Mayor and Council - Regular Meeting

Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

OK.

We'll now move to agenda review. Ms. Sarah Taylor Perot.

Madam Mayor and council members, there was one change to the agenda staff report tonight for boards and commissions. We added a new appointment for tonight's agenda on top of their three reappointments. Thank you.

And I think there were two clarifications, one to a consent item and a data update.

Yes, there was a consent item H for the ready agreement that was added. And then there was on another update to chapter 18.

Excellent. Thank you. Mr. Mahala, can you please do the City Manager's report?

Mayor Ashton, members of City Council, ladies and gentlemen, good evening. I usually don't do this, but there's some really important issues on the Consents Agenda tonight, and I just want to make sure I mention those because it shows really great progress on a number of Mayor and Council initiatives. It includes build out of our new Emergency Operations Center, which obviously is about public safety. There is approval of way finding signs, which is which is part of our place making initiative. There is a moderately priced dwelling unit agreement, which leans into more affordable housing for our residents. There's an agreement about more electric vehicle charging stations in the city, which really addresses our climate action plan. And finally, there's some funding agreements to support our committee development block grant and economic. Uh, development partners, so all those are really important items, but they're on consent. So we might not talk about them, but we're making great progress on those areas. So I just wanted to make note of them. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And also, everyone is invited to our big celebration for July 4th, the 250th anniversary of our country. And please join us at Madison Panic Park. I do have one community update. Unfortunately, over the past week or so, a longstanding member of the Rockville community passed away. His name was Selden Higgins. He died at the age of 100 years old. I hope we're all that lucky. But he was an important part of the Rockville community and African-American culture, served in various leadership roles at Jewels of Mount Pleasant Church, as well as a civic association in West End. So I just wanted to acknowledge Mr. Higgins and wish his family well. With that, we are moving on to our next agenda item, which is Boards and Commissions Appointments and Reappointments. We have the Board of Supervisors of Elections, and we have four appointments to make. Who would like to make the motion? Council Member Valeri.

Madam Mayor, you can make the first motion. I move to appoint Juliet Goldman to the Board of Supervisors of Elections to serve an expired term until June, to serve an unexpired term until June 1st, 2028.

Thank you. Do we have a second? Thank you. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Excellent. I think Ms. Goldman may be in the audience. Welcome. Thank you for serving. All right. Do we have another volunteer to help us?

Madam Mayor, who was the second vote on that?

Council Member Jackson.

OK.

Thank you. We have three more to go. Dr. Miles, would you like to help us, please? Or Council Member Fulton? Anyone want to move on any of these nominations? Does anyone need the paper?

Move to the reappointment of David Scholar to serve a four-year term until June 1, 2030.

Thank you. Do we have a second? Council Member Shah seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Excellent. Next, we have Stephen Wiener.

Council Member Valeri. Madam Mayor, I move to reappoint Stephen Weiner to the Board of Supervisors of Elections to serve a four-year term until June 1, 2030. Thank you. Do we have a second?

Council Member Fulton seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other nominations from the council? I will say the BSC is one where the council helps to nominate and appoint. And I can't make motions. Okay. All right. Thank you, Ms. Sarah Taylor-Farrell. Could you please notify the folks who have been appointed, and get them trained and trained up. Thank you, and we appreciate everyone who has volunteered. We're now gonna move on to community forum. All persons, please address the Mayor and Council and speak in a civil and courteous manner and support each other. Please direct your comments to the Mayor and Council. Also be respectful to audience members around you. Each person is allowed three minutes and we ask that you adhere to the three minutes allowed. There'll be a time clock in front of you and you will hear an audible beep at the end of your three minutes. Please state your name and if you live in Rockville for the record. OK. Our first testimony will be provided by Senator Cheryl Kagan. I think I just saw her come in. Welcome.

Hello, friends. For the record, Cheryl Kagan, very proud to be the senator for Gaithersburg and Rockville and a resident of Newmark Commons. I'm going to speak with both hats on if I could. I'll start by thanking the voters on behalf of me and my three delegates, wonderful delegates, Delegate Polakovich Carr, Delegate Spiegel, and Delegate Vogel for renominating us to continue to serve you. And we appreciate the election system that is still ongoing. So the numbers are not final yet, but they're getting close. Speaking of elections, At the Maryland Municipal League Conference, I really want to appreciate that Judy Penny took the time to attend a session that I persuaded MML to convene, which was two hours with three national experts from the Election Assistance Commission, teaching municipal folks about elections. Because our counties tend to be well-staffed, well-funded, with lots of training opportunities. I want to increase the training and education for staff and for lay leaders after some of the messes that we had in Rockville last time. I think we need some new leadership, and I think we need some more training. So October 7 in Annapolis, as of today, there is going to be another session. convened by the Maryland Municipal League for municipal leaders to learn more and get some training. So there was a continuity of operations plan, COOP. And that's what Judy and others learned about. If there is a fire, a bomb threat, a flood, what happens on election day? What happens to the ballots, the staff, and public conversation? So just want to make sure that was all talked about. This is going back a while, but the nonprofit symposium, Mr. City Manager, thank you for your leadership and for all of you. I thought it was a great day, a great half day, and I want to encourage you to continue to do that. As the senator for the nonprofit sector, I always learn a lot, and I'm able to connect with a lot of nonprofits who serve our residents. So I want to continue to do that. I had four nonprofit bills last year, and I'm active at the national level in nonprofits. I have other things, but I know I'm running out of time. I want to mention as a resident, The parking at Trader Joe's is not labeled the way I think it should be. There are people who literally are nervous about parking there if they're not specifically just shopping at Trader Joe's. And it seems to me that we should have the best parking spaces reserved for those customers, but others who are doing business or recreating in town center should also be able to use those. And literally the entire under space is all reserved for Trader Joe's customers, which I hope continues to thrive. Happy to take any questions. Good to see you all. I also wanted to mention the hydrologized funeral and zoning, and I really hope we get that done tonight because it should come to Rockville. I was the Senate floor leader, and it's a great opportunity for Rockville.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Good to see you all.

Welcome, Doug Campbell.

Hello, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I come before you today. My name is Doug Campbell. I am representing American Legion Post 86 in Twinbrook. And we are respectfully requesting a correction to the plaque that is attached to the mural at the Twinbrook Recreation and Community Center. About the third or fourth line down, it describes, an older man holds a red geranium, a flower used to honor and memorialize veterans that is associated with determination. The correct flower is the poppy. It is not the geranium. In the picture itself, Of the actual mural, it is a poppy flower. It is not a geranium. Google defines a poppy as the bright red poppy is universally tied to honoring fallen military service members. This tradition stems from the famous World War I poem, In Flanders Fields, as poppies famously bloomed amidst the battlefields. A geranium, while traditionally carrying meanings of comfort, protection, and true friendship, geraniums are planted as a visual, enduring tribute to loved ones. The difference between the poppy and the geranium is one leaf. A poppy has four leaves, a geranium has five leaves. I respectfully, as my colleagues and my comrades at the American Legion, respectfully request a correction to the plaque to properly identify the flower and the meaning behind that flower. I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Well, welcome Linda Sarkazian.

Good evening. My name is Linda Sarkeesian. I am a member of the American Legion Auxiliary, Wheaton Unit 268, and I am a past president there. Past president for 15 years over the last 49 years as a member. I'm also a past department president, and I am currently the Americanism chairman for the whole state. From 1914 to 1918, World War I caused greater human loss than any previous conflict, with about 8.5 million soldiers dying from battlefield injuries or disease. The Great War, as was then known, also devastated the landscape of Western Europe, where much of the fierce fighting occurred. From those ruined battlefields, the red poppy grew, and thanks to a famous poem, became a powerful symbol of remembrance. Across northern France and Flanders, northern Belgium, the brutal clashes between Allied and Central France Power soldiers tore up fields of forest, tearing up trees and plants and wrecking havoc on the soil beneath. Poppy seeds lie dormant in the ground. The intense barn barement and shelling of the landscape along with the trampling of the soldier boots released lime from the rumble, fertilizing the soil. This massless disruption triggered the seeds to grow in abundance across the graves of fallen soldiers. But in the warm early spring of 1915, bright red flowers began peeking through the battle-scarred land. Pabra reos, known variously as the Flanders poppy, also corn poppy, red poppy, and corn rose. The brilliantly colored flower is actually classified as a weed. which makes sense given its tenderness on nature. Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, a Canadian who served as a brigade surgeon for an Allied artillery unit, spotted a cluster of poppies that spring. Some 87,000 Allied soldiers were killed, wounded, or went missing. Struck by the sight of bright red blooms on broken ground, Macrae wrote the poem in Flanders Field, in which he channeled the voice of the fallen soldiers buried under those hardy poppies. The poppy represents a global symbol of wartime sacrifice, The poppy now serves as a universal emblem of honoring, reflecting the sacrifices made during time of war and fostering remembrance throughout the numerous nations. I do also suggest that we change that to a poppy. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome, Dana Pettinati.

Good evening, how are you? Dana Pettinati and I actually do live in Twinbrook on Ardennes Avenue, three blocks from the Twinbrook Rec Center, but I am the current auxiliary president at Wheaton 268. I'm going to read you the poem in Flanders Field. In Flanders Field where poppies blow between the crosses row on row that mark our place and in the sky the larks still bravely singing fly. Scarce heard amid the guns below, we are the dead short days ago. We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, loved and were loved, and now we lie in Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe. To you from falling hands we throw, the torch be yours to hold it high. If you break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders field. I, too, hope that you will consider changing the verbiage on the plaque to say that it is a poppy and not a geranium. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we have received a number of written comments, so I just wanted to acknowledge those. And those who have also signed up in person, I'd like to welcome Lynn Harris from Interfaith Works.

Good evening, Mayor Ashton, members of the Rockville City Council. My name is Lynn Harris, and I am here representing the Interfaith Works Board of Directors, who, as always, are proud and grateful to be your partner in serving the needs of Rockvillians who are suffering with poverty, struggling to obtain or maintain adequate housing, or struggling with other essential needs. And underpinning much of our work is the knowledge that shelter is a basic human right and housing is a basic human need. And we are deeply grateful to see the work that you have taken on in such a substantive, comprehensive, and methodical way since 2024. to deeply understand and study the housing landscape in Rockville, to understand where the gaps and challenges are, to ensuring that everyone has a safe and affordable place to live. We are very, very, very grateful to see the comprehensive overview of Section 18 that is coming before you again today in particular. the new section prohibiting algorithmic rent price fixing, and also the work that you are doing on the prevention side to ensure that we all know that once an individual or a family is threatened with the loss of a stable home, everything else suffers. Their ability to maintain and actively participate in employment, their ability to to maintain adequate nutrition, their physical health, their emotional well-being, their ability to adequately take part in school. So the work that you're doing now with your new pilot for pre-eviction support is so very important. As IW knows, in our own work to provide some, never enough, we acknowledge. And the money always runs out too soon. But to be able to provide support to families and individuals who are in arrears in their rents before they're in proceedings, because once the eviction proceedings start, everything else starts to decline. And so I just cannot express how grateful we are about the work that you're doing and how you are truly blazing a trail to show every other jurisdiction in the DMV that government can truly take steps to ensure that everybody in our community, regardless of their socioeconomic status, can have the conditions they need to thrive. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Welcome Lauren Puryear.

Hi, good evening, mayor and council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Lauren Puryear, and I am the CEO at Interfaith Works. I wanted to follow up on Ms. Lynn's comments about the pilot program and just acknowledge that we're really grateful for the partnership that we have with the city of Rockville. All of the grant funding that we receive, we're able to deliver essential services to our neighbors here in Rockville. Every day we work with people who are experiencing housing insecurity. And this pilot program is really important because we have a program called IW Connections. And that program helps intervene before eviction takes place. And as Lynn stated, once eviction happens, it's really hard to overcome that cycle and that system. And so this pilot program can really help make a difference. And I wanted to share a story, a brief story about a person that we supported in our women's shelter on Taft Court and how she could have benefited from a pilot program like the one you are considering today. She fled her home after not being able to sustain her rent. And when she came into shelters, she was very clear with her case managers that she wanted her stay to be very brief. When she left, she was awarded a voucher, the HOC voucher, but it took several months for her to get that. She applied for an apartment and she was really excited to start planning for how she was going to decorate and get back on her own feet, only to find out that it was denied. And one of the reasons was because of the intent to evict her from her rental history. And so she was very disappointed and upset about this and her intention of her brief shelter stay turned out to be over 12 months to where she ended up in shelter for over a year trying to just get back on her feet and rehabilitate herself. And so I just want to emphasize the importance of the impact that this pilot program can make on her and several other people. She did eventually find a place to live and was able to overcome all of those barriers. And so we're grateful for that. But I wanted to say thank you for your leadership and your oversight of this policy to improve our neighbors' quality of life. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Madam Mayor? Yes. We skipped 5 through 13 on the original before the right ends.

Yes, perfect. Thank you. It says also written comments. I wasn't sure.

That person's written and speaking. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Welcome, Susan Sutton.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, for allowing me to speak and address the housing situation that you're talking about. My uncle was a realtor in Rockville, and among the most honorable people you could have the pleasure to know. I began working with him at a relatively young age. His message was unequivocal. Treat your tenants and the home they live in as you would want to be treated. And so we always have. I've been a landlord in Rockville for nearly 40 years, and there's not been one day or one decision where I do not follow his lessons. Taking care of the tenants and their house with the same care we would take care of our own, buying more efficient appliances, better windows, environmental and tenant-friendly decisions, and maintaining good communications with them always. Also maintaining a list of good contractors. So it really has been a household. we would want to live in ourselves. My uncle's words are always in my ears, and they are not hard to understand or follow. Due to a house fire, I also had to be a tenant not long ago, a long-term house rental in Gaithersburg. The house had many neglected issues for which the landlord was cited and instructed to repair. but he did not do any of them and there was no oversight of consequences. Not a week went by that I did not think how differently this would have been handled in Rockville and how protected I would have been. I do not think you realize how strong and effective the protections for tenants already are and have been in the city. and I fear that there is a real danger in some of these proposed changes that will have a negative impact on both tenants and landlords. When you are a landlord, you have to choose tenants, and you want to choose tenants who will protect the property you rely on renting and have taken such care of. Over the years, I have decided to rent to applicants who had had a rough go in life, and I chose to be their second chance. I have also chosen to be a first chance for young people just starting out. Sometimes it has worked out, sometimes it has not. Sometimes a tenant's past rental history was not positive because of tough life events, as you've heard so eloquently from others tonight. But we must be honest here, sometimes it has also been because they badly treated the house in basic terms that all tenants agree in the standard Rockville lease. I am concerned that some of these changes seem to demonize landlords and are removing protections for landlords. We are not the enemy, and yet it seems sometimes here that we are. When you overlook and don't protect the good landlords, and there are so many of us, I fear the good landlords.

Ms. Sutton, could you speak in the mic, please? Yes.

I fear the good landlords stop renting. I've heard more than a few say that if these changes take place, they will sell rather than continue renting. And I understand this. My own family has had that conversation. for two reasons quickly. We are very concerned about requiring a two-year lease. We believe that this will hurt tenants, especially those with an imperfect rental history. Some landlords will take a risk on an imperfect candidate for a year, but not for two. I don't know how long three minutes is, so can I give you this?

confirm that we have received your written testimony as well. I can tell you I personally read all of it. I appreciate it. Okay.

I did give it to Sarah Taylor.

Okay, perfect. We'll read that. If that a copy can be made for us if it's different than what was before. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, Alex Boleda.

Good evening, mayor and council. It's a pleasure to see you all again. I'm Alex Bellito, resident of Newmark Commons since 1985. I'm here tonight to tell you I'm amazed at the unexpected generosity of the city's planning staff in this final draft of the ZOR, something we in Newmark and Markwood never imagined given the original intent for plot ZOR ID 17. I'm referring to the new and very creative language that proposes, quoting now, revise RMD 15 zone standards to allow a maximum base height of up to 55 feet for undeveloped property bordering I-270. As we all know, RMD 15 is normally limited to structures with a mere 40 foot height. By increasing it 15 feet, we're going to get a Guinness World Record setting noise and pollution barrier and only on the plot next to us. Of course, I don't really mean this. I sympathize with anyone who moves into a 55-foot tall structure overlooking noisy 270, especially if they have kids, or anyone carrying groceries who has to climb stairs in a two over two that developers seem to love. In all candor, this aspect of the draft seems less like a well-intentioned bid to create more housing than some sort of misguided effort to force tall dwellings onto any old undeveloped land. It's not a policy victory because the draft doesn't specify any requirement for more MPDUs in return for those extra 15 feet, something I know some of you wanted. Let's face it, this plot of land is an undesirable orphan, not connected to transit or shops, something you also said you wanted for new housing. And 55-foot tall buildings are not compatible with our neighborhoods. But I forgot, this draft also strips away the notion of compatibility as a requirement for development. Do yourselves and us a favor, adopt what we originally agreed to and a majority of you wanted. RMD 10 or 15 with 40 foot height limits and block all street access to our neighborhoods except for city emergency and service vehicles. And unlike what this draft proposes, allow no exceptions and no vetoes by any one of three officials. This final draft, in my opinion, is not what you said you wanted. Please don't accept it just because of a rushed deadline for approval that doesn't give anyone time for a serious evaluation or to correct mistakes. Send it back and insist on the specific language you want. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Welcome Susan Knowles.

Before you start the clock, I just wanted to say I saw on Facebook that Councilman Van Graak delivered donuts to the Wooten High poll workers. And I just wanted to make sure that on November 3rd, you remember our small little district that's in the city of Rockville on Grandin Avenue, because after a 14-hour workday, we really could have used those donuts. Okay, but now I want to get serious. First, I'd like to thank you for listening to our concerns about the zoning for the property that abuts Newmark Commons and Markwood. I live in Newmark Commons. I have presented at hearings and community forums before the mayor and council and stood in front of the planning commission. We as a group are not finished. We want to make sure this document works for all residents of Rockville. I'm here to ask you to take your time and don't rush this draft. We have only looked at our major concerns surrounding that parcel ZORID 17 in planning area 12 and have found issues with some of the language. It doesn't mirror what you voted for and asked staff to fix. My concern is traffic into Newmark Commons and Markwood. Monday, April 13th, Mayor and Council said to limit primary access through Don Mills Court. You said that it should be limited to emergency vehicles for fire and rescue and public works vehicles. Yet the staff draft was written that this important decision is left up to three different department heads. The words prohibited unless determined opens it up to interpretation by these three heads and might not end up reflecting what you voted for as a group. This needs to be changed to reflect that no vehicles are permitted except for emergency fire and rescue and public works vehicles as determined by the three department heads. Stronger language will indicate that these are the only vehicles allowed into or out of the neighborhoods of Newmark Commons and Markwood. Please take your time and go over each section carefully. This is just one item that needs correction to reflect your wishes. It's a large document. There may be more. It is a draft and you want to get it right the first time. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Welcome Julia Binder.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. My name is Julia Binder, and I live in Newmark Commons. I'm a member of the Newmark Commons HOA Board, and I want to thank you for your responsiveness to our community's opposition to the proposed rezoning of ZORID 17 from R90 to RMD 25 over these last 10 months. It's been an amazing experience to walk the parcel with you, meet with you, testify in front of you about our concerns regarding the impact of high-density development on our health and safety. Even the zoning team chief said that our petition, which garnered over 700 signatures in three weeks, would make a difference in your and the zoning team's considerations. You encouraged us to keep speaking out. So imagine how discouraged we feel in Newmark Commons in reviewing the final draft of the zoning ordinance. Even with the short amount of time given to study the documents, it's clear there's a complete disconnect between what you requested and what the zoning team delivered with regard to the ZORID 17 zoning designation and traffic management impact. The final draft is not the place to introduce new exceptions and rules to the city code, and yet that is what the zoning team chose to do. Here's what sticks out. There's a new exception on page 142, table 7.1.6-1, footnote 3, which says, A height of 55 feet is permitted for any property abutting I-270, which was undeveloped on effective date of the ordinance, subject to the massing and height transitions requirements. How does this address the mayor's specific question at the June 1st meeting on giving away bonus heights, in this case an additional 15 feet to the 40-foot height cap for the RMD-15 zone, without gaining the desired additional affordable housing? Another notable difference between what Mayor and Council unanimously supported and what appears in the final draft concerns vehicle access from Newmark Commons and Markwood to ZOR ID 17. On April 13, Mayor and Council agreed that access to the parcel via Don Mills Court would be limited to city and emergency vehicles only and that NMC and Markwood would be protected from through traffic. The wording of the final draft on page 182 leaves the decision on vehicular access to the parcel to the director of public works or chief of inspection services or fire marshal. It's been frustrating and exhausting to identify and track the differences between what the community and ultimately you have asked for within the parameters of the city code. And the myriad exceptions and permutations to the code proffered by the zoning team. It feels like a game with continually changing rules that we in Newmark are not equipped to play. The decisions in the final draft, if encoded, do not reflect what you intended with regard to rezoning and traffic management and will have a significant deleterious impact on the health and safety of all the communities surrounding ZORID 17. Please delay adoption to allow more time for review. And thank you, as always.

Thank you very much. Welcome, Pat Reber.

Good evening. You know who I am. I'm Pat Reber. I live in Newmark Commons, have done so since 1985. I'm here to speak about the final staff draft of the zoning ordinance rewrite. I'm here to request that you delay adoption of the staff draft submitted to you on June 15 and that you schedule another public hearing. It is hard to imagine that the general public of Rockville had a chance in just two weeks to get through this complex, long document. In just the few passages our communities are concerned about, we found one error in a linkage reference, so we couldn't understand the details. Is it possible there are other errors that have not surfaced due to lack of public scrutiny? I can tell you that it took four of us in Newmark Commons four days of daily meetings and exchanges via email to analyze four passages, and we have the advantage of all being retired. You have received emails citing specific problems with these passages. My neighbors this evening have spoken about them. We were here in April listening when Mayor and Council specifically named the vehicles that should be allowed access through our established neighborhoods. Fire and rescue, ambulance, police, city service vehicles, Yet the final staff draft does not reflect this, but rather puts the decision about vehicular access in the hands of three department heads. We also question the policy basis for giving away additional height allowance without additional public benefits, such as affordable housing. We agree with the mayor and three council members that this should be considered. We appreciate that mayor and council listened to us. We really appreciate it. We do. And took us seriously. We appreciate your approved changes regarding the original high density proposal. You took the extra step of protecting our neighborhoods of Newmark Commons and Markwood from through traffic. We request that the final wording in the document reflect what you had intended. I wish to also support the request from former council member Mark Kirshava on behalf of the College Garden Civic Association for a delay in adoption and another hearing. Thank you once again for listening to my testimony.

Thank you. Welcome Nancy Winchester.

Hello, my name is Nancy Winchester and I live on Clemson Street in College Gardens. On June 1st, Mayor and Council gave final instructions to city staff on the new proposed zoning ordinance. At this session, several articles of this new zoning ordinance were covered. It was not a late session. Many important topics were covered. These instructions were at a very high level, leaving it to city staff to translate high-level instructions and intentions into legally binding text. In fact, this final zoning text also contains instructions from several mayor and council sessions since the December 2025 initial draft release. All of these instructions were also given at a very high level, requiring staff translation into legal text. On June 15, city staff released the final draft of this proposed zoning ordinance. The text of this document runs 280 pages. It is not an easy read. The two weeks between the June 15 release of the final proposed text and your scheduled adoption is a far too short period of time for the residents of Rockville to fully understand how, one, the new zoning ordinance compares to the old zoning ordinance, Two, how it translates the intentions of the 2021 comprehensive plan into the exacting text of a zoning ordinance. And three, how city staff translated instructions into legal text. A highlights document was prepared by city staff for the December release of draft material. This described some, but not all, changes between the old and new zoning ordinances. It was incomplete then and is far out of date now. For these reasons, I ask you to, one, delay adoption of the new zoning ordinance, two, instruct city staff to provide better comparison materials, and three, schedule a formal public hearing later this year. A zoning ordinance is one of the most important laws that a municipality like Rockville relies on. Its articles have a great impact on our quality of life. A delay in adoption and a formal public hearing and better comparison materials from city staff, will give Rockville residents a fair chance to provide effective input. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome Caleb Browning.

Hi. My name is Caleb Browning. I live in College Gardens. I'm the vice president of the College Gardens Civic Association, and I'm here to speak on the current zoning change process. I request that the mayor and council delay adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance to allow adequate time for stakeholders to review and understand how these changes will affect them, their neighborhoods, and Rockville. The final 280-page proposed zoning ordinance document was released on June 15. Two weeks is too short of a time for stakeholders to review and understand the changes. and how they will be affected. I also request the mayor and council instruct city staff to create documents highlighting the changes from existing zoning. Without adequate comparisons, we as stakeholders are left playing a time-consuming game of spot the difference for hundreds of pages between draft and existing zoning. The lack of time to review this 280-page document and the high time burden created by inadequate documentation hinder stakeholders from being fully informed on changes that directly affect them, their neighborhoods, and Rockville. I want to commend the Mayor and Council for proposed changes to improving housing access, but the current process risks sidestepping having fully informed citizens for changes that directly affect them. which is paramount to a healthy, functioning democracy. So to recap, one, I request, one, the mayor and council delay the adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance to allow adequate time for stakeholders to review and understand how these changes will affect them, their neighborhoods, and Rockville. And two, the mayor and council instruct city staff to create documents highlighting the changes from the existing zoning to help stakeholders be fully informed on these changes. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome, Christine Gabriel.

CHRISTINE GABRIEL. Hi. My name is Christine Gabriel. I live on Auburn Avenue in College Gardens. The College Gardens Civic Association discussed a new zoning ordinance at two general meetings. The first meeting was held on March 26 of 26. Here are some of its resolutions. One, the purpose statement for single unit residential lots was only a description. We ask that the following text be added to the statement so that it would actually state a purpose. Quote, the purposes of these zones include, one, provide appropriately located areas for residential development that are consistent with the plan and public health and safety. and two, stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of existing residential neighborhoods. This was not done. Having re-inspected the 2021 plan, we are not sure that the new zoning ordinance is entirely consistent with the plan in a few important respects. Resolution two, the CGCA produced a uses table comparing allowed residential uses from the old zoning ordinance and the new. This was a difficult task. The CGCA asked the mayor and council instruct staff One, to complete and correct the table started by CGCA. Two, indicate what changes were made due to state law and which by the mayor and council. And three, to distribute it to all neighborhood associations. This was not done. Why not? Since there are a few areas where we are now suspect that the new ordinance is not consistent with the plan, the table should include a comparison to plan intentions for residential zones. Resolution three, We found that in 2009 zoning ordinance, the MXE and MXNC zones did not allow any access at all to residential streets. For MXE, for College Gardens, 20 acres in West Good Park, this restriction was maintained in the December 2025 draft. The CGCA asked that this restriction be maintained, but it was overturned in the June 15 text. Why? For MXNC zones, for College Gardens, the 10 acres and College Plaza, we ask that the restriction be put back in. We have got a partial improvement. For both MXC and MXNC zones, we now see, quote, vehicular access to a secondary residential street is prohibited unless determined by the director of public works, chief of inspection services, or fire marshal to be necessary, end quote. This is a regression for both MXC and MXNC zones for the 2009 ordinance. Why should any of these three city staff members have power to allow this access for any reason behind the scenes and without input for the neighborhood? and without any findings required in the zoning ordinance and without any kind of distinction between kinds of access. The entire approval process is going too fast. For this reason, we pass another two resolutions. One, delay the approval process. Two, instruct city staff to provide better evaluation materials. You should also respect the residents of the city by holding a public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome, Mark Priscilla.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of council. My name is Mark Pershala. I live on Fordham Street in College Gardens. I am the president of the College Gardens Civic Association, the CGCA. I know that the mayor and council have spent a long time on the new zoning ordinance. I know that you and city staff have worked very hard, but a hard lengthy effort for the elected and city staff is still a rush job for the neighborhoods. The final to be adopted text was not released until two weeks ago. It is big. Draft materials were released in December 2025. They included a highlights document to describe differences between the current and the new version. As far as it went, it was well done, but it was incomplete. The highlights document is now also out of date by a lot. Thus, the changes in the new ordinance have not been completely communicated. It also appears that city staff have been making changes to the new ordinance without publicly stated instruction from the elected. For example, in the draft released in December for MXC zones, vehicular access to residential streets was not allowed. The CGCA asked that this prohibition be maintained, but it was changed without public instruction or notice. I had to read it. Sixth, mayor and council gave high-level instructions that city staff then wrote into legal text. We don't always agree that the legal text follows the instructions. Seven, the new zoning ordinance may not totally conform to the 2021 plan. Eight, the pre-application meeting is removed. In one large project, Twinbrook Quarter, the applicant used a pre-app meetings to great effect and received information for better design and the support of the community. If it's big enough to come before the elected, it should go to nearby neighborhoods first. The new ordinance gives much power to city staff. The involvement of residents is much reduced. A new state law states that a complete application is subject to the zoning in place at the time it is submitted. There are no take backs. We hear that the zoning document is a living document. The errors can be fixed. But it takes a long time to revise a zoning ordinance. If a developer marches into City Hall tomorrow with a complete application, they are vested in that version of the ordinance, and a neighborhood is impacted. For these reasons, please, one, delay adoption of the zoning ordinance, two, instruct city staff to provide better assessment materials, and three, hold a public hearing. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Welcome, Pete Fosselman.

Good evening mayor and council before I get started, I just want to commend you for recommending the passing of Mr. Higgins. I know he played an enormous role in the city for many, many years, including where I live on the West End Civic Association. He was the vice president of Weka for many years. So I appreciate that. I'm Peter Fosselman. I'm chair of your historic district commission. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I'm going to briefly highlight on some improvements to the historic district. First, administrative certificates of approval. We propose a zoning text amendment to expand the types of routine, low impact, Work staff may approve without a full HTC hearing, including systems as an air conditioning and heating utility equipment house numbers, exterior lighting and minor landscaping. These straightforward cases can be handled administratively to shorten review times, reduce unnecessary hearings and improve the resident experience while keeping the commission focused on substantive changes. also making the lives easier for the residents of Rockville who wish to get through this process in a short period of time. Next, second, is demolition by neglect. This has become a serious issue and a concern of historic district commission. HCC is seeing more cases involving deterioration from the lack of maintenance, and the concern is that Rockville is losing important landmarks. We recommend a zoning text amendment that explicitly prohibits demolition by neglect. This occurs when a historic resource deteriorates because of intentional or negligent lack of maintenance. The amendment would authorize the city to levy fines when demolition by neglect is found, giving Rockville a meaningful tool to protect designated properties. And last, finally, updates of the Valuation of Significance Process, or EOS. First, we propose making EOS determinations valid for five years to reduce the repetitive valuations and give property owners greater predictability. An EOS would be required only when a demolition permit is filed for a structure listed in the city's historic buildings. Catalog or identified by staff, as potentially historic. This keeps evaluations targeted, efficient, and meaningful. Together, these updates modernize our processes, improve clarity, and strengthen the city's ability to protect historic resources while making the system more efficient for residents. I thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Welcome, Peter Krug.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Peter Krug, and I'm a Rockville resident for four years. Before you today, because we must codify no road through Newmark Commons from Zora ID 17, except for emergency vehicles and municipal equipment. I'm a cyclist. I have a 18 mile round trip commute every day to work as much as I can. And I wasn't going to speak today because I thought I'd be redundant until an event happened to me right before I got home today. I was cycling on Monroe Drive and a car came flying out of the Parkside Apartments, didn't see me. I don't trust cars, so I'm always stopping. And the car went about four feet in front of me, never saw me. I could see maybe they were wearing a vest like one of the delivery people. I don't know for sure. I think they were looking down maybe at a phone. I don't really know. But I'm used to this. I don't trust cars. But if Don Mills Court is opened to Wooten Parkway, the ensuing thoroughfare of cars trying to avoid traffic on 270 coming down Tower Oaks Boulevard through is going to really increase the number of these types of events. People in a hurry, trying to get where they're going. And with all of the young cyclists commuting to and from Julius West, coming through Newmark and the surrounding areas, this thoroughfare creates a dangerous situation for our children. Unfortunately, two young cyclists died on Old Georgetown Road before anything was done to create a safe lane for cyclists to get to the Northwood School that was recently built. Please don't let a tragedy be the result of giving what amounts to a convenience to a property developer. Please codify permanently no roads through Newmark via Don Mills Court except for emergency vehicles. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Welcome, Peter Krug. Oh, sorry. Anna Astrid Molina.

Hello, if I just can say something before I start. As a Venezuelan American, I just want to thank the U.S. and the international community for the relief efforts that are helping right now the country. And I just want to give you some links for relief in case you get asked for the, it's going to be needed for the future.

Okay.

My name is Anastrid Molina, and I live in Markwood for three years. I thank you for listening to our concerns regarding safety noise and historic burial site. We are grateful for your decision to limit the access through Dunmore Court to only emergency and pedestrian traffic only, and to totally reject that RMD 25 proposal for SOAR ID 17. However, the brief two-weeks window provided to review the final versions of the draft for the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive map amended are simply inadequate. This is a dense, legally complex document, and two weeks is not enough time for residents to fully comprehend how these language changes will impact our communities long term. We respectfully request an extension of time for adoption beyond tonight, as well as an addition of at least one further public hearing for this critical issue. Our preliminary review has already revealed at least one significant technical error within the draft. Granting additional time for study will allow the community and staff to collaboratively address these shortcomings and ensure a more accurate and equitable final document. You have consistently encouraged us to come forward and share how these decisions burden or benefit our neighborhoods. We, the neighbors of Markwood and Newmark Commons, have made clear a clear case that allowing a 55-foot height exception under RMD 15 will create a massive burden, especially noise, and also failing to honor our sacred history of this land. Furthermore, the draft remains unclear regarding the specific massing and hand transitions requirement for this exception, as well as what type of vehicles will ultimately be allowed through Don Mills Court. Safety is a deeply personal issue for us. My home and my neighbors next door have been both being burglarized, so we need absolute certainty of who's going to be accessing Potomac Valley Road. As a reminder, back in December 2025, this body instructed staff to find solutions for lower density for SOAR ID 17, explicitly RMD infill. It took five months until May 2026 for staff to inform us that RMD infill was not legally possible for that loss. As noted then, the descriptions of the zoning ordinance and the city's website were misleading, diverting our community's time and energy in the wrong directions for months. Now we're experiencing the same frustration. We do not fully understand the long-term implication of several key sections of this ordinance. We're asking for formal explanation so we can make truly informed decisions and comment before the final vote. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Thank you. All right, so I just wanted to acknowledge the devastating earthquake, and there's a lot of help needed in our community. We've heard some from our nonprofits. We've heard there's a lot of hurt going around the world. So I just wanted to say thank you, Rockville, for coming together tonight, and I'm so thankful to be in a place where we can have a free democracy in the city. Mr. Peter Fosselman, you spoke as the HDC. As my understanding, you want to speak as a resident. Okay, all right.

You thought you got rid of me. Thank you again for allowing me to speak this evening. For the record, I'm Peter Fosselman. I reside at 560 Anderson Avenue here in the city of Rockville. I'm here to talk about safety concerns Manakee Street and Anderson Avenue, which is a four-way stop, and the two-block stretch of Manakee from Montgomery Avenue, Route 28, to Anderson and Anderson to Bow. These two blocks see constant stops on running and speeding, and also they are the only part of Manakee in the West End that did not receive any of last year's road improvements. There were many traffic calming upgrades that were implemented along Manakee, and I commend the city for doing this because it's made a huge difference to the speeding. Drivers routinely roll through and ignore the Anderson stop signs as they go straight downhill on this run, which encourages speeding. This corridor carries heavy Montgomery College traffic and increasingly serves as a cut-through for large, very large construction vehicles, which I do not believe that Manakee was designed for that kind of weight or those trucks. I believe that Nelson is a secondary road, which has a better payload in terms of accommodating large trucks. not through Manakee, it's not designed for that. This puts pedestrians, cyclists, and residents in danger. I'm requesting targeted enforcement, improved stop sign visibility, and a traffic coming review of this corridor. Addressing these two blocks has significantly improved safety for the West End and everyone traveling to and from the college. And as a side note, I want to commend Chief West and the entire police department in the city. They've been extremely responsive. We've had several incidents at that intersection, including a T-bone incident, as well as a pedestrian was hit. And so I appreciate all the efforts the police department makes. So thank you.

Thank you. I also note that there was previously not a stop sign there a couple years ago, so it looks like there still needs to be continued improvement.

We're getting there. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Welcome.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council. Missed two of them. But I'm David Levy, live on Canterbury Way here in Rockville. I know many of you and some of you may remember me. I worked here for 16 years. leaving about four years, started about the same time as Craig Cimino and Stacy Webster. So there was kind of a cohort. It's heartening to see topics like the housing needs assessment being done now. I was part of the first one when it was in the CPDS before the housing department was created. So very happy to see you following up on that. I left over four years ago for a different job for a local government in Virginia. That job has given me some knowledge that informs my comments this evening. My topic is how Rockville treats those who receive retirement benefits. Rockville has a pension system. It's complicated, and I'm sure that Stacey Collette and Daisy Harley can describe it all better than I can. That said, there's one portion that's simple, whether Rockville is committed to those who work for you in the residence for many years. Here's a question. How would you feel if the U.S. Congress decided that it's not important to keep Social Security payments somewhat whole with the increases of cost of living? If I understand the politics of many of you, I think you'd be outraged. The city of Rockville, through its budget, makes that decision essentially every year. Rockville chooses to let the purchasing power of people who work for you for 20 and 30 years decline every year. As you might imagine, this testimony affects me directly. But I hope you believe me when I tell you that it's not really about me. My wife and I are fine. I'm actually here for those who, for decades, collected your trash, mowed the grass in the playing fields for your kids, inspected houses when developers built them to ensure they'd be safe, fixed water main breaks at 2 a.m. to ensure we have clean water, clean running water, removed beehives. Drove snow plows during Snowmageddon while everyone else stayed at home to be safe. While some of these people, like me, live in Rockville, many others don't live here, in part because it's expensive. Those are the people that I'm thinking about. Nevertheless, they serve you. I'm speaking for all of us when I say that Rockville really should do better on its COLA. Here are some facts. In the last 10 years, if I understand it correctly, Rockville has done six years of 0% and four years of 1%. Okay, that's what Rockville's done. I'm going to hand out something to the clerk to hand out to you. Virginia does a lot better, but essentially Rockville, someone who retired 10 years ago, has 700, if it was $1,000, their purchasing power is 740 now. Thank you very much. I will hand it out and take a look.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Thank you, everyone, for your testimony. I will note that just so folks know what's coming up on agenda, because I know people are watching, we have a housing needs assessment special presentation, followed by a consent agenda. And then we'll be moving on to our action items, which will move first with the Zoning 1 and 3 right, and then the landlord-tenant code. Mayor Mrakas, We now move on to our housing needs assessment special presentation like to welcome Jane lions radar housing programs manager housing and Community development and we also have with us Laura Ryan consultant from HR and a welcome.

Hi, good evening and thank you for having us here this evening to present on the housing needs assessment. So completing a housing needs assessment was one of the actions identified in the city's housing strategies work plan. to help inform the direction of several other of the action items that are a part of the work plan, as well as the general ongoing work of the Housing and Community Development Department. And so for this, we were very glad to work with the consultant team from HRNA. And that team was led by Laura Ryan, who is here with us tonight. And with that, I will hand things back over to her.

Thank you. And thank you, Mayor and Council, for having us. sorry thank you for having me here to talk about our work brief agenda start with a quick introduction overview of our scope I will get into some key findings and some of the data that backs up those findings and then we'll go over some of the recommendations it's a brief overview of HR&A advisors we're a consulting firm that focuses on economic development, real estate advisory, affordable housing, public policy, and our affordable housing practice in particular focuses on analyzing housing markets and developing strategies for cities, counties, and states across the country. Our project scope, we were engaged by the city of Rockville to conduct a housing needs assessment to help continue and support the great work that the city is doing on affordable housing already. Our scope included stakeholder outreach and events, housing needs assessment and market scan, land use analysis, financial analysis, and recommendations informed by our analysis, stakeholder input, and the existing work that Rockville is already doing, including from the comprehensive plan.

Would it be possible to move the mic a little bit closer to you?

Yes, thank you. So key findings, we have them broken up into market drivers and impacts. Rockville continues to add high wage residents, sustaining strong demand for homeownership, but economic challenges across the region have led to a softening rental market. 61% growth in households earning 150,000 or more since 2014. Homeownership has been strong, pushing the market higher. 35% of home sales in 2024 were 750 or higher. And while Rockville has continued to build, there's been a slowdown in some of the units that have been permitted, but not yet constructed in the city. So some of these impacts, Rockville has had elevated cost burden in recent years. That's currently at 52%. And regionally, that is the high end of some adjacent municipalities and counties. Just for regional context, Gaithersburg has a cost burden rate of 49%. North Bethesda, 43%. Montgomery County overall, just above 51%. And Fairfax County, just under 46%. The shortage of affordable rental units has increased for lower-income household groups. Currently, the shortage of affordable rentals for households earning $50,000 or less is 31 to 100, so 31 homes available for 100 households at that income level. And further emphasizing the challenge for Home ownership, the current gap between the median renter household and typical home value in Rockville is $220,000 between what they can afford and what the typical home price is. Some context on our work we partnered with community engagement from brick and story to conduct our survey which we got 340 responses. Or they participated in 3 pop ups across the city to speak with the community about our work and get survey responses we also held round tables to get feedback from stakeholders. and an open house to communicate some of our early findings. Top concerns from residents included high home prices, both for rent and high costs for homeowners as well. Residents delaying expenses for housing costs and a large portion of residents looking to stay in Rockville long term. To get into some of the data that backs up some of our findings, both local and macro economic conditions have slow development with only 38% of units of all types that received site plan approval since 2019, either under construction or completed. And as mentioned in the key findings, rental housing shortage, particularly for low-income households, as you can see, the number of available homes per 100 households at that income level for incomes less than $50,000 were low in 2019 and have dipped further, and that shortage is moving up the income spectrum and can be seen at $75,000 household income more severely than it had been previously. Affordable housing stock, the city's MPDU program has contributed greatly in the last few decades to affordable housing. It's contributed 76% of active deed restricted units built since 1990. And it should just be noted that it relies on market rate multifamily housing, which in some cases impacted by macroeconomic conditions, and that supporting other avenues of creating deed-restricted affordable housing can continue to build on the city's great work in building more units in Rockville. Rising home prices. As mentioned in the impacts, homes for sale have been moving higher on the home price. And home prices, there's been a 66% drop in home sales at 500,000 or less between 2019 and 2024, and significant jumps in the number of home sales over $1 million. This has made it even more challenging for renter households in particular to be able to move into homeownership. As mentioned in the key takeaways, $220,000 gap between the median home value and what the median renter can afford. Driven by home value increases as well as interest rate increases in recent years, this chart shows typical home value as well as the max affordable price that the median renter can afford and the max affordable home price all households can afford. The dips towards the end after 2021 are impacts due to interest rates. but that's significantly increased the gap, particularly for renter households. And renter cost burden, as mentioned, renter cost burden in Rockville is high, but there are also specific cohorts for which this is even worse. Cohorts of single parent households, senior households, Hispanic, Latino households, households with children, black households all have cost burden rates above 55%, which is elevated from the total cost burden rate of 52%. And all of that data contributes to the work that our recommendations for how to further the work that Rockville is already doing around building affordable housing and keeping housing affordable for residents. We projected the number of households in Rockville that would need housing going forward and what the city would need to permit to meet that demand. and it's projected that the city is to increase households between 3,000 and 4,700 by 2035. This would require permitting an average of 330 to 510 units per year, which is relatively in line with the COG targets and the state targets on an annual basis. COG targets are 8,600 over 20 years, and state are around 2,300 over five years. Notable in our projections, we use census data to look at where those AMI of those future households will be. And this chart in particular shows where owner and renter households will be by AMI. And over 40% of renters and just under 20% of owners are projected to earn under 60% of AMI, which a lot of the great work that the city is doing contributes to creating homes for those households. It's not at a level that traditionally served by market rate development. And this slide just shows a few examples of recent multifamily projects in the city and for sale projects in the city and where on the income spectrum those projects are for sale. In particular, much above 100% AMI and rental apartments hovering around 100% AMI. So not hitting some of those lower income households. So that brings us to the recommendations. Just to orient to the framework that we use to inform recommendations, as mentioned at the beginning, this work builds on a lot of the great work that the city is already doing. We reviewed the comprehensive plan goals, the data collected through our housing needs assessment and market Analysis and stakeholder engagement to guide what tools we elevated for recommendations and In terms of the overall market there are challenges that these tools speak to specifically land availability Rockville is a built-out suburb with few greenfield sites and there are sites available that might be more challenging and more costly to develop on. High interest rates have increased costs both for home buyers and developers. And MPDU design, it's contributed significantly to the affordable housing stock in Rockville, but some of our tools also speak to other methods of providing affordable housing and also speak to the work that the city will be doing later this year and evaluation of the program streamlining and increasing transparency. So just an overview tool one stakeholder alignment and development partnerships. MPD you program enhancement light tech project support and subsidy public land disposition policy and housing opportunity fund securing committee funding and structuring. We've tied these back to the housing goals and in greater detail have referenced which actions in particular these tie to that have already been identified that they elevate to tie to some of these recommendations. So land use recommended tools, MPDU program enhancement. This will be looked at, already being looked at later this year. But we engaged some developers and spoke to how the program is used. And I know that there's already some components that are being looked at. Improving the, streamlining the for sale MPDU selection, application document review process. increasing transparency of target AMIs, particularly on the for sale side, and making sure that the in loo fee aligns with the goals of the city, which may be to focus on inclusionary, but making sure that it's outlined in a way that is supporting how the city wants that in loo fee used. And also just engaging the development community for input on the current program. If there are ways in which it causes challenges that they can communicate through a more formal process. Public land disposition, lettering recommendation to leverage public land for affordable housing, completing an inventory of city-owned and city-controlled parcels, adopting a disposition for affordability policy, developing a 99-year ground lease framework, and coordinating with the county as well on opportunities for affordable housing on county-owned sites. subsidy tools housing opportunity fund that's already been established our recommendation is around taking the next step in formalizing the governance of the housing opportunity fund establishing set asides and identifying staff capacity to operate and run it and securing dedicated revenue sources for that so that it's ongoing funded on an ongoing basis and a stable source of funding for developers. Second subsidy recommendation is LIHTC project support. So in addition to MPDU units supporting LIHTC development by creating a gap loan pool specific for LIHTC projects, aligning local funding with LIHTC cycles, and the state application cycle and extending LIHTC tax abatements to projects at 60% AMI or lower, targeting some of those homes that are more greatly in need and more greatly cost burdened, and potentially waiving impact fees or reducing parking ratios to the extent that it makes sense for those specific projects. And then the last category of tool is capacity building and partnerships. Given regional challenges, this recommendation emphasizes working with both the development community and the county to identify opportunities to bring investments to the city, regular roundtables to better understand barriers to development, and formalizing city-county coordination to direct county investments into Rockville and better leverage local dollars and dollars from multiple sources. With that, I'm going to pass it back to Jane to discuss next steps.

Great. Thank you very much, Laura. And thank you to the mayor and council for the questions that were asked today via email. We will get back to you with those as soon as we can. And in terms of next steps, I'm pleased to say that we're already incorporating the findings from the Housing Needs Assessment into the department's work. Tonight, you will review both the Landlord-Tenant Code and Zoning Ordinance rewrite, and those will help to address some of the challenges that were identified in the assessment. A major way that the assessment will be used is to inform the deployment of the Housing Opportunity Fund to help finance the production and preservation of affordable housing. In addition, HRNA completed an analysis specifically relating to the MPDU program for us to consider when rewriting Chapter 13.5. And finally, we will be integrating the recommendations into the existing initiatives and project prioritization in our department. Mentioned earlier, based on the work sessions from fall 2024, the department put together a housing strategies work plan This takes elements from the comprehensive plan and other plans to create a really comprehensive strategy for housing, looking at supply, subsidy, and stability. And that work plan has almost 40 strategies, and we're already making really strong progress to implement those strategies. So ongoing progress of that work plan is tracked in Results Rockville, and we're looking forward to strengthening it with the findings from the Housing Needs Assessment. So with that, thank you very much.

Thank you very much for this presentation. It's greatly appreciated. I would just note there's a lot of detail that's included in the draft. I think there's two data points that are being updated. One is that the vacancy rate has gone, you know, normally you look for five, we're at seven, over seven percent at this point. And also that some of the rent increases that were spiking after COVID, we're seeing some flattening and trending down in Rockville. And I know that we're also seeing that in Montgomery County nationally. So I think CoStar data is showing some positive results there that there's so much more to be done. I do want to just acknowledge the great work that you're doing. This mayor and council has had multiple work sessions on housing. This is one of our core priorities. And so thank you for identifying areas of we're actually building more housing and seeing the results of that and what are some areas for improvement. I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues that we appreciate all the work that you put into this. And as a matter of fact, tonight we are going to be approving some agreements for additional multi model price dwelling units. So in two different communities and there's more to come. So if you don't know about that program, please sign up and learn more. That's on our website. And thank you for also mentioning the council of government's targets as well as the state targets. We are on track with the COG targets. As you note, COG also wants a specific focus on new affordable housing. And thank you for mentioning the need for units for people making $100,000 and less. So I just want to say I appreciate all the work. Thank you. I will just note this is a special presentation versus a work session. There are some recommendations that I think my colleagues and I would like to discuss. We will have the NPVU discussion in December. We have landlord-tenant, but there's also some recommendations related to the Housing Opportunities Fund that we should probably have some policy discussions about. Thank you. If that could be scheduled in the future, that would be appreciated. Okay. We're now moving on to our consent agenda. We have several items on this list, and I will just say it is the end of the fiscal year in Rockville in June, so you will see a lot on here as we try to get all the contracts awarded and wound down for the fiscal year. So consent agenda item 9A is awarding and authorizing the city manager to execute a rider contract with Human Circuit Holdings, and this is to support the Emergency Operations Center at Taft Court. 9 B is award and authorize the city manager to execute a contract responsive to 1126. And this is to support a city facility at the villages of tower Oaks project to magstone LLC. We have 9 C approval of applicant requested road code waivers. To reduce their cried right away with and pavement with for the secondary residential units, residential, residential proposed as part of the plan, residential development located at 2277 research Boulevard. That's a new community that's being developed that will convert some old office space to housing as well. Some additional retail space. 9D is the approval of applicant requested road code waivers to the requirements of Chapter 21. This one is for 1455 Research Boulevard. Again, some new interest in activity happening in Rockville there. 9 is award and authorize the city manager executed contract responsive to RP, which is the city's way finding sign package fabrication and installation details. We've had as a body discussions about improving way finding around the city. This is continuing the work of town centers way finding initiative. 9f approval and authorization of city manager to execute the molly price dwelling unit home ownership program agreement and approval and authorization of the city manager to execute the declaration restrictive covenants for phase three flats at north side condominium units between the mayor and council of rockville and pulte home these are again new units that are being created we're getting market rate and molly price dwelling units 9g authorization and the city manager to execute right-of-way agreement with montgomery county maryland for the construction of public electric vehicle charging stations on city-owned property and public rights-of-way we're going to be working with them to have 28 new EV charges installed throughout the city. That's in support of our Climate Action Goal. We also have approval of a 51-year FY26 Community Development Block Grant, subgrantee contract agreements, and authorization for the city manager to sign those agreements. These are supporting several nonprofits as well as programs to help seniors be able to make changes to their homes so that they can continue to have high-quality living. Is approval and authorization of the city manager to execute the second amendment to the ready funding agreement for fiscal years?

2025 to 27 and J is the approval of minutes Councilman Valeri Madam Mayor, I'd like to pull item C and D

Okay. Those are related to the two new housing projects and some office space at Research Boulevard, 2277 and 1455. Correct. Thank you. I'm sorry. I just wanted to also note, I think you've made the changes while we were here, but the ready agreement has been adjusted to address the shop local change.

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Council Member Valeri.

Yep. Thank you. So the two items that I asked to be pulled, it is due to a concern. They're both about road code waivers. And it's due to a concern that I have regarding pavement width for the new secondary residential streets proposed. And so I do have concerns given our Vision Zero goals. you know, the tension between that and supporting new development and new housing in the city. But I guess my question is to Mr. City Manager on the two road code waivers, was the Transportation Mobility Commission, was there input or thoughts sought on the pavement size reductions?

So this is the first I'm hearing the question right now. So I don't know the answer to that question.

Okay. That would be, I think that that should occur. I'm presuming that this is not going in contrary to our vision zero plan. That's a fact. That would not be okay. But I don't ever want to assume because we all know what that leads to. I appreciate that and perhaps we can have a further discussion down the road on, no pun intended, on how these kind of road code waivers, how we should be looking at them through the lens of our Vision Zero goals. And any input and any materials related to it would be helpful.

Thank you. I'll also note there is a dedicated work session coming up on road code waivers that we can actually, in fact, have that discussion. I believe it's in July.

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. We'll get your wish.

Excellent.

I also see a hand raised by Farmaz Mokhtari.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Farmaz Mokhtari. In response to the question, I want to say the payment with reduction that council member raised is only for provisional parking and some in some section of the road. We don't think parking on both sides of the road is practical because of the weather is crosswalk location or sight distance and all that. So the the lanes widths and all that are meeting the requirement and satisfying the vision zeros and everything else. So the payment reduction is only where the parking is deemed not practical. but everything else on the standard of the road has to be met. I hope that helps, Council Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Larry. I just want to say thank you. I appreciate Mr. Mokhtari for making that clear, and I look forward to this new development. So thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone else have any other questions? Okay, do we have a motion to approve these items? Council Member Shaw. madam mayor i move to approve consent agenda items a b c d e f g h i n j it's almost a song councilmember jackson second thank you all those in favor please raise your hand and say aye excellent thank you colleagues i appreciate all of your comments and i know several of us sent questions in advance that we have answered and thank you to staff for preparing all of these as we close out the fiscal year We'll now move on to agenda item 11A. This is the adoption, potential adoption of ordinance to approve zoning text amendments, application TXT-2026-00271 for the zoning ordinance rewrite, Mayor and Council of Rockville applicants. While the team is getting set up, I'd like to introduce you to Holly Simmons, Deputy Zoning Manager from Community Planning and Development Services, as well as Jim Waslick, who's the Chief of Zoning. We also have panelists, Evan Johnson, Director of CPDS, John Foreman, Development Services Manager, Katie Gerbas, Chief of Long Range Planning, and Nicholas Jumai, Senior Assistant City Attorney. Welcome.

Thank you so much. Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the Council. For the record, I'm Holly Simmons, Deputy Zoning Manager in Community Planning and Development Services. And we are here this evening, as noted, to discuss with you all the potential adoption of the zoning text amendment for the ZOR and the zoning map amendment for the comprehensive map amendment. We do have just a bit of a presentation. We have kept it short and sweet, though. Following up on our June 1st meeting, which was the last work session, we did want to do a brief report out on the things that were included in the final staff draft of the zoning ordinance, which was published on June 15th, which relates specifically to Mayor and councils direction and then we'll zoom out to do a bit of a project overview Thank you questions. And finally after questions, we would move to suggested motions if it is the will of the body Following up on the June 1st meeting We did make a number of changes in the final staff draft. So we increased the maximum base height in the RMD 15 from 40 feet to 55 feet, specifically for the Planning Area 12 Tower Oaks property. Increased the maximum base height in the MXCD zone from 75 feet to 125 feet. Removed the limit on the number of temporary freestanding signs allowed in individual residential lots and clarified that sign permits are not required for that sign type. We've allowed drive-throughs in the MXTD and MXNC zones consistent with our current ordinance. We've allowed electronic message centers with regulations to ensure that they are compatible. And we've allowed administrative approval of rooftop solar panels and solar shingles and tiles on historic structures. Zooming out, we wanted to provide a project overview first, including a project timeline. So we're back to our big timeline here, going all the way back to project kickoff in fall of 2023. We had a number of project phases. Drafting began in January of 2025, a year and a half ago. Authorization to file starting our adoption process occurred on December 1st, and then the adoption process has lasted from December of 2025 through today. And anticipated adoption is scheduled for today, and that would result in an effective date for the new ordinance of August 1st, so just barely over a month away. Our project goals, you will recall, were to achieve land use policy outcomes specifically identified in our comprehensive plan, accomplish goals of the FAST initiative, increasing and enhancing our permitting and development review processes, ensuring compliance with current federal and state regulations, incorporating the city's commitment to equity, resilience, and sustainability, Incorporating the best practices of planning and zoning, including housing variety and clear and objective standards. And finally, ensuring that writing and organization is clear, accessible, and easy to use. And then we have some fun facts, our project in review. This project has encompassed nearly three years of work, 78 public meetings, if you can believe it, including nine with the mayor and council, and 10 with our planning commission, 269 public comments at the time that this PowerPoint was drafted. We have more since then. Seven city departments, three public drafts, four new zones covering 100% of the city, representing one complete modernization of our 17-year-old ordinance and a shared vision to be turned into law. Finally, before we turn it over to the body, we did want to say thank you to a number of individuals. We've outlined the various city departments that were involved in this undertaking, including Community Planning and Development Services, our Department of Public Works, our city attorney's office, our Department of Housing and Community Development, our Department of Recreation and Parks, all of whom were involved intimately in policy development and drafting. And then more recently, we've added in our Communications and Community Engagement Department, which has given us great assistance, particularly over the last six months, including public drafting and publishing articles in Rockville reports every single month since adoption began and our city clerk's office, which has been instrumental in helping us prepare for these meetings and coordinating the aggregation of public comments. We also wanted to thank the Planning Commission, our residents, and most specifically you all for your leadership and vision throughout this process. There have been so many people who have had just hands on this project, and it would not have been possible without any of them, and most particularly this council. So thank you. And we will pause there for any questions.

Thank you very much. I just want to acknowledge that we've had many community members come out and provide feedback. This project actually is a continuation of the comprehensive plan, which was adopted in 2021. That process took many more years than three or four years. and there was a lot of neighborhood feedback and engagement in that process. This zoning ordinance rewrite is about implementing parts of the plan. We have made some adjustments based on community feedback, based on new changes since then, and that this was adopted during COVID, and there's been some different things that have happened. So I just want to acknowledge that this has been a multi-year project to implement the comprehensive plan. and we appreciate all of staff's work on it. I know it has not been easy. I also wanted to acknowledge that on Engage Rockville, in case folks are following along, there are red line versions, early drafts, so that you can track how we went along, and we took each section by work session and went by articles so that we kind of really provided detailed feedback. So I just wanted to acknowledge the process. I also want to thank staff and the community members for providing so much feedback to us because we have made substantial improvements and changes to try to Accomplish our housing economic and quality of life goals and vision zero and all the things And and also climate action goals But doing so in a way as well That is sensitive to the context of all of our communities and what's going on in our environment. So I wanted to leave with that. I I wanted to see if my colleagues have comments and questions. Just kind of want to get a sense of the volume of comments that people might have, because if there's a lot to do, then we might take them by articles, if you will. But just if colleagues can just share. If you have minor comments, we'll just go down the line, and just take the overall comments. If you feel like you have a lot to add or change, Please flag that now If you have more than three to five yes, okay All right. Are you guys okay to just go down the line and say your overall comments or do you have a lot I Half a dozen. I have about half a dozen as well. So let me just say this. I'm going to go down the line if you and I can break up our half a dozen so that we can come back to us and allow other people to speak. OK. I'm going to start with Dr. Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thanks for the presentation. I thank the community for their input. I do look forward to the conversation with my colleagues. I have a fair sense of, given the discussions and work sessions we've had thus far, a clearer sense of some of the remaining hurdles that exist between what staff is proposing, what the community is concerned about. I look forward to hearing how we may be able to resolve them. I have no major comments, but I'm looking forward to the discussion that we're going to have on these topics. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Fulton.

Thank you 1st of all, thank you for all the work on this has been a long time and a lot of work. So I really appreciate it. Um, the only thing that I wanted to mention or respond to was, uh, members of the community have pointed out a bit of the discrepancy of saying 15 for a parcel. Um, but add 55, just for, like, those undeveloped portions. I feel like 1 option we have to resolve that sort of confusion. is to simply raise the height limit on RMD 15 to 55. We've done that in at least two other places through this zoning ordinance rewrite. In fact, we unilaterally raised the height requirement in MXCD from 75 to 125 across the board. And that didn't come with any extra MPBD requirement. So I do think that a way to resolve the ambiguity, I agree with people that it is kind of an outlier the way we've drafted it. So I did want to propose that, and I think you all gave some good information on how many other parcels there are that would be affected there. So I did want to see what my colleagues thought about cleaning up that ambiguity by simply doing what we did for MXCD and I think another zone and simply raise it to 55. I will also say in that regard that I think we all want a lot of, we want housing, we want affordable housing. And because of that, I think that some MPDUs is better than no MPDUs. And we've got a lot of indication that continuing to add on to this parcel is likely to result in no housing. And that's counter to what this body has said all along. So that's where I wanted to make that comment on that one parcel. I also think it's incongruous information. It's kind of conflicting. It's almost like if I promised you $100, then talk about giving you $50, end up giving you $75. That $25 is not a bonus. It's a compromise. So I think it's weird to consider it a bonus height. That's the only part of any of this that I wanted to comment and offer an option for my colleagues on to consider. Otherwise, welcome to hearing the rest of the conversation. Thanks.

Thank you. Council Member Valeri.

Yes, hi. I will probably have more. I have a set of questions, but I do want to note for everybody, probably present unless Mr. Levy is still here. Probably Mr. Wasilek is the only other one that knows, along with Madam Mayor and Council Member Miles, that I started this journey as a member of the community during the Rockville 2040 charrettes and that whole process. It is very funny. to be up here for this part of it. So I want to say thank you to all of the staff that this has been a very long journey. I do want to note that there has been, as I was the president of the Twinbrook Community Association, multiple, multiple opportunities for community engagement. And I want to thank staff for doing that. I felt at the time, and I still feel now, that staff were very approachable on any questions and concerns So thank you for that. And I did just want to note that I've been here since the beginning. It's like kind of watching a baby being born, but a lot less pain. So I mean, yeah, in theory. So I had a couple of questions. One is we had talked about kind of making the elements of a champion project, revisiting that and making it applicable to the entire city. And I didn't hear at the time opposition from the dais on that. I think it also goes to my colleague's point on uniformity and not creating yet another patchwork and really trying to be more equitable across the board. So I would be very interested in seeing that.

um i don't see it in the the current draft um so i'd i'd like to see that um the other thing just because that's something that did come up in a previous work session i know some several of us supported it uh there may have been a reason as to why you felt like you couldn't put it in there now but i just wanted to pause so that we could get staff's input on that

Yes, I might start this off and see if Mr. Wozolak has anything to add. The champion projects currently apply, as you all are aware, just to the South Pike area. So the reason, I think there were probably two reasons that we did not pursue expanding that. One is because we did not receive clear direction to do that, but the other one is a little bit more of a policy consideration. The MXTD zoning allows for bonus heights, which effectively replicate or kind of, they they do essentially the same thing that the champion project would do. The way that the champion projects are defined, they allow for additional height and a couple of additional benefits, which have essentially, so they allow for additional height, but then they also allow for some additional benefits, which have essentially gone away with this draft. For example, they allow an increase in the gross floor area for single tenant commercial uses, But you all know that we have removed that restriction from the ordinance entirely. So that would no longer be a benefit of the champion project. It kind of got pared down to really the thing in this ordinance that you receive by virtue of being a champion project is an increase in height. Now, the way that the champion projects are defined, you can get that increase in height for a number of different things. Mr. Wasilek could speak to those much more thoroughly than I can, but they're things such as increased amenity space or public benefits, which are not clearly defined. And we did perceive that with the direction of the town center master plan, there were these conversations around what should we offer the bonus height for? And it really solidified that bonus height in the town center would be afforded for additional provision or for provision of additional affordable housing units. And we're very clear in what that is. You need to increase from 15% to 20%. The way that the champion projects are defined, it is kind of amorphous. It's just an additional public benefit in terms of amenity space, et cetera. So it's not as clearly defined as the way that we've structured the bonus heights currently, and it would be something of a divergence From the policy that was established with the town center master plan, which really did look at. Okay. We could be affording additional height for any number of things and we've decided that housing is the thing that we want to prioritize. I hope that that made sense. And Mr was like, if you have anything to add to that.

I would just add that the Champion Project actually could occur in two zones under the current ordinance, the MXTD and the MXCD, but there's a limit to the South Pike area, in other words, the Twinbrook Metro area. Ms. Simmons is correct. The MXTD zones that are being created by this code essentially supersede the benefits of the Champion Projects, both to the development community as well as the city. your policy direction is very clear that you'd want to see additional affordable housing and this provides the opportunity to do that. I bring up the MXCD zone also because you rezoned the MXCD portion that's within the South Pike to the MXCD zone and also in our draft we are recommending an increase in height to the MXCD in other parts of the city. where it exists, up to 125 feet. And that was the height of a champion project in the MXCD zone. So essentially, champion projects have been superseded in both of those zones where they were permitted.

Gotcha. I'm sorry. So that absolutely makes sense. I never really liked the idea that it was confined to the South Pike. I think that we have, as mentioned during the town center master plan process, we don't want to just have height in just one location. Myself and I actually believe Council Member Fulton and others said, why are we not looking at the entirety of 355? So I appreciate, and I know things like the parking waiver were another component of the champion project, and that has become obsolete as far as that. I want to make sure that we are still looking at those kind of big projects. We are not doing the, you know, Mikey likes it, let's just put it right here, because I don't think that we're going to have the luxury. Our transit centers, we're going to hit that target. spot of not having any more space, right? Like, there's a limited amount of space, so we have to be really strategic in where we are looking at, you know, increased density. We can't keep saying, oh, well, you know, the transit corridors, right, on Twinbrook and Rockville Metro. I think we need to be, and I've said this from the beginning, I think we need to be a lot more thoughtful about it and look at a variety of measures, because we're not going to solve, in my opinion, we're not going to solve the housing crisis by only looking at metro stations. It's just not going to happen. So we have to sit up here and make tough decisions. So I did want to see the increased height along Rockville Pike. I understand that we will be having a revision to the Pike plan, but I want us to be able to look at some of these issues a little bit more holistically and not in a vacuum. my colleague's point as well, I would be more than open to standardizing what the height of RMD 15 is. I'm not a fan of creating yet another patchwork and carve out and exceptions and Every neighborhood is a valued neighborhood and everybody has a right to safety. I think that the best way to do that is equal application of our zoning regardless of where we're looking in the city. So things like vehicular access and other issues like that are absolutely critical, but I think we do need to have a little bit of a reckoning with how we look at these issues and make some some tough decisions. So to that long-winded way of saying I agree with Councilmember Fulton, I would be more than amenable to increasing the height of RMD 15. Last question and then I'll pass it on. Can you share a little bit about, and I think I mentioned this in a previous work session, but I could not find my notes off the top of my head. Why would we not be, it is not allowed to have a funeral home in either of our industrial zones?

Our current ordinance does not permit funeral homes in our industrial zones, so we retained that policy from the current ordinance. One thing that we did change, and this was following our last work session in Marin Council's direction, was to permit specifically natural organic reduction within our industrial zones as a light industrial use.

Gotcha, so that would be I-L, but not I-H?

believe i need to check that so it's specifically included in the definition of light industrial which is permitted certainly in the light industrial zone and i believe also in the heavy industrial zone mr wasilek's nodding his head so i assume that that's correct but i can double check that in just a moment i will note though that within the city we do not actually have any land that is zoned for heavy industrial use?

That's what I was thinking. So then I guess in the MXB zone, the light industrial uses, would the natural organic reduction be permissible? And does it need to be explicitly included there for clarity? Okay.

So following – so we did not revise the MXB zone to allow the natural organic reduction. That was for a couple of reasons. We did amend our funeral home use again following our last work session to allow alkaline hydrolysis, which is something that staff has been aware of for the past year or so and has made a zoning interpretation that that would be allowed as part of our funeral home use. However, we became aware of natural organic reduction as – a thing that happens in the world within the last month or so. So that's something that we really just have a lot less knowledge about. And the knowledge that we do have indicates that it is a much more intensive use than alkaline hydrolysis involving truck traffic and also the composting of human remains as well. So that is something that we did think this is appropriate for our industrial zones. but not necessarily for our mixed-use zones. Gotcha.

And MXB is mixed-use business? That's correct. Okay. So I would be interested in the inclusion there. I understand completely that it is a new, kind of a new process to me, but probably within the last year I've become more aware of it. consumer interests and familial interests as well. And it's my understanding that as of very recently, green cremation was not permissible in the state of Maryland. There had to be enabling legislation. So really, it's a brand new issue all around, right? But that we would have the potential to be the first location in the state of Maryland. that would be awesome. I think that is enough of a driver given our climate action goals, but enough of a driver for me to really want to include MXB in that process. We're always looking for that special something. And I think that this is a really good example of that. And I would really, I'd love my colleagues to be supportive of that. And I will stop there, Madam Mayor.

Thank you very much. I just want to thank staff for making some of the changes that we requested in terms of the natural organic hydrolysis process and putting that in our code language. I also respect your professional need to learn more to make a solid recommendation to us. So I'm interested in exploring this, but I understand it sounds like you guys want more time to look at it. So I just wanted to note that I don't know how we would do that in the context of the limited time we have, but if you have a recommendation as to how you'd like to review this and maybe bring it up in the future, or if you think that you could get comfortable enough to, I mean, there's not a lot of time tonight, but when would you think you might be comfortable to give us a recommendation?

No, I think we definitely would appreciate additional time and looking into this in the future. One thing I would mention at least for the purposes of this evening is that we did have a chance to take a look very briefly at the one existing facility that we are aware of that does natural organic reduction in the state of Maryland, which is in I believe it's Elkridge in Howard County, and that is located within a heavy industrial zone. So that was somewhat informative for us, at least for the purposes of tonight's conversation, but we're certainly happy to look into that for the future.

Okay, that'll be helpful. I can sense the body language that you want more time, and I'm interested in doing this, but I also want to make sure you have time to do the homework that you can give us a good recommendation on where it goes, how it goes, and how we can make it work. I think in general, we're open to this idea, and we want your professional guidance. I have some overarching comments, and I know that we've been through a long journey together. We went from DRMESH to, you know, how do we get more housing? So we've accomplished a lot together, and I just want to say, again, thank you to the community for all the feedback. On page 730 of the brief book, I noticed that we use references to a citizen. And so I just think that is probably we can be more inclusive in our language throughout this document and places where we see citizen either put residents or stakeholder or denison, whatever it is. But that's something we've been doing throughout our Rockville documents. And I just wanted to flag it here. It's minor but important. You answered my question on the champion project. I appreciate that. I also really appreciate, I know I raised the idea of, you know, putting higher heights on 355 during the Rockwood Townsend Master Plan. That's something we were also hopeful for, and there's a Rockwood Pike Plan coming up, but we figured we could at least do this when we get to the Rockwood Pike Plan. There may be other things we can discuss to do that more thoroughly, but I really appreciate you finding a way to bring this up for discussion. My question to you is, it's not currently included in the draft, so what do you need from us tonight? Because I think based on my colleagues feedback that we're willing to and interested to Do it as part of this or and then maybe revisit again in the Rockville Pike plan. So just can you share? Next steps on that So when it comes to the MXCD we did increase the height in the final staff draft to 125 feet Okay, you had it in the upfront staff report and I remember talking with mr. Mihalik said you had you may had to make some changes to it But are we good with as it is?

Yes, and it is included in the final draft as well. Okay.

Now, the RMD 15 recommendation that's included in the staff report, you did not include that in the staff draft just yet?

What we've included in the final draft was an amendment to the RMD 10 and 15 development standards table, and that footnote included allowances that basically outlined that specifically the Tower Oaks Planning Area 12 property proposed for rezoning would have an increased height of 55 feet, but that would be limited to that parcel only and not applied broadly across the RMD 15. If it is the will of the body to change that to allow for that 55 foot height limit in the RMD 15 generally, we are prepared with an amendment.

Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. For the MXCD along the pike, it doesn't necessarily say 355. So I just wanted to clarify, is it written to support the Rockville Pike?

The height increase? Yeah. It's applied to the entirety of the MXCD zone. So again, it's shown in the table.

Yeah, that's what I saw as well. And I went to the interactive map, and there are at least two or three other areas that have MXCD. One is near Wooten Parkway. Can you just describe the other properties beyond 355? And I spoke to Mr. Mihalik about this question to give you guys a heads up, so.

no this is an excellent question we are prepared to respond to this and i'm going to defer to mr we are a bunch of planners that's exactly i was going to pull that joke

So this is the revised zoning map that is up for adoption. The MXCD zone, zoom in a little bit more, is the color that's kind of an orange and black stripe along most of Rockville Pike. south of the town center. That's what we kind of think of as Rockville Pike, and the zone was actually created because of that condition. But there are other areas in the city that actually are zoned MXCD. Just moving northward along the pike, you will recall that the east side of the Rockville Metro Station is actually proposed to be rezoned to MXCD from MXNC, which it is now. I'll zoom in a little bit, and you can see that right here. And then further north, there are properties, private properties that actually front Montgomery College campus, and those are currently MXCD. And then the College Plaza Shopping Center is MXCD as well. And further north, the 355 Toyota property that was annexed into the city is MXCD. And of course, the farmstead development currently being built and was recently annexed is MXCD. Those are all along the 355 corridor. There are a couple of others. I guess you could say they're along the I-270 corridor. But if you think of the Properties between Wooten Parkway and the city limits along Seven Locks Road on the east side There is the the county's public works facility and then the north side development that's underway and the office building writing fronting on Seven Locks and of course the Potomac Woods Plaza shopping center, so I think that that's the extent of the properties that are currently MXED and would be subject to the same height increase.

Excellent, thank you so much. I just wanted to clarify, we wouldn't, I just wanted, you know, because we haven't, One is I appreciate you tolerating our efforts to try to move a little faster than the Rockford Pike Plan. I want to acknowledge that. But we hadn't talked about the other affected areas in this. So I just wanted to specifically call that out so my colleagues and I could see that. Most of the other areas are things that are already in developed or... are not likely to change necessarily because they're being actively worked on right now. There's two areas, one is College Plaza and the other one I wanted to flag is the one near the Wooten Parkway. Can you just describe the adjacency to current residential homes and what that might look like? We have some transition zones in the Rockville Town Senate Master Plan and I just wanted to understand are we feeling comfortable, are staff feeling comfortable with this because it doesn't say specifically 355 Rockville Pike in this change?

Just to clarify, are you talking about the properties that are along Seven Locks Road, kind of south of Wooten?

Yeah, so there's the county facility, but then you mentioned an office building which could change and the other Potomac Woods property.

Right, there's 1201 Seven Locks, I believe is the address, but that's an office building that fronts on Seven Locks across from the Potomac Springs community. And then there's the north side development currently underway in Potomac Woods Plaza. So they are on the east side of Seven Locks, and there are residences, you know, single family neighborhoods on the west side.

Okay, so there's at least, that's a pretty major road, Seven Locks is a divider. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that clarification. And I note that MXCD doesn't cover all of the Pike. We are gonna get to a Rockford Pike plan, but we were just trying to look at how do we support our economic and housing goals sooner. So I just wanted to point that out. In terms of the current MXCD versus what we're moving to, can you please share the current height allowance that was proposed?

The current height in the MXCD is 75 feet, and it's proposed to become 125. Okay, thank you.

And I will also note in the Rockville Town Center master plan, there are places where we increase the base height, but even along the pike, we have an additional bonus density to try to create more affordable housing, and that's something as we get into the pike plan, we can certainly initiate as well. Is that right? Okay. Yes. Okay. I'm trying to keep in mind the housing needs assessment, and you said that you need 2,300 units for incomes 100K and below. So I think that we need to keep that in mind in our planning. Thank you for that. For the RMD 15, I know that there were four of us who were interested in looking at the additional height for RMD 15 as a contingency for additional affordable I was curious as to staffs recommendation in terms of the math penciling out our would 18% versus 20 I know for the buildings in the Rockville Town Center master plan there was a significant amount of height and we went to 20 you recommended 20 did you also explore 18% MPD use

So staff's recommendation for the Tower Oaks Planning Area 12 property continues to be the RMD 25 zone, consistent with the comprehensive plan recommendation. However, understanding that mayor and council had an interest in alternate options, we did think that the most appropriate option for that site specifically would be the RMD 15 zone, with a height increase to 55 feet to allow for specifically for what we've seen in similar areas as relates to two over twos and townhouses, just that that 55 foot height is necessary to generate that type of development. So staff is not recommending any increase in the amount of MPDUs that are required to obtain that height. And we have heard testimony from the property owner's representation that requiring that additional increase in MPDUs would make development infeasible on that site. Are we able to verify that? No, we are not able to. So that is just testimony that we have heard. But even regardless of that, Staffs proposal was 15 with a 55 foot height.

Thank you. And, uh, 2 questions related to that has, uh, the Department of housing community development has given us a wonderful presentation on the need to develop more. I know you can get that through total units. They also talked about needing additional incentives. So I don't know if DHCD has weighed in, if there's been a cross-department conversation about this, but that was something I was also interested in.

DHCD has weighed in to the extent that they're strongly in support of the RMD-25 Excellent. Thank you very much.

I appreciate the additional information that you have shared. I do continue to say I'm open to the additional housing types. We are getting townhomes across the city of Rockville, and we're also getting two over two condos across the city of Rockville. I continue to stand with the myself and three other colleagues who supported allowing the 55 with the, and I'm open to a slightly lower amount, but trying to find ways to get additional MPD use on that property. So I will just restate that I am still in the position I was during the last work session. I did have a question about, and I'm also, if we do that approach, if we do that approach, I'm fine to make that a universal theme for RMD 15 across the city to allow more flexibility for those projects. The question regarding that same property about the emergency vehicles, can you address the community's concerns on that? Because I know that the mayor and council specifically did talk about emergency vehicles.

Absolutely. So we did include also a restriction on the access to the parcel, similar to the way that it's structured. The restrictions on access are structured in relation to the MXNC zone and the MXE zones. Those are restrictions that we currently have within our ordinance and which are retained and slightly revised. in the final staff draft. The revision specifically is to allow for I actually should pull up the language. Bear with me for just a moment. For the RMD 15 zone, it would be that new vehicular access to any secondary residential street ending in a cul-de-sac on the effective date of the ordinance all of which that really just homes us in on that specific property in question, the Tower Oaks property. So that new vehicular access is prohibited unless determined by the Director of Public Works, Chief of Inspection Services, or Fire Marshal to be necessary. So when we were looking at those restrictions, we did identify that in the past, they have been problematic and specifically we need flexibility to ensure that our folks who are kind of overseeing our roadway safety and function and our service delivery, specifically emergency services, have the flexibility to require an access be created even regardless of other circumstances. So this is not something that would be employed just at the whims of of the developer or planning staff, it really would be the determination of those leaders within the departments, the director of public works, the chief of inspection services, or the fire marshal in instances where that access is necessary.

Thank you. At some point, people change in an organization in the city of Rockville. That happens here. We've had new staff come in. Without having something that details what the intent was at this very moment, because people may not go back and watch this work session, how do you signal to future staff that that is the intent of that language is really for emergency vehicles?

This is a great question. I think at this point, with the final draft of the ordinance, it is more so implied, and it is left to the determinations of the people in those positions. If the body does want additional specificity, we did develop language that would address the intent exactly as you said, Madam Mayor. And that would be to tack on at the end of that sentence that it would be determined by the Director of Public Works, Chief of Inspection Services, or Fire Marshal to be necessary to ensure service delivery or roadway safety or function. And we did vet that with those three individuals, and they found that to be sufficient. So if that is something that the body is interested in, we could absolutely make that amendment.

Thank you. I support that language. I appreciate that you guys thought ahead and developed that. That's very much appreciated. The other piece is we've heard some committee members about being able to track the clean version versus red lines. On Engage Rockville, you have some really nice documents that have a summary of changes and the red line changes. Can you just clarify how up-to-date those are?

Those documents are intended to be completely up to date. So when we produced the original staff draft, which was published back in early December, we did produce a highlights document, which you all are well aware of because we've gone through every single key change listed in that highlights document. Back in April, when we produced a revised staff draft, we also produced what we called a revisions document, which went through all of the substantive revisions made in between the release of that original staff draft and then the revised staff draft. So it outlined all of those things. Things we did not outline were changes to the language that did not change policy. minor technical corrections, things of that nature. And then we also produced an updated final revisions document to attend the final staff draft, and that functions exactly the same as the prior revisions document. So to our knowledge, those are up to date.

Okay, thank you. I have more to add, but I'm going to pause there. The last thing I'll just say is in terms of Article 11, I believe that's the number, um historic designation i i continue to support a super majority versus unanimous where that doesn't exist anywhere else on our um any of our rules and procedures so this relates to the owner consent and if an owner is an expressly right consent that they would have to be unanimous vote i'm aware that that um even the HDC, Historic Dishes Commission, had an African American property that was discussed and they were even 4-1, but I'm very worried about that, particularly for some of the cultural designations that are in the city and just the history of African American properties that have been lost. So I will just continue to say that I support a super majority over unanimous, thank you. Council Member Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor. So first of all, thank you to staff for taking our comments and our suggestions and incorporating them into the draft. I really don't have too many questions because I think a lot of them has been answered and answered well. Just to pick up the mayor's numerous questions, one of them she asked was about the traffic. And I just want to make that clear, because I think that was something that many of us heard from numerous comments, was a little bit of confusion the way it was written. So just to get you guys on the record, if you will, was there a specific reason that it mentioned heads of departments, And can you assure the public that no public traffic will be going through that section of road?

Council Member Jackson, I'll take that one because all those folks report to me that we mentioned in the code. It is really just for emergency purposes. I want to be crystal clear about that. If Council wants us to make the tweaks to the language that Holly recommended, we would encourage that. But those are the 3 people, if you think about it, that are going to be responding to emergencies, whether it's a water main breaks rolling break a fire. Some kind of disaster will be would be better to access some of those properties. From the call the 2nd to 3rd, but that's it otherwise there's no contemplated or encouraged, or even allowed public access from that roadway into the into the development.

Now, thank you for that clarification. I mean, I think the body was pretty clear about, you know, no public traffic, but just to be crystal clear among us and among the staff, yes, that is the intent, that there will be no public traffic on that road, only city vehicles and emergency vehicles. So thank you for clarifying that. On the townhouse, on two over twos, I was talking with various staff, and it seems to me that to build two over twos, modern technology, modern housing for Exodus needs 50 to 55 feet. Is that right?

Yes.

All right. And so two or twos, is that what's commonly referred to part of the housing nomenclature as the missing middle? Is that part of the missing middle? Am I imagining things?

I mean, it could be as part of kind of a smaller scale, say there were four units that comprised two over two, that were comprised of two over twos. If there could be more extensive, so it might not necessarily be missing middle, but certainly some.

So, I mean, it would basically expand our housing stock and make it more diversified for various people to be able to afford a home in Rockville. I mean, I think... Two over two is a good thing, and I would support my colleague, Councilmember Fulton, her recommendation to expand the height limit of 55 feet to the entire RMD 15 across the city. I think it's a good thing. I think we need more housing, and this is something that I really think is a good idea, so I support that. The last thing I was just second the mayor, you know, I'm we're talking about 25 11 1 2 H for those of you paying attention at home and I just have a problem with unanimous consent, whether it's a super majority, as the mayor mentioned, or even 6-1. But I think that unanimity is really tough to come by. For that reason, I would prefer it to be a little bit less, either a supermajority or 6-1. And finally, just so residents are not confused, I've gotten a couple of questions from constituents. Thank you to staff for incorporating what we said about deer mesh. I know that was incorporated long ago, but some people have been confused, have been writing in to us, and we've had to go and try to explain that no, we actually did act on deer mesh a long time ago. So I just want to make that clear that we did vote to allow deer mess in the city of Rockville. And with that, Mayor, I will yield back.

Thank you. Councilman Burchard.

I want to echo my colleagues and thank you for all of the work that you've done. I know it's been a very long journey, and so I greatly appreciate all of that. I also appreciate providing the numbers around the community engagement. And what I often say about The numbers of community engagement sometimes doesn't always correlate with how individuals are experiencing the materials, how people are accessing the materials. So although those numbers are great overall, I just want to just highlight that some community members mentioned that some of the material was difficult to understand. Language is also another issue. There's a whole bunch of things that I think that we can do to learn from this process. And I know it's a lot of information. But I think there's a lot that we can learn from in terms of making just planning in general just more accessible to our community and our diverse communities. And I think there's a lot of work to be done around planning justice as well. I saw also start that I'm, I'm grateful for the dear mesh as well. And I also support a super majority in terms of designating historic site. So circling back to the RMD 15, I was one of the council members that did support 55 for the bonus height for affordable housing. If that doesn't pencil out, we may want to consider, I know, Madam Mayor, you had recommended 18%. Another option could also be making it 10% NPDUs and 10% workforce, which is closer to market rate, could be 81 to 100 AMI. Just to see if that could pencil out because it's it's between the affordable and between market and we just learned from our housing assessment That there is a great need to have more housing that is in between there where you have a lot of our workforce our teachers our civil servants not able to They're not qualifying for affordable housing, but they're really struggling with market rate. And so looking at perhaps changing the numbers to 10% NPDU and 10% workforce. And yeah, I think that's it for my comments. But just thank you again for all of the work that you've done.

Thank you. Councilman Van Graak.

Thanks. Of course, I'm going to echo what my colleagues have said. This has been a long and very detailed process with all the different hearings we've had, the work sessions, nine of them, the detailed back and forth, the multiple revisions, all of the red lines. I know you guys have put in a lot of nights, a lot of late nights, both with us and without us, so I want to echo my thanks. I do want to turn to something that my colleagues have talked about and we've heard from the community, and that's 25.822 , the limitations on vehicular access. And as we've heard, I don't think this is just limited to what we were talking about to the RMD 15 areas. This is also dealing with, we've heard from the College Gardens community and a lot of other areas. And I understand where they're coming from, because I think the language that was proposed is basically, well, we're going to allow these folks to allow access. I think there's a couple changes that I think we need to have. I think we need to say, and this is, I think, more forceful, and I think this can track, which every one of the one, two, three, in whatever zone it is, vehicular access to this secondary residential street is prohibited. period. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the director of public works, the chief of inspection services, or the fire marshal may authorize a restricted vehicle access point to that whatever street we're talking about only when necessary for emergency vehicle access or governmental vehicular access. That now says we've got a prohibition, we're only allowing it, and we're only allowing it for these two purposes. I think that makes it more clear both to the community and to the three officials who we've designated to what that access can be as opposed to just access can be granted. And I think that addresses the community's concern as well as the concern whether someone else in that position might just say, well, we're just going to allow everybody to come in and school buses to come in whenever. That, I think, tracks it more clearly. In addition to it, something that I didn't see there, and I think would also at least help, there's no necessarily provision in there about a restriction. Should we potentially, and I'm just throwing this out there, should we have something that a restricted vehicle access point that authorized is at that location? Essentially, aside from us allowing it, saying that in these areas there's some type of vehicular access restriction, that it would be allowed. And I think that some of the concerns that we may have heard from the community is, if this is just an open road and the access is restricted, what are we doing to make it restricted? Is there some type of whether it's a gate, some type of other access to allow it? And I'm kind of mentioning this because I think we've heard from a lot of community. We've heard from the unanimous, I think, mayor and council with regard to these issues. And I think this is something that we could do to both assuage the community, but also with regard to future use, because this is going to be part of the code, ensuring there's some kind of access. I didn't know if, staff, you had any thoughts about either the more restrictive language or potentially adding something about a vehicular access point.

So a couple thoughts. I was watching Councilor DeMay feverishly type some things up, and I think he's got that captured. From my perspective, I think it's well done. In terms of a physical barrier, I don't know that that belongs necessarily in his own ordinance, candidly, but that's something we should be doing anyway at the end of a roadway that's not intended to go through. Okay. Anybody else?

I did. Just relating to the consideration of restricting it to the type of vehicle, that is something when we were drafting our potential amendment that it would be determined to be necessary to ensure service delivery or roadway safety or function. We did also consider restricting the types of vehicles. However, when we were thinking about implementation, That is much more difficult to enforce. So it would be quite difficult to say. We could certainly write that into the zoning ordinance, but ultimately that was not our preferred option because it speaks to the specific vehicles and not to the intent. And the intent is a little bit easier to regulate than the vehicles that may access the roadway itself.

Can you repeat because I know comes from practice can you repeat what you had shared earlier with us as you were pulls and then I can't remember you had a suggestion if you can repeat yours as well.

Yes, absolutely. So specifically for the RMD 15 one, it would be in the RMD 15 zone, new vehicular access to any secondary residential street ending in a cul-de-sac on the effective date of the ordinance is prohibited unless determined by the director of public works, chief of inspection services or fire marshal to be necessary. And this is the added language to ensure service delivery or roadway safety or function.

So, and again, my concern with that is, what is service delivery? I mean, the reason why, and I think you're right. Within my language, I said emergency vehicle access or government. I think it's more like emergency access or government access because service delivery is really broad, and I think what we're talking about is emergency and government as opposed to the more broad aspects, and I think that was closer to the intent of the body.

Mr. Mihalik.

Mayor, if we're down to these couple lines with a thousand pages.

I was not specifically just talking about the RMD 15. I was talking about all three, just for that clarification.

We're down to these couple things. We're in really good shape now, so I appreciate it sincerely. If it's okay, and if it's okay with the city attorney, I think Attorney DeMay had written down the language, and maybe he could repeat it back so everybody could hear it.

Thank you. That would be helpful.

Sure, and Council Member Van Graak, please correct me if I'm not getting it right. So it would be to revise section 25.8.2.2b3 to read, in the RMD 15 zone, new vehicular access to a secondary residential street is prohibited. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Public Works, Chief of Inspection Services, or Fire Marshal may authorize a restricted vehicular access point to the secondary residential street for governmental vehicular access and emergency vehicular access only.

I think what we're saying is get rid of the word vehicular, because we're talking about emergency access and governmental access, but also B1 and 2 also having similar restrictions, because I think this concern is not just for the folks who we're talking about in Newmark Commons. We're also talking about those other areas where residential neighborhoods affront the MXCD, the MXE, the IL, and the IH.

Understood. I can write that up for you.

Okay.

Go ahead. I'm hearing some comments. I'm just going to say after you're done, I will allow a question about your language.

I mean, if you think it's easier to go through that now, I'm with you. Okay.

All right. Are you amenable to that?

Yeah, as long as we're still coming back. We'll come back to you.

I am increasingly uncomfortable with this conversation for a variety of reasons.

We are talking about a public road.

Councilmember Van Graak mentioned, and if it's just for illustrative purposes, maybe perhaps a gate We are getting edging very close to a city created through zoning HOA. And I am extremely uncomfortable with this. I understand that we have the ability to say what types of through traffic to Ms. Simmons' point, what is the road actual capacity? Do we want to have tractor trailers going? That is a real issue that Markwood has been facing, right? They have had tractor trailers going down Potomac Valley Road. now starting to say and putting layers on there of who is permissible through this road, who is not when it's a public road. That everybody, this is a public utility. So I'm at the point right now where if it's going to get any more restrictive, I can't support it because we're getting kind of away from the compromise and into gated community by rock full zoning and I cannot get to that point.

Thank you, do we have any other comments? Okay, can you review the language that Mr. Jemai drafted?

Sure, so, and again, Council Member Van Graak, bear with me here. So, I think we would be eliminating subsections, again, it would be 25, 8, 2, 2, B, 1, 2, and 3.

Can you share the page?

This is, yes, it is page 916 of your packet. So we would be eliminating those provisions and replacing them with a single subsection B that would read, in the MXCD, MXE, IL, IH, and RMD15 zones, new vehicular access to a secondary residential street is prohibited. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Public Works, Chief of Inspection Services, or Fire Marshal may authorize a restricted vehicular access point to the secondary residential street for governmental access and emergency access only.

Can you share? I see that. Let me just let.

We will. I'm going to send that to Ms. Simmons.

Let's let Ms. Simmons go ahead. Ms. Simmons go first, and then Councilman Van Grack, I'll go back to you.

We will have to rework that a little bit because each one of those does function differently. So specifically with the RMD 15, it's only new vehicular access and not vehicular access generally. It references a secondary residential street versus a residential street. So I appreciate so much Mr. Dume hopping on this and working to simplify it. But the simplifications, we can't simplify quite that much.

I'll continue to work on it.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay, so we've got a little bit more work to do, and we'll come back to the body's feedback on that particularly. Council Member Grack, you have the floor.

No, I was going to say, Ms. Simmons and I had it exactly right, because we're not saying this for all RMD zones. All RMD zones with the specific parameters therein that would have that restriction, whereas the MXCD, MXE, IL, and IH could be combined. Do I have that right, Ms. Simmons?

Oh, um, let me check. I think each one actually. Oh, no, you're right.

Because there's a secondary in the primary. You're exactly correct. Yeah, they all unfortunately, they all have to be exactly correct.

Yeah. I'm wondering, let's let you guys fine tune because we're putting you on the spot. And I want to give you some time to get it right. Getting it right is more important. But Council Member Crack, you have other comments.

Great, yes. So with regard to the issue kind of expanding from the RMD 15, I actually fully support what Council Member Fulton was saying with regard to bringing RMD 15 to 55 throughout the city. I think it makes sense. And one of this body's top three goals that we've talked about through this entire term has been housing, increasing housing both with affordable housing, increasing supply, and Council Member Leary, I actually have to compliment you because you've been at the forefront even today talking about making sure that we have housing in every part of the city and expanding throughout. And it's not just Twinbrook, it's not just Rockshire, It's every area, and by doing something to expand RMD 15 to 55, I think accomplishes that critical goal that this body's gone forward. I understand the concern that I know that a number of my colleagues have said with regard to MPDU's workforce housing. That's something that we also have been a key goal within this body. However, I don't see what we're talking about here as part of it. Specifically with regard to this property, you know, Ms. Simmons, just as you were saying, this was in the comprehensive plan as RMD 25. and we heard from the community loud and clear a 75-foot height, and that density is not appropriate for that area. And while it is in the comprehensive plan, and I understand staff's impetus to go there, bringing it down to an RMD 15 at a 55 height is, to use Council Member Fulton's words, a really good compromise between something that is RMD 25, but the 75-foot height, and something that's a lot more reasonable, which is RMD 15. And given the unique circumstances of this particular property, there has been a lot of pushback from the owner of the property pulling away from RMD 25, because that's what it was essentially supposed to be. They've pulled it back from what they expected to have. an RMD 15 at 55, which we're hearing from a lot of developers is kind of some of the standard, is a reasonable compromise. And putting more restrictions on that potentially makes it so that it might not be feasible to do it, just as the staff was saying. Now, obviously, none of us have the exact figures in front of us, and I don't know whether it would quote unquote pencil out with any particular more restrictions than RMD 15, 55 feet. However, it seems that we've restricted them pretty significantly to come from RMD 25 down to RMD And if we're really, truly going to be wanting to have the supply of housing and building in every part of the city, if we're going to bring down from RMD 25, the bare minimum I think that would potentially allow housing to occur is the RMD 1555, which I think it's important to go back to the last conversation with regard to the restriction. My understanding is the owner was presuming that there would be access to Don Mills Court. We've essentially now made it so that that isn't going to happen, only emergency access and governmental access to that area. And so there's going to be a higher cost for them to be able to have access that's not in the Newmark Commons area, which I think is important. The community has said, hey, we do not want the additional traffic. We do not want a pathway that could go from one area through our neighborhood. And we've done that. And I think having RMD 1555 without restrictions answers what the community has initially said to us that they wanted, allows for a regional development, and hopefully will have a development there because it's cost effective. I also want to bring up, and I know it was discussed before, the 25.6.6.6 . And that's dealing with what we're talking about, and that's the organic, and I want to get the correct phrasing, the NOR. and I think I understand what staff essentially is saying and my understanding is the under our understanding of why there would be a restriction for this particular type of use is different, and the natural organic reduction, we're not really sure. I've taken a look at a lot of other jurisdictions, and I understand that the natural organic reduction is different than the HA type because it has different chemicals, and it seems like there has been different restrictions. However, what I've seen is when you have an MXB-type zone, as opposed to excluding it, A lot of other jurisdictions put specific restrictions on those specific areas. And I'm just using from examples. ensuring that all natural organic reduction activities, including vessels, holding, processing, curing, bulking agent storing, soil remains storage and transfers occur entirely within an enclosed building. And other things like making sure that even if they're going to be in an MXP, they can't be up against a residential unit. Things like, and I know the gross cumulative floor area, because one of the reasons why I looked at that other area in Maryland that had it, had the large industrial area, but when you have a large industrial usage, you might not be able to be in an MXB. So, restricting the size, and... Oh, and then also making sure that no outdoor storage of remains, vessels, bulking agents, or any of their chemicals is permitted whatsoever. So there might be a compromise between you can't do it, you can do it, but some type of compromise that allows the restrictions that other jurisdictions have allowed in MXB. And I know that I'm kind of throwing this out because we're all kind of playing catch-up over the past week or so, but I think there's a compromise between, nope, you can't do it. Yes, you can do it no matter what, but having some type of restrictions in other jurisdictions. I didn't know if staff had a kind of thought.

Mayor, if it's okay.

Mr. Mihalik, please proceed. Okay, yeah, I think that's what you said you would do right you committed to that to it that to us. Okay. Thank you Please continue Mike please

Oh, scary. I felt there was a voice in my head.

Felt like the Wizard of Oz.

Please don't look at the man behind the corner. All right, we'll start again. One of the issues that I had brought up at the very start of when we were going through our work session is with the annexation process. And I know that you all added a section that said the Planning Commission, and this is in Section 25.1.3.1. And you all had said that we added the planning commission must send a copy of the preliminary annexation plan to the mayor and council within 60 days of receiving the chief of zoning recommendation. I think that's a great addition. What appears to be missing is what if they don't? So my question is, there didn't seem to be the next question is, like, for example, if they don't, that automatically goes to the mayor and council? Or if they don't, someone else has the authority? What is the next step if they don't adhere to that subsection C2?

Our intention was that it would go directly to the mayor and council. However, I do take the point. I don't know if Mr. Wozolak or Mr. Dumais have anything to add to that.

So I think we probably have two options. One would be to assuming, realistically, the Planning Commission doesn't have the ability to withhold reports that they generate. And once they approve something, it's essentially under the custody of the chief of zoning. So we could leave the language as is. We could similarly just say something like, if the Planning Commission does not transmit the preliminary annexation plan, the Mayor and Council may proceed as if the Planning Commission had recommended annexation. But ultimately, you can't fabricate their recommendations. We could say we could proceed without their recommendation, for example. But I will say, I think these are, they may be worth addressing, but these are hypotheticals that are pretty unlikely to be met.

But I guess I'm having trouble with the logic that if they don't, how does it automatically go forward?

The annexation. I mean, so subsection D says, after reviewing the preliminary annexation plan recommended by the Planning Commission, the Mayor and Council must adopt a final annexation plan. If there is no preliminary annexation plan recommended by the Planning Commission, and I would argue that they could proceed under, Mayor and Council could proceed under state law. I mean, I think that the point I'm trying to make is we can certainly add additional language that would allow greater clarity that the Mayor and Council could proceed in the absence of a recommendation, but I don't, I mean, my recommendation in that instance would be that the Planning Commission would not have the ability to prohibit the Mayor and Council from annexing property by failing to proceed with a study. So it's essentially, it's up to the body. But I think if we search carefully enough, there are probably a number of instances throughout the code where there are actions that are required by various bodies. I don't think the Planning Commission would have the ability to prevent you essentially from annexing property, though, from taking a legislative action.

So you're saying that if they didn't, we could just go ahead?

If we were in that situation right now and this were the language in the code, that would be our recommendation.

And again, this is just the lawyer in me. Could someone stop that, saying that the code wasn't held to?

They can make the argument. Yeah.

Okay. I mean, I think I'd probably be safer with a carve-out, but I guess that would be also up to my colleagues.

And I can draft something very quickly. I mean, again, it would say something like, you know, if the Planning Commission fails to send a copy of the preliminary annexation plan pursuant to the subsection C2, the Mayor and Council may proceed with the annexation, something to that effect.

All right. I have a few more things. I know I've taken up a little bit of time. The only other thing that I'd note with regard to 25.11.1.2.h with regard to the historic district commission, I still stand by, you know, my vote previously that it should be unanimous. However, if there's a vote, I do not think it should be super majority. I think it should be at a minimum a six vote. And I have a few other things, but I'll wait for my next turn.

Thank you. Dr. Miles, you had your hand up.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Again, I want to thank my colleagues for their comments. As you pointed out earlier about yourself, Madam Mayor, made comments relevant to the zoning ordinance rewrite in the work sessions previously. My thinking's largely the same. I just want to point out some clarifications based on the conversation that we just heard from our colleagues. One, most recently from Council Member Van Graak, and I'm looking forward to hearing the language, the finalized language that you all worked on with regard to vehicular access that makes sense to me. I do also want to align myself with the comments of madam mayor with regard to MPD bonus density And then you know getting getting away from on the historic designation piece Again, I think it made this comment before but if if it failed to be registered the notion of getting away from having it a Unanimous hope to a supermajority. I'd be in support of that's all. Thank you

Thank you. I'm trying to tally some conversations, because I know you're looking for direction. So you, there were four who are supportive of the NPDU. What I want to also clarify you, I think there's also, I heard from myself, Council Member Shaw, Council Member O'Leary, and Council Member Miles, but can you specifically, Dr. Miles, did you mention that you also supported Council Member Fulton's proposal to do it on RMD 15 across the city? Yeah.

You want me to opine on that? Yes. Yes. Okay.

Because I think the others said yes. Yes, Council Member Fulton.

I don't know how, first of all, you looked like you weren't sure about that. Are you, is that your?

Yeah, I actually would benefit from some clarification on that. I really appreciate you catching that. I was counting that Council Members Fulton, Valeri, Jackson, and Van Grack wanted to increase the height of the RMD 15 zone to 55 feet across the board with no MPDU requirement.

So can I ask, how is it, this is my question, like, if we were to, if there, if we were to raise the height requirement to 15, of RMD 15 to 55 across the board, like we did with MXCD, how would we impose an additional MPD requirement? It's just the maximum height.

Structurally, we would do it in the same way that we've already done with a footnote. The footnote would be revised slightly so that it's not specifically calling out a property that is undeveloped on the effective date of the zoning ordinance that's at the end of the cul-de-sac or however exactly we kind of homed in on this is the only property we're talking about. We would retain the footnote but remove that language that homes in on that one property. It's also very easy to amend the table to allow for the RMD 15 zone to be 55 feet across the board. Either one of those revisions is pretty straightforward.

But can we do both is my question. If we revise the chart to say RMD 15 is a maximum height of 55, how would we then also have an increased NPD requirement?

We would not, I think we would not do it exactly the way that you're conceptualizing it. We would retain the base height at 40 feet, but then we would have the footnote that increases the height to 55 for the provision of 20% MPDUs.

So I just want to be clear on what I was recommending was not that. I think we should raise the height to 55 for all MPDUs. of the 15, yes. I don't understand why we would be treating the 15 differently than any other zone where we're raising the height. Then we should do the same thing for the MXCD. Why don't we do the same thing there?

I will add that one of the comments that we made is with MXCD, we're moving forward with, like we did in Townsend Master Plan, where we increased the height along 355 and then we also added an additional bonus density in that area. So that's how we're treating it. I did hear also that there were four people interested in allowing 15.

Madam Mayor, point of order. I actually could use some discussion about it before we finally get there because I'm still a little confused.

Yeah, we'll come back to that and staff can weigh in. But I just want to clarify that there were four people who said we do support the 15 being at 55 across the city. if there is the NPDU requirement. And one of the people who were on both sides was Councilman Valeri. So I just wanted to flag that. But staff, did you have a comment? And Councilman Fulton, do you have a follow-up question?

No, I think that does clarify it for me. If Councilmember Valeri had said she's in support of both of the options, I was counting her the one direction, and she was also being counted the other direction. So I think that's a point of confusion for me.

Just so I understand the MXCD difference, yes, we do allow a bonus height above what we've put at the minimum if there are more MPDUs as the maximum, yes. But if we change the maximum, there is no bonus. I'm just trying to understand how those two things square. This is a legitimate question. We're treating them differently, right?

I think that when we revisit the Rockville Pike plan, we may actually want to go beyond 130 and make there a baseline height plus a potential bonus density on top of that.

That's still a difference, right? The base is the base, and there's no required MPDU for the extra 50 feet we're giving them in this rewrite.

We were trying to be consistent, more consistent with the Rockville Town Center master plan to bring additional starting height down 355. Staff has their mic on. Mr. Waslick, please proceed.

I did want to point out one difference between RMD 15 versus all the other MX zones in that RMD 15 has a density cap in addition to a height cap. The MX zones do not. So you're still, if you increase the height to RMD 15, you increase the height, you don't increase the density. So developers still working with that 15 units to the acre and trying to provide those MPDU units. So we probably would have to provide some increased density in the RMD15 to make it more feasible.

Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. All right, thank you very much. Dr. Miles, will you finish with your points?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Okay. But no, are we going back down the line? Not yet. So I just wanted to flag, we talked about RMD 15 and PDU. The other thing, staff is going to come back to us on the vehicular access comments that my colleagues have made. Go ahead, Mr. Mihalik. If we need more time, that's fine. We can come back around.

Yes, more time would be very helpful.

Okay, all right. And I know that some of us have additional comments in other sections, so I want to make sure that we give time to go back around on the stack. So, Dr. Miles, you're good. Right? You don't have anything else? Council Member Bolton?

I can just weigh in on the other things that came up. Yes, I agree that we should go with the new language, assuming it's what it should be on the restriction. There was another thing that came up that I wanted to weigh in on. Historic. No, I'm good where we are, but if we're going to change it, I think it should be six to one.

Is there something else?

Not that I have here. Oh, I do think, yes, I'm with everyone else on the green cremation. I think we should try to make it work, but I understand we need more time. Dr. Miles, thank you.

I apologize. I failed to weigh in on the green cremation. I support the discussion that was had and look forward to hearing back from city staff on it. Thank you and apologize.

Thank you. And I think on this point, we have enough support that. Stop is going to come back to us.

That's correct.

Okay. So that isn't we don't have to talk about that anymore tonight. Okay. Did I see Ms. Simmons? Okay. Councilman Valeri. Yes.

Okay. So. excellent on the whole, now we're all cool on the bonus density, et cetera. What I was thinking of, there were only three of us at the time that mentioned the possibility of having RMD that same parcel that we've been talking about for a very long time now having to be RMD 25 closer to 270 and then looking at the rest of the parcel as 15 which to council member Fulton's point we're trying to get as many affordable units as possible and if that is actually one of our goals then we might want to consider it would not even be bonus density at that point it would just be you know, an actual increased height and density. I put that out on the table as a possibility as well because if we are looking at, you know, bonus density versus increasing the height, I think we can do all of the things, but ultimately if we're looking at 25 closest to 270, that would get us more housing. So I just wanted to throw that out there because there was only, three of us that at the time, but if anybody wanted to hop on that.

I do remember we raised this. I know it's a comment I've raised as well, but staff, I was like cutting the parcel a little bit. Did staff have a reason why you didn't like that?

I mean, we just didn't hear four votes to say bring it back.

Oh, that could be. Go ahead, but I'm no no offense to mr. City manager I'm actually talking to my colleagues like there's three of us if anybody would like to hop in the Additional housing trains. I just wanted to put that out there as an option as well I think we've come to a good place with it but Yeah, I just I just want to put that out there because if we want to walk the walk on housing that would actually get us more housing and

Just to clarify, so that would have the RMD 15 bonus density proposal plus splitting the lot like we talked about in previous but didn't have enough support for at the time for 25 along to 70.

Yeah, absolutely.

And but the challenge that I will say is that we would need stuff to come back with how they split that parcel. Mr. Mihalik.

I don't know if we'd have to come back, you guys can just tell us half of it or we would need some type of identification that we can show clearly on a map.

So can you just so that as we go down the line, do you guys have the width of that property? So like,

We'll take a look at it.

Okay, thank you. All right, I'm going to go down the line. Did you have something specific to this? Yes. Okay, go ahead.

So, I mean, I'm all for density. So, I mean, that's fine. The problem is part of the problem that we have here to begin with, this is not a large parcel. This is not really like an entire neighborhood that we're dealing with where we can say, oh, RMD 25, RMD 10. This is part of the problem that we have here in the reason why it needs to be somewhat of a dense and why it was RMD 25 to begin with is it's a small narrow parcel. And if we're going to get housing there to split it up between one or the other, I don't know that makes sense for this particular property. I'm certainly, you know, all welcome because, again, as we talked about, one of our goals are housing. And so if the choice is RMD 25 versus an RMD 1555 with restrictions and MPDU, sure, I would support that. The problem is I don't think that's realistic in this property to have some type of split within it. That was my only point of why I hadn't supported that. Thank you.

It might be helpful to pull up that property so that we can see. And if you need more time, that's fine. We can come back to this issue because I know there's other topics that we have to discuss. I know this was raised and we haven't necessarily cut it that way. So. I would also just note that adjacent to this property, the same owner has already RMD 25 allocated that they may treat it as one contiguous project or master plan it in a way like that is what I've heard from the team previously.

Council Member Valeri. Just super quickly on this topic, and to Council Member Van Graaf's point, there are actual parcels with a higher density that are more narrow to scale on this map. So while I, and I completely appreciate like even having that, that is actually, oh gosh, let me look at it. It was one of the mixed use zones. If you could scroll down super quickly on what we're looking at on the residential, the mixed use zone types. I don't know who's, oh no, the little, the key on the left I heard that. OK, so we were talking about the MXCD, which significantly can have more height and more density. There are parcels which are a sliver of what we're looking at that are zoned right now as MXCD along 355 north of West Goody. So I don't think that this is an impossibility. I defer, absolutely defer to staff, but if you were looking at just the map itself, and I'm a big fan of maps, and I've always appreciated the tools, I don't think that this is as difficult as it may appear, and I think I think it's going to take a little bit of creativity to get us to our housing goals. So I still put it on the table. I appreciate Council Member Van Graak's point. Absolutely taken. I just wanted to flag that we have MXCD zones north of West Goody that are would be basically, and I know it's not the scale, look to be about half of that parcel.

The south half. I would also note the town center parcel, it looks so tiny and there's planned units there, so I'm just flagging that. Mr. Mihalik, go ahead.

I mean, I'm almost nervous to jump in, but just to help the conversation perhaps, if council gave us direction such like the westerly half of the property shall be zoned RMD 25 and the easterly half of the property shall be zoned RMD 15 with a height limit of 55 and 20% MPDUs, that's easy enough, but I'm just throwing that out there as an example of a motion that you guys could make.

I'm going to pause it and just make sure staff has a chance to whisper among each other on their concerns, and let's come back to this issue. Okay. All right. Council Member Valeri, are there other issues that you were holding back on? I know you shortened your list.

I know y'all are tired of hearing me talk anyways.

I'm sorry, hold on. You also had a revelation.

So we're looking at scenarios on the property. If you extended the north-south property line between the Potomac Valley Nursing Home and existing Don Mills Court properties straight southward and created and rezoned the property west of that line, that is 5.84 acres, just to give you a sense of how much land that is. So the rest of it is about four acres. Because the total is 9.75.

Okay. And we've heard some feedback about this. If we put that line on, you would have some of that. I guess it wouldn't abut necessarily a property, correct? Because it would be west of that. I'm just trying to make sure that we've gotten some comments about, there was misinformation about Potomac Valley Home and it's going to go up and tower over our homes. That's not accurate, correct?

No, it is not.

But we won't create that similar concern with the way you're proposing to divide it? No. Okay, thank you. Okay. Council Member Valeri, did you have a comment on this issue?

Go ahead. For the record, I just want to share that I support the natural organic reduction.

Oh, thank you. Thank you.

Oh, go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I did want to just throw out there, and I have ideas on it, but I think I'm going to raise this again, that in light of, I think, some of the important discussions that we're having around historic designation, especially because designation is a legislative zoning act. It makes sense that we're having it. However, we have not as a body had an actual work session around this issue. We have not really, in the way that we have dug deep and had work sessions on zoning, we have not had that kind of lens applied around historic designation. I think that these discussions are important enough to warrant that. I think that we are still using a lot of the processes and criteria that have been in place with no critique or review for many, many, many years. And so I would really like to reiterate and put before my My colleagues that we do have that work session because I truly believe that we need to not be I don't think that we can simply say that historic designation across the board. I think that there are levels of significance or cultural importance. I think that We need to have that conversation. There are some entities on the historic registry that are there simply because they are an example of an architectural style. They're not the only example. And I'm challenged by this because, and Madam Mayor and I have talked about this a lot, right? The example I give is if Thurgood Marshall, grew up in Rockville. There is a distinct difference between the home where Thurgood Marshall was born and raised and a home in Twinbrook that is a style of Cape Cod that at least four to five other houses around it also have. So I think that the whole premise is actually flawed here. I think we need to look at it in terms of cultural significance and cultural preservation versus simply a style and I'm just gonna throw that out there for my colleagues as well. This is a much deeper conversation than simply the Zor and I think we'll do a great disservice if we don't get into this issue now and kick the can down the road.

Thank you. Are you done on the rest of Zorg?

Yeah.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much for that feedback. Since you raised historic designation, I was tallying up on the unanimous versus supermajority. I saw four with myself, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Shaw, and Councilmember Miles. What I want to clarify is supermajority or six of seven. So I just wanted to I heard those numbers as well. Get clarity on that. Ms. Simmons, did you want to say something?

I was counting the same that you did, Madam Mayor. There were a couple of members who did reference a six to one, but there was specification for supermajority from yourself, Council Members Jackson, Shaw, and Miles on my count as well.

Any additional comments? Dr. Miles.

I apologize. I guess I've had my mic on for some time now. Before supporting it, I support in premise coming from a unanimous to supermajority. I should have asked what constitutes a supermajority, legally or otherwise.

Yes. In terms of the zoning ordinance, we have been counting it as five out of the seven.

OK. I'm still in support if it's five out of seven. Thank you.

Okay. Does everyone else support that interpretation? Okay. We still have the four. Thank you. Okay. I had a couple other comments, and I do think we need to come back to the historic preservation discussion broadly because I think there's a manual, and I know there's a budget consideration of that, but just as you get the Rockville Pike Plan, East Rockville Plan, and there's other things to touch on in the future. Yes. I'm not doing that tonight, Mr. Mihalikos. I almost fell out of my chair, Mayor. Sorry. Okay. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. The other piece I wanted to ask is up front in Article 1, Section 25.1.21, Transitional Provision, Application and Progress. As we move forward with this, I know you left the dates blank to be filled in, right? We previously had a workshop on there's going to be a two-year allowance. Can you just clarify, just because I know in this draft the dates are not filled in for the listening public as to what the intent is there?

I'm sorry, could you restate the question? I know we're at the transitional provisions.

The transitional provision application in progress, it applies to section 25.1.2.2 and it goes to .3.4. You have dates that are kind of highlighted to be filled in once we adopt. So can you just talk about the time span?

Absolutely. So if we're talking about the effective date of the chapter, that is proposed to be August 1st, assuming an adoption date of today. So that would be just a little bit over a month to kind of tee things up to make sure that we are prepared for the ordinance to become effective. And then everything would kind of proceed from there. So when you're looking at needing, for example, to submit written requests to the chief of zoning by a date two months after the effective date of this chapter in section 25.1.2.1B, then that would be two months after that August 1st date and so on.

Okay, thank you very, very much. That is appreciate what I was trying to make sure I was thinking about those people who already have applications in place, and they might look at I have to do something totally different. That's, that's the date parameter. I was wondering how you're going to fill that in.

Yes, absolutely. I will tell you also, we have been reaching out proactively to our applicants who have applications in process just to make them aware of these provisions and have already received some communications from applicants regarding which ordinance they would like to proceed under.

Okay, thank you. That was my second question is about the educational outreach, but they will have a chance to decide which one they proceed under. That's perfect. Thank you. I've raised this before, but just wanted to flag the article on applications, permits, and procedures, section 25411, newspaper notice. It says basic newspaper notice. I know my colleagues and I have been talking about we don't just put things on pigeons anymore. I know you don't want to get too expansive because you don't want to create a legal liability, but at minimum we can say it goes on our website, correct? Just to come into the digital age on this.

This is an excellent question for me to defer to our colleague, Mr. Foreman, who is on the line with us. He can give us pretty much any information that you would like about notification. Okay.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. John Foreman, Development Services Manager. If you'll give me just a minute, I was not on that page. So the question, as I understood it, was about posting information on the city website. Would you mind repeating just to make sure while I'm looking at this that I've got the question correct, please?

Yes, thank you, this is section 25411 newspaper notice under article for development applications permits and procedures were acquired by law, the city must cause no. must be published a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with chapter state law, I think you also are required, or you should be required to put it on the development website correct. or at least on rockville's website.

So there are a number of other provisions for notice farther on in the chapter, and it's the way it's drafted is by application type and then it refers back to the various notice provisions. They're not all the same. There are some application types that require. mailed notice. The amount of mailed notice varies depending on the application type. So that is definitely written in. I'm looking to see what is mentioned in terms of website notice. Regardless of what's required in the code, I'll say as a process and procedural matter, we post applications on a Development Watch webpage as well as listing them Um, in our newspaper as they are sorry in our newsletter that we email out as they come in, um, the extent to which those can or should be in the code. Um, I think I would defer to Mr. I think there are other implications there, but but I'll note that the city has had a procedure of putting those things on the website, um, for a number of years and has no plans or intention to change. If anything, we're looking to expand that. I would also note that there are defined digital notice, so they're required to be emailed to HOA representatives and community representatives as well. And let me pause there and see if Ms. McMahon has anything to add.

No, that's okay. Yeah, I appreciate that. I did see a lot of the snail mail stuff in newspaper and I was just trying to make sure that we were coming in. It doesn't look like a code from 40 years ago. So that was the nature of my commentary. So I won't believe with a point, but that's why I'm raising it. It's it's very old school. The other question that I have, and I apologize for not previously raising this under section twenty five, six, eight, four temporary uses. It says, and this is going to be funny, but for party and events, that when a party and event tent is used on residential property for a period of three days or less, is a permit really needed to put a tent in your backyard? I just wouldn't want residents like the Dermish issue randomly getting fined. And again, that's section 25684, number six, party and event tents.

Yes. No, this is a great question. So in this section, we haven't dealt with in so long. So thank you for testing my memory. So it says that the temporary tents associated with parties and events may be installed under a temporary use permit for a period of up to seven days. But the temporary use permit is not required in the following instances when a party and the second one is when a party and event tent is used on residential property for a period of three days or less. So the intention there is that the permit would not be required until you exceed three days. So as soon as you hit that fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh day, then you require the permit.

That's super helpful. Excellent. I think those are my core issues, so thank you very much. Council Member Jackson, then Council Member Shaw.

Thanks mayor, so just to Chime in as councilmember. Shaw did I am for the green cremation as well And what you guys are going to come back to us with? also for the the traffic language that councilmember bank rack suggested and you guys were working out and I did have a question. So we talked a little bit about splitting the property the Tara Oaks area Isn't that a little bit difficult given the the terrain of that property I mean Splitting it up. I Just I don't know It seems like if you divide it, you have really difficult terrain, especially on the stormwater management kind of area. So, I mean, is it realistic even to split it up?

I think almost anywhere you would put the line, it's somewhat arbitrary. We do notice that some of the Improvements that exist on the site now in terms of stormwater management are more on the eastern side of the property So, you know if the line could be more toward the center of the property that might avoid some of those things but I think anywhere you put it even it's based on other property boundaries You know short of a survey It's going to be somewhat arbitrary

And my final question, and this goes back to something that Council Member Fulton was talking about. Did we decide on RMD 15 across the city, and what did we decide?

I heard 55 feet, and I also heard 20% MPT use for RMD 15 as well.

Thank you. That's what I heard as well.

Is that Council Member Blary? I don't mean to call attention, but I think I was still unclear on where you landed on that.

Sorry, I can probably be a lot more clear, but that's kind of how my brain rolls, so I apologize, Ms. Simmons. No, I absolutely agree with making that change to RMD 15 across the city. I think it makes sense. I was also, that's why I was kind of bringing up the how could we look at adjusting the parcel, because ultimately we want to get more MPDUs. Is bonus height enough of a draw? I don't know. I am not a developer, nor do I pretend to be one. I would love to hear that kind of input. I don't know if that's enough of the incentive right now. But I also know that we are, we will get a certain amount of MPDUs if we increase the height. So it makes sense to me. I support it across the city.

I think she's asking about the NPDU requirement.

Oh, I'm sorry, the NPDU requirement? So in order to get the 55 across the city, that would have to be a 20% NPDU?

No, you get to decide that, what position. You previously said that you supported the, last time we had this discussion about the MPDU requirement, but you, now you asked for us to exploit this. Yes. So she's trying to ask, are you RMD 15 across the city without an MPDU requirement, or are you in support of RMD 15 across the city with an MPDU requirement?

Margin limited.

larger than, and then increase it.

Yeah, so in order to get that additional height, they'll go above 15.

Can you come back to me on that one? This is a hard one. I do want more MPDUs, but I don't know if this is the hook for it, so... I will basically then say just the height without the 20% requirement, but I do want to explore what would work and across the city. I don't know if this will.

So I'm hearing from you that you support the RMD-15 across the city without the NPDU requirements. And that would go forward then everywhere. And so the previous four we had on RMD 15 would not go. Exploring, correct. Just talking about the previous conversation today. Yes. She said she supported it earlier. So she's storming and forming and we're giving her the space to do so.

Correct. And I feel like many are storming and forming, like live from the dais. So, you know, not every assumption is... STAYS IN PLACE. SO, NO, I'M GOING BACK AND FORTH ON IT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE GUARANTEED NUMBER VERSUS THE POSSIBILITY OF A DEVELOPMENT NOT COMING IN TO INCREASE, THAT'S THE CALCULUS FOR ME. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, MS. SIMMONS?

IT DOES. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.

THAT'S QUALIFYING. With that said, I think that the compromise on the trying to do the RMD 15 and 25, I don't know if people, if we have enough support on that. I was supporting that if we had the additional NPDU requirement, so I will hold on that for now. Council Member Shaw.

I just wanted I had another issue or another kind of question to follow up with when we were going over the map for the Montrose community, there was a footnote for 1 of the zones that noted that it wouldn't create gentrification. And I just I asked about how how did you know that like what sources and information so this is just a request to just Circle back to that question and at some point just to provide some information on that Because I think That the equity analysis Done, I don't think considers The difference in income when you have brand-new housing, that's market rate, versus some of the NPDUs or even the workforce housing. The new housing, as we saw from the housing assessment, a lot of the housing that we're building is not for people that are making moderate salaries or wages or... or maybe some of the lower it's more for the very very higher higher salaries and so if you could just circle back to that section and just provide some of the sources of why it says that it won't it won't create gentrification we can follow up with answers yes okay thank you

Councilman Valeri. Thank you. And thank you, Councilmember Shah, because this is something that I was challenged with the fact that we had a special presentation about the housing needs assessment and not an actual back and forth, because there were a lot of questions like this. I wanted to ask questions about how some of the numbers came about. I wanted to make sure that I had the understanding. Special presentations for the public completely constrain us. We cannot have a back and forth Q&A. with whoever is presenting us. It's extremely frustrating when you do have questions. And I think there were policy recommendations in that presentation that we couldn't say anything about. But this is an important question. Facts need to be backed up with sourcing and you know context and there was a lot of both that was missing that I could not ask any questions about so I do feel very constrained I don't know if on the face of it if if everything that we we saw in that report was accurate there were several things that were shown to not be accurate so I I you know I I appreciate councilmember Shah I appreciate you bringing it up I wish we could have had the conversation frankly, so I just wanted to make that point.

Female Speaker 1 Thank you. And on that particular point that my colleagues raised, I did mention the need to potentially have a work session. We have the MPDU scheduled. We're having the landlord-tenant now, but there are other recommendations like the Hoff and others that we have not had a chance to discuss, and I believe that Mr. Mihalik's intention is to bring that forward to us. Mr. Mihalik, please proceed.

Yeah, no, I'll just say we'll line that out. I didn't want to push forward on something else, but were there additional questions or comments? Mayor, if not, I have a suggestion for you.

You mean on Zora more broadly on this topic of the housing these are broadly. Okay. Let me just go back to my colleagues and see. Colleagues are there any other sections comes from bank rack? You had some that you were not finished, but I just want to make sure none of my other colleagues are not skipping the line. You commented already comes from a show. Do you have anything additional? Will you finish with your point?

I will just note that I'm still supportive of the MPDUs. And if that doesn't seem to work out, then looking at increasing this to workforce housing, which is closer to market rate.

I'm in the same position, Council Member Shah, but I think we're three at this point, so we don't win on that. Yeah, and we just had this housing needs assessment say we need a lot more affordable, so thank you for flagging, yes, and workforce. Council Member Van Graaf, back to you.

Well, just also keep in mind, perfection is the enemy of the good, that if we're going to be increasing RMD 15 to 55, we are getting more MPDUs across the city. So I'd rather, to quote Council Member Fulton, I'd rather see more MPDUs than restrict MPDUs at all because we're lowering the requirements. So section, and this goes to something the Mayor was saying that I want to add to. In section 25.1.2.2, this is the previous approved project plans. I know the Mayor was talking also about this because we don't want to necessarily prejudice anybody, and I know we had talked about this when we were going through this before, Maybe I'm misreading this, but this seems to me that if there's an approved project that has not yet received the site approval, they must go through the current one, not the previous one. Is that right?

That is correct.

So is there any rationale or reason about essentially those particular plans, grandfathering those in to have the similar choice that we were talking about? Because when they applied and it was approved, they were under the previous regime, not the current regime.

We did consider that. I might start things off and then defer to my colleagues if they have anything to add. I think it comes down to needing to kind of draw a line somewhere. So we did think, if you recall back in the original staff draft, we did not even address grandfathering for project plans. Agreed. No project plans can be grandfathered in this manner. The transitional provisions apply only to site plans. And through the course of review and thinking about what is kind of fair and reasonable in terms of both the needs of our applicants and also really anticipating that this zoning ordinance is appropriate preferable probably to applicants and it is the direction that we want development to go it is the embodiment ideally of um the goals from our comprehensive plan our fast initiative other council priorities we really do want for projects to use the new zoning ordinance so um It certainly could have been possible to write it differently, but we thought that this was a really reasonable compromise to say, you don't need to go back and redo your project plan to conform to this new zoning ordinance. However, when you pick up and you come in with your site plan, that does need to conform to the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Dumais, Mr. Wozleck, even Mr. Foreman, if you have anything to add to that, I also defer to you.

The only other thing I'll add is just one of the incentives is that you don't have to go to the planning commission. If you were to proceed with a level two site plan under our current code, you would have that additional administrative process that you just don't have under this code. In addition to everything Ms. Simmons said, we just think most developers are gonna choose to proceed with the shorter route. But again, I certainly second everything Ms. Simmons said.

So let me ask you this. I have not heard anything. This is just my read of kind of code going through that. Have you guys heard from anybody who had an issue with this non-grandfathering but putting forward in this manner? Which, everything you're saying makes sense if someone would want to, but I know I'm not necessarily smart enough to think about all the permutations that someone might have. Have we heard from anybody that that presents a concern?

To my knowledge, we have not. However, I also would be interested to hear if Mr. Foreman has any additional information on that. I do believe that we looked into the number of approved plans that would even kind of be addressed with this. And the number was very small, if I recall correctly. And I see Mr. Foreman has come online as well.

Yes, thank you. The number is very small. That is true. We have also, as a matter of practice, been as transparent and informative as we have, as we can possibly be with both our ongoing applicants and those who have prior approvals of project plans that may be affected by this. And to date, nobody has expressed concern about this provision. The feedback we've got is we want the option. And I think we've built that into the draft here.

Okay, that answers my concern. The only other thing that I wanted to mention, I know some of my colleagues mentioned it too, I appreciate the detail that staff has went through with regard to the deer mesh. I know it's been a constant shuffling and back and forth, and I'm sure that when you started this, you had no idea that you would be spending so much time on deer mesh, Lyme disease, and planting issues within the city. So I appreciate the effort that you guys have put forward in the product that we have before us. So thanks so much.

We were just trying to net it out. No? Okay.

Oh. Planners like to plan, net it out. Got one more?

You were just kneading the dough.

Okay, you know. I did want, thank you, Councilman Baker, that's why I was headed on, not the jokes, but on the transitional planning. That was my concern in general, is that people have things in process. They don't have to start from scratch. and so i just i asked the question i'll just ask it one more time to make sure we're not inadvertently harming people that they will have a chance to choose but i just have concern about changes that are so abrupt i also was curious just to support additional educational outreach about whether we look at a september 1st start date um so i you know that's that's another thought i wanted to flag for the team um do you want can you share any clarifying information about your thoughts on that

I think at the end of the day, the determination on the effective date largely is something to be decided by the body. Mr. Dume can weigh in on that as well.

You can certainly push back the effective date.

I don't want to do it unnecessarily, but I'm trying to make sure that the projects that are in development are not harmed. That's the ultimate goal. The second thing I want to do is there's a lot in here. We've had a resident who's caught something, like that we as a team have enough time, and I know there are holidays and time off coming, that you have time to QA this document again. So that's giving professional space as well as wanting to make sure we're not causing harm to projects in play.

Is the reference to the one cross-reference that was incorrect?

Yes. Yes.

And we have addressed that and very much appreciate our resident who caught that residence.

Yeah. I just was saying this is a big document. There could be others. So I just wanted to give you guys a space to have fresh eyes on it and not just rush it. So that's why I was sharing, if that's something that would be helpful. I would support that. And the second comment is I don't want to hurt anyone who has projects in play right now. So what would you suggest? Do we need to do anything differently?

I anticipate that from a staff perspective, either is perfectly acceptable. We are confident that we can be set to go on August 1st. However, if it's a September 1st effective date, we can certainly use that time as well.

Okay. And then just to echo the comments that I made and Councilman Van Graak made, there would be no projects and transitions that would be harmed.

I would say that our transitional provisions address how projects would be treated going forward and projects that are pending will have the opportunity to determine whether they would like to proceed under the old ordinance or the new ordinance.

Okay. And you are doing outreach over what period to communicate that to them?

If Mr. Foreman could respond to that question, I'd defer to him.

We would begin. Well, we've already begun. As I mentioned, we've been working with applicants and have had standard comments referring to the zoning ordinance for months now. But we would begin the more direct, targeted correspondence to our applicants as soon as this week. We have a draft email that's basically ready to go, outlining the steps and the the transitional provisions for everybody that has an application and process. From our perspective, the August 1st date is plenty of time for us to send that, for us to work through any questions and to meet that. It also does provide a sooner availability of the new zoning ordinance for those who want to use it, and there are some of those. So speaking just from the impact on the development projects, not the drafting, Ms. Simmons can address that. But speaking just from that perspective, we are completely fine with August 1st.

Okay, thank you. And you guys have the time to have fresh eyes to QA this document again. Okay, thank you. Council Member Valeri.

Thank you. As I continue to sit here and noodle through this, I had a question about above going back to our favorite topic of RMD 15. I'm trying to see what the compromise could be. I think it's possible that we could do the 55 height across the city with RMD 15 but then make and still do get more MPDs through bonus height if we went above 55 in those circumstances, correct? Like what would be the next above 55, basically, if we were looking at like another? I'm trying to like think on the fly here and think about ways to essentially do both, right? I don't think that it's impossible.

I mean, it's policy decision, I mean, I mean, council could give us advice on, you know. How many MPD use or what percentage is worth X amount of feet going up? That's that's what we've tried to do with this. Yeah. When council had this originally original conversation. going to 55, then we thought 20% made sense to us, right? If council wanted to say, you know what, 55 is standard across the city, but if you go up to say, let's say 75, then we would expect you to have a 20% NPD or 25 or 30 or something like that, but I don't want to say it's completely arbitrary, but it's absolutely a policy decision.

Yeah, and thank you, Mr. City Manager. I can't read that. Sorry. I'm trying to do the math and I'm really bad. And Madam Mayor's really good at doing math. I know, she's trying to do math for me because I'm a communications major. I can't do this. But what I'm trying to do is I completely support what Councilmember Fulton was doing. I completely support trying to create more MPDUs through a bonus height incentive. And what would be that next Height that would get us that, you know, um, it could be anywhere from from eighteen to twenty percent. But I'm trying to thread that needle and I'm not doing very well because math is hard.

If it's okay, so I think it's. It's interesting this is both a land use decision. Right clearly tonight zoning, but at the same time, it's also a critical affordable housing decision. Um, in a bit when you guys are ready, we're going to ask for a recess if we can, if it's all right with the mayor to put together the language, you guys can have a clear sheet in front of you. If you choose to make a motion on what you all agreed to. But please know, we do plan on bringing back within the next couple of months for a broader discussion. And at that point, you guys could decide. that you want to make changes to the NPDU code. And then also you could say, you know what? Even though we just adopted the zoning ordinance, we want to go back in and talk about height bonuses and what NPDU bonuses might look like. It's just an idea. So I don't want to clutter things, but just a thought to kind of park that for now. Thank you, Mayor.

Are you suggesting that we could go back in and say, oh, you can't get this height? I mean, I think that would not be nice to say you can't. We're giving 55 with no NPDU and then say months later. in December that we changed our minds. I just, I don't know, I think we should try to be more clear. I understand that we'll look at the whole program and there's considerations on that as well, but I just want to also be fair.

Understood.

There's a consistency, sorry, Madame Mayor.

There is a consistency to a certain extent because we had this bonus height, you know, I don't want to say program, but calculus, basically, when we were having the town center master plan. Right? I'm not crazy. I mean, I am. But I'm not crazy that we had this conversation already. So I'm trying to... Thank you, Ms. Simmons. Every time I look at you, I feel so much better. I'm trying to find that way to do both because I don't think it's a false equivalency either, while at the same time creating more affordable rental, but also more affordable MPDU to own as well. So... What could that calculus look like and how could we codify that within the ZOR without having to wait for an NPDU program?

I think it's an excellent question and I really appreciate the intent. I think what you're going to find with the RMD15 is that because it functions differently than our mixed use zones where the limiting factors are your setbacks and your height, in the RMD15 you have density. and height and the setbacks as well. But the limitation really, I think in going above 55 feet, it's not to say that that would not be impactful, but I think you're going to hit the limitations of the 15 dwelling unit per acre requirement. So that going significantly above that, it simply might not do what you would like for it to do because you're still limited in terms of density. So continuing to increase the height without increasing the density might not be as effective as desired. Now, that's not to say it absolutely wouldn't. This is something we're considering on the fly here. But in thinking about it for just a few minutes, I think that's probably what you're going to run into.

And thank you for that. I could definitely appreciate that. Then what would prevent the increase in density? I know I understand at that point. I mean, it's just different than the mixed-use zoning because we're not looking at that mixed, you know. But what would the kind of shift look like in terms of density, and why would we not also then – Do that.

Absolutely. Sorry, can I just also, just to give everyone time, because sometimes it helps to step away from a conversation and come back to it, and I know you have language regarding, I still have on our list the entrance issue, and you want it sometime, so I'm wondering if we might take a quick break, if everyone's okay with that, and then staff can do some noodling and come back to us with some of the suggestions that you're talking through, just to give you some professional space to convene.

If I could just check off the any other broader issues though, I think we covered it. Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, if you could just give us 10 minutes We'll come up with some language and bring it back.

Okay, that sounds good And can I just ask a question just because you have staff waiting? Colleagues it is now 1022 Do you want to start the landlord tenant? Guys, just.

I want to get it down.

Okay. Yeah, so just want to make sure, because I want to make sure if we're holding staff that we're having that conversation. Yeah. Yes.

Why not?

Okay, so I'm hearing different things. Dr. Miles. Okay. Councilman Fulton.

Sure.

Councilman Valeri. Okay. And you all, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Shaw is a no. No. All right, let's, Dr. Moss, go ahead.

I think given, given how much we're behind right now, I think given staff time to come back with some remarks, I would hope we can get through it, but our precedent is just not looking good. And I don't think our brains are gonna work. I'm on my second thing of caffeine, like I'll be good, but I just don't think it's good for process. So unless we're really focused, I think it's unlikely we'll get to the other piece, but I'm willing to try to be focused. That's all.

Thank you. Council Member Fulton? I just agree with Dr. Miles. I'd like to be able to get through it, but it's not good for anyone to do this much past 1130. So if we don't realistically think we can be done by then, I don't know.

I'm going to say this as a compromise. Perhaps we take a 10-minute break, come back and finish this, and we allow ourselves to go to 1130, and that's it. and we cut it off as to wherever we are. Are you guys good with that? Does that accomplish the comment? Yeah, we could, yeah. Council Member Shah, you had a comment.

Yeah, I just want to make sure that we're all in the right state of mind when we're doing land because this is a really important piece that we're doing. And I want to make sure that we're providing, you know, the right type of changes. Additionally, can, can you just remind me of the effective date for that? The landlord tenant code?

Council, I mean, Council, see, this is getting late. City Manager.

Do you want to make a suggestion? We're kind of getting to the next topic, so we can, we'll explain that when we describe the code. I'm happy to do that at the effective date.

But I was, if you could share that now, it would be helpful.

Typically, it's 30 days after adoption of the ordinance.

Okay, so the other thought, let's just take a 10-minute break and come back, but I do want to just note that we also have July 6th if we need it. Yes.

I think Council Member Van Graak and then me. Go ahead.

No, I think he's agreeing with me. Go ahead, Council Member Van Graak.

Oh, that's what I was saying all along. I'm all along saying we should not be taking July 6th off the record, off the calendar, but.

I'll yeah I've all along felt that given what we have here that July 6 taking off the calendar wasn't a good idea but yeah I'll leave it at that it's up to the body we did previously say that if we needed the time we would take July 6 back so that is consistent with our comments but after the break we will talk and talk to staff because I don't know if people have made other plans councilman Jackson okay all right we're taking a break thanks guys Good evening, Rockville. Today is still June 29th, 2026, and we're reconvening meeting 17-26. We were coming to the conclusion of our zoning ordinance rewrite agenda item, and I'm going to turn it back to staff because they had a time to confer and share some information with us.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And we have put together suggested motions for you to consider, and I'll go over those in a moment. we just want to build up the suspense okay to adopt the each ordinance motions are required in the typical process you would introduce the ordinance move to waive the layover period, and then move to adopt the ordinance to grant, in this case, the zoning text amendment, and there's a companion ordinance for the zoning map amendment. So I did want to go over the suggested amendments that you've agreed on based on your discussion. So under the topic of historic district designation, we'll revise the words, unanimous to supermajority. Under the annexation process, it would add the sentence at the end of section 25131D, if the planning commission fails to send a copy of the preliminary annexation plan as required by section 25131C2, the mayor and council may adopt a final annexation plan pursuant to state law, just to make that clear. Under the RMD section, it would amend table 7.16-1 to delete footnote 3 dealing with MPDUs and delete the 40 foot height and replace it with 55 feet in our development standards table. And then regarding access, there were three components to this. First one is the MXCD zone, adding the text, which would prohibit vehicular access to a secondary residential street. We would add the text, notwithstanding the foregoing, the director of public works, chief of inspection services, or fire marshal may authorize a restricted vehicular access point to a secondary residential street for governmental access and emergency access only. Similarly, the second part deals with the MXE, IL, and IH zones. Vehicular access to any residential street is prohibited, notwithstanding the foregoing, those same individuals may authorize a restricted vehicular access point to a residential street for government access and emergency access only. And finally, for the RMD 15 zone, new vehicular access to any secondary residential street ending in a cul-de-sac on the effective date of the ordinance is prohibited Notwithstanding the foregoing, those three individuals may authorize restricted vehicular access point to such a secondary residential street for governmental access and emergency access only. So any questions on the suggested motion for the ZTA?

To clarify, I know the city attorney would probably like us to read all of these. And are you anticipating that we, obviously we're gonna do the introduction and the waiver layover period separately, but that we read it all together to do one motion? Okay, all right. Team, who wants to introduce the ordinance? Council Member Van Graak.

Madam Mayor, I introduce the ordinance.

Thank you. Team, who wants to waive the layover period? Dr. Miles.

Madam Mayor, I move to waive the layover period.

Council Member Jackson, seconds. Who wants to move to adopt the ordinance? Oh, yeah, sorry. I'm getting excited. See you after 11. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. All right. Now we need a motion to adopt the ordinance.

I move to adopt the ordinance to grant zoning text amendment TXT 2026-00271 as amended to repeal and replace city code chapter 25 titled zoning ordinance including including Cool. Revise the words, the unanimous to a supermajority in section 25.11.1.2H. Add the following sentence to the end of section 25.1.3.1D, quote, if the planning commission fails to send a copy of preliminary annexation plan as required by section 25.1.3.1C2, the mayor and council may adopt a final annexation plan pursuant to state law, end quote. Amend Table 7.1.6-1 to delete footnote 3 and delete 40 feet and replace with 55 feet. Revised Section 25.8.2.2 to quote, in the MXCD zone, vehicular access to the secondary residential street is prohibited. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the director of public works, chief of inspection services, or fire marshal may authorize a restricted vehicular access point to a secondary residential street for governmental access and emergency access only, end quote. Revised Section 25.8.2.2b2 to, quote, in the MXE I-L and I-H zones, vehicular access to any residential street is prohibited. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Public Works, Chief of Inspection Services, or Fire Marshal may authorize a restricted vehicular access point to a residential street for governmental access and emergency access only, end quote. Revised Section 25.8.2.2.B.3 to quote, in the RMD 15 zone, new vehicular access to any secondary residential street ending in a cul-de-sac on the effective date of the ordinance is prohibited. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Public Works, Chief of Inspection Services, or Fire Marshal may authorize a restricted vehicular access point to such a secondary residential street for governmental access and emergency access only.

Do we have a second? Council Member Valeriya, second. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Council Member Fulton, that was excellent. Thank you very much. And also, I want to say thank you to staff and thank you to all the residents who provided input. I know we tried to make a number of changes that met the needs of our community, We made some compromises, but we have a draft now, and we have the map amendment coming up next, but I just want to say thank you to everyone who was included in this process, and there are many people. I also thank the Planning Commission, because they did a lot of work, too. All right. We can remove that paragraph story motion. I appreciate it. Thank you. For the listening public, before we move on to the next agenda item, I want to note that we are planning to remove item C, adoption of an ordinance to amend Chapter 18 of the Rockville City Code entitled Mayor and Council Rental Facilities and Landlord-Tenant Relations to July 6th. So I just want to flag that in case anyone is listening.

Well, could we potentially try to get it today? No. Okay.

I've already checked. Okay. It is 11-12. All right. I appreciate all of my colleagues' opinions, and we listened to each other and made a decision. Thank you. Okay. We tried. We're now moving on to the potential adoption of an ordinance to approve the MAP amendment application, MAP 2026-00126, a comprehensive MAP amendment to implement the zoning ordinance rewrite, including zoning recommendations in the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the Town Center Master Plan, Mayor and Council of Rockville as applicants. Welcome back to our esteemed panel, Holly Simmons and Jim Wasluck.

thank you madam mayor members of the council we have nothing further to add on this topic thank you very much and can you just explain to us in public how this relates to the previous agenda item so the prior agenda item was for the zoning text in other words the law that governs zoning in rockville this will implement a brand new zoning ordinance zoning map that implements the zoning ordinance so that when you can check to see what a property is owned it will be completely updated

Excellent, thank you. Who wants to introduce? Councilman Valeri? Madam Mayor, I introduce the ordinance. Can you please read it? I'm sorry.

That's what I did.

Oh, you don't want us to read this whole thing?

Madam Mayor, you've already listed the agenda items. This should be fine.

Okay, all right. We have two different documents here. All right, who wants to move to waive the layover period? Councillor Jackson.

I move to waive the layover period.

Do we have a second? Dr. Miles. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Okay, all right. Who wants to move to adopt? And it's not as long as the last one. Council Member Fulton, you're off the hook if you'd like to be. I'll read it. Council Member Valeri.

Madam Mayor, I move to adopt the ordinance granting comprehensive map amendment application MAP2026-00126 as amended. Thank you. Do we have a second?

Councilman Van Graak seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. It is unanimous. Congrats. I feel like there should be confetti going. I know this is a major career milestone for many of you have worked on this and just want to say congratulations and thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you all very much.

Okay, we're now moving on to agenda item 13, mock agenda. We reviewed it this morning, but we have made it in addition to July 6 to have that as a meeting date and Mr. Mahalik will be updating the website along with the city clerk. Correct. In short order. Perfect. Thank you. Old new business.

Okay.

All right. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Valeri. Okay. I just wanted to note that I've heard some feedback about the sound quality in this room for people who have hearing concerns. I just want, because it's been raised as well as accessibility, The team is working on it to improve both hearing accessibility as well as physical accessibility of people who are using mobility devices to be able to be at the podium. Mr. Mihalik, is that correct?

That's absolutely correct.

All right. We have heard you all in the community. We appreciate you and thank you for helping us to address this, Mr. Mihalik. Does anyone want to make the motion to adjourn? Councilman Valeri, do we have a second? I move that we adjourn. Do we have a second? Councillor Jackson all those in favor please raise your hand and say aye excellent thank you so that the new motions are up there so people can see perfect thank you