Recommendation
Send a letter (Attachment A) to the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) describing the CMP Review that has taken place and the Mayor and Council's decision to revise the Rockville CMP using the following two-phase process:

Phase 1: 2009 – 2011

• Complete Review and transmit the decision to the Maryland Department of Planning.
• Complete the Development Capacity Analysis and adopt the State-mandated new elements:
  • Municipal Growth Element
  • Water Resources Element
• Complete the 2009 Strategic Scan
• Adopt a plan amendment to enable the City to become part of the Montgomery Heritage Area.
• Complete the Parks Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan, and make appropriate amendment to the CMP.
• Complete and adopt the Rockville’s Pike plan.
• Identify Critical Sites and determine whether an amendment to update the Critical Sites is warranted.
• Update the Housing Goals and Objectives.
• Convene a discussion series on CMP issues.

Change in Law or Policy
There are no changes in law or policy with this agenda item. However, as the proposed work program is implemented there may be modifications recommended to City policies. In addition, modifications to the Zoning Ordinance may be required subsequent to revision and adoption of the CMP.

Discussion
At their meeting on August 12, 2009, the Planning Commission approved the staff recommendation to revise the CMP using the two-phase process outlined above.

State of Maryland Requirements

Under Article 66B of the State Code, local jurisdictions with Planning and Zoning powers must review their CMPs every six years in order to determine whether revision is warranted and, if so, the extent of that revision. The law does not specify that revisions must be made. The process defined by the State includes review and recommendation by the local Planning Commission, and final decision by the local elected body - in Rockville's case, the Mayor and Council. The City wrote to MDP in December, 2008, indicating Rockville's compliance, a copy of which is provided in Attachment B.

State law also requires that two new "elements" (chapters or topics), Municipal Growth and Water Resources, supported by the Development Capacity Analysis, should be adopted as part of the CMP and should be completed by October 2009. Two six-month extensions are possible, if progress can be demonstrated. The State has granted the City one 6-month extension until April 1, 2010 (Attachment C).

Audit of the 2002 CMP

As part of the review of the 2002 CMP, staff conducted an Audit. Input was solicited from all City departments, Boards and Commissions, and citizens.

The Staff Audit was launched with Senior Staff in July, 2008. Staff across City Departments reviewed sections of the Plan relevant to their work. In addition, CPDS staff reviewed each of the eighteen geographically defined Planning Areas and the chapters related to land use. Two staff workshops were conducted: the first shared information on each of the Planning Areas, and the second identified critical sites, critical areas and critical issues.

Senior Staff reviewed the outcome of the Staff Audit at a staff round table presentation and discussion, shared their "top ten" items, and a series of other thoughts. It was a very good discussion, in which senior staff considered the role of the CMP in City strategy and how the document could better represent and encourage such important cross-departmental areas as the sustainability initiative and the increasingly important transportation/land use/greenspace connection. The relevant Boards and Commissions also support these views.

The following themes and ideas have emerged:

• Many of the broad goals, policies and recommendations still seem to be relevant.
• There is general agreement that much of the supporting text of the 2002 CMP is out of date, in that it represented a “snapshot” in time of 2002 and frequently no longer reflects the Rockville of today. Some of the data is out of date simply because of the City’s growth.
• While many topics are covered well, there is not sufficient integration among them. For example, we all know that roads, parks, zoning and community facilities are best implemented and complementary when planned together -- but the 2002 CMP frequently does not cross issue boundaries. The review has also highlighted areas that do not appear to have adequate coverage in the 2002 CMP document. An example is economic development, which is an area specifically mentioned in State guidance documents but not well covered in 2002; and the interaction of the economy of the City, land use and fiscal sustainability. Another example is transportation, where the goals and objectives appear appropriate, but do not achieve the more strategic goal of integrating transportation with land use.
• Some topic areas, such as housing and historic preservation, clearly need updating.
• Problems that are identified as “neighborhood” issues do not appear to be confined to individual neighborhoods, and might perhaps be characterized as “City” issues. These include, but are not limited to: residential maintenance, pedestrian/bicycle connections, and traffic calming.
• The City has been very active since 2002, both in implementing recommendations from the 2002 Plan and in developing and implementing new initiatives that are relevant to a comprehensive master plan. These include neighborhood plans for the communities east of Rt.355: the East Rockville Neighborhood Plan (2004), the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan and Conservation District Plan (2007) and the Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan (2009). The Bikeway Master Plan Update was adopted in 2004. All of these plans became part of the CMP upon adoption by the Mayor and Council. Other key implementation steps have included the Complete Streets Policy, which was approved last month; and a new Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, which was adopted in December 2008, and became effective in March of this year.
• A number of additional projects are currently underway that will offer valuable direction for the CMP and are likely to be completed, or show significant progress, within the next year. These include, but are not limited to, the PROS (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) Plan, the Rockville’s Pike Plan, the Sustainability Initiative, and a number of significant infrastructure initiatives such as pedestrian safety, storm water management, water and sewer systems.

• 1-year data is available for large areas, such as Montgomery County.
• 3-year data, which was first released in 2008, is available at the City level.
• 5-year data, which will be released for the first time in 2010, will be available at the tract and block level.

Comprehensive Master Plan Initiative
Project	Description	Target Dates
CMP Review	State-mandated 6-year review of the Plan.	Completion – Summer 2009.
Development Capacity Analysis (DCA)	Projection of City’s population growth over time. Key component of the Municipal Growth Element (MGE) and Water Resources Element (WRE).	State requirement.
Municipal Growth Element (MGE)	Projection of City’s population growth in the City limits and in the Maximum Expansion Limits, and exploration of the ability of public facilities to support that growth.	State requirement to complete by October 2009, with 1-year extension possible. Six-month extension to April 1, 2010 has already been granted. (Attachment C.)
Water Resources Element (WRE) (DPW in lead)	Projection of City’s needs regarding water resources, based on projected growth.	State requirement to complete by October 2009, with 1-year extension possible. Six-month extension to April 1, 2010 has already been granted. (Attachment C.)
Strategic Scan	Collection and analysis of key Rockville data across functions and disciplines. Merges prior data-collection efforts with an update of data from the 2002 CMP.	Completion – November 2009.

• Historic Preservation Element: Montgomery County Heritage Area. The City has been invited to become part of the Montgomery County Heritage Area. This opportunity should provide a positive benefit to the City by promoting our historic and cultural amenities to a wider audience – fitting in with the Mayor and Council goal of positioning the City as a cultural destination. In addition, the City would be eligible to apply for State heritage funds for capital and non-capital projects. The 2002 CMP does not include the language to allow the City’s inclusion in the Heritage Area and an appropriate amendment must be adopted in order for the City to be able to participate.
• Complete the PROS Plan, which will inform a revision to the CMP.
• Complete the Rockville’s Pike plan, which can be adopted into the CMP.
• Update the City’s Housing Goals and Objectives. The existing version of this document was completed and adopted in 1985, in a context very different than today. Updating that document would provide the policy background for a revised CMP Housing and Land Use elements. Work currently underway on the Strategic Scan will provide data for the initial work of developing a new series of housing goals and objectives.
• Begin a discussion series on the themes that will inform the CMP revision, which include, but are not limited to: the City's place in the broader region, the increasingly multi-cultural population, sustainability, the economy of the City, the links between land use and the fiscal impact it has upon the City, and more.

Development Capacity Analysis (DCA)

CPDS staff has been working with the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) for the last year to voice concerns about the methodology of the Development Capacity Analysis and its applicability to urban areas like Rockville. The methodology recommended by the State emphasizes “greenfield” residential development built under single-use zoning. Staff believes that future residential capacity in Rockville will largely come about as a result of the redevelopment of existing areas into a mix of uses – as is already under way in the town center and Twinbrook Station areas. Staff wrote to MDP suggesting an alternate methodology – that is currently used in the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (CoG) forecasting - which we believe would capture our future growth more accurately. MDP has accepted our proposal, (Attachment D) and work on the DCA is now underway. The work will be undertaken in conjunction with the next CoG Round and will be completed by the Fall of this year, after which these two new elements can be completed.

Municipal Growth Element (MGE)

Staff has begun work on this element and has surveyed the area within the City’s existing maximum expansion limits. As noted above, once work is complete on the capacity analysis, work on the MGE can be completed.

The State has granted the City a 6-month extension until April 1, 2010. (Attachment C.) One additional 6-month extension to October 1, 2010, may be granted if progress can be demonstrated.

New legislation passed during the 2009 Legislative Session offers an incentive to have this element adopted in a timely manner. Senate Bill 350/House Bill 220 (Municipal Corporations – Small Parcel Annexations) exempts certain types of annexation from the consent and referendum requirements, which may be helpful to the City. Provisions of the legislation will terminate on September 30, 2011.

Water Resources Element (WRE) (DPW in lead)

The Environmental Management Division of the City’s Department of Public Works (DPW) is taking the lead on this element. The Development Capacity Analysis is also a component in the calculations for the WRE. DPW has started work on the components that do not rely on the capacity analysis and has been coordinating work on the land cover requirements with Montgomery County staff.

The State has granted the City a 6-month extension until April 1, 2010. (Attachment C.) One additional 6-month extension to October 1, 2010, may be granted if progress can be demonstrated.

• The Planning Visions bill (SB 273/HB 294) replaces the State’s eight planning visions with twelve new visions and requires local jurisdictions to submit a report every two years if an APFO results in a restriction in a Priority Funding Area (PFA).
• The Smart Growth Goals, Measures, and Indicators and Implementation of Planning Visions bill (SB 276/HB295) requires the submission of annual reports that include specified smart growth measures and indicators.
• The Smart and Sustainable Growth Act of 2009 (SB 280/HB297) clarifies the link between local comprehensive plans and local land use ordinances and requires members of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals take a planning education course.

Mayor and Council History
The Mayor and Council received a briefing on the Review of the CMP at their September 8, 2008 meeting.

Public Notification and Engagement
The following steps were also taken to promote the review:

• Articles appeared in Rockville Reports, the Gazette and the Washington Post Montgomery Extra.An Interactive Web site is available that allows citizens to find their Planning Area, read the CMP and make comments - all on-line.
• Two information spots replayed regularly on TRC11:
  • Susan Swift gave a five-minute interview about the review process that let citizens know how they can participate, and
  • A 30-second information spot highlighted the website - and the opportunity to comment on-line.
• The Neighborhood Resources Coordinators wrote letters and emails to the citizens associations.

Boards and Commissions Review
The Planning Commission received briefings and discussed the review of the CMP at their meetings on August 13, 2008, December 3, 2008 and June 24, 2009 before making their decision on August 12, 2009.

In addition to briefings to the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Council, staff met with the Historic District Commission, Commission for the Environment, Traffic and Transportation Commission, Cultural Arts Commission, Rockville Economic Development, Inc. (REDI), Senior Citizens Commission and Town Center Action Team. In addition, there was liaison with the Recreation and Parks Board.

Each body participated and provided constructive comments which were included in the review.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. However, the work program outlined, and the recommendations or policies generated in the adopted plan, could have revenue and expenditure impacts on both future operating and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budgets.

Next Steps
Convey Mayor and Council decision to the Maryland Department of Planning.

Attachments

A - Draft letter to the Maryland Department of Planning regarding Review of CMP




B - Letter to MDP regarding progress of Review of CMP



C - MDP Approval of City's request for one 6-month extension



D - MDP letter to City accepting proposed DCA methodology

Department Head:



Susan Swift, Director of Community Planning and Development Services
Approved on: 09/03/2009

City Manager:

Scott Ullery, City Manager
Approved on: 09/08/2009