Boards and Commissions

Environment Commission
Meeting Minutes
August 9, 2005

Attendees: Faith Klareich (FK), Doug Beard (DB), Kris Dighe (KD), Carl Henn (CH), Jerry Leighton (JL), Tolulope Odunlami (TO), Geoff Sanders (GS), Jaskaran Singh (JS) and Nate Wall (NW)

Absent: Alicia Hosmer

Also Present: Katherine Kelly (KK - Staff Liaison to the Traffic & Transportation Commission)

1. Welcome, News and Agenda Review
The meeting was called to order at 7:32pm in the City Manager’s Conference Room at Rockville City Hall.

2. Review and Approval of 7/12 Minutes
CH calls out a typo in the minutes.  CH then moves, TO seconds to adopt the minutes as corrected for the 7/12 meeting.  Motion passes with unanimous vote.

3. Comprehensive Transportation Noise Policy
FK briefly recounted EC’s attendance at the Traffic & Transportation Commission’s July 26th meeting to discuss joint recommendations for a comprehensive transportation noise policy (CTNP).

KK provided background, stating that last fall the Mayor & Council approved the Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR) process.  Previously, the Standard Traffic Methodology was used for guidelines on how many new trips would be generated from a given development.  The CTR now also considers other factors such as transit, pedestrian access and bike facilities.  The CTR does not, however, review for noise impacts as a result of new / increased traffic.  Montgomery County has a transportation noise policy in place, and provides monies each year for mitigating some existing impacts.  The City of Rockville would like to look at Montgomery County’s policies for new development, redevelopment and road construction, but will likely be unable to commit any monies to mitigation of existing impacts.

FK reviewed the text for the draft staff recommendations on a comprehensive transportation noise policy, and opened it up for discussion.  Some issues that were raised were:

• Noise measurements taken for the initial City study were not always an accurate representation of where the worst noise impacts were: e.g., properties with the rear lot line abutting a major street had noise measurements taken in front of the house.
  
• Reacting to the phrase “Noise is a nuisance concern but not a safety issue”: Health is of definite concern to on-going noise, especially given the source of this noise – transportation.
  
• Improved windows and additional insulation should be a mitigation option, not just noise walls, as this has the dual benefit of energy savings (However, does not address issue of noise in your back yard).
  
• Possibility of a noise fund for mitigation: since there is minimal new development occurring in the City, this fund would have limited resources to deal with existing impacts.
  
• Staff recommendation language needs clarification for “new development, redevelopment and road construction projects” that would require mitigation under a new CTNP.  Is re-routing of traffic considered “new”?  How about changes in type of traffic?
  
• Should consider establishing a rating system to prioritize heavily impacted areas, and try to direct at least some percentage of funds into mitigating worst existing impacts (especially if those impacts are far worse than a proposed new impact).
  
• Assessment of impacts needs to consider regional scale – e.g., communities bordering 270 will get cut-through traffic when 270 backs up; as the traffic on 270 continues to increase, this will happen more frequently resulting in a higher impact to those homes, regardless of the fact that there has been no new development in their area.

4. Meeting with City Manager at September Meeting
FK would like all materials in and ready for meeting at least one week beforehand.  The entire meeting will likely be devoted to this topic – other issues on the agenda will be postponed until October.  Opened floor to comment on discussion points.

DB liked the “win/win” wording – important to show how EC can assist in the accomplishment of common goals.  JL would like to see inclusion of sustainability statement and sustainability indicators.  The City likely belongs to ICMA (International City/County Management Association), and they have handbooks with all kinds of metrics – we should see if any of the sustainability indicators we have compiled cross-reference with anything in ICMA.  These indicators would help the EC with its annual reporting.

• NW to find sustainability statement and indicators compiled by the EC last fall.  Check into any ICMA sustainability metrics.
• All Commissioners to send in bios to NW for inclusion in briefing packet.

5. Working Groups Goals
NW mentioned that there is going to be an article in the upcoming Rockville Reports describing the three proposed work groups, and asking for interested volunteers from the community.  All work group abstracts have not yet been finalized yet; these need to be completed, and included in the briefing packet.

• NW will get send out work group abstracts for final comments from EC before briefing packet.

6. Issue Papers
CH stated that the Issue Paper subgroup had met to discuss prioritization for the three draft issue papers currently being considered: Montrose Parkway vs. Red Line, Peak Oil, and a “bag fee”.  It was decided that the Montrose Parkway piece should be considered first, due to the timing issues: County Council has already voted to implement that project.  CH then provided a beackground on the project, and anticipated impacts.

FK wanted to know where the City could influence the outcome of this County project.  CH said that the City is on record as endorsing this project, and if retracted, it might make a difference.  However, this project is going forwards with all County funds.  FH then mentioned that for this type of recommendation to be successful, it needed to be timed properly; are there any critical influence points coming up?  CH mentioned that receiving permits from the Corps of Engineers for the wetlands work could be one such point.

FK then asked for everyone’ position on this paper: JL thought there was no need to send it toM&C now.  KD mentioned that if this doesn’t impact County policy, why endorse this too little too late?  JS doesn’t feel the need to wait – send it now.  DB agrees with comment on timing – only send it when it is likely to catch M&C’s attention.  GS agrees to wait until an appropriate time to send.  TO doesn’t see how this is an issue of Montrose Parkway or Red Line Metro service – more like whether Montrose Parkway is justified.

CH moves to vote to accept the issue paper as written, but only release when timing is appropriate.  GS seconds.  JL asks who / how the decision of “appropriate timing” will be made.  CH thinks the chair of the subgroup should make those decisions.  FK felt that it would still require an official Commission vote: this wouldn’t necessarily have to occur at a meeting – could be done via email if we needed to move faster.

• EC votes accept the paper as written, with the understanding that it will require a second vote prior to submission to M&C.  In favor: DB, KD, CH, TO, GS, JS.  Opposed: JL.  Abstained: FK

7. Staff Updates / Other Issues
NW mentioned that after checking with Jim Wasilak, a memo to M&C describing the EC’s goals to assist in the selection of a new Council Liaison would be appropriate, although he was not aware of it ever having been done before.

8. Wrap-Up and Adjourn
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm.