[9:32] >>> good morning, everyone. It's

[9:33] january

[9:34] 22nd and we're starting our planning

[9:35] board

[9:37] meeting. The first item this morning

[9:38] is

[9:40] adoption of a resolutions. The first

[9:41] three

[9:43] all can vote on

[9:46] except commissioner hedrick and those

[9:47] three

[9:49] are willgis to north

[9:52] park site plan, preliminary plan and

[9:55] forest conservation plan, these are

[9:56] all

[9:57] resolutions. Do I have a motion for

[9:58] approval.

[9:59] >> I move to approve these

[10:00] resolutions.

[10:07] >> all in favor. >> yea. >> yea.

[10:10] >> yeas have it

[10:13] 4-0-1. I want to

[10:15] mention commissioner linden is virtual.

[10:16] the

[10:18] next is approval of minutes. All commissioners

[10:19] can vote.

[10:21] three this morning, the minutes of

[10:22] january 8th,

[10:25] the minutes of january 15th and the

[10:26] closed session minutes

[10:27] of january 15th. Do I have a motion

[10:31] for approval of these three

[10:34] board minutes?

[10:35] >> move to approve

[10:37] the minutes.

[10:38] >> I second. >> all in

[10:39] favor yea.

[10:40] >> yeas have it 5-0. Next other

[10:43] preliminary matters. This

[10:46] is the

[10:49] mpf --montgomery

[10:51] parks foundation board new nominee

[10:52] brooks hanson,

[10:55] staff is recommending approval of

[10:56] mr.

[10:59] hanson's addition to the board.

[11:01] do I have a motion for approval.

[11:02] >>

[11:03] I move

[11:05] to approve.

[11:06] >>

[11:07] I second.

[11:08] >> all in favor. >> yea.

[11:09] >> yea.

[11:11] >> yeas have it 5-0.

[11:12] the next we have three record plats this

[11:14] morning. Where staff

[11:16] is recommending all three to be approved.

[11:20] the first subdivision plat

[11:23] 2-2025-90 bradley hill

[11:26] section hill. Second plat number

[11:29] 2-2026-0330, section

[11:31] 3 chevy chase and the last subdivision

[11:32] plat

[11:37] 2-2026-0450 stratmore view. Do I have

[11:38] approval

[11:40] of these three plats.

[11:41] >> move to approve

[11:42] the

[11:43] record plats.

[11:44] >> second. >> all in

[11:45] favor.

[11:46] >> yea. >> yea. >>

[11:47] the yeas have it. 5-0. The

[11:50] next we have our roundtable

[11:52] discussion with parks director. Welcome.

[11:56] director?

[11:57] >> good morning. Thank

[11:58] you. So for today's park's director

[11:59] roundtable we

[12:02] are going to do a little

[12:04] bit of a athleticathletic field program

[12:08] overview. It's one of

[12:11] our recurring

[12:14] occasional roundtable

[12:17] takeovers. So

[12:20] I'm going hand this over to our

[12:21] athletic field program manager so they

[12:23] can give

[12:25] you an overview.

[12:26] >> good morning.

[12:28] >> good morning. >> for the record

[12:29] matt folden

[12:32] park implementation planning. Pleased to

[12:33] be

[12:34] here this morning to share information

[12:35] about our athletic field system and

[12:36] just

[12:38] the overall impressive

[12:41] size, variety

[12:44] and quality of the system. I had

[12:45] the privilege this morning of being

[12:47] here with mr. Carl weber and this

[12:49] is his first presentation to the planning

[12:50] board. Carl has over

[12:53] 22 years of experience in

[12:54] turf management including 13 years

[12:55] with montgomery parks. The first ten

[12:56] years of his

[12:59] service at parks were spent in

[13:00] operations where he was responsible for

[13:01] the specialized care and management

[13:02] of

[13:05] our athletic fields and for the last

[13:07] three years he's been on the additive

[13:08] side of

[13:09] the department focused on the strategies

[13:11] and policies associated with athletic

[13:12] fields.

[13:14] carl has a degree in crop and soil

[13:15] environmental

[13:17] science with a focus in turf

[13:19] management from virginia tech and

[13:20] in his spare

[13:22] time he's a youth soccer coach. He's

[13:23] truly

[13:26] an expert on all sides related

[13:29] to athletic fields. Actually, sorry [ inaudible

[13:31] ]. Thank you. The purpose of the presentation

[13:32] this morning is just to

[13:34] familiarize the board with our athletic

[13:35] field system ahead of

[13:37] the upcoming discussion on the athletic

[13:38] field

[13:41] use policy on february

[13:42] 5 and during the discussion we'll

[13:44] provide an overview on

[13:47] how exceptional our park and

[13:49] athletic field system is and touch on

[13:50] the capacity

[13:52] issues we face with the athletic field

[13:55] and conclude withwith questions and

[13:56] discussion. As we get started

[13:59] here I want to emphasize the

[14:01] importance of the 2022 plan and with regard

[14:02] to athletic

[14:04] fields, pros direct staff to support

[14:05] physical

[14:07] activity by providing a variety of

[14:08] athletic fields that

[14:11] feel welcoming for all.

[14:14] athletic fields fulfill two of three

[14:15] themes

[14:17] of pros which include physical activity and

[14:18] social connectivity

[14:19] and with that it's my pleasure to

[14:20] turn it over to carl.

[14:23] >> for

[14:26] the record my name is carl

[14:28] webber, for montgomery parks and our

[14:29] planning

[14:32] and stewardship division. Today I'm

[14:33] representing a

[14:34] large staff that work on athletic

[14:35] fields in montgomery parks

[14:37] anywhere from cutting the grass to

[14:38] planning new

[14:40] athletic fields. We have two operations divisions

[14:41] that do all of

[14:43] our general maintenance operations

[14:44] on our fields

[14:46] and we have an in-house athletic field

[14:47] renovation team. We have

[14:49] a park development division that does all

[14:50] of our

[14:53] athletic field construction, park

[14:56] project managers, construction

[14:59] managers and inspectors. Permit office

[15:00] that works

[15:02] on per milting our athletic

[15:04] fields and work with our youth groups

[15:05] and support staff our

[15:08] gis and data team help us a lot with

[15:11] our planning of

[15:14] athletic fields. How do we invest

[15:16] all this staff into athletic fields.

[15:17] because we're trying to achieve

[15:20] our mission of providing areas for

[15:23] physical activity and social connectivity

[15:26] to our communities. We all

[15:28] know the benefits of physical activity you

[15:29] have better physical

[15:31] health, better mental health, and

[15:33] it's

[15:35] with students proven to be better

[15:36] for

[15:39] academic achievement.

[15:40] getting social skills for our communities

[15:42] at an

[15:43] age where everybody is glued to screens

[15:45] it's great to get

[15:47] outout socialize with your friends

[15:48] and other community members.

[15:53] . We track our trends so team sports

[15:57] have increased by 2. 5% last

[16:00] year to and all time

[16:02] high, so team sports are growing and

[16:03] we have to

[16:06] be cognizant of that and provide

[16:08] that opportunity four our communities.

[16:10] I'm going to talk about our system

[16:12] and thank jane our

[16:14] research and data planner for these

[16:15] maps

[16:17] you'll see today but we have 312 athletic

[16:19] fields throughout our system and we

[16:21] offer a wide range of fields.

[16:24] we have a lot of

[16:26] rectangle, softball a lot of baseball

[16:27] fields and we have eight

[16:28] cricket fields in our community, too.

[16:30] if you look

[16:32] at the map a lot of our field are

[16:33] down county

[16:36] and east county along

[16:39] the 270 corridor.

[16:42] we don't have anything in the

[16:44] municipalities. Of those 312 fields we

[16:45] have

[16:47] some fields what we call overlay fields

[16:48] at 35

[16:49] sites. It's where when we were planning

[16:51] we didn't have enough room

[16:54] or we wanted to save some space

[16:57] and, you know, kind of have one

[17:00] area share space

[17:03] with --so we have two fields that

[17:05] share a space. In this diagram you

[17:06] can see you can

[17:09] play softball or soccer.

[17:12] so although we have 312 fields and

[17:13] only

[17:14] have one time only 279 can be permanent at one time.

[17:20] . We're going to be talk about capacity

[17:21] throughout

[17:24] this presentation and one way we can

[17:25] increase capacity is through lighting

[17:27] the fields. You can see

[17:30] them with the

[17:33] yellow indication. We are installing lights

[17:36] at damascus and we will be adding

[17:38] to more. We have, you know, we have

[17:39] 28

[17:42] fields we can permit after it

[17:44] goes. That's an important feature once

[17:45] it goes and especially in

[17:48] the fall we

[17:51] only have 28 opportunities for

[17:54] outdoor athletics. We have

[17:55] 27 irrigated fields. This helps with

[17:57] our maintenance. It

[17:59] helps with regrowing of the grass.

[18:00] it's

[18:03] very beneficial for the

[18:06] quality of our fields.

[18:09] so we divide our fields

[18:12] up into different

[18:15] classifications. We have any classifications.

[18:18] we have our practice game field, game-only

[18:21] fields and synthetic turf fields.

[18:23] practice game fields are our most

[18:24] abundant fields

[18:27] and typically in our local parks.

[18:29] they are lower end maintenance because we

[18:30] have so many of

[18:33] them. You can permit

[18:36] them for practices or games. They can

[18:39] be used with aa or walk on

[18:42] and use them. They are our most economical

[18:45] field at $10 an hour.

[18:48] our game-only fields

[18:49] receive a higher end maintenance,

[18:51] they're typically in a

[18:54] regional recreational parks, they're

[18:57] for game only and they do require

[19:00] permit to use. They're

[19:02] typically fenced and they are slightly

[19:03] more expensive

[19:06] at $20 an hour.

[19:12] then we have our

[19:15] year-round synthetic

[19:18] turf fields.

[19:20] grooming, texting. You can permit them

[19:21] for practices

[19:24] ar games. They require permits. All

[19:26] of our synthetic turf fields are lighted.

[19:27] and they

[19:28] are more expensive at $110 an hour.

[19:36] >> I will talk more about our

[19:37] maintenance standards and what we

[19:39] try to achieve every

[19:41] year with our maintenance staff. So we

[19:42] have a high maintenance

[19:45] standard that we try to achieve, and this

[19:46] is a

[19:48] big undertaking for

[19:54] 312 fields.

[19:56] we sometimes have trouble reaching

[19:57] this undertaking because of

[19:59] weather and staffing issues but these

[20:00] are high

[20:02] expectations we set for ourselves.

[20:06] as you can see our game only fields

[20:07] get

[20:09] higher maintenance

[20:11] than our practice only fields with

[20:12] mowing and field

[20:15] maintenance and lighting. We do cultural

[20:17] practices with aeration which helps

[20:18] water and

[20:21] air get to the root system.

[20:23] overseeding which helps with turf

[20:24] density.

[20:26] nutrient management that help feed

[20:27] the plants so they can recover from wear and tear and

[20:28] grow better.

[20:40] they get

[20:43] a lot of use. We

[20:44] had in 2024 over 134,000 hours of

[20:46] permits.

[20:49] that's averaging over two

[20:52] hours of field per day over our

[20:53] nine-month season that's a lot of

[20:55] hours.

[20:58] we're averaging

[21:00] 431 hours across all of our fields.

[21:03] our practice game fields get 400 hours of

[21:04] use

[21:05] of permits. Game-only fields with

[21:07] lights are

[21:10] averaging close to 500. When we

[21:13] add lights to our game-only

[21:15] fields that increases close to 900

[21:16] hours. Our

[21:19] year-

[21:22] round synthetic turf fields get

[21:24] 00 hours of permit play. One thing

[21:25] we

[21:28] don't capture is walk on

[21:29] play which are practice game fields you

[21:31] see and we've done

[21:33] camera studies that say there is a

[21:36] substantial amount of walk on play on

[21:37] our fields. Even

[21:39] though her on the end of permitting

[21:40] hours

[21:41] they support walk on play which is

[21:43] a

[21:45] contributor to our communities. We

[21:46] also

[21:48] have a lot of users. Here's a small sampling

[21:49] of

[21:52] our users. We have a lot

[21:55] of government

[21:57] agencies which isis county recreation

[22:00] which we work with. We have montgomery

[22:01] county public schools

[22:03] and large organizations and small

[22:04] organizations that

[22:06] provide recreation to our community.

[22:07] we have a lot

[22:10] of long established leagues and a lot

[22:13] of start-up leagues.

[22:16] in 2024 we had

[22:19] over 700 accounts permit

[22:22] times with us. From individuals to

[22:23] groups.

[22:24] third-party stakeholders involved

[22:25] in sports in

[22:27] the county. Montgomery county established

[22:28] the

[22:30] sports advisory committee over two

[22:31] years ago and they

[22:34] are very involved in trying

[22:36] to create better opportunities for

[22:37] youth

[22:39] sports in the county. They're made up

[22:40] of a

[22:42] diverse group of 17 members and we've

[22:43] been working

[22:46] with them for the past

[22:47] two years and we look forward to continuing

[22:49] contributions with them.

[22:58] as we're going towards the latter part

[22:59] of

[23:00] this presentation I do want to talk about

[23:01] what keeps me up

[23:04] at night, what are our

[23:05] problems, what areas do we think we

[23:07] can improve on. One

[23:10] thing I think about a lot is

[23:13] our capacity. And how many hours a

[23:14] field

[23:16] can handle.

[23:18] and I think this is two different

[23:19] thoughts because I think diamond fields

[23:21] are different than rectangle fields

[23:22] and we're going

[23:25] to talk about capacity and

[23:28] wear patterns

[23:30] kind of one in the same and if you

[23:31] look at a diamond field you

[23:34] can see the diagram on the

[23:37] left most of the players are on

[23:40] the dirt and, you know, there's not

[23:41] a lot

[23:42] of wear in the satellite photo because

[23:43] a lot of the play is on

[23:45] the dirt. If you mess up the dirt

[23:46] with a proper machine

[23:48] in a couple hours you can fix it.

[23:49] you can see

[23:50] the wear pattern on the satellite

[23:52] image and see a little bit of

[23:54] wear out in front of the dugout, a little

[23:55] bit of wear from the

[23:58] pitcher's mound to

[24:01] home plate,

[24:04] occasionally you'll get wear in

[24:07] the outfield where the

[24:09] outfielders stand. You can see all

[24:13] 22 players are on the field.

[24:15] this is true for soccer, football,

[24:16] lacrosse. You

[24:19] can see there's major

[24:22] wear problems in the center. And we're

[24:23] starting

[24:24] to see this more and more throughout.

[24:25] our communities

[24:28] our fields are used more often.

[24:34] we've had some failures and, you know,

[24:37] we've renovated

[24:40] some fields. What we call love to

[24:41] death.

[24:42] it's because we have these fields

[24:43] and

[24:46] this highly densely communities and

[24:47] everybody flocks

[24:49] to them when we open them and they're

[24:52] just used an awful lot.

[24:55] so we're studying this because

[24:57] we want to improve and we know we

[24:58] can't have this.

[25:01] this is not what we're striving towards.

[25:02] we're throwing out

[25:04] some new ideas and trying some new

[25:05] things and

[25:06] we're resting some of our game only

[25:07] fields during the

[25:10] week to help let them recover.

[25:13] we're extending our establishment

[25:14] period longer

[25:16] so that maybe the grass has better

[25:17] time to establish and

[25:20] really handle the wear.

[25:21] and then we're also looking at new products and technologies to

[25:23] better manage our grass.

[25:29] this brings us

[25:30] to basically our major case study

[25:32] which is

[25:34] hillendale. This is a state-of-the-

[25:35] art field natural

[25:37] grass field. We built this with drainage.

[25:40] irrigation. It's got bermuda grass.

[25:41] it's

[25:44] got a sand-based system. This

[25:47] field was opened in

[25:50] 2024. And that first year got

[25:53] over 900 hours of permitted

[25:56] use. So at the

[25:59] end of 2024, we

[26:00] determined the field needed to be

[26:02] renovated.

[26:03] renovated it southern region in the

[26:05] spring and summer of 2025,

[26:08] the picture on the left is the

[26:11] renvated field. We've been monitoring

[26:13] it because we want to know what's

[26:14] going on

[26:15] and you can see the picture on the

[26:17] right

[26:19] november at the end of the season.

[26:20] it was

[26:23] open for 79 days. It got

[26:25] 370 hours of permitted play. That's

[26:26] averaging

[26:29] about 4. 7 hours

[26:31] of permitted play a day. We did a

[26:32] camera study during that

[26:33] time. It was getting an additional

[26:35] two hours of walk-on play.

[26:37] this field was getting close to seven

[26:38] hours of

[26:41] play a day. These natural grass fields

[26:42] are

[26:43] living systems, right, so they're

[26:44] just being worn down.

[26:47] this

[26:50] one's holding up wellwell and holding

[26:53] up well because we're going above our

[26:54] maintenance standards. We're invested

[26:56] in this field going above our game

[26:59] level field even though this is a practice

[27:00] game field. We're committed to this

[27:02] field but it's just

[27:04] showing a lot of wear. It's great

[27:05] to

[27:08] track it and we're looking forward to opening it in

[27:11] the spring and seeing what it looks

[27:13] like and how it held up. It's amazing how much play our

[27:14] fields get.

[27:20] that really brings us to

[27:23] a conclusion here is that

[27:26] although 98% of our

[27:28] residents are within a 20-minute drive

[27:29] of an athletic field how

[27:30] many people are competing for that

[27:32] field at one time. This is

[27:35] a population map and you can

[27:38] see there's some heat centers of

[27:41] highly dense populated areas and there's

[27:42] a lot

[27:43] of competition for our fields because

[27:44] there's

[27:47] a lot of competition for

[27:50] any space in these parts.

[27:53] so, you know, this

[27:55] is where we struggle. So this is why

[27:56] it's important in the next couple

[27:59] weeks, february 5th we're going to

[28:00] come

[28:02] with you for an athletic permit policy

[28:03] as we bring to

[28:05] you a new policy to help permit our

[28:07] fields and we're looking to bring a donation

[28:08] policy later on in 2026.

[28:17] that's all I have. For

[28:19] questions and thank you for your time.

[28:20] >> mr. Weber did

[28:23] a great job. Thank you.

[28:26] it's very

[28:29] informative to

[28:32] know how many we have and the

[28:35] challenges of maintaining them and

[28:36] the

[28:38] demand for them. We look

[28:41] forward to your policy that's coming

[28:42] up and just one quick

[28:44] question. Do you have a

[28:47] sense of over the next few

[28:50] years how many fields

[28:53] will likely come on board that would

[28:56] add onto the

[28:58] 312 that you have today?

[28:59] >> a total

[29:00] number but

[29:01] we're looking at a couple projects

[29:02] to add at least a couple more

[29:05] fields.

[29:06] >> great. Thank you. Do we

[29:07] have any questions or

[29:08] comments from the other board?

[29:09] >> I have a comment.

[29:12] >>

[29:14] so, thank you very much. I know for

[29:15] fact that --and

[29:18] I learned it

[29:20] actually, that turf is a science and

[29:24] it takes a lot to put to

[29:27] have a good turf during the

[29:28] construction. That was one of our

[29:30] biggest

[29:33] challenges to get turf.

[29:36] one thing that I think it would

[29:37] be interesting for the board members what

[29:39] is the

[29:42] cost? It's not

[29:45] cheap. The cost of

[29:48] the maintenance and also

[29:50] construction of these fields. You

[29:51] know,

[29:54] you just showed one

[29:56] example that you renovate how much

[29:57] it

[30:00] take, the cost and time,

[30:03] to

[30:05] renovate, and, you know, within a

[30:06] season it

[30:09] could go down. I totally

[30:11] understand and that's why I believe

[30:12] that we

[30:14] need someone with very expert eyes

[30:15] to

[30:18] see that what

[30:19] are the best practices and maintenance and

[30:21] operation

[30:24] to , you

[30:27] know, get these investments to

[30:30] go a little bit longer. It

[30:33] was really eye opening and

[30:36] interesting to know it's purely a

[30:39] science. It's very difficult

[30:41] and extremely difficult and there

[30:42] are

[30:44] so many variables not even on our

[30:45] hand

[30:48] and I know one of your biggest

[30:50] variables are the walkers and users

[30:51] that we

[30:53] are not tracking. So we really appreciate you

[30:54] for

[30:56] you bringing here. It was so nice

[30:57] to

[30:59] see you with a different hat back

[31:03] in here and we miss you on

[31:06] the other side, but I

[31:08] think that you are in the right place, and

[31:09] I'm sure it would

[31:12] be very rewarding that you have.

[31:14] if you have some ideas about the costs

[31:15] if you

[31:17] could share some information for us.

[31:18] >>

[31:20] yeah. I don't have that off the top

[31:21] of

[31:24] my head, but it

[31:25] definitely varies a lot depending

[31:27] on what level quality of field you

[31:28] want

[31:29] to build. I think we spend about a

[31:30] million dollars to build the

[31:33] field at hillendale and then

[31:36] also maintenance varies greatly

[31:38] too. I would say easily --

[31:39] >> well,

[31:40] if I may, I

[31:42] want to add to

[31:43] that, as carl just pointed out I think it

[31:45] was upwards of a million dollars

[31:48] to renovate that field at hillen dale,

[31:49] a

[31:51] local park field,

[31:53] and it was destroyed within the year.

[31:54] we are

[31:55] making every effort to bring the field

[31:57] back and as carl said, we

[32:00] are investing a lot to

[32:03] maintain that field. It is a science

[32:04] and we put a lot of resources into

[32:06] this, but I think a point that needs to

[32:07] be

[32:08] made and want to emphasize to the

[32:09] board is

[32:10] that there is only so much you can do

[32:15] with . Maintenance of a field. Past

[32:17] a certain point a field cannot take

[32:18] the level of play

[32:20] it's getting. We have the permitted

[32:21] time, but

[32:24] we also have the walk-on time on local

[32:26] park fields. We don't want to restrict

[32:27] people from

[32:30] coming on and using the field, but we

[32:31] have

[32:33] to recognize there is no amount of

[32:35] money we could throw at this that

[32:36] would solve the problem of

[32:39] just not having

[32:42] the capacity that we need.

[32:45] >> exactly.

[32:48] and I totally understand it is a

[32:50] living element in the park and it

[32:54] needs time to breathe. And I do

[32:55] not know if we have done any kind

[32:57] of a study to see --

[33:00] $1 million is a lot of investment

[33:03] and in one playing season it

[33:06] goes, and we are

[33:09] not collecting permit fees to

[33:12] even cover a small percentage of this

[33:13] cost

[33:15] so that is a pressure

[33:18] to the operating budget

[33:21] for parks so I

[33:24] do not know what is

[33:26] the on mum time for our parks how

[33:27] many fields we

[33:30] need to have or other ways

[33:33] that we could --I do not know if we

[33:34] have done

[33:36] that. Is it we have to double our

[33:37] capacity

[33:39] or number of fields?

[33:42] because we cannot keep just increasing

[33:43] the

[33:45] usage because nothing is left.

[33:46] >> that's

[33:48] correct. We're going to have to look

[33:49] at

[33:51] ways to increase the capacity on the

[33:52] fields that we

[33:54] currently have. We are trying to add

[33:55] more

[33:56] fields. Sometimes it's part of development

[33:57] projects.

[34:00] we might get a field, there

[34:02] might be some other opportunities

[34:03] to build new fields, but, you

[34:07] know, there's only so much space

[34:08] in montgomery county and it's in demand

[34:10] for a lot of other uses as

[34:12] you well know. We have to be, I think,

[34:15] creative in making the best use of

[34:18] what we have and then also just, you

[34:19] know,

[34:22] be willing, as a parks

[34:25] department,

[34:27] policymakers, council members, the community

[34:28] to understand there are

[34:30] tradeoffs and there's only so much

[34:31] that we

[34:34] can

[34:37] do with what we have.

[34:38] >> actually, commission pedoeem covered

[34:40] a couple things I

[34:41] was going to ask about particularly

[34:43] on --what is our upper

[34:46] range of usage for fields like that?

[34:48] I mean, I think you pointed out no

[34:49] matter how

[34:50] much money we throw at it we can't

[34:52] adjust

[34:54] for that. What's the upper range for

[34:58] those fields? Was

[35:00] hillendale, I remember when it opened

[35:01] and got a lot of

[35:04] use. Is that typically

[35:06] for a newly opened field? Is there

[35:09] ways we can address the issue there

[35:11] with maintenance of like increasing

[35:13] use or synthetics at

[35:14] the beginning of fields getting high

[35:16] levels of traffic?

[35:18] do we have some options along sort of

[35:19] those lines?

[35:22] >> I'm

[35:25] going to let carl address

[35:26] the question. We have looked at how

[35:28] much play our fields are

[35:30] getting versus what they can tolerate

[35:31] and

[35:33] those numbers are starting and sobering when

[35:37] you see

[35:40] them. So I'll let

[35:43] them address that. We have

[35:45] four artificial turf fields in our

[35:46] system out of those fields

[35:48] you saw. We're committed to grass fields

[35:49] but they are

[35:51] an important tool. They can take much

[35:52] more play

[35:54] and expand our capacity.

[35:55] >> that's what I

[35:56] was

[35:58] curious in certain areas.

[35:59] >> we're

[36:00] driving deep and when I say how many

[36:01] hours can

[36:04] a field handle. Right now we have rough numbers.

[36:05] we

[36:06] think a practice game field can handle

[36:07] aboutabout 600

[36:09] hours of permitted play before it

[36:10] starts to deteriorate

[36:12] and a game only field because it's

[36:13] controlled and no walk on

[36:15] play we think about 800 hours. That's

[36:16] based

[36:18] on our experience with our current

[36:19] fields. We

[36:22] have latonia has two

[36:24] game only fields rectangles natural

[36:25] grass that are showing

[36:28] wear. They are getting about 8

[36:30] hundred hours. So those fields we've kind of

[36:31] started to rest

[36:33] one or two days a week to kind of

[36:34] see if they can recover a little

[36:37] bit.

[36:38] >> yeah.

[36:39] is that something that -- that was another

[36:40] choice I was going

[36:43] to ask, rotating fields like a

[36:45] wednesday night off or what's the --

[36:46] what are some options

[36:49] for extending

[36:51] the life of those fields?

[36:52] >> we're

[36:53] starting to do that

[36:54] a little bit in our game only fields

[36:55] but it

[36:58] does reduce our capacity. It's a

[37:01] give and take. You know, like I said in

[37:02] the

[37:04] fields we can contain or control,

[37:06] we're testing it out, but we're not

[37:07] looking to do that

[37:08] in our practice fields. They're for

[37:10] the community and, you know, that's

[37:13] how we're going for it.

[37:16] >> okay. >> thank you for the presentation.

[37:19] as, you know, I love parks as I

[37:20] appreciate the effort and time you put

[37:22] in to

[37:25] help maintenance the 12 athletic fields

[37:26] our community

[37:28] uses. Sports is a great bridge

[37:31] in connection amongst our

[37:34] residents and it's interesting that

[37:36] parks fuels the economy because people

[37:37] who play sports

[37:40] buy merchandise, right, and so

[37:43] it's great that we provide this opportunity

[37:46] and synergy for commerce. I particularly

[37:47] was

[37:49] interested in your slide

[37:51] 17, 18 with regards to the fields.

[37:52] I was going to bring that

[37:54] up the wear and tear on the fields.

[37:55] another field

[37:58] I'm interested in, it's on lay

[38:00] hill road at the intersection of route

[38:01] 200. I don't know the

[38:04] name of the park but

[38:07] it's also a soccer football field.

[38:10] it used to be a soccer and football

[38:11] field

[38:12] but you have taken down the goal posts

[38:13] there. Right on

[38:16] the intersection

[38:19] of 200 and lay hill road.

[38:20] >> I think

[38:21] that's lay hill

[38:22] local park.

[38:23] >> that park had a wear

[38:24] and

[38:25] tear issue also with the soccer fields

[38:26] and

[38:28] you guys closing it down for

[38:30] long extended period of time and getting

[38:31] it back up. I was going to bring

[38:34] up the hillendale wear

[38:36] and tear issue because I drive past

[38:37] there going to visit the university

[38:40] of maryland and it's always

[38:43] packed on the weekends. It's packed.

[38:46] for flag

[38:49] football, soccer and other sports.

[38:52] I was wondering if there

[38:55] have been ideas with regards to shoe

[38:58] usage like what kind of cleats they

[38:59] could wear on the

[39:02] turf, whether or not there's

[39:05] overseeding on the turf and then

[39:08] former councilmember

[39:10] gabe albenas now the director of the

[39:11] park recreation is

[39:14] a big advocate for turf fields and

[39:17] I appreciate all grass

[39:18] fields because I think there is a

[39:20] safety benefit for

[39:23] using grass

[39:25] fields as opposed to turf fields.

[39:26] I was wondering

[39:29] if there is a cost difference

[39:31] between turf fields and grass fields

[39:32] and/or

[39:35] is it negligible or is it more

[39:38] expensive to maintenance

[39:41] turf than it is grass and if it's

[39:44] less expensive to have one over

[39:46] the other? How do you come about making

[39:47] that

[39:50] choice, whether or not to use turf or

[39:52] grass? Because I note that to rent

[39:53] a

[39:56] turf field it's more expensive

[39:59] than renting a grass field

[40:02] and I was wondering how we --

[40:05] how you balance that? I

[40:06] played football at the university of maryland

[40:08] and we used to

[40:11] have the best grass ever in the

[40:13] acc at the time was the best and the

[40:14] person who

[40:16] managed it retired and the people

[40:19] who took over couldn't manage it and

[40:20] the grass

[40:23] died and put in

[40:25] turf. If you can like dive into why

[40:26] we

[40:28] continue to maintain grass rather

[40:29] than transition to

[40:31] turf? I would be really interested

[40:32] in that?

[40:34] >> that's a lot of questions. I'm going

[40:35] to try to answer --

[40:38] >> I could just go on and

[40:40] on because I love sports and grass.

[40:41] >>

[40:44] yeah. So we do seed all of our

[40:45] natural grass fields and then you

[40:47] asked a question about cleats

[40:49] for natural grass fields and we don't

[40:50] regulate

[40:53] what cleats you can wear. We are a

[40:55] natural grass system. We have 308

[40:56] natural grass fields

[40:59] and we have four synthetic turf fields.

[41:02] you know, but synthetic turf fields

[41:04] are a tool in the toolbox and in the

[41:05] right locations they

[41:08] sometimes make the right sense. I don't

[41:11] have all the data on costs and all

[41:12] that.

[41:13] we can come back and have a conversation

[41:14] about --

[41:15] >> I

[41:16] think in general? I think the rule

[41:17] of thumb

[41:19] is an artificial turf field maybe

[41:22] more expensive to install but less

[41:23] to maintenance. It's

[41:25] really just a question of how much

[41:29] capacity you're trying to provide.

[41:32] they can give

[41:35] you more playing time.

[41:37] >> that's something to add. >> so

[41:38] just

[41:40] some follow-up, why in the high use fields that are

[41:44] experiencing

[41:50] through over use why have

[41:53] we not decided to go

[41:56] turf instead of

[41:59] grass?

[42:01] >> can I just say something about

[42:02] that?

[42:03] >> you may. >>

[42:05] this topic has been

[42:08] a topic of

[42:11] discussion with parks for

[42:14] years and it --I

[42:17] was involved a lot

[42:20] of studies and research has been done.

[42:23] it's a very

[42:26] controversial

[42:29] topic because there are a lot

[42:32] of literature out there in regards

[42:35] to pros and cons

[42:38] and it was very

[42:41] controversial and, you know, parks

[42:44] department had a plan for

[42:47] replacing exactly what

[42:50] you're saying, but because

[42:52] of all these issues at that time it

[42:53] was

[42:55] eventually, you know, it was a lot

[42:56] of ideas

[42:59] and, you know, decision that

[43:02] eventually it went to the

[43:05] county council and, you

[43:08] know, parks department committed to

[43:11] work and increase the life for

[43:14] turf and not --

[43:17] for the natural grass and

[43:20] not to continue going to regionally

[43:21] that it was I

[43:23] think in

[43:25] 1990s or so on how many turf they

[43:26] had

[43:30] a number of turf

[43:33] that parks department planned to

[43:36] do it so they shy

[43:37] away from that plan. It was discussed.

[43:41] it went to the public. It went to

[43:45] the county council

[43:48] and it was decided that that's how

[43:51] we're we're going to proceed. I

[43:54] believe the decision

[43:56] at that time we're going to expand

[43:57] that's why carl

[43:58] is here we're going to expand and

[44:00] have

[44:03] many experts to come to

[44:06] do parks department to help

[44:09] to build better grass that

[44:12] could be maintenanced

[44:15] with longer lifetime. That is a

[44:16] challenge and everybody else knows.

[44:18] that's

[44:21] where we are right now and I

[44:23] know that -- you want to add something

[44:25] else to it you could because we're

[44:27] all involved in those.

[44:28] >> yes. We've spent many millions

[44:30] of dollars over, I would say,

[44:33] the last ten years or

[44:36] so, investing in

[44:37] natural grass fields, in maintaining

[44:39] them, establishing

[44:40] a state-of-the-art practice for maintenance

[44:42] of these

[44:44] fields and I think what we've found

[44:45] is there

[44:47] is ultimately a limit. We are bumping

[44:48] up

[44:51] against it.

[44:52] there is only so much you can do with

[44:53] maintenance of a natural grass field.

[44:54] at

[44:57] some point you cannot have a

[45:00] beautiful grass field that

[45:02] gets unlimited play, and that's coming

[45:03] something we're going to have

[45:05] to confront and have more conversations

[45:06] about.

[45:07] >>

[45:09] so we need to move on

[45:12] here, but let in ask commissioner

[45:14] linden, do you have any questions

[45:15] or comments?

[45:16] >>

[45:18] no, no other questions. Really interesting

[45:19] conversation

[45:21] about the synthetic versus the natural.

[45:23] sounds like it's been going on for

[45:24] a long

[45:27] time. Yeah, it seems like maybe

[45:30] at some point it's worth kind

[45:33] of re-exam blaring

[45:35] baby steps with the capacity you're talking

[45:36] about.

[45:37] this was a great presentation and

[45:39] I appreciate learning

[45:41] how we maintain the grass and how

[45:42] the whole system

[45:43] works. Thank you so much.

[45:44] >> great.

[45:45] we look

[45:48] forward to your presentation on the

[45:51] [ inaudible ]

[45:54] for fees. It's one of the things

[45:55] I'm eager to do is, you know, I'm

[45:57] sure you have

[45:59] the numbers about like sort of how

[46:00] much do

[46:03] you spend a year on maintenance of

[46:04] like

[46:06] a grass field versus a

[46:09] maybe a

[46:12] synthetic field? I know that

[46:15] in general whatever you

[46:17] recommend the fees will never cover

[46:18] the cost but it

[46:21] will be good to show for us or the

[46:22] council, however --regardless they

[46:24] need to

[46:27] be subsidized and it's a cost

[46:30] that we want to provide

[46:32] these fields for the reasons you mentioned

[46:33] and there's a

[46:36] cost. You can never charge the --

[46:39] probably to --

[46:40] the full cost of the maintenance,

[46:42] but you need to charge something

[46:45] and here's the

[46:48] gap and this is

[46:51] what we --part of our operating

[46:53] cost we're asking a budget for to

[46:54] pay for things like that.

[46:57] I appreciate that. My daughters grew

[47:00] up in

[47:03] tacoma rec league soccer and

[47:06] msi when they were four doing the

[47:09] soccer probably picking your

[47:12] grass as they start out they're grass

[47:13] pickers and

[47:15] then they really get into it. Thank

[47:16] you so

[47:17] much and we look forward to you coming

[47:18] back and great

[47:19] presentation. Thank you.

[47:20] >> thank

[47:21] you very much.

[47:22] >> we're going to take

[47:24] a --are we going to go in the

[47:26] same hall or --we'll take a one minute

[47:27] break and go

[47:29] with our next item the north branch trail funding

[47:30] approval. Thank you.

[53:35] .

[53:37] >>> good morning. We're on item 10

[53:41] the northbranch trail fields

[53:44] funding approval. We have randy,

[53:47] andy and josh

[53:49] visiting. Thank you.

[53:50] >> good morning.

[53:54] and thank you so much for making time

[53:56] for us on

[53:57] your agenda today on

[53:59] issue. Andy

[54:00] frank, park development division and

[54:02] while I have

[54:05] the honor of talking to

[54:07] you today I have to say that the credit for

[54:08] us being here

[54:11] today really goes to our engineering

[54:13] team, consulting team, our partners

[54:14] at

[54:16] state highway, our park leadership.

[54:17] we are very happy

[54:20] that we're able to come and ask this

[54:22] request today because it represents

[54:23] almost

[54:26] 15 years of work

[54:29] to get to this point.

[54:30] so I will proceed and proceed quickly

[54:34] and open it up to questions. I'm going

[54:35] to tell

[54:38] you because none of

[54:41] you were around except for

[54:43] mitra when this started in its infancy, I

[54:44] will

[54:47] give you the history and jump into

[54:48] where we

[54:50] are today and why we're here

[54:51] today with construction, construction

[54:53] bid results and

[54:55] the pdf for this project and what

[54:59] we're asking for

[55:02] is permission to transmit the

[55:05] special appropriation request for

[55:07] the fund. Let me talk about what northbranch

[55:08] trail is,

[55:11] not to be confused with

[55:12] northwest branch trail, northwest

[55:14] branch trail

[55:17] is further right

[55:20] near

[55:23] frankp and this project will

[55:25] connect mun caster road and emory

[55:26] lane

[55:29] trail which serves the citizens on

[55:32] the north side of caster mill.

[55:34] it's a great connection on the east

[55:35] side and connecting on the

[55:38] west side to an

[55:41] existing walkway along

[55:44] mun caster that will connect the community to

[55:47] the rest and provide trail head parking.

[55:48] this

[55:50] project extends in a

[55:51] recently built developer trail to

[55:53] the icc trail, an

[55:55] important connection. We're talking

[55:56] about adding over two miles of

[55:59] trail to our hard

[56:01] surface system and this trail is being

[56:02] designed to standards

[56:05] and specifications because

[56:08] of the transportation alternatives

[56:09] program brand

[56:11] that we had to use. Part of the cost

[56:14] here is because this is in a stream

[56:15] valley

[56:17] park

[56:20] and we are having to use concrete boardwalks

[56:21] and

[56:23] bridges to make this work. We're trying

[56:24] to do

[56:26] ada access and storm water treatment

[56:27] as required by

[56:28] the county. To get where we are in the

[56:29] lower

[56:32] left corner here is lake frank not

[56:34] named after me, we're not there yet,

[56:35] and what we're

[56:37] doing, the red line, maybe a little

[56:38] hard to see the squiggly

[56:41] line is our extension of our

[56:43] trail up to mun caster mill which

[56:44] goes

[56:45] about two-thirds of the way up the

[56:47] screen from upper left

[56:49] to lower right the connection we're

[56:50] making and then at the

[56:52] very top that left-to-right that is

[56:53] the icc and you

[56:55] can see a little bit of red that's

[56:56] connecting to

[56:59] the existing trail. So this is the

[57:00] expansion

[57:02] to our hard

[57:04] surface trail program that we're looking.

[57:07] what's the history? This trail is

[57:08] recommended in a lot

[57:11] of master plans and trail

[57:13] plans and the plan was ultimately

[57:14] approved in 2013 and

[57:17] then had to be amended in 2017. Yes.

[57:20] we are talking

[57:22] about 13 years ago. I'm not going

[57:23] to back away from

[57:26] that. The amendment we had to do there

[57:29] really involved addressing community

[57:30] concerns and

[57:32] it required us to relocate a trail

[57:35] head and provide this connecter trail

[57:37] that cross over northbranch, which

[57:38] did have the added

[57:41] benefit of connecting to that western part

[57:44] of the muncaster trail.

[57:47] this was a difficult project and this

[57:48] represents what

[57:50] it takes in this day and age for

[57:53] local governments to do hard things

[57:55] and this was challenging with some

[57:56] of our partners but

[57:59] also made possible by our different

[58:00] partners

[58:02] through dps, mde,

[58:05] wssc, and sha. But this did require --

[58:08] it required unusual things such as

[58:12] a clomr and it was involved

[58:15] with the sha office of highway

[58:16] structures and their standards are

[58:18] strict and updated their

[58:21] requirements for this

[58:24] in 2024. In 2025 sha required us to go

[58:25] back

[58:26] through ap evaluation and get a new

[58:27] approval

[58:30] from wssc. In virtually

[58:32] all these cases it was new staff we

[58:33] were working with that had

[58:35] to take a look at it. Finally this

[58:36] summer we

[58:38] received sha authorization to bid

[58:39] the project

[58:41] which we did as quickly as we could

[58:42] and

[58:45] we bid in october 2025. What did

[58:48] we get? We got competitive bids.

[58:50] we advertised this project a lot and in

[58:51] this we

[58:53] got a bid of just about $6 million

[58:54] in

[58:55] our competitive bid process. So we

[58:57] think we got

[59:00] a real bid that represents

[59:01] the market conditions as we speak

[59:03] today. So

[59:06] what does this do? Obviously, this

[59:07] project was talked about years ago.

[59:09] the world has changed in terms

[59:11] of the cost of construction. We talked

[59:14] a lot about the regulatory work we

[59:18] had to do. Right now in our cip,

[59:20] this pdf was given a total funding

[59:21] of just about

[59:24] $5. 3 million, of which $2 million was

[59:26] tap brand. The rest is through pos.

[59:29] the geobond and other sources. The

[59:30] cost to date

[59:31] to get where we have been is about

[59:33] $1. 5 million

[59:35] that represents staff time consultant

[59:36] time,

[59:38] some repair work that had to be done in the

[59:39] interim which

[59:41] allows us about 3. 8 remaining. What do we

[59:44] think this is going to cost to build?

[59:46] in addition to the contract costs

[59:48] there's also an

[59:51] sha coordination cost and construction

[59:52] management and

[59:53] we expect that the overall remaining

[59:54] cost is

[59:57] about $6.7 million.

[1:00:00] that results in a shortfall of

[1:00:03] $2. 9 million. This comes

[1:00:06] in oh, boy $2. 9 million doesn't come out

[1:00:07] of

[1:00:08] thin air. We went back to our partners

[1:00:09] at

[1:00:12] sha and they were able to secure

[1:00:15] an additional $2 million tap

[1:00:17] brand funding, $2 million not having

[1:00:18] to

[1:00:21] come out of the county program.

[1:00:23] that can cover everything. And so

[1:00:24] what we're going

[1:00:26] to --we would like to ask for is an

[1:00:27] additional

[1:00:30] 900,000 in county

[1:00:33] funds to match that tap grant

[1:00:35] and cover the additional costs of the

[1:00:36] construction

[1:00:39] management, implementing the

[1:00:41] project, and doing all those --doing

[1:00:42] the additional work

[1:00:45] to get this

[1:00:47] implemented. Now, we know that construction

[1:00:48] is challenging.

[1:00:50] we may find different things when

[1:00:51] in construction.

[1:00:54] there may be contingencies.

[1:00:55] the contingencies we're proposing

[1:00:57] to come out of our level of

[1:00:59] evident programs for our trail programs.

[1:01:00] that would

[1:01:02] be beyond anything that was required

[1:01:03] beyond

[1:01:06] that $900,000.

[1:01:09] but we do

[1:01:12] think it's important for us not to

[1:01:14] totally shut down the rest of the

[1:01:15] trail program that parks

[1:01:18] works on and we do think it's

[1:01:21] a valid request to

[1:01:24] county to find

[1:01:27] 900,000 county funding.

[1:01:29] we're working through the concurrence

[1:01:33] and award program with sha.

[1:01:35] coordinating with sha trying to save

[1:01:36] money on some

[1:01:38] of those remaining preconstruction

[1:01:39] items how we're going to

[1:01:42] set up the

[1:01:44] construction management testing, making

[1:01:45] agreements. What

[1:01:47] we need to do now because this is --

[1:01:48] time is of the essence.

[1:01:51] we have bids. We do have

[1:01:53] the bids. We require the contractor

[1:01:54] to hold their pricing

[1:01:56] for a certain amount of time but we

[1:01:57] can only

[1:02:00] do that for a certain amount of time

[1:02:01] to

[1:02:03] get this thing built. This is why we're

[1:02:04] here today

[1:02:05] and appreciating your accommodation.

[1:02:06] we

[1:02:08] need to ask for the planning board's

[1:02:09] approval to submit a

[1:02:11] special appropriation to the council

[1:02:12] to cover this additional funding.

[1:02:15] what would happen then the council

[1:02:16] president

[1:02:18] would refer that to the php

[1:02:19] committee and they would consider

[1:02:21] it and then to the full council for

[1:02:24] special appropriation and a cip amendment.

[1:02:25] the hope is

[1:02:27] to get this all done this spring so we

[1:02:29] can get notice to proceed on this

[1:02:30] 15-year project

[1:02:32] that's been a long time coming and

[1:02:33] our goal

[1:02:34] is to open up this project next fall for

[1:02:37] the community.

[1:02:42] with that we would like to ask our

[1:02:43] recommendation

[1:02:46] is to --

[1:02:49] for the planning board to

[1:02:52] approve $2. 9 million to

[1:02:54] the northbranch trail pdf including

[1:02:55] $2

[1:02:58] million of federal aid and

[1:03:00] $900,000 in geobond and request we

[1:03:01] can work with

[1:03:04] the chair to quickly transmit the

[1:03:06] request for special appropriation cip

[1:03:07] amendment to the council

[1:03:09] to facilitate allowing this project

[1:03:10] to

[1:03:12] get implemented under the pro kurmts

[1:03:13] activity. Thank you so much.

[1:03:14] I'd answer any questions you have.

[1:03:19] >> thank you.

[1:03:22] congratulations on getting

[1:03:24] this state to provide a $2 million

[1:03:26] grant. This is wonderful. This is

[1:03:28] absolutely wonderful.

[1:03:31] we always talked about

[1:03:34] trying to implement --

[1:03:37] it's been since

[1:03:43] 2013

[1:03:46] we've been pushing this and

[1:03:48] one of the things people are --it's needed and our been

[1:03:51] also want to see progress. We go to these meetings and they

[1:03:52] say you promised, not parks per

[1:03:55] se, but in general, things we put,

[1:03:58] we say we're going to do

[1:04:01] when in our plans in planning or -- that --

[1:04:03] but they never happen or don't happen

[1:04:04] in a

[1:04:06] timely manner. Thank you for getting

[1:04:07] the grant. That was a lot

[1:04:09] of money. Thank you. And we really --

[1:04:13] I'm supportive of this. I I want you

[1:04:16] to move as quickly as possible.

[1:04:19] this would be money from the fiscal

[1:04:21] year '26 county funds, correct?

[1:04:22] >>

[1:04:23] yes.

[1:04:24] it's important we request the county to appropriate

[1:04:25] this

[1:04:28] money in the fy26 'budget to meet

[1:04:30] the pro kurmts activity that's ongoing.

[1:04:32] thank you.

[1:04:33] >> questions or comments

[1:04:34] from the other board members?

[1:04:35] >>

[1:04:36] just to say very supportive as well.

[1:04:37] the $2 million

[1:04:39] in federal aid is that different than

[1:04:40] the additional grant

[1:04:43] from sha? I just wanted to clarify.

[1:04:46] >> the $4 million --the

[1:04:49] sha slash federal government is

[1:04:50] contributing $4 million now to this

[1:04:52] project all

[1:04:53] coming out of the tap program.

[1:04:54] >> okay.

[1:04:55] the tap specifically for two

[1:04:57] and two. Just wanted to clarify.

[1:04:58] >>

[1:04:59] if I

[1:05:00] may, so we had the $2 million grant

[1:05:01] originally.

[1:05:02] >> yeah.

[1:05:04] >> then the bid came in so high

[1:05:05] that honestly I don't know how we would

[1:05:07] have been able to move forward with the

[1:05:09] project as is. We were talking about

[1:05:10] scaling the project back,

[1:05:13] maybe doing it in phases, trying to

[1:05:14] get

[1:05:15] what we could with the money we had.

[1:05:16] I really want to give credit

[1:05:19] to staff who reached out to

[1:05:21] state highway and state highway essentially

[1:05:22] offered us

[1:05:25] an additional $2 million. That's why

[1:05:28] we're able to move forward with this

[1:05:30] project as it's planned for and designed

[1:05:31] now. Otherwise, I don't

[1:05:33] know what we would be doing. So, you

[1:05:34] know, a lot of credit

[1:05:36] to staff and, of course, thanks to

[1:05:37] state highway.

[1:05:39] these grant funds we're so happy to

[1:05:40] have them, they

[1:05:42] come with strings attached as you can

[1:05:43] see in this presentation.

[1:05:46] >> of

[1:05:49] course.

[1:05:50] >> there's a lot of requirements

[1:05:51] tied

[1:05:52] to this funding. It's not easy to

[1:05:53] get.

[1:05:55] this additional request for

[1:05:58] a supplemental in this cip is really

[1:06:01] it's a very reasonable delta given

[1:06:04] the bids that came in and the position

[1:06:06] we thought we were in before.

[1:06:07] >> money

[1:06:08] with strings attached

[1:06:09] is much better than no money when it's

[1:06:10] covering over

[1:06:13] two-thirds of the overage for that

[1:06:14] than you

[1:06:16] expected. I wanted to clarify and

[1:06:17] something

[1:06:19] that I think that's

[1:06:21] great. That's great and I think --

[1:06:22] I'm very supportive.

[1:06:25] appreciate it.

[1:06:28] >> so as you said, I'm

[1:06:31] very familiar with this project. The

[1:06:34] regional project manager on that mary

[1:06:37] ann retired. I don't know how many

[1:06:38] other staff

[1:06:40] have retired

[1:06:43] since this project has started

[1:06:45] and $1. 5 million that is already

[1:06:46] spent just

[1:06:49] think about it, is probably

[1:06:52] design and coordination costs.

[1:06:55] so, although that I'm very appreciative

[1:06:56] to

[1:06:58] get the grants, but

[1:07:01] this project is not

[1:07:04] a normal design project that parks

[1:07:07] department does. This project went

[1:07:08] through

[1:07:10] a lot of loops and

[1:07:12] difficulties because of their requirements

[1:07:15] and environmental requirements that

[1:07:16] was put on this project

[1:07:19] that it took so long. Of course we

[1:07:20] had to do some

[1:07:22] changes in the design

[1:07:25] and other things, but

[1:07:28] 1. 5 million the

[1:07:31] design

[1:07:34] for $2. 2 million --2.

[1:07:37] 2 million mile project

[1:07:41] is not normal.

[1:07:44] this is a

[1:07:47] great project and we need

[1:07:50] to streamline

[1:07:52] these permitting. We need to streamline

[1:07:56] when, you know, we

[1:08:01] love to get grants, but when it makes

[1:08:02] it so

[1:08:05] difficult that, you know, takes

[1:08:08] 15 years,

[1:08:10] with $1.5 million and then you get

[1:08:13] $2 million grant and then another

[1:08:16] 2, that we really appreciate to make

[1:08:17] it

[1:08:20] possible. But it makes it

[1:08:23] difficult. So I just put it at

[1:08:25] that and I appreciate and totally

[1:08:28] fully support this project. I don't

[1:08:29] know how

[1:08:31] much contingency you were thinking.

[1:08:32] maybe you

[1:08:34] should add that contingency because

[1:08:38] you need the level of

[1:08:41] effort pdf for your trail, but I

[1:08:44] leave it to your judgment. I trust

[1:08:45] your

[1:08:47] judgment that this is the right thing to

[1:08:48] do,

[1:08:50] but I wouldn't have minded --

[1:08:52] I don't know how much money is available

[1:08:53] for us to

[1:08:54] get and how much you're talking about,

[1:08:56] but I'm

[1:08:57] fully open to that if you like to do

[1:08:59] that. I

[1:09:01] fully support. This is a very good

[1:09:02] project.

[1:09:03] it hasn't died after 15 years. We need to build it.

[1:09:14] >>

[1:09:16] commissioner bartley or linden? No

[1:09:17] comments. Do I have a

[1:09:20] motion --

[1:09:21] >> I'm sorry. Go

[1:09:23] ahead.

[1:09:24] >> oh, no. Sorry. I

[1:09:26] don't want to --

[1:09:29] I wanted to thank staff

[1:09:30] and director for your entire team

[1:09:32] for your

[1:09:34] persistence in moving this forward over

[1:09:35] the

[1:09:38] past 15 years. I agree with

[1:09:41] what's been said

[1:09:43] about --especially commissioner pedoeem

[1:09:44] if this is how

[1:09:46] things to go that's not designed in

[1:09:47] a lot of ways

[1:09:50] but as we know, infrastructure in

[1:09:51] general

[1:09:52] is increasingly hard, not just in

[1:09:53] the county

[1:09:55] but in the country and costs and complexity

[1:09:58] of regulations and moving through

[1:09:59] implementing partners and

[1:10:01] on and on. I really appreciate and

[1:10:02] respect

[1:10:04] just, again, the perseverance to get

[1:10:05] this done. Seems like

[1:10:07] it's going to be a great project so thank

[1:10:11] you.

[1:10:12] >> great.

[1:10:14] so do I have

[1:10:17] a motion to --for approval to add

[1:10:20] $2. 9 million to the northbranch trail

[1:10:21] pdf including $2 million in the federal

[1:10:23] aid and

[1:10:26] 900,000 geobonds and the

[1:10:29] chair to transmit the request for

[1:10:32] special appropriations to facilitate

[1:10:34] timing council action to allow project

[1:10:37] implementation.

[1:10:38] >> move to approve adding

[1:10:39] the

[1:10:40] funds.

[1:10:41] >> I second. >> all in favor.

[1:10:42] >> yea. >> yea.

[1:10:44] >> yea. >> the yeas have it. Thank

[1:10:45] you. Thank

[1:10:47] you for speedily presenting this

[1:10:50] to us so we can move it forward.

[1:10:51] time is of the essence because costs

[1:10:53] keep going up. Thank you.

[1:10:54] >> yeah.

[1:10:56] we're going to take a one minute break

[1:10:58] and start with our next item legislative update.

[1:10:59] thank you.

[1:16:27] >>> good morning. We're

[1:16:29] on item number 9 legislative update

[1:16:30] and we have deborah and jordan. Welcome.

[1:16:39] >> thank you. We

[1:16:42] have the first

[1:16:45] of a series probably bills

[1:16:48] that we'll be discussing with you during

[1:16:52] this year's legislative session.

[1:16:54] I'm deborah borden, with me jordan colbert.

[1:16:57] thank you. You're going to put the

[1:16:58] bills up

[1:16:59] or the position statements up. First

[1:17:01] of

[1:17:04] all, I would love to thank

[1:17:05] several other people, other than jordan,

[1:17:07] that helped

[1:17:10] us out last night. We were

[1:17:11] working on these statements until

[1:17:13] late in the evening.

[1:17:16] bridget royer, emily

[1:17:19] vias, kimberly man young, and

[1:17:21] ilan into branda. We could not have

[1:17:22] done

[1:17:25] this without them and without

[1:17:28] their help. It

[1:17:31] was kind of critical yesterday,

[1:17:32] so not enough time in the day but when

[1:17:34] you have the help

[1:17:37] you need it's really great

[1:17:40] so thanks to them. So I

[1:17:43] will stand with the land use comprehensive

[1:17:45] general plans bill. We discussed this

[1:17:46] a little

[1:17:48] bit yesterday at the full commission

[1:17:49] meeting, and,

[1:17:52] yeah, this was a big one to review.

[1:17:54] this is the one that was 52 pages.

[1:17:55] the bill itself is

[1:17:58] 52 pages. As you can

[1:18:01] see.

[1:18:04] we put together some initial

[1:18:07] comments about these changes

[1:18:09] to basically the elements that would

[1:18:11] go into comprehensive plans for the

[1:18:13] state that would include

[1:18:16] your general plan, your

[1:18:18] master plans, sector plans. Basically

[1:18:21] your comprehensive plans would have

[1:18:25] to include these

[1:18:28] revised elements. Some of

[1:18:31] them are new elements and so we

[1:18:34] had a lot of questions

[1:18:36] from both planning departments about

[1:18:37] these changes.

[1:18:40] this --I don't believe this is

[1:18:43] actually set for a hearing date

[1:18:45] yet or at least it's not within the

[1:18:48] next week or so, so we will continue

[1:18:49] to look at this bill.

[1:18:51] there's just so much in there. There's

[1:18:52] no

[1:18:54] way that we could get everything on

[1:18:55] the first

[1:18:58] pass. We're also going to reach

[1:19:00] out to the department of planning

[1:19:01] and see if we

[1:19:03] can enter dialog with them. There's

[1:19:04] a

[1:19:06] lot to unpack here, and I don't want

[1:19:07] to give

[1:19:09] anybody the impression we are finished

[1:19:10] with this with reviewing

[1:19:13] this bill. This is

[1:19:15] going to be a process. So I think I

[1:19:16] can stop

[1:19:19] there and see, do you want me to go

[1:19:22] through and hit some of the points

[1:19:23] in our initial comments or do you

[1:19:25] have questions

[1:19:28] that you would like to dive into yourself?

[1:19:30] >> well, we would like you to go over

[1:19:31] suggested recommendations.

[1:19:34] we're going to see this again.

[1:19:37] we're not making a decision on

[1:19:39] this right now, but it would be good

[1:19:43] to go over the key items

[1:19:44] that you guys worked on last night that

[1:19:46] you think are --we need

[1:19:49] to really focus on.

[1:19:52] >> okay. We can

[1:19:55] do that. Okay.

[1:19:58] so some of the more pressing

[1:20:00] issues, I guess, I feel jump to are

[1:20:04] the inclusion of things

[1:20:07] like apf style study.

[1:20:10] putting that into a plan.

[1:20:13] that rang alarm bells with me from a

[1:20:15] legal standpoint. You know, comprehensive

[1:20:16] plans

[1:20:19] are

[1:20:22] aspirational, visioning. They are not, you

[1:20:23] know,

[1:20:25] legal code. They don't

[1:20:28] have regulatory impact

[1:20:31] except in very small

[1:20:34] exceptional cases.

[1:20:37] for the most part, master

[1:20:40] plans are not intended

[1:20:43] to be regulatory documents and so when

[1:20:46] you start talking about adequate public

[1:20:48] facilities ordinances and adequate

[1:20:49] public facilities

[1:20:52] studies, those are really a different

[1:20:53] animal

[1:20:55] and they really, I think, it

[1:20:58] becomes problematic to try to include

[1:21:01] that kind of thing in a comprehensive

[1:21:02] plan

[1:21:04] of any kind, even if it's a smaller

[1:21:05] study

[1:21:07] area. It's very difficult to do both

[1:21:10] same time and do them

[1:21:13] both well. You know, just because, you

[1:21:16] know, even if you were able to put

[1:21:17] something like that

[1:21:18] into your comp plan, you know, your

[1:21:19] comp plan is supposed to be

[1:21:22] in place for ten

[1:21:24] years or more. Things change, and, you

[1:21:25] know, so how are you

[1:21:28] going to change and adapt to that

[1:21:31] if your apf is buried in

[1:21:34] a master plan. We think it's

[1:21:37] confusing and we would like to get

[1:21:38] more

[1:21:39] information about what they're trying to

[1:21:40] do. One of

[1:21:44] the other things that

[1:21:47] stood out is on, I

[1:21:49] guess on the second page that's on

[1:21:50] the

[1:21:53] screen. Let's see,

[1:21:56] page 6, lines 23 of the bill, 23

[1:21:59] to 30. It

[1:22:02] talks about religious

[1:22:05] institutions and that plans

[1:22:08] should identify

[1:22:10] the most appropriate patterns and

[1:22:13] locations for religious institutions.

[1:22:16] that is problematic as well because

[1:22:18] religious institutions have special

[1:22:20] protection under federal law,

[1:22:22] specifically related to land use and

[1:22:25] specifically related to governmental

[1:22:26] burdens caused

[1:22:28] by land use regulations. We are not

[1:22:29] supposed to be in

[1:22:31] the business of telling religious

[1:22:32] institutions

[1:22:34] where they can go and where we think they

[1:22:35] can go. That's

[1:22:38] just a little too

[1:22:40] close to putting additional burdens

[1:22:41] on them. What

[1:22:43] if they don't agree and they want

[1:22:44] to go some

[1:22:46] place else? So, you know, we flagged

[1:22:50] that for them. Let's see. What

[1:22:52] else do we have?

[1:22:53] >> why do you think

[1:22:54] they put that in

[1:22:56] there and then after that,

[1:22:59] vice chair linden has his hand

[1:23:02] up. Why?

[1:23:05] >> I --I

[1:23:08] don't

[1:23:10] know. I have, you know, I can speculate

[1:23:11] they

[1:23:14] think in some counties churches,

[1:23:17] religious institutions, you know,

[1:23:20] take up a huge

[1:23:22] amount of land and they think that

[1:23:23] we

[1:23:25] need to do a better job of, I don't

[1:23:28] know, having some say about that,

[1:23:29] but

[1:23:32] it's a touchy thing to

[1:23:33] suggest because we're not supposed to

[1:23:35] be doing that. You

[1:23:38] know, for the most part in most

[1:23:41] zoning codes,

[1:23:42] religious institutions are allowed

[1:23:44] to go just about

[1:23:47] anywhere, just about

[1:23:49] anywhere a residential use is allowed,

[1:23:52] religious institutions are allowed.

[1:23:55] anywhere commercial uses are allowed

[1:23:56] religious institutions are

[1:23:59] allowed and that's on purpose. So

[1:24:02] the suggestion was a little

[1:24:05] alarming that we should

[1:24:08] somehow start telling religious institutions

[1:24:10] where we would prefer them to go and

[1:24:11] then what

[1:24:14] do we do with that

[1:24:15] recommendation when the religious

[1:24:17] institution comes in and wants to

[1:24:18] go

[1:24:20] some place else.

[1:24:23] that puts us in a very difficult situation

[1:24:26] and

[1:24:28] possibly in a situation where we would be

[1:24:29] violating

[1:24:32] rlupa. That's something we would want

[1:24:34] to talk to the state planners about.

[1:24:35] it

[1:24:38] may be that that was not their intention, but

[1:24:39] we

[1:24:41] don't know if they thought about

[1:24:44] that.

[1:24:45] >> thank you.

[1:24:47] vice chair linden?

[1:24:50] >> thanks, artie. Yeah. On

[1:24:53] the religious piece, I

[1:24:56] totally agree that feels like

[1:24:59] a strange and complicated

[1:25:02] and very --yeah, very

[1:25:04] tricky, something that has --yeah,

[1:25:05] I take your

[1:25:08] point, that has a

[1:25:11] lot of potential problems. But

[1:25:14] I wanted to touch just quickly on

[1:25:17] like you were describing as the

[1:25:20] apfo piece of this

[1:25:22] bill, and I'm trying to better understand

[1:25:26] how you think the bill kind of describes

[1:25:29] the need to provide that funding because --

[1:25:32] and admittedly I read

[1:25:36] through it for the first time yesterday and

[1:25:38] I think I'm still trying to get my

[1:25:40] head around a lot of pieces you were talking

[1:25:41] about. My reading of it

[1:25:44] was less --and please, obviously,

[1:25:46] correct me, my reading it was less

[1:25:47] describing an

[1:25:50] apfo finding or

[1:25:52] specific study and more trying to

[1:25:53] express the

[1:25:56] need to have

[1:25:59] a discussion around infrastructure

[1:26:00] and

[1:26:02] facilities and services to

[1:26:05] accommodate future growth and that kind

[1:26:06] of

[1:26:08] discussion is

[1:26:11] not particularly unusual within comprehensive

[1:26:12] plans in other

[1:26:14] areas. Like just as an

[1:26:16] example, in washington state, cities,

[1:26:17] counties are required to

[1:26:20] have what they call a capital facilities

[1:26:21] element, they're

[1:26:24] required to have a

[1:26:25] utilities element, and the way they

[1:26:27] do it

[1:26:29] out there within the capital facilities element they

[1:26:30] use

[1:26:33] that discussion to inform a

[1:26:34] facility's capital improvement program

[1:26:36] that's part of

[1:26:38] the comprehensive plan, obviously,

[1:26:39] here in this

[1:26:40] county, you know, for the reasons

[1:26:42] that, you know, because

[1:26:43] we're distinct the coin has its own

[1:26:45] cip

[1:26:46] and we don't really directly influence

[1:26:48] that,

[1:26:49] although we make recommendations, but I

[1:26:51] think the benefit

[1:26:54] in washington state

[1:26:56] of including an infrastructure discussion is

[1:26:57] that it directly

[1:26:59] links growth concepts and growth plans

[1:27:00] and future

[1:27:03] land

[1:27:06] use designations to a

[1:27:08] formally adopted cip of some sort, and

[1:27:09] not

[1:27:12] saying that that would

[1:27:13] be part of this here, but if it's

[1:27:15] not required to make

[1:27:18] a specific apfo finding, because

[1:27:20] I agree that kind of finding is complex

[1:27:23] and kind of --obviously, directly

[1:27:24] related to

[1:27:26] development, and requiresrequires

[1:27:27] study,

[1:27:29] I tend to think there could be a benefit

[1:27:32] to having a discussion around infrastructure

[1:27:33] in part because we have

[1:27:35] those --we have those discussions

[1:27:39] anyway with our

[1:27:42] master plans

[1:27:43] and kind of policy discussions and

[1:27:45] we talk about the growth and

[1:27:46] infrastructure policy every four years, but I

[1:27:48] think it helps to make

[1:27:50] our master plans more practical. It

[1:27:51] helps to

[1:27:54] daylight things potentially for county

[1:27:55] council within our recommendations

[1:27:57] to make sure

[1:28:00] they understand the direct

[1:28:01] relationships there and I think it's

[1:28:03] a helpful

[1:28:06] communications tool to the

[1:28:07] public we do understand what's nest

[1:28:09] in a

[1:28:11] general way to accommodate the growth

[1:28:14] we need and based on how I've seen

[1:28:15] it done in

[1:28:17] other places I think it can be done

[1:28:18] without

[1:28:21] an intensive study of the sort if

[1:28:23] apfo would require. I guess that's

[1:28:24] a long way

[1:28:26] of saying I would be interested to

[1:28:27] see

[1:28:30] if you're reading it differently that it

[1:28:32] is specifically talking about adequate

[1:28:33] public facilities

[1:28:36] or if, you know, the --

[1:28:39] potentially more generalized

[1:28:42] requirement that we can then

[1:28:44] implement as, you know, in other words

[1:28:47] if there's some flexibility we could

[1:28:48] make it

[1:28:51] fit our updates?

[1:28:52] >> so I will

[1:28:54] give you a general answer and then I

[1:28:57] feel defer to jason sartori,

[1:29:00] director of planning and his staff.

[1:29:03] so generally

[1:29:04] speaking, of course we talk about infrastructure in

[1:29:06] our master plans in our

[1:29:09] general plans. Infrastructure, public

[1:29:12] utilities, public

[1:29:15] facilities, are all very crucial to

[1:29:18] planning, you know, in any sense.

[1:29:21] so that is not the

[1:29:24] issue. The issue is what --why are

[1:29:26] they changing the language? What are

[1:29:30] they trying to get at?

[1:29:33] you know, what's new about

[1:29:36] this? And in reading

[1:29:38] through it seems like they're getting

[1:29:39] way too

[1:29:42] close to an adequate

[1:29:45] public facility's type finding and

[1:29:46] so

[1:29:47] because we're not sure we need to

[1:29:48] reach out to them,

[1:29:51] we need to say to them this is

[1:29:54] worrisome because this is not the

[1:29:57] place to do that type of study, but

[1:29:58] if

[1:29:59] you mean something else then let's talk

[1:30:00] about how we

[1:30:03] can clarify that. Let's talk about

[1:30:05] what your intent actually is so that we

[1:30:06] can get to

[1:30:09] that. Because all of us, prince

[1:30:12] george's, montgomery, we're all looking at

[1:30:13] our public

[1:30:15] facilities, the adequacy of them,

[1:30:18] every single time that we do

[1:30:21] a master plan, but we're looking at

[1:30:22] them in a

[1:30:24] general, holistic, what are the trends

[1:30:25] kind of

[1:30:27] ways. We're

[1:30:30] not doing be a study. We seem

[1:30:33] to, in this language, be getting sort

[1:30:36] of conflating those things and we

[1:30:37] want

[1:30:38] to make sure that that is not the

[1:30:39] case and that as we

[1:30:43] go forward we

[1:30:45] all know what we're talking about

[1:30:46] when we

[1:30:49] say we want you to analyze

[1:30:51] the public facilities, public institutions, all

[1:30:53] of these things that are, of course, you

[1:30:55] know, already sort of

[1:30:56] embedded in the idea of master planning.

[1:30:58] but

[1:31:01] we want to know what

[1:31:04] they mean by this

[1:31:05] new language so that we can make sure

[1:31:07] we're clear. I don't

[1:31:10] know if jason is online or in

[1:31:11] the room. But please add to that.

[1:31:15] >> I am here. Thank you. Vice chair

[1:31:17] linden, thank you for asking that

[1:31:19] question. I have

[1:31:20] not personally taken too close of

[1:31:22] a look at

[1:31:24] this bill yet. But I will --I will

[1:31:28] take a closer look at

[1:31:31] it. I agree that it's --it would

[1:31:34] be fine for

[1:31:37] a bill to have general statements about

[1:31:38] the importance of infrastructure in

[1:31:40] a comprehensive

[1:31:43] plan, but anything that

[1:31:44] gets too specific we have so many

[1:31:46] other methods and

[1:31:49] tools by which

[1:31:50] we do that it wouldn't be appropriate

[1:31:52] to have those in

[1:31:53] a comprehensive plan. I also want

[1:31:55] to make

[1:31:57] sure that what we're looking at is

[1:31:58] applicable

[1:31:59] to counties because there are parts

[1:32:00] of this bill specifically intended

[1:32:04] for municipalities and

[1:32:07] not counties and so I will take

[1:32:09] a look at closer at this. I don't

[1:32:10] know if

[1:32:12] robert might have additional comments on

[1:32:13] this.

[1:32:16] >> yeah. Thank.

[1:32:19] I'm sorry.

[1:32:20] >> go ahead. >>

[1:32:22] just real quick,

[1:32:25] thanks. I appreciate that. I was

[1:32:27] about to raise that same issue about

[1:32:31] whether this applies

[1:32:33] to municipalities or counties. We

[1:32:34] have a little bit more

[1:32:36] to read through. Looking through the

[1:32:37] language it

[1:32:39] appears to me on first glance this

[1:32:40] particular

[1:32:42] section talk about municipalities

[1:32:46] and their future growth

[1:32:49] areas outside of the limits.

[1:32:52] and later on it talks about

[1:32:54] public service and infrastructure

[1:32:58] to accommodate growth within the growth

[1:33:00] areas. I appreciate everything that

[1:33:01] y'all

[1:33:04] are saying. I very much

[1:33:06] agree clarity around bills like this

[1:33:10] is hugely important. I

[1:33:12] was mostly raising the question to

[1:33:13] better understand

[1:33:16] if we think it does --like

[1:33:19] making sure that, you know, we ourselves

[1:33:21] fully understand it, clarifying with them

[1:33:22] if they fully

[1:33:24] understand it, if it veers too closely

[1:33:25] for counties,

[1:33:27] that's a little more problematic.

[1:33:30] but this sounds like we're sort of --

[1:33:32] I appreciate everything you're saying.

[1:33:34] we're on the same page.

[1:33:35] >> I'm

[1:33:37] not sure there's much more to add

[1:33:38] to that other

[1:33:40] than getting clarification and

[1:33:42] providing a little bit more information

[1:33:43] on what's in the

[1:33:45] bill. For our comp plans, they are

[1:33:46] intended to be

[1:33:48] long-range visions and so that's why

[1:33:49] you do an

[1:33:52] apf test at the

[1:33:53] development stage with a real project

[1:33:55] that comes in. Again, the

[1:33:58] comp plans are intended to

[1:34:01] be visionary and not

[1:34:04] address specific apf testing at

[1:34:06] that time. We look at infrastructure

[1:34:07] through master plans

[1:34:10] but not to the level of a

[1:34:12] development application. I think that's

[1:34:13] why

[1:34:16] that language in the bill kind

[1:34:19] of --

[1:34:20] >> thank you both for that.

[1:34:22] I think you can

[1:34:25] move onto

[1:34:28] the --

[1:34:30] >> I want to highlight just a couple

[1:34:34] of other things.

[1:34:37] there is a

[1:34:40] sort of

[1:34:43] a theme running through this bill

[1:34:44] that

[1:34:46] they want us to look at more things

[1:34:49] and do more deep

[1:34:52] analysis, so things like

[1:34:55] the elimination of substandard

[1:34:58] dwelling conditions, a full

[1:35:01] housing

[1:35:04] assessment, which is not

[1:35:05] really defined, you know, more economic

[1:35:07] analysis, again, which

[1:35:10] is not really defined.

[1:35:12] you know, this could mean that we

[1:35:13] would have

[1:35:16] to hire more experts in these areas.

[1:35:17] it could

[1:35:20] mean we would have to take

[1:35:22] more time to complete these plans

[1:35:26] if we're going to do real

[1:35:29] deep dives

[1:35:30] into, you know, housing conditions

[1:35:32] and economic analysis.

[1:35:35] again, we want to have a

[1:35:37] constructive conversation about what this

[1:35:38] means

[1:35:41] on a

[1:35:43] practical level because there can

[1:35:45] be, you know, a sense that you --

[1:35:47] you're

[1:35:50] pursuing the perfection.

[1:35:52] you're pursuing, you know, the perfect and you

[1:35:55] could end up analyzing forever and never

[1:35:56] getting your

[1:35:58] plan done. I mean, you know, there

[1:35:59] are

[1:36:01] lots of things we wish we could do

[1:36:05] with master plans, but they are,

[1:36:06] you know, they are --they have to

[1:36:11] be finite at some point,

[1:36:12] and so these things are concerning

[1:36:14] because it --

[1:36:17] they just keep adding and

[1:36:19] adding to areas where we would have

[1:36:20] to, you

[1:36:23] know, sort of beef up

[1:36:25] resources and add time and add more

[1:36:26] time to

[1:36:29] a process that's already pretty

[1:36:32] lengthy in some, you

[1:36:35] know, some circles. That's a concern

[1:36:38] that we have.

[1:36:39] >> great. >> great

[1:36:40] to --

[1:36:41] >> anything else. >> that would

[1:36:42] be great to get

[1:36:44] more clarification and ask why.

[1:36:47] I think director sartori had his

[1:36:49] hand raised.

[1:36:50] >> thank you. I had a

[1:36:51] question about

[1:36:53] this. I know a lot of this --

[1:36:55] well, portions of this are a repackaging

[1:36:56] of what

[1:36:58] already exists. Some of these things

[1:36:59] were already required

[1:37:02] and renaming them, they were reordering

[1:37:03] them.

[1:37:05] they are adding a few

[1:37:11] new things. I'm curious, though, the

[1:37:12] way

[1:37:14] we do master plans to our

[1:37:16] general plan thriving versus all of

[1:37:19] the master plans and sector plans

[1:37:20] that we

[1:37:23] work through that are

[1:37:26] amendments to thrive. So, you

[1:37:28] know, a housing element has been required

[1:37:29] and our housing

[1:37:31] chapter in thrive was found to be

[1:37:32] sufficient as the

[1:37:33] housing element required by state

[1:37:35] law

[1:37:37] previously. Do we need to have all

[1:37:38] of these

[1:37:40] different types of elements in all

[1:37:41] this detail

[1:37:44] in every single master plan

[1:37:47] or is it sufficient for us to have elements

[1:37:48] in

[1:37:50] thrive alone? How does this exactly

[1:37:51] apply to

[1:37:52] that distinction?

[1:37:53] >> yeah. That's

[1:37:56] a good question, and that's

[1:37:58] not entirely clear from the bill, you

[1:37:59] know, because

[1:38:02] legally, the definition of comp

[1:38:03] plan or comprehensive plan, would

[1:38:05] apply to all of our

[1:38:08] master plans, all of our sector plans,

[1:38:09] you

[1:38:11] know, doesn't matter how large

[1:38:14] the geography is. You know,

[1:38:17] so that's a good question. And

[1:38:20] that's one that we would like to discuss with

[1:38:21] the

[1:38:23] department of planning.

[1:38:26] you know, because

[1:38:29] again, you could read --you know, you

[1:38:30] could

[1:38:32] read this to apply to just

[1:38:35] about any planning process that

[1:38:38] we enter into and that could be

[1:38:41] incredibly impactful, you know. I

[1:38:42] can't

[1:38:44] answer your question, but I

[1:38:47] think that's a good

[1:38:49] question.

[1:38:50] >> commissioner linden has his

[1:38:51] hand up.

[1:38:56] >> director sartori's

[1:38:58] question, I'm glad, thank you for

[1:38:59] asking that, that

[1:39:01] was one of the things I was going

[1:39:02] to raise as well. Sounds

[1:39:05] like some charity there is good.

[1:39:08] I just had one final comment

[1:39:11] about --I know

[1:39:13] we're not making decisions on this

[1:39:14] today, so this is more

[1:39:17] comment for our own consideration

[1:39:18] as we

[1:39:19] move toward, you know, deciding how

[1:39:20] we want

[1:39:22] to transmit or, you know, whether

[1:39:23] we want to transmit support or

[1:39:25] just comments or whatever the case

[1:39:26] is. So

[1:39:28] it looks like they're introducing

[1:39:32] a new resilience element, which I

[1:39:35] saw, you know, some

[1:39:38] discussion around that in ms.

[1:39:41] jordan's team document, which appears

[1:39:44] to sort of get at --

[1:39:47] it appears to cover a variety of different

[1:39:50] things, environmental,

[1:39:53] climate, probably some other things.

[1:39:54] I

[1:39:55] was wondering if there would be any

[1:39:56] appetite on our end

[1:39:59] to considering a recommendation to

[1:40:03] the bill authors to

[1:40:05] consider reframing this element as

[1:40:08] some version of climate change and

[1:40:12] resilience to, you know,

[1:40:15] just to elevate climate

[1:40:18] to a more kind of serious

[1:40:19] point of consideration in all of our

[1:40:21] master planning and

[1:40:24] general plan efforts. Not that

[1:40:25] we internally don't here. I know we

[1:40:27] do it here. In

[1:40:29] terms of state wide. I think that could

[1:40:30] be --

[1:40:32] it's coming back to kind of, you know,

[1:40:35] emerging practices or how other communities

[1:40:36] are sort of

[1:40:38] treating climate change from a planning

[1:40:39] perspective these

[1:40:42] days. Increasingly many do

[1:40:45] try to have chapters

[1:40:48] or elements within these comp

[1:40:51] plan updates for master plan

[1:40:54] or sector plan updates. It provides

[1:40:55] a

[1:40:56] way to talk about several different

[1:40:57] things

[1:41:00] including what jurisdictions

[1:41:03] can do to reduce

[1:41:06] greenhouse gas to

[1:41:08] the com plan and cover resilience

[1:41:09] too.

[1:41:10] I guess that's an open question for

[1:41:14] us if that's something that we could

[1:41:15] discuss more

[1:41:17] as we move toward a decision on this

[1:41:18] and if it's

[1:41:20] worth providing that recommendation

[1:41:21] back to the

[1:41:22] state. Obviously, recognize that, you

[1:41:24] know, when you

[1:41:27] start introducing kind of things and climate

[1:41:30] change at a legislative

[1:41:33] level

[1:41:35] it gets political quick and I get

[1:41:36] that and taking a

[1:41:38] bite at the apple without raise too

[1:41:39] long many

[1:41:42] flags. I do think it's

[1:41:44] worth elevating. I understand it's

[1:41:45] something

[1:41:48] worth taking on if we're supportive

[1:41:51] of making that

[1:41:54] recommendation. Wants I wanted to

[1:41:55] flag something

[1:41:56] on my mind with our work, obviously,

[1:41:57] but

[1:41:58] this seems like a good opportunity

[1:42:00] to

[1:42:03] codify it in state law.

[1:42:06] >> would defer to director

[1:42:08] sartori's staff to come up with some

[1:42:09] maybe

[1:42:12] proposed language and then we

[1:42:15] could react to that. And

[1:42:18] maybe they could, you know,

[1:42:21] include a little sort

[1:42:23] of blurb to talk about why they think

[1:42:24] it's a better framing of

[1:42:26] the issue. I would defer to that.

[1:42:27] >> thanks for bringing

[1:42:30] that up, vice

[1:42:32] chair. I would like to, give all this

[1:42:33] that just

[1:42:36] came through, I would

[1:42:37] like to review it all and we're all looking

[1:42:39] at it together and the next time

[1:42:41] we get together we can discuss it.

[1:42:42] but thank you

[1:42:45] for bringing that up.

[1:42:46] >> okay. I

[1:42:47] feel move onto the next. And thank you

[1:42:48] for those

[1:42:51] comments. I really

[1:42:54] appreciate them. So the next one is

[1:42:57] the starter and silver homes act.

[1:43:00] we mentioned this yesterday

[1:43:03] at your meeting. The --this

[1:43:06] is the bill

[1:43:09] from the governor's administration

[1:43:12] dhcd had

[1:43:15] proposed this bill.

[1:43:18] this bill would

[1:43:21] make some fairly

[1:43:24] significant inroads by the

[1:43:27] state into local zoning

[1:43:30] authority.

[1:43:33] the

[1:43:36] bill would --

[1:43:39] that we not enforce

[1:43:42] lot size, setback, dimension

[1:43:45] requirements, design,

[1:43:48] architectural elements, for

[1:43:51] certain single-family homes.

[1:43:54] and the

[1:43:57] bill would prohibit local --the

[1:44:00] local

[1:44:03] jurisdictions from certain

[1:44:06] subdivisions. It would

[1:44:09] allow as long as a lot

[1:44:12] has sufficient lot

[1:44:15] size, it would allow, you

[1:44:18] know, basically buy right subdivision, you

[1:44:19] know,

[1:44:21] up to a

[1:44:24] certain size. This

[1:44:27] bill

[1:44:30] really makes a lot of changes in

[1:44:33] a statewide way to local zoning rules

[1:44:34] and

[1:44:37] regulations that differ

[1:44:40] county by county. And sometimes

[1:44:43] city or town by city.

[1:44:44] so we're very concerned about the sort

[1:44:49] of one-size-fits-all approach

[1:44:52] to this. We're

[1:44:55] concerned about the impact

[1:44:57] on existing neighborhoods because you

[1:44:58] can

[1:45:00] visualize this, existing neighborhood

[1:45:01] that

[1:45:04] maybe has a lot or

[1:45:07] two that hasn't been built yet.

[1:45:10] that lot could then come in and

[1:45:13] say, well, I don't have to do

[1:45:16] setbacks, I don't have to do

[1:45:18] minimum lot requirements anymore, I

[1:45:19] can split this lot into two

[1:45:22] and build two homes

[1:45:23] where normally, you know, and in looking at

[1:45:25] the

[1:45:26] neighborhood I would only build one.

[1:45:28] and the other thing that

[1:45:31] really concerns us

[1:45:34] is, there are other

[1:45:36] efforts to increase affordable housing

[1:45:40] or increase the supply of

[1:45:43] housing. And one of those efforts

[1:45:44] was

[1:45:46] recent. It was the adu bill,

[1:45:47] the requirement that, you know, we

[1:45:49] all figure out

[1:45:52] a way to

[1:45:55] do and to allow accessory

[1:45:57] dwelling units. Well, you know, we're

[1:45:58] not

[1:46:01] really sure that this is going to

[1:46:04] work well or work in concert with

[1:46:07] that. This new bill, it seems to

[1:46:10] us,

[1:46:13] may contradict or work, you know, to

[1:46:14] have

[1:46:16] the opposite effect of the adus. Because

[1:46:18] if you can just split your lot and

[1:46:19] create

[1:46:22] another home or sell another lot

[1:46:25] for another home to be

[1:46:28] built, wouldn't

[1:46:31] that just, you know, be a

[1:46:34] disincentive to do an adu?

[1:46:35] we're not sure if that would apply because there are so

[1:46:40] many

[1:46:43] different issues that we would have

[1:46:44] to

[1:46:46] test to see if that's the case,

[1:46:47] but we're concerned that might be the

[1:46:49] case

[1:46:52] because we would have to put through

[1:46:55] the parameters that are in this bill

[1:46:56] and

[1:46:58] actually test them and

[1:47:01] see if, you know, if it makes, you

[1:47:04] know, the adus

[1:47:07] less palatable to

[1:47:08] people who could just divide their

[1:47:10] lots instead where maybe they

[1:47:13] couldn't divide their

[1:47:15] lots today. So we want to look at

[1:47:16] that.

[1:47:19] we want to do some examples so that we

[1:47:20] can

[1:47:22] show that, you

[1:47:25] know, these concerns are real.

[1:47:28] we have some

[1:47:29] technical comments we've put together.

[1:47:31] we

[1:47:33] do have a meeting scheduled with the

[1:47:34] department

[1:47:35] of housing and community development at

[1:47:37] the state level. We want to talk to them about

[1:47:38] this bill.

[1:47:43] you know, because, you know,

[1:47:46] we're concerned. We're

[1:47:49] concerned about the state treating all

[1:47:52] of our

[1:47:55] counties the same and expecting a

[1:47:56] good

[1:47:58] result. We don't think this is

[1:48:01] going to have a good

[1:48:02] result because the results will be

[1:48:04] uneven and sometimes they will

[1:48:07] be counter to what the

[1:48:09] state is trying to do, and that's

[1:48:10] not

[1:48:13] helpful. You know, it doesn't help

[1:48:14] when, you know,

[1:48:15] the state thinks, you know, this is

[1:48:16] what we're

[1:48:18] going to do, this is how we're going

[1:48:19] to do it and it

[1:48:21] doesn't work at the local level. That

[1:48:22] doesn't

[1:48:24] help any of us. We're trying to be

[1:48:25] helpful. We

[1:48:28] want to be helpful. We want --we all

[1:48:29] have

[1:48:30] the same goal. We want affordable

[1:48:31] housing. We

[1:48:34] want more supply of affordable housing.

[1:48:37] that is what we

[1:48:40] want. There's no question about that.

[1:48:42] it's about how we get there and not

[1:48:45] going forward too fast and making

[1:48:46] mistakes that will then make

[1:48:48] the provision of affordable housing

[1:48:49] harder. We don't

[1:48:51] want that. We're going to work with

[1:48:52] them.

[1:48:55] these are our initial comments, as I

[1:48:56] said.

[1:48:58] we will bring this back

[1:49:00] to you again probably at least twice,

[1:49:01] so that we

[1:49:04] can refine what we're saying and

[1:49:07] hopefully we'll get

[1:49:10] some clarity when we meet with dacd.

[1:49:13] we'll get some clarity

[1:49:16] on some of these points. Hopefully

[1:49:17] they'll

[1:49:19] be open to some suggestions about

[1:49:20] what we

[1:49:23] can do to make all of this work.

[1:49:26] >> yes.

[1:49:27] >> I'll stop there and see if you have

[1:49:29] any questions.

[1:49:30] >> can I say

[1:49:32] one thing? It's a fine

[1:49:35] line and I know one size doesn't

[1:49:38] fit all and just

[1:49:40] certain areas having, you know, really, really

[1:49:43] small lots may not work. The goal is how do

[1:49:47] you

[1:49:50] --can we

[1:49:53] make? To give the nudge,

[1:49:55] right, how do you --what are --what

[1:49:59] are comments that

[1:50:02] give a nudge to all

[1:50:04] the municipalities around that you

[1:50:08] need to do things differently?

[1:50:11] so I know what's here won't make

[1:50:14] it --but --because we all

[1:50:16] municipalities even in our county, you know,

[1:50:17] there's the down

[1:50:19] county, the mid county, up county

[1:50:20] with all

[1:50:23] different right of way

[1:50:24] of lot sizes. Let's think through.

[1:50:26] let's put

[1:50:29] our thinking hats on.

[1:50:32] what could we say that

[1:50:35] could give the nudge? You need some

[1:50:37] nudges because we've tried really

[1:50:38] hard over

[1:50:41] the past couple years with all

[1:50:43] of these obtainable housing, more

[1:50:44] housing now and

[1:50:47] these other

[1:50:50] things, to try to

[1:50:53] do it in a way where we

[1:50:54] have people on our local level, you

[1:50:56] know, in our

[1:50:59] own context, and everyone agrees

[1:51:02] we need more housing, all

[1:51:05] types, everywhere. But we're

[1:51:08] not getting there.

[1:51:11] what's --what gets approved

[1:51:13] is nominal for the --

[1:51:14] >> for the larger --

[1:51:15] >>

[1:51:17] so let's --that would

[1:51:19] be my suggestion. Let's put our heads

[1:51:20] together. How

[1:51:23] can we change all this and

[1:51:24] give recommendations to at least provide

[1:51:26] a nudge. We do want

[1:51:28] to bring our local partners in the

[1:51:29] game. Don't want

[1:51:32] to get too ahead of them, but at

[1:51:35] the same time we haven't --

[1:51:36] >> just

[1:51:37] trying

[1:51:38] to understand

[1:51:41] this bill a little bit more.

[1:51:43] when you say certain areas, could

[1:51:44] you

[1:51:47] just give a little bit more

[1:51:50] example? Where

[1:51:53] are those certain areas?

[1:51:54] >> okay.

[1:51:56] I will go to the bill

[1:51:59] and I will look at --

[1:52:02] let's see. Some of the

[1:52:05] language. Luckily this bill

[1:52:06] is not 52 pages.

[1:52:07] >> and just so you

[1:52:11] know, lisalisa here as well.

[1:52:12] >> wonderful.

[1:52:13] >> to help you out with some of the

[1:52:14] details.

[1:52:15] >> thank you.

[1:52:17] actually, why don't I defer

[1:52:20] to lisa on that question?

[1:52:21] >>

[1:52:23] sure. Lisa, planning

[1:52:26] supervisor with design --so the

[1:52:29] area that we're generally talk

[1:52:30] about in this bill are areas that

[1:52:32] are connected or planned to

[1:52:35] be connected to public water

[1:52:37] and suer systems. So one of the things

[1:52:38] we're come back

[1:52:40] with, we have a graph of the zones

[1:52:41] and how much of them are covered

[1:52:44] by water and sewer, but if

[1:52:46] we're generally talking about our

[1:52:47] residential

[1:52:50] detach, so think

[1:52:53] 60, our 90,

[1:52:56] 40, 200, some of the residential state

[1:52:57] zones like ra

[1:52:59] 2, ra 1, but not the

[1:53:00] entirety of the zones because they're

[1:53:02] not all

[1:53:05] served by water and seer

[1:53:08] with which ms. Jordan said the problem

[1:53:09] one size

[1:53:10] fits all but our zones are not one

[1:53:11] size fits

[1:53:13] all.

[1:53:14] >> it's the majority of the county?

[1:53:15] >>

[1:53:16] the majority of the residential zones.

[1:53:17] >> residential zone.

[1:53:20] and the way that it is

[1:53:23] written, it's going to change it

[1:53:26] with no public input and no council

[1:53:29] oversight, so the thing is

[1:53:32] that supposedly this bill goes

[1:53:35] through people really don't follow

[1:53:36] it

[1:53:38] and suddenly everything in the county

[1:53:39] would

[1:53:41] change with no public

[1:53:43] input or the county council oversight.

[1:53:44] is that correct?

[1:53:47] >> I think the public input on the

[1:53:50] state legislative session.

[1:53:51] >> yeah.

[1:53:52] >>

[1:53:53] but generally there would be a lot

[1:53:54] of changes that would have to be

[1:53:55] made to minimum lot sizes, coverage

[1:53:56] and setback.

[1:53:59] there would be a lot of changes to those

[1:54:02] through this legislation.

[1:54:03] >> yeah.

[1:54:04] I know

[1:54:05] that's some of my --I can hear --

[1:54:08] but I do

[1:54:11] support, you know, what, you know, ms.

[1:54:14] borden talked about. That's something

[1:54:15] that we

[1:54:17] don't really know how it's going to

[1:54:18] be

[1:54:21] done and how it would

[1:54:23] work. You know, usually if you have

[1:54:26] public access available and everything, you

[1:54:27] know, public

[1:54:28] transportation or something, but this

[1:54:30] is not even looking at

[1:54:31] that. It's just looking at public

[1:54:33] water and

[1:54:35] sewer.

[1:54:36] >> that was one of the comments

[1:54:37] that the

[1:54:38] overarching comments we made this kind

[1:54:39] of

[1:54:41] goes against a lot of growth. A lot

[1:54:42] of

[1:54:45] our zones areare 200, for

[1:54:47] example, not exactly the most transit

[1:54:48] accessible zone for

[1:54:50] a lot of it and that goes against

[1:54:51] some of our

[1:54:54] basic --

[1:54:55] >> yes. And

[1:54:57] also the quality of life for

[1:54:58] the existing communities completely.

[1:55:00] that's why when

[1:55:01] you take the public input out that's the

[1:55:03] impact you could see.

[1:55:06] >> I would just

[1:55:08] like to comment that I've read through

[1:55:09] the language and

[1:55:11] it's incredibly complex and I appreciate

[1:55:14] the technical comments about sewer

[1:55:15] and water

[1:55:16] access but there's nothing in this

[1:55:18] billbill would do what we

[1:55:20] say we want to do is increase housing

[1:55:21] supply.

[1:55:23] we've seen and know from existing

[1:55:24] jurisdictions who have

[1:55:27] lowered the lot size to 1800

[1:55:28] square feet, I'm thinking of austin

[1:55:30] specifically we've seen a growth

[1:55:33] and growth in housing supply

[1:55:34] and we've seen empirically what happens

[1:55:36] when we do what we've been doing

[1:55:39] which is a crash in multi family

[1:55:41] starts. So we --the argument that

[1:55:42] we're not

[1:55:44] sure what's going to happen, I think

[1:55:45] empirically doesn't hold

[1:55:48] a ton of weight for

[1:55:50] me and I think from a goal standpoint

[1:55:51] we've been trying

[1:55:53] and we've been going backwards. So

[1:55:54] what we say we

[1:55:57] have a goal of affordable

[1:55:58] housing, increased housing supply

[1:56:00] and as a county we've

[1:56:03] gotten worse over the last year. Housing

[1:56:05] starts have been down badly. And I

[1:56:06] think there's

[1:56:08] nothing in this bill that's not empirically

[1:56:09] supported by

[1:56:12] evidence from outside of our

[1:56:13] jurisdiction that it will increase

[1:56:14] housing supply and not cause major issues.

[1:56:15] the

[1:56:17] things about the technical comments

[1:56:18] from, you know, things like access

[1:56:20] to sewer and water, one of the reasons

[1:56:21] that you don't have access

[1:56:23] to sewer and water out there is because

[1:56:26] it's intended to like stop housing

[1:56:27] supply out there.

[1:56:29] that's one of the reasons that we

[1:56:30] have in one of the

[1:56:32] richest counties in the world septic

[1:56:33] and well which

[1:56:34] I like don't quite understand coming

[1:56:36] from rural texas. You had

[1:56:37] septic and well because you couldn't

[1:56:39] get sewer and

[1:56:42] public water where I was from.

[1:56:45] and we've talked about it in the

[1:56:47] planning commission before about the

[1:56:48] safety,

[1:56:49] collapse of those and pollution that

[1:56:51] happens with these septic systems.

[1:56:53] I appreciate technical corrections

[1:56:54] there. I

[1:56:56] understand and would support some

[1:56:57] comment like

[1:56:58] that, but I think we should expand

[1:57:00] public sewer and water for a

[1:57:02] variety of reasons not the least of

[1:57:03] which being housing

[1:57:05] supply. We have goals that we have

[1:57:06] stated. If this is

[1:57:08] a turf battle let's just say it's

[1:57:09] a turf battle. If this

[1:57:12] is a policy goal, then let's

[1:57:14] treat it as policy goals. I said very

[1:57:15] similar

[1:57:16] things at the overall meeting yesterday.

[1:57:18] I'm fine with

[1:57:21] technical comments. I'm fine with

[1:57:23] discussing issues here. But the actual

[1:57:25] policies implemented here are things we

[1:57:27] have talked about and discussed with

[1:57:28] attainable housing and other situations.

[1:57:30] if it's a turf battle it's

[1:57:33] a turf battle. If it's a policy

[1:57:35] issue treat is as a policy issue.

[1:57:36] nothing jumps out from

[1:57:39] my reading here that this is in any

[1:57:40] way, shape, or

[1:57:41] form a danger to anything that --

[1:57:44] or any of our stated goals. And we

[1:57:45] have the

[1:57:47] evidence for that. We have other jurisdictions

[1:57:48] who have

[1:57:50] experienced all the things mentioned in

[1:57:51] this policy. We can

[1:57:54] go with actual data. And we can go with goals

[1:57:55] and policies

[1:57:56] that we've set forth and thrive in

[1:57:57] our situations.

[1:57:59] so I think overall we should treat

[1:58:00] this as a policy

[1:58:03] issue not as a one size fits all because

[1:58:04] this

[1:58:06] isn't one size fits all. This is taking

[1:58:07] away the

[1:58:08] level of unnecessary complexity we have

[1:58:09] layered on

[1:58:11] over decades and decades which we

[1:58:12] know inhibits the growth of housing supply.

[1:58:15] treat it one way

[1:58:17] or the other but let's be particular about

[1:58:18] what we're doing. Those are my comments on it.

[1:58:24] >> linden?

[1:58:27] >> yeah.

[1:58:30] I don't have much to add to

[1:58:33] that.

[1:58:36] I agree with

[1:58:38] commissioner hedrick's comments almost

[1:58:42] entirely. I do take the point about sort

[1:58:43] of, you

[1:58:45] know, how does this square with kind

[1:58:46] of

[1:58:48] smart growth principles. It would

[1:58:51] be lisa, it would be great

[1:58:55] to see kind of a map of

[1:58:57] what you're describing and just understanding

[1:58:58] throughout the county kind of which --

[1:59:01] where this would apply and

[1:59:03] proximity to various things, but I

[1:59:05] also, you know, based on everything

[1:59:07] we were

[1:59:08] saying and what commissioner hedrick

[1:59:10] was getting

[1:59:13] at, the

[1:59:14] water/sewer infrastructure right now --

[1:59:16] apologies,

[1:59:19] that's my 6-month-old --but the

[1:59:22] water/sewer infrastructure kind

[1:59:25] of functionally serves as

[1:59:28] a boundary to

[1:59:31] try to constrain

[1:59:33] housing stock or at least density

[1:59:36] generally but place it in closer proximity

[1:59:38] to other infrastructure. We can debate

[1:59:40] the merits of that, of course,

[1:59:43] but that exists and the

[1:59:45] bill seems to acknowledge that. Also kind

[1:59:46] of layers on

[1:59:48] that, that constraint in terms of

[1:59:49] where this

[1:59:52] would apply. But outside of

[1:59:54] that, I tend to think that minimum

[1:59:55] lot sizes

[1:59:56] and really driving those down, the

[1:59:58] size

[2:00:01] of those, I think that that

[2:00:04] is a great strategy

[2:00:07] and I agree with commissioner hedrick

[2:00:08] evidence across the country shows

[2:00:09] it actually does move the needle.

[2:00:10] there are some

[2:00:12] mixed results when it comes to like

[2:00:15] middle housing in terms of performance,

[2:00:16] the devil

[2:00:18] is in the details of housing in a lot

[2:00:19] of ways.

[2:00:21] some communities have moved forward

[2:00:22] with great success.

[2:00:25] others are kind of stagnant. But

[2:00:28] dropping the minimum lot size

[2:00:31] is a way to, in some

[2:00:33] cases, functionally achieve middle

[2:00:34] housing

[2:00:36] densities even if we can't get middle

[2:00:37] housing

[2:00:40] types like multiplexes.

[2:00:42] this would legalize townhomes which I

[2:00:43] think is a

[2:00:45] great addition as well. But the minimum

[2:00:46] lot size, you

[2:00:49] know, particularly in a county

[2:00:52] like ours, where

[2:00:54] there's so much variability, even

[2:00:55] within our 60 or

[2:00:58] 90 --we had this conversation on attainable

[2:01:00] housing, huge distribution of lot

[2:01:01] sizes,

[2:01:03] and right now I'm just thinking specifically

[2:01:04] in my

[2:01:07] neighborhood just as

[2:01:09] one example, I know personally of

[2:01:13] two 20,000 foot r-60 lots that can right

[2:01:15] now hold one house. Or they could

[2:01:16] try to split

[2:01:19] it to get

[2:01:22] down to, you know, a

[2:01:24] few, you know, 6,000 minimum. But

[2:01:25] this really, you know,

[2:01:27] this increases it beyond that, right.

[2:01:28] like, this really tries to

[2:01:31] maximize

[2:01:33] the land we have close to infrastructure,

[2:01:37] closer to the infrastructure we already

[2:01:40] have, and, you know, it doesn't

[2:01:43] really try to get into other --introducing

[2:01:45] other housing types which, you know,

[2:01:49] there's, obviously, benefits for that

[2:01:52] as well in terms of

[2:01:55] attainability in

[2:01:57] different needs. In terms of supply, to

[2:01:58] provide more supply,

[2:02:00] where we're not seeing multi families,

[2:02:01] we just

[2:02:04] need to keep doing things, and

[2:02:07] I'm not particularly concerned that

[2:02:08] the state

[2:02:10] doing something

[2:02:13] potentially and not us. We kind of

[2:02:16] live in a regional community and everything relates

[2:02:17] to

[2:02:18] each other and I think having a flat

[2:02:19] floor or a

[2:02:21] set standard across the entire state

[2:02:22] is actually a good

[2:02:25] thing in many

[2:02:28] ways. I think it would benefit

[2:02:30] us, too. So I --which is all to say

[2:02:31] that,

[2:02:34] yeah, the technical

[2:02:37] clarifications and comments and suggestions

[2:02:40] based on our particular circumstances I

[2:02:41] think

[2:02:43] that sounds great. But I also agree

[2:02:44] that I think this

[2:02:46] is one example of maybe kind of

[2:02:49] keeping our eye on

[2:02:51] the policy ball and given what we

[2:02:52] know about

[2:02:54] how difficult things can be, here in

[2:02:55] the county, with

[2:02:58] our master plan,

[2:03:01] with

[2:03:04] policy, attainable

[2:03:06] housing, it seems like there's --

[2:03:07] sorry about that --seems like

[2:03:09] the state wants to work with us and

[2:03:10] help us.

[2:03:11] >>

[2:03:13] yeah. Great.

[2:03:14] >> and I think this is

[2:03:15] one case we should welcome that help.

[2:03:16] >> can

[2:03:22] >> the

[2:03:24] minimum lot size included here is

[2:03:25] 5,000 square feet.

[2:03:28] not that much smaller than our existing

[2:03:31] r60 and a minimum sized

[2:03:34] r90. We have oversized

[2:03:37] lots, but this is not making

[2:03:39] radical changes to our residential

[2:03:40] zones.

[2:03:41] >>

[2:03:43] well, yes and no. So, we

[2:03:46] have more land

[2:03:49] area in our 200 within

[2:03:52] the qualifying area than r60 and r90.

[2:03:54] >> that is because of large lots.

[2:03:55] >> yes.

[2:03:58] the minimum lot sizes are

[2:04:01] 220,000.

[2:04:04] this is a combination of

[2:04:07] issues. There is a turf battle, and

[2:04:08] there

[2:04:09] is a policy issue. It is both. The

[2:04:10] state, in

[2:04:13] doing this, is applying

[2:04:16] very specific zoning requirements

[2:04:17] and

[2:04:19] standards, kind of in a blanket way

[2:04:20] across the

[2:04:22] entire state. It is a one size fits

[2:04:23] all

[2:04:24] without regard to differences between

[2:04:25] counties. But

[2:04:28] then there is also within our county,

[2:04:29] it

[2:04:31] is applying a one size fits all. It

[2:04:32] does

[2:04:34] not recognize that, you know, we

[2:04:37] take a scalpel to

[2:04:40] our zoning.

[2:04:43] we look property by property. This

[2:04:44] would

[2:04:46] apply to 14 different zones in montgomery

[2:04:48] county that have 14 distinct purposes

[2:04:52] and reasons. Instead of a scalpel

[2:04:53] it

[2:04:55] is a

[2:04:58] machete.

[2:04:59] >> some of them are

[2:05:00] townhome density ones.

[2:05:01] >> we can come

[2:05:02] back with maps that

[2:05:03] show you where it would apply, but

[2:05:07] the concern is

[2:05:10] that we have decades in the state

[2:05:11] with

[2:05:12] policy and within montgomery county.

[2:05:15] I mean we just did a general plan

[2:05:16] update where we

[2:05:19] were explicit about smart

[2:05:21] growth, sustainable growth patterns.

[2:05:22] we have

[2:05:25] lots and zones

[2:05:28] that it would apply to that are zoned

[2:05:31] as large lot residential uses for

[2:05:34] that purpose. So the concern here is not

[2:05:35] every

[2:05:37] area that has water and sewer service

[2:05:38] in montgomery

[2:05:39] county is an area that we have said

[2:05:41] is

[2:05:44] a priority for growth.

[2:05:46] generally the idea of smaller lot

[2:05:47] sizes is

[2:05:49] great. We talked about stuff like

[2:05:50] that a lot.

[2:05:51] but really in the areas that we see

[2:05:53] the

[2:05:55] infrastructure and we see our near

[2:05:56] existing

[2:05:58] centers. Infrastructure is more than

[2:05:59] water and

[2:06:02] sewer. If they came in and said

[2:06:04] this applies only to areas within

[2:06:05] a certain distance

[2:06:08] of transit or other existing

[2:06:09] infrastructure, then I would say that

[2:06:11] it is more of a

[2:06:14] turf battle than a policy

[2:06:17] battle.

[2:06:23] >> we are going

[2:06:26] to hear this. But it would be

[2:06:29] great if youryour can come back.

[2:06:32] if it said x,

[2:06:34] you know, what would you have to say

[2:06:35] to

[2:06:37] bring it back to the board for you

[2:06:38] to

[2:06:41] say yes,

[2:06:42] this is something that would be good to

[2:06:44] do?

[2:06:47] you know,

[2:06:50] I do agree.

[2:06:53] the county does want it in

[2:06:56] certain areas.

[2:07:02] where would we want to have

[2:07:05] the smaller lots that are 55,000 square

[2:07:08] feet or less?

[2:07:14] but we need to keep

[2:07:17] going here.

[2:07:20] miss borden.

[2:07:21] >> yes, we

[2:07:22] do. Thank you for that discussion.

[2:07:26] I really

[2:07:29] appreciate how tricky that

[2:07:31] these issues are with this matter,

[2:07:32] you know.

[2:07:35] this affordable

[2:07:37] housing push has been a multiyear

[2:07:38] effort.

[2:07:41] we are going to get both of

[2:07:44] the

[2:07:47] planning

[2:07:50] departments together to

[2:07:53] talk about alternatives. You

[2:07:56] know, we do not want

[2:07:59] this to

[2:08:02] be viewed as a turf battle. We

[2:08:05] want to help.

[2:08:14] it

[2:08:17] is a tricky difficult puzzle and don't

[2:08:18] think

[2:08:20] the one size fits all approach will

[2:08:22] work. We are ready to do that. We

[2:08:23] will do

[2:08:26] our best to do.

[2:08:29] but I wanted to make the

[2:08:31] point that we tried the scalpel and

[2:08:32] the opposite of one

[2:08:35] size fits all with 14 different residential

[2:08:38] zones. What have we gotten for our

[2:08:41] efforts? A housing crisis. We are

[2:08:43] totally fine with a one size fits

[2:08:44] all approach when

[2:08:47] it is a limit on development and

[2:08:50] supply.

[2:09:05] one other comment.

[2:09:08] can we be nice

[2:09:10] if the state would have policies that

[2:09:14] would incentivize. They

[2:09:17] need policies that would move

[2:09:19] the needle enough where people would

[2:09:20] say yes in this

[2:09:23] case. Right now. Let's do it.

[2:09:26] how? Is there money out there?

[2:09:29] is there whatever? How do you

[2:09:32] incentivize this. You know, this

[2:09:35] is human nature. Please. I know

[2:09:38] that you have more to go. We

[2:09:41] only allocated --

[2:09:42] >> I

[2:09:44] just want to say that I

[2:09:46] do support what the director said.

[2:09:47] I think

[2:09:49] that is how the approach should be

[2:09:50] to make it

[2:09:53] happen and to prioritize the

[2:09:56] areas where we could do this. Not

[2:09:59] as a whole.

[2:10:11] >> hb10.

[2:10:13] legal advertisement or notice. This

[2:10:14] bill is a long

[2:10:17] time coming. We really hope the bill

[2:10:18] passes.

[2:10:20] this would basically change the definition

[2:10:23] of legal notice.

[2:10:26] it

[2:10:29] would allow the use of

[2:10:32] digital media.

[2:10:35] you

[2:10:38] have to go to a digital media publication

[2:10:41] that publishes online and pay them

[2:10:44] to publish your

[2:10:47] notice.

[2:10:53] you can use it

[2:10:56] instead of a print publication.

[2:10:59] we think this will save us

[2:11:02] money. You know, we think that it

[2:11:03] is a

[2:11:05] really good idea. We do a lot of

[2:11:08] notice publications in our planning

[2:11:09] departments.

[2:11:11] particularly for master

[2:11:15] plans. Community planning does a

[2:11:18] lot of

[2:11:21] legal notice and occasional

[2:11:24] notice at the

[2:11:27] corporate

[2:11:30] level. So,

[2:11:31] we are very much in support of this.

[2:11:33] we didn't have to

[2:11:35] think about it too much. But we prepared

[2:11:39] some comments.

[2:11:41] if you have questions I would be happy

[2:11:45] to answer them.

[2:11:54] is the legal

[2:11:57] notice going to be

[2:12:00] limited?

[2:12:06] with

[2:12:08] community interest or alsoalso affect

[2:12:12] proceedings?

[2:12:15] >>

[2:12:18] any statutory requirement for

[2:12:21] legal notice.

[2:12:27] I don't know if I

[2:12:29] can abstain from this. I am against

[2:12:32] electronic --

[2:12:33] >> except provided by

[2:12:34] law

[2:12:36] a resolution or

[2:12:39] court order.

[2:12:42] this is

[2:12:45] for other cases, by newspaper

[2:12:46] or newspaper in general circulation.

[2:12:48] that is the

[2:12:50] current term. Now they just added

[2:12:51] that

[2:12:53] it can mean print or digital publication.

[2:12:56] there is congratulational criteria

[2:12:57] to make sure

[2:12:59] it is a legitimate outlet, but it

[2:13:00] does not

[2:13:02] affect the court stuff.

[2:13:03] >> thank you

[2:13:04] emily.

[2:13:05] >>

[2:13:06] yeah.

[2:13:09] giving notice of a

[2:13:14] this property is going to be rezoned.

[2:13:15] >> not for

[2:13:17] mailing. It does not affect mailing

[2:13:18] notices, only

[2:13:19] when it specifically says by newspaper.

[2:13:24] you know, generally that is the

[2:13:27] master plan.

[2:13:30] the super.

[2:13:36] it

[2:13:39] just says allow. Now go to a

[2:13:40] legitimate digital source as well.

[2:13:42] >> okay.

[2:13:45] the

[2:13:48] digital newspaper.

[2:13:51] how do the people know to

[2:13:54] go to the digital newspaper?

[2:13:55] >> people

[2:13:56] are doing it now. I think partly what

[2:13:57] we

[2:13:59] are thinking is that we will reach

[2:14:00] more people. The number

[2:14:02] of people that get a newspaper now

[2:14:03] is

[2:14:05] dwindling significantly. So many people

[2:14:06] get

[2:14:09] it electronically.

[2:14:18] I don't know about the costs.

[2:14:21] the newspapers know know this.

[2:14:24] sometimes it is less. Sometimes

[2:14:27] it is not.

[2:14:30] the planning department realizes that

[2:14:33] is how they reach a lot of

[2:14:36] people, through electronic

[2:14:39] opposed to paper.

[2:14:48] you can do the digital version

[2:14:51] of the

[2:14:54] newspapers.

[2:14:57] I have a question about cost.

[2:15:00] miss borden said that it would be

[2:15:01] less

[2:15:03] expensive.

[2:15:06] how?

[2:15:09] >> I think that it just depends on

[2:15:12] the outlet. Maybe we just don't know.

[2:15:15] I think that it depends.

[2:15:16] >> I don't

[2:15:18] know. And without endorsing any outlet,

[2:15:19] I

[2:15:21] will say that an example, you know,

[2:15:22] right now

[2:15:24] when we have aa

[2:15:26] hearing we advertise in the washington

[2:15:27] times. We don't

[2:15:29] have a print publication in montgomery

[2:15:30] county, however

[2:15:33] we have the new

[2:15:36] banner. Bethesda magazine.

[2:15:39] we have other local digital media

[2:15:40] outlets

[2:15:42] that we could be

[2:15:45] using that would probably connect

[2:15:46] more

[2:15:48] to montgomery

[2:15:51] county residents and it may

[2:15:53] be cheaper but we have not done it.

[2:15:54] >> I

[2:15:57] am curious. I always wanted to ask

[2:15:58] this. Why

[2:16:00] the times? Why not

[2:16:02] the post?

[2:16:03] >> I think it is cheaper than

[2:16:04] the post.

[2:16:06] >> that was all.

[2:16:09] >> I am against

[2:16:12] the

[2:16:15] .

[2:16:16] >> I can't support it with

[2:16:18] me knows how

[2:16:21] electronic

[2:16:24] publications can manipulate

[2:16:27] the information. If there is

[2:16:30] an error made but

[2:16:33] not in print.

[2:16:39] I

[2:16:42] think that print media is better

[2:16:46] to capture the areas without

[2:16:49] edits that would deprive the

[2:16:52] public for fair opportunity.

[2:16:55] I can't support digital

[2:16:58] publication.

[2:17:00] it has happened with banks who have

[2:17:01] given digital

[2:17:03] statements, make an error and go back

[2:17:04] and correct

[2:17:06] the statements opposed to republishing or reprinting

[2:17:07] the error.

[2:17:18] >> I can't support it. >> isn't it

[2:17:19] true that

[2:17:22] electronic media does

[2:17:24] not --

[2:17:25] >> they can do a publication

[2:17:26] that

[2:17:28] is incorrect that would

[2:17:31] require them to

[2:17:34] lish and set the deadline and

[2:17:37] the timeline. Instead of

[2:17:40] republishing in lifetime they

[2:17:42] only reset the date. When you have

[2:17:43] a

[2:17:45] publication that is incorrect and

[2:17:46] requires a

[2:17:49] notice. It requires a new

[2:17:51] publication and the deadline and the

[2:17:54] timeline. My concern if you make an

[2:17:56] error electronically, and say the

[2:17:58] clock starts

[2:18:01] ticking now rather than them

[2:18:03] republishing and then having the new timeline.

[2:18:04] you

[2:18:06] can go back and correct the error

[2:18:07] and not

[2:18:09] reset the clock and allege there was

[2:18:10] no

[2:18:13] error at all.

[2:18:25] when

[2:18:26] you electronically publish something and

[2:18:28] there is an

[2:18:31] error,

[2:18:34] there is the possibility where they

[2:18:35] correct something electronically and say

[2:18:37] no. It was

[2:18:40] always that way.

[2:18:49] in print, there is no

[2:18:52] edit.

[2:19:01] can you add

[2:19:04] something

[2:19:06] or how would you address that?

[2:19:07] >>

[2:19:08] I would not

[2:19:10] address it in

[2:19:13] the physical statement.

[2:19:16] if we were

[2:19:18] to use digital publication that we

[2:19:19] would have

[2:19:22] to have

[2:19:25] a printed representation

[2:19:28] of what was the

[2:19:31] digital legal

[2:19:34] notice

[2:19:37] that we can compare that the

[2:19:39] notice has been changed. It would

[2:19:40] be

[2:19:42] a part of our process that we have

[2:19:43] to print

[2:19:46] the original

[2:19:49] notice when it

[2:19:52] goes out and print from the website

[2:19:53] or

[2:19:54] the publication so that we have it

[2:19:55] on day one

[2:19:58] so that we can then

[2:20:01] use that as

[2:20:03] our verification that is what it said

[2:20:04] on day one. If

[2:20:07] it gets changed, we have a bone

[2:20:10] to pick with the publisher. We can

[2:20:11] extend

[2:20:13] the time that we need, you know, in

[2:20:14] terms

[2:20:16] of the notice period. We have a lot

[2:20:17] of

[2:20:18] experience doing that and working

[2:20:19] with that. You know,

[2:20:22] our signs. Signs

[2:20:25] get blown down.

[2:20:34] if the sign is

[2:20:37] blown down a

[2:20:40] notice period would be extended so

[2:20:41] everybody can

[2:20:42] go to the hearing or be notified of

[2:20:43] the

[2:20:46] hearing. It is not

[2:20:48] that much different.

[2:20:49] >> I am supportive

[2:20:50] if this goes

[2:20:52] through that is in the process.

[2:20:55] you know.

[2:20:58] >> we would make it so.

[2:21:01] >> okay.

[2:21:10] >> do we

[2:21:12] need a vote for that one?

[2:21:13] >> yeah.

[2:21:14] thank you. Do we have

[2:21:16] a vote on that one so

[2:21:19] that we are

[2:21:22] sure we

[2:21:25] can make the representation.

[2:21:26] >>

[2:21:28] I move for approval.

[2:21:29] >> all in favor.

[2:21:30] >>

[2:21:31] aye.

[2:21:32] >> aye.

[2:21:34] >> aye.

[2:21:49] >> okay. The

[2:21:52] next one is sb121, public

[2:21:55] servant protections.

[2:21:58] this is part two, really. Part one

[2:21:59] was

[2:22:01] the

[2:22:04] wilkinson act.

[2:22:07] I think that went through last year

[2:22:08] or

[2:22:10] the year before.

[2:22:16] if you were

[2:22:19] a judge in this case you

[2:22:21] could request your personal information

[2:22:22] to be removed

[2:22:25] from websites run by

[2:22:28] government entities.

[2:22:40] he is used to

[2:22:42] dealing with these requests. It has

[2:22:43] been running smoothly.

[2:22:46] we have not had problems or hiccups

[2:22:47] with

[2:22:49] it. This is now expanding

[2:22:52] the wilkinson act, basically, to

[2:22:55] other people who

[2:22:59] are

[2:23:02] in

[2:23:04] need of extra protection. What the

[2:23:05] new

[2:23:08] bill will do is add, in addition

[2:23:11] to

[2:23:12] judges, attorneys. Members of the

[2:23:16] general assembly. Various, you know,

[2:23:17] different

[2:23:19] actors. Let me go through and get

[2:23:23] the list.

[2:23:26] it

[2:23:29] would allow

[2:23:31] them to request their personal information

[2:23:32] to

[2:23:35] be

[2:23:38] removed. Protected

[2:23:39] individuals include attorneys, state

[2:23:41] prosecutor, state's

[2:23:44] attorney, u.s. Attorney. Current

[2:23:47] or retired law enforcement.

[2:23:49] retired member of the police force

[2:23:50] or other member

[2:23:53] of the united states. Federal,

[2:23:56] state or local elected officials.

[2:23:59] spouses and

[2:24:02] depend ants of those folks. You

[2:24:04] know, if their information and address

[2:24:08] would appear in our

[2:24:10] system they can request for that information

[2:24:11] to

[2:24:14] be removed. Now, when it gets to be

[2:24:15] that the information is a part of

[2:24:17] our record in a case

[2:24:20] it gets a little

[2:24:23] bit complicated.

[2:24:32] but you know, as the list

[2:24:34] expands, and we expect that it will

[2:24:38] continue to expand.

[2:24:41] we might

[2:24:43] have to add resources to deal with

[2:24:47] the requests.

[2:24:55] I will stop there and see if you have

[2:24:56] any questions.

[2:24:59] >> I think that this is a

[2:25:02] good idea.

[2:25:08] I

[2:25:11] think they need to have

[2:25:17] anonimity because of the views others

[2:25:18] share,

[2:25:20] however I think there needs to be

[2:25:21] an

[2:25:22] ability to obtain the addresses in

[2:25:25] the event that these people or individuals

[2:25:26] are subject

[2:25:28] to legal actions that require them

[2:25:29] to

[2:25:32] be served.

[2:25:38] if there is a request for

[2:25:41] their addresses for the purposes

[2:25:44] of constituting a legal

[2:25:47] matter against

[2:25:50] them

[2:25:52] I think that needs to be available

[2:25:53] for those

[2:25:55] reasons only and there needs to be

[2:25:56] a way

[2:25:59] it is managed. An example would be

[2:26:02] an off duty police officer driving

[2:26:05] his private vehicle is involved

[2:26:07] in an automobile accident and subject

[2:26:11] now to a personal injury claim.

[2:26:14] they are not

[2:26:17] expect from being

[2:26:20] pursued in a civil

[2:26:23] litigation act. Being

[2:26:25] served and it shouldn't be allowed.

[2:26:26] there

[2:26:29] has to be some kind of

[2:26:32] a

[2:26:35] provision

[2:26:40] provision.

[2:26:41] >> thank you for that.

[2:26:42] how would

[2:26:44] we address that?

[2:26:50] >> I think that idea

[2:26:53] is being addressed. The bill is establishing

[2:26:56] a program under

[2:26:59] the secretary of

[2:27:02] state that would be the

[2:27:05] clearing house for the confidentiality

[2:27:08] requests. You know, just like the

[2:27:10] secretary of state is where you would

[2:27:11] go if

[2:27:14] you can't find a resident agent to

[2:27:15] serve. You

[2:27:16] would go to the secretary of state

[2:27:17] if you

[2:27:19] could not find an address because someone

[2:27:20] requested the confidentiality.

[2:27:26] >> you are saying that

[2:27:28] there is a way to get the information?

[2:27:29] >> yes. The bill

[2:27:31] is establishing the program under

[2:27:32] the secretary of state. Yeah.

[2:27:35] you would go there. You would go there

[2:27:38] in order to get the information.

[2:27:47] I don't know. This is not the

[2:27:50] type of thing that we get involved

[2:27:51] in. You

[2:27:52] know, usually we are dealing with the people

[2:27:53] that come

[2:27:56] and testify and give their address.

[2:27:57] you know,

[2:27:59] we are not generally the place

[2:28:01] to go if you are looking for someone.

[2:28:02] >> okay.

[2:28:05] any other comments or

[2:28:08] questions?

[2:28:11] is there

[2:28:14] a motion?

[2:28:15] >> one more. I'm sorry.

[2:28:18] >> yeah. We do have one more. We

[2:28:19] don't have a position statement for

[2:28:21] it. Just

[2:28:24] very quickly, this is a

[2:28:27] bill that would

[2:28:30] require --those were informational

[2:28:32] comments. We don't need a vote on

[2:28:33] that unless you

[2:28:36] do want us to take a position

[2:28:39] on the protected

[2:28:42] individuals.

[2:28:51] so,

[2:28:54] the last one, I promise,

[2:28:55] public schools, water safety and swimming

[2:28:57] course.

[2:28:58] this bill would require the state

[2:29:00] board of

[2:29:03] education to develop a crim lumb

[2:29:04] around water safety and swimming.

[2:29:06] this is the

[2:29:09] second time that the

[2:29:11] bill has come before the general assembly.

[2:29:12] we would

[2:29:14] like to support the bill. We think

[2:29:15] that it

[2:29:17] can be workable in the sense that

[2:29:21] it requires a crim lumb but it

[2:29:22] does not require each school to have

[2:29:24] a pool. Water

[2:29:25] safety is important. Obviously we

[2:29:27] have facilities.

[2:29:29] some of our facilities have pools

[2:29:30] and some of

[2:29:33] the facilities are

[2:29:35] in close proximity to public schools.

[2:29:36] we are

[2:29:39] happy to work with schools to help them

[2:29:42] with this curriculum as

[2:29:45] well as help

[2:29:48] them

[2:29:57] do or plan for implementation. I

[2:30:00] will stop there.

[2:30:03] there is

[2:30:05] a class, and how do we participate

[2:30:09] in the class?

[2:30:12] there

[2:30:15] are models for this

[2:30:18] throughout the country.

[2:30:24] we

[2:30:27] want to talk about water

[2:30:30] safety courses.

[2:30:36] we are a

[2:30:39] resource, and we

[2:30:42] want to

[2:30:54] we are raising our hand to

[2:30:57] help and

[2:31:00] do

[2:31:12] .

[2:31:13] >> last year

[2:31:14] I did verbal testimony with her on

[2:31:15] the bill and she has

[2:31:18] been working with the parks and

[2:31:21] recreation department to ensure

[2:31:24] that we

[2:31:27] provide sound

[2:31:29] feedback and recommendation for the

[2:31:30] bill. Last year,

[2:31:33] I think we

[2:31:36] just offered

[2:31:39] verbal testimony in

[2:31:42] support of the bill.

[2:31:43] >> have

[2:31:44] you talked to the public schools?

[2:31:45] >> yeah.

[2:31:48] are they supported?

[2:31:51] does it come with financing?

[2:31:54] this is probably where

[2:31:57] they have to bus the kids

[2:32:00] during the school hour to go to the

[2:32:02] pool and come back. It is not free.

[2:32:03] >> you

[2:32:06] know, it is explained to us that

[2:32:08] the curriculum can include pool time

[2:32:09] but it does not

[2:32:12] have to. It can literally

[2:32:15] just be classroom instruction

[2:32:18] about water safety.

[2:32:19] >>

[2:32:21] but it says swimming.

[2:32:24] yes.

[2:32:27] swimming course.

[2:32:33] it is a great thing if they do,

[2:32:36] but I am saying if the public school

[2:32:37] gets

[2:32:39] funding for that.

[2:32:45] even though it

[2:32:48] says swimming

[2:32:51] course

[2:32:53] doesn't mean they have to go to the

[2:32:54] pool.

[2:32:55] >> it

[2:32:57] is more of a

[2:33:00] safety course.

[2:33:09] it is about

[2:33:12] basically safety on

[2:33:15] the water.

[2:33:22] they want

[2:33:25] to be able to assist the

[2:33:28] sponsor, you

[2:33:31] know,

[2:33:34] talk about how it can

[2:33:37] be

[2:33:39] implemented without a pool or water-

[2:33:43] based approaches.

[2:33:50] we can get more information and have

[2:33:52] a more

[2:33:53] detailed presentation next week if

[2:33:55] you want, but we did not

[2:33:56] plan to do a position statement on

[2:33:58] this.

[2:34:00] we wanted to just interact with the

[2:34:01] sponsor and have

[2:34:03] you aware that we are going to interact

[2:34:04] with a sponsor.

[2:34:07] no need for a vote.

[2:34:08] >> it is great

[2:34:09] that you brought it before us. We

[2:34:10] are learning

[2:34:13] more about it.

[2:34:16] yeah.

[2:34:17] >> I

[2:34:18] wanted to mention something. I think that we

[2:34:19] do want to

[2:34:22] do a statement on it. I think

[2:34:24] that we have time to bring it back

[2:34:25] next week.

[2:34:28] we want to get a statement, and we

[2:34:29] want to get support on thethe bill.

[2:34:31] >> we will

[2:34:33] have more information when we bring

[2:34:34] back a

[2:34:35] draft position statement.

[2:34:36] >> often

[2:34:37] given

[2:34:40] that it affects both counties

[2:34:43] is there someone that could

[2:34:46] check our department

[2:34:49] of recreation.

[2:34:58] we can check with gabe

[2:35:01] or someone there.

[2:35:06] >> she is as it does not include swimming.

[2:35:09] it does make sense to include swimming,

[2:35:11] but it is not playing with the water.

[2:35:15] >> I think that it does say there

[2:35:19] are options.

[2:35:28] they will be

[2:35:30] participating in this in either event.

[2:35:34] we will find

[2:35:37] out --

[2:35:43] >> one

[2:35:46] last thing.

[2:35:51] can you check with the rec department

[2:35:52] and make sure

[2:35:54] they have seen this? I don't know

[2:35:55] if they

[2:35:57] weighed in last year? I am fine with

[2:35:58] it.

[2:36:01] I wanted to touch the

[2:36:04] bases.

[2:36:13] >> that's it.

[2:36:15] all we have.

[2:36:16] >> one more comment.

[2:36:19] >> yeah. Is this bill

[2:36:22] going to be

[2:36:25] mandatory with regards

[2:36:28] to the department

[2:36:31] of education?

[2:36:32] >>

[2:36:33] it would be a mandatory requirement

[2:36:34] they

[2:36:37] develop a curriculum. How

[2:36:40] they implement would depend on the

[2:36:42] local boards and schools, but again

[2:36:43] that is something

[2:36:46] that we want to help the

[2:36:49] sponsor with.

[2:36:52] >> I am

[2:36:55] against the bill.

[2:37:04] I don't think

[2:37:07] that it had

[2:37:10] it all. It is a distraction from focusing

[2:37:13] on the blueprint.

[2:37:14] >> okay. >>

[2:37:16] you will comecome

[2:37:19] next --what?

[2:37:21] >> we will get back to you next week

[2:37:22] with a

[2:37:24] bit more information and proposed

[2:37:25] language.

[2:37:26] >> great.

[2:37:28] thank you.

[2:37:31] thank

[2:37:34] you. This is the start of

[2:37:37] many, many

[2:37:40] discussions

[2:37:46] we are go to

[2:37:49] take a two-minute break and

[2:37:52] then start with the next

[2:37:55] item, number 5. Briefing

[2:37:58] community trends

[2:38:00] report, a look at montgomery county communities since 2010.

[2:38:01] thank you.

[2:42:14] >> we are

[2:42:17] on item number 5. A look at montgomery

[2:42:18] county

[2:42:20] community since 2010. Staff is providing a

[2:42:21] briefing to

[2:42:23] the board. We have james lee of the

[2:42:24] planning department this

[2:42:26] morning leading the presentation

[2:42:29] with his distinguished cast of teammates

[2:42:30] there.

[2:42:32] thank you.

[2:42:33] >> chair harris, members

[2:42:34] of

[2:42:35] the planning board thank you. I am

[2:42:38] james lee forecaster and

[2:42:41] demographic research andist with the

[2:42:42] strategic

[2:42:44] projects division. I have the team

[2:42:45] members

[2:42:47] here today for the

[2:42:50] project.

[2:42:53] lisa

[2:42:56] and bob and

[2:42:59] colin and the division

[2:43:01] chief, kerry mccarthy here today.

[2:43:02] for

[2:43:03] today's informational briefing for

[2:43:05] the planning board, we have

[2:43:07] the community trends report. A look

[2:43:08] at montgomery

[2:43:10] county communities since 2010. The

[2:43:11] new publication

[2:43:14] by the research and strategic projects

[2:43:15] division

[2:43:17] is the culmination of more than two

[2:43:18] years of work by

[2:43:20] the staff members here. We are delighted

[2:43:24] to bring it to

[2:43:27] you today.

[2:43:30] we

[2:43:32] will go over the project background

[2:43:33] and discuss

[2:43:35] key findings divided into place, people

[2:43:36] and

[2:43:38] housing. Then we will do a dash board

[2:43:39] demo.

[2:43:41] we will ask a planning boardmember

[2:43:42] to tell

[2:43:44] us which communities information you

[2:43:45] would like to see

[2:43:47] and will conclude with key points

[2:43:48] about the report

[2:43:51] and our analysis. We do

[2:43:54] have a long presentation so a

[2:43:57] fair warning here.

[2:44:02] first of all, let's start with the

[2:44:06] project origins, goals

[2:44:08] and methods. Work started in 2024,

[2:44:09] and it is

[2:44:12] the research division's first

[2:44:14] comprehensive study of four small areas

[2:44:15] of the

[2:44:17] county. Staff previously completed

[2:44:20] county-wide level analysis for master

[2:44:21] planning

[2:44:24] efforts, the report provides

[2:44:26] a detailed look all parts of the county

[2:44:28] including places where the master plans have not recently

[2:44:30] been conducted.

[2:44:35] while the report is new to montgomery

[2:44:36] county, we

[2:44:39] drew inspiration from

[2:44:40] organizations across the united states

[2:44:42] with

[2:44:44] existing level products. For example

[2:44:45] we

[2:44:48] looked at information from

[2:44:49] the new york university center for real

[2:44:51] estate and urban policy. We

[2:44:54] also looked at information from houston,

[2:44:56] texas, portland, oregon, the city

[2:44:57] of

[2:45:00] chicago, et cetera.

[2:45:02] we set out to do the project and we

[2:45:03] had several goals

[2:45:05] in mind. First, document changing

[2:45:09] conditions objectively. Second, inform

[2:45:12] policy makers in the public of local

[2:45:13] trends

[2:45:14] and patterns across the county over

[2:45:15] time, and

[2:45:17] third support policy and other decision

[2:45:18] making with useful

[2:45:21] and easily accessible and

[2:45:24] understandable data. The report

[2:45:26] consists of an online pdf publication

[2:45:27] with

[2:45:30] 38 community profiles --

[2:45:32] 37 communities and one for the county

[2:45:33] as a whole

[2:45:36] and

[2:45:39] an interactive dashboard. I

[2:45:41] will go over the data sources sources

[2:45:42] for report.

[2:45:45] we used multiple data sources

[2:45:48] and analyzed 300 variables and

[2:45:51] more

[2:45:57] than 30,000

[2:46:00] data points. Estimates for 2010, 2016,

[2:46:01] 2022

[2:46:02] which we used for all demographic

[2:46:03] and

[2:46:06] most of the housing information and

[2:46:09] used montgomery county

[2:46:11] administrative data reflecting conditions

[2:46:12] as of 2024.

[2:46:14] the sources include the maryland state

[2:46:18] department of assessment

[2:46:21] s and taxation property

[2:46:24] data. We looked at housing type and

[2:46:26] year built information as well as

[2:46:27] land

[2:46:29] use and development information. We

[2:46:31] also pulled informationinformation

[2:46:33] montgomery parks

[2:46:36] for parkland, local state and national

[2:46:38] parkland. Montgomery county office

[2:46:39] of

[2:46:42] technology and enterprise.

[2:46:48] also

[2:46:51] we pulled information from

[2:46:54] montgomery county public

[2:46:57] schools.

[2:47:00] finally we

[2:47:03] had private

[2:47:06] sector information.

[2:47:09] in addition to

[2:47:12] the land use due to

[2:47:15] lack of available historical data

[2:47:16] and

[2:47:17] slow changes in characteristics of

[2:47:18] the

[2:47:21] period studied.

[2:47:27] a key question to address, how do

[2:47:30] we define

[2:47:33] communities.

[2:47:36] a community is often

[2:47:39] subjectively defined.

[2:47:42] however

[2:47:45] a quantitative analysis

[2:47:48] needs set boundaries

[2:47:51] over time. We see

[2:47:54] how each of them divides up

[2:47:56] montgomery county. The county has

[2:47:57] a lot of

[2:48:01] boundary types. Census

[2:48:04] bureau

[2:48:07] boundaries. Census designated

[2:48:09] places and municipalities as shown

[2:48:10] on the

[2:48:13] left, and we looked at the

[2:48:15] own master plan areas and the areas

[2:48:19] themselves and other

[2:48:22] geographies

[2:48:25] and zip codes. We consulted with

[2:48:28] planning staff to understand

[2:48:31] community boundaries

[2:48:34] and sentiments.

[2:48:41] do residents consideration themselves

[2:48:43] as residents

[2:48:46] of silver spring,

[2:48:48] bethesda, et cetera and how do the

[2:48:52] existing boundaries for existing geographies line

[2:48:55] up with

[2:48:58] people's perceptions?

[2:49:01] ultimately our efforts to

[2:49:04] define areas that define

[2:49:07] communities for this analysis

[2:49:10] resulted in

[2:49:13] 37 community trend areas as shown

[2:49:16] in the map.

[2:49:25] we

[2:49:27] wanted complete coverage of the county.

[2:49:31] we

[2:49:34] needed concrete, consistent non-

[2:49:37] overlapping boundaries.

[2:49:40] it requires information for the same set

[2:49:43] of areas over time. We needed a

[2:49:44] reasonable number of distinct communities

[2:49:46] to analyze. If you have too

[2:49:49] many areas, that means bigger areas

[2:49:52] that could divide

[2:49:55] up distinct community

[2:49:58] s

[2:50:01] ies

[2:50:04] too many means multiple small area

[2:50:07] that may introduce noise into

[2:50:10] the analysis.

[2:50:16] in addition

[2:50:19] our data

[2:50:21] available at the appropriate geographic

[2:50:25] levels. Really to satisfy

[2:50:28] the

[2:50:31] criteria we

[2:50:34] aggregated census block

[2:50:37] groups.

[2:50:46] we also presented

[2:50:49] them sbreshlly to planning department

[2:50:52] leadership for additional

[2:50:55] feedback.

[2:51:01] >> let me

[2:51:04] go back to the

[2:51:06] map itself. They are included in this map.

[2:51:16] we question

[2:51:19] is how do we describe

[2:51:22] these communities. What indicators

[2:51:23] do we

[2:51:25] want to use for this report? We focussed

[2:51:26] on

[2:51:28] land use, demographics and

[2:51:30] housing characteristics and considered

[2:51:31] which

[2:51:34] characteristics are the most commonly

[2:51:35] reported

[2:51:36] and typically ones from a planning

[2:51:37] perspective.

[2:51:40] also our

[2:51:43] data available over

[2:51:46] time they are

[2:51:49] the

[2:51:52] indicator s and what is a reasonable

[2:51:54] number of indicators to cover a range

[2:51:58] of topics?

[2:52:01] not

[2:52:04] so meaningful information is repetitive

[2:52:07] and has no

[2:52:10] significant value.

[2:52:16] we organized them into place, people

[2:52:18] and housing. For the place people,

[2:52:19] we focused

[2:52:22] on land use and development information

[2:52:23] to

[2:52:24] describe the built environment and the

[2:52:25] natural environment as well

[2:52:27] as publicly accessible facilities

[2:52:28] and

[2:52:31] amenities that are offered to the

[2:52:32] broader

[2:52:33] community, different types of services

[2:52:34] including those related

[2:52:38] to physical safety, health care,

[2:52:39] education, recreation and food security.

[2:52:47] the people

[2:52:49] theme encompasses the demographics

[2:52:52] of residents, racial diversity, english

[2:52:56] usage and ability,

[2:52:58] household composition, economic status,

[2:52:59] indicators

[2:53:02] such as education

[2:53:05] and income.

[2:53:20] housing type and age. Homeownership

[2:53:23] and housing

[2:53:26] affordability indicators.

[2:53:29] these provide

[2:53:32] a picture of

[2:53:35] t

[2:53:38] he current

[2:53:40] housing landscape and are compared

[2:53:41] across

[2:53:44] jurisdictions and within a

[2:53:47] nationwide context.

[2:53:56] >> for the

[2:53:59] record I will be first starting with

[2:54:02] the key

[2:54:05] findings. This explores two

[2:54:08] main components. I will

[2:54:10] walk through the major findings at

[2:54:11] the

[2:54:14] county level and then into specific

[2:54:20] ctas. It

[2:54:22] reports each environment inin 2024

[2:54:23] when

[2:54:26] the data was

[2:54:29] collected.

[2:54:32] we looked at eight kinds of places

[2:54:35] of interest. In total, in 2024 the

[2:54:38] county had 37 fire stations, 23 police

[2:54:41] facilities, 31 health care

[2:54:43] facilities, hospitals, treatment centers.

[2:54:44] over

[2:54:47] 500 places of worship. 200

[2:54:49] public schools. 50 recreation centers.

[2:54:52] 22 libraries. 238 grocery stores which

[2:54:53] we define

[2:54:54] as super markets and don't include convenient stores.

[2:55:05] we found while places of interest

[2:55:07] are distributed across the county

[2:55:08] larger

[2:55:11] and more density have

[2:55:14] a higher concentration of the amenities.

[2:55:16] rockville on the left has a far greater

[2:55:17] number

[2:55:20] of facilities and amenities,

[2:55:23] 101 than

[2:55:26] trevillo, only one place of worship

[2:55:27] withins

[2:55:29] it boundaries. Rockville has a

[2:55:32] population of

[2:55:35] 67,000 to 10,800. The supply

[2:55:38] of

[2:55:41] amenities

[2:55:47] places of interest are

[2:55:50] often clustered.

[2:55:59] land use in the

[2:56:02] county. Three major land uses cover

[2:56:05] 77% of the

[2:56:08] county's area.

[2:56:11] that is

[2:56:14] followed by parks and open space and

[2:56:17] agculture

[2:56:20] land at

[2:56:23] 23%.

[2:56:32] accounting for all

[2:56:35] of the land use

[2:56:38] types, 85% is already developed

[2:56:40] or unavailable for new development.

[2:56:41] that begs the question

[2:56:43] of how we can continue to build in

[2:56:44] the

[2:56:47] county. Growth

[2:56:49] relies on previously developments,

[2:56:50] parking lots

[2:56:52] or leveraging rights to expand existing buildings.

[2:57:01] each land use type. We will start

[2:57:02] with residential land. It

[2:57:05] is notable that single family detached

[2:57:08] homes occupy a

[2:57:11] disproportionate amount of residential

[2:57:14] land comprising 45% of the housing

[2:57:17] stock take up 91% of

[2:57:20] residential land area.

[2:57:35] the county must now make

[2:57:38] the most of its available

[2:57:41] space. The challenge is to find room

[2:57:45] for housing.

[2:57:53] looking at residential land use at the

[2:57:57] cta level.

[2:58:03] single family

[2:58:05] detached home occupy the greater level

[2:58:06] at

[2:58:09] 55% of their

[2:58:12] land area each.

[2:58:15] leesure

[2:58:18] world has the greatest share

[2:58:21] at 27% and 23% respectively.

[2:58:24] in terms of number

[2:58:27] of

[2:58:30] units

[2:58:42] a

[2:58:43] closer look at nonresidential land uses

[2:58:45] in the county.

[2:58:47] commercial development, institutional

[2:58:48] facilities

[2:58:50] and cultural properties. The office

[2:58:51] and the

[2:58:53] retail development occupy less than

[2:58:57] 2%. Institutional

[2:59:00] and community facilities such

[2:59:03] as

[2:59:06] schools,

[2:59:09] federal properties and

[2:59:11] cultural properties only take up 1%

[2:59:12] of

[2:59:14] the county's land use. The map on

[2:59:15] the right shows

[2:59:17] where the land use is located in the

[2:59:18] county with

[2:59:19] commercial activities concentrated

[2:59:21] along the I-

[2:59:24] 270 corridor.

[2:59:39] north sda

[2:59:42] has the most.

[2:59:54] in terms

[2:59:57] of retail

[3:00:00] activity,

[3:00:03] in mapping the

[3:00:06] institutional and community

[3:00:07] facilities, we noted certain parcels

[3:00:09] that

[3:00:12] were large.

[3:00:15] these

[3:00:18] are prominent federal

[3:00:21] properties.

[3:00:27] the large parcel is

[3:00:30] the fda.

[3:00:39] so the

[3:00:41] policy implication is that while federal

[3:00:42] facilities have been

[3:00:45] an important part of the land use,

[3:00:48] recent changes in the federal

[3:00:51] government's

[3:00:54] operations

[3:00:57] can possibly

[3:01:03] identify other spaces.

[3:01:06] the county has

[3:01:09] a considerable amount

[3:01:12] of green space.

[3:01:15] aren't 23%

[3:01:18] of the county's land is

[3:01:21] used

[3:01:24] for agricultural

[3:01:30] propers.

[3:01:33] stream valley parks.

[3:01:35] state parks. Reservoirs and water

[3:01:36] sheds

[3:01:39] owned by wssc. We included land

[3:01:41] for outdoor public recreation and

[3:01:42] natural

[3:01:44] resource management under our definition

[3:01:45] of parkland.

[3:01:48] the county has a tree canopy of

[3:01:51] 47%, the percentage

[3:01:54] of land shaded by

[3:01:57] trees.

[3:02:03] now, going deeper into

[3:02:05] environmental land use across the

[3:02:06] ctas.

[3:02:09] 85% of it is within

[3:02:12] the

[3:02:15] agricultural

[3:02:18] reserve. Rock

[3:02:21] hill orchard. Nearly every community

[3:02:22] has

[3:02:24] one park, the share of the total land

[3:02:27] ranges from 1. 5% or 11

[3:02:30] acres to 38% or over

[3:02:33] 7,000 acres

[3:02:36] in clarksburg.

[3:02:39] unsurprisingly

[3:02:42] commercial areas have greater

[3:02:46] tree colors.

[3:02:52] 25% to 59% in the

[3:02:55] more residential sandy

[3:02:58] springs.

[3:03:01] further analysis

[3:03:04] by land use may

[3:03:07] be helpful.

[3:03:16] >> this is

[3:03:19] interesting so far. I

[3:03:22] had a question about how we are

[3:03:25] classifying ag

[3:03:28] land. Are we

[3:03:31] using the current

[3:03:34] use

[3:03:40] or are we talking about land

[3:03:43] in production.

[3:03:49] I am just kind of

[3:03:52] curious. 70,000 is less

[3:03:55] than the ag reserve

[3:03:58] which makes

[3:04:01] sense. I am just

[3:04:02] curious how we are calculating that.

[3:04:04] all of

[3:04:06] the land use data we use the parcel

[3:04:07] level

[3:04:10] file. These are using the land

[3:04:12] use category that our parcel layer

[3:04:13] file has. It

[3:04:15] is not necessarily specific land which

[3:04:19] is used for

[3:04:25] agricultural purposes. It is coded

[3:04:27] as that in our parcel file.

[3:04:28] >> okay.

[3:04:31] thanks. That

[3:04:33] makes sense.

[3:04:34] >> in regards to tree

[3:04:37] canopy, I am pleased to see

[3:04:40] 47% is

[3:04:43] covered with

[3:04:46] trees. Where there are more single

[3:04:48] family units you see more tree covers.

[3:04:52] is that true or is that

[3:04:53] in regard to the office space?

[3:04:54] >>

[3:04:55] we are

[3:04:58] seeing it at a general level and in

[3:04:59] the more residential level there is

[3:05:01] a higher percentage of tree

[3:05:04] canopies.

[3:05:22] where is the other

[3:05:25] 15%?

[3:05:31] there could be

[3:05:34] other parcels in

[3:05:37] the county coded as

[3:05:43] agriculture.

[3:05:44] >> you know

[3:05:46] one of them.

[3:05:59] I am sure that there are others too.

[3:06:10] >> the last

[3:06:13] takeaway is around complete

[3:06:16] communities. This envisions

[3:06:18] communities to have a vibrant mix

[3:06:19] of

[3:06:22] housing types

[3:06:25] and employment.

[3:06:31] this concept reappeared

[3:06:34] as a theme when examining land

[3:06:37] use and

[3:06:40] community facilities.

[3:06:46] the map on the left is north

[3:06:49] bethesda with

[3:06:52] many services spread out across the

[3:06:53] area.

[3:06:55] the other is connecticut, a

[3:06:57] lower density area and fewer of the

[3:06:58] services here are available. Therefore

[3:07:01] it is important to note

[3:07:04] a complete community must be adjusted

[3:07:05] based

[3:07:06] on factors including location and

[3:07:07] development

[3:07:10] density. Now I will pass it to james to

[3:07:13] go through the people findings.

[3:07:19] >> now we will discuss key

[3:07:22] finding findings

[3:07:25] under the people theme. We will focus

[3:07:26] on

[3:07:28] age, racial diversity, english usage

[3:07:29] and

[3:07:31] ability, education and income.

[3:07:34] we analyzed changes from 2010

[3:07:37] to 2016.

[3:07:40] these characteristics are

[3:07:43] commonly analyzed and

[3:07:49] compared in our

[3:07:52] master planning work

[3:07:54] we look at the pieces of information

[3:07:55] to see who lives

[3:07:58] in the plan

[3:08:01] area.

[3:08:08] I will walk through some of the

[3:08:11] major findings.

[3:08:17] montgomery count

[3:08:20] I increased by 12% from 2010 to

[3:08:23] 2022.

[3:08:26] that was for a gain

[3:08:29] of 110

[3:08:32] residents.

[3:08:42] these have the largest population

[3:08:44] growth and are

[3:08:47] among the top ten in

[3:08:50] percentage growth.

[3:08:56] they gained about

[3:08:59] 52% of the

[3:09:02] county's growth.

[3:09:03] clarksburg experienced the greatest

[3:09:05] population growth.

[3:09:08] 18,000 people or

[3:09:11] 137% increase.

[3:09:29] particularly outside

[3:09:31] of places here where population growth has

[3:09:32] been concentrated.

[3:09:38] let's look

[3:09:41] at the information by age group.

[3:09:44] the county's population has continued

[3:09:47] to trend older. The

[3:09:50] county's population in the 65

[3:09:53] and older group increased by

[3:09:56] 55%.

[3:09:58] conversely young populations grew

[3:09:59] at a

[3:10:02] much slower rate. County-wide, the

[3:10:03] young

[3:10:05] adult population 18 to 34

[3:10:08] grew by by adding more than

[3:10:11] 15,000 residents.

[3:10:20] if you look at the graph where

[3:10:23] we have zero to

[3:10:26] four year s

[3:10:32] s that population was

[3:10:35] growing while the under age

[3:10:38] 5 and under climbed to

[3:10:41] 2%.

[3:10:47] older adults made up

[3:10:50] an increasing share of the population

[3:10:53] county-wide.

[3:10:56] growing from 12% to

[3:10:59] 16% of

[3:11:02] all residents.

[3:11:05] here we see

[3:11:07] seven communities where the residents

[3:11:08] 65

[3:11:11] and older

[3:11:14] doubled.

[3:11:26] >> this means people have

[3:11:29] aged.

[3:11:30] >> it could be people

[3:11:32] aging in

[3:11:35] place. It could be older

[3:11:38] folks moving in. We do

[3:11:41] not have the

[3:11:44] information

[3:11:53] .

[3:11:54] >>

[3:11:56] it is only 12

[3:11:59] years. You are experiencing

[3:12:01] a percentage increase in the amount

[3:12:02] of age.

[3:12:05] that indicates an influx of

[3:12:08] older aged population pushing

[3:12:11] up. There has to be some aging in

[3:12:12] place but

[3:12:13] that indicates to me it is coming

[3:12:14] from an

[3:12:17] older population than we were previously

[3:12:20] getting. Going back to slide 22, the

[3:12:21] best explanation

[3:12:23] for that slide is young families cannot

[3:12:25] afford toto live here information.

[3:12:26] if we keep going

[3:12:29] the way that we are going we are

[3:12:32] not going to have young families the

[3:12:33] way that

[3:12:35] we used to. I couldn't afford to

[3:12:38] live here now.

[3:12:50] >> it is when the start of the

[3:12:54] baby boomer generation moved

[3:12:56] into the 65 plus age group.

[3:12:57] >> yes.

[3:12:58] that

[3:13:00] is what I was going

[3:13:03] to say.

[3:13:12] people are

[3:13:13] having less children. That is what

[3:13:18] it seems.

[3:13:21] >> because it is expensive to

[3:13:24] have them.

[3:13:30] the best

[3:13:32] and most consistent explanation is

[3:13:33] it is really

[3:13:36] expensive and younger families

[3:13:39] can't afford it.

[3:13:45] the cost of day care is more than

[3:13:47] my mortgage. The cost of my mortgage

[3:13:51] is insane.

[3:13:56] we can try to explain it allall want.

[3:14:00] it is cost.

[3:14:02] you are drawing the conclusion. They

[3:14:03] are sitting here to

[3:14:05] tell us.

[3:14:06] >> we will talk about children

[3:14:07] here in

[3:14:09] a little bit.

[3:14:15] let me wrap up the portion about

[3:14:18] aging. Looking at

[3:14:20] how communities are aging, only two

[3:14:24] ctas had more

[3:14:27] than 20%

[3:14:30] of

[3:14:33] residents 65 and older. On the right by

[3:14:36] 2022 the number of

[3:14:39] communities with more than

[3:14:42] 20% of residents included to

[3:14:44] seven. These are in different parts

[3:14:45] of the county from

[3:14:47] a couple of communities in the north

[3:14:51] to others further south such as

[3:14:54] potomac. Given the trend of an

[3:14:56] aging population and across many communities

[3:14:57] this

[3:15:00] indicates a

[3:15:03] potentially growing demand.

[3:15:06] certain services, infrastructure,

[3:15:07] housing. You can see it from the map

[3:15:09] on the right, some

[3:15:11] of the communities with the larger

[3:15:12] concentrations of

[3:15:15] the older adult population are in

[3:15:18] more remote parts of

[3:15:21] the

[3:15:22] county lacking important facilities

[3:15:24] and other health

[3:15:27] care facilities.

[3:15:29] it may take an additional effort to

[3:15:30] support

[3:15:33] the older

[3:15:36] adult population. We will get to

[3:15:39] children. We are working through through

[3:15:42] age groups. Communities

[3:15:44] have a wide variation in the amount

[3:15:45] of

[3:15:47] changes their young adult population

[3:15:48] of

[3:15:50] the 18-34. Three communities with

[3:15:51] the

[3:15:54] highest and the lowest change in absolute

[3:15:57] terms. On the left side of the chart

[3:16:03] silver

[3:16:06] springs, rockville.

[3:16:21] they are sizeable

[3:16:24] numbers.

[3:16:33] tacoma park, germantown

[3:16:36] and east

[3:16:39] silver spring.

[3:16:42] the

[3:16:45] working population is a

[3:16:48] critical part of the

[3:16:51] county's workforce.

[3:16:54] we see a

[3:16:57] slowly growing young young

[3:17:00] population.

[3:17:06] it could really present aa for

[3:17:09] the labor market.

[3:17:21] from 2010 to

[3:17:24] 2022 the number of households

[3:17:27] in the

[3:17:30] county

[3:17:33] overall grew.

[3:17:36] the

[3:17:39] this trend contrasts with the higher

[3:17:41] growth rates of other household types that you see on

[3:17:42] the graph.

[3:17:51] with the rate of

[3:17:54] households with children declined

[3:17:57] from 34% to

[3:18:00] 32% from 2010

[3:18:03] to 2022 here we show the three

[3:18:05] communities with the largest shifts

[3:18:06] in the percentage of

[3:18:08] households with children in the upward

[3:18:09] and the downward

[3:18:11] directions. Many communities had a

[3:18:13] declining percentages

[3:18:15] of households with children on the right-

[3:18:16] hand side

[3:18:19] due to weak growth or

[3:18:22] declines in the

[3:18:25] children population.

[3:18:34] you look on the

[3:18:37] left side of the chart, we

[3:18:40] have three community

[3:18:43] s

[3:18:47] ies this is due to stronger growth

[3:18:49] in the children

[3:18:52] population relative to the

[3:18:55] children population itself.

[3:18:58] given the trends

[3:19:01] that we see

[3:19:04] here it points

[3:19:07] to a lower potential command for

[3:19:10] facilities like schools

[3:19:13] and other

[3:19:16] s and more long-

[3:19:19] term concerns.

[3:19:22] I am still

[3:19:25] focused on

[3:19:28] households.

[3:19:34] higher percentages of families

[3:19:37] with children are spread across

[3:19:40] the county.

[3:19:46] clarksburg

[3:19:49] in the north

[3:19:52] to further south.

[3:19:55] on

[3:19:58] the right there are

[3:20:01] 11cta ben orr single

[3:20:03] person households. Clustered along

[3:20:07] our urbanized corridors. Up

[3:20:10] I-270, u.s.

[3:20:13] 29 and metro

[3:20:16] red line.

[3:20:19] including all of the

[3:20:22] burdens that border dc like

[3:20:25] chevy chase and

[3:20:28] silver springs.

[3:20:31] the county has

[3:20:34] growing racial diversity. After

[3:20:36] 2010 montgomery county's population

[3:20:37] became a

[3:20:40] majority of people

[3:20:43] with color.

[3:20:51] they experienced significant growth

[3:20:52] with the exception

[3:20:55] of the population which declined

[3:20:58] by 9%.

[3:21:04] the hispanic

[3:21:07] population had the

[3:21:10] largest gain with

[3:21:13] 60,000 residents.

[3:21:16] it was more than triple the

[3:21:19] growth rate.

[3:21:25] the large bar on the

[3:21:28] right

[3:21:31] includes people with the highest

[3:21:34] increase of

[3:21:37] 108%. The

[3:21:40] growth in this group started at

[3:21:43] smaller numbers than the

[3:21:46] other groups.

[3:21:58] in

[3:22:01] 201018 communities had a

[3:22:04] population with the majority of

[3:22:07] people in color. It increased to 22

[3:22:08] by

[3:22:10] 2022.

[3:22:25] however communities

[3:22:28] vary widely in their racial composition.

[3:22:30] this shows the top three communities

[3:22:31] in terms of

[3:22:34] the percentage

[3:22:37] of each major racial

[3:22:40] or ethnic group in

[3:22:43] 2022. We see the communities with

[3:22:46] the

[3:22:49] highest percentages of black residents.

[3:22:52] the highest percentage

[3:22:55] of asian

[3:22:58] residents. In the middle of the county

[3:22:59] we see

[3:23:01] the highest percentages of

[3:23:03] hispanic residents, the ones in blue.

[3:23:04] connecticut, there

[3:23:07] are no

[3:23:10] crossroads and glen

[3:23:20] mont. So, given

[3:23:22] the increasing racial diversity across

[3:23:23] the

[3:23:26] county in many of the

[3:23:28] communities, this trend really indicates

[3:23:30] a growing demand for specific services

[3:23:32] that

[3:23:35] may need to be culturally

[3:23:36] sensitive, geographically concentrated

[3:23:38] and tailored to

[3:23:41] the needs of certain

[3:23:44] groups.

[3:23:49] making sure different populations

[3:23:53] do not face significant barriers

[3:23:56] to accessing the facilities and

[3:23:59] amenities. Now to

[3:24:02] the topic

[3:24:05] of

[3:24:06] english language usage and ability.

[3:24:08] this is related

[3:24:10] to the growing diversity here in the

[3:24:11] county.

[3:24:14] montgomery county gainedgained

[3:24:17] residents who speak a nonenglish

[3:24:19] language at home with 26% increase

[3:24:20] from 2010

[3:24:23] to

[3:24:25] 2022. More people reported speaking

[3:24:28] english, less than very well. Closely

[3:24:29] matching the

[3:24:32] 12% in the

[3:24:35] total population.

[3:24:44] with the

[3:24:46] residents speaking a nonenglish language

[3:24:47] at

[3:24:50] home, it increased to

[3:24:53] 38% to 42% from 2010 to 222.

[3:24:56] as I mentioned it before,

[3:24:57] growing racial diversity is related

[3:24:59] to the

[3:25:01] growing number of residents speaking

[3:25:02] a nonenglish

[3:25:04] language at home, and the growth can

[3:25:05] be seen at the community

[3:25:08] level. On the map on the left

[3:25:11] in

[3:25:14] 2010, only

[3:25:16] three communities were the majority

[3:25:17] of residents

[3:25:18] speaking a nonenglish language at

[3:25:20] home.

[3:25:23] connecticut, crossroads, glenmont

[3:25:25] and silver spring. By 2022, the map

[3:25:26] on the

[3:25:29] right has grown

[3:25:32] to 90.

[3:25:36] notably some of the communities are

[3:25:38] the same ones with

[3:25:41] the highest percentages of hispanic

[3:25:42] or

[3:25:43] black residents as seen in the map from two slides ago.

[3:25:56] to education and income, there

[3:25:59] is a clear relationship between these

[3:26:02] two indicators which the maps

[3:26:05] show. Specifically we can see a

[3:26:07] highly educated population correlates

[3:26:08] with higher incomes.

[3:26:11] on the left,

[3:26:14] six communities clustered have the

[3:26:15] highest

[3:26:16] educational attainment levels in 2022.

[3:26:17] in all of

[3:26:20] these more than 75% of adults

[3:26:23] ages 25 and over had at least a bachelor's

[3:26:26] degree. They had a

[3:26:29] bachelor's degree or they may

[3:26:32] have had a graduate or a

[3:26:35] professional degree.

[3:26:41] it is well above the county wide number

[3:26:42] for

[3:26:44] more than

[3:26:47] 60%. The

[3:26:50] map on the right, the same set of

[3:26:51] communities

[3:26:53] have the highest

[3:26:56] average household incomes in

[3:26:59] 2022. All of these communities in

[3:27:00] the southwest

[3:27:02] part of the

[3:27:05] county,

[3:27:08] potomac,

[3:27:14] last slide in the people section.

[3:27:15] meanwhile,

[3:27:16] if we look at the communities with

[3:27:17] the lowest

[3:27:19] educational attainment and income

[3:27:20] levels there is a

[3:27:22] similar correlation between the two

[3:27:23] indicators. On the

[3:27:25] left, nine communities scattered across

[3:27:26] the county had

[3:27:29] less than 50% of adults 25 and over

[3:27:32] with at least a bachelor's degree

[3:27:33] in

[3:27:35] 2022. Six

[3:27:38] of those community ies appear on the

[3:27:39] map on

[3:27:41] the right. That shows the eight communities

[3:27:42] with

[3:27:44] the lowest average household income

[3:27:45] in

[3:27:47] 2022, all below

[3:27:50] $125,000.

[3:27:53] despite

[3:27:56] lower incomes, all

[3:27:58] have noteworthy educational attainment

[3:27:59] levels. East silver

[3:28:02] spring, flower hill and montgomery

[3:28:03] village, about

[3:28:05] 40% of the adults ages 25 and over

[3:28:08] had at least a bachelor's degree.

[3:28:11] that exceeds the national raterate

[3:28:14] 34%.

[3:28:17] given the wide range, many of

[3:28:20] the communities would benefit from having

[3:28:21] more

[3:28:22] opportunities for higher education

[3:28:24] that can help

[3:28:25] residents find higher paying jobs

[3:28:29] and locating educational and training

[3:28:30] facilities within

[3:28:33] less economically

[3:28:36] advantaged communities.

[3:28:39] that would allow

[3:28:40] residents access to higher education.

[3:28:42] now, I will

[3:28:44] hand it off for the key findings on the housing

[3:28:45] section.

[3:28:48] >> james,

[3:28:50] this is our last key findings bucket

[3:28:51] with

[3:28:53] housing. As a reminder for the topic

[3:28:54] we looked

[3:28:56] at data on housing stocks, housing

[3:29:00] typology and age, ownership

[3:29:02] age, housing value cost and cost burden.

[3:29:05] similar to the people indicators we

[3:29:09] analyzed

[3:29:10] temporal changes from 2010 to 2016

[3:29:12] to 2022.

[3:29:15] most of the

[3:29:18] indicators are from the

[3:29:21] five-year estimate.

[3:29:24] I will follow a similar

[3:29:27] structure of providing county-

[3:29:28] level information and then diving

[3:29:30] into cta level data.

[3:29:32] housing growth for the county over

[3:29:33] the past

[3:29:35] several decades it is evident the

[3:29:36] county

[3:29:38] is seeing more multi family than single

[3:29:42] family housing growth.

[3:29:45] construction peaked

[3:29:48] in the 1980s. Since

[3:29:50] 2010, 12% of the existing housing

[3:29:51] stock, a

[3:29:54] little more

[3:29:56] than 47,000 units have been built.

[3:29:57] of

[3:30:00] the units built after 2010,

[3:30:03] 61% in multi family

[3:30:06] and 29% as single family

[3:30:08] detached homes. Most built recently

[3:30:12] are larger high rise rather than

[3:30:14] smaller garden style buildings. Speaks

[3:30:15] to

[3:30:17] a policy indication around the need

[3:30:18] for diverse

[3:30:20] housing units to help people remain

[3:30:21] in the communities as

[3:30:24] their housing needs change.

[3:30:30] we can look

[3:30:33] at the average age

[3:30:36] of

[3:30:38] housing type. Townhouses and multi

[3:30:39] family

[3:30:41] units are younger with average ages

[3:30:42] of 35 to

[3:30:45] 37 respectively. The map shows

[3:30:47] the pattern of housing development

[3:30:48] in the county.

[3:30:51] tacoma

[3:30:54] park, silver spring, kensington

[3:30:57] as showed on the map have the oldest

[3:31:00] housing units and the lighter

[3:31:02] shade found in great seneca and clarksburg.

[3:31:05] they have seen most of the growth since

[3:31:06] 2010.

[3:31:18] these maps show where thethe

[3:31:21] housing has grown. Clarksburg had

[3:31:22] the most

[3:31:23] single family and overall growth since

[3:31:24] 2010 with

[3:31:27] a total of 5,500

[3:31:29] single family units accounting for

[3:31:30] 88% of

[3:31:33] the housing production

[3:31:36] during this time.

[3:31:45] as the

[3:31:48] housing stock

[3:31:51] expanded homeownership ates

[3:31:54] remain an important

[3:31:57] issue. A change that can be

[3:32:00] explained by multi family

[3:32:03] development.

[3:32:06] in accordance with the

[3:32:09] trend renter occupied households

[3:32:12] increased from 24%

[3:32:15] to

[3:32:18] 31% in 2022.

[3:32:21] in 2010 there were only three

[3:32:24] ctas were

[3:32:27] er occupied households were the

[3:32:30] majority. By 2022

[3:32:33] the number increased to five ctas

[3:32:34] with

[3:32:36] north bethesda and seneca

[3:32:39] being the two. While they were not

[3:32:40] renter

[3:32:42] households the majority of

[3:32:45] ctas, germantown, bethesda

[3:32:48] and rockville

[3:32:51] saw a significant increase

[3:32:54] in this time.

[3:32:57] it still remains a majority

[3:33:00] owner

[3:33:03] occupied, related to the

[3:33:09] single

[3:33:12] family homes.

[3:33:15] communities such as

[3:33:18] travilah and upper rock creek. These

[3:33:19] are the

[3:33:21] bars on the far left of the graph.

[3:33:24] conversely those with lower percentage

[3:33:25] such

[3:33:26] as silver spring and great seneca

[3:33:27] had significantly

[3:33:31] lower homeownership rates of

[3:33:34] 33% and 19% respectively.

[3:33:36] while the planning response can't

[3:33:37] dictate housing

[3:33:40] tenure, we are embarking on further

[3:33:42] needs to determine whether there is

[3:33:46] more need for more for sale or

[3:33:49] rental housing.

[3:33:51] now I will discuss housing affordability

[3:33:58] indicators.

[3:34:04] this

[3:34:07] is compared to the national value

[3:34:10] of $261,000. This is

[3:34:13] lower than the lowest

[3:34:16] cta average

[3:34:19] value.

[3:34:25] >> it is all

[3:34:28] home value.

[3:34:29] >>

[3:34:31] everything.

[3:34:37] 300,000 to

[3:34:40] 500,000 was the

[3:34:43] lower

[3:34:46] average.

[3:34:49] up here is highlights where home

[3:34:51] values are growing and where they

[3:34:52] remained

[3:34:53] relatively unchanged. Communities

[3:34:55] in blue experienced the

[3:34:58] greatest increase in home

[3:34:59] values. Their growth rates exceed

[3:35:01] that of the

[3:35:04] county, 27% between 2010 and

[3:35:07] 2022. The high income areas

[3:35:10] of chevy chase and bethesda and

[3:35:12] areare to employment centers reforming

[3:35:13] the

[3:35:15] need to access places of work through

[3:35:16] transportation networks

[3:35:19] and diversify the location of

[3:35:22] employment centers across the county.

[3:35:24] communities in orange saw little to

[3:35:25] no growth

[3:35:28] and include damascus,

[3:35:31] leesure world and burtonsville.

[3:35:37] a look at average housing costs.

[3:35:39] as seen by the graphs housing cost

[3:35:40] for

[3:35:42] renters shown on the left in orange

[3:35:43] increased at

[3:35:46] more than 2. 5 times that of

[3:35:48] homeowners shown on right in the blue.

[3:35:49] this increase

[3:35:51] for renters out placed enflation during

[3:35:52] the period.

[3:35:55] the trend is contributing to

[3:35:58] rising inequality

[3:36:01] and rising house

[3:36:04] affects renters.

[3:36:13] a closer look at renter

[3:36:19] occupied households. A subset of communities with

[3:36:22] at least 25% renter occupied

[3:36:24] households. While some communities

[3:36:28] including redland-shady

[3:36:31] grove, chevy chase and takoma

[3:36:34] park, others experienced

[3:36:37] below average around 29% increases

[3:36:38] in

[3:36:40] rent. Great seneca,

[3:36:43] glenmont and

[3:36:46] fairland.

[3:36:49] now

[3:36:52] colin issing to give a demo of all

[3:36:53] of

[3:36:54] the data that you just heard and more.

[3:37:16] >> good afternoon. For the

[3:37:19] record I

[3:37:22] am colin

[3:37:28] m

[3:37:31] cnamaraa. This is

[3:37:34] 37ctas allowing users to visualize

[3:37:36] and compare information about place,

[3:37:37] people,

[3:37:39] housing at both the county and the

[3:37:40] community level. I

[3:37:42] will walk through the main tabs and

[3:37:43] highlight

[3:37:46] how the tool supports planning and

[3:37:47] policy

[3:37:48] discussions. We will start where we

[3:37:49] are right now on the general

[3:37:50] tab, the dashboard's landing page.

[3:37:55] by default it

[3:37:58] displays county-wide data at the top

[3:37:59] and by

[3:38:01] default it displays county-wide data

[3:38:02] at the

[3:38:04] top and I can select cta from drop

[3:38:06] down. Chair harris, can you do us

[3:38:07] the honor

[3:38:10] of selecting a cta for us.

[3:38:11] >> why

[3:38:13] not try my

[3:38:19] hometown of ta, t takoma park.

[3:38:20] >>

[3:38:21] okay.

[3:38:22] we used the filter at

[3:38:25] the top to select takoma park. It

[3:38:26] is

[3:38:27] highlighted on the map. A summary

[3:38:29] of

[3:38:31] area, population and housing units

[3:38:32] appear on the

[3:38:34] right. There is a view button opening

[3:38:35] the

[3:38:36] full profile from the community trends

[3:38:38] report. I will click

[3:38:41] that really

[3:38:44] quick.

[3:38:47] shoutout

[3:38:50] to our graphic designer megan

[3:38:53] irving who designed these

[3:38:56] amazing documents.

[3:38:57] >> are

[3:38:59] these generated instantly based

[3:39:01] on the criteria or are these general

[3:39:04] overviews?

[3:39:05] >> they are not. They are

[3:39:06] general

[3:39:08] overviews living on

[3:39:11] a server somewhere.

[3:39:17] this

[3:39:18] dashboard follows the natural order

[3:39:23] of the presentation.

[3:39:32] once

[3:39:35] you select your

[3:39:36] cta, it is there for all time until

[3:39:38] you

[3:39:41] change it again.

[3:39:44] it

[3:39:47] focuses on physical

[3:39:49] characteristics, land use and places

[3:39:50] of interest.

[3:39:53] charts summarizing development

[3:39:55] and land use by area. I can click

[3:39:56] the charts

[3:39:59] or use the drop down and toggle

[3:40:01] between ctas and county-wide views.

[3:40:02] I can

[3:40:04] click on the chart. I can multiselect

[3:40:05] within

[3:40:08] a box or I

[3:40:11] can use the fitter here. If I

[3:40:12] want to see montgomery county I can

[3:40:14] see it

[3:40:17] at all times,

[3:40:20] whether depending whether any

[3:40:23] cta I am in.

[3:40:32] up next places of

[3:40:35] interest. That is just the section to the

[3:40:36] right with

[3:40:38] the toggle buttons. So,

[3:40:41] for places of interest, amenities

[3:40:43] like schools, parks, libraries, type

[3:40:47] and selecting a point

[3:40:48] reveals detailsdetails as name and

[3:40:50] address. This can be used

[3:40:52] at the county-wide level as well.

[3:40:53] go ahead and

[3:40:56] click on a place of interest. I have

[3:40:59] selected a church.

[3:41:11] people

[3:41:14] tab summarizes demographic characteristics,

[3:41:17] population, households, age distribution

[3:41:18] and

[3:41:20] household types.

[3:41:22] education, race and ethnicity. Data

[3:41:23] can

[3:41:26] be viewed 2010, 2016,

[3:41:32] 2022.

[3:41:44] housing tab is up next.

[3:41:46] it provides housing conditions, type,

[3:41:47] year built,

[3:41:50] home values, housing costs.

[3:41:53] as with other tabs

[3:41:56] the tab can be viewed at the

[3:41:59] cta

[3:42:02] or county level. Again there is a

[3:42:05] lot in this

[3:42:08] dashboard.

[3:42:11] it is meant for every scale,

[3:42:14] monitor size. Mobile which is 95%

[3:42:16] complete. It took a lot to create

[3:42:17] different charts.

[3:42:20] data was reengineered and

[3:42:23] republished to

[3:42:26] fit schematics for a particular chart.

[3:42:29] we are done with takoma park for now.

[3:42:32] we will see it again right now.

[3:42:35] the comparison

[3:42:38] section it is

[3:42:41] going to be showing all of the ctas

[3:42:42] at the

[3:42:44] same time and it allows users

[3:42:47] to compare

[3:42:50] ctas across different indicators.

[3:42:53] population change, tree canopy and

[3:42:54] montgomery

[3:42:56] county shown as a reference.

[3:42:58] users can switch between different

[3:42:59] views and

[3:43:02] filter to specific

[3:43:05] ctas.

[3:43:11] if anyone sees a topic. I will click

[3:43:13] on that. Very straightforward interaction.

[3:43:14] all I

[3:43:17] am using is the mouse

[3:43:20] here. If I can select a couple of

[3:43:23] ctas, I have a filter in the top left.

[3:43:26] now I can just filter

[3:43:29] a

[3:43:32] couple. I selected five.

[3:43:35] hit apply.

[3:43:50] montgomery county will always be there

[3:43:54] as a reference. There are

[3:43:56] scatter plots down below for three

[3:44:00] particular topics. Age 65 plus

[3:44:03] and people of color.

[3:44:06] education and income.

[3:44:11] clicked on a map. Clicked on the cta

[3:44:14] of the map. See information specific

[3:44:18] to different

[3:44:21] topics.

[3:44:24] average housing value, average housing

[3:44:26] age. I can interact with the housing

[3:44:27] plot to filter out the plot.

[3:44:36] >> complements

[3:44:38] the written report by making something

[3:44:39] more accessible

[3:44:41] and comparable across communities.

[3:44:44] profiles, documentation and methodology

[3:44:45] are

[3:44:48] accessible within the dashboard.

[3:44:51] thank you.

[3:44:53] there is a valid section. We have

[3:44:54] an

[3:44:56] appendix for all of our data sources.

[3:44:59] video sources available on youtube.

[3:45:00] we are here

[3:45:03] to answer any

[3:45:06] questions and the project page

[3:45:07] on montgomery planning.

[3:45:08] >> we have

[3:45:09] a couple

[3:45:12] of slides to

[3:45:15] wrap up.

[3:45:21] >> I have to say good job.

[3:45:33] >> as we wrap up I would like to

[3:45:35] reiterate key points about the point

[3:45:36] and

[3:45:39] our

[3:45:42] analysis. In line

[3:45:44] with the project goals to document

[3:45:47] changing conditions and inform the

[3:45:48] public of trends

[3:45:51] and patterns. We

[3:45:53] published it to provide robust information

[3:45:54] on

[3:45:55] communities across the county and

[3:45:57] looked at 37

[3:45:59] communities covering the entire county

[3:46:02] and analyzed 300 variables and more

[3:46:03] than

[3:46:05] 30,000 data points. The information

[3:46:06] from the

[3:46:08] report helps people understand that

[3:46:09] conditions vary in

[3:46:12] different places and

[3:46:15] over time. It also showcases

[3:46:17] montgomery county's rich diversity

[3:46:18] in the population, housing stock, and

[3:46:21] places.

[3:46:29] finally the third goal is to support

[3:46:30] policy and decision

[3:46:32] making and throughout the presentation

[3:46:33] we made

[3:46:35] statements about policy implications

[3:46:36] for land use planning that

[3:46:39] came out in our analysis. As a

[3:46:42] broader

[3:46:45] er summary here are the crucial

[3:46:48] points. A complete community must

[3:46:49] be

[3:46:51] adjusted based on location and

[3:46:54] development density.

[3:46:57] a community

[3:46:59] in the more rural areas of the county

[3:47:00] will not look

[3:47:03] the same as a

[3:47:05] complete community in more urbanized

[3:47:06] area like silver

[3:47:09] spring. What makes a community more

[3:47:12] complete when it has a range of

[3:47:15] land uses, housing types to

[3:47:18] meet

[3:47:21] a variety of needs for a diverse set

[3:47:24] of people. It must be supported

[3:47:27] in the county with

[3:47:30] the infrastructure.

[3:47:39] we should see other places grow and

[3:47:40] not

[3:47:42] decline if the existing infrastructure

[3:47:45] will support it.

[3:47:48] new land use strategies that facilitate

[3:47:51] redevelopment and advance new development

[3:47:54] opportunities continue to be

[3:47:57] required. So with so much of the

[3:47:59] county's land already developed or

[3:48:00] not available for

[3:48:02] new development, we need to continue

[3:48:03] to come up with

[3:48:06] new methods and ideas to be able

[3:48:09] to accommodate future growth. The

[3:48:10] fourth

[3:48:12] point, housing unit growth is important

[3:48:15] to economic development as the working

[3:48:18] age population has grown more slowly

[3:48:21] than the county's population overall.

[3:48:24] continuing housing growth is critical

[3:48:25] to

[3:48:26] affordability which will help the

[3:48:27] county retain

[3:48:30] and attract people, and especially

[3:48:31] working age people

[3:48:32] who are the backbone of the labor

[3:48:33] force and are needed

[3:48:36] to support the county's long-

[3:48:39] term economic growth. Finally, one

[3:48:40] last

[3:48:42] mention, we might have

[3:48:44] more recommendations for specific

[3:48:46] communities as we discuss the

[3:48:48] data with the planners and with our

[3:48:49] staff members

[3:48:52] in the future.

[3:48:55] overall we have done a

[3:48:58] lot to put

[3:49:01] the report

[3:49:04] together. We are noticing

[3:49:07] things that require

[3:49:10] more explanation.

[3:49:13] and

[3:49:15] this concludes our presentation. Thank

[3:49:19] you.

[3:49:20] >> thank you. This

[3:49:21] is amazing. Absolutely amazing. We

[3:49:24] should disseminate it to, you know,

[3:49:27] all parties that can take advantage

[3:49:28] of

[3:49:31] it and to

[3:49:34] drive data and

[3:49:37] inform decisions.

[3:49:52] I am sure the planners and

[3:49:53] the chambers and land use attorneys

[3:49:55] would need

[3:49:58] to see this. Please get it

[3:50:01] out to them.

[3:50:07] I know I will come back with

[3:50:08] some questions. One question that

[3:50:10] I did have, is

[3:50:12] east silver spring, they lost like

[3:50:16] 2,700 people, families,

[3:50:19] households. These are young

[3:50:22] 18 to 34.

[3:50:28] where do they go?

[3:50:37] takoma park

[3:50:39] lost two, but they grew with the children.

[3:50:40] I was

[3:50:43] trying to figure out how

[3:50:46] that works.

[3:50:55] thank you so much.

[3:50:57] >> just to quickly answer the question,

[3:50:58] that is an

[3:51:00] area where, you know, one of the questions

[3:51:01] that

[3:51:04] we had ourselves.

[3:51:07] we would like to dig more in

[3:51:10] to the question. Yes. We did

[3:51:13] see a loss of young adults. We

[3:51:15] saw a growth in children, the children

[3:51:16] population.

[3:51:18] so, that is a bit of a mystery in

[3:51:19] and

[3:51:21] of itself. Maybe there might be additional

[3:51:22] information that

[3:51:25] we have not looked at. You know, we

[3:51:26] can talk

[3:51:27] to some of the staff members to see

[3:51:28] if they

[3:51:29] know more about the community and

[3:51:31] maybe they might have more

[3:51:33] insight into what is going on demographically.

[3:51:40] >> thank you. >> really.

[3:51:43] that was an amazing job. I don't know

[3:51:45] if that was the first time. I think

[3:51:46] we should continue

[3:51:49] to update this. You have

[3:51:52] the base now.

[3:51:55] every other year when

[3:51:58] the data has more

[3:52:01] change. We compare to see how things

[3:52:04] are going. I have a few

[3:52:07] things that I have

[3:52:10] seen.

[3:52:16] based on the report

[3:52:19] the lower income is not where we are

[3:52:20] having

[3:52:22] the multi

[3:52:25] families, okay.

[3:52:30] the younger people are where we have

[3:52:31] the multi

[3:52:34] families. We want

[3:52:37] to attract younger

[3:52:40] people inin here.

[3:52:46] ownership or rental, but I have

[3:52:49] seen an issue. I have seen

[3:52:52] it without seeing the report.

[3:52:55] it is quite obvious that we are

[3:52:58] building multi family and are

[3:53:01] mostly rental.

[3:53:04] that

[3:53:06] produced the homeownership for younger

[3:53:07] generation.

[3:53:10] older generation is not

[3:53:13] moving.

[3:53:19] so, there

[3:53:22] is no

[3:53:25] sense of doing that.

[3:53:27] even if they want to sell it, the

[3:53:28] prices are

[3:53:31] getting higher

[3:53:34] prices. How can we?

[3:53:37] the real estate is the safest thing

[3:53:40] for younger

[3:53:43] generations.

[3:53:46] how can we give that

[3:53:49] opportunity for younger

[3:53:52] generations to build

[3:53:56] wealth. My children are one

[3:53:58] example that are losing a lot of example

[3:53:59] for

[3:54:02] rental, okay.

[3:54:05] I keep sitting

[3:54:07] there saying just buy something. But

[3:54:08] what they want

[3:54:10] to buy is not where they want to be.

[3:54:11] they

[3:54:14] couldn't afford that.

[3:54:26] they are all going to bebe rent.

[3:54:28] they are not really affordable. They

[3:54:32] don't

[3:54:34] create wealth. Wealth for our younger

[3:54:35] generation

[3:54:37] they want to have that wealth. The

[3:54:38] reason

[3:54:40] that they, I think, I am just thinking

[3:54:41] that a

[3:54:42] lot of the younger generation are

[3:54:44] not going to have more

[3:54:45] children, because they don't want

[3:54:47] to

[3:54:50] raise the

[3:54:53] children in a small area. They

[3:54:55] want to have space with the dogs and

[3:54:56] kids, but they

[3:54:57] can't afford it. They decide, okay,

[3:54:59] we are not

[3:55:00] going to have children. We are just

[3:55:02] going to have one.

[3:55:04] so, how are we going to be, you know, planning for that.

[3:55:05] I don't know.

[3:55:08] not expecting you have the answer.

[3:55:25] >> I am not a young adult anymore, but the

[3:55:26] rest of the other

[3:55:29] three staff

[3:55:32] members are.

[3:55:38] how can we afford to

[3:55:40] live here and buy a home.

[3:55:41] >> I know

[3:55:42] you say

[3:55:44] that, but I am not seeing that. I

[3:55:45] am looking at

[3:55:47] our experts that they do all of

[3:55:50] the plannings. He keeps saying

[3:55:51] production, production, production.

[3:55:53] the thing showed

[3:55:55] that we are done the production.

[3:55:56] >>

[3:55:57] we have not

[3:55:58] done the production.

[3:55:59] >> we have done

[3:56:00] comparing the

[3:56:02] 2010 to 2020 you

[3:56:05] were showing, 2022, there

[3:56:08] is production.

[3:56:13] there has been production, but the

[3:56:14] ownership hasn't increased

[3:56:17] at all. The homeownership is one

[3:56:20] reason people want to

[3:56:23] move.

[3:56:25] they don't want to be a renter all

[3:56:26] of their life.

[3:56:29] if they have a family, they want to

[3:56:30] own

[3:56:32] something. That is what creates

[3:56:34] the wealth for future. That happened

[3:56:35] to me.

[3:56:38] I know a lot of my friends.

[3:56:40] surely if you worked for government,

[3:56:41] that is the

[3:56:43] only thing that can allow you to have

[3:56:44] some wealth.

[3:56:46] how can we provide that opportunity

[3:56:47] for our children?

[3:56:50] >> we are

[3:56:53] trying.

[3:56:56] >> just to respond, sorry you are

[3:56:58] in a conversation. Thanks for sticking

[3:56:59] around. I

[3:57:02] think that was the experience of an

[3:57:04] older generation. I don't think it

[3:57:05] is an

[3:57:06] experience of a generation younger

[3:57:08] than me. It takes so

[3:57:10] much longer to get together the wealth

[3:57:11] necessary to put

[3:57:13] a down payment and purchase a house

[3:57:14] than it did even

[3:57:17] a decade ago. Value

[3:57:20] in my neighborhood have gone up 45%

[3:57:21] depending

[3:57:23] how you look at it. If I was forced

[3:57:24] to

[3:57:26] give a 20%

[3:57:29] or 5% down payment on what I

[3:57:32] paid, that is a scale difference.

[3:57:35] that requires a much higher base to

[3:57:36] purchase from.

[3:57:38] when you are talking about a post

[3:57:39] baby

[3:57:41] boom generation or

[3:57:44] older gen x generation, the

[3:57:46] inflation adjusted cost of the home

[3:57:47] was considerably lower

[3:57:50] and you had much more investment in

[3:57:53] loans and things like that

[3:57:55] lowering the overall entry point that

[3:57:56] you do not

[3:57:59] have now. We have taken 91%

[3:58:01] of the residential space, sectioned

[3:58:02] it off for single

[3:58:04] family homes. We cannot build that

[3:58:05] because we are

[3:58:08] not build out.

[3:58:11] we can only

[3:58:14] build multi family in 9% of the county.

[3:58:17] there are hardly any spaces

[3:58:19] left. You run the numbers and what

[3:58:20] you see is

[3:58:23] what we get. Creep, creep, creep,

[3:58:24] steep. That

[3:58:25] is where we have come to this point.

[3:58:26] people do

[3:58:29] want to buy. People want homeownership.

[3:58:32] is it a different market for

[3:58:35] multi family and a market for single

[3:58:38] family detached homeownership which

[3:58:39] we can't

[3:58:41] build anymore.

[3:58:42] >> I am not talking

[3:58:43] about just

[3:58:45] single family, okay. You have

[3:58:48] townhomes, two by twos. I

[3:58:50] see the architect come with a really

[3:58:51] innovative

[3:58:54] ideas that allow --

[3:58:57] I am not

[3:58:58] talking single family or anything.

[3:59:00] you said the

[3:59:03] rent increased by 40% while

[3:59:06] the mortgage has gone

[3:59:09] up 14%.

[3:59:12] it allows people to have a

[3:59:15] better quality of

[3:59:18] life.

[3:59:33] what I am

[3:59:36] challenging us to think about

[3:59:37] all other different types of housing

[3:59:39] types that allows

[3:59:42] ownership. That is what I

[3:59:45] am talking about.

[3:59:51] we just started to

[3:59:54] approve those in the past

[3:59:55] years. Hopefully we will see them

[3:59:57] in the market in the

[4:00:00] next couple of

[4:00:03] years.

[4:00:06] we

[4:00:09] are going to wrap this up.

[4:00:10] >> I

[4:00:12] like your presentation.

[4:00:24] >> I

[4:00:27] was wondering if

[4:00:29] there is a cost of analysis versus

[4:00:30] the

[4:00:32] selling price of the unit or the house

[4:00:33] based on

[4:00:36] the county.

[4:00:39] one of those is the

[4:00:40] cost of construction and the cost

[4:00:42] of housing. I

[4:00:45] was wondering if it is

[4:00:47] different, the cost in east county

[4:00:48] is different than

[4:00:51] the cost in west county. If they

[4:00:54] are the same, you know, what is

[4:00:57] the obstacle of building, you

[4:00:59] know, multi family dwelling units

[4:01:00] in west

[4:01:02] county opposed to east county if the

[4:01:03] cost

[4:01:05] will be the same, and you can sell

[4:01:06] it for

[4:01:08] more moneymoney west county than you

[4:01:09] could in

[4:01:12] east county.

[4:01:13] >> for the record,

[4:01:14] kerry mccarthy, division chief of

[4:01:15] research in

[4:01:17] strategic projects. The general answer

[4:01:18] to that is

[4:01:21] land costs, land values are a lot

[4:01:23] higher in west county than east county.

[4:01:24] construction

[4:01:26] costs, you are drawing materials,

[4:01:27] out of county,

[4:01:30] out of state, regional. It really

[4:01:33] s down to the land value.

[4:01:34] >> is

[4:01:35] it based on location, demographics

[4:01:36] or is

[4:01:39] it based upon scarcity?

[4:01:42] >> kind of all of the above.

[4:01:44] school districts. Perceived quality

[4:01:45] of

[4:01:48] school districts is a big driver

[4:01:51] and location.

[4:01:54] >> so,

[4:01:57] in west county there

[4:01:59] are less public transportation opportunities,

[4:02:00] correct.

[4:02:03] right. However, how does that compute

[4:02:04] with

[4:02:06] what you just said because there are

[4:02:07] less

[4:02:08] public transportation opportunities.

[4:02:09] so, the

[4:02:12] land value is higher because there

[4:02:13] is less transportation options.

[4:02:14] >>

[4:02:15] there are

[4:02:18] schools, access to parks,

[4:02:24] amenities, commuting.

[4:02:25] >> you

[4:02:27] are talking about a place r-200 or

[4:02:30] r-1. Your house may cost 3. 5

[4:02:32] but it is sitting on an acre and a

[4:02:33] half of

[4:02:35] land, and you can't build anything

[4:02:36] but a single

[4:02:39] family home on it anyway.

[4:02:40] >> if it

[4:02:42] were zoned differently --if we

[4:02:45] had comparable zones in west and east

[4:02:46] county

[4:02:47] and they were zoned the same, right.

[4:02:48] would the

[4:02:50] value of the land be different in

[4:02:51] west county than the value

[4:02:54] of the land in east

[4:02:57] county?

[4:02:58] >> kind of

[4:03:00] depends.

[4:03:01] >> why. >>

[4:03:02] why?

[4:03:03] >> some of it is commute from

[4:03:04] dc,

[4:03:05] transit is a benefit and driving on

[4:03:06] the westside of

[4:03:09] the county it is

[4:03:13] >> I think

[4:03:16] when we would look

[4:03:18] at availability of space, the more space

[4:03:19] available in west county than

[4:03:22] there is in east county. And

[4:03:25] the cost of construction

[4:03:28] is the same, but land value is not based

[4:03:31] upon scarcity,

[4:03:32] but some other intangibles. We can

[4:03:34] look

[4:03:36] at opportunities for expanding construction and building

[4:03:40] in west county as opposed to

[4:03:43] east county. The variables you mentioned,

[4:03:45] you know, school performance, whatnot,

[4:03:46] we also

[4:03:50] have to examine how we

[4:03:53] can improve

[4:03:56] our school's performances and

[4:03:57] demographics, I guess, in east county,

[4:03:59] or find some

[4:04:02] kind of way to limit

[4:04:05] the estimation of value based upon schools

[4:04:06] only and demographics. Because the

[4:04:08] proximity to

[4:04:10] metro station that you brought up doesn't

[4:04:12] really particularly fit for west county,

[4:04:14] as it does in the central

[4:04:17] part of the

[4:04:18] county and east county. So I just

[4:04:20] find it

[4:04:22] curious on how homes are valued in

[4:04:23] our

[4:04:26] county that limit

[4:04:28] the opportunity for homeownership.

[4:04:29] >>

[4:04:30] yep.

[4:04:31] >> and then

[4:04:32] I've really liked this information. Final

[4:04:33] question is how

[4:04:35] will the local citizen, who is

[4:04:38] not a developer and is just a

[4:04:41] consumer use

[4:04:43] this information to their benefit?

[4:04:44] >>

[4:04:45] so

[4:04:46] first of all, we pick key demographic

[4:04:47] and

[4:04:49] land use in housing characteristics,

[4:04:50] that give up an overarching

[4:04:52] picture of what the community had

[4:04:53] looks like. So

[4:04:55] probably for the average citizen,

[4:04:58] you know, most people may not know

[4:04:59] exactly

[4:05:01] what the data points are. What does

[4:05:02] our

[4:05:03] community look like? You know, they

[4:05:05] may

[4:05:08] have some perception

[4:05:11] of well, this community is

[4:05:14] wealthier. Demographics may

[4:05:16] be this. You know, percentage of people. But,

[4:05:17] you know,

[4:05:19] we want them to have the correct information. So

[4:05:20] this

[4:05:23] is suppose

[4:05:26] to be an authoritative source we're providing

[4:05:27] to

[4:05:28] the community. And this is suppose

[4:05:29] to be,

[4:05:32] you know, a first place for them

[4:05:35] to stop at, to

[4:05:36] look at the information, learn about,

[4:05:38] you know,

[4:05:41] what their community looks like. And

[4:05:44] have the kinds of conversations that

[4:05:47] we are having right now. Ask questions

[4:05:48] and think

[4:05:49] about, well, what about these other things

[4:05:52] that may not be published? You know,

[4:05:53] in the

[4:05:56] report. You know, why is this

[4:05:59] going on? And then, you know, perhaps maybe

[4:06:02] start engaging with

[4:06:03] our community leaders to, you know, answer

[4:06:05] some of these questions and

[4:06:06] maybe drive policy change as well.

[4:06:11] >> okay, linden,

[4:06:17] do you have

[4:06:18] any questions, comments?

[4:06:19] >> no questions. Just somewhat,

[4:06:20] a lot of thanks to

[4:06:23] the team. This was

[4:06:24] really incredible stuff. I really

[4:06:25] enjoyed reading through the report. I didn't

[4:06:26] quite

[4:06:27] make it through the whole thing yet. But

[4:06:29] I enjoy the parts I got through,

[4:06:34] and I appreciate this presentation.

[4:06:38] it will be

[4:06:41] a valuable resource to plug in

[4:06:44] and support so

[4:06:46] many policy plans and conversations. Yeah,

[4:06:47] I really look forward to kind of continuing

[4:06:50] to chew on a lot of

[4:06:52] this and have conversations around

[4:06:53] it. So yeah, just thanks so

[4:06:56] much for your work on it.

[4:07:02] >> we appreciate it. We're going to

[4:07:03] take

[4:07:05] a 30-minute break and come

[4:07:08] back, so 30 minutes from

[4:07:11] now is like 1:30. Thank you so much. We

[4:07:12] look

[4:07:14] --great, great work. Thank you.

[4:07:47] after a 30-minute break ]

[4:40:52] z

[4:40:53] >>>

[4:40:55] item seven and eight, item seven is

[4:40:57] dps zoning and site plan enforcement. And

[4:40:58] they will cover

[4:41:01] the site plan mou and

[4:41:03] enforcement coordination. And the

[4:41:04] second item, number eight, land development

[4:41:07] will present the right of way stormwater

[4:41:08] and

[4:41:09] wells and septic. You have to admit,

[4:41:10] I haven't seen it so lively here in a while,

[4:41:11] so

[4:41:13] thank you

[4:41:16] for the dps and the dot team for coming today. So

[4:41:19] we'll

[4:41:21] start off with robin kronenberg, deputy

[4:41:22] director, telling us what we're going

[4:41:24] to be hearing today.

[4:41:25] >> thank you,

[4:41:26] mr. Chair. Thank you

[4:41:28] to our partners

[4:41:31] with dot and with dps. Definitely

[4:41:32] have

[4:41:33] a good turnout here. The board did

[4:41:34] ask for a briefing back in the fall. It's

[4:41:35] taken a

[4:41:36] little while to get this together,

[4:41:38] but

[4:41:41] we really appreciate your

[4:41:42] partnership here. And, you know, we

[4:41:44] work with everyone

[4:41:47] here on a daily

[4:41:49] basis. Our coordination efforts, in many

[4:41:50] respects, behind the scenes. So what

[4:41:51] you

[4:41:52] see is kind of a final report that

[4:41:53] comes to

[4:41:55] you. A lot of times, it is what all these

[4:41:58] people collectively have worked together

[4:42:01] with our staff to bring to you. I

[4:42:02] also wanted

[4:42:04] to say we really appreciate their

[4:42:08] feedback and their participation in

[4:42:09] the community planning academy. I

[4:42:11] know you were, you

[4:42:14] helped represent one of

[4:42:17] the activities we had. But

[4:42:18] both agencies provided input in the

[4:42:21] participation and in the modules. So

[4:42:23] the presentations

[4:42:25] today are intended to be informational

[4:42:26] and provide the

[4:42:27] board an overview of a variety of

[4:42:29] elements that are

[4:42:32] a part of our regulatory

[4:42:33] reviews and post approvals. Again,

[4:42:35] our regulatory reviews include,

[4:42:38] but aren't limited to stormwater management,

[4:42:39] storm drains, zoning, well, septic, right

[4:42:41] of way, and then

[4:42:44] the post approvals are

[4:42:45] record plats and site plan enforcement,

[4:42:47] and I know

[4:42:48] from the dps and dot standpoint, a

[4:42:50] lot of the right of ways

[4:42:52] and the control work that's done. So

[4:42:53] these

[4:42:55] two items will run continuously together. So

[4:42:56] feel

[4:42:58] free to ask them questions. I think

[4:42:59] they

[4:43:00] will have breaks at certain points,

[4:43:02] if you want to hold

[4:43:05] your questions until those points. But

[4:43:07] I'm sure the team will be able to

[4:43:08] navigate

[4:43:09] the questions and the answers. I'd

[4:43:11] like to turn it over. I think

[4:43:14] it's to greg and victor. Is that correct? And

[4:43:16] then I'll let the respective people

[4:43:17] that

[4:43:18] are up here introduce their teams

[4:43:20] if that

[4:43:23] is okay.

[4:43:24] >> can I just

[4:43:25] say, I just want to to really thank

[4:43:26] you

[4:43:29] for all of

[4:43:32] you

[4:43:34] guys being here. Being the director of funding services.

[4:43:38] and

[4:43:41] I

[4:43:44] can attest to the dedication. How

[4:43:47] passionate they

[4:43:50] are for

[4:43:53] the work

[4:43:56] we do. The good relationship

[4:43:59] and coordination with us right

[4:44:02] now. I personally am

[4:44:05] privileged

[4:44:07] to know them, to work with them, thanks

[4:44:11] them for everything they did together

[4:44:14] and for everything that

[4:44:16] they are doing right now. Thank you for being here.

[4:44:20] >> for those

[4:44:23] that were not a part of

[4:44:25] our morning session, commissioner,

[4:44:26] vice chair linden is

[4:44:27] participating virtually today, so

[4:44:29] he is here. Thank you.

[4:44:41] >> chair and members

[4:44:43] of the planning board. I'm victor salazar,

[4:44:44] division chief for

[4:44:47] zoning and code compliance at

[4:44:50] dps. I'm joined by greg

[4:44:52] nichols, section manager per code compliance

[4:44:53] and brian, who

[4:44:56] is our program managerrer and

[4:44:59] manages our field inspection teams. With

[4:45:00] us

[4:45:02] today, our inspectors who

[4:45:08] were seated behind us. Just to

[4:45:11] give you an idea. Guys, keep standing

[4:45:13] for a section. We are only missing

[4:45:14] two on the team, but raise

[4:45:16] your hand. Patrick, he's inside the beltway,

[4:45:17] okay. And then just going

[4:45:20] north of that, we

[4:45:22] are missing amir aberdeen, but we've

[4:45:23] got alvin clarkson, basically

[4:45:26] your guy in the east. Just above him

[4:45:28] in montgomery village area, going

[4:45:29] up

[4:45:31] towards gaithersburg, you have neman. And

[4:45:36] then you've got oscar hildalgo, mostly

[4:45:38] in the clarkburg area. But he's

[4:45:39] in training still. Really great. We've got

[4:45:41] him all over the place. We

[4:45:44] are also missing andre

[4:45:47] peters who is gaitherstown, germantown west.

[4:45:48] >>

[4:45:49] I've been working with alvin since

[4:45:50] he was assigned to silver springs,

[4:45:52] so I appreciate the work he's been

[4:45:53] doing. Probably been at least 15

[4:45:55] years that we've been working together,

[4:45:59] so I appreciate their work.

[4:46:02] >> today, our portion of the briefing

[4:46:05] focuses on how planning board decisions

[4:46:06] translate

[4:46:08] into what actually gets built

[4:46:14] on the ground. Specifically through

[4:46:15] our certified

[4:46:16] site plan compliance program. This

[4:46:17] is not a policy pitch. It's

[4:46:20] an operational walk through, how the

[4:46:23] system works, how we coordinate

[4:46:26] where accountability lives, and what we've

[4:46:27] learned. After

[4:46:28] this section, linda and her team will

[4:46:29] walk you through the land development

[4:46:30] side

[4:46:32] of the house, which picks up where

[4:46:33] our compliance role intersects with infrastructure delivery.

[4:46:41] this agenda follows the life cycle

[4:46:45] of a project, from planning

[4:46:48] board approval to inspection

[4:46:54] to enforcement to lessons

[4:46:57] learned. This mou exists

[4:46:58] because approvals don't enforce themselves. The

[4:47:00] mou was

[4:47:03] created

[4:47:04] to remove ambiguity, who expects what, when planning

[4:47:06] is looped in,

[4:47:08] and who is accountable when conditions

[4:47:09] aren't

[4:47:11] met. Before the mou responsibilities were

[4:47:12] implied,

[4:47:15] after

[4:47:17] the mou, they are explicit. Integrity

[4:47:19] of the planning board conditions and

[4:47:21] the language that you put

[4:47:23] in the resolutions in the program

[4:47:25] tables that we follow. And so if you

[4:47:27] don't --if you don't

[4:47:30] get an opportunity to see those

[4:47:31] plans after staff reports have submitted

[4:47:33] them

[4:47:34] to you, and they've been certified,

[4:47:36] we brought an

[4:47:38] example of some of the plans that

[4:47:39] we

[4:47:41] often refer to when our inspectors

[4:47:42] were out in the

[4:47:43] field, and those are sitting in front

[4:47:45] of us right now. Go ahead.

[4:47:54] what we want to emphasize

[4:47:57] with regards

[4:48:00] to framework and

[4:48:01] objectives. The mou gives us predictability. It

[4:48:03] provides us clear

[4:48:06] handoffs, and there is

[4:48:07] no duplication. This framework is

[4:48:09] less about bureaucracy

[4:48:10] and more about preventing gaps. Gaps

[4:48:12] that

[4:48:15] show up later

[4:48:18] as complaints, delays, or displacement

[4:48:21] disputes. Talks about collaboration between

[4:48:24] our agencies,

[4:48:27] and it dictates to us how

[4:48:30] we

[4:48:32] enforce conditions, when our inspectors

[4:48:33] discovered what you put

[4:48:34] in the resolution, and the program

[4:48:36] table differ than what is

[4:48:39] being constructed in the field and

[4:48:42] how we correct those, how we

[4:48:45] make corrections to those mistakes. You

[4:48:48] can go to the

[4:48:51] next one. The objectives, we

[4:48:53] want to clarify agency roles. Ensure

[4:48:57] consistency in compliance of planning

[4:48:59] board conditions. Provide a structured

[4:49:00] response

[4:49:01] to community complaints, and promote inner agency efficiencies.

[4:49:06] okay. You can go.

[4:49:14] about responsibilities under the mou.

[4:49:18] planning

[4:49:21] sets

[4:49:24] the conditions. You guys

[4:49:25] receive suggested, suggestions from

[4:49:26] planning staff. You deliberate and

[4:49:27] you decide what you

[4:49:30] will amend and what

[4:49:33] you will keep. And what happens is

[4:49:36] in those certified

[4:49:39] plans, transmitted to us

[4:49:40] electronically. You review permits

[4:49:42] for conformity, provide

[4:49:43] electronic access, and participate

[4:49:44] in scheduled coordination. So if it

[4:49:45] is

[4:49:47] not with you, that stuff, we are definitely

[4:49:48] meeting with

[4:49:51] jason

[4:49:54] and robert and their staff. Yep. So

[4:49:56] dps ensures those conditions were

[4:49:57] met in the

[4:50:00] field, and we

[4:50:03] do this through

[4:50:04] inspections, regularly coordinated

[4:50:06] meetings within

[4:50:09] our department and

[4:50:11] with planning. And we perform investigations with

[4:50:12] regards to

[4:50:14] deviations from what is being constructed

[4:50:15] in the field,

[4:50:18] and then we coordinate with

[4:50:20] planning staff for bond releases and reviews.

[4:50:30] it

[4:50:33] is not, it is routine and not reactive. We

[4:50:35] have weekly, monthly, and quarterly

[4:50:36] touch points,

[4:50:39] which means

[4:50:40] issues are addressed early. Before

[4:50:42] they escalate. You don't hear about

[4:50:43] most

[4:50:44] of these because they were resolved before

[4:50:45] they become problems. So

[4:50:48] right here is where

[4:50:50] we talk about this slide, highlights those key coordination channels.

[4:51:00] before the projects reach the

[4:51:02] planning board, drc will meet with

[4:51:03] all

[4:51:04] of the relevant agencies and utilities

[4:51:06] and anyone involved in the regulatory

[4:51:09] process to

[4:51:12] meet with the applicants

[4:51:15] and discuss the over--the overlapping regulatory

[4:51:18] issues that

[4:51:21] may impact their project. Then we

[4:51:22] have inner

[4:51:23] agency inspection leadership. This

[4:51:24] is josh k.,

[4:51:27] this is greg and brian. And they

[4:51:30] meet regularly to talk about emerging

[4:51:31] issues

[4:51:32] that are happening on the ground. On

[4:51:33] thursday

[4:51:36] morning, we have

[4:51:39] a senior management meeting internally

[4:51:40] with dps, with josh, and that is where

[4:51:42] we take one of these projects

[4:51:44] and one of these plans, and we peel

[4:51:45] back the onion and go in depth,

[4:51:48] and we talk about what is

[4:51:50] happening today, what are the emerging issues

[4:51:54] that we need to address, and

[4:52:00] how was the project progressing?

[4:52:03] beyond the

[4:52:06] mou, and we're talk to talk

[4:52:09] about how the mou between

[4:52:12] the ways will become operationallized. Coordination

[4:52:13] here is routine and not reactive.

[4:52:21] excuse me, I just said

[4:52:24] that. This is where policy becomes inspection. Multiple

[4:52:26] touch points per month means we're

[4:52:27] not waiting for complaints

[4:52:30] to tell us something is wrong. We

[4:52:33] found out about them early, and

[4:52:34] then we communicate across agencies

[4:52:36] to determine

[4:52:39] what the best action is

[4:52:42] to bring the developer into

[4:52:45] compliance. Okay, you

[4:52:48] can go to the next one. It

[4:52:51] shows what compliance

[4:52:54] looks like on the ground. It's

[4:52:57] about adherence

[4:53:00] to the resolution program table. Construction

[4:53:01] compliance

[4:53:02] is about sequencing. Doing the right

[4:53:04] things in the right order.

[4:53:07] team coordination is what

[4:53:10] keeps this from becoming siloed,

[4:53:12] so we partner with dot, planning,

[4:53:15] right of way, our developers, our

[4:53:19] engineers, and our utility

[4:53:22] companies to make sure

[4:53:24] these projects are being constructed

[4:53:25] in a

[4:53:28] manner that you have outlined in

[4:53:31] your

[4:53:33] resolution and your program tables.

[4:53:37] weekly briefing, this

[4:53:40] is not a check box

[4:53:41] meeting. It's where emerging risks surface

[4:53:43] early. And

[4:53:45] this is where we deeply and in depth

[4:53:46] discuss what

[4:53:49] is going on, on

[4:53:51] the ground, and determining what we

[4:53:52] need

[4:53:54] to do to correct those violations

[4:53:55] that we

[4:53:56] find or those failed inspections that

[4:53:58] we find

[4:54:01] out in the field. What this

[4:54:02] is, senior management visibility. It

[4:54:05] is intentional, and it reinforces

[4:54:07] accountability. So not

[4:54:08] only are inspectors and the frontline

[4:54:10] managers involved in

[4:54:12] making sure these certified site plans

[4:54:13] are

[4:54:15] complied with, but I, as a division

[4:54:16] chief,

[4:54:19] are actively involved

[4:54:25] in ensuring that

[4:54:28] happens also. Most problems

[4:54:31] are preventable with

[4:54:32] early clarity. Early meetings, clear

[4:54:34] language, and dashboards

[4:54:37] have reduced friction out in the

[4:54:40] field. Clear site plan language

[4:54:41] saves everyone time. That includes

[4:54:43] the inspectors in the

[4:54:44] applicants in planning, so thank you

[4:54:46] very much

[4:54:47] to planning staff for making sure

[4:54:49] that

[4:54:52] we have clear and

[4:54:55] defensible language, when we

[4:54:57] are holding our developers, people

[4:54:58] out in the field,

[4:54:59] holding them accountable for what

[4:55:01] you

[4:55:04] have put down on these plans. I'm

[4:55:07] just going to go through three

[4:55:08] projects that show how these projects

[4:55:10] show

[4:55:13] the program and

[4:55:15] how it works at scale. One of them

[4:55:16] is

[4:55:19] a project that came

[4:55:22] online about ten

[4:55:25] years ago, which is the

[4:55:28] premium outfits. And this is without

[4:55:31] reading everything

[4:55:33] on the slide, what they brought into

[4:55:36] the northern part of the county is

[4:55:40] an economic hub that brought jobs

[4:55:41] and provides

[4:55:43] positive economic output

[4:55:49] for the county today.

[4:55:52] it is

[4:55:55] much more closer to this board's

[4:55:57] membership. It's the marriott headquarters. You

[4:55:58] can go

[4:56:01] to the next one. What marriott headquarters brings,

[4:56:02] if

[4:56:04] you think about the brand

[4:56:07] of marriott, we are talking about

[4:56:10] people associate marriott with

[4:56:13] success. People associate marriott

[4:56:14] with successful

[4:56:15] people, bringing in money, people

[4:56:18] who are going on vacation, people

[4:56:19] who are having corporate

[4:56:22] meetings, and

[4:56:25] to have marriott headquarters

[4:56:28] in bethesda, showcases how

[4:56:31] planning has successfully brought

[4:56:32] a marquee

[4:56:33] organization into bethesda. What bethesda

[4:56:34] and the location of

[4:56:37] the marriott headquarters also brings

[4:56:38] is an

[4:56:39] international organization, and we're

[4:56:40] talking about

[4:56:42] the climate action plan, trying to

[4:56:46] reduce vehicle miles traveled

[4:56:48] and providing a workplace that would

[4:56:49] then a

[4:56:51] mile radius that people have access to

[4:56:55] restaurants, have access

[4:56:57] to shopping, have access to schools. All

[4:56:58] the things

[4:57:01] that are necessary to have

[4:57:04] a community. They are also

[4:57:07] located near a

[4:57:08] hub of transportation with the bethesda

[4:57:10] metro center and seeing the

[4:57:13] purple line. So what we have brought

[4:57:15] here is an employer, an international employer,

[4:57:16] and

[4:57:19] they have set

[4:57:22] up shop here

[4:57:25] in montgomery county. Then

[4:57:28] the next one, bethesda. So for

[4:57:30] us here, this is a pretty complex

[4:57:31] project that

[4:57:33] goes to the next page. This is the

[4:57:34] scope of the project here.

[4:57:37] it's

[4:57:39] one thing that we notice, we have

[4:57:40] two developers we

[4:57:43] are working with. So the project is pretty close to finish.

[4:57:49] what has happened is we

[4:57:52] have had to

[4:57:55] tag team and make sure our staff ensuring that

[4:57:58] two developers are meeting their

[4:58:01] triggers, that they are adhering to

[4:58:02] the resolution

[4:58:04] in the program

[4:58:07] tables that

[4:58:09] you guys have for us. By the numbers.

[4:58:13] so

[4:58:16] this slide gives you a sense of scale and rhythm,

[4:58:19] how this is being exercised,

[4:58:22] not that

[4:58:25] it just exists. So these numbers

[4:58:28] reflect routine activity and

[4:58:31] not exceptions. They

[4:58:33] show ongoing oversight, not enforcement. And

[4:58:34] the

[4:58:36] program is active across multiple

[4:58:37] projects

[4:58:39] at the same time. So the takeaway

[4:58:43] here isn't the individual

[4:58:46] figures. It's that this

[4:58:51] program operates throughout the year. Each

[4:58:52] of the question,

[4:58:55] why

[4:58:57] this matters beyond our two agencies.

[4:59:04] fewer downstream

[4:59:06] interpretation issues. More predictability

[4:59:07] and

[4:59:10] fewer surprises late in

[4:59:13] construction. And earlier issue identification reduced

[4:59:14] the work more efficient resolution.

[4:59:19] because coordination

[4:59:22] happens early, issues surface sooner. And

[4:59:23] the

[4:59:25] public benefit here is confidence. That

[4:59:26] what

[4:59:28] is approved

[4:59:31] is actually what gets built.

[4:59:34] if

[4:59:36] there is one takeaway today that after

[4:59:37] going through the previous

[4:59:40] 22 slides, if you can take away

[4:59:42] anything today from what I've delivered here

[4:59:44] is

[4:59:46] that the importance of collaboration

[4:59:48] between our two agencies is what has

[4:59:50] made

[4:59:53] this program a success. The mou

[4:59:55] was entered into 2006. The iteration

[4:59:59] of the mou

[5:00:00] was signed in 2018. We are currently

[5:00:02] in

[5:00:05] the process of revising

[5:00:08] the mou for the front

[5:00:11] planning board

[5:00:14] chair and the two directors to

[5:00:16] sign in the coming months. But the

[5:00:19] slide may read as self-evident, but

[5:00:20] in practice, it's

[5:00:23] the hardest thing to sustain.

[5:00:26] so now

[5:00:29] I am going

[5:00:32] to end

[5:00:34] the slide show here. Dps appreciates

[5:00:35] the

[5:00:37] division of zoning, appreciates the opportunity

[5:00:41] to present the mou and our

[5:00:43] code compliance inspection program. After

[5:00:44] all, dps is your project partner.

[5:00:53] >> I like that,

[5:00:55] thank you. I needed that.

[5:00:56] >> yeah,

[5:00:57] thank

[5:00:59] you

[5:01:02] so much in explaining the

[5:01:05] process, letting us know that

[5:01:08] it is not just periodic points

[5:01:10] that you go out and check the continuous checking,

[5:01:14] and that

[5:01:15] our teams are working together. And

[5:01:17] so what

[5:01:23] I heard you

[5:01:26] say is the planning

[5:01:28] and the dps people are interacting

[5:01:31] --you said every ten days? Is that

[5:01:32] what it is? Did

[5:01:35] I get that right?

[5:01:36] >> no,

[5:01:38] what he was referring to is we

[5:01:40] have a program now. Mou stipulates

[5:01:43] that we inspect all active certified

[5:01:44] site plan projects

[5:01:47] within once every ten days.

[5:01:48] >> okay. >>

[5:01:49] now,

[5:01:50] when projects are closing in on triggers

[5:01:51] like they're trying to get

[5:01:52] all their landscaping in, they're

[5:01:53] trying to get all their amenities

[5:01:56] in, or they're trying to

[5:01:57] reach a certain milestone. Our guys

[5:01:59] might have to go out there

[5:02:01] every day, right?

[5:02:02] >> right. >> but

[5:02:03] by the

[5:02:05] mou, we have to

[5:02:08] go out on all

[5:02:11] active projects once every

[5:02:12] ten days. And even with guys that

[5:02:14] are having to fill in

[5:02:16] for one another. Somebody goes on

[5:02:17] extended leave. They

[5:02:18] can all see that dashboard, and that's

[5:02:20] the dashboard kind

[5:02:22] of thing they're talking about. That

[5:02:23] way we

[5:02:26] never get behind

[5:02:29] on that.

[5:02:30] >> okay,

[5:02:31] great. Great. That's great to know. It

[5:02:32] was the developer

[5:02:35] side and not

[5:02:38] on

[5:02:39] the construction side. Where would

[5:02:41] josh plug

[5:02:44] in to this project?

[5:02:45] >> so

[5:02:47] josh works, obviously

[5:02:48] with robert. He works with christine,

[5:02:50] right? And what's

[5:02:52] that division called? She's intake? I

[5:02:53] call it

[5:02:55] intake.

[5:02:56] >> it's environmental climate now. >>

[5:02:58] okay, it's environmental climate now. So

[5:02:59] josh and

[5:03:02] his staff do the forest

[5:03:05] conservation, okay? And they do all

[5:03:06] preliminary, preliminary plan compliance.

[5:03:07] >>

[5:03:08] okay.

[5:03:09] >> we insist in

[5:03:10] that. They help us sometimes. We assist

[5:03:11] them sometimes. But he is sort

[5:03:14] of a go

[5:03:17] between. He's your liaison when it

[5:03:19] comes to between staff and our concerns.

[5:03:20] >>

[5:03:21] right.

[5:03:22] >>

[5:03:23] the forest conservation.

[5:03:24] >> I have

[5:03:25] worked with

[5:03:26] josh. We've known each other for well over

[5:03:28] 20 years. So yeah, we collaborate

[5:03:29] in that respect. If we see

[5:03:30] a problem, you know, we want to bounce

[5:03:32] it off of josh and he

[5:03:33] bounces off of staff. We want to stay

[5:03:35] on the

[5:03:37] same page.

[5:03:38] >> right. >> the mou allows

[5:03:39] anyone at

[5:03:40] any time to escalate something, if they don't

[5:03:41] agree with

[5:03:42] one of our decisions. They could come

[5:03:43] to staff and they can escalate it. But

[5:03:44] what

[5:03:46] we try to do, we make sure we're on

[5:03:47] the same page

[5:03:49] so that that rarely happens.

[5:03:50] >> okay,

[5:03:51] great. And

[5:03:52] I know those mous are always hard

[5:03:53] to, you know,

[5:03:55] put together an update, but they are so important

[5:03:56] at the end

[5:03:58] of the day, so thank you that you

[5:03:59] guys work so hard

[5:04:02] together to keep it, you

[5:04:03] know, up to date periodically. Thank

[5:04:05] you

[5:04:08] so much.

[5:04:09] >> mr. Chair, I would add

[5:04:11] that we think the initiators of

[5:04:13] the mou back in 2006. So the continuity

[5:04:14] has been there. We do

[5:04:17] bring it and update it

[5:04:18] as much as possible. Usually it's

[5:04:20] every two to three years that we're

[5:04:23] updating it. I think the most recent

[5:04:26] one, and I would say they are

[5:04:28] graciously agreed to interpret our expedited

[5:04:29] plan approvals as a site plan, so

[5:04:31] this is something that we have added

[5:04:32] to the mou because

[5:04:34] it is not technically a site plan,

[5:04:35] but

[5:04:38] it will have the same context and

[5:04:39] the

[5:04:40] same formality that they do. So things

[5:04:41] like that,

[5:04:44] we would add to

[5:04:47] the m, ozarks in

[5:04:50] terms of clarity and what.

[5:04:51] >> anything

[5:04:52] else?

[5:04:53] >> I

[5:04:54] just wanted to add something.

[5:04:56] what dps does

[5:04:59] at the zoning

[5:05:02] that victor just explained. Only the

[5:05:05] conditions that we received that

[5:05:08] they review, and then those conditions are approved,

[5:05:09] and

[5:05:11] it goes

[5:05:14] to the resolution. It is like given

[5:05:15] to them religiously. I know that at

[5:05:17] one time, we were trying

[5:05:20] to have it in a way

[5:05:22] that all of those conditions be readily

[5:05:23] available for the inspector that

[5:05:26] will go to the field to see

[5:05:29] that if they are in compliance. So

[5:05:31] the enforcement is on them. We just

[5:05:32] sign it

[5:05:35] on the paper and it goes. They

[5:05:38] make sure it happens. This

[5:05:41] group of

[5:05:44] inspector for zoning, they are basically

[5:05:47] for these requirements because dps on

[5:05:48] top

[5:05:50] of that

[5:05:53] has lots of other inspectors

[5:05:56] that they do the commercials

[5:05:59] and presentations, and

[5:06:01] electrical and mechanical. So these

[5:06:02] group of inspectors are on top

[5:06:05] of the other inspectors that

[5:06:08] dps has to

[5:06:11] make sure that everything is being

[5:06:14] put it in place and is built to the regulations. It

[5:06:17] is built according to the approved plan. Not

[5:06:20] just the site plan to the approved

[5:06:21] plan. And

[5:06:23] the other thing that dps does that

[5:06:27] is very

[5:06:30] important, all the impact

[5:06:33] taxes. Everything else

[5:06:36] that we, you know, our planning department have

[5:06:37] on the policies that they collect.

[5:06:43] and the difficult part is they don't all

[5:06:45] collect it right

[5:06:46] when the application goes in. There

[5:06:48] are a

[5:06:50] lot of different stages that I don't

[5:06:51] even know, that I

[5:06:53] know that because they discuss it

[5:06:54] when

[5:06:56] it's going to be, when those fees

[5:06:59] are going to be collected. It is all

[5:07:02] being collected by dps at the certain

[5:07:03] time. A lot of

[5:07:06] times, we

[5:07:08] say they could not allow certain --

[5:07:09] if you say the

[5:07:12] park should be

[5:07:14] built until 70% of the residential

[5:07:15] is in place

[5:07:18] with the last

[5:07:19] occupancy of the 70th building, that's when

[5:07:21] they are not going

[5:07:23] to give it to them unless the park

[5:07:27] is complete. So it is

[5:07:29] a lot of coordination that they do

[5:07:33] for what the say

[5:07:35] in here and what goes underground thanks

[5:07:36] to

[5:07:38] them, that they follow it through

[5:07:39] with all

[5:07:42] the capable staff that they

[5:07:44] have to help with their inspectors. And

[5:07:48] mostly important with

[5:07:49] the senior management that oversees and

[5:07:50] makes sure they have the tools they

[5:07:52] need to have to guetta had job done.

[5:07:57] >> thank you. Thank you so much.

[5:08:00] thank you

[5:08:02] so much. So we will go onto the next presentation.

[5:08:03] >>

[5:08:04] thank

[5:08:06] you.

[5:08:07] >> thank you so much. Great job.

[5:09:12] >> okay, great. >> so

[5:09:15] I'll turn this

[5:09:18] over to sam. And

[5:09:21] let sam

[5:09:23] introduce his colleagues up here.

[5:09:27] >> yes, so ladies

[5:09:29] and gentlemen of the panel board,

[5:09:30] I'm

[5:09:32] with montgomery county department

[5:09:33] of services,

[5:09:36] land development services

[5:09:39] right of way, the section. With

[5:09:45] me,

[5:09:48] she's got the

[5:09:51] manager for --yes. The

[5:09:57] resource manager over at dps.

[5:10:00] so

[5:10:03] thank you for your time

[5:10:06] and for staff for helping me put

[5:10:07] it this presentation together. We

[5:10:09] find it really helpful and think

[5:10:12] it goes a long

[5:10:15] way. Other thing we wanted to say,

[5:10:18] we packed so much material

[5:10:21] in this presentation,

[5:10:23] and we certainly don't want to have

[5:10:24] it be

[5:10:26] a presentation, so please feel free to

[5:10:27] stop

[5:10:30] me or if you have any

[5:10:33] question or want some clarification

[5:10:34] on

[5:10:35] the items, then we will be more than

[5:10:36] happy to add

[5:10:39] some more clarification

[5:10:42] and explanation to

[5:10:45] make it as clear as possible. So the

[5:10:47] department of permit services, the

[5:10:48] right of way section has three main functions.

[5:10:55] the first one is we take

[5:10:58] part in

[5:11:00] the entitlement process. We participate

[5:11:02] in the development review committee, and

[5:11:04] we

[5:11:07] provide all comments

[5:11:10] that are associated

[5:11:13] with public

[5:11:16] right of way. Montgomery

[5:11:17] county public provides those comments,

[5:11:19] all

[5:11:22] the way through

[5:11:23] the preliminary plan. That's all stages

[5:11:25] that will fall prior to

[5:11:28] that like the zoning change,

[5:11:31] all that. And dps,

[5:11:33] the right of way section, provides

[5:11:34] that

[5:11:36] for site plan. So due to the site

[5:11:37] plan, we'll take the lead. Before

[5:11:40] that, they are the lead for

[5:11:43] providing right of

[5:11:45] way comments. Second function of the

[5:11:49] right of way

[5:11:52] section is for

[5:11:55] issuing permits. So whenever

[5:11:58] we have improvements during the entitlement

[5:11:59] process, adopted by the planning board, then

[5:12:01] the next

[5:12:04] stage is for them to apply

[5:12:07] for permit, so they could

[5:12:09] construct it. Dps, by law, administers

[5:12:12] all right of way permits. By that,

[5:12:13] I mean,

[5:12:16] they will need to review them, approve

[5:12:17] them, and inspects

[5:12:18] them to make sure everything is done

[5:12:19] according

[5:12:22] to what was

[5:12:23] approved by their planning board. In

[5:12:28] the third

[5:12:30] function that we do is about record

[5:12:31] plats and

[5:12:32] the dps right of way section, along with

[5:12:34] park and planning,

[5:12:37] the planning board, and

[5:12:40] the planning section, review

[5:12:43] and approve

[5:12:44] all subdivision record plats. One

[5:12:46] that we'll

[5:12:49] provide more details on all the issues later in the presentation.

[5:12:55] so

[5:12:58] where

[5:13:01] are these

[5:13:04] improvements applicable? The two

[5:13:06] instances that we require this improvement, such as

[5:13:07] the improvements that are adopted

[5:13:10] as a part of the entitlement.

[5:13:13] the first and more visible

[5:13:16] one relates

[5:13:19] to all montgomery county

[5:13:20] maintained roadways. And the second

[5:13:25] one, which is not, doesn't

[5:13:28] come to mind

[5:13:31] as easily is about public easements.

[5:13:37] that

[5:13:40] is for

[5:13:43] public use. The improvements

[5:13:46] for permitting, for our review

[5:13:49] will kick in. The public

[5:13:50] easement could include stone drain

[5:13:52] easement, they could include

[5:13:55] the public easement,

[5:13:58] what have you. So that is

[5:14:00] the second place that all their requirements

[5:14:01] that

[5:14:02] are related to public right of way will apply.

[5:14:13] so the next thing

[5:14:16] that

[5:14:19] we'll have

[5:14:21] to consider is when these requirements

[5:14:22] that

[5:14:25] apply to right of way

[5:14:28] improvements apply and they need

[5:14:31] to be decided. As I mentioned

[5:14:33] earlier, montgomery county department

[5:14:34] of transportation

[5:14:37] provides all right of way related

[5:14:38] comments during

[5:14:40] the entire

[5:14:42] process, up to and including preliminary

[5:14:46] plan, which they will be approved

[5:14:49] by the members of the

[5:14:52] planning board

[5:14:53] and become legally binding. Right

[5:14:55] of

[5:14:57] way section of dps reviews all those

[5:14:58] during the site plan process.

[5:15:04] and those requirements, again, will

[5:15:05] get adopted by the planning board.

[5:15:12] so then there are some requirements

[5:15:13] that, I wouldn't

[5:15:16] say requirement, but there are some

[5:15:17] improvements that fib had can apply for.

[5:15:22] and they are not subject

[5:15:25] to the

[5:15:26] entitlement process. For example,

[5:15:28] somebody wants to connect their sub

[5:15:30] pump to our county drainage facilities

[5:15:31] or the

[5:15:34] utility company

[5:15:36] wants to repair their infrastructure. Those

[5:15:37] types of improvements

[5:15:40] are not

[5:15:41] subject to the entitlement process,

[5:15:43] but they do require a right

[5:15:46] of way

[5:15:49] permit, which our office administers.

[5:15:57] and our review applies to anything

[5:15:58] or I should

[5:16:01] say everything

[5:16:03] within the right of way. It could

[5:16:04] be side wall,

[5:16:07] it could be

[5:16:10] utilities,

[5:16:13] drainage facilities, street lights, street

[5:16:14] trees. All

[5:16:16] streetscapes that have

[5:16:19] been adopted during

[5:16:22] the entire process. They also include

[5:16:25] the special such as the

[5:16:28] strict

[5:16:31] part of them, streetscape --

[5:16:34] streetscape. The

[5:16:37] next function dps does is review the record plats.

[5:16:43] and we do

[5:16:46] it alongside

[5:16:49] with the planning board

[5:16:51] and planning department. But we specifically

[5:16:52] reviewed record plats

[5:16:57] from two point of views. Number one

[5:16:58] is from public

[5:17:01] right of way. And the second

[5:17:04] one, we

[5:17:06] expect to management and floodplains. When

[5:17:07] we

[5:17:09] review record plats for public right

[5:17:10] of way, we make sure

[5:17:13] all of the

[5:17:15] right of ways and easements are in

[5:17:17] place. By the way, the

[5:17:20] right of ways and

[5:17:21] easements can be used interchangeably

[5:17:23] and from the legal point

[5:17:24] of view, they are subject to the same

[5:17:26] part of the county law.

[5:17:29] we make sure

[5:17:30] all the improvements, all the easements

[5:17:31] and the right of way are in place.

[5:17:38] we also make sure all

[5:17:39] improvements that we're adopted by

[5:17:41] the planning board in the

[5:17:42] time of entitlement process, pretty

[5:17:44] much the

[5:17:47] site plan are bonded. By doing

[5:17:50] so, we

[5:17:53] ensure

[5:17:56] that those improvements

[5:17:57] are implemented because of bonding improvement

[5:17:59] means, in case the applicant is

[5:18:00] not able to finish the improvements,

[5:18:02] the

[5:18:04] county can use the bond and finish it.

[5:18:08] we

[5:18:11] also make sure they

[5:18:14] are specified under record plats. There

[5:18:17] are a lot of things that need to

[5:18:20] be

[5:18:21] specified on the record plats. There

[5:18:23] are easements that need to be

[5:18:25] shown on the record plats. A lot of

[5:18:26] them

[5:18:27] cannot be done by means of plat because

[5:18:29] of the amount of the

[5:18:32] provisions that we have in each

[5:18:33] easement document. We cannot do them,

[5:18:35] but we

[5:18:38] have to reference them on the

[5:18:41] plat, especially

[5:18:43] if they are existing. We also make

[5:18:44] sure all

[5:18:47] the legal processes are

[5:18:49] done. Those are the processes that will

[5:18:51] lead to determination of the exact

[5:18:53] extent of

[5:18:56] the easement or the

[5:18:59] right of

[5:19:01] way. Also they would expect stormwater

[5:19:02] management,

[5:19:04] for the public right of way, we make sure

[5:19:08] all easements are in

[5:19:09] place, the floodplain buffers, what have

[5:19:11] you. All of

[5:19:14] them are specified and all

[5:19:17] prerequisites

[5:19:20] legal and technical processes are complete.

[5:19:23] we'll pass it on to mark

[5:19:26] for the stormwater management

[5:19:28] section.

[5:19:29] >> thanks. Again, I'm the

[5:19:30] water resources for

[5:19:32] dps. Can you guys hear me okay?

[5:19:35] I'm

[5:19:38] often asked to talk louder. Yeah,

[5:19:41] I apologize ahead

[5:19:43] of time. I'm getting over a little cough. My

[5:19:44] beautiful

[5:19:46] voice isn't what it use today be. I'll

[5:19:47] talk

[5:19:50] a little bit

[5:19:53] about stormwater

[5:19:54] management and sediment control. We'll

[5:19:56] go over a little bit of the overview,

[5:19:57] so put this in perspective for you guys.

[5:20:02] stormwater management is

[5:20:05] primarily a

[5:20:07] --an environmental mitigation process. We

[5:20:08] look

[5:20:10] to reduce environmental impacts that

[5:20:12] occur due to development, which can

[5:20:14] cause decreases in runoff a,

[5:20:16] go into the drainage system. They

[5:20:17] can cause increases

[5:20:19] in pollutants that run off into the stream

[5:20:20] system, and they could also

[5:20:22] reduce the amount of water that soaks

[5:20:23] into the

[5:20:26] ground that is very important

[5:20:28] to recharge those systems for their

[5:20:29] health. That

[5:20:30] basically relies on the groundwater recharge, so

[5:20:32] the e are ductions

[5:20:34] have to be balanced out. Again, as

[5:20:35] I

[5:20:36] said, this is an environmental mitigation

[5:20:38] that is intended to reduce the

[5:20:40] types of impacts that I just mentioned. This

[5:20:41] is generally

[5:20:43] done by slowing down and reducing

[5:20:47] the amount of developed runoff, filtering

[5:20:49] out pollutants, and encouraging that

[5:20:51] infiltration of water back into the

[5:20:52] ground. Some of the practices that

[5:20:53] we have

[5:20:56] used that you've seen

[5:20:59] many times are drywells, rain gardens,

[5:21:00] infiltration

[5:21:02] practices, things of

[5:21:05] that

[5:21:06] sort. Next slide, please? The standards

[5:21:08] that we

[5:21:09] look at for stormwater management,

[5:21:11] are actually set by the state of management

[5:21:13] as part of their stormwater management

[5:21:14] program. We will review

[5:21:16] for those compliance items through

[5:21:17] the delegation of

[5:21:20] authority from the state to review

[5:21:22] on their behalf. They do come out,

[5:21:23] evaluating our program, routinely

[5:21:24] every

[5:21:25] three years to make sure we're staying on

[5:21:26] track and

[5:21:27] doing the things they want us to do.

[5:21:32] our stormwater requirements are

[5:21:35] found in chapter 19

[5:21:38] in the county code. They actually

[5:21:39] review those requirements before we

[5:21:40] enact those to make sure they are

[5:21:41] in compliance with

[5:21:42] the state model ordinance before we

[5:21:44] enact those in the code. The last

[5:21:45] time we

[5:21:47] did that was in july of 2010.

[5:21:48] that's what we did. We went back and

[5:21:50] forth with the state, back

[5:21:52] and forth with the council, back and

[5:21:53] forth with everybody that we could

[5:21:55] think of to try to get everything

[5:21:56] in line with everybody's requirements before

[5:21:59] they went into code. But I

[5:22:02] want to stress that we do our

[5:22:03] reviews through the delegation of

[5:22:05] authority, initially from the state

[5:22:06] of maryland

[5:22:08] to review on their behalf.

[5:22:10] when we do review stormwater for compliance,

[5:22:11] we work primarily

[5:22:14] with the one

[5:22:16] year storm event. It is a statistical

[5:22:17] one year event,

[5:22:19] based on recorded rainfall data that

[5:22:23] we would have historically collected. Right

[5:22:24] now,

[5:22:26] that rainfall event is a

[5:22:29] 24-hour

[5:22:32] one-year event of 2.6 inches. Recently

[5:22:33] the

[5:22:34] analysis were reviewed and some of

[5:22:35] the

[5:22:37] larger storm events were corrected because

[5:22:38] additional information has come

[5:22:41] in, as part of climate change

[5:22:43] to change those. Interestingly enough,

[5:22:44] the one-year storm event stayed right

[5:22:46] where it was, partly because we have

[5:22:47] so much one

[5:22:49] year data because that's the most frequent

[5:22:50] storm data that we have. It is hard

[5:22:53] to change that to statistics without

[5:22:54] a lot of additional data.

[5:22:56] that's

[5:22:59] the one year 24-hour event of 2.6

[5:23:02] inches is the arena in which we

[5:23:03] look for compliance primarily. So

[5:23:05] it is not a big storm event.

[5:23:08] the goal that

[5:23:10] we have is to modify the developed flows

[5:23:11] to reduce

[5:23:14] the impacts to the ultimate

[5:23:16] receiving stream system. That is the

[5:23:17] overall goal we're looking

[5:23:23] for to maintain healthy streams.

[5:23:29] from the early 70s.

[5:23:35] >>

[5:23:38] and the review process. They have

[5:23:41] to obtain approval

[5:23:42] of the stormwater management concept

[5:23:44] from dps, prior to go to the board,

[5:23:47] if they are going through the planning

[5:23:48] process. So we

[5:23:50] want to make sure we look at these

[5:23:53] to see if

[5:23:56] they are using the

[5:23:59] right assumptions, using the

[5:24:00] right standards. They have given us

[5:24:02] enough information as a part

[5:24:05] of our review on the level, that they are

[5:24:08] confident that

[5:24:11] they are making

[5:24:14] those assumptions. What they're proposing

[5:24:17] appears to be --things like that,

[5:24:18] we have the

[5:24:19] benefit at the stage of looking at

[5:24:20] a

[5:24:23] lot of real design data. We really

[5:24:26] see what those plans look like. When

[5:24:27] we are going

[5:24:28] through something, and I'll probably talk

[5:24:29] about this in a little bit in a minute,

[5:24:30] we

[5:24:31] are going through something like a single-family

[5:24:32] lot that is

[5:24:34] being subdivided from one lot into three,

[5:24:35] for example. We

[5:24:38] don't have a lot

[5:24:41] of exact design data to go on

[5:24:44] because we don't have design plans

[5:24:45] for the most

[5:24:46] part. So we are looking to see if

[5:24:50] we have enough data that we have confidence. By

[5:24:51] the way,

[5:24:53] this is also a state requirement

[5:24:56] that is

[5:24:58] in the state model ordinance, but

[5:24:59] we do that for the

[5:25:01] planning board to make sure that we

[5:25:02] are comfortable, that there

[5:25:05] is nothing from the stormwater management

[5:25:06] standpoint that is

[5:25:08] likely to change the layout of the

[5:25:12] project later

[5:25:14] on in a substantial way. Let's see. Make

[5:25:15] sure

[5:25:16] I'm not completely off track here. My

[5:25:18] eyes

[5:25:21] aren't

[5:25:24] what they used to be.

[5:25:30] this comes up all

[5:25:31] the time. It is important to note

[5:25:34] that while our stormwater management practices,

[5:25:36] may

[5:25:38] have some impact on reducing the overall

[5:25:39] amount of

[5:25:41] storm flow to some degree, that they

[5:25:42] are not

[5:25:45] intended and they really

[5:25:48] don't serve

[5:25:53] as flood protection as property protection. We

[5:25:54] do have

[5:25:55] a document we put together on the

[5:25:57] website, that's called

[5:25:58] surface drainage, that will go into

[5:26:00] that in much more detail,

[5:26:02] and it was written to us in corporation

[5:26:03] with

[5:26:04] our legal council. So it's a very

[5:26:05] good document. I urge you to take

[5:26:06] a look

[5:26:08] at it. I won't get into that too much more,

[5:26:09] unless you have specific questions

[5:26:12] about it today. I just want

[5:26:15] to point

[5:26:17] out, our main purpose is maintaining healthy

[5:26:18] stream systems,

[5:26:20] that we do not get directly involved

[5:26:21] in the civil

[5:26:24] aspects of

[5:26:25] the runoff issues very often. Next slide, please?

[5:26:32] just to shake it up a little bit,

[5:26:33] and then I'll

[5:26:36] come back and bore you with

[5:26:39] the

[5:26:42] last two slides.

[5:26:43] >>

[5:26:44] yes.

[5:26:45] >> so just to follow on what mark

[5:26:46] mentioned,

[5:26:48] when we would talk about developments, essentially

[5:26:51] what they do is

[5:26:54] they will pave over

[5:26:59] what used to be surface. So once they

[5:27:00] create

[5:27:03] the area, they are

[5:27:06] going to

[5:27:07] increase the amount of runoff. So

[5:27:09] what you used

[5:27:12] to percolate into the

[5:27:14] ground becomes like a recharge is

[5:27:16] now going to flow off the property

[5:27:18] and come towards

[5:27:21] the right of way. So the

[5:27:24] amount of flow will maintain

[5:27:27] the right of way, associating the

[5:27:30] drainage system that will

[5:27:33] increase. So once that

[5:27:36] happens, we have to gauge the

[5:27:39] amount of increase of runoff,

[5:27:40] which could translate to increasing

[5:27:45] the flow. It can be accommodated

[5:27:46] by the downstream existing public facilities or not.

[5:27:53] if they can accommodate the additional increase,

[5:27:57] that would be great. But if

[5:28:00] they cannot, then the applicant

[5:28:03] has a couple

[5:28:05] of choices. Either they are going

[5:28:06] to

[5:28:09] upgrade the existing county,

[5:28:12] stormwater drainage facile

[5:28:15] I its, to ensure the capacity

[5:28:18] is there or if they could

[5:28:21] decrease the amount of runoff in

[5:28:24] their property to make sure

[5:28:27] the

[5:28:28] water is held on property. Release

[5:28:30] the

[5:28:33] control matter, so it does

[5:28:36] not down the system. If

[5:28:39] it's picked, the applicant needs

[5:28:41] to modify the stormwater management

[5:28:42] concept

[5:28:45] to design this system,

[5:28:47] to incorporate the system into their

[5:28:50] preliminary approval, which is going

[5:28:51] to go to the

[5:28:55] preliminary plan with the approval.

[5:29:00] now --

[5:29:01] >> do you go

[5:29:03] back --I just

[5:29:04] want to make sure. I think I know,

[5:29:06] but I want

[5:29:09] to confirm

[5:29:12] that everybody knows. So dps

[5:29:15] does review when,

[5:29:17] if the additional storm drain comes

[5:29:20] to public right of way? Separate the

[5:29:21] stormwater management,

[5:29:24] okay? So before they

[5:29:27] do a stormwater management,

[5:29:30] dps makes

[5:29:32] sure that there is not additional

[5:29:33] storm drain to

[5:29:36] the public right

[5:29:37] of way, correct?

[5:29:38] >> it's depending on

[5:29:39] where we are

[5:29:40] in the entitlement process. Let's

[5:29:42] say

[5:29:44] we're in the preliminary plan. The

[5:29:45] code

[5:29:48] requires montgomery county

[5:29:51] department of transportation to

[5:29:54] make sure

[5:29:57] the downstream drainage system has enough

[5:29:58] capacity

[5:29:59] for the development.

[5:30:00] >> so they coordinate with the developer

[5:30:01] to

[5:30:03] make sure that

[5:30:06] case happens?

[5:30:07] >> yes. >> I want to

[5:30:08] distinguish

[5:30:09] this. When it is, and mark, you discussed

[5:30:10] it. If it

[5:30:12] is --because we will get a lot

[5:30:15] of people here that they say

[5:30:18] the development of

[5:30:21] this property,

[5:30:24] next

[5:30:27] to me, is adding storm drain to

[5:30:30] my property. At that

[5:30:33] time, you know,

[5:30:36] that is on

[5:30:39] the civil engineer. That's the

[5:30:42] responsibility between the two

[5:30:44] property owners. The property owner

[5:30:45] that originally is doing the development

[5:30:48] or they are making it, you

[5:30:51] know, two families. They are making

[5:30:54] adu, or they are adding,

[5:30:57] increasing the footprint or

[5:30:59] adding additional, whatever. It's

[5:31:00] their responsibility

[5:31:03] to make

[5:31:06] sure that this drainage doesn't impact

[5:31:07] the

[5:31:08] property. The unfortunate thing in

[5:31:09] here

[5:31:12] is that if they come to disagreement,

[5:31:15] I don't think it's dps or anybody

[5:31:18] else that can resolve this agreement. Because most of

[5:31:20] the time --

[5:31:21] >> that's a runoff issue

[5:31:22] you're talking about that

[5:31:23] I mentioned a minute ago. With that

[5:31:24] stuff now, we moved beyond

[5:31:25] the one year storm event, and I'm

[5:31:27] glad you asked this question. We are

[5:31:28] moving

[5:31:30] into the ten year storm event to look

[5:31:31] for

[5:31:32] adequate capacity in the receiving

[5:31:33] storm drain system.

[5:31:34] >> is it

[5:31:35] ten years or two years?

[5:31:36] >> ten years. It's

[5:31:37] the ten years

[5:31:38] for the storm drain system.

[5:31:39] >> for

[5:31:40] the storm

[5:31:41] drain system? But for the lot-to-lot

[5:31:42] drainage, what

[5:31:45] do they look at? If

[5:31:47] it is not lot-to-lot drainage?

[5:31:48] >> in

[5:31:49] some cases, we

[5:31:51] ask the engineer to show us

[5:31:53] the studies that they have performed

[5:31:54] to show they've done their

[5:31:57] due diligence for their effect on

[5:31:58] lot-to-lot runoff. We asked

[5:32:00] them to do that in the ten-year storm

[5:32:01] event.

[5:32:02] >>

[5:32:03] ten years?

[5:32:04] >> ten years. We ask them

[5:32:05] to check the ten year to show

[5:32:06] they have done due diligence on their

[5:32:07] part. We don't

[5:32:09] review that study, but we may ask

[5:32:10] them to

[5:32:11] show us what they've done. We may

[5:32:12] ask them to

[5:32:14] show us notes when they visited the

[5:32:15] property, who they spoke to

[5:32:18] as well, if we have a real

[5:32:20] concern about the lot-to-lot runoff

[5:32:21] issue. What sam is

[5:32:25] getting to

[5:32:27] here is this area of runoff review

[5:32:28] where we

[5:32:29] actually do move beyond the one year

[5:32:31] storm event,

[5:32:34] which I mentioned before. From

[5:32:36] the capacity and conveyance standpoint

[5:32:37] through

[5:32:38] the public storm drain system.

[5:32:39] >>

[5:32:40] that's the ten year.

[5:32:41] >> that's the

[5:32:42] ten year. We have

[5:32:43] to make sure the proposed

[5:32:44] development doesn't increase flow

[5:32:46] to a point where the

[5:32:47] receiving storm drain system cannot

[5:32:49] handle it. That's more

[5:32:51] of a public safety issue because if

[5:32:52] it can't

[5:32:53] handle it, then the water could back

[5:32:55] up on the

[5:32:57] road, into the roadway, and become

[5:32:58] a nuance

[5:33:01] or a danger during storm events

[5:33:03] for motorists. So we have them check

[5:33:04] that. The other

[5:33:06] reason we check that and back to what

[5:33:07] sam

[5:33:08] mentioned a minute ago. They have

[5:33:10] two options if

[5:33:13] they are increasing the flow and

[5:33:15] the receiving system can't handle it. This is

[5:33:17] county storm drain or other municipalities

[5:33:19] that will own a public

[5:33:22] system. They will

[5:33:25] have to check that. They have two

[5:33:27] options. They can upgrade the existing storm

[5:33:28] drain system, potentially, upsize

[5:33:30] the pipes, so they could convey that

[5:33:31] flow

[5:33:34] and keep it off the

[5:33:37] roadway. Or they can provide that additional storage

[5:33:40] for the ten year

[5:33:43] storm on the project itself, and

[5:33:44] slowly release it through the small

[5:33:46] thing to slowly

[5:33:48] ease it in to the storm drain system

[5:33:49] in a way they

[5:33:52] could convey it over a

[5:33:54] longer period of time. Where that

[5:33:55] involves site layout is if

[5:33:58] you are storing ten years worth of

[5:34:00] runoff on a project, that takes up

[5:34:04] a lot of room. That's where

[5:34:07] we can have layout changes come in

[5:34:08] to

[5:34:09] play. Public schools will get into

[5:34:10] the situations

[5:34:12] sometimes because they're allowable

[5:34:13] in residential zones. But

[5:34:15] in some cases, the surrounding storm

[5:34:19] drain system that is already

[5:34:20] in existence was sized, predicting

[5:34:22] there would be houses there instead

[5:34:24] of the big dense public schools. So

[5:34:27] you'll see some public schools with

[5:34:31] ten year control

[5:34:32] on those projects. That's specifically

[5:34:34] for conveyance of that flow to

[5:34:36] get it safely into the public system,

[5:34:37] so it

[5:34:39] doesn't cause danger to the motoring

[5:34:40] public.

[5:34:41] >> I understand

[5:34:43] that. But I think that

[5:34:46] what we need some guidance

[5:34:49] is lot

[5:34:52] to lot. Because we

[5:34:55] have a

[5:34:57] lot of unhappy public that they are

[5:34:58] against, especially

[5:35:01] right now that

[5:35:04] we

[5:35:05] are thinking about having some rezoning

[5:35:07] that

[5:35:10] they could

[5:35:13] have, you know, duplex or

[5:35:14] threplexes. That would increase, you know, the runoff a.

[5:35:22] so then we would receive a lot of

[5:35:25] complaints from the neighbors that

[5:35:28] that increase, it's

[5:35:31] coming right to my yard. What is

[5:35:34] the right response to give us? I

[5:35:37] don't want to put

[5:35:39] you on the spot.

[5:35:40] >> the right response

[5:35:41] is on our county website that

[5:35:42] was put together by the legal staff

[5:35:43] to try to

[5:35:45] clarify the situation for them. It

[5:35:46] isn't anything in chapter 19 that

[5:35:49] we can, that we have any design

[5:35:51] standards for. There's reasons for

[5:35:52] that, but I don't want to go

[5:35:53] too far into that unless you really want to.

[5:35:58] for the

[5:36:00] document, it's a civil issue. Now,

[5:36:01] it's

[5:36:03] okay to increase runoff from one lot

[5:36:04] to another. That is

[5:36:07] not a problem, as long as there

[5:36:09] is conveyance that doesn't cause property

[5:36:10] damage or, you know,

[5:36:12] something worse.

[5:36:13] >> so basically it

[5:36:14] is

[5:36:16] on the engineers to make sure that sign-off.

[5:36:17] >>

[5:36:18] not

[5:36:19] to set up the situation where they

[5:36:20] damage

[5:36:22] adjacent property. We are not in

[5:36:24] the property protection business with stormwater

[5:36:25] management. There's

[5:36:28] a whole world of claims, looking

[5:36:31] to see if that claim is valid. Making

[5:36:32] it

[5:36:34] a decision, who is responsible for

[5:36:35] damage. And

[5:36:36] if damage hasn't even occurred yet,

[5:36:37] which is

[5:36:38] where most of the concerns happen,

[5:36:40] we don't even know if it will

[5:36:43] take place until it happens, so that is

[5:36:46] where they get involved.

[5:36:47] >> but dps

[5:36:49] does inspect when

[5:36:52] the project goes under the construction,

[5:36:53] does

[5:36:54] inspect the requirement that the civil engineer

[5:36:55] has signed off,

[5:36:58] that this is not

[5:36:59] going to make an impact. And if it

[5:37:01] is reality that will make

[5:37:03] them impact, then I guess --

[5:37:04] >> we

[5:37:05] don't review

[5:37:07] to see it. We don't necessarily have any design

[5:37:08] standards

[5:37:10] to review whether or not there is

[5:37:13] going to be an impact to someone's property

[5:37:14] as

[5:37:16] a result of runoff from the development. We

[5:37:17] don't have that

[5:37:18] in the code. In the document, I'm

[5:37:20] talking to you about

[5:37:21] this. I referenced you to the website.

[5:37:22] >>

[5:37:23] yeah, yeah, I

[5:37:25] know what it is.

[5:37:26] >> we do have, on

[5:37:27] our

[5:37:29] plans, a statement that

[5:37:32] the engineer must sign that

[5:37:33] is before we approve the plans, that

[5:37:35] says I understand, it's in

[5:37:37] the state model ordinance for stormwater and

[5:37:38] in

[5:37:39] the county, chapter 19, that approval

[5:37:40] of this stormwater management plan

[5:37:44] does not e are leave

[5:37:46] me of my responsibility for the results

[5:37:51] of my development on adjacent properties. I

[5:37:53] understand that's

[5:37:55] my responsibility, and I have investigated

[5:37:56] this. If

[5:37:58] there are any requirement easements,

[5:37:59] letters of

[5:38:00] permission that are required under

[5:38:02] state law, I have given a copy

[5:38:05] of those to dps

[5:38:08] for their files. They signed that

[5:38:09] statement. We also have a direct quote

[5:38:11] from the code

[5:38:13] on all the planned approval documents,

[5:38:14] the planned approval

[5:38:16] blocks that says right out of the

[5:38:17] code,

[5:38:20] approval of this is not

[5:38:22] going to remove the responsibility

[5:38:23] from

[5:38:25] the engineers on the effects of the runoff. We

[5:38:29] are

[5:38:30] doing this for environmental mitigation purposes

[5:38:32] only, that's what this permit

[5:38:34] is for. I understand there's a lot

[5:38:35] of concerns that will

[5:38:37] go on when they see a development

[5:38:38] going

[5:38:41] on next door, and

[5:38:43] I understand why that's going to happen. Unless

[5:38:45] something has occurred, we are predicting

[5:38:47] that there will be damage.

[5:38:48] >>

[5:38:50] so my

[5:38:51] question was not that. That has happened.

[5:38:55] does that have any role or not? It

[5:38:56] is going to

[5:38:59] go to that and has to go.

[5:39:02] >> now, during construction f there is

[5:39:04] a concern, we could have our inspectors

[5:39:05] take a

[5:39:06] look and sometimes things do get built

[5:39:07] wrong there, is a problem that doesn't

[5:39:08] go the way

[5:39:10] it should and we have to get on the contractor

[5:39:11] to fix something. That's

[5:39:13] why we have inspection staff out there

[5:39:14] all

[5:39:17] the time, looking at these

[5:39:20] things. Certainly we're

[5:39:22] on top of that part. The rainfall

[5:39:23] events happen. Maybe

[5:39:25] it's a rainfall event like one of

[5:39:26] these

[5:39:28] large catastrophic ones we've been

[5:39:29] having. It's above and beyond

[5:39:31] anything we've designed for and damage occurs. Someone

[5:39:32] has to

[5:39:34] make a claim and they have to make

[5:39:35] that claim

[5:39:37] to determine if they are necessary. That's a

[5:39:38] civil issue.

[5:39:39] >> okay,

[5:39:40] thank you. I just wanted to make sure

[5:39:41] that all of

[5:39:42] us will understand that. Thank you.

[5:39:44] >> thank you. I would

[5:39:47] like to add one

[5:39:50] more caveat to that discussion,

[5:39:51] and that is the county code, actually,

[5:39:53] this

[5:39:55] is not in chapter 49, which is the

[5:39:56] chapter that will

[5:39:59] deal

[5:40:02] with public right of way. The building,

[5:40:05] which is chapter eight, has the

[5:40:08] provision that will say if

[5:40:11] you add the

[5:40:13] addition to a lot with certain characteristics,

[5:40:14] they will

[5:40:17] need to be listed enough.

[5:40:20] and the

[5:40:23] amount of additions to be more

[5:40:26] than 400 square feet or

[5:40:29] adus, for example,

[5:40:32] because

[5:40:34] you mentioned it. In cases like that,

[5:40:35] you

[5:40:38] need to provide

[5:40:41] some measures for

[5:40:44] that. And the lot

[5:40:47] is 11,000 square feet. We have

[5:40:53] certain measures outlined

[5:40:56] in the county, that would try

[5:40:59] to lesson impact of that

[5:41:02] addition or that development

[5:41:05] to the next door neighbor. That

[5:41:06] applies under the certain circumstances.

[5:41:07] >>

[5:41:08] it's a

[5:41:11] part of

[5:41:14] the building code?

[5:41:15] >> yes, yes. >>

[5:41:16] so just

[5:41:17] to piggyback on what mark said. What

[5:41:18] I

[5:41:20] mentioned earlier will apply to the

[5:41:22] county right of way and associated drainage structures.

[5:41:26] it

[5:41:29] doesn't

[5:41:31] really apply to lot-to-lot runoff.

[5:41:32] okay. Now, I'm going to get

[5:41:35] into a little

[5:41:38] bit of the technical comparison

[5:41:40] between the storm drain and storm

[5:41:41] management. Please let me

[5:41:44] know if there is any ambiguity,

[5:41:47] I could open it further. But as mark

[5:41:50] said, storm drain system

[5:41:53] is designed based on larger storms. Where

[5:41:56] we talk about

[5:41:59] larger storms, they

[5:42:02] are the ones

[5:42:04] that happen in the smaller frequencies. For

[5:42:05] example, the snowstorm

[5:42:08] that we're

[5:42:11] going to get

[5:42:12] this weekend. That's considered large

[5:42:14] storm. It has very low frequency. It

[5:42:15] will

[5:42:17] happen every 20 years, 50 years

[5:42:19] or what have you. The storm drainage

[5:42:20] system

[5:42:24] in the county

[5:42:26] is designed based on ten-year storms. To

[5:42:28] be the other jurisdiction. For example,

[5:42:31] state highway administration, designs

[5:42:32] are facilities for some 25-year storm.

[5:42:36] the

[5:42:37] stormwater management, however, as

[5:42:39] mark mentioned is

[5:42:41] normally designed based on one-year

[5:42:42] storms,

[5:42:43] which is being 2.6 inches. But ten

[5:42:45] year storms

[5:42:48] is between five and six

[5:42:51] inches. 25-year storm

[5:42:54] has been about seven inches. So

[5:42:56] our storm drainage facilities are

[5:42:57] designed

[5:43:00] to convey the large amount of runoff

[5:43:02] that happens when the large storm

[5:43:05] occurs. Which is completely different from the stormwater management design.

[5:43:11] now, public storm drain systems are under

[5:43:15] purview of chapter

[5:43:16] 49 of the county code. And they are

[5:43:17] maintained by the county department of transportation.

[5:43:23] private storm drain systems, however,

[5:43:24] they

[5:43:25] are mostly maintained by the property owner.

[5:43:27] I

[5:43:30] got to say by definition, the

[5:43:32] storm drainage system is public, if

[5:43:33] it

[5:43:36] contains a runoff from public

[5:43:39] right

[5:43:42] of way or public easement. And it's considered reverse of that.

[5:43:48] and also as

[5:43:51] I mentioned earlier in

[5:43:54] the prezzennation, montgomery

[5:43:55] county department of transportation reviews

[5:43:57] this storm

[5:43:59] drainage analysis and their impact

[5:44:00] on downstream

[5:44:01] system, during the preliminary planning

[5:44:02] process and all stages before that.

[5:44:06] and the right of way

[5:44:09] does it

[5:44:12] on the

[5:44:13] site plan, and the permit. To pass

[5:44:15] it on to mark

[5:44:18] to continue

[5:44:19] the comparison between the stormwater

[5:44:20] management.

[5:44:21] >> all right, back to me now.

[5:44:26] >> the storm drain verses the storm management continues.

[5:44:36] smaller storms, we catch

[5:44:39] it, we hold it, we soak it in

[5:44:42] the ground, we filter it, we

[5:44:43] work on it. Public storm drain, they

[5:44:45] will get the heck out of it

[5:44:47] there. They convey it and they get

[5:44:50] it off the roadway. It's a larger

[5:44:51] storm event,

[5:44:53] more impact to the voting public. Take

[5:44:54] it

[5:44:57] to where

[5:44:59] it needs to go. That's the basic difference between

[5:45:00] the two. They catch it,

[5:45:02] we catch it, hold on to it, massage

[5:45:06] it a little bit, hold

[5:45:07] better, then go into the system. What

[5:45:12] do we got here? What else?

[5:45:13] >>

[5:45:15] I have a

[5:45:18] question about storm water management. Is

[5:45:19] there

[5:45:20] an actual facility that filters the

[5:45:21] water?

[5:45:22] >> yes. >> that's

[5:45:24] a part of

[5:45:27] dps?

[5:45:28] >> yes. There's

[5:45:29] a whole series of those. Things like

[5:45:30] the dry well with the roof runoff

[5:45:32] and pipe it to an underground, a little

[5:45:33] box of rocks

[5:45:36] to get held there. The rocks will

[5:45:38] maintain the ratio, so they have a

[5:45:39] place to be stored. You can't

[5:45:42] go anywhere, but so can the

[5:45:44] ground. That filters, that provides ground

[5:45:45] water recharge. A

[5:45:48] little bit

[5:45:51] of runoff reduction. We have

[5:45:53] rain gardens, the practices, basically

[5:45:54] landscape areas that

[5:45:56] are designed to catch and hold the water portion of it.

[5:46:00] so it does soak into

[5:46:02] the ground. Some of these structures

[5:46:03] have the drains, so

[5:46:05] they don't soak everything into the

[5:46:06] ground. Maybe

[5:46:08] they are not compatible with all that much infiltration.

[5:46:15] clays, things like that, they really

[5:46:17] don't soak into the ground really well. It

[5:46:18] catches

[5:46:21] it, it slows it

[5:46:24] down, then it drains

[5:46:26] what can't soak in and beyond.

[5:46:27] >>

[5:46:28] is

[5:46:30] this

[5:46:33] similar to what they have?

[5:46:34] >>

[5:46:35] completely different from the system. They don't

[5:46:36] want any rain water getting into their system.

[5:46:39] the only

[5:46:42] water they want to have is why it comes

[5:46:43] out

[5:46:45] of the hose, goes back into the toilet

[5:46:46] or

[5:46:48] your sink. That circular

[5:46:50] thing. They don't want water coming into

[5:46:51] their system. They want to account for

[5:46:54] it as much as they can where they

[5:46:55] are constantly fighting for

[5:46:56] that. That's a different type of treatment

[5:46:57] and that

[5:46:59] is for sanitary sewer and public water delivery.

[5:47:03] >> is your

[5:47:06] department --do you all have

[5:47:09] a program for rain barrels for residents

[5:47:10] or do

[5:47:11] you have that program or rain barrel?

[5:47:12] >>

[5:47:13] kind of a

[5:47:15] branch to answer that one. Rain barrels

[5:47:16] are

[5:47:18] approved in the state manual and in

[5:47:22] chapter 19 of the code for

[5:47:25] use

[5:47:26] as stormwater management treatment practices. They're

[5:47:28] rarely used because they don't

[5:47:29] provide much treatment at all. Rain

[5:47:31] barrel programs, and

[5:47:33] this is perfect timing. I was just

[5:47:34] about to

[5:47:36] mention montgomery county department

[5:47:37] of environmental protection. They

[5:47:38] have

[5:47:40] rain barrel programs and they

[5:47:43] have a rain program that

[5:47:45] is not regulatory. There is no requirement standards

[5:47:46] for

[5:47:49] their stuff in their

[5:47:52] program, but they

[5:47:53] help people manage runoff on their property

[5:47:55] and do similar

[5:47:56] things the stormwater management do. One

[5:47:58] of the stuff they promote

[5:47:59] is rain gardens and rain barrels.

[5:48:09] >> vision the division that shows

[5:48:10] the visual parcel

[5:48:13] and determines whether or

[5:48:14] not the parcel percolates?

[5:48:15] >> we require

[5:48:16] as

[5:48:19] part of our review that

[5:48:20] they do a geotechnical investigation. If

[5:48:22] it's going through the planning

[5:48:24] process, it's a formal infiltration

[5:48:25] test

[5:48:28] that a firm has to

[5:48:31] go out and do based on certain

[5:48:33] standards for percolating. If it's a

[5:48:34] single-family teardown and they

[5:48:36] are building a new one, we have an

[5:48:38] abbreviated form of that. But they

[5:48:40] still have to get soil data,

[5:48:42] so we see how much and what the soils

[5:48:43] look

[5:48:45] like and how much infiltration the

[5:48:46] soils could probably take. Now,

[5:48:49] when we get

[5:48:51] to the septic section of the discussion,

[5:48:52] we can

[5:48:55] talk about septic fields and their

[5:48:56] percolation

[5:48:57] requirements because they have those requirements

[5:48:58] as well that I won't get

[5:49:00] into because I will have to make it

[5:49:01] all up. But we'll

[5:49:03] have the expert here to tell you about

[5:49:04] it on that step. This is why

[5:49:07] we're here a little bit because there

[5:49:08] are

[5:49:09] so many things that happen with water and

[5:49:10] runoff that

[5:49:12] it is hard to determine who is doing

[5:49:13] what. Believe me, we

[5:49:16] get all

[5:49:19] kinds of mixed questions

[5:49:20] from everybody, constantly through

[5:49:21] 311, everybody in our own department, asking

[5:49:22] us

[5:49:23] questions that are not permanent to the specialty.

[5:49:28] we, and stormwater management, filter and

[5:49:31] feed the storms for base flow

[5:49:35] by infiltrating for environmental

[5:49:37] mitigation purposes. They

[5:49:39] will give people portable water, treats

[5:49:40] the affluent right of

[5:49:42] way, takes those larger storms and

[5:49:43] make sure they don't back up

[5:49:46] into the street

[5:49:47] to cause people to hydroplane, and

[5:49:49] convey it

[5:49:52] to a safe location. Their conveyance

[5:49:53] is work treatment,

[5:49:55] and provides

[5:49:57] it and treats it. For consumption

[5:49:58] and use.

[5:49:59] >> so mark,

[5:50:01] for based on what you

[5:50:04] said, I would like to add something

[5:50:05] else. Correct

[5:50:07] me if I'm wrong.

[5:50:08] >> I'm not surprised. >>

[5:50:09] I

[5:50:10] think it is good

[5:50:13] for all of us to understand because

[5:50:16] when rainfalls come, okay.

[5:50:17] >>

[5:50:18] yes.

[5:50:19] >> the first, I think, I would say

[5:50:20] I don't know if that

[5:50:22] is the same one yet,

[5:50:24] but the stormwater management because

[5:50:25] it -- it comes down,

[5:50:28] it is something that we want

[5:50:31] to manage because it is a slow, and

[5:50:32] the dirt is

[5:50:34] there, so we

[5:50:37] want to manage. But after

[5:50:40] that one year, that first

[5:50:43] flash, it conveys because the storm

[5:50:44] drain doesn't manage. It just goes. But

[5:50:46] the reason it doesn't

[5:50:49] need to be managed because the water has

[5:50:52] already been taken away for you, or

[5:50:53] to

[5:50:54] avoid what you're talking about. But

[5:50:55] the other one is

[5:50:58] so fast that it doesn't have

[5:51:01] time to take it. So the storm drain

[5:51:03] doesn't do any kind of management

[5:51:04] or cleaning

[5:51:06] of the pollutant. It just takes you

[5:51:07] to the pipes and

[5:51:10] the pipes will go right through the

[5:51:11] drain, is

[5:51:12] that correct?

[5:51:13] >> yes, we are getting

[5:51:14] into hydrology one on

[5:51:15] one now, there are no pdus available

[5:51:16] for

[5:51:19] this one, by the way. But yeah,

[5:51:21] that's correct. A couple of reasons

[5:51:22] why we treat the

[5:51:24] one-year storm, the most frequent

[5:51:25] storm. It has more impact on

[5:51:27] erosion in the stream systems. It

[5:51:28] also, the

[5:51:31] first bit of rain that falls washes

[5:51:32] off

[5:51:33] a lot of the pollutants. That's what

[5:51:34] she means

[5:51:36] by first flush. We used to look at

[5:51:37] that first half inch

[5:51:40] as being the water quality. We don't

[5:51:41] do

[5:51:42] that currently, but it is still the

[5:51:43] same. The number

[5:51:45] is different, but the same philosophy. First

[5:51:46] dirty part, we want

[5:51:49] to take it and actually get it out of

[5:51:50] the main flow and

[5:51:52] let the rest of it go on. We want

[5:51:53] to

[5:51:57] segregate it in our capture practices,

[5:51:59] get that dirty stuff here, lock

[5:52:02] it up, let the rest of it

[5:52:04] go straight on through for conveyance

[5:52:05] only. If that

[5:52:08] larger flow comes into the dirty

[5:52:11] flow, then it gets mixed and it

[5:52:14] will have to be cleaned

[5:52:15] again. Our efficiency starts to plummet, so

[5:52:17] the most efficient way to

[5:52:20] do it, segregate the dirty

[5:52:21] flow somewhere, treat it separately. I

[5:52:22] was just about to talk about some

[5:52:23] of this,

[5:52:25] and send the rest of it where it needs

[5:52:26] to

[5:52:29] go because

[5:52:32] it is

[5:52:34] less treatable, let's just say. All

[5:52:37] right, dep. Important to note, when

[5:52:41] we put the

[5:52:42] stormwater management practices in

[5:52:44] place, state model and chapter 19

[5:52:47] requires we

[5:52:48] have an enforceable maintenance agreement

[5:52:49] associated with those. You can't just

[5:52:50] put

[5:52:53] something in and expect it

[5:52:55] to take care of itself forever. Somebody

[5:52:56] has to

[5:52:59] inspect it and maintain it. The

[5:53:02] montgomery county department of

[5:53:03] environmental protection is the handoff. Once

[5:53:04] we close the permit, they pick up

[5:53:05] the responsibility

[5:53:08] for inspection. In

[5:53:09] some cases, maintenance of stormwater management

[5:53:11] practices. So they will go out

[5:53:13] every three years at least, and inspect

[5:53:14] all the

[5:53:15] practices, making sure people are maintaining them properly.

[5:53:20] the next slide. I think this is the last slide that I got.

[5:53:26] that dirty flow and passing

[5:53:29] the rest

[5:53:30] of it right on through. This is between

[5:53:32] how

[5:53:35] sam's pipes and my pipes

[5:53:37] work. The roadwater here is a public grate,

[5:53:38] but

[5:53:40] the first part of it will drain directly

[5:53:41] into

[5:53:42] that vegetative area, which is what we

[5:53:44] call it a

[5:53:47] bio swell or a retention

[5:53:48] practice. Once that gets that first

[5:53:50] flush of water in

[5:53:53] there and it starts to pond up, it

[5:53:56] goes into an overflow pipe that will

[5:53:57] go directly through and the rest of it

[5:53:59] will have to sit there and soak if,

[5:54:02] and that's what

[5:54:03] we talked about segregating the initial

[5:54:05] flush into those practices,

[5:54:06] right off of that pavement. We would

[5:54:08] try to do

[5:54:10] this wherever we can. We try to fit

[5:54:11] the stormwater management in,

[5:54:12] wherever it could be fit in. This

[5:54:14] is one of the ways

[5:54:16] that we do it. I believe this actual

[5:54:17] structure was built by

[5:54:19] dep as one of their l.e.d. Projects

[5:54:20] because they do a lot

[5:54:23] of those things on the side as

[5:54:25] well for other purposes through practices. But

[5:54:26] that's what this was about. That's

[5:54:29] what it slide was intended to indicate

[5:54:30] exactly that. So thanks for being

[5:54:32] ahead of the game there.

[5:54:38] >> patience. >> unless you guys have additional questions?

[5:54:46] >> great, thank you. One quick question. I've

[5:54:47] heard

[5:54:53] of the concept called combine sewers,

[5:54:56] you know. I grew up in chicago.

[5:54:57] >>

[5:54:58] parts of

[5:54:59] dc still have

[5:55:02] a combined system, yeah.

[5:55:03] >> so

[5:55:05] who is responsible? So that is

[5:55:08] not --in maryland, that's not

[5:55:10] a thing?

[5:55:11] >> it is the sanitary sewer district

[5:55:12] that does

[5:55:14] the combined sewer systems. They do

[5:55:17] take influent water in those combined

[5:55:18] systems and

[5:55:19] take that into the treatment as well.

[5:55:20] >>

[5:55:21] okay.

[5:55:22] >> we don't have

[5:55:23] that here. And I think dc is trying

[5:55:24] to phase it out. Some

[5:55:25] places still have a combined system.

[5:55:26] >>

[5:55:27] montgomery county

[5:55:29] does not?

[5:55:30] >> no, we do not.

[5:55:32] any of the rain that flows

[5:55:35] off of your property will go into

[5:55:36] the storm

[5:55:38] drain?

[5:55:39] >> atmospheric runoff

[5:55:40] is what we deal with. Wssc does deal,

[5:55:41] in

[5:55:43] some way with the atmospheric runoff

[5:55:44] because there are reservoirs

[5:55:46] that they use to provide drinking

[5:55:47] water.

[5:55:48] >> right. >> but

[5:55:49] once it's in their system, they keep

[5:55:50] track of how much

[5:55:53] is going out.

[5:55:54] >> right. >>

[5:55:56] into the

[5:55:58] portable system. People's sinks and

[5:55:59] showers and the

[5:56:02] water hoses in their front yard. What's

[5:56:05] coming back into those systems, they

[5:56:06] keep

[5:56:07] track of that budget to make sure

[5:56:08] they don't have a lot of influence

[5:56:11] flow coming in like

[5:56:14] you would have in the mixed system. That'll reduce their

[5:56:15] efficiency of the

[5:56:16] treatment and run up their cost tremendously.

[5:56:17] >> my last question.

[5:56:23] so we

[5:56:25] have said from time to time that the

[5:56:26] city has a house

[5:56:29] that was built

[5:56:32] 15, 20 years ago. And the

[5:56:35] runoff, they

[5:56:38] had no stormwater management system, right? Just

[5:56:41] whatever the rain soaked up?

[5:56:42] >>

[5:56:44] yeah.

[5:56:45] >> now a

[5:56:47] house that has built today on the

[5:56:48] same,

[5:56:50] scraped in the same lot and the

[5:56:53] stormwater management system. So

[5:56:56] you

[5:56:58] are capturing the one year? I mean,

[5:56:59] you

[5:57:02] are ending up

[5:57:05] with less runoff

[5:57:08] than the home had before. Is that

[5:57:10] typically right or not right? I know

[5:57:12] we're treating it, but it's

[5:57:14] only the one year rainfall?

[5:57:15] >> yeah,

[5:57:16] you have to remember what rainfall

[5:57:18] event you're working with and

[5:57:21] what lot. I think we're getting

[5:57:23] to a lot of runoff questions. What

[5:57:24] surface

[5:57:27] runoffs from lot to lot requires in

[5:57:30] terms of the rainfall

[5:57:31] event to create that surface flow. By

[5:57:32] the time we get past the one year

[5:57:33] event

[5:57:36] to cause some

[5:57:37] of those larger surface runoff concerns,

[5:57:40] we are beyond the captured limit of

[5:57:42] the one

[5:57:43] year storm any way. So also, please

[5:57:45] bear in mind, when we're talking

[5:57:46] about working within the one year

[5:57:48] storm system, we

[5:57:51] are not capturing 2.6 inches

[5:57:54] of

[5:57:55] runoff in our structures. There's

[5:57:57] a calculation that compares that

[5:58:00] developed runoff to a predeveloped

[5:58:02] runoff condition, where there is also runoff. The

[5:58:06] difference that delta is what we

[5:58:07] are actually working with treatment

[5:58:09] for.

[5:58:10] >> right. >> so it might

[5:58:11] be close to a 2.6 inch, if you are

[5:58:14] paving the whole thing with concrete. That's

[5:58:15] a big

[5:58:18] delta. We are going to get close

[5:58:19] to treating that 2.6. We call them

[5:58:21] pes. Some of those

[5:58:24] get up to 2.6. It may be down as

[5:58:27] low as a pe of one inch that

[5:58:29] the required treatment is providing

[5:58:30] control for. Something that's not a very dense development.

[5:58:33] it is

[5:58:36] not much of an

[5:58:37] impact. So it varies. Sometimes it's

[5:58:39] 2.6. But often it's not.

[5:58:40] >> okay. >>

[5:58:41] and those cases where we are tearing

[5:58:42] down the house, putting in a new

[5:58:43] one that didn't have stormwater before,

[5:58:45] and we're going to have stormwater

[5:58:48] now. We would try to get every bit

[5:58:49] of that compliance standard provided

[5:58:51] on that lot. But in those

[5:58:53] cases where it is physically not possible

[5:58:54] to

[5:58:56] do it, we may issue a stormwater waiver

[5:58:58] or partial waiver.

[5:58:59] >> right. >> but

[5:59:00] 9/11 had that

[5:59:03] partial waiver condition,

[5:59:06] many times that finished modern lot

[5:59:08] has more treatment in the one year storm

[5:59:09] than

[5:59:10] what was there before, previously.

[5:59:11] >> right.

[5:59:12] okay.

[5:59:13] >>

[5:59:15] and my last question may be you

[5:59:16] or the other group. They're all in

[5:59:18] the

[5:59:21] same page on my

[5:59:24] board members. The slight

[5:59:26] plan and the record plat. I mean,

[5:59:28] the record plat is more. The boundaries

[5:59:30] of the site, you know,

[5:59:33] the boundaries of the building,

[5:59:36] all the easements, is that the record

[5:59:39] plat verses the certified site

[5:59:42] plan might

[5:59:45] show all the other things, separate documents,

[5:59:48] so everything is on the

[5:59:51] same page?

[5:59:52] >> yes. >> the

[5:59:54] record plat is that shows the

[5:59:57] lot lines, shows

[6:00:00] the easements, the

[6:00:03] legal restrictions and the conditions that

[6:00:06] are imposed

[6:00:09] by the

[6:00:11] site plan process. They show the buildings,

[6:00:12] the implication of the

[6:00:15] curve and the pavement and the driveway. All that stuff.

[6:00:21] those are the site plans.

[6:00:24] so you can think of plat as the legal plan of the property.

[6:00:30] what

[6:00:33] the legal restrictions are on the property. The

[6:00:35] lot line, easements, such.

[6:00:36] >> and

[6:00:37] just being clear. Okay, thank you.

[6:00:38] okay.

[6:00:39] those are my questions. This is great.

[6:00:42] to get the

[6:00:45] one on one. You guys are at the

[6:00:47] 4-point level. Thank you so much. Just

[6:00:48] appreciating, knowing the process

[6:00:51] and what you do, and how we all

[6:00:52] work together. Any other questions

[6:00:53] or comments from the board members?

[6:00:54] >>

[6:00:56] I could ask probably a thousand more questions.

[6:00:57] >> I

[6:00:58] already told them to tell me to shut

[6:01:00] up if I talk too much, so

[6:01:02] she shouldn't have talked to you,

[6:01:03] I guess.

[6:01:04] >> all right, but I really appreciate it.

[6:01:09] you did an outstanding job, and I especially

[6:01:12] like this photograph because it shows

[6:01:15] how vegetation plays a part in control

[6:01:16] and stormwater management. Thanks.

[6:01:17] >>

[6:01:18] and mr. Chair, I think we do have

[6:01:19] a few more

[6:01:21] slides on well and septic just to

[6:01:22] end

[6:01:23] it.

[6:01:24] >> great. >> yep, yep, no, good. We're

[6:01:25] here.

[6:01:26] >>

[6:01:27] and then I think that's it.

[6:01:54] >> okay. There we go. So I guess I

[6:01:55] was probably

[6:01:57] suppose to it up there with those

[6:01:58] guys. But I just wanted

[6:01:59] to blend in with the audience, I guess.

[6:02:03] my name

[6:02:06] is jason flemming. I'm in

[6:02:09] the dps oil and

[6:02:12] septic section. I will

[6:02:15] be here today to discuss the main

[6:02:16] rules and responsibilities of our group.

[6:02:21] so

[6:02:23] we have a pretty small group when

[6:02:25] it comes to the

[6:02:27] size of the different sections. We

[6:02:28] have

[6:02:30] one supervisor, and we have three

[6:02:34] plan reviewers and two field

[6:02:36] inspectors. We also have to maintain

[6:02:39] a certification as an environmental

[6:02:43] health specialist through

[6:02:46] the state's department of health. So

[6:02:49] getting to the slides.

[6:02:56] where our group comes in is anywhere

[6:02:58] in the county

[6:03:01] that does not have

[6:03:03] access to the wssc system, public

[6:03:04] water and public sewer,

[6:03:07] that's where we come in.

[6:03:10] for a

[6:03:12] property, they need to have their

[6:03:13] water supply on the lot.

[6:03:21] that is on-

[6:03:23] site waste water treatment system

[6:03:24] or commonly

[6:03:27] called a

[6:03:30] septic system. So the

[6:03:33] state regulations that

[6:03:35] are delegated to us through the maryland

[6:03:36] department of environment that

[6:03:39] we

[6:03:42] oversee are maryland

[6:03:45] regulation 260402 for the

[6:03:48] sewage disposal. We also

[6:03:51] are in charge ofof 26403, the

[6:03:54] state subdivision

[6:03:55] regulations and then well construction

[6:03:57] is through

[6:04:00] 260404.

[6:04:05] montgomery county has their own well

[6:04:06] and septic

[6:04:09] regulations. That is in

[6:04:12] 27a.

[6:04:15] the thing with our county

[6:04:17] regulations are that we can be more

[6:04:18] strict than the

[6:04:21] state regs, but we cannot

[6:04:24] be less strict.

[6:04:27] in the

[6:04:29] aspects of our regulations where we

[6:04:30] hold a little

[6:04:31] bit higher requirements versus the state.

[6:04:39] a well and

[6:04:42] septic review is usually triggered,

[6:04:45] like I said, when there is a property

[6:04:46] that

[6:04:48] does not haves it access to the

[6:04:51] water

[6:04:54] supply

[6:04:57] or the viewer system. That

[6:05:00] is designated as a

[6:05:03] w6 or s6

[6:05:06] category.

[6:05:12] just on

[6:05:15] the approval process, this is

[6:05:18] where I think a

[6:05:21] lot of people here, the percolation

[6:05:23] test, that would be us. It has to

[6:05:24] do with

[6:05:26] the septic system. I had calls where

[6:05:27] people want to

[6:05:30] know if they need to perc for their

[6:05:33] well. Do not.

[6:05:35] the water is there underneath the

[6:05:36] ground. You just have

[6:05:38] to drill a hole down deep enough to

[6:05:39] get to

[6:05:42] it. The percolation

[6:05:45] test is

[6:05:48] basically the

[6:05:50] soil component of a septic system.

[6:05:51] not all

[6:05:54] soils are

[6:05:57] the same.

[6:06:01] there

[6:06:04] has to be an area that the soils

[6:06:05] demonstrate that essentially they

[6:06:10] can allow the waste water

[6:06:12] to filter down through the soil. That

[6:06:16] is essentially what we are

[6:06:17] using to protect the groundwaters of the state.

[6:06:22] there are

[6:06:23] requirements associated with that.

[6:06:25] the biggest

[6:06:28] one is in the

[6:06:31] state regs there is a

[6:06:33] four-foot treatment zone. So, that

[6:06:34] is a

[6:06:37] four-foot buffer between the

[6:06:40] groundwater andand

[6:06:43] bottom of t

[6:06:46] he septic

[6:06:49] trenches. The way that

[6:06:52] we in montgomery county in

[6:06:55] our group determine or make sure that we are

[6:06:57] meeting that separation is that we

[6:07:01] do tests. The first test that we

[6:07:04] do is called a

[6:07:07] water table test.

[6:07:16] it is lowest

[6:07:18] towards the end of the summer when

[6:07:19] you

[6:07:21] had the vegetation pull and grow and

[6:07:24] the evaporation. The groundwater recharges

[6:07:28] through the winter.

[6:07:31] so, late

[6:07:32] winter, early spring is when we go

[6:07:34] out and do the water

[6:07:36] table tests. They are dug down to

[6:07:37] at

[6:07:40] least 15 feet, and then

[6:07:42] sometimes you will not hit the groundwater

[6:07:43] table.

[6:07:46] other times you

[6:07:49] will. And then we would make

[6:07:51] sure the septic trenches are installed

[6:07:52] at least

[6:07:54] four feet below that grounder water

[6:07:55] table,

[6:07:57] and it is time dependant. After that

[6:07:58] we do

[6:08:00] the percolation test. That can be

[6:08:01] done any time

[6:08:04] of the year.

[6:08:07] again, that

[6:08:10] is basically

[6:08:13] to determine if

[6:08:16] the soils in the

[6:08:19] areas chosen

[6:08:22] would support

[6:08:24] a septic system. The different types

[6:08:25] of

[6:08:28] the systems that we use are

[6:08:31] in-ground trench

[6:08:33] systems. But if you have limitations

[6:08:34] to

[6:08:37] the property.

[6:08:40] high groundwater table or a

[6:08:43] rocky soil.

[6:08:49] we want

[6:08:51] that soil to act as a living filter.

[6:08:52] there are

[6:08:54] above ground systems. That is where

[6:08:55] you hear

[6:08:58] about sand mounds. So, maybe a

[6:09:01] property that could not have a

[6:09:04] trench system could still --you could

[6:09:05] still

[6:09:07] build a house and/or have a commercial

[6:09:08] type

[6:09:09] of facility using the sand mound system.

[6:09:13] let me see.

[6:09:16] what have I not

[6:09:19] covered?

[6:09:21] and then down at the bottom of the

[6:09:22] slide

[6:09:24] it talks about the requirements of the perc test.

[6:09:30] the environmental health specialist will

[6:09:31] go out and you

[6:09:34] can actually see a

[6:09:37] perc test in the

[6:09:40] picture.

[6:09:55] if it is determined

[6:09:58] that it is a good spot

[6:10:01] they will run the

[6:10:04] actual percolation test.

[6:10:07] to be able to create

[6:10:09] a lot on a property that does not

[6:10:10] have

[6:10:13] access to public sewer, you need

[6:10:16] your own way of

[6:10:19] getting

[6:10:22] drinking water.

[6:10:24] when we are reviewing the sites and

[6:10:25] the lots

[6:10:27] it is required there be at least three

[6:10:28] well

[6:10:31] sites on the

[6:10:34] property

[6:10:37] they

[6:10:39] will have the one, and sometimes if

[6:10:40] that location does

[6:10:43] not work you have

[6:10:46] two alternates that

[6:10:49] are already fitting in

[6:10:52] the whole

[6:10:55] puzzle piece. That

[6:10:58] is one of the requirements.

[6:11:00] those wells are typically at least 15

[6:11:01] feet apart.

[6:11:04] a will needs to be 100 feet away from

[6:11:07] a septic system. 100 feet from any

[6:11:09] stormwater management feature and

[6:11:10] 30

[6:11:12] feet from building foundation, and

[6:11:13] it has to

[6:11:16] be upgrade of the septic system.

[6:11:19] the septic

[6:11:25] system requirements

[6:11:28] you need to use conventional technology.

[6:11:30] the trenches of a sand mound. We have

[6:11:31] the ability

[6:11:34] to use what we call alternative

[6:11:37] or innovative systems. Those are

[6:11:40] usually reserved for a house

[6:11:43] that exists on a property

[6:11:46] and the existing systems failed.

[6:11:49] we would issue a

[6:11:52] repair

[6:11:55] per mit.

[6:11:58] the septic area that I

[6:12:01] was referencing,

[6:12:04] the minimum size of it needs to be

[6:12:06] 10,000 square feet. A little under

[6:12:07] a quarter of

[6:12:09] the acre of the property needs to

[6:12:10] be set aside

[6:12:13] and reserved for the disposal of the

[6:12:16] wastewater in

[6:12:19] the septic area.

[6:12:22] that must be large enough for

[6:12:25] the initial system and three

[6:12:28] future replacements.

[6:12:31] a lot of the time people are like

[6:12:32] my

[6:12:34] whole backyard is the

[6:12:37] septic area.

[6:12:46] they don't last forever. Maybe that

[6:12:47] is not for the

[6:12:49] time that you or your family lived

[6:12:50] there but the

[6:12:52] house, the life of

[6:12:55] the house.

[6:12:58] >> may I ask a

[6:13:02] question? When was

[6:13:03] the requirementsrequirements for backup

[6:13:05] systems and the

[6:13:07] future systems implemented? We had

[6:13:08] situations

[6:13:09] where septics failed and they have

[6:13:11] come to ask us

[6:13:12] for access to sewer and water to extend to the public sewer

[6:13:14] and water.

[6:13:17] I know that we do

[6:13:18] have situations in which that was

[6:13:20] not in place at the time of

[6:13:21] the construction of the building of

[6:13:23] the system. When was it in place

[6:13:24] and how do we handle situations where

[6:13:26] we have, you

[6:13:28] know, septic systems past their usable

[6:13:29] life on

[6:13:32] a lot that does not have the

[6:13:34] capacity or hasn't been planned for

[6:13:35] that capacity?

[6:13:38] >> I believe that

[6:13:40] the requirement for the ability to

[6:13:41] create a

[6:13:44] lot and to have backup area

[6:13:47] is in the state

[6:13:50] subdivision regulations around

[6:13:53] 1972.

[6:13:56] >> we do have

[6:13:57] lots that are older than that, and

[6:13:59] a lot of the time they do

[6:14:02] not have the

[6:14:05] septic reserve area.

[6:14:11] that is when it can

[6:14:14] be difficult to find

[6:14:17] a

[6:14:20] replacement area.

[6:14:23] worst case

[6:14:26] you would put a property on

[6:14:29] a holding tank.

[6:14:32] seven-day capacity, and

[6:14:34] you think you are pumping this every

[6:14:35] couple of weeks

[6:14:38] and it gets

[6:14:41] really expensive.

[6:14:47] what does it mean that a septic

[6:14:49] field fails? Does that mean it does

[6:14:53] not percolate anymore?

[6:14:56] why can't they remove

[6:14:59] the dirt?

[6:15:05] it is not going to

[6:15:07] be in existence anymore before the

[6:15:11] septic failed.

[6:15:20] my understand ing is

[6:15:23] that it has to be undisturbed soil.

[6:15:26] why can't it be disturbed

[6:15:29] soil as long as you remove

[6:15:31] it, bring clean soil and make sure

[6:15:32] it is not compacted and

[6:15:35] use it. Why can't they do that?

[6:15:38] >> essentially it is because of what or

[6:15:39] how

[6:15:41] soils are created. They are

[6:15:44] created over time.

[6:15:47] they develop what is called

[6:15:50] a structure.

[6:15:52] the different structure of the soil.

[6:15:53] that

[6:15:56] is what we are relying on

[6:15:59] for the wastewater to

[6:16:02] filter through. So fill does not have

[6:16:05] structure. If you would put a

[6:16:08] septic system in fill

[6:16:11] it would probably

[6:16:14] just

[6:16:17] come to the surface.

[6:16:20] what does it mean when a septic

[6:16:23] system fails?

[6:16:26] you have

[6:16:29] bacteria in the

[6:16:31] soil that are breaking down the waste

[6:16:32] and

[6:16:35] they generate waste.

[6:16:38] the space in between the

[6:16:41] soil particles and the structure

[6:16:44] clogs up.

[6:16:47] the water can't

[6:16:50] filter down through

[6:16:53] that the system fails

[6:16:56] when the water backs

[6:16:59] up into your house or

[6:17:02] the surface. This block

[6:17:05] of the septic area is basically

[6:17:08] all clogged

[6:17:11] up.

[6:17:14] >> dan:

[6:17:17] I am --

[6:17:18] >> we

[6:17:19] have not come up with a structured

[6:17:20] field to take care of

[6:17:23] the issue for a lot of

[6:17:26] houses.

[6:17:29] sometimes they have to spend $150,000

[6:17:32] or more to get connected to public.

[6:17:33] I don't know.

[6:17:35] to me it looks like that it may

[6:17:38] be cheaper to get some kind of a structured

[6:17:41] soil and replace it with.

[6:17:44] I can't see why nobody has thought

[6:17:45] about to do it.

[6:17:47] that can be a good business. Maybe

[6:17:48] you can go

[6:17:50] in that business.

[6:17:51] >> I suppose it

[6:17:52] would

[6:17:53] be, but you have to depend

[6:17:56] on mother nature through freeze and

[6:17:59] thaw

[6:18:02] cycles.

[6:18:05] animals and

[6:18:07] insects going through and creating

[6:18:08] a

[6:18:10] soil structure. If someone would come

[6:18:11] up with a way to

[6:18:14] create a structured soil we

[6:18:17] could do that.

[6:18:18] >>

[6:18:19] trenches, I thought that maybe it was

[6:18:20] the old way.

[6:18:23] it was dug

[6:18:25] down. Now you said there are trenches.

[6:18:26] if they are

[6:18:29] standard trenches, are they a

[6:18:31] couple feet wide by so many feet deep.

[6:18:32] if they are

[6:18:35] in trenches now and if it can

[6:18:38] be linear.

[6:18:44] I don't know, what is

[6:18:47] the dimension of a typical septic

[6:18:51] system for

[6:18:54] a three

[6:18:57] bedroom? We can talk

[6:19:00] offline. I was just seeing

[6:19:03] if theythey are not horizontal

[6:19:06] anymore they are in trenches.

[6:19:09] >> they are linear

[6:19:12] trenches.

[6:19:15] linear feet and they have

[6:19:17] to be so many feet apart?

[6:19:18] >> right.

[6:19:21] >> yes.

[6:19:24] I am trying to get an example

[6:19:27] of a typical septic system in

[6:19:30] trenches.

[6:19:33] >>

[6:19:35] the typical linear length. The trenches

[6:19:36] are

[6:19:39] two feet wide.

[6:19:45] I would say

[6:19:48] a couple hundred

[6:19:51] linear feet.

[6:20:00] 200

[6:20:03] to 300.

[6:20:06] >> minimum

[6:20:09] 10,000 square feet times three.

[6:20:11] 30,000 should be set aside for a septic?

[6:20:12] had that

[6:20:15] is the question.

[6:20:18] for an

[6:20:21] initial system.

[6:20:24] that includes the future replacement

[6:20:27] systems?

[6:20:28] >> yes. >>

[6:20:30] okay. Okay.

[6:20:33] >> within

[6:20:36] that, you need

[6:20:39] to fit

[6:20:42] the

[6:20:45] initial ones. And that the three

[6:20:48] backups will fit.

[6:20:51] it is larger than

[6:20:53] 10,000. You will need more linear

[6:20:54] feet.

[6:20:55] >> got it.

[6:20:56] >> all of that together may make it

[6:20:57] so

[6:21:00] that 10,000 is too small.

[6:21:01] >> okay.

[6:21:02] thank you.

[6:21:03] >> let's see. I think that

[6:21:06] I have one

[6:21:09] more slide.

[6:21:12] just

[6:21:15] really quickly to cover the record

[6:21:18] plat review process that

[6:21:21] we cover when

[6:21:23] a plat comes in there are requirements

[6:21:24] that we look for.

[6:21:26] the first one being that they have

[6:21:27] a final well

[6:21:30] and

[6:21:33] septic plan. It

[6:21:35] basically starts as a test plan. They

[6:21:36] are going

[6:21:39] to layout the

[6:21:41] property. This is where I am going to

[6:21:42] put my

[6:21:45] wells and

[6:21:48] septic system. Test data comes in

[6:21:51] and review it. It is

[6:21:52] updated. The plan is presented and then

[6:21:54] it is approved.

[6:22:00] on the record plat the boundary of

[6:22:02] the septic area must be shown and

[6:22:03] a

[6:22:06] 20-foot septic building

[6:22:09] restriction line. That is to

[6:22:11] protect the septicseptic from construction

[6:22:15] of structures.

[6:22:19] the alternate wells that I discussed earlier.

[6:22:27] the one most people

[6:22:30] ask

[6:22:33] about are how many bedroom house

[6:22:36] can I build.

[6:22:45] well, that is pretty

[6:22:47] much everything if anyone has other

[6:22:48] questions let me know.

[6:22:51] >> this is great.

[6:22:54] thank you.

[6:22:57] every couple of months we get the

[6:23:00] well and the septic approvals.

[6:23:03] we are more informed now. Let us at them.

[6:23:06] thank you so

[6:23:08] much. This has been wonderful. Any

[6:23:09] other questions or comments

[6:23:12] from the board? Seeing none and thank

[6:23:13] you.

[6:23:14] this ends our planning board meeting

[6:23:15] for today.

[6:23:16] thank you. We will see you next thursday.

Planning Board Meeting 1/22/26

Agenda

Transcript