Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2006
Attendees: Faith Klareich (FK), Kris Dighe (KD), Alicia Hosmer (AH), Jerry Leighton (JL), Tolulope Odunlami (TO), Geoff Sanders (GS) and Nate Wall (NW).
Absent: Doub Beard (DB) and Jaskaran Singh (JS).
1. Welcome, News and Agenda Review
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 pm in the Blue Crab Conference Room at Rockville City Hall.
2. Meeting Minutes Approval
KD moves, GS seconds to approve December 13, 2005 meeting minutes as written. Motion passes by unanimous vote.
3. Working Group Updates & Issues
KD mentioned that the Watersheds & SWM Working Group tried to schedule a meeting for last week but no volunteers could make it; will be working on rescheduling soon. DB had mentioned dates near the end of the month. TO announced that the High Performance Buildings Working Group would be holding a meeting on January 12th. AH said that the Community Outreach Working Group will generally try to meet to Monday prior to the Commission meeting. They will continue on their projects in February.
4. Concepts in Green Building
FK presented a green building PowerPoint slideshow (see attached PDF for slides). Green building is more than just pollution prevention and energy conservation – also materials and waste management issues, and cost issues. Problem with cost arises with focusing on the higher initial costs rather than then greatly reduced life cycle costs.
The LEED system is not the only green building system out there – it’s just the one that has gotten the most support and standardization via the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). This is especially true in the commercial sector, where LEED has really become industry accepted.
Other jurisdictions have adopted other systems, often of their own devising. Austin, TX was the first (in 1991), adopting a checklist system (choosing options from a “menu”) to reduce air pollution as they risked losing Federal funding due to non-compliance with air standards. This checklist approach didn’t leave a lot of room for creativity, but got the program moving.
Santa Monica adopted a program to reduce energy consumption and reduce pollutant runoff. They implemented a two-tiered approach, which was prescriptive for smaller projects, and set performance targets for larger projects (such as 10-15% above energy code). One thing this program demonstrates is that you don’t necessarily need one system: the users, builders, etc. for different types / scales of projects are typically different anyway, so consistency is not strictly necessary. Another is that the concept of “over-code” building is simple, since the code is already there. You could just meet with the builders and other appropriate stakeholders to determine how much “over” was acceptable.
In another example, Alameda California determined that 20% of their landfill waste was from building or demolition materials. Their green building program was started as collaboration between the solid waste management agency and the recycling board. Santa Barbara developed a fast-track option for permit approvals if buildings were built to certain green standards. To minimize the impact to City staff, a voluntary panel of local experts review the developments for compliance.
To summarize, FK’s presentation mentioned that:
There is more than LEED: LEED-only programs can be restrictive, and stifle innovation
Green building programs can be done in a low-cost fashion (like Santa Barbara), and are thus not necessarily a burden to municipalities to administer.
An incremental approach (a pilot, start in commercial, voluntary before mandatory, built on early successes) can be the beginning of a successful program.
The program doesn’t need to solve everything at once – pick the greatest needs of your community (polluted runoff, energy, waste minimization, etc.) and just start it.
What does this specifically mean for Rockville?
Should have a staged approach to the program
Need to have a clear vision on what issues the program should address
Needs flexibility – LEED/overbuild code/other?
Build off of what’s there, and add to it later
Some specific recommendations that the Commission could make to the City could be:
Begin a pilot program. Should this be in residential or commercial?
Determine green building program structure. If X over building code, what is X? Or if YY points on LEED scale, what’s YY?
New task force of volunteers for fast-tracking review cases (like Santa Barbara)
Offer recognition for going beyond goals
Need to start by pulling together all stakeholders at the beginning of the process. Should start identifying those stakeholders now. FK asked if a preliminary discussion with the Mayor & Council at a worksession could help steer this process? NW to check with City Clerk and City Manager on M&C schedule.
5. Refuse Pilot Study, Recycling & Green Purchasing
FK mentioned that in the Commission's meeting with the City Manager a few months ago, he had mentioned refuse, recycling, a Montgomery County MRF, etc. as important environmental issues for Rockville. With the unveiling of Rockville’s pilot refuse and recycling program, now may be a good time to weigh in on those issues. However, to certify the program as “environmentally sound” it would take more than the present pilot program addresses (which is mainly fiscally driven). The real need in the recycling community is demand. There is a decent supply of recycled materials, but weak demand. To have a truly great recycling program, the City needs to balance increasing supply of recycled materials with an increased demand for those goods. For example, if the City invested 25% of the cost savings from full implementation of the new program into recycled products purchases, it would still be a win-win.
JL mentioned there are a lot of other issues involved with the refuse pilot program that we likely do not want to get involved with. KD mentioned that the refuse pilot and “green purchasing” were related but analytically different issues – we can support or not support the pilot program while still seeing the need for the City to step up its green purchasing requirements. FK said that the linkage is important – want to start thinking in terms of program integration.
NW explained new refuse pilot project, and the goals/purpose for full-scale implementation.
FK will have something written about this piece for discussion at the February meeting.
6. Environmental Summit
A March date for the Summit wasn’t going to work for DB and AH, so now we are to selecting dates in April. This needs to occur ASAP so that the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) can get it on their calendar before they fill up, and start planning for it.
FK asked AH if the Community Outreach Working Group could use a date in April and create a timeline, working backwards to determine dates of major milestones, get venues, audience, etc. AH agreed to work on this.
FK asked KD & DB to have the Watersheds & SWM Working Group look at content. Can set up a conference call to brainstorm broad parameters.FK will set time for a conference call to get this process moving.
7. Staff Update
NW mentioned that City staff are in the process of a water quality ordinance, which is basically a revision of Chapter 19 of the City Code, including language for enforcing water quality violations within the City. Also updated the Commission on the zoning ordinance revision process, particularly the green space and environmental performance standards issue papers. Described the “Environmental Scan” that all departments in the City were currently engaged in. NW to provide draft of the “Environment” chapter to the Commission when available.
NW advised the Commission of the stormwater management issues dealing with the College Gardens Park – there will be a City task force developed to work on balancing park use, stream protection and tree preservation. JL will likely be a part of this process; the Commission may wish to appoint a member of the Watersheds & SWM Working Group to this task force as well.
The City’s website continues to be updated when possible (both the Commission’s page as well as the “Environmental Protection” webpages). If there is anything specific you’d like to see, let me know; AH will likely be determining content via the Community Outreach Working Group before long.
Lastly, the Chesapeake Bay “Gold” Partner Community Award presentation to the Mayor & Council has been reschedule for Monday February 6th.
8. Wrap-Up and Adjourn
Meeting adjourned at 9:26 pm.
