KEY: Plus sign (+) means pro-environment vote; minus sign (-) means anti-environment vote. Green (good) and red (bad) shading highlights the votes. “Absent” has not in the past been counted in the score and is not this time. However, given the many absences of one member of the Council, the Sierra Club may reconsider this policy in the future.
The second scorecard for this Council again covers growth and development issues as well as those that relate directly to what is generally perceived as environmental protection. This is because decisions about development affect our disappearing green space, forests, and clean streams. But contrary to some organizations’ policy, we have included unanimous pro-environment votes that really didn’t cost the Council members any campaign contributor support--such as the tax rebate for renewable energy--in order to give Council members every advantage. In spite of this advantage, the results, as with the first scorecard, show a distinct environmental split on the Council: Andrews, Praisner, and Perez with excellent to good scores; the others with unsatisfactory to failing marks. Explanations for each vote follow.
The Scoop Behind the Scorecard Scores
1. Strategic Plan for Economic Development. Mr. Andrews moved to change the strategy enunciated in the plan from attracting more jobs than housing to maintaining a policy of balance of jobs and housing. The plan as drafted had a jobs growth target of 2% with a housing growth target of 1.4% (p. 21). The text frankly acknowledged (p. 20), “This implies a continuing increase in the share of employees at work sites in the County commuting from surrounding jurisdictions,” and “improving transportation efficiency” would be critical. Sierra Club testimony ridiculed this plan as exacerbating the much lamented problem of affordable housing. The Andrews motion failed, and instead a successful motion by Mr. Silverman removed from the plan the honest statement regarding increased commuting.
2. Strategic Plan for Economic Development, with 2% jobs growth target and 1.4% housing growth target, was approved. Council members argued that the plan is merely a marketing tool and has no effect on growth; that payroll employment figures from 1990 to 2003 already indicate an average annual economic growth rate of 2%. However, given the present road and school congestion and the fact that the Planning Board had recommended capping growth at 1% in order to allow infrastructure a chance to catch up, we did not want to set twice the Planning Board rate cap as a goal. We expect that the county’s Office of Economic Development will use the plan to justify giving large corporations tax breaks to locate here in order to meet the goal, which will only make matters worse.
3. Bill 29-03, Forest Conservation Law Exemption for Equestrian Facilities, was part of a set of changes requested by an individual who wanted to build an equestrian sports complex in the Agricultural Reserve on partially wooded farmland including streams with wooded buffers. The polo field, lighted spectator stands, parking lots, riding trails by and through the streams, enormous barns, paddocks and over-used pastures he planned were incompatible with the Agricultural Reserve’s intent. The implications of exempting riding stables from forest conservation go far beyond this one property, however, because of the county’s more than 2500 horse operations (12,000 horses). The exemption as passed includes a complicated formula for how much forest can be cleared, attempts to protect existing stream buffers and champion trees, and “requires” best management practices (a Sierra Club amendment). However, considering the lack of monitoring and enforcement in the county, this exemption pokes yet another big hole in forest conservation.
4. Charter language. This vote regards the description to appear on the ballot for a Charter amendment proposed by the Civic Federation. The amendment would have expanded the county’s districts from 5 to 9 and eliminated at-large members in order to reduce big money influence. The Council majority voted to characterize the amendment in this way: “Eliminate each voter’s ability to vote for a majority of council members by reducing from five to one the number of council members each voter can vote for.” In the end, however, the Council’s legal staff advised that nothing more prejudicial than the following would pass legal muster: “Reduce from five to one the number of council members a voter can elect.” The Sierra Club supported the Charter amendment.
5. ZTA 03-09. The amendment requires MPDUs (moderately priced dwelling units, a county program) in rural large lot and rural cluster zones when these are planned for public sewer and permits them to be townhouses, except in the RE-2 (2 acres per house) zone. The Sierra Club opposed this amendment since people qualifying for this program need a more central location with access to public transportation; townhouses are not appropriate in rural areas; and the condition of sewer could lead to sewer extensions on promise of affordable housing, leading to yet more sewer extensions and the urbanization of what is master planned to be rural.
6. Build ICC Resolution. The Council adopted Resolution 15-828: “The County Council is strongly in favor of the Intercounty Connector project. Because of our long commitment to the master plan process, we continue to support construction of this proposed highway on the master plan alignment.” The Sierra Club has long opposed the ICC on any alignment as not only an extraordinarily environmentally destructive project (e.g., nearly 800 acres of forest loss and 38,088 linear feet of streams), but one that—as we confront both disastrous global warming and declining oil supplies-- propels the county in exactly the wrong direction: towards more sprawl and car dependency--while absorbing funds that could be spent for more effective transit. Traffic modeling for the Planning Board’s Transportation Planning Review Task Force showed that balancing jobs and housing east and west plus additional transit created more mobility at lower cost than the ICC. The ICC, if built, will be a great boon to developers, who are already buying land near interchanges and submitting development plans. Because of the project’s enormous ($3 billion and growing) cost, it is now planned as a toll road, with RT toll of $7.
7. Support Metro Resolution. The Council voted to support the development of a long-range funding plan for Metro with a dedicated funding source and called for increasing the federal government’s contribution to Metro. The Sierra Club recognizes that the Metro system is absolutely critical to transportation in the region and must not be starved for resources. We advocated dedicated funding, but so far the jurisdictions have not come to agreement on what or how.
8. Recycling. The Council approved Executive Regulation 15-04AM in the Solid Waste Management Plan. This regulation stipulates non-residential recycling and reporting requirements, as well as recycling requirements for collectors of solid waste and recyclable materials. This change attempts to address the dismal business and apartment recycling rates. The new goal for 50% recycling is 2010. The Sierra Club strongly supports reducing waste, reusing, and recycling in order to move toward sustainability.
9. Another ICC vote. The Transportation and Environment Committee chaired by Ms. Floreen called for another vote to recommend to the State of Maryland to build the ICC. This action may have had no other effect than to put not one but two ICC votes on our scorecard.
10. Bill 29-04, Clean Energy Rewards, introduced by Mr. Leventhal, would refund Montgomery County’s energy tax to those who purchase renewable energy. The bill provided a framework with many details to be worked out. The Sierra Club supported the bill with caveats that landfill gas, not just wind, should qualify; that in the case of wind, the windfarms should comply with the Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for siting; and that some way should be found to give credit to homeowners who install geothermal wells or solar panels. Only the landfill gas caveat appears destined to be included. We still feel that the incentive is a move in the right direction.
11. Montrose Parkway. Mr. Denis moved to delay the Montrose Parkway West project for one year. The Montrose Parkway replaces with pavement a band of water-absorbing forest and a wetland with a beaver dam on what was once the ICC right-of-way. The project will dump traffic onto Executive Boulevard, but is ultimately planned to dump it on Veirs Mill Road, where it will join congestion already in progress at Randolph Road. The Sierra Club has opposed this project as an environmentally destructive waste of scarce county funds. As with the ICC, it propels the county away from energy efficiency and toward greater air pollution, CO2 emissions, flooding, and global warming. Any delay in construction would be that much longer that the forest and wetland could help to control storm water runoff and clean the air. Unfortunately, piles of logs and smoldering chips have now replaced the forest.
12. Legacy Open Space. Designation of the Left Fork Headwaters properties and the Mitchell properties as Class I Legacy Open Space properties means they will have a good chance of being acquired using Legacy Open Space funds and will not be developed in the meantime. The Sierra Club lobbied for their protection as critical to water quality in the upper Paint Branch.
13. ZTA 03-27, introduced by Mr. Denis, establishes simple and understandable criteria for determining building height in the R-60 and R-90 zones (6,000 and 9,000 sq. ft. per house), eliminates the terrace height exception, and removes loopholes that allowed a home substantially above 35 feet in the zones where 35 feet is the height limit. Since excessive height is part of the mansionization plague that is eliminating our tree canopy, the Sierra Club felt this clarification and restriction is environmentally beneficial.
14. Annual Growth Policy (AGP) revisited. Mrs. Praisner moved to amend the AGP by deleting the caveat that a fewer number of intersections can be evaluated if the Planning Board finds special circumstances; by requiring the Board to examine unsignalized intersection if significant delays are present; and by reporting the number of signalized and unsignalized intersections studied for each subdivision approval as part of the annual Highway Mobility Report. The aim was to get a better handle on area congestion than the AGP, now stripped of Policy Area Transportation Review, can provide. Although this motion carried, the 2005-2007 AGP still did not provide any effective staging mechanism and was defeated, leaving the flawed version enacted on October 28, 2003, in place.
15. Public sewer and water in the Agricultural Reserve. After many months of testimony and letters, Ms. Floreen, as chair of the T&E Committee, moved to ban future water and sewer hook-ups for Private Institutional Facilities (PIFs) in the RDT (Rural Development Transfer, or Agricultural Reserve) zone. These institutions had previously enjoyed case by case consideration and frequent exemption from the general ban. In the past, such institutions were small, but recent requests have been for complexes including a large sanctuary, housing, amphitheater, ball fields, horse stables, and the attendant parking lots. Preventing extension of sewer and water lines into the Agricultural Reserve, which limits the size of such institutions and prevents others from hooking in once the line is in place, is critical to preserving agriculture and open space as called for in the master plan. The Sierra Club lobbied hard on this one because preserving local agriculture and wooded areas is critical to the county’s well-being as world oil supplies become scarce and we attempt to combat global warming by limiting CO2 emissions.
16. Sewer ban exception request. Bethel World Outreach Church requested exemption from the ban, since it had applied for sewer and water much earlier. Its request for sewer in order to build a large church complex in the Agricultural Reserve to serve its Silver Spring congregation was, in fact, one of those that brought this issue to a head.
17. Resolution 15-1271, Forest Conservation Law (FCL) penalties, was a direct result of the ridiculously ineffective fine of $37,000 imposed on Mr. Dan Snyder for clear cutting the slope between his house and the C&O Canal in knowing violation of the county’s Forest Conservation Law. This resolution dramatically raises the civil penalty to $9/sq. ft. and the fee in lieu of afforestation or reforestation to $.90/sq. ft. and requires Consumer Price Index penalty adjustments every 2 years. An accompanying bill amends the FCL to allow for criminal penalties as well. The Sierra Club lobbied on this issue and credits Mr. Denis, in whose district this violation occurred, and the C&O Canal Task Force set up by Congressman Chris Van Hollen, for this success. But all Council members were touched by public outrage.
18. The Shady Grove Sector Plan. The Sierra Club supported the plan for an urban town center at the Shady Grove Metro station. Up to 6000 housing units would reduce the imbalance of jobs vs housing in the I 270 Corridor and allow many more people to commute by transit. We supported moving the County Service Park and stated that the Webb Tract, an industrial property between the Airpark and East Montgomery Village, was an appropriate place for part of the school buses. We supported traffic mitigation, buses and bikeways, but opposed building road interchanges. Though it seemed certain that a Council majority would support the plan, at the last minute members inserted conditions that make significant development unlikely. They forbad moving any school buses to the Webb Tract (Leventhal motion) and conditioned development on building an interchange at the MD 355/Gude Drive intersection (Andrews motion). Nancy Floreen and Marilyn Praisner voted against the prohibition on the Webb tract, and Mike Subin voted against the Gude Drive interchange. All voted for at least one of the crippling amendments, rendering their approval of the Shady Grove Plan meaningless. We have treated the Council’s performance as a single anti-environmental vote.
19. Cap on large septic systems in the Agricultural Reserve. Large institutions seeking to build complexes in the Agricultural Reserve will naturally turn to very large septic systems now that they are denied sewer hook-ups. Under heavy public pressure to establish some limit, Mr. Knapp adopted a formula developed by the Citizens to Preserve the Reserve that tied institutional septic size to the total that would be allowed for residential development: 600 gallons per residential unit. The Sierra Club insisted that a hard cap must be imposed for this measure to effectively limit institutional size in the Ag Reserve. On motion of Mr. Perez, a cap of 5,000 gallons per day per property was added to the formula amendment, with existing systems exempted. All members present (Subin absent) voted for both measures, which amended the county’s Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan.
20. City of Gaithersburg Annexation Petition for Crown Farm. The Council voted to excuse the politically active developers of the Crown Farm from buying about 150 Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) when the property is annexed and developed within Gaithersburg city. Farmers' ability to sell TDRs helps preserve the Agricultural Reserve by bringing them cash without selling their land. On Mike Knapp's motion, the Council required only a far smaller payment of $1 million into an easement fund that is unpopular with farmers and therefore less effective for land preservation. Mr. Andrews and Mrs. Praisner voted NO to the motion and to the subsequent annexation resolution. The Sierra Club lobbied to require TDRs for this property since TDR receiving areas are currently inadequate.
21. Seven Locks E. S. On motion of Mr. Denis, the Council amended the Montgomery County Public Schools FY 05-10 CIP to require reconstruction of the school on its current site on Seven Locks Road rather than build a new school on the Kendale site. According to Planning staff review, construction on the 10.5 acre Kendale site would have destroyed 90% of the forest and over 60 specimen trees, exacerbating an already existing flood situation from the Ken Branch in the Cabin John watershed. The Sierra Club’s protest on behalf of the forest helped influence the vote.
22. Low Impact Development stormwater demonstration. The Council, led by Mr. Silverman and Ms. Floreen, agreed to a small increase in the Water Quality Protection Charge to fund $1.25 million in stormwater retention devices such as rain gardens, bioretention cells, green roofs, and rain barrels in a single watershed where they can be expected to make an obvious improvement. Ms. Praisner moved to add $100 thousand more. The proposal resulted from heavy lobbying by the Stormwater Partners, a loose coalition of environmental groups including the Sierra Club that are mounting a major effort to improve stream quality. The money will pay for grants, incentives, and staff to assist and encourage public and private landowners to manage rainwater where it falls rather than allowing it to pick up fertilizer, pesticides, and the toxic drippings from vehicles before gushing into the nearest stream. When Maryland lists two-thirds of Montgomery County’s waters as impaired, improvement is clearly needed.
Wisdom from the perspective of space
“Before I flew I was already aware of how small and vulnerable our planet is; but only when I saw it from space, in all its ineffable beauty and fragility, did I realize that humankind’s most urgent task is to cherish and preserve it for future generations.”
--Sigmund Jahn, German Democratic Republic astronaut
Let us hope our political leaders understand this sooner rather than later.