City Councillor Brian Murphy

1. Y+ highest feasible on new buildings at least silver

2. Y- to a point. Small private projects that could use some small assistance to achieve higher LEED standards should be assisted by the City in doing so, but this should be done in exchange for net public benefit, not increased profits for the developer. Perhaps increased affordability or open space easements may be of use in determining how much the city can or should assist.

3. Y+ neighborhood commercial zoning. I look forward to reviewing and supporting future proposals on this.

4. Y+ we ought to be aware of externalities that should be factored into the cost of an action but are not.

5. Y-I'm not sure exactly how best to restrict construction in flood plains, but these districts must be properly zoned and any construction within these zones be built to not exacerbate flooding and to withstand flood consequences.

6. Yes

7. Yes, new as of right paving should require a building permit- this permit should require plans to be submitted- if that is not always the case, I would support an ordinance to ensure ISD performs this necessary task. The real issue is how rapidly the city is losing private greenspace. This issue must be confronted by the next council, and I hope the Planning Board and private citizens weigh in on exactly how we can better protect private greenspace without simply creating a legal quagmire that eats up city funds.

8. Y- on publicly owned parks and open space, barring some overwhelming reason with significant environmental benefits.

9. Yes

10. Yes

11. yes, we want to encourage use of state of the art equipment to minimize noise pollution.

12. Yes

13. Yes

14. Yes

15. Yes- we should look to implementing programs that encourage - or require- businesses and landlords to supply T passes. But the city does not have the authority to mandate T pass purchase, not would this be a fair use of municipal authority. We should also look at supplying free shuttles, increasing bus routes and frequency and discouraging car use.

16. Y, I would enjoy seeing proposals that offer this.

17. Y+. Encourage T use and discourage car use. This is one piece of the plan, although we need to do more.

18. Yes. Many are on the federal government's tax incentive list. Those that can and should be done on a municipal basis should be implemented as long as it can be shown this is not corporate welfare and the tax incentive will positively impact use/preservation. We should also investigate intelligent use of conservation easements

19. Yes but this is a state issue.

Return to Forum in www.cambridgegreen.org

Environmental Issues: short answer yes and no with exceptions noted. Please answer so we can compare candidates. Fax answers to 617-876-8991 or email: carmean2@yahoo.com

1. Do you support the LEED silver standard for new buildings?

Do you support tax incentives for private developers to use LEED silver standards for building and restoration?
Would you support master planning, zoning, incentives and requirements by the City to make shopping, laundry, schools, parks, recreation and libraries and essential services within a ten-minute walk of residents?
Would you support life-cycle costing in planning so that the cost of use, harm, waste, and renewal is included in costing for decisions, for example leaf removal?
Would you support conservation by-laws to restrict building in one-hundred year flood plains?
Should Cambridge hire an Energy Manager?
Do you support requiring contractors to submit their plans before paving?
Would you support a ban on building in parks and open space?

9. Do you support the current proposed tree ordinance to protect trees?

10. Would you support protection of legacy trees of more than 30 inches diameter at breast height on private and public property? Would you support protection of trees on lot lines, where most of our city’s trees live?

11. Do you support incentives to enforce the current noise ordinance? Noise level restrictions on lawn & landscaping equipment like leaf blowers?

Do you support more aggressive enforcement of the state’s 5-minute anti-idling statute, especially for buses, trucks and heavy construction vehicles and posting the anti-idling law near schools and major intersections?
Do you support approval of shuttles in Cambridge?
Do you support requiring all City funded or partially-funded vehicles use no diesel, or have 2007 standards and requiring all the existing diesel vehicles to use low sulfur or bio-diesel fuel and requiring all City non-emergency vehicles have 27 mpg?
Do you favor discounts/rebates for T-passes to all residents and do you favor mandatory T-pass purchase for each parking permit?
Do you support shuttle service for elders, youth and all citizens between neighborhood centers and to the new Main Library?
Do you support elimination of the one parking place per unit requirement if the building is within a mile or half-mile to a T stop?
Do you support tax incentives to use compact fluorescents and LEDs, bicycles, sustainable energy sources, maintenance of large trees, reuse of older buildings, gardens and open space and other wise environmental strategies?
Do you support taxing vehicles by weight so that SUVs and vehicles would have to cover the life cycle cost including reparation of air quality and increased risk of danger to their passengers and those they hit?