have other developments or full of people, is that the evaluation is likely not going to show anything different than what they're currently showing today. And so after they finish their project, I don't know what legal mechanisms we have at that stage to sort of come back in the future and say, hey, now the condition, I mean, I don't know, maybe I'll look to our lawyer colleagues over there to see if there's any sort of post-project mechanism to…”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 1:51:38
“Yeah, exactly. Fundamentally, I'm not at all suggesting that the analysis you've done is slanted. I do think that in the future, if there is an additional touch point, and we haven't even necessarily agreed on what are the criteria we're using, To evaluate what you're using the objective criteria you're choosing to use the county has their own evaluation of safety that is somewhat distinct of what is needed based, you know, compared to what you're using. We're just back at it in a few years or in a couple years or in six months and nothing has changed and so You know, it feels like kicking…”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026