Meeting Minutes
September 13, 2005
Attendees: Faith Klareich (FK), Kris Dighe (KD), Carl Henn (CH), Alicia Hosmer (AH), Jerry Leighton (JL), Geoff Sanders (GS) and Nate Wall (NW)
Absent: Doug Beard, Jaskaran Singh and Tolulope Odunlami
Also Present: Baby Diana!
1. Welcome, News and Agenda Review
The meeting was called to order at 7:38 pm in the City Manager’s Conference Room at Rockville City Hall.
2. Review and Approval of August 9, 2005 Minutes
JL moves, CH seconds to adopt the minutes as written. 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). FK then reviewed the major points raised from Katherine Kelly’s visit at the August 9th meeting:
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.
Commissioners further discussed these points, and decided upon a less formal “comments” format for presenting their opinion to the T&TC and City staff than a formal position paper.
» NW to incorporate comments and CH’s notes into rough draft for Commissioner comment.
4. Montrose Parkway Position Paper
Discussion focused on several points:
The construction of Montrose Parkway needs to be presented as an issue unto itself, and not connected to the Red Line: the Red Line is but one solution to the problem that is the Montrose Parkway.
Need to clearly articulate our recommendations to M&C; we should ask them to 1) Withdraw support from Montgomery County for the project, and 2) Oppose the construction by not selling to the County the few parcels of land needed from Rockville for construction to occur.
May also want to link sustainability into the paper – with gas prices at historical highs, is now really the time to road that will encourage more commuters in single occupancy vehicles? What are other alternatives? CH mentioned that the alternatives study only looked at different alignments for the road and two no-build options, but no public transit.
Need to tie in factors from this County project that directly effect Rockville: 1) Wetlands assist in regional drainage, so their destruction impacts Rockville; 2) Regional traffic – CH claims that the traffic study only looked at the impact to traffic on Montrose, not on I-270 or 355. If I-270 and 355 back up due to traffic utilizing this corridor, that will directly impact the quality of life for Rockville residents.
How would Rockville’s Environmental Guidelines have altered the construction of this road? If the parkway is not in line with those regulations, why did M&C endorse it?
» CH moved to forward the paper on to M&C once the changes discussed today had been made.
In favor: AH, CH, FK, GS and KD. Abstain: JL.
5. City Manager Briefing Book
FK presented a draft of the material that will be included in the briefing book. NW mentioned that he would pull together sustainability indicators that the EC had previously worked on for the final version. Discussed how to best have a back & forth exchange.
» NW to submit final briefing packet to City Manager and send out any additions to the EC.
6. Working Groups
FK stated that according to NW, we have started receiving responses from interested individuals to form the working groups. Need to determine if we want to invite everyone to a separate meeting, or invite them to the November meeting (as October will be mainly City Manager). We also need to determine leadership of working groups. FK reminded that these working groups would fulfill the “roster of experts” assignment as detailed in the EC’s charter.
CH has taken the lead on the Issue Paper subgroup. AH is interested in leading the Community Outreach working group, but mentioned that there is plenty of room for assistance, as this working group already has a list of tasks assigned to it. FK wanted to see if JS is interested in a working group – possibly Community Outreach. Need to verify with DB and TO that they are interested in leading the working groups they wrote the briefs for (namely the watersheds and stormwater management, and high-performance buildings and energy efficiency working groups, respectively).
» Working group leaders to prepare a list of goals for each work group for 2006.
7. Staff Updates / Other Issues
NW mentioned that there is some room in the upcoming Rockville Reports for an announcement from the EC. It was decided to re-advertise the working groups.
NW then reminded Commissioners that the agenda for the October meeting will start 15 minutes earlier than usual, at 7:15pm to allow for 15 minutes to discuss meeting format before the City Manager joins the EC at 7:30pm.
8. Wrap-Up and Adjourn
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm.
