[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our development review streamlining workgroup meeting. This is, I believe, our fourth meeting.
[0:11] Thank you for your attendance and your indulgence on getting this meeting started.
[0:17] Wanted to start off with attendance, which we have about, as I may have mentioned before, recording started about 10 of our members here.
[0:30] Today, we're going to discuss an update on the Development Review Sharet that was provided
[0:37] to developers back in February, to be exact, February 24, 2026.
[0:46] And I am prepared to put the presentation in the chat for those who still do not have
[0:54] their copy of it.
[0:55] If I may, I'd like to turn over the meeting to one of your work members, which is Mr. Marcus Monroe.
[1:06] Thank you.
[1:09] Good afternoon, everyone.
[1:11] And thank you, Ms. Hightower for the introduction.
[1:14] And so just the level set and didn't have it as a formal presentation.
[1:18] It was just really talking points.
[1:19] And I'll just sort of clarify where we are in the process and then just open it up for dialogue.
[1:24] So, Ms. Rafferty, I only had about maybe like five to 10 minutes to talking points and then we can let you drive us from there.
[1:31] Does that sound good?
[1:32] That is fine with me.
[1:33] This is going to be more of a little bit more informal meeting.
[1:39] We'll talk about the recommendations or the status of the development community charrette.
[1:45] And then start formulating some solid recommendations during this meeting if that's okay with everyone for the work group.
[2:00] Okay.
[2:02] So just to back us up to a few months ago, so we had brought on four graduate students in January of this year from the University of Maryland's master of community planning and some of them also minored in real estate development.
[2:15] And so they were starting to already look at the development review process as they've
[2:20] submitted a project.
[2:21] And then concurrently, there was a push by the chairman and then the county's act to
[2:30] do a development charrette that took place on, I believe, February 25th.
[2:35] So those two things would have culminated around the same time.
[2:39] And then what we asked the grassy instance to do is take the feedback that they received
[2:43] during that session and then also subsequently have follow-up with some
[2:50] folks even on this call. If there is any questions, maybe some things that they
[2:54] didn't quite understand. And so what we ended up getting was over 200 lines of
[2:59] individual. Once you once recollected all the comments from the meeting, emails,
[3:05] everything put together, it culminated into about over 200 individual lines of
[3:10] to excel like lines of comments.
[3:12] So at that point, that was a lot of information
[3:15] and then they even got feedback from our staff
[3:18] on sort of how to understand it and translate it.
[3:21] And so ultimately what they ended up doing was
[3:24] they actually just wrapped up about a week and a half ago
[3:26] before graduation.
[3:27] And then where we are in the process is that
[3:30] we were packaging that as a presentation
[3:32] to follow to the county executives team
[3:35] where requested a briefing.
[3:36] And so that is in the middle of being scheduled with Calvin Hawkins.
[3:41] So we would, you know, like, timeline-wise, we would try to do that early next week.
[3:45] And then I believe that, as I understand it, then we would put the information out to the community once we've had a chance to brief the count executives team.
[3:55] So first and foremost, I just wanted to sort of share where we are in the process and what and how it all came together.
[4:02] So the effort was pretty straightforward.
[4:05] We asked them to look at the current development
[4:06] review process, right, and everything they heard
[4:11] around supporting annual housing instruction,
[4:13] economic development, small business growth.
[4:14] There are a lot of wants and interests from the comments.
[4:18] But at the end of the day, it just
[4:20] wanted to frame the current system as basically lengthy.
[4:23] The feedback we were hearing that is lengthy,
[4:25] is complex, is unpredictable, and is costly.
[4:29] And in order to do that and understand where to make improvements, we actually want to do research, look at the code, ask questions where they needed to, and then translate that into sort of buckets, right?
[4:42] And they looked at zoning, basically all the comments aligned pretty much with zoning subdivision site plans, final plans and permitting, and we had to give them some guardrails so they didn't look at master planning and they didn't look at enforcement.
[4:55] So that's another level set to say that we did have to give them some guardrails a short
[4:58] amount of time.
[5:00] And what they ended up doing was mapping it across sort of state, regional, county, municipal,
[5:05] all the quasi-government entities and just trying to see what the information they were
[5:12] seeking then was telling them as far as the story, right?
[5:16] And the biggest high-level finding was that the current development review process
[5:20] process was sort of burdened by six reoccurring problems and their view for their hearing is
[5:26] that the process was complex, it was lengthy timelines, poor intra and intra-agency coordination,
[5:34] manual workflows in some instances and a complicated and evolving regulatory environment
[5:40] and downstream effect has, you know, basically the downstream effect on that is sort of
[5:47] slowing how we can do housing and development.
[5:51] I want to pause there and just sort of,
[5:53] so I'm not just blabbing a bunch of words, everybody.
[5:56] Besides, sorry, I'll pause to see if that,
[5:58] any initial questions so far
[6:00] and everybody's tracking may not be the story.
[6:05] Okay.
[6:06] Thank you for that, Mr. Monroe.
[6:09] Are there any questions based on what Mr. Monroe
[6:14] was mentioning, questions, comments?
[6:18] I
[6:24] see Mr. Smith has his hand raised. Go ahead, Mr. Smith. Thank you.
[6:36] Mr. Smith, you're still on mute.
[6:44] Sorry about that.
[6:45] That's okay.
[6:46] So I assume you want to see me sitting out here, bacon in the sun.
[6:53] So before that February 25th, there was a council retreat where there was a large panel of folks from the development community,
[7:02] Chairman Barnes, then Chairman Barnes, I think Jim Hunt and some other leaders from the planning department.
[7:11] You know, again, another opportunity to talk about how the process of burdensome and problematic and yadda, yadda, yadda.
[7:18] when you just pay money.
[7:21] No, no spots on that panel at all. And no panel at all for civic
[7:27] or environmental or public health advocates to represent their concerns, suggestions about
[7:34] how the process will work better. We did have a chance to meet for a couple minutes
[7:42] because we pushed for it, but not as part of the panel.
[7:47] And then the charrette.
[7:48] So who was the genesis of the call
[7:53] for the February 25th charrette and who was invited?
[7:58] And what's the work product that we can see?
[8:02] So that's one piece.
[8:04] And then what's the work product that we can see now
[8:07] from this collaboration with the students
[8:10] at the university?
[8:12] We should see that sooner rather than later if we're going to be expected to participate
[8:18] in this process.
[8:20] And I see that I'm the only environmental advocate on this group, not that I assume others
[8:26] don't care about the environment, but that's my little label at the table, environmental
[8:30] activists, and we have one civic activist channel since she's able to be here.
[8:35] So we need to see this work product sooner rather than later.
[8:41] Not after it's been presented to the executive and then repacked, it's for public consumption.
[8:47] So back to my first question. What was the genesis of the charrette? Who was invited?
[8:53] What's the work product that we can see?
[8:56] Same deal. What was the scoping for the students at the university? What was the goal?
[9:01] And what's the work product that we can see now, or at least soon?
[9:07] We're supposed to – we're talking about substantive recommendations.
[9:13] I think we still need to have substantive conversations about which problems are significant and what they're driven by.
[9:21] And then be able to have conversations about potential recommendations.
[9:25] But as far as I know, we're pretty well closing in on the 60-day deadline by which we're supposed
[9:30] to present recommendations to the Court of Counselor or the Counselor.
[9:36] The markets, can you fill us in on the details around the charrette and then the work with
[9:43] the students?
[9:48] Sure.
[9:49] Sure.
[9:49] I can only speak to what I know, so I can't speak to, so you'll be lyric a couple
[9:54] things together.
[9:55] So I'm going to hit them in the way my brain works in the timeline.
[10:00] You referenced the earlier development community, the panel that happened at the retreat for
[10:08] the county council.
[10:09] Just make sure I caught it accurately as a point in time.
[10:15] I can't speak to that.
[10:16] And I can't speak to why there were not a sufficient amount in your view environmentals.
[10:22] So I don't want to be on that point but other than to say that I hear you and I receive that and I think that can be a recommendation for the broader committee if you want continued engagement around that specific topic to happen for the community.
[10:36] I think that's where that's got to live as far as a recommendation from this body. I just want to speak to that part.
[10:42] As far as the push for then, the second thing in the timeline was the charrette.
[10:48] That was the previous Chairman Barnes push.
[10:51] I can't speak to when he had the first dialogue with the county of Zeg, but it was an event
[10:56] that was held in partnership with the Pies leadership was at the event, the DCAO, I
[11:01] believe the county of Zeg, our planning director and Chairman Barnes, they were
[11:06] at it.
[11:07] The communication did go out, I believe, through constant contact.
[11:10] I will have to validate how far and wide it went, but it was open.
[11:14] Once it was at capacity, they closed it, and then those that could tend could.
[11:20] And then that subsequent communication went out saying, please email your comments.
[11:25] Right? I say all of this is that I believe what you're speaking to is a broader coordination
[11:31] question, which I can't answer, unfortunately, but that could be an additional recommendation,
[11:35] which I think at a heart of this is how are we communicating,
[11:39] coordinating all these various efforts towards a streamlined development,
[11:46] comprehensive comments from the broader community.
[11:48] Like I can't speak to that part, right?
[11:50] Because I think you layered a lot in that.
[11:52] So I'm trying to just make sure I speak to all your questions there, and I get it.
[11:55] But I can only speak to the part that I was responsible for,
[11:59] which were for graduate assistants working from January to May
[12:04] to research and understand the streamlining development process and help us collect comments,
[12:12] but that was not ever going to be the full story for the county. It was only one product.
[12:20] The product, to answer your last video question, is in the form of a PowerPoint and white paper.
[12:25] I just need to make sure that, again, agreed upon back then was that we would present the follow-up information
[12:31] to the county executives team, which we are coordinating with Calvin Hawkins to do, but
[12:36] I will take your question to Planning Director Hunt to see if that information can be previewed
[12:41] to this body prior to that meeting, sooner rather than later. So I'm just, I'm going to make sure,
[12:47] I think if you keep me there, Ms. Hyatt, I'm going to answer all of the questions for Mr. Smith.
[12:52] Yes, thank you so much. We have an additional question from Ms. Victoria Barastola.
[12:58] I was just going to ask Marcus what the next steps are, but it sounds like there's coordination
[13:05] happening with the county executive's office.
[13:08] I think to the extent that you can share what those buckets are that were identified,
[13:13] that can help to inform where this group needs to focus their recommendations.
[13:18] Because I know there was a lot of substantive feedback.
[13:21] I was in attendance at the design charrette and there were tons of citizens that were
[13:25] attendance and small business owners in addition to representatives from the development community
[13:31] including consultants. So I'm sure that there's good nuggets from a lot of different angles that
[13:36] are included in that document. I just, yeah, I think getting that answer of when can this group
[13:42] see that information would be really helpful.
[13:48] Sure, and I'll run back today and ask the
[13:51] director, you know, like can I provide any information to you right now as a prelude
[13:55] before I meet with the consecutive team, 100 percent.
[13:59] I'm just going to go back and just say, in a moment,
[14:01] I don't have an immediate answer for you all.
[14:07] Liz, hi, Tower. I got my hand back up.
[14:09] Yes, go ahead.
[14:11] So circling back here, when Mark just mentioned the DCAO
[14:16] with respect to the charrette, did you mean Mr. Hawkins?
[14:20] No, I don't want to speak in air.
[14:22] I think that was DCA or Boswell, that was up there on the dais, but I'd have to go back
[14:28] and look at the notes, just to know which I can make sure I don't get that wrong for
[14:31] record sake.
[14:32] Okay.
[14:33] So does this PowerPoint, so the PowerPoint and the white paper you just referred to,
[14:39] they're being produced by the, I guess you said, the four graduate assistants?
[14:46] Is it their work product?
[14:47] Yes.
[14:48] So it's a research product.
[14:52] The PowerPoint was distilling the white paper into an easily, you know,
[14:56] you can follow the current challenges, the quick wins and everything else.
[15:00] And I should also say there's a third product, which is just all of the comments they ever
[15:04] received. So really technically, it's three things. The Excel document, all the comments,
[15:09] a white paper, and then a PowerPoint to make it easier to follow along. And so I'll ask
[15:13] to see what I can just go ahead and provide out to everybody ahead of time.
[15:18] And these have been produced and even provided to planning?
[15:22] But yeah.
[15:22] So, by the nature, yes, because they were graduate assistants here, and they've seen the product in that sense of that, which I mean.
[15:35] Okay. Yeah, I think.
[15:37] It hasn't been sent to the broader planning department, just to clarify.
[15:42] Sure.
[15:43] sooner rather than later would be great. I don't think that there's anything in the Public Information Act that says we have to wait for the to be developed to be delivered to and discussed by the county.
[15:54] Thanks.
[15:59] Mr. Smith, if I may ask just trying to come up with some ideas. Where do you think I would I would assume in the first part what stage or how would you how would you recommend that environmental civic.
[16:15] partners could be more engaged. Where would you, is it at the pre-meeting, what would be a recommendation you would have?
[16:27] I'm sorry, do you mean going forward?
[16:30] Yes.
[16:31] Yes, going forward.
[16:33] You know, I think part of the issue here is this presumption that there's a lot more delay or undue delay in Prince George's County compared to other jurisdictions without a lot of evidence.
[16:48] I mean, we've, when we've met and we've had presentations from Miss Connor, I'm sorry, I'm forgetting the name of the council staffer who gave a comparative analysis.
[16:59] Mr. Campbell, Mr. Campbell, no worries.
[17:02] Right. Sorry about that, Mr. Campbell.
[17:05] We asked a number of questions, like it would be useful to know, for instance, what the staffing levels are at these agencies.
[17:13] It seemed maybe perhaps to be moving project along at certain stages a bit more efficiently and expeditiously.
[17:20] Faster isn't always better. It isn't always more efficient.
[17:24] And if we wanted to have conversation about what's good or bad or could be fixed in our development review process, that should be a balanced conversation.
[17:37] What are the impediments to meaningful public input?
[17:42] What are ways?
[17:46] What is our goal?
[17:47] Is it better decisions or just faster decisions?
[17:50] I'm not sitting in the seats of some of my committee colleagues here. You have different role and different perspective.
[17:57] I know that there are times, as I said before, more than once some of the cases I've been involved with every bit of the so-called delay was caused by either the applicant or the planning department or the planning board or the
[18:10] council, either ignoring or violating or failing to enforce the law, and that otherwise the delays
[18:19] wouldn't have happened. And I'm saying that as somebody who considers himself pretty much of a
[18:26] somewhat informed layperson, but somebody who first engaged on land use in Prince orders
[18:31] County beginning in 2018, and seeing these problems from the very beginning and raising
[18:37] some of them from the very beginning and often being ignored when we were raising points of basic procedural law.
[18:46] So when the applicant of the planning board chose to ignore our concerns and move forward,
[18:53] and the case was rightly remanded by the district council on a clear procedural error, that delay was not caused by the law itself.
[19:02] The law was clear, it was ignored or not enforced.
[19:07] But I think, you know, there needs to be a more balanced discussion about what leads to better decisions and better outcomes and a fairer process.
[19:17] And again, there's certain information that some of us have asked for from sort of the beginning here, like we really want to understand how do our resources in some cases stack up against the resources of sister or brother agencies and other jurisdictions.
[19:33] And I'm not saying this critically. It's just we also don't have, we still don't have the information in front of us. So that's a couple of observations there.
[19:44] And honestly, I think it would have been fairer and wiser at the council's retreat to also have had a panel about what works or doesn't work in the development review process when it comes to
[19:59] Values held by the community, public health, that sort of thing, and that conversation wasn't had, unfortunately.
[20:06] Instead, we got a shred to figure out how we could streamline the fast track and we have this community to do the same on a fast track timeline.
[20:18] Okay.
[20:19] Thank you. Thank you for that.
[20:24] I have Mr. Monroe's hand raised.
[20:28] Maybe on that point, I'm just going to put my hat back on as a committee member here
[20:32] or workforce members.
[20:35] So what was the agreed upon next step from the council retreat?
[20:40] Because I didn't – I was only there for one part of it, so I don't know – and
[20:45] maybe Greg, you were – Mrs. Smith, you were there longer.
[20:47] What was the next step that was set out loud, I guess, at the retreat as far as this
[20:52] topic?
[20:52] Great.
[20:55] A great bond by whom?
[20:58] What I recall is there was a panel that was basically a developer's channel, plus then
[21:07] Chairman Barnes and Mr. Hunt and named some others in planning, and most seats at that
[21:12] table for the civic or environmental public health, et cetera, et cetera.
[21:15] We raised concerns about that.
[21:19] But the panel was large to begin with and expanded right before the retreat.
[21:25] We just got, you know, when we raised concerns about that, we got a chance to stand up and speak for a few minutes.
[21:30] And I remember, I think very clearly, Mr. Barnes standing up and saying, well, we're going to have this charrette on February 25th.
[21:38] How that was accreted upon by whom and for what purpose I don't know that I remember chairman barn standing up and saying
[21:45] Planting water planning or planning any second. We're gonna have that charrette
[21:50] Well, no, no, I'm sorry
[21:53] Conversations or decisions are good. I'm just showing up and seeing what seeing what's had in front of us
[21:58] No, I'm sorry. I meant specifically about the retreat adding of the county council had said something
[22:03] specifically that people wanted to follow up on from their retreat. I'm sorry, I was speaking more to that part.
[22:12] I don't know if there was any agreement for further engagement on that.
[22:16] Oh, I understood. Got you.
[22:21] Okay. Thank you. Thank you both. I don't think anyone else had any additional questions.
[22:29] If I may call upon Mr. Benton.
[22:38] Regarding this subject, did you have any questions?
[22:42] Because I know that there may have been some additional questions from NBIA's perspective on the charrette.
[22:50] Or were you just looking for just the follow-up that Mr. Monroe provided a few minutes ago?
[23:02] Griffin dropped in the chat that he's having an audio issue, but he doesn't have further comments or questions.
[23:08] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. We're trying to thank you, Mr. Smith as well. We're trying to come up with tangible items.
[23:20] I know that one of the discussions we had was more collaboration and a more stream possibly combining application types.
[23:32] I think that Mr. Tedesco submitted, I'm looking through my papers, I apologize, Mr. Tedesco
[23:42] submitted information that said we could combine the, I believe, the subdivision application
[23:49] with an additional application.
[23:53] Do you all, as a group, want to agree upon that or have you had the opportunity to
[24:00] to see or Mr. Dadespo, if you wanted to provide additional detail on your recommendation.
[24:08] I think it'd be helpful if we all, I mean, if we're getting to the point of discussing
[24:12] and deliberating and instead of, you know, I'm sure folks haven't seen everything that's
[24:18] been submitted or put on the Excel spreadsheet.
[24:21] I think what would be beneficial to the group, Reina, is if we had a comprehensive list
[24:26] of anything and everything that has been provided.
[24:30] I think the white paper from Park and Planning
[24:32] would be helpful in helping frame that as well.
[24:36] And then as a group, we could go through that list
[24:40] and vet those, but yeah, I simply provided
[24:44] the same information that I provided in response
[24:47] to the charrette as potential items
[24:49] for the group to discuss.
[24:51] Thank you.
[24:52] We have Mr. Smith and then Mr. Monroe,
[24:56] Yeah, with respect, I don't think that now is the time for us to be asked to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on specific recommendations.
[25:06] When we haven't had a time at all. I mean, I haven't been looking at that spreadsheet all along. It's not person foremost in my mind.
[25:13] Sorry to say that, but and I have my concerns. I'll just put it on a record is, yeah, this is a fast track process to figure out how to fast track projects.
[25:24] And I think it can suffer from the same kind of defects that we saw with the data center task force where the timeline was too short and there was insufficient balance in the representation in the committee or the task force.
[25:41] And we end up with I think a flawed project on product unnecessarily.
[25:47] So the 60-day timeline has never felt realistic to me, especially with no real way to engage
[25:55] the environmental, civic, public health, other parts of the community, except for me, I guess.
[26:03] So I'm just putting my concern on the record, and it's never been, I think, place before
[26:11] for us that on June 3rd we'd be asked to be voting on specific recommendations.
[26:18] Today's agenda was to get, I think, a review of the charrette.
[26:24] What we've gotten is a very broad review without the work product that supposedly came out of the charrette,
[26:31] including the student's work product.
[26:36] Mr. Monroe, first of all, Mr. Monroe, before you speak, did I understand you correctly that
[26:42] you all are still working on the work product?
[26:47] So we have the share, and I was just actually, I was on the call of Director Hunt just to
[26:51] kind of confirm in real time.
[26:53] So he said he's fine with everything, you know, just going out, just with an awareness
[26:57] that we still are in the process of presenting it, right?
[26:59] So, two or three things that level set for a moment.
[27:04] One is, this was a quick turnaround for NAS to present, this level set on that.
[27:10] The second part is that I agree with you that this was always a tight turnaround.
[27:18] And that's, you know, a personal level how I felt, and I don't think Director Hunter,
[27:23] the planning department, would disagree with that.
[27:25] So, I always saw this as being very short and probably not an ability
[27:27] to get everything comprehensively.
[27:30] The third point I will say is I will work with Ms.
[27:33] Sightar, because I just talked to Director Hunt,
[27:35] is I hope we would have another chance maybe
[27:38] to just combine all the information
[27:40] that there is an existing Excel document
[27:44] that the chairwoman provided.
[27:47] There's also an Excel document that I will work with her
[27:51] to get out to you all on the white paper
[27:52] that has a series of all the comments from the Shurek.
[27:55] And I know for me personally as a work member
[27:57] I would prefer an opportunity to sort of talk with you all a little bit more about all the
[28:01] various comments and then see where we can find alignment as far as a product that we
[28:07] would all feel comfortable with with the recognition that this is still a very tight
[28:13] turnaround.
[28:14] I don't know how else to explain it other than to say that this would never, given
[28:19] the timeline, this was never going to be a comprehensive process, at least in my view.
[28:23] always saw it as part of a, maybe a part of a journey that to me requires regular
[28:29] annual engagement, but to me there was never a, I didn't have it in my mind that
[28:35] she's going to be the end-all BL for streamlining development review topic in
[28:39] the county personally.
[28:43] Mr. Monroe, I want to say thank you for, for that
[28:46] explanation. And I want to put a little bit of context on this.
[28:53] We, this is, this is,
[28:56] this is a short legislative year. And we were trying to, I believe the chair, and I don't want
[29:03] to speak for the chair, but I, from a staff perspective, I'll say, this is a staff,
[29:09] this is a short legislative year. And there are sort of legislative deadlines
[29:14] that occur in a county council legislative year. So we were trying to get a
[29:20] few fixes to the development review process with having a continued discussion
[29:28] beyond this possibly that will be up to the council to to create another work
[29:36] group or to extend at that time. But there are legislative deadlines and
[29:43] And that is sort of why you all have heard me mention recommendations, because we want
[29:50] to have the public involved, but we want to also have something that
[30:00] That maybe can be proposed legislatively. If that makes sense to everyone? Mr. Smith, did
[30:11] you have your hand raised? Yeah, to the extent I understand the words
[30:15] that you said that they made sense, but this expedited process does not make sense to me.
[30:23] It never has. We'll work with what as best we can, but if I recall correctly, the
[30:29] initiating council resolution gives us 60 days from the date of our first meeting to
[30:35] deliver these comprehensive recommendations to the clerk of the council. That's an incredibly
[30:42] short past March. And I have a question. Did that 60-day calendar initiate with our
[30:52] first April meeting or did it initiate with our first May meeting, which seemed to be
[30:58] implied in a subsequent email. Where are we in terms of that 60 days? And it's also my
[31:05] understanding that the council can amend the resolution to extend the deadline. And Chair
[31:15] Oriana hinted as much, I think, in her comments at our first meeting. So just a question.
[31:22] Where are we with respect to the 60 days and, you know, comment is, again,
[31:29] fast march and serious lack of balance at the table and lack of information
[31:38] to make some informed comments.
[31:42] It is 60 days from the first meeting.
[31:45] And as the timeline that I had before me says that we would be making our final voting and making final recommendations around June the 24th, if that answers your question, Mr. Smith, at this point.
[32:10] Mr. Smith, you still have your hand raised. I don't know if you had.
[32:13] Yeah, I guess for once in my life, I'm speechless. Thanks.
[32:17] Thank you.
[32:23] Also, there were Mr. Villegas had a few comments that he's sent to everyone and he was
[32:37] explaining that from the consultant's perspective having worked across multiple jurisdictions,
[32:43] Prince George's County has one of the most complex and lengthy development
[32:47] review processes in the region and potentially in the nation. This assessment is informed
[32:55] not only by my direct experience, but also through discussions with industry professionals
[33:01] from across the country at ULI and similar conferences. To help address these challenges,
[33:08] I previously submitted a detailed list of recommendations. You did so, sir. And I should have mentioned
[33:14] though, that I should have asked that anyone have an opportunity to review them, but we will
[33:21] compile all of them in a list and we will have them for you for discussion for the next meeting,
[33:32] next Wednesday. Also, there's a new comment in here. Also, to help address these challenges,
[33:40] Okay, I said that you submitted a list.
[33:44] Okay, and you look forward to aligning with and prioritizing the suggestions of the group.
[33:51] And thank you, Mr. Villegas.
[33:54] And I apologize if I'm not rolling and pronouncing your last name properly.
[34:01] So that was your comments.
[34:04] I thank you.
[34:05] Thank you for that.
[34:08] What I can say is that, as I just mentioned, we are going to put together staff, we'll put together a list and get it out to work group members to be able to look at and see what your thoughts are.
[34:26] We appreciate all of your time.
[34:31] We appreciate your time.
[34:32] Were there any additional questions or comments that anyone needed to make?
[34:44] Okay. It doesn't seem like anyone else has additional comments or questions.
[34:50] I don't want to hold anyone beyond the, oh, Miss Victoria.
[34:56] I apologize. No, no, no.
[34:59] So you, so we do have that Excel file.
[35:02] And I just pulled that up and I see that some folks have dropped comments in there.
[35:09] What are next steps for this group?
[35:11] Because I think we've done a good job of talking about the baseline process.
[35:17] We know that we have information forthcoming from Marcus and the design charrette.
[35:24] But in terms of next steps, the goal of this group is to streamline development review
[35:30] and to make recommendations that are in support of that objective.
[35:35] What are next steps for this group to be able to do that?
[35:39] Next steps for this group to be able to do that are, for us staff, myself,
[35:46] to submit a list to you on email, every workgroup member,
[35:51] a list of all of the recommendations that are in that spreadsheet,
[35:57] along with the recommendations that Mr. Villegas and Mr. Tedesco had in their documents and asking you all to react to them.
[36:10] Others have comments, too, because I had included comments after the first day.
[36:14] You sure did. And thank you for those.
[36:23] also, yeah, so that's what the next steps are.
[36:27] We were going to have a, well, I don't know if we, I need to check with Mr. Benton to
[36:33] see if MBIA wanted to still do a presentation.
[36:38] They were going to have some of their members possibly come and speak to the group.
[36:43] So those are the next steps.
[36:45] So I am the Prince George's County Chapter Chair for the Maryland Building Industry Association.
[36:52] Matt Tedesco is the Vice Chair. Alex Villegas is a tremendously active member.
[36:59] We've got Marva Joe Camp here, Malik Jordan, Brad Frome.
[37:04] So we've got MBIA representation. I don't want to speak on behalf of Griffin,
[37:10] so Griffin, write a nasty gram in the chat if otherwise.
[37:13] But I think that MBIA's recommendations have been fully represented between the comments
[37:21] that have been put into that Excel file, and then the extensive comments that have been
[37:28] submitted as a result of the publicly available design charrette.
[37:34] And so between getting the information consolidated from those two documents, we should be represented
[37:41] in terms of experiences from the consultants, developers, builders who are supporting these kinds of projects,
[37:50] and then how we can actually streamline development.
[37:57] That is excellent. So thank you for that.
[38:00] So therefore, our next steps again are to get you all the full list of recommendations and the additional documents that Mr. Monroe mentioned.
[38:18] With that being said, and to have you all vote on the combined recommendations.
[38:26] Are
[38:30] there any additional comments?
[38:32] I don't see any additional comments or questions at this time.
[38:39] With that being said, I want to say thank you to everyone.
[38:44] If there's nothing further so that we can get started combining that list
[38:50] and get to work and send it to you all to react to and vote on during our next meeting.
[38:56] I appreciate everyone that is on this call.
[39:02] Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you so much.
[39:05] Have a good one.