Mayor & City Council

MINUTES Regular Meeting of the College Park City Council Tuesday, August 10, 2021 7:30 p.m. – 10:46 p.m. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, this was a virtual meeting. PRESENT: Mayor Wojahn; Councilmembers Kabir, Kennedy, Dennis, Esters, Day, Rigg, Mitchell and Mackie. ABSENT: None. ALSO PRESENT: Bill Gardiner, Interim City Manager; Janeen S. Miller, City Clerk; Yvette Allen, Assistant City Clerk; Suellen Ferguson, City Attorney; Terry Schum, Director of Planning; Robert Marsili, Director of Public Works; Gary Fields, Director of Finance; Brenda Alexander, Assistant Director Public Works; Miriam Bader, Senior Planner; Megha Sevalia, Student Liaison; Hayden Renaghan, Deputy Student Liaison. Mayor Wojahn opened the virtual Regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Councilmember Kabir discussed Sunday’s forum on the tree canopy; yesterday’s program on rats; and the school supply giveaway event at Duvall Field. Councilmember Dennis announced tomorrow’s virtual Prince George’s County District 1 Police Coffee Club; Thursday’s Lakeland Civic Association meeting; and the short power outage today in Lakeland. He asked about cooling shelters. Councilmember Rigg discussed last night’s public safety meeting where the main topic was rats. Councilmember Mitchell said with the high heat index it is important to check on seniors. Councilmember Mackie thanked the Education Advisory Committee for book the giveaway. Ms. Sevalia thanked staff for helping her prepare a parking permit guide for students. Mayor Wojahn commented on the forum on Sunday about the tree canopy ordinance, but not all Councilmembers were able to attend because the meeting wasn’t posted as an Open Meeting in advance and wasn’t listed on the website. In the future staff would like to be notified when meetings such as this are being held so we can provide proper notice. Mayor Wojahn requested this be discussed at the next review of Mayor and Council Rules and Procedures. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: Mr. Gardiner reviewed items in the virtual red folder, the lay on the table item, the next movie night, and changes to the College Park Day schedule: it will now be mostly a virtual or drive through event. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes August 10, 2021 Page 2 PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Wojahn read the Proclamation for Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Awareness Day on August 31, 2021. AMENDMENTS TO AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: A motion was made by Councilmember Kennedy and seconded by Councilmember Rigg to move items 21-G-102 and 21-G-96 to the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 8-0. A motion was made by Councilmember Mitchell and seconded by Councilmember Esters to approve the agenda as amended. The motion passed 8-0. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CONSENT AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Mary King, resident: It is vital to have correct information to make good decisions. She previously made Council aware of a mistake in the SavATree report. She made personal comments about City staff. Point of Order from Councilmember Rigg: Ms. King’s comment was out of order and included an ad hominem attack against a staff member that was also out of order. Mary Cook, resident: She asked about the status of the Hollywood Streetscape project which is apparently being delayed because of a Prince George’s County DPIE permit. PUBLIC HEARING: A. 21-O-09: An Ordinance Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park, To Amend Chapter 179, “Tree And Landscape Maintenance”, By Reserving §179-9 And Designating §§179-1 Through 179-9 As Article I, “General Provisions”; Amending §179-1, “Definitions”, And §179-5, “Tree And Landscape Board"; And Adding Article II, “ Tree Canopy Protection”, §179-10, “Permit Required”, §179-11, “Permit Issuance”, §179-12, “Tree Replacement”, §179-13, “Reconsideration”, §179-14, “Appeal”, And §179-15, “Enforcement”; And To Amend Chapter 110, “Fees And Penalties”. By Amending §110-2, “Penalties”; To Institute A Permit System For Removal Or Pruning Of Urban Forest Trees, To Provide For A Reconsideration And Appeal Process, To Require Planting Of Replacement Trees Or Payment Of A Fee, And To Set A Fine For Non-Compliance. Ms. Rashawna Alfred, chair of the Tree and Landscape Board, described the most recent proposal: Phase 1 is this tree canopy protection ordinance, to initiate the permit program, and would include enforcement and penalties for removing trees greater than 36” in circumference or pruning more than 20% of the tree canopy without a permit; Phase 2 implements the tree replacement requirement and tree maintenance fund, and implements a tree registry; and Phase 3 is the educational campaign and building partnerships with other organizations. Mr. Gardiner added that the proposed ordinance would require a permit for removal of any size tree, but the removal of a tree less than 36” in circumference would be approved by right; there is no charge for the permit application. A larger tree will be inspected and if determined to be dangerous, diseased, or dead, the permit will be issued. If the tree is located in a certain location, College Park City Council Meeting Minutes August 10, 2021 Page 3 the permit will be granted. Larger heritage trees will not be permitted. If a resident does not agree with the decision, they can appeal. The replacement requirement comes in later but the resident could instead pay into the tree fund. A resident could be fined for cutting down a tree without a permit. There are provisions for waiver or reduction of the tree replacement fees. Councilmember Kabir asked about enforcement of the ordinance. If someone reports a violation, who will check? Who will determine the 20% pruning? Mr. Gardiner said an arborist would inspect/verify for the 20% pruning. Other violations would be a collaborative effort between DPS and DPW. Councilmember Kennedy asked staff to explain why we are doing this and the importance of the tree canopy. Ms. Alexander discussed the benefits of the tree canopy on our environment and our health. Councilmember Day asked why we would wait until phase 3 to have discussions with the county and other partners? He is not a fan of big brother; this could cause animosity between neighbors. Mayor Wojahn said this is the Council’s ordinance to shape so if there are aspects of the ordinance Council wants to change, they may do so. Councilmember Esters asked how long the time frame will be for getting a permit. Mr. Gardiner said it should be within 7 days for the smaller trees. Larger trees will be determined by whether the resident accepts the assessment. A reasonable expectation would be within 2 weeks if an inspection is required. Public Comment: Dylan Burns, resident and CBE member: In favor of the ordinance. We need to not only stop the decrease in tree canopy, but also reverse it. Janet Wagner, resident and TLB member: Clarified the permit requirement: unless there is an emergency, you must apply for and obtain a permit from the City. Emily Friend, resident: Doesn’t think permitting will decrease canopy loss; wants developers to contribute to replanting; planting within 6 months is too quick – sometimes you need to wait until the fall to replant; fines and fees can be stiff – in some cases paying the fine would be cheaper. Remove the cost of tree planting. Meg Oates, resident: In support of the ordinance due to environmental concerns. Cost of increased cost of cooling, cost of flood damage, improvement to property value. This ordinance is a start. Would like to see a stronger stand in the future especially with developers and UMD. Barbara Pedevillano, resident: Opposes the majority of the proposal. Look again at the definitions of tree canopy and urban forest. This is not an eminent domain situation. She can take care of her own property. Find a different way to present the information that is easier to follow. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes August 10, 2021 Page 4 Dan Blasberg, resident: History of two large trees on his property; cost of removing a tree; not enough room on his property to replant four trees; is there a designated place for the replanting? Loss of trees due to developers and utilities; M-NCPPC removal of trees near the airport; some trees are not canopy trees. Peter King, resident: The RFP for the tree canopy assessment required that the contractor provide recommendations for right-of-way street trees and identification of planting spaces. This was disregarded by the City. Suggest that we undertake a more rigorous process to understand where tree loss originated. Ordinance does not address RR or ROS zones, mixed use or industrial zones. An ordinance should be comprehensive and fair to all property owners and uses in the City. Mary King, resident: Comments about the Zoom meeting on Sunday. Reviewed evolution of the discussion from 2018. Where is the data to show that residents irresponsibility cut down trees. No justification for this ordinance. People who are opposed to this ordinance are not opposed to trees; this is just a bad ordinance. Alexa Bely, resident: In favor of the ordinance; excited to see it come together, important issue. Benefits of trees. Enthusiastic about the no-fee permit, the exceptions in the case of emergency, and the replanting fund. The tree canopy is increasingly important to many residents. Alan Hew, resident: applauds the time and effort the TLB has spent on this; city needs to listen to concerns of residents and continue to educate them; in support of the ordinance. Alison Quindlen, resident: Agrees with the importance of maintaining tree canopy; difficult to find the right balance; does not agree with the way it is being phased and the punitive approach toward residents – leaves a bad taste in your mouth when we see huge swaths of forests being clear cut for development. Prefers a helping hand approach. Renata Barsky, resident: does not agree with the ordinance as its written. Residents don’t hate trees. The seeming focus of controlling residents’ property while ignoring other entities that have an impact on tree canopy does not sit well. Wants to see the data about the breakdown by zone. UMD needs to be brought into the conversation sooner. Carol Macknis, resident: appreciates the concern about the tree canopy and agrees something needs to be done, but is against this ordinance. City seems to be using incorrect data. Appears many questions need to be addressed before implementing any ordinance. Fully address the issues the residents have raised. Don’t wait until Phase 3 to talk to UMD, County, M-NCPPC. Don’t put the burden on the residents. Nicole Sieck, resident: Supports the ordinance; in agreement with the Tree Canopy Enhancement Program, which she has participated in. Appreciates the provisions to make this not too burdensome on residents. Concerns about developers should also be addressed but should not negate passage of the ordinance. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes August 10, 2021 Page 5 Leo Shapiro, resident: In favor of the ordinance. Heard concern about punitive measures and agrees the emphasis should be on education and incentives, but reasonable consequences can be set for the public good. This is a modest but important first step. Hopes City will show leadership by preserving the remaining forests in our area. Stuart Adams, resident: In support of the ordinance. Great improvement on previous iterations; TLB has heard the concerns of the residents. This is important to sustainability and future of College Park. Supports additional measures including looking at developments and UMD to take action to protect our tree canopy. Constantia Rioux, resident: Appreciates the changes that have been made to the ordinance. The City should be held to the same requirements; when there is tree loss due to sidewalks the City should replant. Caroline Wick, resident: Urges Council to adopt the ordinance. Applauds the TLB for changes made to incorporate resident concerns. Appreciates the City’s TCEP and tree planting campaign. The City and TLB are working now to collaborate with UMD, M-NCPPC. Mary Cook, resident: Previous chair of CBE and APC. When people request expanded driveways we should consider the impact the new impervious surface has on the City. Loss of trees and introduction of more impervious surface are related. What does the County require? This Ordinance should not be punitive, but we should push to plant more trees and educate the public. Michael McClellan, resident: Developers and the University have contributed to the weakening of the canopy and we are scrambling to make up for it. Under the new ordinance will he still be allowed to trim his small trees? How did the City permit these giant developments that go sidewalk to sidewalk without a bush. Joe Sexton, resident and business owner, Ph.D. in Ecology and Masters in Forestry: In general, he supports the ordinance. Discussed the positive impacts of canopy cover and the many impacts an urban heat island has on weather. Some of the variables are routinely measured by satellite imagery and can be communicated on the City’s website for public education. Ian Mather, resident: Avid gardener and passionate about growing the tree canopy but this ordinance is misguided. There is faulty data in the report. The ordinance is punitive and unnecessarily burdensome. It appears the ordinance is unenforceable - how will you monitor? He prunes his trees annually; pruning should be encouraged to maintain tree health. There is a hint of East Germany about this, with Council spying on residents. Phase 3 should be Phase 1. Developers should be forced to plant trees within the City boundary and maintain them until they are established. Table this ordinance. Todd Reitzel, resident: Member of the TLB. It has been suggested that developers are a big part of the problem but they are not. Data from the Planning Department shows that 2 1/2% of College Park City Council Meeting Minutes August 10, 2021 Page 6 tree canopy loss is due to developers. That means that 97 ½% of our problem is not related to developers. UMD has to replace any tree cut down; there is little or no net tree loss at the University. Much of the net tree loss is east of US 1. Tree canopy is not only the upper layer. The Arbor Day Foundation defines canopy as the layer of leaves, branches and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above. We have a big problem in front of us and hope we can address it. Daniel Oates, resident: Supports this proposal; it is a critical first step. Council shouldn’t wait to address businesses, the County, and University. The Council could pass and apply a policy that any development projects that come before it would include a plan for tree replacement in the City to make a statement. It doesn’t help to plant trees somewhere else in the County. David Dorsch, resident: TLB report says between 2009-2018 the City lost 37,000 trees but where were they lost and what was the cause? What is the historical record? How do we know that tree canopy on homeowner’s property is diminishing? The City could plant more trees on City property. Put this on the ballot. Bonnie McClellan, resident: We all agree that trees are important but disagree with how to go about it. Disagrees with the ordinance; it is cumbersome (they have 44 trees on their property), costly, and misdirected toward property owners. Lon Luu, resident: Opposed to the ordinance the way it is written. He has solar panels at his house and has to make a decision when a tree is interfering with a panel. He wants to make that decision himself without the City’s interference. This should be the last step. Start with education. There being no further public comment, Mayor Wojahn closed the Public Hearing. He said the record will remain open until the City Council takes this up for a vote. The Council will regroup and take the public comment into consideration. This will be placed on a future agenda for further discussion. B. 21-O-10: An Ordinance Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park Amending Chapter 38, “Code Of Ethics”, By Repealing And Reenacting Article I, “General Provisions”, § 38-1, “Purpose”; Article II, “Ethics Commission”, §38-6, “Duties And Powers”; And Article IV, “Required Disclosures”, § 38-15 “Required Disclosure By City Elected Officials And Candidates To Be City Elected Officials” To Update References To The State Code And Make Other Non-Substantive Corrections. Ms. Miller described this as a housekeeping ordinance brought forward by the Ethics Attorney. She described the 3 changes. The ordinance was introduced on July 20. There was no public comment. Mayor Wojahn declared the Public Hearing as having been held. Quarterly Financial presentation: Mr. Fields presented the quarterly financial report. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes August 10, 2021 Page 7 CONSENT AGENDA: A motion was made by Councilmember Mitchell and seconded by Councilmember Esters to adopt the Consent agenda, which consisted of the following: 21-R-12 Resolution Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park Adopting The Recommendation Of The Advisory Planning Commission Regarding Variance Application Number CPV-2021-05, 5016 Mineola Road, College Park, Maryland, Recommending Approval Of Variances From Section 27- 120.01 (C) And Section 27-442 (C) Table II From The Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance, To Construct A Driveway. 21-R-13 Resolution Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park Adopting The Recommendation Of The Advisory Planning Commission Regarding Variance Application Number CPV-2021-06, 7101 Rhode Island Avenue, College Park, Maryland, Recommending Approval Of A 1.25% Lot Coverage Variance From Section 27-442(C) Table II Of The Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance, For An Addition. 21-R-14 Resolution Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park Adopting The Recommendation Of The Advisory Planning Commission Regarding Departure Number CPD-2021-01, 8616 Baltimore Avenue, College Park, Maryland, Regarding College Park Car Wash, Recommending Approval Of A Departure To Permit A Free-Standing Sign. 21-G-94 Approval of minutes from the May 25, 2021 Regular Meeting and the July 20, 2021 Regular Meeting. 21-G-95 Approval of a letter to Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks expressing the City’s support for a change of use from the proposed Marriott Residence Inn and retail at the northwest corner of Campus Drive and Corporal Frank Scott Drive to a multi-family dwelling, per the request by the Republic Properties development team. 21-R-15 Adoption of Resolution 21-R-15 approving an annual list of Mayor and Council Proclamations and a policy and procedure for evaluating future requests for proclamations. 21-G-101 Approval of an appointment to the Ethics Commission Moved to Approval of two letters of support to the National Endowment for the Arts for Consent an “Our Town” Grant Application by The Clarice, in partnership with the City, for NEA funding to support the following: Programming by The 21-G-102 Clarice/NextNOW Fest and College of Education at College Park Day 2022 and 2023, continuing The Clarice's involvement that will begin this year; and a series of community art workshops held by the UMD College of Education College Park City Council Meeting Minutes August 10, 2021 Page 8 throughout November 2022-February 2023 that delve into the history of specific neighborhoods within College Park. The motion passed 8-0. ACTION ITEMS 21-G-97 Consideration of a request by Aspen for waiver of the school facilities surcharge. Ms. Schum said this was discussed at the May 18 Worksession and it is back before Council for consideration. The developer is requesting that the City support the waiver request to be 100% exempt. The City Attorney looked closely at the language in the amended law and suggests the Council could do two things: 1) Support the goals of the University District Vision 2030 (UDV), or 2) Recommend that the County Council determine whether the waiver should be granted. She added that there is a correction to the memo regarding prior developer requests: For the Tempo and Hub projects, the City recommended a partial waiver and the County Council granted a full waiver. For the Knox Road development project the City recommended a full waiver and the County Council has now provided a full waiver. Matthew Tedesco, attorney for the applicant: discussed the 2019 amendment to the County legislation. City Council has in the past recommended partial or full waiver of the surcharge for other developments. The applicant is unable to move forward without a Council recommendation. They are currently in for permitting. The Council supported the PPS and DSP. The project does meet the goals of the UDV. Ms. Ferguson said because of the wording of the law, the goals of the UDV have to be part of your thinking. A recommendation for a waiver could not be made by the City without making that determination. You could tell the County Council you believe the goals of the UDV have been met but don’t have to make a specific recommendation regarding how much of a waiver should be granted. A motion was made by Councilmember Rigg and seconded by Councilmember Day to send a letter to the County Council that the project meets the goals of the University District Vision and recommend the full waiver of the school facilities surcharge. Councilmember Rigg said the City Attorney’s recent advice is helpful and frames the City’s role more narrowly. He may have overthought this in the past and thinks we need to have a role in the County’s consideration. In the future staff could work with the developer to further meet the requirements of the UDV. There were no comments from the audience. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes August 10, 2021 Page 9 Councilmember Mitchell appreciated the thoughtful analysis and said it puts us in a more comfortable position. The motion passed 8-0. 21-G-98 Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with The Rotary Club of College Park for their contribution for the flagpoles at the City Hall Plaza, and approval of a plaque recognizing the contribution. Ms. Terry Schum reviewed the staff report. A motion was made by Councilmember Rigg and seconded by Councilmember Mitchell that the MOU with the Rotary Club of College Park for flagpoles and a plaque of recognition be approved in substantially the form attached, and that a letter of thanks be sent to the Rotary Club for their ongoing contributions to the City. There were no comments from the audience. They will be invited to the City Hall ribbon cutting. The motion passed 8-0. [Motion by Dennis/Mitchell at 10:28 p.m. to extend the meeting, passed 8-0.] 21-G-99 Request from the College Park City-University Partnership for City Council approval for the installation of a plaque honoring Dr. Wallace D. Loh (University of Maryland President, 2010 to 2020) at the new City Hall. Dr. Richard Wagner, Chair of the Board of the College Park City University Partnership, said Dr. Loh’s tenure was one of great cooperation between the UMD and the City and brought great progress for the Partnership. The joint venture on the new City Hall is the first time this has ever been done in the country. None of this would have been possible without Dr. Loh’s support, and the Partnership would like to honor him with this plaque in the Plaza. A motion was made by Councilmember Kennedy and seconded by Councilmember Esters that the Council approve the installation of the proposed plaque honoring Dr. Wallace Loh as detailed in the document attached in the packet. There were no comments from the audience. Councilmember Day said this is a great acknowledgement of the work Dr. Loh did to change the direction of the relationship between the University and the City. He was committed to being involved from day one. College Park City Council Meeting Minutes August 10, 2021 Page 10 Mayor Wojahn said Dr. Loh was a breath of fresh air when he became the president of the UMD. Without the changing relationship with the University, the City Hall project would not have been possible in its current form. He looks forward to the formal ribbon cutting where we can thank Dr. Loh. The motion passed 8-0. 21-G-100 Approval of an Amended and Restated Declaration of Condominium for One College Park Condominium for City Hall, subject to continued review and approval by the City Attorney. Ms. Ferguson said this is a restatement of the condominium document. The Mayor and Council previously approved a development agreement with the University of Maryland for the development of City Hall and the office building, and a condominium declaration was also approved at that time. We knew that as we got closer to completion of the building we would need to amend and restate the condominium document to work out the operational aspects of the building. We are still working through the draft to get to the final, but the general framework has been adopted, so she is comfortable asking Council to approve it at this stage. A motion was made by Councilmember Kennedy and seconded by Councilmember Mitchell that the Amended and Restated Declaration of the Condominium for One College Park Condominium be approved, subject to the final review and approval of the City Attorney. There were no comments from the audience or the Council. The motion passed 8-0. 21-O-10 Adoption of Ordinance 21-O-10, An Ordinance Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of College Park To Amend Chapter 38, “Code Of Ethics”, By Repealing And Reenacting Article I, “General Provisions”, § 38-1, “Purpose”; Article II, “Ethics Commission”, §38-6, “Duties And Powers”; And Article IV, “Required Disclosures”, § 38-15 “Required Disclosure By City Elected Officials And Candidates To Be City Elected Officials” To Update References To The State Code And Make Other Non-Substantive Corrections. A motion was made by Councilmember Esters and seconded by Councilmember Rigg to adopt Ordinance 21-O-10 To Amend Chapter 38, “Code Of Ethics”, By Repealing And Reenacting Article I, “General Provisions”, § 38-1, “Purpose”; Article II, “Ethics Commission”, §38-6, “Duties And Powers”; And Article IV, “Required Disclosures”, § 38- 15 “Required Disclosure By City Elected Officials And Candidates To Be City Elected College Park City Council Meeting Minutes August 10, 2021 Page 11 Officials” To Update References To The State Code And Make Other Non-Substantive Corrections. The Public Hearing was held earlier this evening. There were no comments from the Council. The motion passed 8-0. Repeat Agenda Item 21-G-96 to include the full motion 21-G-96 Purchase of a City Phone System A motion was made by Councilmember Rigg and second by Councilmember Day to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with DISYS Solutions, Inc. in the approximate amount of $122,971.91 for a new Cisco phone system, and an additional $7,800 for 12 months of managed support, as outlined in their proposal. This motion authorizes the purchase of additional equipment based on the quoted per-unit prices, as needed, to complete the new phone system. Prior to execution, the contract shall be reviewed by the City Attorney. Although the vendor is a qualified State contractor, the City Council must waive its procurement policy with this proposal. Comments from the audience: Constantia Rioux, resident: Cisco is her employer. Councilmember Kabir asked if staff looked at other vendors. Mr. Gardiner said we have been looking at phone systems for two years. The recommendation was to go with Cisco. Many local governments use this system and they have good references. Is more expensive than other systems but the cost differential is minor. The motion passed 8-0. ADJOURN: Motion to adjourn the meeting was made at 10:46 p.m. by Councilmember Dennis, seconded by Councilmember Day, passed 8-0. _____________________________________ Janeen S. Miller Date City Clerk Approved