PLANNING COMMISSION

Wednesday, January 13, 2021 7:00 PM Meeting No. 02-2021

AGENDA

Suzan Pitman, Chair

Anne Goodman Don Hadley Charles Littlefield Sarah Miller John Tyner, II Rev. Jane E. Wood

Jim Wasilak, Staff Liaison Nicholas Dumais, Assistant City Attorney

Virtual Meeting via WebEx – See page 3 for information

1. Discussion

A. Presentation and Review of Annexation Petition ANX2021-00146 and Preliminary Annexation Plan for the Annexation of 11.96 Acres Located at 16200 Frederick Road into the City of Rockville; Victor, Inc., Applicant

2. Work Session

A. Work Session: Planning Commission's Draft Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas

3. Commission Items

A. Staff Liaison Report

B. Old Business Planning Commission January 13, 2021

C. New Business

D. Minutes Approval

E. FYI/Correspondence

4. Adjourn Planning Commission January 13, 2021

PLANNING COMMISSION ONLINE MEETING and PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES

I. Meeting Platform: WebEx

A. Applicant Access: Provided by Planning and Development Services/IT

B. Access for Oral Testimony and Comment: Provided by PDS/IT (see below)

II. Pre-Meeting Preparations/Requirements:

A. Written Testimony and Exhibits –

Written testimony and exhibits may be submitted by email to Jim Wasilak, Staff Liaison to the Planning Commission, at [email protected], or by mail to:

Suzan Pitman, Chair Rockville Planning Commission 111 Maryland Avenue Rockville, MD 20850

and must be received no later than nine (9) days in advance of the hearing in order to be distributed with the Planning Commission briefing materials.

Written testimony and exhibits received after this date until 4:00 pm on the day before the hearing will be provided to the Planning Commission by e-mail.

B. WebEx Orientation for Applicants

Applicants must contact the planning case manager assigned to the Application no later than five (5) days in advance of the hearing in order to schedule WebEx orientation, which must be completed prior to the hearing.

C. Oral Testimony by Applicants and the Public

i. Applicants – Applicants must provide to the planning case manager a list of presenters and witnesses who will testify on behalf of the Application. The list must be provided to the PDS Staff project manager no later than five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing.

ii. Public Testimony/Comment on an Application – Any member of the public who wishes to comment on an Application must submit their name and email address to the Staff Liaison to the Planning Commission Jim Wasilak (by email at [email protected]) no later than 9:00 am on the day of the hearing to be placed on the testimony list. Members of the public who seek technical assistance from City staff must submit their name and email address to Jim Planning Commission January 13, 2021

Wasilak no later than two (2) days in advance of the hearing so that an orientation session may be scheduled.

If a member of the public is unable to meet the deadline to be placed on the testimony list, they can submit written testimony to the Staff Liaison to the Planning Commission by email to [email protected].

III. Conduct of Online Meeting and Public Hearing:

A. Rules of Procedure –

The Meeting and Public Hearing will be held in accord with the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, including the order of testimony and applicable time limits on testimony. The Rules may be viewed here: https://www.rockvillemd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2023/Planning-Commission--- Rules-of-Procedure?bidId=

B. Oral Testimony –

During the hearing, the Chair will sequentially recognize each person on the testimony list and ask the host to allow the speaker to speak. Each speaker must wait to be specifically recognized by the Chair before speaking.

If during the hearing a party wishes to speak or a speaker wishes to request the opportunity to engage in cross-examination following specific testimony, the party must contact the Staff Liaison/Host by email at [email protected] or by text at (202) 839-0305 with the specific request. The Host/Staff Liaison will inform the Commission. The Chair will determine if the party may be heard.

C. Continuance of Hearing –

The Planning Commission, at its discretion, reserves the right to continue the hearing until another date. Planning Commission January 13, 2021

HELPFUL INFORMATION FOR STAKEHOLDERS AND APPLICANTS

I. GENERAL ORDER OF SESSION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 1. Staff presentation 2. City Board or Commission comment 3. Applicant presentation (10 min.) 4. Public comment (3 min, or 5 min for the representative of an association) 5. Planning Commission Discussion and Deliberation 6. Decision or recommendation by vote

The Commission may ask questions of any party at any time during the proceedings.

II. PLANNING COMMISSION BROADCAST • Watch LIVE on Comcast Cable Rockville Channel 11 and online at: www.rockvillemd.gov • Replay on Comcast Cable Channel 11: o Wednesdays at 7:00 pm (if no live meeting) o Sundays at 7:00 pm o Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays at 1:00 pm o Saturdays and Sundays at 12:00 am (midnight) • Video on Demand (within 48 hours of meeting) at: www.rockvillemd.gov/VideoOnDemand.

III. NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS • For a complete list of all applications on file, visit: www.rockvillemd.gov/DevelopmentWatch. VI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESOURCES • Additional resources are available to anyone who would like more information about the planning and development review process on the City’s web site at: www.rockvillemd.gov/cpds.

Maryland law and the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure regarding ex parte (extra-record) communications require all discussion, review, and consideration of the Commission's business take place only during the Commission's consideration of the item at a scheduled meeting. Telephone calls and meetings with Commission members in advance of the meeting are not permitted. Written communications will be directed to appropriate staff members for response and included in briefing materials for all members of the Commission. 1.A

Agenda Item #: A Meeting Date: January 13, 2021 Responsible Staff: Manisha Tewari

SUBJECT: Presentation and Review of Annexation Petition ANX2021- 00146 and Preliminary Annexation Plan for the Annexation of 11.96 Acres Located at 16200 Frederick Road into the City of Rockville; Victor, Inc., Applicant

RECOMMENDATION Review the Application for Annexation of 16200 Frederick Road, and the (Include change in law or Policy if Preliminary Annexation Plan; and set the required public hearing date for appropriate in this section): February 10, 2021.

Packet Pg. 6 1.A

Planning Commission Staff Report

MEETING DATE: January 13, 2021

REPORT DATE: December 11, 2020

RESPONSIBLE STAFF: Manisha Tewari, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning 240.314.8213 [email protected]

SUBJECT: Presentation and Review of Annexation Petition ANX2021- 00XXX and Preliminary Annexation Plan

BACKGROUND:

Victor, Inc., the Petitioner, has submitted an Annexation Application, which includes a petition to annex land into the City of Rockville. The petition requests annexation of approximately 11.96 acres, which includes 10.23 acres of land owned by Victor (“Victor property”) and a 1.73- acre portion of the abutting Frederick Road (MD 355) right-of-way.

Packet Pg. 7 1.A

The petitioner has included the portion of MD 355 right-of-way per staff request. Staff made this request for two reasons: 1) to be consistent with the 1995 King Farm annexation, which included the abutting MD 355 right-of-way that would be adjacent to this newly annexed portion; and 2) to meet the adjacency requirements with properties on the opposite side of MD 355, should there be future interest in annexation of those properties.

Exhibit A provides the Preliminary Annexation Plan, which includes the Application for Annexation and a property description. Exhibit B is a location map showing the properties in question in their geographical context.

The current use of the Victor property is an automobile dealership and service shop known as King Buick. Exhibit C is a site survey showing the main dealership building and smaller buildings, as well as the large amount of parking.

The Victor property is adjacent to a vacant 10.34-acre property that is already within Rockville’s city limits and is owned by Frederick Road Limited Partnership. Both ownership entities (Victor, Inc. and Frederick Road Limited Partnership) are controlled by the Aschenbach family, which intends to sell the properties to EYA. EYA proposes to combine the two properties for a development project on the combined 20.56 acres.

The proposed project has been presented to staff as having approximately 366 residential units, consisting of townhomes and low-rise condominiums. Fifteen percent of the total units would be MPDUs (Moderately-Priced Dwelling Units). All infrastructure, including utilities and roadways for the project, would be constructed by the developer, and the public roads would eventually be dedicated to the City. The project would also be expected to provide an amenity to the residents in a form yet to be determined. In addition, discussions are being held regarding how an additional amenity, such as parking, could be provided to support long-term plans for the King Farm farmstead, which is adjacent to the property that is already within the city limits. The proposed plan in its current form is included in this report as Exhibit D for informational purposes, though changes are expected.

For this project to move forward, the zoning must accommodate the uses and the intensity. As such, included in the petition for annexation is a request that the property receive, upon annexation, a City of Rockville zoning designation of Mixed-Use Corridor District (MXCD), which allows for a variety of uses and a permitted height of up to 75 feet. The Frederick Road Limited Partnership property that is already within the city limits is already located in the MXCD Zone.

On November 23, 2020, the Mayor and Council reviewed the Application for Annexation, with the included petition, and voted to 1) initiate the annexation process by introducing a resolution to expand the corporate boundaries, and 2) set the date for its required public hearing as May 17, 2021.

In accordance with the City Zoning Ordinance, the next step in the annexation process is for the Planning Commission to prepare the State-required Annexation Plan, as a recommendation to

Packet Pg. 8 1.A

the Mayor and Council for its adoption. This report and the discussion on January 13, 2021 begins the Planning Commission portion of this process.

The Annexation Plan and the Planning Commission’s Role To complete an annexation, the Mayor and Council will be required to adopt the resolution to expand the corporate boundaries. In advance of that adoption, the Mayor and Council must adopt an Annexation Plan, as required by the State of Maryland under Local Government (LG) Article, Section 4-415 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The Annexation Plan must demonstrate that annexation would be consistent with the Municipal Growth Element of the local government’s Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit E is an excerpt from the Maryland code that provides requirements relevant to the Annexation Plan.

Rockville's Zoning Ordinance Section 25.02.04 defines the role of the Planning Commission with respect to annexation. Per Section 25.02.04.c.1, the Planning Commission is required to prepare a Preliminary Annexation Plan, hold a public hearing, and then approve an Annexation Plan for recommendation to the Mayor and Council. Per Section 25.02.04.e, the Mayor and Council will then adopt the Annexation Plan as part of its portion of the process to complete the annexation. Exhibit F is an excerpt from the City’s Zoning Ordinance, showing these provisions.

Thus, the role of the Planning Commission is to provide an Annexation Plan to the Mayor and Council that includes the following: • Whether the Annexation Plan complies with the Municipal Growth Element of the Comprehensive Master Plan • The Planning Commission’s recommended zoning; and • Whether the property proposed for annexation will be served by necessary public facilities and whether the costs of such facilities can be managed.

The draft Preliminary Annexation Plan as shown in Exhibit A provides what is required.

DISCUSSION: This staff report provides, in brief, the key conclusions from the Preliminary Annexation Plan, with a particular focus on land use and zoning.

The Municipal Growth Element of Rockville’s Comprehensive Master Plan Rockville’s current Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP) was adopted in 2002. The Municipal Growth Element (MGE) was adopted into the CMP in 2010. As part of the MGE, Maximum Expansion Limits were also adopted, delineating the areas outside of, but adjacent to, the city limits where Rockville would be open to annexation. The MGE can be found at https://www.rockvillemd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/903/Municipal-Growth-Element- 2010?bidId=

As shown in Figure 1, which is Figure 14 from the MGE amended slightly for legibility, the Victor property is within the Maximum Expansion Limits as approved by the Mayor and Council:

Packet Pg. 9 1.A

Figure 1: Rockville Maximum Expansion Limits, Municipal Growth Element (2010) of the Comprehensive Master Plan (2002).

Packet Pg. 10 1.A

The City of Rockville is currently in the Rockville 2040 process of producing a new Comprehensive Plan, including updating the Municipal Growth Element. The draft plan, the review of which the Planning Commission is nearing completion, continues to identify this area as being in the City’s Maximum Expansion Limits and, further, recommends that the City be proactive by annexing the areas where the subject property is located. The land use as envisioned for this property is ORRM (Office Retail and Residential Mix), which would be consistent with the requested zoning designation of MXCD. The current draft updated MGE can be found beginning on page 225 of the overall plan document, at https://www.rockvillemd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/38100/Comprehensive-Plan-Volume-I- Elements-Planning-Commission-Draft---spread-view?bidId=.

Rockville and Montgomery County Zoning When land is annexed into Rockville, Montgomery County’s zoning is replaced by the zoning that Rockville applies to the site. Therefore, the Mayor and Council must adopt a new zoning map that includes a zoning designation for the annexed property, to become effective with the annexation.

The State of Maryland Local Government Article imposes some limitations on the zoning of newly annexed land. The law stipulates that, for a period of five years, the annexing jurisdiction may not place the land in a zone that permits a land use substantially different from the use of land specified by the County prior to the annexation, without the approval of the County’s legislative body.

The current County zoning on the Victor property is GR-1.5, H-45 (General Retail). This zone allows for a mixture of retail, commercial and residential uses, and regulates these uses based on a prescribed floor-to-area ratio (FAR) and sets forth certain percentage limitations for some uses such as residential. The maximum height permitted is 45 feet. Bonus residential density is permitted based on the provision of affordable dwelling units. As noted earlier, the applicant has requested the City zoning designation of Mixed-Use Commercial District (MXCD), which permits a mix of uses and heights of up to 75 feet.

The Victor property is within the boundaries of the Montgomery County Shady Grove Sector Plan. A minor amendment to the sector plan is currently underway. The draft amendment, including more detail about the existing and proposed zoning, can be viewed at Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment - Montgomery Planning.

The draft amendment recommends a new zoning of Commercial Residential Town (CRT) with a permitted height of 80 feet for the property. The intent of the proposed County zoning is quite consistent with the City’s MXCD zoning that the petitioner is requesting, once the property is annexed.

Rockville’s Planning Commission reviewed the draft minor plan amendment at its meeting on May 13, 2020 and provided testimony to the Montgomery County Planning Board on a variety of topics, including the environment, transportation, transit, school capacity and pedestrian

Packet Pg. 11 1.A

safety. The Commission had no comments regarding land use or proposed zoning. On October 15, 2020, the Montgomery County Planning Board voted to send the Shady Grove Public Hearing Draft Plan to the Montgomery County Council and the County Executive, who will review the plan. The expected timeline is that the updated plan will be adopted in the summer of 2021.

City staff believes that an MXCD zone is substantially different than the existing GR zone but would be substantially similar to the CRT zone that is being proposed in the Shady Grove Sector Plan minor amendment. This point of view is in the preliminary Annexation Plan (Exhibit A). Therefore, if the petitioner and EYA wish the annexation to move forward before County zoning would be changed (which may be 18 months from now), and for the development concept to move forward sooner than five years from the completion of the annexation, Montgomery County Council will need to approve the City’s MXCD zone for the property.

On September 8, 2020, Planning and Development Services staff from the City met with Montgomery County Planning staff, including Director Gwen Wright, to discuss the potential annexation. At the meeting, the County Planning staff was supportive of the annexation and the proposed development. Therefore, City staff anticipates that County Planning staff would recommend that the County Council approve the requested MXCD zoning.

Provision of Community Facilities and the City’s Ability to Manage the Costs Staff assesses that the annexation will result in sufficient community facilities, whether the property remains as an automobile dealership or is developed as proposed. Furthermore, staff assesses that the City should be able to manage the costs of new community facilities. Similar to recent annexations, a fiscal impact analysis was not conducted as part of this annexation. Nonetheless, staff anticipates that the current and anticipated uses of the Victor property will be net positive fiscally. The current use of an auto dealership would provide new tax revenues to the city, from real and personal property taxes, while incurring very few additional costs to the city; and the proposed new residential use has anticipated assessed values far above the “break-even” points of net fiscal impacts, based on previous fiscal impact analyses.

In addition, it is anticipated that all newly developed facilities (roads, utilities, etc.) will be constructed by EYA as part of its development project. Any impacts on schools will be addressed through the application of the City’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) at the time of development review. If school capacity is not sufficient, in following the City’s adequate public facilities standards, the project as currently envisioned would not be permitted to move forward until there is capacity.

More discussion of this topic is provided in the preliminary Annexation Plan, in Exhibit A.

Advantages and Concerns Regarding the Annexation Staff has reviewed the Petition and had many discussions with the representatives of Victor and EYA. We provide here a summary of potential advantages and concerns related to moving forward with annexation.

Packet Pg. 12 1.A

Key reasons to move forward on annexation include:

• The annexation area is consistent with Rockville’s current Comprehensive Master Plan visions, principles, goals and policies for the City, as well as the draft updated policies in the Rockville 2040 process. • The annexation area is contiguous to the city and within the City’s designated Maximum Expansion Limit, as approved by the Mayor and Council in 2010. • Annexation of the area will create a logical incorporated city boundary and will be consistent with City land use and zoning of an adjacent property. • Annexation is consistent with the City’s goal of increasing the tax base, which will help maintain the outstanding community services to all residents, businesses and visitors of Rockville. • Annexation, including applying the requested zoning, would be consistent with the City’s goal of increasing, within the city, the amount of housing that serves a variety of income levels. • The development project may incorporate an amenity that could assist in implementing a future vision for the King Farm Farmstead. • Annexation of this property, plus the MD 355 right-of-way, will provide adjacency to a new set of properties, especially those on two corners of Shady Grove Road and MD 355, thereby offering a clearer path to future annexations at one of the most important intersections in Montgomery County.

Key concerns to manage, should the annexation be approved, include:

• There will be traffic resulting from a new development, though it may not exceed the traffic generated by the existing automobile dealership. • The development project should ensure mitigation of any negative impacts on key City park properties, including the King Farm Farmstead, the Dog Park and Mattie Stepanek Park. • The impacts on school capacity will need to be evaluated to determine if the schools serving the proposed residential development are adequate to meet the needs of new students.

Staff has concluded that moving forward on the annexation process would be in the City’s best interests and looks forward to any public input that will come as part of that process.

Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Preliminary Annexation Plan, including the proposed zoning for the property, and set a public hearing date of February 10, 2021.

Public Outreach

Packet Pg. 13 1.A

The public hearings with both the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Council have strict requirements, and staff will ensure that all requirements are followed. For the Planning Commission public hearing, the Rockville Zoning Ordinance requires that the public hearing be advertised in a newspaper of general publication at least fifteen days before the Public Hearing.

However, in accordance with Rockville practice of doing more than just the minimum requirements, staff will use Rockville’s various means of communication to ensure that residents and businesses, including community organizations and nearby property owners, are notified of the proposed annexation and upcoming public hearing. Staff will pay particular attention to ensuring that the adjacent King Farm community is aware of the proposed action.

After the public hearing, and upon approval of the Annexation Plan by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the Mayor and Council, the City Clerk and Director of Council Operations must transmit copies of the annexation plan to the applicable state, county and regional agencies for the Mayor and Council public hearing. Per the State of Maryland Local Government Article, the City Clerk will advertise the public hearing twice in a newspaper of general circulation.

In addition to these required steps, staff will, as for the Planning Commission public hearing, use Rockville’s various means of communication to notify the community and highly affected parties, and pay particular attention to notifying the King Farm community.

Complementing the annexation process, the developer EYA will be holding community meetings to notify the adjacent property owners about the proposed development, consistent with the City’s development review process for the Project Plan approval. EYA has informed staff that the development review process is expected to run concurrently with the annexation.

Next Steps For the Planning Commission’s information, the intended schedule for the annexation process is shown below. The key next steps for the Planning Commission would be a February 10, 2021 public hearing on the Preliminary Annexation Plan, and then a March 10, 2021 work session to review the testimony, direct any changes to the plan that the Commission may so choose, and then potentially approve the plan subject to any directed changes.

Packet Pg. 14 1.A

Actions Intended Dates PC reviews Preliminary Annexation Plan and sets public hearing date. 1/13/2021 PC holds public hearing. 2/10/2021 PC reviews public hearing testimony, directs any changes and approves Annexation Plan for recommendation to the M&C. 3/10/2021 M&C reviews and adopts the Annexation Plan for its public hearing. 3/29/2021 Montgomery County Council Review of Zoning Consistency. April-May 2021 M&C holds public hearing on resolution to enlarge corporate boundaries and on proposed zoning. 5/17/2021 M&C reviews public testimony, D&I to staff. 6/28/2021 M&C adopts resolution to enlarge corporate boundaries. 8/2/2021 M&C introduces Ordinance to amend zoning map to include annexed property. 8/2/2021 M&C adopts ordinance to amend the zoning map. 8/2/2021 Annexation effective 45 days after enactment of annexation resolution. 9/16/2021

Attachments Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application (PDF) Attachment 1.A.b: Location Map (PDF) Attachment 1.A.c: Existing Conditions (Site Survey Map) (PDF) Attachment 1.A.d: Illustrative Project Plan (PDF) Attachment 1.A.e: Md. Local Government Code - Annexation Plan (PDF) Attachment 1.A.f: Rockville Zoning Ordinance Article 2 - Zoning Map (PDF)

Packet Pg. 15 1.A.a Exhibit 1

Preliminary Annexation Plan (Draft) Annexation ANX2021-00146 Planning Commission Meeting - January 13, 2021

This Annexation Plan is prepared as a result of an applicant-initiated request to annex land into the City of Rockville. Pursuant to Local Government Article, Section 4-415 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the Annexation Plan must be consistent with the Municipal Growth Element (“MGE) of the comprehensive plan of the municipality.

The area proposed for annexation is within the City’s maximum expansion limits (MEL) as established in the MGE, adopted in December 2010, of the City’s Comprehensive Master Plan.

Figure 1 - Rockville's MEL per 2010 adopted MGE

Rockville’s MGE notes that, because there is no expectation that the entire area as defined as the maximum expansion limits in the document will be annexed, the public facilities capacities will be determined in the context of specific annexation petitions. Accordingly, in addition to a description of the land use pattern proposed for the area to be annexed, this Annexation Plan Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Application (3434 : (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville

Packet Pg. 16 1.A.a Exhibit 1

includes a schedule for extending public services to the annexed area, a description of the anticipated means of financing the extension of services, and a demonstration of available land for public facilities that may be considered reasonably necessary for the proposed use.

The following fulfills the Local Government Article requirement for the Annexation Plan.

General Information and Description Figure 2 - Survey Plat Petitioner: Draft ALTA Survey – Existing Conditions Victor, Inc. Please see Exhibit 5 for details 16200 Frederick Road Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Location: The parcels of land proposed for annexation (“Annexation Area”) are located approximately 800 feet south of the intersection of Shady Grove Road and MD 355, also described as (a) 16160 and 16200 Frederick Road and (b) Parcel A, recorded among the Land Records of Montgomery County (“Land Records”) at Plat No. 7936 and a portion of Parcel C, recorded among the Land Records at Plat 10684. The Annexation Area is approximately 11.96 acres, or 521,154 square feet, consisting of 10.23 acres of privately owned parcels (“Victor Property”) and 1.73 acres of State of Maryland Highway 355 right-of-way (“SHA Property”). Attachment A includes the Annexation Application and the property description.

Background Pursuant to Section 4-415(a) of the Local Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, an annexation plan shall be adopted by the legislative body for the area to be annexed. The Mayor and Council introduced the Annexation Resolution for the Annexation Area on November 23, 2020 and set the public hearing on the Resolution for April 17, 2021. The Mayor and Council are scheduled to adopt the Annexation Plan at their meeting on March 29, 2021.

Land Use Patterns of Area Proposed to be Annexed

Existing Conditions The Victor Property is a developed site with existing buildings that house an automobile dealership and service shop constructed prior to its current County zoning. The Victor Property abuts a 10.34-acre parcel, owned by Frederick Road Limited Partnership, which is located within the municipal boundaries of Rockville (“City Parcel”). The City Parcel is zoned MXCD. EYA Development LLC (“EYA”) is the contract purchaser of both the Victor Property and the City Parcel. Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Application (3434 : (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville

Packet Pg. 17 1.A.a Exhibit 1

The Victor Property is adjacent to the King Farm neighborhood, and the Dog Park and the King Farm Farmstead are to the south and southeast of the Property. Various developed commercial properties are to the west/northwest, including an office building, a hotel, and retail space. On the opposite side of Frederick Road (MD 355) are the Montgomery County transfer station site and a vacant lot owned by the Betty M. Casey Trust.

Figure 3 - Location Map

The Victor Property lies within the boundaries of the County’s 2006 Approved and Adopted Shady Grove Sector Plan (“2006 Shady Grove Sector Plan” or “Plan”), which recommends maintaining the existing commercial uses. It further recommends that properties along MD 355 be developed in the long term to achieve a mixed-use classification of employment.

A minor amendment to the sector plan is currently underway. On October 15, 2020, the Montgomery County Planning Board voted to approve and send the Shady Grove Public Hearing Draft Plan to the Montgomery County Council and the County Executive, who will review the plan. The expected timeline is that the updated plan will be adopted in the summer of 2021.

Montgomery County Zoning The current zoning of the Victor Property is GR-1.5, H-45 (General Retail) within Montgomery County. The County zoning allows for a mixture of retail, commercial and residential uses. It Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Application (3434 : (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville

Packet Pg. 18 1.A.a Exhibit 1

regulates these uses based on a prescribed floor-to-area ratio (FAR) and sets forth certain percentage limitations for some uses, such as residential. The maximum height permitted is 45 feet. Bonus residential density is permitted based on the provision of affordable dwelling units.

The Draft Shady Grove Master Plan Amendment recommends rezoning the Property to CRT 1.5, C-0.5, R-1.0 H-80’. If approved, this new zoning would permit a development with FAR of 1.5, if developed with both residential and commercial uses, FAR of 0.5 with only commercial development, and FAR of 1 with only residential development. The height limit would be 80 feet. The intent of the proposed County zoning is consistent with the City’s MXCD zoning as requested, and the development as proposed by the applicant, as the MXCD zoning also permits a mix of uses and has a height limit of 75 feet.

Requested City Zoning The petitioner has requested that the City’s MXCD zoning be placed on the Victor Property when annexed. By doing so, it would match the MXCD zoning of the adjacent City Parcel. EYA is the contract purchaser of both the Victor Property and the City Parcel. EYA proposes to develop both properties as a combined residential project (“Project”) under the City’s MXCD Zone. The concept of the proposed Project contains 247 townhouses with a variety of widths, and 118 two-over-two multi-family units, public and private streets, open spaces, public use space and other amenities. 15% of the residences would be Moderately Priced Dwelling Units. As indicated previously, the City’s MXCD zoning allows for buildings of up to 75 feet in height. EYA is proposing building heights of up to 55 feet.

MXCD zoning is appropriate for the Victor Property, upon annexation. The Victor Property’s location facing MD 355 and its adjacency to the MXCD-zoned City Parcel provide a similar context as the majority of Rockville’s existing MXCD zoning. Most of the land within the City that is along the MD 355 corridor has this same zoning. Furthermore, the draft Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan assigns to this site a Land Use of ORRM (Office Retail Residential Mix), which is the mixed-use designation that aligns with MXCD (or MXTD). Residential development is also appropriate at this location, because 1) there is a great need for various types of housing in Rockville, to serve various income levels; 2) residential development would be well served by transit and the road system and 3) other community amenities, such as parks and schools, are within sufficient proximity.

Compliance with Municipal Growth Element of City’s Comprehensive Plan The proposed annexation is within the boundaries of the City’s Maximum Expansion Limits (“MEL”), as delineated in the MGE of the City of Rockville Comprehensive Master Plan. No change in this regard is anticipated in the draft Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which is currently under review, as the existing draft continues to show this site well within the MEL.

Adequacy of Public Facilities

This section discusses the public facilities and services that are currently existing or proposed Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Application (3434 : (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville

Packet Pg. 19 1.A.a Exhibit 1

for the area. In general, this urbanized portion of Montgomery County, including the nearby neighborhoods within Rockville and the commercial areas along MD 355, are well served by public facilities. As a result, the City of Rockville has confidence that the Victor Property will also be well served after annexation, as it is at present. However, impacts on public facilities will be evaluated as detailed development plans are submitted to the City.

The City of Rockville’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) and the Adequate Public Facilities Standards that implement the Ordinance, together, establish procedures and standards necessary to ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided with new development. It requires tests of the capacity of public facilities based on current and projected data available at the time of development application. The City utilizes the development review process to ensure that adequate public facility systems exist during and after a development project and ensure that all concerns are adequately addressed and mitigated.

The public facilities and services needed by the proposed development and the methods to provide such facilities and services to the annexed parcels as hereby outlined.

Water and Sewer The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) currently provides public water and sewer services to the property within the annexation area. No changes in service will occur as a result of the annexation, although the specifics of the sewer and water service will be evaluated as part of a project plan application. WSSC will confirm that their system has the capacity to provide service to the Property upon review of a Hydraulic Planning Analysis (“HPA”). The HPA has been filed with the WSSC and is currently under review.

Roads The existing public roads are adequate to serve the existing use of the Victor Property, which is currently an auto dealership. A traffic analysis is currently under way for the proposed new development. It is anticipated that new public and private roads will be required for construction to manage the traffic generated by the new development. It is anticipated that the developer will construct any new roads that serve the development.

Transit The site is less than one mile to the Shady Grove Metro Station. Bus service is also available through Ride On and WMATA, both at the station and along MD 355 and Shady Grove Road. In addition to these current transit options, the MD 355 corridor is on the route of one of the planned Montgomery Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes. In general, the Victor Property is, and will be, very well served by transit.

Police Services Police protection will be provided by the Rockville Police Department, in conjunction with the Montgomery County Police Department that already serves this area. County Police District 1 Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Application (3434 : (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville

Packet Pg. 20 1.A.a Exhibit 1

serves Rockville, though the resources of the entire County Department are available if needed. Rockville anticipates no concerns in being able to extend service to the Victor Property.

Fire, EMS and Rescue Services Montgomery County Fire and Emergency Services (MCFRS) provides fire and disaster protection to the Victor Property and will continue to do so after annexation, as this service is a County function. Station 3, at 380 Hungerford Drive, serves this area, although other stations are available to supplement service, including Station 28 on Muncaster Mill Road, Station 8 on Russell Avenue in Gaithersburg, and Station 32 at 9615 Darnestown Road. In addition, the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Services have also proposed a new fire station in the Shady Grove Sector Plan area to meet the needs of additional growth.

School Services The current use on the Victor Property has no impact on school services, as it is an automobile dealership. The petitioner is proposing a zoning designation of MXCD. That zoning would permit a variety of uses on the property, including commercial and residential, though the petitioner has indicated that a residential project is being proposed. As such, the annexation itself will have no impact on schools, but the impact of the proposed development will need to be assessed.

An analysis of school capacity will be conducted during the review of the project plan, for both the Victor Property and City Parcel. Using the student generation rates adopted by the Board for FY2021, 50 elementary school students, 24 middle school students, and 33 high school students will be generated as proposed with the Project. At this time, the Gaithersburg cluster (Rosemont Elementary, Forest Oak Middle School and Gaithersburg High School) can adequately support the additional increase in students at each school under the current FY2021 School Test and will remain adequate under the proposed school test in the Montgomery County Public Schools 2020-2024 Growth and Infrastructure Plan, which the County Council adopted on November 16, 2020. Approval of the Project Plan will depend on this adequacy being affirmed at the time of approval.

Parks and Recreation and Public Libraries Currently, the closest park facilities are located in the King Farm development and include the King Farm Farmstead, Mattie Stepanek Park, King Farm Park, Pleasant Park, and King Farm Stream Valley Park. The current and proposed zones have open space requirements, including requirements for public use space, that must be met with redevelopment. The County GR designation requires 10% of the site be maintained as open space, while the MXCD district requires 15%. The Project proposes at least 15% open space, including a community recreation center and assistance in providing much needed parking for the Farmstead.

The closest library to the Project is the Rockville Memorial Library, which is approximately 3 miles away, though any Montgomery County resident has access to the full resources of any library branch and all online services. The MGE has assessed library capacity for the city and Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Application (3434 : (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville

Packet Pg. 21 1.A.a Exhibit 1

found it to be well beyond general standards used to assess adequacy. Additional residences from the proposed annexation and project will not stress this assessment.

Stormwater Management If annexed, all properties shall be required to pay an annual Stormwater Management Utility Fee in accordance with Section 19-116 of the City Code. The City Stormwater Management Utility Fee will replace the Water Quality Protection Charge, an annual fee assessed by the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection. Additionally, a review of stormwater management will be conducted as part of the project plan process required for future development of the Victor Property and City Parcel. The development will not be approved unless it is found to be in compliance with all regulations.

General Fiscal Considerations No detailed fiscal impact of annexation has been conducted for this one application. However, previous analysis can provide evidence that the impact is very likely to be net positive for Rockville, whether the Victor Property remains in its current use or it is redeveloped similarly to that of the proposed development concept.

The City of Rockville charges residents a real property tax and charges businesses real and personal property taxes. The amounts charged are based on the City’s tax rates and the value of the properties. The current tax rates equal $0.292 per $100 of assessed value for real property and $0.805 per $100 of assessed value for personal property. Property value is determined by the assessed value of real estate (including land and structures on the land) and the assessed value of personal property of business establishments (inventory, furniture, and fixtures).

The assessed value of the Petitioner’s taxable annexation area is $10,551,200 per the 2020 Tax Assessment Records. At minimum, the property will result in approximately $30,000 per year in real property taxes to the City if annexed in its current condition. Very few additional costs would be added from the added impact on City services, as there would be no costs attributable to residences. As such, the annexation, in itself, is likely to have a positive fiscal impact if the current use remains in place.

General considerations regarding the proposed development concept are as follows. A 2012 the Development Fiscal Impact Analysis conducted for the City concluded that, at that time, a single-family dwelling unit valued at $315,000 and a multiple family dwelling unit valued at approximately $190,000 (based on 2012/2013FY dollars) would result in a break-even fiscal impact to the City. Therefore, any housing values above those levels were judged to be net fiscally positive. Any below would be negative.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose approximately 13% from November 2012 to November 2020. Assuming that all costs and revenues moved higher in a common manner, the breakeven points for single-family and multifamily dwelling units would be $355,950 and $214,700, respectively. Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Application (3434 : (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville

Packet Pg. 22 1.A.a Exhibit 1

The development concept currently envisions townhomes and “missing-middle” housing that are two-story units. Townhomes are single-family dwelling units. According to www.trulia.com, asking prices for recently built or under-construction townhomes in nearby developments include: Westside at Shady Grove in Derwood at between $460,000 and $650,000; Downtown Crown at between $600,000 and $950,000; and the new Tower Oaks townhomes at between $925,000 and $1.25 million. EYA has indicated that their expectation is to sell the new market- rate townhomes beginning at approximately $800,000. Taking into account the need to factor in the reduced prices of the 15% that will be MPDUs, the anticipated product at this site would still average well beyond the anticipated breakeven point of $355,950.

Assumptions regarding the “missing-middle” housing of 2-story units, which the developer anticipates having three bedrooms, are more speculative because this product is not found in significant numbers nearby and they appear to be a hybrid between townhomes and multifamily units. Examples of current asking prices for recently built condominium units of at least 2 bedrooms include $389,000 in Town Center (The Fitz: 3 BR, 2 BA); $435,000 in King Farm (2BR, 2BA); $650,000 in Fallsgrove (3BR, 3BA); $810,000 in King Farm (3BR, 3BA). The developer has indicated that the comparable sales that they are using to model the development have average prices of $680,000. As before, assuming that 15% of the units will be MPDUs, thereby lowering the average price, the anticipated average assessed value at this site would be well beyond the breakeven point.

It is important to recall that this review does not constitute a full fiscal impact analysis, but it does provide evidence that the impact on Rockville of both the annexation with the current land use and the potential development project may be net fiscally positive.

Conclusion In summary, annexation of the annexation area, including the Victor Property, is consistent with the Municipal Growth Element of the City’s Comprehensive Master Plan. A zone of MXCD would be consistent with City policies and is recommended for the Victor Property. The City of Rockville is also confident in the City’s ability to support the required public facilities and services, and in the County’s continued ability to support its required services.

Enclosed Attachment A - Annexation Petition and Property Description Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Application (3434 : (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville

Packet Pg. 23 Attachment A 1.A.a Application for ANX 2/09 Annexation ApplidlffliNED Victor Inc • NOV 1 2 2020 c/o ConradV. Aschenbach • 16200 Frederick Road City of Rockville Departmentof Planning and DevelopmentSe rl/JrtCLERK'S OFFICE Gaithersburg,Maryland 20898 Email: 111 MarylandAvenu e, Rockville, Maryland 20850 Phone: 240-314-8200 • Fax: 240-314-8210 • E-mail: [email protected] •Website: www.rockvillemd.gov

Please PrintClearly or Type

PropertyAddress Information 16200 Frederick Road, Rockville, MD 20855 Subdivision Kings Addition to Shady Grove Lot (S) Parcel A & c Block·------NIA Zoning MXCD (proposed) TaxAccount(S)oo-oon 2335

2 1 PropertySize(insquarefeet) _s_1_, _54 ______

Property'sUse Existing (to include office,industrial, residential, commercial) _eo_mm_ e_ r_ ci_·a1_-_car_0ea_ 1_e_rshi_ P______

Applicant Information: Please supplyName, Address, Phone Number and E-mail Address

Applicant EVA Development LLC, 4800Hampden Ln, Bethesda, MD 20814, c/oJason Sereno [email protected])

PropertyOwner Victor, Inc., 16200Frederick Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20898,c/o ConradAschenbach ([email protected])

ArchitectNot Applicable

Engineer VIKA Maryland, LLC, 20251 CenturyBoulevard, Suite 400, Germantown, MD 20874 Michael Goodman, [email protected], 301-916-4100

Attorney Miles & Stockbridge, 11 NorthWashington Street, Suite 700, Rockville, MD 20850 Barbara Sears,[email protected], 301-762-1600

Property CurrentZoning In Montgomery County ------GR-1.5,H -45

STAFF USE ONLY AppllcatlonAcceptance: AppllcattonIntake: Application#______O R DateReceived ______OateAccepted Reviewedby ______StaffCo ntact Dateof Check list Review

------Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Application (3434 : (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville Deemed Complete: Yes o No o

Packet Pg. 24 1.A.a Attachment A Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville of Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application

Packet Pg. 25 1.A.a Attachment A Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville of Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application

Packet Pg. 26 1.A.a Attachment A Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville of Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application

Packet Pg. 27 1.A.a Attachment A Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville of Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application

Packet Pg. 28 1.A.a Attachment A Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville of Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application

Packet Pg. 30 1.A.a Attachment A Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville of Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application

Packet Pg. 31 1.A.a Attachment A Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville of Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application

Packet Pg. 32 1.A.a Attachment A Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville of Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application

Packet Pg. 33 1.A.a Attachment A Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville of Attachment 1.A.a: Preliminary Annexation Plan and Annexation Application

Packet Pg. 34 1.A.b

370 Betty B. Casey ¨§ Ë ¦ D 355 R " Vacant Land E ) V O R G Y D Z A E H TT S S A Montgomery County V E Transfer Station

FREDERICK RD

PLEASANT RD

FEDOR AVE Victor Inc. 16200 Frederick Ave.

PLEASANT DR

City Owned

Rockville Dog Park at

King Farm Ë )"355 Frederick Road Ltd. Ptn. King Farm Annexation Area Farmstead E V A Property Owned by Petitioner Park T

P N O LE M Rockville City Limits E A G S ID A R N

T

D

0 175 350 R Feet R D D E R G LM µ A R C C AN R IC O D F P CH T

B Attachment 1.A.b: Location Map (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville 16200 A L Mattie J.T. HAVENCREST ST M V PI D O N Stepanek D Park R Packet Pg. 35

POPLAR SPRING RD 1.A.c

VIKA MARYLAND, LLC 20251 Century Blvd., Suite 400 Germantown, MD 20874 301.916.4100 | vika.com Our Site Set on the Future.

THE INFORMATION, DESIGN AND CONTENT OF THESE DRAWINGS OR DOCUMENTS ARE PROPRIETARY TO VIKA MARYLAND, LLC AND CONSTITUTE ITS PROPRIETARY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. THESE DRAWINGS AND/OR DOCUMENTS MUST NOT BE FORWARDED, SHARED, COPIED, DIGITALLY CONVERTED, MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE, IN ANY FORMAT, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM VIKA MARYLAND, LLC. VIOLATIONS MAY RESULT IN PROSECUTION. ONLY APPROVED, SIGNED AND SEALED PLANS OR DRAWINGS MAY BE UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.

© 2019 VIKA MARYLAND, LLC REVISIONS DATE VICINITY MAP PER COMMENTS 8/31/2020 SCALE: 1" = 2000' REV LEGAL DESC 11/02/2020 REV LEGAL DESC 11/04/2020 ADD ADJ NAMES 11/16/2020

”

”

” Attachment 1.A.c: Existing Conditions (Site Survey Map) (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville of 16200 Frederick Road)

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

” ” VICTOR, INC. LIBER 16849 FOLIO 367 ” AND FREDERICK ” ROAD ” PARTNERSHIP ” LIBER 13746 FOLIO 746 9TH ELECTION DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ” MARYLAND WSSC GRID: XXXNWXX ” TAX MAP:GS13

ALTA / NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY

DRAWN BY: BW DESIGNED BY: HJ DATE ISSUED: 8/27/2020 VIKA PROJECT 50420 SCALE: 1" = 40'

SHEET NO. 1 OF 1

Packet Pg. 36 Attachment 1.A.d: Illustrative Project Plan (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville of 16200 Frederick Road) Frederick 16200 of Rockville of City the into (ANX2020-00146) Annexation : (3434 Plan Project Illustrative 1.A.d: Attachment

1.A.d VIKA MARYLAND, LLC 20251 Contory Blvd., Salle 400 Packet Pg. 37 Germantown, MD 20B74 301.916.41001 vlka.con, Our Site Set on the Future.

PREPARED FOR: EYA 4800 HAM PDEN LN. SUITE 300 BETHESDA, MD 20614 301-634-8649 J. WNDHAM ROBERTSON wyndhamr©eya.com

REVISIONS L_PI_ I

KING BUICKPHASE IF NECESSARY

MONTGOMERYWSSCTH COUNTY,ELECTION GRID: 222N DISTRICT WEB MARYLAND WSSC GRID: 221NW08 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECT PLAN PROFESSIONAL SEAL

/I:11fl7)7fij7 DRAWN BY: 9 -I -I"FOR or 1-806.237-7777 LOCATION OFOR UtILITIESLOG ONTO CALL SCALE 1" "HO' (1 DATE ISSUED: BY: ______11/1/2020 www.oallHI loom orhttp:Ilwww.miwotility.not48 HOURS 104 ADVANCE OP ANYWORJ( IN THIS "' // NO,DRAWINGPU 601 CT VM5420 0,0.0 by ' r"-°i.""' - by ity Co.ty °""""'osy, 0* lb. IIDESIGNED ______1.A.e

Md. LOCAL GOVERNMENT Code Ann. § 4-415

Statutes current through legislation effective October 1, 2020

MD - Annotated Code of Maryland > LOCAL GOVERNMENT > DIVISION II. MUNICIPALITIES > TITLE 4. IN GENERAL > SUBTITLE 4. ANNEXATION

§ 4-415. Annexation plan

(a) In general. --In addition to, but not as part of, an annexation resolution, the legislative body of the municipality shall adopt an annexation plan for the area to be annexed. (b) Annexations before October 1, 2009. --Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, for an annexation that began before October 1, 2009, the annexation plan shall: (1)contain a description of the land use pattern proposed for the area to be annexed, which may include a county master plan already in effect for the area; (2)describe the schedule to extend each municipal service performed in the municipality at the time of the annexation to the area to be annexed; (3)describe the general methods by which the municipality anticipates financing the extension of municipal services to the area to be annexed; and (4)be presented so as to demonstrate the available land for public facilities that may be considered reasonably necessary for the proposed use, including facilities for schools, water or sewage treatment, libraries, recreation, or fire or police services. (c) Annexations on or after October 1, 2009. --Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, for annexation that begins on or after October 1, 2009, the annexation plan shall be consistent with the municipal growth element of the comprehensive plan of the municipality. (d) When annexation begins. --For purposes of subsections (b) and (c) of this section, an annexation begins when a proposal for annexation is initiated by: (1)resolution under § 4-403 of this subtitle; or (2)petition under § 4-404 of this subtitle. (e) Extension for inclusion of municipal growth element. -- (1)On or after October 1, 2009, a municipality may submit an annexation plan under subsection (b) of this section if the municipality is granted an extension for the inclusion of a municipal growth element under § 3-304 of the Land Use Article. (2)After the expiration of a final extension granted under § 3-304 of the Land Use Article for the inclusion of a municipal growth element, an annexation plan shall be submitted in accordance with subsection (c) of this section. (f) Copies of annexation plan. --At least 30 days before the public hearing on an annexation resolution required under § 4-406 of this subtitle, a copy of the annexation plan shall be provided to: (1)the governing body of any county in which the municipality is located; Attachment 1.A.e: Md. Local Government Code - Annexation Plan (3434 : (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville 16200 (2)the Department of Planning; and

Packet Pg. 38 1.A.e Md. LOCAL GOVERNMENT Code Ann. § 4-415

(3)any regional or State planning agency with jurisdiction in the county. (g) Consideration at hearing on annexation resolution; effect of amendment. -- (1)The annexation plan shall be open to public review and discussion at the public hearing on the annexation resolution. (2)An amendment to the annexation plan does not: (i)amend the proposed annexation resolution; or (ii)cause a reinitiation of the annexation procedure then in process.

History

An. Code 1957, art. 23A, § 19(o); 2013, ch. 119, § 2.

Annotations

Notes

REVISOR'S NOTE

This section is new language derived without substantive change from former Art. 23A, § 19(o). In subsection (b)(4) of this section, the reference to fire or police "services" is added for clarity. In subsection (d)(2) of this section, the former reference to "written" petition is deleted as implicit in the reference to a "petition". In the introductory language of subsection (f) and in subsection (g)(1) of this section, the references to the hearing "on [an] annexation resolution" are added for clarity.

In subsection (g)(2) of this section, the former references to the annexation plan not "in any way" amending the annexation resolution or "serv[ing] in any manner" to cause a reinitiation of the annexation procedure are deleted as surplusage. In subsection (g)(2)(i) of this section, the reference to the "proposed" annexation resolution is added for clarity.

DEFINED TERMS:

"County" § 1-101 "Governing body" § 1-101 "Municipality" § 1-101 "State" § 1-101

Case Notes Attachment 1.A.e: Md. Local Government Code - Annexation Plan (3434 : (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville 16200

Packet Pg. 39 1.A.e Md. LOCAL GOVERNMENT Code Ann. § 4-415

ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS INCLUDABLE IN ANNEXATION RESOLUTION. --The fixing of zoning classifications for newly annexed property is properly includable in a resolution providing for annexation by a municipality which has an authorized planning and zoning commission and where such municipality has otherwise complied with the requirements of this article and Article 66B of the Code. Beshore v. Town of Bel Air, 237 Md. 398, 206 A.2d 678 (1965).

The assignment of zoning classifications is a proper "condition" or "circumstance" of annexation which may be accomplished in the annexation resolution. Beshore v. Town of Bel Air, 237 Md. 398, 206 A.2d 678 (1965).

To require a municipality to annex and then later zone, in separate proceedings, would appear to be illogical and wasteful when the requirements of both this article and Article 66B can be satisfied in one proceeding. Beshore v. Town of Bel Air, 237 Md. 398, 206 A.2d 678 (1965).

One seeking annexation may require a particular zoning classification as a condition of his agreeing finally to annexation. Mayor of Rockville v. Brookeville Tpk. Constr. Co., 246 Md. 117, 228 A.2d 263 (1967).

CONSENT REQUIREMENT. --Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the 25 percent consent requirement of Md. Code Ann., Local Gov. § 4-403(b)(2) was not applicable to the owners of tax-exempt properties. Town of Forest Heights v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 463 Md. 469, 205 A.3d 1067 (2019).

Research References & Practice Aids

USER NOTE:

For more generally applicable notes, see notes under the first section of this part, subtitle, title, division or article.

Annotated Code of Maryland Copyright 2020 by Matthew Bender and Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group All rights reserved.

End of Document Attachment 1.A.e: Md. Local Government Code - Annexation Plan (3434 : (ANX2020-00146) into the City of Rockville 16200

Packet Pg. 40 1.A.f

Article 2 – Zoning Map

25.02.01 – Zoning Map

The location and boundaries of zones established in the City are as shown on a map “Zoning Map of the City of Rockville” adopted on December 15, 2008 by Ordinance as may be amended subsequent to its adoption. The maps, sections, notations, dimensions, designations, references, and other data shown on the map are hereby made a part of this Chapter to the same extent as if the information set forth on the map were fully described and incorporated herein.

25.02.02 – Boundaries of Zones

Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of any of the zones as shown on the Zoning Map, the following rules apply:

1. Where zone boundaries are indicated as approximately following street or alley lines, proposed street lines, rapid transit or railroad rights-of-way, the zoning boundaries are the centerline of those streets, alleys, or rights-of-way;

2. Where zone boundaries are indicated as approximately following lot lines and are not more than ten feet (10’) distant from the property lines of an unplatted property, such lot lines are the boundaries; and

3. Where zoning boundaries are greater than ten feet (10’) distant from the property lines of an unplatted property, or where a zone boundary divides an unplatted property, the location of any such zoning boundary is determined by use of the map scale shown on the map to the nearest foot, unless the boundary is indicated by dimensions on the map.

25.02.03 – Properties Divided Between the City and County

Where a record lot is located partially within the City and partially outside the City, the following provisions apply:

1. Application Filed – Any person desiring to improve a record lot in accordance with this Section 25.02.03, must submit an application to the City Clerk in accordance with the requirements of Section 25.05.02. As part of its obligation, the applicant must:

(a) Identify those uses which it intends to implement within the City; and

(b) Provide a certification, in a form which is acceptable to the City Attorney, that the uses so requested are permissible as set forth in this Section 25.02.03.

2. Establishment of Hearing and Public Notification – Upon acceptance for filing an application under this Section 25.02.03, the City Clerk must:

(a) Set the application for a hearing by the Mayor and Council at a specified date, time, and place; and Attachment 1.A.f: Rockville Zoning Ordinance Article 2 - Map (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of 16200 City of Rockville, Maryland 1 Zoning Ordinance – Article 2 Packet Pg. 41 1.A.f

(b) Cause public notice of the hearing to be given in accordance with this Chapter and any requirements of State law.

3. Planning Commission Review

(a) Within five (5) days after accepting the filing of any application under this Section 25.02.03, the City Clerk must transmit a copy of the application to the Planning Commission.

(b) The Planning Commission may submit a written recommendation, which must be incorporated in the application file, and which becomes part of the record of the application.

4. Hearing – Mayor and Council will then hold a hearing on the matter in accordance with State law.

5. Determination of Permitted Use – In addition to any uses permitted under this Chapter, an owner of a record lot located both in and outside the corporate limits of the City and which was originally improved in accordance with the zoning laws of the County, may be authorized to implement some or all of such uses as permitted in the County on the portion of the lot located within the City. The Mayor and Council must find that these existing or allowed uses originally approved by the County do not:

(a) Adversely affect the health and safety of residents or workers in the area;

(b) Overburden existing public services, including water, sanitary sewer, public roads, storm drainage, and other public improvements;

(c) Detrimentally affect the use and development of adjacent properties or the neighborhood;

(d) Change the character of the neighborhood in which the use is proposed considering service currently required, population density, character, and the number of similar land uses; or

(e) Create a use that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Chapter set forth in Section 25.01.02.

6. Decision – An application must be granted by ordinance or denied, dismissed, or allowed to be withdrawn by resolution of the Mayor and Council. In connection with the grant of an application, the Mayor and Council may impose such terms, conditions, and restrictions that are reasonably necessary to protect adjacent properties, the neighborhood, and the residents and workers therein.

7. Notice of Decision – Notice of the decision of the Mayor and Council must be given as provided in Section 25.05.06.

25.02.04 - Zoning of Annexed Land

a. Petition Filed – When a petition to enlarge the corporate boundaries of the City is submitted to the Mayor and Council in accordance with the requirements of State law, the City Clerk must transmit a copy to the Chief of Planning. Attachment 1.A.f: Rockville Zoning Ordinance Article 2 - Map (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of 16200 City of Rockville, Maryland 2 Zoning Ordinance – Article 2 Packet Pg. 42 1.A.f

b. Chief of Planning Review – The Chief of Planning will review the application for conformance with annexation and land use policies of the Plan. The Chief of Planning will then transmit a copy of the petition to the Planning Commission.

c. Annexation Plan

1. The Planning Commission will study the area proposed to be annexed and prepare a preliminary annexation plan recommending the zoning classification or classifications of such property that would be appropriate if it were to be annexed.

d. Planning Commission Public Hearing and Notice – The Planning Commission must:

1. Hold at least one (1) public hearing on the preliminary annexation plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 25.04.02.e.2;

2. Provide at least 15 days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing to be published in a paper of general circulation in the City; and

3. Provide written notice mailed in accordance with the provisions of Section 25.05.03.

e. Final Annexation Plan – Following such hearing, the Planning Commission must submit its final Annexation Plan to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor and Council must adopt the Annexation Plan. f. Mayor and Council Public Hearing and Notice

1. The Mayor and Council must hold a public hearing on the zoning recommendation and adopted Annexation Plan in accordance with State law simultaneously with its hearing on the proposed annexation.

2. The City Clerk must send a copy of the adopted Annexation Plan and public hearing notice to the applicable state, county, and regional agencies required by law.

3. Public notice of the Mayor and Council’s hearing on the final adopted Annexation Plan must be given in accordance with the requirements of State law.

g. Amendment of Zoning Map – The Mayor and Council may adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Map to include such property and the zoning classification or classifications thereof, but only after the adoption of a resolution enlarging the corporate boundaries of the City to include such property. Such ordinance is effective the same date the annexation becomes effective under State law.

Attachment 1.A.f: Rockville Zoning Ordinance Article 2 - Map (3434 : Annexation (ANX2020-00146) into the City of 16200 City of Rockville, Maryland 3 Zoning Ordinance – Article 2 6-6-11 Packet Pg. 43 2.1.1

Agenda Item #: 1 Meeting Date: January 13, 2021 Responsible Staff: Clark Larson

SUBJECT: Work Session: Planning Commission's Draft Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas

RECOMMENDATION Hold a work session to continue review of testimony received (Include change in law or Policy if appropriate in this section): on the Planning Commission's Draft Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas, and provide direction to staff. Staff recommends that this session focus on Planning 4 and any remaining issues that were continued from previous work sessions.

Packet Pg. 44 2.1.1

Planning Commission Staff Report

MEETING DATE: January 13, 2021

REPORT DATE: January 6, 2021

RESPONSIBLE STAFF: Clark Larson, AICP, Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Division Planning and Development Services Department 240.314.8225 [email protected]

SUBJECT: Work Session to Review and Discuss Testimony on the Planning Commission’s Draft Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas

BACKGROUND: On February 12, 2020, the Planning Commission approved the release of, and opened the public record to accept testimony on, the second volume to its draft Comprehensive Plan update. This volume is formally called the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas for Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft. It covers each of the proposed seventeen neighborhood-scale planning areas. Written testimony was accepted from February 13 until October 7, 2020, and the Planning Commission held a virtual public hearing over the course of two regular meeting dates, September 9 and 23, 2020. The draft Plan, and all testimony submitted to the Planning Commission during the public comment period, may be found online at www.rockvillemd.gov/Rockville2040.

Packet Pg. 45 2.1.1

Following the public hearing dates and close of the public record, the Planning Commission scheduled work sessions to review and discuss testimony and provide direction to staff on any changes to the draft that the Commission wishes to make. Such changes could affect Volumes I and II. The Planning Commission also acknowledged that additional dates could be needed to complete its overall Comprehensive Plan for recommendation to the Mayor and Council. No additional public testimony will be taken at the Planning Commission work sessions.

The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed testimony for Planning Areas 12-17 on October 28, Planning Areas 5-11 on November 18, and Planning Areas 1-3 on December 9, 2020. Planning Area 4 was also planned for discussion on December 9, but the Planning Commission decided to defer that discussion, because of the late hour, to a special meeting on January 7, 2021.

This special meeting will focus on reviewing and discussing testimony on Planning Area 4, and reviewing items that arose during previous work sessions. Staff anticipates that, as with previous work sessions, the Planning Commission will provide direction to staff on any refinements it wishes to make to the plan. Staff will return with an updated draft for the Commission’s final review.

Any member of the public may view the staff reports, attachments with testimony, and recordings of the meeting discussions from the work sessions on October 28, November 18, December 9, 2020 and January 7, 2021 by visiting www.rockvillemd.gov/agendacenter, under the Planning Commission heading for the respective date of interest.

OVERVIEW OF WRITTEN TESTIMONY A summary of written testimony submitted to the Planning Commission during the public comment period, including staff comments and recommendations, is included with this report as Attachment A. The complete record of original testimony is online at www.rockvillemd.gov/Rockville2040.

In total, sixty-two (62) individual items of written testimony were submitted for all planning areas, with some items grouped by the same exhibit number if they were received together. Forty-eight (48) unique individuals or groups submitted written testimony on the draft Plan, with some submitters providing multiple items of testimony over the course of the public comment period.

OVERVIEW OF ORAL TESTIMONY The oral testimony received at the public hearing dates on September 9 and 23, 2020, including staff comments and recommendations, is summarized and attached with this report as Attachment B.

Packet Pg. 46 2.1.1

The full record of oral testimony for the two public hearings is provided in text transcripts, as Attachments C and D. A total of thirty-one (31) individuals provided oral testimony during the Planning Commission public hearing, twenty-two (22) of whom also submitted written testimony.

SUMMARY OF DRAFT PLAN CONTENTS The first volume of the Planning Commission’s Draft Comprehensive Plan contains an Introduction and ten Elements, or citywide topic areas. The Planning Commission accepted and reviewed public testimony on the Elements draft volume in 2019 and revised the draft Plan during work sessions.

The second volume contains policies and recommendations for each of the city’s seventeen neighborhood-scale Planning Areas. Testimony received on the Planning Areas Draft Volume II is the primary subject of these work sessions, though some testimony received during this most recent public comment period is relevant to the Elements volume, as well.

The latest drafts of both volumes of the Planning Commission’s Draft Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan can be found at https://www.rockvillemd.gov/Rockville2040. Together, they constitute the Planning Commission’s proposed update to the existing Comprehensive Master Plan, which was adopted by the Mayor and Council of Rockville on November 12, 2002.

DISCUSSION: On December 9, 2020, the Planning Commission was scheduled to complete its review and discussion of all testimony received on the Planning Areas volume of its draft Comprehensive Plan. However, since the discussion on December 9 ran later into the evening than anticipated, the Planning Commission voted to continue the discussion to a future meeting date after having completed its review of Planning Areas 1 through 3. The Planning Commission agreed to a special meeting on Thursday, January 7, 2021, to complete the review and discussion of testimony on Planning Area 4, as well as resolve any remaining issues that arose during previous work sessions.

The special meeting affords the Planning Commission the necessary time to complete its review and approval of the draft by no later than February, so that the Mayor and Council will have its full length of time to review the Planning Commission’s draft Comprehensive Plan, prior to the Mayor and Council’s planned summer recess in August 2021. By state law, the Mayor and Council has 150 days, from the time of transmittal by the Planning Commission, to take action on any Comprehensive Plan or Plan Amendment.

Staff anticipates that the Planning Commission will complete its review of testimony received on the Planning Areas draft volume on January 7, 2021; however, any items not covered during this work session will be carried over to the next meeting, which is January 13. The Planning Commission will have an opportunity later in the month to review an updated draft that brings together all of the direction provided to staff during the work sessions for Volumes 1 and II.

Packet Pg. 47 2.1.1

Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide direction on any revisions to the planning area of focus for this work session, as well as any revisions to the overall draft Comprehensive Plan that it wishes.

REVIEW OF TESTIMONY A summary of the major questions or issues raised by the testimony for Planning Area 4 is outlined below. These are topics that staff believes warrant further discussion and direction from the Planning Commission to determine whether revisions to the draft Plan should be made. Any testimony not summarized below is included in the full record online and in Attachments C and D.

During the work sessions, the Planning Commission may raise questions for further discussion about any of the other comments included in the attachments or on any other matter related to the draft. Revisions or responses to testimony not discussed specifically below, and/or at the work sessions, will be made according to staff’s recommendation in the testimony matrix of Attachment A.

Planning Area 4 – West End and Woodley Gardens East-West Staff appreciates the kind words submitted by many of those who submitted testimony regarding the collaborative process that occurred over two years with neighborhood representatives and staff to develop the draft plan for Planning Area 4. The items below are topics for which community members are requesting a change from the current draft. As indicated by Ms. Bryan (Exhibit 41a), they are the three pending items where differences remain. Once resolved, the Planning Area 4 component of the new Comprehensive Plan is designed to replace the existing neighborhood plan from 1989.

Testimony on institutional uses

1. Exhibit 20 (written): Andrew Sellman; Exhibit 24 (written) and Exhibit 23 (oral): Jennifer Timmick; Exhibit 26 (written) and Exhibit 28 (oral): Brian Shipley, President of West End Citizens Association; Exhibit 28 (written): Noreen Bryan and Patrick Woodward, Co-Chairs of the Planning Area 4 Committee; Exhibit 41a (written) and Exhibit 17 (oral): Noreen Bryan; Exhibit 41b (written) and Exhibit 25 (oral): Kevin Zaletsky; Exhibit 31 (oral): Patrick Woodward; Exhibit 48 (written) and Exhibit 27 (oral): Nancy Pickard, Peerless Rockville; Exhibit 16 (oral): Jane Pontius

Testimony opposes the expansion and encroachment of large institutions in Planning Area 4. It states that institutions and commercial uses disrupt single-family-housing neighborhoods and bring increased traffic; any existing institutions should remain neighborhood-serving. Testimony in Exhibit 20 provides images of communities in Falls Church, VA, Towson, MD, and Bethesda, MD. The testimony indicates that the images show negative impacts to former single-unit residential buildings located next to larger commercial and institutional buildings and are examples of what should be avoided in the border area between the Rockville Town Center and West End planning areas.

Packet Pg. 48 2.1.1

Testimony suggests that the Comprehensive Plan should define the standards that would accomplish these goals, not just “seek standards” as the draft Plan is written. Specific language is requested for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan as a policy under INSTITUTIONAL USES, page 47 (also found in Written Testimony Exhibit 41e), as follows:

“To preserve the residential character of the neighborhood, limit the number and size of institutions allowed within Planning Area 4. Amend the Zoning Ordinance such that institutional developments in Planning Area 4, whether new or the expansion of existing institutions, are required to meet the following standards:

• There is no more than one institution per block, where a block is defined as the portion of a street between one public street and another. A block includes both sides of the street; • Individual institutions must be contained on one block and are not allowed to be distributed over multiple blocks; • The land occupied by an institution is not allowed to occupy more than 3 recorded lots OR be more than 1 acre in area. If an existing institution exceeds these standards, it is not allowed to expand further; • To prevent overwhelming the neighborhood with too many institutions, no further expansion of land used for institutions is allowed. This does not preclude new institutions from being constructed on existing institutional property if the standards above are met or if existing institutional land is converted to residential uses.”

Staff Response: Staff appreciates and understands the goal of limiting the amount and size of non- residential uses in Planning Area 4. For that reason, the fourth policy in the section on Institutional Uses (p. 46 of the Planning Areas draft) states that standards should be sought within the Zoning Ordinance to establish maximum acreage for large institutions and prevent aggregations. Staff does not support specifying unique standards for institutional uses within Planning Area 4 that would not necessarily apply elsewhere in the city, nor to prescribe in the Comprehensive Plan standards that should be determined during consideration of such Zoning Ordinance amendments.

Staff believes that the primary protection against non-residential uses is the set of land use designations. The draft Planning Area 4 neighborhood plan retains an overwhelming majority of the neighborhood as designated for Residential Detached (RD) land use. The only exceptions are existing non-residential uses (e.g., schools, churches) in the planning area and those on the eastern edge of the planning area adjacent to Town Center. On that eastern edge, properties that currently have the MXT zone (permitting residential, office and retail) are limited to the scale of a single-family home and are recommended to remain the same with respect to this scale in the new plan. The Plan also recommends that these properties be further limited by removing the option for retail through applying the RO

Packet Pg. 49 2.1.1

(Residential Office) land use designation, except for the single block of S. Adams Street, between W. Montgomery Ave. and W. Jefferson St., which retains retail as a possible use.

Given the responses above, staff believes that the areas of concern in Planning Area 4 would not result in large by-right commercial buildings emerging next to detached single- unit homes, as shown in other locations by the photos in the Exhibit 20 testimony. Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance will continue to require development in any mixed-use areas adjacent or confronting (i.e., across a street) from attached or detached single-unit residential uses to limit their building height by the layback slope (the geometric plane measured 30 degrees from the nearest property boundary of the residential use).

Concerns about the scale of buildings and aggregation of lots for housing institutional uses, which could, under current zoning, receive approval for construction through a Special Exception process, might usefully be addressed through a review of the current development standards discussed in the section on Special Exceptions in the Zoning Ordinance.

Page 46 of the current draft plan, Volume 2, provides the following policies: • Avoid concentrations of land uses that require a Special Exception and other nonresidential land uses. • Review and amend Special Exception and Conditional Use provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that they prevent undesirable consequences that are incompatible with residential neighborhoods, such as extensive aggregation of land for expansion. • Seek standards that establish maximum acreage allowed for large institutions, prevent aggregation of the majority of residential lots on a block, or the equivalent aggregation of lots in different locations for the purpose of creating large institutions. Review and amend other standards, such as building heights and setbacks, to prevent erosion of the residential character of the neighborhood.

Staff believes that this language could be improved by specifying in the first and third of these policies that the standards sought should be in the Zoning Ordinance and that they would provide guidance to the Board of Appeals in their deliberations. Staff does not, however, recommend adopting language more appropriate to zoning standards into the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff is not in favor of a policy to establish a limit of one institution per block within Planning Area 4, for the following reasons:

1) Blocks are of widely varying sizes in Planning Area 4. As such, there would be unequal treatment, and making consistent and rational decisions based on such metrics would be difficult. 2) A "block" is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance and is less of a clear concept than the popular conception (e.g., does a "cul-de-sac" constitute a block?).

Packet Pg. 50 2.1.1

3) Religious institutions, which are institutional uses, are permitted in all zones in Rockville and protected by federal law. Currently, under the Zoning Ordinance, construction of structures for religious institutions are required to receive a thorough site plan approval process. Staff supports retaining this process for religious institutions because it allows a case-by-case approach, which staff believes is protective of both the neighborhood and consistent with federal law. However, staff would support a review of relevant standards within the Zoning Ordinance. 4) The draft neighborhood plan for Planning Area 4 includes properties where the land use designations are RO and ORRM. In both areas, staff does not believe that institutional uses should be excluded, subject to their meeting the development standards. 5) Staff believes that there may be ways to address this concern, but that it should be done in the Zoning Ordinance after approving the updated Comprehensive Plan.

Testimony on historic district properties

2. Exhibit 41c (written) and Exhibit 18 (oral): Patricia Woodward; Exhibit 16 (oral): Jane Pontius; Exhibit 17 (oral): Noreen Bryan; Exhibit 28 (oral): Brian Shipley, President of West End Citizens Association

Testimony requests that the Comprehensive Plan include a policy to preserve the settings and landscaping of historic district properties in Planning Area 4. Specific language is requested for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan as a policy under HISTORIC PRESERVATION POLICIES, page 56 (also found in Written Testimony Exhibit 41e), as follows:

“In order to preserve the setting, grounds and landscaping of historic districts and to prevent overly large or numerous new structures therein:

• An addition to the existing main historic structure is allowed only if it is subservient thereto. • New stand-alone structures, including but not limited to accessory buildings, are allowed only if they are subservient to the existing main historic structure. • New multi-family structures including townhouses are not allowed in historic districts. • Develop regulations that protect historic districts such that any new buildings therein are subservient to the historic main structure, provide protections that prevent the loss of the setting, landscaping and grounds and prevent the encroachment of buildings and uses that are inconsistent with the history of the district.”

Staff Response: Staff does not support adding the language proposed by the testimony. The Rockville Zoning Ordinance currently regulates building setbacks and heights, lot coverages, accessory structures, etc.; and the Rockville Historic District Commission has purview over projects that alter structures or properties within a historic district. In staff's view, this additional language is not necessary and may contradict or overlap with the responsibility of

Packet Pg. 51 2.1.1

the Historic District Commission to approve compatible development within the city's historic districts.

Staff does not support prohibiting new multi-unit (i.e., apartments) or single-unit attached (i.e., townhouses) residential structures within historic districts in Planning Area 4 in areas that are already zoned to allow those uses. Most of Planning Area 4 properties within historic districts are zoned only for detached single-unit residential homes (e.g., R-60, R-90) and would not allow apartments or townhouses. A small number of properties within historic districts in Planning Area 4 are currently zoned to allow for small-scale mixed-use development through the MXT (Mixed Use Transition) zone, including multi-unit and single- unit attached residential uses. These properties are located along the eastern boundary of the planning area with Planning Area 1 (Rockville Town Center). The draft Plan would continue the right to have attached and multi-family residential structures in this very specific location, through the draft land use designations of RO (Residential Office) and, in limited cases, ORRM (Office Residential Retail Mix).

Testimony on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

3. Exhibit 39 (written): Edmund Magner; Exhibit 41d (written) and Exhibit 19 (oral): Margaret Magner; Exhibit 41e (written): Patrick Woodward; Exhibit 48 (written) and Exhibit 27 (oral): Nancy Pickard, Peerless Rockville; Exhibit 16 (oral): Jane Pontius; Exhibit 17 (oral): Noreen Bryan; Exhibit 28 (oral): Brian Shipley, President of West End Citizens Association

Testimony states a need to preserve single-family neighborhoods in Planning Area 4 by placing standards on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). It expresses concern that free- standing ADUs will diminish backyards and natural habitats, that they incentivize teardowns and mansionization, and that they will not increase affordability. Testimony prefers ADUs allowed as accessory apartments.

Specific language is requested for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan as a policy under HOUSING ISSUES - Single-unit Detached Residential Housing in Planning Area 4, page 40 (also found in Written Testimony Exhibit 41e), as follows:

“In order to preserve the historic character of the neighborhood and limit the number of residential structures on a residential lot to one, the main residence, the following standards for accessory dwelling units apply: • An accessory apartment, in or attached to an existing residential structure, is allowed only if: o there is adequate parking provided, and; o the existence of the accessory apartment is not visible from the street, thereby preserving the appearance of a single-family residence. • Only one accessory apartment is allowed per lot;

Packet Pg. 52 2.1.1

• Accessory dwelling units are not allowed in any structure that does not share a common wall with the main residence. This includes structures that are connected to the main residence by a breezeway or similar structures; • A process for reviewing applications for accessory apartments needs to be established that assures that the accessory apartment will not degrade the character of the neighborhood. It could follow the current Special Exception process or be an alternative approach that assures that there is the opportunity for neighbors to be aware and involved in review and approval.”

Staff Response: The Mayor and Council are currently in a very active process of deliberating on the topic of ADUs, including receiving public input from throughout the city. As a result, staff does not recommend adding this specific language at this time. The Mayor and Council will have the opportunity to take their process into account during its deliberations on this draft Comprehensive Plan. However, staff agrees that ADUs should be held to certain development standards and consider siting and landscape settings.

By definition, ADUs are subordinate structures to the primary homes. Staff supports assuring that this remains the case within the Zoning Ordinance, through enforceable design and size/massing standards. In many places in the country, ADUs have been compatible with maintaining the single-family character of a neighborhood while at the same time providing a modest option for additional housing. ADUs by themselves do not address affordability, but, as a part of a suite of housing options, they contribute to a diverse housing stock in the city, ultimately leading to more reasonably priced housing options.

Staff suggests the Planning Commission consider adding guidance for site and landscape standards for ADUs in the Land Use Element, Policy 2, which would apply as citywide Zoning Ordinance standards. If the Commission supports this approach, staff could return with proposed language at the next session, as it would apply citywide, including in Planning Area 4.

REMAINING TESTIMONY DISCUSSION TOPICS Certain topics from previous work sessions were held over for discussion at a later Planning Commission meeting after all Planning Area testimony had been discussed. These topics included issues that crossed over multiple Planning Areas, were for city-wide consideration, or were new concepts introduced as a result of further collective discussion or testimony. As a follow-up to these earlier discussions, staff offers the following recommendations and draft language for the Planning Commission’s consideration. The Planning Commission may also raise any other topics, not addressed below, that it would like resolved prior to transmitting its recommended draft Comprehensive Plan to the Mayor and Council.

Planning Area 1 – Rockville Town Center and Planning Area 9 – Rockville Pike

Packet Pg. 53 2.1.1

4. Exhibit 2 (written): Greg Ossont, Montgomery County Department of General Services; Exhibit 46 (written): Soo Lee-Cho (Miller, Miller & Canby); and Exhibit 35 (written): Nina Albert (WMATA)

This grouped testimony objects to the P (Public Parks) land use designation on the following properties: 301 E. Jefferson St. (Exhibit 2), 200-A and 200-B Monroe Street (Exhibit 46), and 1700 Chapman Avenue (Twinbrook Metro Station) (Exhibit 35). While testimony in Exhibit 2 requests removal of the Public Parks designation on the applicable properties from the Land Use Policy Map, testimony in Exhibit 46 requests a change to the ORRM (Office Residential Retail Mix) land use designation. Testimony in Exhibit 35 requests that the Public Parks designation be changed to a land use consistent with development adjacent to the Twinbrook Metro Station since public open space is expected to be created as part of future development at the station property, though not necessarily in the location mapped by the draft Plan.

Staff Response: This testimony was discussed by the Planning Commission during their work sessions on November 18 and December 9, 2020. At these meetings, the Planning Commission supported staff’s recommendation to change how the Comprehensive Plan indicated the expectation for future parkland in the vicinity of the properties mentioned above, specifically, by adding an asterisk in the general area rather than utilizing the Public Parks land use designation. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with specific language for how this would be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the Planning Commission requested a final review of three aspects: (1) a final definition for the asterisk in the Land Use Policy Map and any relevant Focus Areas that indicates where a potential future park is envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan; (2) where to include references to these potential future park locations within the Comprehensive Plan; and (3) how to incorporate analysis of the need for park space in the Recreation and Parks Element of volume I.

• Definition of the asterisk for a potential future park: Staff recommends that the potential future park asterisk be defined in the legend of the Land Use Policy Map as follows: “An asterisk is placed on the map in the general area where a public park is recommended but the specific location has yet to be determined.”

Staff would further recommend that each Focus Area in which a park asterisk is located describe the purpose and intent of the park asterisk, indicating the expectation for a park in the general area of the asterisk, describing the possible methods that could bring it about (e.g., land dedication as part of a development project, purchase of the property by the city, etc.), and explaining that the asterisk is placed in a general location for the purposes of planning only and should not be construed as the exact location where a park is expected within the Focus Area.

• Comprehensive Plan cross-references: Staff recommends that Policy 5 of the Recreation and Parks Element (Vol. I, p. 96) include a reference to the potential

Packet Pg. 54 2.1.1

future park asterisk, as well as its location and purpose, in the Land Use Policy Map and Planning Areas volume. The reference would include suggestions for how a park might be established to meet the vision of the Plan, such as the options for land dedication as part of a development project or direct city purchase. Staff also recommends that each planning area where a potential future park access is located include a reference to Policy 5 of the Recreation and Parks Element.

• Park needs analysis: Staff has considered the Planning Commission’s request to consider adding a discussion on parkland acquisition, accompanied by a map showing types of property ownership (e.g., city, county, state, private, HOA, etc.), which might help support understanding about where future new parks could be established. Policy 6 of the draft Recreation and Parks Element already addresses how the city might develop financing or funding mechanisms to establish new parks, though it stops short of showing a map that includes property ownership or site vacancy. Staff will provide a map for consideration by the Planning Commission at the work session on January 7 and will seek direction on whether the Planning Commission sees value in its inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan.

Additionally, after further reviewing the draft Land Use Policy Map, staff would like to clarify that there are properties in the city that are mapped with the Public Parks (P) land use designation that would be re-assigned to a non-park land use designation, similar to the properties discussed in the testimony above. These properties include:

• 1800, 1818 and 1830 Chapman – These properties are part of the same area of P (Public Parks) designation as the WMATA property at Twinbrook Metro station that would be changed to ORRM (Office Residential Retail Mix).

Planning Area 2 – East Rockville

5. Exhibit 3 (written): Jeffrey Grimes; Exhibit 5b (written): Heather Murphy (Maryland Department of Transportation)

Testimony suggests, for North Stonestreet Avenue, replacing the assignment for a bicycle facility of a Signed Shared Roadway with painted ‘sharrows’, as recommended in the 2017 Bikeway Master Plan, with a protected bike lane. It also proposes additional protected bike lanes along 'high-stress' thru-roads in East Rockville leading to the Rockville Metro Station, as well as in Town Center, Montgomery College, and other destinations, including to such bicycle facilities as the Millennium Trail and Rock Creek Trail. Specific roads mentioned by testimony in Exhibit 3 include: Baltimore Road; Park Road and North Horners Lane; and South Stonestreet Avenue. The testimony in Exhibit 3 also recommends that the City consider Montgomery County's Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Area in Silver Spring as a model for low-stress bicycle infrastructure in an urban area, and as a reference for the definition of low- and high-stress roads.

Packet Pg. 55 2.1.1

Staff Response: This testimony was discussed by the Planning Commission during the work session on December 9, 2020. At this meeting, the Planning Commission supported staff’s recommendation to retain the current bicycle facility designation for North Stonestreet Avenue for a bicycle lane on the northbound (uphill) direction and a shared travel lane with “bike sharrow” paint markings on the southbound (downhill) direction. However, the Planning Commission requested that staff return at a later work session to recommend how best to address roadway stress levels as part of future bicycle facility planning.

The concept of using a road’s ‘stress level’ as a tool to assess bicycle facility needs and priorities, based on the comfort level that people on bikes experience, is currently being applied by bicycle planners in Montgomery County. The city has not adopted this technique as a planning tool in the Bikeway Master Plan, which was last updated in 2017; however, the proposed bicycle facilities (e.g., bike lanes, bike paths, shared roads) adopted in the city’s Bikeway Master Plan are a result of extensive public outreach, staff recommendations to create safe bicycle corridors and connections throughout the city, and existing roadway and right-of-way conditions. Staff believes that incorporating a new method to assess new bicycle facilities should be considered as part of a future process to update the Bikeway Master Plan. Direction to consider the latest techniques, however, could be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan for the benefit of the next Bikeway Master Plan.

Staff recommends adding a new action under Transportation Element Policy 18, “Improve infrastructure for bicyclists to increase bicycle riding as a transport mode.” The new action could read: “Update the Bikeway Master Plan on a regular basis, with the purpose of improving facilities and safety for people on bikes. Updates should consider new bicycle facility locations that support a complete bicycle transportation network and increase the comfort level of people on bikes along key bicycle corridors.”

6. Exhibit 17 (written): Chas Hausheer; Exhibit 47 (written) and Exhibit 20 (oral): Deborah Landau, President, East Rockville Civic Association

The testimony opposes the extent of the RA (Residential Attached) land use designation and its accompanying zoning recommendations in several areas within Planning Area 2. A detailed discussion of the requests by each testimony exhibit is available in the Planning Commission meeting staff report for December 9, 2020.

Staff Response: The purpose of this discussion is to confirm changes to the Comprehensive Plan, based on the Planning Commission’s direction on December 9. Two aspects of the testimony are discussed below: (1) the extent of the RA (Residential Attached) land use designation on the Land Use Policy Map, and (2) the zoning recommendation for the properties designated RA within Focus Area A5.

Land Use Policy Map Changes

Packet Pg. 56 2.1.1

After receiving direction from the Planning Commission on December 9 to revise the draft Land Use Policy Map to designate only the first three (3) properties east of S. Stonestreet Avenue as RA, within Focus Area A5, staff has prepared a draft map update for the Planning Commission to review to confirm the map changes. Map of RA (Residential Attached) designation in Focus Area A5, along S. Stonestreet Avenue in Planning Area 2 (East Rockville)

A5

Zoning Recommendation Changes At the work session on December 9, 2020, the Planning Commission indicated support for residential housing types within the reduced area of RA within Focus Area A5 to include townhouses and rowhouses, as well as single-unit residences, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Throughout the Planning Areas volume draft, the RA (Residential Attached) land use designation generally recommends that all such designated properties be re-zoned to a new zone that allows a diverse range of housing types, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses and row houses, in addition to single-unit detached dwellings.

Unlike other zoning recommendations in the draft Plan that specify a new recommended zone by name, there currently is no zoning district in the Zoning Ordinance that exactly implements the envisioned land use pattern of the draft Plan’s RA land use designation. However, staff is working on a new zoning district, called RMD-Infill (Residential Medium Density – Infill), that would allow the housing types and development standards envisioned on properties in the RA designation.

While the specific standards for the new RMD-Infill zone are currently being drafted, it is expected that it will allow a residential structure ranging from a single-unit home to a

Packet Pg. 57 2.1.1

fourplex (i.e., a single residential structure containing four dwelling units, each with separate outdoor entrances) on a single lot. The draft RMD-Infill zone does not currently allow for townhouses, rowhouses or small apartment buildings. Not allowing rowhouses, however, was brought forward as an issue by the Mayor and Council at the meeting to authorize the process to review and adopt the new zoning district. If rowhouses or townhouses are ultimately not adopted as a permitted use within the RMD-Infill zone, the subject area may be considered for the RMD-10 (Residential Medium Density) Zone, which allows townhouses as well as the other housing types included in the Residential Attached land use classification.

Planning Area 9 – Rockville Pike

5. Exhibit 10 (written) and Exhibit 4 (oral): Marc ‘Kap’ Kapastin

Testimony opposes extending Chapman Avenue through the properties, 1460 and 1488 Rockville Pike, as adopted by the 2016 Rockville Pike Neighborhood Plan, since it would limit redevelopment opportunities on the resulting small lots created by the extension. The testimony asserts that the proposed road extension negatively impacts potential redevelopment of the properties and that the intersection of the proposed extended Chapman Avenue with Rockville Pike would not meet the MDOT SHA minimum distances between signalized intersections on state roads (between Congressional Ave. and Templeton Pl).

Staff response: This testimony was introduced to the Planning Commission by staff during the work session on November 18, 2020. At that time, staff asked for the discussion to be delayed to a future work session to allow staff to return with recommended changes to address the extension of Chapman Avenue through the subject properties.

The extension of Chapman Avenue through the subject properties is a component of the adopted 2016 Rockville Pike Plan (Figure 4.9: Street Master Plan, p. 4-14 and Figure 4.10: South Pike Street Master Plan, p. 4-15). Staff believes that the purpose and benefits of the extension, that of expanding the street network within the Rockville Pike corridor and reducing the number of driveways from developed property onto Rockville Pike, remain valid. However, staff appreciates the concerns raised by the testimony.

Staff suggests that the Comprehensive Plan include language that specifies that, at the time of development review for the subject properties, a determination be made whether or how Chapman Avenue is extended. Staff’s recommended language for the Comprehensive Plan is as follows:

“Whether and how to extend Chapman Avenue through the properties at 1460 and 1488 Rockville Pike should be evaluated by city transportation planning staff at the time of review for a development application at the subject properties. City staff should weigh

Packet Pg. 58 2.1.1

the benefits of adding to the public street network in this portion of Rockville Pike with the impact the extension would have on proposed development. The evaluation may also consider an alternative of potential driveway connections from the properties to MD-355 and Chapman Avenue at the northern terminus of the Twinbrook Quarter development that would provide access to the external road network without necessarily requiring a public street connection through the properties.”

Staff does not recommend that the Comprehensive Plan include a modified map or graphic of the future Chapman Avenue extension that would generalize its location, nor does staff recommend that the 2016 Rockville Pike Neighborhood Plan be amended or modified as such. Staff’s concern is that creating any conflicting graphics from the original Rockville Pike Neighborhood Plan would be confusing and the Street Master Plan adopted as part of the Rockville Pike Neighborhood Plan (see below) provides for flexibility and minor deviations from its indicated design. For example, the Twinbrook Quarter project plan, immediately to the south of the subject properties, has already received approval for a portion of an extension to Chapman Avenue that deviates from the exact dimensions of the Street Master Plan. Furthermore, the Rockville Pike Neighborhood Plan states that, “this level of flexibility is appropriate for the street network proposed in this plan.” (p. 4-15)

Packet Pg. 59 2.1.1

REMAINING DISCUSSION TOPICS BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS DURING WORK SESSIONS

7. Addressing COVID-19 and other public health emergencies

In response to testimony submitted into the public record on the Planning Areas volume draft of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Planning Commission’s request for staff to recommend how the Comprehensive Plan can support the city’s preparedness and resiliency to public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, staff proposes the following recommendations for the Planning Commission’s consideration.

The State of Maryland Land Use Article requires that the city prepare a report on implementation of the Comprehensive Plan every five (5) years and conduct a review of the entire Comprehensive Plan every ten (10) years. Staff recommends that these requirements be discussed in a new heading of the Introduction to the Comprehensive

Packet Pg. 60 2.1.1

Plan entitled, “Updating the Plan.” Staff recommends that this new section include a discussion on how the Plan embraces the concept that, in a rapidly changing world, city planning policy may need to be updated or changed to achieve new policy goals or to address emergent trends. Various events or trends that might affect the context of planning in the city should be discussed, including public health emergencies (e.g., virus pandemics, opioid epidemics), economic changes, technological innovations, climate change, and potentially other topics. Despite the long-term view of many of the Plan’s policies and actions, staff believes that the Plan should acknowledge that circumstances in the Rockville community may shift due to unforeseen conditions or events and the city should be able to react to these new circumstances as needs be.

With regard to the ability to respond to community emergencies in the near-term, staff does not believe the draft Comprehensive Plan would inhibit the city from taking short- term actions, such as changing the use of public space, redirecting traffic, or allowing temporary land uses. A statement could be included in the new heading, “Updating the Plan,” that anticipates that the city may need to exercise a degree of flexibility in its policies and/or regulations, though also indicate that any actions taken that might be in conflict with the Plan would need to be approved by the Mayor and Council, and for a limited time until the urgent need has abated. Furthermore, staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan include a recommendation to prepare a citywide emergency operations plan, potentially as a new action under Policy 1 of the Community Facilities Element, which reads, “Maintain City of Rockville facilities and staff levels to provide a high level of city services to the entire community.”

8. Replacing the OR (Office and/or Retail) Land Use Designation

During staff’s review of the draft Comprehensive Plan in response to comments received by the Planning Commission, both for the Elements and Planning Areas volumes, it became apparent that the OR (Office and/or Retail) land use designation may not be necessary as a distinct category in the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Policy Map. Staff had originally intended the designation to apply to properties in the city where staff believed residential uses were not desirable (next to rail) or feasible. However, after receiving comments about the need to expand the flexibility of allowable land uses on properties where residential uses were previously considered challenging by staff, staff believes that the ORRM (Office Residential Retail Mix) land use designation should replace all instances of OR in the Comprehensive Plan.

Further complicating the OR land use designation was the recognition that a wholly new zoning district would need to be created that would allow office and retail/commercial uses, but not residential. Currently no such zoning district exists in the Rockville Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, several properties that are designated OR on the draft Land Use Policy Map are alone among surrounding properties, which are generally otherwise designated ORRM or O (Office) and area zoned with classifications that would allow residential uses.

Packet Pg. 61 2.1.1

For the reasons cited above, staff recommends that all instances of OR (Office and/or Retail) on the draft Land Use Map be changed to ORRM (Office Residential Retail Mix).

9. Citywide Ratio of Park Area to Population

During the Planning Commission’s review of the draft Recreation and Parks Element of the current draft plan, the Planning Commission asked staff to return with recommendations on whether to include a goal to attain a certain citywide park area-to-city population ratio. While the current 2002 Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP) sets a goal to maintain a ratio of 18 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents (Chapter 6: Recreation, Parks and Open Space), not only is this standard not currently being met under the definition of the 2002 CMP, staff believes that this standard will be increasingly difficult to attain as the city continues to urbanize and grow in residential population.

The recently adopted Recreation and Parks Strategic Plan included recommended level of service standards for park acres per 1,000 residents, based on the type of city parkland. Staff believes that the Strategic Plan, which is more easily amended and updated than the Comprehensive Plan, should establish such park standards, rather than the broader Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff does not recommend that the Comprehensive Plan include a policy to maintain a specific ration of park area to city population. Staff recommends, instead, that the Comprehensive Plan should follow the lead of the Recreation and Park Strategic Plan, which is a more targeted plan to address this issue.

Draft Comprehensive Plan Policy on Parks As a city with a population nearing 70,000 and 1,035 acres of parkland (nearly 15 acres per 1,000 residents), the goal for maintaining 18 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, as is recommended by the 2002 CMP, is not currently met. The city’s population is projected to grow to 82,000 by 2040, and this growth will put even more pressure on the existing parks and recreation facilities. This expected population growth calls for the creation of new parks or expansion of existing parks and other recreation facilities to meet the demand that comes with additional users, especially in redeveloping and urbanizing areas along Rockville Pike and in Rockville Town Center.

The following policies are included in the Planning Commission’s draft Comprehensive Plan: • Continue the policy of providing a public park or recreation facility within a ten- minute walk of every residence in the city; • Expand and connect a network of multi-use trails to provide safe access to city, county, and regional parks in the Rockville area; • Ensure no net loss of parkland; • Add to existing parks, in areas with park deficiencies, when contiguous parcels become available for sale, especially in growth areas; • Establish a park development fund for acquisition, design, and construction of new parks or additions to existing parks, supporting the fee-in-lieu payments;

Packet Pg. 62 2.1.1

• Foster mutually beneficial partnerships with Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), Montgomery County and Montgomery College for shared use of park, recreation, and cultural facilities; • Effectively utilize the strengths and resources of the private sector to complement the policies of the Recreation and Parks Department; • Maintain an up-to-date Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan; • Develop a unique identity for Rockville Recreation and Parks facilities; • Maintain city recreation and park facilities at the highest standards for safety, cleanliness, environmental sustainability, and user experience.

Recreation and Parks Strategic Plan On December 7, 2020, the Mayor and Council adopted a new Recreation and Parks Strategic Plan that establishes recommendations for the Recreation and Parks Department to achieve the vision the community has for the recreation and park system, and to meet the needs of the community while ensuring long term financial sustainability and a high-quality experience for the Rockville community. Among other goals, the Strategic Plan recommends unique levels of service standards based on a park’s classification (i.e., Neighborhood Park, City Wide Park, Destination Park, Undeveloped (Open Spaces). Each park classification has its own recommended level of service for park acres per 1,000 residents.

10. Recommendation for a new Metro station at Montgomery College (PA 7)

During an earlier discussion of the Planning Areas draft volume by the Planning Commission, a potential policy to recommend a new Metrorail station at Montgomery College was considered. At the time, staff did not have a recommendation in this regard, knowing that the feasibility may be an issue considering that the rail track is on the opposite side of MD 355 from the college campus.

Staff now recommends that, because of the clear potential benefits of having a Metrorail station at that location, the Comprehensive Plan include a statement in Planning Area 7 (Montgomery College) for the city to encourage for WMATA to study the feasibility of adding a new station in the vicinity of Montgomery College.

PUBLIC OUTREACH: After the draft Planning Areas volume was released on February 13, 2020, staff initiated a public information program to inform the Rockville community about the contents of the Planning Areas draft and its availability for review and comment. Notification of the draft’s release and scheduled public hearing was sent to the State Clearinghouse within the Maryland Department of Planning, relevant public agencies, and adjoining jurisdictions. Staff held virtual informational meetings prior to the public hearing to assist the public in understanding both the draft Plan and the methods by which written and oral testimony may be provided.

Packet Pg. 63 2.1.1

In addition, staff worked with the city’s Public Information and Community Engagement (PICE) office to provide information through Rockville Reports, Rockville 11, social media, and city- maintained email distribution lists to provide information on the draft Plan content, public hearing dates, methods to provide testimony, and to keep the public updated on the process. Staff will continue to work with the PICE office to provide information and reminders to the Rockville public about the Rockville 2040 process as it proceeds.

At a broader level, the Planning Areas draft is the result of extensive community input that was gathered over a multi-year period, and continues to the present, in a process known as “Rockville 2040.” That process is summarized in the Introduction chapter of the Public Hearing Draft for Volume I: Elements, but includes a kick-off meeting, thirty-five Listening Sessions, four City-wide Forums, three Open Houses, four Information Sessions, and many meetings with community members, community organizations, and other stakeholders as warranted. Staff has been available to talk and meet with any member of the broader Rockville community, including but not limited to residents, business owners, employees, representatives of non- profit organizations, and representative of governmental and quasi-governmental agencies.

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: City boards and commissions participated in many of the community meetings held during the Rockville 2040 process; and city staff have attended various meetings of boards, commissions and other organizations (e.g. Rockville Economic Development, Inc., Rockville Housing Enterprises, etc.) to obtain input for the Planning Areas draft. Staff will continue to meet with and provide briefings, as requested. In addition, the Planning Commission may choose to include members of certain boards and commissions in post-hearing work sessions, on specific topic areas.

NEXT STEPS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission complete its work on the draft Comprehensive Plan by early February 2021, to provide the Mayor and Council sufficient time under state law (150 days) to review and adopt the plan in advance of its summer break. If the Mayor and Council receive the plan by the end of February, it will have sufficient time to complete its review before August 2021.

In order to follow the schedule above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide direction to staff on final revisions to the draft plan either at its special meeting on January 7, 2021 or at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting on January 13. Due to the short time- period between these two meetings, a copy of this report will be published with the January 13, 2021 meeting agenda in case any topics need to be continued to that date.

Packet Pg. 64 2.1.1

Staff anticipates providing an initial preview of the Planning Commission’s final draft of the Comprehensive Plan on February 10 and a final version for the Planning Commission to consider for recommendation to the Mayor and Council on February 24, 2021.

Attachments Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (PDF) Attachment 2.1.1.b: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony Staff Response Matrix (PDF) Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (PDF) Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (PDF)

Packet Pg. 65 2.1.1.a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft, Volume II Complete Summary of Written Testimony, received between February 13 and October 7, 2020

Please Note: Rows highlighted in yellow pertain to Planning Areas 1-4, which are proposed to be discussed at the Planning Commission work session on December 9, 2020 and January 7, 2021.

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) Noreen Bryan and Note: At the submitter's request, this testimony was removed n/a n/a Patrick Woodward from the record by the Planning Commission and was 1 Co-Chairs, Planning superseded by the testimony included as part of Exhibit 41a. Area 4 Committee Reiterates comments from April 26, 2019 letter on Vol. I: Staff agrees that the Montgomery County Council Office Building (COB) Retain the ORRM (Office Elements (new testimony includes original letter and additional parking garage at 100 Maryland Avenue is not likely to redevelop in the Residential Retail Mix) land use past correspondence), requesting removal of Fig. 3 (page 20) short-to-medium term, especially since the County has recently made designation at 100 Maryland and Fig. 4 (Page 31) in Vol. I, since they show County-owned investments to repair and upgrade the garage. However, since the Avenue (Montgomery County land at 301 E Jefferson Street (current juror parking lot, shown Comprehensive Plan’s land use policy map establishes the long-term Council Office Building (COB) as Park) and 100 Maryland Avenue (current COB parking vision for development patterns in the city, staff believes that a land use parking garage). garage, shown as ORRM). Explains that, based on current designation of ORRM is appropriate for the location to guide future investment and usage, the County does not anticipate these redevelopment of the site within the city's downtown core. This Replace the P (Public Parks) land uses being redeveloped. designation in no way restricts the continued use of the COB or its use designation at 301 E. Jefferson parking garage, though if the county sought to sell the property or Street ('Juror Lot) with ORRM and redevelop it as another use, the ORRM designation would provide place a green asterisk indicating the Greg Ossont guidance to establish a zoning designation that would permit a higher- general location where a Future Montgomery 2 1 intensity, mixed-use development. Potential Park is desired. County Department of General Services Staff has also considered the testimony received for the assignment of the P (Public Parks) land use designation at the Montgomery County 'Juror Lot' (301 E. Jefferson St.). Staff recommends that a different approach be taken to indicate the city's desire for a future public park in this general area. Instead of applying the Public Parks designation to the entire property, (1) an asterisk should be placed in the general location where future park space is desired; and (2) a land use designation should be added as a replacement to the Public Parks designation, reflecting the current or future land use of the site if it were privately developed. To be consistent with surrounding properties, staff recommends the ORRM land use designation to replace the P designation. Suggests placement of protected bike lanes along 'high-stress' The draft Transportation Element of Vol. I includes several general Add a recommended action under thru-roads in East Rockville leading to the Rockville Metro policies and actions for the enhancement of the bicycle network in Policy 18 of the Transportation Station, Town Center, Montgomery College, and other Rockville (see Policy 16, Action 16.1, Policy 18). The Bikeway Master Element for future updates to the destinations, including to bike trails, such as the Millennium Plan (2017), which is an adopted component of the current Bicycle Master Plan to propose new Trail and Rock Creek Trail. Specific roads mentioned: Comprehensive Master Plan and which would be adopted by reference routes for protected bicycle lanes Baltimore Road, Park Road/North Horners Lane, and South into the new Comprehensive Plan, proposed a bicycle lane on only one throughout Rockville to connect Stonestreet Avenue. road mentioned in the testimony - South Stonestreet Avenue. The Plan major destinations (parks, schools, Jeffery Grimes process included significant community input. shopping, eating, transit, recreation Current: 1620 E. Recommends Montgomery County's Bicycle and Pedestrian trails, etc.). Jefferson St. Apt. 3 X 2 Priority Area in Silver Spring as a model for low-stress bicycle In 2018, the South Stonestreet Avenue Road Diet project was completed 332 infrastructure in an urban area, and as a reference for the between Baltimore Road and Park Road. A sidewalk was installed on the Future: 303 Taylor definition of low- and high-stress roads. west side (Rockville Metro Station side) of South Stonestreet Avenue and Avenue a bike lane was added on the east side. On North Stonestreet Avenue, the Bikeway Master Plan maintains the current Signed Shared Roadway designation that provides for signage and painted 'sharrows' for both travel directions. However, in 2018, the Stonestreet Corridor Study was completed, also with significant community input, and infrastructure

improvements along North Stonestreet Ave were recommended. In 2019, Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II: the Mayor and Council directed staff to include these recommendations Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 1 Packet Pg. 66 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) as a Capital Improvements Project (CIP) for design that includes enhanced sidewalks on both sides of the street, improved street lighting, landscaping and improved bicycle infrastructure. The design is almost completed and funding for construction will be added as a future CIP.

Staff does not recommend adding new facilities to the new Comprehensive Plan or making changes to what was recently adopted into the Bikeway Master Plan without study and additional community input. Instead, staff recommends adding a new Action to Transportation Element Policy 18, which is “Improve infrastructure for bicyclists to increase bicycle riding as a transport mode.” The new Action, which could be 18.2, would be “Update the Bikeway Master Plan on a regular basis, with the purpose of improving facilities and safety for bicyclists.” No such Action is in the current draft. Suggests discussion on how planning area boundaries align Sustainable Community areas identify priority areas and areas of need Maintain the planning area with state and federal geographic designations that can for grants, funds, and financing from the many state programs associated boundaries as proposed in the support implementation (e.g., Sustainable Communities, with the Sustainable Communities program. Properties within a Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan Enterprise Zones, etc.). Sustainable Communities area receive higher ranking/priority when draft. seeking assistance from the state programs with which the Sustainable Recommends reviewing the needs and strategies of the Community Program is associated. Include a discussion of state grants, Montgomery County Sustainable Community Action Plan for funding, and financing programs in consistency with those in the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Areas define the city-as-a-whole by neighborhood affinity areas, the relevant Elements of Vol. I, as major transportation corridors, and natural features in order to apply city well as a map and discussion of Also suggests that the Housing Element address the need for policies and actions to these local areas. Several areas in the city are Sustainable Communities areas affordable and workforce housing in response to House Bill included in the Montgomery County's approved Sustainable Community within the city. 1045 (2019), which amends Sections 1-406 (Charter Counties) Action Plan. However, these areas do not align with the proposed and 3-102 (Non-Charter Counties and Municipalities) of the planning area boundaries, nor does staff believe they need to, since they Maintain existing language in Vol. I Land Use Article and adds sections 1-407.1 and 3-114. serve different purposes and define different types of areas. as it relates to workforce and John Papagni affordable housing. Division of However, there could be a benefit to adding mention of the various state Neighborhood and federal program boundaries mentioned in the testimony to the 4 Revitalization, MD X appropriate Element of Vol. I. For instance, Maryland's Jobs Creation Tax Dept. of Housing Credit could be discussed in the Economic Development Element, and Community Maryland's Low Income Housing Credit could be discussed in the Development Housing Element, and Maryland's Sidewalk Retrofit Program could be discussed in the Transportation Element. The drawback is that funding programs and sources change and listing these programs could eventually outdate the plan.

On the requirement to include a Housing Element as part of the Comprehensive Plan and to address affordable housing within the Housing Element, as required by House Bill 1045, staff believes that the Vol. I draft satisfies the testimony's suggestions: * A Housing Element is included in the draft Comprehensive Plan. * Economic Development Element, Policy 15 - Improve workforce housing options for employees at a range of incomes. * Housing Element, Goal 2 (Affordable Housing Incentives and Programs), Policies 7-10 address the city's protection and expansion of affordable housing. Charles Boyd, AICP Compliments Vol. II organization, informative and focused A Housing Element is included in the draft Comprehensive Plan, Vol. I: Add language to Elements and Maryland 1,5,8,9,1 analysis of planning areas, public engagement and Elements. The policies and actions proposed in the draft Housing Planning Areas volumes providing 5a X Department of 7 accessibility. Element were crafted considering the findings and recommendations of greater clarification for the Planning the city's Housing Market Analysis and Needs Assessment report, relationship between them, the Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 2 Packet Pg. 67 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) Recommends ensuring that the plan is in conformance with completed in Dec 2016 by Lisa Sturtevant & Associates. The assessment regulatory authority of planning area HB-1045 (Housing Element), which requires the inclusion of a recommended housing strategies for the full range of household policies, and the role of the Housing Element in the Comprehensive Plan that includes a incomes, including low-income and workforce housing, and is referenced neighborhood plan. housing needs analysis for low-income and workforce housing. in the Housing Element. Staff believes that the Comprehensive Plan, in its current draft form, complies with the requirements of the Housing Incorporate all suggested detailed Recommends clarifying "the authority that the planning areas Element, including the required analysis. edits and additions to improve the will have in the decision-making process," such as in readability of the document development review, including zoning and subdivision review, Staff agrees that additional clarification should be added to both by explaining the relationship between the volumes if the Comprehensive Plan volumes to explain the authority that various Add a policy in the Plan, potentially planning area is not within an adopted master plan, aspects of the planning areas will have in the city's decision-making in the Introduction, that says that an neighborhood plan, or similar. Consider discussing the such process, as well as that of adopted neighborhood plans. Since the immediate follow-up item to the Plan intent of each planning area section. Also commends the city policies of the Planning Areas volume carry the same weight and is to develop an implementation for incorporating planning area policies into the citywide authority as that of the citywide Elements, staff does not believe there plan for every Plan policy and Comprehensive Plan, but "cautions the city in holding its would be confusion between them in the future. Any recommendations action. planning area plans to this higher level of legislative review and adopted as part of the Planning Areas volume would not carry the force expectation of plan consistency." of law, but would serve as guidance for future projects, studies, or zoning (c) Include as part of the call for a regulations. Pedestrian Master Plan in Vol. I's Recommends clarification of The Role of the Neighborhood Action Item 17.1 (Policy 17 of the Plan by, "clearly indicating that the neighborhood plan is a Instead of adding details for implementation of Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element) new or small area master plan and refinement of the comprehensive policies, as suggested by the testimony, staff recommends that a policy improved transit wayfinding in plan, and with an explanation of the local adoption process." be added to the Plan stating that an immediate follow-up item after Plan the areas surrounding the three Suggests clarifying that the I-270 Neighborhood Plan would be adoption is to develop an implementation plan for every Plan policy and Metro Stations serving Rockville superseded by the Tower Oaks planning area (#12). Indicates action. (Twinbrook, Rockville, & Shady that the discussion of the five neighborhood plans that are Grove). adopted by reference, except for conflicts that are superseded Staff agrees with the Referral Comments, with the following exceptions: by the new plan, only mentions that these policies supersede (f) Staff supports the addition of this previous policies; however, there is other valuable information (a) The draft Comprehensive Plan includes recommended transportation reference to a study of a new including goals, strategies, and recommendations that could be projects or studies in most planning areas, though without great detail or interchange of W. Gude Dr. with I- carried forward. specific designs. More detailed transportation policies and 270. It would be added as a recommendations were intentionally not included in the draft Plan, since reference within Planning Area 5 as PLEASE NOTE: Testimony includes several suggested edits staff believes they should each be studied in detail after plan adoption, an addition to its mention in the draft and additions to Vol. II. See original testimony for complete list rather than specifically described in the Plan itself. Plan in Planning Areas 4, 15, and under "Referral Comments". Some of the more significant 16. comments are listed below. (b) Staff does not believe that adding implementation details for draft transportation (or other) policies (such as priority, timing, cost, funding (g) PA 8&9 - Add a recommendation (a) Include more detailed transportation policies and sources, etc.) is necessary for the Comprehensive Plan. Implementation to advocate for the MDOT SHA to recommendations in each planning area to assist in future details should be developed soon after the Rockville 2040 address congestion at the Veirs Mill coordination with governmental partners. Comprehensive Plan update is ultimately approved and adopted by the Road (MD 586) and First Street Mayor and Council. intersection in the Transportation (b) To help guide the plan implementation, consider specifying Element, Policy 8, and in Planning timeframes, priorities, and responsible entities or funding (c) Instead of calling for transit wayfinding in Town Center alone (PA Area 8 (Twinbrook). sources for these land use and transportation 1), these improvements should be considered in all areas within recommendations that help promote TOD and walkability. walking (or driving) distance of the three Metro Stations serving (h) Bring in language from the Rockville (Twinbrook, Rockville, and Shady Grove). It could be part testimony to the Land Use and (c) PA 1 - Recommends a transit wayfinding of the Pedestrian Master Plan that is already called for in the Economic Development Elements recommendation to depict transit routes/stops and nearby Transportation Element of Vol. I. and Planning Area 17 about popular destinations in the town center area. recognizing the need to preserve (d) Regarding enhancing affordable housing recommendations for all light industrial uses. Needs a (d) Suggests enhancing affordable housing recommendations TOD areas, staff believes the draft Plan accomplishes this suggestion by stronger affirmative statement about for all TOD areas. identifying properties near the Rockville and Twinbrook Metro Stations retention of light industrial land that are currently occupied by single-unit residential dwellings for a zone uses. Mention (e) Recommends estimating the amount of residential dwelling that allows small-scale attached housing (i.e., the RA designation); maker/creative/artisan uses as units based on the future zoning may provide a better housing that is expected to allow more people to afford living near transit compatible. Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 3 Packet Pg. 68 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) understanding of public services and infrastructure needed to stations. Furthermore, the greatest potential for redevelopment projects accommodate future growth within each planning area. with a residential component is near the city's two transit stations: Rockville, and Twinbrook; projects that would have to meet the city's (f) PA 5 - Include recommendation to study a new I-270 moderate-priced housing ratios. Housing Element policies address interchange with W. Gude Drive, as do PAs 4, 15, and 16 further affordability goals throughout the city.

(g) PA 8&9 - Include a recommendation to address congestion (e) The introduction to Vol. I includes citywide forecasts and estimates of at the Veirs Mill Road (MD 586) and First Street intersection as the current number of residential dwelling units; and each Planning Area a major issue to help coordination with the state. includes such current estimates. The draft does not project growth of those areas because there is so much variability in what could happen in (h) PA 17 - Recommends addressing the need to preserve these mixed-use areas. industrial land as a valuable freight and economic development resource while mitigating impacts on surrounding communities. (f)(g)(h) Staff supports these recommendations. See staff recommendations to the right. Testimony includes general recommendations and edits, as Most suggestions are for elaboration or greater explanation of existing Incorporate general text edits well as specific transportation recommendations for almost all policies or actions, which staff supports and is willing to undertake. suggested by the testimony planning areas. See April 13, 2020 testimony letter for details. Some of the more substantial recommendations are included A discussion of substantial recommendations called out in the summary PA 2 & 12 - Do not include a call below: is included below: for protected bike lanes on N. Stonestreet Avenue or in the PA 2 - Focus Area A4 (pg. 23) – Under Public Realm PA 2 - Detailed planned bicycle infrastructure is not included in Tower Oaks PA at this time. Improvements, consider changing “sharrows” to protected either Volumes I or II because the Bikeway Master Plan establishes Instead, include a bike lanes on North Stonestreet Ave. the plan for future bicycle and pedestrian improvements and, as recommendation to consider discussed in the Transportation Element, is adopted by reference expanding the bikeway network PA 6 - Key Issues (pg. 67-68) – Regarding spill-over parking into this updated plan. Regarding N. Stonestreet Ave., the Mayor throughout the city under Policy on residential streets from the Rockville Transit Station and and Council just recently adopted a plan amendment for that area 18 of the Transportation Element future infill redevelopment, could this be addressed by and in 2018, recommended the inclusion of the proposed street as part of any future update to the implementing a residential parking permit system and increase improvement recommendations from the Stonestreet Corridor Study Bikeways Master Plan. transit or other mobility options to access the station? into the city's Capital Improvements Program. Both projects are incorporated into this updated plan. The Stonestreet Corridor Study PA 6 - Add a recommendation to PA 8 - City Project 5, include bicycle access, as well as; City includes a preferred cross-section for N. Stonestreet Ave., which study a new residential parking Project 10, the safety audit should drive/direct the bicycle and went through an intensive community review process and is permit system in the Lincoln Park Heather Murphy All, pedestrian plans as well. currently in the design phase. However, the Bikeway Master Plan planning area (PA 6) or, as an Maryland except 5b X should reflect all updates to bicycle infrastructure through more- alternative, to portions of the Department of 5,10,11,1 PA 12 - (pg. 110) - Include the consideration of the expansion recently adopted plans, such as that for Stonestreet. Planning Area within a half-mile of Transportation 7 of bicycle lanes throughout the entire Planning Area. the Rockville Metro Station, in PA 6 - Adding a recommendation to study a new residential parking consultation with neighborhood permit system in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, in consultation with residents and businesses. Potential neighborhood residents and businesses, would be most appropriate in language: "Implement effective the Comprehensive Plan, rather than a firm policy to enact such a parking management and program. While not mentioned specifically in this planning area, the draft enforcement to ensure adequate on- Transportation Element of Vol. I includes policies to increase non- street parking for area residents vehicular access and mobility throughout the city, including to transit where off-street parking is not stations (see Transportation Element Action 14.5, Policy 17, and Policy available. Study the possibility of 18). adding or expanding residential permit parking, in consultation with PA 8 - Staff agrees with these recommendations. neighborhood residents and businesses, within the neighborhood PA 12 - The expansion of bike lanes in PA 12 (Tower Oaks) should be due to proximity to Metro and future recommended for study, but deferred to a future update to the Bikeway infill development." Master Plan. PA 8 - Staff supports the suggested additions. Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 4 Packet Pg. 69 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) John Papagni [See Testimony Exhibit #4. Letter was provided by both [See Testimony Exhibit #4. Letter was provided by both submitters] [See Testimony Exhibit #4. Letter Division of submitters] was provided by both submitters] 5c Neighborhood X Revitalization, MD DHCD Stephen Allan, Compliments the plan's description of historic assets and Inclusion of references to existing state and federal tax credit Include additional information about AICP recognition of their value. opportunities for historic properties would not affect the existing policies state and federal tax credit Local Assistance in the draft Plan. They would be a useful addition for public information opportunities for historic properties, and Training Recommends including additional information about state and and staff coordination. However, the Historic Preservation Element would the Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Planning, Office of federal tax credit opportunities for historic properties, noting be a more appropriate location for these references rather than the Tax Credit's Small Commercial 5d Planning, Education X that, "eligibility for or listing in the National Register of Historic Planning Areas volume. Additionally, the city has included tax credit, program. and Outreach, Places is helpful in qualifying properties for federal and state grant programs and other resources within its Historic Preservation Maryland financial incentives." Also recommends mentioning the webpages, where the information may be kept more regularly up to date. Department of Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credit's Small The Heritage Plan Amendment and its incorporation into the 2002 Planning, Maryland Commercial program and recent Heritage Area Amendment. Comprehensive Plan as an amendment to the plan is described on page Historical Trust 222 of the Historic Preservation element in Vol. I. Jennifer Hopper Testimony was provided as a general response checklist Staff does not find any comments in this testimony that pertain to No changes recommended. Lands and noting the requirements for storage, disturbance, and disposal Comprehensive Plan policies. 5e X Materials of solid waste and hazardous material for the City of Rockville. Administration (a) Recommends that the Comprehensive Plan adoption (a) Staff does not support delaying the Comprehensive Plan update (a) Do not postpone the timeline be "permanently tabled" and that an addendum be process due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Further delay would not serve Comprehensive Plan update added to each planning area regarding COVID-19. Re-evaluate the interests of the Rockville public, who have spent many hours process in response to the concept of a 20-year plan; the city should invest in data engaging in the process and providing feedback and are counting on coronavirus pandemic or to re- analytics and mathematical models in order to analyze various elements of the draft Plan to be adopted and implemented in the evaluate the Plan through additional immediate changes and forecast for the future. near term. Additionally, there is an established process by which the data analytics and mathematical Comprehensive Plan may be amended in the future as circumstances or models. (b) Requests specific attention to the Rockshire Village interests change. Shopping Center including retaining the current zoning (instead Add a policy in the Environment of proposed change). If zoning change is retained, define Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider Element, under Goal 4: Healthy "substantial" retail. Comprehensive Plan policies and actions that address preparing and Communities, that establishes the responding to public health emergencies, such as the COVID-19 ways in which the city can be more (c) Asks city to address APFO, parking, ADA, safety and fire pandemic. One example is the addition of a policy in the Environment prepared and responsive to natural lane impacts before changes to land use or zoning; seek Element, under Goal 4: Healthy Communities, that establishes the ways and "human-centered" opportunities to recruit new retail to shopping center and in which the city can be more prepared and responsive to natural and emergencies. Bring forward, in a Randy Alton parking conditions, and purchase or lease of the property by "human-centered" emergencies. Staff will bring forward, in a future work future work session, a set of 2309 Glenmore 6 x 14 the city for community amenities. session, recommendations in this regard for potential inclusion in Vol. I. recommendations in this regard for Terrace, Rockville, potential inclusion in Vol. I. MD (d) Recommends sidewalk feasibility study near Wootton High Staff has utilized advanced data analytics and forecasts to develop some School (Scott Drive); add public facility & bike enhancements of the policies and actions in the draft plan. There may be opportunities to (b) Retain the PD zoning in the to Wootton Mill Park and Watts Branch Stream (per BayLands explore additional techniques to "analyze immediate changes and approved planned development for report); support a farmer's market west of I-270; conduct forecasts for the future," in subsequent Plan updates, yet they should not the Rockshire Village Shopping safety study along Wootton Parkway Corridor; requests that serve as a reason to delay or "re-evaluate" the current draft Plan. Center, but support an amendment City rotate the holding events geographically throughout the that would permit, in addition to City; build a shelter/pavilion as a staging area for events on While a more 'nimble' or 'responsive' Comprehensive Plan sounds retail uses allowed by the current Karma property to promote east Rockville residents to visit reasonable, staff believes that the policies and projects adopted in the PD, residential uses (preferably west Rockville and leverage I-270 bike/ped bridge. Comprehensive Plan should take a longer view than those that would single-unit detached housing or respond to rapidly changing circumstances. The Rockville community townhouses) if the proposed should be able to expect a level of stability and consistency as the city residential development includes grows and changes. Though the city has established a typical twenty- community-serving retail and/or year planning horizon for its previous Comprehensive Plans, a ten-year community amenity space. A review is required under the Maryland Land Use Article and Plan discussion regarding the precise amendments can occur more frequently than that. language is presented in the staff Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 5 Packet Pg. 70 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) report and awaits Planning (b) The recommendations for Rockshire Village Shopping Center, its land Commission decision. The Planning use designation and recommended zoning, stem from an extensive Commission should consider how to public outreach effort to find a solution that works both for the discuss the amount or significance surrounding community and the property owners. Staff believes that the of retail use and community amenity recommended land use is appropriate in that it reaches a compromise space as a part of residential between differing views. However, greater clarification may be redevelopment at the Rockshire necessary. Village Shopping Center.

(c) Addressing site-specific APFO, ADA, safety, and fire lane impacts is (c) See staff comments. not within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan, though broad policies support all these goals. These issues will be addressed at the time a (d) Incorporate the recommended redevelopment proposal is submitted. Similarly, staff does not believe bike and pedestrian safety and recruiting new retail to the shopping center should be the purview of this facility improvements into the Plan. appropriate location of the Planning Areas draft. Some may be best (d) Staff supports the addition of a recommended sidewalk feasibility included as part of the citywide study on Scott Drive, though portions of the roadway are beyond the city Elements, such as the support for a limits and such a study should be coordinated with Montgomery County farmer's market west of I-270 and DOT. The remainder of the recommended additions are appropriate for rotating city events geographically the Planning Areas, as well. throughout the city. Compliments the recommendation to increase residential Staff agrees that a variety of housing types should be available No changes recommended. density, especially 'missing middle' housing, along Viers Mill throughout Rockville that address a variety of income levels. The Plan Corridor and near Twinbrook Metro. Recommends it should currently recommends several new areas to allow for a mix of housing extend to cover all Twinbrook and Twinbrook Forest to help types and more density. The scope of where ADUs would be allowed is address city and regional housing shortage. also expanded. The draft Plan's recommendations are the result of extensive public outreach and comments, especially in Planning Area 8 Recommends that additional attention should be paid to make (Twinbrook and Twinbrook Forest). Any further expansion of areas that residential areas away from main corridors more walkable allow higher residential density than single unit detached homes in the Michael Dutka within Planning Area 8 (i.e. allowing a small amount of Comprehensive Plan should be carefully considered by the Planning 713 Shetland commercial activity and limiting planning for cars), especially in Commission or considered as part of future small area plans that would 7 8 Street, Rockville, the area near Rockville High School, Focus Area 7 of PA 8. involve their own public input process. Staff does not support expanding MD such areas at this time.

As with allowing a diversity of residential density options, staff agrees that small-scale, walkable commercial destinations within residential neighborhoods are positive additions to the Rockville community, though is hesitant to add new areas without additional public input. If in the future, certain areas undergo unanticipated change, the city has the option to initiate a plan amendment process to closely analyze and appropriately respond to the changes. Supportive of a variety of the proposed projects, recommends PA 1 - The 2001 Town Center Master Plan and Rockville 2040 Planning No changes recommended. stronger involvement of the County DOT in planning for BRT Area 1 (Vol. II) both support economic development in Town Center. The [PA 1, P8], recommends additional economic development in Economic Development Element in Vol. I supports promoting "Rockville Town Center to make it a destination for "young people to eat, Town Center as a business and administrative center supported by a David Lorenzo- drink and dance". Supports redevelopment of 255 Rockville lively mix of restaurants, hotels, small shops, business headquarters and Botello Pike. service providers (Policy 10, p. 182) and "Cultivating a richer arts, 8 1,2,7,8,9 110 Monroe Street, entertainment, and social scene in Rockville (Policy 11, p. 183). Rockville, MD PA 1 - Montgomery County government was a major tenant at 255 Rockville Pike as staff from various county departments were housed in that building. The County has moved, or is moving, functions and staff from this building to a combination of a new County building in Wheaton Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 6 Packet Pg. 71 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) and to the renovated Grey Courthouse building in Town Center. The result for 255 Rockville Pike is over 130,000 sf, or 80%, of vacant space at that building. City staff has spoken many times with the property owner to determine future plans and discuss development goals, consistent with the Town Center vision. To date, no viable plan has been proposed.

PA 8 - The draft Plan currently advocates working with the County DOT for the implementation of the BRT and stations at relevant locations along the Viers Mill Corridor as noted as a recommended City project in that chapter. The draft Plan supports the implementation of BRT in the City (Vol. I, Policy 13, p. 73). Staff will continue to coordinate with the County on the BRT goals. Recommends having benches to complement existing The provision of benches and other public or private space "amenities" is Since the pedestrian master plan is walkability -- in commercial, residential and recreation areas. typically addressed during the development review process for a specific a recommendation and not a policy project. document, staff recommends another action item in the The Transportation Element, Vol. I, Policy 17 states "Improve Transportation Element Policy 17 Nancy McIntyre infrastructure for pedestrians to promote walking as a non-polluting, that emphasizes providing ADA 9 4 Rosanne Lane, X healthy, sociable mode of transportation". The policy recommends compliant seating areas and other Rockville, MD creating a pedestrian master plan for the City. The pedestrian master amenities at appropriate locations plan typically provides comprehensive details on needed infrastructure throughout the City to facilitate including seating areas as applicable and identifies issues and provides walking as a comfortable activity for recommendations on best practices to improve the pedestrian people of all abilities and age environment. groups. Opposes extending Chapman Avenue through the properties, The extension of Chapman Avenue through the subject properties is a Create an adjusted graphic of the 1460-1488 Rockville Pike, as adopted by the 2016 Rockville component of the adopted 2016 Rockville Pike Plan (Figure 4.9: Street Chapman Avenue extension that Pike Neighborhood Plan, since it would limit redevelopment Master Plan, p. 4-14). Staff believes that the purpose and benefits of the indicates a more general or opportunities on the resulting small lots created by the extension, to expand the roadway network within the Rockville Pike conceptual location. extension. Asserts the proposed road extension would leave corridor, remain valid. However, staff understands the concerns raised by his property undevelopable and that the intersection of the testimony and suggests that the graphical depiction of the future Add caveats in the text of Planning extended Chapman Avenue would not meet the MDOT SHA street extension may be overly prescriptive and definitive. Area 9 that makes the extension min. distances between intersections with state roads (between through the subject properties, or an Marc “Kap” Congressional Ave. and Templeton Pl) nor for a new signalized The graphical depiction of the Chapman Avenue extension could be alternative configuration that Kapastin intersection at Rockville Pike. adjusted to be more general or conceptual. Caveats may be added in the adequately addresses circulation in 10 Chesapeake Plaza, 9 Planning Area that would supersede the Rockville Pike Plan to explain the area, dependent on whether the Quantum that the extension of Chapman Avenue through the subject properties, or property owner seeks development Companies an alternative configuration that adequately addresses circulation in the on consolidated properties versus area, should depend on whether the property owner seeks development separate developments on on consolidated properties versus separate developments on individual individual properties properties. Furthermore, the Chapman Avenue extension was adopted as part of the Rockville Pike Plan prior to final layout and approval of the Twinbrook Quarter redevelopment project and its design and location was adjusted from the specific layout in the Rockville Pike Plan to accommodate the project. (a) Halpine Road shouldn't be the boundary between Planning (a) Staff agrees with the testimony requesting to revert the properties on (a) Realign the planning area Joseph C. McClane Area 8 & 9; Cambridge Walk townhomes should be considered the south side of the 5900 block of Halpine Road back to within the boundaries to revert the properties Cambridge Walk II part of Twinbrook planning area. Supported by a neighborhood boundary of Planning Area 8 (Twinbrook and Twinbrook Forest). on the south side of the 5900 block 11 HOA petition containing 12 signatures (Exhibit 11a). of Halpine Road to Planning Area 8 & 8 (b) Staff continues to support the draft Plan's land use designation of RF (Twinbrook and Twinbrook Forest). 11a Joshua Sturman (b) Opposes zoning change on south side of 5900 Halpine Rd, (Residential Flexible) for the property at 5906 Halpine Road, due to its Cambridge Walk I especially Focus Area A1 (R-60 to RMD-15) due to its large lot size on a street corner, adjacency to an existing townhome (b) Retain the RF (Residential HOA Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II: inconsistency with the Key Issues of PA 8, such as: maintain development, and transitional location between mixed-use, residential Flexible) land use designation at

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 7 Packet Pg. 72 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) residential character, reduce traffic congestion, add parkland apartments near the Twinbrook Metro Station and single-unit detached 5906 Halpine Road (Twinbrook and recreational facilities. homes. The draft Plan currently recommends a zone for the property that Church) and recommendation for would allow a medium-density residential development, such as RMD-15, either the RMD-15 or MXNC zone. (c) Requests a different photo on page 96 that better reflects or one that also allowed ancillary ground-floor commercial uses, such as Amend the Focus Area A1 in PA 9 their neighborhood. the MXNC (Mixed-Use Neighborhood Commercial) zone, but does not (moved to PA 8) to establish a preclude continuing the existing institutional church use. In recognition of maximum building height of 50 feet its sensitive location across the street from existing single-unit detached and include language to guide residential homes and adjacent to existing townhomes, staff suggests development review of any future that language be added to guide the review of any future residential development proposal to facilitate a development, including a maximum building height of 50 feet if the sensitive transition between new property is zoned MXNC. and existing residential development. (c) Staff will look for a better photo to represent the Twinbrook community, as requested by the testimony. (c) Replace the photo on page 96 per testimony. Recommends that zoning reform be more comprehensive and Under Maryland Law, the scope of zoning does not permit Staff agrees that zoning should should guide more of the City's development; should be differentiation by racial group and likely runs afoul of the law... guide development, and that it planning for the next 100 years. Asserts that, based on census should be based on the vision and data, Rockville isn't meeting the needs of Rockville's African PA 2 - [See staff response to the extent of RA in Planning Area 2 in policies outlined in the American community; the city needs to avoid potential red Exhibit 47] Comprehensive Plan. Staff also lining through zoning. Consider the racial makeup of agrees that, for some matters, a neighborhoods to encourage more diversity; avoid targeting PA 8, Area 5, First Street Park: The draft Plan recommends to allow a very long-time horizon, such as 100 areas for change with predominantly minority residents, range of housing types at this location. Therefore, if approved and years (or more) is appropriate. including Hispanic residents. Recommends the city consider followed up with a zoning change, residential uses would be permitted, Examples include environmental creating zoning classifications that utilize rental control (price but the land use plan does not prescribe the exact type of use that would preservation, historic preservation controls) through a Rental Overlay Zone and enforce policies be permitted within a development. and parks. Other areas require a that require minorities first access rights to any housing for shorter time horizon to be sale. PA 8, Area 1, Viers Mill Corridor: The draft Plan emphasizes that one of meaningful, as factors on which the the reasons for accommodating additional housing and housing types is relevant policies are based can PA 2, Area 12: Opposes the RA designation and rezoning to expand housing options to people and families of varying income change dramatically. Examples near the proposed BRT station at Veirs Mill and First levels. In addition, the city-wide housing element provides details about include housing, economic Street. Recommends a historic zone there. affordability, as well as existing and recommended future programs. development, and community Andrew Martin Regarding small and minority-owned business assistance, the city-wide facilities. In all these areas, and 722 Mapleton PA 8, Area 5: Recommends any development of First Street Economic Development Element addresses both concerns and provided others, preferences, habits, market 12 X 2,8,9,17 Road, Rockville, Park be only for transitional housing for the incarcerated. several recommendations. trends and, most importantly, values MD can evolve so rapidly that having a PA 8, Area 1: Supports rezoning but concerned about PA 9: The timing of when developments occur is largely based on the horizon of more than 20-30 years affordability after redevelopment and prefers commercial private market; the draft Plan merely lays the foundation to allow different would not provide workable mixed-use projects that exclude national franchise businesses. types of development to occur when feasible. Regarding the BRT project, guidance for implementation. Suggests small business restrictions and economic assistance the city is involved in BRT planning with Montgomery County agencies to ensure small, minority-owned businesses are established to and will continue to participate in this process. With respect to considerations of serve the community. diversity, staff strongly agrees that PA 17: On March 30, 2020, the Mayor and Council discussed the encouraging and welcoming PA 9: Redevelopment should be encouraged here before PA 2, process for determining the future of the RedGate Park property. The diversity is an important goal, as has A12 and PA 8, A1. City should encourage the County to build Mayor and Council unanimously voted to retain the entire property as a been communicated by public BRT on Rockville Pike before Veirs Mill. park, with elements of both active and passive recreation, including participants in the process to natural open areas. City staff is currently working to kick-off a RedGate develop the plan. Staff also agrees PA 17: RedGate should be developed in partnership with the planning process before the end of the year, and community participation that the City needs to avoid any sort County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to will be a primary focus of the process. of red lining that excludes anyone expand the Model Learning Center. based on race, as doing so would not be consistent either with the city’s values or the law. In general, the law does not permit land use Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 8 Packet Pg. 73 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) and zoning classifications to be based on race.

PA 2 - [see staff recommendation in Exhibit 47]

PA 8, Area 5, First Street Park: Retain the existing recommendation from the draft Plan.

PA 8, Area 1, Viers Mill Corridor: Retain the existing recommendations from the draft Plan.

PA 9: No change recommended.

PA 17: No change is recommended. A separate planning process, incorporating community engagement, will be kicked-off toward the end of the year to discuss in detail the RedGate property. Due to increasing future housing demand, the city needs to Testimony is supportive of the current draft Plan. No edits or No changes recommended. address the housing shortfall--at a range of price points--by recommendations were discussed. planning for more housing supply. Christopher Ruhlen 13 Lerch, Early, X Supports how the Rockville 2040 plan promotes housing Brewer access and diversification in the land use pattern and plans for land use changes from commercial to residential uses; commends staff for having the policies in Vol I and how they were used in Vol II. [This emailed testimony to Planning Commission and others Staff does not believe that a Neighborhood Plan is necessary for A new neighborhood plan for Randy Alton reiterates Mr. Alton's oral testimony on Sept. 9 and previous Planning Area 14. Issues related to the Rockshire Village shopping Planning Area 14 is not 2309 Glenmore written testimony (Exhibit 6)] center site and other topics within the planning area can be addressed recommended at this time. 14 14 Terrace, Rockville, through the Comprehensive Plan's Vol. II planning area MD Additional discussion includes a call for a Neighborhood Plan recommendations. If issues emerge after Plan adoption, an amendment for Planning Area 14 (Rockshire & Fallsmead) to this Plan can be pursued. Supports the proposed zoning changes in Twinbrook, Regarding the testimony suggestion for the creation of safe pedestrian No changes recommended. particularly more mixed use buildings along Veirs Mill Road to corridors linking Twinbrook neighborhood across Veirs Mill Road and to give more flexibility and walkability to the Twinbrook Town Center, staff believes that, without a specific project location, such [see also staff recommendations to neighborhood areas along Viers Mill Road and to take more policies are best addressed in the citywide Transportation Element. Written Testimony Exhibit 7] advantage of transit. Instead of the suggested pedestrian bridge at Twinbrook Parkway and Tara Dutka Veirs Mill Road. Staff believes that ensuring a safe at-grade crossing is 713 Shetland Recommends expanding the residential upzoning to more of the best option for the intersection. 15 8 Street, Rockville, the Twinbrook area, particularly along Baltimore Road and MD Twinbrook Parkway. [see also staff comments in Written Testimony Exhibit 7]

Recommends creating safe pedestrian corridors linking Twinbrook neighborhoods across Viers Mill Road and linking to the Town Center; address unsafe conditions at Viers Mill Road and Twinbrook Parkway, possibly through a pedestrian bridge. Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 9 Packet Pg. 74 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) (a) Comments on the need for more moderate-income housing (a) Staff agrees with the testimony that moderate-income housing is No changes recommended. in Rockville Town Center; wants to encourage and enhance needed in Rockville Town Center, as well as other areas throughout the the transition of development in the RTC to where people live city. The city's current Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program (presumably in the West End neighborhood). is one way the city secures a portion of new residential units as affordable to residents at price points lower than what would typically be (b) Requests zoning change to allow 110 N. Washington St. to offered at market rates. Additionally, allowing a range of residential redevelop to residential instead of office. development housing types in the city, as the Comprehensive Plan seeks to expand, creates a greater supply of housing at a range of price points (c) Recommends following ULI recommendations for Town for existing and future Rockville residents. Staff believes that the city's Center. current affordable housing standards and the land uses allowed by the draft Plan and resulting future Zoning Ordinance updates adequately (d) Recommends considering how pandemic will affect office address the city's need for housing affordability as recommended by the space market and makes additional recommendations for RTC testimony.

With regard to encouraging and enhancing the transition of land uses between Rockville Town Center and adjacent areas, particularly the West End neighborhood, staff notes that, while the draft Plan recommends a change in zoning for property on the west side of North Washington Street within Planning Area 1 (Rockville Town Center) from MXNC to MXCD, the resulting increase in maximum building height from 45 feet to 75 feet is accompanied by a recommendation to require building heights to step down to 45 feet on the west side of those properties where they are adjacent to the transition to Planning Area 4 (West End). This recommendation is included in the draft Plan specifically to maintain appropriate transitions in building massing and compatibility between the Steven VanGrack two planning areas. [See the Zoning Recommendations of Focus Area 16 Rockville 1 A1 in Planning Area 1] Similarly, Planning Area 4 incorporates a Associates transitional land use designation along its eastern border with Planning Area 1 that will allow lower building heights and less intensive land uses between the urbanized Planning Area 1 and detached single-unit residential neighborhood of Planning Area 4. For the reasons cited above, staff believes the draft Plan addresses this aspect of the testimony.

(b) The Planning Areas draft includes a recommendation to change the zoning district and maximum height limit for properties on the west side of N. Washington St. (Focus Area A1 in Planning Area 1), including 110 N. Washington St. referred to in the testimony. The current zoning on the subject property is MXNC, which permits mixed-use development, including residential use, with a maximum height limit of 45 feet. The ULI study of Town Center noted that the 45-foot height limit may be one reason there has been no development for decades along these blocks and recommended that the heights of buildings facing N. Washington St. be permitted to match the height on the east side of the street, which is 75 feet under the MXCD zone, and then be scaled down towards the residential area to the west. The draft Plan recommends that the properties within Focus Area A1 be rezoned to MXCD, which would allow buildings heights up to 75 feet. The MXCD zone would also allow residential uses to be developed in the focus area, as requested by the testimony.

(c) Staff does not recommend following all suggestions from the ULI report, however, most recommendations are incorporated into the draft Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 10 Packet Pg. 75 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) Plan's PA 1 chapter. City staff developed several options with a consultant on "Road Diet" as recommended by the ULI for N. Washington St. and E Middle Ln. to make the streets more pedestrian oriented, and desirable for residential development. The Mayor and Council voted on a preferred street design at their October 5 meeting and recommended that the project be proposed as a CIP for FY22.

(d) City staff and REDI continue to work to attract anchor tenants and increase the promotion and presence of arts and culture activities and uses that will complement and strengthen the office market in the future. The declining office market was an issue prior to the pandemic, and the plan promotes flexibility to address current and future market changes. Supports the "RA zone" along Viers Mill Rd, near the Staff supports having a conversation with the Planning Commission For Focus Area A5 with the RA intersection of First Street and South Stonestreet Ave, and at about the extent of the RA (Residential Attached) land use designation designation east of South Park Road, but in more limited areas that proposed in the draft. within Planning Area 2, particularly Focus Area A5 south of Reading Stonestreet Ave and South of Is opposed, in particular, to including RA in the entire Terrace, and Focus Area A12 near First St and Veirs Mill Rd. Reading Terrace, discuss adding referenced area between S. Stonestreet and Grandin Avenues language that provides more (see provided map), preferring instead for it to apply only to the For Focus Area A5, the draft plan currently recommends the RA guidance about implementing the first lot fronting S. Stonestreet. (Residential Attached) land use category between S. Stonestreet Ave to zoning classifications consistent the west (across from the Rockville Metro Station), Grandin Avenue to with the RA land use. States that any multi-family building must conform with the the east, Park Road to the north, and Croydon Avenue to the south. A East Rockville Design Guidelines. plan amendment was recently adopted including the area between Park For Focus Area A12, revert the land Road and Reading Terrace and will be incorporated into this plan. For the use north of Mapleton Alley to RD other areas, south of Reading Terrace, if adopted as part of this draft (Residential Detached) and maintain Plan, the RA land use would allow the potential for a modest increase in the RA designation south of housing in this transit-adjacent area, on the edges of the East Rockville Mapleton Alley. neighborhood. The challenge with applying the RA designation to only one or a few properties deep, from (east of) S. Stonestreet Ave, is establishing a reasonable extent that would realistically allow potential redevelopment, and there is no street or other right-of-way that logically divides the properties between South Stonestreet Avenue and Grandin Avenue. Chas Hausheer 17 2 (address) Rather than changing the extent of the RA in the area subject to this testimony, other options include the following:

* Adding text to the plan that would indicate that for the first 2-3 lots east of South Stonestreet Avenue, between Reading Terrace and Croydon Avenue, the zoning could be implemented either as part of a comprehensive Sectional Map Amendment or through a “floating” zone. The floating zone option would mean that property would not be rezoned to permit higher density, with the broader zoning changes to implement the plan. Instead, the plan, and zoning, would enable a property owner to apply for the zoning change prior to redevelopment, and a separate review process would be required. * Adding text that would limit the RA land use to only duplexes or triplexes in mid-block locations, and fourplexes on corner properties if the corner property met certain defined lot-size requirements. Focus Area A12 is situated at the northwest corner of the intersection of Veirs Mill Road and First Street, where a high-frequency transit station is planned along the Veirs Mill BRT corridor. While this proximity to the planned BRT station would recommend the allowance for more housing types, staff appreciates that the properties are also situated much more Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 11 Packet Pg. 76 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) closely within the East Rockville neighborhood, especially for traffic access and adjacency to existing detached single-unit residential homes. Staff suggests that the portion of Focus Area A12 north of Mapleton Alley could reasonably be reverted to RD (Residential Detached), while retaining the RA designation in the portion south of Mapleton Alley and closest to the proposed BRT stop and busy intersection of Veirs Mill Road and First Street.

[Staff comments and recommendations to testimony in Exhibit 47]

The East Rockville Design Guidelines only apply to new single-unit residential dwellings in East Rockville or additions to existing single-unit homes. It has been proposed that residential zones consistent with the RA land use would incorporate design guidelines into those zones. Urges adoption of the neighborhood plan for PA 4 (West End Staff supports the testimony to adopt the PA 4 plan. No changes recommended. and Woodley Gardens East-West); explains that PA 4 is particularly fragile because it is located near major traffic Jacques Gelin arteries that invite institutions to locate in the area and 18 701 King Farm 4 institutions threaten the residential quality of the community. As Blvd, Rockville, MD PA 4 does not have an HOA, adoption of the plan will provide the necessary protection. (Lived in West End from 1968 through 2019.) Comments that the draft Plan is "an impressive body of work" After further review of Focus Area 12 at the corner of 1st Street and Veirs Change the land use designation on Mill, staff supports assigning the Residential Detached (RD) designation the properties within Focus Area 12 Requests that the "zoning" (actually land use designation) on north of Mapleton Alley to Grandin Avenue. Staff also recommends of Planning Area 2, from RA to RD, Jamie and Joe Mapleton Alley to Grandin Avenue (Focus Area A12) remain maintaining the RA (Residential Attached) designation for the properties north of Mapleton Alley. Retain the Parker Residential Detached, not RA, because Grandin Avenue is "a south of Mapleton Alley. draft designation of RA for 19 2 812 Grandin Ave, beautiful street full of mature trees and old homes" and properties within the Focus Area Rockville, MD residential redevelopment would alter the established [See also staff comments to testimony in Exhibit 47] that are south of Mapleton Alley. residential character of Grandin Ave. [See also staff recommendations to testimony in Exhibit 47] States that West End/Woodley Gardens (PA 4) should remain The PA 4 plan retains an overwhelming majority of the residential Retain existing plan language but overwhelmingly residential. Provides images of communities in properties in the neighborhood as designated for primarily residential seek a way to highlight or Falls Church, VA, Towson, MD, and Bethesda showing former uses through the Residential Detached (RD) land use designation. The strengthen the 4th policy "bullet" (p. single-unit residential buildings located next to larger only exceptions are existing non-residential uses in the planning area and 46), which recommends reviewing commercial and institutional buildings. those on the eastern edge of the planning area. On that eastern edge, existing development standards properties that are currently zoned for residential, office and retail (in the within the Special Exceptions MXT zone) are recommended in the draft Plan to be further limited by section of the Zoning Ordinance. removing the option for retail (except for the single block of S. Adams Street, between W. Montgomery Ave. and W. Jefferson St., which retains Andrew Sellman retail as a possible use). Properties in this new Residential Office (RO) 411 W. 20 4 designation would still be limited to the scale of a single-family home, Montgomery Ave, consistent with the current MXT zone. As a result, this plan should not Rockville, MD result in large by-right buildings emerging next to detached single-unit homes in PA 4, as shown by the photos in the testimony. Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance will continue to require development adjacent or confronting (i.e., across a street) from attached or detached single-unit residential uses to limit their building height to the geometric plane measured 30-degrees from the nearest property boundary of the residential use (i.e., the layback slope).

Concerns about the scale of buildings of institutional uses, which could Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 12 Packet Pg. 77 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) occur from a Special Exception process, might usefully be addressed through a review of the current development standards discussed in the section on Special Exceptions in the Zoning Ordinance. States that, in the current retail market, Rockshire Shopping Staff accepts the premise that, because of increased nearby competition Discuss changing the land use Center cannot support the type of retail uses desired by some and the changing nature of retail, major or solely retail uses on that site is designation of Rockshire Village in the Rockshire neighborhood and should be redeveloped for unlikely to be supportable by the market. The language as presented in from RRM to RF. housing. the draft Plan attempts to strike a balance between the wants of the community and the market realities as outlined by the property owner. Retain the language to require retail Explains that previous studies and analysis by the city do not and/or a community amenity use as support the need for a major recreation use on the site, but Staff suggests that the Planning Commission could consider changing part of any residential development. suggests a landscaped community gathering space at Wootton the land use designation from RRM to RF, which would have the effect of Robert Harris Parkway and Hurley Avenue might be most appropriate. reducing the reliance on retail as part of a residential development Staff is open to amendments to the 21 Lerch, Early, 14 project. The RF is intended to allow small scale retail as part of a term "substantial" amount of retail, Brewer States that the owners of the site will continue to provide residential project, while the RRM relies more on retail as a main but believes that the plan should existing pool parking. component of a mixed-use development. retain the concept that any community amenity provided as part of residential redevelopment should be more than a small area of open space.

A longer discussion is provided in the body of the Nov 18 staff report. (a) Interested in more transit-oriented development near (a) While the city does not have purview over the frequency or schedule (a) Add a recommendation to Twinbrook Metro Station and Rockville Pike. Strongly supports of bus routes in Twinbrook, or elsewhere in the city, it can advocate and Planning Area 8 for the city to the improvement of bus routes, stops, and shelters in coordinate with Montgomery County Ride On and WMATA Metrobus to coordinate with Montgomery County Twinbrook, including BRT. Seeks greater frequency of bus seek greater access to bus services. Introduction of the Flash BRT on Ride On and WMATA to increase routes through neighborhood. Stresses importance of Veirs Mill Road may provide an opportunity to redesign the bus network bus service frequency and expand increased bicycle and pedestrian safety. serving the Twinbrook neighborhood. Furthermore, the city can pursue the number of bus shelters in the installation of more bus shelters, where appropriate and as space allows, Twinbrook neighborhood. (b) Requests the addition of a city project to connect Lewis in coordination with the county and WMATA. Avenue with Fishers Lane, as long as traffic calming measures, (b) Include a reference in PA 8 to including speed cameras, are added to Lewis Ave (b) The Planning Area draft includes a recommended city project to study the need for traffic calming as part the feasibility of a vehicular connection between Lewis Avenue and of consideration for a new vehicular (c) Requests investment in Rockcrest Community Center to Fishers Lane (P3), but does not mention any dependent traffic calming connection between Lewis Avenue serve as a location for community meetings, programs, and measures, such as speed cameras, speed bumps, narrow travel lanes, and Fishers Lane (P3). sports. intersection neck-downs, etc., to facilitate safe vehicle traffic on Lewis Mike Stein Avenue. Staff supports the addition of such measures related to the new (c) Modify the proposed city project Twinbrook 22 8 (d) Requests historic signage for Twinbrook neighborhood. vehicular connection. in PA 8 to study the need to Community enhance and/or expand the Association (e) Supports block on southside of Halpine Road that includes (c) The Planning Area draft provides for a review of the demand for Rockcrest Ballet Center in the near Cambridge Walk HOA to remain part of PA 8. program space at the Rockcrest Ballet Center but relies on a future CIP term (P8). project to initiate it. Staff supports adding a statement to the draft project Thanks staff for their willingness to meet and outreach (P8) making a study of the potential for enhancements and/or expansion (d) Add a recommended city project throughout process. of the Center more of a priority. in PA 8 to determine where new historic signage could be added to Supports residential/retail nodes in Focus Areas A2 and A3 as (d) Staff supports a recommendation for the city to develop a plan to add identify the Twinbrook "responsive to the community’s request to be a more walkable historic signage for the Twinbrook neighborhood. neighborhood. neighborhood". (e) Staff agrees that the properties on the south side of the 5900 block of (e) Revise the boundary between Supports Project 6 (ped. crossing of railroad tracks at Halpine Halpine Road should remain within Planning Area 8 (Twinbrook and PA 8 and 9 to return the properties Rd) as a top priority; Strongly supports a BRT station at Twinbrook Forest) instead of Planning Area 9 (Rockville Pike). on the south side of the 5900 block Atlantic Avenue (Project 1), as well as the extension of Atlantic of Halpine Road back to PA 8. Ave. through to McAuliffe Dr, should the shopping center Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 13 Packet Pg. 78 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) redevelop (Project 5)

Does not take a position on the appropriate density and potential redevelopment of the Halpine Rd properties, but supportive of townhomes and 'missing middle' housing. Testimony concerns the site at the southwest quadrant of West Staff recognizes the challenges of developing the portion of the subject Replace the mapped Retail (R) Gude Drive and Research Boulevard (1800 Research Blvd, or property at the southwest corner of the intersection of Research Blvd and frontage at the subject property with Parcel 37), that is currently proposed for multi-family W. Gude Drive. In light of the concerned raised by Mr. Policaro, staff descriptive text added that development. They concur with proposed ORRM designation revisited the use of the mapped Retail frontage designations on the Land describes the general location and but do not agree with the requirement for retail (R) frontage Use Policy map and determined that they it would introduce unnecessary character where commercial, designation due to stated 'weak' retail market, especially in this confusion to development review applicants, development review staff, amenitized, pedestrian-oriented, location, and the presence of a regional gas transmission pipe and the public’s expectations for where future retail might be located. and visually appealing development and easement running under a corner or the parcel. is desired. James Policaro Staff recommends removing the Retail frontage at that site; and 23 15 Lerner Corporation recommends revisiting this concept at other similar sites throughout the city, which will be covered when viewing other planning areas. Staff will recommend that, instead of mapping the location of planned Retail frontage areas at key intersection ‘nodes’ in the city, descriptive text should instead be added to Focus Areas in each planning area where Retail frontage is currently proposed that describes the general location and character where commercial, amenitized, pedestrian-oriented, and visually appealing development is desired. In addition, the text could be written to require such frontage characteristics, “only where feasible.” Glad the current boundary puts her side of the street in PA 4, Staff appreciates the kind words regarding the collaborative effort that Add language as follows: grateful to the work of staff in development of plan for PA 4 resulted in the development of the PA 4 draft. Staff shares this * Add in Vol. I that the policies and appreciation of the community volunteers who helped to craft this recommended actions for individual Opposes expansion of large institutions in the planning area. planning area draft. planning areas can be found in Vol. 4th bullet of Institutional Uses policies (pg. 46) should define II the standards that would accomplish these goals, not just Staff believes that the most appropriate place to define standards for * Add in Vol. II that policies and Jennifer Timmick "seek standards"; Supports PA 4 (resident) Committee institutional uses is in the Zoning Ordinance. The draft plan appropriately recommendations in Vol. II carry the 4 West Argyle 24 4 recommendations: no more than one institution per block; no sets the vision, which the Zoning Ordinance would then implement. same policy weight as those in Vol. I Street, Rockville, more than one acre in total area; and no further expansion of MD total land used for institutions. [See also staff responses to Exhibits 41b] [See also staff recommendations for written testimony Exhibit 41b] Recommends a statement in Vol. I stating that the policies and Staff agrees with the recommendation that both Volumes reference each recommended actions for the individual Planning Areas can be other in the manner suggested. found in Vol. II, Planning Areas and a statement that policies and recommendations of Vol II carry as much weight as Vol I. Supports Cambridge Walk I & II HOA letters; agrees with HOA [see staff comments to written testimony Exhibit 11] [see staff recommendations to request to keep the properties on the south side of the 5900 written testimony Exhibit 11] George Liechti block of Halpine Road in PA 8 221 Halpine Walk 25 8 Court, Rockville, Expresses concern about development of 5906 Halpine Road MD (Twinbrook Community Church and Daycare Center) -- high density residential shouldn't be encouraged, it should be duplexes and townhomes. Supports maintaining residential character of Planning Area 4 Staff supports adopting the draft PA 4 plan as written. No changes recommended. (West End and Woodley Gardens East-West). Brian Shipley [See also staff responses to Exhibits 41b-d] [See also staff recommendations for 211 South 26 4 Requests supporting the additional policies that are in the draft Exhibits 41b-d] Washington St, PA 4 plan to limit institutional land uses, protect open space in Rockville, MD historic districts, and limit free-standing accessory dwelling units per comments from others in PA 4 Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 14 Packet Pg. 79 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) Testimony consists of slides shown during Sept. 9 public Staff appreciates the concern that retail is no longer viable as it once was Staff recommends that the existing hearing concerning preference for residential townhome on this site and, based on the community process and significant study of language in the document be Bob Youngentob development at former Rockshire Shopping Center rather than the site, recommends that housing should be permitted on the site. retained, with the removal of the 27 14 EYA, LLC retail. However, staff believes that the plan would not be sufficiently responsive term “substantial” as a modifier of to community concerns unless it retains the concept that there should be retail. a significant amenity that would be an asset to the broader community. Noreen Bryan and TESTIMONY INCORPORATED AS PART OF EXHIBIT 41a [See staff responses to Exhibit 41a] [See staff recommendations for Patrick Woodward Exhibit 41a] 28 4 Co-Chairs, Planning Area 4 Committee Requests a specific zone for 5946 Halpine Road to implement Staff believes that the property at 5946 Halpine Road is not conducive to Change the land use designation of the RF (Residential Flexible) land use category medium- to high-density residential apartments, as requested by the 5946 Halpine Road to the RA recommendation for the property. Owner has previously testimony. While it is immediately adjacent to the Twinbrook Metro (Residential Attached) land use attempted to rezone the property and asserts that the current Station and is, therefore, transit-oriented, its small size (0.5 acres) and designation, create a new Focus R-60 zone is out of context. During planning sessions for the immediate adjacency to residential townhomes of approximately 35 feet Area for the property, and Pike Plan, owner was told a decision would be made during in height make it better suited for smaller-scale residential or mixed-use recommend the compatible zone to Rockville 2040 process. development. The site is currently zoned R-60 (Single-Unit Detached be created, like other RAs in the Dwelling Residential) and occupied by a single-unit residential dwelling. draft Plan. William Kominers Requests a zoning recommendation that allows townhomes or 29 Lerch, Early & 8 multi-unit residential apartments with the ability for ground floor Staff suggests that the RA (Residential Attached) land use designation is Brewer retail. Believes that the available zoning classifications don't more appropriate than the RF designation because of the small property work for this property: MXNC requires too much setback size, its less visible and accessible location, and its adjacency to the adjacent to residential uses (Cambridge Walk THs) and RMD- existing Cambridge Walk townhomes to the east and single-unit 15 requires a min. 1 acre lot size (subject property is approx. detached residential homes across Halpine Road to the north. The Plan 0.5 acres) and does not allow ancillary retail. should recommend a new infill residential zone that is consistent with the RA designation, like other RA areas in the draft Plan. Testimony makes specific recommendations about setbacks, height, uses, parking and density for the subject property. The access lane proposed on the west side of Rockville Pike The access lane was adopted in the Rockville Pike Neighborhood Plan No changes recommended. won't work because the property at 1319-1321 Rockville Pike (2016), which the draft Comprehensive Plan would adopt by reference. (Woodmont Station center) is shallow, similar to properties Staff understands the concerns of the property owner but offers that no fronting the Pike on the east side that were exempted from the access roads have been built other than through redevelopment. As Terry Tretter access lane due to their shallow depth. The right-of-way such, properties owners have been able to successfully build such 30 Woodmont Station 9 necessary to construct the access lane would impact existing access into their plans to ensure that there is sufficient parking for the Center parking areas in front of the stores. new uses.

Requests that any plans for the development of the Rockville Any development of the Rockville Pike frontage of the Woodmont Pike frontage of Woodmont Country Club consider the effect Country Club would require a thorough analysis as part of the on this property. development review process, to include traffic and circulation review. Land use recommendation of ORRM is consistent with the The properties in question are either undeveloped or currently developed Change the land use designation of Concept Plan for Tower Oaks and the PD-TO zone. as office uses, and the testimony has indicated that they could be the properties identified by the successful as other uses in the future. The vision for Tower Oaks was testimony as "development area 4", Requests ORRM for the development areas 4 & 3 (see letter developed in the 1980s, when the most robust market for office space 2000 and 2600 Tower Oaks Blvd, exhibits). Currently, the draft Plan assigns the O (Office) to the and development was in suburban settings. The vision was endorsed at from O to ORRM. northern and southern parcels of development area 4 (ORRM that time through the approval of both a neighborhood plan and a William Kominers in the middle) and ORRM on development area 3. Comprehensive Planned Development (CPD). During the more than 30 Staff recommends the following 31 Lerch, Early & 12 years since, only pieces of the vision have been implemented; and none language as direction for equivalent Brewer Testimony supports RF for development area 1 (see letter has been implemented in recent years as the demand for suburban office zones under the Tower Oaks exhibits),Vol. II - Planning Areas, Focus Area 1 space has weakened greatly. Staff does not anticipate that this location Planned Development (PD): recommendation. will be in demand for office development in the foreseeable future. At the same time, however, the demand for housing is strong. Staff supports the “If the Tower Oaks area continues to Requests that Vol. II incorporate policy statements from Vol. I - change in designation of these properties from the O (Office) designation evolve away from the 1980s vision Elements: to ORRM (Office Residential Retail Mix). of a suburban highway-oriented Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 15 Packet Pg. 80 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) Allow offices in isolated areas to convert to other uses office park with hotels, and more * Simplify and shorten the process for amending an approved In order to avoid confusion and repetition, staff does not support copying towards a residential district, care Planned Development language or policies that apply citywide from Vol. I into particular planning must be given to seek cohesion * Support a reduction in minimum parking requirements for areas in Vol. II, especially when such policies are not directed at among the various projects. Open office use to support economic development and more efficient particular sites or properties. space, infrastructure and other use of land community amenities and features Staff understands that the Planning Commission is concerned with the should be incorporated into new Requests that new land use designations be used to provide conversion of approved office uses to residential uses in the Tower Oaks projects, helping to serve the entire suggested direction for the equivalent zones in a Planned planned development area. However, staff believes that the testimony area as was envisioned with the Development (PD) overlay zone and that Vol. II promote concerning direction for equivalent zones under the Tower Oaks PD has CPD. Though the CPD remains in voluntary evolution of PDs and serve as additional guidance for merit and believes that additional language would help in providing force as the zoning designation, PD zones instead of more restrictive policy. guidance for the future evolution of the area from the original concept. adjustments may be made to the original plan that would be consistent with an equivalent zone of MXCD.” Generally supportive of RRM (Retail and Residential Mix) land As with staff's recommendation for the R (Retail) frontage at other Replace the R (Retail) frontage with use designation at Twinbrook Shopping Center (1920 and locations in the city, staff recommends that the mapped frontage area at descriptive language that reaches 2000 Veirs Mill Road). Questions frontage strips of R (Retail) Twinbrook Shopping Center be removed and replaced with language the same outcome, such as for new designation as duplicative and unduly limiting within its Focus Area that describes what character any redevelopment development to support within its boundaries should follow. neighborhood-scale, walkable Asserts that Vol II should not preclude or prevent incremental destinations with building and site and ongoing upgrades in the shopping center. Provides Staff does not support the testimony’s request to add language to the designs that contribute to an specific language to be added to Planning Area 8 stating the draft Plan to define how interim modifications might be made to shopping appealing and comfortable conditions by which interim modifications can be made to centers without triggering the policies and recommendations of the pedestrian-oriented street shopping centers and other businesses without triggering the Comprehensive Plan. Renovations, minor improvements, and site environment. William Kominers need to implement parts of the Comprehensive Plan that will alterations are often made to properties throughout the city without 32 Lerch, Early & 8 apply in the event of property redevelopment. triggering Comprehensive Plan recommendations for major Do not incorporate requested Brewer improvements. thresholds to delaying shopping Requests that City Project 1 (in PA 8) state that a new BRT center improvements, short of station should be designed and located so that it does not Staff supports clarifying that the implementation of City Project 5 of complete redevelopment. impair or impede functionality, parking, or ingress/egress of the Planning Area 8 (i.e., the study of an extension of Atlantic Avenue site. through the shopping center, from Veirs Mills Drive to McAuliffe Drive) Include language in P1 of Planning applies only if the shopping center is proposed for complete Area 8 to consider the implications Requests that City Project 5 (PA 8) shouldn't be considered redevelopment. The change in language should state that the street of potential transit improvements on unless and until the shopping center is proposed for complete extension should not be required, but that the city may study potential the functionality of the site. redevelopment. alignments and improvements should the site be proposed for complete redevelopment. Supports the proposed ORRM and MXTD designations at 255 Regarding the flexible/interim use of 255 Rockville Pike - The testimony No changes recommended. Rockville Pike and 41 Maryland Avenue due to its flexibility. supports the draft Plan's designations for the properties at 255 Rockville The Comprehensive Plan should make a recommendation that Pike and 41 Maryland Avenue and the recommended city projects to promotes flexible and responsive use of 255 Rockville Pike, expand and redesign the Rockville Station pedestrian bridge and both interim/short-term and long-term. Promenade Park, respectively. Staff does not support adding specific language in the Comprehensive Plan that recommends flexible or interim William Kominers Agrees with ULI study calling to enhance the landing plaza at use of a particular property, such as 255 Rockville Pike. The property 33 Lerch, Early & 1 255 Rockville Pike and to establish a proper form and use for should either continue to be occupied and utilized its current form or be Brewer the terrace and street front presence. considered for redevelopment.

Support Projects 2 & 3 on pg. 13 of the draft Plan. Regarding process for amending existing PDs - Actions under Land Use Element (Vol. I), Policy 23 include recommendations to amend the zoning Embraces Project 6 on page 13 as one option for 41 Maryland ordinance to create a Planned Development approval process and to Ave. for which parking waivers is an important consideration. simplify and shorten the process for amending an approved PD.

Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 16 Packet Pg. 81 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) City should work on simplifying the process for amending existing planned developments (PDs). Lidl USA plans to file for mixed use project at 15931 Frederick Staff supports this request. The land use designation of RM was Staff recommends that the land use Rd, consisting of a grocery store and 200-250 affordable assigned on the land use map, given the exclusively multi-unit residential designation be changed from RM apartment units. development (Silverwood) that had been approved for the site. Staff (Residential Medium Density) to recommends that the Planning Commission consider changing the land ORRM (Office Residential Retail Francoise Carrier 34 16 Requests that the RM (Residential Multi-Unit) designation be use designation to ORRM (Office Residential Retail Mix), which would Mix). BBS&G Attorneys revised to one with which MXTD would remain consistent expand options at this prominent location in the vicinity of the Shady Grove Metro Station. The land use ORRM is also more consistent with the existing zoning, MXTD (Mixed-Use Transit District), as requested by the testimony. PA 1 (Rockville Town Center) - Supports the designation of PA 1 - From various pieces of testimony, including WMATA’s, staff PA 1 – Direct staff to return to the ORRM for the west side of the Rockville Station property. has concluded that it would be helpful to improve the definitions of next work session, during Requests a clarification that ORRM include life science some of the draft Plan's land use designations, especially related to discussions of citywide issues, industry uses. the office and retail designations. The testimony's request to add with proposed language to "life science industry" to list of allowable land uses within the update the Office definition to be PA 9 (Rockville Pike) - One of the properties on the west side ORRM (Office Residential Retail Mix) land use designation is one more expansive about the of Twinbrook Metro that is designated as P (Public Parks) is example that has informed staff’s conclusion, as have prior allowable uses; and with a owned by WMATA and under consideration for a joint discussions regarding hotels and other uses. change from Retail to development project. They ask that, instead of Park, it be Commercial, and an updated changed to ORRM (Office Residential Retail Mix). While The purpose of revising the definitions would be to be clearer definition. WMATA values open space, they suggest it instead in front of regarding the range of possible uses that can be accommodated station as part of redevelopment of the site and potentially as a within each category. For example, it could be made clearer that PA 9 - Replace the Public Parks linear park along the west side of Chapman Avenue. Also, locations designated for “office" uses could accommodate a fairly land use designation as described testimony requests that Project P3 discusses the need for a wide range of employment activities that do not create industrial- by the testimony with a mixed use park in the area without designating a specific site. type impacts (e.g., noise, odors), which should be located in designation that reflects the planned industrial areas of the city. As such, “life sciences” activities would future development of the site and PA 16 (King Farm) - Requests that Project P4 be revised to be allowable if they are compatible with a mixed-use environment replace it with a green asterisk on include an enhanced at-grade crossing in addition to any where there are also residences, hotels, offices and other urban the land use policy map, indicating a bridge or tunnel solutions. activities nearby. "potential future park" area; amend related language throughout the Nina Albert Though not directly related to this testimony, staff also draft Plan to reflect this change. 35 Real Estate & 1,9,16 recommends that the Planning Commission consider changing the Parking, WMATA term "retail" to "commercial." This change, along with a refined PA 9 - Add language to City Project definition, would clarify that areas so designated could include P3 to generalize location; relocate stores selling merchandise, restaurants, and a wide variety of the point to be less associated with street-level office uses. It might even include “maker” spaces that a particular property would, as with the updated definition of “office”, be compatible (in terms of impacts) with other uses in a mixed-use environment PA 16 - Incorporate where there are residents. recommendation about at-grade crossing at King Farm Blvd.

PA 9 (Rockville Pike) - Staff supports the testimony request to change how the park land use designation is indicated in the Comprehensive Plan for the location described near the Twinbrook Metro Station, as well as other properties not owned by the city or already established as city parkland. Staff's recommendation is to apply an appropriate land use designation that matches the existing or planned development on the site while placing a green asterisk in the general location where city parkland is desired.

PA 9 (Rockville Pike) - In response to the testimony and consistent with staff's support to generalize the land use map designation of a future park Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 17 Packet Pg. 82 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) in this location, staff recommends that City Project P3 either be removed from the draft Plan or its description should be amended to generalize its intended location.

PA 16 (King Farm) - Staff supports this recommendation and recommends an adjustment in accordance with the testimony. Requests that no retail space be required in the redevelopment See staff comments to Written Testimony Exhibit 21 and 49 See staff recommendations to of Rockshire Village Center. Includes a letter from the retail Written Testimony Exhibit 21. In John Rhoad consulting firm, Streetsense, reiterating their findings that retail addition, a longer discussion is 36 RMJ Development 14 is not a viable land use at the site due to surrounding provided in the Nov 16 staff report. Group, LLC competition, limited visibility and vehicle traffic from Wootton Parkway Supports efforts to improve walkability, pedestrian and cyclist Staff agrees that environmental impact and green space is a concern. No changes recommended. friendliness and ease of navigation. Excited about creative and New development projects are required to consider these issues and this maker spaces. Supports mixed-use development above and plan recommends new green spaces in these areas. After adoption of the adjacent to Metro stations. Advocates for benches, wider Comprehensive Plan update, the City will address its zoning and sidewalks and better shade. ensuring that zoning districts are consistent with any changes in the plan. Edmund Morris Parking is an issue and there are recommendations in the land use 37 Bickford Ave, 1,4 Asserts that future development should be assessed on element of Vol. I to review current parking requirements. Further, certain Rockville, MD environmental impact and how green space is open to the mixed-use zones, depending on their location, are qualified to apply for a public and its character. Overall, the city has too many zoning waiver to certain parking requirements. Home-based businesses are designations that should be simplified. The Comp. Plan should allowed by special exception in many areas and retail is allowed in support home-based businesses and retail. Parking mixed-use zones. requirements should be more flexible. The city needs affordable housing options that are actually These comments are targeted to larger policy questions rather than Consider additional language in Vol. affordable; more dense housing near transit; need rent control; specific areas within Planning Areas, which are the focus of these work I to address ADA accessibility at shouldn't be planning for cars as the main focus; need more sessions. In general, however, staff believes that most of the testimony is transit stops and identify high use Rachel Spellman shade and seating at bus stops. addressed as part of the city-wide policies in Vol. I of the draft plan. stations for priority interventions. 504 Bickford 38 X Various policies are devoted to housing affordability, transit-oriented Avenue, Rockville, development, walkability, ADA accessibility, and amenity spaces. Upon MD further review of the policies, additional language could be added to recommend greater ADA accessibility at transit stops and prioritizing high-use stations. Need to maintain single family status and green space and Staff agrees with the goal of retaining the nature, wildlife, tree canopy [See staff recommendations to opportunities for wildlife, no free standing ADUs which would and overall beautiful feel of PA 4. However, staff also believes that there Exhibits 41c-d] potentially lead to demolition of the more affordable housing are examples of how ADUs, even freestanding ones, can support, rather and diminish the uniqueness of the historic PA 4 neighborhood than diminish, the neighborhood, especially if the ADUs remain Edmund Magner (i.e., leads to destruction of affordable housing that exists) subordinate to the primary structure with strictly controlled design 39 115 Forest Ave, 4 standards in the zoning ordinance. ADUs, both as part of the primary Rockville, MD structure and freestanding, have traditionally provided a more reasonably priced option for the person who lives in the unit, including sometimes a free option for family members.

[See also staff responses to Exhibits 41c-d] Thanks staff for their work. Staff appreciates the community's continued involvement in planning No changes recommended. Alexandra Dace efforts in the neighborhood. Denito PA 6, Project 1: Stresses its priority to community. 40 6 Lincoln Park Civic Association PA 6, Project 2: Is almost completed, and the Lincoln Park Civic Association (LPCA) is very happy with how it was done. Noreen Bryan OPENING COMMENTS Staff shares Ms. Bryan's appreciation for the collaborative effort and the [See staff recommendations to 41a Co-Chair, Planning 4 Thanks staff for their work and outlines three remaining issues result it achieved in producing the draft neighborhood plan for PA 4. Exhibits 41b-e] Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II: Area 4 Committee that are unresolved: (1) large institutions, (2) preservation of

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 18 Packet Pg. 83 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) 207 S. Washington the land surrounding historic structures, and (3) accessory The testimony identifies three specific areas of concern and references Street, Rockville, dwelling units. Main focus is maintaining the residential nature testimony with specific policy recommendations in 41b-e. Staff provides MD of the (West End) neighborhood and limiting cut-through traffic. responses there.

Institutions - current draft Plan does not limit the number, height, or size of institutional uses in relation to residential buildings. Requests a cap on the number and size.

Preservation of Land Surrounding Historic Structures - seeks to preserve the current setting of historic districts; does not want high-rise buildings next to historic structures

ADUs - does not support freestanding ADUs since it would permit two homes per lot instead of existing single-family dwellings INSTITUTIONS Staff appreciates the goal of limiting the amount and size of non- Staff recommends maintaining the States that the Comprehensive Plan needs to prevent residential uses in PA 4. For that reason, the fourth policy in the existing language in the draft Plan encroachment of institutions into Planning Area 4; areas section on Institutional Uses (p. 46 of the Planning Areas draft) states that calls for unspecified zoning abutting I-270 at West Montgomery Avenue and Falls Road are that standards should be sought within the zoning ordinance to standards that establish maximum particularly at risk. Institutions/commercial uses disrupt single- establish maximum acreage for large institutions and prevent acreage for institutional uses and family housing and bring traffic. Any existing institutions should aggregations. prevent lot aggregation of residential remain neighborhood-serving. Requests that the Comp. Plan lots for institutional uses. Specific

include proposed policies for institutions that limit their size and standards should be considered as Staff is not in favor of a policy to establish a limit of one institution per number. part of future updates to the zoning block within PA 4, for the following reasons: ordinance instead of within the (The following text is proposed by written testimony 1) Blocks are of widely varying sizes in PA 4. As such, there would Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit 41f for inclusion as an additional bullet on p. 47 be unequal treatment, and making consistent and rational under INSTITUTIONAL USES) decisions based on such metrics would be difficult. The Planning Commission might To preserve the residential character of the neighborhood, limit 2) A "block" is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance and is less of a consider adding policy language the number and size of institutions allowed within Planning clear concept than the popular conception (e.g., does a "cul de that encourages the height of Area 4. Amend the zoning ordinance such that institutional institutional uses to be compatible Kevin Zaletsky sac" constitute a block?). developments in Planning Area 4, whether new or the with the height of surrounding uses, 41b 101 North Street, 4 3) Religious institutions, which are institutional uses, are permitted in expansion of existing institutions, are required to meet the without specifying specific building Rockville, MD all zones in Rockville and protected by federal law. Currently, following standards: under the Zoning Ordinance, construction of structures for heights. • There is no more than one institution per block, where a religious institutions are required to receive a thorough site plan block is defined as the portion of a street between one public approval process. Staff supports retaining this process for street and another. A block includes both sides of the street. religious institutions because it allows a case-by-case approach, • Individual institutions must be contained on one block and which staff believes is protective of both the neighborhood and are not allowed to be distributed over multiple blocks. consistent with federal law. However, staff would support a review • The land occupied by an institution is not allowed to occupy of relevant standards within the Zoning Ordinance. more than 3 recorded lots OR be more than 1 acre in area. If 4) The draft neighborhood plan for PA 4 includes properties where an existing institution exceeds these standards, it is not the land use designations are RO and ORRM. In both areas, staff allowed to expand further. does not believe that institutional uses should be excluded, • To prevent overwhelming the neighborhood with too many subject to their meeting the development standards. institutions, no further expansion of land used for institutions is 5) Staff believes that there may be ways to address this concern, but allowed. This does not preclude new institutions from being that it should be done in the Zoning Ordinance after approving the constructed on existing institutional property if the standards updated Comprehensive Plan. above are met or if existing institutional land is converted to residential uses. Patricia Woodward HISTORIC DISTRICTS Staff does not support specific language in Planning Area 4 that would No changes recommended. Co-Chair, Planning Requests that the Comprehensive Plan includes a policy to limit additions to existing historic structures or new stand-alone structures 41c 4 Area 4 Committee preserve the settings and landscaping of properties with on properties with an existing historic structure. The Rockville Zoning 111 N. Van Buren historic districts in Planning Area 4. Testimony provides Ordinance currently regulates building setbacks and heights, lot Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 19 Packet Pg. 84 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) Street, Rockville, proposed policies for historic districts. coverages, accessory structures, etc. and the Rockville Historic District MD Commission has purview over projects that alter structures or properties (The following text is proposed by written testimony within a historic district. In staff's view, the Comprehensive Plan should Exhibit 41f for inclusion as an additional bullet on p. 56 not include policies that would contradict or overlap with the development under HISTORIC PRESERVATION POLICIES) standards of the Zoning Ordinance, nor the responsibility of the Historic In order to preserve the setting, grounds and landscaping of District Commission to approve compatible development within the city's historic districts and to prevent overly large or numerous new historic districts. structures therein: • An addition to the existing main historic structure is allowed Staff does not support prohibiting new multi-unit (i.e., apartments) or only if it is subservient thereto. single-unit attached (i.e., townhouses) residential structures within • New stand-alone structures, including but not limited to historic districts in Planning Area 4 in areas that are already zoned to accessory buildings, are allowed only if they are subservient to allow those uses. Most of Planning Area 4 properties within an historic the existing main historic structure. district are zoned only for detached single-unit residential homes (e.g., R- • New multi-family structures including townhouses are not 60, R-90) and would not allow apartments or townhouses. A small allowed in historic districts. number of properties within an historic district in Planning Area 4, located • Develop regulations that protect historic districts such that along the eastern boundary of the planning area with Planning Area 1 any new buildings therein are subservient to the historic main (Rockville Town Center), are zoned to allow for small-scale mixed use structure, provide protections that prevent the loss of the development through the MXT (Mixed Use Transition) zone, including setting, landscaping and grounds and prevent the multi-unit and single-unit attached residential uses. The draft Plan would encroachment of buildings and uses that are inconsistent with continue these land uses through the land use designation for these the history of the district. properties of RO (Residential Office) and, in limited cases, ORRM (Office Residential Retail Mix). ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) The Mayor and Council are currently in a very active process of Add guidance in under Policy 2 of Need to preserve single family neighborhoods in Planning Area deliberating on the topic of ADUs, including receiving public input. As a the Land Use Element (Vol. I) for 4 by placing standards on ADUs. Concern that there won't be result, staff does not recommend adding this specific language at this the Zoning Ordinance to contain site backyards/natural habitats, that they incentivize teardowns and time. The Mayor and Council will have the opportunity to take their and landscape standards for mansionization, and won't increase affordability. Prefers ADUs process into account during its deliberations on this draft Comprehensive properties that include an ADU. allowed as accessory apartments. Testimony provides Plan. However, staff agrees that ADUs should be held to certain proposed policies for ADUs. development standards and consider siting and landscape settings.

(The following text is proposed by written testimony By definition, ADUs are subordinate structures to the primary homes. Exhibit 41f for inclusion as additional bullets on p. 40 Staff supports assuring that this remains the case within the Zoning under HOUSING ISSUES- Single-unit Detached Residential Ordinance, through enforceable design and size/massing standards. In Housing) many places in the country, ADUs have been compatible with In order to preserve the historic character of the neighborhood maintaining the single-family character of a neighborhood while at the and limit the number of residential structures on a residential same time providing a modest option for additional housing. ADUs by Margaret Magner lot to one, the main residence, the following standards for themselves do not address affordability, but, as a part of a suite of 41d 115 Forest Avenue, 4 accessory dwelling units apply: housing options, they contribute to a diverse housing stock in the city, Rockville, MD • An accessory apartment, in or attached to an existing ultimately leading to more reasonably priced housing options. residential structure, is allowed only if, * there is adequate parking provided, and Staff suggests the Planning Commission consider adding guidance for * the existence of the accessory apartment is not visible from site and landscape standards for ADUs in the Land Use Element, Policy the street, thereby preserving the appearance of a single-family 2, which would apply as citywide Zoning Ordinance standards. If the residence. Commission supports this approach, staff could return with language at • Only one accessory apartment is allowed per lot. the next session, as it would apply citywide, including in PA 4. • Accessory dwelling units are not allowed in any structure that does not share a common wall with the main residence. This includes structures that are connected to the main residence by a breezeway or similar structures. • A process for reviewing applications for accessory apartments needs to be established that assures that the accessory apartment will not degrade the character of the neighborhood. It could follow the current Special Exception Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 20 Packet Pg. 85 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) process or be an alternative approach that assures that there is the opportunity for neighbors to be aware and involved in review and approval. CLOSING COMMENTS Staff acknowledges that an ADU could lead to a higher tax assessment. No changes recommended. Patrick Woodward- Preserve and protect single family neighborhood, no ADUs- will However, this potential increase would be an evaluation that a property Closing Remarks lead to higher tax assessments owner would make, balanced against the rent that could be collected. 41e 111 N. Van Buren 4 Installing an ADU would not be required by the Plan or the Zoning Street, Rockville, Ordinance; it would be an option for the property owner and would be MD made based on individual circumstances. Planning Area 4 - PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES [See Exhibits 41b through This exhibit is a summary of the points made in Exhibits 41b-e. Staff [See staff recommendations for 41f 4 Proposed Policies 41d for language] Responses are provided in those locations of this matrix. Exhibits 41b-e] Supports rezoning recommendation of Twinbrook Community [see staff comments to written testimony Exhibit 11] [see staff recommendations to John Bayles Church property (5906 Halpine Road) to MXNC, church is written testimony Exhibit 11] 42 Twinbrook 8 planning to relocate and plans for a potential multi-family, mid- Community Church rise housing development Supports the RF land use designation and the MXNC zoning [see staff comments to written testimony Exhibit 11] [see staff recommendations to rather than RMD-15 because of its proximity to the Twinbrook written testimony Exhibit 11] David C. DeMarco Metro Station. Would like additional flexibility regarding design, 43 Pulte Home 8 proposing two mid-rise buildings with podium parking, targeting Company empty nesters, as well as additional flexibility regarding height and massing Supports the rezoning of 12 N. Washington Street from MXNC Rockville 2040 Vol II recommends rezoning from MXNC to MXCD on the No changes recommended. to MXCD. West side of N. Washington St. (p. 10-12). No action needed.

Recommends additional language allowing flexible application City staff worked with a transportation consultant to develop street-level of the 'Road Code' to N. Washington Street to avoid Class 1 improvements along N. Washington Street to make the street more Business District Road standards, hoping to redevelop as conducive to a pedestrian and bike-friendly environment that is attractive Christine McGuirl multi-unit residential. and both business and resident-friendly. The results of the consultant 44 Federal Realty 1 study were presented to the Mayor and Council at their Oct 5 meeting Investment Trust and the preferred option was to redesign N Washington with one travel lane in each direction, buffered bike lanes on the northbound and southbound sides of the road, and a parking lane in the northbound direction. The parking lane and the northbound bike lane will be separated with a buffer zone. The project will be proposed as a CIP for FY22. Points out that a portion of the shopping center building and The delineation of the boundary between MXCD and MXCT was not Recommends a change in the former FRIT office space at Congressional Plaza (1626 E. intended to create leasing or use issues for the existing office and retail boundary between the MXCD and Jefferson St.) is split zoned between MXCT and MXCD. building, but to establish development standards under the MXCT zone MXCT zone at the location identified Christine McGuirl Requests that the retail building be recommended to be zoned along its frontage with E. Jefferson Street. Staff supports a by the testimony in Planning Area 9. 45 Federal Realty 9 MXCD and the multifamily buildings and surface parking recommendation to realign the boundary between these two zones to The recommendation could be Investment Trust remain MXCT, therefore moving the boundary between the eliminate the issue identified in the testimony. added under Land Use & Urban zones slightly to the southwest. Design heading of "Other Policy Recommendations." Testimony objects to the P (Public Parks) land use designation This topic was discussed by the Planning Commission during the work Replace the P (Public Parks) land of the property at 200-A and 200-B Monroe Street, continued session on the Land Use Element and preliminary work sessions of the use designation at 200-A and 200-B from letter sent May 2019; states that the P (Public Parks) Planning Areas draft prior to its release for public comment. During these Monroe Street with ORRM and designation will devalue the property and would result in de- discussions, staff had recommended consideration that the specific place a green asterisk indicating the Soo Lee-Cho facto downzoning of the property. Asserts that the appropriate parcel not be designated as a park, but instead that the general area be general location where a Future 46 Miller, Miller & 1 land use designation for site is ORRM designated as needing parkland and that the language be strong in Potential Park is desired. Canby requiring such provision of public space. The Planning Commission elected to retain the designation as currently in the draft in order to consider public testimony on the designation of the property as a Public Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II: Park in the draft Land Use Policy Map. Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 21 Packet Pg. 86 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s)

Based on this testimony received for the assignment of the P (Public Parks) land use designation at the subject property, and the uncertainty regarding the exact location where a park might be situated, staff recommends a change in how the city's desire for a future public park be communicated. Instead of applying the Public Parks designation to the entire property, staff recommends that an asterisk be placed in the general location where future park space is desired and that a land use designation be added to the site. To be consistent with surrounding properties, staff recommends the ORRM land use designation. Appreciates the City's work and responsiveness to previous Staff supports having a conversation with the Planning Commission For Focus Area A5 with the RA comments. about the extent of the RA (Residential Attached) land use designation designation east of South within Planning Area 2, particularly Focus Area A5 south of Reading Stonestreet Ave and South of Supports RA (Residential Attached) land use designation in Terrace, and Focus Area A12 near First St and Veirs Mill Rd. Reading Terrace, discuss adding East Rockville, though not along the full block defined by language that provides more Reading Terrace, Highland Avenue, Croydon Avenue (east of For Focus Area A5, the draft plan currently recommends the RA guidance about implementing the Rockville Metro Station) and at the corner of 1st Street and (Residential Attached) land use category between S. Stonestreet Ave to zoning classifications consistent Veirs Mill Road. Instead, RA should reach down 2 or 3 lots the west (across from the Rockville Metro Station), Grandin Avenue to with the RA land use. from S. Stonestreet Avenue, but no further. the east, Park Road to the north, and Croydon Avenue to the south. A plan amendment was recently adopted including the area between Park For Focus Area A12, revert the land Requests a statement in the Plan that the East Rockville Road and Reading Terrace and will be incorporated into this plan. For the use north of Mapleton Alley to RD Design Guidelines will apply to a zone that implements the RA other areas, south of Reading Terrace, if adopted as part of this draft (Residential Detached) and maintain designation. Plan, the RA land use would allow the potential for a modest increase in the RA designation south of housing in this transit-adjacent area, on the edges of the East Rockville Mapleton Alley. Requests change to Urban Design section of Focus Area 5, 4th neighborhood. The challenge with applying the RA designation to only bullet (p. 23) - "Mature trees and tree canopy [must, not should] one or a few properties deep, from (east of) S. Stonestreet Ave, is [See also staff recommendations for be preserved." establishing a reasonable extent that would realistically allow potential testimony in Exhibit 47] redevelopment, and there is no street or other right-of-way that logically Requests change to Building Form section of Focus Area 5 (p. divides the properties between South Stonestreet Avenue and Grandin Do not change "should" to "must" 23) - say "must" instead of "should" for proportionality of height, Avenue. where requested by the testimony. Deborah Landau mass, and scale of new residential attached buildings with The use of "should" is appropriate 47 East Rockville Civic 2 adjacent residential home. Change "should" to "must" for Rather than changing the extent of the RA in the area subject to this for master plan guidance and "must" Association gradual transitions to adjacent lower-scale structures. Change testimony, other options include the following: is used for regulatory zoning "should" to "must" for avoiding large blank walls. standards. * Adding text to the plan that would indicate that for the first 2-3 lots east of South Stonestreet Avenue, between Reading Terrace and Croydon Avenue, the zoning could be implemented either as part of a comprehensive Sectional Map Amendment or through a “floating” zone. The floating zone option would mean that property would not be rezoned to permit higher density, with the broader zoning changes to implement the plan. Instead, the plan, and zoning, would enable a property owner to apply for the zoning change prior to redevelopment, and a separate review process would be required. * Adding text that would limit the RA land use to only duplexes or triplexes in mid-block locations, and fourplexes on corner properties if the corner property met certain defined lot-size requirements. Focus Area A12 is situated at the northwest corner of the intersection of Veirs Mill Road and First Street, where a high-frequency transit station is planned along the Veirs Mill BRT corridor. While this proximity to the planned BRT station would recommend the allowance for more housing types, staff appreciates that the properties are also situated much more closely within the East Rockville neighborhood, especially for traffic access and adjacency to existing detached single-unit residential homes. Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 22 Packet Pg. 87 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s) Staff suggests that the portion of Focus Area A12 north of Mapleton Alley could reasonably be reverted to RD (Residential Detached), while retaining the RA designation in the portion south of Mapleton Alley and closest to the proposed BRT stop and busy intersection of Veirs Mill Road and First Street.

Regarding the Design Guidelines - Staff notes that they currently only apply to detached residential homes. Staff is working on a new zone for infill development, specifically for duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. This new zone will include design standards for those structures.

[Staff comments and recommendation here are the same is to testimony in Exhibit 17]

Regarding changing "should" to "must" - Staff does not support this change since the Comprehensive Plan is intended for policy guidance, while the Zoning Ordinance serves as the city's regulatory standards. Therefore, the draft Plan uses recommending language instead of strict standards and requirements as described by the Zoning Ordinance. Appreciates staff work and engagement; appreciates inclusion Increasing residential density and maintaining residential character: Include a land use graph in the of plans and goal for significant historic properties. Both can be accomplished with a context sensitive approach to new Planning Area 4 (West End and development. The Zoning Code incorporates language to address Woodley Gardens East-West) Concerned about policies that focus on increasing residential transitions between existing single-unit residential dwellings and new Neighborhood Plan. density in areas where preserving the residential character of development of different land use types. Rockville has also traditionally neighborhoods are a priority concern. been very conscious about the preservation of its single-unit residential Add a policy for the city to conduct neighborhoods and any new adjacent development. In the current plan, an updated survey of Rockville Concerned about effects of allowing ADUs on every residential where development of other land use types is proposed adjacent to historic structures. property in the city (i.e., Land Use Element policy 2.3), existing single-unit residential dwellings, appropriate transitions in scale, particularly, "when resident feedback strongly states a height and massing are recommended. The Zoning Code reinforces No changes recommended for other preference to preserve the existing character of their single those recommendations with specific standards and the city incorporates issues discussed by the testimony. family residential housing." a robust review process by the Historic District Commission, Planning Commission, and Mayor and Council, as applicable. Staff does not Concerned with the encroachment of high-density buildings recommend changes in response to this aspect of the testimony. into single-family housing areas, including the expansion of institutions and mixed-use retail, especially in Planning Area 4 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and residential character: One of 1,4, Land Nancy Pickard and the North Side of Washington Street in Rockville Town the benefits of ADUs is that they maintain the residential character of a 48 X Use Peerless Rockville Center. neighborhood while adding the potential for a very modest amount of Element housing supply to an area. ADUs are typically either built into the interior Requests a land-usage map and data for Planning Area 4 in of an existing structure or built separately in the backyard as a the final document, as it is included for the other areas. subordinate structure. Both are generally hidden from view from the front of the property. In addition to their subordinate nature, they can be Request a new survey of Rockville's historic structures. designed to blend into existing architecture and natural settings. Staff does not recommend changes in response to this aspect of the testimony.

Encroachment of high-density uses into single-family areas: The land use plan recommends modest transitions between single unit uses and any mixed-use areas. In addition, any properties that redevelop under a mixed-use zoning classification that are adjacent to a single-unit or townhouse residential use must apply the 30-degree layback slope building height standard, in addition to overall maximum height limits for the applicable zone. Staff does not recommend changes in response to this aspect of the testimony. Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 23 Packet Pg. 88 2.1.1.a

Exhibit General Planning Testimony Source Summary of Testimony Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Comment Area(s)

Staff will include a land usage graph and data in the Planning Commission's final draft of Planning Area 4. Because it was written as a complete Neighborhood Plan, the 'quick reference' sections added to all other planning areas was left out of PA 4, but can easily be added.

Staff supports a policy for the city to conduct an update to the city's survey of historic structures. Policy 2 of the Historic Preservation Element already includes actions to undergo such work. EYA is the contract purchaser of the Rockshire Giant. Would Staff appreciates the concern that retail is no longer viable as it once was See staff recommendations to like to redevelop the site as a residential townhome on this site and, based on the community process and significant study of Written Testimony Exhibit 21. A community; believe retail is not viable at this location. the site, recommends that housing should be permitted on the site. longer discussion is provided in the Bob Youngentob 49 14 Redevelopment would include MPDUs and community space However, staff believes that the plan would not be sufficiently responsive staff report. EYA, LLC at Hurley and Wootton Parkway. Request a rezoning to to community concerns unless it retains the concept that there should be facilitate site redevelopment. a significant amenity that would be an asset to the broader community. See staff comments for Exhibit 21. Recommends a review of the 2018 Eureka Study in addressing See staff comments to Written Testimony Exhibit 6 See staff recommendations to the need for a civic amenity in Rockville, west of I-270 Written Testimony Exhibit 6

Requests that the Planning Commission review the 2019 Rhodeside and Hartwell Summary Report for Rockshire Village. Randy Alton 2309 Glenmore Asks that the existing Rockshire PRU zoning remain; that the 50 14 Terrace, Rockville, draft Plan define the word 'substantial retail' in its zoning MD recommendation for the site; and that all of raised issues be resolved before draft Plan is forwarded to the Mayor and Council.

States that Planning Area 14 needs a new neighborhood plan and the draft Plan should recommend funding the Scott Drive sidewalk project, from Hurley to Greenplace Terrace. Randy Alton Attachment to Exhibit 50: Eureka Community Interest Survey See staff comments to Written Testimony Exhibit 6 See staff recommendations to 2309 Glenmore Written Testimony Exhibit 6 50a 14 Terrace, Rockville, MD

Attachment 2.1.1.a: Complete Vol. II Written Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Written Testimony Page 24 Packet Pg. 89 2.1.1.b COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft, Volume II Complete Summary of Oral Testimony from the Planning Commission Public Hearing on September 9 and 23, 2020

Please Note: Rows highlighted in yellow pertain to Planning Areas 1-4, which are proposed to be discussed at the Planning Commission work session on December 9, 2020 and January 7, 2021.

Submitted Speaker Hearing Testimony General Planning Summary of Testimony Written Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Date Source Comment Area(s) Testimony Urged the Planning Commission to stop planning around transit- Staff's view is that a range of housing types, in Consider additional policies for oriented development and adding more housing due to a 'change in a range of locations, including transit-oriented, the Comprehensive Plan that the housing paradigm' due to the coronavirus epidemic; increase in will continue to be in demand by and beneficial will support the city's people working from home will lead to less demand for dense living for current and future city residents after the preparedness and response to locations near transit and more people moving out of the state or the coronavirus pandemic has passed. The public health emergencies, county to cheaper housing. Comprehensive Plan is a long-term vision and such as the coronavirus guide for development and city character and pandemic. Says that the Comprehensive Plan needs to include policies that staff believes that the policies in the draft Plan respond to the coronavirus. reflect this vision. If, in fact, a change in this 1 9-Sep Jaime Espinosa x No housing paradigm does begin to emerge, the Comprehensive Plan can be amended to meet this new paradigm at that time.

Staff will propose options to the Planning Commission for the Comprehensive Plan to address public health emergencies, such as the coronavirus pandemic, at a future work session following the review of public testimony. Supports zoning recommendation of MXCD (Mixed-Use Corridor See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to 2 9-Sep Steven VanGrack 1 District) for 110 N. Washington Street Yes Exhibit 16 Written Testimony Exhibit 16 Requests that the Plan define "substantial" when discussing a See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to required retail component as part of any redevelopment of the Exhibit 6 Written Testimony Exhibit 6 Rockshire Village Shopping Center and to address safety concerns for Thomas Wootton high school students parking in the Center 3 9-Sep Randy Alton 14 parking lot. Yes

Requests no zoning changes to the Rockshire Village Shopping Center that would allow anything other than retail uses.

Requests removal of a portion of the future extension of Chapman See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendations to Avenue, north of its planned connection with Congressional Lane, to Exhibit 10 Written Testimony Exhibit 10 avoid his property at 1460-1488 Rockville Pike (Chesapeake Plaza). 4 9-Sep Kap Kapastin 9 Cites narrow and constrained parcels that would result in a loss of Yes redevelopment potential and a potential claim of inverse condemnation as a result of the future extension.

Says that increasing demand for housing in the region require See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to Christopher M. Rockville to plan for more housing, which the Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 13 Written Testimony Exhibit 13 5 9-Sep x Yes Ruhlen does. Encourages the city not to allow repacement of valuable commercial land with residential. Attachment 2.1.1.b: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II: Planning Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Oral Testimony Page 1 Packet Pg. 90 2.1.1.b

Submitted Speaker Hearing Testimony General Planning Summary of Testimony Written Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Date Source Comment Area(s) Testimony Opposes planning area boundary change that separates Cambridge See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendations to Walk townhome communities (I & II) from the Twinbrook planning Exhibit 11 Written Testimony Exhibit 11 area (PA 8).

6 9-Sep Joe McClane 8 Yes Opposes additional residential density on properties along the south side of the 5900 block of Halpine Road, specifically, 5906 and 5946 Halpine Road.

Opposes allowing high density residential housing on the south side See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendations to of the 5900 block of Halpine Road. Exhibit 11 Written Testimony Exhibit 11

7 9-Sep George Liechti 8 Opposes planning area boundary change that separates Cambridge Yes Walk townhome communities (I & II) from the Twinbrook planning area (PA 8).

Opposes planning area boundary change that separates Cambridge See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendations to Walk townhome communities (I & II) from the Twinbrook planning Exhibit 11 Written Testimony Exhibit 11 area (PA 8).

8 9-Sep Meera Murgai 8 No Supports 'missing middle' housing, but not high density housing development in the Twinbrook planning area, especially on the south side of the 5900 block of Halpine Road.

Supportive of policies and recommendations of Planning Area 8 See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendations to (Twinbrook). Requests traffic calming on Lewis Avenue, especially if Exhibit 22 Written Testimony Exhibit 22 it is opened to vehicle traffic with Fisher Lane. Asks that the Plan include a policy to invest more in the Rockcrest Ballet Center and 9 23-Sep Mike Stein 8 Yes park. Supports Cambridge Walk HOA I & II request to be placed back into PA 8 and shares their concern about too much residential density on Twinbrook Community Church site.

Requests a change in wording of the requirement for any See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendations to redevelopment of the Rockshire Village Shopping Center to read Exhibit 21 Written Testimony Exhibit 21 10 23-Sep Bob Youngentob 14 "substantial retail or a community gathering space" instead of the Yes "and/or" as the draft Plan reads. Believes retail is not feasible on the site due to surrounding competition in the area. Supports principles of the draft Plan. Concerned with retail See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendations to requirement for Rockshire Village Shopping Center. Exhibit 21 Written Testimony Exhibit 21

An outdoor community space is more appropriate for the site since the new Thomas Farm Community Center is so close and serves the 11 23-Sep Robert Harris 14 west side of the city across I-270. Yes

Stated that property owners intend to honor the parking agreements of the Rockshire Community Pool, but not much more than that. Attachment 2.1.1.b: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II: Planning Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Oral Testimony Page 2 Packet Pg. 91 2.1.1.b

Submitted Speaker Hearing Testimony General Planning Summary of Testimony Written Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Date Source Comment Area(s) Testimony Supports RF (Residential Flexible) land use designation and MXNC See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendations to (Mixed-Use Neighborhood Commercial) zone on Twinbrook Exhibit 11 Written Testimony Exhibit 11 Community Church property. 12 23-Sep David DeMarco 8 Yes Requests 1-foot setback per 1-foot of building height, not 2-foot setback as required by MXNC zone

Says there is not enough housing in Rockville, leading to higher See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to 13 23-Sep Mike Dutka x 9 house prices. Supports 'missing middle' housing, but asks the city to Yes Exhibit 7 Written Testimony Exhibit 7 push for higher and more dense housing near Metro Stations. Supports ORRM (Office Residential Retail Mix) at Parcel 37, SE See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendations to corner of W. Gude Dr and Research Blvd. Exhibit 23 Written Testimony Exhibit 23

14 23-Sep Jim Policaro 15 Requests removal of the Retail frontage area at the property's corner Yes due to difficulty of retail market and underground gas line easement at the location.

Advocates for parking to be available to Wootton HS students at The current language in the draft states “In Retain the existing language in Rockshire Village Shopping Center parking lot conjunction with any redevelopment proposal the draft Plan on parking at the Catherine for the site, it will be important to determine Rockshire Village site. 15 23-Sep 14 No Contreras how parking these other functions will be accomplished.” Staff recommends retaining that language. Opposed to "too many and too large institutions" in Planning Area 4 See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to (West End), preservation of land surrounding historic structures, and Exhibits 41a-f Written Testimony Exhibits 41a- freestanding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). f

Requests the city staff provide for more explicit procedures for granting institutional uses through approval of a Special Exception.

16 23-Sep Jane Pontius 4 Requests city staff adopt more specific language to preserve No landscaping, grounds, and setting of a historic districts.

Requests that the number of separate residential structures (i.e., ADUs) allowed on a lot should be limited to 1 and a process to review applications for attached residential apartments should be established, such as a Special Exception application procedure. Attachment 2.1.1.b: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II: Planning Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Oral Testimony Page 3 Packet Pg. 92 2.1.1.b

Submitted Speaker Hearing Testimony General Planning Summary of Testimony Written Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Date Source Comment Area(s) Testimony Fully support the Planning Area 4 draft Plan and thanks staff for help See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to in making it possible. However, additional policy is essential to Exhibit 41a Written Testimony Exhibit 41a preserve the residential character of the West End.

Institutions should not be allowed to replace residential uses: their number and size should be limited.

17 23-Sep Noreen Bryan 4 Open land around historic structures should be preserved: policies Yes should be added to the draft Plan to specifically do so.

Freestanding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) result in two units per lot, not the one expected in a single-unit residential neighborhood: they should not be allowed.

Patricia Concerned loss of land and landscapes surrounding historic See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to 18 23-Sep 4 Yes Woodward structures: land should be preserved. Exhibit 41c Written Testimony Exhibit 41c Plan needs to include a policy for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to standards in Planning Area 4 (West End) to preserve its single-unit Exhibit 41d Written Testimony Exhibit 41d 19 23-Sep Margaret Magner 4 residential characteristic. Recommend incorporation of draft Yes language provided for ADUs. Supports RA (Residential Attached) land use designation in East See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to Rockville, though not along the full block on Reading Terrace, Exhibit 47 Written Testimony Exhibit 47 Highland Avenue, Croydon Avenue (east of Rockville Metro Station) and at the corner of 1st Street and Veirs Mill Road. Instead, RA should reach down 2 or 3 lots from S. Stonestreet Avenue, but no farther.

Requests a statement in the Plan that the East Rockville Design Guidelines will apply to a zone that implements the RA designation.

Requests change to Urban Design section of Focus Area 5, 4th 20 23-Sep Deborah Landau 2 bullet (p. 23) - "Mature trees and tree canopy [must, not should] be Yes preserved."

Requests change to Building Form section of Focus Area 5 (p. 23) - say "must" instead of "should" for proportionality of height, mass, and scale of new residential attached buildings with adjacent residential home. Change "should" to "must" for gradual transitions to adjacent lower-scale structures. Change "should" to "must" for avoiding large blank walls.

Encourage Commission to read previous comments from earlier Planning Area 2 draft. Advocates for parking to be available to Wootton HS students at See staff comments to Oral Testimony Exhibit See staff recommendations to 21 23-Sep Lauren Povich 14 Rockshire Village Shopping Center parking lot No 15 Oral Testimony Exhibit 15 Advocates for parking to be available to Wootton HS students at See staff comments to Oral Testimony Exhibit See staff recommendations to 22 23-Sep Jaimie Morris 14 Rockshire Village Shopping Center parking lot No 15 Oral Testimony Exhibit 15 Attachment 2.1.1.b: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II: Planning Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Oral Testimony Page 4 Packet Pg. 93 2.1.1.b

Submitted Speaker Hearing Testimony General Planning Summary of Testimony Written Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Date Source Comment Area(s) Testimony Appreciates effort of Planning Area 4 residents committee and staff See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to to prepare and draft the PA 4 Neighborhood Plan. Exhibit 24 Written Testimony Exhibit 24

Does not want to see expansion of new institutional uses in PA 4. 23 23-Sep Jennifer Timmick 4 Yes Plan needs to define the standards for new institutional uses rather than seeking to establish them after adoption. Support standards proposed by PA 4 Committee

Advocates for parking to be available to Wootton HS students at See staff comments to Oral Testimony Exhibit See staff recommendations to 24 23-Sep Nick Jones 14 Rockshire Village Shopping Center parking lot No 15 Oral Testimony Exhibit 15 Plan needs to include policies to prevent encroachment of too many See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to or too large institutions in Planning Area 4. Oppose replacing Exhibit 41b Written Testimony Exhibit 41b 25 23-Sep Kevin Zaletsky 4 residential homes with new institutions and the impact of traffic from Yes institutional uses. Recommend draft policies for limiting size and number of new institutions in the planning area.

Rhoda Advocates for parking to be available to Wootton HS students at See staff comments to Oral Testimony Exhibit See staff recommendations to 26 23-Sep 14 No Ndjoukouo Rockshire Village Shopping Center parking lot 15 Oral Testimony Exhibit 15 Commend staff for years of hard work to draft the Plan. See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to Exhibit 48 Written Testimony Exhibit 48 Draft Plan does not give enough attention to protection of existing community character of historic and older residential neighborhoods. Goal to protect residential character of neighborhoods in many planning areas not consistent with policies that emphasize multi- family development, redevelopment, and plans to permit ADUs citywide. There is little in the Plan from policies, guidelines or regulations to protect community character or the settings for historic properties in areas of the city not within a historic or conservation district. 27 23-Sep Nancy Pickard x Yes Concerned with Land Use Policy 2.3 (permits ADU on residential properties citywide). ADUs should not be permitted as a blanket policy. More detailed guidelines should be established for ADUs that address the interests of individual neighborhoods.

Redevelopment plans on N. Washington St abutting established neighborhoods must be sensitive to the size, scale and character of the residential neighborhood. Focus development that is connected to properties to the east of N. Washington Street and across MD 355 rather than westward into the neighborhood. Development of the Planning Area 4 neighborhood plan has been a See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to community effort. Exhibit 26 Written Testimony Exhibit 26

Asserts that Planning Area 4 residents "overwhelmingly desire to protect the single-family residential neighborhood that exists today." 28 23-Sep Brian Shipley 4 Yes Hope the draft Plan will support the protections currently in the draft plan and the additional protections proposed by other testimony to limit institutional uses, protect open spaces in historic districts and prohibit freestanding ADUs in the Planning Area 4. Attachment 2.1.1.b: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II: Planning Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Oral Testimony Page 5 Packet Pg. 94 2.1.1.b

Submitted Speaker Hearing Testimony General Planning Summary of Testimony Written Staff Comments Staff Recommendations No. Date Source Comment Area(s) Testimony Viability of Korean Presbyterian Church of Rockville depends on The current language in the draft states “In Retain the existing language in preservation of shared parking for the church as part of conjunction with any redevelopment proposal the draft Plan on parking at the redevelopment on Rockshire Village Shopping Center for the site, it will be important to determine Rockshire Village site. 29 23-Sep Hyun Kim 14 No how parking these other functions will be accomplished.” Staff recommends retaining that language. Supports draft Plan recommendation to rezone 12 N. Washington See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to Street to MXCD. Exhibit 44 Written Testimony Exhibit 44 30 23-Sep Christine McGuirl 1 Yes Agrees with ULI TAP report in Town Center to increase density and allow more residential development Planning Area 4 Neighborhood Plan should preserve and protect the See staff comments to Written Testimony See staff recommendation to character of the neighborhood as a predominantly single-family Exhibit 41c Written Testimony Exhibit 41c Patrick 31 23-Sep 4 detached residential neighborhood. Comprehensive Plan should not Yes Woodward allow freestanding ADUs on lots with single-family detached dwelling.

Attachment 2.1.1.b: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony Staff Response Matrix (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II: Planning Rockville Comprehensive Plan, Volume II: Planning Areas - Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Complete Summary of Oral Testimony Page 6 Packet Pg. 95 2.1.1.c

CITY OF ROCKVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

MEETING NO. 16-2020

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1A PUBLIC HEARING ON VOLUME II: PLANNING AREAS, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DRAFT ROCKVILLE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE

Wednesday, September 9, 2020 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Packet Pg. 96 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 2

1 PARTICIPANTS:

2 Planning Commission:

3 CHARLES LITTLEFIELD, Chair

4 ANNE GOODMAN, Commissioner

5 SARAH MILLER, Commissioner

6 DON HADLEY, Commissioner

7 SUSAN PITMAN, Commissioner

8 JOHN TYNER, II, Commissioner

9 REV. JANE E. WOOD, Commissioner

10 Staff:

11 CLARK LARSON, Principal Planner

12 DAVID LEVY, Assistant Director of Planning

13 JIM WASILAK, Staff Liaison

14 ANDREA GILLES, Principal Planner

15 NICHOLAS DUMAIS, Assistant City Attorney 16 Speakers: 17 JAIME ESPINOSA 18 STEVEN VANGRACK 19 RANDY ALTON 20 KAP KAPASTIN 21 CHRISTOPHER M. RUHLEN 22 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 97 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 3

1 PARTICIPANTS (CONT'D):

2 JOE MCCLANE

3 GEORGE LIECHTI

4 MEERA MURGAI

5

6

7 * * * * *

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 98 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 4

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Good evening and

3 welcome everybody to the city of Rockville

4 Planning Commission meeting. This is the 16th,

5 our 16th meeting of the year 2020. And as many

6 know by now, Rockville City Hall is still closed

7 due to the coronavirus pandemic and we are thus

8 conducting all of our meetings virtually via

9 WebEx. And apologies for starting a little bit

10 late, it was due to some technical difficulties

11 with WebEx and getting us all on.

12 I believe we have most commissioners

13 present this evening; I believe one commissioner

14 is absent. And there are two items on our agenda.

15 The first item and the main item really.

16 Is a virtual Public Hearing on Volume II: Planning

17 Areas, of the Planning Commission's Draft

18 Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. And the

19 purpose of this public hearing is to receive

20 testimony about that draft version that we are

21 circulating and making available. There will also

22 be another similar opportunity at our next Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 99 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 5

1 meeting. I think we will have staff start us off

2 before we get into that with our participants.

3 But before we do, I'll just go very

4 briefly over our ground rules. These ground rules

5 we put together last month. They're based on our

6 normal ground rules but we just took a different

7 look at it. Because it's not normal for us to

8 have meetings virtually, so we had to think it

9 through and knowing that the topic is just as

10 important as always. And unfortunately, we cannot

11 do it in person. We still wanted still to do our

12 best and do it right and by that, I mean be as

13 fair as we can. Receive public testimony but be as

14 fair as we can in terms of process.

15 So, with that, these rules are also

16 available on the city's website, it's three or

17 four pages on describing the whole process. We

18 allow one speaking opportunity, which would be

19 virtually at our virtual meetings. If you are a

20 private individual you will be granted 3 minutes

21 for that opportunity. And if you are representing

22 an organization, by that civic association, Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 100 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 6

1 homeowner's association, or chamber of commerce,

2 that sort of thing then we will grant you 5

3 minutes. We are not granting extensions of time.

4 We have in the past in different circumstances but

5 it's difficult this way. So, we're going to stick

6 to those limits I'll be a little bit lenient as

7 chair this evening in terms of how things wrap up

8 so that people are able to get across their final

9 thought during their testimony.

10 I should also add that, one of the

11 ground rules we initiated was a pre-registration

12 mainly for technical reasons but just to keep it

13 organized. And as such, I believe we have seven

14 or eight participants who have already

15 pre-registered and, on our list, and will be

16 taking their turn here virtually to provide their

17 testimony. And also, in this current context we

18 are really encouraging written testimony more than

19 ever. That can be in addition to the virtual

20 testimony. And it can be multiple submissions of

21 written testimony at any time as long as our

22 public record is open, and it is tonight and will Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 101 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 7

1 be through at least our next meeting.

2 So that's a brief summary for our ground

3 rules as we are going to proceed this evening on

4 this topic. Unless other commissioners have any

5 initial comments, I will turn it over to staff to

6 give us just an introduction and to get us going

7 with the public testimony of our Volume II City

8 Master Plan, comprehensive master plan.

9 Mr.Wasilak I believe you're on. Will

10 you be giving us the introduction or Mr. Larson

11 perhaps?

12 MR. WASILAK: Actually Mr. Larson is in

13 queue.

14 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, I see you

15 there Mr. Larson, can I turn it over to you?

16 MR. LARSON: Thank you, thank you. Mr.

17 Littlefield and planning commissioners, members of

18 the public. I am going to try to share my screen

19 quickly so you can see what I'm seeing.

20 My name is Clark Larson for those who

21 don't know me. I am one of the planners in charge

22 of leading the comprehensive plan update, what Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 102 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 8

1 we've termed Rockville 2040. Through the review

2 and approval process ultimately. This is the

3 Planning Commission's turn to go through the draft

4 document and after the Planning Commission had

5 completed their review and approved it for

6 recommendation to the Mayor and Council. The

7 Mayor and Council will then have their opportunity

8 to seek public testimony and review it themselves.

9 And so really the Planning Commission is charged

10 with initiating the comprehensive plan of update.

11 And that's where we are at today. I'll also note,

12 well I'll go into it later, but this is what we

13 are terming Volume II for the planning areas

14 previously -- actually I realized I don't have

15 something on this on a slide -- previously the

16 Planning Commission reviewed first volume of

17 elements.

18 These are 10 topical elements that apply

19 citywide, their policies and actions in areas

20 including the environment, historic preservation,

21 housing, land use. And what we're looking at now,

22 and what the commission has put out for public Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 103 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 9

1 review and comment this year concerns the planning

2 areas which are more neighborhood specific areas

3 with more focused polices and recommendations.

4 So, to review where we've come from and

5 I guess where we are going also. During December

6 19 to January 2020, earlier this year, the

7 Planning Commission reviewed an initial staff

8 draft. This is really the culmination of all of

9 staff's work getting public information and input

10 and putting together the draft document itself.

11 The Planning Commission reviewed it at this time

12 to make sure it was ready, and they made some

13 edits and changes before it was released for

14 public review. And that happened on February 13th

15 of 2020. Quite a while ago as you can see, but

16 we've had some hiccups in the meantime.

17 So, what has been released is the public

18 hearing draft. This is the draft of the current

19 Volume that we want to have public comments on and

20 testimony. We want to hear from the public what

21 they think. Whether anything needs to be changed

22 in their minds or any items are supportable by Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 104 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 10

1 them. And so, September 9th is today, this is the

2 first date of public hearings to accept oral

3 testimony, spoken testimony. And we will have

4 another opportunity for those who weren't able to

5 make it or who decide between now and right before

6 the 23rd that they would like to sign up and speak

7 and to provide a spoken testimony. And a date

8 proposed by staff, this has not been decided yet,

9 but we will have this discussion with the Planning

10 Commission either tonight or on the 23rd, is when

11 to close the public record for written testimony.

12 You'll remember that it was released for

13 review and put online and we've been accepting

14 written testimony since February this year.

15 Although some may have reviewed and forgot what

16 was in there, and some may be just hearing about

17 it now. So, we want to provide a little bit of

18 extra opportunity for those who have just come to

19 be aware of what's happening to provide more

20 written testimony even two weeks after the last

21 public hearing date.

22 A little bit about what's inside the Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 105 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 11

1 draft itself, this Volume consists of the 17

2 neighborhood scale planning areas. They are

3 mostly in the same format as far as structure.

4 There is one that is more lengthy expanded

5 planning area. But they generally cover the same

6 kind of topics, the same headings. They recognize

7 the unique characteristics and needs of

8 Rockville's residential neighborhoods and

9 commercial districts. That's really the reason

10 why we are doing that in this forum where you

11 don't get to dive in that deep in the elements.

12 Those are citywide polices that you don't get a

13 lot of fine grain approach to or fine grain

14 attention.

15 It also identifies in each of the

16 planning area sections, specific policy changes

17 that the plan would adopt, upon approval and

18 adoption they would come into effect for those new

19 comprehensive policies. There are also

20 recommendations for later implementation of zoning

21 changes, urban design recommendations, potential

22 city projects and topics for additional study. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 106 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 12

1 Any of the zoning recommendations would not take

2 effect immediately. Because they would be taken

3 through their own process to update the zoning

4 ordinance.

5 So, there'd be more public comment for

6 that, more consideration might tweak it somewhat

7 as long as it's consistent with what the

8 comprehensive plan is saying. And I put the

9 website here for our Rockville 2040 initiative if

10 you want to. If you haven't seen it already, we

11 have tried to get it out to as many eyes as

12 possible. But you can go visit

13 www.rockvillemd.gov/rockville2040 that's a short

14 link to get right there. And it has all of the

15 information that we have put on line that we think

16 is important for you.

17 A bit of a summary of public outreach

18 that we have taken to date, leading up to this,

19 today's public hearing. We sent out letters and

20 notifications to the Maryland Department of

21 Planning. They have a clearinghouse that requires

22 all jurisdictions to notify them when a Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 107 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 13

1 comprehensive plan update is being undertaken,

2 when the public hearing dates are going to occur.

3 We also sent letters to the City of

4 Gaithersburg representatives, both staff and

5 elected officials; Montgomery County, various

6 agencies and departments with the county; WMATA,

7 the transit administration; MCPS school district;

8 REDI, which is Rockville Economic Development,

9 Inc.; and the Rockville Chamber of Commerce,

10 informing them that the draft plan was out and

11 available for review and comment by them. They

12 will submit public testimony as well city

13 residents and employees and visitors.

14 We also advertised in the Washington

15 Post prior to the public hearing as required by

16 state law. And we have been trying to get the

17 word out as much as possible this year through the

18 Rockville 2040 website. Our email distribution

19 list, which is a list of people that have

20 subscribed and joined a list of our distribution.

21 I'm just going back through the definition

22 basically, but it's a self-identified group of Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 108 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 14

1 people who get email updates and you can join that

2 as well on our project website.

3 We've also had articles on Rockville

4 reports, sent direct emails to civic association,

5 homeowner association, representatives, the

6 contact person who we have for them; as well as

7 managers of rental apartments in the city. And a

8 slew of social media posts and staff video

9 announcement on social media accounts that the

10 city has. So, we have done our best in lieu of in

11 person meetings, which we probably would have had

12 a few leading up to the public hearings, but we

13 try to do our best in a virtual manner.

14 So, to go over, this information is on

15 our website as well. But just to let people know

16 that this is only one opportunity to provide

17 testimony or it's another word for comments. On

18 the draft plan, today and on September, the month

19 of September 23rd and we would ask that you

20 pre-register for the 23rd by emailing me and

21 providing some of the information that we would

22 need to send you an invitation to join the virtual Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 109 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 15

1 meeting. You can also submit written testimony

2 through an online comment forum at our Rockville

3 2040 website. And email written testimony

4 directly to the Planning Commission, they see it

5 as soon as you send it. They see it as soon as

6 you send it. We also see it and are adding it to

7 the public record as it comes in. Or you can mail

8 it by letter to the address shown on the slide and

9 we will, we check that periodically not every day,

10 but we check the mail.

11 I wanted to make a note to say, that all

12 oral and written testimony will be made available

13 for review by the Planning Commission and the

14 public, following the close of the public record,

15 whenever that may be. We are also posting the

16 written testimony, periodically as it comes in.

17 So, for those that submitted it some time ago, it

18 should be online and we try to put that up about

19 weekly or as it comes in.

20 So, this evening, staff recommendation

21 to the Planning Commission to receive oral

22 testimony of the draft plan. That would be Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 110 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 16

1 primarily the planning areas, because that's what

2 the content is fresh on right now, the document

3 that we are looking for comments on. But really

4 it could be anything that pertains to the

5 comprehensive plan the first Volume elements,

6 maybe neighborhood plans that related to it as

7 well. But we expect the most comments the most

8 interest will be this evening on the planning

9 areas draft and to keep the public record open, to

10 accept additional written testimony through the

11 close of business on Wednesday, October 7th. That

12 would be two weeks after the last public hearing

13 date. That's our recommendation, but as the

14 commission sometimes does that date may be

15 extended as they see fit.

16 So that concludes my presentation. And

17 all that's really left now, is to invite, I'm

18 unmuted now. Just time to accept public

19 testimony, I think there is a list of those who

20 signed up in order. So, thank you.

21 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you Mr.

22 Larson. Indeed, I have a list open here, that I Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 111 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 17

1 received shortly before the meeting. So, I will

2 take it as the official list for this meeting,

3 however I would ask staff to please interrupt me

4 if something seems amiss.

5 Without further ado though, I would

6 invite the first speaker, if you could please

7 arrange for that technically for him to take over

8 and be able to speak on WebEx. And that will be

9 Mr. Steven VanGrack. Are we able to connect with

10 Mr. VanGrack? On my screen, I see just the

11 timers but I do not see Mr. VanGrack nor do I hear

12 him audio wise. Commissioners and I seeing what

13 everyone are seeing?

14 COMMISSIONER WOOD: That's all that is

15 shown, is the timer.

16 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay.

17 COMMISSIONER TYNER: We see it in queue.

18 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, thank

19 you. Reverend Wood, Commissioner Tyner. We will

20 wait, and apologies this is all new to us we've

21 done a little bit of testimony but not a lot thus

22 far and mostly gone smoothly and I'm sure we'll Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 112 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 18

1 work it out but.

2 BETINA: This is Betina, I believe that

3 Mr. VanGrack may be having technical difficulties

4 so perhaps we could go to the next person and then

5 circle back to him?

6 MR. VANGRACK: Okay, that is part of our

7 rules and procedure anticipating that this is

8 going to happen from time to time. Unfortunately,

9 that's just the way it is. But please if you can

10 work out his technical difficulties to get him

11 back on the list. I will proceed to the second

12 person. And on my list it's Jaime Espinosa. If

13 you could please connect Jaime and we'll go from

14 there.

15 MR. ESPINOSA: Good evening, this is

16 Jaime Espinsoa.

17 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Hi, are you on, do

18 you have video or are you just calling in?

19 MR. ESPINOSA: Just calling in.

20 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, that's fine,

21 I'll invite you to proceed and I'll will give you

22 3 minutes, or are you representing an organization Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 113 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 19

1 or are you just here as a private resident?

2 MR. ESPINSOA: I'm here as a private

3 resident.

4 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, and if you

5 could just state your address for the record.

6 MR. ESPINOSA: Yes, that is 5717

7 Ridgeway Avenue.

8 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, please proceed

9 and welcome.

10 MR. ESPINOSA: Okay. My name is Jamie

11 Espinosa and I live in South Twinbrook. I know

12 that all of the listening sessions, open houses,

13 and community forums the city staff held obviously

14 occurred prior to the current pandemic. Many of

15 my neighbors have expressed to me what they want

16 the city to look like has radically changed since

17 then. I'm here today to take a short pause in

18 their planning cycle and to request that the city

19 staff conduct an assessment based on the best data

20 available on how the pandemic will impact the

21 future needs of the city.

22 I note that neither Volume I or II of Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 114 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 20

1 the plans mention the pandemic or COVID. I am

2 firmly convinced that COVID-19 has completely

3 changed the housing paradigm for the rest of our

4 lives. While it may take some time for it to

5 become fully clear as to what the future needs of

6 Twinbrook will be due to the pandemic, it will

7 likely no longer include info in small scale

8 multi-unit housing concentrated around

9 transportation hubs. I based this on the fact

10 that media reports state that July, a set record

11 for sales for single families detached homes, as

12 people seek to escape crowded environments to

13 avoid the virus.

14 In addition, the demand for housing near

15 public housing has plummeted as many more

16 individuals have decided to switch from public

17 transportation to commuting in vehicles in order

18 to avoid the virus. This can be seen by the fact

19 that used car sales have skyrocketed. Many

20 planners are anticipating that within 2 years,

21 society needs will snap back to what they were in

22 December of 2019. I think this may be Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 115 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 21

1 unrealistically hopeful and due to the fact, the

2 planners have no experience or frame of reference

3 on including the impacts of a pandemic into their

4 planning.

5 As a 38-year-old millennial, this

6 pandemic will drive my housing decisions for the

7 rest of my life and I know that many of my peers

8 of my generation feel the same way. My decision

9 making this area is based on the fact that many

10 employers have already seen the cost savings of

11 having the vast majority of their workforces work

12 from home. Some employers have already told their

13 workforces to work from home forever. This will

14 have a significant impact on our area where many

15 workers are not originally from Maryland. Given

16 the freedom to work from home full time, I believe

17 that many of these individuals will choose to move

18 out of state to places with a lower cost of

19 living. If this occurs, then the need for

20 multi-unit housing in this area will disappear.

21 This pandemic is also pushing government

22 to expand telework dramatically. For example, in Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 116 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 22

1 the past many employees were allowed to telework 1

2 to 3 days per week. However, many managers are

3 seeing that employees have been just as productive

4 working from home in the last 6 months. This is

5 driving managers to only require employees to come

6 into the office one or two times a pay period.

7 That they only need to commute into the office two

8 to three times a month, employees will look harder

9 for housing options in Hagerstown or West

10 Virginia.

11 As you all know, rezoning in any area

12 will have dramatic impact. Individuals seeking

13 single family homes may not want to buy near an

14 area zoned for multi-unit housing even if no

15 developer has bought into the area. We need to

16 make changes before the demand has disappeared.

17 This may drive higher income and educated

18 individuals to track up 270 since they don't need

19 to come into town to go to the office. I ask this

20 body to take a short pause in their cycle, and to

21 reassess the city's need in light of COVID-19.

22 Thank you. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 117 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 23

1 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr.

2 Espinosa, for your comments and before you go as

3 we would do in if we were conducting meetings

4 physically, we accept testimony and we also allow

5 commissioners clarifying questions as needed. If

6 you would entertain one. My question to you is,

7 do you think that housing is the only thing -- two

8 questions actually. Do you think as you commented

9 on it, is the only thing that is impacted or

10 should be looked at or assessed because of the

11 current corona pandemic is one question? And

12 also, do you feel that whatever is happening

13 because of corona, even if corona goes away and

14 ends and hopefully it does very soon, that

15 whatever, for whatever reason these impacts become

16 permanent beyond the end of the pandemic?

17 MR. ESPINOSA: I think so. I think that

18 if you look at the public polling on this, I think

19 a certain demographic, particularly those under 40

20 will be making certain decisions like long based

21 on their experience in the last 6 months.

22 Particularly if this expands to a year or 18 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 118 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 24

1 months as planners are deciding.

2 And to your question, while my comments

3 were completely focused on housing, I do think the

4 city should look in the plan as it relates to

5 transportation as I don't think the transportation

6 needs are going to be what they were. As I

7 suspect many more people are going to be working

8 from home and not commuting as often. And also,

9 retail I don't necessarily know that brick and

10 mortar stores are going to continue existing in

11 the way that they have. Before the pandemic we

12 saw them declining. But I think, the online sales

13 that have skyrocketed, particularly in grocery

14 deliveries and those kinds of things are going to

15 lead to less retail space needed.

16 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, thank you

17 again, Mr. Espinosa, for your comments and

18 testimony. Commissioners are there any other

19 questions in addition to mine for Mr. Espinosa.

20 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: I would have one,

21 Mr. Chair, if that's okay.

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Sure. Mr. Espinosa, Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 119 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 25

1 another Commissioner, Commissioner Hadley, would

2 also like to ask you a question.

3 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Thank you, Mr.

4 Chairman. Hello, Mr. Espinosa. You have cited

5 quite a bit of knowledge. I was wondering if you

6 have come by this and by the analysis behind it as

7 a matter of personal interest or do you have a

8 professional interest in relation to this.

9 MR. ESPINOSA: You know, and thank you

10 for that question. For sure, it's strictly

11 personal. Like I said, I'm under 40. I plan on

12 making Rockville my home until I retired. And so

13 these issues have been very important to me and so

14 I have been following the news very closely in

15 particularly in the last 6 months.

16 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Thank you. Thank

17 you, Mr. Chair.

18 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you,

19 Commissioner Hadley, and thank you again, Mr.

20 Espinosa. Any further questions? Okay, I hear

21 none from my colleagues. Thank you again, Mr.

22 Espinosa. I appreciate it for joining us. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 120 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 26

1 I've been informed that our first

2 participant is able now to connect so I would like

3 to invite him and proceed to give us his testimony

4 and that is Mr. Steven VanGrack. Mr. VanGrack,

5 can you hear me okay?

6 MR. VANGRACK: Well, I can hear you but

7 can you hear me?

8 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes, I can probably

9 as good as you can hear me.

10 MR. VANGRACK: Well, maybe it's better

11 that I don't have my picture on the screen. I'm

12 not sure one way or the other but you can hear

13 what I have to say. Thank you.

14 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Sure, please

15 proceed. Thank you.

16 MR. VANGRACK: My name is Steven

17 VanGrack, I reside at 401 King Farm Boulevard.

18 I've been a resident of Rockville since 1977, my

19 office has always been in downtown Rockville since

20 1980. I am here tonight on behalf of Rockville

21 Associates. Rockville Associates owns the office

22 building at 110 North Washington Street. The Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 121 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 27

1 owner is Scott Norwitz. Scott is my friend as

2 well as my landlord. And a stronger friend but he

3 is also a good landlord.

4 Rockville Associates contends that it's

5 in the best interest of Rockville Town Center to

6 encourage and enhance the transition of office

7 buildings to residential homes. Rockville

8 Associates seeks approval to reconstruct 110 North

9 Washington Street from office retail to

10 residential. Rockville Associates will not only

11 increase the size of the building but will seek to

12 provide more parking spaces than what is provided

13 for under the new structure at 110. You all may

14 be familiar with the Urban Land Institute report.

15 They recommended, and I quote, "that you redesign

16 each middle land and North Washington Street to

17 build density in town center without compromising

18 character."

19 I also suggest that you read and I'm

20 sure that you have, the comprehensive plan

21 prepared by our exceptional city planning staff

22 which recommends the west side of North Washington Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 122 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 28

1 Street change in zoning to MXCD, the mixed use

2 quarter district.

3 Personally, I am very familiar with

4 downtown Rockville in countless ways. But I have

5 spent time recently with many of the real property

6 owners and become involved in the redevelopment of

7 our town center. Many supports the requests that

8 we are making here, no one opposes it.

9 My personal opinion is that the single

10 most important real estate planning in Rockville

11 is the Rockville Town Center. The Rockville

12 Associates asks that you agree with the Urban Land

13 Institute report and with the comprehensive plan

14 to grant the zoning change at 110 to the MXCD, the

15 mixed use quarter district. Rockville Associates

16 also asks you to encourage and enhance more

17 residential homes in Rockville town center. Thank

18 you for your time.

19 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr.

20 VanGrack. Commissioners are there any questions

21 for Mr. VanGrack, from hearing his testimony?

22 COMMISSIONER WOOD: Hi, this is Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 123 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 29

1 Commissioner Wood. I have one question.

2 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Go ahead.

3 COMMISSIONER WOOD: Mr. VanGrack, your

4 proposal for more residential housing, does that

5 include all four social economic levels that

6 everyone will have a piece of this pie? And that

7 the housing will be so structured so that it can

8 be affordable?

9 MR. VANGRACK: I honestly believe, and

10 this is my opinion, I haven't asked Scott Norwitz

11 this but I can tell you. I think every

12 residential building in our town center should

13 have a moderate income provision for it. It needs

14 to be, we've done it, I believe it's the code to

15 do it. But I think that yes. I could give you a

16 simple yes but I think I said yes in a longer way.

17 COMMISSIONER WOOD: Thank you.

18 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thanks to both.

19 Other commissioners have any questions for Mr.

20 VanGrack?

21 COMMISSIONER TYNER: Yes.

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Commissioner Tyner, Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 124 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 30

1 go ahead.

2 COMMISSIONER TYNER: Mr. VanGrack, you

3 have mentioned one particular address, but I'm

4 assuming that the concept you are speaking of

5 might be all of the way up and down North

6 Washington Street at some point or even in other

7 areas within town center. It's a kind of concept

8 that you might find a possible location in

9 addition to what you have already spoken to us

10 about, is that true?

11 MR. VANGRACK: Well, the simple answer

12 is yes but if you'd like for me to go in to a

13 little more detail, I will tell you I have spoken

14 with the people at Federal Realty. And I would

15 not be surprised if they came forth to make the

16 same request that we are making here. I have

17 spoken with other developers, but that

18 intersection there, East Middle Lane and North

19 Washington Street, the east side of Middle lane

20 you aren't going to change, those buildings are

21 already there. The west side it proposes, I have

22 not spoken to any of the developers on North Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 125 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 31

1 Washington Street, other than Federal Realty.

2 COMMISSIONER TYNER: It's an interesting

3 idea, thank you for bringing it up.

4 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you,

5 Commissioner Tyner. And Mr. VanGrack, as you

6 presented during your testimony this

7 recommendation is already to be found in the ULA

8 on the town center, correct?

9 MR. VANGRACK: Well, this specific

10 recommendation to change the zoning was in the

11 comprehensive plan, the Urban Land Institute

12 report has a lot of language about specifically

13 the intersection of East Middle Lane and North

14 Washington Street building density in the town

15 center. So, there could be some interpretation

16 there, I don't have all of the language there but

17 certainly very supportive from the Urban Land

18 Institute.

19 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay. Yeah, thank

20 you, because I remember there was quite some

21 discussion in that report on Washington Street, on

22 various things but it includes what you said. And Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 126 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 32

1 it is geared toward improving the town center and

2 addressing residential in that further

3 development. So, thanks again, Commissioners.

4 Are there any --

5 COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I have a

6 question.

7 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Commissioner

8 Goodman, sure, go ahead.

9 COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I just wonder if

10 you think that is a general principle that should

11 possibly be applied further than in town center.

12 MR. VANGRACK: Once again you are

13 asking, thank you Ann, once again you are asking

14 my personal opinion, it's a strong yes. I

15 actually believe we need to develop out town

16 center, with all due respect to everybody, I go

17 back to Rockville Mall days. I mean that's when

18 our town center was an abysmal failure. And it

19 appears that right now, and I'm not trying to be

20 critical that our town center needs some help. I

21 think a residential component is the best thing

22 that we can do to enhance our town center. Well, Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 127 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 33

1 if you look at the two new buildings the two

2 tallest buildings that have gone up in Rockville,

3 they appear to be doing well residentially. I

4 think that's where we should be headed.

5 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, thanks again.

6 Any other Commissioners with questions? Okay.

7 Thank you so much, Mr. VanGrack, for your

8 comments.

9 MR. VANGRACK: Thank you and it's always

10 good to see all of you.

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Likewise.

12 MR. VANGRACK: Have a good evening. I'm

13 going to listen for a while.

14 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, take care.

15 Bye. Going back to our list, if I have it

16 correct, the next speaker is Randy Alton. And I

17 realize that I was following the old ways of

18 asking for people to give their address but I

19 think we don't need to do that since we are

20 gathering that information technologically.

21 Staff, correct me if I am wrong, it's not

22 necessary. As long as we have the right person Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 128 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 34

1 queued up to speak, we can just proceed as --

2 anyways, is Mr. Alton here?

3 MR. ALTON: Yes. Can you hear me?

4 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep.

5 MR. ALTON: Greetings. Grading

6 forwarded a detailed analysis as you know Planning

7 Area 14 back in May. And I share concerns and

8 recommendations including my suggestion that you,

9 the Planning Commission, define the word

10 "substantial" in your draft regarding Planning

11 Area 14. In my experience better to address these

12 details now rather than later. Wait, you are

13 looking to change the zoning for the Rockville

14 Village Shopping Center, please don't. Please

15 first get the answers to the following questions.

16 Ask the staff here tonight, do we know

17 about the Rockshire HOA parking rights, the number

18 how many parking spaces will be available?

19 Recently, I filed an ADA concern regarding no

20 handicap parking spaces at that facility. These

21 ADA parking spaces are going to be needed. An ADA

22 is a prominent key issue in that planning area. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 129 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 35

1 In addition, we also have the Korean Presbyterian

2 church, they have a right to practice their

3 religion. How are they going to be impacted by

4 the parking if these zoning changes occur and we

5 have a different land use? Just like to get these

6 answers beforehand.

7 But one of my greatest concerns are from

8 being a teacher is back on November 7, 2019, the

9 Rockville Mayor and Council testified before the

10 MCPS Board of Education about the safety concerns

11 at Thomas Wootton High School, especially the

12 driveway where the buses and cars are not

13 separated from students and staff. Our students

14 literally walk through the driveway between buses

15 and cars pulling in and out of that complex.

16 Students can't safely access the middle school in

17 our Rockville neighborhood from Falls Mead to

18 Lakewood. Scott Drive has no sidewalks. If there

19 was ever any evacuation in our planning area

20 between Frost and Wootton High School, we would be

21 moving 3,000 students over a 56 inch wide bridge

22 due to the Scott Drive issue of no ability to Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 130 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 36

1 transition between two sides.

2 The Planning Commission members also

3 back in 1999 when they rebuilt Wootton High School

4 and we added on from 1,500 students over to 2,300.

5 They noted an adequate public facility ordinance

6 concern. Back in 1999, they actually told MCPS

7 no. And they told MCPS no because there was no

8 room for parking. And what ended up happening, we

9 have overflow student parking leased for the past

10 20 years at that Rockshire Village Shopping

11 Center, Giant. We go and make these changes,

12 there is nothing that has been done to change to

13 adequate public city ordinance from 1999. That

14 same concern exists today.

15 So, I would just say that before we

16 making any changes to zoning, our neighborhood due

17 to safety, ADA compliance, the adequate public

18 facility ordinance and including the fire lane

19 issue that they have in front of the school. Our

20 planning area needs a comprehensive neighborhood

21 plan. I thank you so much for your time.

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 131 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 37

1 Alton. Much appreciated receiving your testimony.

2 Commissioners, any clarifying questions? It

3 appears we have none. Thank you again, Mr. Alton,

4 appreciate it.

5 MR. ALTON: You are welcome.

6 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep. The next

7 person that I have on my list is Mr. Kapastin. Is

8 Mr. Kapastin available on either video or audio?

9 MR. KAPASTIN: Yes, I am available,

10 thank you.

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: You are welcome.

12 MR. KAPASTIN: Thank you very much.

13 Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the

14 Planning Commission. I am Kap Kapastin here

15 tonight on behalf of Shalhorn Rockville, LLC. We

16 own the Chesapeake Plaza Shopping center located

17 at 1460 and 1488 Rockville Pike in Planning Area 9

18 on the east side of Rockville Pike north of and

19 adjacent to Twinbrook Corner. The property's

20 located for you on Exhibits 1 and 2 in my written

21 testimony dated September 3rd which is marked

22 Exhibit 10 of the testimonies submitted. The Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 132 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 38

1 property is zoned MXCD, with recommended land use

2 of ORRM.

3 I should mention that our office is in

4 Bethesda and we have owned this property for 17

5 years. Our tenants there include Yekta Deli,

6 Joe's Noodle House, and Midas Muffler. Similar to

7 the other properties on the east side of the pike,

8 our properties are constrained narrowly between

9 the pike and railway tracks. Our issue is the

10 extension of Chapman Avenue through our property

11 to another section of the pike to shown in the

12 2016 Neighborhood Pike Plan and carried forward in

13 the draft comprehensive plan. The mere existence

14 of the Chapman extension presents a chilling

15 affair in the development of our property,

16 reducing the Midas Muffler parcel by almost three-

17 quarters of it. And the strips at our parcel by

18 more than one-quarter of it dividing the property

19 into three small parcels. The division of the

20 property is demonstrated on Exhibits 3 and 4 of my

21 written testimony.

22 In our review the property has the plan Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 133 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 39

1 to support and encourage the prospect of future

2 redevelopment, not inhibit and prevent it. Also,

3 the State Highway Administrations, SHA did not

4 allow a signal of Chapman Avenue and the Pike

5 because placement there would violate the SHA

6 access manuals required 750 linear feet between

7 signalized intersections and Congressional Lane

8 and Templeton Place. Shellhorn opposes the

9 Chapman Avenue extension through it's property and

10 informs the city that Shellhorn's attorneys and

11 traffic engineers advise it that it's very

12 existence in the draft plan gives Shellhorn the

13 basis for an inverse condemnation claim against

14 the city for the damage which will run into the

15 millions of dollars. Thus, we owe it to the

16 commission to delete that portion of the Chapman

17 extension, through 1460 and 1488 Rockville Pike.

18 Thank you for your steady attention to

19 this matter. A more complete discussion is within

20 my written testimony dated September 3rd and I am

21 available for any questions.

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 134 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 40

1 Kapastin. And yes, we have received your written

2 testimony on this matter as well. Commissioners,

3 are there any clarifying questions for Mr.

4 Kapastin? I believe we have none. But thank you

5 again, Mr. Kapastin, much appreciated.

6 MR. KAPASTIN: Thank you, sir.

7 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Take care. Sorry

8 for the pause. I'm looking on my list for the

9 next person. The shift between documents,

10 multiple monitors no one can see. The next

11 speaker is Christopher Ruhlen. And I think

12 (inaudible) and Brewer. Mr. Ruhlen, are you with

13 us?

14 MR. RUHLEN: Yes, can you hear me?

15 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes, I can hear you.

16 Commissioners, I think we are good to go. And

17 just as a reminder, that you have 3 minutes to

18 give testimony.

19 MR. RUHLEN: Great, thank you very much.

20 Good Evening, my name is Chris Ruhlen. I am a

21 principal with the law firm of Lercher and Brewer.

22 I am pleased to be here this evening to testify Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 135 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 41

1 about the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update

2 which our firm's land use attorneys have been

3 following with great interest.

4 As the Planning Commission is aware the

5 supply of housing in the greater Washington

6 metropolitan area has been the subject of

7 tremendous importance as the region continues to

8 grow. There is increasing demand from potential

9 new residence as well as from residence who are

10 already here and are interested in changing

11 accommodations. This issue has been the subject

12 of various recent studies by the city and other

13 recognized local authorities. Although specific

14 projections in terms of numbers are constantly

15 being refined, all of these sources agree that a

16 dramatic housing shortfall exists and that

17 addressing the shortfall must be a regional

18 priority given the importance of diversity of

19 housing options for overall economic

20 competitiveness, quality of life, and a viable tax

21 base.

22 I have provided of several of these Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 136 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 42

1 authorities with my written remarks that the

2 commission can review at it's convenience, but

3 it's worth noting these materials include, first,

4 a September 2019 report of the Washington Council

5 of Governments, which found that by 2030, the

6 region will require 75,000 additional households

7 over the 245,000 units that local governments have

8 been planning for. That's approximately 32,000

9 new units per year.

10 Second, a May 2019 task force report of

11 the Urban Land Institute, which also found that

12 the region must increase housing production to

13 attract and retain a sufficient employment base to

14 support continued economic growth.

15 And third, I provided the city's

16 December 2016 housing marking analysis and needs

17 assessment, which identified a future of demand

18 for nearly 10,000 new housing units in the city by

19 2040 across the income spectrum. All of these

20 authorities conclude that addressing this

21 shortfall will require meaningful governmental

22 intervention. To that end, it's encouraging the Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 137 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 43

1 Volume I of the 2040 plan embraces affirmative

2 policies to both promote diversification in the

3 residential land use pattern and also to plan for

4 land use changes from commercial to residential

5 uses.

6 It's also encouraging that Volume II

7 then applies these policies to specific properties

8 in the city's planning areas. While much work in

9 the years ahead to actually achieve this vision,

10 these policies will provide an important

11 foundation for those efforts. That at the same

12 time, I would encourage the commission to keep the

13 expansion of the housing access at the forefront

14 of its considerations as it continues to review

15 and analyze the property specific recommendations

16 in Volume II. The opportunities to change the

17 housing types allowed at specific locations and to

18 allow housing on traditionally commercial

19 properties are precious given the limited amount

20 of land that is available for new development.

21 The commission should remain vigilant for such

22 opportunities as it continues to fine tune its Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 138 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 44

1 planning area recommendations over the coming

2 months.

3 And again, I have provided more detailed

4 written testimony, but I thank you for the

5 opportunity to participate this evening and for

6 considering my comments.

7 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr.

8 Ruhlen, your comments are much appreciated.

9 Commissioners, does any Commissioner have a

10 clarifying question for Mr. Ruhlen or comment?

11 COMMISSIONER WOOD: I do, this is

12 Commissioner Wood. Was he speaking on behalf of a

13 company or just himself?

14 MR. RUHLEN: I am speaking on behalf of

15 myself, thank you.

16 COMMISSIONER WOOD: Okay.

17 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay. Thank you,

18 Commissioner Wood. Commissioner Tyner, do you

19 have a question?

20 COMMISSIONER TYNER: Yes, it's just a

21 question for the gentleman. Because so much of

22 what we are doing, not just for the housing, but Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 139 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 45

1 throughout the city, it's just so interrelated

2 with the school system and the transportation and

3 all of the facilities that are just as much needed

4 as housing. I appreciate that and the written

5 testimony that you have later will be instructive

6 for us. Thanks again.

7 MR. RUHLEN: Thank you.

8 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thanks, Commissioner

9 Tyner. Mr. Ruhlen, I have a question if you are

10 able to answer or not. But I'm wondering if, this

11 is a really a new topic, and we had a speaker

12 bring it up earlier and it's just going to be in

13 front of us. With the statistics on housing

14 trends and predictions have you seen... or

15 including the ones that you cited that have taken

16 into account the sort of new environment due to

17 the corona pandemic and even what could extend

18 beyond the pandemic once it's over in terms of

19 permanent change affected by it.

20 MR. RUHLEN: I have, they are different

21 than what we heard from the earlier speaker. I've

22 actually seen much more study and analysis of the Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 140 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 46

1 impact of coronavirus on the retail market. That

2 really falls in line with what this comprehensive

3 plan is looking at in terms of anticipating and

4 planning for changes of formerly commercial

5 properties to allow for residential, that the

6 commercial market seem to be much more impacted.

7 And again, coronavirus is only one of many issues

8 that go into a comprehensive plan of this kind you

9 have to look at things like the tax base climate

10 change and walk a fine balance for and

11 affordability, not to mention affordability. I

12 think that pandemic situation has really laid out

13 some of the disparities that we have in this

14 region and I think support the idea of having more

15 housing.

16 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, that was

17 a very good answer. A question and just a quick

18 comment back is... I also thought of that in terms

19 of affordability. Some of us are able to work

20 remotely form wherever in these new times, but

21 there are others who continue to be what I would

22 call onsite workers or in place workers and Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 141 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 47

1 nothing has changed for them other than that they

2 have riskier conditions to work in. But they

3 still physically need to go where they are going

4 to work every day. A lot of those types of jobs

5 require affordable housing so thank you, thank you

6 for that additional comment.

7 MR. RUHLEN: You're welcome. Thank you.

8 COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I have a

9 question.

10 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Commissioner

11 Goodman.

12 COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I'm not sure it

13 applies to just to this person giving testimony

14 but I'm happy to have his thoughts on it and I

15 would like other people's thoughts on it as we

16 move forward in this. We've always talked about

17 smart roof and high density housing around metro

18 stations. But we're talking tonight increased

19 need for housing but the question in my mind is

20 are we going to need so much of this increased

21 housing concentrated around rapid transit any

22 longer if people are going to be working from home Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 142 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 48

1 and are not going to be required to travel to

2 their workplaces. So, any thoughts on this are

3 welcome.

4 MR. RUHLEN: If you would like for me to

5 try to answer, and again it's a little bit off the

6 cuff I will try to do my best.

7 COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Please do.

8 MR. RUHLEN: I have certainly been a

9 student of the smart growth effort in this area

10 through my career which is now heading into its

11 end of its 14th year in practicing land use and

12 zone law here. I do believe that the smart growth

13 development continues to be of critical importance

14 to our region we certainly have issues right now

15 with public transit. But hopefully those issues

16 are temporary and again these plans are seeking to

17 walk a line to find a balance between a bunch of

18 competing policies. And I do think that in terms

19 of other issues like transportation and climate

20 change the smart growth development continues to

21 be important.

22 At the same time, though, I think that Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 143 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 49

1 the idea of supporting housing accessibility. And

2 by that, I mean housing types that are, you know,

3 diverse and available to folks across the spectrum

4 of the income range does maybe warrant looking at

5 other sites that aren't maybe transit accessible

6 that might benefit from these changeovers. And in

7 that regard, again, it kind of gets back to the

8 policy and the comprehensive plan update to kind

9 look at opportunities where perhaps you have

10 traditionally single family area but maybe other

11 housing types may be appropriate there or areas

12 that have been traditionally commercial that might

13 be appropriate to change over even if they're not

14 be smart growth locations per se.

15 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr.

16 Ruhlen, for those additional comments. Any other

17 Commissioners have any further questions for Mr.

18 Ruhlen? Nope, I think you have answered a few.

19 Thank you again we appreciate your comments.

20 MR. RUHLEN: Thank you.

21 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Take care. Our next

22 speaker is Joe McClane of 216 Halpine Court. Is Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 144 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 50

1 Mr. McClane present virtually or able to join us

2 via phone or video.

3 MR. MCCLANE: Yes, good evening. Can

4 you hear me?

5 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes, we can hear you

6 please proceed and welcome.

7 MR. MCCLANE: I am the president of

8 Cambridge walk to homeowner's association. I live

9 in Halpine Walk Court as you know which is on the

10 5900 block of Halpine Road near the Metro station.

11 Tonight, I am speaking on behalf of both of our

12 Cambridge Walk communities; there are two of them

13 in support of our written testimony that we have

14 already submitted to you. A petition supporting

15 our views has been submitted to the Planning

16 Commission from our neighbors that live on the

17 north side of the 5900 block of Halpine Road.

18 While backing the goals of the draft

19 comprehensive plan and most of its

20 recommendations, the over 100 residents of our

21 block firmly oppose the proposed cleavage of our

22 block into two separate zoning districts. For the Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 145 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 51

1 many reasons detailed in our written testimony we

2 believe the proposed division of an established

3 residential neighborhood of over 25 years in

4 direct contradiction of the stated goals of the

5 draft plan. This division and the differing

6 building standards would negatively affect the

7 residential character of our street which has

8 served for decades as a transitional buffer from

9 one of the highest density areas to a low density

10 neighborhood of single family homes.

11 It also fails to meet both of the goals

12 in both Zone and Zone 9. The Cambridge townhomes

13 communities represent the missing middle which is

14 so much needed in our city. The area to our south

15 both city and county are already approved for the

16 highest concentration of monolithic blocks of

17 workforce housing in the wider area. But a recent

18 Arlington County, Virginia, study about missing

19 middle housing details a high economic and racial

20 cause of a lack of diverse housing choices in a

21 neighborhood.

22 In addition, the roadway of our single Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 146 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 52

1 block is so narrow that traffic is concentrated in

2 one usable lane when cars are parked on both

3 sides. With the 5900 block, what would it be like

4 were there yet more high density construction

5 allowed on our block? Our pocket neighborhood has

6 received awards from peers in Rockville and

7 Montgomery County for our environmentally friendly

8 landscaping. But we also care deeply about the

9 building environment and how it affects the

10 quality of life of our neighborhood and our

11 neighbors both current and future. The nearby

12 high density neighborhood already lacks amenities

13 such as tot lots and dog walks which puts a strain

14 on our small green block.

15 The bottom line is that our current

16 infrastructure and amenities are insufficient for

17 current residents, Rockville, and county

18 authorities have already approved high density

19 workforce housing along one block of Ardennes

20 avenue accommodating almost 1,000 residents all

21 within this one block. Frankly, we are

22 approaching a breaking point again for the 5900 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 147 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 53

1 block what would it be like if yet more high

2 density construction allowed.

3 Let me be clear, we support the stated

4 goals of the draft comprehensive plan. Unlike

5 some neighborhoods we welcome development of

6 housing of different types at different price

7 points. But proposed development must be

8 sensitive to the existing character and

9 infrastructure of community. Smart growth does

10 not segregate high density workforce housing,

11 cheap by chow nor does it destroy the residential

12 character of the existing neighborhoods not even

13 our block. Please help us preserve our wonderful

14 neighborhood by allowing both sides of the 5900

15 block of Halpine Road to remain within the Zone 8

16 Twinbrook, the boundary between Zones 8 and 9 need

17 to remain within the northern property line of the

18 Alaire and the Metro property. Thank you for this

19 opportunity to present the testimony and reviews

20 of our neighborhood.

21 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr.

22 McClane. And before I ask other Commissioners and Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 148 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 54

1 before you leave us, I do actually want to ask a

2 clarifying question to our staff who are listening

3 in. I don't know if, Mr. Larson, if you want to

4 take the question at least initially. Are you

5 there?

6 MR. LARSON: I'm here.

7 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: So, I seem to -- I

8 don't have a map or the testimony they submitted

9 in front of me or open on my monitor, I'm aware of

10 it. And I followed pretty well what he was saying

11 when he referred to the 5900 block of Halpine Road

12 on both sides. But I do want to make sure that if

13 we do get into discussion on this one way or

14 another later just with Commissioners after when

15 public testimonies close that staff follows to the

16 "t" the areas that he's referring to in the event

17 the commission would want to consider a change in

18 moving between zones planning areas.

19 MR. LARSON: Yes.

20 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Sorry, yes, so if we

21 needed --

22 MR. LARSON: Yes, I think that's when he Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 149 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 55

1 talks about zones, I think he is really referring

2 to the boundaries of the planning area.

3 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Planning Area 8 and

4 Planning Area 9. And testimony is that both sides

5 should be in. Staff is well aware that geography

6 as needed.

7 MR. LARSON: Yes, and as he pointed out,

8 this is a change from the past boundary and it was

9 done for a set of reasons but can be changed if

10 the commission so chooses. Yeah, that's really --

11 the boundaries are in organizing they are. Sorry,

12 I have to put my video on to help put things

13 together in what we see is affinity areas. But

14 they don't have any other tangible rationale

15 behind it otherwise, just as far as it changes how

16 your demographics and your housing counts work

17 out. But the recommendations can still be the

18 same as far as policies or new zones. So, yeah,

19 we would be happy to discuss with you and

20 entertain a change in the boundary as they are

21 asking.

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, and our Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 150 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 56

1 process is to deliberate on this, the Commission

2 will deliberate on this in the months ahead, but

3 any Commissioners have any clarifying questions

4 for Mr. McClane while he is on with us?

5 Commissioner Tyner, do you have your hand up?

6 COMMISSIONER TYNER: Yeah, I just want

7 to comment that neighborhood has been part of not

8 only their own area, but Twinbrook Citizens

9 Association, or Community Association, that now

10 it's called for over 50 years. We last looked at

11 this in 1972, when they were putting in the church

12 on the corner which was to have been a firehouse

13 once upon a time. So, I mean, there is a long,

14 long history for this area of Rockville to be a

15 part of the same association through everything.

16 They have their own -- their homeowners at the

17 moment, but is still a part of the overall area in

18 Planning Area 8. And that's what they really --

19 what they are talking about. And I appreciate

20 Clark's comments because they are just moving a

21 boundary here. Thank you.

22 COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: And I just have a Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 151 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 57

1 comment. As one who drives up that street often,

2 I can understand Mr. McClane's comments about

3 single lane dodging between cars on both sides of

4 the street.

5 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you,

6 Commissioners. Anyone else? Okay. Thanks again,

7 Mr. McClane, for your comments.

8 MR. MCCLANE: Thank you.

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Next on the list

10 George Liechti, if I've said that correctly.

11 MR. LIECHTI: That's close enough.

12 George Liechti.

13 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Good enough.

14 Welcome.

15 MR. LIECHTI: Much appreciate it. I

16 don't mean to hammer you guys too much with this,

17 nut I am in the same homeowner's association as

18 the previous speaker. And I live at 221 Halpine

19 Walk Court. My wife and I moved here from the

20 Shady Grove area and we have been a part of the

21 Twinbrook community for about 5 years now. And my

22 testimony is specific to proposed rezoning changes Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 152 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 58

1 on the 5900 block of Halpine Road.

2 Since moving here, I have watched the

3 prevalent large construction of high-density

4 apartment complexes begin to work their way down

5 the street on Ardennes Avenue. I've often

6 wondered if our little suburban area can absorb

7 this many new residents. So, this was a concern

8 prior to this 2040 plan. But then when I read the

9 city's proposed redevelopment plan for our area, I

10 was shocked that even more higher density housing

11 was in the works for the planning area essentially

12 on either side of our apartment, on either side of

13 our townhouse communities. And I was upset enough

14 to propose and help change and make our draft

15 letter from our HOA in response to the planners'

16 proposal. Our letterheads have had universal

17 support from all of the residences of both

18 townhouse communities as well as the larger area.

19 Again, our major issue of concern is the

20 proposed plan to effectively remove our block from

21 the rest of Twinbrook in Planning Area 8 and

22 parcel off our section and move it over to Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 153 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 59

1 Planning Area 9. I liked that when the plan was

2 developed it came up with key issues that were

3 specific to the residences to each planning area.

4 However, when I was struck by, when I looked

5 through them, I looked at the concerns raised for

6 residents of Zone 9, they appeared to apply to not

7 mirror any of my neighbors. And in contrast when

8 I looked at these areas that were specific to Zone

9 8, I felt a connection to all of those things.

10 So when you include things like a desire

11 to maintain a residential character of a planning

12 area, a need to address housing stock and housing

13 maintenance concern over the limited diversity in

14 as well as availability of affordable housing; an

15 interest in reduced traffic congestion and a need

16 to improve pedestrian safety, those are the key

17 interests to me an my neighbors. And when I

18 looked at the list of concerns, it became pretty

19 clear that these proposed rezoning changes for

20 focus area 1, didn't address any of them. So

21 despite being against the rezoning, I support the

22 stated goals in the draft comprehensive plan, Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 154 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 60

1 providing that workforce housing is a worthy goal.

2 But packing them all into two square blocks really

3 isn't. Clearly, those two square blocks in an

4 underrepresented community that already lacks

5 sufficient infrastructure support for its current

6 and future residents, this is not in the best

7 interest of the city, in my view, or the Twinbrook

8 community.

9 And I strongly endorse our letter to the

10 Planning Commission resoundingly backed by the

11 community and our proposed issuance is to allow

12 the boarder between Planning Areas 8 and 9 to

13 remain as it has been for over 25 years between

14 the northern property line of the Alaire and the

15 Metro property. More housing is fine, but diverse

16 housing is better and smart growth doesn't mean

17 monolithic apartment complexes. And I thank you

18 for listening.

19 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr.

20 Liechti. Commissioners, any questions or

21 comments? Apparently not, but thanks again for

22 providing us with your testimony. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 155 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 61

1 MR. LIECHTI: Sure thing.

2 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep, have a good

3 evening. The last speaker on my list is Meera

4 Murgai. Is Meera here with us?

5 MS. MURGAI: Yes, can you hear me?

6 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: We can but there is

7 an echo. Can somebody help her to get rid of that

8 echo?

9 SPEAKER: Yes, we are working on that.

10 MS. MURGAI: Too many devices on the

11 same house and we are all working remotely and

12 video conferencing for our day jobs and this is

13 what happens. Does it sound better now?

14 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: It does and I can

15 completely appreciate that, I've got computers all

16 over the place at my house.

17 MS. MURGAI: This is ridiculous, but we

18 are so we can work that way.

19 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Welcome.

20 MS. MURGAI: Okay, I can get started.

21 Thank you very much for allowing me this

22 opportunity to give testimony over the Planning Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 156 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 62

1 Commission's proposed plan. I too am here to talk

2 about the 5900 block of Halpine Road. I have been

3 a resident of this neighborhood for 4 to 5 years

4 now. And it's interesting, my husband and I

5 actually pursued this neighborhood specifically

6 because we were in pursuit of this missing middle

7 type of housing that I now appreciate is in very,

8 very high demand and in low supply within

9 Rockville City. In fact, this is one of the only

10 neighborhoods within this price point with these

11 characteristics that we could actually find that

12 we could afford to live in.

13 I bring this up, because the proposed

14 change in the 5900 block of Zone 8 to Zone 9 as

15 you heard in the past, in the last two

16 testimonies, would actually affect this missing

17 middle neighborhood very much. They're already,

18 as you have also heard, are getting or have gotten

19 many high density housing units in our

20 neighborhood of which I am really highly

21 supportive of but what we are actually missing is

22 this lower density is so sorely needed and missing Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 157 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 63

1 the middle.

2 And what I think that could really help

3 matters if we could stay with the Twinbrook

4 community we would not only keep the same

5 character that we had with our neighbors which we

6 so much enjoy but we could enable a lot more of

7 these townhouses keeping to (inaudible). That

8 would definitely help people like me and my

9 husband who came here for our jobs We still like

10 to be close to our high transit such as the Metro,

11 even given our remote working capabilities, even

12 as we go forward, future work even past COVID. We

13 will probably still need access to high transit

14 opportunities to get to our jobs. And there are

15 many people in this middle income bracket finding

16 themselves this is the case so it's not just

17 people at the lower income levels that do

18 thoroughly need housing, but also people in the

19 middle that need access to these amenities.

20 You've also heard about how crowded our

21 street is on Halpine Road. We also look out with

22 great interest for different amenities such as the Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 158 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 64

1 elementary school in Twinbrook, which I know is

2 outside the purview of this Planning Commission

3 but perhaps we should also recognize with the

4 higher density of residence that come to the area

5 a higher density of elementary students who need

6 access to those schools also as necessary. That

7 school is already overcrowded and is in need of a

8 lot of these to bring it up to par with the rest

9 of the exemplary schools that we have in Rockville

10 city.

11 So, in summary, I would like to propose

12 that we include the block, both sides of this

13 block, in zoning so that we can maintain character

14 and maintain the missing middle or shore it up.

15 That's all I have to say. Thank you.

16 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Ms.

17 Murgai. I have a clarifying question. I

18 appreciate your testimony, it's well- received.

19 And I just wanted to make sure as I listened, so

20 as the previous two speakers you also support the

21 adjustment to the planning areas in the area we

22 are talking about so that they all lie within Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 159 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 65

1 Planning Area 8 is one of your points. But are

2 you also saying or advocating for us to promote

3 greener, do a better job of promoting the missing

4 middle, specifically in Planning Area 8, or is

5 that just more generally something we should look

6 up citywide?

7 MS. MURGAI: Yes, thank you for that

8 question. So, yes, to your first point to

9 clarify, I'm advocating for us remaining both

10 sides of this block remaining inside of 8.

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay.

12 MS. MURGAI: Any particular not

13 necessary to this neighborhood but to surrounding

14 areas we do need to take a better look at the

15 missing middle, I do know that that was one of the

16 priorities or one of the points that was raised in

17 many parts of the company's plan. But a lot of

18 the zoning issues that have been brought up

19 tonight and also in that plan that kind of miss

20 out on our actual list of this.

21 And this is actually a big deal. I was

22 not kidding while we were looking for places to Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 160 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 66

1 live, we could just not find anything that fit

2 these characteristics and we are very happy to be

3 on this block in our neighborhood, but we love the

4 community but it's literally is one of a kind.

5 And I really want to see where my peers have that

6 (inaudible) find the right housing. There really

7 is not this type of housing in different parts of

8 the city. And it's kind of goes back to the

9 things what some of the other testimonies have

10 raised is that when we talk about diversity,

11 housing stock, I think it's important to talk

12 about diversity and where that housing stock is

13 located as well.

14 So, yes, we do give a high importance in

15 housing. This has been quite an issue in the

16 entire D.C. metro area. But it cannot be

17 concentrated in one area and the missing middle

18 cannot be concentrated in one area as well.

19 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, thank you for

20 clarifying. I guess to summarize, you were -- you

21 support the neighborhood feel and the residential

22 neighborhoods as they are, but find ways to Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 161 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 67

1 accommodate more people such as townhomes and new

2 types of housing that one would not call high

3 density in those places, but higher than what is

4 currently there, but still maintaining a certain

5 neighborhood character that is appreciated.

6 MS. MURGAI: Yes, thank you.

7 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay. Thanks.

8 Commissioners, any other questions. I guess not.

9 Well, thank you again for your testimony.

10 And that actually, I don't have any

11 other people on my list that would like to speak

12 tonight. So, I would ask staff, I don't know if

13 we had any other procedure, anyone else that's

14 calling in or anything or if we had anyone that I

15 am missing.

16 MR. LARSON: Well, I would see if anyone

17 logged in or expressed their interest during the

18 meeting or right up before the meeting they could

19 speak now. But as you say, I don't think I see

20 anyone extra who has joined, so I think we have

21 gone through our list this evening.

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, well, very Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 162 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 68

1 good. We got pretty good testimony for doing this

2 virtually on diverse issues. I believe that we

3 could go to the next topic. I don't think that

4 our intent here is to have Planning Commission

5 discussion, though. I certainly would, before we

6 move on, ask if any Commissioners do feel -- do

7 have any comments they would like to make while we

8 are still on the topic of public testimony and

9 maybe even the topics that were presented to us.

10 COMMISSIONER WOOD: Hi, this is

11 Commissioner Wood, Reverend Wood. I think it's

12 important to keep in mind some of the references

13 to COVID-19 was like when we're -- when it's over.

14 We don't know when it's going to be over. We are

15 looking to go in to 2021 with residue from

16 COVID-19. So I think it's important to keep in

17 mind that we do have to start thinking around

18 transportation and other issues as related to

19 COVID-19.

20 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes, I would agree

21 and I look forward to our ongoing discussion on

22 that in the sessions ahead even following our Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 163 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 69

1 testimony that there is a lot to be said about the

2 coronavirus, but for our purposes here as planning

3 commissioners that is a big chunk of what there is

4 to be said in looking at it. And you're right, we

5 are in it right now. We don't know, we don't know

6 what the future holds.

7 Any other commissioners? Commissioner

8 Hadley go ahead.

9 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Was Commissioner

10 Goodman trying to speak? I will yield to her if

11 she is.

12 COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: That's all right,

13 I'll wait.

14 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Okay.

15 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Go ahead, I

16 apologize. I don't have the hand up thing

17 tonight, but we're working it out. You're next,

18 Commissioner Goodman.

19 COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Well, I was just

20 going to say I think we have had a lot of good

21 testimony form the Halpine Walk folks and I would

22 like to say that I for one support their request Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 164 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 70

1 to leave the boundaries as they are. I think they

2 had some good arguments and it appears to me that

3 there are a lot of representatives from that block

4 that felt the same way about it. So I would just

5 propose that we deal with that issue right now.

6 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Well, we have

7 concluded the testimony, so, Commissioners, what

8 do you think? I think just to clarify, yes, we

9 had three people testify, but we also received

10 other written testimony including, I believe a

11 petition with more names if I'm not mistaken on

12 that. But regardless, it seems like it is not a

13 change that we need to make, but rather a change

14 that we may simply want to prevent. In other

15 words, leave it as it is. Because the plan right

16 now proposes to make the changes. Is that

17 correct? So we would say don't make that change

18 in the current draft of the plan.

19 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Mr. Chairman.

20 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Sure, Commissioner

21 Hadley.

22 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: This is not the Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 165 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 71

1 point I was going to raise earlier. But I am

2 inclined to be friendly to idea of not making a

3 change but if we have two meetings to poll the

4 testimony. I think procedurally we might hesitate

5 to make any change in so with public testimony.

6 Not that that would necessarily change your mind

7 but in fairness give everybody a chance and then

8 if you come back and it's pretty easily again.

9 MR. DUMAIS: This is Nick, and I just

10 wanted to follow Commissioner Hadley's comments.

11 If the commission is interested in taking a policy

12 position it's probably way into an advertised work

13 session do that. Because it's like an advertised

14 as public testimony, although comments by

15 commissioners are perfectly fine. There couldn't

16 be discussions and votes on policy issues.

17 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thanks for weighing

18 in today. Commissioner Tyner, you also have a

19 comment.

20 COMMISSIONER TYNER: I agree with my two

21 colleagues in both ways except our procedures have

22 always been that we wait until all of our public Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 166 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 72

1 hearings are over because we may not know exactly

2 what has been submitted in writing, let alone

3 whether we will have other kinds of commentary at

4 our next hearing. Not so much on this particular

5 issue but on housing and some other areas, I'm

6 sure there will be people coming forward the next

7 time. I would feel much more comfortable making

8 any kind of a decision on anything that comes

9 forward. Once we see the record close and then we

10 see what we are dealing with. Because you never

11 know what might pop up. I agree with our

12 attorney, believe it or not.

13 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: The eagerness around

14 the issue is duly noted, but I feel based on the

15 comments thus far we might not have enough for

16 that such a motion to carry if we were to. So I

17 would say let's follow the advice.

18 Unless any other commissioner wants to

19 weigh in one way or another, I would say with all

20 due respect to Commissioner Goodman suggestion

21 that we just leave it as a comment and follow the

22 advice of our legal counsel and continue this Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 167 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 73

1 after public record as closed.

2 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Mr. Chair, I'd

3 like to come back to the comment I was going to

4 offer before we were going to --

5 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Oh, I'm sorry, yes,

6 please do.

7 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: I'm greatly

8 offended.

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Technical issues.

10 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: It's just a

11 reminder from me in referring to the need to

12 consider changes in the pandemic environment. We

13 are also recognizing that the variation in our

14 language we are also including articulation of

15 post pandemic environment there may be long term

16 changes that are influenced by this time. So I

17 hate to leave on just this COVID or pandemic type

18 changes. But we will see if there will be rapid

19 change in a number, including in a section of what

20 kind of housing.

21 But I'm wondering, and we don't have to

22 discuss it now, but if we can just put a footnote Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 168 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 74

1 or a placeholder, it may be that when our hearings

2 are through that we may want to consider adding a

3 sort of a flexibility clause out of another

4 existing clause. But there may need to be a

5 sooner review than 10 years on the issues that

6 we've discussed tonight because really the trends

7 and the data are either only barely beginning for

8 me or I'd even be emerging yet. I think I would

9 hate to see us adopt some view of the post

10 pandemic environment in anticipation of some

11 assumption that, in fact, never occurs or occurs

12 doubly or whatever. Thank you.

13 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you,

14 Commissioner Hadley. I would add the thought as

15 well, you know we did have one testimony that kind

16 of was suggesting that, I think pause was the word

17 that they used with this process because of the

18 coronavirus and, you know, that seed has been

19 planted in our minds. Maybe a pause isn't a pause

20 but a slower -- a slow down on that issue or those

21 issues, but something to consider as we go forward

22 with this. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 169 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 75

1 And also, you know, I mean, there is

2 really going to be a lot to unpack when we do get

3 into our deliberations. The coronavirus in some

4 ways is simply accelerating trends we already know

5 about and have already seen like retail under the

6 stress, people buying things online and people

7 being able to work remotely at home. Those all

8 started before the pandemic and they're just

9 accelerated.

10 At the same time, though, it might even

11 -- that acceleration might bring new things that

12 completely the opposite of our assumptions and

13 some of that came through this evening with some

14 of the -- I think on smart growth and just the

15 questions is the smart growth model still hold,

16 yes or no, and not to get into that tonight.

17 There was certainly a lot. It was -- I enjoyed

18 the testimony and the thoughts and comments and

19 the ideas raised. It was a lot to think about.

20 Anyone else?

21 MR. LARSON: Mr. Chair. This is Clark

22 Larson. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 170 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 76

1 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Hi, go ahead.

2 MR. LARSON: I just had one question for

3 you. I know this might be a little tone deaf to

4 what you were just saying about not speeding up or

5 slowing down. I wondered if you wanted to

6 entertain the advertising the closing record date.

7 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: It's a good segue.

8 MR. LARSON: Yeah, I know. Let me just

9 complete the part of what you just said. We feel

10 that it's important for the public to know at some

11 point when the deadline is. It's certainly been

12 extended past two weeks after the last public

13 hearing date before. You could, it just is up to

14 you.

15 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yeah, and that sort

16 of actually before -- thank you, Mr. Larson,

17 because we really shouldn't move on to any further

18 agenda item until we address that. That's part of

19 the agenda item until we address that. That is

20 part of this agenda item is part is the -- the

21 staff has suggested that we set a date to close

22 the public record. But my comments, I was Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 171 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 77

1 thinking more post closure so it's just our own

2 deliberations on the points that have been already

3 raised. We're not too at odds in that thought

4 vein. But to do that we would specifically need,

5 let me look at our agenda because I know you

6 presented it to us. There was a date, all right

7 the thing between monitors.

8 MR. LARSON: Yeah, we suggested October

9 7th.

10 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: October 7th at the

11 close of business as the end date for when written

12 testimony can still be submitted to us, to the

13 commission. And that would actually mark our next

14 public hearing is September 23, thank you. Yeah,

15 and so that would actually be two weeks from that

16 date, too, which seems like an ample period of

17 time for anyone to digest and get back to us on

18 whatever thing might be raised at that next

19 meeting if that were what was driving their

20 written testimony.

21 Commissioners, what is the general

22 consensus on the staff's suggestion on that date? Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 172 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 78

1 COMMISSIONER PITMAN: I have a question.

2 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Commissioner Pitman.

3 COMMISSIONER PITMAN: I know we talked a

4 lot at the beginning of the meeting what was that

5 it was to advertise to the public. Mr. Larson,

6 what -- how will this go back out to the public,

7 about the testimony date ending? Will you guys

8 run it again in Rockville Reports? Will you

9 contact the civic associations again to let them

10 know that the deadlines are October 7th or

11 whatever deadline it is? What kind of public

12 contact will there be post public hearing to make

13 sure that people know when the deadline is for the

14 comments?

15 MR. LARSON: Right, I think that's --

16 you're right on. Every media outlet, every way of

17 communication we have used in the past, including

18 letters to official agencies, but also social

19 media, emails, website, I think we should use it

20 all. To let everyone know, once you decide what

21 the closure date is, that it will be closing and

22 even if you have submitted testimony already, you Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 173 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 79

1 can submit more but this will. We are letting

2 people know this will be the opportunity to give

3 the Planning Commission your thoughts and comments

4 before they start deliberating on it at the work

5 sessions. So, yeah, I would imagine that we would

6 use every avenue that we can.

7 COMMISSIONER PITMAN: So, outreach

8 continues after the last public hearing?

9 MR. LARSON: After the last public

10 hearing on the 23rd, we could do one more blast.

11 I imagine even late this week, even next week. If

12 you do decide on date of closure tonight, we would

13 everyone know that there is another public hearing

14 coming up for oral testimony and the date of the

15 last opportunity to provide written testimony. I

16 don't know if we would do all of those media

17 outlets and communication avenues between the 23rd

18 and the 7th. But, you know, social media

19 certainly, the easy stuff online probably, not

20 letters to all of the agencies again.

21 COMMISSIONER PITMAN: Okay. Okay, thank

22 you. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 174 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 80

1 MR. LARSON: Then I have a question

2 related to that. How would it affect staff's

3 planning and execution of all of that campaign

4 effort, communication effort if we did not set

5 that date tonight but rather at the next hearing?

6 So, two-week delay. Well, we would probably go

7 about it the same way, but you would give any

8 member of the Rockville community, the general

9 public less notice. It really wouldn't change my

10 work, this is my job, I'm going to do it anyway.

11 It would just -- if it is the 7th and you decide

12 on the 23rd, people would only have 2 more weeks,

13 so we're just seeing that giving this advance

14 notice, if you decide tonight, is more of a

15 service to the public.

16 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, I don't know

17 if it's a question for you or Mr. Dumais, but to

18 set that date tonight is not the actual closure of

19 the public record. The record would actually

20 close on the 7th? I think we have a meeting, no

21 we would meet after that. Or would it be that we

22 would vote on it tonight and then it just sets in Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 175 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 81

1 motion and it ends at that time? That's all

2 that's needed.

3 MR. DUMAIS: My understanding is that

4 they have, you would vote on it tonight, you would

5 not need a separate vote to close the record. So,

6 you could keep the record open, for example a week

7 behind here public hearing, your last public

8 hearing without actually taking a vote to close.

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, so that's what

10 it is. Thank you. Commissioners, further

11 comments? Commissioner Tyner.

12 COMMISSIONER TYNER: I just would like

13 to comment that setting the time tonight gives

14 people another whole month to get their act

15 together for which they should have been thinking

16 in the last 7 months. I think it's particularly

17 good to set the date because after supposing that

18 on the 9th of October is the closing date, we only

19 have four meetings after that to begin looking at

20 all of this material. So obviously we are not

21 going to finish, in my opinion obviously we won't

22 finish it up this year. But the sooner that the Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 176 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 82

1 public knows that this is a hard fast date bang,

2 we could, they could proceed and we could proceed

3 too.

4 I would also note, in the past there

5 have been occasions where when we were doing the

6 Rockville Pike plan, we had from the public

7 hearings we had a closing public hearing, closing

8 the public record which we then extended because

9 all of a sudden in between the two there seemed to

10 be a whole lot more activity. So that was still

11 even though we voted tonight and picked the

12 particular date it would still allow us

13 opportunity if there was a huge surge of something

14 and we wished to discuss extending it another week

15 or something after that, we could still do that

16 too. But I really think we should think in terms

17 of how many meetings we have scheduled at the

18 moment of this year. Because we've only got one

19 in November and one in December.

20 So, we need to keep our head of steam

21 going for a whole lot of this stuff. As you

22 mentioned the COVID-19, a lot of the things we Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 177 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 83

1 will need to look at, as I mentioned before, in

2 part II is all our bits and pieces of what the

3 city's going to do in a particular planning area

4 because some of that depending on how the budgets

5 are going to look, we may want to take a look at

6 that too as we get into the nitty gritty of part

7 II, I think part I we've pretty well worked on.

8 Thank you, sir.

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you,

10 Commissioner Tyner. Other Commissioners?

11 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Mr. Chair.

12 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Commissioner Hadley.

13 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: If I understand

14 correctly the consideration is whether we will be

15 closing the public record as to Volume II planning

16 areas as a question of a higher plan.

17 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: That's a fair

18 question and I actually assumed it was the plan,

19 but, Mr. Dumais, can you please tell us, are we

20 closing the public record on both volumes or only

21 on Volume II?

22 MR. DUMAIS: This might be a good Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 178 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 84

1 question for staff because I don't know if we had

2 previously closed the record on volume I which was

3 handled in a separate series of public hearings.

4 So, I'll defer to staff on this one. If that is,

5 in fact, the case, then really the testimony here

6 technically should be limited to the second volume

7 of the comp plan and we would only be closing the

8 public hearing, excuse me the public record for

9 that second volume.

10 MR. LARSON: This is Clark. Yes, that

11 is my understanding although we recognize there

12 might be comments and discussions about the

13 planning areas' volume that pertain and go back to

14 the elements. So, there's a lot of crossover

15 here. Previously, we did have a public record

16 open for Volume 1. We hadn't produced Volume II

17 yet or drafted the planning areas yet, so that was

18 closed. And then we came back and did a bunch of

19 work in the office to produce the areas volume and

20 now that is what open today. So, I wouldn't say

21 that we would prohibit people from speaking on

22 anything in Volume I. But we are really looking Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 179 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 85

1 for feedback and testimony on planning areas

2 volume.

3 But I believe closing the public record

4 would close it out for the entire comprehensive

5 plan at this stage Unless the Planning Commission

6 decided there was another reason to reopen it

7 again before they take action and send it to the

8 Mayor and Council. But of course, the Mayor and

9 Council will have another opportunity for

10 testimony and their own review.

11 MR. LEVY: Mr. Chair, if I might, it's

12 David Levy.

13 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes, welcome, Mr.

14 Levy.

15 MR. LEVY: In our communications to the

16 public we have said that the primary focus is on

17 the planning areas, but we have said that

18 testimony could come in on other parts of the

19 plan. And so, I think we have generally

20 communicated that the plan is open. In prior

21 communications with the city attorney's office, I

22 have understood that when the plan is open, the Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 180 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 86

1 plan is open.

2 So, we kind of segment these things, but

3 if somebody gives testimony on the plan when the

4 record is open. They are giving testimony on the

5 plan. You know, they might give it on a

6 completely different portion than we're thinking

7 about. That doesn't mean the Commissioner, the

8 Mayor and Council have to take that up at that

9 time. But if the record is open for the plan then

10 its open is what I have understood. So, if you

11 were to close the record, you would be closing it

12 for the plan.

13 MR. LARSON: Yes, I would agree with

14 that. That makes sense to me.

15 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: All right, I will

16 also agree. We didn't have a plan II when plan I

17 was closed so it closed the plan. Now in two

18 parts but it closed the plan. And we ourselves

19 are telling everybody that we want to harmonize

20 and that these are kind of interrelated components

21 so if you want to see the next few weeks or the

22 next few months open it's all interrelated. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 181 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 87

1 Commissioner Tyner, go ahead.

2 COMMISSIONER TYNER: Just a personal

3 comment. We did all of the elements in part I.

4 And that was based on what we had talked about and

5 what the public had told us and all that. And

6 when we were doing part II, we had in essence

7 operationalized some of those elements that we

8 talked about. And there is always my interest

9 that once we were through with part II in making

10 whatever adjustments and whatever we still had an

11 opportunity to look at the elements in part I in

12 case we would want to strengthen some part of it

13 on the environmental area or housing or whatever

14 before that actually got clocked in and we set it

15 up to Mayor and Council. There is always the

16 opportunity to adjust the broad brush stuff based

17 on what we've done in the planning areas if in

18 fact it doesn't look like we got a whole lot of

19 stuff but you just never know. And that's just a

20 comment for everybody's edification.

21 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Mr. Chair.

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Mr. Hadley. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 182 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 88

1 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: If I may to just

2 put something on the table. I move that we

3 approve closure of the public record on the 2040

4 plan in its entirety both parts in Volume I and

5 Volume II on October 7th, 2020.

6 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Is there a --

7 actually could I offer a friendly amendment as

8 close of business October 7, 2020?

9 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Of course, agreed.

10 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Is there a second to

11 that?

12 COMMISSIONER PITMAN: I'll second that.

13 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you. Sorry,

14 who seconded that? I don't see a name on the

15 screen.

16 COMMISSIONER PITMAN: Pitman.

17 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Oh, Commissioner

18 Pitman, thank you. There we go. All right.

19 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: For discussion I

20 would just offer that the idea of sending notice

21 out as early as possible. After tonight's

22 meeting, after this is passed would be good. And Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 183 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 89

1 that notice could make it clear that the feedback

2 that will be entertained both at the next hearing

3 and up to the cutoff date would be on any part of

4 the plan or has the two parts coordinate.

5 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yeah, the only thing

6 that I might add for discussion is that there was

7 some talk of October, November, December in our

8 agenda. I don't think that has anything to do

9 with when we would want to close or this motion to

10 close on the 7th. But I will say I don't know if

11 we'll get an update later on this evening on that

12 or if I would have to as chair work on that to

13 flush out to know what the rest of our year looks

14 like, our calendar year. So, we are assuming they

15 will all be work sessions, they may or may not be.

16 It's something that we will have to address, maybe

17 even if not tonight at the next meeting just to

18 get a better feel of that.

19 Other than that, any other discussion or

20 should we proceed to a vote? No? Okay, let's

21 vote Commissioner by Commissioner. I see

22 Commissioner Pitman first. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 184 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 90

1 COMMISSIONER PITMAN: Yes.

2 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: You vote yes? Okay.

3 Commissioner Hadley.

4 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Yes.

5 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Commissioner Wood.

6 COMMISSIONER WOOD: No, I think it

7 should be extended.

8 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay. Commissioner

9 Goodman.

10 COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Yes.

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes. Am I missing

12 anyone? Commissioner Tyner, how do you vote?

13 COMMISSIONER TYNER: I think we need to

14 set the date, so this is for part I and part II to

15 be closed?

16 MR. DUMAIS: Correct.

17 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: That's the motion,

18 yes.

19 COMMISSIONER TYNER: Okay, I vote no.

20 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: You also vote no?

21 COMMISSIONER TYNER: They should be --,

22 I don't want them, we are concentrating on part Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 185 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 91

1 II. We need to finish part II and then we can

2 move on with part I if we wish to make any

3 adjustments on and beyond that. It might be a

4 moot point, but you never know.

5 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: So, you're casting a

6 no vote on this, we would have to rephrase the

7 motion to your point. But I'm going to also vote

8 no. And so, the motion isn't going to pass, it's

9 going to tie 3-3.

10 And let's consider what Commissioner

11 Tyner just said about the two parts. I want to

12 hear what your point is there.

13 COMMISSIONER TYNER: I don't have a bit

14 of problem with doing a motion if it's only part

15 II this time.

16 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay. Well, is

17 there any discussion on that, Commissioners?

18 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: I would just offer

19 a point; I'm not violently opposed to leaving it

20 open other than part II. My point is, it really

21 is dragging. I want you to prepare the public

22 notice this fair and says it will be proposing at Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 186 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 92

1 both points and at the next hearing or written

2 comments to get objection and, as Commissioner

3 Tyner said, we can extend it. My concern is that

4 no one pays attention and then we go for another

5 month or two and how much shorter it would make

6 subsidy process by simply delaying. I think this

7 would be a way of encouraging people, if you want

8 more time to ask for it.

9 MR. DUMAIS: And this is just for

10 clarification purposes. So, it sounds as if, when

11 the Planning Commission initially considered

12 volume I, they had a comment period that

13 ultimately was closed. The comment period for the

14 plan obviously focused on volume II but able to

15 accept comments on both volumes of the plan was

16 then reopened and we are considering closing that

17 only for volume II but leaving it open for volume

18 I. I just want to be sure that is what the

19 commission is talking about if not I have some

20 concern that there is a little bit of lack of

21 clarity there. Maybe I am missing something.

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: It adds with our Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 187 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 93

1 earlier fall of conversation. I think you have

2 stated it correctly that the motion to close the

3 whole thing, parts I and II did not pass. We

4 could have -- if a Commissioner wants to make

5 another motion, it sounds like there's greater

6 support on closing the record on Volume II. We

7 can have such a motion and it could be voted on

8 and it could pass. And I would say the

9 interpretation of that is this evening they are

10 saying any comments on Volume II of master plan

11 must be submitted by COB on October 7th. There

12 would probably have to be another vote.

13 MR. DUMAIS: I want to obviously defer

14 to the will of the Commission. From a practical

15 perspective, I think that might be very difficult

16 for staff to administer. If, for example, it

17 would require that staff were to review each one

18 that came in after the closure of volume II,

19 determine whether or not it related to volume II

20 or Volume I and then reject it if staff determines

21 that it related to Volume II. And I do not think

22 that is practical. And I think the result of that Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 188 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 94

1 is that I would certainly recommend that staff

2 simply accept all comments that came in regardless

3 of the commission's vote to close the testimony on

4 Volume II. Because the concern will be, of

5 course, that staff will reject testimony and the

6 person who submitted the testimony obviously would

7 object to that.

8 I would recommend very strongly that the

9 commission, whatever the commission decides,

10 closes testimony uniformly and if it chooses then,

11 after a work session or two to reopen the public

12 comment period for Volume I, that would take a

13 separate motion and do that. And I hope that

14 makes sense and the last I'll say on it.

15 Obviously, the commission can vote however it

16 would like to but I'm very concerned about the

17 workability of that.

18 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes, that take on

19 Commissioners, any responses?

20 MR. LEVY: If I might please, Mr.

21 Chairman.

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes, please, Mr. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 189 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 95

1 Levy.

2 MR. LEVY: This public hearing and this

3 public testimony period was advertised primarily

4 as for the planning areas. But we recognize along

5 the lines of what Mr. Dumais is saying, that

6 people might submit testimony that feels more like

7 part I than part II. The advertisement was just

8 to communicate, and if you have comments on the

9 plan, go ahead and make them whether or not it's

10 the planning areas. But it was primarily on the

11 planning areas because that's what the Planning

12 Commission was releasing at that time. So, there

13 was no particular intention and there certainly

14 was no advertisement with an affirmative statement

15 we are requesting testimony on the elements

16 portion of the plan. Though I guess my point of

17 view that it would be a little bit odd to close II

18 and leave I open based on what we advertised to

19 the public.

20 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Mr. Chair.

21 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes, Mr. Hadley.

22 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Look all... well Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 190 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 96

1 maybe the better part of discretion or something.

2 I'm cynical, let's kick this can down the road

3 until the next meeting and the next public

4 hearing. At that point, after we have that public

5 hearing we can decide as to whether we make the

6 uniform motion as to closure or requites of the

7 whole thing. We may be just premature to try to

8 consider it now.

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: That's an option.

10 Commissioner Tyner, go ahead.

11 COMMISSIONER TYNER: I want to thank our

12 attorney, Mr. Dumais, for his proposition. And

13 Dave as usual. Mr. Levy came forward with his

14 comment and I am better than both of them, I would

15 suggest that I'd be willing to change my vote on

16 the original proposal. Mr. Hadley.

17 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: What can I tell

18 you?

19 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: I think that we

20 would need -- I would like to ask Mr. Dumais if we

21 are in order with voting on a motion that did not

22 pass. Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 191 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 97

1 MR. DUMAIS: I think you may just want

2 to make a new motion. Because the initial motion

3 failed so we would just after discussion you make

4 a new motion. That's if Mr. Wasilak agrees.

5 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: If we are in order,

6 then I would entertain a new motion for our

7 further discussion.

8 COMMISSIONER WOOD: Before we do that,

9 can I say something?

10 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Sure, go ahead.

11 COMMISSIONER WOOD: I'm getting an awful

12 lot of feedback. Someone's got an open mike, it's

13 giving a lot of feedback, I can hardly hear what's

14 going on.

15 MS. GILLES: Can I just say one.

16 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes.

17 MS. GILLES: From a practical

18 standpoint, about closing of the -- I will say

19 I've had to in the past couple days and the most

20 recent one speaking with these Rockville

21 neighborhood Association last night. It would be

22 really helpful, as a staff person, to give Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 192 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 98

1 residents a date because I've been asked. And I

2 generally give -- you know, and I generally say,

3 and this is actually more than we generally give.

4 It's usually one week after the close of the

5 public hearing. This is two weeks after. I will

6 just say that people have been asking for a date

7 to feel some assurances.

8 So, it really would be helpful to give

9 closure to it and to be able to provide that date.

10 Just a practical on the ground update.

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Ms.

12 Gilles. And also, I just want to make sure from

13 the staff comments that I heard that no one feels

14 there is confusion amongst the public about that

15 such a closure that we are talking about Planning

16 Area 2 but they know that it follows planning area

17 one which was already dealt with and this would

18 close the whole thing. Any second thoughts on

19 that?

20 MS. GILLES: That is very much

21 emphasizing that this is about the neighborhood

22 specific areas and we talked about the city Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 193 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 99

1 elements previously and we are good with that and

2 now we are moving into the second part.

3 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Sounds good, fair

4 enough. And we didn't really get a lot of

5 Planning Area 1 type stuff this evening, so it

6 seems like it's working. Okay. Commissioner

7 Hadley.

8 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: I'm here. I will

9 make an all new motion, that we close the public

10 record on the entire Rockville 2040 comprehensive

11 plan and this is on October 7th, including both

12 Volumes I and II.

13 COMMISSIONER TYNER: Second.

14 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: It's been moved and

15 seconded. Let's vote Commissioner by

16 Commissioner. Commissioner Tyner, how do you

17 vote?

18 COMMISSIONER TYNER: Yes.

19 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Commissioner Hadley,

20 how do you vote?

21 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: Yes.

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Commissioner Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 194 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 100

1 Goodman, how do you vote?

2 COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Yes.

3 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Commissioner Wood,

4 how do you vote?

5 COMMISSIONER WOOD: Yes.

6 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Commissioner Pitman,

7 how do you vote?

8 COMMISSIONER PITMAN: Yes.

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, and the chair

10 will also vote yes. So that motion carries 6-0

11 with no abstentions. There you have it, October

12 7th, COB. I think with that, we are done.

13 (Whereupon, the PROCEEDINGS were

14 adjourned.)

15 * * * * *

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 195 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 101

1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC

2 I, Carleton J. Anderson, III do hereby

3 certify that the forgoing electronic file when

4 originally transmitted was reduced to text at my

5 direction; that said transcript is a true record

6 of the proceedings therein referenced; that I am

7 neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by

8 any of the parties to the action in which these

9 proceedings were taken; and, furthermore, that I

10 am neither a relative or employee of any attorney

11 or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor

12 financially or otherwise interested in the outcome

13 of this action.

14

15 Carleton J. Anderson, III

16

17 (Signature and Seal on File)

18

19 Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of

20 Virginia

21 Commission No. 351998

22 Expires: November 30, 2020 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 196 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 1 WORD INDEX 23rd 10:6, 9th 10:1 activity 10 14:19, 20 81:18 82:10 < 1 > 79:10, 17 actual 65:20 1,000 52:20 80:12 < A > 80:18 1,500 36:4 245,000 42:7 ability 35:22 ADA 34:19, 10 8:18 25 51:3 able 6:8 21, 21 36:17 37:22 74:5 60:13 10:4 17:8, add 6:10 10,000 42:18 270 22:18 9 26:2 74:14 89:6 100 50:20 45:10 46:19 added 36:4 110 26:22 < 3 > 50:1 75:7 adding 15:6 27:8, 13 3,000 35:21 92:14 98:9 74:2 28:14 30 101:22 absent 4:14 addition 13th 9:14 32,000 42:8 absorb 58:6 6:19 20:14 1460 37:17 3-3 91:9 abstentions 24:19 30:9 39:17 351998 101:21 100:11 35:1 51:22 1488 37:17 38-year-old abysmal 32:18 additional 39:17 21:5 accelerated 11:22 16:10 14th 48:11 3rd 37:21 75:9 42:6 47:6 16-2020 1:1 39:20 accelerating 49:16 16th 4:4, 5 75:4 address 15:8 1972 56:11 < 4 > acceleration 19:5 30:3 1977 26:18 40 23:19 75:11 33:18 34:11 1980 26:20 25:11 accept 10:2 59:12, 20 1999 36:3, 6, 401 26:17 16:10, 18 76:18, 19 13 23:4 92:15 89:16 1A 1:1 < 5 > 94:2 addressing 50 56:10 accepting 32:2 41:17 < 2 > 56 35:21 10:13 42:20 2,300 36:4 5717 19:6 access 35:16 adds 92:22 2016 38:12 5900 50:10, 39:6 43:13 adequate 42:16 17 52:3, 22 63:13, 19 36:5, 13, 17 2019 20:22 53:14 54:11 64:6 adjacent 35:8 42:4, 58:1 62:2, accessibility 37:19 10 14 49:1 adjourned 2020 1:1 accessible 100:14 4:5 9:6, 15 < 6 > 49:5 adjust 87:16 88:5, 8 6-0 100:10 accommodate adjustment 101:22 67:1 64:21 2021 68:15 < 7 > accommodating adjustments 2030 42:5 75,000 42:6 52:20 87:10 91:3 2040 1:1 750 39:6 accommodations administer 4:18 8:1 7th 16:11 41:11 93:16 12:9 13:18 77:9, 10 account 45:16 administration 15:3 41:1 78:10 79:18 accounts 14:9 13:7 42:19 43:1 80:11, 20 achieve 43:9 58:8 88:3 88:5 89:10 act 81:14 Administrations 99:10 93:11 99:11 action 85:7 39:3 216 49:22 100:12 101:8, 13 ado 17:5 221 57:18 actions 8:19 adopt 11:17

23 77:14 < 9 > 74:9 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 197 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 2 adoption 87:1 95:9 apartment 36:20 37:17 11:18 96:10 97:10 58:4, 12 41:6 44:1 advance 80:13 Alaire 53:18 60:17 48:9 49:10 advertise 60:14 apartments 51:14, 17 78:5 allow 5:18 14:7 55:2, 3, 4 advertised 23:4 39:4 apologies 56:8, 14, 17, 13:14 71:12, 43:18 46:5 4:9 17:20 18 57:20 13 95:3, 18 60:11 82:12 apologize 58:6, 9, 11, advertisement allowed 22:1 69:16 18, 21 59:1, 95:7, 14 43:17 52:5 Apparently 3, 12, 20 advertising 53:2 60:21 64:4, 21 76:6 allowing appear 33:3 65:1, 4 advice 72:17, 53:14 61:21 appeared 59:6 66:16, 17, 18 22 ALTON 2:15 appears 83:3 87:13 advise 39:11 33:16 34:2, 32:19 37:3 98:16, 16 advocating 3, 5 37:1, 3, 70:2 99:5 65:2, 9 5 applied 32:11 AREAS 1:1 affair 38:15 amendment applies 43:7 4:17 8:13, affect 51:6 88:7 47:13 19 9:2, 2 62:16 80:2 amenities apply 8:18 11:2 16:1, affinity 52:12, 16 59:6 9 30:7 55:13 63:19, 22 appreciate 43:8 49:11 affirmative amiss 17:4 25:22 37:4 51:9 54:16, 43:1 95:14 amount 43:19 45:4 49:19 18 55:13 afford 62:12 ample 77:16 56:19 57:15 59:8 60:12 affordability analysis 61:15 62:7 64:21 65:14 46:11, 11, 19 25:6 34:6 64:18 72:5 83:16 affordable 42:16 45:22 appreciated 84:13, 17, 19 29:8 47:5 analyze 43:15 37:1 40:5 85:1, 17 59:14 ANDREA 2:14 44:8 67:5 87:17 95:4, agencies Ann 32:13 approach 10, 11 98:22 13:6 78:18 ANNE 2:4 11:13 arguments 79:20 announcement approaching 70:2 AGENDA 1:1 14:9 52:22 Arlington 4:14 76:18, answer 30:11 appropriate 51:18 19, 20 77:5 45:10 46:17 49:11, 13 arrange 17:7 89:8 48:5 approval 8:2 articles 14:3 ago 9:15 answered 11:17 27:8 articulation 15:17 49:18 approve 88:3 73:14 agree 28:12 answers approved 8:5 asked 29:10 41:15 68:20 34:15 35:6 51:15 52:18 98:1 71:20 72:11 anticipating approximately asking 32:13, 86:13, 16 18:7 20:20 42:8 13 33:18 agreed 88:9 46:3 Ardennes 55:21 98:6 agrees 97:4 anticipation 52:19 58:5 asks 28:12, ahead 29:2 74:10 area 11:5, 16 30:1 32:8 anyway 80:10 16 21:9, 14, assessed 43:9 56:2 anyways 34:2 20 22:11, 14, 23:10 68:22 69:8, 15 34:7, 11, assessment

15 76:1 22 35:19 19:19 42:17 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 198 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 3 Assistant 9 52:20 70:10 72:12 boundary 2:12, 15 58:5 79:6 85:3 53:16 55:8, Associates avenues 79:17 benefit 49:6 20 56:21 26:21, 21 avoid 20:13, best 5:12 bracket 63:15 27:4, 8, 10 18 14:10, 13 breaking 28:12, 15 awards 52:6 19:19 27:5 52:22 association aware 10:19 32:21 48:6 Brewer 40:12, 5:22 6:1 41:4 54:9 60:6 21 14:4, 5 55:5 Bethesda 38:4 brick 24:9 50:8 56:9, awful 97:11 BETINA 18:2, bridge 35:21 9, 15 57:17 2 brief 7:2 97:21 < B > better 26:10 briefly 5:4 associations back 13:21 34:11 60:16 bring 45:12 78:9 18:5, 11 61:13 65:3, 62:13 64:8 assumed 83:18 20:21 32:17 14 89:18 75:11 assuming 33:15 34:7 96:1, 14 bringing 31:3 30:4 89:14 35:8 36:3, beyond 23:16 broad 87:16 assumption 6 46:18 45:18 91:3 brought 65:18 74:11 49:7 66:8 big 65:21 brush 87:16 assumptions 71:8 73:3 69:3 budgets 83:4 75:12 77:17 78:6 bit 4:9 buffer 51:8 assurances 84:13, 18 6:6 10:17, build 27:17 98:7 backed 60:10 22 12:17 building attention backing 50:18 17:21 25:5 26:22 27:11 11:14 39:18 balance 48:5 91:13 29:12 31:14 92:4 46:10 48:17 92:20 95:17 51:6 52:9 Attorney bang 82:1 bits 83:2 buildings 2:15 72:12 barely 74:7 blast 79:10 27:7 30:20 96:12 101:10 base 41:21 block 50:10, 33:1, 2 attorneys 42:13 46:9 17, 21, 22 bunch 48:17 39:10 41:2 based 5:5 52:1, 3, 5, 84:18 attorney's 19:19 20:9 14, 19, 21 buses 35:12, 85:21 21:9 23:20 53:1, 13, 15 14 attract 42:13 72:14 87:4, 54:11 58:1, business audio 17:12 16 95:18 20 62:2, 14 16:11 77:11 37:8 basically 64:12, 13 88:8 authorities 13:22 65:10 66:3 buy 22:13 41:13 42:1, basis 39:13 70:3 buying 75:6 20 52:18 beginning blocks 51:16 Bye 33:15 availability 74:7 78:4 60:2, 3 59:14 behalf 26:20 Board 35:10 < C > available 37:15 44:12, boarder 60:12 calendar 4:21 5:16 14 50:11 body 22:20 89:14 13:11 15:12 believe 4:12, bottom 52:15 call 46:22 19:20 34:18 13 6:13 bought 22:15 67:2 37:8, 9 7:9 18:2 Boulevard called 56:10 39:21 43:20 21:16 29:9, 26:17 calling 49:3 14 32:15 boundaries 18:18, 19 Avenue 19:7 40:4 48:12 55:2, 11 67:14

38:10 39:4, 51:2 68:2 70:1 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 199 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 4 Cambridge 23:1 24:16, 13:9 chilling 50:8, 12 21, 22 25:17, chance 71:7 38:14 51:12 18 26:8, 14 change 28:1, choices 51:20 campaign 80:3 28:19 29:2, 14 30:20 choose 21:17 capabilities 18, 22 31:4, 31:10 34:13 chooses 63:11 19 32:7 36:12 43:16 55:10 94:10 car 20:19 33:5, 11, 14 45:19 46:10 chow 53:11 care 33:14 34:4 36:22 48:20 49:13 Chris 40:20 40:7 49:21 37:6, 11 54:17 55:8, CHRISTOPHER 52:8 39:22 40:7, 20 58:14 2:15 40:11 career 48:10 15 44:7, 17 62:14 70:13, chunk 69:3 Carleton 45:8 46:16 13, 17 71:3, church 35:2 101:2, 15 47:10 49:15, 5, 6 73:19 56:11 carried 38:12 21 50:5 80:9 96:15 circle 18:5 carries 53:21 54:7, changed 9:21 circulating 100:10 20 55:3, 22 19:16 20:3 4:21 carry 72:16 57:5, 9, 13 47:1 55:9 circumstances cars 35:12, 60:19 61:2, changeovers 6:4 15 52:2 6, 14, 19 49:6 cited 25:4 57:3 64:16 65:11 changes 9:13 45:15 case 63:16 66:19 67:7, 11:16, 21 Citizens 56:8 84:5 87:12 22 68:20 22:16 35:4 CITY 1:1 casting 91:5 69:15 70:6, 36:11, 16 2:15 4:3, 6 cause 51:20 20 71:17 43:4 46:4 7:7 11:22 Center 27:5, 72:13 73:2, 55:15 57:22 13:3, 12 17 28:7, 11, 5, 9 74:13 59:19 70:16 14:7, 10 17 29:12 75:21 76:1, 73:12, 16, 18 19:13, 16, 18, 30:7 31:8, 7, 15 77:10 changing 21 24:4 15 32:1, 11, 78:2 80:16 41:10 27:21 36:13 16, 18, 20, 22 81:9 83:9, Chapman 39:10, 14 34:14 36:11 11, 12, 17 38:10, 14 41:12 42:18 37:16 85:11, 13 39:4, 9, 16 45:1 51:14, certain 86:15 87:21, character 15 60:7 23:19, 20 22 88:6, 10, 27:18 51:7 62:9 64:10 67:4 13, 17 89:5, 53:8, 12 66:8 85:21 certainly 12 90:2, 5, 59:11 63:5 98:22 31:17 48:8, 8, 11, 17, 20 64:13 67:5 city's 5:16 14 68:5 91:5, 16 22:21 42:15 75:17 76:11 92:22 94:18, characteristics 43:8 58:9 79:19 94:1 22 95:20, 21 11:7 62:11 83:3 95:13 96:9, 19 66:2 citywide CERTIFICATE 97:5, 10, 16 charge 7:21 8:19 11:12 101:1 98:11 99:3, charged 8:9 65:6 certify 101:3 14, 19, 22 CHARLES 2:3 civic 5:22 Chair 2:3 100:3, 6, 9, 9 cheap 53:11 14:4 78:9 4:2 6:7 Chairman check 15:9, claim 39:13 7:14 16:21 25:4 37:13 10 clarification 17:16, 18 70:19 94:21 Chesapeake 92:10 18:17, 20 chamber 6:1 37:16 clarify 65:9

19:4, 8 70:8 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 200 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 5 clarifying closure 77:1 92:2, 15 73:2, 7, 10 23:5 37:2 78:21 79:12 93:10 94:2 74:14 78:1, 40:3 44:10 80:18 88:3 95:8 98:13 2, 3 79:7, 54:2 56:3 93:18 96:6 commerce 6:1 21 81:11, 12 64:17 66:20 98:9, 15 13:9 83:10, 11, 12, clarity 92:21 COB 93:11 commercial 13 86:7 CLARK 2:11 100:12 11:9 43:4, 87:1, 2, 21 7:20 75:21 code 29:14 18 46:4, 6 88:1, 9, 12, 84:10 colleagues 49:12 16, 17, 19 Clark's 56:20 25:21 71:21 COMMISSION 89:21, 21, 22 clause 74:3, come 9:4 1:1 2:2 90:1, 3, 4, 5, 4 10:18 11:18 4:4 8:4, 9, 6, 8, 10, 12, clear 20:5 22:5, 19 16, 22 9:7, 13, 19, 21 53:3 59:19 25:6 64:4 11 10:10 91:10, 13, 18 89:1 71:8 73:3 15:4, 13, 21 92:2 93:4 clearinghouse 85:18 16:14 34:9 95:20, 22 12:21 comes 15:7, 36:2 37:14 96:10, 11, 17 Clearly 60:3 16, 19 72:8 39:16 41:4 97:8, 11 cleavage comfortable 42:2 43:12, 99:6, 8, 13, 50:21 72:7 21 50:16 15, 16, 16, 18, climate 46:9 coming 44:1 54:17 55:10 19, 21, 22 48:19 72:6 79:14 56:1 60:10 100:2, 3, 5, clocked 87:14 comment 9:1 64:2 68:4 6, 8 close 10:11 12:5 13:11 71:11 77:13 commissioners 15:14 16:11 15:2 44:10 79:3 85:5 4:12 7:4, 54:15 57:11 46:18 47:6 92:11, 19 17 17:12 63:10 72:9 56:7 57:1 93:14 94:9, 23:5 24:18 76:21 77:11 71:19 72:21 9, 15 95:12 28:20 29:19 80:20 81:5, 73:3 81:13 101:21 32:3 33:6 8 85:4 87:3, 20 Commissioner 37:2 40:2, 86:11 88:8 92:12, 13 2:4, 5, 6, 7, 16 44:9 89:9, 10 94:12 96:14 8, 9 4:13 49:17 53:22 93:2 94:3 commentary 17:14, 17, 19 54:14 56:3 95:17 98:4, 72:3 24:20 25:1, 57:6 60:20 18 99:9 commented 1, 3, 16, 19 67:8 68:6 closed 4:6 23:8 28:22 29:1, 69:3, 7 73:1 84:2, comments 7:5 3, 17, 21, 22 70:7 71:15 18 86:17, 17, 9:19 14:17 30:2 31:2, 77:21 81:10 18 90:15 16:3, 7 5 32:5, 7, 9 83:10 91:17 92:13 23:2 24:2, 44:9, 11, 12, 94:19 closely 25:14 17 33:8 16, 18, 18, 20 COMMISSION'S closes 94:10 44:6, 8 45:8 47:8, 1:1 4:17 closing 76:6 49:16, 19 10, 12 48:7 8:3 62:1 78:21 81:18 56:20 57:2, 56:5, 6, 22 94:3 82:7, 7 7 60:21 68:10, 11 Commonwealth 83:15, 20 68:7 71:10, 69:7, 9, 9, 101:19 84:7 85:3 14 72:15 12, 14, 18, 19 communicate 86:11 92:16 75:18 76:22 70:19, 20, 22 95:8 93:6 97:18 78:14 79:3 71:10, 18, 20 communicated

81:11 84:12 72:18, 20 85:20 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 201 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 6 communication 41:1 46:2, connect 17:9 convinced 78:17 79:17 8 49:8 18:13 26:2 20:2 80:4 50:19 53:4 connection coordinate communications 59:22 85:4 59:9 89:4 85:15, 21 99:10 consensus Corner 37:19 communities compromising 77:22 56:12 50:12 51:13 27:17 consider corona 23:11, 58:13, 18 computers 54:17 73:12 13, 13 45:17 community 61:15 74:2, 21 coronavirus 19:13 53:9 concentrated 91:10 96:8 4:7 46:1, 7 56:9 57:21 20:8 47:21 consideration 69:2 74:18 60:4, 8, 11 52:1 66:17, 12:6 83:14 75:3 63:4 66:4 18 considerations correct 31:8 80:8 concentrating 43:14 33:16, 21 commute 22:7 90:22 considered 70:17 90:16 commuting concentration 92:11 correctly 20:17 24:8 51:16 considering 57:10 83:14 comp 84:7 concept 30:4, 44:6 92:16 93:2 company 44:13 7 consistent cost 21:10, company's concern 12:7 18 65:17 34:19 36:6, consists 11:1 Council 8:6, competing 14 58:7, 19 constantly 7 35:9 48:18 59:13 92:3, 41:14 42:4 85:8, 20 94:4 constrained 9 86:8 competitiveness concerned 38:8 87:15 41:20 94:16 construction counsel complete concerns 9:1 52:4 53:2 72:22 101:7, 39:19 76:9 34:7 35:7, 58:3 11 completed 8:5 10 59:5, 18 contact 14:6 countless completely conclude 78:9, 12 28:4 20:2 24:3 42:20 CONT'D 3:1 counts 55:16 61:15 75:12 concluded contends 27:4 County 13:5, 86:6 70:7 content 16:2 6 51:15, 18 complex 35:15 concludes context 6:17 52:7, 17 complexes 16:16 continue couple 97:19 58:4 60:17 condemnation 24:10 46:21 course 85:8 compliance 39:13 72:22 88:9 94:5 36:17 conditions continued Court 49:22 component 47:2 42:14 50:9 57:19 32:21 conduct 19:19 continues cover 11:5 components conducting 41:7 43:14, COVID 20:1 86:20 4:8 23:3 22 48:13, 20 63:12 73:17 COMPREHENSIVE conferencing 79:8 COVID-19 1:1 4:18 61:12 contradiction 20:2 22:21 7:8, 22 confusion 51:4 68:13, 16, 19 8:10 11:19 98:14 contrast 59:7 82:22 12:8 13:1 congestion convenience critical 16:5 27:20 59:15 42:2 32:20 48:13 28:13 31:11 Congressional conversation crossover

36:20 38:13 39:7 93:1 84:14 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 202 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 7 crowded deal 65:21 demonstrated 53:6, 6 20:12 63:20 70:5 38:20 63:22 66:7 cuff 48:6 dealing 72:10 density 86:6 culmination dealt 98:17 27:17 31:14 differing 9:8 decades 51:8 47:17 51:9, 51:5 current 6:17 December 9:5 9 52:4, 12, difficult 9:18 19:14 20:22 42:16 18 53:2, 10 6:5 93:15 23:11 52:11, 82:19 89:7 58:10 62:19, difficulties 15, 17 60:5 decide 10:5 22 64:4, 5 4:10 18:3, 70:18 78:20 79:12 67:3 10 currently 80:11, 14 Department digest 77:17 67:4 96:5 12:20 direct 14:4 cutoff 89:3 decided 10:8 departments 51:4 cycle 19:18 20:16 85:6 13:6 direction 22:20 decides 94:9 depending 101:5 cynical 96:2 deciding 24:1 83:4 directly 15:4 decision describing Director 2:12 < D > 21:8 72:8 5:17 disappear D.C 66:16 decisions design 11:21 21:20 damage 39:14 21:6 23:20 desire 59:10 disappeared data 19:19 declining despite 59:21 22:16 74:7 24:12 destroy 53:11 discretion date 10:2, 7, deep 11:11 detached 96:1 21 12:18 deeply 52:8 20:11 discuss 16:13, 14 defer 84:4 detail 30:13 55:19 73:22 76:6, 13, 21 93:13 detailed 82:14 77:6, 11, 16, define 34:9 34:6 44:3 discussed 22 78:7, 21 definitely 51:1 74:6 79:12, 14 63:8 details discussion 80:5, 18 definition 34:12 51:19 10:9 31:21 81:17, 18 13:21 determine 39:19 54:13 82:1, 12 delay 80:6 93:19 68:5, 21 89:3 90:14 delaying 92:6 determines 88:19 89:6, 98:1, 6, 9 delete 39:16 93:20 19 91:17 dated 37:21 Deli 38:5 develop 32:15 97:3, 7 39:20 deliberate developed discussions dates 13:2 56:1, 2 59:2 71:16 84:12 Dave 96:13 deliberating developer disparities DAVID 2:12 79:4 22:15 46:13 85:12 deliberations developers distribution day 15:9 75:3 77:2 30:17, 22 13:18, 20 47:4 61:12 deliveries Development district days 22:2 24:14 13:8 32:3 13:7 28:2, 32:17 97:19 demand 20:14 38:15 43:20 15 deadline 22:16 41:8 48:13, 20 districts 76:11 78:11, 42:17 62:8 53:5, 7 11:9 50:22 13 demographic devices 61:10 dive 11:11 deadlines 23:19 different diverse 49:3 78:10 demographics 5:6 6:4 51:20 60:15

deaf 76:3 55:16 35:5 45:20 68:2 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 203 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 8 driving 22:5 either 10:10 28:16 32:22 diversification 77:19 37:8 58:12, enjoy 63:6 43:2 due 4:7, 10 12 74:7 enjoyed 75:17 diversity 20:6 21:1 elected 13:5 entertain 41:18 59:13 32:16 35:22 electronic 23:6 55:20 66:10, 12 36:16 45:16 101:3 76:6 97:6 dividing 72:20 elementary entertained 38:18 duly 72:14 64:1, 5 89:2 division DUMAIS 2:15 elements entire 66:16 38:19 51:2, 71:9 80:17 8:17, 18 85:4 99:10 5 81:3 83:19, 11:11 16:5 entirety 88:4 document 8:4 22 90:16 84:14 87:3, environment 9:10 16:2 92:9 93:13 7, 11 95:15 8:20 45:16 documents 95:5 96:12, 99:1 52:9 73:12, 40:9 20 97:1 email 13:18 15 74:10 dodging 57:3 14:1 15:3 environmental dog 52:13 < E > emailing 87:13 doing 11:10 eagerness 14:20 33:3 44:22 72:13 emails 14:4 environmentally 68:1 82:5 earlier 9:6 78:19 52:7 87:6 91:14 45:12, 21 embraces 43:1 environments dollars 39:15 71:1 93:1 emerging 74:8 20:12 DON 2:6 early 88:21 emphasizing escape 20:12 doubly 74:12 easily 71:8 98:21 especially downtown East 30:18, employed 35:11 26:19 28:4 19 31:13 101:7, 11 ESPINOSA DRAFT 1:1 37:18 38:7 employee 2:15 18:12, 4:17, 20 easy 79:19 101:10 15, 19 19:6, 8:3 9:8, 10, echo 61:7, 8 employees 10, 11 23:2, 18, 18 11:1 Economic 13:13 22:1, 17 24:17, 19, 13:10 14:18 13:8 29:5 3, 5, 8 22 25:4, 9, 15:22 16:9 41:19 42:14 employers 20, 22 34:10 38:13 51:19 21:10, 12 Espinsoa 39:12 50:18 edification employment 18:16 19:2 51:5 53:4 87:20 42:13 essence 87:6 58:14 59:22 edits 9:13 enable 63:6 essentially 70:18 educated encourage 58:11 drafted 84:17 22:17 27:6 28:16 established dragging Education 39:1 43:12 51:2 91:21 35:10 encouraging estate 28:10 dramatic effect 11:18 6:18 42:22 evacuation 22:12 41:16 12:2 43:6 92:7 35:19 dramatically effectively ended 36:8 evening 4:2, 21:22 58:20 endorse 60:9 13 6:7 7:3 drive 21:6 effort 48:9 ends 23:14 15:20 16:8 22:17 35:18, 80:4, 4 81:1 18:15 33:12 22 efforts 43:11 engineers 37:13 40:20, drives 57:1 eight 6:14 39:11 22 44:5 driveway enhance 27:6 50:3 61:3

35:12, 14 67:21 75:13 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 204 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 9 89:11 93:9 extension 14 76:9 followed 99:5 38:10, 14 89:18 98:7 54:10 event 54:16 39:9, 17 feels 95:6 following everybody extensions 98:13 15:14 25:14 4:3 32:16 6:3 feet 39:6 33:17 34:15 71:7 86:19 extra 10:18 felt 59:9 41:3 68:22 everybody's 67:20 70:4 follows 87:20 eyes 12:11 file 101:3, 54:15 98:16 exactly 72:1 17 footnote example < F > filed 34:19 73:22 21:22 81:6 facilities final 6:8 force 42:10 93:16 45:3 financially forefront exceptional facility 101:12 43:13 27:21 34:20 36:5, find 30:8 forever 21:13 excuse 84:8 18 48:17 62:11 forgoing execution fact 20:9, 66:1, 6, 22 101:3 80:3 18 21:1, 9 finding 63:15 forgot 10:15 exemplary 62:9 74:11 fine 11:13, form 46:20 64:9 84:5 87:18 13 18:20 69:21 Exhibit 37:22 failed 97:3 43:22 46:10 format 11:3 Exhibits fails 51:11 60:15 71:15 formerly 46:4 37:20 38:20 failure 32:18 finish 81:21, forth 30:15 existence fair 5:13, 22 91:1 forum 11:10 38:13 39:12 14 83:17 fire 36:18 15:2 existing 91:22 99:3 firehouse forums 19:13 24:10 53:8, fairness 71:7 56:12 forward 12 74:4 fall 93:1 firm 40:21 38:12 47:16 exists 36:14 Falls 35:17 firmly 20:2 63:12 68:21 41:16 46:2 50:21 72:6, 9 expand 21:22 familiar firm's 41:2 74:21 96:13 expanded 11:4 27:14 28:3 first 4:15 forwarded expands 23:22 families 8:16 10:2 34:6 expansion 20:11 16:5 17:6 found 31:7 43:13 family 22:13 26:1 34:15 42:5, 11 expect 16:7 49:10 51:10 42:3 65:8 foundation experience far 11:3 89:22 43:11 21:2 23:21 17:22 55:15, fit 16:15 four 5:17 34:11 18 72:15 66:1 29:5 81:19 Expires Farm 26:17 flexibility frame 21:2 101:22 fast 82:1 74:3 Frankly 52:21 expressed February flush 89:13 freedom 21:16 19:15 67:17 9:14 10:14 focus 59:20 fresh 16:2 extend 45:17 Federal 85:16 friend 27:1, 92:3 30:14 31:1 focused 9:3 2 extended feedback 24:3 92:14 friendly 16:15 76:12 85:1 89:1 folks 49:3 52:7 71:2 82:8 90:7 97:12, 13 69:21 88:7 extending feel 21:8 follow 71:10 front 36:19 82:14 23:12 66:21 72:17, 21 45:13 54:9

68:6 72:7, Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 205 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 10 Frost 35:20 86:5 97:22 Good 4:2 group 13:22 full 21:16 98:2, 3, 8 18:15 26:9 Grove 57:20 fully 20:5 Given 21:15 27:3 33:10, grow 41:8 further 17:5 41:18 43:19 12 37:13 growth 42:14 25:20 32:2, 63:11 40:16, 20 48:9, 12, 20 11 49:17 gives 39:12 46:17 50:3 49:14 53:9 76:17 81:10 81:13 86:3 57:13 61:2 60:16 75:14, 97:7 giving 7:10 68:1, 1 15 furthermore 47:13 80:13 69:20 70:2 guess 9:5 101:9 86:4 97:13 76:7 81:17 66:20 67:8 future 19:21 go 5:3 8:3, 83:22 88:22 95:16 20:5 39:1 12 12:12 99:1, 3 guys 57:16 42:17 52:11 14:14 18:4, GOODMAN 2:4 78:7 60:6 63:12 13 22:19 32:5, 8, 9 69:6 23:2 29:2 47:8, 11, 12 < H > 30:1, 12 48:7 56:22 HADLEY 2:6 < G > 32:8, 16 69:10, 12, 18, 24:20 25:1, Gaithersburg 36:11 40:16 19 72:20 3, 16, 19 13:4 46:8 47:3 90:9, 10 69:8, 9, 14 gathering 63:12 68:3, 100:1, 2 70:19, 21, 22 33:20 15 69:8, 15 gotten 62:18 73:2, 7, 10 geared 32:1 74:21 76:1 government 74:14 83:11, general 78:6 80:6 21:21 12, 13 87:21, 32:10 77:21 84:13 87:1 governmental 22 88:1, 9, 80:8 88:18 92:4 42:21 19 90:3, 4 generally 95:9 96:10 Governments 91:18 95:20, 11:5 65:5 97:10 42:5, 7 21, 22 96:16, 85:19 98:2, goal 60:1 Grading 34:5 17 99:7, 8, 2, 3 goals 50:18 grain 11:13, 19, 21 generation 51:4, 11 13 Hadley's 21:8 53:4 59:22 grant 6:2 71:10 gentleman goes 23:13 28:14 Hagerstown 44:21 66:8 granted 5:20 22:9 geography going 6:5 granting 6:3 Hall 4:6 55:5 7:3, 6, 18 Great 40:19 Halpine GEORGE 3:3 9:5 13:2, 41:3 63:22 49:22 50:9, 57:10, 12 21 18:8 greater 41:5 10, 17 53:15 getting 4:11 24:6, 7, 10, 93:5 54:11 57:18 9:9 62:18 14 30:20 greatest 35:7 58:1 62:2 97:11 33:13, 15 greatly 73:7 63:21 69:21 Giant 36:11 34:21 35:3 green 52:14 hammer 57:16 GILLES 2:14 45:12 47:3, greener 65:3 hand 56:5 97:15, 17 20, 22 48:1 Greetings 69:16 98:12, 20 68:14 69:20 34:5 handicap give 7:6 71:1 73:3, gritty 83:6 34:20 18:21 26:3 4 75:2 grocery 24:13 handled 84:3 29:15 33:18 80:10 81:21 ground 5:4, happen 18:8 40:18 61:22 82:21 83:3, 4, 6 6:11 happened 9:14 66:14 71:7 5 91:7, 8, 9 7:2 98:10

79:2 80:7 97:14 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 206 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 11 happening 58:14 61:7 hope 94:13 43:6, 16 10:19 23:12 63:2, 8 hopeful 21:1 83:2, 7, 15, 36:8 helpful hopefully 21 84:16 happens 61:13 97:22 98:8 23:14 48:15 86:16 87:6, happy 47:14 hereto 101:11 House 38:6 9 88:5 55:19 66:2 hesitate 71:4 61:11, 16 90:14 91:1, hard 82:1 Hi 18:17 households 1, 15, 20 harder 22:8 28:22 68:10 42:6 92:14, 17 harmonize 76:1 houses 19:12 93:3, 6, 10, 86:19 hiccups 9:16 housing 8:21 18, 19, 21 hate 73:17 High 35:11, 20:3, 8, 14, 94:4 95:7, 74:9 20 36:3 15 21:6, 20 17 99:12 head 82:20 47:17 51:19 22:9, 14 III 101:2, 15 headed 33:4 52:4, 12, 18 23:7 24:3 imagine 79:5, heading 48:10 53:1, 10 29:4, 7 11 headings 11:6 62:8, 19 41:5, 16, 19 immediately hear 9:20 63:10, 13 42:12, 16, 18 12:2 17:11 25:20 66:14 67:2 43:13, 17, 18 impact 19:20 26:5, 6, 7, 9, high-density 44:22 45:4, 21:14 22:12 12 34:3 58:3 13 46:15 46:1 40:14, 15 higher 22:17 47:5, 17, 19, impacted 50:4, 5 58:10 64:4, 21 49:1, 2, 23:9 35:3 61:5 91:12 5 67:3 11 51:17, 19, 46:6 97:13 83:16 20 52:19 impacts 21:3 heard 45:21 highest 51:9, 53:6, 10 23:15 62:15, 18 16 55:16 58:10 implementation 63:20 98:13 highly 62:20 59:12, 12, 14 11:20 HEARING 1:1 Highway 39:3 60:1, 15, 16 importance 4:16, 19 historic 8:20 62:7, 19 41:7, 18 9:18 10:16, history 56:14 63:18 66:6, 48:13 66:14 21 12:19 HOA 34:17 7, 11, 12, 15 important 13:2, 15 58:15 67:2 72:5 5:10 12:16 16:12 28:21 hold 75:15 73:20 87:13 25:13 28:10 72:4 76:13 holds 69:6 hubs 20:9 43:10 48:21 77:14 78:12 home 21:12, huge 82:13 66:11 68:12, 79:8, 10, 13 13, 16 22:4 husband 62:4 16 76:10 80:5 81:7, 24:8 25:12 63:9 improve 59:16 8 82:7 47:22 75:7 improving 84:8 89:2 homeowner < I > 32:1 92:1 95:2 14:5 idea 31:3 inaudible 96:4, 5 98:5 homeowners 46:14 49:1 40:12 63:7 hearings 56:16 71:2 88:20 66:6 10:2 14:12 homeowner's ideas 75:19 inch 35:21 72:1 74:1 6:1 50:8 identified inclined 71:2 82:7 84:3 57:17 42:17 include 20:7 held 19:13 homes 20:11 identifies 29:5 38:5 Hello 25:4 22:13 27:7 11:15 42:3 59:10 help 32:20 28:17 51:10 II 1:1 2:8 64:12 53:13 55:12 honestly 29:9 4:16 7:7 includes

8:13 19:22 31:22 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 207 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 12 including Institute 38:9 41:11 KAPASTIN 8:20 21:3 27:14 28:13 58:19 66:15 2:15 37:7, 34:8 36:18 31:11, 18 70:5 72:5, 8, 9, 12, 14 45:15 70:10 42:11 14 74:20 40:1, 4, 5, 6 73:14, 19 instructive issues 25:13 keep 6:12 78:17 99:11 45:5 46:7 48:14, 16:9 43:12 income 22:17 insufficient 15, 19 59:2 63:4 68:12, 29:13 42:19 52:16 65:18 68:2, 16 81:6 49:4 63:15, intent 68:4 18 71:16 82:20 17 intention 73:9 74:5, keeping 63:7 increase 95:13 21 key 34:22 27:11 42:12 interest ITEM 1:1 59:2, 16 increased 16:8 25:7, 4:15, 15 kick 96:2 47:18, 20 8 27:5 76:18, 19, 20 kidding 65:22 increasing 41:3 59:15 items 4:14 kind 11:6 41:8 60:7 63:22 9:22 30:7 46:8 individual 67:17 87:8 its 43:14, 49:7, 8 5:20 interested 22 48:10, 11 65:19 66:4, individuals 41:10 71:11 50:19 60:5 8 72:8 20:16 21:17 101:12 86:10 88:4 73:20 74:15 22:12, 18 interesting 78:11 86:2, influenced 31:2 62:4 < J > 20 73:16 interests JAIME 2:15 kinds 24:14 info 20:7 59:17 18:12, 13, 16 72:3 information interpretation Jamie 19:10 King 26:17 9:9 12:15 31:15 93:9 JANE 2:9 know 4:6 14:14, 21 interrelated January 9:6 7:21 14:15 33:20 45:1 86:20, JIM 2:13 19:11 21:7 informed 26:1 22 job 65:3 22:11 24:9 informing interrupt 80:10 25:9 34:6, 13:10 17:3 jobs 47:4 16 49:2 informs 39:10 intersection 61:12 63:9, 50:9 54:3 infrastructure 30:18 31:13 14 64:1 65:15 52:16 53:9 intersections JOE 3:2 67:12 68:14 60:5 39:7 49:22 69:5, 5 inhibit 39:2 intervention Joe's 38:6 72:1, 11 initial 7:5 42:22 JOHN 2:8 74:15, 18 9:7 97:2 introduction join 14:1, 75:1, 4 initially 7:6, 10 22 50:1 76:3, 8, 10 54:4 92:11 inverse 39:13 joined 13:20 77:5 78:3, initiated invitation 67:20 10, 13, 20 6:11 14:22 joining 25:22 79:2, 13, 16, initiating invite 16:17 July 20:10 18 80:16 8:10 17:6 18:21 jurisdictions 84:1 86:5 initiative 26:3 12:22 87:19 89:10, 12:9 involved 28:6 13 91:4 input 9:9 issuance < K > 98:2, 16 inside 10:22 60:11 KAP 2:15 knowing 5:9 65:10 issue 34:22 37:14 knowledge

35:22 36:19 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 208 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 13 25:5 12:18 14:12 linear 39:6 6, 14, 19 knows 82:1 leased 36:9 lines 95:5 64:16 65:11 Korean 35:1 leave 54:1 link 12:14 66:19 67:7, 70:1, 15 list 6:15 22 68:20 < L > 72:21 73:17 13:19, 19, 20 69:15 70:6, lack 51:20 95:18 16:19, 22 20 71:17 92:20 leaving 17:2 18:11, 72:13 73:5, lacks 52:12 91:19 92:17 12 33:15 9 74:13 60:4 left 16:17 37:7 40:8 76:1, 7, 15 laid 46:12 legal 72:22 57:9 59:18 77:10 78:2 Lakewood lengthy 11:4 61:3 65:20 80:16 81:9 35:18 lenient 6:6 67:11, 21 83:9, 12, 17 land 8:21 Lercher 40:21 listen 33:13 85:13 86:15 27:14, 16 letter 15:8 listened 87:22 88:6, 28:12 31:11, 58:15 60:9 64:19 10, 13, 17 17 35:5 letterheads listening 89:5 90:2, 38:1 41:2 58:16 19:12 54:2 5, 8, 11, 17, 42:11 43:3, letters 60:18 20 91:5, 16 4, 20 48:11 12:19 13:3 literally 92:22 94:18, landlord 78:18 79:20 35:14 66:4 22 95:21 27:2, 3 letting 79:1 little 4:9 96:9, 19 landscaping levels 29:5 6:6 10:17, 97:5, 10, 16 52:8 63:17 22 17:21 98:11 99:3, Lane 30:18, LEVY 2:12 30:13 48:5 14, 19, 22 19 31:13 85:11, 12, 14, 58:6 76:3 100:3, 6, 9 36:18 39:7 15 94:20 92:20 95:17 live 19:11 52:2 57:3 95:1, 2 LITTLEFIELD 50:8, 16 language 96:13 2:3 4:2 57:18 62:12 31:12, 16 Liaison 2:13 7:14, 17 66:1 73:14 lie 64:22 16:21 17:16, lives 20:4 large 58:3 LIECHTI 3:3 18 18:17, 20 living 21:19 larger 58:18 57:10, 11, 12, 19:4, 8 LLC 37:15 LARSON 2:11 15 60:20 23:1 24:16, local 41:13 7:10, 12, 15, 61:1 22 25:18 42:7 16, 20 16:22 lieu 14:10 26:8, 14 located 54:3, 6, 19, life 21:7 28:19 29:2, 37:16, 20 22 55:7 41:20 52:10 18, 22 31:4, 66:13 67:16 75:21, light 22:21 19 32:7 location 30:8 22 76:2, 8, liked 59:1 33:5, 11, 14 locations 16 77:8 Likewise 34:4 36:22 43:17 49:14 78:5, 15 33:11 37:6, 11 logged 67:17 79:9 80:1 limited 39:22 40:7, long 6:21 84:10 86:13 43:19 59:13 15 44:7, 17 12:7 23:20 late 4:10 84:6 45:8 46:16 33:22 56:13, 79:11 limits 6:6 47:10 49:15, 14 73:15 law 13:16 line 12:15 21 50:5 longer 20:7 40:21 48:12 46:2 48:17 53:21 54:7, 29:16 47:22 lead 24:15 52:15 53:17 20 55:3, 22 look 5:7 leading 7:22 60:14 57:5, 9, 13 19:16 22:8

60:19 61:2, 23:18 24:4 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 209 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 14 33:1 46:9 25:12 28:8 78:16, 19 mind 47:19 49:9 63:21 30:16 36:16 79:16, 18 68:12, 17 65:5, 14 71:2 72:7 MEERA 3:4 71:6 68:21 77:5 87:9 61:3, 4 minds 9:22 83:1, 5, 5 Mall 32:17 meet 51:11 74:19 87:11, 18 managers 80:21 mine 24:19 95:22 14:7 22:2, 5 MEETING 1:1 minutes 5:20 looked 23:10 manner 14:13 4:4, 5 5:1 6:3 18:22 56:10 59:4, manuals 39:6 7:1 15:1 40:17 5, 8, 18 map 54:8 17:1, 2 mirror 59:7 looking 8:21 mark 77:13 67:18, 18 missing 16:3 34:13 marked 37:21 77:19 78:4 51:13, 18 40:8 46:3 market 46:1, 80:20 88:22 62:6, 16, 21, 49:4 65:22 6 89:17 96:3 22 64:14 68:15 69:4 marking 42:16 meetings 4:8 65:3, 15 81:19 84:22 MARYLAND 1:1 5:8, 19 66:17 67:15 looks 89:13 12:20 21:15 14:11 23:3 90:11 92:21 lot 11:13 master 7:8, 71:3 81:19 mistaken 17:21 31:12 8 93:10 82:17 70:11 47:4 63:6 material member 80:8 mixed 28:1, 64:8 65:17 81:20 members 7:17 15 69:1, 20 materials 36:2 37:13 model 75:15 70:3 75:2, 42:3 mention 20:1 moderate 17, 19 78:4 matter 25:7 38:3 46:11 29:13 82:10, 21, 22 39:19 40:2 mentioned moment 56:17 84:14 87:18 matters 63:3 30:3 82:22 82:18 97:12, 13 Mayor 8:6, 7 83:1 monitor 54:9 99:4 35:9 85:8, mere 38:13 monitors lots 52:13 8 86:8 metro 47:17 40:10 77:7 love 66:3 87:15 50:10 53:18 monolithic low 51:9 MCCLANE 3:2 60:15 63:10 51:16 60:17 62:8 49:22 50:1, 66:16 Montgomery lower 21:18 3, 7 53:22 metropolitan 13:5 52:7 62:22 63:17 56:4 57:7, 8 41:6 month 5:5 McClane's Midas 38:6, 14:18 22:8 < M > 57:2 16 81:14 92:5 mail 15:7, 10 MCPS 13:7 middle 27:16 months 22:4 main 4:15 35:10 36:6, 30:18, 19 23:21 24:1 maintain 7 31:13 35:16 25:15 44:2 59:11 64:13, Mead 35:17 51:13, 19 56:2 81:16 14 mean 5:12 62:6, 17 86:22 maintaining 32:17 49:2 63:1, 15, 19 moot 91:4 67:4 56:13 57:16 64:14 65:4, mortar 24:10 maintenance 60:16 75:1 15 66:17 motion 72:16 59:13 86:7 mike 97:12 81:1 89:9 major 58:19 meaningful millennial 90:17 91:7, majority 42:21 21:5 8, 14 93:2, 21:11 media 14:8, MILLER 2:5 5, 7 94:13 making 4:21 9 20:10 millions 96:6, 21

21:9 23:20 39:15 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 210 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 15 97:2, 2, 4, 6 15 63:13, 18, 33:1 41:9 objection 99:9 100:10 19 64:5, 7 42:9, 18 92:2 move 21:17 65:14 70:13 43:20 45:11, obviously 47:16 58:22 73:11 74:4 16 46:20 19:13 81:20, 68:6 76:17 77:4 81:5 55:18 58:7 21 92:14 88:2 91:2 82:20 83:1 67:1 75:11 93:13 94:6, moved 57:19 90:13 91:1 97:2, 4, 6 15 99:14 96:20 99:9 occasions moving 35:21 needed 23:5 news 25:14 82:5 54:18 56:20 24:15 34:21 NICHOLAS 2:15 occur 13:2 58:2 99:2 45:3 51:14 Nick 71:9 35:4 Mr.Wasilak 54:21 55:6 night 97:21 occurred 7:9 62:22 81:2 nitty 83:6 19:14 Muffler 38:6, needs 9:21 Noodle 38:6 occurs 21:19 16 11:7 19:21 Nope 49:18 74:11, 11 multiple 20:5, 21 normal 5:6, 7 October 6:20 40:10 24:6 29:13 North 26:22 16:11 77:8, multi-unit 32:20 36:20 27:8, 16, 22 10 78:10 20:8 21:20 42:16 30:5, 18, 22 81:18 88:5, 22:14 negatively 31:13 37:18 8 89:7 MURGAI 3:4 51:6 50:17 93:11 99:11 61:4, 5, 10, neighborhood northern 100:11 17, 20 64:17 9:2 11:2 53:17 60:14 odd 95:17 65:7, 12 16:6 35:17 Norwitz 27:1 odds 77:3 67:6 36:16, 20 29:10 offended 73:8 MXCD 28:1, 38:12 51:3, NOTARY 101:1, offer 73:4 14 38:1 10, 21 52:5, 19 88:7, 20 10, 12 53:14, note 8:11 91:18 < N > 20 56:7 15:11 19:22 office 22:6, name 7:20 62:3, 5, 17, 82:4 7, 19 26:19, 19:10 26:16 20 65:13 noted 36:5 21 27:6, 9 40:20 88:14 66:3, 21 72:14 38:3 84:19 names 70:11 67:5 97:21 notice 80:9, 85:21 narrow 52:1 98:21 14 88:20 official narrowly 38:8 neighborhoods 89:1 91:22 17:2 78:18 near 20:14 11:8 53:5, notifications officials 22:13 50:10 12 62:10 12:20 13:5 nearby 52:11 66:22 notify 12:22 Oh 73:5 nearly 42:18 neighbors noting 42:3 88:17 necessarily 19:15 50:16 November Okay 7:14 24:9 71:6 52:11 59:7, 35:8 82:19 17:16 18:6, necessary 17 63:5 89:7 101:22 20 19:4, 8, 33:22 64:6 neither number 34:17 10 24:16, 21 65:13 19:22 101:7, 73:19 25:20 26:5 need 14:22 10 numbers 41:14 31:19 33:5, 21:19 22:7, never 72:10 nut 57:17 6, 14 44:16, 15, 18, 21 74:11 87:19 17 55:22 32:15 33:19 91:4 < O > 57:6 61:20 47:3, 19, 20 new 11:18 object 94:7 65:11 66:19

53:16 59:12, 17:20 27:13 67:7, 22 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 211 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 16 69:14 79:21, opposes 28:8 20:1, 6 pass 91:8 21 80:16 39:8 21:3, 6, 21 93:3, 8 81:9 89:20 opposite 23:11, 16 96:22 90:2, 8, 19 75:12 24:11 45:17, passed 88:22 91:16 99:6 option 96:9 18 46:12 pattern 43:3 100:9 options 22:9 73:12, 15, 17 pause 19:17 old 33:17 41:19 74:10 75:8 22:20 40:8 Once 32:12, oral 10:2 par 64:8 74:16, 19, 19 13 45:18 15:12, 21 paradigm 20:3 pay 22:6 56:13 72:9 79:14 parcel 38:16, pays 92:4 78:20 87:9 order 16:20 17 58:22 pedestrian one-quarter 20:17 96:21 parcels 38:19 59:16 38:18 97:5 parked 52:2 peers 21:7 ones 45:15 ordinance parking 52:6 66:5 ongoing 68:21 12:4 36:5, 27:12 34:17, people 6:8 online 10:13 13, 18 18, 20, 21 13:19 14:1, 15:2, 18 organization 35:4 36:8, 9 15 20:12 24:12 75:6 5:22 18:22 part 18:6 24:7 30:14 79:19 organized 56:7, 15, 17 33:18 47:22 onsite 46:22 6:13 57:20 76:9, 63:8, 15, 17, open 6:22 organizing 18, 20, 20 18 67:1, 11 16:9, 22 55:11 83:2, 6, 7 70:9 72:6 19:12 54:9 original 87:3, 6, 9, 75:6, 6 81:6 84:16, 96:16 11, 12 89:3 78:13 79:2 20 85:20, 22 originally 90:14, 14, 22 80:12 81:14 86:1, 4, 9, 21:15 101:4 91:1, 2, 14, 84:21 92:7 10, 22 91:20 ORRM 38:2 20 95:7, 7 95:6 98:6 92:17 95:18 outcome 96:1 99:2 people's 97:12 101:12 participant 47:15 outlet 78:16 26:2 perfectly operationalized outlets 79:17 PARTICIPANTS 71:15 87:7 outreach 2:1 3:1 period 22:6 opinion 28:9 12:17 79:7 5:2 6:14 77:16 92:12, 29:10 32:14 outside 64:2 participate 13 94:12 81:21 overall 44:5 95:3 opportunities 41:19 56:17 particular periodically 43:16, 22 overcrowded 30:3 65:12 15:9, 16 49:9 63:14 64:7 72:4 82:12 permanent opportunity overflow 36:9 83:3 95:13 23:16 45:19 4:22 5:18, owe 39:15 particularly person 5:11 21 8:7 owned 38:4 23:19, 22 14:6, 11 10:4, 18 owner 27:1 24:13 25:15 18:4, 12 14:16 44:5 owners 28:6 81:16 33:22 37:7 53:19 61:22 owns 26:21 parties 40:9 47:13 79:2, 15 101:8, 11 94:6 97:22 82:13 85:9 < P > parts 65:17 personal 87:11, 16 packing 60:2 66:7 85:18 25:7, 11 oppose 50:21 pages 5:17 86:18 88:4 28:9 32:14 opposed 91:19 pandemic 4:7 89:4 91:11 87:2

19:14, 20 93:3 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 212 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 17 Personally 58:8, 9, 20 85:1, 5, 17 possible 28:3 59:1, 22 87:17 92:11 12:12 13:17 perspective 62:1 65:17, 95:4, 10, 11, 30:8 88:21 93:15 19 70:15, 18 11 98:15, 16 possibly pertain 84:13 82:6 83:16, 99:5 32:11 pertains 16:4 18 84:7 plans 16:6 Post 13:15 petition 85:5, 19, 20, 20:1 48:16 73:15 74:9 50:14 70:11 22 86:1, 3, planted 74:19 77:1 78:12 phone 50:2 5, 9, 12, 16, Plaza 37:16 posting 15:15 physically 16, 17, 18 please 17:3, posts 14:8 23:4 47:3 88:4 89:4 6 18:9, 13 potential picked 82:11 92:14, 15 19:8 26:14 11:21 41:8 picture 26:11 93:10 95:9, 34:14, 14 practical pie 29:6 16 99:11 48:7 50:6 93:14, 22 piece 29:6 Planner 2:11, 53:13 73:6 97:17 98:10 pieces 83:2 14 83:19 94:20, practice 35:2 Pike 37:17, planners 22 practicing 18 38:7, 9, 7:21 20:20 pleased 40:22 48:11 11, 12 39:4, 21:2 24:1 plummeted precious 17 82:6 58:15 20:15 43:19 PITMAN 2:7 PLANNING 1:1, pocket 52:5 predictions 78:1, 2, 3 1, 1 2:2, 12 point 30:6 45:14 79:7, 21 4:4, 16, 17 52:22 62:10 premature 88:12, 16, 16, 7:17 8:3, 4, 65:8 71:1 96:7 18 89:22 9, 13, 16 76:11 91:4, prepare 91:21 90:1 100:6, 9:1, 7, 11 7, 12, 19, 20 prepared 8 10:9 11:2, 95:16 96:4 27:21 Place 39:8 5, 16 12:21 pointed 55:7 pre-register 46:22 61:16 15:4, 13, 21 points 53:7 14:20 placeholder 16:1, 8 65:1, 16 pre-registered 74:1 19:18 21:4 77:2 92:1 6:15 placement 27:21 28:10 polices 9:3 pre-registratio 39:5 34:6, 9, 10, 11:12 n 6:11 places 21:18 22 35:19 policies Presbyterian 65:22 67:3 36:2, 20 8:19 11:19 35:1 PLAN 1:1 37:14, 17 43:2, 7, 10 present 4:13 4:18 7:8, 8, 41:4 42:8 48:18 55:18 50:1 53:19 22 8:10 43:8 44:1 policy 11:16 presentation 11:17 12:8 46:4 50:15 49:8 71:11, 16:16 13:1, 10 54:18 55:2, 16 presented 14:18 15:22 3, 4 56:18 poll 71:3 31:6 68:9 16:5 24:4 58:11, 21 polling 23:18 77:6 25:11 27:20 59:1, 3, 11 pop 72:11 presents 28:13 31:11 60:10, 12 portion 38:14 36:21 38:12, 61:22 64:2, 39:16 86:6 preservation 13, 22 39:12 21 65:1, 4 95:16 8:20 41:1 43:1, 68:4 69:2 position preserve 3 46:3, 8 79:3 80:3 71:12 53:13 49:8 50:19 83:3, 15 president

51:5 53:4 84:13, 17 50:7 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 213 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 18 pretty 54:10 50:6 82:2, proposed 82:1, 6, 7, 8 59:18 68:1 2 89:20 10:8 50:21 83:15, 20 71:8 83:7 PROCEEDINGS 51:2 53:7 84:3, 8, 8, prevalent 100:13 57:22 58:9, 15 85:3, 16 58:3 101:6, 9 20 59:19 87:5 88:3 prevent 39:2 process 5:14, 60:11 62:1, 91:21 94:11 70:14 17 8:2 13 95:2, 3, 19 previous 12:3 56:1 proposes 96:3, 4 57:18 64:20 74:17 92:6 30:21 70:16 98:5, 14 previously produce 84:19 proposing 99:9 101:1, 8:14, 15 produced 91:22 19 84:2, 15 84:16 proposition pulling 35:15 99:1 production 96:12 purpose 4:19 price 53:6 42:12 prospect 39:1 purposes 62:10 productive provide 6:16 69:2 92:10 primarily 22:3 10:7, 17, 19 pursued 62:5 16:1 95:3, professional 14:16 27:12 pursuit 62:6 10 25:8 43:10 79:15 purview 64:2 primary 85:16 prohibit 98:9 pushing 21:21 Principal 84:21 provided put 5:5 2:11, 14 project 14:2 27:12 41:22 8:22 10:13 40:21 projections 42:15 44:3 12:8, 15 principle 41:14 providing 15:18 55:12, 32:10 projects 14:21 60:1, 12 73:22 prior 13:15 11:22 22 88:2 19:14 58:8 prominent provision puts 52:13 85:20 34:22 29:13 putting 9:10 priorities promote 43:2 PUBLIC 1:1 56:11 65:16 65:2 4:16, 19 priority promoting 5:13 6:22 < Q > 41:18 65:3 7:7, 18 8:8, quality private 5:20 properties 22 9:9, 14, 41:20 52:10 19:1, 2 38:7, 8 17, 19, 20 quarter 28:2, probably 43:7, 19 10:2, 11, 21 15 14:11 26:8 46:5 12:5, 17, 19 quarters 63:13 71:12 property 13:2, 12, 15 38:17 79:19 80:6 28:5 38:1, 14:12 15:7, question 93:12 4, 10, 15, 18, 14, 14 16:9, 23:6, 11 problem 91:14 20, 22 39:9 12, 18 20:15, 24:2 25:2, procedurally 43:15 53:17, 16 23:18 10 29:1 71:4 18 60:14, 15 36:5, 13, 17 32:6 44:10, procedure property's 48:15 54:15 19, 21 45:9 18:7 67:13 37:19 68:8 71:5, 46:17 47:9, procedures proposal 14, 22 73:1 19 54:2, 4 71:21 29:4 58:16 76:10, 12, 22 64:17 65:8 proceed 7:3 96:16 77:14 78:5, 76:2 78:1 18:11, 21 propose 6, 11, 12 80:1, 17 19:8 26:3, 58:14 64:11 79:8, 9, 13 83:16, 18 15 34:1 70:5 80:9, 15, 19 84:1

81:7, 7 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 214 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 19 questions 66:5, 6 record 6:22 93:19, 21 23:5, 8 74:6 75:2 10:11 15:7, 101:7 24:19 25:20 76:17 80:9 14 16:9 relates 24:4 28:20 29:19 82:16 84:5, 19:5 20:10 relation 25:8 33:6 34:15 22 91:20 72:9 73:1 relative 37:2 39:21 97:22 98:8 76:6, 22 101:10 40:3 49:17 99:4 80:19, 19 released 56:3 60:20 Realty 30:14 81:5, 6 9:13, 17 67:8 75:15 31:1 82:8 83:15, 10:12 queue 7:13 reason 11:9 20 84:2, 8, releasing 17:17 23:15 85:6 15 85:3 95:12 queued 34:1 reasons 6:12 86:4, 9, 11 religion 35:3 quick 46:17 51:1 55:9 88:3 93:6 remain 43:21 quickly 7:19 reassess 99:10 101:5 53:15, 17 Quite 9:15 22:21 redesign 60:13 25:5 31:20 rebuilt 36:3 27:15 remaining 66:15 receive 4:19 redevelopment 65:9, 10 quote 27:15 5:13 15:21 28:6 39:2 remarks 42:1 received 58:9 remember < R > 17:1 40:1 REDI 13:8 10:12 31:20 racial 51:19 52:6 64:18 reduced reminder radically 70:9 59:15 101:4 40:17 73:11 19:16 receiving reducing remote 63:11 railway 38:9 37:1 38:16 remotely raise 71:1 recognize reference 46:20 61:11 raised 59:5 11:6 64:3 21:2 75:7 65:16 66:10 84:11 95:4 referenced remove 58:20 75:19 77:3, recognized 101:6 rental 14:7 18 41:13 references reopen 85:6 RANDY 2:15 recognizing 68:12 94:11 33:16 73:13 referred reopened range 49:4 recommend 54:11 92:16 rapid 47:21 94:1, 8 referring rephrase 91:6 73:18 recommendation 54:16 55:1 report 27:14 rationale 8:6 15:20 73:11 28:13 31:12, 55:14 16:13 31:7, refined 41:15 21 42:4, 10 read 27:19 10 regard 49:7 reports 14:4 58:8 regarding 20:10 78:8 ready 9:12 recommendations 34:10, 19 represent real 28:5, 10 9:3 11:20, regardless 51:13 realize 33:17 21 12:1 70:12 94:2 realized 8:14 34:8 43:15 region 41:7 representatives really 4:15 44:1 50:20 42:6, 12 13:4 14:5 6:18 8:9 55:17 46:14 48:14 70:3 9:8 11:9 recommended regional representing 16:3, 17 27:15 38:1 41:17 5:21 18:22 45:11 46:2, recommends reject 93:20 request 12 55:1, 10 27:22 94:5 19:18 30:16 56:18 60:2 reconstruct related 16:6 69:22

62:20 63:2 27:8 68:18 80:2 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 215 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 20 requesting retail 24:9, 13:8, 9, 18 scale 11:2 95:15 15 27:9 14:3 15:2 20:7 requests 28:7 46:1 75:5 25:12 26:18, scheduled require 22:5 retain 42:13 19, 20, 21 82:17 42:6, 21 retired 25:12 27:4, 5, 7, school 13:7 47:5 93:17 REV 2:9 10 28:4, 10, 35:11, 16, 20 required Reverend 11, 11, 15, 17 36:3, 19 13:15 39:6 17:19 68:11 32:17 33:2 45:2 64:1, 7 48:1 review 8:1, 34:13 35:9, schools 64:6, requires 5, 8 9:1, 4, 17 37:15, 17, 9 12:21 14 10:13 18 39:17 Scott 27:1, requites 96:6 13:11 15:13 41:1 52:6, 1 29:10 reside 26:17 38:22 42:2 17 56:14 35:18, 22 residence 43:14 74:5 62:9 64:9 screen 7:18 41:9, 9 64:4 85:10 93:17 78:8 80:8 17:10 26:11 residences reviewed 82:6 97:20 88:15 58:17 59:3 8:16 9:7, 99:10 se 49:14 resident 11 10:15 rockville2040 Seal 101:17 19:1, 3 reviews 53:19 12:13 second 18:11 26:18 62:3 rezoning Rockville's 42:10 84:6, residential 22:11 57:22 11:8 9 88:10, 12 11:8 27:7, 59:19, 21 roof 47:17 98:18 99:2, 10 28:17 rid 61:7 room 36:8 13 29:4, 12 Ridgeway 19:7 RUHLEN 2:15 seconded 32:2, 21 ridiculous 40:11, 12, 14, 88:14 99:15 43:3, 4 61:17 19, 20 44:8, section 46:5 51:3, right 5:12 10, 14 45:7, 38:11 58:22 7 53:11 10:5 12:14 9, 20 47:7 73:19 59:11 66:21 16:2 32:19 48:4, 8 sections residentially 33:22 35:2 49:16, 18, 20 11:16 33:3 48:14 66:6 rules 5:4, 4, see 7:14, 19 residents 67:18 69:4, 6, 15 6:11 9:15 15:4, 13:13 50:20 5, 12 70:5, 7:3 18:7 5, 6 16:15 52:17, 20 15 77:6 run 39:14 17:10, 11, 17 58:7 59:6 78:15, 16 78:8 33:10 40:10 60:6 98:1 86:15 88:18 55:13 66:5 residue 68:15 rights 34:17 < S > 67:16, 19 resoundingly riskier 47:2 safely 35:16 72:9, 10 60:10 Road 50:10, safety 35:10 73:18 74:9 respect 17 53:15 36:17 59:16 86:21 88:14 32:16 72:20 54:11 58:1 sales 20:11, 89:21 response 62:2 63:21 19 24:12 seed 74:18 58:15 96:2 SARAH 2:5 seeing 7:19 responses roadway 51:22 savings 21:10 17:12, 13 94:19 Rockshire saw 24:12 22:3 80:13 rest 20:3 34:17 36:10 saying 12:8 seek 8:8 21:7 58:21 ROCKVILLE 54:10 65:2 20:12 27:11 64:8 89:13 1:1, 1, 1 76:4 93:10 seeking result 93:22 4:3, 6, 18 95:5 22:12 48:16

8:1 12:9 says 91:22 seeks 27:8 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 216 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 21 seen 12:10 share 7:18 single 20:11 sounds 92:10 20:18 21:10 34:7 22:13 28:9 93:5 99:3 45:14, 22 Shellhorn 49:10 51:10, sources 41:15 75:5 39:8, 12 22 57:3 South 19:11 segment 86:2 Shellhorn's sir 40:6 51:14 segregate 39:10 83:8 space 24:15 53:10 shift 40:9 sites 49:5 spaces 27:12 segue 76:7 shocked 58:10 situation 34:18, 20, 21 Shopping 46:12 speak 10:6 self-identified 34:14 36:10 size 27:11 17:8 34:1 13:22 37:16 skyrocketed 67:11, 19 send 14:22 shore 64:14 20:19 24:13 69:10 15:5, 6 85:7 short 12:13 slew 14:8 speaker 17:6 sending 88:20 19:17 22:20 slide 8:15 33:16 40:11 sense 86:14 shorter 92:5 15:8 45:11, 21 94:14 shortfall slow 74:20 49:22 57:18 sensitive 41:16, 17 slower 74:20 61:3, 9 53:8 42:21 slowing 76:5 Speakers sent 12:19 shortly 17:1 small 20:7 2:15 64:20 13:3 14:4 shown 15:8 38:19 52:14 speaking separate 17:15 38:11 smart 47:17 5:18 30:4 50:22 81:5 side 27:22 48:9, 12, 20 44:12, 14 84:3 94:13 30:19, 21 49:14 53:9 50:11 84:21 separated 37:18 38:7 60:16 75:14, 97:20 35:13 50:17 58:12, 15 specific 9:2 September 12 smoothly 11:16 31:9 1:1 10:1 sides 36:1 17:22 41:13 43:7, 14:18, 19 52:3 53:14 snap 20:21 15, 17 57:22 37:21 39:20 54:12 55:4 social 14:8, 59:3, 8 42:4 77:14 57:3 64:12 9 29:5 98:22 series 84:3 65:10 78:18 79:18 specifically served 51:8 sidewalks society 20:21 31:12 62:5 service 80:15 35:18 somebody 65:4 77:4 session sign 10:6 61:7 86:3 spectrum 71:13 94:11 signal 39:4 Someone's 42:19 49:3 sessions signalized 97:12 speeding 76:4 19:12 68:22 39:7 somewhat 12:6 spent 28:5 79:5 89:15 Signature soon 15:5, 5 spoken 10:3, set 20:10 101:17 23:14 7 30:9, 13, 55:9 76:21 signed 16:20 sooner 74:5 17, 22 80:4, 18 significant 81:22 square 60:2, 81:17 87:14 21:14 sorely 62:22 3 90:14 similar 4:22 Sorry 40:7 Staff 2:10, sets 80:22 38:6 54:20 55:11 13 5:1 7:5 setting 81:13 simple 29:16 73:5 88:13 9:7 10:8 seven 6:13 30:11 sort 6:2 13:4 14:8 SHA 39:3, 5 simply 70:14 45:16 74:3 15:20 17:3 Shady 57:20 75:4 92:6 76:15 19:13, 19 Shalhorn 94:2 sound 61:13 27:21 33:21

37:15 34:16 35:13 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 217 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 22 54:2, 15 strengthen suggest system 45:2 55:5 67:12 87:12 27:19 96:15 76:21 84:1, stress 75:6 suggested < T > 4 93:16, 17, strictly 76:21 77:8 table 88:2 20 94:1, 5 25:10 suggesting take 12:1 97:22 98:13 strips 38:17 74:16 17:2, 7 staff's 9:9 strong 32:14 suggestion 19:17 20:4 77:22 80:2 stronger 27:2 34:8 72:20 22:20 33:14 stage 85:5 strongly 77:22 40:7 49:21 standards 60:9 94:8 summarize 54:4 65:14 51:6 struck 59:4 66:20 83:5 85:7 standpoint structure summary 7:2 86:8 94:12, 97:18 11:3 27:13 12:17 64:11 18 start 5:1 structured supply 41:5 taken 12:2, 68:17 79:4 29:7 62:8 18 45:15 started student 36:9 support 39:1 101:9 61:20 75:8 48:9 42:14 46:14 talk 62:1 starting 4:9 students 50:13 53:3 66:10, 11 state 13:16 35:13, 13, 16, 58:17 59:21 89:7 19:5 20:10 21 36:4 60:5 64:20 talked 47:16 21:18 39:3 64:5 66:21 69:22 78:3 87:4, stated 51:4 studies 41:12 93:6 8 98:22 53:3 59:22 study 11:22 supportable talking 93:2 45:22 51:18 9:22 47:18 56:19 statement stuff 79:19 supporting 64:22 92:19 95:14 82:21 87:16, 49:1 50:14 98:15 station 50:10 19 99:5 supportive talks 55:1 stations subject 41:6, 31:17 62:21 tallest 33:2 47:18 11 supports 28:7 tangible statistics submissions supposing 55:14 45:13 6:20 81:17 task 42:10 stay 63:3 submit 13:12 sure 9:12 tax 41:20 steady 39:18 15:1 79:1 17:22 24:22 46:9 steam 82:20 95:6 25:10 26:12, teacher 35:8 STEVEN 2:15 submitted 14 27:20 technical 17:9 26:4, 15:17 37:22 32:8 47:12 4:10 6:12 16 50:14, 15 54:12 61:1 18:3, 10 stick 6:5 54:8 72:2 64:19 70:20 73:9 stock 59:12 77:12 78:22 72:6 78:13 technically 66:11, 12 93:11 94:6 92:18 97:10 17:7 84:6 stores 24:10 subscribed 98:12 strain 52:13 13:20 surge 82:13 technologically Street 26:22 subsidy 92:6 surprised 33:20 27:9, 16 substantial 30:15 telework 28:1 30:6, 34:10 surrounding 21:22 22:1 19 31:1, 14, suburban 58:6 65:13 tell 29:11 21 51:7 sudden 82:9 SUSAN 2:7 30:13 83:19 57:1, 4 sufficient suspect 24:7 96:17 58:5 63:21 42:13 60:5 switch 20:16 telling 86:19 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 218 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 23 Templeton 79:14, 15 93:3 96:7 48:2 75:18 39:8 84:5 85:1, 98:18 79:3 98:18 temporary 10, 18 86:3, things 6:7 three 5:16 48:16 4 94:3, 5, 6, 24:14 31:22 22:8 38:16, tenants 38:5 10 95:3, 6, 46:9 55:12 19 70:9 term 73:15 15 59:9, 10 tie 91:9 termed 8:1 text 101:4 66:9 75:6, time 6:3, 21 terming 8:13 Thank 7:16, 11 82:22 9:11 15:17 terms 5:14 16 16:20, 21 86:2 16:18 18:8, 6:7 41:14 17:18, 18 think 5:1, 8 8 20:4 45:18 46:3, 22:22 23:1 9:21 12:15 21:16 28:5, 18 48:18 24:16 25:3, 16:19 20:22 18 36:21 82:16 9, 16, 16, 18, 23:7, 8, 17, 43:12 48:22 testified 19, 21 26:13, 17, 18 24:3, 56:13 72:7 35:9 15 28:17, 19 5, 12 29:11, 73:16 75:10 testify 29:17 31:3, 15, 16 32:10, 77:17 81:1, 40:22 70:9 4, 19 32:13 21 33:4, 19 13 86:9 testimonies 33:7, 9 40:11, 16 91:15 92:8 37:22 54:15 36:21, 22 46:12, 14 95:12 62:16 66:9 37:3, 10, 12 48:18, 22 timer 17:15 testimony 39:18, 22 49:18 54:22 timers 17:11 4:20 5:13 40:4, 6, 19 55:1 63:2 times 22:6, 6:9, 17, 18, 44:4, 7, 15, 66:11 67:19, 8 46:20 20, 21 7:7 17 45:7 20 68:3, 11, today 8:11 8:8 9:20 46:16 47:5, 16 69:20 10:1 14:18 10:3, 3, 7, 5, 7 49:15, 70:1, 8, 8 19:17 36:14 11, 14, 20 19, 20 53:18, 71:4 74:8, 71:18 84:20 13:12 14:17 21 56:21 16 75:14, 19 today's 12:19 15:1, 3, 12, 57:5, 8 78:15, 19 told 21:12 16, 22 16:10, 60:17, 19 80:20 81:16 36:6, 7 87:5 19 17:21 61:21 64:15, 82:16, 16 tone 76:3 23:4 24:18 16 65:7 83:7 85:19 tonight 6:22 26:3 28:21 66:19 67:6, 89:8 90:6, 10:10 26:20 31:6 37:1, 9 74:12, 13 13 92:6 34:16 37:15 21 38:21 76:16 77:14 93:1, 15, 21, 47:18 50:11 39:20 40:2, 79:21 81:10 22 96:19 65:19 67:12 18 44:4 83:8, 9 97:1 100:12 69:17 74:6 45:5 47:13 88:13, 18 thinking 75:16 79:12 50:13 51:1 96:11 98:11 68:17 77:1 80:5, 14, 18, 53:19 54:8 Thanks 29:18 81:15 86:6 22 81:4, 13 55:4 57:22 32:3 33:5 third 42:15 82:11 89:17 60:22 61:22 45:6, 8 Thomas 35:11 tonight's 64:18 67:9 57:6 60:21 thoroughly 88:21 68:1, 8 67:7 71:17 63:18 topic 5:9 69:1, 21 thing 6:2 thought 6:9 7:4 45:11 70:7, 10 23:7, 9 46:18 74:14 68:3, 8 71:4, 5, 14 32:21 61:1 77:3 topical 8:18 74:15 75:18 69:16 77:7, thoughts topics 11:6, 77:12, 20 18 89:5 47:14, 15 22 68:9

78:7, 22 tot 52:13 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 219 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 24 town 22:19 trying 13:16 < U > usual 96:13 27:5, 17 32:19 69:10 ULA 31:7 usually 98:4 28:7, 11, 17 tune 43:22 ultimately 29:12 30:7 turn 6:16 8:2 92:13 < V > 31:8, 14 7:5, 15 8:3 underrepresente VANGRACK 32:1, 11, 15, tweak 12:6 d 60:4 2:15 17:9, 18, 20, 22 Twinbrook understand 10, 11 18:3, townhomes 19:11 20:6 57:2 83:13 6 26:4, 4, 6, 51:12 67:1 37:19 53:16 understanding 10, 16, 17 townhouse 56:8 57:21 81:3 84:11 28:20, 21 58:13, 18 58:21 60:7 understood 29:3, 9, 20 townhouses 63:3 64:1 85:22 86:10 30:2, 11 63:7 two 4:14 undertaken 31:5, 9 track 22:18 10:20 16:12 13:1 32:12 33:7, tracks 38:9 22:6, 7 unfortunately 9, 12 traditionally 23:7 33:1, 5:10 18:8 variation 43:18 49:10, 1 36:1 uniform 96:6 73:13 12 50:12, 22 uniformly various 13:5 traffic 60:2, 3 94:10 31:22 41:12 39:11 52:1 62:15 64:20 unique 11:7 vast 21:11 59:15 71:3, 20 units 42:7, vehicles transcript 76:12 77:15 9, 18 62:19 20:17 101:5 82:9 86:17 universal vein 77:4 transit 13:7 89:4 91:11 58:16 version 4:20 47:21 48:15 92:5 94:11 unmuted 16:18 viable 41:20 49:5 63:10, 98:5 unpack 75:2 video 14:8 13 two-week 80:6 18:18 37:8 transition TYNER 2:8 unrealistically 50:2 55:12 27:6 36:1 17:17, 19 21:1 61:12 transitional 29:21, 22 UPDATE 1:1 view 60:7 51:8 30:2 31:2, 4:18 7:22 74:9 95:17 transmitted 5 44:18, 20 8:10 12:3 views 50:15 101:4 45:9 56:5, 13:1 41:1 vigilant transportation 6 71:18, 20 49:8 89:11 43:21 20:9, 17 81:11, 12 98:10 Village 24:5, 5 83:10 87:1, updates 14:1 34:14 36:10 45:2 48:19 2 90:12, 13, upset 58:13 violate 39:5 68:18 19, 21 91:11, urban 11:21 violently travel 48:1 13 92:3 27:14 28:12 91:19 tremendous 96:10, 11 31:11, 17 Virginia 41:7 99:13, 16, 18 42:11 22:10 51:18 trends 45:14 type 62:7 usable 52:2 101:20 74:6 75:4 66:7 73:17 use 8:21 virtual 4:16 tried 12:11 99:5 28:1, 15 5:19 6:19 true 30:10 types 43:17 35:5 38:1 14:13, 22 101:5 47:4 49:2, 41:2 43:3, virtually try 7:18 11 53:6 4 48:11 4:8 5:8, 19 14:13 15:18 67:2 78:19 79:6 6:16 50:1 48:5, 6 96:7 uses 43:5 68:2 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 220 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 25 virus 20:13, 12:10 19:15 81:6 82:14 willing 96:15 18 22:13 54:1, 98:4 wise 17:12 vision 43:9 3, 12, 17 weekly 15:19 wish 91:2 visit 12:12 56:6 66:5 weeks 10:20 wished 82:14 visitors 70:14 74:2 16:12 76:12 WMATA 13:6 13:13 83:5 86:19, 77:15 80:12 wonder 32:9 VOLUME 1:1 21 87:12 86:21 98:5 wondered 4:16 7:7 89:9 90:22 weigh 72:19 58:6 76:5 8:13, 16 91:11, 21 weighing wonderful 9:19 11:1 92:7, 18 71:17 53:13 16:5 19:22 93:13 96:11 welcome 4:3 wondering 43:1, 6, 16 97:1 98:12 19:9 37:5, 25:5 45:10 83:15, 21 wanted 5:11 11 47:7 73:21 84:2, 6, 9, 15:11 64:19 48:3 50:6 WOOD 2:9 13, 16, 16, 19, 71:10 76:5 53:5 57:14 17:14, 19 22 85:2 wants 72:18 61:19 85:13 28:22 29:1, 88:4, 5 93:4 well 8:12 3, 17 44:11, 92:12, 14, 17, warrant 49:4 13:12 14:2, 12, 16, 18 17 93:6, 10, Washington 6, 15 16:7 68:10, 11, 11 18, 19, 20, 21 13:14 26:22 26:6, 10 90:5, 6 94:4, 12 27:9, 16, 22 27:2 30:11 97:8, 11 volumes 30:6, 19 31:9 32:22 100:3, 5 83:20 92:15 31:1, 14, 21 33:3 40:2 Wootton 99:12 41:5 42:4 41:9 54:10 35:11, 20 vote 80:22 WASILAK 2:13 55:5 58:18 36:3 81:4, 5, 8 7:12 97:4 59:14 64:18 word 13:17 89:20, 21 watched 58:2 66:13, 18 14:17 34:9 90:2, 12, 19, way 6:5 67:9, 16, 22 74:16 20 91:6, 7 18:9 21:8 69:19 70:6 words 70:15 93:12 94:3, 24:11 26:12 74:15 80:6 work 9:9 15 96:15 29:16 30:5 83:7 91:16 18:1, 10 99:15, 17, 20 54:13 58:4 95:22 21:11, 13, 16 100:1, 4, 7, 61:18 70:4 we're 6:5 43:8 46:19 10 71:12 72:19 8:21 47:18 47:2, 4 voted 82:11 78:16 80:7 68:13 69:17 55:16 58:4 93:7 92:7 77:3 80:13 61:18 63:12 votes 71:16 ways 28:4 86:6 71:12 75:7 voting 96:21 33:17 66:22 West 22:9 79:4 80:10 71:21 75:4 27:22 30:21 84:19 89:12, < W > WebEx 4:9, we've 8:1 15 94:11 wait 17:20 11 17:8 9:4, 16 workability 34:12 69:13 website 5:16 10:13 14:3 94:17 71:22 12:9 13:18 17:20 29:14 worked 83:7 walk 35:14 14:2, 15 47:16 74:6 workers 46:10 48:17 15:3 78:19 82:18 83:7 21:15 46:22, 50:8, 9, 12 Wednesday 87:17 22 57:19 69:21 1:1 16:11 wide 35:21 workforce walks 52:13 week 22:2 wider 51:17 51:17 52:19 want 9:19, 79:11, 11 wife 57:19 53:10 60:1

20 10:17 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 221 2.1.1.c September 9 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 26 workforces Yep 34:4 21:11, 13 37:6 61:2 working 22:4 yield 69:10 24:7 47:22 61:9, 11 < Z > 63:11 69:17 zone 48:12 99:6 51:12, 12 workplaces 53:15 59:6, 48:2 8 62:14, 14 works 58:11 zoned 22:14 worth 42:3 38:1 worthy 60:1 Zones 53:16 wrap 6:7 54:18 55:1, writing 72:2 18 written 6:18, zoning 11:20 21 10:11, 14, 12:1, 3 20 15:1, 3, 28:1, 14 12, 16 16:10 31:10 34:13 37:20 38:21 35:4 36:16 39:20 40:1 50:22 64:13 42:1 44:4 65:18 45:4 50:13 51:1 70:10 77:11, 20 79:15 92:1 wrong 33:21 www.rockvillemd .gov 12:13

< Y > Yeah 31:19 55:10, 18 56:6 76:8, 15 77:8, 14 79:5 89:5 year 4:5 9:1, 6 10:14 13:17 23:22 42:9 48:11 81:22 82:18 89:13, 14 years 20:20 36:10 38:5 43:9 51:3 56:10 57:21 60:13 62:3 74:5 Yekta 38:5 Attachment 2.1.1.c: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 9 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 222 2.1.1.d

CITY OF ROCKVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

MEETING NO. 17-2020

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1A PUBLIC HEARING ON VOLUME II: PLANNING AREAS, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DRAFT ROCKVILLE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE

Wednesday, September 23, 2020 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Packet Pg. 223 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 2

1 PARTICIPANTS:

2 Planning Commission:

3 CHARLES LITTLEFIELD, Chair

4 ANNE GOODMAN, Commissioner

5 SARAH MILLER, Commissioner

6 DON HADLEY, Commissioner

7 SUSAN PITMAN, Commissioner

8 JOHN TYNER, II, Commissioner

9 REV. JANE E. WOOD, Commissioner

10 Staff:

11 CLARK LARSON, Principal Planner

12 DAVID LEVY, Assistant Director of Planning

13 JIM WASILAK, Staff Liaison

14 ANDREA GILLES, Principal Planner

15 NICHOLAS DUMAIS, Assistant City Attorney 16 Speakers: 17 MIKE STEIN 18 BOB YOUNGENTOB 19 ROBERT HARRIS 20 DAVID DeMARCO 21 MIKE DUTKA 22 JIM POLICARO Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 224 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 3

1 PARTICIPANTS (CONT'D):

2 CATHERINE CONTRERAS

3 JANE PONTIUS

4 NOREEN BRYAN

5 PATRICIA WOODWARD

6 MARGARET MAGNER

7 DEBORAH LANDAU

8 LAUREN POVICH

9 JAIMIE MORRIS

10 JENNIFER TIMMICK

11 NICK JONES

12 KEVIN ZALETSKY

13 RHODA NDJOUKOUO

14 NANCY PICKARD

15 BRIAN SHIPLEY

16 HYUN KIM

17 CHRISTINE McGUIRL

18 PATRICK WOODWARD

19

20 * * * * *

21

22 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 225 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 4

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Good evening and

3 welcome everybody to the city of Rockville

4 Planning Commission meeting. This is our 17th

5 meeting of the year 2020, and it is being held

6 virtually via WebEx due to City Hall being closed

7 on account of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic we're

8 all suffering.

9 We only have one agenda item tonight.

10 And also, I should note there are six of seven

11 commissioners present. We're short one

12 commissioner this evening. But we only have one

13 agenda item this evening, and that is a public

14 hearing on our Draft Comprehensive Plan, Volume

15 II, which covers planning areas. This is the

16 second of two hearings that the Planning

17 Commission is holding, and the previous hearing

18 was already held on our last meeting, which was

19 September 9th, I believe. So, this is our second

20 and final meeting virtually -- well, in general.

21 And just I'm going to start us off, I'm

22 going to turn it over to staff to start us off on Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 226 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 5

1 this. However, I just have a few quick

2 announcements initially.

3 So, one is that we, at last check, we

4 had 37 people registered, pre-registered, which is

5 a procedure for participating in this virtually,

6 which is quite a lot compared to our usual

7 meetings. I have heard that some people may have

8 potentially registered by mistake, that they just

9 wanted to listen into the meeting and not

10 necessarily give commentary. So, if that is the

11 case, you can sign out and continue to watch

12 either on regular TV or via stream via the city's

13 website. But, in any case, if you do want to

14 speak and you're signed up, that's the plan. So,

15 please feel free to participate in any case.

16 I do want to say that we have slightly

17 modified our usual procedures, not a lot, but

18 simply to account for the virtual nature of this.

19 And one thing about that is that we have limited

20 of three minutes for every speaker. And that

21 actually is how we do it anyways. And five

22 minutes if you're representing a civic association Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 227 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 6

1 or a similar entity.

2 But I will say we're going to be very

3 strict with that limit. Our last public hearing

4 nobody went over by not even one second. And so

5 we are going to hold everybody to three minutes.

6 There will be a display on the screen so you can

7 tell how much time you have remaining. I do

8 apologize ahead of time. It's not that I want to

9 cut people off, but we do have a lot of speakers.

10 And even that aside, important, the main reason we

11 have this rule is just to ensure fairness from one

12 speaker to the next, so it's going to a

13 three-minute limit or five if you're with an

14 organization.

15 In any case, the virtual testimony is

16 just one way of communicating to us your thoughts

17 and feelings on our draft plan. We also take

18 written testimony and, in fact, even prefer it or

19 encourage it, especially given the difficult times

20 we're going through right now. And that can be

21 provided after tonight. We voted at our last

22 meeting to keep the public record open until Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 228 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 7

1 October 7th, close of business, I think 5 p.m. to

2 be precise. So, that gives anyone additional time

3 to provide further commentary in writing to us.

4 And you are not limited; if you speak tonight and

5 you want to give further commentary in writing,

6 you can. You can do that up until we close the

7 public record on it.

8 So, those are my initial comments.

9 Again, welcome and we're all looking forward to

10 hearing everybody's thoughts.

11 So, with that, unless any other of my

12 fellow commissioners have any initial comments,

13 I'll turn it over to staff, city staff, to get us

14 started on this item and get the public hearing

15 underway.

16 MR. LARSON: Yes, thank you, Chairperson

17 Littlefield. This is Clark Larson. I'm a

18 principal planner in the Planning and Development

19 Services Department. And I'm joined here with

20 just part of the project team that's been working

21 on bringing the Draft Comprehensive Plan to the

22 Planning Commission for their consideration and Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 229 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 8

1 deliberation over the past few years.

2 I wanted to name a few others who are on

3 the call today: Andrea Gilles, David Levy, Jim

4 Wasilak, Larissa Klevan, Manisha Tewari, Nicholas

5 Dumais. And those are the staff I see. I think

6 everyone else who you might see pictures of on the

7 screen are either planning commissioners, who are

8 also important people, as well. But there's a lot

9 of other staff behind the scenes who have been

10 working with us over the years, so I want to

11 recognize them, as well.

12 So, I will start sharing my screen now

13 to provide a little more visual interest. And as

14 Chairperson Littlefield said, this is the public

15 hearing to accept oral testimony, spoken

16 testimony, for the "Planning Areas" draft of the

17 Comprehensive Plan Update that we're working on.

18 We've called it "Rockville 2040." And I'll get

19 into a little bit more about the background and

20 how we've been going through the process in the

21 next couple slides.

22 Some milestones that we've hit and Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 230 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 9

1 expect to hit in the future. An initial staff

2 draft was reviewed by the Planning Commission of

3 December of last year through January. And this

4 was really the culmination of staff work behind

5 the scenes, but also working to speak with the

6 public and meet with the public in various groups

7 and settings to create the "Planning Areas" draft.

8 And the Planning Commission had some edits and

9 changes to the draft before they decided to

10 release it to public review, and that happened in

11 February of 2020.

12 And it's been out on the street in

13 various forms and venues since then. Although we

14 had some -- you'll see below, on the public

15 hearing dates scheduled in May 2020, to have

16 what's happening now happen back in May, so we had

17 to, because of the COVID pandemic, reschedule

18 those, figure out better ways to do outreach and

19 get the word out about it, and figure out how to

20 hold a virtual public hearing, as well.

21 So, right now we are at the public

22 hearing phase of the draft review, but we've been Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 231 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 10

1 accepting written testimony every since February.

2 So, the public record has been open since then

3 and, as Commissioner Littlefield said, will be

4 open until October 7th.

5 And then after that passes, we will be

6 moving into the work session phase with the

7 Planning Commission, reviewing all of the

8 testimony that was received on the "Planning

9 Areas" draft and any comments that we might have

10 received on other portions of the Comp Plan. I'll

11 talk in a minute about what's in Volume I. I

12 think I will. If I don't, I'll bring it up later.

13 But we expect to have work session

14 meetings in October, November, and December at

15 regular Planning Commission meetings. And at that

16 point, the Planning Commission may decided that

17 the draft and both volumes for the elements for

18 citywide policies and the planning areas are in a

19 good enough format that they can vote to approve

20 it for consideration by the Mayor and Council.

21 So, that is another step after this point where

22 the Planning Commission really is the review Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 232 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 11

1 authority that initiates the Comprehensive Plan

2 updates and they send it on to Mayor and Council

3 for approval, ultimate approval.

4 So, I don't know. I'm going to do a

5 quick -- yeah, I don't know if I talk about the

6 Volume I in these slides, but I will just briefly

7 mention that what we've termed "Volume I" are the

8 10 citywide elements. They have to do with

9 transportation, land use, housing, the

10 environment, water resources, and some other

11 topics. And they really have recommended policies

12 and actions to take that apply to the entire city,

13 citywide. These planning area policies and

14 recommendations are really specific chapters for

15 each planning area, which is a neighborhood-based

16 area, a neighborhood-scale area of a cluster of

17 neighborhoods, maybe some commercial areas. We

18 think of them as really common areas of the city

19 that have a similar character, have an affinity

20 with each other.

21 The boundaries really represent just

22 that, just breaking it up for organizational sake. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 233 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 12

1 They are treated equally as far as the land use

2 categories are pretty much the same across them,

3 but they're just kind of broken up in sort of

4 sections or chapters by planning area for the ease

5 of being able to focus on what certain planning

6 areas might need over others. So, I think I've

7 covered some of that.

8 So, it includes in -- essentially each

9 planning area has area-specific policy changes.

10 It might be one property or a group of properties,

11 zoning and design recommendations that would be

12 considered during new developments or changes in

13 land uses, potential city projects that might take

14 place in any one planning area, and other topics

15 for study.

16 And I've had the website up here for a

17 little while. It's pretty easy to find if you

18 want to find out any information or read the

19 actual draft if you haven't yet. It's the city's

20 website, rockvillemd.gov/Rockville-2040.

21 A little bit about what we've been doing

22 over this past year for public outreach. We've Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 234 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 13

1 gone through the official channels of sending

2 letters and notifications to the State Department

3 of Planning, surrounding jurisdictions, advertised

4 it in the paper. But we're really also tried to

5 leverage as much electronic outreach as we can,

6 email distribution lists, websites, the city's

7 Rockville Reports articles, social media. We

8 haven't been able to go out into the community as

9 much as we had hoped this year, although that has

10 been happening over the entire Rockville 2040

11 process through initial conversations with a

12 number of -- essentially every neighborhood that

13 we could contact, every planning area. So, this

14 is really the public outreach that we've done this

15 year, although we have been face-to-face with the

16 community in the past.

17 So, as Commissioner Littlefield said,

18 this tonight, the public hearing, is an

19 opportunity oral testimony. It's not the only

20 opportunity to provide comments and testimony to

21 the Planning Commission. You can email them

22 directly at this address, Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 235 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 14

1 [email protected], and the all

2 receive that at once. We also receive it and we

3 add it to the record that way.

4 You can online to our project website

5 and submit comments through an online forum. It's

6 really just name, address, topic, and you can type

7 in the comment field there. Or you can use the

8 old-school mail-in written testimony. We're still

9 checking mail at City Hall even though we have a

10 skeleton crew there basically.

11 All oral and written testimony will be

12 made available to the Planning Commission during

13 the work sessions. We'll be summarizing it and

14 sort of organizing it for discussion at that

15 point, so it's al considered part of the public

16 record.

17 So, the official part of my

18 presentation, our recommendation is for the

19 Planning Commission to receive oral testimony on

20 the Draft Plan tonight and confirm the work

21 session dates that already have been discussed,

22 but just to have them be solidified as far as the Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 236 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 15

1 next few meetings for work sessions.

2 So, with that, it starts the public

3 testimony period. And I'll stop sharing my

4 screen. I think it's going to come back to Bonita

5 (phonetic). And I think we'll just start going

6 down the list. It's basically in the order of

7 which we were contacted for public testimony.

8 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr.

9 Larson. It looks like we're ready to proceed then

10 with our public testimony. So, I have the list

11 open and I will just state the name and address.

12 We don't need to state it for the record because

13 we already have it.

14 So, number 1 is Mike Stein, 13004

15 Atlantic Avenue, in representation of Twinbrook

16 Community Association. Mike, are you online with

17 us?

18 MR. STEIN: I am. Can you hear me?

19 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep. Welcome and

20 please proceed. You have five minutes as a civic

21 association representative.

22 MR. STEIN: Thank you. Good evening, Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 237 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 16

1 Mr. Chair and fellow commissioners as noted. My

2 name is Mike Stein and I am speaking tonight as

3 president of the Twinbrook Community Association,

4 who wishes to thank you for this opportunity to

5 provide feedback to the Planning Commission on the

6 Draft Comprehensive Plan for the City of

7 Rockville. We have a longer written document we

8 will submit as written testimony, but tonight

9 we'll just be reading a few excerpts.

10 Volume II, which represents Rockville's

11 planning areas, is a positive step forward in a

12 long-range plan to develop our beloved city. We

13 especially want to thank city planning staff for

14 their efforts over the last five years. City

15 staff have me with Twinbrook residents at least

16 three times since 2015. According to Rockville

17 2040's website, this appears more than any other

18 planning area. We appreciate the outreach and

19 think the plan accurately reflects the vision of

20 the neighborhood shared by neighbors at the

21 meeting. TCA agrees with all of the

22 recommendations in the plan for Planning Area 8, Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 238 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 17

1 and we will specifically highlight those we find

2 most important and were commented on by neighbors

3 as part of our outreach.

4 With regard to land use, housing, and

5 economic development, we applaud the inclusion of

6 the Twinbrook Metro Station area and the Veirs

7 Mill Corridor in the land use policy map to ensure

8 that Twinbrook residents have access to flexible

9 zoning arrangements that allow for growth and

10 housing options. We think this is a smart and

11 creative way to help address the city's and

12 county's housing needs in the future, as well as

13 support the Metro and the hopefully soon to be

14 built Bus Rapid Transit along Veirs Mill Road.

15 In particular, the residential-retail

16 nodes highlighted in Areas 2 and 3 are responsive

17 to the community's request to be a more walkable

18 neighborhood. The area around the Twinbrook Metro

19 is an important one to our community. It connects

20 us to the retail and services provided along

21 Rockville Pike. We support transit-oriented

22 development that can connect the residential side Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 239 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 18

1 of the track to the Pike in a meaningful way,

2 including a pedestrian-bike crossing. This will

3 also fulfill our shared goal of a truly walkable

4 city. Project 6 remains a top priority of the

5 neighborhood.

6 With regards to transportation, we look

7 forward to the possibility that the BRT will bring

8 for innovation, economic development, easing of

9 traffic congestion. We strongly support a BRT

10 station at Atlantic Avenue as well as the

11 extension of Atlantic through to McAuliffe should

12 the shopping center be developed.

13 The extension of Lewis Avenue to Fishers

14 Lane is a project that has been raised many times

15 over the decades. We understand it has been

16 controversial and there was limited support for it

17 in the past. However, we believe the time has

18 come to implement this improvement. With the

19 recent and anticipated future development at

20 Twinbrook Metro, it serves as another access point

21 for the neighborhood.

22 We understand the concerns people have Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 240 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 19

1 using Lewis -- about people using Lewis Avenue as

2 a cut-through to avoid Rockville Pike. However,

3 in this age of smartphones and navigation apps, we

4 believe that this cut-through traffic already

5 occurs. People already use Lewis Avenue to get to

6 and from the Pike and Twinbrook Parkway. But

7 today that means a (technical inaudible) also been

8 a long-time request of residents.

9 In the area of recreation and parks, we

10 encourage an investment in the Rockcrest Community

11 Center so that it may serve as a location for

12 community meetings, programs, and sports. At a

13 recent TCA membership meeting, support for Project

14 8 was specifically mentioned as a need.

15 Rockville's ballet program is highly regarded and

16 a strength of the city's recreation program.

17 Improvement and expanding in this facility would

18 be a benefit not only to Twinbrook, but also the

19 city.

20 And lastly tonight, I wanted to comment

21 on some testimony you received from the Cambridge

22 Walk HOA on September 9th. The TCA strongly Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 241 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 20

1 supports Cambridge Walk HOA's request to remain

2 part of Planning Area 8 rather than part of the

3 Rockville Pike Planning Area or Planning Area 9.

4 Although the townhome communities along Halpine

5 are represented by their own HOAs, they are and

6 historically have been part of the Twinbrook

7 community.

8 We share their general concern about the

9 potential redevelopment of the properties at 5906

10 Halpine Road, the Twinbrook Community Church, and

11 5946 Halpine Road. TCA does not have a position

12 at this time on the appropriate zoning for these

13 two properties. However, we do support townhomes,

14 a missing middle housing, at these locations. We

15 are in contact with the Cambridge Walk HOA and are

16 committed to working together to find a solution

17 that works for everyone. We believe that can best

18 be accomplished if we all remain part of the same

19 planning area.

20 Thank you.

21 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you for your

22 comments, Mr. Stein. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 242 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 21

1 The next on my list is Bob Youngentob of

2 EYA, LLC, 4800 Hampton Lane, Bethesda. Bob, are

3 you with us? Hello? Maybe you need to unmute.

4 Bob, are you connected?

5 MR. YOUNGENTOB: There we go. Can you

6 hear me now?

7 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes, yes. Welcome.

8 MR. YOUNGENTOB: I was trying to unmute.

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Loud and clear.

10 MR. YOUNGENTOB: I apologize there, but

11 I was trying to unmute.

12 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: No problem.

13 Welcome. Go ahead.

14 MR. YOUNGENTOB: Thank you, Chairman

15 Littlefield and members of the Commission. For

16 the record, I'm Bob Youngentob I'm the CEO of EYA.

17 While we're new to this process here tonight in

18 the city, we're not new obviously to the City of

19 Rockville. As many of you know, we have been

20 involved in numerous developments in the city over

21 the years, including leading the development

22 effort at Falls Grove as well as under Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 243 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 22

1 construction today over at Tower Oaks.

2 We are here tonight to speak about the

3 Rockshire site and specifically the

4 recommendations for the Rockshire property. I

5 have a couple of slide that Clark is going to

6 share for me. Maybe, Clark, if you could just

7 advance to the second -- yeah, go ahead. This

8 just shows the site itself, but going to the

9 second slide -- if you go to the next one --

10 really just focused on one of the concerns that we

11 have in the language that speaks to the

12 requirement -- if you go back one -- to

13 substantial retail. And the idea that the

14 language I believe today says "substantial retail

15 and/or a community gathering space."

16 Having been involved in the development

17 at Park Potomac and Falls Grove, there is

18 substantial retail that has already been developed

19 in this area. And if retail was possible, it

20 likely would have already taken place on the

21 Rockshire site. We do not believe it's feasible

22 for new retail to be built there and, therefore, Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 244 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 23

1 would like the language changed or clarified so it

2 takes away the "and" and provides language of

3 "substantial retail or a community gathering

4 space."

5 If you go to the next slide, what we

6 believe is appropriate for this property, and

7 again we were brought into the site by the

8 landowners and are currently the contract

9 developer of the property, is primarily a

10 residential development with a community gathering

11 space at the intersection of Hurley and Wooten

12 Parkway. We believe it is an appropriate location

13 for a significant community gathering space that

14 could serve not only people using the bike path

15 and the bike trails, but also the residents of the

16 broader community.

17 We believe that architecturally that the

18 development -- I know we're not here to talk about

19 a development plan, but the development could, if

20 you go to the next slide, reflect and be

21 compatible with the existing residential in the

22 neighborhood. And these are some examples of Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 245 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 24

1 various townhome architectural styles that we have

2 incorporated not only on the lower right at Falls

3 Grove, but also in downtown Silver Spring and

4 Arlington, and the lower left at Tower Oaks today.

5 It's not a secret that housing demand is

6 of critical importance in the city. The city has

7 endorsed the Council of Government study. There

8 is much talk in the plan about the need for

9 additional missing middle housing. We believe

10 that townhomes are the appropriate use for this

11 site and they will definitely be compatible with

12 the adjoining townhomes, the community pool, the

13 church, and the bordering streets.

14 We do believe that this is a unique

15 opportunity to take advantage of existing

16 infrastructure where there is existing road

17 network, existing school capacity, existing

18 utility capacity to build on an infill property

19 with new missing middle housing. We're excited to

20 be selected by the landowner to be the developer

21 of this property and we look forward to working

22 with the community to address their concerns as Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 246 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 25

1 best we can.

2 But, again, I think the language today

3 provides too much ambiguity with regard to the

4 expectation for retail. And I think clarifying

5 that language will allow this development to move

6 forward. Unfortunately, the property obviously

7 has sat vacant for a number of years and we

8 believe this is a unique time and a unique

9 opportunity to actually see this solved, both for

10 economic development reasons, for the creation of

11 new missing middle housing, and also for the

12 addition of some new affordable housing in the

13 form of the MPDUs that go along with the site.

14 I don't see the timer on mine, so I

15 assume that I'm out of time. But I'm available to

16 answer any questions if there are any by the

17 commissioners.

18 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr.

19 Youngentob. Commissioners, any questions?

20 And yes, please feel free to share that

21 with us in writing, as well, the slides you were

22 presenting. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 247 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 26

1 I would ask a favor of city staff. I

2 had a problem during the -- just now with my other

3 monitor, so I don't have the participant list. I

4 know we're on participant number 3, so if somebody

5 has that open, if they could please ask the

6 participant to start. And I will fix my monitor.

7 I'm pretty sure it's fixable.

8 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: It's Robert

9 Harris.

10 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Pardon?

11 Commissioner Hadley, you have it?

12 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: It's Robert

13 Harris.

14 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay.

15 COMMISSIONER HADLEY: With (inaudible),

16 I believe.

17 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Mr. Harris, are you

18 with us?

19 MR. LARSON: Might be working on

20 unmuting.

21 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yeah. It takes some

22 getting used to. Is he confirmed on, though, on Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 248 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 27

1 our list?

2 MR. HARRIS: I'm 81. This is Bob

3 Harris. I was muted, I apologize.

4 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: No problem.

5 MR. HARRIS: A common crime.

6 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: It is. We're all

7 guilty of it. Welcome. Go ahead.

8 MR. HARRIS: Thank you. For the record,

9 I'm Bob Harris and I wanted to speak briefly and

10 also about the Rockshire Center, supporting the

11 principles of the Draft Plan that staff has worked

12 so hard on, but I want to clarify three issue.

13 One is the retail, two is the community us, and

14 the third one is parking on there.

15 As those of you who have lived any time

16 in Rockville know, a lot has changed in the retail

17 world since the Rockshire Shopping Center was

18 built. And when it was built originally it worked

19 well, but since then we've had a proliferation of

20 retail around the area, from Falls Grove to

21 Travilah to Park Potomac to even the new shopping

22 center on Research Boulevard, a new grocery store Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 249 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 28

1 on Darnestown Road. And at the same time, what

2 has happened is big box retailers have eaten into

3 the normal retail that we were used to at the

4 time. So, retail is struggling throughout the

5 country and, you know, this center has been

6 closed. Giant left I think eight years ago and

7 the other retailers left soon after that.

8 The owner of the property, whom I

9 represent, has tried diligently to find tenants

10 there and just to no success. So, we have a

11 concern about the language in the plan that calls

12 for substantial retail as an option. We just, in

13 all honesty, do not believe it's a realistic

14 option. We did provide the staff with a research

15 study that was done some time ago that amplifies

16 this.

17 Secondly, it does talk about "or an

18 amenity," which makes some sense so long as

19 expectations are realistic here. There has been

20 talk by some in the community that they want to a

21 new community center built there. Of course, a

22 new one was built not long ago up at Thomas Farm Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 250 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 29

1 that serves the west side of I-270 very well.

2 It's probably the biggest, best, and newest of the

3 community centers, and it's only about a mile and

4 a half away from the Rockshire area. We think

5 that meets the major community need.

6 Rather, we think that what would serve

7 the community well would be more of an outdoor

8 gathering space that would be consistent with the

9 Millennial Trail and what's going on in the

10 community around there. And I know that EYA is

11 looking at ways in which to do that. So, we're

12 hoping that the Planning Commission will see that

13 as a more viable option.

14 Lastly, there's been some recent

15 discussion about parking. The property today

16 provides about 31 spaces for the Rockshire pool

17 under an agreement that was entered many years

18 ago. The owners of the property have very

19 intention of continuing to adhere to that

20 agreement and will do so. We've already reached

21 out to the community to talk about how that is

22 done, but, at the same time, want to make it clear Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 251 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 30

1 that the property isn't --

2 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Mr. Harris. Sorry

3 to interrupt.

4 MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir.

5 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: It's three minutes.

6 The three minutes are up and I apologize, but

7 please just finish your last sentence, if you

8 could.

9 MR. HARRIS: I was just going to say we

10 can provide that parking, but I don't believe we

11 would be able to provide more than that. Thank

12 you very much.

13 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay. Thank you.

14 And I have a question, if you don't mind, on some

15 of your testimony.

16 MR. HARRIS: Sure.

17 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: And I was following

18 along and taking notes, but on the retail, is it

19 your position that you are opposed to any retail?

20 And the circumstances as you explained them are

21 easily and readily understood, but would you be

22 open to less or some retail or maybe even a Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 252 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 31

1 different retail that looks different than the

2 current type of retail people usually talk about?

3 MR. HARRIS: I certainly am opposed to

4 anything that would be considered significant

5 retail because I just think that has no

6 feasibility whatsoever. Minor retail, the problem

7 with that is that most small retailers rely on

8 grocery anchors to bring in the tenants. And so

9 it is very difficult for one small retailer or two

10 to function in an area like this, particularly

11 where it's not on a major highway and not in the

12 middle of a central business district. So, I

13 think work has to be done in terms of whether any

14 retail is really viable there.

15 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay. Thank you for

16 that further clarification. Commissioners, any

17 other questions or comments?

18 No, okay. Thanks again.

19 MR. HARRIS: Thank you very much.

20 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep. Our next

21 participant is Christine McGuirl from Federal

22 Realty Investment Trust, 909 Rose Avenue, North Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 253 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 32

1 Bethesda. Christine, are you with us? Please

2 check -- sorry, I see --

3 BONITA: I'm sorry, (inaudible).

4 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay.

5 BONITA: David DeMarco should be next.

6 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, I see that

7 now. Thanks, Bonita. So, David DeMarco, are you

8 with us then from PulteGroup, 9302 Lee Highway,

9 Fairfax?

10 MR. DeMARCO: Yes, I am.

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay. Welcome and

12 please go ahead. You have three minutes.

13 MR. DeMARCO: My name's David DeMarco

14 and I'm vice president with Pulte Homes and I'm

15 testifying tonight as contract purchaser for the

16 Twinbrook Community Church property located at

17 5906 Halpine Road.

18 I think, as you may have heard, the

19 church is downsizing. They no longer need such a

20 large facility. And while I understand they are

21 looking for a new home in Twinbrook, they have

22 selected us to be contract purchaser for their Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 254 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 33

1 property.

2 We are very excited about this

3 opportunity to bring some condominium housing

4 options closer to the Metro in Rockville. And

5 we're really hoping to replicate the success we've

6 had in developing and building at the Tower Oaks

7 community (technical inaudible) Youngentob. As

8 you may or not know, we have four condo buildings

9 there and all four of them are under construction.

10 We're over halfway sold out and it's just been a

11 tremendous success for us. And it really

12 identified what we all know, there's a tremendous

13 need for housing in the area.

14 And while there's a lot of rental

15 communities, there's not a lot of individual

16 condominium ownership opportunities, especially

17 with the type of product that we're proposing at

18 the Twinbrook site, which is the same exact

19 condominiums that we're building at Tower Oaks.

20 These units are larger. They're designed for

21 downsizers. And I would tell you for 75 percent

22 of our buyers are empty-nesters, which is, you Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 255 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 34

1 know, good because we don't have a lot of impact

2 on the school.

3 And the reason our units attract the

4 empty-nester is because that they're large.

5 They're 1,550 square feet on average. And we

6 believe we can get two buildings at the 1-1/2 acre

7 site at Halpine (inaudible) and we're less than

8 one dozen feet from the Metro. And as the county

9 and city have just determined, there's a need for

10 a thousand housing units by 2040, and we think we

11 can help address the need. It'd be a good

12 transition from the Avalon Apartments that are

13 (inaudible). We are in support of the (inaudible)

14 residential land use designation and we urge the

15 Planning Commission support the MXNC zone, which

16 would allow for this modestly (inaudible) family

17 project, which I know it's smaller, but we had

18 fewer units, but they're bigger and better as I

19 like to refer to them.

20 We recognize the need for compatibility

21 and we're, you know, happy to go with -- meet with

22 the county and city staff and look at different Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 256 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 35

1 avenues we can do to address that. The MXNC

2 provision regarding setbacks is inconsistent with

3 the Comp Plan recommendation and we would like to

4 see a one-foot setback for each one foot in height

5 instead of one-foot setback for every two feet in

6 height. We would agree to a minimum setback of 30

7 feet.

8 We look forward to working with the

9 staff. I will submit my testimony for the record.

10 I appreciate your time tonight and thank you very

11 much. If you have any questions, let me know.

12 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr.

13 DeMarco. Commissioners, any questions?

14 No, okay. Thanks again, appreciate it.

15 The next person on my list is Mike Dutka of 713

16 Shetland Street, Rockville.

17 MR. DUTKA: Hello. Can you hear me?

18 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep.

19 MR. DUTKA: Okay.

20 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Welcome. Please

21 proceed. You have three minutes.

22 MR. DUTKA: Yeah. I'm speaking as an Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 257 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 36

1 individual and a self-described YIMBY or a "yes,

2 in my backyard" person. I'm also speaking as a

3 lifelong resident of the City of Rockville. I

4 grew up in College Gardens. I think that's

5 Planning Area 4. And I just want to say, you

6 know, when my parents bought their house there, it

7 was worth $125,000. Inflation adjusted, that's

8 $330,000 today. What their home is actually worth

9 now is $680,000, so more than double.

10 And the reason for this is because we

11 simply have not built enough housing in Rockville.

12 We need to go much further. We need to be very

13 ambitious with up-zoning. Missing middle homes

14 are a great creative solution. I applaud what the

15 Comprehensive Plan is looking at doing there. But

16 I think it needs to be pushed further. I think

17 densities needs to be pushed further when we have

18 Metro stations.

19 So, yeah, I think as the Planning

20 Commission, you know what needs to be done. You

21 need to give a good, strong starting point to the

22 Council and then the Council, as the elected Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 258 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 37

1 officials, can decide what they need to do based

2 on what the constituents are willing to accept.

3 So, that's the end of my testimony.

4 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay. Thank you

5 very much, Mr. Dutka. Much appreciated.

6 I guess we will go to our next speaker.

7 And on my list that is Maya Gothman (phonetic) of

8 23 Ridgefield Court, Rockville. Maya, are you

9 online?

10 SPEAKER: I think she's not here.

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Sorry, I see that

12 always a second after you guys. So, next on my

13 list is Jim Policaro with Lerner Companies, 2000

14 Tower Oaks Boulevard, Rockville. Jim, are you

15 with us?

16 MR. POLICARO: I'm here. Can you hear

17 me?

18 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep. Welcome and

19 please proceed. You have three minutes.

20 MR. POLICARO: Thank you.

21 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: You're welcome.

22 MR. POLICARO: Good evening. My name is Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 259 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 38

1 Jim Policaro, senior vice president of development

2 for Lerner Enterprises. Lerner has been

3 developing at Falls Grove for the past 15 years,

4 including Falls Grove Village Retail Center,

5 Hilton Garden Inn and Homewood Suites, and Falls

6 Grove Plaza medical office building.

7 Our (technical inaudible) the Planning

8 Commission this past spring for the development of

9 a multi-family community of 350 market-rate units.

10 The project appeared to be well received. In

11 June, we made a similar presentation to the Mayor

12 and Council and, again, the project appeared to be

13 viewed favorably.

14 The property is part of the Falls Grove

15 Comprehensive Plan development and thus is zoned

16 PD-FG. The Comprehensive Plan appropriately

17 designates the property as OR-RN, which is

18 intended as the most flexible mixed-use category,

19 allowing for property owners a wide choice in

20 mixed office, retail, and residential uses. We

21 concur with this recommendation.

22 The Comprehensive Plan also designates Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 260 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 39

1 the property with retail frontage along its west

2 -- with retail frontage along its west grading --

3 frontage and along the northern half of Research

4 Boulevard frontage. This designation would

5 require retail at this location. We do not agree

6 with this recommendation and request that this

7 designation be eliminated.

8 While we had concerns about this retail

9 designation initially, well in advance of the

10 COVID-19 pandemic, our concerns over the retail

11 requirement have increased significantly given the

12 pandemic's acute impact on the retail market. In

13 requesting that the retail designation be

14 eliminated we note the following.

15 The retail market is struggling even in

16 established areas. It is self-defeating to

17 require that additional retail be added in future

18 developments. Requiring retail likely will result

19 in vacant ground floor space. This is not

20 beneficial to the project, surrounding property

21 owners, or the city as a whole.

22 There is also a major gas line easement Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 261 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 40

1 which is across the entire northern frontage of

2 the property at Guide Drive. Therefore, a retail

3 along Research Boulevard cannot be located on the

4 main corner of this site. This severely limits

5 the opportunity for a successful retail

6 establishment.

7 For the reasons identified, we

8 respectfully request that you request the retail

9 requirements designation in the Comprehensive

10 Plan. Thank you.

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you very much

12 for your comments, Mr. Policaro. Much

13 appreciated.

14 MR. POLICARO: You're welcome.

15 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you. The next

16 person on my list is Catherine Contreras of 404

17 Ridge Point Place, Gaithersburg. Catherine, are

18 you there?

19 MS. CONTRERAS: Hi.

20 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Hi. Welcome.

21 MS. CONTRERAS: So, hi. My name is

22 Catherine Contreras and I'm a senior at Thomas S. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 262 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 41

1 Wootton High School -- I am actively involved in

2 clubs like Best Buddies and sports like bocce and

3 handball.

4 When I'm not participating in club

5 activities or practices for sports, I am

6 advocating for the Americans With Disabilities Act

7 building compliance. And I tend to have off-

8 campus advocacy meetings that I attend and which

9 is why parking at Rockshire is a necessity for me

10 and other Wootton students.

11 Current and future Wootton students need

12 Rockshire for parking and it's important that we

13 recognize the needs of thousands of students.

14 Thank you.

15 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you very much,

16 Ms. Contreras, for your comments.

17 Next on my list is Christopher Yea

18 (phonetic), if I'm pronouncing that correctly,

19 1411 Girard Street, Rockville. Christopher, are

20 you online? Are you with us?

21 SPEAKER: Christopher is not present.

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Not present, okay. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 263 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 42

1 Then I will go to the next person, which is Jane

2 Pontius, 127 South Van Buren Street, Rockville.

3 Jane, are you with us?

4 MS. PONTIUS: Yes, I am.

5 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Welcome. Please

6 proceed. You have three minutes.

7 MS. PONTIUS: I'm providing testimony on

8 behalf of the Planning Area 4 Committee regarding

9 the Neighborhood Plan. I live at 127 South Van

10 Buren Street and in 1975, my husband John and I

11 moved to this house where he and his brothers had

12 lived since 1952. We raised both of our sons in

13 this home. And in 2010, my son subsequently

14 bought the former Oxley (phonetic) home across the

15 street. I'm presenting my testimony on behalf of

16 my family's longstanding ties to the West End of

17 Rockville.

18 I wish to express my support of the plan

19 with the exception of the following key issues

20 which remain: Too many and too large

21 institutions, preservation of the land which

22 surrounds historic structures, freestanding Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 264 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 43

1 accessory dwelling units. The 2016 WECA survey of

2 its residents indicated that the citizens do not

3 want commercial, office, or institutional uses

4 within the confines of the West End neighborhood.

5 Neither excessive commercial or office uses are

6 permitted due to current zoning laws. However,

7 institutional usage is handled by the special

8 exception process, which can lead to the

9 destruction of neighborhoods one institutional

10 project at a time.

11 I request that the city staff provide

12 more explicit procedures for granting such uses.

13 This type of change inevitably results in more

14 traffic, congestion, and parking demands, all of

15 which disrupt and interfere with the residential

16 character of the neighborhood.

17 The preservation of the land surrounding

18 historical buildings is also an important

19 component to the planning process. It is not

20 enough to preserve the buildings alone, but also

21 the surrounding open spaces and landscaping

22 contribute to the rich historical significance of Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 265 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 44

1 the site. I suggest that city staff adopt more

2 specific language to preserve landscaping,

3 grounds, and setting of historic districts. Once

4 that land is subdivided, there is no turning back.

5 Finally, allowing separate, standalone,

6 accessory dwelling units in the West End of

7 Rockville will greatly threaten the historic

8 character of the neighborhood. The number of

9 separate residential structures on a lot must be

10 limited to one. A process for reviewing

11 applications for attached accessory apartments

12 needs to be created to protect the residential

13 character of a neighborhood. A special exception

14 application for this type of structure needs to be

15 formulated to provide neighbors the opportunity to

16 comment and review the application.

17 Thank you for this opportunity.

18 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Ms.

19 Pontius. Much appreciate your comments.

20 The next person that I have is Noreen

21 Bryan, who will be speaking on behalf of the West

22 End Citizens Association. Noreen, are you with Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 266 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 45

1 us?

2 MS. BRYAN: Hi. I think I'm here. I

3 just succeeded on unmuting.

4 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: We can hear you.

5 MS. BRYAN: Okay, good. Thank you.

6 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: You're welcome. You

7 have five minutes.

8 MS. BRYAN: Thank you much. Tonight

9 I'll be speaking relative to the Planning Area 4

10 Neighborhood Plan as one of the co-chairs of the

11 community committee. I would like to -- there

12 will be five speakers for the committee; four of

13 them will follow me.

14 My foremost message tonight is to thank

15 everyone who has helped us to update the plan.

16 The process began five years ago. For the first

17 two years, the community worked on its own --

18 Clark, we don't need that photo yet, please; thank

19 you -- surveilling all households and drafting

20 initial updates of the 1981 plan. Thereafter our

21 committee and city staff spent nearly two years in

22 biweekly meetings honing the details. Throughout, Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 267 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 46

1 residents had many opportunities to participate.

2 The result is the plan that you have

3 before you, one that we fully support. Thank you,

4 thank you to everyone, staff and neighbors, who

5 have given so many evenings to make this possible.

6 Of the dozens of topics that the

7 community and staff initially viewed differently,

8 all have been resolved except for the three

9 remaining issues mentioned by Jane Pontius. I

10 will address each briefly and then also testify

11 after and we will explain them more fully.

12 We're passionate about these issues

13 because we believe that additional policy is

14 essential to preserve the residential character of

15 Planning Area 4 and prevent transition to a

16 hodgepodge of uses and loss of single-family

17 houses.

18 Preserving our residential neighborhood

19 was the value expressed most often by respondents

20 to the neighborhood survey. We need your help to

21 add policies that ensure the neighborhood will not

22 be eroded. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 268 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 47

1 It is essential to recognize that

2 Rockville neighborhoods are not governed equally.

3 Since the 1970s, most new neighborhoods were

4 created as self-contained entities with their own

5 rule and governing homeowners associations. They

6 operate with covenants more restrictive than

7 citywide zoning policies.

8 Most HOAs prevent commercial uses,

9 office, and institutions, preventing cut-through

10 traffic and (inaudible) accessory dwelling units.

11 Today it appears that 50 percent or more of the

12 residential properties in Rockville are contained

13 in HOAs, such King Farm, New Mark Commons, Rose

14 Hill, Rose Hill Falls, et cetera. Only a small

15 group of the oldest communities in Rockville are

16 left without the protection afforded to HOAs.

17 Planning Area 4 is particularly vulnerable because

18 of its location between I-270 and Town Center.

19 Further, it bears the burden of more cut-through

20 traffic than any other neighborhood in the city.

21 Here are the issues. Institutions, more

22 than 80 percent of the respondents to the Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 269 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 48

1 neighborhood survey oppose having commercial,

2 office, or institutional uses replace residences.

3 There's protection provided in the zoning

4 ordinance against excessive commercial and office

5 uses. Institutions, as Jane mentioned, are

6 different. They come into the neighborhood one at

7 a time; there's no limit on how many or where they

8 can be located.

9 When looked at individually, nearly all

10 institutions appear desirable. However, in

11 aggregate, to many institutions, particularly

12 those that are large and consume many residential

13 lots, destroy the character of a residential

14 neighborhood.

15 Secondly, preserving the open land

16 around historical structures, we believe that to

17 preserve Rockville's history, it is essential to

18 preserve the land and setting, not just the

19 buildings themselves. Policy is needed to clearly

20 state the neighborhood's vision of preserving the

21 areas of open space in historic districts.

22 National and local standards are not Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 270 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 49

1 sufficient. Too many historic structures in D.C.

2 and nearby Bethesda stand only a few feet from

3 giant high-rise buildings. We don't want that to

4 happen here. And looking at the current special

5 exceptions, there are many buildings that are

6 allowed therein to get to be 50 feet high. That

7 could be close to double all those little Cape Cod

8 houses in the neighborhood.

9 Freestanding accessor dwelling units,

10 most of the land in Planning Area 4, is composed

11 of single-family detached housings. Respondents

12 who participated stated overwhelmingly that they

13 want to preserve the neighborhood as it exists

14 today. If freestanding ADUs are allowed, two, not

15 one, dwelling unit per lot will be allowable and

16 single-family housing will be a thing of the past.

17 The protections that we are requesting

18 do not come close to those afforded HOAs. For

19 example, we are not actively excluding

20 institutions outright. We are asking to put caps

21 with (inaudible) size. We hope that you'll

22 embrace these steps towards equalizing protections Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 271 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 50

1 for all neighborhoods.

2 Thank you so much for your service and

3 your consideration. And again, thank you to

4 everyone how has participated in the update of the

5 plans.

6 I can't see the timer, so I don't know

7 where we are.

8 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: I think it's good

9 timing, you just made it.

10 MS. BRYAN: Okay.

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Ms.

12 Bryan, for your comments.

13 MS. BRYAN: Charles, may I ask one more

14 thing? Patrick Woodward is the fifth speaker here

15 and he may be late to this. If he arrives late,

16 is it possible for him to join?

17 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yeah, I would

18 coordinate that with Bonita, who's online, but we

19 will -- yeah. We also ask at the end if there's

20 people who haven't, there may be others, but I

21 would ask to coordinate that with Bonita because I

22 don't handle the technical part, but thanks for Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 272 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 51

1 letting us know.

2 MS. BRYAN: Thank you.

3 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep. The next

4 person I have is Kevin Zaletsky. Kevin, are you

5 with us? Can you hear? Hello?

6 No. Kevin, are you unmuted?

7 SPEAKER: (inaudible) unmuted, Kevin.

8 SPEAKER: He may be having technical

9 difficulty.

10 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: I'll give him

11 another second or two. Hello?

12 Okay. I am going to go to the next

13 person on the list, who is Patricia Woodward of

14 111 North Van Buren, Rockville. Patricia?

15 MS. WOODWARD: Good evening.

16 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Good evening.

17 Welcome.

18 MS. WOODWARD: Thank you.

19 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: You have three

20 minutes. Go ahead.

21 MS. WOODWARD: Good evening. I'm

22 Patricia Woodward. I live on North Buren Street Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 273 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 52

1 here in the historical West End. The need for the

2 Neighborhood Plan and the need to include policy

3 to preserve the settings and landscaping of

4 historic districts thereby preventing overbuilding

5 of new structures and the loss of land surrounding

6 the historic structures. Planning Area 4 is one

7 of the oldest neighborhoods in Rockville and has

8 more historic districts than any other. They are

9 highly valued by the community.

10 Buildings all by themselves do not tell

11 a site's history. They must be seen in the

12 context of the surrounding -- the land surrounding

13 them. For the 19th and much of the 20th century,

14 we all know that Rockville had surrounding

15 countryside, large farms, vast rolling cropland

16 and pastures. Closer to town, the homes and

17 community buildings, such as Rockville Academy,

18 Chestnut Lodge of which I worked there from 1964

19 until July of 1975, and the Beale-Dawson House

20 were surrounded with sweeping lawns, dotted with

21 magnificent oaks and chestnuts. They demonstrate

22 how these schools and hotels, et cetera, worked. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 274 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 53

1 Historic buildings sandwiched between

2 giant structures have become the norm locally and

3 nationally. We've all experienced walking in city

4 streets, coming upon a little church or an old

5 post office that is lost between 30- and 40- story

6 buildings. Nothing is left of the original

7 setting except two pieces of lawn maybe on each

8 side of the building. This is so, so sad.

9 The history has been relegated to

10 architecture and historic markers. We don't want

11 this to happen in Area 4. We want future

12 residents and visitors to have an accurate vision

13 of the history of these districts and how they

14 fill and it into the community. Without their

15 landscape history, historic structures are

16 severely diminished and compromised.

17 Most of our significant historic

18 districts have already been reduced significantly.

19 Chestnut Lodge once owned 140 acres of land; when

20 I worked there it was 100. The Beall- Dawson

21 House was the center of a large plantation.

22 However, we are very fortunate that we have Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 275 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 54

1 Chestnut Lodge and Rockville Academy and the

2 Beall-Dawson House where some of the lands and so

3 forth were preserved.

4 However, without policy in the

5 Neighborhood Plan it's highly likely that these

6 open spaces and landscapes still could be lost or

7 greatly diminished. The historic national, state,

8 and local standards do not protect the --

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Ms. Woodward, I'm

10 sorry, three minutes is up. Please finish that

11 last sentence, though.

12 MS. WOODWARD: Oh, okay, thank you very

13 much. Only then can we preserve our history if we

14 go with what we ask. The committee is --

15 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, that's good.

16 MS. WOODWARD: Thank you very much for

17 listening.

18 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you. And

19 apologies for --

20 MS. WOODWARD: And we look forward to --

21 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep. Thank you very

22 much. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 276 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 55

1 MS. WOODWARD: Goodnight.

2 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep. Take care and

3 sorry we have to have a limit, but we have to

4 stick to it.

5 The next person on my list is Margaret

6 Magner.

7 MS. MAGNER: Hi. Did I successfully

8 unmute?

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes.

10 MS. MAGNER: Excellent.

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: You did and we can

12 hear you very well.

13 MS. MAGNER: Thank you.

14 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Welcome and go

15 ahead. You have three minutes.

16 MS. MAGNER: Thank you.

17 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep.

18 MS. MAGNER: My testimony addresses the

19 need to include policy on accessory dwelling units

20 in the Planning Area 4 Neighborhood Plan.

21 Planning Area 4 is composed primarily of

22 single-family residences. The Neighborhood Plan Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 277 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 56

1 survey shows that PA 4 residents desire above all

2 to preserve the composition of the neighborhood.

3 This value is a guiding principle of the PA 4

4 plan.

5 To achieve this, policy needs to be

6 added to the plan setting standards on ADUs.

7 Citywide policy as expressed in Volume I of the

8 Comprehensive Plan does not apply to neighborhoods

9 governed by HOAs, which is 50 percent or more of

10 the residential land in Rockville. ADU policy

11 that is allegedly citywide actually targets only a

12 handful of neighborhoods. These are Planning Area

13 4 and the other older neighborhoods with deep

14 backyards.

15 Each of these neighborhoods deserves to

16 have its own ADU policies that sustain it's unique

17 characteristics and community values. Here is why

18 ADU policy is needed for Planning Area 4

19 (technical inaudible) often becomes a rented

20 apartment or an Airbnb when the property changes

21 hands and new owners move into a main house. The

22 substantial backyards of PA 4 will be gone if Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 278 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 57

1 second dwellings are built there, resulting in the

2 removal of a large percentage of the mature trees

3 in the neighborhood, the degradation of the

4 ecology, elimination of habitat for birds and

5 wildlife, and destruction of the park-like quality

6 of PA 4.

7 Allowing a second house per lot would

8 further incentivize tear-down and mansionization

9 as developers seek to maximize profits with two

10 houses on one lot. This would destroy rather than

11 preserve the range of housing we have in PA 4,

12 which has many small houses built after World War

13 II.

14 Providing affordable housing through

15 ADUs in PA 4 is a myth. Property owners would

16 seek to maximize the return from a freestanding

17 ADU. Our initial investigation indicates that the

18 rental rates would be out of the range of

19 affordable housing. Allowing accessory apartments

20 in existing residences or in addition would be

21 beneficial, as long as there are standards to

22 preserve the single-family character of PA 4 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 279 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 58

1 streets and keep them from being overburdened with

2 parked cars.

3 We have prepared draft policy language

4 on ADUs that we recommend for inclusion in the PA

5 4 plan. We hope that you will support the need

6 for this policy. It is essential for our

7 neighborhood to continue as the community of

8 single-family homes and green park-like spaces

9 that our residents have strongly stated they wish

10 to maintain.

11 Thank you for your dedication and your

12 willingness to hear and support the citizens who

13 live in PA 4.

14 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Ms.

15 Magner, for your testimony. Much appreciated.

16 We have some pre-registered speakers,

17 four in a row, I guess, that are not on mine. So,

18 I think that the next person on the list is

19 Deborah Landau. Deborah, are you online? Are you

20 with us?

21 MS. LANDAU: I am. Can you hear me?

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep. Welcome. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 280 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 59

1 MS. LANDAU: Thank you so much and good

2 evening.

3 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Good evening. You

4 have five minutes. You're here for ERCA, correct?

5 MS. LANDAU: Erica? Oh, ERCA, yeah,

6 sorry.

7 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: ERCA, sorry.

8 MS. LANDAU: Yes.

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: East Rockville Civic

10 Association.

11 MS. LANDAU: Correct, and thank you for

12 the introduction. I am indeed the president of

13 the East Rockville Civic Association. And I'm

14 here to provide our comments and feedback on this

15 2040 Comprehensive Draft Plan.

16 We very much appreciate all the work the

17 city has done to prepare this Comprehensive Plan

18 and the efforts by the city staff to give us

19 opportunities to understand its contents. We also

20 very much appreciate the changes that were made to

21 this draft plan reflecting our comments on the

22 previous version. Thank you. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 281 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 60

1 In general, ERCA supports the new

2 residential attached zoning in East Rockville with

3 the following exceptions. ERCA does not support

4 the RA zone stretching down one full block into

5 Reading Terrace, Highland Avenue, Croydon Avenue,

6 and on the corner of 1st Street and Veirs Mill.

7 ERCA instead would support the RA zone change

8 reaching down two or three lots from South

9 Stonestreet Avenue, but no further.

10 It should be explicitly stated in the

11 plan that the East Rockville design guidelines

12 currently under development will apply to this new

13 RA zone. We've worked really hard with the city

14 and are very, very excited about these guidelines

15 and we hope that they will be kept.

16 Specifically in the plan, under the

17 Urban Design section on page 23, Area 5, the

18 fourth bullet under "Neighborhood Content" says,

19 "Mature trees and tree canopy should be

20 prioritized and preserved." We feel very strongly

21 that this needs to be a must. Mature trees and

22 tree canopy must be prioritized and preserved. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 282 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 61

1 And this doesn't mean replacing them with

2 seedlings.

3 Moving down under "Building Form" on the

4 same page, the first bullet says, "New residential

5 attached buildings should be proportional in

6 height, mass, and scale with adjacent homes."

7 This also needs to be a must. New residential

8 attached buildings must be proportional in height,

9 mass, and scale with adjacent homes.

10 Next bullet, "When adjacent to a lower

11 scaled structure, a graduate transition should be

12 utilized." Again, this needs to be a must, a

13 gradual transition must be utilized.

14 And finally, the third point, "Side

15 elevations should include windows of consistent

16 proportion and placement as the front elevation

17 and large, blank walls should be avoided." Large,

18 blank walls must be avoided.

19 I would also encourage the Planning

20 Commission to make sure that they read previous

21 comments from the earlier drafts, many of which I

22 think would still be relevant to this version. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 283 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 62

1 And that's all I've got. Thank you so

2 much for your time and consideration on this

3 really impressive Comprehensive Plan.

4 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you very much,

5 Ms. Landau, for your comments. Much appreciate

6 that.

7 Let's see, the next person on my list is

8 Lauren Povich of 331 --

9 MS. POVICH: Okay, that's another

10 (inaudible) I can get it.

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Hello?

12 MS. POVICH: Oh, hello?

13 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Hello. Hi. Is this

14 Lauren Povich?

15 MS. POVICH: I'm a Wootton student. I'm

16 a sophomore and I was -- I would like to advocate

17 for the Rockshire parking to be open for us

18 because a lot of us need parking. And me,

19 specifically, I'm on the field hockey team and I

20 just am a part of these few clubs. And after

21 school, a lot of the times the activity bus

22 doesn't come at the same times, so a lot of us Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 284 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 63

1 need to, like, park and be able to get home. And

2 I know that a lot of people who have parents that

3 are divorced are -- don't have a bus location at

4 one of their houses, so they need to be able to

5 drive.

6 Thank you.

7 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you very much

8 for providing your comments on the parking.

9 Let's see, the next on my list is

10 Jasmine Gong (phonetic) of 11638 Pleasant Meadow,

11 North Potomac. Jasmine, are you online? Can you

12 hear us?

13 MR. LARSON: Okay, per Bonita's messages

14 --

15 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Oh, sorry.

16 MR. LARSON: -- she and Marilyn

17 (phonetic) may not be present. Jaimie Morris?

18 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: I keep missing

19 those. Too many things on my screen at once, two

20 screens.

21 MR. LARSON: I'm here for you.

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: You're helping me. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 285 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 64

1 Okay, so, next speaker then will be Jaimie Morris

2 of --

3 MS. MORRIS: Hi.

4 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: -- 14004 Natia Manor

5 in North Potomac. Jaimie, can you hear us?

6 MS. MORRIS: Yes. Can you hear me?

7 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep, we can. Please

8 proceed. You have three minutes to provide us

9 with your comments.

10 MS. MORRIS: Thank you.

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: You're welcome.

12 MS. MORRIS: Hi. I'm Jaimie Morris and

13 I'm testifying on behalf of the hundreds of

14 students at Wootton that wish to have parking.

15 I'm a junior at Wootton High School and I'm also

16 on the Wootton Cheer Team and being a student

17 athlete I stay after school a lot and for meetings

18 and practices. And also on behalf of the other

19 students, I know that they want the opportunity to

20 stay after for clubs and school help.

21 There are not enough parking spots in

22 the lot for every licensed student to have a spot. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 286 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 65

1 And also, I know that all the spots are dedicated

2 to the students, so when parents need to pick up

3 students there aren't spots for them to park. So,

4 Rockshire, the parking there is very much

5 appreciated.

6 I just would like you guys to take into

7 consideration the student parking at Rockshire for

8 now and for the future when planning this out.

9 So, thank you.

10 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you very much,

11 Jaimie, for your comments on our plan.

12 The next speaker that I have -- there's

13 actually two, so I would ask staff id there's a

14 clarification on this or if there are two -- if it

15 should be two separate people speaking. But it's

16 Victor Hernandez (phonetic) and Petra Grunveldt

17 (phonetic). Are we having two people or is this

18 just one or the other?

19 SPEAKER: I'm sorry, they're not online.

20 Jennifer Timmick is next.

21 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay, the next two.

22 All right. Jennifer Timmick of 4 West Argyle Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 287 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 66

1 Street. Jennifer, are you online? Can you hear

2 us?

3 MS. TIMMICK: Yes, I am.

4 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Hi. Welcome.

5 MS. TIMMICK: Can you --

6 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep, we can. Please

7 go ahead.

8 MS. TIMMICK: Thank you, I'm glad to.

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: You have three

10 minutes.

11 MS. TIMMICK: I have been a part of the

12 Committee of Residents working on the update for

13 Planning Area 4 since December 2015. I wanted to

14 take a moment to acknowledge some of the people on

15 this committee who've put an amazing amount of

16 work and time into preparing a draft of the

17 planning area, from creating and implementing the

18 survey to compiling the results, then writing a

19 completely new planning areas draft, presenting

20 that to neighbors, and revising it based on their

21 input.

22 The committee co-chairs are Judge Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 288 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 67

1 Patrick Woodward and Ms. Noreen Bryan. Other

2 members of the committee who worked on this

3 project include Dennis Kane, Warren Crutchfield,

4 may he rest in peace, Eric Fulton, Jack Jellen

5 (phonetic), Larry Giammo, Nancy Pickard, Ken

6 Sonner, Patricia Woodward, and Kevin Zaletsky. I

7 am honored to have worked with such a dedicated

8 and smart group of people.

9 This committee completed a draft of

10 Planning Area 4 and submitted it to city staff in

11 December 2017. Starting the next spring, we began

12 to meet with members of city staff for about an

13 hour and a half to two hours every two weeks.

14 During these meetings we discussed in detail all

15 the topics, elements, issues, policies,

16 recommendations, everything.

17 Over the next year and a half, committee

18 members and city staff managed to come together

19 and agree on nearly all of the draft that you have

20 now for Planning Area 4. There were only a few

21 areas where we still disagree.

22 While many different staff members Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 289 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 68

1 attended our meetings at times, we worked mostly

2 closely with Cindy Kebba and Dave Levy, who were

3 there almost every other week. Cindy and Dave

4 were always professional. They were willing to

5 work hard. They listened to our ideas, discussed

6 differing opinions, did research, came back with

7 answers, and made some compromises. I am very

8 grateful for the many, many hours both Cindy and

9 Dave devoted to our planning area and for their

10 willingness to work with us to produce a draft

11 that clearly states the desires of planning areas

12 residents.

13 One area that's still difficult is the

14 section regarding institutional uses. Planning

15 Area 4 residents do not want to see the expansion

16 of large institutions in their neighborhood and

17 the plan you have should protect them from that.

18 On page 46 of this draft, the fourth

19 bullet under "Policies" says that you should "seek

20 standards that establish maximum acreage," and

21 then it continues you should "review and amend

22 other standards." It gives you all great ideas of Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 290 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 69

1 things to do, but I would say rather than just

2 seek new standard or review and amend existing

3 standards, the plan should right here and there

4 actually define those standards to accomplish the

5 goals.

6 I support the standards described by the

7 Planning Area 4 Committee, specifically no more

8 than one institution per block, no more than one

9 acre in total area, and no further expansion of

10 total land use.

11 Thank you very much for this time

12 tonight.

13 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you for your

14 comments, Ms. Timmick.

15 Let's see, next on my list is Nick Jones

16 of 9907 Lambertina Lane. Nick, are you there?

17 MR. JONES: (inaudible) can you hear me?

18 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep, we can.

19 Welcome.

20 MR. JONES: Thank you. So thank you,

21 Mr. Chairman and respected members of the board.

22 I am Nick Jones, a junior from Thomas S. Wootton Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 291 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 70

1 High School. And I am advocating not only on

2 behalf of myself, but for my fellow students and

3 the effort to retain Rockshire parking for Wootton

4 students.

5 Students rely on these spots day-in and

6 day-out for so many reasons. Personally, my

7 parents are separated and my father lives out of

8 the district, making driving a necessity.

9 Moreover, my mother, who lives in the district,

10 lives in a neighborhood called The Willows, which

11 from my house is exactly two and a half miles.

12 That's two and a half miles and the county does

13 not offer a single bus to my neighborhood since

14 part of the neighborhood is within Montgomery

15 County's two-mile range that they say is perfectly

16 fine for walking distance.

17 With both of my parents working

18 full-time and the inability to drive myself for

19 the first two years of school, I was forced to

20 walk through frigidly icy days to downpours that

21 flood the streets. Now that I'm finally a junior

22 with my license, I thought those days were over Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 292 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 71

1 until I heard about the county's decision to

2 possibly take away the Rockshire parking.

3 Rockshire parking would not only allow me to drive

4 myself, but drive others who haven't been given

5 the opportunity to get a ride to school.

6 My only ask is that if you aren't going

7 to supply the transportation, at least supply the

8 parking so those fortunate enough can drive those

9 who can't. Sorry, those who either do not have

10 their license or cannot get it for one reason or

11 another. We deserve our spots.

12 I want to thank you guys for your time

13 and your effort. Bye.

14 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Nick. We

15 appreciate your comments about the parking and the

16 nice words for our effort.

17 The next person I have, Kevin Zaletsky.

18 Kevin, are you online?

19 MR. ZALETSKY: Yeah, hi. Can you hear

20 me?

21 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep, we can.

22 MR. ZALETSKY: Okay, great. Well, thank Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 293 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 72

1 you very much.

2 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Go ahead and

3 welcome.

4 MR. ZALETSKY: Yeah, pardon me for that

5 technical difficulty.

6 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: No problem.

7 MR. ZALETSKY: So, my name's Kevin

8 Zaletsky. I live at 101 North Street. I've been

9 a Rockville resident for more than 16 years. Most

10 of that time I've been an active member of the

11 West End Citizens Association, to include serving

12 as a member of the Planning Area 4 Neighborhood

13 Planning Committee for the last four years.

14 Tonight I wanted to address the need to include

15 policy in the Neighborhood Plan to prevent the

16 encroachment of too many or too large of

17 institutions into the neighborhoods.

18 As you know, Planning Area 4 is one of

19 the oldest neighborhoods in Rockville, has more

20 historic structures and districts than any other.

21 You walk down our streets, you're met by a

22 progression of largely single-family homes that Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 294 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 73

1 invite children to play on the sidewalks,

2 neighbors to converse as they walk their dogs, and

3 a general sense of peace away from urban

4 congestion.

5 By contrast, most of us have experienced

6 walking in towns where residential streets have

7 become islands of individual houses squeezed

8 amongst nonresidential buildings that dominate

9 them. These streets have lost irrevocably the

10 cohesiveness and friendliness of a residential

11 community.

12 Over time, Planning Area 4 has amassed a

13 greater percentage of land devoted to institutions

14 than almost any other neighborhood in Rockville.

15 Due to their convenience locations, the areas of

16 budding Highway 270 at West Montgomery Avenue and

17 Falls Road are particularly at risk. In these

18 areas institutions occupy more than half the

19 available land. The residential character of

20 these neighborhoods is already significantly

21 compromised.

22 One of only 10 primary guiding Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 295 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 74

1 principles delineated in our Neighborhood Plan

2 states, "Limit the expansion of commercial and

3 institutional uses." This principle is not

4 arbitrary. It was drawn directly from a

5 comprehensive neighborhood survey conducted in

6 2016. In this survey our neighborhoods

7 overwhelmingly, more than 80 percent of 500

8 households that responded, indicated that they

9 opposed replacing residences with commercial and

10 institutional uses.

11 In that same survey, when neighbors were

12 asked what do you like least about your

13 neighborhood, traffic was the number one response.

14 Without appropriate limitations on their number

15 and size, institutions will continue to add more

16 parked cars and traffic to our already congested

17 streets.

18 Our neighborhoods are protected from

19 commercial expansion through land use designations

20 and zoning. Similar protections do not exist for

21 institutions which enter the neighborhoods one at

22 a time via special exceptions with guidelines that Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 296 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 75

1 are largely arbitrary and subjective.

2 Currently, there's no limit on the total

3 land that can be used for institutions or other

4 limitations on an institution's size or footprint.

5 When considered one at a time, most institutions

6 appear reasonable are approved. But together,

7 however, too many institutions or excessively

8 large ones threaten to destroy the integrity of

9 Planning Area 4 as a residential neighborhood.

10 Rockville neighbors take great pride in

11 the institutions that currently exist in our

12 neighborhoods. These churches, schools, shelters,

13 nursing homes, museums, and many other services

14 grew organically with our community and are part

15 of the rich tapestry of our lives. They have a

16 scale and size that harmonizes with the

17 residential structures around them, were built to

18 serve the immediate community, not as a draw to

19 significant volumes of transient traffic from

20 other locations. Reasonable limitations on the

21 expansion of the number and size of institutions

22 can keep these cherished neighborhood services Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 297 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 76

1 from becoming our greatest neighborhood threats.

2 We've prepared draft policies regarding

3 institutions that we recommend for inclusion in

4 the plan. Hope that you'll support the need for

5 this policy to preserve Planning Area 4's historic

6 and residential character. Thank you very much.

7 I appreciate it.

8 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr.

9 Zaletsky. And I have a question for you, if

10 that's okay.

11 MR. ZALETSKY: Sure, of course.

12 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: And in a way I

13 apologize because it just popped into my head and

14 I believe others have spoken in a similar vein as

15 you just did and one the same topic. So, anyone

16 listening, you know, you can always send written

17 testimony. But I do want to clarify on what I've

18 been hearing.

19 So, it seems that some people have

20 spoken out against the advancement or

21 proliferation of institutions in Planning Area 4.

22 My question is, does that mean that you would Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 298 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 77

1 support a reduction? So, if institutions over

2 time were to change use and become residential or

3 housing, would that be something that you're also

4 in favor of or is it just that you are okay with

5 the existing amount, but would like to see -- not

6 see it expand.

7 MR. ZALETSKY: Sure. So, speaking from

8 the discussions that we had in the Planning Area 4

9 Committee, you know, an underlying theme has

10 always been that we'd be happy to further return

11 to, you know, to residences of any of the

12 properties. So, and I think the underlying zoning

13 for a lot of these institutions is single-family

14 residential. So, if they were to leave, we would

15 be (technical inaudible).

16 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you very much.

17 Appreciate it.

18 MR. ZALETSKY: No problem. Thank you.

19 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: You're welcome. The

20 next speaker I have on the list is Rhoda

21 Ndjoukouo, if I've said that correctly, of 10505

22 Bounty Cove Court, Gaithersburg. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 299 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 78

1 MS. NDJOUKOUO: Hi. Can you hear me?

2 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Hello. Yes, we can.

3 Welcome.

4 MS. NDJOUKOUO: Okay. Good evening,

5 Chair, members, and people of the board. My name

6 is Rhoda Ndjoukouo and I'm here on behalf of

7 Wootton High School Committee and I'm also part of

8 Wootton SGA; I'm secretary. Thank you so much for

9 having me and this opportunity to speak out and

10 share my views about the Rockshire planning.

11 So, the Rockshire parking lot means a

12 lot to us Wootton students. You know, as Wootton

13 students in the Wootton community we park there a

14 lot, like, for school and for after school, as

15 they say. For me as a senior and junior, you

16 know, we have internships and interviews we go to

17 in and out during school and after school and we

18 need these parking lots because our school parking

19 lots aren't big enough to fit all our students

20 that have licenses, so we really need --

21 Rockshire's really there for us to park.

22 Also, as SGA, we also hold all sorts of Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 300 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 79

1 events, like after-school events, like dances and

2 stuff like that, and we need our students to come

3 and, you know, be able to park their cars and be

4 like, you know, having to show that they have a

5 place to park to come to these school events.

6 And, you know, parking can also seem

7 like we don't want to -- we want to have Rockshire

8 there so students won't have to, like, park in the

9 neighborhoods next to Rockshire, so they'll have

10 parking at Rockshire to part at.

11 So, yeah, I hope you guys, you know,

12 take us into consideration while planning and you

13 guys, you know, think of us students because this

14 parking does really mean a lot to us and parking

15 here, and taking this away would really be hard

16 for us to have a place to park at school because

17 we do have the right to park somewhere and attend

18 school. And again, if these places -- if the

19 transportation's not provided, we need at least

20 parking for these licensed students to, you know,

21 park at and go to school.

22 Thank you so much for your time. And, Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 301 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 80

1 yeah, thank you.

2 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Rhoda,

3 for taking the time to provide us your comments.

4 MS. NDJOUKOUO: Mm-hmm.

5 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: The next person on

6 my list is Nancy Pickard of 29 Courthouse Square.

7 And Nancy is representing Peerless Rockville, so

8 will have five minutes of time. Nancy, are you

9 online with us?

10 MS. PICKARD: I am. Can you hear me?

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep, we can.

12 Welcome and go ahead. You have five minutes.

13 MS. PICKARD: All right, great. Thank

14 you, Chairman Littlefield, and greetings to all

15 the members of the Planning Commission.

16 I'm Nancy Pickard, but I am speaking to

17 you tonight as executive director of Peerless

18 Rockville Historic Preservation. I welcome the

19 opportunity to address you this evening and we are

20 happy to provide input on Volume II of the Draft

21 Comprehensive Plan, and express our appreciation

22 of your role in the Comprehensive Master Plan Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 302 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 81

1 process and for our inclusion and involvement in

2 it, as well. This is an extremely complex,

3 detailed, and vitally important document and we

4 commend the staff for their many, many hours, in

5 fact years of hard work.

6 Peerless Rockville is particularly

7 pleased to see the inclusion of plans and goals

8 for some of our most significant historic

9 properties. We will be submitting a detailed

10 written response to Volume II, but tonight I will

11 present some general comments that are applicable

12 in certain focus areas and citywide.

13 We have fully understanding that this

14 plan was designed to guide future growth in the

15 city and, as such, it acts as a tool to guide

16 planning for continuity, change, and growth as

17 stated in Land Use Policy 1 in Volume I. To meet

18 future growth and community needs the plan targets

19 areas for new residential housing types with

20 higher density and new zoning. The change in

21 growth areas are highlighted throughout the plan.

22 Tonight we would like to bring a bit of attention Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 303 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 82

1 to areas not explicitly targeted for growth,

2 particularly our historic and older residential

3 communities.

4 We note that nine planning areas report

5 residents' concerns for preserving the character

6 of their single-family residential neighborhood.

7 Issues such as mansionization, the renovation or

8 replacement of original homes with structures that

9 dwarf the community, also appear to be a concern.

10 Yet these citizen concerns accompany a

11 Draft Comprehensive Plan that emphasizes

12 multi-family housing development, redevelopment,

13 and plans to permit an accessory dwelling unit on

14 every property. We see little in the way of

15 concrete regulations or policies for protecting

16 existing community character and/or the settings

17 for historic properties.

18 Neighborhood character encompasses

19 various aspects of site and environment reflecting

20 the shape and size of buildings, materials,

21 craftsmanship, spaces features. Preserving this

22 character refers to more than simply architecture. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 304 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 83

1 Although existing and long-established building

2 types and patterns are central, the alignments of

3 buildings, the relationships to streets and

4 sidewalks, tree planting, accessory buildings,

5 U-sheds (phonetic), and landscaping all contribute

6 to the character that creates neighborhood

7 identity. Changes to neighborhood character in

8 historic and conservation districts requires

9 sensitivity, but these features remain important

10 to all neighborhoods throughout the city.

11 We note that in some areas, such as Area

12 4, there is increasing pressure from development

13 and encroachment of nonresidential offices and

14 growing institutions. Concrete regulations and

15 guidelines need to be put in place to ensure

16 protection of our existing communities, and we

17 call upon the Planning Commission to strengthen

18 these protections, particularly from expanding

19 office, institutional, and retail growth. One

20 opportunity to respond to citizens' concerns lies

21 in the implementation of neighborhood design

22 guidelines, documents that will establish Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 305 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 84

1 architectural standards and direct us within the

2 city's unique neighborhood.

3 Peerless Rockville wants to express

4 strong reservations about the impacts of Land Use

5 Policy 2.3, which permits an ADU on every

6 residential property in the city, particularly

7 when resident feedback strongly states a

8 preference to preserve the character of those

9 single-unit, detached residential housing. This

10 policy is currently unclear, lacks specifics, and

11 appears to disproportionately affect older areas

12 of the city already facing development pressures

13 and other impacts. While Peerless Rockville

14 agrees in concept with ADUs and supports increased

15 affordable housing and missing middle housing,

16 permitting blanket ADUs will increase housing, but

17 offers no guarantees regarding affordability. We

18 believe the community should be provided with more

19 detailed guidelines and policies before permitting

20 such a monumental change to Rockville's

21 neighborhoods.

22 The health and vitality of Rockville Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 306 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 85

1 Town Center remains a pressing issue in the city.

2 Proposed increases in retail in an area where

3 retail currently struggles requires careful

4 decision-making. Redevelopment plans on North

5 Washington Street abutting established

6 neighborhood must be sensitive to the size and

7 scale and character. We hope to see the

8 redevelopment in Area 1 that focuses on commercial

9 vibrancy and connection between Town Center and

10 neighborhoods across 355, which will increase

11 accessibility to business and safe travel north

12 and east in an area where current retail space

13 offers a fruitful mixed-use development rather

14 than westward towards neighborhoods and

15 single-family housing.

16 I know I'm about out of time, so I have

17 one last thought and that is just that we really

18 do appreciate the acknowledgement of needed

19 research and publicity of existing preservation

20 districts as well as better policies. And we are

21 very encouraged to see future intentions for King

22 Farm, Lincoln High School, and new boundaries for Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 307 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 86

1 Dawson Farm Pack -- Park. Sorry.

2 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: That's okay.

3 MS. PICKARD: Thank you so much for

4 listening tonight.

5 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Ms.

6 Pickard. Much appreciate your comments on behalf

7 of Peerless Rockville.

8 The next speaker that I have is Brian

9 Shipley at 211 South Washington Street, Rockville.

10 Brian, are you with us? Are you connected?

11 MR. SHIPLEY: Can you hear me?

12 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep, yep, we can.

13 Welcome.

14 MR. SHIPLEY: Good evening. My name is

15 Brian Shipley and I'm providing testimony on

16 Planning Area 4. I've been an officer, either

17 president or vice president, of the West End

18 Citizens Association for more than two years and

19 participated in the biweekly meetings with the

20 city staff to finalize the Planning Area 4

21 Neighborhood Plan in 2018 and '19.

22 I want to make sure that the Planning Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 308 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 87

1 Commission is aware that the development of the

2 Planning Area 4 plan has been a community effort

3 from the ground up. We recognize that our 1989

4 Neighborhood Plan was sorely out of date and as an

5 appendix to the Master Plan was largely a lost

6 document. It was rarely referenced. We knew that

7 the future of our neighborhood depended on having

8 a neighborhood plan that was recognized as policy

9 by everyone: Developers, government officials,

10 and residents.

11 Throughout our own planning process we

12 have sought to build out plan on the views and

13 values of the residents. And to accomplish this,

14 we surveyed the households in the West End. Once

15 the survey was complete and to ensure our planning

16 process remained public, we discussed the status

17 of our plan at monthly WECA meetings and at our

18 annual general membership meetings that are open

19 to all residents. So, before these public

20 hearings, residents have had many opportunities to

21 express their views and shape our Neighborhood

22 Plan. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 309 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 88

1 As Rockville continues to grow and

2 become an urban center, we knew how the residents

3 of the Planning Area 4 feel about preserving the

4 character of the neighborhood. And as we have

5 heard from others who have testified this evening,

6 Planning Area 4 residents overwhelmingly desire to

7 preserve the single-family residential

8 neighborhood that exists today. The survey data

9 supports residents' desires. We knew our

10 Neighborhood Plan needed to be clear and provide

11 protections that do not currently exist.

12 As Rockville is urbanizing, pressure to

13 expand commercial and institutional uses into the

14 neighborhood is increasing. Communities with HOAs

15 have covenants that protect them from this

16 happening. Planning Area 4 has none. We hope

17 that you will support the protections incorporated

18 into our Draft Plan and will support the

19 additional policies for institutions, open spaces

20 in historic districts, and freestanding accessory

21 dwelling units.

22 Our new neighborhoods with HOAs have far Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 310 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 89

1 greater protections from traffic and the

2 encroachment of nonresidential uses. This has put

3 more traffic on our streets and an unbalanced

4 pressure for development in Planning Area 4 and

5 other older neighborhoods. Through our

6 Neighborhood Plan and the proposed additional

7 policies we're hoping to preserve our existing

8 residential character through increased

9 protections and leveling the playing field with

10 HOAs.

11 Thank you very much.

12 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr.

13 Shipley, for your comments.

14 The next person, I believe we skipped

15 one person, so we are at Hyun Kim. Hyun, are you

16 online?

17 MS. KIM: Yes, I am.

18 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Hello and welcome.

19 You have three minutes.

20 MS. KIM: Thank you.

21 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: You're welcome.

22 MS. KIM: Good evening. Thank you for Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 311 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 90

1 the opportunity to address you today on behalf of

2 the Korean Presbyterian Church of Rockville. We

3 are located at 800 Hurley Avenue, next to the

4 Rockshire Shopping Center.

5 My name is Hyun Kim and I have been a

6 member of the church for the past 13 years. And

7 I'm speaking to you today because we appreciate

8 being included in the plan as a consideration and

9 we needed to impart on this Planning Commission

10 how we will be directly impacted by its decisions

11 and recommendations. The very existence and

12 continued operations of the church will be

13 determined by how the redevelopment will take into

14 account our church's need for additional parking

15 spaces.

16 From its inception, the Rockshire

17 community provided for a religious institutional

18 presence. In 1980, Temple Beth Ami built the

19 synagogue at 800 Hurley Avenue. And as a

20 synagogue, clearly met a need of the community.

21 It grew and soon needed to expand. In 1986,

22 Temple Beth Ami remodeled to expand the building Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 312 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 91

1 and, in doing so, did not have enough parking

2 spaces to accommodate its growing congregation.

3 From that time, it entered into a

4 license agreement with then-leaseholder GFS. GFS

5 leased and operated the Giant in the shopping

6 center next to the synagogue and granted use of

7 the 40 parking spaces on its parking lot at no

8 cost. These parking spaces were to bused in

9 conjunction with the Rockshire swimming pool, who

10 had been using the same spaces since 1977.

11 Then in 1998, our church, KPCR, took

12 over occupying the synagogue and moved into the

13 neighborhood and have been calling it home for the

14 past 22 years. Since then, we have opened our

15 doors to meets the needs of the community when

16 able. The community has in the past used our

17 church to hold meetings and we allow Wootton High

18 School students to park in front of our building.

19 Our church bought the building only with

20 the understanding that we were going to be able to

21 use the additional parking spaces. Without the

22 accommodation of these additional parking spaces, Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 313 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 92

1 our church will not be able to operate as the

2 limited spaces in front of the building will not

3 be sufficient to accommodate the congregation and,

4 in effect, maintain a permit to keep its door

5 open.

6 Since 1977, the additional spaces that

7 GFS leased free of charge allowed for the

8 community to provide a necessary service. The

9 additional parking spaces are vital to not just

10 the continued operation of our church, but also

11 for the continued presence of the swimming pool

12 and assisting in alleviating the overcrowding and

13 meeting the needs of our high school students, as

14 you've heard so many from today. Therefore, we

15 ask that you ensure desperately needed parking

16 when redeveloping the Rockshire community.

17 Thank you for your attention and

18 consideration.

19 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Hyun, for

20 your comments. We appreciate those.

21 The next four people on my list are

22 apparently not present, although I was advised Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 314 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 93

1 that we do have one more person who would like to

2 -- who's online and would like to speak. It's

3 Kaitlyn (phonetic), but I don't have a last name

4 and I'm not sure if -- Kaitlyn, are you here?

5 MS. McGUIRL: It looks like mine was

6 unmuted, but this is Christine McGuirl.

7 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Oh, okay. So, I

8 don't have -- Christine, I don't have you on my

9 list, but I think that's -- I'm not -- oh, yes,

10 you were signed up earlier and you're now here.

11 So, you're with Federal Realty Investment Trust?

12 MS. McGUIRL: Yes.

13 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay. Well, go

14 ahead then and welcome. And sorry for the bit of

15 confusion, but --

16 MS. McGUIRL: Thank you so much.

17 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you and you

18 have three minutes.

19 MS. McGUIRL: So, my name is Christine

20 McGuirl. I'm a development director with Federal

21 Realty Investment Trust, the owner of 12 North

22 Washington Street. And as you know, Federal Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 315 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 94

1 Realty is also the owner of a large portion of

2 Town Square and thus we have a particular interest

3 in ensuring the long-term viability and vitality

4 of the Town Center and the surrounding area. This

5 goal, however, is a shared goal, one which is in

6 the best interest of the city, the residents, and

7 the visitors to downtown Rockville.

8 I'm here this evening to testify in

9 support of the Draft Comprehensive Plan

10 recommendations to rezone the property to MXCD.

11 We echo the sentiments of our neighbor, Steve

12 VanGrack, who you heard from two weeks ago during

13 the September 9th public hearing. The 12 North

14 Washington property is currently improved with

15 37,000 square feet of retail that for many years,

16 well before COVID, has struggled to survive.

17 Surface parking fronts the building on North

18 Washington Street and West Middle Lane, making it

19 difficult to create an appealing streetscape.

20 The zoning change in accordance with the

21 Comprehensive Plan recommendation will help

22 encourage the redevelopment of the property as Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 316 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 95

1 well as the surrounding properties that share the

2 same recommendation, and provide needed

3 residential uses. These residential uses will in

4 turn help to support the Town Center.

5 Just over a year ago, ULI conducted an

6 assessment of Town Center with the goal of

7 providing meaningful recommendations to strengthen

8 the area's vitality. One of the specific

9 questions that ULI panel posed was, is the

10 development density and land use mix, both

11 existing and expected, sufficient to support a

12 strong retail environment?

13 The ULI panel's answer was clear: The

14 density in the Town Center should be increased

15 without compromising character. The panel

16 recognized that a critical mass was just that,

17 critical to supporting the Town Center.

18 A number of years ago, Federal Realty

19 evaluated redeveloping 12 North Washington

20 property to provide multi- family housing, but it

21 was not economically viable under the existing

22 MXNC-MXT zoning. As the Draft Comprehensive Plan Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 317 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 96

1 recommendation for the west side of North

2 Washington Street recognized, the development

3 standards of the MXCD zone allow for sufficient

4 density to make residential development feasible

5 in a manner compatible with surrounding areas.

6 We encourage the Planning Commission to

7 support the recommendations of the Comprehensive

8 Plan for this area. Thank you.

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Ms.

10 McGuirl. Appreciate your testimony about the Town

11 Center.

12 I think that exhausts my list of

13 pre-registered participants. I'm going to ask

14 city staff if there's anyone else that's signed on

15 since or wasn't here and is now here and would

16 like to speak.

17 Bonita? Clark?

18 MR. LARSON: I just asked Bonita the

19 same thing. I'm not sure.

20 BONITA: I'm sorry. Yes, everyone has

21 spoken. There was one --

22 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 318 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 97

1 BONITA: -- who called in, but she's

2 already accounted for.

3 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay. So,

4 everybody's accounted for. Well, then I guess

5 that concludes our second and final public

6 testimony on the Comprehensive Plan, Volume II:

7 Planning Areas, at least the virtual testimony.

8 But for all those listening, I'll repeat what I

9 said at the beginning. Our public record, we

10 voted at our last meeting to keep our public

11 record open until October 7th, 5 p.m., I believe,

12 so that's another couple weeks to provide us

13 testimony in writing, and we are actually

14 encouraging that. We prefer that simply because

15 we're not in normal times and we're doing an okay

16 job, I think, right now with our virtual Planning

17 Commission meetings, but certainly it would be

18 beneficial to have -- to make sure we've heard

19 from everybody to have that testimony in writing,

20 as well.

21 So, with that --

22 BONITA: I'm sorry to interrupt you. I Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 319 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 98

1 notice that we did have one person just -- it

2 looks like they jumped on, Patrick Woodward, I

3 think his last name is. I don't have the --

4 Woodward, yes. He was on the list before, but

5 wasn't available (technical inaudible).

6 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Let's -- we'd like

7 to hear your testimony and your comments. And you

8 can have three minutes, which is the usual for

9 individuals. Are you here?

10 MR. WOODWARD: Can you hear me?

11 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yes, we can.

12 Welcome.

13 MR. WOODWARD: Okay. Thank you very

14 much. I just was able to log on.

15 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Okay.

16 MR. WOODWARD: All right.

17 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Please proceed.

18 Yep.

19 MR. WOODWARD: Good evening. My name is

20 Patrick Woodward and I live at 111 North Van Buren

21 Street. My testimony will address the overarching

22 need for the Planning Area 4 Neighborhood Plan to Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 320 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 99

1 preserve and protect the character of the

2 neighborhood as a predominantly single-family,

3 detached residential.

4 In the mid-1980s, I had the privilege of

5 participating in the neighborhood planning process

6 that ultimately led to the adoption of the 1989

7 Neighborhood Plan for Planning Area 4. Then as

8 now, the residents expressed their views in a

9 comprehensive survey. Then as now, the residents

10 voiced their concern over the encroachment into

11 the neighborhood of nonresidential development.

12 The residents also indicated their strong

13 preference for maintaining the single-family

14 residential character of the neighborhood.

15 Today we are faced with a new threat.

16 The proposal to allow accessory dwelling units and

17 freestanding structures on lots with single-family

18 detached dwellings will eventually destroy the

19 character of the neighborhood that the residents

20 expressly want to be preserved. I concur with the

21 reasons given by Margaret Magner for disallowing

22 ADUs in freestanding structures and will not Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 321 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 100

1 repeat them here.

2 I would like to add, however, that the

3 economic pressure to build ADUs will fall equally

4 on developers and homeowners. It is beyond

5 question that the value of a single- family

6 residential lot will be increased by the potential

7 addition of a standalone ADU. What homeowner

8 would not take advantage of this increased value

9 when selling his or her property. Similarly, a

10 purchaser who pays a higher price will seek to

11 recoup that expense by building an ADU.

12 Finally, the state of Maryland is

13 required by law to assess every parcel of land at

14 its highest and best use. The allowance of two

15 residential units on one lot will eventually lead

16 to a higher assessment and higher real estate

17 taxes.

18 In conclusion, I respectfully request

19 that you preserve and protect the residential

20 character of Planning Area 4 by prohibiting any

21 accessory dwelling unit in a standalone structure

22 on a lot with a single-family, detached dwelling. Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 322 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 101

1 In this way the voice of the residents will be

2 heard. Thank you very much.

3 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Thank you, Mr.

4 Woodward. And I'm glad you finally made it. We

5 were just about to wrap up, so thanks again for

6 your comments.

7 I assume we are wrapping up.

8 MR. WOODWARD: Okay, (inaudible).

9 CHAIR LITTLEFIELD: Yep, have a good

10 evening. So, I'll ask staff, is that -- do we

11 have anybody else? One last chance. Okay. Then

12 that does conclude our public testimony, our

13 meeting agenda item.

14 (Whereupon, the PROCEEDINGS were

15 adjourned.)

16 * * * * *

17

18

19

20

21

22 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 323 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 102

1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC

2 I, Carleton J. Anderson, III do hereby

3 certify that the forgoing electronic file when

4 originally transmitted was reduced to text at my

5 direction; that said transcript is a true record

6 of the proceedings therein referenced; that I am

7 neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by

8 any of the parties to the action in which these

9 proceedings were taken; and, furthermore, that I

10 am neither a relative or employee of any attorney

11 or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor

12 financially or otherwise interested in the outcome

13 of this action.

14

15 Carleton J. Anderson, III

16

17 (Signature and Seal on File)

18

19 Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of

20 Virginia

21 Commission No. 351998

22 Expires: November 30, 2020 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 324 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 1 WORD INDEX 74:6 account 4:7 2017 67:11 < 8 > 5:18 90:14 < $ > 2018 86:21 80 47:22 accounted $125,000 36:7 2020 1:1 74:7 97:2, 4 $330,000 36:8 4:5 9:11, 800 90:3, 19 accurate $680,000 36:9 15 102:22 81 27:2 53:12 2040 1:1 accurately < 1 > 8:18 13:10 < 9 > 16:19 1,550 34:5 34:10 59:15 909 31:22 achieve 56:5 10 11:8 2040's 16:17 9302 32:8 acknowledge 73:22 20th 52:13 9907 69:16 66:14 100 53:20 211 86:9 9th 4:19 101 72:8 23 1:1 19:22 94:13 acknowledgement 10505 77:21 37:8 60:17 85:18 1-1 34:6 270 73:16 < A > acre 34:6 111 51:14 29 80:6 able 12:5 69:9 98:20 13:8 30:11 acreage, 11638 63:10 < 3 > 63:1, 4 68:20 127 42:2, 9 30 35:6 79:3 91:16, acres 53:19 13004 15:14 53:5 102:22 20 92:1 Act 41:6 140 53:19 31 29:16 98:14 action 102:8, 14004 64:4 331 62:8 abutting 85:5 13 1411 41:19 350 38:9 Academy actions 11:12 17-2020 1:1 351998 102:21 52:17 54:1 active 72:10 17th 4:4 355 85:10 accept 8:15 actively 1952 42:12 37 5:4 37:2 41:1 49:19 1964 52:18 37,000 94:15 accepting activities 1970s 47:3 10:1 41:5 1975 42:10 < 4 > access 17:8 activity 52:19 40 53:5 18:20 62:21 1977 91:10 91:7 accessibility acts 81:15 92:6 404 40:16 85:11 actual 12:19 1980 90:18 46 68:18 accessor 49:9 acute 39:12 1981 45:20 4800 21:2 accessory add 14:3 1986 90:21 4's 76:5 43:1 44:6, 46:21 74:15 1989 87:3 11 47:10 100:2 99:6 < 5 > 55:19 57:19 added 39:17 1998 91:11 50 47:11 82:13 83:4 56:6 19th 52:13 49:6 56:9 88:20 99:16 addition 1A 1:1 500 74:7 100:21 25:12 57:20 1st 60:6 5906 20:9 accommodate 100:7 32:17 91:2 92:3 additional < 2 > 5946 20:11 accommodation 7:2 24:9 2.3 84:5 91:22 39:17 46:13 2000 37:13 < 7 > accompany 88:19 89:6 2010 42:13 713 35:15 82:10 90:14 91:21, 2015 16:16 75 33:21 accomplish 22 92:6, 9 66:13 7th 7:1 69:4 87:13 address 2016 43:1 10:4 97:11 accomplished 13:22 14:6

20:18 15:11 17:11 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 325 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 2 24:22 34:11 after-school ambitious 84:11 35:1 46:10 79:1 36:13 appendix 87:5 72:14 80:19 age 19:3 amend 68:21 applaud 17:5 90:1 98:21 AGENDA 1:1 69:2 36:14 addresses 4:9, 13 amenity, applicable 55:18 101:13 28:18 81:11 adhere 29:19 aggregate Americans application adjacent 48:11 41:6 44:14, 16 61:6, 9, 10 ago 28:6, 15, Ami 90:18, 22 applications adjoining 22 29:18 amount 66:15 44:11 24:12 45:16 94:12 77:5 apply 11:12 adjourned 95:5, 18 amplifies 56:8 60:12 101:15 agree 35:6 28:15 appreciate adjusted 36:7 39:5 67:19 anchors 31:8 16:18 35:10, adopt 44:1 agreement ANDREA 2:14 14 44:19 adoption 99:6 29:17, 20 8:3 59:16, 20 ADU 56:10, 91:4 ANNE 2:4 62:5 71:15 16, 18 57:17 agrees 16:21 announcements 76:7 77:17 84:5 100:7, 84:14 5:2 85:18 86:6 11 ahead 6:8 annual 87:18 90:7 92:20 ADUs 49:14 21:13 22:7 answer 25:16 96:10 56:6 57:15 27:7 32:12 95:13 appreciated 58:4 84:14, 51:20 55:15 answers 68:7 37:5 40:13 16 99:22 66:7 72:2 anticipated 58:15 65:5 100:3 80:12 93:14 18:19 appreciation advance 22:7 Airbnb 56:20 anybody 80:21 39:9 al 14:15 101:11 appropriate advancement alignments anyways 5:21 20:12 23:6, 76:20 83:2 apartment 12 24:10 advantage allegedly 56:20 74:14 24:15 100:8 56:11 Apartments appropriately advertised alleviating 34:12 44:11 38:16 13:3 92:12 57:19 approval advised 92:22 allow 17:9 apologies 11:3, 3 advocacy 41:8 25:5 34:16 54:19 approve 10:19 advocate 71:3 91:17 apologize approved 75:6 62:16 96:3 99:16 6:8 21:10 apps 19:3 advocating allowable 27:3 30:6 arbitrary 41:6 70:1 49:15 76:13 74:4 75:1 affect 84:11 allowance apparently architectural affinity 100:14 92:22 24:1 84:1 11:19 allowed 49:6, appealing affordability 14 92:7 94:19 architecturally 84:17 allowing appear 48:10 23:17 affordable 38:19 44:5 75:6 82:9 architecture 25:12 57:14, 57:7, 19 appeared 53:10 82:22 19 84:15 amassed 73:12 38:10, 12 area 11:13, afforded amazing 66:15 appears 15, 16, 16 47:16 49:18 ambiguity 16:17 47:11 12:4, 9, 14

25:3 13:13 16:18, Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 326 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 3 22 17:6, 18 asked 74:12 average 34:5 beneficial 19:9 20:2, 96:18 avoid 19:2 39:20 57:21 3, 3, 19 asking 49:20 avoided 97:18 22:19 27:20 aspects 82:19 61:17, 18 benefit 19:18 29:4 31:10 assess 100:13 aware 87:1 best 20:17 33:13 36:5 assessment 25:1 29:2 42:8 45:9 95:6 100:16 < B > 41:2 94:6 46:15 47:17 Assistant back 9:16 100:14 49:10 52:6 2:12, 15 15:4 22:12 Beth 90:18, 53:11 55:20, assisting 44:4 68:6 22 21 56:12, 18 92:12 background Bethesda 60:17 66:13, association 8:19 21:2 32:1 17 67:10, 20 5:22 15:16, backyard 36:2 49:2 68:9, 13, 15 21 16:3 backyards better 9:18 69:7, 9 44:22 59:10, 56:14, 22 34:18 85:20 72:12, 18 13 72:11 ballet 19:15 beyond 100:4 73:12 75:9 86:18 based 37:1 big 28:2 76:5, 21 associations 66:20 78:19 77:8 83:11 47:5 basically bigger 34:18 85:2, 8, 12 assume 25:15 14:10 15:6 biggest 29:2 86:16, 20 101:7 Beale-Dawson bike 23:14, 87:2 88:3, athlete 64:17 52:19 15 6, 16 89:4 Atlantic Beall 53:20 birds 57:4 94:4 96:8 15:15 18:10, Beall-Dawson bit 8:19 98:22 99:7 11 54:2 12:21 81:22 100:20 attached bears 47:19 93:14 AREAS 1:1 44:11 60:2 becoming 76:1 biweekly 4:15 8:16 61:5, 8 began 45:16 45:22 86:19 9:7 10:9, attend 41:8 67:11 blank 61:17, 18 11:17, 18 79:17 beginning 18 12:6 16:11 attended 68:1 97:9 blanket 84:16 17:16 39:16 attention behalf 42:8, block 60:4 48:21 66:19 81:22 92:17 15 44:21 69:8 67:21 68:11 Attorney 64:13, 18 board 69:21 73:15, 18 2:15 102:10 70:2 78:6 78:5 81:12, 19, 21 attract 34:3 86:6 90:1 BOB 2:15 82:1, 4 authority believe 4:19 21:1, 2, 4, 83:11 84:11 11:1 18:17 19:4 16 27:2, 9 96:5 97:7 available 20:17 22:14, bocce 41:2 area's 95:8 14:12 25:15 21 23:6, 12, Bonita 15:4 area-specific 73:19 98:5 17 24:9, 14 32:3, 5, 7 12:9 Avalon 34:12 25:8 26:16 50:18, 21 Argyle 65:22 Avenue 15:15 28:13 30:10 96:17, 18, 20 Arlington 18:10, 13 34:6 46:13 97:1, 22 24:4 19:1, 5 48:16 76:14 Bonita's arrangements 31:22 60:5, 84:18 89:14 63:13 17:9 5, 9 73:16 97:11 bordering arrives 50:15 90:3, 19 beloved 16:12 24:13 articles 13:7 avenues 35:1 bought 36:6

aside 6:10 42:14 91:19 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 327 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 4 Boulevard built 17:14 category 58:14, 22 27:22 37:14 22:22 27:18, 38:18 59:3, 7, 9 39:4 40:3 18 28:21, 22 CATHERINE 62:4, 11, 13 boundaries 36:11 57:1, 3:2 40:16, 63:7, 15, 18, 11:21 85:22 12 75:17 17, 22 22 64:4, 7, Bounty 77:22 90:18 center 18:12 11 65:10, 21 box 28:2 bullet 60:18 19:11 27:10, 66:4, 6, 9 breaking 61:4, 10 17, 22 28:5, 69:13, 18 11:22 68:19 21 38:4 71:14, 21 BRIAN 3:15 burden 47:19 47:18 53:21 72:2, 6 86:8, 10, 15 Buren 42:2, 85:1, 9 76:8, 12 briefly 11:6 10 51:14, 22 88:2 90:4 77:16, 19 27:9 46:10 98:20 91:6 94:4 78:2, 5 bring 10:12 Bus 17:14 95:4, 6, 14, 80:2, 5, 11 18:7 31:8 62:21 63:3 17 96:11 86:2, 5, 12 33:3 81:22 70:13 centers 29:3 89:12, 18, 21 bringing 7:21 bused 91:8 central 92:19 93:7, broader 23:16 business 7:1 31:12 83:2 13, 17 96:9, broken 12:3 31:12 85:11 century 52:13 22 97:3 brothers buyers 33:22 CEO 21:16 98:6, 11, 15, 42:11 Bye 71:13 certain 12:5 17 101:3, 9 brought 23:7 81:12 Chairman BRT 18:7, 9 < C > certainly 21:14 69:21 BRYAN 3:4 call 8:3 31:3 97:17 80:14 44:21 45:2, 83:17 CERTIFICATE Chairperson 5, 8 50:10, called 8:18 102:1 7:16 8:14 12, 13 51:2 70:10 97:1 certify 102:3 chance 101:11 67:1 calling 91:13 cetera 47:14 change 43:13 Buddies 41:2 calls 28:11 52:22 60:7 77:2 budding 73:16 Cambridge Chair 2:3 81:16, 20 build 24:18 19:21 20:1, 4:2 15:8, 84:20 94:20 87:12 100:3 15 19 16:1 changed 23:1 building campus 41:8 20:21 21:7, 27:16 33:6, 19 canopy 60:19, 9, 12 25:18 changes 9:9 38:6 41:7 22 26:10, 14, 17, 12:9, 12 53:8 61:3 capacity 21 27:4, 6 56:20 59:20 83:1 90:22 24:17, 18 30:2, 5, 13, 83:7 91:18, 19 Cape 49:7 17 31:15, 20 channels 13:1 92:2 94:17 caps 49:20 32:4, 6, 11 chapters 100:11 care 55:2 35:12, 18, 20 11:14 12:4 buildings careful 85:3 37:4, 11, 18, character 33:8 34:6 Carleton 21 40:11, 15, 11:19 43:16 43:18, 20 102:2, 15 20 41:15, 22 44:8, 13 48:19 49:3, cars 58:2 42:5 44:18 46:14 48:13 5 52:10, 17 74:16 79:3 45:4, 6 57:22 73:19 53:1, 6 case 5:11, 50:8, 11, 17 76:6 82:5, 61:5, 8 13, 15 6:15 51:3, 10, 16, 16, 18, 22 73:8 82:20 categories 19 54:9, 15, 83:6, 7 83:3, 4 12:2 18, 21 55:2, 84:8 85:7

9, 11, 14, 17 88:4 89:8 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 328 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 5 95:15 99:1, 14:9 16:6, closed 4:6 4:4, 17 14, 19 100:20 12, 13, 14 28:6 7:22 9:2, 8 18:4 19:19 closely 68:2 10:7, 15, 16, characteristics 21:18, 18, 20 closer 33:4 22 13:21 56:17 24:6, 6 52:16 14:12, 19 charge 92:7 26:1 34:9, club 41:4 16:5 21:15 CHARLES 2:3 22 36:3 clubs 41:2 29:12 34:15 50:13 39:21 43:11 62:20 64:20 36:20 38:8 check 5:3 44:1 45:21 cluster 11:16 61:20 80:15 32:2 47:20 53:3 co-chairs 83:17 87:1 checking 14:9 59:17, 18 45:10 66:22 90:9 96:6 Cheer 64:16 60:13 67:10, Cod 49:7 97:17 102:21 cherished 12, 18 81:15 cohesiveness Commissioner 75:22 83:10 84:6, 73:10 2:4, 5, 6, 7, Chestnut 12 85:1 College 36:4 8, 9 4:12 52:18 53:19 86:20 94:6 come 15:4 10:3 13:17 54:1 96:14 18:18 48:6 26:8, 11, 12, chestnuts city's 5:12 49:18 62:22 15 52:21 12:19 13:6 67:18 79:2, commissioners children 73:1 17:11 19:16 5 4:11 7:12 choice 38:19 84:2 coming 53:4 8:7 16:1 CHRISTINE citywide commend 81:4 25:17, 19 3:17 31:21 10:18 11:8, comment 14:7 31:16 35:13 32:1 93:6, 13 47:7 19:20 44:16 COMMISSION'S 8, 19 56:7, 11 commentary 1:1 Christopher 81:12 5:10 7:3, 5 committed 41:17, 19, 21 civic 5:22 commented 20:16 Church 20:10 15:20 59:9, 17:2 Committee 24:13 32:16, 13 comments 7:8, 42:8 45:11, 19 53:4 clarification 12 10:9 12, 21 54:14 90:2, 6, 12 31:16 65:14 13:20 14:5 66:12, 15, 22 91:11, 17, 19 clarified 20:22 31:17 67:2, 9, 17 92:1, 10 23:1 40:12 41:16 69:7 72:13 churches clarify 44:19 50:12 77:9 78:7 75:12 27:12 76:17 59:14, 21 common 11:18 church's clarifying 61:21 62:5 27:5 90:14 25:4 63:8 64:9 Commons 47:13 Cindy 68:2, CLARK 2:11 65:11 69:14 Commonwealth 3, 8 7:17 22:5, 71:15 80:3 102:19 circumstances 6 45:18 81:11 86:6 communicating 30:20 96:17 89:13 92:20 6:16 citizen 82:10 clear 21:9 98:7 101:6 communities citizens 29:22 88:10 commercial 20:4 33:15 43:2 44:22 95:13 11:17 43:3, 47:15 82:3 58:12 72:11 clearly 5 47:8 83:16 88:14 83:20 86:18 48:19 68:11 48:1, 4 community CITY 1:1 90:20 74:2, 9, 19 13:8, 16 2:15 4:3, 6 close 7:1, 6 85:8 88:13 15:16 16:3 7:13 11:12, 49:7, 18 COMMISSION 17:19 19:10,

18 12:13 1:1 2:2 12 20:7, 10 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 329 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 6 22:15 23:3, 7:21 8:17 congested continues 10, 13, 16 11:1 16:6 74:16 68:21 88:1 24:12, 22 36:15 38:15, congestion continuing 27:13 28:20, 16, 22 40:9 18:9 43:14 29:19 21 29:3, 5, 56:8 59:15, 73:4 continuity 7, 10, 21 17 62:3 congregation 81:16 32:16 33:7 74:5 80:21, 91:2 92:3 contract 38:9 45:11, 22 82:11 conjunction 23:8 32:15, 17 46:7 94:9, 21 91:9 22 52:9, 17 95:22 96:7 connect 17:22 contrast 73:5 53:14 56:17 97:6 99:9 connected CONTRERAS 58:7 73:11 compromised 21:4 86:10 3:2 40:16, 75:14, 18 53:16 73:21 connection 19, 21, 22 78:13 81:18 compromises 85:9 41:16 82:9, 16 68:7 connects contribute 84:18 87:2 compromising 17:19 43:22 83:5 90:17, 20 95:15 conservation controversial 91:15, 16 concept 84:14 83:8 18:16 92:8, 16 concern 20:8 consideration convenience community's 28:11 82:9 7:22 10:20 73:15 17:17 99:10 50:3 62:2 conversations Comp 10:10 concerns 65:7 79:12 13:11 35:3 18:22 22:10 90:8 92:18 converse 73:2 Companies 24:22 39:8, considered coordinate 37:13 10 82:5, 10 12:12 14:15 50:18, 21 compared 5:6 83:20 31:4 75:5 corner 40:4 compatibility conclude consistent 60:6 34:20 101:12 29:8 61:15 correct 59:4, compatible concludes constituents 11 23:21 24:11 97:5 37:2 correctly 96:5 conclusion construction 41:18 77:21 compiling 100:18 22:1 33:9 Corridor 17:7 66:18 concrete consume 48:12 cost 91:8 complete 82:15 83:14 contact Council 87:15 concur 38:21 13:13 20:15 10:20 11:2 completed 99:20 contacted 24:7 36:22, 67:9 condo 33:8 15:7 22 38:12 completely condominium contained counsel 66:19 33:3, 16 47:12 102:7, 11 complex 81:2 condominiums CONT'D 3:1 country 28:5 compliance 33:19 Content 60:18 countryside 41:7 conducted contents 52:15 component 74:5 95:5 59:19 county 34:8, 43:19 confines 43:4 context 52:12 22 70:12 composed confirm 14:20 continue county's 49:10 55:21 confirmed 5:11 58:7 17:12 70:15 composition 26:22 74:15 71:1 56:2 confusion continued couple 8:21 COMPREHENSIVE 93:15 90:12 92:10, 22:5 97:12

1:1 4:14 11 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 330 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 7 course 28:21 cut-through deliberation detached 76:11 19:2, 4 8:1 49:11 84:9 Court 37:8 47:9, 19 delineated 99:3, 18 77:22 74:1 100:22 Courthouse < D > demand 24:5 detail 67:14 80:6 D.C 49:1 demands 43:14 detailed Cove 77:22 dances 79:1 DeMARCO 2:15 81:3, 9 covenants Darnestown 32:5, 7, 10, 84:19 47:6 88:15 28:1 13, 13 35:13 details 45:22 covered 12:7 data 88:8 demonstrate determined covers 4:15 date 87:4 52:21 34:9 90:13 COVID 9:17 dates 9:15 Dennis 67:3 develop 16:12 94:16 14:21 densities developed COVID-19 4:7 Dave 68:2, 3, 36:17 18:12 22:18 39:10 9 density developer craftsmanship DAVID 2:12, 81:20 95:10, 23:9 24:20 82:21 15 8:3 14 96:4 developers create 9:7 32:5, 7, 13 Department 57:9 87:9 94:19 Dawson 53:20 7:19 13:2 100:4 created 86:1 depended 87:7 developing 44:12 47:4 day-in 70:5 described 33:6 38:3 creates 83:6 day-out 70:6 69:6 Development creating days 70:20, deserve 71:11 7:18 17:5, 66:17 22 deserves 22 18:8, 19 creation DEBORAH 3:7 56:15 21:21 22:16 25:10 58:19, 19 design 12:11 23:10, 18, 19, creative decades 18:15 60:11, 17 19 25:5, 10 17:11 36:14 December 9:3 83:21 38:1, 8, 15 crew 14:10 10:14 66:13 designates 60:12 82:12 crime 27:5 67:11 38:17, 22 83:12 84:12 critical decide 37:1 designation 85:13 87:1 24:6 95:16, decided 9:9 34:14 39:4, 89:4 93:20 17 10:16 7, 9, 13 40:9 95:10 96:2, cropland decision 71:1 designations 4 99:11 52:15 74:19 developments crossing 18:2 decision-making designed 12:12 21:20 Croydon 60:5 85:4 33:20 81:14 39:18 Crutchfield decisions desirable devoted 68:9 67:3 90:10 48:10 73:13 culmination dedicated desire 56:1 different 9:4 65:1 67:7 88:6 31:1, 1 current 31:2 dedication desires 34:22 48:6 41:11 43:6 58:11 68:11 88:9 67:22 49:4 85:12 deep 56:13 desperately differently currently define 69:4 92:15 46:7 23:8 60:12 definitely destroy differing 75:2, 11 24:11 48:13 57:10 68:6 84:10 85:3 degradation 75:8 99:18 difficult 88:11 94:14 57:3 destruction 6:19 31:9

cut 6:9 43:9 57:5 68:13 94:19 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 331 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 8 difficulty documents DUTKA 2:15 elements 51:9 72:5 83:22 35:15, 17, 19, 10:17 11:8 diligently dogs 73:2 22 37:5 67:15 28:9 doing 12:21 dwarf 82:9 elevation diminished 36:15 91:1 dwelling 61:16 53:16 54:7 97:15 43:1 44:6 elevations direct 84:1 dominate 73:8 47:10 49:9, 61:15 direction DON 2:6 15 55:19 eliminated 102:5 door 92:4 82:13 88:21 39:7, 14 directly doors 91:15 99:16 elimination 13:22 74:4 dotted 52:20 100:21, 22 57:4 90:10 double 36:9 dwellings email 13:6, Director 49:7 57:1 99:18 21 2:12 80:17 downpours embrace 49:22 93:20 70:20 < E > emphasizes Disabilities downsizers earlier 82:11 41:6 33:21 61:21 93:10 employed disagree downsizing ease 12:4 102:7, 11 67:21 32:19 easement employee disallowing downtown 39:22 102:10 99:21 24:3 94:7 easily 30:21 empty-nester discussed dozen 34:8 easing 18:8 34:4 14:21 67:14 dozens 46:6 East 59:9, empty-nesters 68:5 87:16 DRAFT 1:1 13 60:2, 11 33:22 discussion 4:14 6:17 85:12 encompasses 14:14 29:15 7:21 8:16 easy 12:17 82:18 discussions 9:2, 7, 9, 22 eaten 28:2 encourage 77:8 10:9, 17 echo 94:11 6:19 19:10 display 6:6 12:19 14:20 ecology 57:4 61:19 94:22 disproportionat 16:6 27:11 economic 96:6 ely 84:11 58:3 59:15, 17:5 18:8 encouraged disrupt 43:15 21 66:16, 19 25:10 100:3 85:21 distance 67:9, 19 economically encouraging 70:16 68:10, 18 95:21 97:14 distribution 76:2 80:20 edits 9:8 encroachment 13:6 82:11 88:18 effect 92:4 72:16 83:13 district 94:9 95:22 effort 21:22 89:2 99:10 31:12 70:8, drafting 70:3 71:13, endorsed 24:7 9 45:19 16 87:2 ensure 6:11 districts drafts 61:21 efforts 17:7 46:21 44:3 48:21 draw 75:18 16:14 59:18 83:15 87:15 52:4, 8 drawn 74:4 eight 28:6 92:15 53:13, 18 Drive 40:2 either 5:12 ensuring 94:3 72:20 83:8 63:5 70:18 8:7 71:9 enter 74:21 85:20 88:20 71:3, 4, 8 86:16 entered divorced 63:3 driving 70:8 elected 36:22 29:17 91:3 document due 4:6 electronic Enterprises 16:7 81:3 43:6 73:15 13:5 102:3 38:2 87:6 DUMAIS 2:15 entire 11:12

8:5 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 332 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 9 13:10 40:1 everybody expanding fact 6:18 entities 47:4 4:3 6:5 19:17 83:18 81:5 entity 6:1 97:19 expansion Fairfax 32:9 environment everybody's 68:15 69:9 fairness 6:11 11:10 82:19 7:10 97:4 74:2, 19 fall 100:3 95:12 exact 33:18 75:21 Falls 21:22 equalizing exactly 70:11 expect 9:1 22:17 24:2 49:22 example 49:19 10:13 27:20 38:3, equally 12:1 examples expectation 4, 5, 14 47:2 100:3 23:22 25:4 47:14 73:17 ERCA 59:4, 5, Excellent expectations family 34:16 7 60:1, 3, 7 55:10 28:19 95:20 100:5 Eric 67:4 exception expected family's Erica 59:5 42:19 43:8 95:11 42:16 eroded 46:22 44:13 expense far 12:1 especially exceptions 100:11 14:22 88:22 6:19 16:13 49:5 60:3 experienced Farm 28:22 33:16 74:22 53:3 73:5 47:13 85:22 essential excerpts 16:9 Expires 86:1 46:14 47:1 excessive 102:22 farms 52:15 48:17 58:6 43:5 48:4 explain 46:11 father 70:7 essentially excessively explained favor 26:1 12:8 13:12 75:7 30:20 77:4 establish excited explicit favorably 68:20 83:22 24:19 33:2 43:12 38:13 established 60:14 explicitly feasibility 39:16 85:5 excluding 60:10 82:1 31:6 establishment 49:19 express feasible 40:6 executive 42:18 80:21 22:21 96:4 estate 100:16 80:17 84:3 87:21 features et 47:14 exhausts expressed 82:21 83:9 52:22 96:12 46:19 56:7 February evaluated exist 74:20 99:8 9:11 10:1 95:19 75:11 88:11 expressly Federal evening 4:2, existence 99:20 31:21 93:11, 12, 13 15:22 90:11 extension 20, 22 95:18 37:22 51:15, existing 18:11, 13 feedback 16, 21 59:2, 23:21 24:15, extremely 16:5 59:14 3 78:4 16, 17, 17 81:2 84:7 80:19 86:14 57:20 69:2 EYA 21:2, 16 feel 5:15 88:5 89:22 77:5 82:16 29:10 25:20 60:20 94:8 98:19 83:1, 16 88:3 101:10 85:19 89:7 < F > feelings 6:17 evenings 46:5 95:11, 21 faced 99:15 feet 34:5, 8 events 79:1, exists 49:13 face-to-face 35:5, 7 1, 5 88:8 13:15 49:2, 6 eventually expand 77:6 facility 94:15 99:18 100:15 88:13 90:21, 19:17 32:20 fellow 7:12 22 facing 84:12 16:1 70:2

fewer 34:18 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 333 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 10 field 14:7 foremost function go 13:8 62:19 89:9 45:14 31:10 21:5, 13 fifth 50:14 forgoing further 7:3, 22:7, 9, 12 figure 9:18, 102:3 5 31:16 23:5, 20 19 form 25:13 36:12, 16, 17 25:13 27:7 file 102:3, 61:3 47:19 57:8 32:12 34:21 17 format 10:19 60:9 69:9 36:12 37:6 fill 53:14 former 42:14 77:10 42:1 51:12, final 4:20 forms 9:13 furthermore 20 54:14 97:5 formulated 102:9 55:14 66:7 finalize 44:15 future 9:1 72:2 78:16 86:20 forth 54:3 17:12 18:19 79:21 80:12 Finally 44:5 fortunate 39:17 41:11 93:13 61:14 70:21 53:22 71:8 53:11 65:8 goal 18:3 100:12 101:4 forum 14:5 81:14, 18 94:5, 5 95:6 financially forward 7:9 85:21 87:7 goals 69:5 102:12 16:11 18:7 81:7 find 12:17, 24:21 25:6 < G > going 4:21, 18 17:1 35:8 54:20 Gaithersburg 22 6:2, 5, 20:16 28:9 four 33:8, 9 40:17 77:22 12, 20 8:20 fine 70:16 45:12 58:17 Garden 38:5 11:4 15:4, finish 30:7 72:13 92:21 Gardens 36:4 5 22:5, 8 54:10 fourth 60:18 gas 39:22 29:9 30:9 first 45:16 68:18 gathering 51:12 71:6 61:4 70:19 free 5:15 22:15 23:3, 91:20 96:13 Fishers 18:13 25:20 92:7 10, 13 29:8 Gong 63:10 fit 78:19 freestanding general 4:20 Good 4:2 five 5:21 42:22 49:9, 20:8 60:1 10:19 15:22 6:13 15:20 14 57:16 73:3 81:11 34:1, 11 16:14 45:7, 88:20 99:17, 87:18 36:21 37:22 12, 16 59:4 22 getting 26:22 45:5 50:8 80:8, 12 friendliness GFS 91:4, 4 51:15, 16, 21 fix 26:6 73:10 92:7 54:15 59:1, fixable 26:7 frigidly Giammo 67:5 3 78:4 flexible 70:20 Giant 28:6 86:14 89:22 17:8 38:18 front 61:16 49:3 53:2 98:19 101:9 flood 70:21 91:18 92:2 91:5 GOODMAN 2:4 floor 39:19 frontage GILLES 2:14 Goodnight focus 12:5 39:1, 2, 3, 4 8:3 55:1 81:12 40:1 Girard 41:19 Gothman 37:7 focused 22:10 fronts 94:17 give 5:10 governed focuses 85:8 fruitful 7:5 36:21 47:2 56:9 follow 45:13 85:13 51:10 59:18 governing following fulfill 18:3 given 6:19 47:5 30:17 39:14 full 60:4 39:11 46:5 Government 42:19 60:3 full-time 71:4 99:21 24:7 87:9 foot 35:4 70:18 gives 7:2 grading 39:2 footprint fully 46:3, 68:22 gradual 61:13 75:4 11 81:13 glad 66:8 graduate

forced 70:19 Fulton 67:4 101:4 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 334 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 11 61:11 guiding 56:3 hear 15:18 70:1 78:7 granted 91:6 73:22 21:6 35:17 85:22 91:17 granting guilty 27:7 37:16 45:4 92:13 43:12 guys 37:12 51:5 55:12 higher 81:20 grateful 68:8 65:6 71:12 58:12, 21 100:10, 16, 16 great 36:14 79:11, 13 63:12 64:5, highest 68:22 71:22 6 66:1 100:14 75:10 80:13 < H > 69:17 71:19 Highland 60:5 greater habitat 57:4 78:1 80:10 highlight 73:13 89:1 HADLEY 2:6 86:11 98:7, 17:1 greatest 76:1 26:8, 11, 12, 10 highlighted greatly 44:7 15 heard 5:7 17:16 81:21 54:7 half 29:4 32:18 71:1 highly 19:15 green 58:8 39:3 67:13, 88:5 92:14 52:9 54:5 greetings 17 70:11, 12 94:12 97:18 high-rise 80:14 73:18 101:2 49:3 grew 36:4 halfway 33:10 HEARING 1:1 highway 75:14 90:21 Hall 4:6 4:14, 17 31:11 32:8 grocery 14:9 6:3 7:10, 73:16 27:22 31:8 Halpine 20:4, 14 8:15 Hill 47:14, ground 39:19 10, 11 32:17 9:15, 20, 22 14 87:3 34:7 13:18 76:18 Hilton 38:5 grounds 44:3 Hampton 21:2 94:13 historic group 12:10 handball 41:3 hearings 42:22 44:3, 47:15 67:8 handful 56:12 4:16 87:20 7 48:21 groups 9:6 handle 50:22 height 35:4, 49:1 52:4, Grove 21:22 handled 43:7 6 61:6, 8 6, 8 53:1, 22:17 24:3 hands 56:21 held 4:5, 18 10, 15, 17 27:20 38:3, happen 9:16 Hello 21:3 54:7 72:20 4, 6, 14 49:4 53:11 35:17 51:5, 76:5 80:18 grow 88:1 happened 11 62:11, 12, 81:8 82:2, growing 9:10 28:2 13 78:2 17 83:8 83:14 91:2 happening 89:18 88:20 growth 17:9 9:16 13:10 help 17:11 historical 81:14, 16, 18, 88:16 34:11 46:20 43:18, 22 21 82:1 happy 34:21 64:20 94:21 48:16 52:1 83:19 77:10 80:20 95:4 historically Grunveldt hard 27:12 helped 45:15 20:6 65:16 60:13 68:5 helping 63:22 history guarantees 79:15 81:5 hereto 102:11 48:17 52:11 84:17 harmonizes Hernandez 53:9, 13, 15 guess 37:6 75:16 65:16 54:13 58:17 97:4 HARRIS 2:15 Hi 40:19, 20, hit 8:22 Guide 40:2 26:9, 13, 17 21 45:2 9:1 81:14, 15 27:2, 3, 5, 8, 55:7 62:13 HOA 19:22 guidelines 9 30:2, 4, 9, 64:3, 12 20:15 60:11, 14 16 31:3, 19 66:4 71:19 HOAs 20:5 74:22 83:15, head 76:13 78:1 47:8, 13, 16 22 84:19 health 84:22 High 41:1 49:18 56:9

49:6 64:15 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 335 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 12 88:14, 22 12 63:4 implement incorporated 89:10 73:7 18:18 24:2 88:17 HOA's 20:1 housing 11:9 implementation increase hockey 62:19 17:4, 10, 12 83:21 84:16 85:10 hodgepodge 20:14 24:5, implementing increased 46:16 9, 19 25:11, 66:17 39:11 84:14 hold 6:5 12 33:3, 13 importance 89:8 95:14 9:20 78:22 34:10 36:11 24:6 100:6, 8 91:17 49:16 57:11, important increases holding 4:17 14, 19 77:3 6:10 8:8 85:2 home 32:21 81:19 82:12 17:2, 19 increasing 36:8 42:13, 84:9, 15, 15, 41:12 43:18 83:12 88:14 14 63:1 16 85:15 81:3 83:9 indicated 91:13 95:20 impressive 43:2 74:8 homeowner housings 62:3 99:12 100:7 49:11 improved indicates homeowners hundreds 94:14 57:17 47:5 100:4 64:13 improvement individual Homes 32:14 Hurley 23:11 18:18 19:17 33:15 36:1 36:13 52:16 90:3, 19 inability 73:7 58:8 61:6, husband 42:10 70:18 individually 9 72:22 HYUN 3:16 inaudible 48:9 75:13 82:8 89:15, 15 19:7 26:15 individuals Homewood 38:5 90:5 92:19 32:3 33:7 98:9 honesty 28:13 34:7, 13, 13, inevitably honing 45:22 < I > 16 38:7 43:13 honored 67:7 I-270 29:1 47:10 49:21 infill 24:18 hope 49:21 47:18 51:7 56:19 Inflation 58:5 60:15 icy 70:20 62:10 69:17 36:7 76:4 79:11 id 65:13 77:15 98:5 information 85:7 88:16 idea 22:13 101:8 12:18 hoped 13:9 ideas 68:5, incentivize infrastructure hopefully 22 57:8 24:16 17:13 identified inception initial 7:8, hoping 29:12 33:12 40:7 90:16 12 9:1 33:5 89:7 identity 83:7 include 52:2 13:11 45:20 hotels 52:22 II 1:1 2:8 55:19 61:15 57:17 hour 67:13 4:15 16:10 67:3 72:11, initially hours 67:13 57:13 80:20 14 5:2 39:9 68:8 81:4 81:10 97:6 included 90:8 46:7 house 36:6 III 102:2, 15 includes 12:8 initiates 42:11 52:19 immediate including 11:1 53:21 54:2 75:18 18:2 21:21 Inn 38:5 56:21 57:7 impact 34:1 38:4 innovation 70:11 39:12 inclusion 18:8 households impacted 17:5 58:4 input 66:21 45:19 74:8 90:10 76:3 81:1, 7 80:20 87:14 impacts 84:4, inconsistent institution houses 46:17 13 35:2 69:8

49:8 57:10, impart 90:9 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 336 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 13 institutional involved JONES 3:11 11 78:12, 16 43:3, 7, 9 21:20 22:16 69:15, 17, 20, 79:3, 4, 6, 48:2 68:14 41:1 22 11, 13, 20 74:3, 10 involvement Judge 66:22 85:16 93:22 83:19 88:13 81:1 July 52:19 Korean 90:2 90:17 irrevocably jumped 98:2 KPCR 91:11 institutions 73:9 June 38:11 42:21 47:9, islands 73:7 junior 64:15 < L > 21 48:5, 10, issue 27:12 69:22 70:21 lacks 84:10 11 49:20 85:1 78:15 Lambertina 68:16 72:17 issues 42:19 jurisdictions 69:16 73:13, 18 46:9, 12 13:3 land 11:9 74:15, 21 47:21 67:15 12:1, 13 75:3, 5, 7, 82:7 < K > 17:4, 7 11, 21 76:3, It'd 34:11 Kaitlyn 93:3, 34:14 42:21 21 77:1, 13 ITEM 1:1 4 43:17 44:4 83:14 88:19 4:9, 13 Kane 67:3 48:15, 18 institution's 7:14 101:13 Kebba 68:2 49:10 52:5, 75:4 its 39:1, 2 keep 6:22 12 53:19 integrity 43:2 45:17 58:1 63:18 56:10 69:10 75:8 47:18 56:16 75:22 92:4 73:13, 19 intended 59:19 90:10, 97:10 74:19 75:3 38:18 16 91:2, 7 Ken 67:5 81:17 84:4 intention 92:4 100:14 kept 60:15 95:10 100:13 29:19 KEVIN 3:12 LANDAU 3:7 intentions < J > 51:4, 4, 6, 7 58:19, 21 85:21 Jack 67:4 67:6 71:17, 59:1, 5, 8, interest JAIMIE 3:9 18 72:7 11 62:5 8:13 94:2, 6 63:17 64:1, key 42:19 landowner interested 5, 12 65:11 KIM 3:16 24:20 102:12 JANE 2:9 89:15, 17, 20, landowners interfere 3:3 42:1, 3 22 90:5 23:8 43:15 46:9 48:5 kind 12:3 lands 54:2 internships January 9:3 King 47:13 landscape 78:16 Jasmine 85:21 53:15 interrupt 63:10, 11 Klevan 8:4 landscapes 30:3 97:22 Jellen 67:4 knew 87:6 54:6 intersection JENNIFER 88:2, 9 landscaping 23:11 3:10 65:20, know 11:4, 5 43:21 44:2 interviews 22 66:1 21:19 23:18 52:3 83:5 78:16 JIM 2:13, 15 26:4 27:16 Lane 18:14 introduction 8:3 37:13, 28:5 29:10 21:2 69:16 59:12 14 38:1 33:8, 12 94:18 investigation job 97:16 34:1, 17, 21 language 57:17 JOHN 2:8 35:11 36:6, 22:11, 14 investment 42:10 20 50:6 23:1, 2 19:10 31:22 join 50:16 51:1 52:14 25:2, 5 93:11, 21 joined 7:19 63:2 64:19 28:11 44:2 invite 73:1 65:1 72:18 58:3

76:16 77:9, Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 337 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 14 large 32:20 license 9, 12, 15 located 34:4 42:20 70:22 71:10 25:18 26:10, 32:16 40:3 48:12 52:15 91:4 14, 17, 21 48:8 90:3 53:21 57:2 licensed 27:4, 6 location 61:17, 17 64:22 79:20 30:2, 5, 13, 19:11 23:12 68:16 72:16 licenses 17 31:15, 20 39:5 47:18 75:8 94:1 78:20 32:4, 6, 11 63:3 largely lies 83:20 35:12, 18, 20 locations 72:22 75:1 lifelong 36:3 37:4, 11, 18, 20:14 73:15 87:5 limit 6:3, 21 40:11, 15, 75:20 larger 33:20 13 48:7 20 41:15, 22 Lodge 52:18 Larissa 8:4 55:3 74:2 42:5 44:18 53:19 54:1 Larry 67:5 75:2 45:4, 6 log 98:14 LARSON 2:11 limitations 50:8, 11, 17 long 28:18, 7:16, 17 74:14 75:4, 51:3, 10, 16, 22 57:21 15:9 26:19 20 19 54:9, 15, longer 16:7 63:13, 16, 21 limited 5:19 18, 21 55:2, 32:19 96:18 7:4 18:16 9, 11, 14, 17 long-establishe lastly 19:20 44:10 92:2 58:14, 22 d 83:1 29:14 limits 40:4 59:3, 7, 9 long-range late 50:15, Lincoln 85:22 62:4, 11, 13 16:12 15 line 39:22 63:7, 15, 18, longstanding LAUREN 3:8 list 15:6, 22 64:4, 7, 42:16 62:8, 14 10 21:1 11 65:10, 21 long-term law 100:13 26:3 27:1 66:4, 6, 9 94:3 lawn 53:7 35:15 37:7, 69:13, 18 long-time lawns 52:20 13 40:16 71:14, 21 19:8 laws 43:6 41:17 51:13 72:2, 6 look 18:6 lead 43:8 55:5 58:18 76:8, 12 24:21 34:22 100:15 62:7 63:9 77:16, 19 35:8 54:20 leading 21:21 69:15 77:20 78:2 80:2, looked 48:9 leased 91:5 80:6 92:21 5, 11, 14 looking 7:9 92:7 93:9 96:12 86:2, 5, 12 29:11 32:21 leave 77:14 98:4 89:12, 18, 21 36:15 49:4 led 99:6 listen 5:9 92:19 93:7, looks 15:9 Lee 32:8 listened 68:5 13, 17 96:9, 31:1 93:5 left 24:4 listening 22 97:3 98:2 28:6, 7 54:17 76:16 98:6, 11, 15, loss 46:16 47:16 53:6 86:4 97:8 17 101:3, 9 52:5 Lerner 37:13 lists 13:6 live 42:9 lost 53:5 38:2, 2 little 8:13, 51:22 58:13 54:6 73:9 letters 13:2 19 12:17, 21 72:8 98:20 87:5 letting 51:1 49:7 53:4 lived 27:15 lot 5:6, 17 leveling 89:9 82:14 42:12 6:9 8:8 leverage 13:5 LITTLEFIELD lives 70:7, 27:16 33:14, LEVY 2:12 2:3 4:2 9, 10 75:15 15 34:1 8:3 68:2 7:17 8:14 LLC 21:2 44:9 49:15 Lewis 18:13 10:3 13:17 local 48:22 57:7, 10 19:1, 1, 5 15:8, 19 54:8 62:18, 21, 22

Liaison 2:13 20:21 21:7, locally 53:2 63:2 64:17, Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 338 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 15 22 77:13 Master 80:22 12, 18, 22 51:20 54:10 78:11, 12, 14 87:5 69:21 78:5 55:15 59:4 79:14 91:7 materials 80:15 64:8 66:10 100:6, 15, 22 82:20 membership 80:8, 12 lots 48:13 mature 57:2 19:13 87:18 89:19 93:18 60:8 78:18, 60:19, 21 mention 11:7 98:8 19 99:17 maximize mentioned missing Loud 21:9 57:9, 16 19:14 46:9 20:14 24:9, lower 24:2, maximum 68:20 48:5 19 25:11 4 61:10 Maya 37:7, 8 message 45:14 36:13 63:18 Mayor 10:20 messages 84:15 < M > 11:2 38:11 63:13 mistake 5:8 MAGNER 3:6 McAuliffe met 72:21 mix 95:10 55:6, 7, 10, 18:11 90:20 mixed 38:20 13, 16, 18 McGUIRL 3:17 Metro 17:6, mixed-use 58:15 99:21 31:21 93:5, 13, 18 18:20 38:18 85:13 magnificent 6, 12, 16, 19, 33:4 34:8 Mm-hmm 80:4 52:21 20 96:10 36:18 modestly mail 14:9 Meadow 63:10 mid-1980s 34:16 mail-in 14:8 mean 61:1 99:4 modified 5:17 main 6:10 76:22 79:14 middle 20:14 moment 66:14 40:4 56:21 meaningful 24:9, 19 monitor 26:3, maintain 18:1 95:7 25:11 31:12 6 58:10 92:4 means 19:7 36:13 84:15 Montgomery maintaining 78:11 94:18 70:14 73:16 99:13 media 13:7 MIKE 2:15, monthly 87:17 major 29:5 medical 38:6 15 15:14, 16 monumental 31:11 39:22 meet 9:6 16:2 35:15 84:20 making 70:8 34:21 67:12 mile 29:3 MORRIS 3:9 94:18 81:17 miles 70:11, 63:17 64:1, managed 67:18 MEETING 1:1 12 3, 6, 10, 12, Manisha 8:4 4:4, 5, 18, milestones 12 manner 96:5 20 5:9 8:22 mother 70:9 Manor 64:4 6:22 16:21 Mill 17:7, move 25:5 mansionization 19:13 92:13 14 60:6 56:21 57:8 82:7 97:10 101:13 Millennial moved 42:11 map 17:7 meetings 5:7 29:9 91:12 MARGARET 3:6 10:14, 15 MILLER 2:5 moving 10:6 55:5 99:21 15:1 19:12 mind 30:14 61:3 Marilyn 63:16 41:8 45:22 mine 25:14 MPDUs 25:13 Mark 47:13 64:17 67:14 58:17 93:5 multi 95:20 markers 53:10 68:1 86:19 minimum 35:6 multi-family market 39:12, 87:17, 18 Minor 31:6 38:9 82:12 15 91:17 97:17 minute 10:11 museums 75:13 market-rate meets 29:5 minutes 5:20, muted 27:3 38:9 91:15 22 6:5 MXCD 94:10 MARYLAND 1:1 member 72:10, 15:20 30:5, 96:3 100:12 12 90:6 6 32:12 MXNC 34:15 mass 61:6, 9 members 35:21 37:19 35:1

95:16 21:15 67:2, 42:6 45:7 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 339 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 16 MXNC-MXT 65:2 72:14 neighborhoods NOREEN 3:4 95:22 76:4 78:18, 11:17 43:9 44:20, 22 myth 57:15 20 79:2, 19 47:2, 3 67:1 83:15 90:14, 50:1 52:7 norm 53:2 < N > 20 98:22 56:8, 12, 13, normal 28:3 name 8:2 needed 48:19 15 72:17, 19 97:15 14:6 15:11 56:18 85:18 73:20 74:6, North 31:22 16:2 37:22 88:10 90:9, 18, 21 75:12 51:14, 22 40:21 78:5 21 92:15 79:9 83:10 63:11 64:5 86:14 90:5 95:2 84:21 85:10, 72:8 85:4, 93:3, 19 needs 17:12 14 88:22 11 93:21 98:3, 19 36:16, 17, 20 89:5 94:13, 17 name's 32:13 41:13 44:12, neighborhood's 95:19 96:1 72:7 14 56:5 48:20 98:20 NANCY 3:14 60:21 61:7, neighborhood-sc northern 67:5 80:6, 12 81:18 ale 11:16 39:3 40:1 7, 8, 16 91:15 92:13 neighbors NOTARY 102:1, Natia 64:4 neighbor 16:20 17:2 19 National 94:11 44:15 46:4 note 4:10 48:22 54:7 neighborhood 66:20 73:2 39:14 82:4 nationally 13:12 16:20 74:11 75:10 83:11 53:3 17:18 18:5, Neither 43:5 noted 16:1 nature 5:18 21 23:22 102:7, 10 notes 30:18 navigation 42:9 43:4, network 24:17 notice 98:1 19:3 16 44:8, 13 new 12:12 notifications NDJOUKOUO 45:10 46:18, 21:17, 18 13:2 3:13 77:21 20, 21 47:20 22:22 24:19 November 78:1, 4, 6 48:1, 6, 14 25:11, 12 10:14 102:22 80:4 49:8, 13 27:21, 22 number 13:12 nearby 49:2 52:2 54:5 28:21, 22 15:14 25:7 nearly 45:21 55:20, 22 32:21 47:3, 26:4 44:8 48:9 67:19 56:2 57:3 13 52:5 74:13, 14 necessarily 58:7 60:18 56:21 60:1, 75:21 95:18 5:10 68:16 70:10, 12 61:4, 7 numerous necessary 13, 14 72:12, 66:19 69:2 21:20 92:8 15 73:14 81:19, 20 nursing 75:13 necessity 74:1, 5, 13 85:22 88:22 41:9 70:8 75:9, 22 99:15 < O > need 12:6 76:1 82:6, newest 29:2 Oaks 22:1 15:12 19:14 18 83:6, 7, nice 71:16 24:4 33:6, 21:3 24:8 21 84:2 NICHOLAS 19 37:14 29:5 32:19 85:6 86:21 2:15 8:4 52:21 33:13 34:9, 87:4, 7, 8, NICK 3:11 obviously 11, 20 36:12, 21 88:4, 8, 69:15, 16, 22 21:18 25:6 12, 21 37:1 10, 14 89:6 71:14 occupy 73:18 41:11 45:18 91:13 98:22 nine 82:4 occupying 46:20 52:1, 99:2, 5, 7, nodes 17:16 91:12 2 55:19 11, 14, 19 nonresidential occurs 19:5 58:5 62:18 neighborhood-ba 73:8 83:13

63:1, 4 sed 11:15 89:2 99:11 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 340 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 17 October 7:1 35:4, 5 oral 8:15 p.m 7:1 10:4, 14 ones 75:8 13:19 14:11, 97:11 97:11 ongoing 4:7 19 PA 56:1, 3, offer 70:13 online 14:4, order 15:6 22 57:6, 11, offers 84:17 5 15:16 ordinance 15, 22 58:4, 85:13 37:9 41:20 48:4 13 office 38:6, 50:18 58:19 organically Pack 86:1 20 43:3, 5 63:11 65:19 75:14 page 60:17 47:9 48:2, 66:1 71:18 organization 61:4 68:18 4 53:5 80:9 89:16 6:14 pandemic 4:7 83:19 93:2 organizational 9:17 39:10 officer 86:16 open 6:22 11:22 pandemic's offices 83:13 10:2, 4 organizing 39:12 official 15:11 26:5 14:14 panel 95:9, 13:1 14:17 30:22 43:21 original 15 officials 48:15, 21 53:6 82:8 panel's 95:13 37:1 87:9 54:6 62:17 originally paper 13:4 Oh 54:12 87:18 88:19 27:18 102:4 parcel 100:13 59:5 62:12 92:5 97:11 OR-RN 38:17 Pardon 26:10 63:15 93:7, opened 91:14 outcome 72:4 9 operate 47:6 102:12 parents 36:6 Okay 26:14 92:1 outdoor 29:7 63:2 65:2 30:13 31:15, operated 91:5 outreach 70:7, 17 18 32:4, 6, operation 9:18 12:22 Park 22:17 11 35:14, 19 92:10 13:5, 14 27:21 63:1 37:4 41:22 operations 16:18 17:3 65:3 78:13, 45:5 50:10 90:12 outright 21 79:3, 5, 51:12 54:12, opinions 68:6 49:20 8, 16, 17, 21 15 62:9 opportunities overarching 86:1 91:18 63:13 64:1 33:16 46:1 98:21 parked 58:2 65:21 71:22 59:19 87:20 overbuilding 74:16 76:10 77:4 opportunity 52:4 parking 78:4 86:2 13:19, 20 overburdened 27:14 29:15 93:7, 13 16:4 24:15 58:1 30:10 41:9, 96:22 97:3, 25:9 33:3 overcrowding 12 43:14 15 98:13, 15 40:5 44:15, 92:12 62:17, 18 101:8, 11 17 64:19 overwhelmingly 63:8 64:14, old 53:4 71:5 78:9 49:12 74:7 21 65:4, 7 older 56:13 80:19 83:20 88:6 70:3 71:2, 82:2 84:11 90:1 owned 53:19 3, 8, 15 89:5 oppose 48:1 owner 28:8 78:11, 18, 18 oldest 47:15 opposed 93:21 94:1 79:6, 10, 14, 52:7 72:19 30:19 31:3 owners 29:18 14, 20 90:14 old-school 74:9 38:19 39:21 91:1, 7, 7, 8, 14:8 option 28:12, 56:21 57:15 21, 22 92:9, once 14:2 14 29:13 ownership 15 94:17 44:3 53:19 options 33:16 park-like 63:19 87:14 17:10 33:4 Oxley 42:14 57:5 58:8 one-foot parks 19:9

< P > Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 341 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 18 Parkway 19:6 65:16, 17 18 89:6 23:12 pedestrian-bike 67:5 83:5 90:8 94:9, part 7:20 18:2 93:3 21 95:22 14:15, 17 Peerless photo 45:18 96:8 97:6 17:3 20:2, 80:7, 17 pick 65:2 98:22 99:7 2, 6, 18 81:6 84:3, PICKARD 3:14 Planner 2:11, 38:14 50:22 13 86:7 67:5 80:6, 14 7:18 62:20 66:11 people 5:4, 10, 13, 16 PLANNING 1:1, 70:14 75:14 7 6:9 8:8 86:3, 6 1, 1 2:2, 12 78:7 79:10 18:22 19:1, pictures 8:6 4:4, 15, 16 participant 5 23:14 pieces 53:7 7:18, 22 26:3, 4, 6 31:2 50:20 Pike 17:21 8:7, 16 9:2, 31:21 63:2 65:15, 18:1 19:2, 7, 8 10:7, 8, PARTICIPANTS 17 66:14 6 20:3 15, 16, 18, 22 2:1 3:1 67:8 76:19 PITMAN 2:7 11:13, 15 96:13 78:5 92:21 place 12:14 12:4, 5, 9, participate percent 22:20 40:17 14 13:3, 13, 5:15 46:1 33:21 47:11, 79:5, 16 21 14:12, 19 participated 22 56:9 83:15 16:5, 11, 13, 49:12 50:4 74:7 placement 18, 22 20:2, 86:19 percentage 61:16 3, 3, 19 participating 57:2 73:13 places 79:18 29:12 34:15 5:5 41:4 perfectly PLAN 1:1 36:5, 19 99:5 70:15 4:14 5:14 38:7 42:8 particular period 15:3 6:17 7:21 43:19 45:9 17:15 94:2 permit 82:13 8:17 10:10 46:15 47:17 particularly 92:4 11:1 14:20 49:10 52:6 31:10 47:17 permits 84:5 16:6, 12, 19, 55:20, 21 48:11 73:17 permitted 22 23:19 56:12, 18 81:6 82:2 43:6 24:8 27:11 61:19 65:8 83:18 84:6 permitting 28:11 35:3 66:13, 17, 19 parties 84:16, 19 36:15 38:15, 67:10, 20 102:8, 11 person 35:15 16, 22 40:10 68:9, 11, 14 passes 10:5 36:2 40:16 42:9, 18 69:7 72:12, passionate 42:1 44:20 45:10, 15, 20 13, 18 73:12 46:12 51:4, 13 46:2 52:2 75:9 76:5, pastures 55:5 58:18 54:5 55:20, 21 77:8 52:16 62:7 71:17 22 56:4, 6, 78:10 79:12 path 23:14 80:5 89:14, 8 58:5 80:15 81:16 PATRICIA 3:5 15 93:1 59:15, 17, 21 82:4 83:17 51:13, 14, 22 98:1 60:11, 16 86:16, 20, 22 67:6 Personally 62:3 65:11 87:2, 11, 15 PATRICK 3:18 70:6 68:17 69:3 88:3, 6, 16 50:14 67:1 Petra 65:16 72:15 74:1 89:4 90:9 98:2, 20 phase 9:22 76:4 80:21, 96:6 97:7, patterns 83:2 10:6 22 81:14, 18, 16 98:22 pays 100:10 phonetic 21 82:11 99:5, 7 PD-FG 38:16 15:5 37:7 86:21 87:2, 100:20 peace 67:4 41:18 42:14 4, 5, 8, 12,

73:3 63:10, 17 17, 22 88:10, Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 342 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 19 planning.commis PONTIUS 3:3 Presbyterian previous sion@rockvillem 42:2, 4, 7 90:2 4:17 59:22 d.gov 14:1 44:19 46:9 presence 61:20 plans 50:5 pool 24:12 90:18 92:11 price 100:10 81:7 82:13 29:16 91:9 present 4:11 pride 75:10 85:4 92:11 41:21, 22 primarily plantation popped 76:13 63:17 81:11 23:9 55:21 53:21 portion 94:1 92:22 primary 73:22 planting 83:4 portions presentation Principal play 73:1 10:10 14:18 38:11 2:11, 14 playing 89:9 posed 95:9 presenting 7:18 Plaza 38:6 position 25:22 42:15 principle Pleasant 20:11 30:19 66:19 56:3 74:3 63:10 positive preservation principles please 5:15 16:11 42:21 43:17 27:11 74:1 15:20 25:20 possibility 80:18 85:19 prioritized 26:5 30:7 18:7 preserve 60:20, 22 32:1, 12 possible 43:20 44:2 priority 18:4 35:20 37:19 22:19 46:5 46:14 48:17, privilege 42:5 45:18 50:16 18 49:13 99:4 54:10 64:7 possibly 71:2 52:3 54:13 probably 29:2 66:6 98:17 post 53:5 56:2 57:11, problem pleased 81:7 potential 22 76:5 21:12 26:2 point 10:16, 12:13 20:9 84:8 88:7 27:4 31:6 21 14:15 100:6 89:7 99:1 72:6 77:18 18:20 36:21 potentially 100:19 procedure 5:5 40:17 61:14 5:8 preserved procedures POLICARO Potomac 54:3 60:20, 5:17 43:12 2:15 37:13, 22:17 27:21 22 99:20 proceed 15:9, 16, 20, 22 63:11 64:5 Preserving 20 35:21 38:1 40:12, POVICH 3:8 46:18 48:15, 37:19 42:6 14 62:8, 9, 12, 20 82:5, 21 64:8 98:17 policies 14, 15 88:3 PROCEEDINGS 10:18 11:11, practices president 101:14 13 46:21 41:5 64:18 16:3 32:14 102:6, 9 47:7 56:16 precise 7:2 38:1 59:12 process 8:20 67:15 68:19 predominantly 86:17, 17 13:11 21:17 76:2 82:15 99:2 pressing 85:1 43:8, 19 84:19 85:20 prefer 6:18 pressure 44:10 45:16 88:19 89:7 97:14 83:12 88:12 81:1 87:11, policy 12:9 preference 89:4 100:3 16 99:5 17:7 46:13 84:8 99:13 pressures produce 68:10 48:19 52:2 prepare 59:17 84:12 product 33:17 54:4 55:19 prepared pretty 12:2, professional 56:5, 7, 10, 58:3 76:2 17 26:7 68:4 18 58:3, 6 preparing prevent profits 57:9 72:15 76:5 66:16 46:15 47:8 program 81:17 84:5, pre-registered 72:15 19:15, 16 10 87:8 5:4 58:16 preventing programs

96:13 47:9 52:4 19:12 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 343 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 20 progression protected 85:19 13:4, 14 72:22 74:18 Pulte 32:14 14:6 22:10 prohibiting protecting PulteGroup 31:14 33:5, 100:20 82:15 32:8 11 60:13 project 7:20 protection purchaser 62:3 78:20, 14:4 18:4, 47:16 48:3 32:15, 22 21 79:14, 15 14 19:13 83:16 100:10 85:17 34:17 38:10, protections pushed 36:16, Realty 31:22 12 39:20 49:17, 22 17 93:11, 21 43:10 67:3 74:20 83:18 put 49:20 94:1 95:18 projects 88:11, 17 66:15 83:15 reason 6:10 12:13 89:1, 9 89:2 34:3 36:10 proliferation provide 7:3 71:10 27:19 76:21 8:13 13:20 < Q > reasonable pronouncing 16:5 28:14 quality 57:5 75:6, 20 41:18 30:10, 11 question reasons properties 43:11 44:15 30:14 76:9, 25:10 40:7 12:10 20:9, 59:14 64:8 22 100:5 70:6 99:21 13 47:12 80:3, 20 questions receive 14:2, 77:12 81:9 88:10 92:8 25:16, 19 2, 19 82:17 95:1 95:2, 20 31:17 35:11, received property 97:12 13 95:9 10:8, 10 12:10 22:4 provided quick 5:1 19:21 38:10 23:6, 9 6:21 17:20 11:5 recognize 24:18, 21 48:3 79:19 quite 5:6 8:11 34:20 25:6 28:8 84:18 90:17 41:13 47:1 29:15, 18 provides < R > 87:3 30:1 32:16 23:2 25:3 RA 60:4, 7, recognized 33:1 38:14, 29:16 13 87:8 95:16 17, 19 39:1, providing raised 18:14 96:2 20 40:2 42:7 57:14 42:12 recommend 56:20 57:15 63:8 86:15 range 57:11, 58:4 76:3 82:14 84:6 95:7 18 70:15 recommendation 94:10, 14, 22 provision Rapid 17:14 14:18 35:3 95:20 100:9 35:2 rarely 87:6 38:21 39:6 proportion PUBLIC 1:1 rates 57:18 94:21 95:2 61:16 4:13 6:3, reached 29:20 96:1 proportional 22 7:7, 14 reaching 60:8 61:5, 8 8:14 9:6, 6, read 12:18 recommendations proposal 10, 14, 20, 21 61:20 11:14 12:11 99:16 10:2 12:22 readily 30:21 16:22 22:4 Proposed 13:14, 18 reading 16:9 67:16 90:11 85:2 89:6 14:15 15:2, 60:5 94:10 95:7 proposing 7, 10 87:16, ready 15:9 96:7 33:17 19 94:13 real 100:16 recommended protect 97:5, 9, 10 realistic 11:11 44:12 54:8 101:12 28:13, 19 record 6:22 68:17 88:15 102:1, 19 really 9:4 7:7 10:2 99:1 100:19 publicity 10:22 11:11, 14:3, 16

14, 18, 21 15:12 21:16 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 344 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 21 27:8 35:9 religious requesting residential-ret 97:9, 11 90:17 39:13 49:17 ail 17:15 102:5 rely 31:7 require 39:5, residents recoup 100:11 70:5 17 16:15 17:8 recreation remain 20:1, required 19:8 23:15 19:9, 16 18 42:20 100:13 43:2 46:1 redeveloping 83:9 requirement 53:12 56:1 92:16 95:19 remained 22:12 39:11 58:9 66:12 redevelopment 87:16 requirements 68:12, 15 20:9 82:12 remaining 40:9 82:5 87:10, 85:4, 8 6:7 46:9 requires 13, 19, 20 90:13 94:22 remains 18:4 83:8 85:3 88:2, 6, 9 reduced 85:1 Requiring 94:6 99:8, 53:18 102:4 remodeled 39:18 9, 12, 19 reduction 90:22 reschedule 101:1 77:1 removal 57:2 9:17 resolved 46:8 refer 34:19 renovation Research resources referenced 82:7 27:22 28:14 11:10 87:6 102:6 rental 33:14 39:3 40:3 respected refers 82:22 57:18 68:6 85:19 69:21 reflect 23:20 rented 56:19 reservations respectfully reflecting repeat 97:8 84:4 40:8 100:18 59:21 82:19 100:1 residences respond 83:20 reflects replace 48:2 48:2 55:22 responded 16:19 replacement 57:20 74:9 74:8 regard 17:4 82:8 77:11 respondents 25:3 replacing resident 46:19 47:22 regarded 61:1 74:9 36:3 72:9 49:11 19:15 replicate 84:7 response regarding 33:5 residential 74:13 81:10 35:2 42:8 report 82:4 17:22 23:10, responsive 68:14 76:2 Reports 13:7 21 34:14 17:16 84:17 represent 38:20 43:15 rest 67:4 regards 18:6 11:21 28:9 44:9, 12 restrictive registered representation 46:14, 18 47:6 5:4, 8 15:15 47:12 48:12, result 39:18 regular 5:12 representative 13 56:10 46:2 10:15 15:21 60:2 61:4, resulting regulations represented 7 73:6, 10, 57:1 82:15 83:14 20:5 19 75:9, 17 results related 102:7 representing 76:6 77:2, 43:13 66:18 relationships 5:22 80:7 14 81:19 retail 17:20 83:3 represents 82:2, 6 22:13, 14, 18, relative 16:10 84:6, 9 19, 22 23:3 45:9 102:10 request 88:7 89:8 25:4 27:13, release 9:10 17:17 19:8 95:3, 3 16, 20 28:3, relegated 20:1 39:6 96:4 99:3, 4, 12 30:18, 53:9 40:8, 8 14 100:6, 15, 19, 22 31:1, relevant 43:11 100:18 19 2, 5, 6, 14

61:22 38:4, 20 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 345 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 22 39:1, 2, 5, 8, 41:9, 12 see 8:5, 6 10, 12, 13, 15, 62:17 65:4, < S > 9:14 25:9, 17, 18 40:2, 7 70:3 sad 53:8 14 29:12 5, 8 83:19 71:2, 3 safe 85:11 32:2, 6 85:2, 3, 12 78:10, 11 sake 11:22 35:4 37:11 94:15 95:12 79:7, 9, 10 sandwiched 50:6 62:7 retailer 31:9 90:4, 16 53:1 63:9 68:15 retailers 91:9 92:16 SARAH 2:5 69:15 77:5, 28:2, 7 31:7 Rockshire's sat 25:7 6 81:7 retain 70:3 78:21 says 22:14 82:14 85:7, return 57:16 ROCKVILLE 60:18 61:4 21 77:10 1:1, 1, 1 68:19 seedlings REV 2:9 4:3 8:18 scale 61:6, 61:2 review 9:10, 13:7, 10 9 75:16 seek 57:9, 22 10:22 16:7, 16 85:7 16 68:19 44:16 68:21 17:21 19:2 scaled 61:11 69:2 100:10 69:2 20:3 21:19 scenes 8:9 seen 52:11 reviewed 9:2 27:16 33:4 9:5 selected reviewing 35:16 36:3, scheduled 24:20 32:22 10:7 44:10 11 37:8, 14 9:15 self-contained revising 41:19 42:2, school 24:17 47:4 66:20 17 44:7 34:2 41:1 self-defeating rezone 94:10 47:2, 12, 15 62:21 64:15, 39:16 RHODA 3:13 51:14 52:7, 17, 20 70:1, self-described 77:20 78:6 14, 17 54:1 19 71:5 36:1 80:2 56:10 59:9, 78:7, 14, 14, selling 100:9 rich 43:22 13 60:2, 11 17, 17, 18 send 11:2 75:15 72:9, 19 79:5, 16, 18, 76:16 ride 71:5 73:14 75:10 21 85:22 sending 13:1 Ridge 40:17 80:7, 18 91:18 92:13 senior 38:1 Ridgefield 81:6 84:3, schools 40:22 78:15 37:8 13, 22 86:7, 52:22 75:12 sense 28:18 right 6:20 9 88:1, 12 screen 6:6 73:3 9:21 24:2 90:2 94:7 8:7, 12 sensitive 65:22 69:3 Rockville-2040 15:4 63:19 85:6 79:17 80:13 12:20 screens 63:20 sensitivity 97:16 98:16 Seal 102:17 83:9 risk 73:17 rockvillemd.gov second 4:16, sentence Road 17:14 12:20 19 6:4 30:7 54:11 20:10, 11 Rockville's 22:7, 9 sentiments 24:16 28:1 16:10 19:15 37:12 51:11 94:11 32:17 73:17 48:17 84:20 57:1, 7 97:5 separate ROBERT 2:15 role 80:22 Secondly 44:5, 9 26:8, 12 rolling 52:15 28:17 48:15 65:15 Rockcrest Rose 31:22 secret 24:5 separated 19:10 47:13, 14 secretary 70:7 Rockshire row 58:17 78:8 September 22:3, 4, 21 rule 6:11 section 1:1 4:19 27:10, 17 47:5 60:17 68:14 19:22 94:13

29:4, 16 sections 12:4 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 346 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 23 serve 19:11 shows 22:8 site's 52:11 South 42:2, 23:14 29:6 56:1 six 4:10 9 60:8 86:9 75:18 side 17:22 size 49:21 space 22:15 serves 18:20 29:1 53:8 74:15 75:4, 23:4, 11, 13 29:1 61:14 96:1 16, 21 82:20 29:8 39:19 service 50:2 sidewalks 85:6 48:21 85:12 92:8 73:1 83:4 skeleton spaces 29:16 Services sign 5:11 14:10 43:21 54:6 7:19 17:20 Signature skipped 89:14 58:8 82:21 75:13, 22 102:17 slide 22:5, 88:19 90:15 serving 72:11 signed 5:14 9 23:5, 20 91:2, 7, 8, session 10:6, 93:10 96:14 slides 8:21 10, 21, 22 13 14:21 significance 11:6 25:21 92:2, 6, 9 sessions 43:22 slightly 5:16 speak 5:14 14:13 15:1 significant small 31:7, 7:4 9:5 setback 35:4, 23:13 31:4 9 47:14 22:2 27:9 5, 6 53:17 75:19 57:12 78:9 93:2 setbacks 35:2 81:8 smaller 34:17 96:16 setting 44:3 significantly smart 17:10 speaker 5:20 48:18 53:7 39:11 53:18 67:8 6:12 37:6, 56:6 73:20 smartphones 10 41:21 settings 9:7 Silver 24:3 19:3 50:14 51:7, 52:3 82:16 similar 6:1 social 13:7 8 64:1 seven 4:10 11:19 38:11 sold 33:10 65:12, 19 severely 74:20 76:14 solidified 77:20 86:8 40:4 53:16 Similarly 14:22 Speakers SGA 78:8, 22 100:9 solution 2:15 6:9 shape 82:20 simply 5:18 20:16 36:14 45:12 58:16 87:21 36:11 82:22 solved 25:9 speaking share 20:8 97:14 somebody 26:4 16:2 35:22 22:6 25:20 single 70:13 son 42:13 36:2 44:21 78:10 95:1 100:5 Sonner 67:6 45:9 65:15 shared 16:20 single-family sons 42:12 77:7 80:16 18:3 94:5 46:16 49:11, soon 17:13 90:7 sharing 8:12 16 55:22 28:7 90:21 speaks 22:11 15:3 57:22 58:8 sophomore special 43:7 shelters 72:22 77:13 62:16 44:13 49:4 75:12 82:6 85:15 sorely 87:4 74:22 Shetland 88:7 99:2, Sorry 30:2 specific 35:16 13, 17 100:22 32:2, 3 11:14 44:2 SHIPLEY 3:15 single-unit 37:11 54:10 95:8 86:9, 11, 14, 84:9 55:3 59:6, specifically 15 89:13 sir 30:4 7 63:15 17:1 19:14 shopping site 22:3, 8, 65:19 71:9 22:3 60:16 18:12 27:17, 21 23:7 86:1 93:14 62:19 69:7 21 90:4 24:11 25:13 96:20 97:22 specifics 91:5 33:18 34:7 sort 12:3 84:10 short 4:11 40:4 44:1 14:14 spent 45:21 show 79:4 82:19 sorts 78:22

sought 87:12 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 347 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 24 spoken 8:15 48:20 54:7 60:4 submitting 76:14, 20 100:12 strict 6:3 81:9 96:21 stated 49:12 strong 36:21 subsequently sports 19:12 58:9 60:10 84:4 95:12 42:13 41:2, 5 81:17 99:12 substantial spot 64:22 states 68:11 strongly 22:13, 14, 18 spots 64:21 74:2 84:7 18:9 19:22 23:3 28:12 65:1, 3 Station 17:6 58:9 60:20 56:22 70:5 71:11 18:10 84:7 succeeded Spring 24:3 stations structure 45:3 38:8 67:11 36:18 44:14 61:11 success square 34:5 status 87:16 100:21 28:10 33:5, 80:6 94:2, stay 64:17, structures 11 15 20 42:22 44:9 successful squeezed 73:7 STEIN 2:15 48:16 49:1 40:5 Staff 2:10, 15:14, 18, 22 52:5, 6 successfully 13 4:22 16:2 20:22 53:2, 15 55:7 7:13, 13 step 10:21 72:20 75:17 suffering 4:8 8:5, 9 9:1, 16:11 82:8 99:17, sufficient 4 16:13, 15 steps 49:22 22 49:1 92:3 26:1 27:11 Steve 94:11 struggled 95:11 96:3 28:14 34:22 stick 55:4 94:16 suggest 44:1 35:9 43:11 Stonestreet struggles Suites 38:5 44:1 45:21 60:9 85:3 summarizing 46:4, 7 stop 15:3 struggling 14:13 59:18 65:13 store 27:22 28:4 39:15 supply 71:7, 67:10, 12, 18, story 53:5 student 7 22 81:4 stream 5:12 62:15 64:16, support 86:20 96:14 street 9:12 22 65:7 17:13, 21 101:10 35:16 41:19 students 18:9, 16 stand 49:2 42:2, 10, 15 41:10, 11, 13 19:13 20:13 standalone 51:22 60:6 64:14, 19 34:13, 15 44:5 100:7, 66:1 72:8 65:2, 3 42:18 46:3 21 85:5 86:9 70:2, 4, 5 58:5, 12 standard 69:2 93:22 94:18 78:12, 13, 19 60:3, 7 standards 96:2 98:21 79:2, 8, 13, 69:6 76:4 48:22 54:8 streets 20 91:18 77:1 88:17, 56:6 57:21 24:13 53:4 92:13 18 94:9 68:20, 22 58:1 70:21 study 12:15 95:4, 11 69:3, 4, 6 72:21 73:6, 24:7 28:15 96:7 84:1 96:3 9 74:17 stuff 79:2 supporting start 4:21, 83:3 89:3 styles 24:1 27:10 95:17 22 8:12 streetscape subdivided supports 15:5 26:6 94:19 44:4 20:1 60:1 started 7:14 strength subjective 84:14 88:9 starting 19:16 75:1 sure 26:7 36:21 67:11 strengthen submit 14:5 30:16 61:20 starts 15:2 83:17 95:7 16:8 35:9 76:11 77:7 State 13:2 stretching submitted 86:22 93:4

15:11, 12 67:10 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 348 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 25 96:19 97:18 tapestry 19 98:7, 21 things 63:19 Surface 94:17 75:15 101:12 69:1 surrounded targeted 82:1 Tewari 8:4 think 7:1 52:20 targets text 102:4 8:5 10:12 surrounding 56:11 81:18 thank 7:16 11:18 12:6 13:3 39:20 taxes 100:17 15:8, 22 15:4, 5 43:17, 21 TCA 16:21 16:4, 13 16:19 17:10 52:5, 12, 12, 19:13, 22 20:20, 21 25:2, 4 14 94:4 20:11 21:14 25:18 28:6 29:4, 95:1 96:5 team 7:20 27:8 30:11, 6 31:5, 13 surrounds 62:19 64:16 13 31:15, 19 32:18 34:10 42:22 tear-down 35:10, 12 36:4, 16, 16, surveilling 57:8 37:4, 20 19 37:10 45:19 technical 40:10, 11, 15 45:2 50:8 survey 43:1 19:7 33:7 41:14, 15 58:18 61:22 46:20 48:1 38:7 50:22 44:17, 18 77:12 79:13 56:1 66:18 51:8 56:19 45:5, 8, 14, 93:9 96:12 74:5, 6, 11 72:5 77:15 18 46:3, 4 97:16 98:3 87:15 88:8 98:5 50:2, 3, 11 third 27:14 99:9 tell 6:7 51:2, 18 61:14 surveyed 33:21 52:10 54:12, 16, 18, Thomas 28:22 87:14 Temple 90:18, 21 55:13, 16 40:22 69:22 survive 94:16 22 58:11, 14 thought SUSAN 2:7 tenants 28:9 59:1, 11, 22 70:22 85:17 sustain 56:16 31:8 62:1, 4 thoughts sweeping tend 41:7 63:6, 7 6:16 7:10 52:20 termed 11:7 64:10 65:9, thousand swimming terms 31:13 10 66:8 34:10 91:9 92:11 Terrace 60:5 69:11, 13, 20, thousands synagogue testified 20 71:12, 14, 41:13 90:19, 20 88:5 22 76:6, 8 threat 99:15 91:6, 12 testify 77:16, 18 threaten 46:10 94:8 78:8 79:22 44:7 75:8 < T > testifying 80:1, 2, 13 threats 76:1 take 6:17 32:15 64:13 86:3, 5 three 5:20 11:12 12:13 testimony 89:11, 12, 20, 6:5 16:16 24:15 55:2 6:15, 18 22 92:17, 19 27:12 30:5, 65:6 66:14 8:15, 16 93:16, 17 6 32:12 71:2 75:10 10:1, 8 96:8, 9 35:21 37:19 79:12 90:13 13:19, 20 98:13 101:2, 42:6 46:8 100:8 14:8, 11, 19 3 51:19 54:10 taken 22:20 15:3, 7, 10 Thanks 31:18 55:15 60:8 102:9 16:8 19:21 32:7 35:14 64:8 66:9 takes 23:2 30:15 35:9 50:22 101:5 89:19 93:18 26:21 37:3 42:7, theme 77:9 98:8 talk 10:11 15 55:18 then-leaseholde three-minute 11:5 23:18 58:15 76:17 r 91:4 6:13 24:8 28:17, 86:15 96:10 thing 5:19 ties 42:16 20 29:21 97:6, 7, 13, 49:16 50:14 time 6:7, 8 31:2 96:19 7:2 18:17 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 349 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 26 20:12 25:8, total 69:9, tremendous unbalanced 15 27:15 10 75:2 33:11, 12 89:3 28:1, 4, 15 Tower 22:1 tried 13:4 unclear 84:10 29:22 35:10 24:4 33:6, 28:9 underlying 43:10 48:7 19 37:14 true 102:5 77:9, 12 62:2 66:16 Town 47:18 truly 18:3 understand 69:11 71:12 52:16 85:1, Trust 31:22 18:15, 22 72:10 73:12 9 94:2, 4 93:11, 21 32:20 59:19 74:22 75:5 95:4, 6, 14, trying 21:8, understanding 77:2 79:22 17 96:10 11 81:13 91:20 80:3, 8 townhome turn 4:22 understood 85:16 91:3 20:4 24:1 7:13 95:4 30:21 timer 25:14 townhomes turning 44:4 underway 7:15 50:6 20:13 24:10, TV 5:12 Unfortunately times 6:19 12 Twinbrook 25:6 16:16 18:14 towns 73:6 15:15 16:3, unique 24:14 62:21, 22 track 18:1 15 17:6, 8, 25:8, 8 68:1 97:15 traffic 18:9 18 18:20 56:16 84:2 timing 50:9 19:4 43:14 19:6, 18 unit 49:15 TIMMICK 3:10 47:10, 20 20:6, 10 82:13 100:21 65:20, 22 74:13, 16 32:16, 21 units 33:20 66:3, 5, 8, 75:19 89:1, 33:18 34:3, 10, 18 11 69:14 3 two 4:16 38:9 43:1 today 8:3 Trail 29:9 20:13 27:13 44:6 47:10 19:7 22:1, trails 23:15 31:9 34:6 49:9 55:19 14 24:4 transcript 35:5 45:17, 88:21 99:16 25:2 29:15 102:5 21 49:14 100:15 36:8 47:11 transient 51:11 53:7 unmute 21:3, 49:14 88:8 75:19 57:9 60:8 8, 11 55:8 90:1, 7 Transit 17:14 63:19 65:13, unmuted 51:6, 92:14 99:15 transition 14, 15, 17, 21 7 93:6 tonight 4:9 34:12 46:15 67:13, 13 unmuting 6:21 7:4 61:11, 13 70:11, 12, 19 26:20 45:3 13:18 14:20 transit-oriente 86:18 94:12 UPDATE 1:1 16:2, 8 d 17:21 100:14 8:17 45:15 19:20 21:17 transmitted two-mile 50:4 66:12 22:2 32:15 102:4 70:15 updates 11:2 35:10 45:8, transportation TYNER 2:8 45:20 14 69:12 11:9 18:6 type 14:6 up-zoning 72:14 80:17 71:7 31:2 33:17 36:13 81:10, 22 transportation' 43:13 44:14 Urban 60:17 86:4 s 79:19 types 81:19 73:3 88:2 tool 81:15 travel 85:11 83:2 urbanizing top 18:4 Travilah 88:12 topic 14:6 27:21 < U > urge 34:14 76:15 treated 12:1 ULI 95:5, 9, usage 43:7 topics 11:11 tree 60:19, 13 use 11:9 12:14 46:6 22 83:4 ultimate 11:3 12:1 14:7 67:15 trees 57:2 ultimately 17:4, 7 60:19, 21 99:6 19:5 24:10 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 350 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 27 34:14 69:10 vice 32:14 walking 53:3 welcome 4:3 74:19 77:2 38:1 86:17 70:16 73:6 7:9 15:19 81:17 84:4 Victor 65:16 walls 61:17, 21:7, 13 91:6, 21 viewed 38:13 18 27:7 32:11 95:10 100:14 46:7 want 5:13, 35:20 37:18, uses 12:13 views 78:10 16 6:8 7:5 21 40:14, 20 38:20 43:3, 87:12, 21 8:10 12:18 42:5 45:6 5, 12 46:16 99:8 16:13 27:12 51:17 55:14 47:8 48:2, Village 38:4 28:20 29:22 58:22 64:11 5 68:14 Virginia 36:5 43:3 66:4 69:19 74:3, 10 102:20 49:3, 13 72:3 77:19 88:13 89:2 virtual 5:18 53:10, 11 78:3 80:12, 95:3, 3 6:15 9:20 64:19 68:15 18 86:13 U-sheds 83:5 97:7, 16 71:12 76:17 89:18, 21 usual 5:6, virtually 79:7, 7 93:14 98:12 17 98:8 4:6, 20 5:5 86:22 99:20 well 4:20 usually 31:2 vision 16:19 wanted 5:9 8:8, 11 utility 24:18 48:20 53:12 8:2 19:20 9:20 17:12 utilized visitors 27:9 66:13 18:10 21:22 61:12, 13 53:12 94:7 72:14 25:21 27:19 visual 8:13 wants 84:3 29:1, 7 < V > vital 92:9 War 57:12 38:10 39:9 vacant 25:7 vitality Warren 67:3 55:12 71:22 39:19 84:22 94:3 Washington 81:2 85:20 value 46:19 95:8 85:5 86:9 93:13 94:16 56:3 100:5, vitally 81:3 93:22 94:14, 95:1 97:4, 8 voice 101:1 18 95:19 20 valued 52:9 voiced 99:10 96:2 went 6:4 values 56:17 VOLUME 1:1 WASILAK 2:13 we're 4:7, 87:13 4:14 10:11 8:4 11 6:2, 20 Van 42:2, 9 11:6, 7 watch 5:11 7:9 8:17 51:14 98:20 16:10 56:7 water 11:10 13:4 14:8 VanGrack 80:20 81:10, way 6:16 15:9 21:17, 94:12 17 97:6 14:3 17:11 18 23:18 various 9:6, volumes 18:1 76:12 24:19 26:4 13 24:1 10:17 75:19 82:14 101:1 27:6 29:11 82:19 vote 10:19 ways 9:18 33:5, 10, 17, vast 52:15 voted 6:21 29:11 19 34:7, 21 vein 76:14 97:10 WebEx 4:6 46:12 89:7 Veirs 17:6, vulnerable website 5:13 97:15, 15 14 60:6 47:17 12:16, 20 west 29:1 venues 9:13 14:4 16:17 39:1, 2 version < W > websites 13:6 42:16 43:4 59:22 61:22 Walk 19:22 WECA 43:1 44:6, 21 viability 20:1, 15 87:17 52:1 65:22 94:3 70:20 72:21 Wednesday 1:1 72:11 73:16 viable 29:13 73:2 week 68:3 86:17 87:14 31:14 95:21 walkable weeks 67:13 94:18 96:1 vibrancy 85:9 17:17 18:3 94:12 97:12 westward 85:14 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 351 2.1.1.d September 23 Agenda Item 1.A Page: 28 We've 8:18, 52:18, 22 37:18 51:3 20, 22 9:22 53:20 60:13 54:21 55:2, 11:7 12:21, 67:2, 7 68:1 17 58:22 22 13:14 working 7:20 64:7 66:6 27:19 29:20 8:10, 17 69:18 71:21 33:5 53:3 9:5 20:16 80:11 86:12, 60:13 76:2 24:21 26:19 12 98:18 97:18 35:8 66:12 101:9 whatsoever 70:17 YIMBY 36:1 31:6 works 20:17 YOUNGENTOB who've 66:15 world 27:17 2:15 21:1, wide 38:19 57:12 5, 8, 10, 14, wildlife 57:5 worth 36:7, 8 16 25:19 willing 37:2 wrap 101:5 33:7 68:4 wrapping willingness 101:7 < Z > 58:12 68:10 writing 7:3, ZALETSKY Willows 70:10 5 25:21 3:12 51:4 windows 61:15 66:18 97:13, 67:6 71:17, wish 42:18 19 19, 22 72:4, 58:9 64:14 written 6:18 7, 8 76:9, wishes 16:4 10:1 14:8, 11 77:7, 18 WOOD 2:9 11 16:7, 8 zone 34:15 WOODWARD 3:5, 76:16 81:10 60:4, 7, 13 18 50:14 96:3 51:13, 15, 18, < Y > zoned 38:15 21, 22 54:9, Yea 41:17 zoning 12:11 12, 16, 20 yeah 11:5 17:9 20:12 55:1 67:1, 22:7 26:21 43:6 47:7 6 98:2, 4, 35:22 36:19 48:3 60:2 10, 13, 16, 19, 50:17, 19 74:20 77:12 20 101:4, 8 59:5 71:19 81:20 94:20 Wooten 23:11 72:4 79:11 95:22 Wootton 41:1, 80:1 10, 11 62:15 year 4:5 64:14, 15, 16 9:3 12:22 69:22 70:3 13:9, 15 78:7, 8, 12, 67:17 95:5 12, 13 91:17 years 8:1, word 9:19 10 16:14 words 71:16 21:21 25:7 work 9:4 28:6 29:17 10:6, 13 38:3 45:16, 14:13, 20 17, 21 70:19 15:1 31:13 72:9, 13 59:16 66:16 81:5 86:18 68:5, 10 90:6 91:14 81:5 94:15 95:18 worked 27:11, Yep 15:19 18 45:17 31:20 35:18 Attachment 2.1.1.d: Complete Vol. II Oral Testimony - September 23 Public Hearing (3457 : Work Session 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan, II:

Anderson Court Reporting -- 703-519-7180 -- www.andersonreporting.net Packet Pg. 352