MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

January 30, 2008

MEMORANDUM

TO: Montgomery County Planning Board

FROM: Rollin Stanley, Director, Planning Department

Dan Hardy, Chief, Move/Transportation Planning Division
Pamela Dunn, Planner Coordinator, Explore/Research & Technology Center
Jacob Sesker, Planner Coordinator, Explore/research & Technology Center

SUBJECT: 2009-2011 Growth Policy Outline and Schedule

____________________________________________________________________

Recommendation:
That the Planning Board comment on the direction for the Growth Policy update outlined
in this report.

Purpose:
This outline is intended to provide the Planning Board with the current thinking of staff
on direction for the current update of the Growth Policy.

Introduction:
Up to this point the Growth Policy has and is about “what you cannot do”. Evaluation of
development is based primarily on two factors, school and road capacity, to determine
when development can proceed. Staff is looking to change this direction to “where and
how we should be building”, adding sustainability to the evaluation.

A shift in this direction is timely. The past growth in Greenfield areas has almost ended,
with only four percent of the county Greenfield areas left to develop. Future growth will
increasingly look inward, to existing areas through infill and redevelopment activity. The
need to amend master plans for areas like White Flint and Germantown highlights this
trend.

In the past, a new subdivision might require a new or wider road, easily factored into the
design. In an infill situation, building additional roads or widening existing ones is not
always an option, either for physical or practical reasons. Does this mean that all infill
activity should stop? Infill and redevelopment is also more likely to result in fewer

8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director’s Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MongtomeryPlanning.org
vehicle trips for a number of reasons.

 Closer proximity to transit

 Services are often within walking distance
 People can live closer to employment and education
 Other mobility options exist

Future growth will be strategic, focusing on transit and transportation corridors. Every
strip mall in the County, or large surface parking lot, should be considered a potential site
for mixed use development of appropriate scale. The business infrastructure, such as
servicing and retail already exists. Most of the master planned highways are in place.
New transportation infrastructure needs include planned transitways; localized, walkable
street grids; and reinvestment in aging systems. Operational considerations are becoming
of greater importance to ensure that both roadway and transit services are most efficiently
utilized.

Similar questions need to be asked regarding community infrastructure such as parks,

libraries, medical services and other community facilities in addition to schools. Should
we be building new schools on the periphery of our growth boundaries or seeking a more
urban footprint for new schools and creative reuse of older school sites? How should our
recreation needs and parks be funded to address smarter infill growth? Is the access to
affordable housing and medical services appropriate for an aging society?

Should these infill sites be credited for potential mitigation of some number of vehicle
trips or school students in exchange for building “smart” by mixing uses, taking
advantage of more accessible location and reducing the building emissions? Would it be
acceptable to have slightly higher levels of congestion in exchange for greener
development?

As new development occurs, levels of traffic do increase. However, if the development

occurs in the right places, growth in traffic congestion is not proportional to development
totals where mixed uses and good transit alternatives exist. Silver Spring and Bethesda
have emerged as smart growth centers where traffic congestion is recognized by most
constituents as an acceptable part of a thriving quality of life. In higher density
situations, the acceptable or “perceived” cost of congestion is offset by people’s
expectations for more congestion and their ability to budget for it usually offsets their
negative opinions towards it.

Currently new development and redevelopment is acceptable to the public when it adds
to their quality of life. In the past, the growth policy has interpreted this to mean adequate
service levels for transportation and schools, and the availability of water and sewer. But
this is a narrow slice of the effect of growth on an existing community.

The goal of the 2009-2011 Growth Policy is to envision development and redevelopment
as an opportunity to improve conditions for neighborhoods by adding desired land uses,
improving auto-transit-walk-bike connections, providing an improved streetscape and

8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director’s Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MongtomeryPlanning.org
creating development that is more energy, fiscal and environmentally sustainable.

Current Growth Policy:

Consists primarily of APFO and impact tax schedule

o Transportation tests: adoption of a policy area test, PAMR, and minor

modifications to the local area test, LATR

o School test : adoption of the MCPS program capacity for test threshold

o Impact taxes: adoption of transportation and school impact taxes more

closely aligned with the marginal cost of growth

Introduced the concepts of sustainability and design into the Growth Policy

Future Growth Policy:

The Four Elements

Sustainability has become a one word shorthand for the idea that public policy should be
designed to take into account the interaction of the economy, the environment, and social
equity in guiding growth and making decisions about public investment. Sustainability is
not an action but an outcome. The fundamentals for achieving sustainable growth and
development include connections, diversity, design and the environment.

Connections are about linkages; linking people to work, healthcare, entertainment,

stores, schools and the natural environment. It is also about the nature of these linkages;
pedestrians, transit, bikeways and roads.

Diversity refers to variety in the housing stock and affordability, a mix of land uses, as
well as diverse streetscapes that include a sense of history and identity.

Design is not an end unto itself; it is the means by which we encourage the coordination
of mixed-use construction and open spaces with increased access to transportation and
other public facilities in a fashion that enhances our environment and surroundings.

Environment is key to creating a sustainable community. Environmental stewardship

involves awareness of our impact on the natural environment such as our contribution to
greenhouse gas emissions and definitive steps to reverse historical carbon consumption
trends.

8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director’s Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MongtomeryPlanning.org
New Directions

We are suggesting a new approach to Growth Policy, one that incorporates where and
how growth occurs with the traditional role of guiding when growth occurs. This new
approach requires a closer connection between encouraging “quality of place” and the
incentive to grow smarter.

This approach will be synthesized with the master plan and zoning ordinance elements of
our work program. In the County’s current legislative system,

Master Plans primarily define where growth occurs

Zoning primarily defines how growth occurs, and
Growth policy primarily defines when growth occurs

We recommend that the Planning Board work within the County Code definitions to
better synthesize the “where”, “how”, and “when”. For instance, the Public Hearing
Draft of the White Flint Sector Plan recommends changes to both zoning and APFO
transportation processes (Growth Policy). Similarly, the 2009-2011 Growth Policy
should recommend a comprehensive set of growth incentives; some to be adopted by the
Council in November’s growth policy and others through zoning text and master plan
amendments.

We need to present a recommended Growth Policy to the Planning Board by June 15.
We see four different alternatives for pursuing the integration of “where”, “how”, and
“when” during the next four months, described below.

Alternative 1: Minor Tweaks to the Current System of Tests and Taxes

o For PAMR and LATR this could include:

 Change the “acceptable” definition to allow Relative Arterial

Mobility to drop to LOS E if Relative Transit Mobility is B (The
Board’s May 2007 recommendation) for urban areas.

 Develop cordon-line method exemption (explored in White Flint)

from PAMR and LATR for urban areas to either/both:

Set upper limit for traffic volumes

Shift exaction to a proportional estimate of needed funding

at local level

 Develop parking-cap method exemption from PAMR and LATR

for urban areas

8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director’s Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MongtomeryPlanning.org
 o For schools this could include re-evaluation of the APFO threshold for the
school facility payment and moratorium.

o For water/sewer service current adequacy is based on existing availability,

we might consider the value in evaluating adequacy based on age of pipe
as well.

o For fire/rescue adequacy has been based on response time. In 2007, the
entire County fell within acceptable range of response times.

o For parks and recreational facilities, there is no current APFO. The 2007-
2009 Growth Policy recommended revision to the current Recreation
Guidelines. Currently, work is underway on Urban Park Guidelines. A
comprehensive revision to the Recreation Guidelines should be
considered.

o In strategic growth areas where transit is planned for the future, the
Corridor Cities Transitway for example, new development in proximity to
the future station location should be designated a Town Center Policy
Area for purposes of calculating mitigation requirements (the Gaithersburg
West Master Plan is advocating this approach, already in place for the
Germantown Town Center, for the three station locations).

o For impact taxes and fees:

 Transportation impact taxes could shift basis of calculation from

vehicle trips to VMT

 Define more disaggregated areas to reflect trip-length ranges for

transportation impact fees - SFDU in Damascus would have a
higher cost than SFDU in Fairland based on VMT

 School impact taxes could shift basis of calculation from dwelling

unit type to square footage

 Amount of school facility payment and impact fee recalculated

based on current school construction costs

 Identifying separate transit infrastructure funding needs for the

transportation impact fee and appropriating a higher proportion of
the impact fee to transit in strategic areas

o Characteristics:

 Philosophically very few changes with this approach

8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director’s Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MongtomeryPlanning.org
  This alternative matches the Council direction provided in the
2007-2009 Growth Policy Resolution

 This approach does not materially advance sustainability or design

elements within the growth policy framework

 The effects from this approach are fairly predictable

Alternative 2: Targeted Incentives for Sustainable Development

o This would be crafted similar to recent legislation in California (SB 375),

which promotes smarter growth through connections to public transit and
higher densities as well as affordable housing goals. Projects meeting a
specific list of criteria related to smart growth would be either exempt
from specific required obligations or rewarded with additional density or
expedited review.

o Possible criteria include proximity to transit/planned transit, energy

efficiency/green building, mix of uses (certain percentage use/affordable),
and attributes related to environmental conservation or enhancement.

o Possible incentives include expedited review, additional density, or

reduced impact taxes. Possible exemptions could be granted for PAMR
mitigation. These incentives could be tied to a floor area “bonus” system
currently being evaluated as part of the zoning rewrite, where in exchange
for specific development elements, a floor area increase is provided. For
example, a green roof could result in a floor area increase of either (i) an
area equal to the area of the green roof multiplied by a factor, or (ii) a
floor area increase relative to the lot size

o Characteristics:

 This alternative can provide valuation for both existing and

planned transit proximity

 Analysis to establish criteria and thresholds can be based on

currently recorded/established data or requirements

 This is an established approach to incentivize smart growth

Alternative 3: Use of LEED ND Standards

8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director’s Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MongtomeryPlanning.org
 o Require a minimum level of acceptability for project approval – this
would be similar to the prerequisites in the LEED ND framework. Where
MNCPPC requirements are more stringent than the corresponding LEED
ND prerequisite, MNCPPC requirement would prevail.

o Similar to the criteria above, establish a minimum point threshold related

to fulfillment of LEED ND criteria with fewer prerequisites. This allows a
tradeoff between criteria.

o There is value in this alternative as a “benchmark” for developments to

even be considered. A minimum score is needed in order to submit
drawings. Many of the current County requirements would be counted
towards the base score.

o This “minimum” score, could be the trigger for a “green tape” process for
sustainable buildings where the development process is expedited.

o Characteristics:

 Use of LEED ND provides a measure of familiarity due to the

widespread use and recognition of LEED for new construction.

 LEED ND is not designed for regulatory use.

 LEED ND pilot program has recently ended. Changes to the LEED

ND framework will be made this spring.

 Application of this approach is not yet tested and is unpredictable.

Presumably, development proposals would adapt to pass the new
tests and the myriad approaches to achieve any particular LEED
score may or may not result in desired development.

Alternative 4: Carbon Trading at the Local Level

o Several of the LEED ND criteria have been identified as carbon-reducing.

Establish a system to trade required criteria such as environmental,
transportation, and Master Plan compliance criteria currently asked for,
and possibly other LEED type criteria, based on carbon equivalencies.

o The idea is to move away from a capacity-centered APF system to one

that considers impacts of all kinds in terms of carbon emissions. The
thought is that carbon reductions through a green roof for example, could
equate to the carbon of a specific number of auto trips. Technologies exist
to calculate many of these carbon footprint tradeoffs, although the science
remains an emerging one.

8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director’s Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MongtomeryPlanning.org
 o The Planning Department is about to begin a new Capstone Project
session with students from George Washington University. The Capstone
Project assigned this year will focus on carbon trading at the local level.

o Characteristics:

 Establishing a carbon equivalency for all required criteria will

necessitate significant staff resources.

 There is little national or local experience related to carbon trading

at the local level for development.

Alternative 5 – Combination

 Mix some components of any number of the alternatives. (Elements of)

Alternative 1 should be pursued in any scenario.
 Alternative 2 is currently favored by staff as the main “push” in direction
for the “new look” growth policy.
 The minimum LEED type score in Alternative 3 could be the benchmark
from which Alternative 2 is applied.

Further Discussion

All of the various alternatives need to be responsive to the considerations described

below.

Strategic Growth Location Considerations

 One way to view development potential is related to current land use.

Attachment A includes a map of the County’s growth areas describing four
land use categories with distinct development characteristics:

o Established Neighborhoods - areas of the County where little change is

expected; primarily residential neighborhoods
o Greenfield/Brownfield areas - only 4% of the County land area left is
greenfield, and there are few brownfield areas
o Reinvestment Areas - areas like downtown Silver Spring and Wheaton
where significant infrastructure exists and reinvestment in these areas is
creating new activities and more vibrant neighborhoods
o Emerging Districts - FDA site, Gaithersburg West, and White Flint; areas
where the character can be redefined to create sustainable communities

How should the variation in development potential affect APF requirements

and impact taxes?

8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director’s Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MongtomeryPlanning.org
  Would there be times where transit proximity is not our highest priority? For
instance, would a mixed use project that redevelops a surface parking lot in
Burtonsville be smarter growth than a project that doubles the density on an
already fully developed site in Silver Spring?

 If a development is built in a strategic location is an exemption from PAMR

or LATR a reasonable incentive or should the tests be recalibrated by a set
percentage to adjust the scoring system?

 Would coordinating certain “urban” boundary definitions (i.e., Metro Station

policy areas, Transportation Management Districts, Urban Districts, Parking
Lot Districts and off-street parking requirements, zoning boundaries for
housing requirements) help achieve policy goals and streamline the
development review process?

Policy Considerations

 Should there be an incentive to encourage projects that create a better balance

in the “jobs to housing” ratio for a specific area?
 For a green project that scores well on a LEED type scenario, could some
current requirements, environmental, site plan or otherwise, be waived or
expedited?
 Should the growth policy consider a change to the end-state conditions of the
County? If we incentivize greater density in our most urban areas, do we need
to disincentivize an equal amount of density in less urban areas, or envision a
greater growth total?

Fiscal Climate Considerations

 Given the current state of the economy, what types of development require
incentives and what is the appropriate public sector response to incentivizing
any or all types of growth? The allocation of responsibility can be a “zero
sum game” by shifting a predefined burden of proof or responsibility to the
locations and types of growth where incentives are desired (moving from
vehicle trips to VMT in transportation impact taxes would lower costs for
downcounty development and raise them for upcounty development). Or the
County can choose to assume greater responsibility for development in the
application of incentives (the exemption of hospitals and bioscience from the
transportation impact tax was assumed by the in public sector rather than
passed on to other types of growth).
 How does the Board wish to allocate scarce staff resources in the growth
policy development? A direction toward Alternatives 3 or 4 above could
result in substantial progress toward sustainable development, but we could
not simultaneously dedicate resources to complete the items requested by the
County Council as indicated under Alternative 1.

8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director’s Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MongtomeryPlanning.org
Schedule and Process
We initiated this year’s Growth Policy study with a series of public discussions in
November and December and an online survey. Attachment B summarizes the
comments we received and has been used in developing the proposals in this
memorandum.

Attachment C summarizes the proposed outreach process and project schedule. By

County Council direction, the staff draft is due to the Planning Board by June 15. We
recommend the following approach:

Based on guidance received February 5, staff will spend several weeks, primarily
working in-house, to develop preliminary growth policy recommendations for an
interim review by the Planning Board at the end of March.
During April and May, staff will work more extensively with stakeholders to refine
the preliminary recommendations. During this time period, the Board also needs
to act on other elements of the 2007-2009 Growth Policy including setting PAMR
and school requirements for FY 10.

Conclusion
There has been a healthy internal discussion about how to bring sustainability into the
Growth Policy discussion. Some creative ideas have emerged as outlined above. Some
of these may need to be “cooked” for a longer period, perhaps the next review of the
Growth Policy in 2011. However, staff believe that the options outlined here offer an
exciting new approach, with a firm foundation in the known growth tools the County has
embraced.

The key is to develop a way to balance or “mitigate” our traditional approach, with green,
sustainable development that will result in a greater “quality of place” for residents.

8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director’s Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MongtomeryPlanning.org
The Montgomery County Planning Department www.MontgomeryPlanning.org

Growth Map D R A F T

Growth Areas:
Emerging District ICC

Greenfield / Brownfield M
" Metro Stations CLAGETTSVILLE

Reinvestment Areas b
Æ MARC Stations
FRIENDSHIP

Other CCT
BROWNINGSVILLE
£
n
Cherry Hill Employment Overlay Zone M
" Purpleline Station Alternatives
MULLINIX

Metro 1/2 mile Buffer Areas not otherwise identified are DAMASCUS

Established Neighborhoods LEWISDALE

PURDUM
14
Colleges / Universities
HYATTSTOWN

BOOTJACK

KINGS VALLEY
All Existing and Proposed Parkland (62,091 Acres)
KINGSLEY

Agricultural Reserve (RDT zone)

ETCHISON

Municipalities w/ Zoning Authority (17,500 Acres)

WOODFIELD
COMUS
MT.
EPHRAIM CEDAR GROVE
CLARKSBURG
£
n
£
n TRIADELPHIA
6
UNITY

b
Æ BARNESVILLE 5n
£ SUNSHINE
DICKERSON

BRINK
b SELLMAN
Æ MILESTONE L AY T O N S V I L L E
GOSHEN
BURDETTE n
£
BUCK
BLOCKTOWN
£
n £
n NEELSVILLE PRATHERTOWN
LODGE
BRIGHTON

4
£
n MONTGOMERY VILLAGE

b
Æ MT.
BEALLSVILLE GERMANTOWN £ 25
n MIDDLEBROOK
STEWARTOWN
ZION BROOKEVILLE

£
n 13
KINGVIEW b
Æ
BRINKLOW
MARTINSBURG

JERUSALEM CLOPPER 12
FLOWER HILL
WHITES FERRY
EMORY OLNEY SANDY

10
METROPOLITAN ASHTON

18
GROVE SPRING
GROVE
£
n
b
Æ
REDLAND
P O O L E S V I L L E BROWNSTOWN
WASHINGTON
ELMER
£
n b
Æ GROVE
G A I T H E R S B U R G
n
£ b
Æ EDNOR

DAWSONVILLE
20

19
NORWOOD BROWN'S
£
n CORNER
M
" SPENCERVILLE
DERWOOD
QUINCE
ORCHARD £ £
n £
n NORBECK
BURTONSVILLE

EDWARDS
n £
n AVERY
CLOVERLY
LODGE
FERRY £n
n £
DARNESTOWN
SUGARLAND n n
£
££
n
3
LAYHILL

R O C K V I L L E
BIG M
b
Æ
"
PINES

SYCAMORE
COLESVILLE
LANDING FAIRLAND

SENECA VIOLETTES
BLOCKHOUSE TRAVILAH
LOCK POINT
TOBYTOWN ASPEN
HILL

PENNYFIELD
M
" 11
M GLENMONT
"
LOCK

2 MONTROSE

ID_NUM Name Category GLEN

M
" 1
1 Site 2 / Percontee Emerging District WHITE OAK

2 White Flint / Twinbrook Emerging District 9"

GARRETT
MWHEATON
21
PARK b
Æ
3 Gaithersburg West Emerging District
4 Germantown Emerging District SCOTLAND BURNT MILLS

5 COMSAT Greenfield/Brownfield
SWAINS
LOCK
M
" 16Æ
b
HILLS
HILLANDALE
6 Cabin Branch Greenfield/Brownfield KEN SIN GT ON
FOUR

7 Takoma/Langley Reinvestment Areas

CORNERS
POTOMAC
8 Silver Spring Reinvestment Areas CHEVY
CHASE M
"
9 Wheaton Reinvestment Areas
POOKS HILL
VIEW
CAMPBELL
10 Olney Emerging District
22
CORNER

11 Glenmont Emerging District OAKMONT NORTH

Projection: Maryland Stateplane, NAD83
12 Mess Property Greenfield/Brownfield 23 "
CHEVY
MCHASE M M
M Map Units: Feet
M " " S I L V E R S PM
R IN G
" M
GREAT " M
13 Webb Tract Greenfield/Brownfield
" " "
FALLS M
8"
M
M Map produced by:
" M M"
M
14 Damascus Town Center Emerging District M M
" "
"
b
Æ "
15 Westbard Reinvestment Areas
BETHESDA
M Montgomery County Planning Explore Team
17 7 January 2009
"
16 Kensington Emerging District CROPLEY M
M
"
"
17 Washington Adventist Hospital Reuse Other
T A K O M A
M
" P A R K
CHE V Y C HA SE
18 Ashton Emerging District CARDEROCK
M

$
24
CABIN JOHN
"
19 Shady Grove Emerging District GLEN ECHO

20 NIST Other
CHEVY
SOMERSET CHASE

21 FDA White Oak Emerging District 15 0 2 4 8

VILLAGE

22 WRAMC Other M
"
23 NIH / Naval Medical Other Miles
24 Naval Surface Warfare Center Other
25 DOE Other
BROOKMONT
 Attachment B

Summary of Community Outreach Meetings on Growth Policy

This fall staff launched a public outreach campaign to educate citizens about Growth Policy and to elicit
opinions on growth from County residents. To kick off this effort, a booth at the Silver Spring Fall
Festival was staffed with planners who engaged the public in conversation about growth and
development. At the festival, residents were provided the opportunity to answer an on-line survey and
were offered information on upcoming meetings to be held regarding Growth Policy.

Following extensive public notification through press release, website posting, flyer distribution, and
news articles, four community meetings were held in November and early December. The meetings were
held in different areas of the County and at different days and times. This was done in an effort to
increase participation and provide various opportunities for attendance. In addition to these meetings, an
on-going effort is underway to publicize and encourage participation in the on-line survey.

At each of the four community meetings, staff made a presentation summarizing growth policy and
introducing new concepts under consideration for inclusion in 2009-2011 Growth Policy. Following the
presentation residents were asked to participate in guided discussions grouped into four categories:
connections, diversity, design and environment. During each discussion, residents were asked to assess
the relative value they place on various amenities related to each category.

Provided the prompts below participants were given a number of votes (less than the number of available
prompts). Participants were instructed to place their votes on the amenities they value most, allowing for
multiple votes per amenity. Below are the results:

Percentage of Total
Connections Votes Cast

Neighborhood parks easily accessible by bike or walking 7%

Stores, libraries, schools or other public facilities accessible by walking, biking or

taking transit 21%

Access to transit like Metrorail, Metro bus, or Ride-On nearby 15%

Improved sidewalks, biking and walking trails 29%

Access to jobs by transit, walking or biking 11%

Universal Wi-Fi access 9%

Development of a bus rapid transit system 10%

 Percentage of Total
Diversity Votes Cast

Varied housing-type choices such as apartments, single-family homes, senior-

living, etc… 15%

Varied housing choices for different income levels 9%

Attracting and accommodating people of all ages, abilities, incomes and cultures 22%

Increasing transportation choices 27%

Creating a mix of homes, jobs, shopping and public places 24%

Neighborhoods with a range of building heights, materials and uses 3%

Percentage of Total
Design Votes Cast

Commercial and residential centers with stores and restaurants that encourage
walking 24%

Sidewalks, building entrances and public spaces accessible to everyone 10%

Beautiful public gathering places with green and active uses 19%

Fewer surface parking lots; replaced with structured parking or renovated for
developed use 15%

Quality projects that contribute to a positive perception of our community 10%

Recognize neighborhood character to retain or encourage community identity 22%

Percentage of Total
Environment Votes Cast

Energy efficiency and energy producing buildings 22%

Improved air quality 7%

Re-use of historic, existing and structurally sound buildings 10%

Compact development to reduce environmental impacts 10%

Restore and preserve wetlands, forests and sensitive habitats 23%

Reduce impervious surfaces such as surface parking lots to reduce storm water
runoff 18%

Use existing infrastructure more intensively instead of building more (roads, water
and sewer lines) 10%
In addition to voting, comments from the discussions were noted by staff. Most of the comments were
additional amenities that the residents thought should be added to the list, or an elaboration on why a
certain amenity had value. With regard to connections, several residents commented that pedestrian safety
and lighting should be noted as another amenity of value. Several other residents suggested their desire to
see Metro expansion brought to Germantown and/or Clarksburg, as well as expanded MARC service in
the form of extended hours and weekend days. Although the majority of residents participating support an
increase in transit, a few residents commented that they hoped major routes in the current road system
would not lose lanes or shrink in lane width.

Under diversity it was noted that residents desire a variety in senior-housing – more mixed-use rather than
campus setting. A common remark heard in this discussion was the need to protect local businesses in the
face of expansion and redevelopment. Several residents remarked on the importance of neighborhood
character and identity in both the diversity and design discussions.

With respect to design, a common remark was the need to integrate the landscape and natural
environment into the project design. In addition, access for cyclists was also mentioned as a priority for
design. Under environment, a few residents suggested providing incentives for green development
through the provision of tax credits and regulation of greenhouse gas emissions was also requested.

The on-line survey is similar in design to the set of prompts presented at the community meetings. The
survey is organized into the same four categories. Respondents are asked to rank from least important (a
value of 1) to most important (a value of 7) a list of amenities almost identical to the list provided at the
public meetings. One difference is that survey respondents could score every amenity as being most
important. So far, over 150 surveys have been completed. Given most of the prompts are positive in
nature, a majority of the prompts have received a ranking of 5, 6 or 7 by over 80% of the respondents.

Two questions were added to the on-line survey to gauge residents’ valuation of the potential trade-off
between (increased) traffic congestion (in the short-term) in exchange for increased transit or more
energy-efficient design. For the first question, “Longer commute by car OK if you know transit is coming
in a few years” approximately 39% of the responses were in the “least important” categories (scoring 1,2
or 3) compared to 38% rating it in the “most important” categories (scoring 5,6 or 7). For the second
question, “Longer commute by car OK if you know new development will feature energy-efficient,
walkable communities” the response was similar, 45% rating it in the “least important” categories
compared to 47% in the “most important” categories.

Although these two questions did not receive an 80% or greater “approval rating” as did the other survey
questions, the response was still positive. Overall, reception to the Growth Policy presentation and the
discussions on growth were met with enthusiasm. Residents welcomed the opportunity to discuss growth
and its implications in a framework broadened to include concepts related to diversity, design and the
environment.
Attachment C: Proposed Growth Policy Outreach and Schedule:
Establish an interagency working group with monthly meetings

Meet with civic groups:

o Dec. 4. Montgomery County Civic Federation

o Jan. 15. Joint Chambers of Commerce (Gaithersburg and Germantown)

o Feb. 2. Committee for Montgomery and D&R International Business Group

(Silver Spring)

o Feb. 25. Joint meeting of Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, and Coalition
for Smart Growth

o March 4. Montgomery County Building Industry Association

o March 10. Olney Civic Association

o March 19. State Planning Directors Roundtable

Status Report with interim recommendations to the Planning Board on March 26th

o Take public testimony

o Present information from the 3/26 session to stakeholder groups at their April
meetings to provide feedback information and encourage participation in June

Planning Board adopts new PAMR mitigation April 27th

Planning Board transmits Highway Mobility Report to the County Council April 27th

Planning Board adopts FY10 School Enrollment figures, end of May

Draft Report presented to the Planning Board on June 12th

o Public meeting at MRO one evening the following week

o Planning Board hearing June 25th

o Worksessions in July

Delivery of Planning Board draft to the County Council by August 1st

o Worksessions with the PHED and MFP Committee in September

o County Council hearing(s)

o Worksessions with the full Council in October

Adoption of 2009-2011 Growth Policy Resolution required by November 15th

8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director’s Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MongtomeryPlanning.org
Analysis Required as Part of the 2009-2011 Growth Policy under Resolution 16-376

F11- Biennial Growth Policy Report which must include the following:

Analysis of the current and future pace and pattern of growth in the County

Analysis of the factors affecting the demand for public facilities in established
communities

Update of the Sustainability Indicators (and the County’s success in meeting the
indicators)

Implementation status report for each Master Plan/Sector Plan and how the planned
development is proceeding, whether public facilities in the plan are proceeding in a
timely way

Biennial Highway Mobility Report

List of priority public facilities to be added to the Capital Improvements Program

F12c – A study of options to increase efficiency in allocating development capacity,

including trading capacity among private developers

F12d – A study of the County’s job-housing balance, including implications for housing
affordability and traffic congestion

8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Director’s Office: 301.495.4500 Fax: 301.495.1310
www.MongtomeryPlanning.org