a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on June 27, 2018 to discuss the Zoning petition received from Douglas Brown et al to amend the zoning Section 20.70 Flood Overlay district and creation of a new Section 22.80 - Green Factor

ATTACHMENTA June 27th, 2018 Presentation to Resilient Cambridge the Ordinance Committee of the City Council Zoning Amendments for a Flood & Heat

not on environmental protection. people- that will require other efforts. Climate Safety Petition • But there will of course be environmental benefits. • We can't do everything, but we can work on the zoning. • Our primary goal is not to save the environment from changes by • Our petition is focused on community health, safety, and resiliency, • Our primary goal is to save people from changes in the environment.

plus 1) Heat (2030) 2) Flooding (2050) 5) Tree canopy losses 6) Water quality issues 4) Reduced open spaces 7) & environmental contamination 3) Storm Surge/Sea Level Rise (2070) We have 3 major climate problems.

17 10 24 un N 18 25 11 3 M 12 19 26 27 1.3 20 (Baseline) 14 21 28 1971 - 2000 .. 129 22 8 9 1 43 15 16 30 4 5 17 18 19 10 11 12 | 25 26 27 28 29 15 N 20 26 23 11 13 27 18 25 (20:30 21 2015 - 2044 28 14 10 22 25 15 27 8 30 16 19 23 26 Heat 00 N 11 14 18 25 23 19 12 26 20 13 (2070) |28 21 2055 - 2084 15 27 22 25 29 13 16 • = 2 28 14 21 23 3-month period (Source: Kleinfelder based on ATMOS research, November 2015) Fig. 16 Relative increase in possible projected days above 90°F and 100 °F over a Above 90ªF - Low Scenario Above 90 F - High Scenario High 100 F - High Scenario Above 100 °F • Low Scenario

LEGEND <80 Heat Index ( F) BELMONT [B0 - 90] Caution LINGTON (90 - 103] Extreme Caution WATERTOWN (103 - 124) Danger >124. Extreme Danger Data source Hoet indes celculated from Landsat 1 imagery (30m rseluten). Basemap dala from Bass GIS. 1.000 2.000 SOMERVILLE KLEINFELDER BROOKLINE 105E087 2030S SCENARIO HEAT INDEX (96°F) Cambridge, Massachusetts Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment MAP

LEGEND 550 Heal index c Fl BELMONT (80 - 90): Caution INGTON (90 - 103] Extreme Caution WATERTOWN (103 - 124): Danger >124. Extreme Danger Data source. Moal ludes celculated fron Lendaat 5 nagery (36m reactution) Basemap data bean Masa GIS SOMERVILLE KLEINFELDER BROOKLINE 34/0N2015 2070S SCENARIO HEAT INDEX (115°F) Cambridge, Massachusetts Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment

100 110 120 Time (min) 45 Daytime Roof Temperatures CAPPED 8 RISING - Air Roof Roof - Green -# Cement 100 90 120 110 on Surface Temperatures Effects of Green Infrastructure Time (min Nighttime Roof Temperatures Courtesy of 2013 Glocal Challenge Winner - Air Roof Roof -Green -E-Cement

Tour Gande © 2017 Fresh Pond COMMUTER RAIL TRACKS. ents Alliance FRESH POND ALEWIFE T STATION Flooding CAMBRIDGE PARK DRIVE GONCORD AVE 8 tr CAMBRIDGE CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT DATA Google Earth ESTIMATED EXTENT OF FLOODING IN 2070

10 - 0.5 0.5 - 10 1.0 - 2.0 BELMONT -:30 20-30 RLINGTON Depth of flooding above ground (ft) LEGEND Water Body WATERTOWN Deta sourceo City ef Cantridge, Nevomber 2012. Basemap dota trom Mass G19 'Neighborhood Boundary - Cayor Chood Boundandary interstate State Route US Highway 1,000 www.kieinfelder.com Bright People. Right Solutions. KLEINFELDER DRAWN FILE NAME DRAWN BY CHE CKEO BY BROOKLINE NOV 2015 PROJECT NO 20100259 2070 CONDITIONS 100 YEAR SCENARIO Cambridge, Massachusetts FLOODING FROM PRECIPITATION Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment MAP

Dam 2' from overtopping Mystic River Dam, January 2018 Storm Surge Sea Level Rise Source: Will Brownsberger 10

FEMA 500YR = 22.4' -EMA 100 YR = 18.4' 2070 10 YR SLR/SS = 22.0' 2070 100 YR SLR/SS = 22.5' 2070 100 YR PRECIP = 20.6' 2030 100YR PRECIP = 19.8' EL=18.0' CCB APPROX. GROUND 2070 Updated 100YR PRECIP=20.0' 2030 Updated 100YR PRECIP=19.0' Flood Elevation Legend (feet-CCB): of Cambridge EL=20' EL=24' NO Cambridge Alewife Area Climate Change Flood Risk STOPPING STANDING ELECTRICAL E1=22 DAM Illustrations. April 2017, Kleinfelder & Stantec/MWH for City JANUARY STORM SUB STATION 10

BELMONT Percent probobility of excoodance URLINGTON L assessment but we expect the key findags to reman unchane LEGEND Using BH-FRiend manhole feeding by law wing 20d pra00 Water Body Disclaimert Clarification The CCVA Part 2 Vulnerability Assessment was conducted using _Neighborhood Boundary City of Cambridge Boundary Interstate State Route US Highway West Cambriage Neighborhoes Nine Feet 1,000 SOMERVILLE Mid-Cambridge www.kleinfeider.com Bright People Right Solutions KLEINFELDER DRAWN DRAWN BY FILE NAME BROOKLINE CHECKED BY Wellington-Harrington PROJECT NO: 20100259 APRIL 2016 Cambridge. Massachusetts OF SEA LEVEL RISE AND STORM SURGE FLOODING 2070 PERCENT PROBABILITY Climate Change Vulnerablity Assessment 12 11

13 July 10, 2010) Right: DPW Brochure Above: CCVA Part 1, Fig. 8 Fig. 8 Urban Flooding (Source: City of Cambridge, larger storms. Flooding on Bishop Allen Drive, 2010 DID YOU KNOW? 12 In the next five years, the City will spend over $35M constructing two underground stormwater storage tanks. These stormwater tanks will significantly reduce the frequency of flooding, but the area will still be vulnerable to flooding during less frequent /

D+ D+ Grade Mill Creek Mill Brook Winn's Brook Malden River Belle Isle Inlet Chelsea Creek Aberjona River Island End River Upper Mystic Lake Meetinghouse Brook Mystic River (salt water) Little River Mystic River (fresh water) Alewife Brook Water Segment 42.5% 31.3% 38.4% 63.7% 89.3% 87.6% 78.4% 59.4% 88.3% 94.6% 98.6% 55.1% 54.2% 53.8% and Compliance Rates - Calendar Year 2017 Mystic River Watershed Water Quality Grades swimming Source: US EPA/MyRWA Annual Report Card Avg. Meeting MA water quality standards for boating and 13

LEGEND BELMONT INGTON Ш 8 - 10 10 - 12 Est mated Cooling Impact of Tree Canopy (F) WATERTOWN Data source Temperature calculated from Landuat 5 imagery (30m resetution). Basemap data from Mass GIS Air tor SOMERVILLE KLEINFELDER ILE NAME DRAWN BY BROOKLINE 4/92015 PROJECT NO 20100214 AW COOLING IMPACT OF TREES IN CAMBRIDGE Cambridge, Massachusetts Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 5 MAP 14

15 Why now? Alewife Preparedness Plan (draft Nov 2017) Part 1(2015) Heat Island and Precipitation Alewife Preparedness Handbook (draft Nov 2017) Part 2 (2017) Sea Level Rise and Coastal Storm Surge Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience Plan 1) We now have the data that shows we need to act Cambridge Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 11.15.2017 DRAFT CITY OF CAMBRIDGE Climate Change CCP. Vulnerability Assessment ALEWIFE PREPAREDNESS PLAN Report

ready. 60% of which is commercial. Envision Cambridge Master Plan will already have been completed. Why now? 2) Because by 2030, most floodplain development 6 million square feet of new Alewife development by 2030, Latest draft of the Envision Alewife Plan (May 2018) proposes 3) Because we can't wait until 2070 to fix the problem. in the 100-year floodplain, and 1.2 million more is in the pipeline. 16 211 119 1,706 2,510 2,372 Since the new FEMA maps in 2010, 1.9 million square feet have been built documents notes DIVISION CAMBRIDGE NAS ASS AS BANA PERLY TOE STLE: FM07 tame sate not at mine mite Tomorrow's buildings are being built today. We need to act now to be wwiwen.cambridonso 16 CAMBRIDGE ENVISION

Moody's INVESTORS SERVICE Investors Service says in a new report." steps will impact the issuer's overall profile when assigning ratings. Why now? an ongoing credit challenge " Michael Wertz, a Moody's Vice President says. not be mitigated by issuer actions, even if this is a number of years in the future." http://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx.?docid=PBM 1071949. long-term credit pressure on US states and local governments REPORT: "Environmental Risks - Evaluating the impact of climate change on US state and local issuers" 4) Because if we don't mitigate the risk, the market may do it for us. Climate change is forecast to heighten US exposure to economic loss placing short-and "(Climate change) will be a growing negative credit factor for issuers without sufficient adaptation and mitigation strategies, Moody's "Our credit analysis considers the effects of climate change when we believe a meaningful credit impact is highly likely to occur and "While we anticipate states and municipalities will adopt mitigation strategies for these events, costs to employ them could also become 17 "Analysts for municipal issuers with higher exposure to climate risks will also focus on current and future mitigation steps and how these November 28th, 2017

completed. requirements. • We've been waiting!!! • 2015 - CCVA Part 1 released. the impact of new development." requirements for flood protection. 190 2017 - CCVA Part 2 released... still waiting But can't we wait? encourage development in floodplain, but without new • 2010 - new FEMA flood maps approved. No new zoning • circa 2005 - Concord-Alewife Study. Zoning changed to greatly • circa 2000 -Internal effort to create conservation bylaws was not • 1979- "Fish Book" proposes "Flood Retention Ponds" to "mitigate

environment. Land Use and Density stormwater runoff. place for Concord-Alewife. taller heights closer to Alewife Station. enhance stormwater retention and treatment. stormwater management and infrastructure goals. space, and transportation goals for the Study Area. Infrastructure, Stormwater Management, and Open Space • Support mixed-use development throughout the Study Area to create a vibrant urban Ensure that new development and redevelopment increases permeability and utilizes • Apply best management practices and low impact development strategies to mitigate • Improve connections between open space resources in and adjacent to the Study Area. • Create urban design guidelines that encourage future development and create a sense of neighborhood squares; use parks, street plantings, parking lots, and other open space to • Create incentives for cooperation among property owners to meet study goals, especially • Encourage development that responds to transit proximity by allowing higher densities and • Create guidelines that encourage future development to be responsive to stormwater, ope principles of low-impact development to improve runoff quality and reduce runoff quantity. • Encourage creation of some combination of large open spaces, smaller retention ponds, and 2005 Concord-Alewife Plan Goals Encourage site planning that incorporates 20 low-impact development strategies to improve stormwater management in future development.

tod HRI Fuse Park 77 Park 87 Vecna site 95 Fawcett Evolve site Vox on Two Project Name Jefferson Park Bay State Corner Ferro's Foodtown Abt Associates site AC Hotels (Marriott) TOTALS 35 Cambridgepark Drive Discovery Park Garage B 355 Fresh Pond Parkway 467-477 Concord Avenue Fresh Pond Research Park Hanover at Cambridge Park Atmark Residences at Fresh Pond Forrester Corporate Headquarters 603 Concord at Fresh Pond- Phase I The Residences at 88 Cambridge Park Drive The Residences at 130 Cambridge Park Drive 603 Concord at Fresh Pond (aka Concord-Wheeler) Residences at Alewife Station (aka Lanes & Games) Revolutionary Clinics (formerly CAS Foundation MMD) Stage PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PERMITTED PERMITTED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION Address New Street 87 New Street 1 Jackson Place Concord Avenue 55 Wheeler Street 336 Rindge Avenue 400 Discovery Park 110 Fawcett Street 500 Discovery Park 70-80 Fawcett Street 579 Concord Avenue 42-54 Bay State Road 665 Concord Avenue 35 Cambridgepark Drive 50 Cambridgepark Drive Discovery Park Garage B 467-477 Concord Avenue 165 Cambridge Park Drive 195/211 Concord Turnpike 345-355 Fresh Pond Parkway 160-180 Cambridge Park Drive 88 Cambridge Park Drive (aka 180R) 563 Concord Avenue/19 Wheeler Street 130/125/150/180R Cambridge Park Drive 223/225/231 Concord Turnpike (Route 2) 600 Discovery Park (aka 10 Acorn Park Drive) 200-300 Discovery Park/ 31 Acorn Park Drive New Units Since 2010 Year Completed tbd tod tbd tbd tod 2012 tbd tbd tbd tbd 2015 2014 2014 2014 2010 tod 2014 Retail tbd Parking Proposed) 2011 Commercial tbd Commercial tbd Commercial 2014 Commercial tbd Commercial tod Commercial tod Commercial E of Units (Built, Permitted, or 3666 526 227 61 10 54 Proposed) 21 125,000 121,868 100,000 100,000 563,609 30,000 96,000 132,000 319,365 324,440 4,797,697 Total Gross Floor Area (Built, Permitted, or 445,000 294,000 258,322 184,774 141,745 280,000 254,000 19,400 4,740 5,341 15,250 71,445 84,930 52,852 96,049 466,632 139,520 13,215 58,200

INTRODUCTION encouraged and shall take precedence. people and properties from the local flood hazard. Program" communities with more restrictive floodplain management programs. FEMA Guidance on Additional Regulatory Measures regulations adopted by a State or a community which are more restrictive than the criteria set forth in this part are under the Community Rating System (CRS), a program which provides insurance premium discounts to policyholders in 44 CFR 60.1(d) The criteria set forth in this subpart are minimum standards for the adoption of flood plain management 22 This unit reviews the more common approaches to this. Many of these more restrictive requirements are eligible for credit -From FEMA's "Managing Floodplain Development Through The National Flood Insurance Therefore, states and communities are encouraged to enact more restrictive requirements where needed to better protect The NFIP regulatory standards are minimums. They may not be appropriate for every local situation or unique circumstances. instances, community officials may have access to information or knowledge of conditions that require, particularly for human regulations by flood-prone... communities. Any community may exceed the minimum criteria under this Part by adopting more safety, higher standards than the minimum criteria set forth in Subpart A of this part. Therefore, any flood plain management comprehensive flood plain management regulations utilizing the standards such as contained in Subpart C of this part. In some

• conserve health; 23 • prevent overcrowding of land; • provide adequate light and air; and other public requirements; • lessen congestion in the streets; increase the amenities of the City. blight and pollution of the environment; • avoid undue concentration of population; • encourage housing for persons of all income levels; • secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other danger; The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to ensure the following: encourage the most rational use of land throughout the city, including the encouragement of appropriate -from Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, Article 1 the consideration of plans and policies, if any, adopted by the Cambridge Planning Board, and to preserve and • conserve the value of land and buildings, including the conservation of natural resources and the prevention of economic development, the protection of residential neighborhoods from incompatible activities and including • facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water supply, drainage, sewerage, schools, parks, open space

useful. efforts. • The water is getting deeper. • The floodplain is expanding. • We need to be proactive and act now. • We have a duty to protect our citizens. • New buildings will last for many decades. What we now know • Trees are being lost. Replacements take decades to become • Climate change presents financial risks to our City and people. • Extreme heat is coming sooner, and you can't outsource cooling. • The rapid pace of new development may thwart future resilience 24

• DEFEND • RETREAT remain • ACCOMMODATE Mitigation Strategies • Prepare for and learn to live with the changes • Add longer walls, taller dams, stronger pumps • Stop building in flood-prone areas; buy out those who 25

normal operation. Adapted Buildings Resilient Ecosystems Prepared Community Resilient Infrastructure areas to support a resilient ecosystem. providing for increased social and economic resilience. Cambridge Resilience Plan ensuring continued service and/or a swift recovery from climate shocks and stresses. integrating the built environment with green infrastructure, the urban forest, and natural protecting against projected climate-change impacts and/or designing for a speedy return to

27 B5 B3 B6 B1 B2 B7 STRATEGY FLOOD BUILDING FOR NEW BUILDINGS BUILDINGS BUILDINGS SITE GREEN TITLE PROTECTION POLICIES AND FOR EXISTING REGULATIONS FOR EXISTING NEW BUILDINGS FLOOD AND HEAT PROTECTION FOR INFRASTRUCTURE ADAPTED ZONING, HEAT PROTECTION HEAT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT FOR FLOOD PROTECTION effect. buildings. heat risks. flood risks. as revised flood elevation. DESCRIPTION TABLE 2: STRATEGIES FOR ADAPTED BUILDINGS heat risks identified for the neighborhood. flood risks identified for the neighborhood. as flooding and extreme heat and adjust building Develop a program to enable building residents and Establish regulations and design guidelines for new Establish regulations and design guidelines for new Establish a program to support retrofitting of existing Establish a program to support retrofitting of existing buildings and re-development to be resilient to future buildings and re-development to be resilient to future buildings and re-development to be resilient to future buildings and re-development to be resilient to future Revise zoning to factor in Climate Change risks, such occupants to effectively manage and operate resilient Implement green infrastructure (GI) at the parcel level to improve water management and reduce heat-island requirements to take into account new constraints such Page 21 CCPR Alewife Source: Draft Resilience Plan, November 2017,

future generations. and an enhanced urban tree canopy. standards over a larger area of the City. What do we propose engineered solutions ("grey infrastructure," or pipes & tanks). Natural systems need room to work. We need to increase the be in the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, we need to apply new • Futureproofing our community requires that we design for future • We must encourage natural systems ("green infrastructure") over • Buildings must be more resilient to ensure the health and safety of percentage of land devoted to green infrastructure, permeable areas, conditions. In the future, a much greater percentage of Cambridge will 28

elevation. the CCVA. this standard citywide. Three Important Components District to protect against future threats. 1. Expand the existing Flood Plain Overlay suggests developing just this kind of forward-looking 100-year flood • The Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (Executive Order 13690) 29 • Envision Cambridge recommends protecting to the 2070 sea level rise 1% (precipitation) and 500-year (storm surge) flooding events as identified by • Expand to include the current 500-year floodplain, plus the 2070 100-year flood elevation in the Quad, recovering to that level elsewhere. We support

with the flood hazard data shown solely on FEMA maps" is occurring to structures located in the 500-year floodplain" floodplain, it may be appropriate to consider using a higher flood standard" • From FEMA's "Further Advice on Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management", Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management: 30 - "in light of increasing flood damages occurring outside of the designated 100-year - "persons responsible for implementing the Executive Order should not be satisfied - "recent studies of flood insurance claims data have revealed that significant damage

plan. 100-year flood elevation. the Flood Plain to protect residents minimum site and building access requirements. Conservation Commission and City Engineer review. 31 utilities and finished floor of any residential unit above the 2070 • Requires early reports for soil, groundwater, and hydrogeological • Requires Emergency access in the event of flooding by specifying 2. Add new health & safety requirements within of the environmental sections of city planning documents, requires • Specifies the lowest elevations for relevant building elements, e.g., • Requires an environmental report on how project fits with all parts testing (water displacement), a storm water plan, and an emergency

32 record storage, other infrastructure). (hospitals, nursing homes, police stations, etc.). • Prohibits Class 4 Critical Facilities in the 500-year floodplain • Adds restrictions on hazardous material processing and storage. the 500-year floodplain (These facilities are important but do not • Elevates Class 3 Critical Facilities to 3 feet above flood elevation in need to remain open during a flood event: schools, libraries, public

requirements. requirements are met. • Allows reduced parking requirements. • Tree Canopy coverage (30% of the lot) • Permeable Surface Area (30% of the lot) • Open Space requirement (30% of the lot) • Sets minimum numbers for each of the following: • Continues to exempt 1-3 family homes from special permit • Minimum Setbacks (25 feet to allow mature shade trees) • Allows increased building height by special permit up to the amount of FAR already allowed, provided all other open space 33 overlap. Areas may

34 Factor score of 0.35. reporting of a Green Factor score. • For large projects in the flood plain, specifies a minimum Green • For all large projects across the city, requires the calculation and 3. Introduce Green Factor scoring system across the City to address heat and stormwater issues.

35 habitat. systems. and shrubs. • Started in Europe in 1990s. • Adopted by Seattle in 2009. • Also used by Washington D.C. & Somerville. What is Green Factor? • Green systems improve open space functions: shading people, • A simple scoring system designed to promote the value of green • Developers choose from a "menu" of landscape credits for various cooling buildings, absorbing rain, filtering out pollutants, increasing features, including green roofs, rain gardens, vegetated walls, trees,

SCreen actor sreen Factor zones Proposed GF zone 0.30 minimum score 0.20 minimum score Loke Washington - Projoct bile: Hovised 4/3/09 H Bonuses C Groen roofs D Vegetated walls F Permeable paving*** Bioretention facilities Landscape Elements** E Approved water features s structural soil systems'" 4 Landscaping in food cultivation Over at least 4" of growth medium through the use of harvested rainwater Drought-tolerant or native plant species public right of way or public open spaces Green Factor Score Sheet Landscaping visible to passersby from adjacent Shrubs or perennials 2'+ at maturity - calculated Over at least 2" and less than 4" of growth medium Permeable paving over at least 24" of soil or gravel Tree canopy for preservation of large existing trees Landscaped areas with a soil depth of less than 24 Landscaped areas with a soll depth of 24" or greater Tree canopy for "small trees" in the Green Factor tree list • Do not count public rights-of-way in parcel size calculation. A Landscaped areas (select one of the following for each area Mulch, ground covers, or other plants less than 2' tall at maturity Tree canopy for "small/medium trees" in the Green Factor troo list Tree canopy for "medium/large trees" in the Green Factor tree list B Plantings (credit for plants in landscaped areas from Section A) at 16 sq ft per plant (typically planted no closer than 18" on center) with trunks 6*+ in diameter - calculated at 15 sq ft per inch diameter Permeable paving over at least 6" and less than 24" of soil or gravel or equivalent (canopy spread of 25) - calculated at 150 sq ft per tree or equivalent (canopy spread of 15) - calculated at 50 sq ft per tree or equivaient (canopy spread of 20) - calculated at 100 sq ft per tree Landscaped areas where at least 50% of annual imgation needs are met Parcel size (enter this value first)" of parcel sub-totol of sq it - enter sq it 4314 Totals from GF worksheet (and emust comply it the tandaris Stade my for gully for more than one third of the Groan Factor score. Factor SCORE Green Factor numerator - 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 SPATTLE green factor * You may count landscape improvements in righte-of-way contiguous with the percel. All landsceping on private and public minimum score Total determined by zone 300.0 160.0 220.0 202.0 431 2,588.4 945.0 1,214 2,072.0 36

boundaries: square feet or more • Minimum score 0.50 • Minimum score 0.60 • Minimum score 0.30 • Minimum score 0.30 • Low-rise Multifamily Residential: • Development in South Downtown: • Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial: • Midrise and High-rise Multifamily Residential: Seattle Green Factor Requirements • Industrial Commercial within urban village or urban center • Minimum score of 0.30 for development with 20,000 gross 37

38 BELLECECE Phases IV & V Looking NE Amazon Phase IV - Corporate Campus

39 Phase IV Terry Plaza Looking East

40 and safety. cost increase. Green Factor Costs! • Studies on Low Impact Development for stormwater for their 0.3 requirement was 0.4% of construction costs. • Despite 10 years of Seattle Green Factor, no studies on costs. management, a precursor to Green Factor, show a 1% up-front • Like other building safety requirements such as fire codes, some • The Seattle planner who developed their Green Factor said price • Lack of Green Factor analyses because the costs are insignificant? increase in up-front cost is expected in exchange for future health

41 sewer projects notes the following: climate resilience and air quality What does 0.4% buy? Community, as mentioned in the CCPR strategies pleasant outdoor environment for a better Prepared • Increased community interaction: not as hot and a more • Urban Heat Island mitigation: reduces medical emergency EPA webpage on Green Infrastructure Cost-Benefit Resources • Open space for large trees: allows the benefits trees give for • Flooding mitigation: reduces flood rescues and damage repair response and reduced and more efficient air conditioner usage • Stormwater infrastructure: contained run-off reduces expensive

42 • FEMA • US EPA • City of Seattle • National best practices: • Army Corps of Engineers • American Society of Civil Engineers • National Institute of Building Sciences • Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment • Envision Cambridge Master Planning effort • Climate Change Preparedness & Resiliency Plan Where did these ideas come from? • New requirements based on current City of Cambridge recommendations:

( City of Cambridge utile Flood Protection Alewife Implementation Plan: Zoning & Policy building equipment) at or above this level) elevating to 4 feet uniformly Envision Cambridge Alewife Zoning Strategies on CCPR Plan in Quadrangle by • Protect to 10% SLR/SS elevation floodproof residential units, critical • Recover from 1% SLR/SS elevation based on CCPR Plan (l.e., first floors based on CCPR Plan (i.e., elevate or • Protect to 1% SLR/SS elevation based Alewife Working Group 15 — May 10, 2018 • Tree plantings • Require green or white roofs Urban Heat Island Resiliency through CCPR planning process • Other measures to be considered envision.cambridgema.gov What zoning strategies should be modified to support the new plan? 43 19

fund • City of Cambridge measures Transportation utile • Contributions to Alewife Implementation Plan: Zoning & Policy maximum parking ratios • Enhanced transportation • Eliminate minimum parking transportation improvement demand management (TDM) (except residential), establish Envision Cambridge Alewife Zoning Strategies Alewife Working Group 15 — May 10, 2018 R&D = 0.8 per 1,000-sf Retail = 1.5 per 1,000-sf Office = 1.1 per 1,000-sf dwelling unit Maximum Parking Ratios Industrial = 0.5 per 1,000-sf envision.cambridgema.gov What zoning strategies should be modified to support the new plan? 44 Residential = 0.25 min - 0.75 per

45 • Variances • Freeboard • Dry land access • Critical facilities • Hazardous materials • Compensatory storage • Stormwater management Insurance Program, including: The National Flood Insurance Program" Where did these ideas come from? Additional requirements were recommended by FEMA's National Flood -From FEMA's "Managing Floodplain Development Through

46 demand." Cambridge. development. for more open space & green infrastructure. hottest market in the country, bar none...(with)...insatiable tenant • Care was taken not to interfere with the Envision Cambridge efforts. • Height allowances help offset raising the first floor above flood level. Will these changes restrict development? • The Planning Board can allow less parking and more height in exchange • According to a recent Quadrangle marketing brochure, Cambridge is "the • The proposed changes do not affect type, density, amount, or location of • Our petition doesn't change the fact that people want to live and work in

zone. impossible to do. mitigation measures today. than engineered solutions). space (up to $45,000 per space). proactive communities receiving lower rates. eliminate nasty surprises during construction. front cost is expected in exchange for future value. Will these changes increase costs? • FEMA studies show $6 in future benefit for each additional $1 invested in flood • Once constructed, efforts to retrofit existing buildings may be expensive or even • Environmental costs are not increased, just front loaded earlier in the process to • FEMA considers proactive mitigation in assessing Flood Insurance rates, with more • Improvements in Citywide resiliency benefit all residents, not just those in the flood • Like other safety requirements such as building and fire codes, some increase in up- • However, green systems are cheaper than grey systems (natural solutions are cheaper 47 • Reduced parking requirements will reduce construction costs per square foot of livable

35 CPD 48 PROPERTY TOTALS/AVG. Jefferson Park Lanes & Games 95 Fawcett Street 605 Concord Ave. Under Under Under Under STATUS 55 Wheeler Street Permitted Permitted Construction Construction Construction Construction UNITS 49 44 104 [phone removed] Commercial 500-year 100-year 100-year 100-year 100-year FLOODPLAIN 500-year REQUIRED 40% 15% 27.5% OPEN SPACE % The "Ask" is Moderate OPEN 18% 36% 22% 33% 33% 41% 47% SPACE % OS % 25% 25% REQUIRED PERMEABLE 18% 17% 25% 20% 30% 29% 37%* * Estimated from review of Site Plan PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE

49standards. environmental impacts. will lower future operating costs. and safe and healthy in the future What about Housing? floodplain, they need units that are safe and resilient. • Affordable unit tenants are placed by the city. If placed in a • Not only are natural solutions more resilient, they tend to be • Affordable housing is being built today that meets these new cheaper to maintain in the long run. Enhanced green systems • First and foremost, new housing must be safe and healthy now, • State standards for affordable housing already require a focus on

E. 50 possible. development. 760 CMR 56.07(3). Environmental Standards • mass.gov housing subsidy programs, these Guidelines shall apply to the Project. 40B Environmental Standards In the absence of minimum environmental standards established by the Subsidizing Agency for its project is supported by local or regional growth management plans. Insofar as reasonable, proposals the regional need for affordable housing and, among other factors, the environment and open space. For new construction projects, the Subsidizing Agency will take into consideration whether a proposed maximize resident recreational areas and meaningful open space shall be pursued whenever reasonably It is important for developers to bear in mind that there is consistency between G.L. C. 40B and meeting environmental concerns. (G.L. C. 40B § 20). Consistency with local needs requires a balancing between should seek to minimize loss of environmental quality and resources that might result from the proposed Creative land use designs which minimize infrastructure costs and adverse environmental impacts and/or

12-19' east side Height: 4 stories JEFFERSON PARK Permeable Area: 36.7% Front Setback: 5-48' (26.5' average) Tree Canopy: 20.4% (70% ornamental) Parking: 69 spaces (0.66 spaces per unit) permeable pavers, 30% permeable paving) Open Space: 18% (building footprints = 36.0%) Rear/Side Setbacks: 26-45' rear, 27-53' west side, Green Factor: 0.351 (assumes 24" of soil, native plants, Unit Count: 104 affordable units including 19 3-bedroom) 52

53 out of harm's way • Retrofitting is expensive/impossible • We can do this, but we need to act now. • Green investments are good investments In Summary • Smart growth shouldn't create unsafe housing. • We see this process as a discussion, not an ultimatum. • We need to protect our jobs, economy, and infrastructure • This petition will not interfere with the Envision Cambridge process • People expect Cambridge to protect its residents - to keep them safely • We need safe places to live. New housing needs to be safe and healthy.

some impacts. - Steven Hawking care for each other. By acting now, we can avoid one planet, and we need to work together to protect it." "Perhaps in a few hundred years, we will have established human colonies amid the stars, but right now we only have Climate change is happening. How we respond as a unified community will determine how we cope and

damage. surge Flood zone FEMA 500 Year FEMA 100 Year FEMA Floodway Assessed value CCVA 2070 1% precip CCVA 2070 0.2% storm Parcels 1,376 31 749 260 Number of 3,010 5.7% Parcels Percent of 0.2% 2.0% This table shows the approximate 2018 assessed value of properties in the five flood zones. $191,494,100 $234,128,700 Land Value Building Value $1,993,780,700 $2,372,046,300 $3,471,077,300 $3,696,280,500 10.6% $22,074,337,800 $50, 165,350,700 Parcels Susceptible to Flooding in Cambridge 100-year flooding from precipitation (one foot level), and the CCVA estimated 2070 0.2% chance of flooding from storm surge. $425,622,800 $4,365,827,000 $7,167,357,800 $72,239,688,500 Total Value 23.1% $40,850,668,663 $88,341,484,165 $129,192,152,828 55 Note: All numbers are estimates. Dollar values are assessed values of parcels that may be impacted by flooding. They are not estimates of property Percent of City 31.0% 0.2% 1.9% 3. 1% 55.4% Total This map shows Cambridge buildings and parcels which are within the FEMA floodway, 100-year and 500-year floodplains, the CCVA estimated 2070

Sources Watertown Analysis by Kent Johnson. Belmont Copyright 2018 Kent S Johnson [cc) JeY-NG-59 • Valuation from Cambridge Open Data. Arlington • Building and parcel data and FEMA flood zones from Cambridge GIS. • 2070 flooding data from the Cambridge Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. Medford bridge FENWAY Somerville BACK BAY 0 - 1 3 - 5 1 - 2 2 - 3 Maiden 5 - 16 56 • FEMA 100 year • FEMA 500 year CHARLESTOWN • FEMA Floodway • 2070 storm surge BOSTON 2070 100-year precip Precip flooding (ft) Everett S Leatlet | © OpenstreeiMap © CartoDE

57 dhcd Massachusetts PROJECTS Updated December 2014 GUIDELINES Regulatory Authority: see 760 CMR 56.00 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING INVENTORY G.L. C.40B COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT

Cityttall 14:7 highest point 472 lowest point 33,3 CIO AleWite T 6.0 - Cambridge City Bare 12.3 Voi on Two Current 10-year storm current 1oo-yoar stom 2070 io-year stoma Amelia farbart Dam 23. harles River Dam: (23.8) Sea Level High Tide Low Tide 2070 2010 Year 3' Depth Highest Astronomical Tide Cambridge City Base HOB • 4 65% 18.4 Sea Leml Rise Prubabi Litt

600 grass 10,o tla w/grass pervions bioswalé p24 Soi l >24" soil NV 0.21 2.06 0.27 30% apen space + Tạr So trus trees 24' trees + e ati K FR. + 30% tree anopy 0,185 175 0.3% 0.39 1 75 • 215 1.010 80 50 (sg0sh/oof Patio 9.215 + wal green roof 0.535 (3500 3 JI.or 59

pavers) Open Space: 22% Permeable Area: 17% 100' with smokestacks) 35 CAMBRIDGEPARK DRIVE Side Setbacks: 70'9" and 42' Tree Canopy: 4.6% (all ornamental) space, or 2.5x our proposed maximum) Front Setbacks (corner lot): 51'4" and 16' Unit Count: n/a (220,000 sq ft of commercial space) Green Factor: 0.181 (assumes 24" of soil, native plants, and permeable Height: 6 stories (89' including 6th floor double-height mechanical floor; Parking: 331 spaces (1 parking space per every 665 square feet of interior

Height: 158' Open Space: 60% Front Setback: 84' Green Factor: 0.45 CAMBRIDGE CITY HALL Building Elevation: 33'-47' CCB Side/Rear Setbacks: 26 Average Parking: 14 spaces (1 space per 3771 sf)

Jefferson Park redevelopment all mature trees Jackson Place has shows removal of 81% "open space" Rindge Ave The Church of God of the Pilgrim Jackson Pl Jackson Cir Jackson Pl Jefferson Park and Jackson Place Google

Proposed Project - 50 Cambridgepark Drive

30 (Right): 42% 100 (Left): 62% Occupied Area Not 50 Proposed: 15% "50" Existing: 66% by Buildings Neighboring Properties at 30 and 100 Cambridgepark Drive 64

65 trees? • 15 year old decorative tree One 18" existing tree is 40 times the value of a new

City of Cambridge 31 different owners utile Source: City of Cambridge Tax Assessor and Property Database 2016 Envision Cambridge PRELIMINARY/CONFIDENTIAL - Subject to ongoing revision cambridgema gov/citywideplan Land Ownership - Parcels between 100,000 and 1,000,000 sq. ft. 18

67 driveway Permeable • 5 0 20 wall panels 10'x 20' green Green Factor Score = 0.62 Green roof - Midrise residential Coo: patio . Permeable Rooftop patio Po-0o01 B80:009Ero-Cb0 vines) on terrace Permeable strips between tree pits trailing vines 10 x 10 panel 6' green wall around Bioretention planter perimeter (fence with

1777 MENOTOMY WATERTOWN POND FREEN MOM COMPILED TO SHOW THE PAROLE LIMITS IN REVOLUTIONARY TIMES OF BURGOYNE'S OFFICERS CAMBRIDGE & VICINITY MEDFORD// BRIDGE CHARKESTOWN SCALE: 100 RODS -1 INCH STIC RIVER

- 7' below BFE Lowest floor Did not elevate Varance issued Market value - $100.000 Flood damage : $75.000 Figure 3. Repaired-variance allowed BFE -BFE -BFE Figure 1. Pre-FIRM building—1995 insurance rate: $595 With no elevation (7 feet below BFE); actuarial rate: $3,090 Figure 2. Pre-FIRM building-substantially damaged by 1997 flood on Flood Insurance Rates Impacts of Variances - 1 From "Managing Floodplain Development Through The National Flood Insurance Program," FEMA L.. to BFE Elevated to Elevated Elevated 1n 2 above BEE 2' below BFE Figure 4. Repaired -variance allowed Elevated to 2' below BFE; actuarial rate: $1,140 Figure 5. Repaired-elevated to BFE; actuarial rate: $351 Floor Floor Floor Lowest Lowest Lowest * BFE - BFE - BFE Figure 6. Repaired—elevated 2 feet above BFE; actuarial rate: $216

40% 20% 50% 100% 80% 60% 10% 30% 90% 70% 2016) Existing Baseline Represents a 60% Build-Out City of Cambridge utile Envision Cambridge Baseline Optimized overlay) Overlay High-rise Mixed-use Residentia (with optional high-rise Environment: Pervious Surfaces Pervious & Impervious Surfaces Alewife Working Group Meeting $ 7 - March 9, 2017 overlay) Overlay High-rise (with optional high-rise Mixed-use Commercial Industrial Mixed-use Building Roofs (GFA) www.envision.cambridgema.gov Surface Parking (GFA) 70 Pervious Surfaces (GFA) Parking Roof Decks (GFA) 20

71 -12% <0 11% 12% 0-9 5% 10-19 16% Change (%) 20-29 30-39 37% 40+ 27% 33% daily events) from 1958 to 2012 (Source: 2014 U.S. National Climate Assessment Report) Increased precipitation in the Northeast Fig. 6 Observed change in heavy precipitation events (defined as the heaviest 1% of all Source: CCVA Part 1, p. 12

18

21

BROOKLINE CAMBRIDGE SOMERVI <RED> 0.1% Flood Extent <BLUE> 10% Flood Extent BOSTON <GREEN> 2% Flood Extent MILTON <YELLOW> 1% Flood Extent MALDEN EVERETT QUINCY REVERE /INTHROP WEYMOUTH HINGHAM HULL Boston Harbor-Probabilities of Flooding with 3 Feet SLR BROOKLINE RIDG BOSTON REVERE BRAINTREE Data Sources: MassGIS, UMass Boston, Woods Hole Group, Esri WEYMOUTH From "Feasibility of Harbor-wide Barrier Systems: Preliminary Analysis HINGHAM 14 Boston Harbor-Probabilities of Flooding with 5 Feet SLR for Boston Harbor" by Sustainable Solutions Lab, University of Massachusetts- Boston, May 2018

Project Somerset Gap Creek Mill Creekc Prairie Glen Auburn Hills Garden Valley Laurel Springs Kensington Estates Bellingham City Hall 2nd Avenue SEA Street Tellabs Corporate Campus Bellingham Bloedel Donovan Park (LID) Strategies and Practices, December 2007 Cost S765,700 $324,400 Development Conventional $3,162,160 $2,456,843 S4,620,600 $1,004,848 $2.360,385 $27,600 $52,800 $12,510 $868,803 $1.654.021 LID Cost $12,800 $3,942,100 $1,598,989 $1,502,900 $260,700 $651,548 $1.671,461 $2,700,650 $1,149,552 $5,600 $9,099 $599,536 USEPA, Reducing Stormwater Costs Through Low Impact Development Cost Differenceb $678,500 $785,382 $63,700 -$737,200 $461,510 $761,396 $3,411 $40,000 $217,255 $405,312 5504,469 $22,000 15% 20% 15% 32% 30% 27% -96% 25% 80% 32% 76% 40% Percent Difference' 75

> BLOG 344 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Chairman Russell, Mr. Hugh Russell, Chair Cambridge Planning Board a better cambridge JOIN AS A MEMBER Net Zero Letter to Cambridge City Council & Planning Board SIGN UP FOR OUR MAILING LIST On behalf of the members of A Better Cambridge, I am writing to ask you to vote NO on the Connolly Net Zero proposal. Net Zero petition (August 20", 2013) SIGN IN: TWITTER ABC PLATFORM While we wholeheartedly agree with the goal of eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels in Cambridge, we believe that the Connolly ABC Letter to the Planning Board regarding the Net Zero zoning currently being considered by the City Council and Planning Board would do more harm than good in our community: NEWSLETTER FACEBOOK WHO WE ARE EMAIL BENANAV E AUG 20.2013 L • REACTIONS JESSE KANSON ISSUES V ABC TO HOST ROTHSTEIN, LOCAL LUMINARIES, FOR RACIAL SEGREGATION DISCUSSION ACTION ALERTS

runoff; landscape strategies in Cambridge; 2013) ABC Net Zero Recommendations (August 20", • Work towards increasing water retention on building sites, sidewalks, and building codes that allow for more cool roofs, green roofs, and urban streets, and open spaces to reduce impact of flooding and storm water • Work towards reducing urban heat island effect by implementing zoning

options. 2013) ABC Net Zero Recommendations (August 19th people from their cars into alternative, low- or no-emissions transportation integrated transportation strategies and policies that will effectively move efficiency of new buildings and existing buildings, we need to focus on addressing climate change adaptation holistically: in addition to energy resources, resilience planning and mitigation, and innovative and • Focusing on net zero and energy efficiency only neglects the importance of other key climate mitigation strategies such as addressing water

Cambridge." ABC Moratorium Comments (March 20', 2018) flood and storm water mitigation and management, increased mobility, and hundreds of affordable homes and opportunities for families to remain in an opportunity for greater connectivity in the Alewife area. Any environmental concerns could be better addressed through policy changes "A moratorium would block many of the efforts underway to provide for moratorium. Moreover, it would delay or completely halt the production of requiring additional flood mitigation or infrastructure improvements not a

80 both severe and city-wide. Resilient Cambridge the City's Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. The and businesses of Cambridge from the serious threats of studies conclude that the impact of climate change will be The purpose of this zoning petition is to protect the health and safety of the residents (both occupants and neighbors) Loning Amendments for a Flood and Heat significantly increased flooding and extreme heat identified in

Floodplain Development The Alewife Way 22

100-YEAR FLOOD 500-YEAR FLOOD 1982 82

Is this a Taking? that of its individual members." a direct, logical, and reasonable means of safeguarding vS. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF CHATHAM), July, 2005 persons and property from those hazards occasioned by a health, safety, and welfare of the general public as well as flood and advances a substantial State interest, that is, the - Massachusetts Appeals Court, as quoted in ROBERTA GOVE • NO. "As a matter of Massachusetts law, restricting residential development within the path of floodwater, the flood plain, is

market value Definition of Substantial improvement • FEMA standard = greater than 50% of the building's

precipitation • Emergency plan • 30% open space in FPOD Minimum acceptable outcome • Green Factor scoring citywide • Reduced parking minimums in FPOD • Minimum elevations for living space & mechanicals • Floodplain expanded to included FEMA 500-year and 2070 100-year

the Quadrangle 35 separate industrial cooling units located 10' below grade. Raytheon Technologies Site in What could possibly go wrong???

88 • Utility siting • Heat protection • Flood protection • Site green infrastructure • Impervious area limitations • Urban forest recommendations Change Preparedness & Resiliency Plan, including: Resiliency Plan (draft) Where did these ideas come from? Additional requirements were recommended by the Cambridge Climate -From Cambridge Climate Change Preparedness &

ATTACAMENT B CITY OF CAMBRIDGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IRAM FAROOQ To: Planning Board Annuity Magen for From: City Staff SANDRA CLARKE Date: June 21, 2018 Deputy Director Chief of Administration Re: Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition The Planning Board will conduct a public hearing of this zoning petition on June 25, 2018. The City Council's Ordinance Committee will hold a hearing on June 27, 2018. The petition, submitted by a group of Cambridge residents, proposes to modify the boundaries and the requirements of the Flood Plain Overlay District in Section 20.70 of the Zoning Ordinance. The petition also proposes to create a new Section 22.80 (within Article 22.000, Sustainable Design and Development) entitled "Green Factor," which would establish a scoring system to be applied to projects subject to the Project Review Special Permit requirements in Section 19.20 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff were not involved in the preparation of the petition, but it references some City-led planning initiatives that are currently underway. The intent of this memo is to provide background information on planning topics that are identified in the petition, and to provide an overview of the effects that the petition might have. The following topics are addressed: 1. Context • Current Flood Plain Overlay District provisions • Current zoning and other city standards related to this topic Current planning initiatives 2. Petition Review • Proposed amendments to Section 20.70, Flood Plain Overlay District • Boundary changes and affected areas • Procedural requirements Reporting requirements Land use and intensity Development standards (dimensional requirements, parking) Flood protection/stormwater standards Heat mitigation standards • Proposed new Section 22.80, Green Factor • Potential effects 3. Summary of Issues This information was prepared by the Zoning and Development staff in coordination 344 Broadway with other Community Planning, Urban Design, and Environmental and Transportation Cambridge, MA 02139 Planning staff within CDD, and in consultation with staff at the Department of Public Voice: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] Works (DPW) and Conservation Commission. TTY: [phone removed] www.cambridgema.g0v

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board Current Flood Plain Overlay District Like other overlay districts, the Flood Plain Overlay District adds to and modifies the requirements of the underlying zoning districts in specified ways. This overlay district is different from most other overlay districts in that its boundaries are established by reference to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) published by the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA), instead of other zoning district boundaries, street centerlines, or lot lines. Due to its irregular shape, it encompasses all or portions of lots across various base zoning districts, and some other overlay districts (including the Alewife Overlay Districts and Parkway Overlay District). The Flood Plain Overlay District was established in 1982, and was amended in 2010 following a revision to the FIRMs that are applicable to Cambridge. Current Requirements The current Flood Plain Overlay District applies a set of performance-based requirements and procedures intended to preserve the ability of the flood plain to carry and discharge flood waters. These requirements do not directly modify development standards regulated in base zoning, such as use, building dimensions, or parking. Procedurally, most types of development activity in the Flood Plain Overlay District require a special permit from the Planning Board - including construction of new structures (of any size), alterations to structures, and earthwork. Residential buildings with one to three units are exempt from requiring a special permit, but must still meet the overiay district requirements. Along with a general determination of conformance with applicable city planning goals and objectives, the Planning Board's approval is based on a technical analysis verifying that the project will provide compensatory storage for any displacement of water retention capacity within the 100-year flood plain, and encroachment of the floodway will not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the 100-year flood. The Applicant must provide a report from a certified engineer with the required documentation, which is reviewed by the City Engineer and Conservation Commission. Separate from zoning requirements, the Conservation Commission administers the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (310 CMR 10.0) by reviewing, permitting, and inspecting projects in or adjacent to Cambridge's wetlands, floodplains and water bodies, and plays an important role in implementing the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policy and Standards. Often, the Planning Board refers to the Commission's Order of Conditions in the conditions of the special permit. Other City Environmental Development Standards Stormwater Management Standards Stormwater management associated with development projects is regulated by different entities - Federal, state and local. The goals of these regulations are to address the quality of water runoff, the quantity of water to be handled, and the rate at which it is discharged to the receiving water body. Development projects provide opportunities to enhance stormwater management by implementing a Page 2 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board variety of strategies and techniques such as reducing the amount of impervious coverage, increasing infiltration, increasing storage during storm events, and treating water through various means before it is discharged Key stormwater requirements include the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policy and Standards, Cambridge's Concord-Alewife Stormwater Management Guidelines, Land Disturbance Regulations, Wastewater and Stormwater Drainage Regulations, and Stormwater Quality Best Management Practices. In the Alewife area, stormwater discharges to the Little River and Alewife Brook, then to the Mystic River and ultimately into the Boston Harbor. As discussed above, much of the area is located within the 100-year flood plain. While the existing public drainage system can adequately convey smaller storm events, for intense rainfalls and larger events the system surcharges can cause flooding, backups, and ponding in various locations throughout the watershed. The following is a summary of standards that the City routinely applies to development in the Alewife area, and in most cases throughout the city. • "25-to-2" Requirement: This is a Cambridge-specific performance standard that the post- development discharge hydrograph for the 25-year 24-hour rainfall event must be less than or equal to the 2-year 24-hour rainfall event pre-development. The difference in the runoff volume must be stored or recharged on site. • Post-development peak discharge rates cannot exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. This must be verified for the 2-year, 10-year, 25-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. • Loss of annual recharge to groundwater must be eliminated or minimized. • 80% of the average annual post-construction load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) must be removed. • 65% of phosphorous must be removed from stormwater being released to the receiving water bodies. • Construction-related erosion and sedimentation must be managed during construction. • A long-term operations and maintenance plan must be developed and implemented. These requirements are typically met through a variety of measures, including infiltration systems, porous asphait, bio-retention areas (including rain gardens), green roofs, proprietary media filters, deep sump catch basins, on-site stormwater storage, and others. Regular maintenance and documentation is required to ensure that the improvements continue to function as designed. It is important to note that stormwater management is different from compensatory flood storage (as required in the 100-year flood plain), which is in turn different from protecting against future sea level rise and storm surge flooding. Though all these issues are affected by climate change, they are distinct concerns that require different approaches to be appropriately addressed. Zoning and City Ordinances The Zoning Ordinance, sometimes along with other city ordinances, contains other provisions that relate to environmental development standards, including the following: Page 3 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board Green Building Review requirements (Section 22.20). These are based on the LEED rating system, which includes standards for heat island reduction and rainwater management. Requirement for a Tree Study and compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 8.66 of the Municipal Code) for development subject to review under the Project Review Special Permit, Multifamily Special Permit, or Townhouse Special Permit authority. Compensation for significant tree removal must be provided by replacing the equivalent tree caliper on-site or contributing to a public tree planting fund. • Requirements for green area and/or permeable open space through the base or overlay zoning district requirements. Current Planning Initiatives Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency (CCPR) Plan The City's CCPR Plan is based on some key concepts and facts, summarized as follows: Plan Ahead for a New Climate: The climate is already changing and the best science tells us that it will continue to change in a warmer and wetter direction and probably those changes will accelerate. Climate change requires the city to plan ahead for different patterns of temperature, humidity, precipitation, and sea level than those that have occurred in the past. Climate is a Moving Target: Because climatic patterns are no longer stable, there is no one set of average factors for temperature, humidity, precipitation, and sea level that can be assumed. Communities now have to plan for different conditions at different time scales. This is difficult and complex because the amount and pace of change depends very much on how much carbon pollution is emitted and accumulates in the atmosphere. Climate Projections: The City chose to take a rigorous, science-based approach to plan for climate change. A Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA) was conducted first, in 2015, to serve as the technical foundation for the CCPR Plan. Working with climate scientists, the CCVA projected temperature, humidity, and precipitation rates for a near-term (2030) and long-term (2070) climate scenario. The National Climate Assessment was used for assumptions about sea level rise. The scenarios also took into account how these projections might differ if global carbon emissions follow a low- emissions (based on the Paris climate agreement targets) or high-emissions scenario. For 2030, the emissions track does not make much difference in the projections. However, for 2070, the projections diverge based on the low and high emissions tracks. Projected Impacts: The climate projections were used with other data and modeling techniques to map impacts. The CCVA mapped urban heat islands, urban street and riverine flooding, and storm surge flooding. The projected impacts, which were made assuming that no action is taken to manage them, found: • The number of days over 90 degrees Fahrenheit will increase from an average of 11 days per year to over 30 days by 2030. By 2070, about two-thirds of the summer could be over 90 Page 4 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board degrees. With more days over 90 degrees, the frequency and duration of heat waves (i.e., 3 or more days in a row over 90 degrees Fahrenheit) will increase. Urban heat islands will expand and become more intense. . Riverine and street flooding from precipitation will expand and deepen. • Storm surge flooding related to sea level rise will become a new risk in Cambridge by about mid- century and particularly impact the Alewife/Fresh Pond area. The CCVA also provided some insights into the character of the climate risks Cambridge faces. Key points include: • Heat vulnerability is the more imminent risk. The urban heat island effect can add 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit to ambient air temperatures. • The Charles River Dam and Amelia Earhart Dam (on the Mystic River) effectively protect Cambridge from sea level rise and storm surge flooding until about mid-century, if sea levels rise about 1.5 feet by then. • The duration of flooding, for both storm surge and precipitation events, is likely to be relatively short, probably on the order of a day. This depends on the continued operation of pumps at the two dams. If the pumps fail, then the duration and extent of flooding may be greater. • The Alewife area is the most exposed to future storm surge flooding risks. • Storm surge flooding will carry salt water, which creates additional risks for physical structures and electrical systems. • Flooding will carry biological and chemical contaminants from sewer overflows and ground- based contaminants. • Storm surge flood risks are a regional problem. CCVA as Climate Stress Test: With the impacts mapped, the City conducted a "climate stress test" to gauge what would happen to Cambridge physically and socially if it experiences more heat and more water under current conditions. Key physical assets, such as infrastructure and critical community facilities, and demographic data were overlaid onto the climate impact maps to rate and rank their relative vulnerability to climate change impacts. The assets and neighborhoods with higher vulnerability were prioritized for the CCPR Plan. Planning for Climate Risks: There are some key points to keep in mind as Cambridge plans for climate change impacts: • Planning for climate risks involves reducing projected risks where possible and increasing resilience to remaining risks. For example, storm surge flood risks could be reduced by installing downstream berms and barriers. Urban heat islands can be reduced by reducing impervious surface area and adding vegetation and shading. • While there tends to be a focus on disasters, changes to average daily conditions must be considered. For instance, the number of cooling degree days (i.e., the number of days that buildings need air conditioning) are expected to exceed heating degree days around mid- century. There will also be implications for outdoor thermal comfort, vegetation management, and other issues. Page 5 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al, Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board • Existing buildings face significant exposure to climate risks. • Redevelopment offers the opportunity to improve the resilience of properties that are currently at risk. Retrofitting properties can be more challenging. • Flood risks cannot be completely eliminated by storage, conveyance, and barriers. • The cost of business disruption exceeds property damage. • Nothing can be done directly to reduce ambient air temperatures, but the amplifying effect of urban heat islands can be reduced. • To be effective in reducing urban heat islands and mitigating stormwater runoff, green infrastructure needs to be deployed at sufficient scale and in appropriate locations. • Some neighborhoods and populations are more vulnerable to climate change impacts. Social factors such as income, age, language spoken, living alone, and health can affect vulnerability. Greater social resilience involves improving the economic status of individuals and households and building stronger social connections. CCPR Strategies: To create a citywide plan, the City is first developing two neighborhood-scale plans to inform the citywide plan. A plan has been drafted for Alewife and the process to develop a plan for The Port is underway. The CCPR Plan is being organized around four categories of strategies: (A) Prepared Community (i.e., social and economic resilience), (B) Adapted Buildings, (C) Resilient Infrastructure, and (D) Resilient Ecosystems. Implementation methods for these strategies will include regulations, incentives, education, capacity building, public infrastructure, and regional collaboration. CCPR Actions: While the development of the CCPR Plan is in progress, actions are being taken: • Cambridge is working with the 14 other cities and towns that have joined the Metro Mayors Climate Preparedness Agreement. A regional scale plan is being developed for the Mystic River corridor to reduce storm surge risks and Cambridge has worked with Somerville to advocate for a design of Draw 7 Park in the Assembly Square area adjacent to the Amelia Earhart Dam to raise elevations to block storm surges in the future. The City is assessing opportunities on the Everett side of the dam for similar opportunities. Cambridge has also participated on an advisory committee for the Climate Ready Boston plan for a storm surge barrier at the Schrafft Center site that would help protect eastern Cambridge. • The Public Works Department is beginning construction of a major storm water storage facility in The Port to reduce precipitation driven flooding. • As part of the Fresh Pond Reservation improvements, the hummocks along Fresh Pond Parkway have been elevated to the 20701% annual flood elevation to serve as a possible flood barrier to protect Fresh Pond. • The process for the first Urban Forest Master Plan for Cambridge has been launched, which will develop a detailed strategy to maintain the city's existing tree canopy and expand it. • The City is engaging institutional, commercial, and residential property owners and developers through the Compact for a Sustainable Future. All CCVA data is shared to inform the development of resilience plans for campuses and other private land. MIT is in the process of modeling campus flood risks using the same methods as the City. Harvard has modified recent Page 6 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board construction projects based on CCVA flood risk data. The City is also engaging with the MBTA, Eversource, and DCR on climate resilience planning. • The Compact is working with its members to foster stronger business continuity planning. For example, a tabletop exercise was held based on CCVA scenarios and focused on the potential for disruptions to business operations to inform planning for increased resilience. • The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has designated Cambridge under its Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program. The City was awarded an $118,000 MVP Action Grant to implement resilience projects. New Development Standards: While the CCPR process is underway, the development review process allows the City to work with developers to reduce the likelihood and impacts of future flooding along with meeting the water management standards described further above. This process has provided an opportunity to implement key recommendations from the CCPR as they have been developed. For example, an "Alewife Preparedness Handbook" was created through the CCPR process to provide guidelines for protecting against flood risk. The handbook contains the following guidelines for new buildings, which have been incorporated into the project review process for development in the area and have been integrated into the designs of recently-approved buildings in Alewife: • "Build / protect" based on the 2070 10-year (10% annual probability) flood elevation from precipitation or sea level rise / storm surge, whichever is higher. In most cases, this means locating occupied space above the 10-year flood level. "Recover" based on the 2070 100-year (1% annual probability) flood elevation from precipitation or sea level rise / storm surge, whichever is higher. This means employing flood resistant design and construction standards below the 100-year flood level, and often means locating uses with a higher sensitivity to flooding - including dwelling units, mechanical systems, and some utilities - above the 100-year flood level. Through the CCPR process, the City has also created an online FloodViewer, which allows residents and property owners look up the present-day, 2030, and 2070 projections for 10-year and 100-year flood elevations due to precipitation and sea level rise / storm surge for a particular site. Additional information about Climate Change Preparedness & Resilience planning is available on the CDD web site. Envision Alewife The CCPR planning process is being conducted in parallel with the "Envision Cambridge" citywide comprehensive planning process. As with the CCPR, an early phase component of Envision Cambridge is an area plan for the Alewife neighborhood, called "Envision Alewife." The process is being led by CDD along with consultants Utile and an "Alewife Working Group" comprised of residents and stakeholders, which had its most recent meeting in May of this year. As a comprehensive planning initiative, the Envision Alewife study covers a broad range of planning topics, including land use, economic development, housing, transportation and mobility, public space, Page 7 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board and urban design. The key objective that has emerged through this process is to create an identity and sense of place for the whole Alewife District in the following ways: • Better integrate the district with the rest of the city through new walking and biking paths, streets, and open spaces. Ensure that both new development and existing infrastructure, neighborhoods, and community resources are prepared for climate change, in particular the chalienges of flooding and heat. Encourage forms of development, a mix of uses, and a range of improvements that will facilitate and encourage walking, biking, and transit use and reduce the growth of vehicular trips. Ensure that new development benefits the adjacent residential neighborhoods by introducing new amenities and services and creating neighborhood destinations. There has been extensive coordination between the CCPR process and Envision Alewife process, in order to ensure that the recommendations related to climate change preparedness and resiliency are considered as an integral component of the City's other planning goais for the area. One particular benefit of this coordination is that it provides an opportunity to consider the urban design impacts of new climate change mitigation strategies. One of the ongoing issues in Alewife has been the tension between the area's current urban design guidelines, which encourage buildings with active uses meeting the street, and the City's climate change preparedness standards, which often result in built spaces being raised above grade. The Envision Alewife study has considered both of these issues and has recommended approaches to building design that are intended to serve both objectives. For example, in the Quadrangle area, Envision Alewife recommends a uniform "ground floor" elevation of 4 feet above grade, so that new buildings are built at a consistent level that is above the recommended flood elevation, and recommends sloped front yards or raised plinths (as opposed to exposed parking or other building structure) to promote visual and physical connections between the public street and ground floor spaces. Other measures are being considered to encourage a mix of uses in the area, including light industrial uses in the parts of the area where such uses still exist, while also mitigating climate change impacts. The latest zoning recommendations from the Envision Alewife process can be viewed in a presentation online. Page 8 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board Proposed Amendments to Section 20.70, Flood Plain Overlay District Boundary changes and affected areas Currently, the Flood Plain Overlay District is coterminous with Zones A and AE (i.e., the "100-year" or 1% annual probability flood) as delineated on Middlesex County FIRMs. The petition proposes to expand the boundaries of the Flood Plain Overlay District by adding the following areas (see proposed additions to Section 20.72): Zone X (500-year / 0.2% annual probability flood) as delineated on Middlesex County FIRMS. Areas identified as having 1% annual ("100-year") probability of flooding due to precipitation in 2070 according to the City's Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA). • Areas identified as having 0.2% annual ("500-year") probability of flooding due to sea level rise or storm surge in 2070 according to the CCVA. The attached maps attempt to illustrate these combined boundaries, using information provided by the City's engineering consultant for the CCVA. According to the maps, roughly 6,000 of the roughly 13,000 land parcels in the city (about 46%) would lie partly or wholly within the proposed Flood Plain Overlay District. These parcels, in total, comprise just over 70% of the city's total land area. in some cases, only a small portion of the parcel intersects with the district, and it is not clear whether some of the proposed requirements would apply to the entire parcel or to the portion that is within the proposed boundaries. The current Flood Plain Overlay District boundaries intersect with 261 parcels (approximately 2% of total). As discussed further below, some of the procedural requirements of the Flood Plain Overlay District (in its current and proposed versions) differ for single-family, two-family, or three-family residential lots. Roughly 4,000 of such lots intersect with the proposed boundaries, or about 43% of the roughly 9,000 such lots in Cambridge. Among other types of parcels, roughly 2,000 out of 4,000 (about 50%) intersect with the proposed boundaries. The proposed overlay district boundaries cover various other base and overlay zoning districts across the city; the current Flood Plain Overlay District affects only a small number of other districts. By adding new requirements across a broader set of other zoning districts, it can be more difficult to assess the full range of impacts, since it is necessary to compile the requirements of all base and overlay zoning districts in order to determine what is required for a particular lot. The proposed boundaries are based on modeling projections that were intended to provide information about the relative flood vulnerability of particular sites (for example, through the aforementioned FloodViewer tool), and as a result, the boundaries are not as clear or precise as other zoning boundaries. It could be difficult for property owners to determine whether or not they are affected, and there could be further uncertainty if the models are revised over time. Also, the proposed boundaries combine areas that currently perform the function of carrying and discharging flood waters, areas that are at risk of future flooding due to precipitation, and areas that are at future risk of storm surge flooding, categorizing all such areas as a "flood plain." As noted above, Page 9 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board these different types of flooding require different approaches for protection and mitigation, and grouping them into a single category could result in the application of standards that are not appropriate to the type of flooding that is anticipated in a given area. Procedural requirements The petition would continue to require a Planning Board special permit for nearly all types of construction activity on a lot, including small and large structures, substantial modifications, and earthwork (Section 20.73). By expanding the boundaries of the district, many additional cases could require Planning Board review. Because there is significant time and expense involved in seeking a Planning Board special permit, property owners might be discouraged from making smaller improvements if they are not necessary or would not significantly increase the value of the property. This could also create additional permitting hurdles for projects intended to improve climate change resiliency, such as flood control berms and pavement removal. As is currently the case in the Flood Plain Overlay District, single-family, two-family, and three-family residences would not be required to seek a special permit from the Planning Board. However, they would need to meet the existing and proposed standards otherwise applicable in the district (Current Section 20.73.1). The petition states that a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) would be needed to diverge from the district standards, and proposes uniqué standards for granting such a variance. This raises potential concerns because the standards for a variance are based in state law. It is more common for overlay districts to allow the Planning Board to permit divergences from district standards, if Planning Board review is required. Otherwise, many cases would require both Planning Board and BZA review, increasing the length and uncertainty of the permitting process. The petition retains the requirement for Conservation Commission review of a proposal (current Section 20.74.1, with additional provisions in proposed Section 20.75, paragraph 7). Within the current boundaries, projects in the Flood Plain Overlay District also fall within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission, but under the proposed boundaries, Conservation Commission reports would be required for projects that are not within the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction. Reporting requirements The petition adds a list of additional required reports (Section 20.75, paragraph 8) for development in the Flood Plain Overlay District, including a site hydrology report detailing impacts on surrounding properties, a report on soil/groundwater testing for potential contaminants, a stormwater plan, an emergency plan, and a tree study. The stormwater plan and tree study are already required in some form for projects requiring a Project Review Special Permit; however, these would not currently be required for smaller improvements or alterations. These reports are provided to the Planning Board, but it is generally within the purview of the Department of Public Works (DW) to determine whether the project conforms to the applicable standards. Fage 10 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board The other proposed reports, while not currently required, have sometimes been requested by the Planning Board for particular projects. Emergency plans would normally be reviewed by city departments rather than the Planning Board to determine whether applicable guidelines are being met. Reports on soil conditions have been requested on rare occasions; however, soil remediation is regulated by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and it is not specified in the petition how these reports would factor into the Planning Board's review of a project. From a land use planning perspective, the existing soil conditions are the same regardless of what new uses are proposed, and it is through the development process that many contaminated sites are likely to be remediated. As with the procedural requirements, the cost and effort required to produce these reports might be prohibitive in the case of smaller-scale construction, improvements, or alterations. Land use and intensity The petition does not explicitly change the allowed uses in the Flood Plain Overlay District, and does not change the allowed scale and intensity of use, which is usually regulated by Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limitations in the base or overlay zoning. However, the proposed requirements could have substantial indirect impacts on use. The petition (Section 20.721, paragraph 2) would prohibit what are described as "Flood Design Class 4" structures, which include hospitals, fire/police stations, emergency vehicle parking, emergency shelters, emergency operation centers, power generating stations and other public utilities, fuel or water storage tanks, as well as facilities with "hazardous materials." This could create a non-conformity issue for some existing facilities that are affected by the proposed expansion of the overlay district - for example, Fresh Pond Reservation, which contains the City's water treatment facilities. There are other elements of the petition that could have indirect impacts on allowed uses. For instance, provisions related to "hazardous storage and waste" (proposed Section 20.720) prohibit materials including benzene, chlorine, and "other such materials as determined by the relevant City authority," and prohibit storage below flood levels of unspecified "larger quantities" of substances including petroleum products. These limitations could affect laboratories, fuel stations, the City's water treatment plant, and other existing uses throughout the affected area. Proposed restrictions on unsecured materials could impact existing businesses that store building materials on-site. There could also be significant impacts on the viability of future industrial uses, which have been identified through the Envision Alewife process as a priority for economic development in the "Quadrangle" area. Development standards The petition proposes new prescriptive development standards, which are not included in the current Flood Plain Overlay District, It is difficult to assess the full range of effects of these proposed new standards, since they would need to be applied along with existing base and overlay district standards for each individual lot. However, staff have attempted to summarize the proposed changes below. The impacts can greatly differ depending on the particular location and characteristics of a lot. Page 11 of 18 June 21, 2018

• Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Meno to Planning Board Yards (Setbacks), Open Space, and Trees The petition proposes new requirements for setbacks (Section 20.77), open space (Section 20.710, permeable area (Section 20.711), and tree canopy coverage (Section 20.712) that would, in most cases, be more restrictive than base zoning. Within the base zoning districts, these standards tend to vary in order to fit the expected patterns of development in that district. A single, uniform set of standards across a large area could have unanticipated effects on those development patterns, particularly in higher-intensity districts. The table below relates the proposed standards to the range of standards applicable in other districts. Proposed Zoning Current Zoning (Overview Only) Standard 25 feet Mostly determined by formula based on building Setbacks height and length; front yard ranges from 5 feet (high density) to 25 feet (low density) in residential districts; sometimes zero in commercial districts. 15 feet minimum (front) in Alewife Overlay Districts. 30% Ranges from 10% (high density) to 50% (low Open Space density) in residential districts; sometimes zero in commercial districts. 15% minimum in Alewife Overlay Districts. 30% • Permeable Area Ranges from 5% (high density) to 25% (low density) in residential districts; sometimes zero in commercial districts. 25% minimum in Alewife Overlay Districts, may be reduced if Concord-Alewife stormwater guidelines are met. 30% canopy coverage Trees Some development requires mitigation for tree removal per Tree Protection Ordinance; some districts require street tree plantings. While there are benefits to increasing open space, permeable area, and vegetation, there might be challenges in meeting all of these proposed standards on a given lot. For example, a 25-foot setback requirement would be much more difficult to meet on smailer lots than on larger lots. It also might not be practical to accommodate equal amounts of tree canopy coverage and open space on a lot, given that it is not clear how tree canopy coverage would be measured - at the time of establishment or accounting for future growth - and the density of tree coverage could interfere with some of the functional requirements proposed for the open space on a lot, which are discussed further below. Page 12 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board There would also be conflicts between the proposed 25-foot setback requirement and the urban design standards being recommended through the Envision Alewife process, which suggests a vision for urban development where buildings create a more continuous street frontage and engage more directly with streets and public spaces, similar to historic development in other parts of Cambridge. The goal is to foster a pedestrian-friendly realm that promotes street-level activity. Another proposed standard (Section 20.712) would require a "tree hearing" for removal of existing trees above 6" caliper. It should be noted that the removal and replacement of trees on private property is currently controlled by the Tree Protection Ordinance, which is referenced in the Zoning Ordinance but is a separate chapter of the Municipal Code. The City has hired a consultant and appointed a study committee to develop an Urban Forestry Master Plan, using a data-oriented process to make recommendations on a range of measures, including potential changes to the Tree Protection Ordinance. A "tree hearing," as it is commonly known, refers to the requirements of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 87 for the removal of public shade trees, but not trees on private property. Building Elevation and Height One way that the petition addresses flood risk is through requirements for the elevation of structures and certain building functions in relation to modeled flood elevations. There are several different standards referenced in different sections of the petition, including the following: • The following areas must be above the "highest" 500-year flood elevation: lowest finished fioor of interior space, critical mechanical and utility systems, emergency building access/egress, hazardous/volatile materials storage "including fuel in vehicles," utility shut-offs and disconnects (Section 20.75, paragraph 10). • The lowest floor must be elevated two feet above the 500-year flood elevation (Section 20.714). • Critical facilities must be elevated three feet above the 500-year flood elevation (Section 20.714). • Ground floor ceiling heights must be 15 feet or higher (Section 20.715). Residential units must be located on the second floor or higher (Section 20.715). These overlapping standards are not consistent in all cases. Although it is generally assumed that the most restrictive standards would control, the inconsistencies may cause confusion. It is also not specified in some sections which "500-year flood elevation" is being referenced. In general, these standards take a similar approach to the guidelines being developed through the CCPR process by recommending that certain measures be taken to protect and recover from different anticipated flood levels. However, the proposed flood levels and resulting elevations are significantly higher than the City's recommendations based on the latest vulnerability models and preparedness plans (described on pages 4-5). The 0.2% annual (500-year) anticipated 2070 flood levels due to sea level rise and storm surge are not currentiy available for each lot using the FloodViewer tool, so it is difficult to make a precise comparison. To provide some illustration, in the Alewife Quadrangle area, the 0.2% (500-year) elevations can be over one foot higher than the 10% (10-year) elevations, which are the City's recommended "protect" Page 13 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board elevations. Based on the CCPR guidelines, Envision Alewife has recommended building ground floors at a uniform 4-foot elevation above grade. Per the petition, if the lowest floors are required to be 2 feet above the predicted 0.2% annual levels, the lowest floors of buildings could be required to be more than 7 feet above grade. The proposed prohibition on "fuel in vehicles" below the 500-year flood elevation could be interpreted to require the lowest levels of any structured parking to be built several feet above grade, which could make it more difficult to provide access and egress. It would also result in structures with enclosed or unenclosed empty space at grade. Requiring the elevated lowest floor to have a minimum 15-foot height, and allowing residential units only on the second floor, would require any residential space to be even further separated from the ground ievel. As well as creating limitations on new development, these standards could make many properties non- conforming. In existing neighborhoods, all residential ground floors would become non-conforming, even if those ground floors are above anticipated flood levels. Bringing existing structures into conformance would require extensive alterations in many cases. The effects of these standards would also be in tension with the city's urban design objectives, which encourage pedestrian-friendly streetscapes with active uses on the ground floors, and parking located below-grade or shielded from view where possible. Like the proposed setback and open space requirements, these standards would also conflict with the Envision Alewife urban design objectives by further separating occupied spaces from the public realm. The petition does provide a form of relief by allowing building heights to be "measured relative to grade or 500-year flood elevation" and by allowing existing buildings to be raised "by right" to meet the proposed standards (Section 20.714). The Planning Board would be allowed to waive other applicable height limitations if other requirements (including FAR limitations) are being met (Section 20.728). In cases where such relief could be practically used, it is likely to result in a wide variation in potential building heights, depending on the dimensions of lots. Along with setback and open space requirements, it could result in a "tower in a park" pattern of development that varies from the city's current urban design objectives, which prefer pedestrian-friendly buildings with active ground floors, as well as the specific urban design outcomes suggested by the Envision Alewife process, which imagines a more continuous urban street frontage. Some limitations of the building code might also make it infeasible or impractical to apply this relief - for instance, even if the zoning definition of building height is altered, the building code would still impose limitations based on the measurement of height from grade. Parking and Access The petition proposes waiving requirements for parking and establishing maximum limits (Section 20.718), which is also the overall approach recommended in the Envision Alewife plan. The proposed maximum parking ratios of 0.5 space per unit for residential uses and one space per 1,500 square feet (or 0.66 space per 1,000 square feet) for non-residential uses are lower than the Envision Alewife recommendations of 0.75 space per unit and 0.5 to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet (depending on the Page 14 of 18 June 21, 2018

Dougias Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board exact use type), respectively. While there is consistency in the overall goal of lowering the amount of parking, a potential concern is that setting the limits too low in relation to market demand could make redevelopment economically undesirable, and incentivize property owners to retain their existing parking facilities rather than redevelop them. The petition also prohibits development on "dead-end roads" and requires "direct and contiguous dry land access" to sites (Section 20.722). These requirements may be difficult to enforce, because they are not conditions that would be under the property owner's control. The petition allows some relief if rescue can be provided by "wheeled vehicles" or shelter-in-place options are available for the duration of a flood event, but the intensity of such an event is not specified. Flood protection/stormwater standards Many of the proposed dimensional standards discussed in the prior section are intended to address flood risk. The petition also proposes some performance-based standards in addition to those applicable in the current Flood Plain Overlay District. A general issue with this approach is that the current requirements of the Flood Plain Overlay District - to provide compensatory flood storage and not to impede the flow of flood waters - might not be applicable or reasonable in areas where the main concern is flooding due to precipitation or storm surge. The proposed standards requiring building sections below the 2070 1% flood elevation be designed to "recover" from a flood event, and requiring flood resistant design and construction measures for sections of buildings below that elevation (Section 20.715), are generally consistent with recommendations developed through the CCPR process. Some requirements would add performance standards to the required open space and permeable components of a site, including a minimum depth of "structural soil" (Section 20.711) and the requirement that at least half of compensatory flood storage be provided within the open space, because "underground storage tanks have fixed volumes that cannot receive additional flood water in flood events larger than accommodated by the design and cannot adapt to increased flooding volumes caused by changes in climate" (Section [20].716). The petition would further require that "any fixed volume structure used for the remaining compensatory storage shall be 50% larger than the volume it is required to hold as required by Section 20.75(2)," along with other specific provisions whose practicality and effectiveness would need to be examined (Section [20].716). Dimensionally, these requirements would add to, and in some cases might impact the feasibility of, the proposed requirements for setbacks, open space, permeable area, and trees. In addition, while open space, trees, and vegetation can provide benefits for water management and heat island mitigation, they do not necessarily provide greater capacity than other methods. "Green infrastructure" solutions may have distinct advantages, but they still have limited capacities, the same as other types of infrastructure. These capacities can be further constrained by high water tables and slow- percolating soils, which are characteristic of areas like Alewife. Furthermore, as noted previously, it is important not to conflate the issues of compensatory flood storage, stormwater management, and storm surge protection, which require different infrastructure solutions. These measures would not necessarily mitigate storm surge flooding. Page 15 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board The petition would require a special permit to install permanent flood barriers, berms, levees, walls, gates, or other flood control structures," due to potential adverse impacts on neighboring properties (Section 20.719). This provision could impact the City's ability to install flood control measures that are in the public interest and might otherwise serve the objectives of the petition, such as protection of Fresh Pond or area-wide protective measures. Heat mitigation standards The aforementioned requirements for setbacks, open space, and tree canopy are also intended to provide mitigation from the urban heat island effect. While maximizing vegetation and minimizing pavement are noted as effective ways to lower temperatures, it is important to consider whether the total set of requirements can be met in a practical way, or if the requirements would discourage redevelopment that might improve the current condition of lots that contain surface parking or other large non-vegetated areas. The petition provides for some non-vegetated cooling measures by requiring "cool roofs" (Section [20].717), which are recommended by the Envision Alewife and CCPR plans and have been required in other areas of the city. Other non-vegetated cooling measures, such as shading devices, are not referenced in the petition, but there are some current provisions in Article 22.000 of the Zoning Ordinance. The most novel approach included in the petition is the proposed "Green Factor" calculation (Section 20.727 and Section 22.80, discussed further below), which addresses the objective of urban heat island mitigation by evaluating the amount and type of vegetation on a lot. However, because there are still many questions about the specific values and factors involved in the calculation, it is not clear what the effect of a "0.35 Green Factor Score" would mean in terms of practicality or effectiveness in meeting the city's objectives. Proposed New Section 22.80, Green Factor Conceptually, the "Green Factor" section of the petition would be an innovative approach to quantifying various natural features that promote environmental sustainability on a developed lot. It proposes an accounting system that would evaluate green space (of varying soil depth), plantings, trees, green roofs, vegetated walls, native species, pervious paving, harvested rainwater irrigation, rain gardens and bio- retention areas, and urban agriculture. As proposed, the "Green Factor Score" is essentially a weighted average combining the quantity and quality of vegetated areas and other natural features on a lot, and dividing by the total area of the lot. In some ways it is similar to the "open space ratio" calculation in zoning, except that instead of simply dividing total open space area by total lot area, it gives more "weight" to open space areas with more plantings, trees, water retention features, or other preferred characteristics. It also provides a way to account for green roofs and vegetated walls, which are not counted in current zoning definitions of open space. Page 16 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board This approach has been used in other communities. Most notably, the City of Seattle's web page contains helpful information about their Green Factor calculation and how it has been applied. The City of Somerville, MA, is also proposing a Green Factor as part of its zoning ordinance overhaul. The specific provisions of the current petition appear to be modeled after the Somerville proposal, though there are some differences. Potential Effects The petition would insert the "Green Factor" section into Article 22.000 of the Zoning Ordinance, which also contains the Green Building Requirements and other sustainable design and development standards. The petition would require the calculation of a "Green Factor Score" for all development subject to the Project Review Special Permit requirements. However, except in the Flood Plain Overlay District (as noted above), no specific standard or "target" score is proposed. Because the calculation combines many complex and varied components to arrive at a single value, the most challenging issue is to assess whether the different factors are calibrated to provide values that are meaningful and that produce desirable and practical outcomes. It would be helpful to learn more about the reasoning that led to the factors and values being proposed. Some other key questions to explore include the following: • Do the proposed multipliers for various "green factors" align with the city's environmental and resiliency objectives? For example, is it appropriate for vegetated walls to be given more weight than green roofs? Are there factors that aren't included that should be accounted for? • Can the proposed formulation be applied equally across all lots? For instance, if preservation of existing trees is given significant weight, does it become too onerous for a lot with no existing trees to meet the same standard? • How would the Green Factor Score relate to other, prescriptive zoning requirements, such as open space and permeability ratios? Would the prescriptive requirements determine the majority of the Green Factor Score? If so, would this provide enough of an incentive to achieve better quality outcomes? Additional study would also be needed to determine how to apply and administer these standards. For example, the City would need to develop landscape "eligibility and quality standards" for plantings and would need to provide a way to determine "tree canopy at maturity" for various different tree species. Page 17 of 18 June 21, 2018

Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board Summary of Issues While the subject matter of this zoning petition is related to the work of the City's Climate Change Preparedness & Resiliency (CCPR) planning effort, the specific proposal raises many potential concerns that deserve careful consideration, including the following: • Expanding the Flood Plain Overlay District in the manner proposed would greatly increase the number of parcels that are partly or wholly within the district, from about 261 to 6,000 or more (around 46% of all parcels in the city), making many more properties subject to new requirements and lengthy permitting procedures for nearly all types of construction activity, including new construction, alterations, and earthwork, at both large and small scales. Because the proposed district boundaries are based on estimated projections, rather than precise reference lines, there could be uncertainty as to what exact areas are included in the district and how changes to those projections might affect zoning requirements in the future. • The new development standards proposed for the expanded Flood Plain Overlay District would impose many new requirements for land and buildings that are more restrictive than current zoning and the development guidelines developed through the CCPR process thus far. These standards could result in many non-conforming conditions for existing buildings and lots. • For new buildings and uses, the proposed standards could be prohibitive for uses that are otherwise allowed in the base districts and might not be feasible for many types of new construction. The uncertainty of the petition's impacts might stop or delay projects that are currently in process, even small-scale construction or alterations. The proposed standards would also diverge from some of the city's general urban design objectives, such as encouraging active ground floors. • The proposed standards may conflict with the land use and urban design objectives being developed through the "Envision Alewife" process, which include a more urbanistic "streetwall" design for new buildings and the retention of industrial uses in portions of the area. The CCPR and Envision Alewife processes are being closely coordinated so that climate change impacts and urban design can be addressed in an integrated way. • The "Green Factor" provision is an innovative idea that has some potential benefits, but further study and testing is needed to determine whether the calculations are calibrated to achieve practical results that are aligned with the City's objectives. Page 18 of 18 June 21, 2018

HITACHMENT C • BSC GROUP 803 Summer Street Boston, MA 02127 Tel: [phone removed] June 26, 2018 [phone removed] www.bscgroup.com Comments Relative to Citizen Petition to Amend the Floodplain of the Cambridge Zoning Code and Adopt Green Factor Zoning Resiliency and Sustainability are important issues of concern for all municipalities and inhabitants of the planet we live in. However the timing of the petition before you in the midst of the Envision Cambridge Master Plan Process raises certain questions The City Cambridge has been ahead of the curve and is one of the leaders in adopting and implementing measures to address climate change and resiliency (Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency Plan (CCPR), Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA) in additional to many other Initiatives). Given the leadership role the City of Cambridge has taken to date in addressing climate change, is there really an urgency or emergency which necessitates immediate action via a citizen petition? The Envision Cambridge process is a comprehensive effort including Urban Form, Economy, Climate and Environment, Community Well Being, Mobility, and Housing. The proposed zoning amendments sets forth ambitious requirements to achieve their goals and objectives from a silo perspective. It is a blunt instrument that is jumping to the front of the line and does not fully infegrate or play well with the other equally important components of the Envision Cambridge planning process and ongoing City initiatives. The language of the proposed zoning will require wordsmithing. Effective Zoning Engineers requires precise language that is transparent and predictable. In addition to Environmental wordsmithing, the proposed zoning leaves many imprecise standards starting with Scientists applicability as the flood zone area elevations are not site specific nor are the Custom Software elevations accurate as they are based on modeling. Additionally, the amount of Developers zoning splatter (the interaction and compatibility with other regulatory and zoning provisions) has not been fully realized and evaluated. Landscape Architects Others have noted the proposed zoning will have consequences which affect other Planners aspects of the urban environment such as Urban Design, Placemaking, Housing Surveyors

Diversity, Transportation, Economic Impact, Local Capacity. The city must take a comprehensive approach in its planning policies where all interests are integrated and there are no "favorite children" I urge the Planning Board and City Council to defer action on this petition to allow ongoing processes currently in place to fully analyze and formulate strategies for addressing climate change and resiliency that are integrated and in concert with other City goals and objectives and are carefully drafted and calibrated to result in regulatory provisions that are transparent and predictable. Submitted by, Ruself Bucke Russell J. Burke, AICP Director of Planning BSC Group

ATTACHMENTD Nancy Ryan 4 Ashburton Place #2, Cambridge, MA 02139 [phone removed] (h) [phone removed] (c) Testimony to the Ordinance Committee regarding the Climate Safety Zoning Petition June 27, 2018 Dear Members of the Planning Board: I write as a 38-year resident of Area 4 / the Port in support of the Climate Safety Zoning Petition. You may wonder why I start out my testimony with stating my residence. This is because to my surprise and horror, I find myself living in a flood plain. I discovered this reality on July 10, 2010 when I had 37 inches of water in my basement following a sudden and violent storm that flooded our streets in and around Central Square. This was not the first flooding of my basement, but it was the worst. While the City has worked hard to contain storm water in this area, it is clear that we live in a city with several neighborhoods that are built on low-lying land that is prone to flooding and will face more challenges in the future. The Climate Safety Zoning Petition is designed to protect our city from the likelihood of more and more sizeable storms and to ensure that new housing and commercial buildings are built to minimize the impact of these storms. Permeable surfaces and green space are increased, while parking requirements are decreased. Both will address the climate issues we face as a whole. About affordable housing - we want all residents of Cambridge to live in buildings that are safe from floods and/or life-threatening heat. Do we really want to build affordable or mixed-use housing on known flood plains without careful protections? Lower income residents have few if any options if their building becomes temporarily unlivable due to significant climate impacts. As a City we can and must balance the goals of building more affordable housing, not just 20% which produces 80% market-rate units, with making certain that all our neighborhoods have taken steps to lessen the damage of an impactful storm or heat wave. The Climate Safety Zoning Petition opens the dialogue and we must have it.

ATTACHMENT E Lopez, Donna From: Carolyn Magid <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:54 PM To: City Council Clerk; City Manager copy of my testimony at the Ordinance Hearing 6/27 Subject: Hi. Here are my comments from the Ordinance Committee meeting. Thanks, Carolyn Magid My name is Carolyn Magid. Ilive (and have lived for 28 years) at 71 Reed Street in North Cambridge-just barely outside the expanded Flood Plain identified in the Cambridge Climate Safety Zoning Proposal. I see this Zoning Proposal as a common sense and relatively modest attempt to address major problems we are already facing. We know we are and will increasingly be affected by heat and flooding and rising sea levels. These zoning proposals help protect the people of Cambridge against the worst effects of these. I understand from the City staff presentation that there may be other ways to achieve these objectives and need for modification of this proposal. But I share the sense of urgency of the petitioners and am quite concerned from the City's presentation that the need to act boldly and swiftly will be lost in the weeds of zoning policies and issues about cost effectiveness, which I would note is not a "values neutral" concept. Cambridge does of course have an affordable housing problem that very much needs to be addressed. But it is wrong to suggest that we should address it at the expense of the health and safety of our community. There are reasons that groups like the Poor People's Campaign make addressing climate issues a part of their platform. Poor people (mostly the ones at the bottom of the hill) are usually the most negatively affected by adverse climate situations. Our community can and should commit to assuring the urgent health and safety needs of the City and affordable housing for those who need it. 1

6/27/2018 Heat Specch - Google Docs ATTACHMENT F KAilAsh NAKAgAwA / You know, this petition sounds like a "not in my backyard" argument. Don't develop in these areas, not in my backyard. And I think it absolutely is. What I don't want in my backyard are buildings that are built without proper heat protection. Buildings that will make my neighborhood hotter, especially with climate change. What I don't want in my neighborhood is for my grandparents to be walking around and to get heat stroke, or to pass out and fall because of this heat. However, this doesn't just affect me, it atfects all the families in this neighborhood, including families in Jackson Place, the Rindge Towers, and Jefferson Park. What I don't want is it to be unsafe for the kids and their grandparents to go outside, more days where the kids are told to stay inside because it's too hot outside. This isn't just a problem in my backyard, North Cambridge, but it's also a problem in the neighborhoods in eastern Cambridge as well, This includes the areas around the Putnam Are School, 'ahd the Truman and Villers River- Apartments. It's a problem there too, and they I get the issue with this petition - adding regulations might mean fewer affordable housing units, and we need more affordable housing. We really do need more housing for those who need it. But do we want to put these units in the hottest parts in Cambridge? The families in affordable housing can't choose which unit they get - do we want to put them where they will be in the most danger from the heat? And it's not just about those who will find new homes, it also affects existing 11ps:/docs.google.com/documemt/d/1.xa2VrtnC°hB7anu4301k49z2CbMqaRQbPy09(SVL21.8/edit

6/27/2018 Heat Speech - Google Doos affordable housing residents, in the buildings I've already mentioned, like the Rindge Towers, like the Millers River Apartments. Do we want to make their lives harder by putting new buildings without protection? Or can we have these new buildings built with heat protections such as trees and greenery, like keeping the existing residents safer while also making the new Face affordable housing units in those areas better? I've been talking about heat, heat, and heat. Why? Heat kills more people than any other type of whether problems in the US - more than hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, and tornadoes. In other places in our country there are protections for their specific problems. Florida has building regulations so that homes protect against hurricanes, California has regulations to make sure buildings are strong enough to withstand earthquakes. Why can't we have protections for the type of weather that will affect us - heat? A vote against this petition is a vote against safety for Cambridge residents, both current and future. And if our government can't protect its residents, what is it meant to do? 2/2 htlps:/idocs.google.com/document/d/1xia?VrtnC))B7aт1430Ik+9z2CbMqaRQbPyO9[SVU121_8/edit

ATTACHmENT G June 27, 2018 Dear Ordinance Committee Council members - RE: Statement of opposition to citizens' zoning petition to amend the Flood Overlay Zoning District Zone [Douglas Brown et al zoning petition] - I'm here this evening to express my opposition to many of the revisions proposed by this Petition to the existing Flood Plain Overlay District, and to the disruption to the 'Envision Cambridge' planning process, now drawing to conclusion, that this Petition asserts. - Many of the environmental protection goals of this Petition are laudable, are needed, and are, in fact, currently being pursued by the City. We all wish to insure environmental resiliency in the future. Unfortunately however, many of the petition's provisions, as currently drafted, are overly stringent, deeply flawed, and directly contradict other critical city policy goals - namely, the expansion of our much-needed housing supply in the transit-rich Alewife District, and the formulation of appropriate urban design guidelines for the redevelopment of this new city neighborhood. - Regarding the disruption to the Envision process, the City, through its three-year-long Envision, CCVA, and CCPR processes, has crafted thoughtfully coordinated environmental recommendations and urban design development standards for Alewife and other neighborhoods of the City. However, this Petition, looking at issues only through the specific lens of environmental protections, fundamentally undermines these other critical city policy goals. It seeks to supercede the good work of these three coordinated processes, and replace their balanced recommendations with a narrowly focused set of environmental rules only. If allowed to advance, it threatens the integrity of the city's entire three-year endeavor. 1

Regarding the Petition's specific recommendations: 1) Many of the petition's environmental recommendations severely undermine the ability to create much needed new housing - particularly in a transit-rich Smart Growth district such as Alewife. The Petition's overly-complex provisions and additional Special Permit procedural requirements undermine the creation of affordable housing because: a) they impose steeply increased financing and construction costs (both in dollars and in time) on housing developers attempting to meet the Petition's more stringent requirements and lengthy processes, and b) because the Petition's many dimensional requirements - such as large setbacks, increased open spaces, and land required to be set aside for surface flood water retention - when applied in combination, may severely restrict the amount of land available to provide viably-sized building footprints. In fact, on many smaller parcels in the Alewife Quadrangle, these restrictions may very well amount to a de- facto property taking. 2) The Petition's recommendations completely undermine Envision Cambridge's urban design development standards now proposed for the Alewife District as well. The Petition's setback requirements, many overlapping open space and tree canopy requirements, and restrictions on active ground floor uses are likely to result in buildings each isolated on their own lot, instead of providing the active and pedestrian-friendly continuous street environment that the city hopes to encourage. 3) The Petition vastly expands the jurisdictional territory of the existing Floodplain Overlay District from Alewife into the neighborhoods of East Cambridge, Cambridgeport, and elsewhere. Each of these neighborhoods has significantly different urban characteristics than Alewife, and their flood threats are caused by 2

entirely different reasons. Therefore, the Petition's 'one size fits all' set of rules for all these various impacted neighborhoods make absolutely no sense. And finally, 4) Many of the Petition's specific requirements - such as raising roadway elevations to insure access during flood events - would severely disrupt all the impacted Cambridge neighborhoods, would require alterations to existing private yards and properties, and would impose significant new costs on both the City and tandowners. Having said all this, the Petition certainly does have worthy provisions that make sense and that can be fully supported through the Envision Cambridge process - the requirement for green roofs, and lower required minimum parking standards for instance. By and large however, this Petition, though well-intended, is deeply flawed and should be rejected. After three years of thoughtful work, let's bring to a conclusion the carefully coordinated recommendations of the Envision Cambridge, CCVA and CCPR processes that have been long underway. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence Bluestone 18 Centre St.

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT #-I From: Jesse Kanson-Benanav < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 1:22 PM To: City Council Lopez, Donna Cc: Subject: ABC does not support Brown Petition in its current form Attachments: ABC detailed position on Brown Petition.pdf; ABC summary position on Brown petition.pdf Dear Councilors, I am writing on behalf of A Better Cambridge to reiterate our opposition to the Brown Petition on flood and heat resilience as it is currently written. This petition includes sweeping and untested requirements related to building form and site design that we believe will seriously put at risk other important community goals like the creation of affordable lomes for Cambridge families now and into the future. I say this not only as a pro-housing advocate, but as someone who works full time in non-profit affordable housing development in greater Boston and serves on the board of Just-A- Start (though I do not speak for them in this capacity). Affordable housing development is essentially a no-margin business. In his presentation to the Planning Board last night, Mr. Brown mentioned that CHA's Jefferson Park project is almost conforming with the requirements of the proposed zoning amendments; and would be in full compliance if they just added a floor here, reduced a setback there, and made some other changes that he was comfortable rattling off, but which might have the impact of adding hundreds of thousands of dollars to the project, or reducing the number of affordable homes that are included. HRI mentioned that their architect did an analysis of their 99 unit Concord Avenue project and determined that the proposed zoning would mean 40 fewer affordable homes in that project. These realities present a clear and present danger on the feasibility of affordable housing development in much of Cambridge. Climate resilience and and affordable housing should NOT be mutually exclusive. ABC agrees wholeheartedly that now is the time to have a community conversation about how we can achieve both goals simultaneously, and thanks the petitioners for jump-starting the conversation. However, I am concerned that the petition in it's present form was not crafted with full input of the community, including the affordable housing community. I believe this is demonstrated by the fact that representatives of Cambridge Housing Authority, Just-A-Start, and HRI all showed up to express their serious reservations or opposition to the petition as currently drafted. Attached to this email is both a summary and detailed description of ABC's full position on the proposed zoning. I hope to be able to address you in person at this evening's Ordinance Committee meeting; unfortunately, due to a recent death in the family I am not able to stay late this evening and have a work commitment preventing me from getting there at or before 5:30 to sign up early. Thank you, Jesse Kanson-Benanav Chairman, A Better Cambridge / www.abettercambridge.org [email removed] | @jessekb | [phone removed] 1

ABC Policy Subcommittee Position Paper on Citizens Zoning Petition to Expand Cambridge's Floodplain Overlay District and Create a New Green Factor Zoning Section 20 April 2018 I. INTRODUCTION A Better Cambridge (ABC) has had the opportunity to review the proposed citizens' zoning petition on new Floodplain Overlay District requirements and a new Green Factor zoning section to address the climate change impacts of increased flooding, stormwater management, and the increased heating of our environment. This petition's recommendations are based, in part, on both Cambridge's recent Envision Cambridge planning study and Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA), and are a sincere, but nevertheless deeply flawed effort to address the consequences of climate change identified in these two reports. Much of what is proposed in this petition deserves serious review and discussion by the Planning Board and City Council. ABC is very encouraged by their inclusion of reduced parking ratios, green roofs, and allowances for increased building heights. We support these concepts wholeheartedly and look forward to working with the proponents to strengthen these areas of the petition. However, many of the petition's environmental recommendations severely undermine other critical city policy goals, such as the creation of much-needed affordable housing. Going forward, the petition's complicated recommendations will require a much more complete understanding of the impact they may have, particularly in combination, on the viability of future building and housing development in the impacted overlay district. ABC looks forward to that discussion in the months ahead, and hopes to craft an ordinance together with all interested parties that reflects our city's shared goals of both sustainability and an affordable Cambridge. Many of the petition's goals and overly-stringent recommendations are crafted solely through the narrow lens of flood and heat buildup protections, as if other critical city needs - such as affordable housing and other environmental quality goals - are not equally important. Furthermore, many of its proposed flood mitigation measures far exceed the required remedies of our Commonwealth's own environmental regulations, which are already some of the most rigorous in the country. Such burdensome new requirements will stifle most new housing, and significantly increase costs for both property owners, developers and residents of the new units that are built. A more expensive Cambridge is not a more liveable Cambridge. Furthermore, many of the petition's recommendations seem to ignore, impede, and even economically stifle many other major recommendations and smart growth practices called for by the Envision Cambridge Plan that address these other critical needs - such as a much needed increase in the supply of new housing for our city's 1

residents - particularly in smart growth and TOD zones, such as Alewife, which are located near transit stations, both existing and proposed (a new commuter rail stop at Alewife now in the discussion stage), and major bus commuter routes. The Alewife District, particularly the Quadrangle, is one such transit-rich location that must certainly be environmentally protected, but also utilized as one of the city's last available large-scaled land resources that can help meet our critical housing needs for present and future generations. Further responsible development within transit-rich smart growth zones such as Alewife perhaps offer even greater environmental benefits and protections for our city than achieved by the petitioners' flood zone protection measures. Such Smart Zones do so by discouraging new automobile travel, thereby improving city and region-wide air quality as a consequence of such reduced trips. In this regard, the petition laudably recognizes the possibility of lowered required parking ratios for new development in such transit-rich areas, but then simultaneously restricts or impedes the viability of such new development in such advantaged locations. Any petition which proposes responsible increased flood plain protections is welcomed, but must be crafted in a way that simultaneously allows smart growth and responsible housing development to meet Cambridge's critical current and long-term housing needs. New housing construction can be built resiliently, even within flood plains. We know how to do this responsibly. Such resilient new housing construction is being successfully developed around the country, in Boston, and yes, even in Cambridge today. But overly-stringent flood plain protections and open space requirements, as many proposed in this petition, may all but economically and physically stifle new housing construction, particularly affordable housing, due to the imposition of both significantly increased development costs and dimensional restrictions. This cannot be allowed. We believe that it is feasible to achieve strong environmental protections in Cambridge while adding new economically-viable housing. And so, ABC looks forward to working with the Council, the Planning Board, city staff, the petitioners, resident groups, and other experts and stakeholders to achieve these two critical city goals simultaneously. Let's work together to achieve that draft a zoning ordinance that addresses both long-term and near-term critical concerns - such as flooding, climate change impacts and our affordable housing needs for current and future generations. II. HOW SOME PETITION MEASURES WILL STIFLE AND MAY ALL BUT PROHIBIT NEW HOUSING CONSTRUCTION IN ALEWIFE AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY 1. The petition's recommendations expand the geographical area of flood plain protections beyond Alewife to many other parts of the city that may experience flooding events in the future for a variety of reasons - including Cambridgeport and East Cambridge. If the petition's measures are passed, not only will Alewife development be severely restricted, but also much development throughout parts of Cambridgeport,

East Cambridge and other neighborhoods of the city included on the city's updated flood maps - many of which are located near transit stations and bus lines where responsible smart growth development should be allowed to occur. 2. The petition makes almost all new construction within its expanded overlay district subject to the lengthy SP / Special Permit process (with a few exceptions). As-of-right zoning within the expanded portions of the overlay will no longer be allowed. This SP requirement will add significant permitting time and money costs to land owners and future developers, not only in the Alewife District but throughout significant expanses of Cambridgeport and East Cambridge as well - particularly developers of moderately sized projects, and will contribute to the economic non-viability of these projects. 3. While some market-rate development may still be feasible (although at a much higher cost and lower density, seriously restricting the City's capacity to meet urgent housing needs), affordable housing projects will be infeasible under these regulations. In order to compete for state and federal funding, new affordable housing projects must be 40+ units (to maximize public funding, leverage economies of scale etc.). Based on high land acquisition costs throughout the City and the lack of large parcels, the petition's new requirements for increased open space, permeable land, tree cover, setbacks etc., new affordable housing development - especially non-profit affordable development - will become impossible. 4. The petition suggests setting the ground floor elevation of Class I! Critical Facilities 3 feet above future anticipated flood stage elevations. This is overly rigorous and far exceeds state environmental requirements. This proposed requirement may also encourage environmentally unfriendly building practices - such as buildings constructed on stilts - which cause buildings to generate more heat and thermal pollution - obviously not an environmentally friendly outcome. 5. The petition appears to allow construction of underground flood storage tanks and pipes to retain 50% of flood waters (the other 50% retained on ground surface via green infrastructure) during flood events so that flood waters can be retained on-site. However, the petition then requires that these storage tanks be sized 50% above their anticipated flood volume capacity. This standard far exceeds state standards and adds considerably to building construction development costs. 6. The petition restricts the amount of land that can be filled with soil on a site in order to maintain the site's existing natural flood storage capacity, and yet, then in contradiction, requires a Class Il building's ground floor to be raised 3 feet above future flood stage - which may require significant new amounts of fill. These requirements are contradictory and often will be difficult to achieve - thereby limiting the potential for viable new development. 7. The petition requires a combination of 25 foot yard setbacks for mature shade trees, plus minimum requirement for 30% open space on a site, and a minimum of 30% of lot

area for tree canopy coverage on private properties. Again, these may at first appear as admirable environmental goals, but, in fact, added together, could severely dimensionally restrict portions of a site remaining available to locate a building footprint. The likely result - many sites would become dimensionally infeasible for development. Furthermore, when reviewing the petition's new increased open space requirements on private properties, we should remember the nearby availability of existing major open spaces, networks, and park resources such as Fresh Pond - which unlike the petition's new private open space requirements, are publicly accessible to all neighbors. 8. The petition favors on-site stormwater capture and containment methodology via green infrastructure over underground tanks and pipe solutions. This preference for green infrastructure may seem to have merit. However, it ignores the fact that the provision of such on-site green infrastructure would consume much of a site's land area that would otherwise be available for building footprint - thereby significantly dimensionally restricting the amount of land available for viable building footprints. And, the deployment of such green infrastructure increases both the initial and long-term operating costs of the property. As a result of all these proposed measures, many sites could be rendered entirely unbuildable. 9. Perhaps in recognition that new housing and other uses should still be allowed to occur in the proposed overlay zone despite reduced areas for building footprints, the petition allows for increased heights beyond the existing limitations of underlying base zones. However, the petition simultaneously prohibits additional allowed density / FAR. Without additional building square footage achieved only by provision of additional density, developers will not likely have sufficient economic incentive to offset the extra development costs imposed by the petition's increased regulations. And so, not only should additional heights be allowed, but more importantly, additional density to offset the costs of increased regulatory requirements and construction. 10. The petition prohibits ground floor residential use within the Overlay. Presumably, this would still allow for ground floor retail / commercial uses in commercially viable locations and streets; and in non-commercial areas, ground-level parking beneath the building above. This prohibition, however, may lead to visually unpleasant and inactive street frontages. Where feasible, first floor residential development should remain an option in sections of the Alewife District and the Cambridgeport and East Cambridge neighborhoods. And, where economically feasible, mixed-uses should be encouraged. 11. The petition requires that the overlay zone's infrastructure and public streets be raised above future flood plain levels unless access to buildings from existing public streets can be certified safe by public safety officials during flood and storm events. This requirement to raise public streets will impose enormous future capital and fiscal costs on the city - not only throughout Alewife, but also in major parts of the existing Cambridgeport and East Cambridge neighborhoods. More incongruously, raised public streets and roadways will not work with the ground elevations of adjacent existing 4

private properties without significant alterations to those properties, if such alterations can be achieved at all. 12. The proposed section on site access (20.722) does not allow any new development on "dead-end roads." Given that much of Alewife consists of single roads that terminate, this proposal may effectively prohibit any development on these roads until Cambridge connects them into the larger street network. Therefore, in practice, this proposed zoning section may serve, in fact, as a moratorium posing as climate adaptation protections. III. SUMMARY In summary, some of the petition's provisions are certainly worthy of consideration, but many others will likely have dramatic negative impact on housing development viability and overall livability in Alewife and throughout other areas of the city, and may impede the City Council's, the CDD's and Envision Cambridge's critical smart growth and affordable housing investment goals. Again, a more expensive Cambridge is not a more liveable Cambridge. We believe that the Envision Cambridge Plan, and all the shared community effort that went into crafting it, serves as the basis for moving forward. ABC looks forward to working with all concerned parties to craft a petition achieves the important environmental goals with other critical city needs such as affordable housing - all while seeking a city of which we can all be proud. 5

ATTACHHIENI H-S A Better Cambridge takes the threat of climate change seriously, and we welcome efforts to combat the threat of increased flooding and heat over the next several decades. We believe that much of what is contained within the proposed climate overlay district zoning petition deserves serious consideration by the Planning Board and City Council. However, we worry that some of the petition's recommendations will undermine the creation of much-needed affordable housing in the following ways: Affordable housing will be less financially viable In order to compete for public funding and leverage economies of scale, new affordable housing projects nust contain at least 40 units. The high cost of land in Cambridge, combined with the proposer requirements for open space, permeable land, setbacks and tree cover, will make this difficult to achieve Some market-rate developments may still be feasible, but they will likely be more expensive and less dense. What's more, fewer units will be created under the city's most recent affordable zoning ordinance, which mandates that at least 20 percent of a housing development be affordable. It's true that the petition allows for increased building height. The authors frame this as a way for developers to compensate for the land that will be set aside for other uses. There's a catch, however: The petition prohibits adding density by raising the floor area ratio (FAR). FAR is the ratio of a building's total floor area to the size of the land on which it is built. For instance, a FAR of 2.0 allows a developer to build two floors over an entire lot (or four floors over half the lot). Though they will be able to build taller, the cap on FAR will prevent developers from adding more usable floor space — thus depriving them of an important tool to offset their costs. Buildable sites will be reduced The Alewife district is a transit-rich location that contains some of the city's last available large-scale land. If we are to meet our present and future housing needs, we must make the most of this resource. This petition reduces buildable land in a number of ways. It establishes 25-foot yard setbacks for mature shade trees and mandates that at least 30 percent of lot area receives tree canopy coverage. It also sets aside 30 percent of each site for open space. The petitioners state a preferences for using "green infrastructure" — such as planting trees and creating landscapes — to capture stormwater, rather than underground storage tanks. But where storage tanks are allowed, they are required to be 50 percent larger than anticipated flood volume capacity. Taken individually, these items may have environmental benefits, but added together they limit the areas where dense, transit-oriented development is feasible. Housing will take longer to build — if it is built at all The petition will subject almost all new construction in the Alewife District — as well as certain parts of Cambridgeport and East Cambridge — to the lengthy special permit process. This will make it much more costly and time-consuming to build new housing in those areas, particularly moderately-sized projects. Though the petitioners deny that they are seeking a moratorium on housing development, the practical effects of some of their proposals are effectively the same. For instance, Alewife consists of a number of single roads that terminate, but the petition prevents new development on "dead-end roads". This provision would effectively freeze construction until the city connects these streets into larger networks.

We must achieve both environmental protection and economic viability We know how to build resilient housing on flood plains. This is already being done responsibly around the country and in our region. But many of the petition's flood mitigation proposals far exceed the required remedies of our Commonwealth's own environmental regulations, which are some of the most rigorous in the nation. In addition, the city already has many tools at its disposal to guarantee appropriate development, including EPA and DEP regulations that this petition ignores. Overly-stringent flood plain protections and open space requirements may all but economically and physically stifle new construction, particularly affordable housing, due to higher costs and dimensional restrictions. This cannot be ignored, especially as our city faces a persistent affordable housing crisis. A more expensive Cambridge is not a more livable Cambridge. ABC believes that the authors of this petition are sincere in their efforts to address climate change, and we recognize that the massive challenges we face require an active governmental response. However, we question the timing of this petition. The city is coming close to the end of the Envision Cambridge planning process, on which it has spent millions of dollars. We believe that the results will address many of the current petition's problems. We look forward to working with all concerned parties to craft a zoning plan that protects our most vulnerable neighborhoods from rising tides, without shutting out those who wish to live here.

ATTACHMENT I Lopez, Donna Sean McFarland < [email removed]> From: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 10:58 AM Sent: City Council; Clerk; City Manager To: Subject: Regarding the Climate Safety Petition Currently Under Review Hello, My name is Sean McFarland. 1 am 31 years old and have lived in Cambridgeport near Central Sq since July of 2016. I am writing to you today in reference to the Climate Safety Petition currently under review, and motivated by both broader concern and personal anecdote, wanted to highlight two points. First, whatever is ultimately decided, I would like to compel you all to err on the side of rapid action. As a millenial and thus someone who will be living on this Earth for at least another few decades (fate-willing), I find it both surprising and alarming that despite a growing appreciation for the inevitable consequences climate change will have for coastal communities like ours, we have been slow to adopt policy that provides needed, planned resiliency. According to what I've read, we've already missed out on safeguarding somewhere in the order of a few million square feet of built or permitted development since 2006, when awareness of these vulnerabilities first came to the fore. The longer we continue to delay, the higher this number will spiral, and the greater the pickle in which we'll find ourselves when the floods do come. Second, I am very much in favor of whatever final resolution is reached having strong green space requirements, such as those mandated in this petition. I have a brother who works at a non-profit in Richmond, VA that performs a variety of functions for the city, including expansion and maintenance of its green space and tree canopy. I've talked with him about this and the data they have collected there about the impacts of urban vegetation on temperature (and thus energy consumption, use of public spaces / frequenting of store fronts, etc.), and the results are honestly staggering, with differentials up to and even exceeding 15°F between different parts of the city. Taken together, the acute catastrophic risks posed by flooding, along with the more chronic and pervasive impacts of heat islands and temperature-related phenomena, behoove us to be bold and act rapidly to secure the future of our community. While 1 may not agree with every facet of this climate safety petition, it still strikes me as a net positive step in the right direction, and I encourage you to strongly consider its adoption. Thank you for your time and consideration and all of the work that you do to make Cambridge a fantastic place to live and work! - Sean McFarland 1

ATTACHMENT I One Kendall Square, Building 600 Suite 6-105, Cambridge MA 02139 CAMBRIDGE [phone removed] | cambridgechamberorg CHAMBER Of COMMERCE [email removed] Board Chair Chris Barr June 22, 2018 Biogen Secretary Robyn Culbertson Office for Tourism Councillor Carlone, Ordinance Co-Chair Treasurer Councillor Kelley, Ordinance Co-Chair Stephen Meutier Sonog Genzyme Mayor McGovern Board Merlers Vice Mayor Devereux Alex Attia Councillor Mallon The Charles Hotel Councillor Siddiqui Brian Burke Microsof Councillor Simmons Kelly Flynn Councillor Toomey Takeda Councillor Zondervan Sarah Gallop MIT We respectfully submit these comments in response to the citizens' petition filed with the City Clerk Holly Heslop Cambridge Eats & Bears on April 5, 2018 entitled the "Brown Petition." The purpose of this letter is to share, at a high level, our overarching concerns with the proposal, which include (1) the Brown Petition's impact on City-led Sean Hope Hope Legal Services resiliency efforts and existing policies; (2) the impact of the Petition on established City urban design Jay Kiely principles; (3) the impact of the Brown Petition on market rate and affordable housing creation; and Forest City (4) legal and interpretive concerns; and (5) the potential economic impacts on tax revenue, Paul Lee affordable housing and infrastructure investment as a result of the filing of the Brown Petition. Hong Kong Restaurant Jefficy Lockwood Navartis 1. CITY-LED RESILIENCY EFFORTS Thomas Luce! Harvard Universit We recognize and strongly support the City's efforts to engage in resiliency planning and implement Joseph Maguire standards. We believe that it is important to highlight the various City efforts to-date that already Alexandria Real Estate address the goals identified in the Brown Petition. Many of us, and our organizations (along with Jim MoSweeney hundreds of Cambridge residents), have participated in the extensive efforts outlined below and CIP Group believe that they should be considered while reviewing the Brown Petition. These City-led efforts Michae) Medeiros Royal Sonesia Hotel include: Gilda Nogucira Fast Cambridge Savings Bank Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (2015) Wayne Patenaude A City-initiated examination of the increasing effects of heat, precipitation-driven flooding, storm Cambridge Savings Bank surge, and sea rise that resulted in a two-part report with detailed analysis. The assessment sought to Katherine Rafferty Mount Auburn Hospital identify Cambridge's key physical and social vulnerabilities and laid out the City's next steps in resiliency pianning. Deborab Ruha Juss-A-Start Elizabeth Schwab Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience (2018) Google Building on the City's Vulnerability Assessment, the City is working closely with the Cambridge Richard Sullivan Santander Bank community, including Harvard and MIT, to develop a citywide plan to increase the city's level of preparedness and resilience to more intense and longer heat waves, higher average temperatures, Bill Zamparelli Eversource changes in precipitation patterns and intensity, and risks from rising sea levels and storm surges from Emeritus Members coastal storms. The strategies will cover parcel, neighborhood, citywide, and regional scales. The Joe Barrell James Hawkins focus began in the Alewife area, will continue next in the The Port, and then the work will be rolled Norman Malver up into a citywide plan.

Envision Cambridge (2016-2018) A City-sponsored community-wide process to develop a comprehensive plan for a more livable, sustainable, and equitable Cambridge. One of the six pillars is "Climate and the Environment." Moving into its third and final year, the process has engaged hundreds of Cambridge residents, businesses, nonprofit organizations, students, and City officials. The two top recommendations in the climate pillar include preparing disaster preparedness plans at the neighborhood level anc incorporating green infrastructure into City sidewalk and street reconstruction projects. Net Zero Task Action Plan (2015) A City-sponsored and City Council-adopted plan that addresses reducing greenhouse gas emissions trom the bullt environment, unproving energy efficiency and conservation in existing and new buildings, supporting renewable energy generations both on- and off-site, and sharing best practices to engage and educate users and influence occupant behavior. In conjunction with the plan, City staff have just completed a Low Carbon Energy Supply Strategy study in support of the City's commitment to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Cambridge Compact for a Sustainable Future (2013) A City, MIT, and Harvard founded initiative that strives to create a more healthy, livable and sustainable Cambridge community by addressing global environmental challenges. Now boasting 19 business, institutional, governmental, and nonprofit organizational members, the Compact is addressing climate change resiliency and adaptation, building energy efficiency strategies, renewable energy purchase and storage, greenhouse gas inventories and management, transportation, and mobility business continuity in the face of extreme weather events. Requirements for Sustainable Building Development and Operations (2009, 2014, 2016) The Stretch Energy Code appendix to the state building code was adopted by the City Council in 2009 and requires greater energy efficiency in buildings than the mandatory base building code. The Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance was adopted by the City Council in 2014 and requires owners of larger buildings to report energy use to the City and to publicly disclosing the data. The Green Building Requirements, adopted by the City Council in 2016 and found in Article 22 of the Loning Ordinance, promote environmentally sustainable and energy-efficient design and development practices. The regulations apply to new construction and to renovation projects of a significant size. Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force (2018) The UFMP is a City-initiated effort to guide the development of the urban forest into the future and includes a strategic plan to evaluate, maintain and expand the urban forest canopy while being more resilient to climate change, reducing the urban heat island effect, mitigating stormwater runoff, reducing nutrient runoff, and contributing to community well-being. The UFMP will coordinate with the efforts of Envision Cambridge and the Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience Plan. In addition to this work, the Community Development Department, the Planning Board and the Board ot Zoning Appeals have made resiliency a priority for many years while reviewing applications for design review and other permits. These efforts have made a significant impact on the City's role as a recognized Icader in regard to sustainability, resiliency and climate change. 2

2. IMPACT ON URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES In addition to the City-led initiatives and referenced zoning issues, we urge that you to consider how the provisions of the Brown Petition interact with the City's well-established urban design principles participated in the creation of City-sponsored design guidelines. Recent examples of these include K2C2, Volpe and contemplated design guidelines within the Envision Cambridge process. For example, the Brown Petition appears to 1) discourage, and possibly prohibit, below-grade parking; 2) rohibit ground fioor residential and active uses; 3) increase height limits throughout Cambridg ncluding in residential neighborhoods; and 4) effectively prevent the development of open gatherin spaces and pedestrian plazas. 3. IMPACT ON HOUSING CREATION We are deeply concerned about the Brown Petition's impact on the creation of both affordable and market rate housing. As you begin the process of conducting hearings on this important subject, we ask that you look at a number of built and proposed housing development examples with relation to the Brown Petition. We urge the City to review recently built and permitted, and the financing impacts on, attordable housing developments in relation to the Brown Petition. Specific projects should include Jefferson Park, Lincoln Way, 671-675 Concord Avenue and 402 Rindge Avenue. We are also asking our members to review examples of market rate housing with significant affordable components. We hope to share this information with you in the coming months. 4. LEGAL AND INTERPRETIVE CONCERNS In addition to highlighting the City's ongoing and important resiliency work, we would also like to share some of the legal and interpretive concerns that we have with the Brown Petition as drafted. A brief overview of some of these issues is below. Establishment and Scope (Section 20.72). The Brown Petition appears to increase significantly the limits of the Flood Plain Overlay District (the "FPOD"), but is confusing in a number of instances as to whether the 2070 projected flood levels or the current FIRM flood plain elevations control. - Criteria (Section 20.75). • Compliance with City Policies. The Brown Petition requires that an applicant must "demonstrate compliance with the environmental aspects of the area-specific and city-wide environmental and land use plans and policy objectives adopted by the City and shall demonstrate how their plan meets the spirit and intent of all such documents in conjunction with the requirements of ... Section 20.70...". This language appears to give non-zoning policies, whether current or adopted in the future, the force and effect of zoning regulations without any of the process that is required for zoning amendments, • Environmental Testing Requirement. The Brown Petition includes language that requires an applicant to conduct soil and groundwater testing for contaminants as part of its submission for a Special Permit. The requirement lacks any indication as to the scope and extent of the required testing and how the results of the testing would be 3

incorporated into the review and approval process. Additionally, the language could result in an applicant having to run the risk of incurring environmental remediation obligations before a project is permitted • Below Grade Parking. The Brown Petition appears to prohibit below grade parking structures in the FPOD by requiring that an applicant certify that the storage of hazardous materials and/or volatile materials, including fuel in vehicles, are located above the highest 500-year flood elevation. It is unclear whether the language that gives the Planning Board the right to permit the storage of fuel in motor vehicles below the "base flood elevation" alleviates this prohibition, which creates confusion and would have a dramatic impact on the available, occupiable Gross Floor Area for a property if below grade parking is prohibited. - Open Space, Permeable Open Space and Tree Canopy (Sections 20.710 - 20.712). • Gross Lot Area. These Sections turn on the definition of "Gross Lot Area", which does not appear to be defined in the Cambridge Ordinance. It is unclear whether "Gross Lot Area" is intended to mean something other than "Lot Area", which is the term otherwise used for defining Open Space (and other) requirements throughout the Ordinance. Open Space Requirements. The Brown Petition requires that 30% of the Gross Lot Area of a parcel constitute Open Space, which Open Space is to be Permeable Open Space, which percentage is higher percentage than the percentage of Open Space required anywhere else in the City. It is unclear whether this requirement supersedes or replaces the requirements for other types of Open Spaces contained in the Ordinance. The increased Open Space requirement would have a significant impact on current well-established planning goals of the City. Most significantly, when taken together with the Minimum Tree Canopy requirements, the Open Space language appears to be directly at odds with the desire (and, in some instances, requirements) for large areas of Open Space that could be utilized for public programming. Additionally, it is unclear how the requirement that applicants with parcels having an area of one (1) acre or greater "submit a Neighborhood Open Space Study to help frame and justify the location and amenities of on-site open spaces" addresses the stated resiliency or sustainability goals of the Brown Petition. Tree Canopy Requirement; Tree Hearing. • 30% Requirement. The Brown Petition requires that 30% of the "Gross Lot Area" constitute a "Tree Canopy Cover", but the requirement lacks definition as to when it must be met by an applicant or a project. It could be interpreted to mean that when the project is initially constructed 30% of the lot on which it is situated must be covered by a Tree Canopy, but that would seem to indicate the need to plant mature trees in connection with a project, which would be unusual and impractical. * Tree Hearing. The requirement of a tree hearing in order to remove trees larger than a 6" caliper DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) from a parcel is unclear as it does not provide who holds the hearing or under what 4

authority it is held. This Section lacks detail any of the procedures for such a tree hearing and no mechanism exists in Cambridge, whether in Section 8.66 of the General Ordinances or otherwise, for tree hearings associated with trees situated on private property. - Freeboard (Section 20.714). This Section is unclear as to what 500-year elevation is relevant. In addition, the language is confusing as to whether the standards applicable to a building will change as FEMA updates its Flood Insurance Rate Maps over time, which would result in a number of unintended consequences for the ability of a property owner to make future changes, both internal and external, to improvements constructed on its property. Moreover, the Brown Petition attempts to alleviate the impact of these requirements by allowing an owner to add more height, but this language does not take into account the virtual impossibility of doing so based on the location of rooftop mechanics and other building appurtenances that typically reside above the top floor of a building - Storm Water (20.716). This Section of the Brown Petition is unclear as to what is meant by "new stormwater regulations" and what will apply to a project from a compliance standpoint (i.e., is this at the time the project is constructed or an on-going requirement). The same can be said for the language limiting the location of Compensatory Storage structures. - Hazardous Materials (Section 20.717). The Brown Petition appears to prohibit the storage of any hazardous materials within the FPOD and only allows storage of "extremely hazardous and reactive materials" by Special Permit from the Planning Board, and does not appear to limit these prohibitions or requirements to the areas below an applicable flood elevation. Given the proposed geographic footprint of the expanded FPOD, it is unclear whether the language would require nearly every large laboratory and/or science-based educational use in the City (whether in Alewife, Riverside or East Cambridge and whether currently existing or to be constructed and/or used in the future) to require a Special Pennit for the storage of such materials and a variance for their use. - Variances Required (Section 20.726). The Brown Petition appears to (i) only permit variations from its requirements, standards and limitations, by way of variance from the Board of Zoning Appeal, (ii) eliminate the ability for a property owner to obtain a use variance and limit the standards on which the Board of Zoning Appeal can issue a variance. This language is confusing with regard to how it squares with the general Special Permit requirements of the FPOD and leads to a number of thorny permitting and procedural questions above how an applicant can obtain a Special Permit in FPOD from the Planning Board when it may need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeal for its proposed development. The requirements of variances are established in Massachusetts law, whereas standards for Special Permits in the FPOD or elsewhere may be established locally as pianning tools. The two would easily and frequently be incongruous. Further, how could a lender ever finance a project that relied on a conclusion such as this? Green Factor (Section 20.727 and Section 22.80). The Brown Petition introduces a new zoning dimensional requirement that is referred to as a "Green Factor" and requires that properties within the FPOD have a minimum Green Factor of 0.35. The Green Factor language appears to (i) limit a property owner's ability to modify landscaping over

time and (ii) dictate how a property owner programs and utilizes Open Space, Additionally, the language is very confusing as to whether the Green Factor reguirenent applies to existing buildings if they are renovated, which would prove impractical for a number of properties within the FPOD both curently and if expanded. The provisions of Section 22.80 are prescriptive, but do not appear to define any real process for having the Green Factor approved or an owner's ability to modify its Green Factor score in the future outside of the Project Review Special Permit process set forth in Section 19.20. 5. ECONOMIC IMPACTS Commercial taxes provide two-thirds of the City's tax revenues. Large projects also provide commercial tax linkage payments to the City of Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust, inclusionary housing units, increased flood storage and infrastructure improvements as well as other community benefits. Ihe Brown Petition will significantly impede tax revenues as well as these other contributions. The City should also consider the impact of the Brown Petition on existing Planned Unit Jevelopment Overly Districts. Specifically, we are concerned about the potential impact tha dopting the Brown Petition could have on a developer's obligation to comply with the mitigation requirerents of any commitment letters that were adopted predicated on the continued viability of its PUD zoning. Lastly, it is important to recognize that as long as the Brown Petition is filed, it leaves property owners with a lack of confidence in making further investments in Cambridge. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Chris Barr, Biogen Cantoridge Resident Chair, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce On behalf of the Executive Committee: Kobyn Culbertson, Cambridge Oftice of Tourism Sarah Gallop, MIT Jay Kiely, Forest City Enterprises Jeff Lockwood, Novartis Tom Lucey, Harvard University Steve Meunier, Sanofi Genzyme

ATTACHMENTK HARVARD UNIVERSITY Rat ind The Honorable Dennis J. Carlone The Honorable Craig A. Kelley Co-Chairs Cambridge City Council Ordinance Committee c/o Cambridge City Clerk 795 Massachusetts Ave Cambridge, MA 02139 June 26, 2018 Re: Zoning petition received from Douglas Brown et al to amend the zoning in Section 20.70 Flood Overlay district and the creation of a new Section 22.80 - Green Factor Dear Chairs Carlone and Kelley: Harvard University is a leader in sustainability and has been at the forefront of modeling a multi-pronged approach to achieve lower carbon emissions, energy efficiency, and climate change preparedness. We are proud of the progress made to date that includes more LEED certified buildings than any other institution of higher education in the country, aggressive goals to reduce emissions and become fossil fuel free as well as the cutting edge research being conducted on our campus by world's leading experts in these fields. Also, we are proud of our work with leaders in Cambridge City Government to increase the resilience of the built environment to current and future climate conditions. Harvard continues to make significant investments in order to participate in current city efforts in sustainability and resiliency including but not limited to our participation in the Getting to Net Zero efforts, the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, the City's Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience planning, Envision Cambridge process, Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force, and the Cambridge Compact for a Sustainable Future. These current efforts include a wide range of community stakeholders who are working together to achieve shared goals in zoning, sustainability, climate preparedness and resiliency. It is our strong belief that these processes will address many of the stated goals of this petition. It would be prudent to move forward with those efforts that are founded in robust, inclusive public process that contains the input of community residents, the City's professional staff, institutional representatives, members of the business community and subject matter expert consultants currently working with the City. in addition to concerns about timing and process, a preliminary review of the Brown petition reveals many questions about balancing competing city priorities. We have questions about the impact on urban design goals, building access requirements, historic preservation efforts, and housing development, both market and affordable units. In addition, we question the use of the 500 year flood plain standard as this is not a recognized best practice in industry or academic research for planning or creating land use policy. Many of the proposed elements in the petition are outside the purview of zoning and include ambiguous terminology that would create challenges from a regulatory perspective. If adopted, we fear the net result of these proposed regulations will be many unintended consequences. Harvard remains committed to working with the City and all community stakeholders on the ongoing City processes, as well as developing and adopting appropriate regulatory measures that enhance the resiliency

of Cambridge's built environment. We encourage the members of the Planning Board and City Counci! Ordinance Committee to allow those processes to continue through completion rather than adopting this petition. Sincerely, r. Satiss Tanya Iatridis Them PRay Director of Government and Community Senior Director of University Planning Relations

ATTACHMENT L Lopez, Donna From: Carolyn Fuller < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 8:01 PM To: Lopez, Donna Brown Petition Subject: Chairman Carlone & Councilors, Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Carolyn Fuller. I live at 12 Douglass St in the Port and I come here today as a housing advocate, a citizen concerned about climate change and a member of A Better Cambridge to speak in opposition to this zoning petition, as it is written. Significant elements in this petition need more study by independent analysts to evaluate impacts. The authors of this petition were laser focused on a single issue, climate change resiliency, at the exclusion of all other issues, including efforts to reduce climate change. There were no attempts to collaborate with other stakeholders to find solutions that address climate change resiliency without negatively impacting other critical city goals, including affordable housing. We don't have to sacrifice affordable housing in order to address climate change. I urge the authors to work with housing advocates to find solutions that address climate change and our housing crisis. I think most of us want Cambridge to responsibly prepare for climate change but the key word here is "responsibly." Carolyn ([email removed])

ATTACHMENTM 6/2/18 To the Cambridge City Council: The Cambridge Residents Alliance supports the Climate Safety petition. It balances the need for housing with appropriate planning for climate change, so that people will have safe and healthy housing. The Cambridge Residents Alliance called in 2012 for the city wide planning process that led to Envision Cambridge. We view the petition as assisting the Envision process, not blocking it. I am a member of the Envision Housing Working Group who has argued strongly for affordable housing. I recently spoke about the Envision schedule with Melissa Peters, who heads the Envision process. She said by the end of the year, Envision will produce zoning bullet points and will conclude. The city staff will work to turn that into draft zoning. There is no schedule for how long that will take, but likely the soonest zoning would be approved is 2020. Meanwhile buildings will be built in ways that will not be safe by 2070, unless the Council enacts zoning changes. Jeff Roberts said at the Planning Board hearing yesterday that the city is "using a guideline that then becomes a requirement via the Planning Board." Instead of this informal process led by city staff, the petition seeks to create agreed standards with zoning approved by the City Council. Our city staff is skilled, and if the Council approves some version of this zoning, the staff will be able to develop urban design guidelines that accomplish the Envision goals. The quality of affordable housing is important, along with the quantity of affordable housing. People who live in affordable housing should be safe from the future heat and flood risks that we now know are coming- and we know how to make safe housing, so we should require it. I don't want to see a resident of inclusionary housing who can't afford to run their air conditioner because they are short on funds, so they suffer through 100 degree days, and possibly suffer health consequences if they are elderly have respiratory or heart issues. As we know, heat can kill; I don't want that to happen to tenants in affordable apartments. Like everyone in Cambridge, the Cambridge Residents Alliance does not want to see the renovation of the Millers River Apts. affected by the zoning petition. We believe the city councilors and staff can find a way to make the timing of the Millers River building permit and the timing of the zoning petition work out. I encourage the councilors to discuss the Climate Safety petition and propose any changes they are feel are warranted, then pass it with a favorable recommendation to the whole council. Sincerely, Lee Farris 269 Norfolk St. The Cambridge Residents Alliance: Working for a Livable, Affordable and Diverse Cambridge www.cambridgeresidentsalliance.org [email removed]

ATFACHMENTN 1 Brown Petition Testimony 6/27 Ordinance Committee Hearing Good evening Mr. Chair and members of the Ordinance Committee. My name is Sarah Gallop and I'm Co-Director of Government and Community Relations at MIT. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'd like to focus on one theme that is at the core of MIT's relationship with the City — and that's our longstanding practice of cooperative and productive engagement. Our deeply- held philosophy of collaboration is carried out in good faith, with the expectation of mutual benefit and progress in areas of joint concern. Our approach includes the active sharing of expertise and resources, and is demonstrated particularly through our collective efforts to address climate change. Nine MIT faculty members and 13 staff have been working closely with the City on a range of sustainability efforts — many of which were implemented at the direction of the City Council. For example: • Climate science Professor Kerry Emmanuel and research scientist Ken Strzepek are currently working with the City to help finalize the climate risk model and map for Cambridge. • Architecture Professor Christopher Reinhart created a solar energy tool with the City called the "Mapdwell Solar System" that allows Cambridge residents to understand the solar energy potential of their homes. • Climate science Professors Stephen Hammer and Henry Jacoby served on the City's Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Expert Advisory Panel. • The MIT Colab worked with the City to crowdsource solutions to mitigate heat island effect. • The Media Lab's solar-powered "Soofa bench" technology was adopted by Cambridge on a City-wide basis. • Climate science Professor Harvey Michaels helped to create an energy efficiency program for multi-family residences through a partnership among Cambridge, MIT, and Eversource. One of the many things that I love about Cambridge is how the City actively seeks input rom the broader community on policy matters. Whenever the City calls for nomination or committees on topics that are relevant to MIT, we take those opportunities serious!! and recommend individuals who we think will bring specific expertise to the table.

2 As a result, 13 MIT staff members serve on these climate change-related Cambridge committees: • Net Zero Task Force • Local Carbon Fund Committee • Low Carbon Energy Supply Committee • Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Technical Advisory Committee • Transit Advisory Committee • Bicycle Committee • Pedestrian Committee • Urban Forest Master Planning Task Force • Climate Protection Advisory Committee • Compact for a Sustainable Future • Net Zero Task Force Lab Operations Committee • BEUDO 2.0 Stakeholder Committee • Envision Cambridge Advisory Committee • Individual staff on each of the four Envision Cambridge working groups — climate, mobility, housing, and economy These 22 faculty and staff are committed to sharing their expertise to benefit the public good, and have a passion for using the campus and the City as a living laboratory to implement solutions that address climate change. MIT is in no way alone in terms of its participation in City processes. Dozens of residents and representatives of businesses, institutions, and nonprofits also give freely of their time through engagement in public policy discourse, and specifically, through service on these committees. I know that we all respect and honor those contributions. I hope we will allow these groups to complete the work to which they are committed. Thank you.

AMACHMENTO EDIVCOWEST. Real Estate Investments June 26, 2018 Cambridge City Council 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 To the Cambridge City Council: I am Mark Johnson, Director of Development for Divcowest Real Estate Investments, the developer and owner of Cambridge Crossing. Although Cambridge Crossing has a Special Permit, we have participated in conversations with business leaders and are concerned about the citizen petition's impacts on mixed-use transit oriented developments such as ours. We take resiliency into account in our planning, but not to the exclusion of other planning priorities, such as urban design and housing. First, as a registered architect and Fellow in the American Institute of Architects, I am concerned about the conflicts between the citizen petition and long-time urban design principles that the City has been so successful advancing. Maintaining street walls, ground floor activation, thriving retail districts, avoiding open at-grade parking structures, and aggregating open space into usable gathering places rather than building setbacks would all be threatened. Second, many of the proposed requirements would likely result in significant impacts on the ability of developers to execute new mixed-use projects that include planned amounts of open space, commercial density, retail and housing. The petition seems to indicate that property owners could seek increases in height to replace density lost as a result of the new zoning requirements. I would point out that building heights are carefully vetted with surrounding neighborhoods and the Federal Aviation Administration, which likely will preclude increases in height that would offset lost density. Lastly, this petition would disrupt the existing approvals process, preempt many existing city planning processes and create uncertainty would make it difficult to show investors a predictable approvals process. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the citizen petition. Sincerely, Mack Ahum Mark Johnson, FAIA Director of Development

ATTACNMENTA Testimony Cambridge City Council Ordinance Committee June 27, 2018 My name is Tina Alu and I live at 113 ½ Pleasant Street. Iam the Executive Director of Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee (CEOC). I want to share my concerns about how the Floodplain Overlay Zoning petition recommendations will negatively impact the creation of affordable housing. Though the petitioners deny that they are seeking a moratorium on housing development, the reality is that some of their proposals would have the same results. Most of us would agree that Alewife remains the last large-scale land area that could help address Cambridge's current and future housing needs. The recommendations in he petition will reduce buildable land in many ways, such as setbacks for shade trees and set asides of 30% of each site for open space. In order to maximize public funding and leverage economies of scale, new affordable housing projects must have 40 or more units. The new requirements for tree cover and open space, along with high land costs will make new affordable housing developments of this size, especially non-profit development, almost impossible. Some market-rate developments may still be feasible, but they will likely be more expensive and less dense. What's more, fewer units will be created under the city's most recent affordable zoning ordinance, which mandates that at least 20 percent of a housing development be affordable. In addition to the impact on the Alewife area, the petition would expand the geographical protections to other parts of the City, such as Cambridgeport, East Cambridge and other neighborhoods, further reducing the ability to develop more affordable housing throughout the City. The petition will subject almost all new construction in these areas to a lengthy special vermit process. This will make it much more costly and time-consuming to build new housing in those areas, particularly moderately sized projects. There are several other provisions in the petition that will also negatively impact the City Council's Affordable Housing goals and impede recommendations made in the Envision Cambridge Plan. In closing, etforts to address flooding and the consequences of climate change should be supported. However, these efforts must be balanced with the City's commitment to create much needed affordable housing. This petition and future proposals should all be examined through the lens of affordable housing.

ATTACHMENTO Comments on Green Infrastructure Costs and Benefits-6/26/18, 6/27/18 Why we need the Green Factor Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Climate Safety petition. My name is Alison Field-Juma, I live at 363 Concord Avenue in Cambridge. My day job is in land and water management. Starting 18 years ago l've served on several city committees on climate change. I live in the Alewife area and every day I see a growing disaster that is waiting to happen. It is on our watch. I fully support the petition before you. It is in complete alignment with City Goals and builds on the decades of excellent work by city staff, particularly by environmental planning and public works. It uses the data and ideas generated through their work and the Envision process. But it does one thing more: it takes action now to provide a uniform and consistent regulatory framework for protecting the health and safety of Cambridge residents and workers. It is not about protecting buildings, or as Doug noted, protecting the environment. it is about making sure that the people living and working in those buildings are not at risk. This is especially important for low income residents who do not have the resources to replace their essential-yet flooded--car, pay for insurance for their property, or relocate to higher ground. It is especially important for those who are elderly or suffer health —particularly respiratory- problems who are the most likely to die in a heat wave and power outage. Of course there are details in the petition that will need to be harmonized with existing city rules. There may be some difficult decisions to make on the exact language— what is the right setback and where? But if we believe the City's studies, then we must do that work and do it now, before we are locked into a built environment that fails to protect us. Note: the large map may be a bit misleading-none of the areas in pink would be covered by the zoning. Only the portion of each lot that is in the zone is subject to its requirements. The costs of these protections seems prohibitive to some. I believe their analysis fails to consider the multiple benefits. I will talk about the green open space requirement. First--Heat: You saw the heat maps. What can we do? Vegetated surfaces reduce ambient air temperature. For example, at the Waltham Watch Factory project the courtyard with its preserved mature shade trees was 13ºF cooler in the summer than the courtyard which did not have mature trees. Green shade makes sidewalks and public spaces more pleasant and thus usable, it increases social interaction, encourages non-car mobility. The green factor allows for many shapes and configurations—it is not restrictive. Second-Flooding: 1. :

Comments on Green Infrastructure Costs and Benefits-6/26/18, 6/27/18 Why we need the Green Factor Plants intercept and hold water- established trees can intercept up to 50% of the rainfall per storm. Much of this water will evaporate (hence providing cooling). They slow down runoff and reduce flooding downstream— or down the street. Water Pollution: Vegetation is more effective at removing most water pollution than conventional infrastructure; it is more cost-effective in most cases. Green infrastructure is cost effective: NYC estimates that every fully vegetated acre of green infrastructure would provide total annual benefits of $8,522 in reduced energy demand, $166 in reduced CO2 emissions, $1,044 in improved air quality, and $4,725 in increased property value. It estimates that the city can reduce combined sewer overflows (still a problem in Cambridge) by 2 billion gallons using green practices at a cost $1.5 billion less than traditional methods. Energy savings from green roofs is 15-45% of annual energy consumption. Studies have found general increases of up to 37% in residential property values associated with the presence of trees and vegetation on a property. : So, that's fine for the suburbs, but what about the City? EPA studied 12 projects in downtown and urban infill locations where space was at a premium, and soil conditions were unknown or unsuitable for infiltration. Sound familiar? This included the Waltham Watch Factory. This 2016 study showed that Green infrastructure: • works on contaminated sites and sites with poor soils with careful site design and selection of GI practices. • is compatible with Historic properties • fits into highly space-constrained sites. • can be a cost-effective approach to stormwater management help drivé economic development. Study concluded that GI makes the most of limited funds by producing multiple benefits with a single investment. The documented benefits in urban areas were: • Improved water quality • Reduced municipal water use • Groundwater recharge • Flood risk mitigation for small storms • Increased resilience to climate change impacts such as heavier rainfalls and hotter temperatures

Comments on Green Infrastructure Costs and Benefits-6/26/18, 6/27/18 Why we need the Green Factor Reduced ground-level ozone • Reduced particulate pollution • Reduced air temperatures • Reduced energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions • Increased or improved wildlife habitat • Improved public health from reduced air pollution and increased physical activity. • Increased recreation space • improved community aesthetics • Cost savings • Green jobs, and • Increased property values. These are the benefits we want. References: EPA. 2016. City Green: Innovative Green infrastructure solutions for Downtowns and Infill Locations. Washington, DC. EPA. www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure. Foster, Josh, et al. 2011. The Value of Green Infrastructure for Urban Climate Adaptation. Washington, DC: The Center for Clean Air Policy. Pathi, Krutika, 2017. A Green Infrastructure Guidebook for City Planners. CityLab, www.citylab.com Conventional Development Percent Project Differences Cost LID Cost 2d Avenue SEA Street 5866,803 25%. - 5651,548 5217.255 Aubum Hills $761,396 S2,360,385 32% $1.598.989 Bellingham City Hall 80% $22.000 $27,600 $5,600 76% $52,800 Bellingham Bloedel Donovan Park $12,800 $40,000 Gap Creek 15% $678,500 $4,620,600 $3.942,100 Garden Valley $260,700 20% $324,400 $63,700 Kensington Estates -96% $765,700 -$737,200 $1.502,900 30% $1.654,021 Laurel Springs S1.149,552 5504.469 Mill Creek* 27% $9,099 $3.411. $12,510 Prairie Glen 40% $1.004.848 $[phone removed].312 Somerset 32% $785.382 51.871.461 $2.456.843 15% Tellabs Corporate Campus S461.510 $2.700,650 S3.162,160 USEPA, Reducing Stormwater Costs Through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices, December 2007

ATTACHMENTR Lopez, Donna From: Charles Franklin <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 3:19 PM To: Paden, Liza; Clerk Subject: Planning Board: I support Green Factor Zoning Petition Dear Cambridge Planning Board, I support the flood plain-green factor zoning petition. It addresses inevitable issues that will be costly to deal with reactively, so it is imperative that we are proactive. Increased heat will decrease the health of our citizens and a Katrina of our own can turn Cambridge into the next Ward 9 if we don't act now. And to those that say these requirements will be detrimental to affordable housing, I say building homes for the underprivileged that aren't future ready is just another way that poor people get marginalized in this country. My uncle lost everything he had in Katrina. Such preventable devastation and loss should never happen again and we have the power to stop it from happening here. That being said, I have yet to be convinced that reducing the parking requirement is an important part of this plan. I could be convinced, but have yet to be. I'd like to see the plan move forward without that requirement, as I think moving parked cars off the streets is an important part of Vision-Zero. The streets are too choked to make the kinds of changes we need to make them safe. ~Charles 1

AITACHMENTS Lopez, Donna From: Kathy Watkins <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 3:37 PM City Council; City Manager To: Lopez, Donna Subject: Cambridge Climate Safety Petition Dear City Councilors, 1 am writing in support of the Climate Change Safety Petition which will be presented at today's Ordinance Committee. As a resident of a new building in the Quadrangle portion of Alewife, I have seen first-hand how ill-equipped my home is for heat island effects and flooding. The emergency lights in the hallways are designed to last only 45 minutes. Water from flooding has damaged the elevator and the infrastructure around it. The sewage smell from the wet basement finds its way into my bathroom. There are no shade trees to cool the buildings and no green spaces to absorb the rain. I worry about what this and future years' hurricane seasons will bring. I know cars have become enemy number one in Cambridge, but i am dependent on mine. If it floods in the garage, I will not be able to replace it. The city places low income residents in apartments in flood and heat island zones via inclusionary zoning units. Then they are stuck there. The higher income residents have more resources to recover from climate change disasters and to move, if they find the risk too great. I realize that the city has plans to deal with some aspects of climate change, but I do not believe they will be in place before most of the buildable lots are full. Therefore, I ask you to seriously consider this petition and move it to a second hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathy Watkins 90 Fawcett St. #511 Cambridge, MA 02138

ATTACHMENT Lopez, Donna From: Margaret Lenart < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 7:09 PM To: Subject: Letter in Support of citizens' petition for "Zoning Amendments for Flood and Heat Resilient Cambridge," June 27 Council Ordinance Meeting FPRA letter Climate Zoning Petition to CC-final.docx Attachments: June 25, 2018 Dear Mayor McGovern and Members of the City Council, and Clerk Donna Lopez, Please find attached a letter in support of the citizens' petition for "Zoning Amendments for Flood and Heat Resilient Cambridge" (Flood Plain - Green Factor Zoning Petition) that is on the City Council Ordinance Committee meeting this Wednesday, June 27th. Thank you for your consideration. Best Regards, Peggy Barnes Lenart On behalf of the Officers and Members of the Fresh Pond Residents Alliance Board 1

25 June 2018 Dear Mayor McGovern and Members of the City Council and Clerk Donna Lopez, We write in strong support of the citizens' petition for Zoning Amendments for a Flood and Heat Resilient Cambridge. Given the conditions and history of the Fresh Pond/Alewife area and other vulnerable areas of the city, we believe that this petition provides the urgently needed forward-looking rules and regulations based on our city's own climate vulnerability studies and preparedness plans. The rapid pace of development in the Fresh Pond/Alewife area requires our actions now, for the health, safety, and well- being of all who live and work here now and the future, as well as in other heat and flood risk areas identified by the vulnerability studies. We strongly support adoption of the Green Factor approach that will have multiple benefits throughout our city neighborhoods. Having been used in Seattle for the past 10 years without reported negative impact, we support it being applied to large building projects in Cambridge. The projections for heat and flooding are known: our City has invested in forward- looking climate change vulnerability studies, and we have projections for higher temperatures and longer heat waves in Cambridge with "2030" timeframe, which means 2030 + /- 15 years (Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, "CCVA", Part 1, 2015). The study also predicts more flooding from intense precipitation events, and from storm surge and sea level rise by mid-century, and within the lifetime of the buildings that are being permitted and constructed now (CCVA, Part 2, 2017). The Fresh Pond/Alewife area is particularly at risk due to much of it being subject to flooding and also being an identifiable heat island on city maps. Low-income residents and workers are the people who are the most impacted by loss of property or their home as they are less likely to have the resources to replace their flooded car or find new housing. Heat disproportionately affects low income and elderly populations, and those with respiratory problems such as asthma, and other illnesses. As the Union of Concerned Scientists recently reported, "We have a narrowing window of opportunity to make better choices and ameliorate risks." (Underwater, Rising Seas, Chronic Floods, and the Implications for US Coastal Real Estate, 2018.) It seems clear that what we permit and build now can and must be wise for livability and sustainability, and requires a "triple bottom-line" approach - social, financial, and environmental. The rate of the construction of large developments has been projected to continue along with increasing heat waves and expanding areas of Cambridge at risk for flooding, requiring our acting now: We are continuing to fly a large plane while simultaneously attempting to design it to cope with rapidly changing conditions. Let's make sure we have adequate regulations in place now to insure the health and safety of all as we permit and build. Since 2010, over 3,665 living units and approximately 4,797,700 square feet of new gross floor area have been built, permitted, or proposed in the Alewife area alone, with 94.6% of all new housing units since 2004 located within the 100-year and 500-year floodplain. As a result, we have exceeded the housing goals of the 2005 Concord/Alewife Plan, which proposed 2,192 new units by 2024. The City's Envision planning process, which is focusing first on the Alewife area, projects that the bulk of the city's future development will be in

this area, an area that has clear flooding concerns, heat islands, and vulnerable populations at risk. Build-out will reach 60% by 2030, just 12 years from now. The recent (May 10, 2018) Envision Alewife Plan zoning report has projected approximately 2,110 more housing units at 60% build-out. The City has a clear responsibility to make sure that this new development provides for the safety and health of the residents, workers, and business owners in an equitable fashion. The Fresh Pond / Alewife area can accommodate more housing and development, and we support affordable housing, but development must do so in a way that does not transfer all the risk to the residents, workers and taxpayers of the future. The incorporation of standards for green infrastructure levels the field for all developments, enables planning across developments to maximize the gains, and enables city planning and infrastructure to support these gains. Green infrastructure is now a mature enough approach to have accrued research and experience that show that it can be cost effective and provide multiple additional benefits (www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure). Experience and research also show that it must be tailored to each community's needs, which this petition does. We believe that this proposal is consistent with the City's goals, and relates to a meta issue - increased heat and flooding - that impacts everyone's safety, health and well-being. If development is to be truly "smart growth" and "transit oriented," it will need more than proximity as the crow flies to an underground MBTA subway station. The Alewife T is a terminus located in a floodplain, and projected to experience disruptions due to heat and flooding in 2030 timeframe, potentially very soon. Other key elements of the city's transportation system are in Alewife, and all are at risk of more frequent flooding. The CCVA, Part 1 (pg. 9) shows three of the six busiest traffic nodes in the city exceed 30,000 average daily trips in 24 hours: intersections of Route 2, Concord Avenue, and Massachusetts Avenue with the Parkways. Let us not let the known risks "be masked by short-sighted policies, market incentives, and/or public and private investments that prop up business-as-usual choices that fail to account for sea level rise" (McNamara, D.E.S. et al, 2015, as quoted in "Underwater..." UCS, 2018, pg. 2) and increasing extreme heat and precipitation events. Accessibility to living and working spaces, and better circulation through connected streets and other paths is crucial for safety and livability. The Petition betore the City is not a limit on construction, but a path forward to make construction serve the City and its people. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, James Morgan O. Robert Simha Peggy Barnes Lenart Arthur Strang Ann Sweeney Jay Yesselman Officers and Members of the Fresh Pond Residence Alliance Board on behalf of the Board

ATTACHMENT 4 cambridge housing Authority ICHA June 25, 2018 Cambridge City Council Ordinance Committee 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Re: Zoning Petition Received from Douglas Brown et al to Amend the Zoning in Section 20.70 Flood Overlay District and Create a New Section 22.80 Green Factor in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance To the Members of Cambridge City Council Ordinance Committee: The Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) is writing to express its concerns regarding the proposed petition to alter Section 20.70 Flood Overlay District and create Section 22.80 Green Factor in the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed petition has both immediate and long-tern effects and should not be implemented in this forinat at this time. Most immediately, the CHA is finalizing its plans to rehabilitate the 298 units at Millers River Apartments located in East Cambridge. These plans are impacted by the proposed petition since a portion of the Millers River parcel is shown on one of the three referenced maps. Prior to the petition, the CHA was finalizing a comprehensive permit application for the Millers River project seeking minor relief of setback requirements to match existing conditions, to reduce six parking spaces, to provide bike storage to meet on-site demand, to exceed the noise ordinance for an emergency generator, to add a curb cut on Lambert Street for vehicles picking up or dropping off residents, and utilize Enterprise Green Communities as the reporting standard in lieu of LEED. We have modified our request to include relief from the petition but have been advised that relief cannot be granted while the petition is being considered. Unfortunately, our financing schedule does not have any leeway and we must submit the comprehensive permit this weekto ensure that we can obtain a building permit for the project by November 15%, which is an absolute requirement for us to close on the financing with our lenders and investors prior to end of the year. If the CHA is unable to close by that deadline, it risks losing over $110 million in financing and its ability to complete the much needed, long delayed renovations at Millers River. In terms of the long-term effects, the proposed amendment to the Ordinance if approved in its current form will stifle the production and preservation of affordable housing across Cambridge in three primary ways: 362 Green Street, Cambridge; MA 02139 • P [phone removed] /TDD [phone removed] x112 † [phone removed] • www.cambridge-housing.org

The proposed amendment limits the number of affordable apartments the CHA and other housing providers can build on the already limited land available for development in Cambridge. Furthermore, the amendment limits the number of affordable apartments the CHA and other housing providers can renovate and may force existing housing to be eliminated in future modernizations. 2. The proposed amendment increases the cost to build affordable housing, stretching the CHA's and other affordable housing providers already scarce resources. This runs the risk of pushing the addition of new and revitalization of existing affordable housing beyond our abilities. The proposed amendment compounds an already complex regulatory environment, increasing ambiguity and requiring additional expenditures and expertise for affordable housing providers like the CHA to even determine the viability of future housing modernization or new construction projects, let alone complete a project successfully and in a timely manner. It is unclear to CHA staff whether the proposed Flood Overlay District applies only to existing and proposed buildings in flood hazard areas designated on one of the three referenced maps in the ordinance, or if all buildings on all parcels touched by the flood hazard areas are subject to the ordinance, even if the buildings on the parcel are not in a hazard area. In either scenario, many of our existing developments located throughout the city would be subject to the zoning ordinance requirement that all residential units would be located on the second floor or higher in the buildings. This requirement, if imposed on future modernizations, could eliminate up to a quarter, around 250 apartments, of the CHA's existing family affordable housing stock, as many developments are three story buildings with units on each floor. Implementing accessible units in these developments would also become nearly impossible with the addition of dozens of additional elevators to service existing buildings or prohibitively long ramps to get from street level up to second floor units. It's important to note that most family developments are already several feet above grade by the nature of their construction, and the CHA has already eliminated almost all of its units occupying below grade areas in order to protect the health of our Cambridge residents from damp conditions and flood-prone units. In addition to the restrictions placed on the location and configuration of units, many of the requirements in the proposed ordinance require relocating utility services out of the flood map areas, which would add additional costs to all modernization projects in a saturated building market where development costs are already exceeding $500,000 a unit. For example, many large buildings in CHA's portfolio have utility electrical substations at or below grace, relocating these services on the 2nd floor or higher of any building would likely be a seven-figure cost for each location that would be imposed by the utility on the CHA for any modernization effort. Similarly, the CHA, like many landowners, has the policy of using diesel powered Emergency Generators so that buildings are not reliant on grid-supplied utility gas in the event of an extended power outage event. Because the generators are fueled by diesel, the supply must come in from trucks that need to meet the generator

tanks at grade. Raising the generators well above ground level would necessitate either using grid- supplied natural gas and/or creating an elaborate pumping system at grade, which would be cost prohibitive and possibly not practicable to maintain and use. Finally, the addition of the Green Factor score for any development adds another layer of complexity and ambiguity to the building requirements for any major project. This complexity lengthens the design and planning process for any project and increases the number of consultants, designers, and engineers that need to be engaged to develop an affordable housing project. Currently, projects in Cambridge, in addition to Planning Board review for the Urban Design, are subject to the 9th Edition of the Massachusetts Building Code; the local zoning ordinance for building size, setback, and parking requirements; the Cambridge bicycle ordinance which dictates the amounts and nature of short and long term bike parking; the Cambridge storm water ordinance which dictates retention of storm water and mitigation of overflows; LEED requirements for building design and performance; as well as the particular jurisdictional requirements of the Cambridge Fire Department, Cambridge Water Department, Traffic and Parking, and the utility providers for gas, electric, phone, and cable services. The Green Factor score will require a new layer of analysis that interacts with all the other requirements on the project while also imposing some ambiguous calculations. For example, The Green Factor ordinance includes calculations for various levels of subsoil and planting conditions. These criteria are seemingly written to accommodate new plantings or landscaping plans where a developer would be converting from existing surfaces and creating a new permeable condition. However, in the case of many CHA properties and modernization projects, the majority of green space is preserved planting and lawn areas wherein verifying subsoil conditions would necessitate the removal of existing planting areas. The aforementioned examples are but a few of the concerning implications for future affordable housing projects that staff have identified. The CHA prides itself on its mission of providing safe, clean, and attractive housing at a deeply affordable level to some of the city's most economically vulnerable residents. Our mission of adding more deeply affordable apartments to the housing stock is also beconing increasingly untenable with the high costs of construction, land acquisition, and meeting numerous regulatory requirements. While our modernization costs are expensive, we do build for the long term and much of our housing stock has been in place for more than 75 years with continual modernizations to keep the buildings performing at levels necessary for resident comfort. We also build as much redundancy and safeties into our building systems as practicable to maintain a comfortable living environment 24/7/365 for the residents of Cambridge which we house, and certify our modernizations via the Enterprise Green Communities program which requires the building to achieve energy savings of at least 15% above code. We hope to continue to modernize our housing at performance levels exceeding the building code out of our deep interest for the reil- being of our tenants while adding to the city's affordable housing stock. The CHA is in the final stages of modernizing the first half of our portfolio totaling 1,355 apartments and are in the planning stages of modernizing the second half totaling 1,277 apartments, most of which have seen minimal renovations since they' were built up over 50 to 65 years ago and are in dire need of revitalization. Zoning amendments like the proposed petition will make the task of providing affordable housing

increasingly difficult and run the risk of causing the CHA to forestall future modernizations and new development projects. If you have any questions or we can provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone removed] or [email removed]. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 717 Michael J. Johnston Esq. Executive Director CC. City Councilors, City of Cambridge City Manager, City of Cambridge Planning Board, City of Cambridge Director of Community Development, City of Cambridge Housing Director, City of Cambridge

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT V From: Patrick Herron <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 2:41 PM To: City Council; City Manager; Lopez, Donna Nathan Sanders; Martha Ondras; Susan Brown; Julie Wormser; Tracy Olson; Cc: [email removed]; Kimberly Provo Mystic support for Petition requesting Zoning Amendment for Flood and Heat Subject: Resilience Attachments: Climate_CambridgeCityCouncil_June2018.pdf Dear Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Deverex, and Councilors Carlone, Kelley, Mallon, Siddiqui, Simmons, Toomey, and Zondervan: On behalf of the Mystic River Watershed Association (MyRWA), I am writing to express our organization's support for the Cambridge Citizens' Petition requesting a Zoning Amendment for a Flood and Heat Resilient Cambridge, which was submitted to the City Council on April 5, 2018. We support this Petition, which proposes changes to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance that will improve the resilience of the built environment in the Alewite Brook sub-watershed, and protect the public and the environment from significant threats identified in the Cambridge Climate Vulnerability Assessment. We recommend that amendments to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance as outlined in the Petition be adopted at the earliest opportunity. The attached letter articulates our rationale for supporting this petition. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. Sincerely yours, Patrick Patrick Herron, PhD Executive Director Mystic River Watershed Association 20 Academy St. Suite 306 Arlington, MA 02476 [phone removed] [email removed] www.MysticRiver.org Twitter | Facebook | Instagram

Mystic River WATERSHED ASSOCIATION June 19, 2018 Honorable Members of the Cambridge City Council City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Council@cambridgema.gov Cambridge City Manager Louis DePasquale Citymanager@cambridgema.gov Cambridge City Clerk Donna Lopez Dlopez@cambridgema.gov Dear Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux, and Councilors Carlone, Kelley, Mallon, Siddiqui, Simmons, Toomey, and Zondervan: On behalf of the Mystic River Watershed Association (MyRWA), I am writing to express our organization's support for the Cambridge Citizens' Petition requesting a Zoning Amendment for a Flood and Heat Resilient Cambridge, which was submitted to the City Council on April 5, 2018. We support this Petition, which proposes changes to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance that will improve the resilience of the built environment in the Alewife Brook sub-watershed, and protect the public and the environment from significant threats identified in the Cambridge Climate Vulnerability Assessment. Those threats include growing flood risk due to more precipitation and storm surge, and increasing frequency and severity of high heat events as our climate changes. As stewards of the Mystic River watershed, which includes the Fresh Pond and Alewife Brook sub- watershed, MyRWA works to improve water and environmental quality and enhance the public's use and enjoyment of the Mystic River, its tributaries, and related natural resources for present and future generations. We are keenly aware that climate change is expected to increase the frequency and severity of flood and heat events in the Fresh Pond and Alewife area. From the Cambridge Climate Vulnerability Assessment, the Cambridge Climate Protection and Resilience Plan, and other credible sources, we know that built development, population health, and environmental resources in the Alewife area are particularly vulnerable to damage from increasing inundation. If unchecked, flooding events may result in discharge of contaminated storm runoff to groundwater and surface waters, resulting in drinking and surface water degradation, disease risk, and loss of biodiversity. We also recognize that this area, if it continues to grow with a high percentage of paved and built area, high population density, and lack of tree canopy, will be vulnerable to health impacts from high-heat events. [phone removed] Suite 306 Arlington, MA 02476 MysticRiver.org 20 Academy Street,

Mystic River WATERSHED ASSOCIATION At a rapid pace, Cambridge is putting in place buildings that will last at least 50 years and establishing a pattern of built environment and infrastructure that is likely to persist for a century. Most of this development is within the 2010 500-year floodplain that is projected to become the 5-year floodplain by 2070. Given this convergence of increasing development and escalating climate change, we feel now is the appropriate time to make the zoning changes that will provide flood and heat resiliency and protect human life, public and private investment, and environmental health and safety in the Alewife sub-watershed for the next 50-plus years. We recommend that amendments to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance as outlined in the Petition be adopted soon, so that developments approved in 2018 will follow best practices for climate resilience and protect the public and the environment now and for future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. Sincerely yours, Patrick Herron, Executive Director Mystic River Watershed Association [phone removed] MysticRiver.org 20 Academy Street, Suite 306 Arlington, MA 02476

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT W [email removed] From: Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 2:35 PM To: City Council; Kelley, Craig; Devereux, Jan; Lopez, Donna; Toomey, Tim Cc. DePasquale, Louie; Paden, Liza; [email removed]; [email removed]; [email removed] Subject: petition about heat islands etc. To the Honorable, the City Councillors, and to City Clerk Donna Lopez, This voter has not read the petition to be considered at a meeting to be held Wednesday evening, concerning urban heat islands and other matters related to climate-change resiliency. But climate change is the overriding one we face, above nomelessness, policing, traffic design, or any other. Why? Because Cambridge, along with civilization's other coastal manifestations, will cease to exist, except as a modern-day Atlantis, if the human race can't reduce the carbor load and other greenhouse gases and vapors in the atmosphere, which already have reached levels last believed to exist when seas were 66 feet higher than they are now. This voter accepts that these realities are discouraging enough to dissuade most people from contemplating them at all, and to persuade most political office-holders and activists not to describe them in public. But the problems will not go away for all that. Indeed this voter wonders whether climate change can really be considered a problem at all, since problems by definition are capable of solution. Climate change may turn out to be an unsolvabie consequence of human nature. As the poet said, however, "Though your promise count for nothing, you must keep it nonetheless," and we have no reasonable alternative but to try. My partner and I live in the house we own near Inman Square. He has to drive through the square several times a day, and I walk there many times every week. I do not drive. So he and I are very concerned about the plans the City's Traffic Division has made to reconstruct the intersection. The main opponents in the neighborhood have focused on the four trees in Vellucci Plaza to be lost in proposed reconstruction. I agree with them that the plaza should remain intact and the trees should be spared, but not simply because these four trees, even if we include the others which would be damaged and then die, would make an enormous difference. An environmentalist told the Council that four trees reduce the carbon load by x amount, but that the amount to be saved by getting everyone on bikes is many times that amount. This looks persuasive until you realize how misleading it is. The assumption behind the false comparison is that people are driving by choice, for fun or safety, and not because they have to fetch and carry too many people or things on their trips, or they have to be on time to too many places, or they have to go too far, or they can't ride a bike anyway. The argument that the trees count for so little ignores the other deleterious effects of reconstruction on the environment: dust, fumes, more carbon release, more materials dredged from holes in the ground or dragged back to holes in the ground. So this voter believes that the comparison is flawed on both ends, however dedicated to science the environmentalist may be. Another significant aspect of the debate about Inman Square is bicyclists' safety. Amen. But those of us who question whether it will be enhanced by the redesign, or perhaps enhanced only at the price of safety for pedestrians, are dismissed by leaders of the Council, apparently. I was told by someone who attended an event about this matter recently, "I hear one line about how much you care about safety and everything else you say is that one of you said something like, about trees." Now, I wasn't there and maybe this quote was misreported, but if it were true, shame on the one who said it, because we are not given enough time to make our case to you, Councillors, except in emails like this long one, which many of you probably do not read anyway. If we have 3, or 5, minutes, and we really need 10, then how are we to spend don't) and still have time to put forward our argument? This is the same old trick of pretending that people who question the plans of government don't want what the government says it wants for us, and insulting them by pandering to single- issue constituencies. There's a long sorry history of projects which a few people objected to, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, and which later were found to have the very flaws those few people brought up. In virtually every case, those projects which went ahead cost far more than first agreed to and benefited the construction industry inordinately. Consider the "Big Dig". Now, that project brought huge beauty to downtown Boston. It raised the vaiues of properties there immensely... at least until now. It certainly lined the pockets of Betchtel and others, to the tune of almost $15 biltion. But look at it now from the perspective of rising oceans. The talk now is about raising streets! But the Big Dig took down an elevated highway! which you could call a raised street, without exaggeration. And it made huge tunnels under the city and harbor. What's the first thing to get flooded? Tunnels, I would guess. Those tunnels are probably built to guard

against flooding, but at some point the entrances to them will not be accessible to vehicles, if those entrances are rebuilt to protect against the new levels of flooding coming. So what will be the good of these tunnels then? I already told you: they made Betchtel and friends richer. That was the objective which drove the project; that, and the fact that federal money paid so much of the tab while local property owners and road construction corporations made enormous profits. So, was the Big Dig the right thing to do? Hard to say. It returned Boston to its own waterfront... just a decade or two before the waterfront began to look like Ground Zero in the climate-change wars. And it certainly contributed to that climate change, as any project does which involves grand fleets of heavy equipment working night and day for years. Now, construction behemoths want public funds for erecting barriers across Boston Harbor, to save the excessively valuable properties endangered by rising water; and right on cue, the people warning that such a project would never work, and would cause staggering environmental damage, and would cost fortunes needed for other things, are being insulted in public. We've been through this movie before. Cambridge won't hire Betchtel to reconfigure Inman Square. But the principles are the same. Someone stands to get work and make money, and it will be more than $6 million, that I will bet any of you who have read this far and want to bet on it. And that corporate someone is in tight with Joe Barr and Company, who feel closer to the road construction people than they do to us who live here and will endure filth and noise and sleepless nights for years. There doesn't have to be a bribe involved, for the public interest to be sidelined. All it takes is a plausible case for "safety" and "innovation" and a natural sympathy with the contractors with whom the City administrators work day in, day out. I have told you before, although I noted that not a single one of you cared to ask me more about it, that Barr's Division can't even be relied on to put up a traffic sign with the bolts tightened properly, so the thing, like a flying guillotine blade, doesn't come down from its boom over Inman Square in a storm. You don't want to know anything about this, apparently. Prove me wrong! Neither do the bicyclists praising his work at City Council meetings. They say things like, "I have to believe that they know what they are doing, they are the experts." I agree with those who've pointed out that the trend to dismiss expert opinion is bad for the country. But I know what started this trend: it was the Best and the Brightest, getting us deeper into Vietnam. I have taken the trip around the sun a few more times than most of the bike riders who speak at meetings and presentations, and experience has taught me not to accept self-descriptions of expertise unquestioningly. Barr's were a sop to "public participation", but the bike groups were made to feel included; so they have complete faith in the plans. The plan might really be a good plan. I don't know. But my questions and the questions of other thoughtful citizens objecting, deserve an open-minded hearing from you, the only brake on the City Administration. You are not giving it to us with three-minute allowances at Public Comment, and later, dismissive remarks. What does this have to do with climate resiliency? Climate resiliency has to do with money and land, public funds to be spent wisely, hard choices to be made between building more affordable housing and all the other worthy projects dear to the hearts of those who have to face the voters, and doing what most urgently needs to be done. The taxpayers of Cambridge do not begrudge $6 million in a good cause, either safety or environmental benefit. But funds are not infinite, so Cambridge has to choose how they will be spent. If you have $6 million for Inman Square, spend it on buying land instead, and keep that land open, with some trees for good measure, for passive enjoyment in summer, and flood absorption, and snow field space in winter. The choice you seem to prefer may not bring the safety for all which you are promising; nor are its environmental effects so limited as you want to believe; nor is open land perpetually available. Cambridge is in fact "infilling" to a fare-thee-well. I don't even know if there's any open land left, but soon there will not be. To make open spaces for snow and flood water absorption later, Cambridge will have to take down buildings. This is a double loss in both environmental and financial terms: the sunk cost of the building and the new cost of demolishing and dumping it. Good money after bad. It is never easy to quantify the ineffable, except in money. That is why beautiful properties are worth so much more than ugly ones, despite the difficulty in defining exactly what makes them valuable. The small beauty of Vellucci Plaza might be improved upon, but never by destroying it. You have been trained to value amenities by the "use" they get. This formula does not teach you to evaluate a space like the plaza (which gets more use than you are being told anyway) the value of which is that it gives visual and auditory respite, enhances the wide open space which the long intersection gives to the eye, provides a refuge for little animals and for homeless people (them again! if you care) and creates blessings of shade for pedestrians. The plan for the intersection will cause the visual effect of the Square to feel brutally crowded. I have not discussed safety much today. But do not tell me that is because I don't care about it. As a bike rider I once struck a pedestrian, breaking traffic laws I was barely aware of and knocking her to her knees. I remember that day very well despite the decades which have since passed. I grieve for every bicyclist killed. No one has the right to tell me I don't Let me remind you about the project to cut down every tree within a certain distance of every interstate roadway in the US, because statistics showed that when cars crashed on the highways, what did they crash into? Trees! since that's what was there, duh. What a statistic! Would you like to get that environmentalist to calculate how many trees were lost 2

because of that project vs how many lives were saved? Was it as many lives saved as people were led to expect? What carbon load did we add to our burden by cutting those millions of trees? (Was it such a great idea to build the interstates anyway, in hindsight?!) Would you have said to people arguing for leaving the trees alone, "All you care about is frees, not people's lives"? You can bet that is what was said to anyone who protested. Somebody made a lot of money, cutting those trees, and selling them for mulch or firewood or paper. Was that what drove that action? What's the result of having open space along the highways, besides drivers going a few feet farther before crashing into trees? I can answer that one too: Having to burn gasoline mowing the grass along thousands of miles, to keep down the baby trees. How's global climate change working for you? What're you gonna do about it? Thank you for actually reading this! 103 Inman St. Cambridge Megan Brook

ATTACHMENTX Lopez, Donna From: Suzanne Trainor <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 3:11 PM To: Lopez, Donna Cc: Tamara Small; Carlone, Dennis; Kelley, Craig; Mallon, Alanna; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Toomey, Tim; Zondervan, Quinton; City Council; Devereux, Jan; McGovern, Marc Subject: NAIOP Comment Letter on Cambridge App 2018 #19 - Flood Plain and Green Score - June 27 Ordinance Committee Meeting Attachments: OrdinanceCommittee_NAIOP_OPPOSES_CAMBRIDGEAPP 2018 # 19FloodPlainGreenScorepdf.pdf Donna, For the Cambridge Ordinance Committee's review, please find attached a comment letter opposing App 2018 #19 RE: Flood Plain Overlay District and Green Factor from NAIOP Massachusetts, the commercial real estate development association. Please enter the letter in the June 27 meeting record. Thank you. Suzanne Trainor Government Affairs Associate | NAIOP Massachusetts The Commercial Real Estate Development Association 144 Gould Street, Suite 140 | Needham, MA 02494 [phone removed] x8 | [email removed] Not yet a NAIOP member? Join today Connect with NAIOP Massachusetts: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

NAIOP DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION MASSACHUSETTS June 20, 2018 Cambridge Ordinance Committee City Hall - 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Re: NAIOP Opposes APP 2018 #19 Relative to Flood Plain Overlay District and Green Factor Dear Members of the Cambridge Ordinance Committee: NAIOP Massachusetts, The Commercial Real Estate Development Association, would like to express its strong opposition to APP 2018 #19 Relative to Flood Plan Overlay District and the Green Factor and asks that your committee submit a recommendation to City Council to reject the proposed ordinance changes. The proposed amendments to Section 20.70 Flood Plain Overlay District will significantly expand the area subject to the District and could deter the creation of much-needed housing. We are concerned that most, if not all, housing and commercial developments in Cambridge will be subject to this new review process. The large influx of projects that will need to be reviewed under these new requirements, not just for new construction, but also for renovations of existing structures, are likely to overwhelm the Planning Board, and create significant delays. Typically, municipalities impose flood plain zoning to comply with FEMA requirements for the municipality to be eligible to participate in the flood insurance program and to protect citizens from periodic or frequent floods. The proposed amendments do not align with those objectives. For example, proposed criteria #7 to 20.75, "applicants for development shall be familiar with and demonstrate compliance with the environmental aspects of area-specific and city-wide environmental and land use plans" is not related to flood plain zoning. Also, the requirement that certain roof surfaces be constructed as Cool Roofs (1.717), which absorb less heat than standard roofs, has no apparent relation to protecting citizens from floods or FEMA compliance. The addition of a new Section 22.80 Green Factor, which requires certain projects, including all projects within the Flood Plain Overlay District, to have an expert score the project based on its environmental assets (a "Green Factor Score") would pose yet another delay to creating more housing in Cambridge, a clear public need. In the flood plain zone, developers would need to achieve a score of at least 0.35. The score is based on the amount of green space, pervious paving, bio-retention, plants, trees, vegetated wall, and green roof within the project and the score must be 144 Gould Street Suite 140 Needham, MA 02494 ph: [phone removed] www.naiopma.org

NAIOP Opposes APP 2018 # 19 RE: Flood Plain Overlay District and Green Factor June 20, 2018 obtained by a Certified Landscape Expert. It is not clear from the proposed language what minimum and maximum score a project could achieve nor how many experts are trained and available to provide this score. The new process associated with the Green Factor score will be burdensome for developers and for the planning board, and will likely delay or block new construction. For these reasons, NAIOP urges the Cambridge Ordinance Committee not to advance this proposal. NAIOP represents the interests of more than 1700 members involved with the development, ownership, management, and financing of more than 250 million square feet of office, research & development, industrial, multifamily, mixed use, and retail space in the Commonwealth. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Tamara C. SaCT Tamara C. Small Senior Vice President, Government Affairs NAIOP Massachusetts, The Commercial Real Estate Development Association Cc: Cambridge City Council

ATTACNMENTY Lopez, Donna From: Martha Older <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 2:54 PM To: City Council; Lopez, Donna; Paden, Liza; martha Cc: [email removed] Subject: Strongly supporting climate change zoning (Council, Zoning Board, m-) It's hard to imagine anything This City needs to do all we can to fight climate change. and that certainly includes its effects on ourselves. I can't think of any argument against this, other than profit for certain developers -- and that is not what we should be about. /Martha Older

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT Z From: Jennifer Craft <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 8:50 AM To: City Council; Lopez, Donna; Paden, Liza Subject: support Cambridge Climate Safety Zoning Petition City Council and Planning Board members: My family chose to reside in Cambridge 14 years ago because of its diversity, vibrance, and progressive values. As residents of the West Cambridge/Fresh Pond area, we are alarmed by the lack of forward-thinking, environmentally- conscious policies governing the development of low-lying lands. While we understand the demand for housing is high, it is foolish to think our current approach wise for years to come. I urge you to protect the safety and weilness of current and tuture residents by supporting the Cambridge Climate Safety Zoning Petition. Cambridge remaining a livable city hinges on better planning and smarter management by your organizations. Its residents and future generations are relying on those with power to act responsibly. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jen Craft 30 Holworthy Place #2 Cambridge, MA 02138

ATTACHMENT Al Lopez, Donna From: Sarah Slaughter < [email removed]> Monday, June 25, 2018 11:55 AM Sent: Paden, Liza; City Council; Lopez, Donna To: Cc: [email removed]; Farooq, Iram; O'Riordan, Owen; DePasquale, Louie Support Climate Safety Petition Subject: To: City of Cambridge Planning Board, Chair H. Theodore Cohen and all members City Council Ordinance Committee City of Cambridge Community Development Department, Iram Farooq, Asst City Manager City of Cambridge Department of Public Works, Owen O'Riordan, Commissioner City Manager, Louis DePasquale I strongly support the Climate Safety Petition, and respectively request that the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board accept and approve the Climate Safety Petition as presented, to protect the health, safety and well-being of Cambridge residents, and to enhance the resilience and viability of the City of Cambridge as a whole. With the release last week of Union of Concerned Scientists report on loss of property from flooding (https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/global-warming-impacts/sea-level-rise-chronic-floods-and-us-coastal-real- estate-implications#.WzEO-BJKjok), Cambridge is listed among the communities with high proportions of property at risk. In addition, the Cambridge CCVA has clearly delineated flood risks for properties in specific areas of the city from both extreme rainfall and sea-level rise. The economic implications for current and future property owners can be dire without city-wide concerted and effective action. The Climate Safety Petition is an important contribution towards this end. Best regards, Sarah Slaughter 11 Stearns St. Cambridge, MA

Lopez, Donna ATTACNMENT BR David Levitt < [email removed]> From: Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 11:59 AM To: Paden, Liza; City Council; Lopez, Donna Support the Climate Safety Zoning Petition. Share with Council and Planning Board Subject: please. We support the Climate Safety Zoning Petition. Cambridge is in a vulnerable area. We will suffer millions of dollars in damage if aggressive, less costly steps are NOT taken. Please help reduce our risks of catastrophe when future storms do strike. Many such measure will also increase our quality of life between storms. -Lore and David Levitt 14 Notre Dame Ave Cambridge, MA 02140

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT CC From: Phillip Sego <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 2:15 PM To: City Council Cc: Lopez, Donna Support of Climate Safety Petition Subject: June 25, 2018 Ordinance Committee Cambridge City Council Cambridge, MA To the Honorable Mayor McGovern and Members of the Cambridge City Council: As a longtime resident of the City of Cambridge, and as a longterm environmental advocate for the Sierra Club (retired), I urge the City Council Ordinance Committee to support the Climate Safety Petition. Highly vulnerable construction in light of established high risks is not a model of "good planning." Good planning should protect residents from the vulnerabilities of heat and flooding - as shown in the City's vulnerability study. Furthermore, we need to allow natural resilience as a model for development in high risk areas, and avoid destroying that resilience. The Cambridge Climate Vulnerability Assessment shows the severity of the situation and provides a clear guide. Adopting the Climate Safety Petition is an important step in that direction. I respectfully urge the members of the Cambridge City Council Ordinance Committee to support and embrace the Climate Safety Petition. Sincerely, Phillip Sego 221 Norfolk Street Cambridge MA 02139 [phone removed] [email removed] 1

Lopez, Donna ATACHMENT DD From: Sheli Wortis <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 2:16 PM To: City Council; Lopez, Donna; City Manager Subject: please support Climate Safety Zoning Petition I am writing to support the Climate Safety Zoning Petition being presented to the Planning Board on June 26* and at the Ordinance Committee public hearing on June 27'. As a resident of former swampland in the Wellington Harrington neighborhood, I am concerned about the impact of increased flooding due to climate factors that we cannot control. I also worry about the unforeseen problems caused by over-development in Kendall Square and other parts of Cambridge. I walk around the neighborhood and see flimsy housing and offices being constructed at a rapid pace. I worry about whether any of the new construction offers the kind of climate resilient protection being suggested by the Climate Safety Zoning Petition. I am an advocate for affordable housing, but I fear that there are other advocates who are opposing this Zoning Petition because they do not want to discourage development. My response is that we need safe, regulated affordable housing development and should have demanded it years ago! Please support this Petition! Sheli Wortis 106 Berkshire St. 02141

ATTACHMENT EE Lopez, Donna From: Macdougall, John <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 2:59 PM To: Paden, Liza; City Council; Lopez, Donna climate safety petition Subject: To Liza Paden |paden@cambridgema.gov council@cambridgma.gov dlopez@cambridgema.gov Dear members of the City Council and Planning Board: I fully support the Climate Safety Zoning Petition. I very much appreciate that the petition stresses that it would not reduce the supply of housing- especially affordable housing--which is urgently needed in our city. I think the petition has many badly-needed features. These include • expanding the areas designated as flood zones • requiring that new buildings and substantial improvements to existing buildings in the flood zones must have features like on-site backup energy generation/storage capability; safe access during floods and storms; emergency plans to evacuate or shelter residents during storms or floods; increased amount of green space; and reduced numbers of required parking spaces. Sincerely yours, John MacDougall 175 Richdale ave. #209, Cambridge MA 02140 [email removed] 1

AMTACHMENT FE Lopez, Donna From: Allan Sadun <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 3:58 AM To: City Council; Clerk; Paden, Liza The Climate Safety Petition Subject: To the members of the City Council and the City Clerk: Today I read through the CDD's assessment of the Doug Brown zoning petition that the Ordinance Committee is looking at on Wednesday, and I found it pretty damning. • The proposed zoning changes are drastic and sweeping, affecting 6000 (46%!) of the city's land parcels, comprising over 70% of the city's land area, and holding new construction to the standard of a 500-year flood. • The proposed zoning changes are at odds with the city's goals for urban planning, as they will encourage a wide variety of building heights and could result in a "tower in a park" pattern of development. Towers are not the end of the world, but pedestrian-friendly buildings with active ground floors are more likely to provide missing middle housing and add life to city streets. • The proposed zoning changes are poorly constructed. For instance, they mandate a 25-foot setback for all lot sizes, regardless of how infeasible that is for small lots. They offer confusing and contradictory approaches to building heights, which may not make much of a difference anyway because they do not affect building codes. They focus on specific "green infrastructure" methods, which may look nice, but have limited capacities, and are constrained by slow-percolating soils / high water tables. They require both substantial amounts of open space AND substantial amounts of tree canopy coverage, requirements which will interfere with each other significantly. And as the CDD notes: "It is important not to conflate the issues of compensatory flood storage, stormwater management, and storm surge protection, which require different infrastructure solutions. These measures would not necessarily mitigate storm surge flooding." • The proposed zoning changes are a slap in the face to the Envision Cambridge and Envision Alewife processes, which are coordinating closely with CCPR to bring forward consensus zoning recommendations that address climate and other goals. Zoning is such a contentious issue in this city, and the master planning process is an important "truce" of sorts. To undermine this careful process with a citizen petition is to diminish our chances of passing something meaningful later down the line. And now for my personal take: I understand that this petition is not intended to be a development moratorium, but by sloppily expanding the restrictions and hoops that construction over most of the city must jump through, it seems like it will have a similar effect. Every procedural and architectural hurdle we add makes it harder for small developers and property owners to keep this city up to date, and pushes new development into the hands of large corporations. This is no way to solve our housing crisis, but it is also no way to solve our environmental vulnerability problems. So l am truly hopeful that you will not indulge what seems to be an irresponsible and misguided petition any more than necessary, and I look forward to seeing the recommendations of Envision Cambridge when the time comes. Thank you, Allan Sadun 17 Pleasant Place

P.S. I have CC'ed Liza Paden. Could you make sure a copy of this gets to the Planning Board as well? Thank you! 2

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT OC From: Butler, Susan F <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:58 AM Paden, Liza; City Council; Lopez, Donna To: Letter supporting the Camb Climate Safety Petition.docx Attachments: Deax City Council, Ordinance Committee and Planning Board, Please read the attached letter and consider it carefully. The city's Vulnerability Assessment describes some of the climate changes that will affect the city. The Cambridge Climate Safety Petition describes many actions the city can take to protect the residents, the buildings, the infrastructure and the eco-systems and environment of our fair city. It is a thorough and thoughtful document, worthy of careful attention. Protect the city. Prepare for the challenges of worsening climate. Build resilience at every opportunity. Thank you, Sue Susan Farist Butler, RN, MSN, CS, PhD Co-Principal Investigator Laboratory for Probabilistic Reasoning Psychology Department Tufts University 490 Boston Avenue Medford, MA 02155 1

Susan Farist Butler, RN, MSN, PhD 14 Clinton Street Cambridge, MA 02139 25 June, 2018 Ordinance Committee Planning Board City of Cambridze Cambridge, MA 02139 To Whom It May Concern: The Cambridge Climate Safety Petition is a thoughtful, thorough response to the City's own Vulnerability Assessment. This petition proposes zoning changes that would build resilience the city certainly needs now and will increasingly need as the climate worsens. As the petition frequently cites, policies formulated and adopted now, actions taken now, and monies used now, and will have far greater impact as preventative measures than the restorative measures required after a disaster. Worse still, after the effects of many continuing disasters on a non-resilient environment, it may simply not be possible to restore what we once had, or create the resilience we now have the opportunity to protect. As Professor Ray Nickerson says in his book, Psychology and Environmental Change, there will come a point, where damage is of such devastation that restoration is simply not possible. We must build our resilience now, before the opportunity is gone. If you read the Mothers Out Front Research on Climate and Health, you will see that in many studies and meta-analyses, when heat, flooding and extreme climate events worsen, we see serious physical and psychological health concerns, including increases in suicide, inter-personal violence and inter-group violence. The vast effects of the current accelerating climate degradation have implications for all people and for all civilization. We have the opportunity to protect our healthy environment and our resilience now. We do not know how long this chance will last. Please act now. Adopt the Cambridge Climate Safety Petition's zoning proposals. Use the wisdom, knowledge, intelligence available to you in our lovely city, to implement these and more exemplary resilience actions. Make resilience part of zoning, where it will have a wide and consistent effect. Thank you, Sue Butler References: 1. Raymond S. Nickerson, 2003, Psychology and Environmental Change, Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Assoc. 2. https://www.mothersoutfront.org/health_and _climate_change

Lopez, Donna AYTACHMENT H# From: Michele Sprengnether < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 8:51 AM To: Paden, Liza; City Council; Lopez, Donna Subject: re: support of Climate Safety Petition June 26, 2018 Dear City Councillors and Members of the Planning Board, I urge you to support the Climate Safety Petition that would help reduce the impacts of flooding in the Alewife area as well as in adjacent neighborhoods, including mine. While the City of Cambridge does more than most other cities, the reality of future flooding and sea level rise indicate that current actions in Cambridge are woefully inadequate. The Climate Safety Petition doesn't go far enough for what is needed, but I strongly support it because it would help assure more resilient construction in the flood zone. Also, by preserving some open space, it would help to reduce the flooding impact to adjacent neighborhoods and existing critical infrastructure. I take issue with some of the statements that I have heard from city staff and politicians justifying the current overdevelopment in flood zones. One frequent justification is that development in the flood zone is engineered to not increase flooding in adjacent properties compared to the current flood risk. However, new development in this flood zone squanders a tremendously valuable opportunity to create more open space or restore wetland in order to lower flooding risk, and thus protect existing properties and critical infrastructure of the city and region. Going forward, this lost opportunity for better climate resilience will be the biggest failure of current flood zone development. The other frequent justification is that commercial property is evaluated for fiscal viability over several decades, and the increased flooding doesn't appear to be significant in the city's projections until 2070. This short- sighted argument is hard to swallow for somebody whose 90 year old home is at risk of flooding in just a few decades. What will happen with these flooded buildings when those few decades are up, the profits have been made and their value has dropped? City planners and government officials should use a longer time horizon than that of profit making developers who are externalizing the cost of flood zone development onto the rest of LIS. The predictions of future coastal flooding are highly uncertain, depending on future greenhouse gas emissions and rates of sea level rise. I call your attention to Buchanan et al.'s recent projection of future extreme flooding that uses real historic data of hourly extreme sea level measurements to project future flooding. While there is still high uncertainty, their result indicates significant flood risk before 2050. For Boston, their average prediction in a low GHG emission scenario is that by 2050 the current 100 year flood will occur 30 times more often, or about every 3 years. For comparison, a 100 year flood event in 1820 Boston is now about an 8-year event, so the rate of increased flooding in coming decades is predicted to be some six times faster than in the past century. These projections lead me to the conclusion that the climate safety petition doesn't go far enough, but offers a valuable starting point. Sincerely, Michele Sprengnether 31 Chilton St.

March 8, 2018 Nature feature "The Cruellest Seas: Extreme floods will become more common as sea levels rise" about the Buchanan et al. study and extreme flooding projections: https://www.ucf.edu/faculty/files/2018/03/2018 Nature-extreme-sea-level-feature.pdf June 7, 2017 Buchanan et al. study: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cb3 Supplement with Boston projections: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/12/6/064009/media/ERL 12 6 064009 suppdata.pdf 2

Lopez, Donna AITACHMENT IT From: Susan Labandibar <[email removed]> Tuesday, June 26, 2018 9:49 AM Sent: City Council; Lopez, Donna To: Subject: Support for the Climate Safety Petition Dear Members of the City Council, As a longtime climate activist and the founder of successful climate action and tree protection groups, l enthusiastically support the Climate Safety Petition. I wish that I could lend this worthy petition more active support, but I am laser-focused on the 2018 midterm elections. When considering policy measures such as this petition, I ask that the members refrain from being unnecessarily deliberative. The context that we live in today is one of crisis. Please remember to be bold and to take bold action in your capacity as leaders. That is the kind of leadership that the times demand. Susan Labandibar 8 Brewer Street Cambridge, MA. 02138 Swing Left Greater Boston Regional Organizing Coordinator Tech Networks of Boston, President [phone removed] "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing." Sent with Mixmax

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT JJ From: Ann Fleck-Henderson < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 10:31 AM To: Paden, Liza; Lopez, Donna; City Council Subject: Climate safety initiative This is to express my support. I hope that at least some of these new requirements might be extended to existing structures in vulnerable locations where feasible (eg tree removal permissions, emergency plans, other requirements if permits pulled for changes to an existing structure.) Thanks to all who contributed to this initiative. Ann 113 Richdale Ave., #11

Lopez, Donna ATACHMENT KK From: Charles Norris < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 1:58 PM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: Climate Safety Petition Support To the Planning Board, As a long term Cambridge resident (Huron Avenue), and as a professional waterfront and climate planner, I strongly endorse the Climate Safety Petition. Cambridge is to be commended for its excellent and widely praised) climate resilience planning to date. The Climate Safety Petition builds on the findings and recommendations of the climate study and is the logical next step for augmenting the City's building permitting and site planning requirements to ensure a healthy and safe Cambridge in the future. With the rapid pace of building permit applications and the climate vulnerability of the overlay areas, it is urgent that timely and responsive supplemental climate preparedness requirements be implemented as soon as possible. Areas such as the Fresh Pond quadrangle have long been the least densely developed in Cambridge for good reason; the quality of the low lying land has long been vulnerable to flooding. The difference today is that the likelihood and frequency of flooding is much greater today than in the past. It should be noted that the Petition recommendations include both specific measures for flooding vulnerability (such as raised ground floors), as well as critical City-wide climate vulnerability concerns like reducing heat islands (with requirements for limited lot coverage, tree canopy and permeable surfaces). Along with other petition signers and concerned residents, it is urged that the Council and Planning Board respond with urgency to the proposed Climate Safety Petition Charles Norris Charles R. Norris Norris & Norris Associates 446 Huron Avenue Cambridge MA 02138 [phone removed] (business) [email removed] www.norrisnorris.com Please note that only the above e-mail address [email removed] will be active after mid-June 2017. 1

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT LL From: Bjorn Poonen < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 5:53 PM To: City Council; Lopez, Donna Faroog, Iram Cc: Subject: Flood Plain Overlay District / Green Factor (Dear Donna Lopez: Please add this message to the record for the Ordinance Committee meeting on June 27.) Dear Ordinance Committee: I am writing about the April 5, 2018 "Flood Plain Overlay District / Green Factor" petition. My letter is based on my reading of this petition and the June 21, 2018 City staff memo to the Planning Board about the petition. Although I am not arguing in favor of adopting the full petition in its current form, 1 do hope that the City can work with the petitioners to improve it and adopt some version of it soon. current protections are clearly inadequate (e.g., page 13 of the City staff memo mentions that the City's recommended "protect" elevations are the 10-year elevations - it is not good if a building is expected to flood after only 10 years). On the other hand, some of the protections in the petition seem excessive (e.g., requiring lowest floors of new construction to be 2 feet above the 500-year flood elevation is probably more than necessary). In any case, I hope that the City will work with the petitioners to produce a revised petition that could be adopted quickly, even if the new protections are only provisional, to be refined once the City completes its CCPR Plan. As for the Green Factor, of course it is true, as the City staff memo says, that there has not been sufficient analysis to know whether the exact weighting factors are optimal, but this should not be a reason to dismiss the proposal. A single number will necessarily be an imperfect measure, but it will do a better job of conveying environmental qualities than no number at all. Simply having to report this number might further encourage developers to incorporate environmentally beneficial details into their plans. Residents of Cambridge will be able to understand better the extent to which a proposed development aligns with environmental goals, while the Planning Board can still use a more detailed analysis in evaluating proposals. The fact that Seattle and Washington, D.C. have found it useful to use a Green Factor is further evidence that it could be usefut for Cambridge. I hope that the City will start using it soon, with the intent of refining the details later. Best, 1

Bjorn Poonen 303 3rd St Unit 416 Cambridge, MA 02142

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT MM From: Elaine O'Reilly <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 3:40 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk; [email removed] Subject: Proposed Flood Overlay District Dear Council Members: As a member of ABC, I contact you today to say that I too support serious review and discussion of this proposal. Some of the provisions included (increased building heights, reduced parking requirements and green roofs) are concepts to support and strengthen. I support a process that the city would engage in that undertakes a comprehensive review and analysis of all elements included in this zoning petition in light of our current housing affordability crisis and other accepted or adopted community goals. We need experts in the fields of affordable housing, climate change and zoning to review this proposal. Any changes that negatively impact our need to address the affordable housing crisis in our City should not be included. Thank you. Elaine O'Reilly 95 Cushing St. Elaine O Reilly Governmental Strategies, Inc. 8 Beacon St., Suite 44 Boston, MA 02108 [email removed] Work: [phone removed] ext. 124 Fax: [phone removed] Cell: [phone removed]

Lopez, Donna ATTACAMENT NIN From: Robbie Harwood < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:45 AM To: City Council Clerk; City Manager Subject: Written testimony for 6/27 climate hearing Hello, As a Cambridge resident, it's important to me that Cambridge continue to be a place we want to live. Part of that involves preparation for the consequences of climate change, of which we are sadly likely seeing only the beginning. Given the severity of the consequences of, for instance, a flood we are not prepared for, I hope that we can codify preparedness, especially for new affordable housing. Thanks, -Robbie Harwood, Florence Street

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT OU From: Bob Woodbury <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 7:00 AM To: City Council Lopez, Donna; Clerk Cc: Subject: Zoning petition for a Floodplain Overlay District Cambridge City Council Ordinance Board We're writing with concern about proposed new zoning for a Floodplain Overlay District in parts of Cambridge. The goals of the petition we share: make thoughtful plans to anticipate the challenges of a changing climate and prepare programs to mitigate future problems such as increased rainfall. Such desirable outcomes may, we fear, come with less attractive consequences. Extensive - and expensive - new infrastructure and building requirements could easily become roadblocks to other goals of the City. In particular, Cambridge's commitment to build more affordable housing may be stopped cold by increased and unreasonable building costs mandated by this proposal. The problems addressed by this petition are important; they deserve serious review, professional research, and civic discussion. A successful result would address both climate change and social change, and would include solutions to both future rising floodwaters and the present rising costs of living here. For many of the people we want to be able to live in Cambridge, a hasty re-zoning could leave them high and dry. Thank you. Bob & Mary Woodbury 133 River Street Cambridge, Mass.

ATTACHMENT AP Kendall Square The Future Lives Here H. Theodore Cohen, Chair Cambridge Planning Board c/o Cambridge Community Development Department 344 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02139 June 26, 2018 Dear Members of the Planning Board, The Kendall Square Association puts advancing our members' sustainable building and operating practices at the top of our agenda. We consider our environmental mission an integral part of our work stewarding Kendall Square as the world's most cutting edge innovation district in the world. We are made up of 175 member institutions ranging from large employers like Sanofi Genzyme and MIT to small businesses like EVOO Restaurant and startups like GoNation. Our members have formed two committees that work on environmental goals: our ecodistrict committee shares best practices on WELL vs LEED certification, Passive House, lab waste recycling, and other mechanisms for mitigating the environmental impact of laboratories and offices; and our transportation committee has been working with MassDOT, the City and advocacy groups to improve the quality and accessibility of public transportation and cycling in order to reduce traffic congestion and pollution. In addition, many KSA members have participated in City-related sustainability activities including the Cambridge Compact for a Sustainable Future, the City's Building Use Energy Disclosure Ordinance implementation committee, the Net Zero Task Force, the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force, and the three-year Envision Cambridge initiative. The collaborative, strategic analysis and planning that each of those initiatives has undertaken is an intelligent and responsible way to address the critical decisions we must make to improve the resilience of our neighborhoods. Therefore, we are perplexed by this new Green Factor zoning initiative. This particular petition does not seem to build on, nor complement, the current efforts that our community is engaged in to ensure that Cambridge is in the best position possible in terms of climate change. Rather, it appears to usurp our community-wide dialogue and potentially steer us off course. Personally, as a resident and civic leader, I worry about the precedent that this initiative may set as it flagrantly ignores the careful work conducted by so many informed citizens, city staffers, engineers, and scientists. We are fortunate to live and work in the City of Cambridge - a municipality that addresses serious issues with serious plans. The City has been working for years in an iterative and productive way to understand Cambridge's vulnerabilities and implement programs that will prepare it for future threats. Cambridge is always ahead of the curve in this manner - and we are grateful for the strong vision and leadership that keeps the City in that enviable position.

Kendall Square The Future Lives Here On behalf of the KSA, I urge you to not advance this citizens' petition and continue to focus instead on the many ongoing substantive efforts to address climate change locally and regionally. Issues of sustainability are too important to our city's health and viability to allow this petition to supplant the careful work the city has committed to carrying out in the years ahead. Thank you for your consideration, C.A. Webb President, Kendall Square Association

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT GE Anne Taylor <[email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 10:16 AM To: City Council Cc: Clerk; City Manager Climate Safety Petition Subject: To the City Council, City Manager and Staff, I'm writing with regard to the Climate Safety Petition proposed by residents, like myself, who are concerned about the effects of climate change on the city of Cambridge. I ask the Council to support this critical petition. As a homeowner situated between Lechmere and Kendall Square, I'm concerned that our area will be directly affected by flooding unless the City acts with the same urgency it has taken to protect bicyclists. Sincerely, Anne Taylor 66 Thorndike St, Cambridge

Lopez, Donna AITACHMENTAR From: gile beye <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:32 PM To: City Council Cc: Lopez, Donna Subject: Climate Safety Petition Dear Cambridge Ordinance Committee, I went to a presentation to the Cambridge Planning Board last night by Doug Brown and Mike Nakagawa regarding the Climate Safety Petition they have put together. I was really impressed with the amount of study they have done to put the presentation and the petition together. There was lots of public comment. Many people said 'why do anything now when there are ongoing studies which will guide us?'. I feel like the question should actually be 'why not act now?'. I have participated in some of the Envision Cambridge working groups and am aware of the many studies that have been done around the Alewife area. Much of what Doug and Mike present is not new news. Climate change is happening, our storms have been getting stronger, flooding is happening more often, a 100 year storm at high tide will definitely over top the dam on the Mystic River. Let's plan for this. People also said 'Cambridge is cited in so many places as being really innovative with their growth'. But really we aren't. We cut down trees instead of planting them. NYC is innovative - they made a goal of planting a million trees and they achieved it. Cambridge didn't do that. Sure we have LEED requirements in building codes but we don't require green growth like Seatte does. Why not do something innovative now? We know we have to. Why wait until more studies are done and then years of putting them into effect go by? The Alewife area is almost built out. If we wait until more reports are written there won't be the need for those reports because all the buildings that can be built in the area will have been permitted and variances given. We need the rest of the buildings in the Alewife area to be climate resilient. We need to be guided by FEMA who have done many studies after flood disasters in this country. Let's learn from the mistakes of other cities who have suffered flooding from naturel disasters with the recommendations of FEMA. Let's not wait and have to learn from our mistakes. Let's use the wisdom from the FEMA reports to help guide us in making good planning decisions for Cambridge's future. I support the Climate Safety Petition. I hope you will too. Sincerely, Gile Beye 18 Harrinton Road Cambridge, MA 02140 1

Lopez, Donna ATTACHIMENTSS From: Bob Flack <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 3:14 PM To: Lopez, Donna Cc: City Council; Watkins, Kathy; Farooq, Iram; Jesse Kanson-Benanav Subject: 7/27 Ordinance Committee Hearing - Proposed Zoning Amendment to Section 20.70, Flood Pain Overlay District To the Members of the Ordinance Committee: Please submit this email for the record concerning the proposed zoning amendment noted above. I attended the Planning Board hearing last night on this topic, but regrettably can't attend tonight's Ordinance Committee hearing. Twining Properties has developed highly sustainable mixed-use communities in the Seaport District, Kendall Square and we recently completed the permitting phase of Mass+Main in Central Square. We focus on building TOD (Transit Oriented Design), urban, mixed-use communities in the northeast corridor as a smart investment from a financial and sustainable standpoint. We have worked extensively over 15 years in Cambridge with the City Council, Planning Board and the highly professional departments, balancing complex issues needed for successful projects: economics, planning and urban design, affordability, and sustainability -resulting in 770 new homes, 116 affordable units, all meeting LEED Gold. It is from this experience that we believe that climatic resiliency and sustainability should be considered in the context of broader City goals that are being addressed in the Envision masterplanning process. As discussed at the Planning Board hearing, the City has a tradition of implementing thoughtful sustainable policies which will continue until the Envision report is completed. We respectively request that the Ordinance Committee fully support the Envision process and submit a negative recommendation to the City Council. Sincerely, Bob Flack SVP Development [t] TwiningProperties One Broadway, 3rd Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 [email removed] w.[phone removed] : c.[phone removed]

Lopez, Donna AITACHMENT IT From: Kent Johnson <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 3:51 PM To: City Council; Lopez, Donna Subject: In support of Climate Safety Petition City Councilors, I'm writing in support of the Climate Safety Petition which is before the Ordinance Committee tonight. It's high time to get serious about building a sustainable environment in the Cambridge flood plain. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. Let's get going and create a green and resilient Cambridge! Thank you, Kent Johnson North Cambridge 1

Lopez, Donna ATTACWMENT U4 From: Richard McKinnon <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 3:55 PM To: Lopez, Donna; Crane, Paula Cc: Carlone, Dennis; Kelley, Craig; Devereux, Jan; McGovern, Marc; Simmons, Denise; Toomey, Tim; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Mallon, Alanna; Zondervan, Quinton Subject: Richard McKinnon's Testimony for today's Ordinance Committee Hearing Memo to Ordinance Committe Re Brown Petition.pdf Attachments: Hi Donna and Paula, Will you please kindly include the attached letter as testimony by Richard McKinnon concerning the Brown Petition at today's Ordinance Committee hearing? Thanks, Mai Le Mai Le-Nguyen/Executive Assistant 1 Leighton Street, Unit 1905 Cambridge, MA 02141 [email removed] Office: [phone removed] Cell: [phone removed]

June 27, 2018 Councilor Dennis Carlone and Councilor Craig Kelley, Chairmen And Members of The Cambridge Ordinance Committee 795 Mass Ave, Cambridge MA. 02139 Dear Chairmen and Members of the Ordinance Committee, I regret that a health issuc will prevent me from testifying in person at today's hearing on the Brown Petition. Please except my written testimony instead. I've lived here my whole life and have also developed or helped to develop over 3000 units of housing with 7 different national housing companies. I'd like to focus my remarks on Brown, its impact on affordable housing and more specifically still, my own development with the Hanover Company at 50 CambridgePark Drive. Developing buildings that produce affordable housing is a central priority in Cambridge with wide agreement on that among our residents. However, it is also central that we develop buildings that are truly resilient, provide safety for their residents and protection from the weather events of flood and heat that climate change will bring. However, a building does not have to comply with Brown in order to be climate ready. Further, in fact, 50 Cambridgelark Drive is climate resilient and prepared, a safe place for its residents. I've attached a listing of the many measures taken to show that. What is true however, is that 50 CambridgePark Drive, designed properly, cannot be built under Brown. Section 20.726 of Brown requires that all named Special Permits must also go to the BZA and be granted variances. This is a step that stops development. Special Permits are based on criterion that can be determined at the municipal level, such as: encourage housing, retail, create shaded area, play areas, etc. Many standards can be used. One Leighton St. Tinit 1905, Cambridge, MA.02141 Emall: Mckinnoncompany @coincastonet Tel: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed]

Variances are different. They are governed by State Law. Their calling card is hardship, stated, and that hardship itself is subject to further specific requirements. You cannot take Special Permits granted on one set of conditions and then pretend that they also meet the wholly different conditions required of a variance. It is like saying a Special Permit can be issued if your shoes are wet, your pants, your shirt, hair and everything else. Now go down to the BZA and get a Variance for that Special Permit as well whose conditions are that you be bone dry. It's a fatal flaw in Brown. And by the way, no lender, none, will lend on housing projects whose concluding steps require a set of internal contradictions like this. Financing would be unavailable. Members of the Ordinance Committee, climate change is serious. So is the need that so many neighbors have to find affordable housing. Some of us are finding ways to address both. The Brown Petition does not. Enclosures One Leighton St. Unit 1905, Cambridge, MA.02141 Email: McKinnoncompany @comcast.pet Tel: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed]

50 CambridgePark Drive HANOVER A BSC GROUP CUBES COMPANY North Cambridge Stabilization Committee May 9, 2018 at 7:00 PM Bisvan Viatar Ansoatatas, tro. HALEY& Tanasa tungra semette, lec. Burs Apartments ALDRICH gowsionsstorTs 50 Churchill Avenue Copyright 2018 O CUIE & Eluciio. Al righta reesrved,

HANOVER COMPANY Special Permit Timeline North Cambridge Stablization Committee February 14, 2018 March 12,2018 Conservation Commission Pubic Hearing Postponed from February 26, 2018 April 24, 2018 Community Engagement May 9, 2018 North Cambridge Stablization Committee Postponed from April 25, 2018 Next Planning Board Public Hearing Construction Schedule Q1 2019 Anticlpated Construction Start First Units 19 months 26 months Project Completion Project Description Total GFA 319,365 sf 6,831 Retail GFA Total Unite 299 60 Affordable Units Parking - Vehicle Parking- Bike Long Tem Parking - Blke Short Tem Open Space Schedule / Special Permits Copyright 2010 @CUBE 3 Sarila. All rights resened •4

3 ABSC GROUP Environmental Benefits 1. Stormwater Runoff: a) Provide runoff treatment of 80% Total Suspended Solids removal, none exists today b) Reduce runoff volumes from the site by providing increased groundwater infitration as follows: i. 2-year rainfall event (2.64-inches) = 48% reduction/increase ii. 10-year rainfall event (5.16-inches) = 24% reduction/increase ili. 100-year rainfall event (8.16-inches) = 15% reduction/increase 2. Provide additional available flood storage on site for up to the 2030 projected flood elevation a) 2,066 cubic yards of additional flood storage, an increase of 30% 3. Provide an additional 21 trees on site, an increase of 56% 4. Provide additional "green" area on site, an increase of 8,000 sf Copyright 2018 CUBE 3 Studio. All rights reserved 34

3 ABSC GROUP 50 CambridgePark Drive Site Preparedness • Prepared Community • Resident Resilience Hub w/ Cooling Areas (Common Amenity Areas/Pool) • Emergency Preparedness Plan & On-Site Preparedness Supplies for Residents • Social Programming & Education • Adapted Building • Ground level above CCVA projected 2070 10-year flood elevation • Residential units on second floor or higher (6 ft above CCVA projected 2070 100- year flood elevations/FEMA 500-year flood elevation) • Solar-ready building roof • Resilient Intrastructure • Electrical equipment above CCVA projected 100-year flood elevation (preciptation) • Elevated site drive & sidewalk/bike lanes • Sewer holding tanks (CSO mitigation) • Stormwater storage & infiltration • Flood storage (to above CCVA 2070 projected 10-year flood elevation) • Resilient Ecosystems • Enhanced street tree canopy and landscape plantings • Reduction in impervious area on site • Green infrastructure - blofiltration tree wells along site drive Copyright 2018 CUBE 3 Studio, All rights reserved.

Lopez, Donna ATTACAMENT VU From: Henry Wortis < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 4:54 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk; City Manager Subject: Climate change and development Dear Councilors; Since 1970 | have been a resident of Cambridge. My two daughters graduated from Cambridge Ringe and Latin. Since we first arrived, housing and displacement have been at the center of political debate in the city. It is no surprise that housing is key to our approach to protection against the oncoming effects of climate change on our city. I understand that people feel that actions that reduce the construction of housing will increase the displacement of working class families. 1 make my living as a scientist and looking at the data that underlies ideas and assumptions is important to me. I feel that the argument that more construction with inclusionary housing will decrease displacement is fundamentally flawed. Suppose Cambridge sets inclusionary housing for all new development at 20%. That means, that if all housing was newly developed only 20% of the units would be affordable. That means we would reduce the number of people who live in affordable housing. The situation gets worse if only a portion of private housing units are newly developed. Say, that 25% of all private housing units are newly developed and 20% of these units are affordable. That means that 20% of 25% would be affordable. That is, 5% of private housing units would be affordable. Meanwhile the 75% of private housing units that were old stock, not newly developed, would increase in cost as the prices of the new private housing stock drive up the price of housing In fact, that is what we have experienced in Cambridge since the loss of rent control. The cost of private housing units, both new and old, has gone up, driving people who are not affluent out of Cambridge. To avoid displacement we need solutions that do not depend on private housing development. We should explore these solutions while protecting all of us from the devastating effects of climate change. Thank you for your consideration. Henry H. Wortis 106 Berkshire St. Cambridge MA 0214[phone removed] [email removed] - Henry Wortis 106 Berkshire St.

Lopez, Donna AtTACHMENT WW From: Abra Berkowitz <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 5:02 PM To: City Council; Lopez, Donna Subject: Support for Important Aspects of the Doug Brown, et al. Petition Dear Mayor McGovern and City Councilors, Thank you for considering the Douglas Brown, et. al Flood Plain / Green Factor Petition. I am writing to draw attention to aspects of the petition that both promote the goals of housing production and climate resiliency. I am also writing to note the aspects of the petition that will promote environmental justice by protecting public health for folks in affordable housing, who have little choice as to where they can live in our city. Simply put, equating support for this petition as "anti-housing" and opposition as "pro-housing" is unhelpful. It does nothing to ensure that new housing can withstand the increases in the severity and frequency of extreme weather. And, it does nothing to protect our city's affordable tenants, who lack the resources of market-rate tenants to evacuate or relocate. Considering each aspect of the petition one-by-one, consulting with experts from both the environment and development fields, prioritizing aspects of the petition that ensure our city's low and moderate income residents have safe, permanent housing-and more of it-these are all ways forward that should be agreeable to all. Here are a few significant aspects of the petition text that must be adopted, as they meet both the goals of public health and housing production: First, The zoning petition provides relief from height limitations in the zoning district if new construction and construction with substantial improvements is built at the elevation of a 500-year flood elevation and therein exceeds existing height limitations. This applies to all construction, market rate and affordable. This does not in any way inhibit the number of units provided by a new or substantially changed development, as it enables the developer to maintain the district's existing dimensional requirements by simply building higher (20.714) Second, A developer can be exempted from parking requirements by adding open space and/or housing units. From the petition text: "A development proposal may be exempted from minimum parking requirements upon review by the Planning Board, provided that such a reduction allows for additional permeable open space and/or residential units without restricting non-parking uses (20.718) Third, Anyone who drinks our city's drinking water is protected from consuming toxic materials by ensuring that the storage of toxic materials does not occur in a flood plain. When dangerous materials percolate into the groundwater--the result of flooding and/or imperfect storage--they find their way to reservoirs like Fresh Pond through fractured rocks and soils. This is an otherwise healthy ecological process (often impeded by impervious surfaces like pavements) which ensures our reservoirs are constantly recharged with freshwater,

and our soil has a sturdy, unsaturated top layer. Siting toxic materials in flood plains is problematic for our entire city, made particularly acute for residents of these areas (20.720) Fourth, Ready gov, the homepage of the Department of National Security, suggests that the best way to prepare for extreme weather is to "Know your risk" and "Take action." "Knowing your risk" means being aware of the dangers posed to residents living in a 100-year or 500-year floodplain. Flood markers, required in 20.724 of the petition, are one such example. The first thing that families can do to protect themselves from severe weather? "Develop an emergency plan based on your local weather hazards and practice your plan," Ready gov says. This is required in 20.723 of the petition. For larger residential developments, this should absolutely be a requirement of the property manager. Such a large number of people in one place necessitates a coordinated response plan. I would also like to point out that the mission statements of our city's affordable housing developers intersect really well with the basic goals of the Doug Brown et al. petition; concepts of security, sustainability and resiliency are core tenets. Here are a few examples from Cambridge Housing Authority and Just-a-Start: Cambridge Housing Authority: "CHA is able to meet its mission to develop and manage safe, good quality, affordable housing for low-income individuals and families in a manner which promotes citizenship, community and self-reliance in one of the most expensive housing markets in the country." Just-a-start: "As a community development corporation (CDC), Just-A-Start (JAS) is dedicated to building the housing security and economic stability of low-to moderate-income people in Cambridge and nearby communities... JAS's vision is a better future for each and every community member: a secure home, a sustaining career, and engagement in the community." We need to have the conversation about how to continue building "safe, good quality, affordable housing" without making our city's most vulnerable residents even more vulnerable to the excessive heat, severe storms, and flooding as the result of rising sea levels which will inevitably hit our city with increasing intensity and frequency. Finally, we do have evidence that our current standards are not enough. The serious mold problem at Jackson Place, flooding in parking garages in Alewife and in existing, private open space--these are all indicators that the current standards for residential construction are simply not enough to handle severe storms. Take the Atmark, for example, a residential development of 428 units built in Alewife in 2014 which includes affordable units. Hop on Yelp--or ask a resident-and you'll find out that the parking garage floods, concrete from the ceiling tumbles onto vehicles and people when wet, and that the development's dog park has flooded, carrying dog excrement with it. Sure, I just used dog poop to prove a point, perhaps to varying levels of success. The point I make here is that if we don't make requirements of new housing developments before they get built, we will see more and more examples of public health compromised because we didn't plan enough for our changing weather. 2

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to a continued conversation about how we can ensure the construction of new, resilient housing that enables our most vulnerable community members to build their lives in our city without compromising their future health and safety. Best, Abra Berkowitz 632 Massachusetts Avenue Apt 404 Cambridge, MA 02139 Cambridge Residents Alliance Sent from Outlook

Lopez, Donna ATTACHIMENT XX From: seanna berry < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 5:30 PM City Council To: Clerk Subject: Climate safety petition Dear councilors, I am a resident of Cambridge and would like to encourage you to consider this climate safety petition that is being proposed. In this current news climate, it seems so long ago that we witnessed with national horror as people's homes flooded in Texas due to a fierce hurricane. What was discovered later was the poor zoning/regulations that led to the tragedy of homes being built in the wrong place. Overwhelmingly the people who lost their homes and possessions were economically disadvantaged. My family is moderate income and we struggle to afford to stay in this city with rapidly rising rents and so 1 understand this issue personally. I also applaud the council for keeping housing needs front and center. Affordable housing is needed, but affordable housing for its own sake without regard to changing climate, flood patterns, and green infrastructure for flood mitigation is shortsighted at best. Perhaps it doesn't have to be an either/or but instead a both/and prospect. Perhaps we can have both housing but housing done with innovative, climate-forward design guidelines. Cambridge is a leader in so many ways and it makes me proud to reside here. This city has the luxury of setting stringent zoning code to maximize livability and ecology while still getting affordable housing built. Please show your bold leadership in this issue. Kind regards, Seanna Berry 16 Clinton St #2

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT YY From: Pawel Latawiec < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 6:36 PM To: Clerk Subject: Fw: Statement in opposition to proposed zoning ordinance From: Pawel Latawiec <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 6:34 PM To: council@cambridgema.gov Cc: clerk@cambridgma.gov; Jesse Kanson-Benanav, A Better Cambridge Subject: Statement in opposition to proposed zoning ordinance Dear Cambridge city council, I attended the planning board meeting yesterday regarding the proposed zoning ordinance and spoke in opposition, and am writing to you today to reiterate my stance. Throughout the evening, a number of concerns were raised by members of the public, the following which resonated with me the most: Although the stated goals of climate resilience and preparedness are laudable, the proposed ordinance usurps and short-circuits the process already in place to address these issues. As questions of zoning inevitable involve many stakeholders, only a process which addresses all those concerned is adequate, which Cambridge has today in Envision Cambridge and Envision Alewife. I mention Envision Cambridge because the ordinance arbitrarily proposes expanding the area under these zoning rules to areas well outside of Alewife, in a manner inconsistent with best practices, as raised by the architects, planners, and developers who spoke to the board yesterday. Second, as Cambridge is in the middle of a housing crisis, the correct action is not to abdicate our responsibility to build more housing of all kinds by erecting arbitrary barriers. Although the proposers gave an excellent presentation regarding the climate risks Alewife is under and around green space best practices, they did not address other, more costly components of the ordinance and how they would affect housing costs, including time to develop. As one opposer pointed out, the construction that they held as a mantle of good green design has unit construction costs approaching $500k, a number which makes development nearly impossible, as pointed out by numerous affordable housing developers. I also take an issue with the way the proposed ordinance throws away the urban design elements recommended by Envision Alewife. Namely, the ordinance is a prescriptive document, which recommends large setbacks for all properties, as opposed to the sloped yards or raised plinths in Envision Alewife. This also precludes development of any of our favorite urban forms in Cambridge, (street walls, squares, etc.) which Envision Alewife recommends. The proposers of the ordinance did not present any solid evidence that such setbacks would help with flood resilience efforts, and I feel it is an imposition of their view of what a city should look and feel like on the rest of the citizenry. The best way to ensure Alewife is a green development is by ensuring that housing is built to parity with offices and commercial, as recommended by the EPA. While displacement by flooding is a problem,

displacement from housing never built is a much greater one, and I encourage the council to allow the current Envision process in place to continue its work. Thank you, Pawel Latawiec 2 Earhart St #409 Cambridge, MA 02141 2

AYTACWMENT ZZ Lopez, Donna From: Peter Dublin <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 10:42 AM To: Paden, Liza; City Council; Lopez, Donna Subject: climate petition I strongly urge you to support the climate safety petition because l am concerned about the increased flooding in the Alewife area and in my neighborhood nearby.

Lopez, Donna AAA ATTACHMENT Lisan Mo < [email removed]> From: Thursday, June 28, 2018 12:37 PM Sent: To: City Council Subject: Cambridge resident comment on Climate Safety Petition Dear councillors, I'd like to thank each of you for considering this petition. I have been a resident of Cambridge for over thirty years. I offer my full support for this petition. It seems to be just the first step in the process our city undertakes to address the reality of climate change. There seems to be two distinct strategies when we talk about what the city can do, one is responding to its effects (what is going to happen and being proactive in that response), the other is responding to its causes (trying to lessen our city's carbon footprint so that we no longer are contributing to it). For those who care about the city and its longevity, the first one is necessary. For those who care about the planet and how we leave it for our children and grandchildren, the second one is necessary. If you agree that climate change is real, it is essential to do the first. If you believe that we have a duty to preserve our planet, it is essential to do both. To put another way, one is making our city secure against climate change, the other is making our city sustainable in the era of climate change. This petition is mostly aimed at the first part: making our city resilient to the impending effects of climate change. Instead of voicing all of the salient points of this petition, which many who are more eloquent and knowledgeable can do, I would like to submit for your consideration a few questions that it brings up. First, Cambridge is a city that is looked at as a leader in progressive policy on a number of issues. As of September of last year, there were over 300 cities worldwide that were able to declare themselves as completely energy independent, meaning their carbon footprint is effectively zero. Now this petition doesn't go anywhere close to that, but the question is, if Cambridge is a leader in so many areas, why can't we lead on this? What makes these other cities so special above and beyond us? We are a city that is very fortunate to have a surplus of resources and so it would seem reasonable that we would look to what other cities have done so that we too can be a leader in making our city sustainable and secure in this era of climate change. This petition is a step in that direction. Second, this petition mostly addresses future development and how to make the proper adjustments so that we account for our changing climate. What about current industry, buildings and residences? From what I understand, at the present moment, our city is far from carbon neutral, so making requirements for new development helps with mitigation but does not address current impact. Is it possible to get a list of our current emissions by building or by type (commercial v residential) and identify the most substantial emitters so that we know which buildings need to be addressed first? 1

Climate change is big and the response to it will have to be substantial and wide-ranging. It's like nothing we've ever experienced or prepared for before. The city's response so far has been to say that because we can't predict what's going to happen, it's hard to make the proper changes for it. And this is true. Our response to it will not be perfect and we will almost certainly make mistakes and have to go back and compensate for them. Which makes sense, because this is a problem that is huge and unprecedented and one we've never dealt with before. At the same time, doing nothing or stalling and delaying so that any measures we take are half-measures and insufficient is not doing what's best for our city. If we believe that climate change is happening, then the changes we make will have to be substantial. 300+ cities have already done them. We already have plenty of roadmaps on what steps to take, the question is will we implement them? Which leads to some final questions which may seem unrelated at first, but bear with me: do we think wearing a seatbelt is absolutely necessary? Probably not, but we do it for what can and might happen. Do we think wearing a bike helmet is absolutely necessary? Probably not, but we do it and make sure our children do as well. I see this petition as putting a seatbelt or helmet on our city. These are measures that we are taking to prevent or at least mitigate against serious events that are going to happen in the not-so-distant future due to climate change. The big difference is that this is not a question of if these changes will happen, only when--and if our city is prepared for them when that time comes. In turn, it shouldn't be a question of if, but how. We can be doing as much and more than what the 300 cities around the world are already doing. I don't presume to know the plan for doing so. I'll leave that up to you, the city, and the good residents, like the petitioners, who can share their knowledge of the potential ways forward. That being said, big actions will be necessary and this petition represents a good first step. Thank you for your time and consideration.