Council Meeting Notes

 

  1. Restart Intercounty Connector (ICC) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) –  The correct vote was no.  The council adopted Resolution 15-09 in support of state action to restart the ICC EIS.  The Sierra Club and other environmental and civic organizations have long opposed the ICC on environmental and other grounds.

 

  1. Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT)– The correct vote was yes. The council adopted Resolution 15-10 supporting the proposed 13.5-mile busway or light-rail transitway between Shady Grove and Clarksburg. The CCT is an integral part of the Shady Grove, Gaithersburg, Germantown, and Clarksburg Master Plans.  These plans rely on the CCT to provide an anchor for transit-oriented development in this portion of the I–270 Corridor critical for preserving green space. 

 

  1. Inner Purple Line – The correct vote was yes.  The council adopted Resolution 15-11 supporting the proposed 14-mile light-rail “Inner Purple Line” between Bethesda and New Carrollton, passing through Chevy Chase, Silver Spring, Langley Park, the University of Maryland, and College Park. This line will provide needed congestion relief and improved access for working families and college students. Effective transit linkages reduce air pollution by providing alternatives to the car and enable more environmentally friendly land use than acres of parking lots.

 

At a subsequent meeting, the council rejected the much more expensive alternative Purple Line Loop (PLL) proposed by County Executive Duncan and supported by council members Denis and Floreen.  Although it had the advantage of avoiding the Georgetown Branch Trail, it would have taken significant additional acres of Rock Creek Park and would have been hard to integrate into a larger Inner Purple Line. 

 

  1. Local Vehicle Surcharge – The correct vote was no.  MC 303-03, Montgomery County’s “Go Montgomery!” Transportation Fund (vehicle registration surcharge), was proposed for both local and statewide legislation, allowing any jurisdiction to impose the surcharge.  The surcharge amount was based solely on vehicle ownership, not use, and the potential use of the funds was vague. An increase in the gasoline tax, linking the charge with use, would have been more equitable, but the provision still would have been questionable without clear language indicating how the funds would be used. 

 

  1. Proposed Regional Transportation Authority – The correct vote was no.  The council majority agreed to oppose a state senate joint resolution to consider creation of a Regional Transportation Authority.  The region now has a Transportation Planning Board and the council is represented on it.  A Regional Transportation Authority could be used to override local opposition to controversial highway projects like the Techway, as well as local master plans.

 

  1. Clean renewable energy and energy efficiency in county buildings – The correct vote was yes.  All council members joined in a resolution to amend the County Energy Policy to require “best efforts” to fill 5% of county agencies’ electric load with “clean renewable power” such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy.  Wind facilities must be examined and approved by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources or equivalent in other states and must remain in compliance with any bird fatality mitigation obligations required by the Maryland Public Service Commission. The other half of the energy resolution is a vigorous program to reduce energy use in county facilities to offset the additional cost of clean energy.  On May 11, County Executive Duncan announced that the county had signed a contract with a wind supplier to carry out this resolution.  Predicting and monitoring the impact of wind facilities on birds and other wildlife will be important to ensure that the benefits of wind power are achieved in a manner that truly benefits the environment.

 

  1. M-83 Planning Study – The correct vote was no.  The vote was to determine if $540,000—rejected by the preceding county council—should be added in FY 2004-2005 to fund Phase 1 Facility Planning for the southern segment of proposed major highway M-83 (aka “Midcounty Highway Extended”).  This segment extends from Montgomery Village Avenue to Middlebrook Road.  It would run through wetlands, streams, flood plains, forests, wildlife habitats, human habitats, and parks.  The Director of the Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation stated:  “We do not believe we can construct in an environmentally-sensitive manner a link between Midcounty Highway and Middlebrook Road”—a view supported by County Executive Duncan, previous county councils, environmental studies by federal and state agencies (1989), and subsequent assessment reports (1992 and 2002).

 

  1. Enact Smoking-Ban – The correct vote was yes.  Montgomery County Bill #15-03, banning smoking in eating and drinking establishments in the county outside of municipal jurisdictions, was enacted July 1, 2003 and became effective October 9, 2003.  The Sierra Club supports a toxin-free indoor as well as outdoor environment.  The ban will result in cleaner, healthier air for workers and patrons and will likely lead to similar bans in adjacent jurisdictions.

 

  1. Cease state study of Bus Rapid Transit on Jones Bridge Road – The correct vote was yes.  In March 2003 the Maryland Department of Transportation announced it would study Jones Bridge Road as a route for a busway or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line as part of the Bi-County Transitway (aka Purple Line) between Bethesda and New Carrollton.  Following Planning Board review of the proposal, voting council members unanimously supported Resolution 15-271 urging the Maryland Department of Transportation to immediately cease its study of the BRT line along Jones Bridge Road.  They viewed it as less cost-effective than other options and outside the county’s master plan (and, hence, outside public comment).  The council had voted twice to support light rail on the Georgetown Branch right-of-way, which had been purchased in 1988 for a transitway and a hiker-biker trail.

 

  1. FY 03/05 Annual Growth Policy (AGP): Preserve meaningful transportation review -- The correct vote was yes.  At its 10-23-03 meeting, the council voted down a motion by Councilmember Praisner to allow the Planning Board until 4-1-04 to develop an alternative to the current Policy Area Transportation Review (PATR) and to continue the current PATR until an alternative could be considered.  Praisner supported the recommendation of the Planning Board that the PATR not be eliminated but instead be replaced with an alternative process.  As a result of eliminating PATR, the 8 (of a total of 29) Planning Areas previously under a building moratorium are now eligible for development without developers being obligated to pay the tens of millions of dollars in transportation infrastructure costs the PATR would have required them to pay before they could proceed. 

 

  1. AGP: Create a realistic Schools Test -- The correct vote was yes.  At the 10-23-03 meeting the council defeated a compromise motion by Councilmember Perez to establish the school adequacy standard at 100% of AGP capacity at all school levels, rather than the unrealistic 105% of AGP capacity for elementary and middle schools and 100% for high schools that had been recommended by two of three members (Silverman and Floreen) of the Planning, Housing & Economics Development (PHED) Committee.  Earlier in that same meeting council members (except Andrews and Praisner) had rejected Praisner’s motion to set a standard for school adequacy at 90% of AGP capacity for elementary schools and 100% for middle and high schools.  The PHED Committee’s recommendation for a higher capacity allowance was therefore adopted.

 

  1. AGP: Final Vote -- The correct vote was no.  The Annual Growth Policy plan adopted 10-28-03 promotes growth despite inadequate school capacity and transportation infrastructure.  It adds to congestion on our highways and in our school hallways and increases pressure on our remaining green space.  It rejects the Planning Board’s proposal to cap growth at 1% to give us at least some chance to keep things from getting worse.  It abandons the Policy Area Transportation Review test.  The council did increase the development impact fee dedicated to transportation and imposed a new housing development fee dedicated to schools, but the total development taxes imposed fall far short of the actual infrastructure costs imposed by new development, and some council members used these fees as an excuse to eliminate meaningful transportation review.  Furthermore, the majority of the transportation impact taxes anticipated for the next few years are budgeted in the CIP for the unnecessary and environmentally destructive Montrose Parkway.

 

  1. Upper Rock Creek Master Plan: Create a Special Protection Area (SPA)   -- The correct position was support.  At its 1-20-04 meeting council members attending (Denis was absent) unanimously agreed to protect and preserve the headwaters of Class III streams by creating an SPA with an 8% impervious-surface limit for all undeveloped properties in the SPA.  Councilmember Praisner initiated this provision because a study she requested showed that the 10% imperviousness limit in the Paint Branch SPA is not low enough to adequately protect the stream.   At the same meeting the council defeated a motion for 70% (instead of 65%) open space in the Rural Neighborhood Cluster Zone supported by Praisner and Andrews.  The council also defeated a motion supported only by Andrews, Perez, and Praisner  to phase in development occurring within the next two to three years to reduce its negative impact on roads and schools

 

  1. Upper Rock Creek Master Plan: Exception to Special Protection Area -- The correct vote was no.  At the 2-24-04 meeting, Councilmember Subin moved that properties not connected to sewer lines (e.g., low-density housing with septic service) be exempted from the 8% impervious-surface cap.  This amendment, supported by all council members except Andrews and Praisner, effectively undermined much of the protection provided by creation of the SPA.  By a vote of 8-1, with Praisner voting nay, the council then adopted Resolution 15-519, the Upper Rock Creek Master Plan as amended.  While passage of the Master Plan is a step forward because it creates an SPA for the Upper Rock Creek Area to protect the headwaters of its Class III streams by limiting imperviousness, the cumulative effects of the various amendments and waivers granted to certain properties weakened preservation as anticipated by Councilmember Praisner’s original Special Protection Area recommendations.

 

  1. Riding Stables: Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 03-21 -- The correct vote was no.  The primary purpose of this legislation was to redefine boarding, breeding, and training horses as “agriculture” in order to give these activities the greater flexibility enjoyed by agricultural uses, and to establish standards by which riding stables, renamed “equestrian facilities,” would be permitted by right rather than by special exception in agricultural zones.  Equestrian facilities normally provide recreational—not agricultural—services.  Their impact on the environment is more pernicious, by their numbers, spectators, their traffic and parking lots, lighting dependencies, noise, and trails through forests and stream buffers.  Enforcement of the standards adopted is not a given and is necessarily preceded by damage to the environment since it is based on a complaint process.  Further, by calculating allowable horse numbers by gross acreage instead of pasture acreage, the ZTA dismisses the potential harm to forests, wetlands, and stream valleys located on agricultural zone properties.  Please see the article on related legislation, proposed Bill 29-03, which would exempt certain equestrian facilities in agricultural zones from forest conservation law.  The vote on that legislation is scheduled for June 15.