Rochow v. Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Commission

ADKINS, J. We are asked to vacate the approval of a preliminary subdivision plan for “National Harbor,” an ambitious proposal to build an “urban destination resort” along the shores of the Potomac River. We shall do so because (1) the plan generates traffic that exceeds a limit on development that the Prince George’s County District Council imposed as conditions on the zoning map amendment and the conceptual site plan for this unique site, and (2) the developer did not submit required data regarding the noise impact of the project on neighboring residential communities. FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Zoning Map Amendment And Conditions Since the mid-1960’s, developers and Prince George’s County planners have explored prospects for building a waterfront complex along the Potomac River, at the foot of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge at Smoot Bay. See Eglogff v. Dist.

Council of ⁵⁶⁵ Prince George’s County, 130 Md.App. 113, 118-19 , 744 A.2d 1083 (2000). In 1983, a development proposal called “Bay of Americas” envisioned a mixed use project encompassing retail, hotel, and residential uses. See id at 119, 744 A.2d 1083 . With hopes of duplicating some of Baltimore’s development successes at its Inner Harbor, the Prince George’s County Council, sitting as the District Council (the “District Council”), 1 enacted a 1983 zoning map amendment. 2 As a condition of that rezoning, the District Council required prospective developers to submit a “comprehensive concept plan” showing certain details of the proposed development concept.

It also required the Planning Board to require, “as a condition of its final approval of the comprehensive concept plan,” that the District Council must review and approve that plan. In 1988, the District Council responded to a successor proposal to develop the site as “PortAmerica.” See id The Council modified some of the conditions that it had attached to the 1983 zoning map amendment, but retained the condition requiring the Prince George’s County Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) 3 to refer any comprehensive concept plan ⁵⁶⁶ for developing this property to the District Council for its review and approval. National Harbor During the ensuing years, PortAmerica died on the development grapevine. Ten years after the District Council last rezoned the site, in 1998, The Peterson Companies, L.C.

(“Peterson”) offered a conceptual site plan for National Harbor. Peterson asked for permission to proceed with building plans for a 469 acre “Waterfront Parcel” along the Potomac 4 and on a non-contiguous 64.7 acre “Beltway Parcel” situated next to the Capital Beltway, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, and Oxon Hill Road. 5 ⁵⁶⁷ The Board, and then the District Council, approved Peterson’s conceptual site plan (the “CSP”). Both treated Peterson’s CSP as the “comprehensive concept plan” that was required by the 1983 and 1988 zoning map amendments. In doing so, both also conditioned their approval of the CSP by listing certain requirements that had to be satisfied at various stages of development.

One of these conditions addressed the concern of planners and residents that the bridge, Beltway, and local roads could not handle unlimited new development. To ensure traffic adequacy, the Planning Board and District Council restricted development of the Beltway Parcel to the 200,000 square feet of office space and 725,000 square feet of retail space that had been proposed in the CSP, or alternatively, to any use configuration that generated 1,226 or fewer “peak hour trips” in the morning (the “AM trip cap”), and 2,565 peak hour trips in the afternoon. These “trip caps” reflected levels of traffic that, according to Peterson’s 1998 traffic study, would be generated by its Beltway Parcel proposal. Three years later, in May 2001, Peterson asked the Board to approve the next stage of the National Harbor project—a preliminary subdivision plan (the “PSP”). 6 But Peterson’s PSP differed from the CSP that the District Council approved in 1998.

There was a significant change in the Beltway Parcel. Instead of a predominantly retail development of 725,000 square feet, with only 200,000 square feet of office space, the revised plan called for 1.22 million square feet of office space with only 200,000 square feet of retail space. ⁵⁶⁸ In support of its PSP, Petersoñ submitted a new traffic study. Engineers in the Transportation Planning section of the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (“MNCPPC”) reviewed the PSP and the traffic study. In ■addition to questioning the methodology used in Peterson’s new study, transportation engineers also quickly pointed out the obvious—that Peterson’s reconfigured subdivision plan for the Beltway Parcel “raised a trip cap issue.” What the traffic study conclusively showed was that the PSP exceeded the alternative square footage and the AM traffic cap conditions imposed by both the Planning Board and the District Council.

Using Prince George’s County trip rates that “more accurately reflect the estimated number of trips within the County,” MNCPPC engineers concluded that “[t]he proposed new land uses, compared to the approved Conceptual Site Plan, would generate an additional 1,872 ... peak hour trips during the morning[.]” Even using Peterson’s more favorable trip rates, however, the PSP still “exceed[ed] the conceptual plan cap by 1,476 trips.” 7 MNCPPC engineers interpreted the trip cap as a “traffic adequacy” ceiling on developing the Beltway Parcel. In the staffs view, the Planning Board could not finally approve Peterson’s PSP without impermissibly ignoring or revising an explicit condition that the District Council imposed in the exercise of the review and approval authority that it reserved in condition 3 to the 1988 zoning map amendment. The staff reasoned that the AM trip cap, because it was “imposed at the ⁵⁶⁹ time of an earlier [traffic] adequacy study which was reviewed and affirmed by the District Council[,] would not be subject to revision unless the subsequent cap were also subject to review by the District Council.” In response, Peterson attempted to persuade MNCPPC staff that this trip cap should not be literally construed or strictly enforced. Because the purpose of the trip caps was to ensure traffic adequacy, it reasoned, the District Council intended the trip caps to be, in effect, a merely directory benchmark meaning that there had to be adequate transportation facilities for the Beltway Parcel.

Peterson posited that, even though the PSP exceeded the AM trip cap, nevertheless, it could “substantially conform” to the approved CSP if adequate traffic facilities existed for the reconfigured plan. Citing its new 2001 traffic study, Peterson claimed that the existing and planned roads were adequate for the additional traffic generated by the increase in office space. The Board proceeded with a scheduled public hearing on the National Harbor PSP. At that hearing, the MNCPPC staff member with responsibility for development review rejected Peterson’s “intent” and “substantial conformance” argument.

Instead, he affirmed the staffs written opinion that Peterson and the Planning Board would have to ask the District Council either to review the PSP or revise the CSP, because the Board could not unilaterally approve a plan that violated the Council’s trip cap. The development review director concluded that the PSP would “substantially conform” to the approved CSP only if the Beltway Parcel had 443,000 square feet or less of office space, which would bring it within the AM trip cap. The Planning Board rejected the MNCPPC staffs interpretation of the trip caps. Instead, it adopted Peterson’s reasoning.

The Board concluded that the PSP was in “substantial conformance” with the CSP approved by the District Council because the District Council’s intent in imposing the trip caps was merely to ensure traffic adequacy and Peterson’s new traffic study established that “adequate transportation facilities would exist to serve the proposed subdivision[.]” ⁵⁷⁰ Judicial Review Oxen Hill residents K.W. James Rochow, Tonya Pometto, Bonnie Bick, and Cassandra Egloff (the “protestants”) petitioned the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to review the Planning Board’s decision. Concurring with the “intent” and the “substantial conformance” rationales for disregarding the AM trip cap, the court affirmed the Planning Board’s decision. The protestants noted this timely appeal, in which MNCPPC and Peterson are appellees. They renew their challenge to the Planning Board’s interpretation of the AM trip cap and point to several other conditions that the PSP allegedly failed to satisfy.

They raise four issues, which we have rephrased: I. ' Did the Planning Board err in approving the National Harbor preliminary subdivision plan even though the reconfigured Beltway Parcel violated the District Council condition prohibiting development that generates more than 1,226 AM peak hour trips?

II

Did the Planning Board err in approving the preliminary subdivision plan without requiring additional noise study? III. ' Did the Planning Board err in approving the preliminary subdivision plan without requiring Peterson to satisfy many of the conditions that the District Council imposed?

IV

Did the Planning Board err in approving the preliminary subdivision plan without issuing sufficient written findings of fact and conclusions of law? We agree with the protestants that the Planning Board could not disregard the AM trip cap because it resulted from a condition on a zoning map amendment that remained mandatory and binding under the District Council’s resolution approving the conceptual site plan. For the reasons articulated by the MNCPPC staff, this trip cap limits development of the Beltway Parcel; it is a ceiling that only the District Council itself can raise. The Planning Board approved a PSP that ⁵⁷¹ violates this zoning condition.

We therefore reverse the circuit court’s decision affirming approval of the National Harbor PSP, and remand for additional administrative proceedings. Because the remaining issues relate to other conditions imposed by the District Council, we shall address those issues as well. We conclude that the Planning Board erred in approving the PSP without requiring Peterson to submit additional data so that the Board could determine whether the anticipated noise generated by National Harbor’s entertainment venues and speed parking garage violates state noise exposure regulations, and without addressing whether Peterson submitted the water quality and engineering studies that the District Council required. DISCUSSION Rezoning Conditions In Prince George’s County When, as in this case, a proposed subdivision is located entirely within the Prince George’s County portion of the regional district covered by the “Maryland-Washington Regional District Act,” those subdivision plans must be reviewed and approved by the Prince George’s County Planning Board.

See Md.Code (1957, 1997 RepLVoL, 2002 Cum.Supp.), Art. 28 § 7-1 ll. 8 Under that act, Planning Board approval is a requirement for recording a subdivision plan. See § 7-115(a)(1). Changing the zoning classification of property within the Prince George’s district, however, is a legislative action reserved for the Prince George’s County Council, sitting as a District Council. See § 8-101(a).

The District Council may enact legislation that imposes “standards and requirements for the purpose of avoiding the scattered or premature subdivision or development of land because of the inadequacy of transportation, water, sewerage, drainage, ... or other public facilities.” § 7-120. The District Council also may “adopt and amend the text of the zoning ordinance” by ordinance. § 8-101(b)(2). Similarly, for land located within the district, the ⁵⁷² Council “may by resolution or ordinance adopt and amend the map or maps accompanying the zoning ordinance text to regulate ... the location and uses of buildings ... for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture, public activities, and other purposes[.]” Id. Among the District Council’s statutory zoning powers is the power to impose conditions when it changes the zoning classification of mapped property within the regional district.

In approving any local [zoning] map amendment ..., the district council ... may ... adopt whatever reasonable ... conditions as may in its opinion be necessary either to protect the surrounding properties from adverse effects which might accrue from the zoning amendment, or which would further enhance the coordinated, harmonious, and systematic development of the regional district. § 8—104(e). See also Prince George’s County Code (“PG Code”) § 27-213(c)(l) (“When it approves a Zoning Map Amendment, the District Council may impose reasonable requirements and safeguards (in the form of conditions) which it finds are necessary to either ... [p]rotect surrounding properties from adverse effects which might accrue from the Zoning Map Amendment; or ... [further enhance the coordinated, harmonious, and systematic development of the Regional District”). When the District Council exercises its authority to create a condition to a zoning map amendment, the condition becomes an integral part of its action. A statement of these conditions [on a zoning map amendment] shall be included in the resolution granting the amendment and shall become a part thereof, and remain in effect for so long as the property remains zoned in accordance with the resolution and applicable zoning classification requested. § 8-104(e).

Thus, “[c]onditions imposed by the District Council ... become a permanent part of the Zoning Map Amendment, and shall be binding for as long as the Mixed Use Zone remains in effect on the property (unless amended by the Council).” PG Code § 27-213(c)(4). ⁵⁷³ All subdivision plans for such sites that have been rezoned with conditions must comply with the conditions imposed on the zoning map amendment. “All conditions imposed shall be mandatory.” PG Code § 27—213(d)(1). Consequently, “[n]o ... subdivision plat may be issued or approved for the property except in accordance with conditions set forth in the resolution” adopting the zoning map amendment. § 8-104(e). Moreover, “[t]he failure to comply "with any condition shall constitute a zoning violation and shall be grounds for the Council to ... [(Institute any ... action necessary to obtain compliance.” PG Code § 27—213(d)(l). Another zoning power of the District Council is the power to enact standards for major subdivisions, and procedures for their application, review, and approval.

See PG Code subtitle 24. The District Council has exercised this power by (1) authorizing the Board to impose conditions on its approval of subdivision plans, 9 and (2) requiring it to determine whether there are adequate roads prior to approving a preliminary subdivision plan. 10 Summary Of Conditions For clarity and economy, we present relevant conditions that were imposed by the Planning Board and the District Council in the following summary timeline. ⁵⁷⁴ 1983 District Council amended zoning map to permit MX-T development, in connection with “Bay of Americas” proposal, with specific conditions. 9.26.88 District Council granted petition by PortAmerica developers to modify conditions attached to the 1983 zoning map amendment. Modified conditions included the following: Condition 1: “All areas zoned M-X-T in this case shall be included on a comprehensive concept plan[.j” Condition 3: “As a condition to its final approval of the comprehensive concept plan, the Planning Board shall require review and approval of that plan by the District Council.” Condition 7: “The comprehensive concept plan shall include a staging plan. This staging plan shall show each separate stage of development of all of the properties being rezoned M-X-T ... and shall demonstrate that there are or will be adequate transportation facilities for each stage of development.

The staging plan shall also include a market analysis demonstrating the economic feasibility of each development stage.” Condition 8: “In order that ultimate development of the subject property and the properties in the companion MX-T cases will be of the ‘exceptionally high quality* referred to in Council Resolution 57-1981, ... the comprehensive concept plan and final plan of development submitted to the Planning Board shall.... b. Compare the scale of the relationship of the proposed development with that of existing residential development in the vicinity, in terms of height, mass, density, and similar factors; c. Demonstrate the orientation of buildings, including loading areas and mechanical equipment, to adjacent residential areas; ... e. Show a cohesive architectural theme for all development ----a theme incorporating building design and materials, signs, street furniture, and landscaping, so ⁵⁷⁵ that the Planning Board may make a finding that the architectural design of the entire development is unified and of high quality....” Condition 9: “Prior to approval of any stage of the applicants’ proposal, the Planning Board shall determine which alternate transportation improvements or systems are necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at critical intersections and interchanges in the property’s vicinity for that stage of development.

No development beyond the applicants’ initial development stage shall be permitted until such alternate transportation systems are under construction.” Condition 13: “The comprehensive concept plan shall include a noise study demonstrating the cumulative noise from aircraft operations at National Airport and traffic on the Capital Beltway. This noise study shall include a map over the concept plan illustrating noise contours over 65 decibels, proposed noise attenuation measures, and the anticipated effects of noise from the proposed development on adjoining residential areas.” Condition 14: “The comprehensive concept plan shall include a water quality study which addresses [enumerated matters].” 2.13.98 Peterson filed a conceptual site plan for National Harbor (CSP-98012). Proposal for Beltway Parcel was for “prestigious hospitality location with a major upscale retail and business address on the Capital Beltway,” featuring 725,000 sq. ft. retail, 200,000 sq. ft. office space, 1,000 hotel rooms, and 50,000 sq. ft. visitors center. Supporting traffic study showed traffic adequacy at 1,226 AM peak hour trips. 4.13.98 Technical staff of MNCPPC issued a comprehensive detailed report recommending approval of the CSP, with a condition limiting development of the Beltway Parcel to the proposed use configuration, or alternatively, to the peak hour trips shown in the traffic study. ⁵⁷⁶ 4.23.98 Public hearing and Planning Board approval of CSP, with conditions and supporting findings of fact, including: Condition 1: “Total development within the Beltway Parcel ... shall be limited to ... 200,000 square feet of general office space____Alternatively, different permitted uses generating no more than the number of peak hour trips (1,226 AM peak hour trips and 2,565 PM peak hour trips) generated by the above development may be allowed.” Condition 35: “The District Council shall review and approve a Conceptual Site Plan for National Harbor.” 6.10.98 By order, District Council approved CSP-98012, with 39 conditions, including the following: Condition 1: “Total development within the Beltway Parcel of the subject property shall be limited to the following: a. 725,000 square feet of retail space b. 200,000 square feet of general office space c. 1,000 hotel rooms d.

A visitors center Alternatively, different permitted uses generating no more than the number of peak hour trips (1,226 AM peak hour trips and 2,565 PM peak hour trips) generated by the above development may be allowed.” Condition 8: “The applicant shall be required to submit a limited Detailed Site Plan for the proposed speed-parking garage located within the Waterfront Parcel.... As a part of Detailed Site Plan approval, a noise study shall be submitted to the Natural Resources Division demonstrating that adequate noise abatement measures have been taken to reduce noise levels to 65 dBA Ldn at the property lines of residential lots. Noise generated by car alarms shall be included in this noise study.” Condition 18: “Prior to certificate approval of the Conceptual Site Plan, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Department of Environmental Resources, engineering studies to indicate ⁵⁷⁷ techniques for constructing proposed pilings or other over-water development.” Condition 35: “Compliance with State noise regulations shall be determined with regards to sound generated by National Airport, the Capital Beltway and the subject property prior to approval of the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision.” 11.23.98 Circuit court affirmed District Council’s approval of the CSP, except with respect to condition 13 of the 1988 zoning map amendment, requiring a noise study. 1988 noise study for PortAmerica did not adequately address noise concerns raised by National Harbor proposal. Remanded to District Council for “presentation of a proper noise study” and findings regarding “the impact of the proposed uses on the adjoining residential areas as required by Condition 13[.]” 2.1.00 Court of Special Appeals vacated circuit court judgment because named petitioner was not a Prince George’s County resident and other petitioners did not join petition for judicial review or file their own.

See Egloff, 130 Md.App. at? 134, 744 A.2d 1083 . 5.31.01 Peterson applied to Planning Board for approval of preliminary subdivision plan, and filed New National Harbor Traffic Impact Study. PSP4-01048. 6.29.01 Engineering staff of Transportation Planning Section of the MNCPPC submitted review of Peterson’s new traffic study, noting that “[t]he land uses and trip rates for the Beltway Parcel changed significantly, causing an increase in the number of trips generated by the Beltway Parcel beyond those approved by the [District Council] resolution.” Staff concluded that Peterson’s traffic study was not an adequate basis for determining transportation adequacy, for several reasons: • Peterson’s traffic study used “ITE” (Institute of Transportation Engineers) trip rates, but “should have utilized the Prince George’s County trip rates, which more accurately reflect the estimated number of trips within the County.” ⁵⁷⁸ • “ITE trip generation rates utilized in the study were used incorrectly, thereby understating the number of trips that the proposed site should generate.” • Peterson study did not separately calculate trip generation from each separate office building, then add them up, which is preferred method “when the individual buildings are isolated and not related to one another[.]” • Only three of the 215 case studies used as comparisons featured a floor area above one million square feet. • Using the PG trip rates, “[t]he proposed new land uses, compared to the approved Conceptual Site Plan, would generate an additional 1,872 and 1,251 peak hour trips during the morning and evening peak hour respectively.” 7.26.01 Planning Board issued Technical Staff Report (E173-90) reflecting recommendations of MNCPPC’s Planning, Transportation, and Environmental Planning sections, recommending approval of the PSP with conditions, including a condition that the office/retail/hotel room space proposal for the Beltway Parcel be reduced from 1,220,000 sq. ft. of office space to 443,000 sq. ft., in order to satisfy the 1,226 AM peak hour trip cap. Public hearing before Planning Board regarding National Harbor PSP. Transportation Staff agreed that PSP was in substantial compliance with CSP only if the Beltway Parcel had 443,000 sq. ft. of office space, bringing it within AM trip caps set in the CSP.

Planning Board passed Resolution 01-163 approving PSP 4-01048, finding that “adequate transportation facilities would exist to serve the proposed subdivision as required under Section 24-124 of the Prince George’s County Code,” and that the PSP was “generally in conformance” with CSP-98012. I. The District Council’s AM Trip Cap The protestants renew their argument that the Planning Board had no authority to disregard or revise the AM trip cap ⁵⁷⁹ that the District Council imposed as a condition on its approval of the CSP. The briefs submitted by the protestants, the Planning Board, and Peterson debate the circuit court’s conclusions that there is no statutory requirement that a PSP must conform to its predecessor CSP, that the Planning Board stated sufficient reasons for its traffic adequacy finding, and that there was substantial evidence to support that finding. We do not find it necessary to resolve those questions.

Even if all of the circuit court’s conclusions were correct, they would not affect the disposition of this appeal. Instead, given the unique development history of this property, the sole dispositive issue is whether the Planning Board erred in approving the reconfigured preliminary subdivision plan for the Beltway Parcel even though it did not comply with the District Council’s AM traffic cap. For the reasons we explain below, we conclude that it did. The Planning Board and circuit court agreed with Peterson that the PSP did not have to comply with the AM trip cap because it was merely the District Council’s means of ensuring adequate transportation facilities for any reconfigured plan for the Beltway Parcel.

In their view, since the evidence from Peterson’s 2001 traffic study established traffic adequacy for the reconfigured Beltway Parcel, the PSP “substantially conformed” to the District Council’s intent in imposing the trip cap, which was merely to require that there be adequate transportation facilities for whatever denser development Peterson might propose in a reconfigured plan for the parcel. We disagree with this interpretation of the trip cap condition, for two reasons. A. “Intent” First, we do not agree that the District Council intended to give the Planning Board “final say” in approving this ⁵⁸⁰ reconfigured proposal to develop the Beltway Parcel. The administrative record establishes that the District Council reserved the right to impose specific limits on how this unique property would be developed, and then deliberately exercised that authority by imposing the AM trip cap as a limit on how much the developer could reconfigure its development plan without returning to the District Council. • In 1983 and 1988, the District Council ensured that it would have the last word on the conceptual site plan for this site, by imposing condition 3 on the zoning map amendment.

This condition prevents the Planning Board from finally approving a concept plan for developing this site without prior “review and approval of that plan by the District Council.” • On April 23, 1998, the Planning Board affirmed that, pursuant to condition 3 in the zoning map amendment, the Board had to obtain the District Council’s approval for the National Harbor CSP. Condition 3 to the Planning Board’s approval of the CSP provided that the Planning Board would not finally approve the CSP until the District Council reviewed and approved it. • On June 10,1998, the District Council exercised the power it reserved years earlier when it conditionally approved the CSP. In doing so, the Council imposed the AM trip cap as Condition 1 in its resolution conditionally approving the CSP. What the District Council did is both simple and understandable.

Recognizing the special traffic, aesthetic, and environmental concerns raised by the prospect of developing a huge urban destination resort in such a geographically sensitive location, the District Council exercised its power to impose conditions on the zoning map amendment. In 1983 and 1988, the Council required a conceptual plan for any mixed use proposal to develop this property and the Council reserved the right to review and approve any such plan. In 1998, it exercised that right by allowing Peterson to develop the Beltway Parcel with any combination of uses that generated ⁵⁸¹ less than 1,226 AM peak hour trips. In this manner, the District Council ensured that no plan that would generate more traffic than the plan it had already reviewed could be approved without its permission.

The language of the District Council’s 1998 resolution approving the CSP supports this interpretation and dispels the notion that the District Council’s trip cap gave advance approval to any and all development plans for which there would be adequate transportation facilities. The trip caps set forth in Condition 1 are quantitative “limit[s]” on “[t]otal development within the Beltway Parcel.” Although the District Council gave Peterson some flexibility to reconfigure the Beltway Parcel in order to allow “different permitted uses,” it explicitly limited that flexibility by directing that only a reconfiguration “generating no more than the ... 1,226 AM peak hour trips ... may be allowed.” By setting this very specific numeric ceiling, the District Council did more than merely express its desire that there be adequate traffic facilities for any reconfigured plan to develop the Beltway Parcel. The District Council , also said that it would not give advance approval to a reconfigured plan that generated more traffic. We find it particularly significant that the District Council used the trip caps as an alternative to specific square footage limits.

Instead of giving “reconfiguration carte blanche ” to the developer, or appointing the Planning Board as the final arbiter of traffic adequacy for any reconfigured plan, the Council selected a specific number of vehicle trips as the measure for determining whether the developer and Planning Board could proceed to the next stage of development without further review by the District Council. If, as Peterson, the Board, and the circuit court posited, the District Council intended condition 1 to be merely a way to ensure adequate transportation facilities for any reconfigured proposal to develop the Beltway Parcel, then it easily could have selected that alternative. Instead of imposing the trip caps, the Council could have used language to the effect that, ⁵⁸² “Alternatively, different permitted uses generating no more trips than the number of peak hour trips that the Planning Board determines can be accommodated by existing and planned transportation facilities may be allowed.” But that is not what the District Council chose to say, and we cannot rewrite condition 1 by resorting to result-driven concepts of “intent” and “substantial conformance.” Cf. Ark Readi-Mix Concrete Corp. v. Smith, 251 Md. 1, 4 , 246 A.2d 220 (1968)(“court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the zoning authorities”); JMC Constr.

Corp. v. Montgomery County, 54 Md.App. 1, 17-18 , 456 A.2d 931 (1983)(amending a zoning map is a valid exercise of plenary legislative power when the amendment “ ‘bears a substantial relationship to the public health, comfort, order, safety, convenience, morals and general welfare’ ”). Indeed, if “traffic adequacy” is the District Council’s only yardstick for approving the reconfigured plan, then Peterson should encounter little problem in obtaining Council approval of the plan proposed in the PSP. We note, however, that the District. Council may have other legitimate reasons for imposing limits on reconfiguring of the Beltway Parcel.

Even if the Council were to be satisfied that there are adequate traffic facilities for the reconfigured plan, it may decide not to approve it. The Council had authority to limit development based on the impact of the reconfigured Beltway Parcel on surrounding properties, even if existing and planned roads could “handle” the increase in traffic generated by the new plan. See § 7-120, § 8-104(e); PG Code § 27-213(c). The AM trip cap may reflect that the District Council wanted to ensure that it had an opportunity to consider whether it should set a development limit at some level below “traffic adequacy” in order to balance such other legitimate zoning considerations.

For example, these elected officials may have wished to consider constituent concerns that a reconfigured Beltway Parcel plan that generates more traffic than the original CSP plan would spark other development trends affecting the surrounding community and infrastructures. Indeed, some ⁵⁸³ residents expressed concern that National Harbor would mushroom into “development sprawl,” creating a “Tyson’s Corner on the Potomac.” By limiting reconfiguration of the Beltway Parcel to the same level of traffic that it approved in the original CSP, the District Council ensured that it could consider whether these constituent concerns warranted a decision to disapprove the reconfigured plan, or to impose other conditions on it. B. “Substantial Conformance” Our second reason for concluding that the Planning Board erred in disregarding the AM trip cap is that the Board was bound by statute to enforce the cap. For the reasons that follow, we do not agree that the Planning Board had authority to approve a plan that exceeded the trip cap on the ground that the PSP “substantially conformed” to the District Council’s intent to ensure traffic adequacy.

Even if the District Council had not employed the trip cap as a means of preserving its right to review a materially reconfigured Beltway Parcel, we would still conclude that the AM trip cap is a mandatory condition that only the District Council can eliminate. We explain. The trip caps were a direct result of a condition that the District Council placed on the zoning map amendment. The Council made it clear in 1983 and 1988 that it was amending the zoning map to permit a mixed use development on the Beltway Parcel, with the proviso that the Council could later limit development of this site by imposing conditions on its approval of the concept plan.

In turn, the Council then made it clear in 1998 that it would permit Peterson to proceed with its development plans for the Beltway Parcel, on the understanding that it could not reconfigure those plans in a manner that increased morning traffic beyond 1,226 peak hour trips without bringing such a materially reconfigured plan back to the District Council. ⁵⁸⁴ The Planning Board agreed with Peterson that it could disregard the unambiguous trip cap condition on the theory that the reconfigured development 'plans for the Beltway Parcel “substantially conformed” to that condition. That was error. If the Planning Board may disregard the trip cap by using a “substantial conformance” standard, Peterson would be permitted to circumvent the condition 3 limits that the District Council placed on reconfiguring the Beltway Parcel without its approval. In effect, the Planning Board and Peterson could violate, without any consequence whatsoever, the statutory provisions that conditions attached to a zoning map amendment are “mandatory,” that they “become a permanent part of the Zoning Map Amendment,” and that they are binding until the District Council amends them.

See § 8-104(e); PG Code § 27-213(c)(4), § 27-213(d). We are in complete agreement with the MNCPPC staffs assessment of the statutory reason for enforcing the AM trip cap. In a July 17, 2001 memorandum to the Planning Board, the transportation staff opined that changing the Beltway Parcel from a primarily retail to primarily office proposal “raised a trip cap issue” because “the trip cap was placed on ... the Beltway Parcel during the review of SP-98012.... [as] Condition 1 of the District Council order affirming the Planning Board’s decision in SP 98012.” As staff pointed out, it did not matter whether the trip caps were designed to ensure the adequacy of transportation facilities, or whether the Planning Board found that the PSP provided adequate transportation facilities. In the unique circumstances surrounding development of the Beltway Parcel, the trip cap, because it was “imposed at the time of an earlier adequacy study which was reviewed and approved by the District Council[,] would not be subject to revision unless the subsequent cap were also subject to review by the District Council.” C. Defenses We are not persuaded otherwise by language that the Board and Peterson have cited in support of their “intent” and ⁵⁸⁵ “substantial conformance” rationales for disregarding the AM trip cap.

We address each one separately. 1. Condition 9 To 1988 Zoning Map Amendment The Board points to condition 9 to the 1988 zoning map amendment, which requires the Planning Board to “determine which alternate transportation improvements or systems are necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at critical intersections and interchanges in the property’s vicinity for that stage of development.” It argues that this condition shows that the District Council intended the Planning Board to make the requisite findings of traffic adequacy “at the time of the CSP and again in the instant case.” That may be so, but it does not mean that traffic adequacy was the Council’s one and only reason for imposing the trip cap. In our view, condition 9 simply shows that the District Council intended that the Planning Board would evaluate traffic adequacy much earlier in the development review process than otherwise would be required. The usual course prescribed by statute is for the Planning Board to determine traffic adequacy later, at the preliminary subdivision plan stage of review.

See PG Code § 24-122.01(a), § 24-124(a). The District Council explicitly altered that usual course in the unique circumstances presented by the National Harbor plan, by imposing staging requirements that moved the critical issue of transportation adequacy to this earlier stage of development review. By imposing condition 9, the District Council directed the Planning Board to review traffic adequacy at the threshold conceptual plan stage of development. We do not divine from this instruction any intent to appoint the Planning Board as the final arbiter for any and all reconfigured plans that Peterson might propose as its plan proceeded through the development review process.

We see nothing to indicate that the District Council intended to limit the power that it reserved in condition 3 of the zoning map amendment to review and approve a materially reconfigured ⁵⁸⁶ plan, by simultaneously delegating away that authority to the Planning Board in condition 9. Rather, we read condition 9 as a practical instruction to the Planning Board that it must conduct an early review of traffic adequacy, so that the District Council would have the benefit of staff and Board expertise and conclusions when the Council reviewed Peterson’s CSP. 2. Prefatory Finding In 1998 Order Affirming CSP Similarly, we do not find persuasive the prefatory language from the District Council’s 1998 order approving the CSP, which Peterson cites as proof that the trip cap should not be literally enforced. The District Council explicitly stated that it was affirming the Planning Board’s approval of the CSP “based on consideration of the entire record, for the reasons stated by the Planning Board in its resolution,” and because Conditions 1-5 of the Planning Board Resolution provide for the staging of the development so as to insure adequate public facilities for transportation are provided or constructed with the development of square footage of the project.

Peterson argues that this language “supports the proposition that the only finding to be considered by the District Council ... was based solely on the ultimate issue of adequacy of public facilities.” Thus, the trip caps were “merely an outgrowth of, and subordinate to, the required findings subsumed in the overall requirement that the Project include adequate public facilities.” We again do not read this language so broadly. It is taken from the “findings and conclusions” portion of an order affirming the Planning Board’s approval of the CSP. It appears on the page immediately preceding the Condition 1 trip cap. We see nothing in this prefatory language that negates the specific quantitative trip cap that the District Council imposed as its first explicit condition on its approval of the conceptual plan.

As we discussed earlier, the trip cap was the means selected ⁵⁸⁷ by the District Council to ensure not only traffic adequacy, but also that the Council would have an opportunity to review any reconfigured proposal that created more traffic than the 1998 CSP. 3. Section 27-213(a)(3)(B) Finally, we are not persuaded that the Prince George’s County Code authorizes the Planning Board to disregard the District Council’s AM trip cap. The Board and Peterson cite the following language from subsection 27-213(a)(3)(B): The finding by the Council of adequate transportation facilities at this time [i.e., when amending a zoning map] shall not prevent the Planning Board from later amending this finding during its review of subdivision plats. The Board and Peterson argue that this provision gives the Planning Board authority to disregard the District Council’s AM trip cap because it “acknowledges that findings of adequate transportation made at the time of a ZMA approval are not binding on the Planning Board when considering a preliminary plan.” They contend that this is logical because “infinitely more detail is known about the proposed development of a site at the time of preliminary review plan than at the initial ZMA approval.” Id. at 10-11 n. 7, 456 A.2d 931 .

The protestants counter by rhetorically asking, if the Planning Board is allowed to amend the District Council trip cap under the guise of this ordinance, “[w]hat would be the point in providing for Council review of a Board CSP?” If the Board did not like a specific condition that the District Council attached to a CSP, all it would have to do would be to disregard it in approving a subsequent preliminary subdivision plan that violates that District Council condition. We again conclude that the Board and Peterson have interpreted this language too broadly. When read in the context of the entire enforcement scheme established in section 27-213, this subsection merely notifies developers that the Planning Board is not bound by a general finding of traffic adequacy ⁵⁸⁸ that is inherent in the District Council’s initial approval of the zoning map amendment. It ensures that, even if a developer makes a showing of traffic adequacy at the time it obtains a zoning map amendment from the District Council, the Planning Board can still decide at a later stage in the development review process that traffic facilities are inadequate for the plan under review.

D. Conclusion It is undisputed that the reconfigured Beltway Parcel plan that Peterson proposed in its PSP exceeded the AM trip cap, and that the District Council neither approved nor reviewed this reconfigured plan. We hold that, because the National Harbor PSP exceeded the mandatory AM trip cap without the District Council’s approval, the Planning Board erred in approving it. “[T]he failure to comply with any condition [to a zoning map amendment] ... constitute^] a zoning violationf.]” PG Code § 27-213(d)(l). We therefore vacate the Planning Board’s order approving the PSP, and remand to the Planning Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II

Noise Study In their second assignment of error, the protestants argue that the Board erred in relying on an outdated noise study that was conducted for the abandoned PortAmerica project as grounds for concluding that Peterson had satisfied two separate District Council noise conditions: Condition 13 to the 1983 zoning map amendment and Condition 35 to the resolution approving the National Harbor CSP. Viewing the plain language of these conditions in their historical context, we shall hold that the Planning Board erred in finding that Condition 35 was satisfied, because Peterson did not submit the additional noise data that was necessary to determine Peterson’s compliance with this condition. ⁵⁸⁹ A. The Noise Studies And Conditions 1. Condition 13 To The Zoning Map Amendment And The PortAmerica Study In 1983, when the District Council initially amended the zoning map, it imposed Condition 13. The Council directed that “[tjhe comprehensive concept plan shall include a noise study demonstrating” the amount of external noise caused by traffic from National Airport and the Capital Beltway, as well as “the anticipated effects of noise from the proposed development on adjoining residential areas.” (Emphasis added.) In 1988, MNCPPC staff reviewed a March 9, 1988 noise study prepared for the PortAmerica project by Dames and Moore (the “PortAmerica study”).

PortAmerica differed from Peterson’s later National Harbor proposal in that its plan featured a separate “World Trade Center” hotel, office complex, and multi-family residential building, with the waterfront plan proposing upscale residences, some retail, and a visitor’s center. PortAmerica did not include the 2.9 million square feet of “waterfront entertainment/retail” venues (including a pier, rides, and other outdoor entertainment) or the speed parking garage that Peterson proposed for National Harbor’s Waterfront Parcel. The PortAmerica study reported data and conclusions regarding “the sound quality of the area” in 1988, “prior to the construction and operation of the [proposed] PortAmerica facilities[.]” In addition, the study estimated how area sound levels would change “[a]fter PortAmerica has been built and occupied[.]” The study tested sound levels and sources at six locations, five of them in the neighboring residential communities of Oxon Hill Manor, Potomac Vista, and River Bend. Data from these five locations showed that the 1988 “day-night average sound levels” (“Ldn”) in these neighborhoods ⁵⁹⁰ ranged from a low of 60.1 to a high of 63.2 dB.

According to the PortAmerica study, this data showed that existing noise exposure was already at “[mjoderate” but “[ajcceptable” levels “typical of land uses near highways and roads.” The report then • anticipated how future highway and air traffic pattern changes would affect two of the five residential locations (in Oxon Hill Manor and Potomac Vista), which were “[njoise-sensitive locations subject to the greatest change from future highway configurations and road traffic within PortAm-erica[.j” The estimates reflected Federal Highway Administration noise prediction models and Federal Aviation Administration sound level contours for normal operating conditions of National Airport. The study also acknowledged that “traffic noise contribution to average ambient sound levels is expected to increase” due to construction of an S-curve in the Beltway, increase in traffic, and “the increased traffic and changed traffic patterns resulting from PortAmerica.” There was, however, no analogous model-based estimate of the noise level that would be generated by PortAmerica traffic in these two neighborhoods, one of which is near Peterson’s proposed Waterfront Parcel, the other adjacent to the Beltway Parcel. Similarly, there was no estimate of the additional non-traffic noise anticipated from any of the retail, hotel, residential, and office uses proposed for either of the two parcels planned for PortAmerica. Despite the lack of data about noise generated by the proposed development, the PortAmerica study concluded that PortAmerica would not significantly raise noise levels in adjacent residential communities.

While future sound levels at [these two test sites in neighboring residential communities] may increase because of the presence of PortAmerica, the increase in sound will not be significant and traffic noise will continue not to be the major source of community sound..... The day-night average sound levels measured in communities near the PortAmerica site .... will not change significantly—if at all—due to the presence of PortAmerica. The ⁵⁹¹ sounds observed in the communities are from local human, insect, and bird activity, aircraft activity and local and distant traffic. Main contributors at these receptor locations are local traffic and aircraft activity, which will not be affected by PortAmerica.

After reviewing the PortAmerica data, MNCPPC staff concluded that, “except for that area near the Capital Beltway, exterior noise from combined airport and highway noise would not exceed 65 dBA (Ldn) and none of the residential areas were significantly impacted.” 2. The CSP And The Loiderman/PortAmerica Study Ten years later, in order to satisfy the noise study requirement of Condition 13 for its National Harbor CSP, Peterson relied on the same PortAmerica study and data. In April 1998, Peterson submitted “a noise study and map prepared by ... Loiderman Associates” (the “Loiderman/PortAmerica study”).

Although this study was dated April 1998, MNCPPC staff pointed out that “[t]he heart of the report is a copy of pages A-184 through A-198 of’ the 1988 PortAmerica study. In an April 10, 1998 memorandum, an MNCPPC environmental planner opined that this data from the 1988 PortAmer-ica study provided a sufficient factual basis to conclude that noise from external sources would not exceed allowable levels inside National Harbor. According to this planner, the Por-tAmerica data showed that there would be no recorded noise levels above the 65 dBA (Ldn) within the National Harbor site. “Since this [National Harbor] CSP has no residential component, [staff] agreeLd] with the ... analysis by [Loider-man Associates] that noise from external sources is not significant.” At the same time, however, MNCPPC staff raised questions about whether the Loiderman/PortAmerica study provided an adequate evidentiary basis for concluding that the noise generated by National Harbor would not exceed permissible noise levels in adjoining neighborhoods. Of concern was noise from ⁵⁹² entertainment planned for the Waterfront Parcel and from the speed parking garage, which is situated along the boundary between the Waterfront Parcel and a residential neighborhood.

Staff have some small concern that the site may generate noise. We expect that traditional holidays, e.g., The 4th of July and New Year[’s] Eve, will have their share of crowds, fireworks, and noisemakers. We are uncertain if outdoor activities, such as festivals or music bands, may occur and if they may generate noise which would impact neighboring residential properties. The State of Maryland has a noise ordinance which should be sufficient to regulate any instances.

The proximity of the principal ingress/egress and the speed parking garage to existing residences is a concern. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the speed parking garage, a noise study shall be submitted to the Natural Resources Division demonstrating that adequate noise abatement measures have been taken to avoid any significant impact to existing residential structures. (Emphasis added.) 3. District Council Condition 35 Quoting the April 1998 staff memorandum, the Planning Board approved the National Harbor CSP with a new noise study condition that reflected the staffs concern about the parking garage.