Docstoc

Cape Cod Bank and Trust Investment Performance

Document Sample
Cape Cod Bank and Trust Investment Performance Powered By Docstoc
					                                                          Cape Cod Commission
                                           Response to Public Comments on
                                         May 29, 2008 Draft Regional Policy Plan


SPECIAL NOTE: The responses (in the right-hand column) are in draft form. Most were reviewed by
the Cape Cod Commission’s Planning Committee during September 2008. The committee also discussed
and, in response to public comments, made many changes to the draft Regional Policy Plan after
September, which are reflected in the October 9, 2008 version of the plan. Some of the responses shown
here in the right-hand column may now be irrelevant or moot, as of October 16, 2008, because of those
changes. In addition, public comment letters received between October 1 and October 8, 2008, still
require review and/or response by the Planning Committee.


                           Comments                                              CCC Response
 TOWN OF YARMOUTH
 May 28, 2008

 Re: Enabling Regulations-DRI/Regional Policy Plan

 The Town of Yarmouth would like to make an initial comment
 regarding the proposed changes to the enabling regulations
 governing review of developments of regional impact and limited
 DRI review as well as the draft Regional Policy Plan under
 consideration by the Cape Cod Commission.

 The town has started a review of the changes in the enabling
 regulations and the updated regional policy plan through the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                    Page 1
 Community and Economic Development Committee for the
 Town of Yarmouth with regards to the DRI regulations and
 related scoping questions, we have concerns that the proposed           RE …we have concerns: The proposed Regional Policy Plan (RPP)
 changes will not make the process more certain or predictable.          has a transportation mitigation buy-out provision for Developments
                                                                         of Regional Impact (DRIs) located within Economic Centers. This
                                                                         buy-out provision will help to make the process both certain and
                                                                         predictable in terms of cost and time saved in lieu of completing a
                                                                         traffic study.

                                                                         The proposed Draft RPP does not expand the scope of transportation
                                                                         mitigation. The three (3) main goals of the 2002 RPP remain in
                                                                         effect with the added benefit that development within an Economic
                                                                         Center will have both reduced cost and time saved.

                                                                         Cash mitigation was added as an option in the draft 2008 RPP as a
                                                                         result of recommendations made by the 21st Century Task Force.
                                                                         While the commercial affordable housing requirement is new in this
                                                                         RPP, the amount is discounted for projects located in designated
                                                                         Economic Centers. In addition, there is no open space mitigation for
                                                                         redevelopment in Economic Centers, up to certain limits. The on-
                                                                         site alternative energy requirement is not mitigation per se, as the
                                                                         costs are recovered over time by the property owner.

 We believe the proposed mitigation expands the scope of items           RE We believe the proposed: The impacts of development on the
 subject to mitigation with no reductions in that cost or in the time    region‘s economy are more rigorously addressed in the Draft RPP.
 it will take to go through the process.                                 However, DRI projects that provide quality jobs in sectors not
                                                                         already saturated will meet the economic standards easily. With the
                                                                         new Limited Review Process these projects may not even have to be
                                                                         reviewed for economic development impacts. The Limited Review
                                                                         scoping questions can help developers design projects that will
                                                                         require minimal DRI review, thereby saving money and time in the
                                                                         permitting phase of their projects.




CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 2
 It would be helpful if Commission staff could do a comparison of     RE It would be helpful: A comparison of past DRIs was done to test
 past DRI's which required mitigation and how those same DRI's        the Limited Review scoping questions. Nine recent projects
 would be effected by the new rules and regulations being             covering a range of development types where tested. These are the
 proposed. Our representative, Ms. Renie Hamman, has also raised      IFAW Headquarters (redevelopment), Benthos/Raytheon
 a series of questions to which I do not believe answers have been    (expansion), Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Core Campus
 made. We would like to review comments by the Commission on          (expansion), Cape Cod Cooperative Bank Operations Offices (new
 the specific items Ms. Hamman raised before a formal position        development), Shallow Pond Offices (redevelopment), Bourne CVS
 regarding the proposed changes in the DRI review process and         (redevelopment), Circuit City (redevelopment), BJ‘s
 the regional policy plan adjustments can be made.                    (new/redevelopment), and Supply New England (new development).

                                                                      There are four economic development goals under which a project
                                                                      may be reviewed. Under the first goal (ED1), four (4) of the nine (9)
                                                                      projects would require no further review; two (2) additional projects
                                                                      would probably be free from review with adoption of the Regional
                                                                      Land Use Vision Map by the town where the projects are located.
                                                                      Under the second goal (ED2), five (5) of the nine projects would not
                                                                      be reviewed and under goal three (ED3) three (3) of the nine would
                                                                      require not further review. No projects would be reviewed under the
                                                                      last goal (ED4).

                                                                      Given these results, staff would recommend no review of IFAW,
                                                                      Benthos, and WHOI under economic development and that the Cape
                                                                      Cod Cooperative Bank be reviewed only under ED1. The Rainbow
                                                                      Motel redevelopment into professional offices would also be
                                                                      reviewed under only one area (ED3). All of these projects provide
                                                                      higher wage jobs and add to the size of the regional economy.

                                                                      In contrast, CVS, Circuit City, Supply New England, and BJ‘s
                                                                      Wholesale require economic development review under at least two
                                                                      goals. All of these projects would be reviewed under ED2 and ED3.

 The town will continue to review the proposed documents and
 will be making some specific comments concerning these
 proposals. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                   DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 3
 two very important items and hope to work with the Commission
 to develop documents which protect the town and its citizens
 promoting development and redevelopment within our
 community.

 Respectfully, Robert C. Lawton Jr., Town Administrator


 DANIEL GALLAGHER
 June 03, 2008

 Forwarded from Leslie Richardson

 I know we have discussed before the concept: ―Any time you              RE I know we have discussed: The ―open once‖ concept is a
 open the street you should install at least a 4 inch conduit for        recommended town action (LU2-T1). ED4-C1 calls for an
 future fiber installation.‖ For example, the bike path from Dennis      assessment of existing infrastructure and could identify opportunities
 to Wellfleet was a perfect missed opportunity.                          to increase capacity and/or integrate telecommunications
                                                                         infrastructure with other underground infrastructure. In addition to
                                                                         planning, the CCC also requires all DRI projects to place their
                                                                         utilities underground (HPCC 2.13) and recommends that they share
                                                                         infrastructure (ED1.9).

 Someone mentioned to me that the dredging model would be a              RE Someone mentioned: The Commission will pass this suggestion
 good one for fiber laying. If the county were to get a grant to buy     on to the Barnstable County Commissioners. ED4: Capital Facilities
 a trencher and staff it for shared use across the Cape it could have    & Infrastructure recommends capital facilities planning and
 a tremendous impact.                                                    collaboration. This idea could be an example of regionalization.

 Here are some different size examples of what I am talking about.
 http://www.cotrip.org/cotrip_quarterly/4-4/news3.htm
 http://www.vermeer.com/vcom/TrenchingEquipment/Model.jsp?
 PrdlnID=3315&ModID=68952

 Dan Gallagher, Executive Director, Information Technology
 Cape Cod Community College

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 4
 CAPE COD CANAL REGION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
 BOURNE SANDWICH WAREHAM
 June 18, 2008

 RE: Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan

 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Cape Cod
 Regional Policy Plan. We, in the "chamber world" appreciate that
 there must be a balance between economic development and
 Cape Cod's environment.

 In particular, the towns of Bourne and Sandwich have been at
 odds with the overall Cape Cod Commission process for many
 years, which was borne out in the Century 21 Task Force report.

 Moving forward together to resolve these differences is critical. I
 believe the process is now more open and allows for better
 dialogue.

 To this end, I pose these questions and comments to the
 Commission to begin the dialogue:

 1. It is difficult to compare the old plan with the new draft. It
 would be helpful to have the Commission distinguish these
 changes.

 2. Does the new draft include any changes in minimum                         RE 2.: Yes. New economic development standards address the
 performance standards?                                                       adverse impacts some types of development may have on the
                                                                              regional economy.
 3. Does the new plan change any time-lines for permitting?

 4. Does the new plan conflict with Chapter 43D, which expedites              RE 4.: No, the new plan does restrict the use of Chapter 43D by

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                           DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 5
 local permitting?                                                   towns to designate priority development sites subject to expedited
                                                                     local permitting. However, under 43D projects determined to be
                                                                     Developments of Regional Impact will still have to come to the
                                                                     Commission. The town‘s 180 day permitting time limit will be tolled
                                                                     until Commission review is complete. Towns should therefore
                                                                     consider using the CCC development agreements and growth
                                                                     incentive zones to also expedite regional review.

 5. Does the new plan change any mitigation requirements - does      Economic Development response RE 5.: Yes, under this new plan a
 it increase, decrease, or stay the same?                            DRI that negatively impacts the regional economy may be asked to
                                                                     mitigate those impacts in order to meet minimum performance
                                                                     standards.

                                                                     Transportation response RE 5.: The proposed Draft Regional Policy
                                                                     Plan (RPP) reduces the cost of transportation mitigation for
                                                                     Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) located within Economic
                                                                     Centers. In addition, DRIs within Economic Centers will have a
                                                                     reduced transportation review, resulting in time saved during review.
                                                                     The cost of transportation mitigation for projects outside an
                                                                     Economic Center will remain the same (as adjusted for inflation) as
                                                                     the 2002 RRP.

                                                                     Affordable Housing response RE 5.: The plan adds an affordable
                                                                     housing mitigation requirement for non-residential development in
                                                                     AH 3.1. The rationale for the need for mitigation was provided by
                                                                     the 2005 Barnstable County Nexus Study that among its findings
                                                                     were ―The average wage in Barnstable County is 27 percent below
                                                                     the average for the state as a whole. At the same time, the median
                                                                     rent is 5.7 percent above the statewide median according to the 2000
                                                                     Census. Barnstable County has a smaller percentage of affordable
                                                                     housing units than exists in the state as a whole (4.9% compared to
                                                                     9.0% statewide).‖ (p. 19) and that ―…there to be a clear need for
                                                                     affordable housing on Cape Cod and a clear nexus of relationship
                                                                     between commercial development and the need for affordable

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                  DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 6
                                                                          housing. In order to provide proof of overall benefit to life on Cape
                                                                          Cod, commercial DRIs bear some responsibility for contributing to
                                                                          an adequate supply of affordable housing.‖

 6. Does the new plan affect any proposed state transportation            RE 6.: The proposed RPP will not affect any proposed state
 projects?                                                                transportation projects.


 7. How does the new plan affect existing business zoned                  Economic Development response RE 7.: The RPP cannot change
 properties in Bourne and Sandwich that cannot be designated as           local zoning. The RPP does not change DRI thresholds; that is done
 "downtown" areas that qualify for Growth Incentive Zones (GIZ)           through a separate ordinance by individual towns. The Regional
 or "industrial parks"? Are they more or less regulated?                  Land Use Vision Map is included in the RPP. Towns, working with
                                                                          the Commission, determine what areas in their town will fall into the
                                                                          different land use categories (Economic Centers; Industrial Trade
                                                                          Areas; Villages, Other, and Resource Protection Areas).
                                                                          Development inside Economic Centers designated on the Map, will
                                                                          benefit from incentives included in a number of RPP standards.
                                                                          Development outside Economic Centers will have greater impacts on
                                                                          the resources protected under the Act and will be regulated
                                                                          accordingly.

                                                                          Transportation response RE 7: The RPP does not affect local zoning.
                                                                          The Regional Land Use Vision mapping process establishes the areas
                                                                          where towns may apply to the Commission for flexible thresholds;
                                                                          however, higher thresholds (meaning less review of projects by the
                                                                          Commission) or lower thresholds (meaning more review by the
                                                                          Commission) would not go into effect unless and until a town makes
                                                                          an application and receives a favorable decision from the
                                                                          Commission. DRI thresholds otherwise will stay the same as they
                                                                          are currently, meaning that a project in an existing business zoned
                                                                          area would receive the same amount of Commission oversight that it
                                                                          does today under current DRI thresholds.

 8. Last, but not least, how can we develop a process for the towns

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 7
 and the commission to work together more effectively to develop
 a Regional Policy Plan that can be supported?

 We appreciate the massive task of developing a plan that will
 work for 15 towns on the Cape and want you to know that the
 Chamber stands ready to help you in any way possible.

 Sincerely, Marie Oliva, President & CEO


 DALE WOODBURY
 June 18, 2008

 Same old stuff.

 The commission gets all the power and if we get the same old
 typical BLACKMAIL .

 If we kiss your ring maybe we can get something done in spite of
 you crocks!!!!

 What is new in it for the rest of us ( nothing )

 The only positive thing about this document is it states
 CLEARLY THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SCREW US. So if we
 accept it you can say " you warned us " up front (not much
 consolation )

 Love the way you assigned the map ( everything under your
 control and virtually nothing available without the blackmail
 factor ).Same old shit

 Got a real belly laugh out of your continued ORDACIDY "
 voluntary binding contract ".

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 8
 What a line of B--- S--- !!!!

 If we don't get rid of this commission as some as possible we are
 crazier than you guys!!!!


 JOHN LIPMAN, LIPMAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES,
 LLC
 June 18, 2008

 Thank you, Mr./Madame Chairman, members of the Cape Cod
 Commission, for the record, my name is John Lipman, President
 of Lipman Development Strategies, LLC. I am going to make
 some brief and general comments today, to be followed up in
 more detail in writing. I will share for the record the written notes
 of what I am about to say.

 First, let me complement you on a much more concise, readable
 and well-structured RPP, and I say that not because I had a hand
 in writing it when I was with the Cape Cod Commission. In fact,
 many of the things I praise in this plan were efforts undertaken
 after my participation. So were several of the things I am about to
 criticize as well.

 First, the praise. The division of the plan into separate planning
 and regulatory sections makes it a much more readable and user-
 friendly document. In addition, the way in which the plan is
 linked to other efforts to make the regulatory process simpler and
 more flexible is something which I think make the experience of
 going through that regulatory process more predictable and fair.
 The narrowing of the recommended Commission and Town
 Actions to three items per goal makes for a better prioritization of
 those actions, rather than the laundry list that appeared in the last

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 9
 document.

 finally, there is a great focus on redevelopment and smart growth,
 especially through the land use vision mapping.

 There are, however, a number of items that give me cause for
 concern. The first is the use of the Best Development Practices as
 project detriments as well as benefits. In a sense, this turns the
 BDPs into Minimum Performance Standards in disguise. That in
 my mind makes the RPP more heavy and confusing and less
 predictable, and strays from the qualitative intent of the
 benefits/detriments test articulated in the Act.

 Second, take one more run through the MPSs to make sure you               Water Resources response RE Second, take one more run: MPS
 are consistent in your encouragement of redevelopment. I believe          WR3.5 reads: In watersheds where the critical nitrogen load has not
 that the key focus of this RPP should be on redevelopment of              been determined, development and redevelopment may be required
 existing developed sites - though not in all places, but in those         to make a monetary contribution toward the development or
 places where it makes sense from a planning and resource                  implementation of appropriate nitrogen management strategies not to
 protection point of view. For example, in WR 3.5, there is a              exceed $20 per gallon of design flow of wastewater per day.
 monetary requirement for both development and redevelopment               MPS WR5.3 states that development and redevelopment in
 in watersheds where the critical nitrogen load has not been               Economic Centers and Growth Incentive Zones within Water Quality
 determined, thus treating these things equally. WR 5.3 may even           Improvement Areas that have been identified as requiring
 act as a disincentive to locating in an EC or GIZ unless the plan is      comprehensive wastewater treatment solutions may be required to
 clear that monetary contributions for community wastewater                provide a monetary contribution, not to exceed $20 per gallon of
 facilities planning will be far more benign for the project               design flow of wastewater per day, towards community wastewater
 proponent than locating elsewhere - for example, by setting some          facility planning or implementation efforts that may include
 sort of per gallon cap. The focus on redevelopment may indeed             infrastructure for wastewater management.
 be there, it just may require you to express it more clearly in the       In response to the comment, Commission staff proposes specifying a
 document - especially in relation to the other efforts related to this    $20 cap on discretionary monetary contributions that may be
 document, such as the land use mapping.                                   required pursuant to MPS WR5.3. Nitrogen credits available under
                                                                           MPS 3.4 and WR5.1 from existing development may be similarly
                                                                           used as bases for reducing the monetary contribution under MPS 3.5
                                                                           and WR5.3.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 10
                                                                        Community Character response RE Second, take one more run: The
                                                                        community character chapter encourages redevelopment primarily by
                                                                        allowing redevelopment projects a much larger building without
                                                                        fully screening the structure. HPCC2.5 requires full screening of
                                                                        building footprints over 15,000 square feet for new development, but
                                                                        requires full screening of building footprints over 50,000 square feet
                                                                        for redevelopment projects as long as the expansion is on previously
                                                                        developed impervious or landscaped areas. The historic preservation
                                                                        portion of this chapter requires redevelopment if the building has
                                                                        historic significance.

 With regard to specific issue areas, the one I find the most
 problematic and complicated is the Economic Development
 section. While I believe that certain forms of economic
 development have a more potent impact on certain values
 protected under the Act than others, I believe this document both
 goes too far in regulating economic development and in casting
 the appearance of being authoritarian and controlling. That is not
 the impression you want to give to the business community.

 For example, the section singles out retail, accommodation, and        RE For example: ED2.1 and ED3.1 will be changed as follows:
 food service industries, the latter two which are and always will      …New development in an Economic Center and all development
 be a mainstay of the economy on Cape Cod. Now we can all               outside an Economic Center that will add jobs and businesses in
 think of examples of these industries in which the impacts are         the retail and accommodations & food service sectors accommodate
 great, such as formula retail and food service chains. We can also     one or more formula businesses shall provide…
 think of terrific local business which would be adversely affected     No other projects will be required to complete formal economic and
 by this if they wanted to go to, say, 12,000 square feet. The point    market studies.
 is that there are good and bad examples of everything, and
 singling out these particular sectors is not the way to go. Rather,
 let's single out the impacts.

 And that is what the BOPs in this section do very well, with a few
 exceptions. In fact, several of the Minimum Performance
 Standards allow the Commission to waive that standard if the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 11
 applicant meets a series of BOPs. I actually like that idea.

 Economic Development is the hardest of any of the issue areas to        RE Economic Development is the hardest: This concept would
 regulate, and it always has been. I would suggest an alternative        relieve very few projects from economic development review.
 approach that starts with BOPs: Come up with a list of all of the       Limited Review will relieve more projects from review than what is
 things that you want to see a business address - benefits,              proposed above.
 affordable housing, livable wages, etc. - and then waive the entire
 Economic Development section for any business that meets them.
 You can try some variations on this - for example, automatically
 waive the standards for projects that fall into the category of
 economic sectors that are desired (e.g., high tech) and allow a
 BOP "checklist" for all others. I could even understand going as
 far as having some MPSs for your own definition of formula
 businesses. But as this is written, it is a monumental hurdle for
 even an average Cape Cod business.

 Other issues with this section: Ed 2.2 and 2.3 "may" require            RE Other issues with this section: The term ―may‖ provides the
 mitigation and leave uncertainty for this reading this document.        Commission with an alternative when projects do not meet the
                                                                         minimum standard. The economic technical bulletin will provide
                                                                         information on appropriate mitigation options.

 ED 2.5 and 2.6 describe what developers should NOT do rather            RE ED2.5 and 2.6: ED 2.5 has been removed; opportunity costs will
 than what they should. In general, the section is too long and too      be discussed in the planning section. ED 2.6 is a limited version of
 complicated, and doesn't set the tone for what you want to see,         what is in the current RPP as Other Development Review Policy
 but rather for controlling what you don't want. It is not being well    (ODRP) 3.1.10. The prohibition of gambling was considered as a
 received at all.                                                        minimum performance standard prior to adoption of the 1996 RPP;
                                                                         as a compromise it was demoted to an ODRP. Staff recommends
                                                                         that ED 2.6 either become a minimum standard or be removed.

 Finally, because we are here in Bourne, I am concerned about the        RE Finally: The MPSs under Goal CR2 are intended to prevent and
 impact of the Coastal Resources Section, particularly certain           minimize flood damage, to protect public safety, and to enable
 restrictions on redevelopment in flood plains (CR 2.1 and 2.4)          coastal resources to perform their natural beneficial functions
 although this was in last version as well. I certainly understand       (including flood damage prevention). As a matter of policy, new
 why these are in here and in most situations I support them. The        development in V-zones (Velocity Zone; high hazard areas) should

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 12
 problem, of course, is in Buzzards Bay, an historic center of           be prohibited. Additionally, elevation and heightened standards for
 commerce and civic life whose vulnerability in the flood plain is       new or redevelopment in A-Zone is appropriate. Expanding the
 at least in part due to man-made infrastructure, namely, the Canal.     inventory of structures and infrastructure within coastal floodplains
 Now I understand that there are other mechanisms, such as a GIZ         is poor public policy and arguments are strong for increased and
 with a cumulative cap, that might get us around this restriction -      heightened scrutiny of development and redevelopment in all land
 for example, allowing some significant expansion of structures          subject to coastal storm flowage (A- and V-zones).
 and increases in site or street elevation. Still, it is of concern
 given the effort that this town has put into revitalizing Main          The RPP standards, as written, do not prohibit redevelopment in A-
 Street in Buzzards Bay. I would suggest adding language that            Zone, but they do require redevelopment that accommodates for
 might make some exceptions for areas with existing urban                projected flood heights. The coastal policies do require consideration
 infrastructure, and I would be glad to assist you in this.              and accommodation of the underlying coastal landforms, such as
                                                                         barrier beach, coastal dune, and coastal bank.
 I'm sure I will have more comments in more detail as you go
 through this process, and will submit more detail in writing
 before the close of the hearing record. Please accept these as
 friendly amendments, and again, I would like to thank you and
 your staff for your efforts.


 EASTHAM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
 June 20, 2008

 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Cape Cod
 Commission‘s Regional Policy Plan 2008 Draft at the Public
 Hearing at Eastham Town Hall.

 With great appreciation, that recognize the length of time, level of
 knowledge and understanding, passion and dedication that has
 gone into the Draft; along with the exercises that were performed
 in determining and resulting in any given change. I would wish to
 see the synopsis of those exercise worksheets indicating the
 actual changes from the 2002 RPP accompany this 2008 Draft
 rather than merely the theoretical reasoning. In this way the
 document‘s vast and varied audience could, to everyone‘s benefit,

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 13
 embrace a more substantial understanding of the final 2008 RPP.

 For your records, I am including the following comment that I
 read at the Public Hearing at Eastham Town Hall.

 On behalf of the Board of Directors for the Eastham Chamber of
 Commerce, we recognize the Cape Cod Commission‘s desire to
 simplify the layout of the 2008 Regional Policy Plan.
 However, to receive a 177 page draft with not much more than a
 week before the Public Hearing is difficult at best. We would be
 far more receptive to a draft that is accompanied with the specific
 differences between this document and its predecessor. In its
 present form, it makes for a state of confusion and concern as to
 what actually lies between the first and last pages; how it affects
 our community; and its ability to allow towns to cooperate with
 the Cape Cod Commission, and comply with a 2008 regional
 Policy Plan.

 Jim Russo, Executive Director, Eastham Chamber of Commerce


 P. BUTLER AND E. COX
 JUNE 23, 2008

 THREE LEGGED STOOL
 - LIMITED DRls - SECTION 4B CHANGES
 - THRESHOLDS/MAPPING
 - RPP UPDATE

 KEY GENERIC ISSUES RE: RPP
 - INCENTIVIZE REDEVELOPMENT
 - PREDICTABILITY
 - OBJECTIVE STANDARDS/CRITERIA
 - SILOS - BALANCING MPS/MITIGATION

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 14
 - ODRPs - "BEST DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES" (AD HOC
 MPS) - SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM OF SUBJECTIVITY
 - DEFINITIONS/TIMING OF MAPPING AND TURESUOLDS
 (EXAMPLES: ECONOMIC CENTERS AND INDUSTRIAL
 AND SERVICE TRADE AREAS)
 - NEED TO "TEST RUN" ACTUAL PROJECTS

 AREAS FOR SPECIFIC DISCUSSION
 • LUl.2 - COMPACT DEVELOPMENT
 • LU1.4 - FEDERAL STANDARDS
 • LUl.5 - PUBLIC OFFICES
 • EDl.2 - RESOURCE/BASED ECONOMIC AREAS -
 DEFINITION?
 • ED1.4 - MIXED USE IN COMMERCIAL
 • ED1.5 - LOW TO MODERATE PRICING OF
 COMMERCIAL
 • ED1.6 - REDEVELOPMENT - NOT ENOUGH
 INCENTIVIZATION
 • EDI.9 - SHARING OF INFRASTRUCTURE - ADDITIONAL
 COSTS RE: EXCESS CAPACITY
 • ED2.1 - MARKET IMPACT INFORMATION
 REQUIREMENTS
 • ED2.2 - MITIGATION FOR "DOMINANT INDUSTRY
 SECTORS"
 • ED2.5 - "OPPORTUNITY COSTS"
 • ED3.1 - ECONOMIC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS -
 BURDENSOME - PROPRIETARY
 • ED3.4 - NON-FORMULA BUSINESS - SEE DEFINITION
 SECTION
 • ED3.7 - REGIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH - WHAT IS A
 "LOCALLY OWNED" BUSINESS? WHAT IS "LOCAL
 COMPETITION"?
 • TRO.2 (PAGE 128) - TRAFFIC CREDIT FOR PAST USES
 • TR2.3 (PAGE 132) - PROPERTY RIGHTS - LEVERAGE

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 15
 FOR SELLER RE: INTERCONNECTION
 • TR2.15 - DOCTORS OFFICE?
 • AH3.1 (PAGE 152) - COMMERCIAL DRI PAYMENTS

 CONCLUSION
 NEED FOR PUBLIC WORKSUOP TO WORK ON CRITICAL
 COMPONENTS & POSSIBLE REDRAFTING


 ALIX RITCHIE
 June 24, 2008

 I am deeply disappointed in the RPP's lack of identification of
 roadblocks to economic well-being (eg communications and
 transportation) which should be part of the regional planning
 process. Overall there is no pro-active approach to the solution of    RE Overall there is no pro-active: The inclusion of economic
 systemic problems, a role that Barnstable County and the Cape          development goal ED 4, the associated narrative, the two
 Cod Commission should be undertaking.                                  Commission actions in the planning section, and BDP4.2 – 4.4 in
                                                                        the regulatory section all speak to the importance of state of the art
                                                                        communications infrastructure and public transit to economic
                                                                        development. While the Commission alone cannot rectify the regions
                                                                        problems in these two areas, planning actions ED4-C1 and ED4-C2
                                                                        are about ―pursuing hard data‖, ―helping identify real limits and
                                                                        opportunities‖ in telecommunications and other essential
                                                                        infrastructure.


 There is a lack of linkage to the economic well-being of the Cape      RE There is a lack: The Cape Cod Commission has taken an active
 in the sections addressing transportation where, despite quoting       role in providing sustainable transportation services to the people of
 the CCC's own research that 80 % of Cape Codders want an               Cape Cod. The emphasis on planning in the Regional Policy Plan
 efficient public transportation system, there is no effective, pro-    (RPP) is to provide incentives to develop in Economic Centers or
 active planning to make this happen.                                   Village Centers. These Economic Centers or Village Centers will
                                                                        provide space to live and work, where pedestrian/bicycle facilities
 You might understand my frustration if you consider the                support viable forms of alternative transportation. Transit service

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 16
 following:                                                             between Economic Centers/Village Centers will also become viable
 "ISSUES I HOPED WE WOULD AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE:                          as Economic Centers/Village Centers become walkable
 -- DEVELOPING A REAL TRANSPORTATION, NOT                               communities. The difficultly of providing a viable transit service on
 TRAFFIC, PLAN WHICH WOULD PROMOTE SOLUTIONS                            Cape Cod is the vast area which the transit service must cover. If the
 THAT, TO COIN A PHRASE, GO BEYOND PEDESTRIAN                           transit service areas are defined in Economic Centers/Village
 THINKING IN ADDRESSING THIS VERY MAJOR                                 Centers, transit service becomes easier to provide.
 CHALLENGE;
                                                                        The Cape Cod Commission continues the assist air service to and
                                                                        from Cape Cod by providing technical assistance to the local and
                                                                        regional airports on Cape Cod and coordination of ground-based
                                                                        linkages to the rest of the transportation system.

 -- PURSUING HARD DATA ON SUSTAINABLE GROWTH,
 HELPING TO IDENTIFY THE REAL LIMITS AND THE
 OPPORTUNITIES;
 -- GIVING APPROPRIATE EMPHASIS TO ECONOMIC                             RE Giving appropriate emphasis: The draft RPP has a greater
 DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY: TO STRATEGIC                                  emphasis on economic development than past plans. The plan
 PLANNING; TO ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT THAT                              defines economic development using four basic principles around
 OFFERS MORE THAN MINIMUM WAGE JOBS; TO HARD                            which ED goals were crafted. The planning actions and regulatory
 DATA COST/BENEFIT ANALYSES OF ALTERNATE                                standards recognize the limits of the Commission alone achieving
 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES; TO                                    these goals. The first action item is a strategic plan for economic
 DEVELOPMENT OF A TOP QUALITY, HARD DATA                                development (ED1-C1). The plan will be based on the data collected
 TOURISM MARKETING STUDY; AND TO ASSURE A                               through the Regional Cost of Doing Business Analysis (ED2-C1),
 GOOD GEOGRAPHIC BALANCE TO THESE EFFORTS SO                            the Regional Market Analysis (ED2-C2), the Fiscal Impact Modeling
 THAT ALL AREAS OF THE CAPE BENEFIT EQUALLY."                           (ED3-C1), and the Infrastructure Assessment and Mapping (ED4-C1.
 Those words are from my parting remarks as I stepped down as           The economic development regulatory section is designed to
 the second chair of the Commission--well more than 10 years            ―encourage development that offers more than minimum wage jobs‖
 ago.                                                                   (ED2) and to support economic growth that is equally distributed
                                                                        across the population (ED3).
 Alix Ritchie, Provincetown

 My comments regarding specific sections, copied below, are in
 italic.
 Clearly the CCC has decided that it is not its role to do anything     RE Clearly the CCC: The Commission shares the desire to fix rather

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 17
 more than passive studies; there is no proactive, problem-solving,          than study the problems that limit economic wellbeing on Cape Cod.
 action-oriented analysis nor any leadership relative to what                The Commission would welcome suggestions on actions it should
 Barnstable County could do to solve the major roadblocks to the             undertake to better resolve roadblocks and to provide greater
 Cape's future economic health.                                              leadership. A variety of other regional plans (see page 17 of the Draft
 This is all there is:                                                       RPP) address specific resource areas in greater detail; the focus of
                                                                             the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (planning
 ED2-C1.         Regional Cost-of-Doing-Business Analysis: The               action ED1-C1) is economic development. The CEDS planning
 Cape Cod Commission will complete a study of the overhead                   process will generate a thorough discussion of what economic
 costs of running a business on Cape Cod. The study will                     development means on Cape Cod establish a set of regional
 investigate the relative costs of space, staff, insurance, and              economic development priority projects.
 utilities in different communities. It will also identify
 infrastructure needs that may be restricting growth and public
 policies (including zoning) that may affect costs.
 Economic Development Goal - ED4: Capital Facilities and
 Infrastructure
 To provide state-of-the-art capital facilities and infrastructure that
 meet town and regional needs, improve and expand access,
 ensure quality services, and achieve reliability.

 Adequate, high-quality facilities and infrastructure are vital to a
 competitive economy and an engaged community. Capital
 facilities and infrastructure include everything from schools and
 libraries to high-speed telecommunication networks and public
 transit. State-of-the-art facilities and reliable services are critical.
 They enable economic progress and civic participation, open new
 markets and educational opportunities, and protect communities
 from man-made and natural disasters. Cape Cod faces significant
 challenges to reach this goal. For example, the region currently
 lacks reliable energy service, sufficient high-speed and redundant
 telecommunication services at competitive prices, and wastewater
 infrastructure-all necessary for economic growth.

 Ok so what do we do about it?
 This is all we get...

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                          DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 18
 Cape Cod Commission Actions
 ED4-C1.       Infrastructure Assessment and Mapping: The Cape
 Cod Commission will undertake a baseline assessment of existing
 telecommunications, energy, wastewater, transportation (all
 types), and public safety infrastructure, and map this
 infrastructure where possible.
 ED4-C2.       Infrastructure Financing: The Cape Cod
 Commission will assist Barnstable County to identify innovative
 financing for infrastructure improvements and maintenance,
 including a regional revolving loan fund, regional infrastructure
 financing authority, regionalization of services, and state and
 federal financing.

 And when it comes to transportation, specifically:

 Transportation (TR)
 Transportation is the movement of people and freight to, from,
 and around Cape Cod. Cars and trucks are the primary modes of
 transportation on the Cape. Other transportation modes such as
 bus service, airplanes, ferries, rail, walking, and bicycling also
 play an important role in moving people and freight. Respondents
 to the 2005 Cape Cod Residents Survey identified traffic
 congestion as a serious or moderate problem for their town (92
 percent) and for the Cape as a whole (98 percent).

 Transportation Goal - TR1: Safety
 To maintain an acceptable level of safety for all users of Cape
 Cod's transportation system.

 Transportation Goal - TR2: Traffic Reduction/Transportation
 Balance and Efficiency
 To reduce and/or offset the expected increase in motor vehicle
 trips on public roadways, reduce dependency on automobiles, and

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 19
 reduce air and noise pollution. To promote a balanced and
 efficient transportation system that includes alternatives to
 automobile travel

 Eighty percent of respondents to the 2005 Cape Cod Residents
 Survey cited the availability of public transportation as a serious
 or moderate problem for their town; 84 percent cited it as a
 serious or moderate problem for the entire Cape.

 And yet there are no specific pro-active ideas to help solve this
 problem-there is no effort to exert a leadership role and nor
 acceptance of responsibility.

 Providing more bus, rail, and ferry service, better opportunities to
 bicycle between areas, and more walkable communities are
 firmly supported by the survey responses. At the regional level,
 the Cape Cod Commission works with the state, regional
 agencies (such as the Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority and
 the Steamship Authority), and towns to provide better bus and
 ferry services, expand the bicycle path network, and improve the
 ability of pedestrians to walk safely.

 "work with" is not leadership and this is far too general rather
 than focusing on public transportation issues specifically

 (And what about air service)?

 Although automobiles are likely to remain the travel mode of
 choice on Cape Cod for the foreseeable future, it is important to
 offer alternative modes of travel. The Cape Cod Commission,
 various state and regional organizations, the towns, and
 developers all have roles and responsibilities in advancing
 alternatives to automobile travel.\



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 20
 And the CCC's role: not to be a problem-solver and not to take
 responsibility for solutions.


 CAPE COD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
 June 25, 2008

 In comparing the Regional Policy Plan (RPP) of 2002 and the
 draft RPP of 2008, it is immediately apparent that the vision and
 goals have changed, along with the emphasis and direction.

 RPP. 2002 envisions controlling growth, setting limits, analyzing
 capacity, limiting development to designated locations, and
 controlling the growth of the Cape's population. As a planning
 document, the R.P.P. tried to develop a growth policy for Cape
 Cod, identify key resources of regional importance that required
 the creation of Districts of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC) or
 other planning efforts, and provided the framework for Town
 Local Comprehensive Plans (LCP). As a regulatory document,
 the 2002 RPP contains minimum performance standards that are
 required of Developments of Regional Impact (DRI's) that fall
 within the Commissions jurisdiction. These standards set forth
 requirements for six main resource areas:
 1. Land Use/Growth Management
 2. Natural Resources
 3. Economic Development
 4. Community Facilities and Services
 5. Affordable Housing
 6. Historic Preservation/Community Character

 DRI regulations presently in place are designed to ensure that
 large scale developments that affect more than one town are
 reviewed against these minimum performance standards. The
 principle threshold is commercial developments or change of use

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 21
 for buildings greater than 10,000 square feet. Other thresholds
 refer to outdoor commercial spaces greater than 40,000 square
 feet, subdivisions of 30 acres or more, development of 10 or more
 businesses, offices, or industrial lots and others.

 An applicant or a town may request from the commission a
 formal determination as to whether a project meets the criteria for
 DRI review. Certain projects are categorically mandatory in
 nature, that is the town must refer the project to the commission
 for review. Other projects are deemed discretionary and may be
 arbitrarily referred by the town or a neighboring town.

 The 2002 RPP is therefore a comprehensive, detailed, planning,
 regulatory document that sets ambitious goals meant to control
 commercial growth and limit or slow population growth.

 The new draft 2008 RPP document recognizes major
 shortcomings in the 2002 RPP. The new Growth Policy
 recognizes inevitable growth and change by proposing that we
 guide development towards areas that are adequately supported
 by infrastructures and away from areas that must be protected.
 The emphasis is on Regional Planning and Regional Regulations
 supported by a Land Use Vision Map. The focus is on economic
 centers, villages, and industrial and service trade areas.

 Planning is intended to be measurable and achievable in the next
 five years. The planning will be linked to resource maps, LCP's,
 DCP's, Growth Incentive Zones (GIZ), and integrated
 infrastructure planning. The emphasis on regional regulations is
 intended to make DRI's more predictable, more flexible, limited,
 mitigatable, and linked to the regional land use map.

 New DRI flexible thresholds are being proposed that will have to
 be implemented through the County Legislative Process. These

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 22
 regulations will hopefully recognize both smart growth principles
 and the rural and urban nature of Cape Cod, rather than a one-
 size-fits-all policy.

 While there is important recognition of a changing Cape Cod           RE While there is: Under the Cape Cod Commission Act, the RPP
 inherent in the document, the Chamber believes that our economy       must address all the resources identified in Section 1 of the Act,
 and the public policy issues that affect our economic well-being      guide development throughout Barnstable County, and protect the
 deserve a much more thorough discussion that will lead to a more      region‘s resources. A variety of other regional plans (see page 17 of
 meaningful document used as a catalyst for advocacy and change.       the Draft RPP) address specific resource areas in greater detail; the
 The Chamber's fundamental economic development efforts over           focus of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
 the past few years have led to the belief that there is a complex     (planning action ED1-C1) is economic development. The CEDS
 relationship between public policy and private investment. In our     planning process will generate a thorough discussion of what
 market driven system, good public policy towards infrastructure       economic development means on Cape Cod establish a set of
 issues is fundamental to economic prosperity for our citizens. The    regional economic development priority projects.
 Chamber believes that there are five areas of concern for Cape
 Cod that cry out for strong regional cooperation:

 1. Affordable Housing
 2. Wastewater
 3. Zoning and Sprawl
 4. Economic Development
 5. Transportation

 The question remains, can we overcome 15 strong local
 governments traditionally reluctant to change with incentives and
 education that attacks these problems regionally while preserving
 local community character? The evidence is that any progress on
 this front has come from sources other than the Cape Cod
 Commission. The Commission Act and the mandate given to
 them have had the wrong target. Commercial development,
 arguably, has not been the Cape's growth problem; residential
 development has really been the culprit.

 The Chamber's role in the wastewater issue, the BRT's role in         RE The Chamber‘s role: The Commission works with numerous

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 23
 zoning and sprawl, Coastal Community Capital's role in                   parties at all level of government including various private
 economic development, HAC and other's role in affordable                 consulting and development parties. In regards to wastewater, the
 housing, and a variety of individuals and legislators role in            water section of the RPP acknowledges in many places cooperative
 transportation improvement, suggest that pragmatic solution-             working relationships in WR1-C2 (pg35), WR2-C1(pg36), WR3-C1,
 driven policy initiatives have come from sources other than the          WR3-C2 (pg38), WR5-C1 (pg40WR5-C3 (pg41)WR6-C1(pg42). In
 Cape Cod Commission.                                                     addition, the section heading under Regional Coordination is quite
                                                                          clear about the strength of the Commission's partnerships with Cape
 The point is not to denigrate individuals, but it is important to        municipalities, Barnstable County and its Regional Committees and
 recognize that planning is important and fundamental, but that           Authorities, the Commonwealth, Federal agencies and Civic,
 advocacy and change has to come from the civic and political             Educational and Nonprofits. A listing of 104 of our partnerships
 side.                                                                    related to the RPP, including the Collaborative, is included on the
                                                                          Commission's Regional Policy Plan web page at
 The document is far off the mark when it describes an over-              www.capecodcommission.org/RPP2008/CCCPartnerships.pdf.
 reaching detailed approach to every aspect of Cape Cod life
 without any recognition of the daily effort to implement                 The Commission Water Resources Program has worked on the
 solutions. Perfect examples are the two GIZ's in Barnstable and          wastewater issue tenaciously for many years laying the building
 Yarmouth and the formation of the Cape Cod Water Protection              blocks for the present pace of regional planning for wastewater
 Collaborative (CCWPC). In a down real estate market, both GIZ's          infrastructure. As a part of a regulatory, planning and technical
 are doing well, implementing a strategy of smart growth and              service agency, water staff have provided crucial scientific, planning
 guiding development to proper places. These efforts spring from          and management components that has resulted in collective steps
 the civic political side. In the case of the CCWPC, not even             forward with our partners. Some of these crucial components
 mentioned in the document, the Cape's civic and political side           include:
 initiated the group which has already made its mark with both            * Establishment of Minimum performance standards that
 regional solutions to a regional problem and financial solutions to      acknowledge the use of and application of critical nitrogen loading
 a very expensive capital outlay burden.                                  rates to restore and protect the region's coastal waters
                                                                          * The application of a "No-Net Nitrogen Loading Policy" for
                                                                          development in Nitrogen Overloaded watersheds."
                                                                          * Development and preparation of numerous hydrodynamic flushing
                                                                          studies and nitrogen loading assessments laying the foundation a
                                                                          need for a larger state investment into this issue.
                                                                          * Managing the County Investment of $600,000 in the $12 million 6
                                                                          year Mass Estuary Project that has resulted in defensible, regulatory
                                                                          adopted "Total Maximum Daily Loads" that have become the
                                                                          cornerstone for Comprehensive Wastewater Management Planning

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 24
                                                                          for numerous Town across Cape Cod.
                                                                          * The Management of a $300,000 County Investment in
                                                                          Groundwater Modeling to evaluate potential effluent disposal sites.
                                                                          Working with 9 communities the project resulted in the resolution of
                                                                          long standing state regulatory constraints for the towns of Barnstable
                                                                          and Chatham and brought many other towns into 21st Century
                                                                          Wastewater Planning.
                                                                          * Management of a DEP grant to establish the first Regional
                                                                          Wastewater Committee that provided oversight of the County's
                                                                          investment of $2.5 million dollars into regional and local wastewater
                                                                          planning aspects.
                                                                          * Securing funding and management of consultants in the
                                                                          preparation of the Wastewater Management Tools report.
                                                                          * Managing a regional working partnership on a major educational
                                                                          outreach project; Cape Keepers.
                                                                          * Providing Technical Assistance to Towns through an EPA grant on
                                                                          challenges to implementing TMDLs.
                                                                          * Working with the Collaborative on Wastewater Planning status and
                                                                          Website Improvements.
                                                                          * Providing Regional review of CWMPs as they move through
                                                                          MEPA and DRI regulatory review.

                                                                          The evidence clearly shows that the Commission has been actively
                                                                          participating with all players on this subject.


 Fundamentally, there is a public and a private interest in               RE Fundamentally: The RPP recognizes that a healthy market based
 delineating the problem and then affecting a solution. Generally         economy providing quality employment opportunities is not
 speaking, it is important to recognize that the public side has the      achieved in isolation by either the private sector or the public sector.
 stronger role in infrastructure issues, while the private side is        The public sector is responsible for infrastructure; its institutions are
 better able to recognize and solve issues of investment and              also responsible for protecting the public welfare. Regulation is one
 workforce development. In this regard, we believe that the               tool government has to protect the public against business
 Economic Development section lays out a detailed oppressive              externalities and market distortions (e.g. pollution, price fixing, etc.).
 approach based on a set of assumptions that are questionable.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                               Page 25
 Again, we live in a market driven economy that is affected by off-     The Commission was established to address the externalities of
 Cape forces out of our control.                                        population growth and sprawl development patterns. These
                                                                        externalities include contaminated drinking water, ponds, and
                                                                        estuaries; loss of habitat, open space, and rural and historic character;
                                                                        and infrastructure failures including traffic, unreliable power, and
                                                                        insufficient telecommunications capacity. The Commission is
                                                                        charged with ensuring balanced economic growth and the creation of
                                                                        year-round livable wage jobs. The regulations proposed in the
                                                                        economic development section are stricter for DRIs that locate
                                                                        outside of town centers, do not provide jobs with good wages and
                                                                        benefits, and send the majority of their earnings off Cape. Those
                                                                        DRIs that do contribute to the vitality of town centers, provide good
                                                                        jobs, and expand rather than drain the region‘s economy will not find
                                                                        these regulations burdensome.

 The Chamber recently initiated a demographic inquiry which is
 leading to an in-depth study of what makes our economy tick.
 Our economic development interest relies on knowledge of the
 market place, sources of capital, workforce development
 opportunities, and small business technical assistance. These
 solutions are driven daily by people dedicated to action and
 measurable results.

 In the draft RPP, we need to make certain that economic
 development goals are compatible with realty and that the
 responsibility for action is not left to a government agency where
 the policy is not a priority and, in fact, may be in conflict.

 Additionally, we believe that the comment period for discussion
 of the document should be extended simply because we believe
 that a more detailed discussion should take place for the above
 reasons and for the following reasons:

 1. New DRI thresholds have not been promulgated. In fact, we

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                              Page 26
 have not seen the Regional Land Use Vision Map, whereby these
 activity centers will be located.
 2. Additionally, nothing has changed with regard to the initiation
 of the GIZ's. The county legislative process in place appears
 cumbersome.
 3. Wastewater Solutions-there is no mention of the CCWPC and
 financial solutions.
 4. The use of Trading Development Rights (TDR's) should come            RE 4.: TDR cannot be accomplished without the participation of
 from the private side. The Commission could never broker this           government. Government regulations, such as zoning, provide the
 complex issue.                                                          framework needed to trade development rights. While not required in
                                                                         all cases, the most effective TDR programs have established a quasi-
                                                                         governmental TDR Bank to facilitate the trade of development
                                                                         rights. The proposed planning actions related to TDR do not assume
                                                                         the Commission will play the role of a TDR Bank. TDR and similar
                                                                         programs to trade pollution or fishing rights are not typically, if ever,
                                                                         a product of the private sector. In fact, they are designed to rectify
                                                                         market failures that have depleted natural resources and threatened
                                                                         public health and welfare. Certainly, the private sector on Cape Cod
                                                                         can and should encourage the public sector to adopt TDR programs
                                                                         where it will be effective in shifting development to reduce and
                                                                         better manage its negative impacts.

 5. Private property rights section has not changed since the last       RE 5.: No changes will be made to this section
 RPP. Burden of proof of loss is wholly on the property owner.

 6. Flexible DRI thresholds for villages, trade centers, and             RE 6.: No, towns are at different stages in the mapping process and
 industrial centers must await the approval of the VISION MAP.           the Commission is prepared to submit map amendments to the
 Does this mean all 15 towns have to approve the VISION MAP?             Assembly if towns endorse their map after the RPP is adopted by
 If so, then it will take forever to correct this problem.               ordinance.

 7. Questions arise on extensive economic constraints on                 RE 7.: ED 3.3, drafted to require use of local labor and businesses,
 construction best practices.                                            will become one of a series of criteria under the waiver standard in
 a. Open Space requirements                                              this section.
 b. Trip Reduction payments

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                              Page 27
 c. Green Building provisions                                           RE 7c. and 7d.: MPS E1.6 only applies to new construction. While
 d. On-Site renewable energy facilities                                 there are up front costs for installing wind, solar or a geothermal heat
                                                                        pump to meet the 10% requirement, there are tax incentives and
                                                                        rebate programs at both at the state and federal level to offset this
                                                                        cost. Also, there are alternatives to meeting the MPS; build a LEED
                                                                        certified building, or meet 5% on-site and buy green power through
                                                                        CLC, or choose from a menu of green building technologies that
                                                                        promote energy savings, or meet 25% on-site and waive all energy
                                                                        requirements. The property owner will reap the benefits of a more
                                                                        energy efficient building, as well as the low cost benefits of energy
                                                                        produced on-site for the life of the system (up to 30 years).

 e. Affordable Housing payment schedule                                 RE 7e.: The mitigation amounts in AH 3.1 were derived
                                                                        fundamentally from the methodology recommended in the 2005
                                                                        Barnstable County Nexus Study while using updated data when
                                                                        available. The mitigation amounts were based upon the estimated
                                                                        number of below average wage jobs that would be created by various
                                                                        types of development, e.g. the Nexus Study estimated that the
                                                                        number of below average wage jobs that would be created by 10,000
                                                                        square feet of the following types of development: office- 16;
                                                                        health/medical - 22; food service - 32; retail - 22; and
                                                                        warehouse/distribution - 5.

 f. Community Character/Cultural preservation is a catch-all for        RE 7f.: We occasionally hear comments like this about architectural
 objections from left field                                             design review, though we more often hear concerns that the character
                                                                        of the Cape is changing too quickly. By focusing our standards on
                                                                        preserving identified historic structures and on addressing the scale
                                                                        and massing of proposed buildings in relation to their context, we
                                                                        stay away from the more subjective issues of architectural style and
                                                                        attractiveness.

 The new document, while better than the last, deserves more
 scrutiny than three geographic public hearings. Regulations still

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 28
 seem to trump good planning and the treatment of economic
 development is decidedly academic without thinking about
 consequences. Basically, what is the environmental gain versus
 the economic pain?

 We ask that workshops be set up with Commission staff and
 interested citizens that would be charged with thoughtful
 discussions on the following issues:

 1. Threshold mapping
 2. Limited DRI's
 3. Redevelopment incentives
 4. Objective standards and criteria
 5. Balancing minimum performance standards and mitigation
 6. Definitions and timing of mapping and thresholds
 7. Definitions and assumptions on Economic Development,
 strategy and non-formula business, and local business and local
 competition.

 These issues are complex and this document is so all-
 encompassing, involving all aspects of our way of life as a region,
 we strongly believe that more time should be taken before the
 legislative process of approval takes place.

 As the document stands now, the Chamber could not support it.

 Sincerely,
 Wendy K. Northcross, CEO Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce
 John O'Brien, Legislative Liaison


 SUE LEVEN
 June 25, 2008



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 29
 There are several MPS‘s that would require changes to local by-
 laws. When I asked about this at the hearing, I was told that the
 MPS‘s are now considered ―suggestions‖ as opposed to the
 mandates they were in the last version. This should be made
 clearer to the Towns.

 There is a typo on page 120 – 1.3 comes before 1.2.

 Page 125: I am concerned that mitigation funds for open space          RE Page 125: The RPP provides options for meeting the open space
 can go to entities other than the Town. I believe that local           requirement, as this seems to benefit all parties. Local conservation
 conservation trusts would use the funds for the Town, I would          trusts are among the acceptable entities that can receive the funds.
 have serious doubts about the State or Federal government being        While state and federal entities are also acceptable, the town, in
 allowed to take mitigation funds. I believe the Town would never       almost all cases, has been the recipient of open space funds.
 see the funds again.                                                   Regardless of recipient, funds are collected and held by the CCC
                                                                        until the recipient has identified a specific open space acquisition that
                                                                        is consistent with the RPP. Then, at the request of the recipient, the
                                                                        funds are disbursed for that specific acquisition. We have added
                                                                        clarifying language to OS1.3, Provision of Off-Site Open Space
                                                                        paragraph, that towns are the preferred recipient of open space.

 Page 127: Consider limiting the open space that can be created in      RE Page 127: The open space requirement is proposed to be less in
 GIZ‘s and Economic Centers to ―pocket parks‖ and more ―urban‖          Economic Centers, unless the project is located in a Significant
 open spaces. If the intent of GIZ‘s and EC‘s is to concentrate         Natural Resource Area (which, in an EC, would likely be for
 development because it is desired and can be supported in these        wellhead protection purposes), and the impacts to that SNRA should
 areas, we should not be losing a valuable resource (developable        be mitigated. However, the open space requirements are designed to
 land) by setting parts of it aside as open space (in the classic       allow flexibility in the location of open space. Open space could be
 sense of undeveloped, forested land).                                  required onsite in an EC if there was rare species habitat present
                                                                        (likely a requirement of the NHESP, too), but could be provided off-
                                                                        site in suitable situations. Pocket parks are an appropriate way to
                                                                        meet the open space requirement in more urban settings, such as
                                                                        Growth Incentive Zones. Certainly the goal in creating ECs is to
                                                                        allow for denser, more compact development, and the open space
                                                                        MPSs support that goal. Appropriate guidance can be added to the
                                                                        open space technical bulletin, as well.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                              Page 30
 Page 136: There is a discussion about parking structures. Is it        Open Space response RE Page 136: Either above or below ground is
 your intent to have them above or below grade?                         acceptable; provided parking structures meet design manual goals.
                                                                        The goal is to reduce the land consumed by parking.

                                                                        Transportation response RE Pg. 136: It is not our intent to determine
                                                                        if parking structures are above or below ground. Parking structures
                                                                        should be designed to fit into the community.

                                                                        Heritage Preservation response RE Pg. 136: Staff recommends
                                                                        moving the discussion of parking structures to Best Practice 2.18,
                                                                        which acknowledges the various options for locating parking
                                                                        underground, within a portion of the first floor of a building, or in a
                                                                        separate above ground structure. This is more appropriately
                                                                        encouraged through a best practice, rather than required in a MPS.

 Page 152: I don‘t believe that the food service industry is that       RE Page 152: The estimate from the Nexus Study was that 10,000
 much worse than other businesses when it comes to low wage             square feet of retail would result in 22 below average wage jobs,
 jobs. Having a food service business contribute approximately          while 10,000 square feet of food service would result in just under 32
 30% more than retail businesses seems excessive.                       below average wage jobs. The Nexus Study consultant made an
                                                                        adjustment in the state-reported food services wages to account for
                                                                        tip income; however, even with that upward adjustment, the Study
                                                                        estimated that 95% of all food service jobs would pay less than the
                                                                        regional average wage.

 Page 157: The concept of screening buildings with other                RE Page 157: This applies to building footprints over 15,000 square
 buildings doesn‘t make a great deal of sense. Using landscaping        feet. Screening large buildings with smaller buildings is promoted in
 as screening works, but the point should not be to hide a larger       areas where buildings currently define the streetscape. In areas
 building. If there is a reasonable way to use buildings for            where vegetation is prominent along the roadway, the standard calls
 screening (such as a site plan that involves scattered smaller         for screening through landscaping. This is done to maintain the
 buildings in front of a larger building – Harwich Stop & Shop          context of the area and to prevent huge buildings that are out of scale
 BEFORE the construction of ―Building A‖), it should be                 with their surroundings. Redevelopment projects, as noted in
 considered, but if a larger building is so awful that it has to be     response 1, are allowed a larger footprint before screening is
 completely hidden from view, it shouldn‘t be built in the first        required. The Commission Design Manual Addendum includes

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                              Page 31
 place. Also, some people (the many seniors living here)               other methods for fitting large buildings into more traditional areas
 sometimes appreciate being able to see the supermarket from the       (through both siting and building variation) and staff suggests that
 street.                                                               some of these options could be cited as alternatives means of
                                                                       screening buildings that exceed the existing neighborhood scale.


 TOWN OF YARMOUTH
 July 2, 2008

 The Board of Selectmen respectfully requests that you extend the
 Public Hearing on the Regional Policy Plan (RPP) in order to
 afford additional time for thoughtful review and comment on a
 lengthy and complicated document. Should you have any
 questions regarding this request, you may contact me through the
 Town Administrator Office at (508) 398-2231 Ext 271.

 Sincerely, E. Suzanne McAuliffe, Chairman


 SUSAN LEVEN
 July 9, 2008

 I had a meeting recently with Leo Cakounes and Angelo
 LaMantia (a new Selectmen and former Planning Board Chair) to
 discuss the RPP. I wanted to pass along a few of their comments:

 Making it possible to use agricultural land to meet open space        RE Making it possible: Agricultural land can be used to meet open
 requirements.                                                         space requirements. Within MPS OS1.3, we have inserted a new
                                                                       subsection:
                                                                       Protection of Farmland: In the design of developments, and in the
                                                                       consideration of on-site or off-site open space, agricultural soils and
                                                                       agricultural uses shall be protected. In suitable locations and where
                                                                       conflicts with sensitive habitats and/or state law do not arise,
                                                                       conservation restrictions shall reserve the right to farm.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 32
 Taking a closer look at the extent to which agricultural fertilizers
 have a significant impact on nitrogen loading.

 Look at the impacts of the designation of areas (on vision maps)         RE Look at the impacts: A town that has had their land use vision
 and their relationship to DRI thresholds.                                map endorsed by the Planning Board will be eligible to apply for
                                                                          flexible DRI thresholds, after adoption of the 2008 RPP and changes
 Consider the importance of adequate planning on the part of              to Commission regulations establishing the framework for flexible
 towns before DRI thresholds are increased.                               thresholds by the Assembly of Delegates. Proposed regulations
                                                                          concerning flexible thresholds require the town's Planning Board and
 It is unclear which thresholds the vision maps are married to.           Board of Selectmen to concur on an application to raise DRI
                                                                          thresholds. The application process for flexible thresholds is
 Should the vision maps be approved by Town Meeting before                designed to ensure that adequate regulatory controls and
 being published in the RPP?                                              infrastructure planning has taken place in the town. The town can
 They had some real concerns about the vision map, and I believe          request flexible thresholds for one or more mapped areas; the ranges
 they will both be at the meeting with the Planning Board on July         towns are allowed to apply for are spelled out in the draft
 22. I think they are concerned about what we are committing to,          regulations. The Commission believes that map endorsement by the
 and the degree to which the Town as a whole will have the                planning board (which must be preceded by a public forum by a
 opportunity to sign off on it.                                           broad range of local interests) is adequate level of local approval, as
                                                                          the vision map in and of itself does not change any DRI thresholds.
                                                                          If a town wishes to bring the vision map to town meeting for
                                                                          approval prior to endorsement, that is a local option.

 Let me know if you have any questions.
 Susan M. Leven, AICP, Town Planner, Town of Harwich


 CAPE COD BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
 July 10, 2008

 The Executive Committee of the Cape Cod Business Roundtable
 requests that the Cape Cod Commission extend the public
 comment period on the update to the Regional Policy Plan until
 September 30, 2008. We make this request because the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 33
 substantial differences in this plan compared to earlier documents
 require more careful evaluation. We also note that the
 Commission is holding open houses on specific parts on the plan
 from July 21st to July 30th. Closing the public comment period
 on August 4, 2008 four days after the last open house would not
 allow sufficient time to prepare meaningful comments.

 Thank you for you consideration of this matter.

 Sincerely, Dan Wolf, Business Roundtable Co-Chair


 ASSOCIATION TO PRESERVE CAPE COD
 July 15, 2008

 The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) has conducted a
 preliminary review of the Draft 2008 Regional Policy Plan and
 requests that the Cape Cod Commission extend the public
 comment period to at least September 30, 2008.

 The Draft 2008 RPP represents a significant shift from the
 structure of previous plans, particularly with regard to the greater
 emphasis of the Cape Cod Commission's role as regional planner.
 The Draft RPP also outlines a new regulatory approach to
 Developments of Regional Impact, through different review
 thresholds for different land use areas and through greater
 flexibility for certain review criteria.

 This proposed restructuring of the Commission's goals and in
 how it functions will require the Commission and each of the 15
 Cape Cod towns to develop a new collaborative relationship that
 has the likely potential of producing markedly different growth
 management strategies from town to town. These new
 regional/local relationships and strategies will rely strongly upon

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 34
 the completion and implementation of the map-based planning
 described in the RPP, and on the spectrum of DRI review
 thresholds that emerge from the mapping effort. To date, the
 mapping project is incomplete, and possible changes to DRI
 review thresholds have not been determined.

 Understanding how these proposed changes will ultimately affect
 the region is a very complicated process that demands a
 thoughtful and comprehensive regional discussion. So far, the
 public comment period has generated several valid questions and
 concerns from a variety of stakeholders that merit further
 consideration. The time that has been allotted for public study and
 comment for this extremely important effort is insufficient.

 APCC therefore recommends that the comment period be
 extended and that more opportunities for public input be
 provided. During that time, efforts should be made by the Cape
 Cod Commission to provide more definitive information on the
 mapping project and on potential thresholds for different land use
 areas. Additional information of this nature will be very
 beneficial in helping to better understand how the proposed new
 features of the RPP will work.

 Sincerely, Maggie Geist, Executive Director


 BILL PLETTNER
 July 16, 2008

 Ann Canedy forwarded me the link to the draft proposal. I admit         RE In redrafting the RPP, several of the agricultural elements were
 that I have sat in on several discussions regarding this proposal at    dispersed into other sections or inadvertently removed from the land
 our local Farm Bureau board meetings and at our Barnstable              use section. We are proposing reinserting the Land Use goal
 Agricultural Commission meetings. I am on the board at the C &          pertaining to rural lands, with some additions, and relocating the
 I Farm Bureau and the Chairman of the Barn. Ag Com. I find it           dispersed MPSs to this section. Please see revisions to the Land Use,

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 35
 incomprehensible that the Cape Cod Commission would dismiss            Economic Development, Open Space, and Heritage Preservation
 the importance of agriculture on Cape Cod to the extent that you       sections of the RPP for the proposed additions. We have also added
 have done.                                                             new actions to the Land Use and Economic Development sections
                                                                        consistent with comments received during recent meetings with the
                                                                        agricultural community. In addition, we have made changes or
                                                                        additions to the text of the Economic Development, Open Space, and
                                                                        Heritage Preservation sections.

 Is it possible that the Commission does not see the importance of      RE Is it possible: In addition to changes in other RPP chapters, staff
 Agriculture in preserving open space and the rural nature of our       recommends that we add language citing historic agricultural lands
 communities? This is open space that stays on the tax rolls!           as cultural landscapes requiring protection under MPS HPCC1.2.
 State law provides agricultural exemptions in many aspects of          Staff recommends we add the following sentence at the end of MPS
 Town planning precisely because agriculture is good for our            HPCC1.2: ―In particular, historic agricultural lands and other
 communities. Please tell me that the Cape Cod Commission will          working agricultural lands shall be retained to prevent further loss of
 reconsider their approach and include agriculture in this regional     these dwindling resources that speak to the Cape‘s agricultural past.‖
 plan.                                                                  Staff also recommend adding the words ―including historic
                                                                        agricultural lands‖ to CCC Action item HPCC1-C1 regarding
 Bill Plettner                                                          protection of cultural landscapes.


 FRED FENLON
 July 16, 2008

 Memo

 To: Karl Weiss, PhD, CEO Massachusetts Technology
 Collaborative (MTC), 140 Salt Works Road, North Eastham, MA
 02651
 From: Fred Fenlon, 40 Baldwin Rd, North Eastham, MA 02651
 Date: 7/16/2008
 Re: Cape Cod Commission, Regional Policy Plan (RPP)

 Dr. Karl,
 Attached is the CC Commission's Regional Policy Plan (RPP). It

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 36
 is still in draft form. They are looking for comments and will
 make changes going forward before the final document is
 released and then passed by the Assembly of Delegates. The
 comments time frame will close on August 4, 2008.

 "Water Resources" is on pages 33 and 102. "Waste Management"
 is set out on page 64.

 Energy issues are set out on pages 64 and 144. The Energy issue           RE Energy issues are set out: The Cape Cod Commission Planning
 statements in the RPP is, in my opinion, can best described as            Actions on pg. 69 do not yet include mention of the Green
 sad, lots of nice words but no real action plan and no teeth. I will      Communities Act, but this will be added as CCC action E1-C3. Also,
 address correspondence to the CCC on the energy issues.                   this energy section is very different from the energy section in the
                                                                           2002 RPP. It includes a lot of new information and establishes new
 This is your copy to keep.                                                initiatives the Commission will follow. While it may not be as
 Fred Fenlon                                                               strong as some would like, it is important to lay a good foundation
                                                                           upon which to build and strengthen this section of the RPP in future
                                                                           documents. Staff feels that the 10% on-site requirement is an
                                                                           enforceable regulatory requirement.



 BILL PLETTNER
 July 17, 2008

 Dear Mr. Plettner,
 Agriculture is currently addressed in the draft 2008 Regional
 Policy Plan (RPP) through a Minimum Performance Standard (on
 p. 123) which requires that development be designed to avoid
 lands capable of agricultural production. We would be happy to
 consider additional ways that agriculture could be addressed in
 the planning and/or regulatory sections of the RPP. If you have
 suggestions as to how we might improve the plan, please forward
 them directly to me. If you would like to meet with Commission
 staff to discuss this further, please give me a call at 508-362-

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 37
 3828.
 Sincerely, Sharon Rooney

 On 7/16/08 4:52 PM, "Bill Plettner" <bplettner@comcast.net>
 wrote:
 Ann Canedy forwarded me the link to the draft proposal. I admit
 that I have sat in on several discussions regarding this proposal at
 our local Farm Bureau board meetings and at our Barnstable
 Agricultural Commission meetings. I am on the board at the C &
 I Farm Bureau and the Chairman of the Barn. Ag Com. I find it
 incomprehensible that the Cape Cod Commission would dismiss
 the importance of agriculture on Cape Cod to the extent that you
 have done. Is it possible that the Commission does not see the
 importance of Agriculture in preserving open space and the rural
 nature of our communities? This is open space that stays on the
 tax rolls! State law provides agricultural exemptions in many
 aspects of Town planning precisely because agriculture is good
 for our communities. Please tell me that the Cape Cod
 Commission will reconsider their approach and include
 agriculture in this regional plan. Bill Plettner


 BILL PLETTNER
 July 18, 2008

 I found the reference to agriculture on page 123; in the Wetlands,      RE Agriculture response: The Growth Policy is a very generalized
 Wildlife and Habitat section. It is difficult for anyone involved in    statement that doesn't target any particular land use. However, it is
 agriculture in any way to believe that one of the most important        appropriate to encourage/support agriculture in the Land Use and
 private sector tools for providing open space and rural character,      Economic Development Sections of the RPP, as we've proposed in
 not to mention the economic and social benefit of local food            the revisions mentioned above.
 production, could be reduced to one sentence buried in 177 pages.
 Agriculture deserves no less than a clear and definitive treatment      RE Land Use response: See separate response concerning agriculture
 in the Growth Policy For Barnstable County section. Please              and its inclusion in the RPP.
 reconsider this gross oversight which reflects so poorly on the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 38
 judgment of any regional policy planner involved in this project.
 Bill Plettner

 From: Sharon Rooney [mailto:srooney@capecodcommission.org]
 Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:15 AM
 Dear Mr. Plettner,
 Agriculture is currently addressed in the draft 2008 Regional
 Policy Plan (RPP) through a Minimum Performance Standard (on
 p. 123) which requires that development be designed to avoid
 lands capable of agricultural production. We would be happy to
 consider additional ways that agriculture could be addressed in
 the planning and/or regulatory sections of the RPP. If you have
 suggestions as to how we might improve the plan, please forward
 them directly to me. If you would like to meet with Commission
 staff to discuss this further, please give me a call at 508-362-
 3828.
 Sincerely, Sharon Rooney

 On 7/16/08 4:52 PM, "Bill Plettner" <bplettner@comcast.net>
 wrote:
 Ann Canedy forwarded me the link to the draft proposal. I admit
 that I have sat in on several discussions regarding this proposal at
 our local Farm Bureau board meetings and at our Barnstable
 Agricultural Commission meetings. I am on the board at the C &
 I Farm Bureau and the Chairman of the Barn. Ag Com. I find it
 incomprehensible that the Cape Cod Commission would dismiss
 the importance of agriculture on Cape Cod to the extent that you
 have done. Is it possible that the Commission does not see the
 importance of Agriculture in preserving open space and the rural
 nature of our communities? This is open space that stays on the
 tax rolls! State law provides agricultural exemptions in many
 aspects of Town planning precisely because agriculture is good
 for our communities. Please tell me that the Cape Cod
 Commission will reconsider their approach and include

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 39
 agriculture in this regional plan. Bill Plettner


 NUTTER McCLENNEN & FISH LLP • ATTORNEYS AT
 LAW
 July 18, 2008

 We have enclosed a matrix providing specific comments on many
 of the Land Use and Economic standards and policies contained
 in the 2008 draft Regional Policy Plan. We would be happy to sit
 down with Commission staff to review any of these specific
 comments and suggestions. We also anticipate forwarding, under
 separate cover, comments draft standards in the other resource
 areas.

 In addition, however, to the enclosed more specific comments
 and concerns, we also have the following more broad and
 generalized concerns regarding the current draft:

 1. Inability to fully review and understand the implications of
 many of the standards and policies prior to adoption of the
 Regional Land Use Vision Map.

 2. Each standard should be reviewed to ensure that all key terms       RE 2.: NOTE: The LEED acronym (in MPS E1.6) should be in the
 are defined and to make the standards as quantitative, objective       list of abbreviations in the back of the plan.
 and predictable as possible. This is particularly true since the
 number of minimum performance standards in this draft RPP has
 been increased since the 2002 RPP. Our initial reaction to the
 draft RPP is that it does not simplify, streamline, or shorten the
 review process, nor does it make it more predictable.

 3. We have significant concerns with the new language contained
 in the "Application of Regulations" section of the draft RPP (p.
 87) which states that a lack of compliance with a Best

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                   Page 40
 Development Practice ("BDP") may be considered a project
 detriment. Many of these BDP's are utterly unattainable for many
 developments (e.g., ED4.5). If non-compliance with a BDP
 constitutes a project detriment, these BDP's become de-facto
 minimum performance standards.

 4. We continue to feel that the draft RPP fails to                     Heritage Preservation response RE 4.: The community character
 incentivize/reward redevelopment in significant fashion.               chapter encourages redevelopment primarily by allowing
                                                                        redevelopment projects a much larger building without fully
                                                                        screening the structure. HPCC2.5 requires full screening of building
                                                                        footprints over 15,000 square feet for new development, but requires
                                                                        full screening of building footprints over 50,000 square feet for
                                                                        redevelopment projects as long as the expansion is on previously
                                                                        developed impervious or landscaped areas. The historic preservation
                                                                        portion of this chapter requires redevelopment if the building has
                                                                        historic significance.

                                                                        Land Use response RE 4. and 5.: The DRI Enabling Regulations
                                                                        provide significant incentives for redevelopment by allowing a credit
 5. We would encourage staff to re-review all of the standards to       in the calculation of total mitigation from the previous use of the site
 creatively come up with ways to better incentivize both new            in the areas of Transportation, Water Resources, Affordable
 development in designated areas and redevelopment. This might          Housing, and Hazardous Materials/Waste. The 2008 RPP reinforces
 include increased nitrogen loading, traffic credits, reduced open      these credits through MPS in these same issue areas, as well as
 space, etc...., similar to the MPS 3.2.1 in the 2002 RPP.              proposes that redevelopment within Growth Incentive Zones and
                                                                        Economic Centers not be required to provide open space.

                                                                        Water Resources response RE 5.: MPS 3.2.1 from the Economic
                                                                        Development Section of the 2002 RPP states, in conformance with
                                                                        other section of the 2002 RPP, that the nitrogen standard for
                                                                        groundwater may be increased where such increase will cause no
                                                                        significant adverse impact on specific identified resources and Public
                                                                        and private sewage treatment facilities may be used as incentives to
                                                                        encourage development and redevelopment to locate in certified
                                                                        Growth/Activity Centers. These incentives continue to be provided

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 41
                                                      by the Commission's nitrogen-loading technical bulletin that allows
                                                      for greater density where tertiary wastewater treatment is available
                                                      and by MPS WR5.4 which states that development and
                                                      redevelopment shall generally meet a 5-ppm nitrogen loading
                                                      standard for impact on groundwater, but the standard may be
                                                      increased where it can be demonstrated to the Commission that such
                                                      increase will cause no adverse impact on ponds, wetlands, marine
                                                      waters, public or private drinking water supply wells, and potential
                                                      water supply wells as identified under Goal WR2.

                                                      Transportation response RE 5.: The Draft Regional Policy Plan has a
                                                      number of incentives to encourage new development in Economic
                                                      Centers as well as incentives for redevelopment. The following
                                                      transportation Minimum Performance Standards (MPSs) provide
                                                      incentives for a new development located within an Economic
                                                      Center and any redevelopment project.

                                                      * TR0.2 - (Redevelopment incentive) Credit for previous
                                                      development regardless of the amount of time the previous
                                                      development was not fully operational.

                                                      * TR0.4 - Cash Payment for transportation impacts. No need to
                                                      perform Fair-Share" transportation impact calculations.

                                                      * TR0.4 - Cash Payment for Trip Reduction requirements.

                                                      * TR2.2 - Reduced trip reduction requirements. A twelve and a half
                                                      percent traffic credit for locating within an Economic Center.

                                                      * TR3.2 Relaxed driveway Level of Service standards with
                                                      Economic Centers.

                                                      Note: Staff would also like to discuss a potential additional incentive
                                                      for mixed-use in Economic Centers by requiring no mitigation above

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP   DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 42
                                                                         the first floor as suggested by Mr. Storrs.

 6. Finally, with reference to the economic section of the draft
 RPP, the attached table lists our more specific comments relative
 to the proposed standards. We do, however, have significant
 concerns with the costs associated with having to demonstrate
 compliance with the current draft, both in terms of mitigation and
 economic consulting costs.

 We appreciate, very much, the opportunity to provide this input
 on the 2008 draft. It is clear that there has been a lot of work and
 effort put into the document and we applaud the Commission and
 staff on its efforts. As residents of the Town of Barnstable and as
 practitioners in this community, we believe that the draft RPP
 will only become better with additional input and scrutiny. As
 such, we thank you for your consideration of our comments and
 we look forward to continuing to provide our perspective and
 recommendations on the draft document.

 Enclosure (SEE BELOW):

 Patrick Butler and Eliza Cox, Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP
 July 2008

 CCC NOTE: Items without comment were omitted from this
 reprint.

 I. LAND USE (LU) SECTION

 LU1.1 - DEVELOPMENT LOCATION                                            RE LU1.1: Noted. There are three towns which have endorsed their
 Unable to comment until Regional Land Use Vision map is                 section of the Vision map: Mashpee, Brewster, and Orleans. The
 completed and the "characteristics" of the category are available.      categories are defined in the definition section.

 LU1.2 - COMPACT DEVELOPMENT                                             RE LU1.2: The standard allows some flexibility through the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 43
 Consider making this apply to new development only, provided it      inclusion of "to the maximum extent possible."
 is compatible with underlying zoning. For redevelopment, focus
 should be on whether redevelopment minimizes existing
 development footprint (which would include parking, paved
 areas, etc...). We strongly suggest running test scenarios.

 LU1.3 - DEVELOPMENT LOCATION                                         RE LU1.3: LU1.3 is a BDP, not an MPS. The goal of the Land Use
 Need to review Land Use Vision map. Does this apply to               Vision map, and of this BDP, is to direct growth, including
 residential subdivisions?                                            residential growth that meets a DRI threshold, away from resource
                                                                      protection areas, and into designated growth areas as identified on
                                                                      the Vision map.

 LU1.4 - REUSE OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS                                  RE LU1.4: The Commission recommends removing the word
 What is a "significant" historic building? It is not defined.        "significant" and making the reference to "historic structure" which
 Should have some exception to rehabilitation / reuse if not          is included in the RPP definitions. As noted in the definition, this
 feasible or desirable. Need additional information on "Federal       includes anything listed on the state or national register of historic
 standards" cited in BDP.                                             places, as well as structures that are eligible for the national register.
                                                                      Given that this is a Best Practice, he Commission does not believe
                                                                      there is a need for an exception. Where an historic structure is
                                                                      subject to performance standards in the heritage preservation chapter,
                                                                      the standard for demolition proposals is explained in more detail.

                                                                      The federal standards referenced are those cited in the regulatory
                                                                      section of the HPCC chapter - right after HPCC1.3. They are "the
                                                                      Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic
                                                                      Properties and other current guidelines and bulletins prepared by the
                                                                      National Park Service Heritage Preservation Services Division."

                                                                      Also RE LU1.4: Staff suggests removing the word ―significant‖ and
                                                                      instead using the term ―historic structure‖ which is in the definitions
                                                                      section of the RPP. This is a Best Practice, and is simply
                                                                      encouraged, so there is no need for an exception. MPS HPCC1.1
                                                                      deals with historic structures under our review and what is required
                                                                      to contend that an historic structure cannot be rehabilitated.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                   DRAFT 10/16/08                                                               Page 44
 LU1.5 - LOCATION OF PUBLIC OFFICES                                        RE LU1.5: Yes, public office is intended to mean municipal office;
 What is a "public office"? (i.e., municipal?)                             the Commission recommends public be changed to municipal. The
                                                                           intent of this BDP is to encourage municipal offices to locate in
                                                                           village/downtown areas, as the Commission is proposing to change
                                                                           the DRI Enabling Regulations to eliminate municipal buildings from
                                                                           mandatory DRI review.

 LU2.1 - CONNECTIONS WITH EXISTING                                         RE LU2.1: The Commission recommends revising this MPS to
 INFRASTRUCTURE                                                            clarify the intent and simplify the requirement as supporting compact
 What exactly is this standard requiring? If, for example, a new           growth and land use categories on the Regional Land Use Vision
 road is built that allows for additional capacity & exceeds               map.
 project's traffic mitigation requirements, does applicant still get
 future credits for that construction (e.g., Mashpee Common
 space), or is it now a new requirement of this MPS? Must
 applicant provide excess capacity?

 LU2.3 - CO-LOCATE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE                                   RE LU2.3: As a BDP, there is flexibility in the application of this
 Consider adding "if appropriate" to this BDP. Issues of financial         practice; it is not an MPS.
 impacts / negotiating leverage should be considered.


 II. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) SECTION

 ED1.1 - LOCATION IN ECONOMIC CENTERS                                      RE ED1.1: The RPP Growth Policy is to direct development to areas
 Need to review Vision Map before commenting. In addition,                 adequately supported by infrastructure and protect the Cape‘s
 development should still be allowed in other areas even if                sensitive resources. ED1.1 implements this policy. The Cape needs
 applicant cannot meet 3 BDP's. Rather than prohibiting growth             to change development patterns in order to prevent further
 elsewhere, CCC should better incentivize it in the desired areas          degradation of our built and natural environment. ED 1.1 makes it
 by giving credits in other resource areas - see 2002 RPP MPS              clear to developers where they should locate a DRI size project.
 3.2.1. What does "where appropriate" mean?                                ―Where appropriate‖ gives flexibility to the Commission in the cases
                                                                           where development would compromise the unique character and role
                                                                           villages play in Cape‘s economy. With the exception of a grammar
                                                                           correction, ED 1.1 will remain unchanged.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 45
 ED1.2 - RESOURCE-BASED ECONOMIC AREAS                                   RE ED1.2: This language is unchanged from the 2002 RPP.
 Need definition of "resource-based economically productive              Nevertheless, staff recommends making the following changes to ED
 areas."                                                                 1.2
                                                                         ED1.2         Resource-based Economic Areas
                                                                         Development shall not eliminate or significantly impair the current
                                                                         and future function of resource-based economically productive
                                                                         areas, including working agricultural land, working waterfronts and
                                                                         harbors, fin and shell fishing grounds, and recreational areas.

 ED1.3 - INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE TRADE AREAS                              RE ED1.3: Industrial areas are meant for manufacturing and related
 BDP appears to be a zoning/planning recommendation, more                uses that are important to the balance and growth of the Cape‘s
 appropriate in first half of RPP. Suggest re-wording so that if any     economy. Yet, because areas zoned industrial tend to be less
 of the uses listed are located in Industrial / Service Trade Area,      expensive than other commercial areas, they appeal to retail and
 that it shall be a project benefit. Consider incentivizing by           services businesses. This eliminates opportunities for light industry
 allowing for increased traffic, nitrogen, etc...                        and related uses more beneficial the region‘s economy. ED1.3 will
                                                                         be elevated to a minimum performance standard; however, as with
                                                                         ED1.1, applicants can obtain a waiver to this standard if they meet a
                                                                         set number of criteria.

 ED1.4 - MIXED USE                                                       RE ED1.4: There is a definition for mixed-use developments and
 Need to add "if appropriate" - Not realistic in many projects (e.g.,    mixed use buildings in this draft RPP that specify a mix of
 YMCA, Hospital projects, IFAW, etc...). Concern that because            commercial and residential uses. This definition will be replaced
 "mix of uses" may not be appropriate, non-compliance is viewed          with:
 as detriment. Need definition of "mix of uses"? What about              Mixed Use: A single building or a single development of more than
 residential / subdivision DRI's? How much?                              one building that contains residential and commercial land uses
                                                                         planned as a unified whole and functionally integrated, with
                                                                         residential use constituting between 40% - 60% of the total gross
                                                                         square feet of development
                                                                         Including mixed use as a waiver option will benefit projects that are
                                                                         consistent with the goals of the RPP. Strip commercial areas and
                                                                         stand alone, single-story single-use buildings are not consistent and
                                                                         should not be promoted by the RPP. The RPP recognizes that what
                                                                         appears unrealistic today may very well be realistic in the future.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 46
 ED1.5 - VARIETY AND AFFORDABILITY                                          RE ED1.5: The RPP does not regulate rents or purchase of
 CCC should not be regulating rents or purchase in commercial               commercial space. The language of this BDP will be changed to
 space.                                                                     better reflect its intent:
                                                                            Variety and Affordability
                                                                            Development should include low to moderately priced commercial
                                                                            and residential spaces units designed and sized to accommodate
                                                                            and be affordable to small businesses and individuals of limited
                                                                            means.

 ED1.6 - REDEVELOPMENT                                                      RE ED1.6: Several standards in the economic development section
 Does not sufficiently incentivize redevelopment.                           will be revised to provide further incentives for redevelopment.
                                                                            Changes to the waiver under ED1 will make it easier for a
                                                                            redevelopment project to obtain a waiver to the location standards
                                                                            and redevelopment projects within Economic Centers will not be
                                                                            required to complete formal market and economic impact studies
                                                                            under ED2 and ED3.

 ED1.7 - PRESERVATION                                                       RE ED1.7: No, the limitation requested here would make it more
 Re-word to clarify that BDP applies only if there is a historic            difficult to obtain a waiver for the location standards.
 structure on project site.

 ED1.8 - GREEN DESIGN                                                       RE ED1.8: New technology and growing demand have already
 Suggest better incentivizing this - give credits elsewhere if green        resulted in lower prices for green building products; this trend should
 building/strategies.                                                       only increase in the future. No changes will be made to ED 1.8.

 ED1.9 - SHARED INFRASTRUCTURE                                              RE ED1.9: No, this BDP does not require developers to pay for
 Does this standard require developer to pay for & build for excess         and/or build for excess capacity. To clarify, the wording will be
 capacity? Raises significant legal concerns about owners of                revised:
 "proximate development" (need to define) utilizing this standard           Shared Infrastructure
 as legal / financial leverage.                                             Development should allow proximate development tie into existing
                                                                            infrastructure, such as wastewater treatment, telecommunications,
                                                                            and on-site energy-generation facilities, with excess capacity and
                                                                            where possible allow proximate development to do the same.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                         DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 47
 ED2.1 - MARKET IMPACT INFORMATION                                     RE ED2.1: All commercial developments are not required to provide
 REQUIREMENTS                                                          a formal market analysis. In the Draft RPP a formal market analysis
 Should not be required for all commercial developments,               is only required of projects that add more jobs and businesses to
 particularly those in the preferred Mapped areas.                     already saturated markets. The standard will further limit the
                                                                       requirement to complete a formal study as follows:
                                                                       ED2.1         Market Impact Information Requirements
                                                                       Commercial development proposals shall include data necessary to
                                                                       estimate the impact of the proposed development on the region‘s
                                                                       economic mix and long-term sustainability. New development
                                                                       within an Economic Center and all development outside an
                                                                       Economic Center that will accommodate one or more formula
                                                                       business shall provide a full market analysis. This market analysis
                                                                       shall include data and information on the project‘s market niche,
                                                                       primary and secondary market areas, estimated market share, and
                                                                       major competitors in the region. Guidance can be found in the
                                                                       Economic Development Technical Bulletin 04-002, as amended. All
                                                                       development shall be considered outside an Economic Center for
                                                                       towns that do not have a Land Use Vision map.

 ED2.2 - MARKET IMPACT STANDARD                                        RE ED2.2: ED2.2 will be changed as follows:
 Re-write to provide additional clarity and more objective             The Commission may require mitigation for development shown to
 quantitative standard. Definitional concerns - "further amass"        further amass concentrate economic activity and employment
 and "few dominant industry sectors."                                  opportunities in saturated markets. Mitigation shall be consistent
                                                                       with the balanced economy goal. Guidance can be found in the
                                                                       Economic Development Technical Bulletin 04-002, as amended.

 ED2.3 - EMPLOYMENT QUALITY STANDARD                                   RE ED2.3: This standard does not prohibit part-time employment.
 Does this exclude part-time employment? Need additional               The standard requires that over 50% of employment be year-round,
 clarity/predictability in 2nd sentence. In what instances would       provide wages sufficient to live on the Cape, and provide benefits.
 CCC "accept" or "require" such mitigation?                            The option of mitigation provides the Commission with flexibility
                                                                       short of denial for projects that cannot meet this standard. ED2.3 will
                                                                       be eliminated as a minimum performance standard at this time.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 48
 ED2.4 - EMERGING INDUSTRY CLUSTERS                                  RE ED2.4: ED 2.4 does not pertain to residential uses. The word
 How does a residential subdivision do this?                         ―commercial‖ will be added before development to clarify this.
                                                                     ED2.4 will become an option within the waiver standard under the
                                                                     first economic development goal ED1.

 ED2.5 - OPPORTUNITY COST                                            RE ED2.5: ED 2.5 has been removed and the economic concept of
 Must define "locally owned". How does one prove compliance          opportunity costs is discussed in the planning section. An appropriate
 with this BDP? Are you required to prove that a locally-owned       definition for locally owned has been researched. Based on this
 (?) emerging industry cluster business would not/could not          research and in particular the City of Albuquerque definition, locally-
 otherwise use the subject property?                                 owned is defined as follows:
                                                                     Locally-Owned: a business or manufacturer that:
                                                                     Is responsible for its own decision making regarding marketing,
                                                                     operations, and legal proceedings; and
                                                                     If a corporation, has a majority of its outstanding shares beneficially
                                                                     owned by individuals who are residents of Barnstable County; or
                                                                     If a partnership, its partners owning a majority beneficial interest in
                                                                     the partnership are residents of Barnstable County; or
                                                                     If an individual or a sole proprietor, he or she is a resident of
                                                                     Barnstable County

 ED2.7 - EMPLOYEE HOUSING                                            RE ED2.7: The term ―significant‖ allows necessary flexibility for
 What constitutes "significant" housing assistance? How does this    both the applicant and the Commission to make a reasonable
 tie into affordable housing section?                                judgment based on the specifics of the project. The housing
                                                                     assistance would be above that required under Affordable Housing
                                                                     Goal AH 3.

 ED3.1 - ECONOMIC IMPACT INFORMATION                                 RE ED3.1: All projects will provide the same information they do
 REQUIREMENTS                                                        under the 2002 RPP. A sub-set of projects will provide a formal
 Should not be required for all commercial developments,             economic impact analysis using industry accepted methods to
 particularly those in the preferred Mapped areas.                   determine the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of the project on
                                                                     the regional economy. The information needed for an economic
                                                                     impact analysis - net new jobs, payroll and/or net output (sales)
                                                                     expected – is not considered proprietary. Staff suggests the following
                                                                     revision of ED 3.1:

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                  DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 49
                                                                        ED 3.1 Economic Impact Information Requirements
                                                                        Commercial development proposals shall include data necessary to
                                                                        estimate the net economic impact of the proposed development. New
                                                                        development in Economic Centers and all DRIs outside of
                                                                        Economic Centers that will add jobs and businesses in
                                                                        accommodate one or more formula businesses the retail or
                                                                        accommodation and food service industries or pay the majority of
                                                                        workers less than the county average wage shall be required to
                                                                        provide a complete economic impact analysis. detailing The
                                                                        economic impact analysis shall estimate, using professionally
                                                                        accepted research methods, the net direct, indirect, and induced
                                                                        impacts of the project on the region's economy. Guidance can be
                                                                        found in the Economic Development Technical Bulletin 04-002 as
                                                                        amended. All development shall be considered outside an
                                                                        Economic Center for towns that do not have a Land Use Vision
                                                                        map.

 ED3.2 - ECONOMIC IMPACT/NET INCOME GROWTH                              RE ED3.2: Projects that result in net economic growth will meet this
 STANDARD                                                               standard; those that do not may request the use of mitigation as an
 What does "increase the monetary size of the regional economy"         alternative means of meeting the standard. The statement ―increase
 mean exactly? How does one demonstrate compliance with this?           the monetary size of the regional economy‖ means that a project
 Would this apply to a residential subdivision project? Overly          results in net growth in employment and economic output. This
 burdensome. What does locally mean? Review definition of "net          standard would not apply to residential subdivisions. Locally means
 economic impact." (p. 169)                                             within Barnstable County. Net economic impact means the project‘s
                                                                        positive economic impacts minus its negative economic impacts or
                                                                        costs. The word ―commercial‖ will be added at the beginning of
                                                                        ED3.2 and the word ―monetary‖ will be struck from the standard.

 ED3.3 - LOCAL LABOR AND SERVICE PROVIDERS                              RE ED3.3: Staff recommends that ED 3.3 become part of the waiver
 This should not be an MPS. Must be a BDP. Highly unlikely              standard which provides an alternative means for applicants to meet
 that contractor has been selected at permitting stage. What if         standards ED3.1 and ED3.2.
 there are no "local" (?) providers with necessary specialization,
 expertise, services, or turn-around time? If local costs are
 significantly higher, is developer being required to pay more for

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 50
 project? Add "to extent feasible possible."

 ED3.4 - LOCAL OWNERSHIP                                                RE ED3.4: An appropriate definition for locally owned has been
 Important issue throughout section (everywhere it is mentioned) -      researched. Based on this research and in particular the City of
 must define "local ownership". When is a trust, LLC,                   Albuquerque definition, locally-owned is defined as follows:
 corporation, partnership, etc... considered locally owned? How is      Locally-Owned: a business or manufacturer that:
 this defined?                                                          Is responsible for its own decision making regarding marketing,
                                                                        operations, and legal proceedings; and
                                                                        If a corporation, has a majority of its outstanding shares beneficially
                                                                        owned by individuals who are residents of Barnstable County; or
                                                                        If a partnership, its partners owning a majority beneficial interest in
                                                                        the partnership are residents of Barnstable County; or
                                                                        If an individual or a sole proprietor, he or she is a resident of
                                                                        Barnstable County
                                                                        A non-formula business would be any business that does not meet
                                                                        the definition of a formula business included in the definitions
                                                                        section of the RPP.

 ED3.5 - DIVERSE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES                               RE ED3.5: Applicants that can show that they will provide the
 Information unlikely to be available at permitting stage. For the      employment opportunities identified by the BDP should be able to
 types of development desired by RPP, possible that the                 use it towards a waiver if necessary.
 workforce may not exist regionally.

 ED3.7 - REGIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH                                       RE ED3.7: ED 3.7 has been divided into three options under the
 How does an applicant prove it "encourages" but does not               waiver standard and the first line has been struck.
 "undermine" these categories? Pejorative language. How is
 "undermine" defined?

 ED3.8 - LOCAL FISCAL IMPACT                                            RE ED3.8: ―Net fiscal impact‖ means new tax revenue minus new
 Review definition of "Net Fiscal Impact" (p. 169).                     costs for public services generated by a project. As stated in the
                                                                        BDP, net fiscal impacts pertain to only to the municipality in which
                                                                        the project is located.

 ED4.5 - DISTRIBUTED ENERGY GENERATION                                  RE ED4.5: A number of developments on Cape Cod are currently

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 51
 Impossible to reasonably meet within realistic fiscal parameters.      using distributed energy generation with positive financial results;
                                                                        tax credits and other assistance is provided by the state to reduce up-
                                                                        front costs.

 III. WATER RESOURCES (WR)

 WR1.1 - FIVE PPM NITROGEN LOADING STANDARD                             RE WR1.1: The nitrogen loading standard for all development and
 Confirm if this is the current standard for redevelopment?             redevelopment is substantively unchanged from the previous RPP.
                                                                        The nitrogen loading standard for all development and
                                                                        redevelopment is 5-ppm-N unless the project is located in a potential
                                                                        public water supply, in which case the standard is 1 ppm-N, or for
                                                                        Water Quality Improvement Areas (see MPS WR5.1) where
                                                                        development and redevelopment shall not exceed the nitrogen
                                                                        loading standards for Wellhead Protection Areas or an identified
                                                                        marine water quality standard as applicable. Where existing
                                                                        development within the watershed exceeds the identified loading
                                                                        standard or where there are documented marine water quality
                                                                        problems, nitrogen loading from development and redevelopment
                                                                        shall be maintained or improved.

 WR1.6 - MANAGEMENT OF WATER                                            RE WR1.6: Best Development Practice WR1.6 states that water
 WITHDRAWALS/WASTEWATER DISCHARGES                                      withdrawals and wastewater discharges should be managed so that
 How is this documented?                                                they do not adversely affect surface water resources, wetlands,
                                                                        private wells, or the safe yield of the aquifer. BDPs are
                                                                        discretionary. Potential effects from water withdrawals and
                                                                        wastewater discharges are sundry. Evaluations of their effects will
                                                                        depend on project specifics and may require post-development
                                                                        monitoring. Examples of adverse effects from water withdrawals
                                                                        include drawdown of water levels in wetlands and ponds or reduced
                                                                        stream flow. Another example is induced intrusion of salt water
                                                                        from excessive pumping and inappropriate siting of wells. Examples
                                                                        of adverse effects of wastewater discharges include large or high-
                                                                        density untreated discharges up-gradient and in close proximity of
                                                                        drinking-water supplies or ponds.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 52
 WR1.7 - USE OF WATER CONSERVATION                                      RE WR1.7: BDP WR1.7 states that development and redevelopment
 TECHNOLOGIES                                                           should use water-conservation technologies or other strategies to
 Question whether 40% reduction is realistically achievable.            obtain a 40 percent reduction of water use. BDPs are discretionary.
                                                                        This is a goal, not a minimum performance standard that is
                                                                        achievable through use of low-flow faucet aerators, showerheads and
                                                                        toilets. Some waterless composting toilets enable a 100% reduction
                                                                        in water use from this source. This BDP is consistent with state
                                                                        plumbing code that requires low flow toilets and other devices.

 WR1.9 - GREATER PROTECTION OF                                          RE WR1.9: BDP WR1.9 states that development and redevelopment
 GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER                                              should attain greater groundwater or surface water protection than
 No comment provided that non-compliance is not considered              provided for in the Minimum Performance Standards.
 detriment (p. 87)                                                      The Regional Regulation section of the RPP states that developments
                                                                        of Regional Impact must comply with all the applicable "Minimum
                                                                        Performance Standards" of this plan. In addition, the Cape Cod
                                                                        Commission promotes some measures, called "Best Development
                                                                        Practices," that Barnstable County government believes will create
                                                                        better development. Implementation of these practices may be
                                                                        considered by the Cape Cod Commission when it weighs the benefits
                                                                        and detriments of a proposed DRI.

 WR2.1 - FIVE PPM NITROGEN LOADING STANDARD                             RE WR2.1: The nitrogen loading standard for all development and
 Confirm if this is the current standard for redevelopment?             redevelopment is 5-ppm-N unless the project is located in a potential
                                                                        public water supply, in which case the standard is 1 ppm-N, or for
                                                                        Water Quality Improvement Areas (see MPS WR5.1) where
                                                                        development and redevelopment shall not exceed the nitrogen
                                                                        loading standards for Wellhead Protection Areas or an identified
                                                                        marine water quality standard as applicable. Where existing
                                                                        development within the watershed exceeds the identified loading
                                                                        standard or where there are documented marine water quality
                                                                        problems, nitrogen loading from development and redevelopment
                                                                        shall be maintained or improved.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 53
 WR2.2 - PROHIBITION ON HAZARDOUS                                          RE WR2.2: All standards under section WR2 apply to wellhead
 MATERIALS/WASTES                                                          protection areas. For clarity, the underlined clause will be added to
 Language should be re-written to confirm prohibition is in WPAs           MPS WR2.2 as follows: Development and redevelopment that
 and PPWSAs only. For clarity, consider eliminating this MPS               involves the use, treatment, generation, handling, storage, or disposal
 and just having standard under hazardous materials section only.          of Hazardous Materials or Hazardous Wastes, with the exception of
 All the cross-references in the water resources section are               household quantities, shall not be permitted in wellhead protection
 confusing.                                                                areas, except as provided in WM1.2 and WM1.3.

 WR3.3 - LOCAL MANAGEMENT PLANS                                            RE WR3.3: MPS WR3.3 states that Local Management Plans in
 For redevelopment, is credit given for existing loading?                  watersheds with Commission-approved watershed nutrient
                                                                           management plans, or comprehensive wastewater management plans,
                                                                           nitrogen loading from development and redevelopment shall attain
                                                                           the nitrogen loading limit specified by the plan. Yes, in effect, a
                                                                           credit of sorts would generally be provided under a town's CWMP.
                                                                           Comprehensive wastewater management plans or CWMPs will
                                                                           enable towns to meet nitrogen limits or TMDLs for existing and
                                                                           buildout conditions under existing zoning.

 WR3.5 - MONETARY CONTRIBUTION                                             RE WR3.5: MPS WR3.5 reads: In watersheds where the critical
 Is this in excess of 3.4 requirements? In what cases will this            nitrogen load has not been determined, development and
 payment be required? How was $20.00 figure calculated?                    redevelopment may be required to make a monetary contribution
                                                                           toward the development or implementation of appropriate nitrogen
                                                                           management strategies not to exceed $20 per gallon of design flow
                                                                           of wastewater per day. The monetary contribution described by MPS
                                                                           WR3.5 is a maximum amount that may be required at the discretion
                                                                           of the Commission in addition to the nitrogen offset required by
                                                                           MPS WR 3.1. The Commission may, at its discretion, use the bases
                                                                           for reduced monetary mitigation under MPS WR3.4 as the bases for
                                                                           reduced mitigation under MPS WR3.5. For comparison, monetary
                                                                           mitigation required to meet a no-net nitrogen limit protective of
                                                                           coastal water quality under MPS WR3.4 is $75 per gallon of
                                                                           wastewater discharged in cases where standard Title-5 septic systems
                                                                           are used. The monetary mitigation under MPS WR3.4 would be
                                                                           reduced from $75 to $20 per gallon of wastewater in cases where

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 54
                                                                     tertiary treatment is provided, and further reduced if actual nitrogen
                                                                     offsets are provided, e.g. if the nitrogen load of existing development
                                                                     or removal of nitrogen from off-site wastewater.

 WR4.2 - MONETARY CONTRIBUTION                                       RE WR4.2: MPS WR4.2 states that if a fresh water pond has
 Financial parameters of contribution?                               documented water quality problems, DRIs located in the pond's
                                                                     watershed may be required to make a monetary contribution toward
                                                                     the development or implementation of appropriate water quality
                                                                     assessment work or management strategies. The amount of the
                                                                     monetary contribution under MPS WR4.2 will depend on project
                                                                     specifics and the extent and scope of water quality assessment work
                                                                     and watershed planning necessary to address potential impacts to the
                                                                     resource. The work could involve the construction of observation
                                                                     wells, water-quality monitoring and laboratory analyses.

 WR5.1 - NITROGEN LOADING STANDARD                                   RE WR5.1: As noted above, MPS WR5.1 states that development
 For redevelopment, is credit given for existing loading?            and redevelopment shall not exceed the nitrogen loading standards
                                                                     for Wellhead Protection Areas or an identified marine water quality
                                                                     standard as applicable. Where existing development within the
                                                                     watershed exceeds the identified loading standard or where there are
                                                                     documented marine water quality problems, nitrogen loading from
                                                                     development and redevelopment shall be maintained or improved.
                                                                     Alternatively, for Impaired Areas outside of other mapped water
                                                                     resource areas, MPS WR5.4 states that development and
                                                                     redevelopment shall generally meet a 5-ppm nitrogen loading
                                                                     standard for impact on groundwater, but the standard may be
                                                                     increased where it can be demonstrated to the permitting authority
                                                                     and the Commission that such increase will cause no adverse impact
                                                                     on ponds, wetlands, marine waters, public or private drinking water
                                                                     supply wells, and potential water supply wells as identified under
                                                                     Goal WR2. Together, these two standards afford redevelopment
                                                                     projects credit for existing development.

 WR5.3 - MONETARY CONTRIBUTION IN ECONOMIC                           RE WR5.3: MPS WR5.3: Monetary Contribution in Economic

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                  DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 55
 CENTERS/GROWTH INCENTIVE ZONES                                          Centers/Growth Incentive Zones states that development and
 Financial parameters of contribution?                                   redevelopment in Economic Centers and Growth Incentive Zones
                                                                         within Water Quality Improvement Areas that have been identified
                                                                         as requiring comprehensive wastewater treatment solutions may be
                                                                         required to provide a monetary contribution, not to exceed $20 per
                                                                         gallon of design flow of wastewater per day, towards community
                                                                         wastewater facility planning or implementation efforts that may
                                                                         include infrastructure for wastewater management.
                                                                         Projects in areas lacking wastewater infrastructure may be required
                                                                         to make a monetary contribution to support comprehensive
                                                                         wastewater planning efforts. Nitrogen credits available under MPS
                                                                         3.4 and WR5.1 from existing development may be similarly used as
                                                                         bases for reducing the monetary contribution under MPS 3.5 and
                                                                         WR5.3.

 WR5.4 - NITROGEN LOADING STANDARD IN IMPAIRED                           RE WR5.4: MPS WR5.4 states that the nitrogen loading standard for
 AREAS                                                                   development and redevelopment in Impaired Areas outside of other
 Where is "Permitting Authority" defined?                                mapped water resource areas shall generally meet a 5-ppm nitrogen
                                                                         loading standard for impact on groundwater, but the standard may be
                                                                         increased where it can be demonstrated to the Commission that such
                                                                         increase will cause no adverse impact on ponds, wetlands, marine
                                                                         waters, public or private drinking water supply wells, and potential
                                                                         water supply wells as identified under Goal WR2. Reference to
                                                                         'Permitting Authority' will be deleted.

 WR5.5 - ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY IN ECONOMIC                            RE WR5.5: MPS WR5.5 states that development and redevelopment
 CENTERS/GROWTH INCENTIVE ZONES                                          in Economic Centers or Growth Incentive Zones in areas serviced by
 Is this in addition to, or in lieu of, other mitigation payments?       private wells shall provide alternative community water supply.
 This does not appear to incentivize development in these areas.         This standard is not intended to provide incentive for development in
                                                                         ECs and GIZs. The standard recognizes that existing private water
                                                                         supplies in ECs and GIZs are incompatible with the greater densities
                                                                         proposed for those areas and will need to be replaced.

 WR5.6 - CHAPTER 21E SITE ASSESSMENTS                                    RE WR5.6: BDP WR5.6 states that development and redevelopment

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 56
 Confirm non-compliance is not a detriment.                             should submit Chapter 21E site assessments or other water quality
                                                                        information indicating the condition of the site relative to hazardous
                                                                        waste, which may be used in the future development of a site..
                                                                        The Regional Regulation section of the RPP states that developments
                                                                        of Regional Impact must comply with all the applicable "Minimum
                                                                        Performance Standards" of this plan. In addition, the Cape Cod
                                                                        Commission promotes some measures, called "Best Development
                                                                        Practices," that Barnstable County government believes will create
                                                                        better development. Implementation of these practices may be
                                                                        considered by the Cape Cod Commission when it weighs the benefits
                                                                        and detriments of a proposed DRI.

 WR5.7 - REDUCTION OF NITROGEN LOADING IN WATER                         RE WR5.7: BDP WR5.7 states that development and redevelopment
 QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AREAS                                              in Water Quality Improvement Areas within Marine Water Recharge
 Confirm non-compliance is not a detriment.                             Areas should seek to reduce nitrogen loading by providing for the
                                                                        removal of 2 kilograms of nitrogen for each kilogram added.
                                                                        The Regional Regulation section of the RPP states that developments
                                                                        of Regional Impact must comply with all the applicable "Minimum
                                                                        Performance Standards" of this plan. In addition, the Cape Cod
                                                                        Commission promotes some measures, called "Best Development
                                                                        Practices," that Barnstable County government believes will create
                                                                        better development. Implementation of these practices may be
                                                                        considered by the Cape Cod Commission when it weighs the benefits
                                                                        and detriments of a proposed DRI.

 WR6.9 - OPERATION, MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE                           RE WR6.9: MPS WR6.9 states that private wastewater treatment
 AGREEMENT                                                              facilities greater than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd) design flow that
 Is this consistent with current practices that both CCC and local      require advanced treatment efficiencies greater than that allowed by
 BOH must be parties to agreement?                                      a DEP permit to meet Commission Minimum Performance
                                                                        Standards, shall demonstrate operation, monitoring and compliance
                                                                        through a Operation, Monitoring and Compliance agreement
                                                                        between the Board of Health and the Cape Cod Commission. Yes,
                                                                        this is consistent with current practices.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 57
 WR6.10 - IMPROVE TREATMENT OF EXISTING                             RE WR6.10: BDP WR6.10 states that development and
 WASTEWATER                                                         redevelopment should increase aggregation and improve the level of
 Confirm non-compliance is not a detriment                          treatment of existing wastewater flows.
                                                                    The Regional Regulation section of the RPP states that developments
                                                                    of Regional Impact must comply with all the applicable "Minimum
                                                                    Performance Standards" of this plan. In addition, the Cape Cod
                                                                    Commission promotes some measures, called "Best Development
                                                                    Practices," that Barnstable County government believes will create
                                                                    better development. Implementation of these practices may be
                                                                    considered by the Cape Cod Commission when it weighs the benefits
                                                                    and detriments of a proposed DRI.

 WR6.11 - WATER QUALITY REMEDIATION                                 RE WR6.11: BDP WR6.11 states that additional development in
 Confirm that non-compliance is not a detriment                     areas where existing high-density development or large numbers of
                                                                    failing septic systems have led to public health or water quality
                                                                    problems, development should install a private sewage treatment
                                                                    facility or DEP-approved alternative systems with enhanced nitrogen
                                                                    removal as a remedial measure.
                                                                    The Regional Regulation section of the RPP states that developments
                                                                    of Regional Impact must comply with all the applicable "Minimum
                                                                    Performance Standards" of this plan. In addition, the Cape Cod
                                                                    Commission promotes some measures, called "Best Development
                                                                    Practices," that Barnstable County government believes will create
                                                                    better development. Implementation of these practices may be
                                                                    considered by the Cape Cod Commission when it weighs the benefits
                                                                    and detriments of a proposed DRI.

 WR7.2 - ON SITE INFILTRATION                                       RE WR7.2: WR7.2 states that stormwater for all roadways and
 Fine for new development, but standard for redevelopment should    parking areas shall be managed and infiltrated on site, close to the
 be improving existing conditions. May not be possible for          source, to minimize runoff and maximize water quality treatment.
 redevelopment to meet these requirements.                          Stormwater water quality treatment shall be provided for the first
                                                                    inch of rainfall (25-year 24-hour storm) to attain 80 percent total
                                                                    suspended solids removal and to reduce nutrients. At least 44 percent
                                                                    Total Suspended Solids removal shall be designed prior to discharge

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                 DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 58
                                                                      into structured infiltration systems. This standard is achievable for
                                                                      most redevelopment projects. Project scales will need to be
                                                                      appropriate for the lot/parcel being developed.

 WR7.3 - ROOF RUNOFF                                                  RE WR7.3: WR7.3 states that roof runoff shall be managed
 Does this apply to both new and redevelopment projects?              separately and directly infiltrated unless there is an identified rooftop
                                                                      water quality concern that requires additional treatment or
                                                                      management. This standard, applicable to all development, is
                                                                      intended to maximize advanced stormwater treatment capacity from
                                                                      non-roof drainage.

 WR7.4 - BIOFILTRATION PRACTICES                                      RE WR7.4: WR7.4 states that stormwater design for the first inch of
 Applaud allowing these to count as open space, but what type of      stormwater flow from development parking and roadways shall use
 restriction will be required on them? Will deed restriction be       biofiltration practices including, but not limited to, vegetated swales
 allowed? Why is open space allowance limited to WPAs only?           and filter strips, constructed wetlands, tree box filters, bio-retention
                                                                      basins and rain gardens for treatment of stormwater runoff.
                                                                      Bioretention areas shall be constructed in accordance with the
                                                                      Massachusetts Storm Water Management Volume One: Stormwater
                                                                      Policy Handbook, March 1997. Approved biofiltration areas may be
                                                                      counted as open space within Wellhead Protection Areas.
                                                                      MPS WR7.4 encourages expanded advanced stormwater treatment in
                                                                      wellhead protection areas where space may be constrained on small
                                                                      lots.

 WR7.6 - LIMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACES                                    RE WR7.6: MPS WR7.6 states that roadway and parking design
 Need flexibility - some towns require that all spaces be             shall limit impervious surfaces. Parking lots shall be designed for the
 impervious paving. In addition, depending on use of building,        minimum required by the town in accordance with MPS TR2.9.
 there may be reasons why paved parking is needed (e.g., handicap     Overflow peak parking design shall be constructed from pervious
 accessibility concerns).                                             materials such as porous pavement, permeable pavers, or biomaterial
                                                                      such as grass pavers unless inconsistent with local bylaws. If
                                                                      overflow parking is located within a Wellhead Protection Area; grass
                                                                      pavers are preferred over other materials. Bioretention shall be
                                                                      incorporated into parking islands and roadway perimeters. Permeable
                                                                      paving shall be encouraged where appropriate.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                   DRAFT 10/16/08                                                              Page 59
                                                                       The pervious-materials requirement applies to overflow parking.
                                                                       Handicapped parking is not located in overflow areas. The
                                                                       requirement for pervious pavement is contingent on consistency with
                                                                       local bylaws.

 WR7.8 - MINIMUM TWO FOOT SEPARATION TO                                RE WR7.8: MPS WR7.8 states that new infiltration basins or other
 GROUNDWATER                                                           stormwater leaching structures shall maintain a minimum two-foot
 Is this new development only?                                         separation between points of infiltration and maximum high water
                                                                       table except as required under MPS CR3.4. Guidance on the high
                                                                       groundwater adjustment methodology can be found in Estimation of
                                                                       High Groundwater Levels for Construction and Land Use Planning,
                                                                       Technical Bulletin 92-001, as amended.
                                                                       New construction only.

 WR7.12 - MINIMIZE ROAD WIDTHS                                         RE WR7.12: BDP WR7.12 states that road widths should not exceed
 Confirm non-compliance is not a detriment as towns/emergency          18 feet to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces. BDP WR7.12
 providers may require increased widths.                               is a Best Development Practice, not a Minimum Performance
                                                                       Standard. BDPs are discretionary because there may be cases when
                                                                       road widths over 18 feet may be required by local regulations or
                                                                       deemed necessary by municipal emergency responders.

 IV. COASTAL RESOURCES (CR)

 CR1.1 - PUBLIC ACCESS                                                 RE CR1.1: Staff does not recommend changing the language.
 Prohibition on impairing "historic public rights of way" should
 only apply provided such rights are legal

 CR1.3 - PROTECT MARITIME INDUSTRY                                     RE CR1.3: Staff agrees with this change.
 Suggest ending 2nd sentence after "preserved."

 CR2.5 - BARRIER BEACHES, COASTAL DUNES AND                            RE CR2.5: Yes, CR2.5 prohibits all new development in an ACEC
 THEIR BUFFERS                                                         and NHESP area that are ALSO barrier beaches, coastal dunes and
 For new development - as currently written, appears to prohibit       their buffers--- these are arguably some of the most critical and
 all new development in ACECs and in areas mapped by NHESP?            unique areas of the Cape.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 60
 Is that the intent?

 CR2.6 - COASTAL BANKS AND THEIR BUFFERS                                RE CR2.6: Most building codes and other design standards provide
 Request examples to assess portion of standard requiring setback       only one opportunity to minimize risk of future hazard damage: at
 at 30 times annual erosion rate? What was that figure based            the time of initial permitting and construction. The level of safety
 upon?                                                                  after initial construction generally determines the risk to the building
                                                                        for its entire lifetime. The FEMA Coastal Construction Manual
                                                                        recommends that for the lifetime of a coastal structure/building, a
                                                                        minimum of 50 years be used as a setback factor. However, it
                                                                        recommends that a minimum 70-year coastal building lifetime be
                                                                        used for residential buildings. The 70-year timeframe is based on a
                                                                        study that was done for the Federal Insurance Administration to
                                                                        establish reliable estimates for the life of residential coastal
                                                                        structures. 30 years is the usual mortgage life of a property and is
                                                                        commonly used for this sort of determination—this is what the RPP
                                                                        uses.

 V. WETLANDS, WILDLIFE AND HABITAT (WWH)

 WWH2.1 - NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY                                   RE WWH2.1: The Committee does not recommend making this
 Consider including the ability to allow staff to waive this            change to the RPP: as a practical matter, the CCC has had the ability
 requirement for certain development in mapped areas (e.g.,             to waive this requirement.
 economic centers and industrial areas) and/or if locus is
 surrounded by development and/or not mapped by NHESP

 WWH2.9 - UN-DEVELOPMENT                                                RE WWH2.9: Confirmed; benefits/detriments will be addressed
 Confirm non-compliance not project detriment                           generally in a separate response sheet.


 VI. OPEN SPACE PROTECTION AND RECREATION
 (OS)

 OS1.3 - OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS                                        RE OS1.3: We have deleted the reference to perceived open space in
 Request clarification of parenthetical reference in "Calculation       the draft, as this term has been confusing.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 61
 Based on Development Area" paragraph. What type of                    Deed restriction is likely the appropriate tool for protecting the open
 restrictions will be required to obtain open space credit for         space associated with LID structures, though the design of a LID
 stormwater management structures? Add incentive for                   stormwater structure might allow it to be included within a
 development and redevelopment within other areas mapped for           conservation restriction in some situations. Clarification of
 growth by Local Comprehensive Plan. Does this draft give the          appropriate restrictions for LID structures will be added to the Open
 CCC the ability to require that open space be met on site?            Space Technical Bulletin.
                                                                       The Land Use Vision mapping process has provided an opportunity
                                                                       for each town to identify the areas within their community where
                                                                       dense growth should occur, and concomitantly, appropriate locations
                                                                       for redevelopment. The Planning Committee does not recommend
                                                                       extending incentives to all areas mapped for growth in LCPs.
                                                                       The open space MPSs are crafted assuming that open space will be
                                                                       met on-site. In MPS OS1.3, Provision of Off-Site Open Space
                                                                       paragraph, the CCC is given the discretion to allow the provision of
                                                                       open space off-site, under certain provisions.

 OS1.4 - SENSITIVE NATURAL RESOURCES                                   RE OS1.4: This MPS has always been used as a guide in designing
 Delete references to 200 & 300 foot buffers. CCC should explain       developments, i.e. "stay away from these XYZ resources", not as a
 why this is included. Language could allow for increased              no-build requirement. We have revised this MPS: delete "300-foot
 scrutiny for new development in those areas, but should not           buffers to ponds and lakes, 200-ft buffers to rivers,". Add a new
 prohibit development                                                  sentence at the end: "Development should be located outside of 300-
                                                                       foot buffers to ponds and lakes and 200-ft buffers to rivers to the
                                                                       greatest extent feasible, and consistent with state law."

 OS1.8 - OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND PARKING                           RE OS1.8: Noted.
 GARAGES
 Good example of incentivization

 OS1.10 - OPEN SPACE CREDITS                                           RE OS 1.10: Noted.
 Good example of incentivization

 OS2.1 - RECREATION NEEDS                                              RE OS2.1: Incentive exists, at CCC discretion, in OS1.10. We have
 Consider allowing reduction in open space if applicant allows for     revised the text slightly by changing "is made accessible to the
 recreational public access in open space.                             public" to "is made accessible for use by the public."

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 62
 VII. HUMAN/BUILT SYSTEMS
 TRANSPORTATION (TR)

 TR0.1 - SOURCE(S) OF TRIP GENERATION DATA                              RE TR0.1: Actual Counts for an existing development are always
 Actual counts should be allowed as a matter of right, subject to       accepted for any Development of Regional Impact (DRI). All
 conformance with ITE standards.                                        transportation data are reviewed by Commission transportation staff
                                                                        and submitted to the Commission for review and consideration.

                                                                        The procedure for collecting and submitting traffic counts from
                                                                        existing development will be further explained in the updated Cape
                                                                        Cod Commission Guidelines for Transportation Impact Assessment
                                                                        Technical Bulletin 96-003, Revised January 9, 2003 "the
                                                                        Transportation Technical Bulletin".

 TR0.2 - TRAFFIC CREDIT FOR PAST USES                                   RE TR0.2: Actual Counts for an existing development are always
 Trip generation data for prior uses should be allowed as a matter      accepted for any Development of Regional Impact (DRI). All
 of right. To incentivize redevelopment, the phrase "immediate          transportation data is reviewed by Commission transportation staff
 prior use" should be defined. Time period for discontinuance           and submitted to the Commission for review and consideration.
 should be five (5) years from date of filing.
                                                                        The procedure for collecting and submitting traffic counts from
                                                                        existing development will be further explained in the updated
                                                                        Transportation Technical Bulletin.

                                                                        The phase "immediate prior use" is in reference to developments that
                                                                        may have multiple uses over a number of years. To be consistent
                                                                        with all Developments of Regional Impact (DRI), the Cape Cod
                                                                        Commission has established the awarding of a traffic credit for the
                                                                        most recent use of the property and not allowing traffic credit for a
                                                                        use that occurred before the most recent use.

                                                                        For redevelopment projects outside of Economic Centers, the Cape
                                                                        Cod Commission will retain a time period of five (5) years from the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 63
                                                                          date of filing for awarding a traffic credit based on the most recent
                                                                          use of the property.

 TR0-3 - PERMITS FOR ROADWORK PRIOR TO                                    RE TR0.3: The current procedure is to require roadway design plans
 CONSTRUCTION                                                             be finalized before issuing a Preliminary Certificate of Compliance
 The timing of this MPS is problematic. Based on past                     (a building permit) and roadway construction must be completed
 experiences, it can take 6-8 months to obtain an access permit           before a Final Certificate of Compliance (occupancy permit) is
 from MHD and the State permitting process is not commenced               issued. Past experience has shown that this approach ensures
 until after DRI approval is obtained. Having to wait, in some            roadway improvements are in place before the Development of
 cases, 6-8 months before being able to obtain a building permit is       Regional Impact is operating. In the event that a DRI cannot fulfill
 not acceptable. Suggest formalizing current process which is to          the requirements for the Cape Cod Commission decision, the
 require State applications to be filed before Preliminary                applicant may seek a modification to the DRI.
 Certificate and permits issued before Final Certificate.
                                                                          Cape Cod Commission transportation staff continues to encourage
                                                                          applicants to present preliminary roadway plans to the MHD to reach
                                                                          consensus before submitting formal design plans. Preliminary
                                                                          meeting with the MHD can expedite the permitting process for DRIs.

 TR0-4 - ALTERNATIVE METHOD FOR COMPLIANCE                                RE TR0.4: The Cape Cod Commission was charged with improving
 WITHIN ECONOMIC CENTERS                                                  the predictability both for cost and time of review. Minimum
 This is appropriate and helpful, based upon verification of dollar       Performance Standard TR0.4 was created to address both of these
 amounts.                                                                 concerns. Granted that a project does not create a degradation in
                                                                          public safety, the applicant may provide monetary mitigation for
                                                                          both the trip reduction and congestion requirements of the Regional
                                                                          Policy Plan (RPP). The dollar amounts established in TR0.4 are
                                                                          based on a review of Developments of Regional Impact that
                                                                          complied with the transportation mitigation requirements outlined in
                                                                          the 2002 RPP.

 RE TR1.2 - REVIEW CRASH FREQUENCY AT KEY                                 RE TR1.2: The twenty-five peak hour trip threshold was established
 LOCATIONS                                                                in the 1996 Regional Policy Plan. Generally, the applicant consults
 25 vehicle trip threshold is appropriate. Reference to the sources       the Massachusetts Highway Department for summary crash data.
 of data should be clarified (i.e., police department or state public     For locations requiring further investigation the applicant needs to
 safety). CCC should maintain this information in publicly                consult with the local police department for actual crash reports. The

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 64
 accessible format so that applicants can utilize information            Cape Cod Commission transportation staff is current developing a
 provided by prior DRI's.                                                publicly accessible format for crash data.

                                                                         The procedure for collecting and submitting crash data will be
                                                                         further explained in the updated Transportation Technical Bulletin.

 TR1.4 - STANDARDS FOR DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION                             RE TR1.4: Because all project sites need access, redevelopment
 For redevelopment projects, applicants should be required to meet       projects are required to meet spacing and separation distances to the
 spacing & separation distances to the greatest extent feasible          greatest extent possible. TR1.4 will be revised to include language
 based on existing site conditions. Standard should also allow for       relative to access for redevelopment projects. Driveway standards are
 flexibility for driveway/curb-cut widths based on input from            based on the need to accommodate emergency providers.
 emergency providers.

 TR1.7 - BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS SAFETY AND                           RE TR1.7: The Cape Cod Commission will strike "contain" and
 ACCESS/EGRESS REQUIREMENTS                                              insert in place thereof "confine" in the last sentence.
 Strike "contain" and insert in place thereof "accommodate" in the
 last sentence.

 TR1.10 - AVOID THROUGH-TRAFFIC IN                                       RE TR1.10: Best Development Practices (BDP) do not apply to all
 NEIGHBORHOODS                                                           projects.
 These should not be counted as detriments if not achievable.
                                                                         Traffic from a commercial project that impacts a residential
                                                                         neighborhood is considered by many to be a detriment. The Cape
                                                                         Cod Commission will amend the language to specify commercial
                                                                         traffic.

 TR1.11 - IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY                                  RE TR1.11: This is a Best Development Practice that all
 These should not be counted as detriments if not achievable.            Developments of regional Impact should work to achieve.

 TR1.12 - MINIMIZE OR CONSOLIDATE CURB CUTS                              RE TR1.12: This is a Best Development Practice that all
 These should not be counted as detriments if not achievable.            Developments of Regional Impact should work to achieve.
                                                                         Excessive curb cuts or excessively wide curb cuts could be
                                                                         considered a detriment.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 65
 TR2.3 - INTERCONNECTION REQUIREMENT                                    RE TR2.3: Most commercial developments are willing to provide
 Mandatory requirements create unintended consequences re:              interconnects between adjacent parcels. Many commercial
 property rights and economic leverage for adjacent property            developments provide stub roads and/or easements to accommodate
 owners.                                                                future connections. The Cape Cod Commission will amend this
                                                                        MPS to specify what is required of the developer on the project site
                                                                        and what level of effort is required of the developer to connect the
                                                                        adjacent property.

 TR2.4 - INCENTIVES FOR CONNECTIONS BETWEEN                             RE TR2.4: The Cape Cod Commission will amend this MPS to
 ADJACENT PROPERTIES                                                    allow a ten (10) percent traffic credit apportioned between the two
 Helpful and should be substituted for TR2.3.                           (2) commercial properties or, if greater, a traffic credit as outlined in
                                                                        the Institute of Transportation Engineer Trip Generation Handbook,
                                                                        October 1998.

 TR2.9 - MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES                          RE TR2.9: A parking analysis generally consists of a count of parked
 Need clarification as to "justification by parking analysis."          vehicles at a facility during the project's peak hour. Formal
                                                                        procedures are defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

 TR2.15 - BIKE RACKS AND/OR STORAGE                                     RE TR2.15: Best Development Practices are provided to give
 Bike rack requirements should be done on a case by case basis          guidance as to location and the typical number of bike racks and
 based upon actual utilization. Examples include RHCI and               supporting facilities utilized for development.
 Fontaine Medical Center. Cost of shower and changing facilities
 is significant and raises OSHA and other concerns.

 TR2.17 - BUFFERS AROUND AIRPORTS                                       RE TR2.17: A buffer area around the Barnstable Municipal Airport
 Has discussion been had with the Barnstable Municipal Airport          has been discussed through the DRI review process. The Best
 Commission?                                                            Practice does not specify a required width.

 TR2.21 - PARKING STRUCTURES                                            RE TR2.21: A parking structure that can be shared by multiple
 Should not be counted as detriment and raises economic issues.         commercial sites could be considered a benefit of a project. The
                                                                        absence of one would not be considered a detriment.

 TR2.23 - DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICES                                        RE TR2.23: Drive-through service may be appropriate in some
 How is this to be interpreted? Does every DRI without a drive-         circumstances such as for the elderly or mobility impaired. The

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                               Page 66
 through window receive a project benefit? BDP's should be               Cape Cod Commission is concerned with the excessive use of drive-
 worded to incentivize certain developments such that compliance         through services and the overall increase in vehicular traffic, idling
 is deemed a project benefit. Drive through windows should not           emissions, and vehicle queuing impacts to street traffic.
 categorically be discouraged, may be appropriate in certain
 circumstances (e.g., to accommodate persons with accessibility
 constraints).

 TR3.1 - DEFINITION OF REGIONAL ROADS                                    RE TR3.1: Cape Cod Commission transportation staff suggests
 In an attempt to stream-line RPP, consider eliminating this as an       moving this Minimum Performance Standard to the technical
 MPS (since it is not requiring anything) and inserting the              bulletin.
 language into a technical bulletin.

 TR3.5 - MITIGATION OF CONGESTION IMPACTS                                RE TR3.5: Full mitigation of project impacts refers to Developments
 REQUIRED                                                                of Regional Impacts (DRIs) mitigating impacts resulting from the
 In the 1st sentence - what exactly is "full mitigation of impacts"?     project. Generally, full mitigation of impact is done in conformance
 Is it requiring that LOS be maintained in accordance with 2nd           with the Cape Cod Commission Guidelines for Transportation
 sentence, or is more required?                                          Impact Assessment Technical Bulletin 96-003, revised January 9,
                                                                         2003.

 TR3.6 - MITIGATION FEE                                                  RE TR3.6: The $5,000 per peak hour trip cost was determined based
 How does $5,000 per peak hour trip compare with the fair share          on previous projects in compliance with the Fair-Share Methodology
 cost per trip under the 2002 RPP?                                       outlined in the 2002 Regional Policy Plan.

 TR3.7 - "FAIR SHARE" PAYMENTS                                           RE TR3.7: This option is available for all Developments of Regional
 Clarify this MPS with prior MPS (3.7). Is this MPS allowing (at         Impact up to 25 peak hour trips regardless of location. The payment
 the CCC's discretion) payment of funds where there is an increase       of funds at the applicant's option under MPS TR3.6 is allowed only
 of more than 25 peak hour trips? Otherwise, it appears                  in certified Economic Centers.
 inconsistent with prior standard which allows for cash payment at
 applicant's option.

 TR3.15 - INCLUDE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE                              RE TR3.15: The cost of operation would be developed with either
 COSTS AS PART OF DRI MITIGATION                                         the Town Engineer or Town DPW Director and based on existing
 What would the 20 years of operations and maintenance costs be?         costs in that town. The criteria to determine if the Cape Cod
 In what instances and based on what criteria would the CCC              Commission "deem it appropriate" would be determined in our

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 67
 "deem it appropriate" to assess these maintenance costs? Would       consultation with the town.
 the maintenance costs come out of fair share payments or be in
 addition to those costs?                                             The procedure for determining the maintenance and operating costs
                                                                      of traffic signals shall be added to the Transportation Technical
                                                                      Bulletin.

 TR3.16 - TRAFFIC MONITORING DEVICES MAY BE                           RE TR3.16: The cost to add continuous year round traffic recording
 REQUIRED BY THE CCC                                                  devices to a new traffic signal with video detection (the latest
 Same question relative to maintenance costs. Also, what is the       technology) is approximately $1,000. The procedure for determining
 cost of the "continuous year-round traffic recording devices"?       the traffic counting equipment costs shall be added to the
 Would the cost of this equipment be deducted from an applicant's     Transportation Technical Bulletin.
 fair share payment or is it in addition to those amounts?
                                                                      The cost of the traffic monitoring devices could be deducted from the
                                                                      fair-share pavement.

 TR3.21 - PARKING FOR NANTUCKET AND MARTHA'S                          RE TR3.21: The Cape Cod Commission shall remove this Best
 VINEYARD                                                             Development Practice from the RPP.
 Reviewed by Chambers of Commerce re: impact to Cape
 economy.


 VIII. WASTE MANAGEMENT (WM)
 (no comments)

 IX. ENERGY (E)

 E1.1 - DESIGN STANDARDS                                              RE E1.1: Staff agrees with this comment. We should not require
 An audit of existing conditions should be allowed by appropriate,    CLC if they are unable to complete the work in a timely manner due
 competent consultants.                                               to financial constraints.

 E1.2 - CURRENT ENERGY STAR(r) CERTIFICATION                          RE E1.2: Certification is required within 1 year of occupancy. Staff
 When would this certification have to occur?                         recommends revising the MPS to require submission of the
                                                                      applicant's "Statement of Energy Performance", a required
                                                                      component of the Energy Star Certification application, as a

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                   DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 68
                                                                      condition of the decision.

 E1.3 - ANSI/LEED STANDARDS                                           RE E1.3: The economic impact of requiring LEED has been
 Economic impact of LEED Standards should be reviewed.                reviewed at both the federal and state level including, "The Cost of
                                                                      LEED" performed by the General Services Administration, 2004,
                                                                      "The Cost and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings" developed for
                                                                      the California Sustainable Building Task Force, 2003, as well as
                                                                      others. The cost of building a LEED certified building depends
                                                                      greatly upon the level of certification sought (certified, silver, gold,
                                                                      platinum). The MPS gives the option of building a LEED "certified"
                                                                      building in place of meeting the 10% requirement. The US Green
                                                                      Building Council, founders of the LEED rating system, estimate that
                                                                      building a LEED certified building will cost between 0% and 5%
                                                                      over the project cost of a traditional building. An updated LEED
                                                                      checklist, stamped by a professional architect or engineer,
                                                                      demonstrating what the project was able to accomplish from the
                                                                      initial LEED checklist submitted during DRI review, is proposed to
                                                                      be required for a final Certificate of Compliance.

 E.1.6 - ON SITE RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION                          RE E1.6: A technical bulletin will be developed after adoption of the
 Economically infeasible in all likelihood. Technical Bulletin        RPP. Participation in the CLC green program is not the only
 needs to be developed. Participation in Cape Light Compact           alternative for meeting the standard; building a LEED certified
 green program should not be only alternative. LEED certification     building is an option, utilizing multiple energy efficienct green
 does not occur until months after the building is constructed and    building practices is another, and meeting 25% on-site to waive all
 being occupied. Therefore, including certification as a possible     energy requirements is a new and final option for meeting the
 waiver of this standard is not realistic during the permitting       standard. At the time of DRI review, projects choosing the LEED
 phase.                                                               option would have to submit a LEED-NC checklist to demonstrate
                                                                      which credits the applicant will implement to achieve certification.
                                                                      An updated LEED checklist, stamped by a professional architect or
                                                                      engineer, demonstrating what the project was able to accomplish
                                                                      from the initial LEED checklist, is proposed to be required for a final
                                                                      Certificate of Compliance.

 E1.7 - ROOFING                                                       RE E1.7 - E1.22: Staff proposes to revise these as an MPS with the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                   DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 69
 Language under "Best Development Review Practices" that               intent of having a much shorter list of Best Development Practices
 "DRI's should include at least 6 BDP's" appears to be creating a      that an applicant may choose 6 from in lieu of satisfying the 10% on-
 de-facto MPS. Any one of these BDP's should be considered a           site requirement. To that end, staff recommends keeping the
 project benefit. Non-compliance should not be counted as              following 7 BDP's: E1.7 Green, or Reflective Roofing, E1.10 Re-
 detriment.                                                            use existing structures, E1.11 Incorporate Renewable Resources,
                                                                       E1.12 Use Earth (geothermal), E1.14 Passive Solar, E1.15 Install
 E1.8 - UPDATE FLEETS                                                  Energy Conserving Landscapes, E1.17ANSI Standards.
 Should not be counted as detriment.

 E1.9 - RENEWABLE FUELING STATIONS
 Should not be counted as detriment. What is a "renewable
 fueling station"?

 E1.10 - REUSE EXISTING STRUCTURES
 Should not be counted as detriment.

 E1.11 - INCORPORATE RENEWABLE RESOURCES
 Should not be counted as detriment.

 E1.12 - USE EARTH
 Should not be counted as detriment.

 E1.13 - BIODIESEL
 Should not be counted as detriment.

 E1.14 - PASSIVE SOLAR
 Should not be counted as detriment.

 E1.15 - LANDSCAPES
 Should not be counted as detriment.

 E1.16 - FSC-CERTIFIED WOODS
 Should not be counted as detriment.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 70
 E1.17 - ANSI STANDARDS
 Should not be counted as detriment.

 E1.18 - RECYCLED MATS
 Should not be counted as detriment.

 E1.19 - LOW VOC PAINTS
 Should not be counted as detriment.

 E1.20 - NEW TECHNOLOGY
 Should not be counted as detriment.

 E1.21 - RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND
 Should not be counted as detriment.

 E1.22 - ADDITIONAL ON SITE RENEWABLE ENERGY
 GENERATION
 Should not be counted as detriment.


 X. AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH)

 AH1.3 - CASH CONTRIBUTION OPTION                                         RE AH1.3: Staff‘s intent is to use appraisers that meet the
 Appraisal process should be reviewed. Applicant should have              requirements of one or more of the state housing agencies: DHCD,
 input on selection of appraiser.                                         Mass Housing Partnership, and/or MassHousing. Staff recommends
                                                                          changing the last sentence to ―The appraiser shall be selected by the
                                                                          Commission from a list approved by the Commission and the
                                                                          applicant and shall be paid for by the applicant.‖

 AH1.5 - OFF SITE OPTION PREFERENCES                                      RE AH1.5: As written this MPS simply expresses a preference based
 Uncertain how applicant meets this Minimum Performance                   upon how quickly units could be created; therefore, it does seem to
 Standard - lack of predictability and clarity. Also, if all options      make sense to return this item to a best development practice, and, in
 are allowed in prior MPS, listing preferences is not appropriate.        light of other comments received from the public, to reframe it to
 Suggest deletion.                                                        recognize a priority for rental housing and for redevelopment.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 71
 AH1.7 - LOCATION OF OFF SITE OPTION                                     RE AH1.7: This recommendation could pose a mitigation nexus
 Suggest allowing in adjacent towns or in geographic regions.            challenge and also conflicts with state policy and Goal AH1 that
                                                                         each town- rather than each region or sub-region- achieve the 10%
                                                                         affordability standard.

 AH1.15 - NO REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF EXISTING                             RE AH1.15: This MPS supports the policy goal that the region
 UNITS                                                                   should not be eliminating housing units that are functionally sound.
 Blanket prohibition inappropriate. Need clarification as to how         As there may be occasional situations in which there would be a
 "otherwise permitted."                                                  greater public benefit from reducing the number of existing units and
                                                                         as it would be very difficult to describe all the circumstances under
                                                                         which that would be the case, the language of ―unless otherwise
                                                                         permitted‖ provides the Commission with the ability to deal with the
                                                                         specific circumstances of an unusual case. If the Commission wanted
                                                                         to establish a general criterion upon which to permit an exception to
                                                                         the MPS, it could revise the language along the lines of ―unless
                                                                         otherwise permitted by the Commission on the basis that the
                                                                         proposed project would result in a greater public good.‖

 AH1.16 - PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN                             RE AH1.16: Staff recommends revising the language of this best
 ECONOMIC CENTERS                                                        development practice to focus on location: ―Affordable housing
 Clarify relationship to commercial development.                         should be located in Economic Centers, Villages, and Growth
                                                                         Incentive Zones and convenient to transportation corridors.‖

 AH2.1 - NON-DISCRIMINATION                                              RE AH2.1: This is one of the standards by which the affirmative
 Not necessary in light of current law.                                  marketing and selection plans in AH 2.3 are judged, and staff
                                                                         recommends retaining the MPS as an important standard for all
                                                                         residential development. Staff also recommends adding ―source of
                                                                         income‖ to make the MPS consistent with Massachusetts law in
                                                                         Chapter 151B.

 AH2.4 - RELOCATION REQUIREMENT                                          RE AH2.4: The Uniform Relocation Act (URA) applies to situations
 Repetitious in light of existing law.                                   in which federal funds are involved so that it typically would not
                                                                         apply to most DRI applications. Staff recommends leaving the MPS

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 72
                                                                       unchanged as the URA provides an established set of procedures and
                                                                       standards for dealing with situations of relocation. The alternative
                                                                       would be for the Commission to devise its own set of standards and
                                                                       procedures.

 AH3.1 - MITIGATION STANDARD                                           RE AH3.1: Staff believes that mitigation amounts in AH 3.1 are
 Need clarity on application of dollar amounts. Significant fiscal     straightforward and is unable to respond without more details about
 impacts and unintended consequences. Duplicating costs in that        what is unclear about the mitigation amounts. Barnstable is the only
 some towns (e.g., Barnstable) assess an inclusionary housing fee      town in the region that has a bylaw (1999) that assesses an affordable
 for commercial projects in connection with building permit.           housing fee for commercial development; however, according to
 Suggest making this option with incentivization/reward.               Town Growth Management Department staff, the town has never
                                                                       implemented that aspect of the bylaw for any commercial
                                                                       development. As staff‘s response to the Canal Chamber‘s comments
                                                                       noted, the Nexus Study did find that commercial development does
                                                                       have an impact on the need for affordable housing, primarily because
                                                                       of the wages that are paid, and that the Commission does have a
                                                                       basis to require payments to mitigate those impacts. Staff believes
                                                                       that assessing payments based upon the number of below average
                                                                       wage jobs that are created in a development is a fair standard and
                                                                       that meets the legal standard of ―rough proportionality‖ between the
                                                                       nature of the impact and the assessment of the costs.

 AH3.4 - ALTERNATE MITIGATION CALCULATION                              RE AH3.4: Staff has developed a draft of the technical bulletin that
 OPTION                                                                would provide a reduction in mitigation based upon the % reduction
 Technical Bulletin needs to be developed. Review of Nexus             in below average wage jobs that would be created (e.g. if Nexus
 study should occur prior to adoption.                                 Study projects 20 below average wage jobs, and evidence presented
                                                                       shows only 10; mitigation amount will be reduced 50%). With
                                                                       respect to a Nexus Study review, staff notes that it had an advisory
                                                                       committee of sixteen members (9 private sector, 3 public sector, and
                                                                       4 affordable housing) for the Nexus Study. Members of the
                                                                       committee met with the consultant prior to the study to review and
                                                                       make suggestions about the scope of the study, and then all members
                                                                       of the committee were offered the opportunity to review and
                                                                       comment on the final draft of the study.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 73
 XI. HERITAGE PRESERVATION AND COMMUNITY
 CHARACTER (HPCC)

 HPCC1.1 - PROTECT HISTORIC STRUCTURES                                  RE HPCC1.1: Staff recommends changing the words ―no historic
 Capitalize historic structures. Clarify definition of "no historic     merit‖ to ―is found no longer eligible for listing on the National
 merit." Presumption in favor of retaining contributing structures      Register or no longer contributing to the historic significance of the
 should be clarified and made rebutable.                                district.‖ Because properties listed on the National Register have
                                                                        already been evaluated by the Mass Historical Commission and/or
                                                                        the National Park Service and found to be significant, the applicant
                                                                        would have to rebut these findings directly. Staff recommends
                                                                        clarifying the sentence: ―There is a presumption in favor of retaining
                                                                        al National Register-eligible structures, and all contributing
                                                                        structures in an historic district‖ by adding ―due to the determination
                                                                        of significance by the Massachusetts Historical Commission and/or
                                                                        the National Park Service.‖

 HPCC1.4 - CONTRIBUTE TO LOCAL PRESERVATION                             RE HPCC1.4: This is a Best Practice, thus it is encouraged, not
 EFFORTS                                                                required. The intent is to encourage contributions to preservation
 Is this intended for non-historic related projects?                    efforts in the surrounding neighborhood or community.

 HPCC2.4 - DESIGN BUILDINGS TO REFLECT THE                              RE HPCC2.4: This standard applies to all development and
 REGIONAL CONTEXT OR SURROUNDING DISTINCTIVE                            redevelopment, as stated at the beginning of the standard. This
 AREA                                                                   includes economic centers. It calls for contextual design in areas that
 Need clarity as to application and economic centers.                   already have a distinctive character, and consistency with the
                                                                        region‘s traditional development patterns in areas that don‘t have a
                                                                        distinctive character.

 HPCC2.5 - BREAK DOWN OR SCREEN BUILDING                                RE HPCC2.5: Staff disagrees with this comment and feels that work
 FOOTPRINTS OVER 15,000 SQUARE FEET EXCEPT IN                           on previously impervious and landscaped areas (as noted in the
 REDEVELOPMENT                                                          standard) are a more accurate measure of ―redevelopment.‖
 For redevelopment, expansion should also be allowed on all             Disturbed areas may not have had any development on them, and
 "disturbed" areas. For example, redevelopment on graveled areas        may have simply been staging areas or cleared areas. To best
 would not otherwise be covered by current language.                    encourage redevelopment of existing developed properties, the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 74
                                                                          definition should not be expanded.

 HPCC2.8 - LOCATE PARKING TO THE SIDE OR REAR OF                          RE HPCC2.8: Staff feels that adding the suggested language would
 BUILDINGS                                                                make it too easy to opt out of this standard, which is important to
 Should add after the phrase "visual features on the site" "or, if        developing or maintaining a pedestrian-oriented the streetscape in
 impractical or infeasible, based upon uses of the site." Parking         many locations. Staff agrees that parking structures should not be
 structures should not be required; instead they should be                required and has proposed moving that sentence to Best Practices
 incentivized as a BDP.                                                   HPCC2.18.

 HPCC2.9 - LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED                              RE HPCC2.9: Staff accepts this suggestion, noting that it would
 IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS                                                apply to frontage buildings only and they are not appropriate in all
 Insert "and if appropriate" after "as necessary".                        development reviews.

 HPCC2.15 - PROVIDE CONSERVATION RESTRICTIONS TO                          RE HPCC2.15: This is a Best Practice and thus encouraged, not
 PROTECT LANDSCAPES AND VIEWSHEDS                                         required.
 BDP should be optional and for credit only.

 HPCC2.18 - REDUCE THE VISIBILITY OF PARKING                              RE HPCC2.18: Staff disagrees with this suggestion, as the intent of
 AREAS                                                                    this Best Practice is to reduce parking areas, not screen them. To
 Use of berms and vegetation should also be allowed.                      clarify this, staff suggests changing the heading to read ―Reduce the
                                                                          Land Devoted to Impervious Parking Area.‖ Berms and vegetation
                                                                          may be required under the landscape standard HPCC2.10, and the
                                                                          applicant should not also get special credit for them under the Best
                                                                          Practices.

 HPCC 2.21 - DESIGN BUILDINGS WITH MULTIPLE                               RE HPCC2.21: This is a Best Practice and is encouraged, not
 STORIES TO REDUCE BUILDING FOOTPRINT                                     required. A discussion of economic impacts does not appear
 Discuss economic impacts relating to size of structure (i.e.,            necessary here.
 elevators).

 HPCC2.23 - LOCATE NEW DEVELOPMENT IN                                     RE HPCC2.23: Staff has proposed moving this Best Practice to the
 DEVELOPED CENTERS OR REUSE EXISTING BLDGS                                Land Use section, with a change in the wording to clarify it is
 Not clear what is intended.                                              encouraging development within village centers and discouraging it
                                                                          in outlying areas in an effort to preserve rural character and

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 75
                                                                        traditional regional development patterns.


 DEFINITIONS

 1. Suggest adding definition of workforce housing and adding           RE 1.: The term workforce housing is used by some as simply a new
 workforce housing as possible credits under affordable housing.        term for affordable housing and by others to incorporate housing that
                                                                        is also affordable to moderate income households (between 80-120%
                                                                        area median income). The resource the Commission is charged with
                                                                        protecting under the Act is affordable housing, i.e. housing
                                                                        affordable to households earning 80% or less of area median income
                                                                        ($53,300 for a three person household); however, even with the
                                                                        softening of the market, moderate income households are still priced
                                                                        out of the ownership market in many towns of the region. Ownership
                                                                        housing is the primary need for these households as most can afford
                                                                        market rent rental housing. Staff recommends adding a best
                                                                        development practice of including housing that is affordable to
                                                                        moderate income households in residential ownership developments.

 2. CRASH - Should consider levels or categories of crashes for         RE 2. CRASH: Crashes are identified on police accident reports.
 clarification.                                                         These reports identify the severity of each crash (Property Damage
                                                                        Only, Injury, or Fatality) as well as other important details. We do
                                                                        not currently rate crashes in DRI review.

 3. Formula Business should review possible Cape Cod businesses
 that would fall under this category and intent.


 WILLIAM PLETTNER
 July 21, 2008

 As I have reviewed the proposed plan I find that Agriculture is
 not considered in the Land Use section. In fact, Agriculture is not
 mentioned at all except for one sentence under Wetlands. I

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 76
 believe this is a sad comment on land use planners that
 Agriculture is so neglected. Agriculture built this country.
 Agriculture sustains this county. Agriculture is still the
 foundation of most rural communities. How is it that Agriculture
 is not considered worthy of mention when planners attempt to
 organize the future of Cape Cod? If the popularity of our local
 Farmers Markets and Cranberry Festivals is an indicator, then the
 planners are missing the point.

 When zoning laws were first brought into use on Cape Cod, all
 land was considered agricultural unless otherwise designated.
 That wasn't so long ago although it was in a time when
 agriculture contributed a good deal more to the local economy. In
 the past 50 years the Cape Cod has changed and the economy is
 now dominated by tourism and building. It is understandable that
 planners see controlling development as their priority. However,
 by ignoring Agriculture they are missing an important tool for
 preserving all that is valuable on Cape Cod: open space, low
 impact economic gain, rural character, even tourist attractions.
 Please remember - everyone likes a farm and the idea of farming.
 Agriculture, however small or limited, is beneficial for our local
 communities. Agriculture is a major avenue to provide open
 space that still remains on the tax rolls and also contributes to the
 economy. Many towns on the Cape have already established
 Agricultural Commissions to help preserve and protect farming.
 Local food production has become an active and viable business
 for many local residents. Restaurants are searching for local
 produce and shellfish. Cranberry bogs are being rejuvenated all
 around us as the cranberry market recovers from its recent slump.
 By promoting Agriculture, the Cape Cod Commission would
 come closer to achieving it's goals at a lower cost than any other
 method of open space preservation. Agriculture is beneficial to
 our communities is so many ways it is simply shortsighted that it
 could be ignored in any attempt to plan for the future.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 77
 This brings me to my suggestions:                                       Please see response to July 16, 2008 comment. Also, we are
                                                                         discussing possible amendments to our DRI review thresholds and/or
 1. Agriculture should be given priority in any plan for land use.       other regulations to better support agriculture. However, these
 Agriculture should be protected and promoted by this plan.              changes will proceed separately from the RPP changes presently
                                                                         under consideration.
 2. Exemptions from local regulations already given to Agriculture
 by State law should be reaffirmed.

 3. Agriculture should be protected from unreasonable additional
 burdens of testing and reporting.

 4. A county wide Right to Farm Law should be considered to
 consolidate and reaffirm all the rights and benefits of Agriculture
 already give by State Law.

 William Plettner, Chairman, Barnstable Agricultural
 Commission; V. P., C & I Farm Bureau


 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PEER REVIEW
 July 22, 2008

 Forwarded from Leslie Richardson

 From: Sid Snow [mailto:sid@snow-hh.com]
 Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:07 PM
 To: Wendy Northcross
 Cc: Leslie Richardson
 Subject: Re: Peer Review Meeting with Economic Dev. Officer
 Leslie Richardson re: RPP Ec Dev section

 Hi Wendy,
 I would enjoy attending, however my time is pretty booked next

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                       Page 78
 Monday and Tuesday, as I will be away on vacation beginning
 Wednesday, so I will have to say no this time.

 I did read through the ED part of the draft. Some of my concerns
 are:

 1. The balance of open space on a business property versus the          RE 1. The balance: One of the goals of the Land Use Vision Map is
 need for that space for expansion development. There are no             to identify areas in each town to support and encourage development
 specifics in the draft, but this is a big concern of mine as we must    and redevelopment. The open space standards are designed to
 grow our business to survive with all the increased costs of doing      provide flexibility in the provision of open space to allow off-site
 business, and will need some open space land to expand.                 open space in appropriate locations. Please refer to OS1.3, Provision
                                                                         of Off-site open space paragraph.

 2. I also have some zoning issues, as in my case I would like to
 run a wholesale nursery operation, but zoning does not allow this,
 it is only allowed in an industrial zone.

 3. Another big concern is the increase in second home ownership.        RE 3. Another big concern: Planning and regulatory efforts outlined
 We are ourselves trying to analyze buying patterns as we do not         in this draft RPP may help to increase the amount of housing
 see enough growth in this customers as they are here less and do        affordable and attractive to year-round residents. The economic
 buy off-cape and bring with them. Until my study is complete I          benefits of unique locally owned businesses, such as Snows, are
 can not validate, however my speculation is our declining               becoming better understood but national retailers have the advantage
 customer count is in part due to this market segment. I also think      of being known entities, comforting in their consistency. How this
 the combination of e-commerce and the influx of small and               plays out among different types of customers is not addressed in the
 formula business have been taking a part of my sales.                   RPP but the plan does try to address issues that may put local and
                                                                         national businesses on par competitively within the regional market
                                                                         at least.

 4. On the lower Cape there is a dire need to younger families of        RE 4. On the lower Cape: The RPP addresses this issue primarily
 workforce age. I do well with the 50+ but they do have some             through the policies and regulations intended to increase the
 limitations and create some challenges.                                 availability of affordable housing.

 In general the draft looks pretty good. I would like to know more
 about the location of various zones, the map is too small to offer

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 79
 any detail. I have also been saying for years there was a need for
 a retail market analysis, so that is good.

 I am sure there will be other opportunities for me to voice my
 opinions.
 Sid Snow

 ----- Original Message -----
 From: Wendy Northcross <mailto:wendy@capecodchamber.org>
 To: list
 Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:54 AM
 Subject: Peer Review Meeting with Economic Dev. Officer
 Leslie Richardson re: RPP Ec Dev section

 We have set up a meeting with Leslie Richardson at the
 Commission to review the Ec Dev portion of the RPP with a peer
 group and you have been invited to participate. The meeting is
 scheduled for 7/14 from 2 to 4 PM in Rooms 11 & 12 in the
 Superior Court House building in Barnstable village. I would be
 happy to answer any questions, but the main purpose of the
 meeting is to give real world feedback to the recommendations
 suggested in the new Regional Policy Plan and discuss any
 unintended consequences or effects of the regulations and
 recommendations. The ultimate goal is to recommend edits to the
 document.

 Please let me know if you are able to attend by responding to this
 email.
 Wendy K. Northcross, CCE, CEO, Cape Cod Chamber of
 Commerce / CVB


 FALMOUTH HOUSING TRUST
 July 23, 2008

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 80
 The Falmouth Housing Trust appreciates the past, present, and          With respect to outreach, staff has a goal of attending at least one
 future support given by the Cape Cod Commission concerning             meeting of all functioning local affordable housing
 the promotion of affordable housing. We strongly believe that          committees/partnerships/trusts this year, and could add that activity
 more interaction and outreach by the Cape Cod Commission               as well to the planning section. In the planning section under goal
 would add credibility and support to local affordable housing          AH 3, the Commission has committed to continue to provide
 initiatives.                                                           workshops on relevant affordable housing issues and topics. With
                                                                        respect to the location of workshops, the Commission‘s goal is
 In order to develop deeper relationships between the community         always to maximize turnout and a location that is reasonably
 and our own regional agency it would be helpful if the Cape Cod        accessible to all in the region has been a factor in our workshop
 Commission were to facilitate workshops and forums in our local        location choices. Staff however will consider upper Cape locations
 area. These events would aid communities with the necessary            for future workshops
 tools and information to combat the affordable housing crisis.
 This relationship building exercise is a win-win for our
 community and Cape Cod as a whole. As you avail yourself to us
 by sharing your knowledge and expertise, Cape Cod then
 becomes more economically sound as a greater, healthier, and
 richer community.

 We look forward to working by your side.

 Sincerely, Krissy Frustaci-Ruzzo, Public Relations Director
 On behalf of the Falmouth Housing Trust


 TOM MOCCIA
 July 23, 2008

 From: Tom Moccia
 Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:59 AM
 To: Leslie Richardson

 As we discussed



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 81
 Dear Leslie:
 The underlying premise behind the current interpretation of the        RE The underlying premise: The Commission has generally worked
 RPP is that the investor community makes the offers of the             with developers with well developed plans for specific projects
 economic or job plan and the CCC manages the infrastructure            through the regulatory program. The planning and technical
 requirements. I think in today‘s economic climate, this mandate        assistance programs have typically focused on the location of
 is too rigid and inflexible and can end up being a detriment to job    development in general and the protection of natural and built
 recovery and capital investment, if pursued with any diligence.        resources essential to the region‘s economy. Commission tools such
                                                                        as Growth Incentive Zones, Development Agreements and Districts
 The CCC has an economic development role. The statute says so          of Critical Planning Concern can and should be used more to bring
 more than a dozen times. The legislature did not intend that this      towns, developers, and the Commission together to achieve a more
 role be specific and standard with rigid implementation or             balanced economy that retains and creates quality jobs for residents.
 application. They recognized the American economic system of
 cycles and turns both up and down in the local, regional and           The cost of regulation is determined by the project‘s direct impact on
 national landscapes. They anticipated that public bodies assigned      the resources protected under the CCC Act. Money will have to be
 these tasks would understand these anomalies and act                   expended, either by the developer or the taxpayers, to prevent or fix
 accordingly. That is what I am all about in my current review of       the negative impacts of the development on these resources. The
 the CCC draft on economic development. Therefore I suggest the         costs are unavoidable; it is just a question of who pays and when.
 following:                                                             The Commission has the unique ability to establish regulations
                                                                        require applicants to mitigate these impacts.
 Restructure the ED section to be more flexible and pliant in
 helping investors in meeting their current location designs with
 minimum costs yet consistent with CCC‘s revised minimum
 standards that allow developer to absorb the cost of regulations
 but that regulation costs are consistent with two tests – can the
 developer afford them and do they produce good jobs and good
 returns to the involved communities and still meet basic
 fundamental but not overwhelming regional standards. I see
 many occasions in this climate were this paradigm could and will
 work to grow business on Cape, keep and grow jobs and prepare
 the sandbar for the certain economic recovery. Today jobs
 maintenance and job growth – good ones at that – must be the
 prime mandate of the CCC‘s RPP. This is the overwhelming
 issue facing the Cape today and the CCC should show its stuff in
 participating to that end,- not just be a critic in defense of an

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 82
 arbitrary position made for less than these unusual times.

 The CCC can quickly move into this mode by working jointly
 with the town hosting the proposed investment and job creation.
 A quick intervention will show confidence and restrict the
 animosity or apprehension among developers when interfacing
 with the CCC in the normal time line. The subcommittee should
 be appointed at the same time and the staff assigned should be
 named early in the process. Confidence building should now be
 one of the CCC's major standards – perhaps the first and the best
 way to send that important signal is to show that the CCC takes it
 ED role broader than just infrastructure and is willing to assist a
 developer in putting a job creating package together and getting it
 through the CCC in speedy time during this economic and fuel
 pressed time. Be flexible.

 My quick contemporary thoughts. When the economy turns I
 might have more to say.
 Your reaction please.

 Tom Moccia, President, Buzzards Bay Village Association, Inc.

 _____________________________________________
 From: Leslie Richardson
 Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:44 AM
 To: Tom Moccia
 Subject: RE: RPP draft

 Hi Tom,
 I think it would be most useful if you could put your thoughts in
 writing. It doesn‘t have to be a formal letter – an e-mail is fine.
 Hope you are well!
 Leslie



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 83
 _____________________________________________
 From: Tom Moccia
 Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:54 AM
 To: Leslie Richardson
 Subject: RPP draft

 Hi Leslie:
 Did you share my economic development thoughts on the draft
 CCC RPP with Sharon?
 How are things going?
 Tom

 Can‘t make today‘s meeting. Sorry
 Tom Moccia, President
 Buzzards Bay Village Association, Inc.


 BILL MCCORMICK
 July 27, 2008

 My comments are as follows:

 1. There are 15 towns comprising the cape with more than that          RE 1. Noted.
 number of independent water districts, fire departments, villages
 etc. Yes, Regional planning is the Cape Cod Commission‘s
 central role. Regional planning addresses resources and needs that
 transcend municipal boundaries, identifies special districts and
 resources that are particularly sensitive to development pressures,
 and provides technical assistance to towns to help them
 implement their own plans in coordination with neighboring
 jurisdictions. I don't see how the CCC can be effective with this
 approach. Without a regional form of authority, the Cape will end
 up with a mismatch of bureaucratic town boards, committees,
 assessors, libraries, schools, police, fire DPW, etc with differing

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08          Page 84
 zoning, permitting, codes, by-laws, fees e tc. to again name a few
 as we have now! It's time for a change! the old colonial ways
 worked when it took a day to travel from Sandwich to
 Provincetown. It's nice to say that the CCC can & will help, but
 it's ends up just being another costly consultant with no authority!
 Town government is NOT the appropriate jurisdiction for
 determining and administering many planning issues in my
 opinion.

 2. Some 15 independent towns cannot obtain state & federal              RE 2. The Cape Cod Commission actively pursues grants for
 funds on their own, but a regional all inclusive Barnstable County      regional plans and infrastructure, including many of the issues
 should be able to obtain grants, earmarks, assistance for regional      mentioned.
 impact items for sewage, storm water, disaster preparedness,
 beach erosion etc.

 3. The draft has not addressed the following:
     a. the future of the Barnstable Municipal Airport which, in my      RE 3.a.: The future relocation of the Barnstable Municipal Airport to
 opinion, should be planned to be relocated to Otis AFB. The             the Otis Air Force Base would require a study by federal, state, and
 BMA would make an excellent site for the so-called silicon              municipal authorities including regional transportation planning
 sandbar. I ask who would not want to work & live on the cape if         organizations. The U.S. Coast Guard will be taking over operations
 there were high tech jobs available, assisted living facilities for     of the airfield at Otis in October 2008. The Cape Cod Commission
 seniors and20affordable housing.                                        does not have jurisdiction over the Otis Air Force Base.
     b. the future use of the MA Military Reservation (Camp
 Edwards) which, in my opinion, is an excellent site for a regional
 airport, sewage treatment facility, wind farm planned urban
 development center to name a few.
     c. regional power sources, be they be a regional municipal
 owned electric power utility
     d. protection of our national seashore park e.g. the 5,000 sf       RE 3d. The Commission continues to work with local and federal
 structure that the Wellfleet BOS approved. I site this situation as     officials to address community character issues within the Cape Cod
 an example of the independent thinking of local control which           National Seashore.
 has a regional impact
                                                                         More RE 3.d: The planning section of the RPP tries to address this in
                                                                         CCC Action HPCC2-C1 ‗Assistance with local bylaw revisions.‘

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 85
                                                                          Staff suggests that this language could be expanded after the words
                                                                          ―infill construction‖ to include ―promote residential scale bylaws that
                                                                          protect neighborhood character and public views.‖ Staff notes that
                                                                          we are currently working with Wellfleet boards and the National
                                                                          Seashore to develop zoning changes to address this problem. At this
                                                                          point, the CCC can only conduct DRI review of single family homes
                                                                          like the one noted if they involve a National Register historic
                                                                          building or if they require MEPA review.

 In conclusion, I think the draft is just another planning document
 to add to the voluminous planning documents to be filed away, all
 words with no substance or teeth.

 I have to ask the question, Why do people from other states that
 had great beaches & resources want to come to the cape to
 vacation &20live here? The answer is, because the cape is not
 like the NY, NJ, CT & RI shores where unregulated growth &
 development have prevailed. But, without a regional authority &
 a meaningful planning document with substance & teeth, we are
 sure to follow.

 Respectfully submitted.
 Bill McCormick, 18 Conifer Lane, Dennis MA 02660


 ANDREW KAMARCK
 July 28, 2008

 The Plan is very thorough and has suggested policies for
 everything. However, I miss a statement on strategy.

 We now have a year round population of around 230,000. Would
 we like to increase this, double it, say, or would we like to keep it
 about the same?

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 86
 During the summer, the population doubles to around 500,000,
 this strains the economy in various ways: congestion on the roads,
 need for migrant labor which leads to accentuating our housing
 problems. I gather the Cape Chamber of Commerce, I                        RE I gather the Cape Chamber: Expanding the tourism shoulder
 understand, tries to emphasize attracting shoulder season visitors        season was a Commission priority during the 1990‘s along with
 rather than high season tourists. This strikes me as good strategy.       encouraging eco and cultural tourism, These concepts have since
 Should this also be government strategy?                                  been embraced by the private sector and the programs established
                                                                           have shown enough success that the Commission can now focus on
 The summertime visitors either stay in motels or in second homes          other economic development priorities.
 (owners or tenants). Motel tourists tend to be more cavalier about
 the environment and society. Should policies be directed to
 discourage such visitors?

 The Cape now has a sizable retirement community. This has                 RE The Cape now has: Since the beginning of the 20th century,
 grown without any conscious policy to encourage it. Just under a          citizen groups, chambers of commerce, and municipalities have
 quarter of our population, totaling around 50,000 (in 2000) are           promoted Cape Cod as an ideal second home and retirement location
 over age 65. Half of the Cape‘s population is 55 or older. In             through marketing and public policies. The Commission Act itself is
 Orleans and Chatham, the percentage is around two-thirds.                 intended to protect the very things that make the Cape an appealing
                                                                           tourist, second home, and retirement destination. Retirement trends
         The Cape has a higher percentage of retirees than Florida         and demographics do not indicate an overwhelming need for
 [2000 census, Florida: 18% of population is 65 or older;                  government action. A more significant problem on the Cape is
 Barnstable County: 23%] The Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank had              attracting and retaining a skilled workforce and business that provide
 an article in its economic publication [Econ South, Third Quarter         quality employment and career opportunities.
 2004] on how Florida and other states prize retirees. Here‘s some
 quotes from it:

 ―Retiree migration is a growth industry, and it‘s an impetus to
 other types of growth,....‖

 ―Because retirees often have relatively steady incomes from
 pensions, social security, and interest on savings, Florida banks
 reap the benefits of a rock-solid depositor base. ...typical retirees
 move to Florida after years of saving and bring along plenty of

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 87
 liquid assets–on average, $1000 cash for every year of
 employment‖

 ...neighboring states are boosting their efforts to gain a larger
 share of retirees:

        ―Officials in nearly every Southeastern state set goals and
 budget money to attract retirees, either through national
 advertising campaigns or through programs such as Mississippi‘s
 Certified Retirement Cities. In that program, the state offers tax
 breaks and other incentives for residents over 65 who live in
 qualified communities.

        ―Mississippi officials justify the tax breaks on the ground
 that each retirement household brings to the state disposable
 income equal to 3.7 factory jobs. Each relocated retiree household
 brings an average of $320,000 in assets and has median annual
 income of about $33,000. Moreover, that money tends to stay
 close to home since some 90 percent of retiree income is pent
 locally for goods and services.‖

         Should the Cape strategy be directed to attract and hold
 retirees?

 A second major force in the Cape economy, which has been
 largely neglected in policy consideration, is the importance of
 second homes which now comprise one-third of the total housing
 stock on the Cape. In Wellfleet and Truro, almost two-thirds of
 the houses are second homes. Second homes now total over
 50,000 on the Cape while permanent residents occupy about
 100,000 houses.

        The average second home costs much more than a
 resident‘s home. In Barnstable, for example, the average assessed

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                           DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 88
 valuation of second homes is $397,000, over $100,000 more than
 the $289,000 valuation of primary homes. Second-homeowners
 average incomes are nearly twice as high as those of full-time
 residents. The demand for second homes has caused housing
 prices on the Cape to rise faster than elsewhere in the
 Commonwealth. Many people who build their second homes on
 the Cape, invest large sums in them, building what we now call
 McMansions

        The economic activity generated by second home owners
 during holidays off-season indicates that their contribution to the
 economy must be substantial even during the high season. Any
 serious consideration of Cape Growth Policies must take this
 second home phenomenon into account and consider what
 government can and should do about it.

 The other forces that have shaped the present economy on the            RE The other forces: No, the new plan will not impact the use of
 Cape are the increase in the number of commuters from the               Chapter 43D by towns to expedite local permitting. Under 43D,
 Upper Cape to metro-Boston jobs; the increase in commuters              projects determined to be Developments of Regional Impact will still
 from off-Cape to Cape jobs; the development of: the scientific          have to come to the Commission. The town‘s 180 day permitting
 research community in Woods Hole that hives off high tech               time limit will be tolled until Commission review is complete.
 businesses and jobs, a promising knowledge-based and high-tech          Towns should consider adopting regional tools to complement 43D
 sector attracted by the desire of the entrepreneurs to live on the      such as development agreements and growth incentive zones.
 Cape, and aquaculture.

       The older Cape activities of tourism, fisheries, farming, are
 stagnant or declining as sources of income for Cape residents.

        The growth sectors have induced growth in year-round
 local services to meet their needs.

 Cape growth policy needs to exam each of these to see what if
 anything can be to encourage or discourage future development.
 We should not automatically assume that everything that is going

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 89
 on should be encouraged.


 ANDREW KAMARCK
 July 29, 2008

 You asked me for recommendations for a strategy.                      RE You asked me: The suggestions above are consistent with the
 Here are some ideas that might be considered:                         economic development goals of the draft RPP. Staff will consider
                                                                       how to make these priorities – balance, sustainability, quality of life,
 "Our major objective is not growth of population or number of         and the development of new and emerging industry sectors – more
 Cape jobs per se, but rather to promote the quality of life and       apparent in the RPP. The question of population growth relative to
 improve the standard of living of Cape Codders. This implies          carrying capacity (the ability to grow without further damaging our
 particularly promoting and encouraging the retirement                 economy and environment) could be addressed in the growth policy.
 community, the high tech and brain worker community, and the
 health and education sectors.

 "We will try to correct the present imbalance in the economy of
 the Cape. The tourism sector, historically has been encouraged
 and in the past may well have been the optimum possibility for
 the Cape economy. . It provides mainly low skill, low pay jobs.
 Some of the economic benefit is drained off to non-Cape migrant
 workers and seasonal business owners. It imposes seasonal costs
 on the permanent population, is a discouragement to potential
 retirees and potential brain and high tech entrepreneurs. However,
 it is well-organized with the chambers of commerce at all levels
 of county government. And these organizations are subsidized by
 the state, county (through the license plate), and the towns.
 "Attempts have been made in the past to organize the retirement
 community and the high tech sector. (The retirement organization
 was induced to become a part of the chamber of commerce and
 soon disappeared.) We intend to help create sustainable
 organizations in these sectors so that they can make sure their
 needs are recognized, their contribution is acknowledged, and, as
 a result, they get a fair share of government finance, promotion

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                              Page 90
 and recognition."


 FALMOUTH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
 July 29, 2008

 Re: Cape Cod Commission Regional Policy Plan Draft as of July
 2008

 I'd like to thank you, Leslie Richardson and Jay Zavala for taking
 the time to meet with the Falmouth Chamber of Commerce
 Government Affairs Committee this month. The discussion was
 enlightening and helped us to craft the following comments
 regarding the current draft of the policy plan.

 As we all know, Cape Cod needs to maintain a delicate balance         RE As we all know: The Regional Land Use Vision Map does not
 between economic development and environmental stewardship.           change local zoning. The mapping process continues to be a
 To that end, we respectfully request that the zoning maps you are     collaborative one, with CCC staff meeting first with each town's
 working on be reviewed and approved by individual town                planning staff, and then each town's planning board, and then with a
 planning and zoning boards so that they mesh properly with our        public forum, generally hosted by the planning board, in order to
 local comprehensive plan, as well as the town's long term             solicit direct input for delineating the land use categories on the map.
 development strategies.                                               We have not yet held a public forum in Falmouth, so there is still an
                                                                       opportunity to participate.

 We are interested in reducing the amount of mitigation levied on      RE We are interested: Mitigation amounts are determined by a
 local business owners so that the percentage of cost to build does    project‘s impact on the environment, community character,
 not become unduly prohibitive. It is our assertion that home-         infrastructure, and economy. Business can reduce mitigation by
 grown Cape business people should be given special                    designing projects that avoid negative impacts to these public
 consideration that enables them to remain local as they grow their    resources. Locally owned and operated businesses are known to
 organizations.                                                        benefit regional economies to a greater degree than those
                                                                       headquartered elsewhere. Wherever possible the economic
                                                                       development standards account for this difference.

 We would like to see the plan include minimum performance             RE We would like to see: Minimum performance standards are

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 91
 standards in order to provide real. discernable expectations for the    included in the draft RPP.
 developer.

 We would like to see the review and permitting process                  RE We would like to see: No, the new plan will not impact the use of
 streamlined, with a guaranteed maximum time to decision so that         Chapter 43D by towns to expedite local permitting. Under 43D,
 Cape developers can take advantage of the state's 43D programs.         projects determined to be Developments of Regional Impact will still
 Past Commission performance has indicated that the permitting           have to come to the Commission. The town‘s 180 day permitting
 process can be virtually unending. making the time frame of a           time limit will be tolled until Commission review is complete.
 project from beginning to completion nearly impossible to               Towns should consider adopting regional tools to complement 43D
 predict. So, even if you believe that you can invest in                 such as development agreements and growth incentive zones.
 Massachusetts and gain permitting on the "fast track" through
 43D. you can still be stopped for an unknown length of time
 while the wheels of Commission review turn ever-so-slowly. We
 will actually be at a disadvantage compared to other areas of the
 state. where the likes of a Cape Cod Commission do not exist.

 We would implore the Commission not to require specific                 Economic Development response RE We would implore: ED 3.3,
 vendors or contractors-- local or otherwise-- to do development         drafted to require use of local labor and businesses, will become one
 work on the Cape. Vendor/contractor selection should be at the          of a series of criteria under the waiver standard in this section.
 sole discretion of the developer. period.
                                                                         Energy response RE We would implore: MPS E1.1 (pg. 144)
                                                                         requires energy audits be performed by the Cape Light Compact.
 We would suggest a penalty or reverse mitigation schedule to            Staff recommends not specifying who applicants may choose to
 benefit the developer or town should the Commission take too            perform this work in light of the budget and time constraints
 long to review, permit or decline a project, thereby creating a         experienced by the CLC, although they remain our preference for
 collaborative buy-in process for all parties.                           performing the work.

 I stand ready to assist the Commission by convening a focus
 group of business people to assist in the process of regulation,
 development, or any other task which requires input from Cape
 Cod-based organizations.

 On behalf of the Falmouth Chamber of Commerce, I want to
 thank the Commission staff and volunteers for the outreach you

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 92
 have orchestrated these last two months. It has given a broad
 range of business people and local Chamber of Commerce
 Executives an opportunity to question the draft plan, providing
 valuable insight for its eventual completion. We appreciate the
 breadth of the project and commit to helping you in any way we
 can in the future.

 Sincerely, Christine A. Ross, President & CEO


 FRED J FENLON
 July 29, 2008

 Re Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan - Energy

 This letter is to respond to and comment on the Cape Cod
 Commission's (CCC) Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan, in
 particular, the sections on Energy on pages 67 - 70. (Due Date
 8/4/2008)

 I write this letter as a citizen of Barnstable County and not as a
 member of any public or private organization.

 The language, in re energy on Pages 67, 68, and 68 are very well
 done. For example, on page 68 you state, "Rising energy costs
 have direct an indirect economic implementations, such as
 increasing the costs of running a business and a household". The
 CCC does an excellent job demonstrating that the CCC has an
 excellent grasp of the issues and is right on the money. However,
 we are suggesting that the "NEW" Cape Cod Commission
 undertake some new bold steps in exercising their leadership and
 management abilities.

 First, let us look at the facts:

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 93
 • Cape Cod is as to wind as Saudi Arabia is as to oil.
 • Cape Cod has the highest energy costs, i.e., cost per kWh, in the
 Continental USA, see Exhibit # 1: » Energy Information
 Administration, USA
 • Over 100,000 residential homes in Massachusetts face energy
 shut-offs this winter by Utility Companies. How many are on
 Cape Cod?
 • The American Lung Association reports that Barnstable County
 ranked as the worst county in Massachusetts for ozone air
 pollution! One result is that young children develop asthma early
 and often.
 • We cannot blame out of state emissions for all our dirty air. The
 Harvard School of Public Health found that local polluting
 emission cause significant numbers of premature deaths, asthma
 attacks, and other respiratory problems.
 • Cape Cod is as to wind as Saudi Arabia is as to oil.
 • The Cape Light Compact's Governing Board, (which excluded
 the Compact's staff), of which this writer is a member, has
 rejected a resolution for the development of renewable energy in
 the form of wind energy turbines on-shore and in the waters off
 Cape Cod. See attached as Exhibit #2.This vote was taken
 approximately 18 months ago. No vote on wind turbines has
 received an affirmative positive vote by the Governing Board. If
 memory serves me correctly, the Compacts four member
 Executive committee has not every cast a favorable vote for wind
 turbines in the last few years.

 The above are just some of the facts. You have documented more
 facts on pages 67 70. You know the facts and your knowledge is
 far more extensive than this writer's.

 There needs to be, even at this late date, a "Beginning" a "New"
 Beginning by the New Cape Cod Commission.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 94
 Please allow me to make a recommendation to the management
 and leadership policy makers at the Commission. It is very
 simple:

 The Cape Cod Commission in conjunction with the County
 Commissioners, as joint partners, appoint a five to seven member
 Agency Board. This team would have granted authority whose
 objective would be to establish a Barnstable County formal policy
 for the creation wind turbine produced energy and these wind
 farms be placed on-shore and/or in the waters off Cape Cod,
 provided however, that these turbines are placed in reasonable
 locations and numbers and the developers and owners of such
 wind farms comply with all local, state and Federal laws,
 regulations and ordinances.

 Further, the County Commissioners would appropriate the
 necessary funds for this Agency-Board to operate, as for example
 the hiring of necessary expert consultants.

 This Agency-Board would consider the use of so called, "Public,
 Private, Partnerships" (PPP's"), in which the County could partner
 with a private Developer/Contractor for the construction of a
 Wind Farm, at enormous financial savings and the taxpayers of
 the County. We would be very pleased to furnish a legal expert in
 the law of PPP's to this new Agency-Board, with out initial cost.

 This Agency-Board would report at least monthly to the County
 Commissioners, with the CCC in attendance.

 This Agency-Board would have a maximum life span of six to
 nine months. They would be expected to produce this new wind          Staff has no response to his suggestion for creation of an energy
 turbine policy in six months. The remaining three months would        "Agency Board". I have forwarded this comment to the County
 be used to make adjustment after a number of public hearings.         Commissioners for review and comment.
 However, at the direction of the County Commissioners, a portion

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 95
 of the new Agency-Board could stay on to develop the necessary
 action plans for actual implementation of the new policy.

 Thank you for your time and attention.

 Sincerely, Fred J. Fenlon, 508-240-3258, FredFJ@comcast.net

 PS. Please note that the above should not be construed that this
 writer, in any way, supports any particular wind farm
 development, contractor, service provider, corporation or
 business endeavor, as for example Cape Wind.

 ---------------

 <<SEE SEPARATE FILE, EXHIBIT 1 - GRAPH>>

 ---------------

 Exhibit 2

 Resolution of the Cape Light Compact

 WHEREAS, The Cape Light Compact is an intergovernmental
 body comprised of the 21 Towns and Counties on Cape Cod and
 the Islands and was formed by the "Inter-Governmental
 Agreement of the Cape Light Compact" in 1998, and

 WHEREAS, The Cape Light Compact was formed to act as an
 energy aggregator to purchase electric power for the residents and
 businesses on Cape Cod and the Islands and to carry out energy
 efficiency and energy conservation programs; and

 WHEREAS, the Cape Light Compact recognizes the adverse
 economic, security, environmental and energy implications of the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 96
 over-use and over-reliance in Massachusetts and New England
 arising from the use of imported oil and natural gas for heating
 and generation of electricity, and

 WHEREAS, the Cape Light Compact desires to express its
 support for the development of all forms of renewable energy on
 Cape Cod and the Islands as a way to reduce the use of
 environmentally burdensome, non-renewable fossil fuels, to
 diversify Massachusetts' and New England's fuel sources for the
 generation of electricity, to reduce the security implications of
 reliance on imported oil and natural gas and to begin to control
 rising electricity costs.

 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

 That the Cape Light Compact, recognizing the economic, security
 and environmental needs of Cape Cod and its citizens and the
 need for greater use of clean, renewable non-imported energy,
 hereby supports the development of renewable energy in the form
 of wind energy turbines on-shore and in the waters off Cape Cod,
 provided however, that these turbines are placed in reasonable

 locations and numbers and the developers and owners of such
 wind farms comply with all local, state and Federal laws,
 regulations and ordinances.

 This resolution is not to be construed as the Compact supporting
 any particular wind farm development, contractor, service
 provider, corporation or business endeavor.

 This Resolution was passed by the Governing Board of the Cape
 Light Compact at its meeting held on June 14, 2006. (NOTE: was
 voted down)



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 97
 TOWN OF YARMOUTH
 July 29, 2008

 Charlotte Striebel, Speaker
 Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates
 First District Courthouse
 P.O. Box 427, Barnstable, MA 02630

 Dear Speaker Striebel:

 I am writing to request that you support the extension of the
 public comment period for the Cape Cod Commission's Regional
 Policy Plan update. The extension will afford the Town with an
 opportunity to further review the Regional Policy Plan and to
 consider the impacts it will have on our community.

 Thank you for your consideration.

 Sincerely,
 E. Suzanne McAulliffe, Chairman


 ROBERT R. HOLT
 July 30, 2008

 Attached is my commentary on the 5/29/08 draft of the Regional
 Policy Plan. Let me say first that I had no idea, when I started
 reading it, what an accomplishment it is, involving as it does
 such a broad array of topics and so many kinds of expertise. It is
 in many ways a truly awesome accomplishment. I hope that the
 predominantly negative tone of my comments will not cause you
 to feel that I was insensible of its many virtues and
 accomplishments, but I conceived the role of the requested

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 98
 reviewers as to suggest additions and changes. Please accept my
 remarks in that spirit.

 Having reached the end of the RPP and seen that most of the
 terms about which I complained that they needed definition are in
 fact well defined in the Appendix, I should ideally have gone
 back and changed my text. Unfortunately, it took me so long to
 produce this commentary, incomplete as it is, that I must submit
 it, just as it is, to make the deadline. I must now turn to deferred
 work.

 Please reinterpret my fussy remarks as recommendations that, on
 its first appearance, the word in question be followed by a
 footnote or parenthesis calling attention to the fact that it is used
 here as a technical term defined in the Appendix. My apologies
 for my occasionally intemperate tone.

 Sincerely yours, Robert R. Holt, Chair, Truro Recycling
 Committee and Vice Chair, Truro Energy Committee
 Emeritus Professor, New York University

 TEXT OF ATTACHMENT: COMMENTS ON RPP

       General comment: Overall, an excellent job within its               RE General comment: Climate change is discussed in the energy
 assumptions. Some of those, however, seem to be out of date.              planning section of the RPP, as well as the coastal resources
 The mostly unrecognized elephant in the room is the climate               planning section under goals CR-2 and CR-3.
 change crisis, a great threat to most of the values underlying the
 CCC and recognized by very few at the time of its inception. By
 now, however, many citizens of the Cape & Islands seem to be
 looking further ahead than our major planning agency. There are,
 of course, occasional mentions of global warming and associated,
 complicating aspects of the gathering crisis such as the Hubbert
 Peak of cheap petroleum, but there needs to be much more
 emphasis up front. Indeed, one of the main ways in which CCC

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                       Page 99
 can contribute to the solution of the new problem-complex
 threatening civilization and many forms of life is to begin the
 massive public educational effort that is needed, right here.

        There should be an introductory section noting the
 fundamental change in the awareness, in the planning community
 and increasingly in the general public, of the unprecedented
 situation in which we find ourselves. It is happening at a time
 when the public is preoccupied by a so-called ―war on terrorism‖
 of world-wide proportions, and by an economic-financial crisis
 exacerbated by the enormous increase in the national debt caused
 by that ―war‖ and by many other counterproductive actions by a
 uniquely incompetent national administration. As a result, public
 funds at every level—from Town to state to national—are scarce
 and under threat at the very time when they are greatly needed to
 cope with the world‘s environmental and resource crisis.

       An agency like the CCC that has the aim of proving
 leadership in planning for the near future, and the resources to do
 so, needs to take stock of these developments and their
 implications for our unique local habitat. The effects of the
 climate crisis and the looming shortages of fossil fuels are already
 being felt quite strongly, while experts assure us that conditions
 will get much worse quickly unless we start to make major
 changes in ―business as usual‖ and our accustomed styles of life.
 For the gradual warming of the world and our little part of it in
 particular is in large part man-made. We are on a certain course
 toward disaster in our children‘s lifetimes if not sooner if we do
 not take decisive action as soon as possible. Concretely, that
 means that those who prepare the next batch of Local
 Comprehensive Plans must be helped to re-examine current
 practices with new urgency.

       Another general comment: This document needs a fresh                 RE Another general comment: The energy regulatory section is an

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                         DRAFT 10/16/08                                                      Page 100
 look at development, especially buildings. The built environment          effort to address the need to build more efficient buildings. MPS
 uses and embodies a large part of our supply of energy, now               E1.2 (Energy Star), MPS E1.3 (insulation, fenestration and doors)
 almost wholly from fossil fuels. Because the stock of buildings           and MPS E1.6 (on-site renewables) work together to address more
 turns over very slowly, it is especially important to intervene           efficient operating systems, a tighter, more efficient building
 promptly at the planning level to make them as efficient and              envelope, and the need for distributed generation to lower energy
 frugal as possible, both in their embodied energy—that needed to          costs and put less demand on the grid from our human built
 produce, transport, and assemble their physical components—and            environment, in that order. Commission efforts over the next year
 in their operating energy requirements for lighting, heating and          will include development of a 'Green Building for Cape Cod'
 air conditioning, etc.                                                    brochure that would be a helpful educational tool.

 The world can no longer give those who have great wealth the              RE The world: The draft RPP includes a number of Commission
 unlimited freedom to develop their own properties however they            actions focused on education including ED1-C2 and ED2-C3.
 like, burdening the community with unintended but none the less
 real problems and dangers as a result of gratifying their personal
 desires. Admittedly, that creates a special problem for our
 business community, dependent as it is on the very affluent who
 wish to build summer houses here and permanent residences
 when they retire. Again, the Commission must begin by a well-
 planned and sustained educational program, to convince those
 who are used to thinking in terms of short-term, even quarterly
 bottom lines, that it is in their own interest as well as that of the
 larger human community to forego quick, easy profits for long-
 term survival.
                                                                           Energy response RE At the same time: MPS E1.6 supports self
       At the same time, we must strive to maximize the Cape‘s             sufficiency and is a step toward energy independence.
 self-sufficiency (and that of the Islands). The rapidly growing
 cost of vehicular fuel brings with it a need to reduce our                Land Use response RE At the same time: See separate responses
 dependence on imported energy, food, and other necessary goods.           concerning agriculture and the RPP.
 We will need, also, to export less of our waste, ideally by making
 positive use of it. We need to work toward an economy less                Economic Development response RE At the same time: Economic
 reliant on seasonal visitors, part-time inhabitants, and tourists,        Development goal ED 1 is similar to the comments above. The
 ideally a self-sufficient one free from the felt need for constant        region‘s economy can grow by exporting its goods and services
 growth. That means a populace with enough farmers, tradesmen,             and/or by reducing the need to import goods and services from off-
 and people in service occupations to keep a mixed community               Cape. Exports are exchanges that bring new money into the region

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 101
 going. It means also a rather stable number of children, who may        and imports are exchanges that send money out of the region. When
 grow up, be educated, and find jobs here. Just as our finite            we hire a local contractor or buy apples from a farm in Sandwich our
 world‘s population cannot continue on its present, unsustainable        money stays, circulates, and multiplies within the Cape‘s economy.
 rate of growth without disaster, our local bit of it may be
 approaching its carrying capacity if we are not there already. For
 the first time, the CCC needs to face this issue head on! The staff
 needs to make as careful and well-informed study of the
 maximum number of people who can live here without despoiling
 our air quality, our sole-source aquifer, and the environmental
 values we all hold dear. That must be explained, the facts widely
 disseminated, and their implications thoroughly explored.
 Perhaps the currently written Local Comprehensive Plans do not
 yet need to be predicated on zero growth of our population, but
 the long-term planning must begin.

        A major part of that planning must be to set goals for the       RE A major part: The goal of the energy regulatory section promotes
 Cape & Islands‘ energy independence. We must plan to generate           self sufficiency, energy efficiency and distributed generation - all
 our own energy from renewable, locally available sources (wind,         aspects of achieving energy independence - and the MPS's in the
 solar, geothermal, biomass-derived, and energy from ocean‘s             energy regulatory section provide a foundation for achieving those
 tides, waves, and currents). We must develop many ways of               goals. Inclusion of the Green Communities Act as a Commission
 using all forms of energy more efficiently, greatly lessening our       planning action, specifically how the Commission intends to support
 consumption of it per capita without sacrificing important values.      towns in achieving this designation, furthers this goal.

        One last initial comment: A document of this type is aimed
 at a readership of ordinary citizens in the towns, most of them
 relatively well-educated but few of whom easily read legalistic
 prose. By generally accepted standards, its readability is
 regrettably low. That is self-defeating! I think of it as a kind of
 handbook, guiding volunteer members of future Local
 Comprehensive Plans in all the towns. Being a retired college
 professor, I probably have a higher level of education than most
 such citizen readers; being the son and the father of lawyers, I
 may have had more experience coping with legalistic prose than
 most. Yet I found it not only hard to read with sustained

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 102
 concentration and rarely enjoyable, but often quite murky—hard
 to know exactly what was meant. All too often, the writers
 unthinkingly assumed that readers were as familiar with various
 little-publicized projects, programs, and proposals as they are. It
 badly needs a rewriting by a skilled writer for the general public,
 if it is to have the impact it deserves.

       Now for more targeted comments on specific sections.

        On p. 11, Regional Regulation, second sentence: We have
 to realize that these three groupings are all interacting parts of one
 overall system.

        On p. 13, paragraph (hereafter ―par.‖) 1, next to last line
 (―l.‖): change ―it happens‖ to ―they happen.‖ Par. 2, l. 3, insert
 after first word ―or shared problems.‖

        P. 14: Growth Policy. This section needs to begin by a             RE P. 14 Growth Policy: The RPP's growth policy is intended to be a
 resetting of assumptions. It seems to assume that growth (of              general statement about guiding growth toward areas with adequate
 presumably all kinds) is an unquestioned good; not so, not                infrastructure and away from sensitive resource areas. The 2002
 without limits! At the least, there should be a discussion of the         RPP had a much more extensive discussion of population growth
 positive and negative aspect of growth of its various kinds,              rates and other information. Recognizing the Cape's capacity
 including economic growth (which, though not specified, is                constraints, five broad principles were set forth concerning the rate,
 probably the basic issue here). See also above discussion of              pattern, location, amount and type of growth. However, since the
 population. Growth cannot be achieved without increased use of            first Regional Policy Plan was adopted in 1990, the Growth Policy
 resources, except some kinds through the more efficient use of an         stated that it was not the intention of the RPP to set a maximum
 unincreased resource base. The very land of the Cape is                   desirable population level for the Cape. The amount of growth
 shrinking in size and will probably do so at an ever greater rate as      which could be accommodated on Cape Cod would depend in large
 the land subsides as the volume of the oceans increases.                  part on natural resource constraints and public investment decisions
 Economic growth must also be considered in relation to a                  made by the towns and the county over the coming years. The
 differentiated approach to the economy. Total income and/or               proposed Growth Policy in the 2008 RPP is similar in intent to the
 funds expended would probably go up if more rich people move              previous Growth Policy statements, however it is much more
 here, but that is a lopsided, ultimately unsustainable kind of            concise.
 development. Growth of income in the real estate sector as prices

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 103
 of a limited amount of land go up would not contribute much to
 the long-term viability of our economy; ditto increased income
 from the financial manipulations of resident hedge-fund
 operators or currency dealers. The most promising kinds of
 economic growth, in my opinion, would be in agriculture and
 aquaculture, in a renewable energy industry, and in information-
 technology-based industry attracted here as a desirable place to
 live—which could easily be lost without careful control of
 development. Thus, there must be careful concern for the
 interactions of different types of growth.

        For a long time, economic and population growth on the
 C&I were based on the exploitation of natural resources: the
 original forests, until virtually all cut down; the fin-fishing,
 clamming, and other seafood harvest (also approaching overuse
 and supporting only a declining industry); a small and long-
 shrinking amount of agriculture, including a once-large cranberry
 agriculture, as cultivable land could be sold for more to provide
 housing; real estate, developing land by converting forest or farm
 land to house plots and malls (a mixed benefit, ultimately
 limited); recreation and tourism, and retirement communities, all
 based on natural beauty and access to water of ponds and sea; the
 associated services, including professions such as medicine and
 law, providing for the needs of people making their livings in
 other ways. In addition to the information-based technical
 industry, there is education and scientific research, both of which
 have flourished. Since so much of what our economy depends on
 is declining, the best we can hope for in the long run is a stable-
 state economy. We need to plan for it before ―build-out,‖ which
 in many towns is coming in a few years.

 P. 16, Growth Incentive Zones, par. 1, last line, ―mitigation‖ of       RE P. 16, Growth Incentive Zones: Mitigation is defined in the RPP.
 what? Par. 2, l. 1, make it read ―. . . ensure that all other           Staff does not recommend revising the general statement in this
 planned/expected growth is or will be properly. . .‖ Add                section of the RPP regarding Growth Incentive Zones to include the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 104
 somewhere here the desirability of fostering the side-by-side            above language.
 siting of industries the waste produced by one will serve as
 feedstock to another. (See below, on solid waste.)

 Last line on page should read: ‗Massachusetts bylaws and                 RE Last line on page: The last line on pg. 16 will be revised;
 ordinances pertaining to zoning, subdivision control, health,            however, the top of pg. 17 is a list of the model bylaws the
 wetlands, and general police power.‘ Probably the last 8 words of        Commission currently offers.
 the previous line should be omitted too, since it is not obvious
 that health and police power are traditional methods of land use
 or its regulation and unnecessary to say so. The reast of the par.,
 on top of p. 17, has the same smell of impenetrable jargon. It is
 doubtful that much is accomplished by this long, virtually
 unreadable list of specific topics. Incidentally, the whole
 document could benefit from recasting with an eye to readability
 and the removal of jargon. Especially, avoid acronyms and other
 abbreviations that are not spelled out for the non-insider.

 p. 17, other Regional plans. This section should include a study         RE p. 17: The descriptions on pg. 17 are other regional plans
 of existing legal and regulatory barriers to desirable types of          prepared by the Commission.
 development (e.g., renewable energy).It must also consider the
 needs of new developments for access to energy, water, waste
 disposal, and transportation.

 In re Regional Open Space Plan: Somewhere there should be a              Open Space response RE In re Regional Open Space Plan: The MPS
 consideration of the Cape as an ecosystem, including all forms of        are designed to evaluate the impacts of a proposed development, and
 life and their interdependences, and the likely impact of different      allow evaluation of the impacts on a case-by-case basis.
 kinds of development on it. E.g., do wind turbines adversely             Pronouncements about the kinds of activities that are acceptable or
 impact flying creatures/ Does converting forest into house lots          not would inevitably be incomplete, and possibly very inflexible. At
 critically limit habitats of key species? Does the promotion of          the same time, the RPP text in this section attempts, in a general
 deer hunting usefully compensate for the loss of the animal‘s            way, to address the concern that overdevelopment will harm our
 natural predators and help keep the population of deer under             sensitive ecosystems.
 control?
                                                                          Land Use response RE In re Regional Open Space Plan: Some
                                                                          language will be added to the Regional Open Space Plan description

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 105
                                                                          concerning the Cape as an ecosystem.

 P. 18, par. 1, l. 5: ―. . . floods and windstorms (including             RE P. 18: This text change is recommended.
 hurricanes and tornadoes).‖

 P. 21: Should mention the value of compact cities/towns for              RE P. 21: The Commission believes this is too specific a
 minimizing the use of automobiles.                                       recommendation for this general land use statement.

 P. 23, LU1-C: to maintain the building industry (which need not          RE P. 23: It is unclear which action this refers to.
 grow), emphasize the need for retrofitting existing buildings for
 increased energy efficiency. Development should also include
 conversion of suitable land to agriculture, and reforestation.

 P. 25, LU2-T1. Second sentence unclear because of unexplained            RE P. 25: The Commission believes this language is clear as stated.
 jargon (―open once‖).

 LU2-T3: Line 2, after ―criteria‖ insert: ―including energy               RE LU2-T3: The Commission believes this language is too specific
 efficiency,‖.                                                            for this particular Town Action.

 P. 27, ED1, par. 1 after box, line 4: replace the word ―product‖ by      RE P. 27: Staff does not recommend the changes. The term
 ―asset.‖ In l. 5, after ―other destination areas)‖ insert comma          ―product‖ is used here to emphasize the parallels between our
 delete ―and‖; then add, after ―profits‖ ―and minimizing                  success as a region and the success of a business. The focus on
 greenhouse gas emissions‖ finally inserting to make last line read:      energy resources is too specific for this action .
 ―by using resources—especially energy—efficiently.‖

 ED1-C2, at end of par., add: ―; and the transition from                  RE ED1-C2: The suggested change will be made.
 quantitative expansion to qualitative improvement.‖ (Also, delete
 third from last word, ―and‖ in previous line.)

 ED1-C3, at end of par., add ―, especially those that facilitate total    RE ED1-C3: Action ED1-C3 in the draft has been deleted because it
 life-cycle cost minimization.‖                                           is duplicated by under goal ED4, action ED4-C2.

 P. 31, ED3-T2, l. 4, insert apostrophe after ―farmers,‖ making it        RE P. 31: The suggested change will be made.
 ―farmers‘markets.‖

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 106
 P. 33, par. 4, l. 2: Changed ―Mapped-based‖ to ―Map-based‖ or
 just ―Mapped.‖

 P. 34, last par., line 1 misleadingly implies that drinking water is     RE P. 34: Discussion under RPP goal WR1 on page 34 reads:
 a large use of the aquifer, whereas the largest single usage in          Lowering water levels by excessively withdrawing groundwater for
 homes is flushing toilets. I suggest that you substitute                 drinking water and irrigation can threaten the health and vitality of
 ―commercial and household uses‖ for ―drinking water‖ in that             other resources that share the same aquifer, such as lakes, ponds,
 line. It would surely be a mistake to give anyone the idea that          wetlands, and rivers.
 buying bottled water for drinking would be a significant way of          This statement addresses concerns about maintaining hydrologic
 preventing the lowering of water levels.                                 balance in the aquifer related to water withdrawals and general
                                                                          aquifer protection. "Drinking water" is referenced because public
                                                                          and private water supplies must meet drinking-water standards
                                                                          unless the supply is otherwise designated as private irrigation well.
                                                                          Concerns about wastewater are addressed in another section of the
                                                                          RPP specific to that topic. MPS WR6.3 in the regulatory section of
                                                                          the RPP requires that sewage treatment facilities and their collection
                                                                          and discharge areas shall maintain the hydrologic balance of the
                                                                          aquifer and demonstrate that there are no negative ecological impacts
                                                                          to surface waters.

 Pp. 35-36, WR2: The introductory paragraph should mention one            RE Pp.35-36: Discussion under RPP goal WR2 on pages 35 & 36
 of the largest sources of the contamination of drinking water, the       reads: The drinking water for Cape residents and visitors is
 use of chemical fertilizers on lawns, which needs to be                  groundwater drawn from the sole source aquifer by the 158 gravel-
 minimized. I have not seen relevant data, but suspect that, in           packed municipal supply wells and thousands of private wells. Spills
 many towns, this kind of contamination is a worse problem than           of hazardous materials and other activities can contaminate the water
 the spillage of hazardous chemicals.                                     supply. For example, groundwater contamination by chemicals is an
                                                                          ongoing issue at the Massachusetts Military Reservation on the
                                                                          Upper Cape, where plumes of contamination have tainted four public
                                                                          water supply wells. Instances of smaller-scale contamination have
                                                                          caused similar problems for public water supply wells and private
                                                                          wells throughout Cape Cod. Because of the potential impacts of land
                                                                          uses with hazardous materials on our sole source drinking water,
                                                                          adequate safeguards must be maintained to ensure that current and

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 107
                                                                      future investments in water supply infrastructure are protected.
                                                                      Future water supply needs must also be secured. In 1995, the
                                                                      Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation projected
                                                                      that the Cape's population growth could result in a 40-percent
                                                                      increase in water use in 20 years.
                                                                      The paragraph uses hazardous materials as an example of threats to
                                                                      water quality while citing 'other activities' as threats to drinking-
                                                                      water quality. The threat that fertilizers pose to water quality are
                                                                      described in planning sections WR1, WR4, WR6. and WR7.

 P. 36, WR2-C1: Here, some note should be taken of the                RE P. 36: Commission water staff regularly measure water levels
 possibility that our recent good rainfall patterns may change and    across Cape Cod. This information is used by DEP and water
 periods of chronic drought may lead to a shortage of good potable    suppliers as a threshold to require voluntary and mandatory water
 water. The Commission should anticipate this possibility by          restrictions according to the draft drought management task force.
 having on hand a set of actions to promote careful conservation      Conservation is addressed in Section WR1: General Aquifer
 (such as banning automobile washing except by facilities that        Protection. Rather than prescribe specific conservation measures in
 reuse the water, banning sprinkling of lawns, etc.). Another         the RPP, the Commission proposes to work with municipalities for
 obvious, but here neglected, measure is to promote gray-water        adoption of local measures that reflect the specific circumstances and
 systems: the separate collection of waste-water from showers and     needs of the respective communities.
 baths, lavatories and kitchen sinks, into settling tanks that are
 emptied into leaching systems of perforated pipes shallowly
 buried beneath local plantings (of shrubbery, flower and
 vegetable gardens, etc.) that would otherwise need periodical
 watering with precious potable water.

 WR2-C2: Add, at end of par., ―, and from the use of water-           RE WR2-C2: Section WR2 relates hazardous-waste threats to
 soluble chemical fertilizers on lawns.‖ A long-term goal should      drinking water. Fertilizers are discussed in sections WR1, WR4,
 be educating the public about the negative impacts of trying to      WR6. and WR7.
 maintain the English/Irish tradition of lush green lawns on the
 sandy soil of the Cape and Islands, with expectable summer
 droughts. Landscaping with native plants, including wildflowers
 is sustainable, has positive instead of negative impact on the
 water supply, and is much more cost-effective.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                   DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 108
 You might consider adding a WR2-C4, Eventual Replacement of            RE You might consider: Section WR6-C1: Public and Private
 Flush Toilets. The other major contributor to drinking-water           Sewage Treatment Facilities states that the Cape Cod Commission
 contamination is the ubiquitous flush toilet. Looked at                will continue to provide technical assistance to the towns to complete
 objectively, it is rather amazing that Americans generally and         and implement their Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plans
 Cape Codders in particular are so unquestioningly committed to a       and work to achieve complementary local, regional, state and federal
 system of disposing of bodily wastes that not only uses great          guidance. Waterless toilets and urine diverting toilets are two of
 amounts of drinking water but contaminates and pollutes it and         many technologies that will be evaluated by communities in their
 many times the amount through the persistence of nutrients in the      CWMPs. The Commission regulatory review of the CWMPs
 watery residue after Title 5 treatment, which passes into the          includes an alternatives review.
 ground water. From there, a great deal of the contamination
 passes into lakes, streams, and coastal salt waters. Unfortunately,
 much of the basis for this ridiculous system is the irrational fear
 and disgust installed into children by their parents and other
 caregivers. Feces and urine are widely considered to be not only
 nasty and repulsive, but actively dangerous, even poisonous, far
 beyond what is rationally justifiable. The beauty of the flush
 toilet is that the vile stuff disappears almost immediately, and
 most people do not care to learn what happens to it.

 In Europe, where attitudes toward excrement are a bit less
 hysterical, waterless composting toilets have undergone a long,
 successful development. In 1995, when I was a member of the
 Truro Board of Health, I tried to make it easier for householders
 to install the best-known of them, the Clivus Multrum, and ran up
 against some fussy regulations that presumed that the only
 effective and reliable toilets were the standard flush type. I have
 not had time to check the new state regulations (and have not
 been on the Board for over a decade), but hope that they are now
 more flexible.

 In any event, I was disappointed to see no reference to this
 superior technology in the RPP. In many parts of this country
 where drinking water supplies are far more critical than they are
 here, I think a change to composting toilets will make a

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 109
 substantial contribution to sustainability, and believe that they
 involve less total energy expenditure in a life-cycle analysis.
 Thus, I urge the Commission to take a real leadership role by
 charging its staff with thoroughly exploring this option, which
 could make a great contribution to the current problems of
 protecting our water supplies, including coastal salt waters as
 well as our sole source aquifer. Note that Clivus offers services
 that would free residential customers from the need to monitor
 the composting and remove the final product. It is a high-quality
 fertilizer, which should have a good deal of sales value.

 That would be contingent, of course, on the solution of one more
 problem, which I believe you do not mention: the contamination
 of toilets and septage by pharmaceuticals and other unwanted
 products, which many people thoughtlessly get rid of by flushing
 them away. The commercial use of sewage sludge, the final
 product of treatment systems, has been compromised by the
 presence in it of heavy metals, dioxin, and other poisons. At
 least, that has been the experience off-Cape. Regardless of
 whether the RPP advocates the move to waterless disposal of
 human wastes, as I urge, there should be an educational program
 on the serious disadvantages of the thoughtless disposal of
 unwanted substances in toilets, other than the human waste for
 which they are designed.

 The current controversy in Provincetown about its new, problem-
 plagued sewer system, is vivid testimony to the need to educate
 town leaders about the advantages of moving away from the flush
 toilet and its associated wastewater disposal problems. (See
 articles in Provincetown Banner,

 [insert here from Matt Patrick]

 P. 39-40, WR4. As was true of the preceding sections, the             RE P. 39-40: The threat that fertilizers pose to water quality are

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 110
 Commission‘s position seems to be to point to a rising danger,          described in planning sections WR1, WR4, WR6. and WR7. Section
 advocate careful monitoring and (largely ineffectual) remediation,      WR1 states that a proper balance can be maintained through water
 with a total lack of any attention to prevention, or tackling the       conservation, surface water monitoring, cluster development, best
 underlying problem of reducing the input of contamination at the        management practices such as Low Impact Development (LID)
 source. Again, a lack of real leadership! At the very least, the        techniques, and turf and landscape plans that minimize the use of
 Commission itself should commit to study the problem of                 fertilizers and pesticides. WR1-C1 further states that the Cape Cod
 preventive measures. For our many lovely ponds and lakes, the           Commission will help communities to incorporate general aquifer-
 obvious possible solution is two-fold: phase out flush toilets and      protection and stormwater management strategies and water
 the accompanying septic systems in the immediate watersheds of          conservation into local regulations.
 these bodies of fresh water, and forbid the fertilization and           As noted previously, waterless toilets and urine diverting toilets are
 herbicide treatment of lawns in the same areas. Surely it should        two of many technologies that will be evaluated by communities in
 be possible to require all new construction that contains toilets to    their CWMPs. The Commission regulatory review of the CWMPs
 use some type of composting toilets, the output of which could be       includes an alternatives review. Furthermore, the Commission has
 used to substitute for chemical fertilizer in application to            coordinated Fresh water pond sampling and assessments from which
 plantings including lawns. The same nutrients that are released         targeted management strategies have been developed resulting in
 by Title 5 systems into the groundwater below the level where           restoration of ecological degradation.
 roots of most plants reach will be kept on the surface, readily         Section WR6-C1: Public and Private Sewage Treatment Facilities
 taken up and used (incidentally fixing atmospheric carbon!) by          states that the Cape Cod Commission will continue to provide
 plants.                                                                 technical assistance to the towns to complete and implement their
                                                                         Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plans and work to achieve
                                                                         complementary local, regional, state and federal guidance.

 One neglected source of nitrogen pollution of all our waters, fresh     RE One neglected source: Atmospheric nitrogen sources (from the
 and salt, is atmospheric deposition of nitrates. High-temperature       burning of fossil fuels) are addressed in the Energy section of the
 combustion, as in internal combustion engines, produces oxides          RPP. Planning and regulatory sections WR7 address nitrogen
 of nitrogen, which eventually become nitrates. The more                 incorporated into stormwater runoff, some of which consists of
 efficiently we burn fossil fuels and the more we can shift to           atmospheric nitrogen. The Commission has been an active
 renewables, the less such atmospheric deposition of nitrogen.           participant in the Massachusetts Estuaries Project, a State-sponsored
 Maybe you omitted it because of the surprising decision to              program that establishes nitrogen limits or TMDLs for nitrogen-
 eliminate a section on air quality (see below).                         sensitive waters. TMDLs, the basis for comprehensive watershed
                                                                         planning on Cape Cod, recognize atmospheric nitrogen loads.

 P. 40, WR5, Water Quality Improvement Areas. I am reminded              RE P. 40 WR5: The Commission regulates hazardous-material and -
 here of the discovery, a few years ago, that there is an area in        waste quantities in wellhead protection areas only for Developments

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 111
 North Truro where contamination is taking place in a zone of            of Regional Impact. The CCC does not have general enforcement
 contribution to the wells from which Provincetown draws its             authority over hazardous-waste contaminated sites. For State
 water. At its western edge, the zone includes part of the property      regulations relating to hazardous waste clean-up, refer to the
 owned by a beloved Truro citizen (who has since died), who              Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) which created incentives for
 routinely parked a sizeable fleet of trucks and other heavy             private parties to respond to contamination. The Commission has
 vehicles on a sand road, where oil drips were inevitable. No one        undertaken a number of contaminated assessments including the
 wanted to hold kindly old Mr. Noons to the letter of the law. Is        Truro Landfill and mapping of the Outer Cape aquifer system and
 there not a role for the Commission in a situation like this, where     mapping of all hazardous waste sites.
 local officials are reluctant to obey the law? It is another
 situation in which, if the Commission acts in accordance with its
 declared mission it may become locally unpopular, always a
 difficult situation for an organization that is dependent on the
 good will of constituent towns.

 P. 41, WR6. Here is where a lot of the above discussion of              RE P. 41 WR6: The Commission is the regulatory authority that
 proactive measures to promote water quality is relevant. I was          reviews CWMPs as Developments of Regional Impacts. In addition
 puzzled when I first read this section by the reference to towns‘       the Commission regularly participate in the scoping and local
 Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plans, since I had never            wastewater planning meetings including the provision of technical
 heard of them before, and this document has little or no                assistance. The Commission has been an active participant in the
 information about them. Via googling the term, I found                  Massachusetts Estuaries Project, a State-sponsored program that
 Capekeeper‘s report on such plans; about half of the Cape towns,        establishes nitrogen limits or TMDLs for nitrogen-sensitive waters.
 including Truro, seem to have done nothing. Has the                     TMDLs provide the basis for comprehensive wastewater planning on
 Commission really been active in stimulating the towns to               Cape Cod. A limited number of TMDLs have been established on
 prepare them, and what kind of help does it have for a town that        Cape Cod which have allowed certain municipalities to begin the
 wants to try to do it? The Commission should surely advise              design phase of their CWMP. The Commission is the regulatory
 towns on the many advantages of waterless systems; indeed, the          authority that reviews CWMPs as Developments of Regional
 eventual goal should be to do away with the need for plans to           Impacts.
 manage wastewater, focusing instead of managing human waste.

 P. 43, WR7, Stormwater Quality. In the first text par., it would        RE P. 43 WR7: A definition of LID is provided in the definitions
 help to define and/or elucidate Low Impact Development                  section of the RPP.
 treatment. Looking forward to expectable technical
 developments, the Commission should plan on the assumption
 that ordinary internal combustion engines will be replaced by

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 112
 plug-in hybrids (within the 5-yr. horizon) and, with the successful
 development of ultracapacitors to replace batteries, by fully
 electric cars and trucks soon after that. One great benefit of this
 change, which should be encouraged and facilitated, is that the
 discharge of petroleum products to roads will greatly diminish,
 doing a lot to solve the stormwater quality problem.

 P. 45, par. 1, l. 4: add, at end of sentence, ―, but especially with
 climate change. There will be more and more severe ‗ordinary‘
 storms and storm surges.‖

 In re par. 2: the coming advent of all-electric motors for vehicular
 travel should have a counterpart in the development and wide use
 of such motors and their associated supercapacitors to watercraft.
 If the Commission could do anything to alert the manufacturers
 of such motors to this emerging trend, it might hasten their
 arrival. That should greatly decrease many types of pollution
 from boats.

 Wait—After water resources, where is your concern for air                 RE Wait--after water resources: The Air Quality section of the 2002
 quality? That is a very important issue, which now seems                  RPP was removed, since it was essentially a restatement of the MA
 completely missing. The Commission surely has as much                     regulations monitoring air quality.
 responsibility to help towns plan to maintain the quality of the air
 we breathe as of the water we drink!

 CR1. In light of the world-wide collapse of many fish stocks,             RE CR1.: Staff doesn‘t recommend changing the goal.
 especially the large ones at the top of the food chain, it is time to
 begin questioning ―the public‘s right for fishing [and] fowling.‖
 That dates to a time when both fish and fowl seemed
 innumerable, a huge natural resource for man‘s enjoyment and
 unhindered freedom to exploit them. The time has come when an
 entirely different set of values and assumptions must underlie
 public policy, one based on total-system ecology. Human beings,
 as top predators, have a place in an ecological system, but it must

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 113
 be a carefully designed and controlled one (see above remarks
 about the necessary culling of the Cape deer population.) Towns
 should begin to give serious consideration to banning sport
 fishing for tuna, swordfish, and other highly endangered large
 predators, and local regulations on the sale of endangered species
 need to be updated in light of the crisis. Considering the collapse
 of the cod population in Canadian waters, it is short-sighted to
 react to the scarcity of the big cod of yesterday by allowing
 commercial and sport fishermen to bring in unlimited quantities
 of smaller and smaller ones. Here, too, the Commission has an
 important role in educating a complacent public and fishermen
 who try to maintain current incomes by destroying the future
 possibility of their occupation. It is a delicate responsibility
 indeed to protect maritime industry —from itself.

 Pp. 47-48. CR2. This whole section seems excellent to me.

 P. 49, CR3-C2. The term ―watersheet zoning‖ is not self-                RE P. 49 CR3-C2: Watersheet zoning is just one tool that could be
 explanatory and should be defined, if this document is to be            used. It‘s generally zoning for the water area seaward from mean
 useful to towns‘ amateur-staffed Local Comprehensive Plan               low water. It has to do with developing regulations for things like
 committees.                                                             docks, piers, and beach nourishment. It seems to make sense that
                                                                         CR3-C2 be revised to be less specific to watersheet zoning and rather
                                                                         be more general: ―Research and promote tools available to towns that
                                                                         could help them address near-shore coastal water quality; including
                                                                         watersheet zoning.‖ A definition of watersheet zoning should be
                                                                         added.

 CR3-C3. Replace the final hydra-headed cluster of adjectival            RE CR3-C3: …If, indeed, that is what was intended: Good
 nouns by ―low-impact techniques of managing stormwater in new           suggestion – staff recommends this change.
 developments.‖ If, indeed, that is what was intended. Ditto in          RE CR3-C3: …Ditto in CR2-T1, where the intent is even less
 CR2-T1, where the intent is even less obvious.                          obvious.: Staff does not recommend this change.

 CR3-T2. Nothing is said, this time, about help from the                 RE CR3-T2: Language can be added into CR3-C3 about regional
 Commission in drafting such plans and in coordinating the plans         coastal resources management planning.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 114
 of neighboring towns.

 Last line on page, again crippled by jargon. (Didn‘t Canute get          RE Last line on page: Staff believes it is accurate as written.
 into trouble trying to ―rectify tidal restrictions‖ on where he could
 put his throne?). Why not ―repair fish runs for species that go
 either up or down streams to spawn‖?

 P. 52, WET1-T2, 2nd bullet: ―no replication of wetlands‖? Is it          RE P. 52, WET1-T2: Wetland replication is prohibited as mitigation
 not desirable to try to create new wetlands to make up for past          because there is not adequate evidence that a replicated wetland
 errors of filling them in? It seems the writer did not understand        functions as well as the natural wetland that is lost.
 the meaning of ‗replication.‘ If the intent is to prevent someone
 from such filling followed by a compensatory replication, that is
 probably wise, but it needs to be spelled out.

 WET1-T3. Apparently ‗tidal restriction‘ is a term of art                 RE WET1-T3: We have revised the section text: seek ways to restore
 intelligible to certain insiders, but not to a relatively educated       tidal flow under roads and through undersized culverts by…
 citizen who hopes to serve on a Local Comprehensive Plan
 committee. I confess that I don‘t get the point of these three lines
 at all, so cannot comment on their substance.

 Pp. 53-54, WPH1. This section, excellent as far as it goes, lacks        RE Pp. 53-54, WPH1: We can clarify the section text: after BioMap,
 any reference to the recent state action in designating large areas      insert "of critical plant and wildlife habitat."
 as of special concern for the protection of critical wild species.
 Our recent experience with the proposal to build a large mansion
 on the Hopper landscape in Truro has shown how weak this
 action actually is. The private party was permitted to site his
 proposed house and associated developments including
 swimming and reflecting pools, with an enormous footprint
 which has been transgressed in the process of building, in a place
 with a particularly rich stand of the rare broom crowberry. A
 large ―taking‖ (destruction) of most of this stand was allowed
 with the proviso that the rich owner pay a few thousand dollars
 for research on the protection and preservation of this plant, and
 conduct a small experiment in transplanting a few individuals.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 115
 There was a consideration of alternative sites, but only a small
 number selected by the owner, neglecting a good many other
 possibilities where the damage to broom crowberry would have
 been minimal or nil. The Commission might advise towns to
 pass more effective bylaws and regulations to prevent future
 projects of this sort. Perhaps we need state legislation to allow
 towns to condemn and buy such properties at reasonable prices
 that are not set by the owner.

 P. 55 et seq., OS1. The final statement in the initial box is           RE P. 55 et seq.: We have struck "at a rate to keep pace with
 ambiguous: What is meant by ―a rate to keep pace with                   development".
 development‖ when the protection of open space is needed
 against development? It sounds like a weasel-worded attempt to
 mollify both sides, those who want to preserve open space and
 those who want to destroy it for profit, its developers. See the
 initial comments about taking a principled stand against
 indefinitely continued development. 12:13 PMhe general
 comments here certainly should make reference to the need to set
 an upper limit to the population of the Cape and the amount of it
 that is converted from natural ecosystems to buildings, roads, etc.,
 in line with its sustainable carrying capacity.

 P. 56, OS1-C3. This opaque little section apparently refers to          RE P. 56, OS1-C3: Transfer of Development Rights is a land use
 some specific plan (whose?) to transfer development rights from         tool that has been used successfully in other parts of the U.S. to
 one unnamed party to another. The proposal should be clearly            allow the transfer of development rights from an area where the
 described and its implications explored so that citizens can have       community wishes to encourage the protection of open space and
 the opportunity to evaluate it and take a considered stand for or       natural resources, to an area where the community wishes to support
 against it. My suspicions are aroused.                                  development and redevelopment, and increase density. It is a tool,
                                                                         typically voluntary, that helps protect open space. It is defined in the
                                                                         RPP. This CCC action is designed to explore the feasibility of TDR
                                                                         including a more in-depth explanation of its applicability for Cape
                                                                         Cod. Tax issues will need to be addressed during consideration of a
                                                                         regional TDR system. The Commission has not concluded how or
                                                                         where to use TDR.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 116
 P. 57, OS1-T3. ―Tax-title land‖ is another bit of regrettable           RE P. 57, OS1-T3: The assumption is correct, and a town may take
 jargon contributing to the general low level of this document‘s         that land for non-payment of taxes. Many times these properties
 readability. I presume it means land that has been abandoned by         provide excellent open space.
 the owner to avoid paying accumulated taxes.

 OS-2, recreation. The terms ―active and passive recreation‖ are         RE OS-2: Active recreation is typically distinguished from passive
 used without definitions. Why are these modifiers used if their         recreation by participating in activities such as golf, swimming,
 implications are not addressed? The specific forms that are             soccer etc. while passive recreation implies passive enjoyment of the
 mentioned all sound active to me, in contrast to the predominant        natural environment.
 American recreation, watching TV, which is surely passive. It
 strikes me that there is no need to ‗preserve and enhance‘ passive
 recreation, but a great need to get our increasingly obese
 populations off their passive behinds and into ‗fishing. . . and
 birdwatching.‘

 P. 58, OS2-C2. Where can one find out more about the ―Cape              Re P. 58, OS2-C2: Information about Cape Cod Pathways, a
 Cod Pathways Program‖?                                                  program of Barnstable County with CCC staff support, can be found
                                                                         at www.capecodcommission.org/pathways


 Transportation, line 3 of first par., add: ―a role that must be much    RE Transportation, line 3 of first par.: The Cape Cod Commission
 increased in the near future. For the urgent task of reducing the       fully supports the reduction in automobile use as outlined in the draft
 Cape‘s emissions of greenhouse gases to cope with the climate           RPP. The RPP encourages all communities to plan for the reduction
 change crisis will require us to find many ways to minimize our         in automobile use and the RPP requires all Development of Regional
 present great dependence on imported fossil fuels. Until carbon-        Impact reduce or offset twenty-five percent of all automobile trips.
 free types of vehicles supplant the petroleum-dependent cars and        Facilities to support non-motorized (bicycling and walking) modes
 trucks on which we are now almost totally dependent, we must            of transportation are encouraged as are compact-forms of
 make greater use of public transport and ways of getting around         development that support them.
 on our own power.‖ If the rest of the present text is left
 unaltered, even the suggested addition will seem a bit like a token     The Cape Cod Commission participates in the planning of
 rather than the result of a full grasp of the primacy of the crisis     alternatives modes of transportation (sidewalks, bike paths,
 that is gripping the whole world as well as the Cape & Islands.         carpooling, transit and rail service) through the Cape Cod Joint
                                                                         Transportation Committee (JTC) and the Cape Cod Metropolitan

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 117
                                                                         Organization (MPO).


 P. 60, TR1-C2 and C2: puzzled by the idea that access to Route 6        RE Pg. 60, TR1-C2: These roadways are currently designated as
 and other major highways was to be forbidden, I formed the              limited access roadways by the Massachusetts Highway Department.
 hypothesis that the intent was to limit curb cuts and other means       Limited access highways are the safest, most effective roadways due
 of getting on these major thoroughfares other than the established      to the lack of curb cuts and therefore less turning traffic. The
 feeder roads. Are there viable alternative routes for the people        Regional Policy Plan encourages the Massachusetts Highway
 who happen to live near the (partly) designated highways? The           Department to maintain the limited access designation on these
 parenthesis refers to the phrase in l. 5 of C2, ―as well as other       roadways.
 roads.‖ Could that at least not be ―a few other roads‖?

 TR1-T1, make it ―. . .adopt bylaws and related standards for            RE TR1-T1: The Cape Cod Commission has assisted with the
 driveways to control access to major highways.‖                         creation of the Cape Cod Emergency Preparedness Handbook. Staff
                                                                         concurs that planning for emergency routing is a worthwhile activity.
 In this context, I am reminded of a serious problem in Truro, and
 to some extent in other outer cape towns: for several stretches of
 varying lengths, Route 6 is the only available route to escape
 south and west in an emergency. If at any time of high traffic
 there were to be a serious accident on any of these bottlenecks,
 emergency vehicles could not get through, with possible loss of
 life. It should be an urgent task for the Commission, ion
 cooperation with the Town, to study these areas and to propose
 small connecting links between existing parallel, accessory roads,
 which could be used in such an emergency. Stretches of the
 abandoned Old King‘s Highway in North Truro might be
 minimally improved (surely not including impermeable
 pavement) to provide such an alternative.

 P. 61, TR2-C1. Actually, in the preceding par., it would be good        RE P. 61, TR2-C1: The Cape Cod Commission continues to promote
 to make the point that most Climate Protection Plans for towns          alternatives mode of travel through the Regional Policy Plan and
 and cities emphasize the need to reduce the present heavy               supports efforts to increase the percentage of fuel efficient vehicles.
 reliance on the automobile because it is a major source of
 greenhouse gases. In line 3 of this par., change the final period to

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 118
 the intended comma, making the last word ―promoting.‖

 Consider adding a C4, encouraging local automobile dealers to
 stock high-mileage, small cars in place of heavy, fuel-inefficient
 SUVs, pickup trucks, and the like. The recent increase in the
 price of gasoline, which will probably continue to rise in the
 foreseeable near future, is already motivating many customers to
 make the change, with positive effects on global warming.
 Perhaps forward-looking dealers might even stock electric
 scooters, motorized (esp. electric) bicycles, and other
 unconventional but emerging, energy-efficient modes of personal
 transportation.

 P. 62, TR2-T2, l. 2: ―mobility requirements‖ needs to be replaced     RE P. 62, TR2-T2: Commission staff will define this term to make
 with plain, clear language.                                           this item clearer.

 TR-3: The second par. in particular is in serious need of             RE TR-3: The term "Mitigation" is defined in the RPP Appendix as
 rewriting, including more sparing use of the jargon term              "Appropriate measures that, at a minimum, substantially offset any
 ―mitigation.‖ The last full sentence in particular needs a            adverse impacts of a proposed development.
 complete rewrite. How, for example, is ―spacing‖ a technique of
 managing access and to what? ―Traffic impacts‖ sounds as if it        The spacing of curb cuts or driveways along a roadway has a
 means fender-benders. To mitigate is not an intransitive verb.        profound effect on driver decision making and potential for driver
                                                                       confusion.


 P. 63, TR2-C4 might be added, committing the Commission to            RE P.63, TR2-C4: Reducing automobile use on Cape Cod is a
 efforts to reduce the use of automobiles, bringing the level of       challenge the Cape Cod Commission is addressing through both
 traffic down to the capacity of existing roads rather than            planning and regulatory work.
 expanding the latter. Another area for public education. Or
 perhaps C2 could be appropriately modified.

 P. 64, WM. The introductory text needs to be supplemented by          RE Pg. 64, WM: Staff believes that the diversion of solid waste into
 including this major point: The need to work toward making the        feedstocks of production is already part of recycling.
 very concept of waste anachronistic, by finding ways to treat

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 119
 what is now considered valueless waste a feedstock for some
 productive use. Thus, much of MSW can be converted into
 vehicular fuel, heating oil, or a renewable substitute for natural
 gas, using a variety of already developed techniques. Mixed
 organic wastes, from paper to kitchen trimmings and leftovers,
 may be converted by moderate heat and newly developed
 enzymes into gasoline or biodiesel, or by bioconversion into
 methane and fertilizer, among other more fanciful and less
 energy-efficient methods such as conversion to ethanol.
 (References available on request.) The Commission should be
 monitoring these exciting new technologies and considering their
 possible use at the level of individual towns, cooperating clusters
 of towns, or regionally. One more familiar technology, not
 mentioned here, is transforming used grease from restaurants into
 biodiesel, either for vehicular fuel or for heating. Some
 entrepreneurs are already interested and could use technical and
 other help (e.g., with town regulations) from the Commission.

 The book, Cradle to Cradle, by McDonough and Braungart
 (2002) is required reading for anyone who is seriously
 considering the problem of managing wastes. They give many
 examples of how the effluent of one industry, considered
 worthless waste, can become the valued feedstock for another.
 That is a principle the Commission should make good use of in
 planning sites like industrial parks. It is a classical win-win
 situation.

 P. 64, WM1. The introductory par. gives the false impression           RE Pg. 64, WM1: The Commission's Hazardous Waste Specialist
 that hazardous wastes are a threat only to the water supply. The       agrees that improper management and disposal of Hazardous Waste
 air and the land and waters are all vulnerable to such pollution.      also poses a threat to air and land, however, the Regional Policy
                                                                        Plan's regulatory focus should continue to be on potential impacts to
                                                                        the public drinking water supply.

 P. 65, WM-C1, l. 2: insert , after ―reduce,‖ ―the use and              RE Pg. 65 WM-C1: The Cape Cod Cooperative Extension has had

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 120
 production of hazardous materials and wastes, in part by finding         and the Commission's Hazardous Waste Specialist believes it should
 and promoting the use of nonhazardous substitutes. For example,          continue to have a primary role in research on and promotion of the
 builders need to learn about other plastics far more benign than         use of materials and techniques that do not generate Hazardous
 PVC but less well known than this ubiquitous substance. Though           Waste.
 relatively harmless in the form used for pipes and floor covering,
 for example, its production exposes workers to serious poisoning,
 and it is difficult to dispose of responsibly: hard to recycle, when
 incinerated it gives off deadly dioxins, also doing so more slowly
 when landfilled. Until its many users can find acceptable
 substitutes, it will be difficult to ban its production entirely,
 which many environmentalists advocate. Meanwhile, it would be
 good to ban its use by changing building codes, perhaps phasing
 it out gradually over a few years. Firefighters, who are exposed
 to its deadly fumes when extinguishing fires in buildings
 incorporating PVC, polyurethane and other organic polymers that
 give off poisonous gases when burning, may be a source of
 community support for such controls. It is well known that about
 half of the fatalities at fires are caused by such vapors and gases
 as hydrogen chloride (PVC), hydrogen cyanide (polyurethane,
 polystyrene, etc.), and carbon monoxide, all produced by
 synthetic materials introduced into buildings during the past
 several decades.

 P. 66, WM2, box, line 2, after ―recycling, composting, and other         RE P. 66, WM2, box, line2: Commission staff is not opposed to the
 productive use of waste as feedstocks, and to divert at least . . .‖     inclusion of the suggested language on use of feedstocks in the text
 Sixty percent is not a very high goal, considering the fact that it      on page 66, WM2, box, line 2, but notes that as a segment or kind of
 was attained by Worcester several years ago.                             recycling, diversion is relatively difficult to separately measure.

                                                                          The 2002 (revised) Regional Policy Plan included reaching a 40%
                                                                          recycling goal by 2005 and a 60% recycling goal by 2010.
                                                                          According to the text in the first paragraph on page 66, in 2006
                                                                          residential recycling rates varied among the Cape Towns from 15 to
                                                                          50%, with the average being 30%. Also, recycling rates are likely to
                                                                          be higher in Worcester due to higher population densities.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 121
 The three bulleted points should be supplemented by a fourth:              RE The three bulleted points: Commission staff supports
 ―in-vessel composting of all organic wastes, as demonstrated on            strengthening the concept of increased composting in the 2008
 Nantucket.‖                                                                Regional Policy Plan, which could be included in the first bullet on
                                                                            page 66. However, in-vessel is one of several successful composting
                                                                            technologies, and because of this, staff believes it may be unwise to
                                                                            specify a particular technology.

 Next paragraph, add a sentence: ―Special efforts should be made            Re Next paragraph, add a sentence: Commission staff supports this
 to foster increased recycling by businesses of all types, and to           inclusion.
 educate all waste generators about the fact that many more kinds
 of materials are currently recyclable than was usual a few years
 ago.‖ (I am speaking as the chair of the Truro Recycling
 Committee for over 15 years.) Notice that in this par., the goal           RE Notice that in this par.: The correction will be made.
 specified is 20% less than in the box above; correct it: ―. . . rate of
 60% by 2012.‖

 Incineration (even when it generates electricity with advanced             RE Incineration (even when…): Commission Action WM2-C2 on
 pollution control) generates poisonous gases and vapors, and               page 67 states in part "The Commission will also research long-term
 since its solid residue, still as large as 20% of the original weight,     alternatives to SEMASS waste incineration services for solid waste
 must be safely disposed of as hazardous waste, is not a viable,            disposal."
 long-term solution to the problem of disposing of non-recyclable,
 non-compostable waste. That should be recognized here and the
 Commission should undertake the task of looking for more
 sustainable alternatives. One is political action in support of
 producer-take-back laws to encourage the production of goods
 that are made to be recycled and not to contain hazardous
 materials. Another is encouraging the reduction of present
 practices of over-packaging many kinds of goods.

 P. 67, WM-C2, l. 3, add at the end, ―especially new techniques of          RE Pg. 67, WM-C2: Commission staff notes this comment.
 producing gaseous and/or liquid fuels from organic wastes.‖

 WM2-T2, line 2, insert before ―recycling‖: ―reduction of waste,            RE WM2-T2: The way the terms are arranged in this Town Action is

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                         DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 122
 reuse (as by means of a Swap Shop),‖ and after ―composting,‖              to reiterate the generally accepted solid waste management
 insert: ―with minimal use of incineration. . .‖                           hierarchy.

 Energy (E) In l. 3, after second sentence, insert:                        RE Energy (E) In 1.3: Staff does not recommend including a
 ―Simultaneously, during the next five years the world will have           discussion of "peak oil" in the RPP. The RPP does acknowledge the
 reached the ‗Hubbert‘s Peak‘ at which new finds of inexpensive            problems associated with continued reliance on fossil fuels. Staff
 and easily accessible oil are exceeded by demand, resulting in a          recommends a discussion of climate change as a more appropriate
 permanent rise in the price of all petroleum products.‖ At end of         place to focus our efforts.
 l. 4, insert ―urgently needed‖ or ―vitally necessary.‖

 P. 68, line 2 of par. 1: substitute ―stabilize‖ for ―lower.‖ The          RE P. 68, line 2: Staff recommends adopting this language change.
 Commission should not put itself in the position of seeming to
 promise what cannot be delivered. [For a good statement of the
 reasons with many useful details, see the series, ―This Time it‘s
 Different‖ in the Washington Post beginning 7/27/08.]

       Last par., end of l. 3, insert to make the end ―public transit.‖    RE Last par.: Unclear which text this comment is in reference to.

 P. 69, E1-C2, add at end: ―The Commission will actively                   RE Pg. 69: Now that the Green Communities Act has been officially
 publicize state laws mandating life-cycle cost analyses, which            passed, we will include a Commission action (E1-C3) that responds
 facilitate the adoption of energy-conserving building practices           in part to this comment. (See other responses to comments on life
 and on-site production of renewable energy that save money in             cycle cost analysis law.)
 the long run though they raise initial costs. It will urge their
 official adoption by towns.‖

 P. 70, E1-T1, first line needs strengthening: change ―consider            RE P. 70: Staff recommends avoiding language that suggests we're
 adopting‖ to ―adopt.‖ Line 2: replace ―such as‖ with ―, having            mandating what the towns should do, however, the last line, "Towns
 energy audits of all town buildings, purchasing 100% Green                should actively encourage businesses..." is a good suggestion and
 (renewably-generated) electricity for them,‖. Line 3, insert after        would be a nice inclusion.
 ―participate in‖: ―the Cape and Islands Renewable Energy
 Collaborative and‖. Line 6, add: ―Towns should actively
 encourage businesses, institutions, and homeowners to follow
 similar practices, such as they have modeled.‖



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 123
 E1-T2, l.2, replace ―address‖ by ―lower.‖ At end of par., add:             Re E1-T2: Towns do not control excise taxes.
 ―Towns should consider variable excise taxes for automobiles
 and other vehicles, geared to demonstrated levels of gasoline or
 diesel efficiency.‖

 Add E1-T4: ―Adopt Energy-Saving Standards for All New                      RE Add E1-T4: These issues are covered in the regulatory section.
 Construction. Each new construction should begin with a
 consultation with the Cape Light Compact or National Grid on
 measures for conserving energy. Local building codes must be
 revised in compliance with the Green Communities Act, and
 towns are encouraged to adopt further measures such as those of
 the latest standards of EPA (Energy Star), and the US Green
 Building Council (LEED).

 Add E1-T3, Encouraging Distributed Generation of Renewable                 RE Add E1-T3: This is covered in the regulatory section for DRIs.
 Energy. The towns should adopt bylaws and regulations clearing
 the way for both municipally and privately owned wind turbines,
 photovoltaic panels, cogeneration of heat and electricity,
 geothermal heating and air conditioning, and other types of
 renewable energy that become available. Passive solar buildings
 should be actively promoted, also, e.g., by means of tax
 advantages. Towns are encouraged to mandate that at least 10%
 of the energy of all new construction be supplied from clean,
 renewable, on-site sources.

 P. 74, AH. I hesitate to try to write specifics here, an area I know       RE P. 74: Staff will include a reference to energy-efficiency in the
 less about, but I suggest that attention should be given, from the         introduction to the planning section; however, staff believes that the
 beginning of the section on Affordable Housing, to energy                  specific recommendations are better addressed in the energy section.
 efficiency. There should be specific reference to the legally              Staff also notes that a new MPS (AH 1.11) requires that new
 mandated life-cycle cost analysis of energy-conserving building            construction achieve a minimum Energy Star rating.
 standards, including use of ―green mortgages.‖ in competition
 with other features that increase initial cost, such as ―visitability,‖
 priority should be given to features to achieve energy neutrality.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                         DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 124
 P. 76, HPCC1-C1. ―Cultural landscape‖ needs definition. I               RE P. 76: Staff suggests adding a definition for Cultural Landscape
 would assume that Truro‘s ‗Hopper landscape‘ would qualify, but         to the RPP and that it be the National Park Service‘s definition of the
 there is no way to tell.                                                term. ―Cultural Landscape – A geographic area (including both
                                                                         cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals
                                                                         therein), associated with an historic event, activity or person or
                                                                         exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. There are four general
                                                                         types of cultural landscapes, not mutually exclusive: historic sites,
                                                                         historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and
                                                                         ethnographic landscapes.‖

 Pp. 78-80, Actions: Somewhere here there should be a statement          RE Pp. 78-80: Staff believes that energy technology can be
 to the effect that none of the measures to preserve historic            accommodated on historic structures. As with other development
 character shall be construed to prohibit the use of the inherently      proposals, they must be designed to avoid irreversible impacts to the
 visible applications of renewable energy technology such as solar       character-defining features of an historic resource, but that provides a
 panels and wind turbines. They should be so sited, however, as to       great deal of latitude to accommodate new energy technology.
 minimize their negative implications for cultural and historical
 values.

 P. 82, par. 1: Surely Energy Committees and Recycling                   RE P. 82: Staff recommends they should be included.
 Committees belong in this list.

 Pp. 86-87: On first reading, I did not fully grasp the fact that all
 of what follows is limited to DRIs, partly because I did not realize
 that the regulative jurisdiction of the Commission is in fact
 limited to them. My apologies for this failure, which makes some
 of the changes I hoped to promote infeasible.

 pp. 88-89. The par. spanning these pages suffers from excess use
 of passive voice. It is necessary to specify who desires what
 growth and who has conflicting desires or imperatives. Thus, in
 l. 2 of p. 89, it is not at all clear whose desires are at stake. Do
 you mean to refer to a development proposed by a private party—
 or, indeed, a town—involving growth that violates the
 Commission‘s values and standards? If so, it is confusing to call

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 125
 that simply ―not desired.‖ It seems pretty clear that you are
 dealing with a conflict of desires here, which needs to be
 specified.

 In this context (DRI Thresholds), please consider adding a new
 criterion for a DRI: exceeding a certain carbon cost. Suppose an
 affluent person proposes building a large palatial residence to be
 made of Italian marble and hardwoods from tropical rainforests.
 Though it may not cross any other lines triggering a DRI, the
 embedded energy from carbon that is involved in quarrying,
 cutting, transporting, and construction using these and other
 exotic materials should not be allowed without limit. Surely
 many a private development of this kind does impose an
 intolerable burden on the community, not just the local town, not
 just the Cape, but the world as a whole. We have reached a point
 where someone has to take a stand by setting a generous limit on
 the amount any one person, no matter how wealthy or powerful,
 may contribute to the worsening of the climate change crisis.
 Here is an opportunity for the Commission to take real leadership.
 At the least, the Commission should urge the State to add such a
 criterion for review under the Massachusetts Environmental
 Policy Act.

 P. 90, Hardship Exemptions, l. 6, substitute ―undermine‖ for
 ―derogate from.‖ Next par., line 2, insert ―it‖ after ―that.‖

 P. 92, DRI Mitigation, l. 3: at the end of the first sentence, insert
 ―(a process here called mitigation).‖ It should be clear that what
 is being mitigated is not the DRI but the negative aspects of
 development addressed by the DRI; therefore, the heading might
 better be changed to ―Mitigation by Means of DRI.‖

 Next to last par., concerning ―cash contributions.‖ This whole
 policy change seems inadvisable to the point of outrageousness.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 126
 It seems to say to the wealthy, Don‘t worry about meeting
 standards that seem onerous to you; you can simply buy your way
 out of it. That is the present situation in many towns, which is
 intolerable to anyone who cares about democratic values: If a
 person is rich enough, he can violate town bylaws and regulations
 concerning the development of his property by making it clear
 that he will appeal judgments against him at all possible levels,
 subjecting the town to costs its citizens are unwilling to bear. In
 one Truro case, a landowner was allowed by the state to destroy a
 large amount of a protected plant by making cash contributions to
 research on the preservation of that plant, though there exists no
 means by which to demonstrate that the value of the research
 truly compensates for the loss of living individuals and scarce
 habitat. Taking some action in place of refraining from the
 development at issue should be allowed only when the substitute
 action can be and is demonstrated to improve the status of the
 values threatened by that development. In the Truro case just
 mentioned, it should not have been adequate ―mitigation‖ if the
 property owner had bought uncontested property and had
 constructed ‗permanently affordable housing‘ on it: there is no
 common currency of disparate social values with which a
 reckoning might be made.

 P. 95, LU1.1. Do you mean that ―the category of desired land              RE P. 95: The Commission recommends the editorial change as
 use‖ and its characteristics, both ―as identified on the . . . map‖?      described; yes, the intent is that a proposed project, such as a retail
 If so, transpose ―both‖ to follow ―category‖ preceded by a                store, should be located in an area designated for commercial use,
 comma; if not, ―both‖ is redundant and should be deleted. Even            such as an Economic Center.
 so, I find it hard to follow the intent of the requirement. Perhaps it
 means, for example, that if the proposed development is to be a
 retail store, it should be located in an area designated for
 commercial use only. Clarify, if possible.

 P. 99, ED2.2. I presume that ―to further amass‖ means ―to                 RE P.99: The suggested change will be made.
 concentrate,‖ which is clearer and plainer.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 127
 ED2.3: I don‘t understand what mitigation of what negative              RE ED2.3: Projects that result in less money circulating in the
 value is intended here.                                                 regional economy and fewer quality jobs could mitigate these
                                                                         impacts; the form of mitigation will be covered in the revised
                                                                         economic development Technical Bulletin.

 ED2.5 should not be used to hinder the development of                   RE ED2.5: The ED2.5 is written to promote, not hinder, the
 innovative enterprises that accomplish the same goals as the            development of innovative enterprises.
 ―emerging industry clusters‖ better or with additional social
 value. I would hate to see an entrenched ethanol industry use this
 criterion to prevent the growth of an industry that used the same
 biomass to produce a better fuel with a smaller carbon cost.

 P. 100, ED3.2. Here is a direct conflict with the ideal of a steady-    RE P. 100: The term monetary will be removed from ED 3.2.
 state economy, which should be the eventual goal. If it were
 made a Local Economic Impact standard with no reference to
 income growth, it would allow developments that contribute to
 the common weal in other ways (notably, by becoming more
 sustainable in various ways, especially by more energy-
 efficiency) while retaining local investment, profits, and earning.
 That would contribute more total social value than increasing
 monetary intake.

 In general, it seems to me that the effectiveness of most standards     RE In general: This approach offers flexibility to the applicant. Thus,
 is undermined by the 3-out-of-5-best-practices exemption.               no changes will be made to this section.

 P. 101, Minimum Performance Standards should be
 supplemented by requiring that no proposed development add to
 the necessity to import more fossil-fuel based energy beyond
 existing capacity. Note that it is not the same as the existing,
 excellent Best Practice ED4.5.

 P. 102. Natural Systems. As noted above, the omission of
 Atmospheric Resources is glaring! One might argue that the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 128
 present climate crisis stems from a general tendency to over them,
 or to take our atmospheric resources for granted as of course
 always there. Instead, a proper appraisal of how threatened they
 are by the intrusion of excess greenhouse gases leads to giving
 them special emphasis. Today, we realize how much influence
 on them our everyday decisions and actions have, and many of us
 are beginning to realize the need for a profound change in
 ‗business as usual,‘ which is leading to unprecedented disaster.
 The assumed time perspective of this document is the next five
 years (2009-2013); by the closing date, if more radical steps are
 not taken than is contemplated in this RPP, we may well have
 passed a tipping-point of no return, when positive feedback
 systems in the earth will have passed a stage where global
 warming will proceed out of human control to an era of mass
 extinctions and almost unimaginable environmental changes. To
 be sure, we might just be lucky in that major actions on the
 national and international scale might save us, but a policy of
 passive hoping is hardly consistent with the Commission‘s
 mandate or its history.

 WR1.1. As argued above, it is extremely short-sighted to try to       RE WR1.1: Atmospheric nitrogen sources (from the burning of fossil
 set standards for nitrogen loading of water supplies while            fuels) are addressed in the Energy section of the RPP. Planning and
 neglecting atmospheric deposition of NOx and their derivatives.       regulatory sections WR7 address nitrogen incorporated into
                                                                       stormwater runoff, some of which consists of atmospheric nitrogen.
                                                                       The Commission has been an active participant in the Massachusetts
                                                                       Estuaries Project, a State-sponsored program that establishes
                                                                       nitrogen limits or TMDLs for nitrogen-sensitive waters. TMDLs, the
                                                                       basis for comprehensive watershed planning on Cape Cod, recognize
                                                                       atmospheric nitrogen loads.

 I shall not repeat above-stated data and arguments about proactive
 measures to phase out the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides,
 and herbicides (in home lawns, and perhaps eventually in golf
 courses and lawns around public buildings) and of flush toilets.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                       Page 129
 If the staff will realistically assess what can be accomplished in
 these ways, it will lead to new Best Practices at the least.

 I shall, however, forward several technical resources on the issue
 of water contamination by human waste and how it can be
 prevented, as well as on the positive aspects of nutrient recycling
 to minimize the need for chemical fertilizers.

 (on re-engineering the toilet for sustainable wastewater
 management):
 http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-
 a/35/special/larsen/09larsen.html

 (re onsite denitrification of water)
 http://www.erosioncontrol.com/ow_0509_golden.html

 (on Swedish experience with urine separation):
 http://www.iees.ch/EcoEng011/EcoEng011_F1.html

 (description of a sewerless Austrian city):
 http://www.iees.ch/EcoEng061/EcoEng061_Schoenborn.html

 (link to Ecocyclet, a decentralized, self-contained biological
 system for sewage disposal):
 http://www.ecological-engineering.com/ecocyclet.html

 (link to a German firm that makes urine-separating toilets):
 http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-ecosan-tds-01-b1-urine-
 diversion-toilets-2005.pdf

 Rep. Matt Patrick also recommends, as the local authority on
 these matters: David Del Porto
 I suggest that the staff have a consultation with Rep. Patrick
 himself.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 130
 P. 104, WR2: Some of the above sources point out the recent            RE P. 104 WR2: Section WR2-C2 states that the Cape Cod
 emergence of new threats to groundwater from pharmaceuticals           Commission will continue to work with the Massachusetts
 and human hormones, largely mediated by human waste but also           Department of Environmental Protection, the Cape Cod Cooperative
 by disposal of excess medications in improper ways, such as            Extension, and the Barnstable County Department of Health and
 putting them into flush toilets.                                       Environment to help towns deal effectively with hazardous waste
                                                                        sites, reduce hazardous materials, and educate the public about other
                                                                        potential water quality impacts to drinking water and surface waters,
                                                                        such as contamination from personal care and pharmaceutical
                                                                        products.

 P. 109, WR6: In addition to the above web resources, another           RE P. 109 WR6: Duly noted.
 useful source on advanced biological treatment of sewage and
 septage: A safe and sustainable world; The promise of ecological
 design, by Nancy J. Todd. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005.

 P. 111, WR7.6, it is not obvious why permeable paving is not           RE P. 111 WR7.6: MPS WR7.6 states that roadway and parking
 required for all new construction of driveways and parking areas,      design shall limit impervious surfaces. Parking lots shall be designed
 municipal, commercial, and private. ―Grass pavers‖ appears to be       for the minimum required by the town in accordance with MPS
 a term of art that might well be defined (though I found it readily    TR2.9. Overflow peak parking design shall be constructed from
 enough via Google).                                                    pervious materials such as porous pavement, permeable pavers, or
                                                                        biomaterial such as grass pavers. If overflow parking is located
                                                                        within a Wellhead Protection Area; grass pavers are preferred over
                                                                        other materials. Bioretention shall be incorporated into parking
                                                                        islands and roadway perimeters. Permeable paving shall be
                                                                        encouraged where appropriate.
                                                                        Pervious pavement may not be appropriate for high-intensity uses
                                                                        where the potential for impacts to drinking water is unacceptable.

 P. 115, CR2.5 New Development, l. 3. Does ―storm flowage‖              RE P. 115 CR2.5: Land subject to coastal storm flowage is a defined
 mean the same as the more usual, ‗storm surge‘? According to           term and is not the same as storm surge.
 my new Shorter OED, flowage means ―the act of flowing,
 flooded state‖ but apparently it is frequently used as such and
 abbreviated (where?). More in-house jargon.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 131
 P. 116, CR2.6 Again, it would help future users if you would             RE P. 116 CR2.6: These are included in the definitions section.
 define terms like ―coastal bank,‖ and ―A- and V-Zones.‖

 P. 131, TR1.8 is a good example of a seemingly intelligible              RE P. 131, TR1.8: Sight distance can be added to the definitions.
 paragraph that conveys no clear information, because ―sight              Sight distance generally refers to the greatest distance that a motorist
 distance‖ is undefined.                                                  can see a potential hazard before topography or vegetation blocks a
                                                                          direct line of sight.

 ―Safety mitigation‖ is another howler. Ask an ordinary,                  RE ―Safety mitigation‖: Commission staff can rewrite TR1.9 to
 unsuspecting person what it means. Actually, I don‘t think               include "transportation mitigation to address or offset safety
 what‘s intended is even ―making it less onerous or painful to            concerns."
 become safe.‖

 P. 132, TR2. It seems that the only efforts to reduce trips will be      RE P. 132, TR2: The Cape Cod Commission continues to support
 confined to the expected increase from DRIs, when there is a             and encourage the reduction in use of single occupancy automobiles
 great need to persuade all Cape drives to take fewer and shorter         and the provision of facilities and services to pedestrians, bicyclists,
 trips in automobiles, especially when only one person is in the          and public transit users.
 car. This section needs to be rethought and then a supplement
 should be written to help all interested persons use our                 The Cape Cod Commission participates in the planning of
 imagination to find ways to reduce the number of trips generally,        alternatives modes of transportation (sidewalks, bike paths,
 but especially those using fuel-inefficient vehicles for single          carpooling, transit and rail service) through the Cape Cod Joint
 purposes of one person.                                                  Transportation Committee (JTC) and the Cape Cod Metropolitan
                                                                          Organization (MPO).


 P. 143, WM2.2. Here, the phrase ―construction demolition‖ as             RE P. 143, WM2.2: Staff recommends that the language in
 the subject of the sentence seems to be an awkward synonym for           Minimum Performance Standards WM2.1 and WM2.2 on page 143,
 ―waste.‖ Left unspoken, however, is the critical point: how much         should be standardized, particularly with respect to use of defined
 waste? It is unlikely that any ―proposed development or                  terms and acronyms such as C&D.
 redevelopment‖ will not generate some waste, whether from
 construction or demolition. Must all proposals for any such              Under the new Limited DRI review process (proposed changes to
 change trigger the submission of a plan to the Commission? Or is         Enabling Regulations), only commercial projects larger than 25,000
 it specified elsewhere that the simple words ―proposed                   square feet would be subject to the solid waste Minimum

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 132
 development or redevelopment‖ here mean to apply only to                Performance Standards.
 projects of a threshold size? In any event, if the Commission is
 involved one would assume that some waste will be generated, so
 this first sentence might well simply say: ―The construction plan
 for any proposed development or redevelopment (as here defined)
 shall specify:‖ Then, in the first bullet item, replace ―materials‖
 by ―wastes.‖

 Wholly omitted in this section is the important topic of
 conducting demolition in such a manner as to maximize the
 future usefulness of salvageable components of a structure, e.g.,
 windows, doors, flooring. At one extreme, it might be quickest
 and easiest to demolish a building by blowing it up, but that
 would ruin its constituent parts for any recycling/reuse. Modern
 techniques of reconstruction make it possible to keep much larger
 proportions of buildings from becoming ―C&D.‖

 P. 144, WM2.4 The present title needs specification: Organic            RE P. 144, WM2.4: Commission staff supports changing the section
 Wastes.                                                                 title to Organic Wastes or Food/Organic Waste Recycling.

 P. 145, E1.5. This section takes no note of an emerging                 RE P. 145, E1.5: The MPS doesn't mention thermoacoustics
 technology, which may be commercially available during the next         specifically, but it doesn't exclude the use of emerging technologies,
 5 years: thermoacoustics. Ben & Jerry‘s ice cream stores have           either.
 been using a successful prototype for a couple of years, and a new
 web site (www.coolsound.us) claims to have a patent for a
 working system for which they are seeking venture capital to
 bring it to commercial form. This approach uses no Freon or
 substitute working fluid, no compressor, has few moving parts
 and uses energy with high efficiency. When available, it should
 be preferable to any other technique for refrigeration and air
 conditioning (and perhaps heating).

 P. 146, E1.13 Is this a mistake, or is biodiesel actually used in
 solar hot water systems? Perhaps the last four words should be          RE P. 146, E1.13: This Best Development Practice has been

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 133
 replaced by ―in diesel engines such as in vehicles and machinery      removed.
 (e.g., front loaders) used on site.‖ The use of solar hot water
 systems should be an additional Best Practice.

 P. 152, AH3.1 Perhaps the referenced Nexus Study tells where          RE P. 152: Whenever there is a mitigation schedule in the RPP, the
 the money is coming from, but it would help many readers to put       applicant is responsible for paying it.
 in a note giving the source.

 P. 154, HPCC1.2. The term ―cultural landscape‖ needs                  P. 154: Staff suggests adding a definition for Cultural Landscape to
 definition; it does not appear in the Appendix.                       the RPP and that it be the National Park Service‘s definition of the
                                                                       term. ―Cultural Landscape – A geographic area (including both
                                                                       cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals
                                                                       therein), associated with an historic event, activity or person or
                                                                       exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. There are four general
                                                                       types of cultural landscapes, not mutually exclusive: historic sites,
                                                                       historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and
                                                                       ethnographic landscapes.‖




 STUART BORNSTEIN
 July 31, 2008

 Stuart Bornstein called to express his concern about requiring        With proper planning and scheduling with Energy Star inspectors,
 Energy-Star certification; he noted that this requires several        time delays can be avoided. In addition, staff recommends revising
 inspections and that they do not have the manpower to do these        the MPS to require submission of the applicant's "Statement of
 inspections in a timely manner, resulting in delays for occupancy.    Energy Performance", a required component of the Energy Star
 He did say that he does use their guidelines because it saves         Certification application, as a condition of the decision.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 134
 money, but he no longer applies for this certification because the
 financial return doesn't justify the time and delay involved.


 TOWN OF SANDWICH
 July 31, 2008

 Forwarded from Glenn Cannon

 From: Smith, Greg
 Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:22 PM
 To: Glenn Cannon
 Subject: FW: RPP Revisions

 Hi Glenn- I asked Paul Tilton to take a quick look at the draft
 2008 RPP and here are his thoughts. You can get back to either
 he or me with your response. Cheers, Greg

 From: Tilton, Paul
 Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:04 PM
 To: Smith, Greg
 Subject: RPP Revisions

 Greg,
 Some thoughts on the revised RPP. The transpo section seems to
 be fairly consistent w/ past Minimum Performance Standards w/
 an emphasis on encouraging dev'l in Growth Centers (which is
 good).

 My comments:

 General - I support the relaxed standards in Growth Centers,
 particularly related to redevelopment sites. The first thing a
 developer should consider when looking at potential sites is

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 135
 where can they redevelop because it's less costly and
 cumbersome to go thru the permitting process. The more
 incentives to redevelopment the better!

 General - Rather than escrowing mitigation funds (eg, trip
 reduction, mitigation fee, fair share) from DRI's to be accessed by
 towns in the future, I'd prefer to have developers implement
 and/or construct actual improvements as mutually agreed upon by
 the CCC, developer and towns. The towns do not have the time,
 staff or resources that the developers have to follow thru on
 procurement/implementation/construction/etc of required
 improvements. The developers created the impacts so they
 should be responsible to complete the improvements at no
 expense to the towns. I recommend a provision to allow either
 the escrow or completion of the improvements by the developer.

 TR1.3 - I recommend using crash rates instead of the "3 crashes        RE TR1.3: Cape Cod Commission transportation staff has
 per year" to determine the study area for safety locations. 3          considered this option in the past. To address concerns of citizens,
 crashes per year at an intersection w/ 1,000 vehicles per hour is      many unsignalized intersections with three (3) or more crashes per
 much different than 3 per year at an intersection w/ 100 vph. The      year have been identified as hazardous locations; therefore
 former may be below avg for a busy intersection whereas the            Commission staff considers this criteria as an appropriate screening
 latter may have some safety issues.                                    tool to maintain consistency during a review of both public sector
                                                                        and private development projects. It has been our experience that
                                                                        public money is spent on numerous intersections experiencing three
                                                                        (3) or more crashes per year to address the safety concerns.


 TR2 - I'd prefer to see more of an emphasis on bicycle                 RE TR2: Commission staff continuously works with towns to
 paths/sidewalks for trip reduction. These measures are "concrete"      increase bicycle paths and/or sidewalks as a viable means of
 improvements (compared to the other fluff) that have an                reducing automobile trips.
 immediate impact on traffic, encourage the Growth Center
 concept and are generally welcomed by the community. I have a
 backlog of paths/sidewalks and could certainly use the mitigation
 funds to knock some of these off.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 136
 TR3.2 & 15 - I like the inclusion of the "Operation and               RE TR3.2 & 15: At the request of Town Engineers and DPW
 Maintenance Costs" for DRI mitigation, a long ignored cost to the     Directors, Commission staff has identified the need to include the
 towns.                                                                costs of operating and maintaining traffic signals.


 Thanks - Paul


 SUSAN ROHRBACH
 August 1, 2008 12:31 PM

 Sharon--Thought you might be interested in this after the
 discussion about green paving options at the workshop last
 week—Sue

 This is from the State House News--

 LOGAN HAS "GREEN" RUNWAY PAVING PLAN
 A Logan Airport runway will be the first in the United States to
 get a treatment of ―green asphalt,‖ according to port authority
 managers. The Massport Board of Directors on Thursday
 approved $6.3 million to repave a portion of Runway 22L using
 warm mix asphalt – a bituminous blend more than 75 degrees
 cooler than traditional hot mix asphalt, which must be heated to
 over 300 degrees. ―Warm mix uses 20 percent less energy to
 make, produces 20 percent fewer greenhouse emissions when
 applied, and allows us to use a higher percentage of recycled
 asphalt pavement in the final product,‖ said Massport CEO
 Thomas J. Kinton Jr. The runway, a 10,000-foot landing strip that
 runs northeast-to-southwest, will be repaved during September
 and October. Boston-based McCourt Construction is the lead
 contractor on the project, which will be funded with tax-exempt
 bonds.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 137
 Susan H. Rohrbach, District Aide
 Senator Robert A. O'Leary, Cape and Islands District


 LIZ ARGO
 August 3, 2008

 We in the renewable energy design/installation business will find
 it hard to take the time to respond to the Commission‘s RPP due
 to the many requests we have on a daily basis to help individuals
 ―green up‖ our way of life here on the Cape and Islands. However
 it is imperative that we carve out the time. The Commission must
 begin to shoulder its responsibility in creating the environment
 and, indeed, the framework by which towns, too, are not only
 encouraged, but led to conserve resources and include renewable
 energy in construction, renovation efforts. Most importantly, the      RE Most importantly: MPS E1.6 responds to this.
 Commission needs to create the mandate that our climate crisis,
 eroding shoreline and deteriorating fresh water reserves must play
 a part in towns‘ Comprehensive Plans which play the critical role
 in determining capital budget planning.

 I have had the pleasure of bringing forward the Green Energy
 Towns program (GET) since 2007. In May of 2007 we scored a
 victory when Yarmouth voted overwhelmingly to put
 photovoltaics on the Town Hall in concert with their conservation
 efforts in that building. We expanded their town hall installation
 earlier this year. Yarmouth is now looking to put an additional
 installation on their Chamber of Commerce and have done a
 study towards including solar thermal on their three fire stations.
 Meanwhile in their conservation efforts, Yarmouth continues to
 replace windows, install movement triggered lighting, look to
 replace old inefficient heating plants, etc.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                             Page 138
 Contrary to the educated and enthusiastic greening efforts we
 have experienced in Yarmouth, in other towns we‘ve experienced
 extreme enthusiasm on the part of the townspeople undermined
 by severe prejudice and misinformation coming from town
 leaders. It is appalling that the degree of misunderstanding of
 renewable energies exists at this level.

 It is equally appalling that no effort to attend to projections
 beyond immediate construction costs is undertaken as the various
 towns go forward in addressing the costs of the many new
 municipal construction projects going forward across Cape Cod.
 The obvious advantage of investing in renewable energy and
 added energy conservation methods at the construction stage
 which will avoid spiraling fossil fuel costs in the future is not
 examined. Immediate construction costs are the only
 consideration. Volunteer building committees are hard pressed to
 get building costs approved by voters. The inclusion of added
 expenses for renewable energy and conservation is not pursued
 and thus not presented to the voters.

 When it is requested, as was the case in the firehouse under
 construction in Wellfleet, the architects are unsure of how to
 provide this data. This inability on the parts of engineering and
 architectural firms flies in the face of Mass General Law 149
 requiring long term cost benefit analysis be provided by the firms
 involved in public procurement building activities. The Cape Cod
 Commission is in a unique position to end the lack of will to
 adhere to M.G. Law 149.

 The Cape Cod Commission must bring forward the vision of
 Cape Cod as a center for ecotourism and an example of ―how it‘s
 done‖. Although the Commission has resisted the efforts to bring
 one of America‘s first wind farms to reality off the shores of
 Cape Cod, the wind farm‘s eventual construction is probable. As

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 139
 an ecotourist to Denmark, I have witnessed the market that eco-
 destinations create.

 The Cape Cod Commission can provide much of the leadership to
 bring Cape Cod safely through the next difficult decades. It can
 create an RPP with vision or it can be the voice of the current
 volunteer town government officials who remain misinformed,
 uneducated and afraid of change. The towns‘ Comprehensive
 Plans must be revised to confront the present dangers of climate
 change, coastline erosion and water degradation under the Cape
 Cod Commission‘s direction. Not another capital budget should
 be voted on without addressing these very real challenges. The
 Commission can provide a way out. Or it can bend to the will of           Staff proposes within the next year, as part of the implementation of
 Cape Cod‘s powerful business people who historically have                 the 2008 RPP (Commission Action E1-C1 Regional Collaboration
 lacked the financial will to put a little aside now in order to offset    on Green Building Standards, pg69), to prepare a presentation "The
 disaster tomorrow.                                                        Costs and Benefits of Renewable Energy Installation" to present to
                                                                           towns as an educational tool.
 Liz Argo, Massachusetts Regional Manager
 SolarWrights, Inc., Earth Friendly Energy Group


 RUSSELL SCHELL
 August 3, 2008

 Regional Land Use Vision Map: Expand CCC identification of                Most of these sites are located within proposed Resource Protection
 basic Resource Protection Areas to include the 26 priority salt           Areas (RPA).
 marshes and the headwater ponds and stream segments associated
 with the 24 priority fish passage obstruction remediation projects       Generally most of the Cape‘s salt marshes are included in the SLOSH
 recommended by the NRCS Cape Cod Water Resources                         data layer – this layer is one recommended factor used to designate
 Restoration Project (CCWRRP). The CCWRRP performed a                     RPA. Staff believes the 26 sites mentioned are likely within RPA
 screening and ranking evaluation of 182 tidally restricted salt
 marshes and 93 fish passage obstructions to recommend the 26
 priority salt marsh restoration projects and 24 priority fish
 passage obstruction remediation projects. The CCC letter of

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 140
 review and comment on the CCWRRP proposal, dated September
 8, 2006, heartily endorsed the proposed projects for their
 importance in preservation and restoration of environmental
 resource values. Russell Schell, 32 Anne Way, Brewster, MA.


 BROOKE WILLIAMS
 August 4, 2008

 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft of the
 Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan.

 I have the following comments reemphasizing and adding to the
 points I made during the June public meeting:

 In considering the draft of the regional policy plan it may be
 possible to consider the Cape from an aerial perspective from
 above, however the experience of considering the towns as does
 Mr. Thoreau in his book Cape Cod may be useful. Thoreau's
 alternate title Human Culture suggests another consideration of
 the challenges facing the Cape. While the plan attempts to
 separate planning into three different areas, in Mr. Thoreau's
 book and on the Cape an important consideration is the
 interrelationship of the three. Repeatedly economy is contrasted        RE Repeatedly economy: This statement is the basic assumption
 with the environment, in fact the environment is the economy on         behind the entire economic development section. Where this is not
 the Cape.                                                               clear, staff will attempt to revise the language so that it is.

        Much as perspectives can be contrasted, the categories used      RE Much as perspectives: Economic Centers are the areas intended
 in the draft may be compared with programs such as Smart                to be designated for larger-scale planned growth. In earlier stages of
 Growth areas in the state of New Jersey. There, smart growth            the mapping process, there was a distinction between regional and
 plans are produced at the hamlet (a group of civic buildings            local economic centers; these have been combined in the current
 within a village), village, growth areas, town, regional, and city      draft plan. The Cape Cod National Seashore has been proposed to be
 levels. Missing from the draft are planned growth or regional           designated as a Resource Protection Area. The simplified categories
 areas which would be influenced more by large scale elements            include RPA and three types of growth areas.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 141
 from the landscape versus seen as oversized villages. There are
 many such examples of this on the Cape such as the Chatham
 Bars Inn, and the National Seashore which relate larger than
 village elements to natural elements. In the case of Harwich, a
 village or a campus were the two options considered and in the
 vision map instead of relating to Hawknest's State Park and the
 vision of the legislature.

         Beyond the above, if the vision map "is the basis for all       RE Beyond the above: The Regional Land Use Vision map has been
 regional planning and regulation" additional work is needed.            prepared using five general categories of land use. The Planning
 Simply looking at Harwich, North Harwich is not recognized              Board is still discussing the mapping process in Harwich.
 rather there is an industrial area and other. Other appears to be a
 rather problematic vision. Pleasant Lake similarly does not
 receive consideration besides an industrial area and
 environmental areas. The key interrelationship between Cape
 Tech, the state controlled parking area at route 6, the industrial
 land, and open space north of route 6 is not considered. If the
 industrial area were to be made into self storage areas would this
 benefit the Cape more than a greater consideration of the
 potential of the above? In Harwich Center, the historic center is
 outlined, yet the growing area of the village including the
 Community Center and other civic functions is part of other.
 West Harwich shows growth west of the Herring River, yet some
 designation which allows for transportation planning to include
 Holy Trinity and other functions to the East. Part of the culture
 of Harwich are the seven villages and the vision should reflect
 this.

       In June, I referenced Ken Greenberg, Places vol. 19, num.         RE In June: The Commission agrees that adding language to the
 2, 2007, Rockcliffe Redevelopment, Ottawa: Plan Iterations.             description of the vision map as a "framework" and "subject to
 While this concerns the redevelopment of a large area and not a         change" are appropriate.
 town or regional plan certain elements may be useful to consider.
 His plan is considered a "framework' living instrument" subject to
 change. "Weaving together found assets (both built and green),

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                       Page 142
 new networks for movement, a synergistic mix of uses, and
 appropriately scaled built form." "Eight distinct neighborhoods
 are defined encouraging a diversity of built form that reflects
 social diversity" In this case creating new areas instead of seeing
 the existing ones as an asset.

       In the area of housing village plans could provide a means        Heritage Preservation response RE In the area of: The current draft
 to consider options, resident housing should be given                   calls for historic buildings to be preserved and new buildings to be
 consideration apart from affordable housing, preservation of            contextual, thus retaining the village form and historical traditions,
 housing stock should be given more priority in town actions, and        but allowing for evolution.
 housing for the homeless should be integrated into affordable
 housing as affordable housing should be integrated into village         Affordable Housing response RE In the area of: In the planning
 planning with other categories of housing.                              section AH3-T2 encourages towns to develop housing action plans
                                                                         with the Commission committed to assist these efforts (AH3-C1).
                                                                         Staff believes that the priority for the use or preservation of existing
                                                                         housing stock should be a local determination made in each town‘s
                                                                         housing plan; however, the regulatory section will include a priority
                                                                         for redevelopment as a Best Development Practice. Again, in the
                                                                         planning section (AH2-T1) the Commission recommends that towns
                                                                         address the issues of homelessness in their local action plans.


       I strongly support section OS2-C1 Recreational Facility           RE I strongly support: Noted. We have added "regional" to the body
 Siting, but preserving existing sites should be added as these are      of the text in OS2-C1.
 necessary amenities in the villages and towns.

       In the area of preservation, consideration of villages should
 again be given more consideration as changing but as part of the
 culture.

 I hope this is helpful information.

 Sincerely, Brooke N. Williams



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 143
 CARL FREEMAN
 August 4, 2008

 I appreciate your efforts to bring the Cape into a greener future.
 In reference to the issue of whether or not to implement a 10%
 requirement of clean energy from on-site sources, I have some
 facts about this issue I've distilled from my 5 years of working on
 renewable energy installations.

 There is a law on the books, Massachusetts General Law 149,              RE There is a law: Gov. Deval Patrick's administration has a task
 Section 44m, that states in brief that all buildings built or            force currently working on developing specific policies designed to
 renovated with public funds require a 'life cycle cost analysis', the    reach the goal of net zero energy use. Their report will be out next
 buildings being built or renovated with public procurement               Spring ('09) and will offer guidance on how best to develop net zero
 monies are subject to estimating the life time costs of heating and      energy policies.
 electrification of said buildings. When we examine the simple            The CCC does not regulate publicly funded municipal projects, and
 math of these fossil fuel costs to taxpayers, as well as several         is therefore unable to enforce or extend MGL 149, Section44m.
 hidden costs in environmental damage and contributing to the
 erosion of America's stated goal of energy independence, not to
 mention the downward pressure fuel free systems have on the
 remaining energy costs, the only logical direction is building net
 zero.

 The requirement of 10% energy drawn from on site sources is a            RE The requirement of 10%: The 10% requirement incentivizes
 green herring in that it requires only a fraction of the needed          more efficient construction practices. Furthermore, it's attractive
 energy from renewable sources, still leaving us with 90% of the          because it is an upfront investment heavily subsidized by both the
 ongoing energy costs AND a system that may never pay for it self         state and federal government, and it lowers long-term energy
 due to scaling it too small, and not to the economy of scale             operating costs for the owner. The planning committee proposed an
 required to achieve payback. The only trend this promotes is that        additional option for meeting MPS E1.6, which is to provide 25% of
 renewables are not sound financial investments, when in reality          electrical demand through on-site renewables, achievement of which
 they are highly viable when the average energy use is satisfied          would waive compliance with other energy standards.
 and ongoing costs are reduced to almost nothing, ergo: building
 towards energy independence. The bills for heating and electric
 use are borne by the public, therefore the public has written laws

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 144
 to begin the lifting of this financial burden, we only ask our
 public servants to enforce the law as written.

 With the refinement of methodologies that combine high
 insulation, ground source heat pump technology, solar thermal
 panels, photovoltaic modules, and passive solar designs
 (displayed in the LEEDS platinum homes pioneered here on Cape
 Cod) we can clearly see that a net zero building is easily
 achievable at a cost of just 10% - 20% above a normal building
 (not including years of electric and heating bills). With rebates,
 the final cost is LESS than a normal building. This leaves only 1
 rational decision: To build EVERYTHING net zero.

 Are we a people that will continue to cling to our fears to the
 detriment of the taxpayers budget, as well as air, water, and soil
 quality? There is a law requiring better building practices,
 governing bodies must acknowledge the developments in
 technology that MGL 149 requires us to examine and then act on
 what we have found to be true. The overwhelming trend of
 better standards that improves our quality of life is almost
 universally endorsed by the people of Cape Cod. Let us hope the
 Cape Cod Commission can do the same.

 For completeness, Massachusetts General Law 149, Section 44m
 is included below.

 PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
 TITLE XXI. LABOR AND INDUSTRIES
 CHAPTER 149. LABOR AND INDUSTRIES
 FAIR COMPETITION FOR BIDDERS ON CONSTRUCTION,
 ETC., OF PUBLIC WORKS

 Chapter 149: Section 44M. Energy systems; life-cycle cost
 estimates

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 145
 Section 44M. As used in this section the following words shall
 have the following meanings:—

 "New Building", an entire building or any addition to an existing
 building that adds at least ten per cent gross floor space to the
 building, where the cost of construction is estimated to exceed
 one hundred thousand dollars.

 "Energy system", any equipment that is employed to heat or cool
 a building, or to heat hot water used in a building, or to generate
 electricity for a building and that uses the sun, wind, water,
 biomass, oil, natural gas, or electricity as its power supply in
 whole or in part.

 "Life cycle cost estimate", the estimated cost of installing,
 financing, fueling, maintaining, and replacing an energy system,
 including the cost of any energy conservation measures to reduce
 the required capacity or fuel consumption of an energy system.

 Every contract for architectural or engineering services necessary
 for the preliminary design of all new buildings or for the
 modification or replacement of an energy system in an existing
 building entered into by a public awarding authority subject to the
 bidding requirements of sections forty-four A to forty-four L
 inclusive, of this chapter shall contain a stipulation that life-cycle
 cost estimates shall be obtained at an initial stage and as a regular
 part of the services to be performed under said contract.

 Prior to the preparation of plans and specifications for the
 purposes of bidding requirements of said sections forty-four A to
 forty-four L inclusive, the awarding authority shall ensure that the
 life-cycle cost estimates have been completed and shall file
 summaries of said cost estimates with the building code

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 146
 commission and the director of the office of consumer affairs and
 business regulation. No construction project shall be advertised
 for bids by any such awarding authority, nor shall any contract
 for construction be awarded by such authority, nor shall any
 building permit be issued until said summaries of cost estimates
 have been filed with the building code commission and with the
 director of the office of consumer affairs and business regulation
 and approved by the director of the office of consumer affairs and
 business regulation.

 Any contractor for architectural services necessary to the
 preliminary design of a new building who fails to obtain life-
 cycle cost estimates in the performance of a contract containing
 language which stipulates such, shall be prohibited by the director
 of the office of consumer affairs and business regulation from
 contracting, directly or indirectly, with the commonwealth or any
 political subdivision thereof for similar architectural services for
 a period of one year from the date of determination of said
 violation.

 The director of the office of consumer affairs and business
 regulation may offer to all public awarding authorities and other
 interested parties assistance and training in the performance of the
 requirements of this section. The director of the office of
 consumer affairs and business regulation shall promulgate rules
 and regulations to implement the provisions of this section.
 --
 Carl B. Freeman, Renewable Energy Installer & Consultant


 CARL FREEMAN
 August 4, 2008

 I appreciate your efforts to making a better Cape Cod. In

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 147
 reference to the issue of transportation on Cape Cod I have a few
 suggestions:

 In Europe they have elevated rail transportation that is simple,       RE In Europe: Cape Cod Commission transportation staff continues
 effective, off the shelf technology, and there is a Minneapolis        to work through the Cape Cod Metropolitan Planning Organization
 company that specializes in installing such systems using solar        (MPO) to encourage and assist with rail transportation and park &
 panels to power it. Starting with rail between exit 6 and              ride opportunities. All comments relative to park and ride facilities
 downtown Hyannis, it could be expanded along all of Main               and rail service will be forwarded to the MPO.
 Street.

 With expansion of the park and ride at exit 6, a great majority of
 cars can be parked outside of Hyannis, thus reducing the gridlock
 that develops every summer.

 With the success of this near zero pollution impact transportation,
 it could be expanded to each town on Cape Cod with rail running
 from the far side of the canal to Provincetown and spurs going
 into each town center.

 With traffic being cut significantly, many roads in each town
 could be turned into foot and bike traffic only, thus giving the
 town the opportunity to establish new vendor space, and benefit
 from the permit and space rental funds they would generate.
 4. All areas that

 All in all, Cape Cod could become a leader in retaking our town
 centers, increasing tourism without a significant increase in
 pollution, and become a green vacation destination. I believe this
 is a direction favored by a vast majority of Cape Codders.

 Yours Truly, Carl B. Freeman


 CHRIS POWICKI

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 148
 August 4, 2008

 The proposed RPP‘s treatment of energy issues is a step in the
 right direction. Unfortunately, the Cape Cod Commission is
 taking baby steps at a time when dramatic action is needed to
 increase energy efficiency, increase reliance on renewable
 energy, stabilize energy costs, and reduce this region‘s carbon
 footprint. As you, your colleagues, and the Cape Cod
 Commissioners review public comments on the proposed RPP‘s
 energy section, I strongly encourage you to refer to the provisions
 of the Green Communities Act; the provisions of complementary
 legislation addressing green jobs, biofuels, and climate change;
 and the goals put forward in the CIGoGreen Energy Action Plan
 (see http://www.cigogreen.org/actions/) released earlier this year
 through the Cape & Islands Renewable Energy Collaborative
 (CIRenew).

 What you‘ve proposed falls far short of where this state is headed     RE What you‘ve proposed: Climate change is discussed in the
 and of the aspirations of regional stakeholders. The RPP‘s energy      energy planning section of the RPP, as well as the coastal resources
 section should be strengthened, not watered down, to protect the       planning section under goals CR-2 and CR-3.
 Cape‘s natural resources and its economy, consistent with the
 Commission‘s enabling legislation. Further, climate change has
 been identified as a ―serious threat‖ by key decision-makers here
 and around the world, but this issue is mentioned only in passing
 in the draft RPP. The RPP should acknowledge the magnitude of
 the threat by integrating the themes of climate adaptation and
 emissions reduction throughout the planning and regulatory
 sections, every single one of which has an energy/climate
 component.

 To address the gap between where the proposed RPP is and
 where it should be, I would suggest that you convene a special
 meeting of your Planning Committee and the CIRenew Steering
 Committee, which includes representatives from major

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 149
 environmental, educational, research, government, and business
 organizations (including the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce).
 Only by hearing from experts in efficiency, renewables, green
 building, and other key areas can your Committee make informed
 decisions.

 Here are some specific thoughts:

  General: The Green Communities Act spells out visionary               RE ( General: Working with towns to assist them in taking
 state-wide objectives, imposes many new requirements, and               advantage of the benefits of becoming a green community under the
 outlines steps the towns must take to become eligible for funding       Green Communities Act will be included as Commission action E1-
 under a new Division of Green Communities. The RPP should be            C3 in the Energy Planning Section.
 updated and strengthened to get ahead of what‘s in the Act, and it
 should be employed to set a framework in place for helping towns
 become eligible for this new funding pool.

  Energy: Several provisions of the Green Communities Act               RE ( Energy: MA General Law 149, Section 44M requires life
 mandate life-cycle cost analysis (LCA). LCA was an integral             cycle cost analysis for publicly funded buildings, which are outside
 component in earlier drafts of this section of the RPP (text pasted     Commission jurisdiction. After discussion, the planning committee
 below), and it should be restored as a minimum performance              does not support making this a component of DRI review.
 standard.

 All projects shall consult with Cape Light Compact (CLC),
 Keyspan and other organizations as necessary to identify all cost-
 effective measures for maximizing energy efficiency and
 reducing demand for delivered energy (electricity and fuels) over
 the project lifetime; shall obtain consultation letters from CLC
 and other organizations containing recommendations for
 achieving these objectives while taking advantage of tax
 incentives, ratepayer-funded energy efficiency and renewable
 energy programs; and shall at a minimum incorporate CLC
 recommendations into the design and construction of the project.
 The consultation letters shall be submitted as part of the
 requirements for a completed application, and they shall reflect

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 150
 results from heating/cooling load calculations taking into account
 all variables (e.g., solar gain, building tightness limits and
 lighting/mechanical system choices) and include a summary of
 life-cycle analyses taking into account both up-front investment
 and long-term operating costs. The consultation letters shall
 address the siting, design, specifications and construction of the
 building envelope, building systems and materials (including
 indoor mechanical ventilation), and on-site energy systems to
 optimize solar gain, maximize energy performance and
 incorporate the most cost-effective efficiency, cogeneration and
 renewable energy measures commercially available.

       Energy: A consult with the Cape Light Compact/National          RE ( Energy: A consult: Staff recommends that MPS E1.1 be
 Grid should be mandatory for all new construction, as called for       modified to include "new construction" (in addition to renovation
 in earlier drafts.                                                     and redevelopment) and edited to exclude specificity of the vendor
                                                                        used to conduct the audit.

       Energy: To capture the evolving nature of green building        RE ( Energy: To capture: Staff recommends adding to the end of
 standards (and possible development of a local standard),              MPS E1.3 , "or with successor standards designated by the
 language should be inserted indicating that DRIs must comply           Commission".
 with whatever Energy Star/ANSI/LEED standards are specified
 in the RPP or with successor standards designated by the
 Commission.

      Energy: The 10% requirement for on-site clean generation
 should be retained. Note that inclusion of an LCA provision
 would provide the economic case for increased efficiency and           RE LCA: (Life cycle Cost Analysis, see above)
 even greater reliance on renewables.

       Energy/Transportation: The RPP no longer has an Air
 Quality section – despite Barnstable County‘s nonattainment            RE ( Energy/Transportation: As noted earlier, the RPP air quality
 status for ozone. Consistent with its quantitative standards for       section was a re-statement of the MA air quality regulations. The
 wastewater management, trip generation, etc., it should require        CLC/CCC/EDC is jointly working on a program to help towns
 calculation and quantitative management of air pollutant and           quantify their emissions. This will be provided as a technical service,

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 151
 greenhouse gas emissions.                                               not a component of DRI review.

       Land Use & Economic Development: Energy enterprise               Energy response RE ( Land Use: This has been discussed as part
 zones (overlays) should be integrated within these sections,            of a county-wide Green Communities initiative and will be separate
 offering streamlined permitting or other incentives to encourage        from the RPP.
 use of sustainable, clean, and green practices and technologies in
 growth centers and elsewhere.                                           Land Use response RE ( Land Use: The Commission will explore
                                                                         additional incentives for sustainable energy and green practices
                                                                         through development of a comprehensive energy strategy for
                                                                         Barnstable County.

                                                                        Economic Development response RE ( Land Use: Staff recommends
                                                                        that the following addition be made to the recommended town action
                                                                        ED4-T3:
                                                                        ED4-T3. Distributed Energy Generation: The towns should permit and
                                                                        encourage small-scale local power generation that uses primarily
                                                                        renewable energy sources to reduce the need to import power from off
                                                                        Cape. Towns, with support from the Commission as desired, should
                                                                        consider new concepts such as energy enterprise zones (overlays)
                                                                        that offer streamlined permitting or other incentives to encourage
                                                                        use of sustainable, clean, and green practices and technologies in
                                                                        growth centers and elsewhere.

       Economic Development: This section should specifically
 acknowledge and address the adverse economic impacts of                 RE ( Economic Development: This point has been made in the
 reliance on energy imports, both in terms of high commodity             Energy section but it is sufficiently important to include under
 costs and huge capital exports.                                         economic development as well. Staff will incorporate this into the
                                                                         planning section under goal ED3if the committee agrees.
        Water Resources & Coastal Resources: Emphasizing
 wastewater is vital in mitigating nutrient loading, but the science     RE ( Water Resources: Atmospheric nitrogen sources (from the
 is clear: atmospheric deposition is an important source of              burning of fossil fuels) are addressed in the Energy section of the
 nitrogen. The energy-atmospheric deposition connection be               RPP. Planning and regulatory sections WR7 address nitrogen
 communicated and addressed.                                             incorporated into stormwater runoff, some of which consists of
                                                                         atmospheric nitrogen. The Commission has been an active

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 152
                                                                          participant in the Massachusetts Estuaries Project, a State-sponsored
                                                                          program that establishes nitrogen limits or TMDLs for nitrogen-
                                                                          sensitive waters. TMDLs, the basis for comprehensive watershed
                                                                          planning on Cape Cod, recognize atmospheric nitrogen loads.
       Coastal Resources: The anticipated influence of climate
 change on relative sea-level rise and storm hazards should be
 spelled out? Climate adaptation should be cited as a motivator for
 Commission/Town actions and regulations?

       Historic Preservation & Community Character: The RPP
 should ensure that provisions in this section do not preclude            RE ( Historic Preservation: Staff believes that energy technology
 applications of solar, wind, and other technologies that won‘t           can be accommodated on historic structures. As with other
 work if not visible, i.e., the wording ―all utilities for development    development proposals, they must be designed to avoid irreversible
 including cable shall be placed underground‖ appears a little            impacts to the character-defining features of an historic resource, but
 restrictive …                                                            that provides a great deal of latitude to accommodate new energy
                                                                          technology. In addition, as with town regulations requiring
 Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely,                                underground utilities (which the HPCC standard was designed to
 Chris Powicki, Principal, Water Energy & Ecology Information             reinforce) it refers to electric, gas, phone and cable wires and
 Services                                                                 conduits. If necessary, this could be spelled out to clarify that wires
                                                                          and conduits must be underground, but not the utilities themselves.


 KAREN GREENE
 August 4, 2008

 Understanding that the public comment period for the RPP is
 likely to be extended, I wanted to provide you with some interim
 comments. I will follow up with a more detailed list at a later
 date.

 Economic Development – given the fact that Yarmouth is largely           RE Economic Development: Staff believes there are several
 developed, we face the challenges associated with redevelopment          incentives for redevelopment in the RPP as well as through the
 and need to provide opportunities for properties that are both in        limited DRI review process that allows a credit towards mitigation
 and out of the economic centers that will be designated on our           requirements based on the previous use of the site. These apply to all

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 153
 land use vision map. In addition to encouraging activity inside of      redevelopment projects regardless of location.
 these ECs, we need to be sure that the mechanisms are in place to
 prevent those properties outside of ECs from becoming blighted.
 As drafted, the RPP does not adequately provide incentives for          RE As drafted, the RPP: The community character chapter
 redevelopment, in- or out-side of ECs. I think that the discussion      encourages redevelopment primarily by allowing redevelopment
 at the Open House was constructive and look forward to seeing a         projects a much larger building without fully screening the structure.
 redraft of that section that makes clear the intent of each             HPCC2.5 requires full screening of building footprints over 15,000
 regulation and the requirements associated therein.                     square feet for new development, but requires full screening of
                                                                         building footprints over 50,000 square feet for redevelopment
                                                                         projects as long as the expansion is on previously developed
                                                                         impervious or landscaped areas. The historic preservation portion of
                                                                         this chapter requires redevelopment if the building has historic
                                                                         significance.

 Coastal Resources – it‘s my understanding that, as drafted, this        RE Coastal Resources: The MPSs under Goal CR2 are intended to
 section of the RPP would make redevelopment of Yarmouth‘s               prevent and minimize flood damage, to protect public safety, and to
 South Shore Drive lodging facilities extremely difficult, if not        enable coastal resources to perform their natural beneficial functions
 impossible. As you know, the Town recently adopted a zoning             (including flood damage prevention). As a matter of policy, new
 bylaw that was intended to facilitate the redevelopment of these        development in V-zones (Velocity Zone; high hazard areas) should
 properties. An integral part of Yarmouth‘s tourism economy,             be prohibited. Additionally, elevation and heightened standards for
 these properties need the ability to remain competitive in order to     new or redevelopment in A-Zone is appropriate. Expanding the
 meet the demands of the traveling public.                               inventory of structures and infrastructure within coastal floodplains
                                                                         is poor public policy and arguments are strong for increased and
                                                                         heightened scrutiny of development and redevelopment in all land
                                                                         subject to coastal storm flowage (A- and V-zones).

                                                                         The RPP standards, as written, do not prohibit redevelopment in A-
                                                                         Zone, but they do require redevelopment that accommodates for
                                                                         projected flood heights. The coastal policies do require consideration
                                                                         and accommodation of the underlying coastal landforms, such as
                                                                         barrier beach, coastal dune, and coastal bank.

 Given the complexity of the RPP as well as its overlapping nature
 with both the Enabling Regulations and the Land Use Vision

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 154
 Mapping exercised, it has taken a fair amount of time to get a
 ―handle‖ on the materials and how they relate to one another,
 particularly where some pieces of the puzzle are still missing (i.e.
 the threshold modification process/requirements). I have found
 the ―open houses‖ helpful and would hope that you continue to
 use this model to solicit comments. I also appreciate the time that
 Commission Staff has taken to meet with Town representatives
 and to answer my many questions!

 Finally, I would hope that the Commission would consider
 issuing a red-lined version of the RPP that incorporates
 changes/comments raised through those meetings as well as
 comments that may have been submitted individually. A red-
 lined version will help to see where changes have been made and
 would demonstrate the responsiveness of the Commission to the
 comments made by the public.

 Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
 Karen

 Karen M. Greene, Director, Department of Community
 Development, Town of Yarmouth


 THE DAVENPORT COMPANIES
 August 6, 2008

 ATTN: Paul Niedzwiecki

 Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on Tuesday the 5th
 in regards to the Coastal Resources Section of the RPP and its'
 affects on business. Below is a recap of our many concerns from
 that meeting.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 155
 Coastal Resources Goal - CR2
 CR2.1 - Address the terminology of "development" &                      RE CR2.1: CR2.1 prohibits new and redevelopment (as defined in
 "redevelopment"                                                         the RPP) in Velocity/V-Zones, which are defined high hazard areas.
 CR2.1 - Address the terminology of "floor area" & "intensity of         The standard was revised to specify ―gross floor area‖ and to define
 use"                                                                    ―intensity of use‖ to include increases in wastewater flow,
                                                                         impervious area, parking spaces, and conversion from seasonal to
                                                                         year round use.

 CR2.4 - Site Elevation must be increased according to CR2.2 and         RE CR2.4: The RPP elevation requirements of +2 and +1 feet above
 height above BFE, otherwise the building will be floating in the        BFE are scientifically sound (per research by Jim O‘Connell). Our
 air and ascetically unappealing to design review committees in all      V-zone 2-foot elevation standard is also now required by the
 towns. FEMA regulations require us to place the structure on            Building Code, which just underwent a thorough revision where
 pilings, which in turn will allow the flow of water to be increased     much attention was a paid to supporting the MA Wetlands Protection
 through and around the site.                                            Act in the revised standards. Structures in V-zone and also on
                                                                         coastal dune can be required by ConCom to meet even higher
                                                                         elevation standards when the location warrants it.

                                                                         A-zone 1-foot above BFE elevation requirement: CCC requires this
                                                                         to accommodate for documented relative sea-level rates and to
                                                                         account for FEMA map errors to the BFE. This is based on the best
                                                                         available science and is a justified standard. It is documented that
                                                                         achieving this elevation will help reduce the cost of flood insurance.
                                                                         There are design practices and treatments used around the world that
                                                                         enable a functional and attractive design while accommodating
                                                                         needed elevation. For example, locating parking under the structure
                                                                         can achieve necessary elevation and ―free up‖ precious lot area that
                                                                         can then be used to create site amenities and to locate septic and
                                                                         stormwater systems further from resource areas.

 CR2.5 - Terminology of "floor area" and "intensity of use"             RE CR2.5: This standard is written to protect our most critical coastal
 "footprint" is critical to the reconstruction of and should be         resources (barrier beaches, dunes and their buffers) and not to allow
 defined to a greater degree. In most cases the footprint/floor area    additional development on them.
 will enlarge, especially in our case (Yarmouth) and the new
 bylaw allowing us 4 stories.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 156
 CR2.7 - remove the word enlarge and a clearer definition of the       RE CR2.7: They are correct that these terms should be clarified. Staff
 term 'expand the use of the existing structure' is needed.            proposes changing the language to parallel CR2.1 so the last sentence of
                                                                       this MPS reads: ―Any reconstruction shall not increase the total
                                                                       combined building footprint and impervious area of the pre-existing
                                                                       structure, or intensify the use of the pre-existing structure (including but
                                                                       not limited to increases in wastewater flow, impervious area, or parking
                                                                       spaces, or conversion from seasonal to year-round use).‖


 Coastal Resources Goal - CR3

 CR3.1 - In most cases buildings lie within the 100 buffer areas        RE CR3.1: Redevelopment in the buffer zone is accommodated in
 and reconstruction will encroach on that buffer.                       MPS WWH1.2, which indicates that where a buffer area is already
                                                                        altered…this [100-foot] requirement may be modified provided it
                                                                        doesn‘t increase adverse impacts and if there is no alternative.

 CR3.2 - In the case of one of the proposed redevelopment               RE CR3.2: Septic systems should not be located within high hazard
 projects more than 40% of the site will be in a velocity zone and      areas subject to wave action and erosion.
 with flow for the proposed septic we would more than likely need
 to have the a portion of the system inside the V-zone. The
 terminology as stated would not allow us to proceed.

 CR3.3/3.4 - The site coverage with taking into consideration           RE CR3.3/3.4: Redesign may be necessary to allow for parking
 building setbacks, buffers, parking, landscape, and septic does not    below the building. Additional analysis should be conducted to
 allow us the room to accommodate storm water retention                 determine whether the project could be accommodated on the site
 management procedures in the ground. We don't have the                 given its resources constraints.
 necessary site availability.

 We hope this helps you in the revision of the RPP. The Water
 Resources (WR) section also is a large concern of ours in the
 potential redevelopment of South Shore drive.

 If there is any further information that we can help you with don't

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 157
 hesitate to contact us.

 Thank you,
 Trevor J. Meyer


 LEO CAKOUNES
 August 8, 2008

 Forwarded from Heather McElroy

 I had a good meeting with Leo regarding incorporating
 agriculture considerations into the RPP. I think there are a couple
 of sections of the RPP where some specific language will address
 his concerns. The big thing that will require more discussions is
 nitrogen loading from ag uses, and I told him we'd need to talk to
 Tom Cambareri about how to address that. He also mentioned
 that he'd like an ag exemption for DRIs, as the farming
 community he hears from is very concerned about the CCC now
 (after Nickerson) wanting to review and regulate ag uses. I told
 him that I expect an outright exemption likely wouldn't fly, but
 that most/ many projects might be eligible for a POCB.

 Here's his list:

 Open space requirements should be allowed to be met with ag, or        RE Open space requirements: Please see response to Sue Leven, July
 allow ag as a use in the CR/APR. I'm thinking it could be built        9, 2008 comments.
 into MPS OS1.6, or perhaps a separate agriculture MPS, or OS1.9
 for location of open space.

 Also, in the planning section, OS1-C2 could have an additional
 section that says that the protection of ag lands is also a
 significant interest.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                      Page 158
 Encourage creation and support of ag uses - sounds like the ag          RE Encourage creation: Please see proposed Land Use section.
 MPS that we have been talking about putting back in the land use
 section.

 In the planning section of Open Space, may be appropriate to
 replace the TDR one (because I know TDR shows up in other
 sections) with actions to support agriculture, including promoting
 the creation of agriculture commissions in each town (there are
 presently only 5 or 6), and preparation of a model right to farm
 bylaw, and mapping of agricultural lands (APCC is doing this
 now)

 Is there a section within Ec Devt that can support a Buy                RE Is there a section: Please see proposed Economic Development
 Local/Grow Local campaign? Support the promotion of farming             section.
 as a small, cape resource-based business? Apparently Bill Clark
 at the County Extension is working on this issue, too. Also, he
 said that Ag Tourism is a growing thing on Cape Cod. Is
 there somewhere we can support this?

 He had a couple of references to the Act that he thought were           RE He had a couple: Not sure that these references to the Act are
 relevant and should be incorporated: Section 12 Bi, and 7Bi &           necessary with the proposed additions to the Land Use, Economic
 Biv.                                                                    Development, Open Space and Heritage Preservation sections.


 His wish list items, and less urgent, include supporting the            RE His wish list items: We do not recommend specific exemptions
 construction of affordable units as part of an ag use (he says          for these kinds of activities, as they should be examined for their
 there's an exemption in state law somewhere to allow this               impacts on a case by case basis.
 activity), and allowing wind turbines in cultivated fields, as they
 appear to be compatible uses (esp. Cranberry bogs).


 TOWN OF SANDWICH (GREG SMITH, DIRECTOR OF
 PLANNING)
 August 11, 2008

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 159
 Forwarded from Leslie Richardson

 A few more general comments/observations about the draft RPP
 Planning Section. I hope these are not all repetitive, given the
 number of hearings you and Sharon have attended.
 Greg

 Page 23, LU1-C3                                                       RE Page 23, LU1-C3: The Commission does not recommend this
 Might suggest adding Development Agreements to the list of            change - A Development Agreement is a tool which may be used by
 growth management tools                                               the Commission, municipalities, state agencies and developers to
                                                                       define the scope of proposed projects and is a voluntary, binding
                                                                       contract used in the regulatory process. It is not necessarily designed
                                                                       to change the location or pattern of growth.

 Page 23, LU1-C2                                                       RE Page 23, LU1-C2: The Commission will be investigating the
 Regional TDR program. For example, is the intent to allow a           feasibility of regional and/or local TDR after adoption of the RPP;
 sending zone in Sandwich and a receiving zone in Yarmouth? I          regional TDR could potentially involve a sending zone in one
 will be speaking with the Planning Board about a TDR by-law           community and receiving zone in another community. The
 (among many other changes to the zoning by-law), and would the        Commission would be pleased to offer assistance to any Cape
 CCC be willing to assist in the drafting of such a by-law if there    community interested in preparing a TDR bylaw.
 is interest from the Planning Board/Selectmen?

 Page 24, LU2-C3                                                       RE Page 24, LU2-C3: Sandwich does have a pre-disaster mitigation
 This is a good action item, although I‘m not sure if Sandwich has     plan. It was certified by FEMA on December 23, 2005, and is
 adopted a local pre-disaster mitigation plan.                         considered an appendix to the Barnstable County Natural Hazards
                                                                       Pre-disaster Mitigation Plan. Both the regional umbrella plan and
                                                                       the Sandwich local plan (as well as 8 other town plans) are due to be
                                                                       updated by 12/10.

 Page 25, LU2-T1                                                       RE Page 25, LU2-T1: Fire, Water and Sewer Districts are all
 What is a Special District?                                           examples of Special Districts.

 Page 25, LU2-T2                                                       RE Page 25, LU2-T2: The Commonwealth already has a smart

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 160
 Is the CCC putting together a smart growth investment policy            growth investment policy available through the Commonwealth
 guidance document the towns can refer to when preparing their           Capital Program.
 own?

 Page 27, ED1-C1                                                         RE Page 27, ED1-C1 and Page 29, ED2-C1 and C2: The
 When will the CCC complete the ―long-term strategy for building         Commission actions identified in the draft RPP represent the staff‘s
 infrastructure‖? Will these strategies be done on a town-by-town        five year workplan. What order actions are completed and how long
 basis, or take a more regional approach?                                they take has yet to be determined. The research will be undertaken
                                                                         with local input and will account for differences in location. The
                                                                         Commission can provide towns with more targeted technical
                                                                         assistance if requested.

 Page 27, ED1-C3                                                         RE Page 27, ED1-C3 and Page 32, ED4-C2: In the course of
 Will the CCC prepare a brochure identifying existing state and          completing these actions the Commission will make new information
 federal funding for infrastructure?                                     available on the Commission website and provide links wherever
                                                                         possible on so that the information will remain up to date.

 Page 29, ED2-C1 and C2                                                  RE Page 29, ED2-C1 and C2: See above.
 When will the CCC complete the regional cost-of-doing business
 analysis and the regional marketing analysis? Can the CCC assist
 with a more focused marketing analysis (ie- for the Golden
 Triangle area, prior to the zoning re-write)?

 Page 29, ED2-T2                                                         RE Page 29, ED2--T2: The virtual data center proposed as planning
 General question about tax incentives… there are a host of such         action ED2-C3 will have links to this sort of information once it is up
 programs that might be available to Cape towns- is there a listing      and running. In the meantime, information on state programs is
 the CCC has (or could compile) that could serve as a quick              available through Mass.Gov and the Massachusetts Office of
 reference guide? A suggestion…                                          Business Development.

 Page 31, ED3-T1                                                         RE Page 31, ED3-T1: In Massachusetts, Nantucket was the first
 Are there examples that you know of communities that have               community to do so. Since then Dennis has followed suit; Barnstable
 adopted such ordinances to limit the location, design, size and         and Chatham are considering the option.
 total number of formula businesses? If so, is there a list the town
 could refer to?

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 161
 Page 32, ED4-C2                                                         RE Page 32, ED4-C2: See above.
 Infrastructure financing- excellent reference material that I hope
 would be a priority for the CCC to compile.

 Page 41, WR5-C2                                                         RE Page 41, WR5-C2: The database is continuously being updated.
 Where is this wastewater planning database located? Does Gab            A list of information contained in the database will be available on
 maintain it? Sandwich is getting much more involved in                  the Commission web site. Contact Commission staff for assistance.
 wastewater planning and this could benefit those of us involved
 in the issue.

 Page 43, WR7-T1                                                         RE Page 43, WR7-T1: In addition to improved water quality, a
 If there is no requirement in the RPP for a town to adopt LID           benefit to the community is that provisions for LID in the Local
 stormwater treatment concepts, if a town did adopt such a bylaw,        Comprehensive Plan enable consistency of the LCP with the RPP.
 would there be any benefits to the community (perhaps reduced           Only municipalities with Commission-certified LCPs are able to
 mitigation for eligible projects)? Just an idea…                        enter into development agreements and assess impact fees. (See the
                                                                         Resource Management and Protection Tools section of the RPP.)

 Page 47, CR2-C3                                                         RE Page 47, CR2-C3 and RE Page 49, CR3-C2: Staff proposes
 Will the CCC hold a forum for town health departments and               changing the CCC actions on p. 49 to address these:
 conservation commissions on the issue of coastal DCPC‘s to try          CR3-C1. Same
 and get proactive buy-in from the communities? This could be            CR3-C2. Make this a corollary CCC action to CR3-T2 below it.
 added to CR3-C3 under ―training for local boards.‖                      Move watersheet zoning into the laundry list of training
                                                                         opportunities in CR3-C3.
 Page 49, CR3-C2                                                         CR3-C3. Add watersheet zoning and change language of LID to be
 What is watersheet zoning? This is not defined in the RPP.              clearer.

 Page 54, WPH1-C1                                                        RE Page 54, WPH1-C1: The completion of the map is an action item
 Regional open space plan- when will this complete? Will this            for this fiscal year. The map is not intended to be adopted by
 map be adopted as an ordinance accompanying the RPP?                    ordinance, but to become available as a planning tool on our website.

 Page 54, WPH1-C2                                                        RE Page 54, WPH1-C2: We have added these items to WPH1-C2
 Can invasive species education be added to the ―training for local      and OS1-C3.
 boards‖? Also, can OS1-C3 (transfer to development rights) be

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 162
 added as a training tool for local boards- I‘m not fully familiar
 with how they work).

 Page 54, WPH1-T3                                                         RE Page 54, WPH1-T3: Yes, see link to our model bylaws on the
 Is there a CCC draft land clearing by-law?                               CCC website:
                                                                          http://www.capecodcommission.org/bylaws/clearing.html

 Page 60, TR1-C1                                                          RE Page 60, TR1-C1: Cape Cod Commission transportation staff is
 Does each Cape town have a traffic safety advisory committee (or         working with the Massachusetts Highway Department to develop an
 something like this- not the MPO) that could serve to feed local         internet-based system identifying crash locations. Commission staff
 information to the regional planning agency on a regular basis? If       continuously works with town safety committees to provide
 there are not, could the CCC assist in establishing such entities?       technical assistance.

 Page 69, E1-C1
 With regard the ―green‖ building practices- what are they? Are
 they the BMP‘s outlined on page 146-147?

 That‘s all for now.
 Many thanks.
 Greg Smith, Director of Planning and Development, Town of
 Sandwich


 KERRY HORMON
 August 14, 2008

 Forwarded from: John D. "JD" Harris

 From Kerry Hormon who attended the open forum last
 Tuesday[bournehousingpartnership@hotmail.com] replying to
 my message below. I hope this clarify. Rgds. John D. "JD" Harris

 In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:35:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight
 Time, srooney@capecodcommission.org writes:

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 163
 Hi John, can you clarify is this from someone else, can you send
 us the original email from the sender? Thanks, Sharon

 On 8/13/08 12:11 PM, "JDHARRIS50@aol.com"
 <JDHARRIS50@aol.com> wrote:

 I'm afraid that the Cape has already missed the boat on good           RE I‘m afraid: Cape Cod Commission transportation staff continues
 planning and now has to figure how to clean up the mess and not        to work with the Cape Cod Metropolitan Planning Organization
 let it get any worse. I'm thinking that allying with New Bedford,      (MPO), the Cape Cod Joint Transportation Committee (CCJTC), the
 Fall River, Taunton, and Plymouth along with the Upper Cape            Massachusetts Highway Department, the Federal Highway
 and Mid Cape towns with a good public transportation network           Administration (FHWA) and the Cape Cod Regional Transit
 is the solution to many issues. Orleans and further out may need       Authority (RTA) to provide public transportation to and from Cape
 a different "village link" system and use of school facilities in      Cod and around Cape Cod. Inter-regional efforts include
 summer seasons to supply work force housing for temporary              coordination with the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic
 workers. I don't think we are resourceful enough with public           Development District (SRPEDD), based in Taunton, which includes
 facilities. The relationship of the Cape to New Bedford is an          the city of New Bedford; and the Old Colony Planning Council
 ancient one and has served both well in the past. Maybe it's time      (OCPC), based in Brockton; as well as the regional planning
 to rebuild it.                                                         agencies based on the islands: Nantucket Planning and Economic
 John D. "JD" Harris                                                    Development Commission and the Martha's Vineyard Commission.

 12 AUG 2008
 Salut Kerry; It was a pleasure to see community advocates like
 you stepping up and providing material comments that will
 improve the RPP and the Commission's service to the Cape at
 large. Thank you. If you wish to read or watch the change effort
 driven by public comment, go to : www.capecodcommission.org
 <http://www.capecodcommission.org/> click on "2008 draft
 regional policy plan". Just a bit of perspective reading from other
 concerned residents. Rgds, John D. "JD" Harris


 G. V. KROUCH
 August 14, 2008



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                      Page 164
 I have read parts of the CCC plan, and some of the comments
 from the website.

 The point I find avoided, directly, is over population. Cape Cod
 is fragile, and the continued building of new homes and
 affordable housing units is only going to saturate an already
 overused commodity. There are plenty of units unfit for
 habitation that can be rebuilt, refurbished, and rezoned to
 accommodate the year round and summer workers. As far as the
 tourist industry, the Cape can bear so much, and we have
 exceeded that. New housing must be stopped on the Cape, or it
 must be turned into a theme park with commercial quality sewer
 systems Cape wide to assure non-contamination of the water
 systems still available.

 Thank you for your time and efforts, G. V. Krouch


 DANIEL FORTIER
 August 17, 2008

 Attached please find my comments on the Regional Policy Plan.
 I apologize that they were not sent in earlier, however the town
 has been completing its Commonwealth Capital Application and
 the public review of the Open Space Plan. This did take away
 from the ability to review the Regional Policy Plan at an earlier
 time. The comments, while extensive, are offered in a spirit of
 cooperation. I look forward to seeing how these comments are
 used in the future work of the Cape Cod Commission

 Daniel J. Fortier, AICP, Town Planner, Town of Dennis

 ATTACHMENT (from original PDF document):



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 165
 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
 Regional Policy Plan. The following represent a variety of
 comments by the Town of Dennis Planning Department based
 upon reviewing the planning document and accompanying maps.
 You will find that these comments are consistent with the
 discussions we have had about the Land Use Vision, and with
 other discussions held over the past several years.

 I hope you will take a close look at the issues raised, some of
 them represent clear philosophical differences. Others represent
 different views that come from over a quarter of a century of
 being a planner at both the regional and local level. Hopefully the
 comments will help to make the Regional Policy Plan a better
 document, at a minimum it will place my views into clear context
 as we continue to discuss how Dennis fits into the regional
 perspective.

 LAND USE VISION

 First, I would like to reiterate the town‘s on-going concern and          RE First, I would like: The Commission recognizes the Dennis town
 displeasure with the draft Land Use Vision Map. As has been               planner's disagreement with the minimum RPA designation criteria.
 stated by the town at more than one meeting, the identified               However, in order to provide a unified approach envisioned by the
 criteria for Resource Protection Areas are unacceptable.                  Task Force, the Commission has established a "basic" resource
                                                                           protection area applicable to all towns, which includes wellhead
                                                                           protection areas, areas vulnerable to flood damage in a significant
                                                                           storm event, historic districts, and the Cape Cod National Seashore.

 As we have discussed, the SLOSH model does not appear to be               RE As we have discussed: The SLOSH maps have not been used yet
 appropriately applied to identify ―resources to be protected.‖ The        by the CCC for regulatory purposes, however, they provide valuable
 SLOSH zone represents an area that could be potentially                   information about hazards and risk to Cape Cod that should be
 impacted by a theoretical slow-moving storm maximum impact                considered and factored into any good land use planning effort. It
 storm. It is clearly described as a ―worst-case scenario.‖ It is not a    should be noted that the revised draft RPP proposes A & V zones as
 land planning tool and should not be used as such. The                    the ―basic‖ Resource Protection Area (RPA) designation, with

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 166
 identification of lands within the SLOSH zone as ―resource             SLOSH a recommended but not required RPA. FEMA and MEMA
 protection areas‖, in the town‘s view, improperly places               both promote, and the County has participated in, Pre-Disaster
 significant developed lands into these so-called ―resource             Mitigation Planning. One crucial step in PDM planning is a risk and
 protection areas.‖ We clearly do not believe that the SLOSH zone       vulnerability assessment. SLOSH is one tool used for such analysis
 should be on par with the lands within the Crowe‘s Pasture             as it identifies the potential flooding and surge inundation hazard.
 District of Critical Planning Concern.                                 Staff believes it reasonable to consider the information provided on
                                                                        the SLOSH inundation maps as we plan for future development of
                                                                        the Cape. Generally, the point being that we want to avoid or
                                                                        minimize the amount of infrastructure and development in areas
                                                                        prone to natural disasters.

                                                                        The SLOSH maps do show worst-case scenarios, in fact a
                                                                        compilation of the worst-case scenarios from several different storm
                                                                        scenarios that have been adjusted to New England weather realities
                                                                        (Cat 5 storms were not considered as these are unlikely here).
                                                                        However, it would be irresponsible not to consider the information
                                                                        that they do provide us about possible hazards and risks we face.
                                                                        Shouldn‘t this be considered as we, for example, plan new costly
                                                                        public infrastructure projects? Natural hazards should be considered
                                                                        and specific developments should be evaluated against potential risk.
                                                                        SLOSH provides valuable information that should be factored into
                                                                        land use planning.

 Secondly, the town views the placement of historic districts into      RE Secondly: Historic districts, like many of the resources included
 these ―resource protection areas‖ as punitive upon town‘s that         in the ―basic‖ RPA, were included to recognize their significance to
 have sought to actively protect their historic areas. We also view     the character and quality of life on the Cape. These are resources
 their potential designation as ―resource protection areas‖ as being    that we do not wish to see radically changed, and are so represented
 counter-productive to accomplishing future designation of new          on the Land Use Vision Map. While historic districts in Dennis may
 historic districts. Dennis failed not to long ago to pass historic     be adequately protected, not all districts on the Cape are. If or when
 districts for West Dennis and Dennisport. These efforts failed by      towns seek to customize DRI thresholds, the adequacy of local
 only a few votes. While there remains a desire to pursue the           regulations to protect local resources will be considered by the
 designation of these areas in the future, the idea that such a         Commission. There are no additional regional restrictions that will
 designation could carry additional regional restrictions would         be imposed on RPAs and changes to DRI thresholds will not be
 clearly benefit those that would oppose such a designation.            imposed by the Commission on any area designated through a

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 167
                                                                         town‘s Land Use Vision Map.

 Finally, the town has continuously objected to placing the Zone II      RE Finally: Zone IIs are the fundamental recognized area to protect
 Water Recharge Areas under this designation. The town has taken         drinking water resources. The Zone IIs are used in both planning
 significant efforts to protect these areas, both through acquisition    and regulatory decisions related to land use. Increased review
 and regulation. While, perhaps some towns may desire additional         thresholds that may be proposed for ECs create an incentive for
 regional control, Dennis Planning officials feel that the correct       high-density development in those areas. Many of the ECs proposed
 route is through local initiatives, whether through the District of     by towns are located in Zone IIs. It is reasonable for portions of the
 Critical Planning Concern efforts undertaken by our neighbors in        Zone IIs outside of ECs, where high-density development should be
 Brewster, or through the concerted efforts of the Dennis Water          discouraged, to be designated as RPAs where towns may seek lower
 District, Dennis Land Acquisition (now Community Preservation)          review thresholds or other measures in the interest of protecting
 Committee, Dennis Conservation Trust, and Dennis Board of               drinking-water quality. See also response to Land Use Vision above.
 Health. Designating these areas as ―resource protection areas‖
 does not provide any true benefit to communities who are
 properly planning for the future of their communities, and serves
 as a detriment to sound local planning.

 Given the above discussion, I found it interesting, if not
 contradictory of the actual process that occurred, and statement
 made in the meeting held in Dennis, the following statements in
 the Regional Policy Plan about the Land Use Vision:

 Regional Land Use Vision Map The land use map expresses a
 vision for the future of Cape Cod. The Cape Cod Commission
 developed it collaboratively with all 15 towns in Barnstable
 County through a process that clarified existing zoning and land
 use elements, developed composite maps of resources in each
 town, and identified each town’s vision for desired land uses. The
 land uses are categorized as Economic Centers, Villages,
 Industrial and Service Trade Areas, Resource Protection Areas,
 and all other areas. The map identifies discrete areas to focus
 future development activities. It is the basis for many of the
 thresholds that trigger the Commission’s regulatory review of
 Developments of Regional Impact. It is also a tool to encourage

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 168
 towns to consider zoning and other changes to guide growth
 toward desired areas that have infrastructure to support it and
 away from areas that have significant ecological or historical
 resources that could be degraded by inappropriate development.

 Especially interesting is the comment ―and identified each town‘s      RE Especially interesting: The land use mapping process is a
 vision for desired land uses.‖ The process in Dennis has been          collaborative process between the Commission and the towns.
 anything but an identification of the town‘s desired land uses. It     Further, the land use mapping process does not result in additional
 may have started out this way, but in the end turned into an           regulatory oversight by the Commission. No changes in DRI
 attempt to force regional views on the town. The Resource              thresholds will occur unless and until a town makes an application to
 Protection Area discussion has clearly been a top-down process in      do so. We will continue to work with the town of Dennis towards
 Dennis, not representative of the town‘s desired land uses.            completing a land use vision map for the town. See also changes to
                                                                        the introduction to the planning section (Regional Resource
                                                                        Maps/Regional Land Use Vision Map) in the revised draft RPP to
                                                                        address comments received.

 The discussions held in Dennis also triggered significant concern      RE The discussion held: The statement "It is the basis for many of
 over the ―Resource Protection Area‖ specifically because of the        the thresholds that trigger the Commission's regulatory review of
 statement ―It is the basis for many of the thresholds that trigger     Developments of Regional Impact" is found in the beginning of the
 the Commission‘s regulatory review of Developments of                  planning section of the RPP and is intended to be general in nature.
 Regional Impact.‖ Of particular concern is that these ―Resource        This statement has been revised to make it clear that RPA
 Protection Areas‖ would see increased regional review by               designation does not trigger a mandatory reduction in DRI
 tightening the criteria in these areas. There are a number of          thresholds.
 instances where the comments in the Regional Policy Plan bear
 out this concern of the town:

 ED1-T3. Incentives to Locate in Economic Centers: The towns            RE ED1-T3: Please note that this is a Recommended Town Action in
 should adopt policies and regulations that encourage                   the planning section of the document, not a regulatory requirement
 development within Economic Centers and discourage                     of the RPP.
 development in Resource Protection and other areas identified on
 the Regional Land Use Vision Map. Local policies could include
 simplifying and reducing permitting costs within Economic
 Centers; using tax abatements to encourage only dense, mixed
 use development; and imposing impact fees for development

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 169
 outside of these centers.

 And,

 Transportation Goal – TR3:
 Level of Service
 To maintain travel times and Level of Service on regional roads
 and intersections and to ensure that all road and intersection
 construction or modifications are consistent with community
 character, historic, and scenic resources. Respondents to the
 2005 Cape Cod Residents Survey ranked traffic congestion as the
 biggest problem among 20 issue areas for their town and for the
 Cape as a whole at the time of the survey (92 percent and 98
 percent, respectively), as well as five years into the future (91
 percent and 94 percent, respectively). Traffic volumes have
 doubled on many Cape Cod roads over the last 10 to 20 years.
 Indeed, the summer volumes many residents and visitors found so
 frustrating 20 years ago are the average year-round traffic
 volumes of today.

 Fundamentally, it is important to match land use with the
 available transportation infrastructure. Maintaining capacity of
 regional roadways can be accomplished by allowing denser
 development in Economic Centers identified on the Regional
 Land Use Vision Map and reducing development potential in
 Resource Protection Areas or other areas less suited for
 additional development. Next, in reviewing Developments of
 Regional Impact, the Cape Cod Commission should first consider
 low-impact mitigation that does not require infrastructure
 changes. Access-management techniques such as driveway
 location, spacing, turn restrictions. and connections with
 adjacent parcels are initial low-cost ways to mitigate traffic
 impacts. Road and intersection widening should be considered as
 mitigation for Developments of Regional Impact only in

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                   DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 170
 situations where there is a year-round, not just seasonal, need
 and only in locations where community character, scenic,
 historic, or natural resources will not be impacted.

 And

 Criteria for DRI Review
 DRI Thresholds The Cape Cod Commission Act established the
 standards and criteria for Developments of Regional Impact,
 based on a variety of factors. DRI review thresholds, which may
 be revised as needed through the Barnstable County ordinance
 process, are set forth in Chapter A, Section 3 of the Code of Cape
 Cod Commission Regulations (“Enabling Regulations for the
 Purpose of Reviewing Proposed Developments of Regional
 Impact”). In accordance with Section 12(a) of the Cape Cod
 Commission Act, the Commission may propose and the
 Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates may adopt different
 standards and criteria for DRIs for different areas of Barnstable
 County. These may be changed by ordinance at any time and are
 not determined by the Regional Policy Plan.

 Coinciding with this edition of the Regional Policy Plan, the
 Cape Cod Commission is proposing new, more flexible DRI
 thresholds to help implement a regulatory approach that
 encourages appropriately located and designed development. The
 flexible thresholds are related to the new Regional Land Use
 Vision Map. Where growth is wanted and its impacts can be
 managed (for example, in the Economic Centers and Industrial
 Areas), a town may apply for higher thresholds to allow more
 projects to proceed without Cape Cod Commission review.
 Conversely, where growth is not desired, impacts should be
 avoided, and certain resources should be protected (for example,
 in the Resource Protection Areas), the thresholds may be
 tightened to require more projects to undergo regional regulatory

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 171
 review. The framework for flexible DRI thresholds will be
 adopted through the Barnstable County ordinance process
 described above.

 And:

 Maps
 Working with each of the 15 Cape towns, the Cape Cod
 Commission has created a Regional Land Use Vision Map. The
 process for developing the map involved meetings with local
 planning officials in each town, identifying significant resources,
 existing land use and zoning in each town, and holding a public
 forum at which town officials and members of the public
 discussed their collective vision for future land use. The resulting
 maps designate Economic Centers, Villages, Industrial and
 Service Trade Areas, and Resource Protection Areas that address
 local interests and the local vision for future growth, as well as
 regional interests in cross-boundary resource protection. The
 Regional Land Use Vision Map guides the application of new,
 flexible thresholds, cash mitigation options, minimum
 performance standards and development practices in this plan,
 and some of the “scoping questions” applicable to the Limited
 DRI Review process.

 The Regional Land Use Vision Map adopted with this Regional
 Policy Plan (RPP) identifies towns that have completed a public
 forum and whose land use map has been endorsed by the town’s
 planning board. Upon endorsement of the land use map by the
 town, DRIs are eligible for Minimum Performance Standards in
 the RPP pertaining to Economic Centers as well as scoping
 questions that refer to Economic Centers. The Commission will
 propose amendments to the Regional Land Use Vision Map for
 adoption by the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates as
 additional towns complete the mapping process. Towns may also

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 172
 request modifications to previously designated mapped areas.
 Modifications to the Regional Land Use Vision Map will follow
 the same designation process described above.

 Following endorsement of the Regional Land Use Vision Map, a
 town’s board of selectmen (or the town manager in Barnstable)
 may apply for changes to DRI thresholds for Economic Centers,
 Industrial and Service Trade Areas, and/or Villages. In order to
 be eligible for these flexible thresholds, towns will be required to
 have a design and infrastructure plan adopted by town meeting
 or town council to address anticipated growth in these areas, and
 may adopt a local impact fee system to provide infrastructure
 funding. In addition, the Commission may require lower DRI
 thresholds for Resource Protection Areas as part of the town’s
 request for higher thresholds in some mapped areas.

 These comments in the Regional Policy Plan are inconsistent with        RE These comments: Proposed regulations do not mandate reduced
 the comments made on numerous occasions by Commission staff             DRI thresholds in RPAs; this is mentioned in the plan as one
 during discussions with the Dennis Planning Board. Several times        possible technique for balancing the request for higher DRI
 during the discussions held with the Planning Board the                 thresholds in Economic Centers or other mapped areas. The town
 Commission stated, albeit in couched words such as ―at this             has the opportunity to identify areas of concern as RPAs in addition
 time‖, that the Resource Protection Areas would not see higher          to the minimum RPAs proposed to be applied across the Cape.
 levels of scrutiny. Given the potential for increased regional
 scrutiny in the ―resource protection areas‖ it is especially
 important for the town concerns about what lands are included in
 the ―resource protection area‖ be fairly represented in the
 mapping.

 I would like to offer an alternative, the Commission has drafted a      RE I would like to offer: There are many historic buildings that are
 number of maps for inclusion in the Regional Policy Plan.               not included in the National Register and Local Historic Districts
 Individual Maps such as the Historic Districts Map that is              shown on the current RPP map. Staff feels that adding the MACRIS
 included in the plan are invaluable for cross border planning. In       list (the list of all historic buildings that have been inventoried on
 the historic map I would even suggest adding the potentially            Massachusetts Historical Commission inventory forms by Historical
 historic properties that area listed on the State MACRIS system to      Commissions and others) would better show the location of historic

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 173
 the map as this would raise the level of importance of these             buildings and resources on the Cape, but it also would not be a
 potentially historic properties. The SLOSH zone, has similar             complete list of historic resources. Incorporating this large body of
 value to emergency management officials for evacuation                   information will be difficult because most of it is not available on
 planning, and should similarly be included. And, there is similar        digitized maps. While we are working toward this, however, staff
 cross-border planning value to having all the Zone II Recharge           supports the idea of working with each town to identify other
 Areas mapped. However, using these as the ―hard and fast‖                significant historic and cultural resources on the Regional Land Use
 criteria for identifying resource protection areas is inappropriate.     Map. This has been done in Chatham, where potential future historic
 We have areas in Dennis that are critical resources – Crowe‘s            districts have been included as Resource Protection Areas.
 Pasture, Scargo Hill, Weir Creek – to name a few. However, they
 do not seem to overlap with those identified by the Commission.
 Conversely, the town does not agree that the lands in Dennis
 comprised by the criteria identified by the Commission rise to the
 same level of importance as the areas we have identified.

 WATER RESOURCES MAP AND WATER RESOURCES
 GOAL WR5

 I have reviewed the maps, before studying the document in close
 detail, and searched the document for the related discussion
 where I had questions, thus taking the Land Use Vision Map and
 the Water Resources Map out of order. The Water Resources
 Map identifies ―Water Quality Improvement Areas‖ These are
 defined in Water Resources Goal WR5. This map uses another
 one of those ―hard and fast‖ (a term I think I will be using a lot in
 these comments) rules that just seems too simplistic. The rule, an
 average lot size of less than 20,000 sf places an area into an
 impaired standing is quite a broad-brushed approach. Perhaps too
 broad-brushed.

 Water Resources Goal – WR5:
 Water Quality Improvement Areas
 To improve impaired water quality in wellhead protection,
 marine recharge, and freshwater recharge areas.
 Water quality improvement areas are impaired areas within

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 174
 wellhead protection areas, freshwater recharge areas, and
 marine water recharge areas. In such areas, improvement of
 water quality is a major goal.

 Impaired areas consist of other water resource areas where
 groundwater may have been degraded by point and non-point
 sources of pollution, including but not limited to areas with
 unsewered residential developments with an average lot size of
 less than 20,000 square feet; landfills, septage, and wastewater
 treatment plant discharge sites; and areas of high-density
 commercial and industrial development. Some of these densely
 developed areas have been identified as Economic Centers in this
 plan’s Regional Land Use Vision Map or as Growth Incentive
 Zones. To move forward with revitalization of these areas and to
 restore water quality overall, comprehensive wastewater and
 water supply infrastructure planning will be necessary.

 I have searched for information on impaired water quality and          RE I have searched for: Several decades of scientific study has been
 find that most impaired decisions are based on far more intensive      reviewed that clearly shows that reliance on septic systems to
 data than is suggested in the RPP; items such as dissolved             manage wastewater on small lots results in water-quality
 oxygen, ph and water temperature. Given the Clean Water Act            degradation. A minimum of one-acre per single family home
 has set standards for more than three decades for water quality, is    achieves the regional nitrogen-loading goal of 5-ppm-N. The RPP
 there any hard data available to make these determinations? If         allows Developments of Regional Impact to exceed the 5 ppm-N
 not, the surrogate suggested just seems too general.                   limit outside of sensitive water resource areas (MPS WR5.4) and
                                                                        where existing development already exceeds the 5 ppm-N limit
                                                                        (MPS 5.1).

 A second problem with this map is the ―potential plume‖                RE A second problem: ‗Potential plumes‘ are areas where impaired
 categorization on the map. Was there any hard data to support          water-quality has been verified or can reasonably be expected
 such a damning statement. Identifying a potential plume, without       considering up-gradient sites such as landfills and hazardous-waste
 any data, is dangerous to the economy of the Cape and devalues         sites. ‗Potential‘ is used as a qualifier because plumes in these areas
 significant land areas for no reason what-so-ever. The map should      have not been verified in every case, although impaired water quality
 only identify actual plumes.                                           has been verified down-gradient of certain sites (e.g. the
                                                                        Massachusetts Military Base). Mapping ‗potential‘ plumes‘ has

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 175
                                                                           utility from a planning and regulatory standpoint because it provides
                                                                           information to developers that may not be aware potential up-
                                                                           gradient contaminant sources exist. As noted above, MPS 5.1 and
                                                                           MPS 5.4 provide some flexibility of the 5-ppm-N standard for
                                                                           projects in these areas.


 The map below is taken from the Town of Dennis CWMP efforts.
 It identifies a number of Areas of Concern. In many cases, they
 do not coincide with the Water Quality Improvement Areas
 identified by the Commission in the RPP. The town recommends
 that, in towns where needs assessments have been completed for
 the CWMP, the actual town maps should be substituted for the
 broad-brushed criteria that was used in the RPP.

 < MAP IN ORIGINAL PDF DOCUMENT>

 CAPITAL FACILITIES MAP

 The Cape Cod Rail Trail, the Cape Cod Canal Bike Paths, and               RE The Cape Cod Rail Trail: Commission staff will add the Cape
 similar bicycle facilities should be included as capital facilities.      Cod Rail Trail and similar bicycle facilities into the capital facilities
 __________________________________________________                        map.

 Now, turning to the plan itself….

 Growth Incentive Zones A Growth Incentive Zone is a specific
 area identified by a town as targeted for economic development.
 A Growth Incentive Zone facilitates compact, mixed-use growth.
 By creating a master plan and providing infrastructure and
 mitigation strategies to accommodate development, a town can
 pursue reduced regulatory involvement by the Cape Cod
 Commission for projects proposed in the zone. Some of the
 minimum performance standards in the Regional Policy Plan
 may be modified or eliminated because more comprehensive

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                              Page 176
 planning, area-wide mitigation, and stronger local regulatory
 controls take their place.

 To establish a Growth Incentive Zone, a town must first ensure
 that all growth is properly served by adequate infrastructure. The
 additional development potential within the proposed zone must
 be offset with reduced development potential elsewhere.
 Techniques to achieve the offset include transfers of development
 rights, “down zoning” (changing zoning to reduce the number or
 size of development units allowed on a given parcel),
 conservation restrictions, and other land protection measures.

 The Cape Cod Commission is often viewed as anti-growth.
 Sometimes this view is justified. Unfortunately, sometimes Cape
 Cod Commission statements stand in the way of Smart Growth.
 The Growth Incentive Zone concept is an example of a sending a
 mixed message to communities and developers. The Growth                RE Growth Incentive Zones: The Growth Incentive Zone regulations
 Incentive Zone provides an opportunity for the Commission to           were adopted in 2005. The Commission is willing to look at revising
 stand behind smart growth. However, the required development           these regulations to address Mr. Fortier's concern for the timing of
 off-set establishes a major hurdle to the actual designation of a      open space protection to meet the offset requirement for GIZs after
 smart growth area as a Growth Incentive Zone. For instance, the        adoption of the RPP.
 actual guidelines on designating these areas establishes an
 extremely short window for considering off-sets (out-right land
 acquisition).

 Also, the hard and fast nature of the off-set requirement does not
 provide for consideration that a Smart Growth area may meet a
 number of Commission Regional Policy Plan Minimum
 Performance Standards that in and of-themselves out-weigh any
 or all benefits that could be accomplished by the development
 offsets. For instance, the Town of Dennis has established a 25%
 affordability requirement within its two village center by-laws,
 far exceeding the 10% Minimum Performance Standard in the
 Regional Policy Plan.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 177
 The Commission needs to provide much more flexibility within           RE The Commission needs: GIZ regulations are separate from the
 its programs and move away from the hard and fast standards that       RPP and can be re-evaluated after adoption of the RPP.
 are established through-out the document.

 LU1-C1. Technical Assistance to Towns: The Cape Cod
 Commission will provide technical assistance to towns consistent
 with the Regional Land Use Vision Map. Examples include:
 • analysis of build-out under current and future zoning
 • analysis of infrastructure capacity and investment needs
 • completion/certification of Local Comprehensive Plans •
 preparation of local design and development guidelines
 • revisions to zoning and creation of overlay zones to encourage
 mixed use

 As with my earlier comments, the amount of focus on the                RE As with my earlier comments: There will be no reduction in
 Regional Land Use Vision Map clearly establishes the need for          services to towns if they do not have a land use vision map. The
 agreement on this map. Hopefully this particular plan                  Commission Action was added to the 2008 RPP in anticipation of the
 recommendation will not lead to less services being provided to        need for the Commission to assist the towns after the mapping
 towns without endorsed Regional Land Use Vision Maps.                  process is complete.

 LU1-C3. Transfer of Development Rights: The Cape Cod
 Commission will evaluate the feasibility of a regional transfer of
 development rights (TDR) program and/or will assist with
 implementation of local TDR programs to help direct growth to
 appropriate locations while protecting sensitive areas most
 vulnerable to development.

 This is an interesting concept. However, unless there is regional      RE This is an interesting concept: The Commission will investigate
 tax sharing program put into place it is hard to imagine how this      tax implications as part of this effort.
 would actually work.

 LU1-T2. Land Use Ordinances and Bylaws: The towns should
 revise local zoning as needed to achieve growth management

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 178
 goals and consistency with the Regional Land Use Vision Map.

 Here again is another reference to the Regional Land Use Vision       RE Here again: The land use mapping is a collaborative planning
 Map, reinforcing the importance of having agreement on this map       effort between the Commission and the towns, not a top down
 between the town and the Commission, and ensure that the map is       approach.
 not a top down imposed vision by the Cape Cod Commission.

 LU2-C1. Integrated Infrastructure Planning: The Cape Cod
 Commission, in completing individual plans for transportation,
 water resources, open space, and others, will ensure that they are
 consistent with the Regional Policy Plan and the Regional Land
 Use Vision Map, and that implementation will be coordinated
 wherever possible.

 Here is another example of where the Regional Land Use Vision         RE Here is another example: Yes, local priorities are incorporated.
 Map is clearly important and agreement between the region and
 the town is critical. It also shows that, since infrastructure
 planning will be guided by this map, local priorities must be
 clearly represented in the final map.

 Economic Development (ED)

 Starting with the vision statement and prefacing my comments by       RE Starting with the vision statement: The introduction to the
 noting the town of Dennis has taken steps to protect against the      planning section of the Economic Development section has been
 ―Anywhere USA‖ vision that comes with the entrance of national        revised; further, ED 2.2 and 3.2 (mitigation requirements) have been
 chains into the local economy. That being said, the Economic          deleted from the revised plan. It is appropriate for the Commission
 Development vision statement needs to recognize that the local        to focus on economic development; business attraction is more
 economy needs certain changes to occur to make the area               appropriately conducted by, for example, chambers of commerce.
 attractive for the youth educated in our schools so that they will
 want to return to the Cape. The expansion of broadband services
 will support new high technology businesses to the sand bar. We
 need the local economy to grow and expand into new areas, and
 away from being dominated by the service industry serving
 tourism. Tourism will remain important, as highlighted by the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 179
 efforts in Yarmouth and Dennis to upgrade our hotel industries.
 However, the Commission needs to clearly rethink its economic
 development efforts and find ways to make the Regional Policy
 Plan more attentive to the need to attract higher paying, year-
 round employment opportunities to the Cape. And, this should be
 clearly stated in the opening policy statement of the Economic
 Development section.

 Economic Development Goal – ED1:
 Low-impact and Compatible Development
 To encourage the design and location of development and
 redevelopment to preserve the Cape’s environment and cultural
 heritage, use infrastructure efficiently, minimize adverse impacts,
 and enhance the quality of life for Cape Codders.
 This economic development goal is based on the principles of
 competitive advantage and efficiency: Development and policy
 should complement the strengths that make Cape Cod unique and
 economically viable without taxing the built, human, and natural
 resources beyond their capacity. As in the business world,
 regional economic success depends on differentiating the product
 (in this case, Cape Cod’s natural environment and historic
 character) from the competitors’ (other destination areas) and
 maximizing profits by using resources efficiently.

 So, what exactly is our competitive advantage and how are we           RE So, what exactly: The role of the Commission is to protect the
 using it? The natural environment and historic character could be      resources that make it unique, a.k.a. our competitive advantage. It is
 used to attract higher paying jobs, making the area attractive to      not appropriate for the Commission to market the region or pay
 telecommuting, remote office and work-at-home opportunities            businesses to locate here using business attraction incentives.
 that would make the area capable of supporting a higher wage
 rate than how the competitive advantage (i.e. tourism) economy is
 currently focused. Many communities in the Rocky Mountains
 have taken advantage of their competitive advantage to attract
 higher level corporate offices as the areas became attractive
 second homes to major corporate presidents. The Cape has this

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 180
 same competitive advantage, but we do not set our priorities to
 attract corporate offices – in part due to some of the hard and fast
 development review criteria that is applied equally to big box
 retailers and potential major employers.

 ED1-C1. Cape Cod Economic Development Strategy: Working
 collaboratively to reach regional consensus with partner
 organizations and municipalities, the Cape Cod Commission will
 complete and help implement a long-term strategy for building
 the infrastructure, workforce, and regulatory structures needed to
 foster a sustainable and balanced economy characterized by
 innovation, creativity, and respect for Cape Cod’s natural and
 historic assets. Progress toward this achievement will be
 evaluated and adjusted annually.

 So, what exactly does this mean we will do? How about ―the               RE So, what exactly: The economic development strategy will be
 Cape Cod Commission will work to market the Cape through the             determined through a participatory planning process. The
 Massachusetts Alliance for Economic Development and other                Commission will focus on planning and will continue to provide
 organizations designed to assist businesses in their relocation          technical assistance to those entities that provide more direct
 efforts to attract large employers to take advantage of the              assistance to existing businesses and market Cape Cod to encourage
 available work force and the natural and historic assets of Cape         the development of a more balanced economy.
 Cod. Progress towards this achievement will be evaluated based
 upon the creation of new jobs and improvements in wage rates on
 the Cape on an annual basis.‖

 ED1-T3. Incentives to Locate in Economic Centers: The towns
 should adopt policies and regulations that encourage
 development within Economic Centers and discourage
 development in Resource Protection and other areas identified on
 the Regional Land Use Vision Map. Local policies could include
 simplifying and reducing permitting costs within Economic
 Centers; using tax abatements to encourage only dense, mixed
 use development; and imposing impact fees for development
 outside of these centers.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                       Page 181
 Here is yet another location focusing development away from the        RE Here is yet another: Again, it is inappropriate for the
 ―resource protection areas‖ given its location in the economic         Commission to undertake business development or marketing.
 development section, it continues to clearly illustrate the need to
 ensure agreement on what lands make up these areas. However,
 in the economic development section, the Commission should
 really think more positively. For instance, we should market the
 Cape based upon these areas, the vista‘s of Crowe‘s Pasture or
 Swan River are important parts of the resource protection areas
 that both the town and Commission can agree upon. I think we
 would both agree that these views are ones that attract people to
 the Cape and should be considered when we market the area to
 corporate entities looking for attractive areas to consider for
 business relocation.

 ED2-C

 I think the recommendations for the Commission in this section
 seem pretty good. However, I think the Commission should also
 consider adding one additional Cape Cod Commission
 recommendation. You will note that the recommendation ties in
 to C1 somewhat, however this portion of C1 should be taken out
 and identified as its own item and expanded upon, in particular
 recognizing that public policies far beyond zoning may be
 restricting economic growth – specifically the regional permitting
 process. My suggestion is as follows:

 ED2-C4. Regulatory Barriers: The Cape Cod Commission will              RE ED2-C4: The Cost of Doing Business study will include an
 complete a study of the regulatory barriers to establishing a          assessment of permitting cost, local and regional.
 business on Cape Cod. The study will investigate the multiple
 levels of permitting on Cape Cod including both regional and
 local permitting requirements, the time necessary to complete
 these permitting processes, and relative costs both out of pocket
 for engineering studies as well as time based. The study should

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 182
 compare these costs to that of permitting similar space off-Cape,
 in particular in Plymouth and Bristol Counties. It will also
 identify methods for permit streamlining, including methods to
 make the permitting process more predictable and, most
 importantly, less time consuming.

 ED3-T3. Improve Business Climate: The towns should attract,
 maintain, and encourage business by providing high-quality
 public services in an equitable fashion. Of particular importance
 to economic competitiveness are good schools; fair, easily
 understood, and consistently applied regulations; and the
 availability of transportation alternatives, including high-speed
 Internet access.

 It may seem like I am harping on the regional review process.
 However, as I review the Regional Policy Plan I continuously see
 recommendations for changes for the towns (the T series of
 recommendations) which just as easily should be included in the
 Commission recommendations (the C series). This is another one
 of those occasions, the idea of easily understood and consistently
 applied regulations at the local level is clearly equally applicable
 to the regional regulatory process and an ED3-C recommendation
 would seem to be in order. For instance:

 ED3-C4 The Cape Cod Commission will work to develop a                   RE ED3-C4: The land use map and limited review will streamline
 streamlined permitting process that is easily understood and            DRI permitting. The map makes it clear where development is
 consistently applied. The process will provide applicants with          encouraged and where it is not; limited review will identify up-front
 clear, upfront information as to what is required for a                 what issues areas will be reviewed.
 development review permit, from the number and type of plans to
 the expected mitigation a clear time-line will also be developed
 so that applicants will understand the basic time requirements for
 receiving regional permits.

 WR6-T2. Regional Wastewater Solutions: The towns should

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 183
 participate in discussions of regional wastewater solutions such
 shared infrastructure, management, and financial offsets.

 This recommendation truly needs to be qualified. Water needs to        RE This recommendation: The Commission does not advocate on-
 be kept as close to where it is withdrawn as possible (this is         site septic systems to maintain the hydrologic balance of the aquifer.
 addressed elsewhere in the plan under DRI‘s but should be              Septic systems, and shared neighborhood treatment wastewater
 addressed in this section). This actually argues for continued use     systems may be one of many approaches incorporated into CWMPs
 of septic systems, or more localized wastewater treatment –            where appropriate. Where significant reductions in nitrogen loads
 package treatment plants or town or lens based treatment               are necessary to address existing excess nitrogen loads, larger
 facilities. Piping wastewater from the Dennis/Brewster/Harwich         wastewater treatment facilities and collection systems will be
 area to, say the Mass Military Reservation would result in             necessary. The Commission reviews CWMPs as Developments of
 reduced water levels in the Monomoy Lens.                              Regional Impacts. DRIs must comply with MPS WR6.3 which
                                                                        states that sewage treatment facilities and their collection and
                                                                        discharge areas shall maintain the hydrologic balance of the aquifer
                                                                        and demonstrate that there are no negative ecological impacts to
                                                                        surface waters.

 CR2-C2. Coastal Floodplain Zoning: The Cape Cod Commission
 will update a model floodplain bylaw and help towns to adapt the
 model as a local floodplain district zoning bylaw.

 CR2-T2. Coastal Floodplain Management: The towns should
 review local standards and regulations that affect development
 within the coastal floodplain and adopt the Cape Cod
 Commission’s model coastal floodplain bylaw if necessary to
 strengthen local zoning. The towns should consider adopting
 various floodplain management techniques, such as rigorous
 construction standards, coastal erosion engineering standards,
 and best management practices for new coastal development. The
 towns should consider coastal hazards-based DCPCs and work
 with the Commission to nominate appropriate areas.

 The Commission needs to be cognizant that Chapter 40A Section          RE The Commission needs to be cognizant: There are many things
 3 precludes zoning stepping into building code issues. The             that a local zoning bylaw can do consistent with the building code.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 184
 building code establishes flood zone restrictions, thereby limiting     Suggestions here under CR2-T2 are relevant and much can be done
 zoning control.                                                         through a good local floodplain zoning bylaw.

 CR2-T3. Remove Development from the Floodplain: The towns
 should consider outright purchase, using Community
 Preservation Act funds or other grants, and other methods to
 remove development rights from parcels in and adjacent to
 coastal high-hazards areas and structures classified by FEMA as
 repetitive-loss properties.

 This would seem to be a mighty expensive proposal, well beyond          RE This would seem: Perhaps CPA can‘t do it alone, but the
 the capability of most town Community Preservation Act funds.           Commission believes it may be one available tool to consider.
 The Commission should adopt a companion regional                        Additionally, the Transfer of Development Rights is a potentially
 recommendation where the Commission would seek to establish a           powerful tool that could be applied to remove development from
 regional, state or federal funding source for accomplishing this        flood zones and send it to less risk- and flood-prone areas of towns.
 recommendation.                                                         Once a functioning TDR market is established it is not an expense to
                                                                         taxpayers.
 Affordable Housing

 The affordable housing section, and several others promote
 higher densities. This is a positive change in RPP policies as it
 relates to housing opportunities. Unfortunately the water
 resources designation of areas with one housing unit per 20,000 sf
 as water quality impaired, works at odds with the affordable
 housing, energy efficiency and other goals which call for
 increasing housing density for affordability, lessening travel, etc.
 The affordable housing discussion does address improved
 wastewater treatment – which seems to be ignored in the water
 resources blanket approach to designating areas as water impaired
 based upon housing density. The RPP needs to be careful with
 these inconsistencies, and as I have mentioned through-out these
 comments, needs to stay away from over-generalizations such as
 the designation of water quality impaired areas which will
 hamper achieving other RPP goals.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 185
 Also, somewhere in the affordable housing section I would               RE Also somewhere in the affordable housing section: Staff concurs
 suggest that the Commission set a goal to assist the towns in           and recommends adding this suggestion as part of the assistance to
 getting their LIP created units accepted onto the state affordable      towns referenced in AH1-C3.
 housing list. The state has established a number of barriers that
 need to be overcome. The Commission is well placed to lobby for
 the towns in this issue. The Commission, perhaps with CHAPA
 and the Housing Assistance Corporation could also impress upon
 the state that there are needs for units of all sizes, towns are
 having significant problems getting smaller units accepted by the
 state. Given the need for housing for the homeless, single room
 occupancy units are as much a need as the two and three bedroom
 units favored by the state. Dennis and Yarmouth have created
 housing under local bylaws for households of all sizes, the units
 under 700 sf have proven to be quite difficult to gain state
 acceptance for while they have been the quickest to be occupied.

 Heritage Preservation

 In general I have to applaud the Commission‘s positions                 RE In general I have to: The Planning section of the RPP includes an
 presented for Heritage Preservation, however, again I also have to      action item (HPCC1-C1) to inventory cultural landscapes and
 point out apparent contradictions or at least areas where RPP           identify ways to protect them. We could incorporate these into the
 positions could work at cross purposes. There are many situations       Regional Land Use Map as they are identified.
 where there are threatened resources tied to the heritage of Cape
 Cod. Most of these lie outside appropriate village center
 preservation areas, historic districts and Districts of Critical
 Planning Concern. In identifying Resource Protection Areas, the
 Commission has chosen to address areas that have already
 received increases scrutiny – in this section‘s case historic
 districts – as opposed to looking to unprotected historic resources.
 I would challenge the Commission, in addressing Resource
 Protection Areas, from a heritage point of view, to look to the
 MACRIS list and mapping sites and areas that are potentially
 historic and seeking preservation of these areas, or at least

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 186
 recognizing these areas as possibly threatened, as opposed to
 listing areas already granted a level of protection as in need of
 ―resource protection.‖

 Regional Regulation Comments

 The regional regulatory concept is one where there are serious           RE The regional regulatory concept: The Commission disagrees that
 philosophical differences. The hard and fast mandates and the            40B is a developer‘s only option. This type of project is potentially
 hand-in-hand hard and fast requirement to meet the Minimum               eligible for a limited review under new regulations to be adopted in
 Performance Standard can discourage appropriate development.             the same timeframe as the new RPP, which is designed to focus the
 As an example, a forty acre parcel in Dennis is about to be              review on key issues..
 marketed. The potential developer knows it will trigger
 mandatory DRI review. The developer would like to preserve
 much of the parcel while building about 6 high-end housing units.
 The DRI hard and fast rule is that the submittal of an Approval
 Not Required Plan to cut the parcel into one parcel of about 30
 acres – to be deeded to the town – and one of about 10 acres to be
 used for the proposed housing is a mandatory DRI with all the
 associated expenses. The developer‘s option is to seek 40B status
 and have a significantly higher density.

 This particular property lends itself well to a limited development      RE This particular property: The Commission currently has a DRI
 agreement between the town, the Dennis Conservation Trust and            Exemption process in place for projects that meet a DRI threshold
 the property owner. The Commission needs to be able to                   but do not present regional impacts. Limited DRI review is also
 recognize these type of preservation arrangements and a process          proposed to streamline the regulatory review process to limit the
 to move these preservation projects out of the DRI process.              review to significant issues.

 I would like to also suggest, and did during some of the town            RE I would like to also suggest: The Commission could investigate
 planner discussions of the changes to the regional review process,       such an approach in future revisions to the RPP.
 that the Commission adopt a point system. For instance, if the
 number of Minimum Performance Standards a project needs to
 attain comes to twenty, perhaps set a regional point standard at
 that level. Meeting a Minimum Performance Standard nets one
 point. Exceeding the Minimum Performance Standard would gain

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 187
 some additional percentage of the point in relation to how much
 the performance standard is exceeded by. Say the Affordable
 Housing Minimum Performance Standard is 10% and a project
 attains a 25% Affordable Housing level, the project would get 2
 1/2 points. This would reward projects that target specific
 regional needs by recognizing the strong points a project brings to
 the table. The point system would allow projects, working
 cooperatively with towns, to achieve certain local and regional
 goals.

 LU1.1 Development Location
 Development and redevelopment shall be consistent with both the
 category of desired land use where the project is located as well
 as the characteristics of that category as identified on the
 Regional Land Use Vision map.

 In our discussions with the Commission about the Regional Land          RE In our discussions: Creation of a Land Use Vision Map is a
 Use Vision map we have raised our concern about the map being           collaborative process between the town and the Commission and
 used within the regulatory framework. Here is a prime example of        does not result in any changes to DRI thresholds unless applied for
 our concern. This Land Use recommendation ties the review to            by the town. The Commission is ready to work with the town to
 the land use category on the map. Commission staff have denied          create a mutually acceptable map.
 the connection in both public meetings before the Planning
 Board. Given the connection noted in this regulatory
 recommendation, the town must insist that the Land Use Vision
 Map illustrate the town land use vision, and not an outside land
 use vision imposed upon it.

 L.U 1.2, L.U 1.3 and L.U 1.4 all seem appropriate. Unfortunately,       RE LU1.2, LU1.3 and LU1.4: This is a Best Development Practice
 L.U. 1.5 regarding the location of public offices may seem less         and recommended for towns, not a requirement. Under proposed
 likely to be accomplished. In Dennis, the lands available for these     changes to the DRI Enabling Regulations, the Commission would no
 town facilities were acquired many years ago. The Town Hall is          longer have mandatory jurisdiction of municipal offices over 10,000
 located in the Old South Dennis Village, however this is not an         s.f.
 area where the town would consider for any significant in-fill as it
 would not fit the nature of this historic district.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 188
 ED2.5 Opportunity Cost
 Development should not, in using the land for the proposed
 purpose, eliminate or significantly reduce development
 opportunities for businesses within the region’s emerging
 industry clusters or for locally owned businesses that create and
 export goods or services or reduce the need for the region to
 import those goods or services.

 This would seem like a difficulty target to meet. Any                     RE This would seem like: Opportunity costs – the value of what you
 development anywhere uses space or land that could have been              give up – will be discussed in the planning section and ED2.5 has
 used by another business. As such they do reduce opportunities            been deleted from the regulatory section of the revised draft RPP.
 for other businesses. This Best Development Practice seems
 unattainable, even for reuse of structures.

 ED2.6 Gaming
 Development should not involve Class III gaming given the
 stresses it places on the region’s environment, transportation
 infrastructure, and economy.

 Has the Commission actually undertaken any studies to back up             RE Has the Commission actually: The Commission actually
 this analysis? The Cape economy is so tied to the tourist trade           undertook an analysis of gambling when this language was included
 already, it would seem that gaming could go hand-in-hand with             in the first RPP. This Best Development Practice has been changed
 attempts to revitalize the Cape‘s tourist economy and to stretch          to an MPS in the revised draft RPP.
 the season as much as possible. While gaming may have its
 limits, it would definitely be an industry that would bring money
 from other areas to the Cape. This particular Best Development
 Practice would seem to not have been developed with much input
 from the Cape Selectmen or Planners, nor does it seem based
 upon any actual economic study. Before this is adopted there
 should be significant study of the issue and opportunities for
 public involvement in the studies. Gaming may actually be
 supportive of ED 3 by bringing outside money to the Cape.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                       Page 189
 I would like to commend the Commission on ED 3, the Best               RE I would like to commend: The best practices in this section are
 Development Practices under this section should be used to             used to waive the minimum standards in this section because they
 lesson the restrictions on other Minimum Performance Standards.        effectively meet the economic development goal ED 3.

 WR1.4 Cluster Development All residential subdivisions of five or
 more lots and all commercial subdivisions of land shall cluster
 the proposed development unless inconsistent with local bylaws.
 Cluster plans shall use site designs that maximize contiguous
 open space, respect the natural topography and character of the
 site, and employ wastewater treatment, community water supply
 alternatives and Low Impact Development (LID) landscaping to
 allow more compact development.

 This seems a bit broad. Given the Commission has jurisdiction          RE This seems a bit broad: Five or more homes would need to be
 only when 30 units or 30 acres are involved, setting a standard for    clustered if part of a 30-acre subdivision. MPS WR1.4 has been
 a 5 lot subdivision seems to over stretch Commission jurisdiction.     revised as follows:
 This does tend to once again open up the town‘s initial concern –      MPS WR1.4: All residential subdivisions of five or more lots and all
 is the Commission looking to reduce the DRI threshold in the so-       commercial subdivisions of land shall cluster the proposed
 called ―resource protection area‖ to gain jurisdiction over 5 lot      development unless inconsistent with local bylaws. Cluster plans
 subdivisions?                                                          shall use site designs that maximize contiguous open space, respect
                                                                        the natural topography and character of the site, and employ shared
 WR2.2 Prohibition on Hazardous Materials/Wastes Development            wastewater treatment, community water supply alternatives and Low
 and redevelopment that involves the use, treatment, generation,        Impact Development (LID) landscaping to allow more compact
 handling, storage, or disposal of Hazardous Materials or               development.
 Hazardous Wastes, with the exception of household quantities,
 shall not be permitted, except as provided in WM1.2 and WM1.3.

 I will look closely at WM 1.2 and WM 1.3, however, the Cape            RE I will look closely at WM 1.2 and WM 1.3: The Regional Policy
 needs places for auto repair, oil changes, buying paint, etc. As       Plan only regulates business subject to Cape Cod Commission
 such this Regional Policy clearly could have adverse impacts on        review. At the same time, it has always been envisioned that the
 the Cape consumer if it is applied as written. Many local              Towns would adopt local bylaws that would implement the intent of
 contractors handle hazardous materials as part of their daily          the Regional Policy Plan.
 routine, are we relegating them to off-cape locations? This policy
 could force many locally owned business people, and many               The Minimum Performance Standard in the Regional Policy Plan

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 190
 consumers to have to go off-cape, either to locate their business      which limits the use, handling and storage of Hazardous Waste is
 or to meet basic living needs. Such a strict policy will add to        intended to protect public drinking water supplies, and is and has
 traffic, reduce consumer spending on Cape, and reduce                  only been applied in areas mapped by the Cape Cod Commission as
 disposable income as people have to drive large distances for          Wellhead Protection Areas or Potential Public Water Supply Areas
 basic services or employ offcape contractors at a premium for the      (PPWSA). In addition, the quantity limit on Hazardous Waste does
 distance that needs to be traveled to have an exterminator or          not apply in a Development of Regional Impact review if the Town
 painter visit their home.                                              in which the project is located confirms that the effected PPWSA is
                                                                        not going to be used to develop a public drinking water supply.

                                                                        RE I will look closely at WM1.2 and WM1.3: Hazardous materials
                                                                        and waste limits do not apply to Developments of Regional Impact
                                                                        located outside of wellhead protection areas. Businesses engaged in
                                                                        activities such as auto repair/maintenance and paint sales should be
                                                                        planned for areas outside wellhead protection areas due to the limited
                                                                        nature of drinking-water resources and the amount of capital
                                                                        infrastructure invested in the production of high-quality drinking
                                                                        water. (See additional discussion on this topic below.)


 WR2.6 One-ppm Nitrogen Loading Standard The maximum
 nitrogen loading standard for impact on groundwater shall be 1
 ppm for development. Guidance on methodology to meet this
 standard can be found in Cape Cod Commission Nitrogen
 Loading Technical Bulletin 91-001, as amended.

 This RPP position needs to be clarified. It reads as if it is Cape     RE This position needs: Standards that apply to potential future well
 Wide, when one checks the Commission‘s web page it applies             sites are preceded by the following statement: In addition to the
 only in Potential Public Water Supply areas. The WR                    above standards WR2.1 to WR2.4, for areas mapped as Potential
 recommendations do not read as limited in scope. If they are, the      Public Water Supply Areas, the following minimum performance
 limits should be clearly identified, otherwise they appear to be       standards shall apply. Potential Public Water Supply Areas may be
 applied Cape Wide and will likely be so applied. A 1 ppm Cape          removed from consideration provided that supporting information
 Wide would mean essentially one bedroom per acre of land, this         from the Town or Water District demonstrates to the Commission
 would make it difficult to attain any level of affordable housing      that the area will not be considered as potential water supply areas.
 and would clearly make the Cape only accessible to the wealthy

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 191
 and those already with land holdings. The recommendations in
 WR 3 seem much more focused, and the ones in WR 2 should
 also get the same attention.

 CR2.2 Accommodating Relative Sea-level Rise
 All new buildings, including replacements, or substantial
 improvements to existing structures shall be designed as follows
 to accommodate documented relative sea-level rise rates in
 Massachusetts:
 1) Within A-Zones, the lowest horizontal structural member shall
 be a minimum of one foot above Base Flood Elevation (BFE); or
 2) Within V-Zones, due to wave action, the lowest horizontal
 structural member shall be a minimum of two feet above BFE.

 I am glad to see that this has been made consistent with the
 Massachusetts Building Code. The way Minimum Performance
 Standard 2.2.2.2 was explained in the past was that the lowest
 structural member had to be located a minimum of one foot above
 the projected future Base Flood Elevation, as now written the
 section is consistent with the Building Code clearance
 requirement – one foot above existing Base Flood Elevation.

 In CR 2.5 there is a call for two-feet above existing grade for          RE In CR 2.5: Current LCP Regulations do not require all MPSs to
 reconstruction or renovation – is the two foot clearance consistent      be repeated in an LCP; they are used as a guide only in determining
 with the State Building Code? While this standard is for DRI‘s           consistency.
 the Commission has sought consistency between Local
 Comprehensive Plans and the RPP, if the RPP intrudes upon and
 contradicts standards set in the Building Code, the towns will not
 be able to be consistent with the RPP.

 CR 2.7, these Minimum Performance Standards are for                      RE CR2.7: If someone sought to rebuild after a disaster, they would
 Developments of Regional Impact, does the Commission have                need a building permit--if the project is triggered a threshold, it
 jurisdiction over a reconstruction after a disaster if there is no       would become a DRI as any other redevelopment would. A disaster
 expansion or change of use? This is important for towns to               scenario may necessitate the need for certain emergency work in

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 192
 understand. It has been my understanding that the Commission             order to protect public health and safety, in which case Section 10 of
 would not have jurisdiction over such reconstruction. Where in           the Enabling Regulations lays out the procedure for this. Often
 the Cape Cod Commission Act does this jurisdiction derive from?          rebuilding permits are sought months or years after the disaster and
                                                                          would not qualify as emergency work, therefore, this standard is
                                                                          necessary.

 CR 2.10 General Exceptions, again I have to ask where does the           RE CR2.10: Should any of the activities listed and exempted here in
 Commission derive jurisdiction over maintenance of existing              2.10 reach DRI size or be part of a larger proposal that is otherwise a
 public boat launches or existing public infrastructure? For that         DRI, then that particular activity/part of the development plan could
 matter, at what point does any of the items in CR 2.10 fall under        be allowed.
 Commission jurisdiction?

 CR 3.5, a part of this section would appear to apply to new              RE CR3.5: If a project is otherwise a DRI and such development
 projects, however the final portion again attempts to place              proposal includes a dock or pier, then this MPS would apply to that
 Commission jurisdiction over existing facilities. Where does the         portion of the project.
 Commission derive its jurisdiction to regulate existing facilities
 except when there is a change of use? It would seem that all
 references to existing facilities – repair, replacement etc. not be
 discussed in this section since there is no apparent legal
 jurisdiction for the Commission to regulate these items.

 CR 3.6, what is the DRI threshold for Marinas? Is the ten slip           RE CR3.6: Should any development proposal include a marina
 threshold in this Minimum Performance Standard equal to the              proposal, then this MPS would apply to that portion of the project.
 DRI threshold for marinas? If not, then this MPS needs to be             Additionally, a marina may possibly become a DRI through
 made consistent with the DRI threshold.                                  Enabling Regulations, Section 3 (b) or (e)(iii), or if MEPA requires
                                                                          an EIR to be filed.


 OS 1.2 seems to include a planning recommendation (that                  RE OS1.2 seems to: This sentence has been moved to the planning
 belongs in the first section of the RPP) along with the                  section, OS1-T1.
 development limitations. The recommendation for towns to have
 bonuses for protection of Open Space specifically seems out of
 place in this section that regulates development.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 193
 OS 1.3 the open space requirement for Growth Incentive Zones           RE OS1.3: Confirmed. As noted, redevelopment of disturbed areas is
 and Economic Centers should be determined on a center by               not required to provide open space.
 center basis. Establishing a requirement that there be one square
 foot of open space for every square foot of development in a
 village center will continue to unnecessarily increase the cost of
 development – or redevelopment – to a point that makes the
 redevelopment of the village center cost prohibitive. I would
 recommend removing the 2:1 requirement for these areas in the
 table and replace it with a ―To Be Determined‖ heading. Of
 course, if the following means that an area that is 100% disturbed,
 as Dennisport and West Dennis generally are, do not have any
 open space requirements, then I may not have an issue:

 Calculation Based on Development Area
 A project’s open space requirement is calculated in direct
 proportion to the project’s development area. For the purposes of
 calculating the open space requirement, the development area for
 a project is any previously undisturbed upland area (including
 upland areas that are functioning as habitat or as perceived open
 space) affected by “development” as defined in the definitions
 section of this document. Additional guidance can be found in
 Guidelines for Calculation and Provision of Open Space in DRIs,
 Technical Bulletin 94-001, as amended.

 As I read further into this section, I would strongly suggest          RE As I read further: Some redevelopment projects include
 moving the discussion to before the table. However, the                expansions into previously undeveloped areas. In these situations, in
 discussion also needs to be better explained, for instance does the    Economic Centers, the project is allowed to expand into an area
 following mean that an in-fill project on a fully developed lot is     equivalent to 50% of the pre-existing developed area without an open
 exempt from open space regardless of the size of the increase in       space requirement. If the entire site is developed (meaning paved, or
 floor area? Or is it restricted to a 50% increase? Or is the 50%       traffic islands, or maintained landscaped areas), then expansion does
 increase limited to the size of an increase of a project on an         not require open space. Clarification of this allowance will be
 previously undeveloped lot? But then, the previously                   included in the revised Open Space Technical Bulletin.
 undeveloped lot (greenfield) would have nothing to start the 50%
 from.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 194
 Redevelopment within Growth Incentive Zones/Economic Centers
 As an incentive for infill and redevelopment in appropriate
 locations, redevelopment within Growth Incentive
 Zones/Economic Centers is not required to provide open space.
 For the purposes of this exception only, redevelopment shall
 include projects expanding into greenfields, not to exceed 50
 percent of the preexisting development area on the site.
 Requirements for the protection of rare species, wetlands and
 vernal pool buffers shall continue to be met, if relevant.


 OS1.8 Open Space Requirements and Parking Garages                   RE OS 1.8: Noted.
 As an incentive toward minimizing impervious areas, protecting
 open space, and maintaining or improving community character,
 projects meeting parking requirements under proposed buildings
 or as a multi-storied parking garage may reduce their open space
 requirement by an amount equivalent to the area of each floor of
 garaged parking provided. Open space credit may not be
 obtained for parking spaces provided in excess of the minimum
 number of spaces required by local zoning.

 This is a good recommendation and I applaud you for placing it
 into the plan. I have been trying to introduce the concept of
 structured parking to reduce footprint on sites in the village
 centers, having a RPP position will be helpful.

 OS 1.10 Can open space credits be provided to off-set other MPS     RE OS1.10: The Commission has not allowed the use of mitigation
 requirements – this gets back to my recommendation that the         in one issue area to address the impacts of another due to nexus
 Commission consider a point based review of DRI‘s. Relative to      concerns. Mitigation required should directly relate to the impact
 the Open Space requirements, the Commission needs to consider       created.
 allowing active recreation areas to meet the open space             Active recreation areas may be used to meet the open space
 requirements set in the plan.                                       requirements in appropriate situations, e.g. disturbed or open areas
                                                                     converted to ball fields or golf courses. This allowance is discussed

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                  DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 195
                                                                        in the Open Space Technical Bulletin. The goal/preference has been
                                                                        for the protection of undisturbed open space to protect sensitive
                                                                        resources and water supply protection areas.


 TR 0.2 the three year protection for traffic from a previous use       RE TR0.2: Minimum Performance Standard TR0.2 allows a traffic
 seems to be a drastic change. In the existing MPS 4.1.1.4 the          credit for prior use of the site located within an Economic Center
 abandonment is for a period of five years. Shortening the period       regardless of how long the site has been vacant. For redevelopment
 by 40% seems drastic and uncalled for. Look at the current             projects outside of Economic Centers, the Cape Cod Commission
 economy, does it make sense given financing is so tight to make        will retain a time period of five (5) years from the date of filing for
 it even more difficult for reuse of existing buildings? I would        awarding a traffic credit based on the most recent use of the property.
 honestly suggest allowing a longer time period for reuse.

 TR 0.4 Not sure about this one, but then in an economic center or      RE TR0.4: Minimum Performance Standard TR0.1 discussed the
 GIZ where there is an agreement between the community and the          sources of trip generation data. A single trip generation rate for all
 Commission, there will be fewer DRI‘s anyway. However, my              mixed-use development has not been established at this time.
 problems with this, overlap into problems with the entire traffic      Generally, mixed-used developments are unique in the size, location,
 section in general. There is no consideration in the RPP MPS‘s         and mix of uses. The individual size of a development within a
 for the benefit of concentrated mixed use development. I see no        mixed use development could affect the trip generation rate. In
 trip generation off-sets for locating in a village center where        appropriate cases, the CCC uses the Institute of Transportation
 people can walk between uses, or live close to shopping and            Engineers procedures for identifying an overall trip generation rate
 work. There is no consideration for reduced trip lengths either for    for mixed-use development. All these factors have to be taken into
 when vehicles may be necessary. As such the mitigation fee             consideration when determining a trip generation rate for mixed use
 suggested is for a trip rate that may be much higher than that         development. Commission transportation staff will continue to work
 actually experienced in a mixed use village. The Regional              with communities to establish trip generation rates for mixed use,
 Planning Agencies in Massachusetts have been promoting                 village center and/or economic centers.
 Traditional Neighborhood Development since at least 1986 (when
 I first arrived at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council). The
 RPP does not take any of these studies into account. In fact it
 seems to ignore it. Much work has been done to illustrate trip
 rates can be reduced in mixed use centers by as much as 50%.
 The trip schedule in this section does not take any of this into
 account, and in fact reads as if it is cumulative – thus I add 100%
 of the trips from the commercial or business uses as well as the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 196
 residential uses. This is totally unacceptable and establishes a fee
 structure to ―buy out‖ of the regional review that is excessive.

 Also, relative to at least the villages and perhaps the entire           RE Also, relative to: Minimum Performance Standard TR3.2
 document. The Commission needs to consider, or reconsider the            discusses lowering the Level of Service requirements at new
 appropriate levels of service (TR 3.2). Sometimes congestion is          driveway locations located within Economic Centers. The 2002
 good. Do we really want to widen roads in a village center? Do           Regional Policy Plan (RPP) and the draft RPP are designed to allow
 we really want to by-pass these areas to solve congestion, and           development along roadways that may function at Level of Service
 create more Buzzards Bay type situations? Congestion is not              F. Commission staff recognizes that Level of Service F maybe
 always our enemy. In Dennisport we could solve congestion by             preferred at some downtown locations.
 removing on-street parking, but this would kill the village. The
 Commission needs to completely readdress this section of the
 RPP and consider establishing area specific MPS‘s that will not
 detract from the particular areas. Really, if it takes seven minutes
 to drive through Dennisport Village Center rather than five
 minutes, that change in trip time is insignificant (TR 3.9).

 I also see nothing in the RPP relative to expanding transportation       RE I also see nothing: Cape Cod Commission transportation staff
 opportunities. Where is a section talking about expanding public         continues to work with the Cape Cod Metropolitan Planning
 transportation opportunities? Not trains to Boston or New York,          Organization (MPO), the Cape Cod Joint Transportation Committee
 but how about expanded local bus routes? The efforts of the              (CCJTC), the Massachusetts Highway Department, the Federal
 federally required Transportation Plan needs to be included in the       Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Cape Cod Regional
 Regional Policy Plan.                                                    Transit Authority (RTA) to provide public transportation to and from
                                                                          Cape Cod and around Cape Cod.


 Waste Management

 As I noted earlier I reserved my thoughts about Hazardous Waste          RE As I noted earlier: As previously noted relative to the Water
 (to an extent), however, I find nothing in the Waste Management          Resource Section, hazardous-materials and waste limits apply to
 section to change my thoughts. In this document hazardous                Developments of Regional Impact located in wellhead protection
 materials seem to be classified automatically as hazardous waste.        areas only. Wellhead protection areas are designated by the RPP as
 Many needed services are placed at a major disadvantage, beauty          areas requiring added protection from significant potential threats to
 salons, oil change centers, landscapers, painters, etc. The              water quality because these drinking-water sources and the wells to

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 197
 Commission spends much time talking in the document about the          which these areas contribute water constitute significant capital
 locally owned businesses and trying to make things better for          assets that can not be easily replaced. For Developments of Regional
 them. The Commission needs to rethink the idea of hazardous            Impact, it is appropriate to prohibit the types of hazardous materials
 materials to ensure that local contractors feel welcome on Cape        and waste from wellhead protection areas in the quantities referenced
 Cod. The following is just one example of the problems with this       by MPS WR2.2. The standard creates incentive for redevelopment
 philosophy:                                                            and reductions in hazardous-material and waste in sensitive drinking-
                                                                        water areas through hazardous-material and waste credits where
 WM1.6 Eliminate Hazardous Materials/Waste Development and              hazardous-material and waste already exist or are removed from
 redevelopment should eliminate Hazardous Materials or                  wellhead protection areas.
 Hazardous Waste handled, treated, generated, used, or stored at
 a pre-existing facility, site, or project.

 Eliminate hazardous materials – i.e. send all businesses which
 handle materials deemed hazardous to Wareham or Plymouth. No
 oil changes, no hair salons, no painters, no landscapers, no dry
 cleaners on Cape Cod. Is this realistic? Is this consistent with
 supporting the local economy? It is a simplistic answer that sets
 the county up as anti-business.

 Affordable Housing

 Overall the Affordable Housing section seems fine, however,
 relative to the buyout provisions, the section seems to come up
 with too little revenue. I would suggest you consider the formula
 that we are looking at in Dennis which follows:

  (1) Calculation of fee-in-lieu-of units. The applicant for            RE (1) Calculation of fee-in-lieu-of units: Staff is convinced that no
  development subject to this bylaw may pay fees-in-lieu of the         one formula will work well for all types of development scenarios,
  construction of affordable units. For the purposes of this bylaw      and Dennis‘ proposed approach is an interesting and reasonable one.
  the fee-in-lieu of the construction or provision of affordable        Staff concurs that the mitigation generally will be much less for an
  units will be determined as a per-unit cost as calculated as the      applicant that is simply subdividing and selling lots than for one that
  difference between the higher of 50% of the average targeted          is constructing units on site; however, staff believes that the
  sale price of the units in the development or the average             methodology in AH 1.3 is a fair approach for the subdividing lot
  equivalent new home sale price for the most recent available          scenario. For the constructed homes scenario, Dennis‘ proposed

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 198
  twelve (12) month period and the appropriate affordable sales           approach would likely yield more mitigation than the Commission‘s
  price in the proposed project (after consideration for insurance,       approach for a development targeted to the middle range of the
  taxes and any relevant association fees). The appropriate               market; however, the Commission‘s formula would yield more
  affordable sales price shall be based upon an eligible household        mitigation for a development targeted to the higher range of the
  earning 70% of median income. Eligible household median                 market. The Commission‘s policy objective in AH 1.3 is that cash is
  income for determining the maximum sale price of units for a            the least favored alternative as the responsibility for creating the
  payment in-lieu of unit provision shall be determined based             affordable units has been shifted from the applicant to the public
  upon the following household sizes: 1 bedroom unit – 1 person           sector or to some other entity and therefore will only be used if more
  household; 2 bedroom unit – 3 person household; 3 bedroom               affordable units result in roughly the same time frame than if they
  unit – 4 person household; 4 bedroom unit or larger 6 person            had been created on or off site by the applicant.
  household. The SPGA will make the final determination of
  acceptable value.

 Again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and
 comment on the Regional Policy Plan. I hope you take these
 comments in the spirit of cooperation in which they are meant.

 Sincerely, Daniel J. Fortier, AICP Town Planner Town of Dennis
 P.O. Box 2060 South Dennis MA 02660


 MARLENE MCCOLLEM, ASSISTANT TOWN PLANNER,
 TOWN OF FALMOUTH
 August 18, 2008

 Page 7: Explicitly identify the critical needs in order of priority.     RE Page 7: All of the elements of the Plan are treated equally in
 The draft doesn‘t provide a clear focus about what is most               terms of importance. The CCC Actions under each Goal set forth the
 important; there are 12 Elements, what should be done in year 1?         top planning priorities for the next five years and are intended to be
                                                                          measurable so that the Commission can track progress on a yearly or
                                                                          more frequent basis.

 Page 7: The growth policy does not explain how it will lead to the       RE Page 7: The tools are explained on pages 14-19 of the May 29th
 provision of capital facilities—where are the tools & mechanisms         Draft RPP. The planning and regulatory mechanisms to carry out the
 explained?                                                               growth policy are explained at the beginning of those sections.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 199
 Page 13: ―The underlying principle of regional planning is to          RE Page 13: The Commission agrees with this recommendation and
 anticipate & mitigate the impacts of land use & development            will change the text in the introduction to regional planning section
 before it happens to prevent problems that would be much harder        to incorporate the above suggestion about shaping a community
 to address after development happens.‖ This is the purpose of          vision to create positive change.
 regulation, not planning. Planning is more about shaping a
 community vision to create positive change. Not all
 development, or impacts are bad. If planning ―is the Cape Cod
 Commission‘s central role,‖ maybe it‘s time to approach planning
 in a positive light?

 Page 14: Planning where & how we grow: Is the region growing?          RE Page 14: The Act requires the RPP to include a Growth Policy
 How much? Are socio-demographic cohorts growing equally?               Statement. We are planning for a diverse population and the Growth
 Who/what are we planning for?                                          Policy recognizes that pedestrian-friendly places with activities will
                                                                        benefit all Cape Codders.

 Page 14: Growth policy ―adequately supported by infrastructure.‖       RE Page 14: Infrastructure should be adequate to manage existing
 Adequate for what? Should a town be allowed to ‗exempt‘                development, protect resources, and avoid sprawl.
 themselves from managing growth by refusing to construct
 infrastructure? ―Other‖ reasons political reasons?

 Page 17: Development rate limitations & how they interact with         RE Page 17: This comment is referring to a list of model bylaws the
 the SJC (?) decision in Hadley?                                        Commission currently offers.

 Page 20: ―Rapidly approaching buildout,‖ is a claim that needs to      RE Page 20: This sentence will be revised to include a reference to
 be supported.                                                          the last region-wide analysis of development capacity under existing
                                                                        zoning.

 Page 21: If, ―reshaping the development pattern,‖ is an objective,     RE Page 21: This comment is in reference to a general statement
 there has to be a realistic discussion about the implications of       under Land Use Goal LU1. Staff recognizes the limitations posed by
 preexisting, nonconforming protections.                                pre-existing non-conforming uses in accomplishing this goal, but
                                                                        recommends this discussion be included on the previous page under
                                                                        Growth Management Systems.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 200
 Page 29: The term ―workforce housing‖ should be defined. The            RE Page 29: Staff will work on a definition.
 Commission should discuss how these types of initiatives would
 interact with affordable housing goals.

 Page 31: Limiting formula businesses may not be realistic for           RE Page 31: The draft RPP does not limit formula businesses.
 Falmouth. Residents also need reliable, affordable places to
 shop. Should Falmouth be emulating Nantucket in this regard?

 Page 31: ―Improve Business Climate‖ affordable housing &                RE Page 31: Staff agrees with the recommended changes.
 infrastructure should be added to the list of valued assets.

 Page 32: Define what is considered to be ―small-scale‖ energy           RE Page 32: Staff will work on a definition.
 production.

 Page 33 & 35: ―Untreated drinking water‖ is an irresponsible and        RE Page 33 & 35: Drinking-water treatment is necessary in
 dangerous policy. The plan should be concerned with providing           communities that have not adequately protected drinking-water
 adequate, safe potable water and protecting the public health.          supplies. A goal for Cape Cod should be to avoid the need for
 Why had is been determined that the water must be untreated?            drinking water treatment through the promotion of smart-growth and
                                                                         land-use & development practices that cluster development, preserve
                                                                         open space, incorporate low-impact designs, avoid the introduction
                                                                         of hazardous materials to wellhead protection areas, and provide for
                                                                         the collection and treatment of wastewater where necessary.
                                                                         Presently, only five of 150 gravel-pack wells on Cape Cod require
                                                                         treatment from contamination or the threat of contamination. Water
                                                                         districts will continue making pH adjustments to protect copper
                                                                         plumbing and occasionally chlorinate drinking water when bacterial
                                                                         contamination is identified (typically during the summer months).
                                                                         However, a strategy that incorporates appropriate and sustainable
                                                                         land-use and development practices is the most sustainable way to
                                                                         protect Cape Cod's drinking-water supplies. Reliance on expensive
                                                                         drinking-water treatment systems will be necessary only if Cape Cod
                                                                         fails to protect drinking-water supplies.

 Page 36: Projects from 1995 are 13 years old now. Are they still        RE Page 36: The 1995 DEM (now DCR) report is used as the basis

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 201
 an accurate reflection of the population growth & water use               for water supply permitting by the DEP. The basin needs
 trends?                                                                   assessments are presently being revised by DRC but are delayed due
                                                                           to a lack of staff. CCC staff records of water supply demand are
                                                                           compiled regularly for the Sustainability Indicators Reports and
                                                                           other uses. Our latest compilation indicates that in 2001 over 11
                                                                           billion gallons of water was pumped, which is approximately 18%
                                                                           higher than the lowest amount pumped over the previous 10 years
                                                                           (1991 to 2001). Coincidently, according to the census data Cape
                                                                           population increased 19% from 1990 to 2000. The future demands
                                                                           are based on build out assumptions and thus have not changed
                                                                           appreciably.

 Page 46: A definition is needed for ―special-purpose zoning.‖             RE Page 46: Staff agrees and the terms was deleted since extraneous.
                                                                           Text now reads:
                                                                           CR1-C3.       Local Bylaw and Regulation Technical Assistance: The
                                                                           Cape Cod Commission will assist town boards and committees with
                                                                           the protection of coastal resources by providing technical assistance
                                                                           and encouraging the development of new or revised zoning bylaws
                                                                           and other regulations or standards.

 Page 51: Placing wetland buffer requirements in zoning bylaws             RE Page 51: The Mass Association of Conservation Commissions
 are not recommended. This is clearly in the jurisdiction of the           and others encourage addressing wetland buffer requirements in both
 Conservation Commission, not the Planning Board.                          local wetlands bylaws and regulations and in local zoning bylaws in
                                                                           order to better protect the habitat interests of these resources.

 Page 55: ―Protect remaining developable land at a rate to keep            RE Page 55: The phrase "at a rate to keep pace with development"
 pace with development,‖ rate should be defined? Is the goal to            has been struck.
 protect an acre for every acre developed, or is it a different rate?
 Is this referencing the county rate or town rates?

 Page 57: OS1-T1 is suggesting increasing minimum lot sizes—               RE Page 57: The context of this action is significant: Protect High-
 detrimental effects on affordable housing should be                       priority Areas. The intention of the suggested town action is to
 acknowledged & discussed.                                                 address the protection of sensitive resources through a variety of
                                                                           tools. "Not all residential districts will be appropriate for increased

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 202
                                                                           lot sizes" has been added for clarity.


 Page 58: Transportation—there is no mention of the bridges over           RE Page 58: Cape Cod Commission transportation staff through the
 the canal. The bridges are a very important link in the regional          Massachusetts Highway Department and the Cape Cod Metropolitan
 system; the CCC should be involved in the future planning of the          Planning Organization (MPO) are involved with planning studies
 canal area.                                                               that include maintenance and expansion/replacement of the bridges
                                                                           over the canal as well as the canal area roadways in general. This
                                                                           roadway link remains a critical component to the transportation
                                                                           system of Cape Cod.


 Page 59: ―Traffic congestion leads to crashes that cause injuries         RE Page 59: The Cape Cod Commission will strike this language.
 and deaths,‖ maybe, but not necessarily.

 Page 63: TR3-C2 & TR3-T2: ―Match the traffic intensity of                 RE Page 63: The need for infrastructure improvements should be
 development with the capacity of the transportation system.‖              matched to the traffic intensity of development. Land use planning
 This is backwards, the system should be planned to meet real              will reduce the creation of failed systems.
 needs. If the system has failed, then it needs to be modified.
 Moratoria are temporary.

 Page 65: Better definitions of hazardous wastes and materials,            Water Resources response RE Page 65: The definition of Hazardous
 and definitions for universal & difficult-to-manage wastes would          Materials, as it appears in the RPP glossary, is designed to identify
 be helpful.                                                               materials that pose threats to drinking water. The definition was
                                                                           changed in 200X to address difficulties encountered when MPS
                                                                           WR2.2 (formerly MPS 2.1.1.2.A.2) was applied to Developments of
                                                                           Regional Impact. Staff believes that the revised definition provides
                                                                           the most flexibility to the standard's application, without
                                                                           compromising the intent of the standard, by concentrating on those
                                                                           materials considered to be significant potential threats to drinking-
                                                                           water supplies.

                                                                           Hazardous Waste response RE Page 65: The definitions of
                                                                           Hazardous Waste, Waste and Universal Waste in the 2008 and prior

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 203
                                                                       Regional Policy Plans were purposefully taken from state
                                                                       regulations, so as to be consistent with how these wastes are
                                                                       regulated at the state level by the Department of Environmental
                                                                       Protection. At the same time, the definition of Hazardous Waste has
                                                                       been revised, to exclude bio-medical wastes. Commission staff also
                                                                       recommends re-writing WM1-T2 as follows to address the concern
                                                                       about definitions for Universal and Difficult-to-Manage Wastes:
                                                                       The towns should hold periodic household hazardous waste
                                                                       collection events and establish other programs at transfer stations to
                                                                       manage other hazardous wastes, universal wastes, or difficult-to-
                                                                       manage wastes such as mercury-containing wastes, fluorescent
                                                                       bulbs, antifreeze, and waste oil.

 Page 67: Discussion in the Energy Element about the Green             RE Page 67: A Commission action (E1-C3)with respect to the Green
 Communities Act & how the CCC could assist the town with              Communities Act is forthcoming, as has been requested/noted by
 implementing net/virtual metering would be very helpful.              other comments.

 Page 69: E1-C1: Why does the renewable energy have to be              RE Page 69: Staff recommends E1-C1 be revised from "on-site" to
 generated on-site? Some sites may not be suitable for wind            "locally" distributed generation.
 turbines or may not have adequate solar exposure. Optimal
 generating sites should be identified to serve a defined market &
 secured for energy production.

 Page 73: The reference to ―growth caps‖ in AH1-T1 should be
 removed after the Hadley decision.

 Page 73: It would be helpful if the CCC could provide Technical       RE Page 73: This is certainly the type of technical assistance that the
 Assistance with long-term leasing of public land for affordable       Commission could provide; however, Massachusetts Housing
 housing. Maybe create a set of model documents?                       Partnership has developed both a guidebook that includes a model
                                                                       RFP for this situation and has also developed a model ground lease
                                                                       for this specific situation.

 Page 73: The homeless should be added to Goal 2.                      RE Page 73: Staff concurs and will add a specific reference to
                                                                       homeless individuals and families in Goal 2.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 204
 Page 76: AH3-T2 should be aligned with DHCD‘s HPP standard
 of a 5-year planning horizon.

 Page 77: What is the CCC‘s definition of rural & what percentage     RE Page 77: This language is in the narrative leading up to the
 of the Cape meets that definition?                                   performance standards for this chapter of the RPP. The RPP does
                                                                      not define ―rural,‖ but it does not define ―urban‖ either. In general,
                                                                      we consider rural areas to be those with rural uses such as farming,
                                                                      and where open space is a defining characteristic. These features are
                                                                      still predominant in much of the Cape Cod National Seashore and
                                                                      portions of many other Cape towns. Staff does not feel it is
                                                                      necessary to define the term and know what percentage is left in
                                                                      order to protect it.

 Page 77: How has the region‘s heritage been defined? If a            RE Page 77: The term ―heritage‖ encompasses all of the Cape‘s
 random point in history has been defined as the heritage, how was    history as it is reflected in its buildings and landscapes and
 it chosen, and why not another point in history? Or multiple         traditional development patterns. There is not one era that is
 eras?                                                                important, but rather each building, district or resource listed on the
                                                                      National Register is found significant for its own time. Staff feels
                                                                      that the text at the beginning of the planning chapter for this section
                                                                      explains this.

 Page 78: HPCC1-T1: Are the inventories being done because the        RE Page 78: Historic resource inventories are conducted to
 structures are important, or as an obstacle to resist change?        determine what structures have significance. These inventories can
                                                                      be used by the Commission, the town, and private developers to
                                                                      understand what is should be preserved. Having the inventory done
                                                                      prior to considering development plans gives the potential developer
                                                                      more predictability.

 The CCC may want to examine the general balance of the plan.         RE The CCC may want to examine: As noted above, all resources
 For example, there are 7 goals & 45 MPS for Water Resources          and issue areas are considered of equal importance and of equal
 and 2 goals and 4 MPS for Land Use. There are 11 Elements,           priority; Water Resources has considerably more goals and MPS due
 what is most important? It would be very helpful for the CCC to      to the water resource classification system.
 clearly define the regional priorities.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                   DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 205
                                                                         The RPP sets out to address expressed concerns of Cape Cod
                                                                         communities. In 2005, the Cape Cod Commission conducted its
                                                                         third survey of Cape residents. The section of the RPP called 'Cape
                                                                         Cod Residents Surveys' contains a summary of the 2005 survey and
                                                                         compares the survey results with previous surveys. As the section
                                                                         states, issues of the highest concern include pollution of ponds and
                                                                         coastal waters. Residential sprawl and loss of open space are also
                                                                         some of the highest concerns that directly relate to water quality.
                                                                         Also, many of the MPSs from the earlier version of the RPP have
                                                                         been moved into various subsections. The land use section is also
                                                                         covered under the mapping and thresholds sections of the revised
                                                                         plan.


 DOUGLAS STORRS
 MASHPEE COMMONS LP
 September 8, 2008

 The following are a few comments relative to the Draft RPP. I
 have tried not to repeat what I have already stated to you in the
 public sessions but also wanted to reiterate some of the points that
 I feel are most in need of amending. I hope you find this to be
 helpful.

 First, as you know, I strongly support the concept of the Land
 Use Vision Mapping, the identification of Economic Centers and
 the use of all tools, regulatory as well as financial, to direct
 growth to the locations that are capable of supporting
 development and redevelopment and away from the outlying
 areas. These centers must promote and support a broad mix of
 uses with relatively high densities and the RPP should not only
 support this vision but must do so in a manner that makes this
 form of growth and redevelopment the most financially feasible.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 206
 It is clear that this is the only sustainable approach to continued
 growth on the Cape and clearly offers the most opportunity for a
 diversity of housing (diversity equals affordability), the ability to
 walk to work/restaurants/entertainment/civic etc uses (walking
 equals increased health benefits) which can have a dramatic
 impact on the reduction of Vehicle Trips, access to public transit
 and all of the social benefits that come from living in a town
 center. It is a significant concern of mine and many others that the
 RPP does not place more focus, recognition and support for
 mixed use development. This is a shortcoming that needs to be
 corrected.

 In order to reverse the trends of the past, it will be absolutely
 critical for the CCC and the RPP to create incentives as opposed
 to impediments to achieving these goals. Clearly the Thresholds
 for review, levels of proposed mitigation and the potential for
 expedited review should be significantly beneficial to all
 proposals within the Economic Centers as opposed to proposed
 development and redevelopment outside of such centers.
 It is my opinion that in order to create the necessary
 incentives certain significant changes must be made to the Draft
 RPP.

 The open houses that you sponsored where very helpful and the
 discussions surrounding the Draft RPP will hopefully result in
 collectively supported changes. In addition I feel they showed a
 new approach to inclusive planning and healthy discussion that, I
 feel, has been lacking for years at the CCC. I trust that many of
 the comments and suggestions that were offered at these open
 houses will be incorporated in the Final RPP. In order to be able
 to gauge the success of these open houses I do feel that it is
 critical for the CCC to issue a 'Red Lined' copy of the Draft RPP
 so that it will be possible to track what changes you have
 included and what you have opted not to change.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 207
 I feel that the baseline approach must be ‗Fix what you break-not
 what others have broken before you‘. Only in this manner can we
 accurately and fairly assess mitigation.

 As to specific sections of the RPP, I offer the following;

 Thresholds                                                               Thresholds: The approach being used in the draft 2008 RPP is a
 The thresholds for areas inside and outside of an Economic               direct result of recommendations made by the 21st Century Task
 Center must be significantly different and must be established by        Force for a map-based approach to planning and regulation and that
 the CCC to direct development/redevelopment to EC‘s.                     the towns be involved in that process. The Commission has relied on
 The current approach, to leave the thresholds the same in both           the knowledge and recommendations of local planning staff and
 areas and the same as in the current RPP and then let the                boards to identify areas in each community that should be mapped
 individual Towns decide to alter them, is totally alien to the           for increased growth and economic activity, and areas where
 concept of directing growth to EC's. The CCC should establish            additional development should be discouraged. This is a
 common thresholds for all ECs, which create clear incentives for         collaborative process between the Commission and the towns.
 development and redevelopment in these areas, and then if the            While a town may subsequently apply to change DRI thresholds
 individual towns want to alter this, there is a process for doing so.    based on the land use map, the decision to change thresholds will
 The CCC currently has this process backward. The establishment           remain in the hands of the Commission. The Commission believes it
 of thresholds is a regional issue and the RPP is a regional land use     would not be appropriate for the Commission to set the same DRI
 document created and managed by the CCC. Thresholds therefore            thresholds for all Economic Centers or other mapped areas as these
 are clearly a CCC responsibility and should not be left to be            areas but to allow the town input in the decision as to what DRI
 established on a town-by-town basis.                                     thresholds are appropriate.

 Predictability
 The RPP should be a 'menu' not a negotiation, particularly when
 it comes to mitigation. By articulating clear parameters for
 mitigation all parties will know what the costs of review are and
 can properly gauge the cost of doing business on the Cape.
 Historically the need to negotiate each aspect of mitigation with
 staff left too great an area for disagreement and disparity between
 projects. A table of mitigation would also expedite the process of
 review.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 208
 Joint Review with Towns
 All projects in an EC should be reviewed via a joint process with
 the Towns so as to shorten the timeframe for review. Further
 there should be one filing fee as opposed to a fee both agencies.
 Again, these are economic incentives which can help to direct
 growth to the EC‘s.

 Mitigation
 Assessing mitigation must be done in a manner that advances the
 goal of directing mixed use, high-density development and
 redevelopment to EC‘s. This is the single greatest tool the RPP
 has and is the single greatest vehicle for economic zoning, which
 is the only way in which the goal of directing growth to the areas
 that can support it can in fact be achieved.
 This can be implemented by a few simply approaches.
 First, all mitigation requirements must be eliminated for any
 second or third floors of projects in an EC. This is especially true
 for residential uses in EC's. While I agree there should be a
 review of multistory buildings, there clearly should be no
 mitigation required for any use on the upper floors of such
 buildings. This will create the single most positive economic
 incentive to direct growth to the areas where it is most
 appropriate and most sustainable. As it is clearly more expensive
 to produce housing in EC‘s on upper floors, which is the form of
 growth that is most sustainable, then we need to eliminate the
 mitigation costs for this use to level the economic playing field
 with housing produced outside of the EC‘s/Town Centers.

 Second, in EC‘s there should be a review of the full project but
 there should be no mitigation on the square footage of the base
 Threshold level (if the threshold is 30,000 SF and a project is
 50,000 SF there would be mitigation only on the 20,000 SF. This
 again levels the playing field and creates incentives for growth
 and redevelopment in EC‘s.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 209
 The RPP must address the fact that there are significant added
 costs beyond mitigation (filing fees, affordable housing tax, open
 space etc) These are not reflected in the total mitigation costs and
 need to be counted when looking at incentives for growth in
 EC‘s.

 The RPP needs to better define mixed use to reflect the fact that         RE The RPP needs to better define: Staff proposes revising the
 mixed use can be a mix of single use buildings (apts next to              mixed use definition in the draft RPP as follows:
 retail/office) in addition to a mix of uses within a single building.     Mixed Use: A single building or a single development of more than
                                                                           one building that contains residential and commercial land uses
                                                                           planned as a unified whole and functionally integrated, with
                                                                           residential use constituting between 40% - 60% of the total gross
                                                                           square feet of development excluding common areas within the
                                                                           residential component(s) of the project

 Mitigation must be tied to occupancy of a building or building(s)         RE Mitigation must be tied: The requirement in AH 1.8 that any off-
 and not required to be paid before occupancy permits are issued.          site contributions/mitigation must be made prior to receipt of a
                                                                           building permit is based upon the need to have the contribution in
                                                                           hand when the DRI project starts construction so that there will be
                                                                           enough time to create the affordable housing within the same time
                                                                           frame as had they been created on site; therefore, staff recommends
                                                                           no change in that MPS.

 If it is the Right thing in the Right location, why tax it to such a
 degree that you create the incentive to build any use, anywhere
 you can avoid the CCC. This is not good planning!!

 Economic Development
 This section is one of the most flawed sections of the RPP and
 creates impediments and economic disincentives to
 accomplishing the goals of directing good growth to the EC‘s.
 This section must be reworked almost in its entirety. I feel that
 the detailed comments of the Cape Cod Chamber accurately

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 210
 reflects these concerns and I will not repeat them here. I agreed
 with their comments.

 The Economic Development section is inherently flawed in that it         RE The Economic Development section: Development can have a
 is geared to an attempt to manipulate market forces and a free           positive impact on the economy but this is not true of all
 market economy as opposed to focusing on form and location of            development. The economic development standards will apply to a
 development and redevelopment.                                           small share of the business activity on Cape Cod.

 The entire Formula Business approach is guaranteed to drive up           RE The entire Formula Business: The draft RPP does not restrict
 the cost of food, drugs etc. which is totally counter productive to      formula businesses.
 affordable living on Cape Cod.

 In addition the limitation on where you can buy goods and                RE In addition: ED3.3 encourages the use of local suppliers and the
 services and whom you can hire (ED3.3) is not only unrealistic           employment of residents. As a standard, it would be difficult to
 but again will only serve to drive up the cost of goods and              determine compliance. ED3.3 has therefore been added to the waiver
 services. How is it possibly the role of the CCC to tell anyone          criteria available under ED3.
 who they can hire and where they can buy goods and services?
 (…local residents, contractors…during the planning, construction
 and operations phases of the project) It is not the role of the
 Regional Planning Agency to attempt to manipulate free markets.
 The entire Economic Development section must be changed to
 avoid any attempt to so.

 The section on Mitigating Economic Development (ED2.2 …may               RE The section on Mitigating: Mitigation is determined by the
 require mitigation…) is arbitrary and unpredictable and will serve       negative impacts of the specific development in question. The
 to negate the positive aspects of mixed use in EC‘s.                     technical bulletin for economic development will be revised to
                                                                          provide further guidance on mitigation options.

 Further to suggest that one should pay to conduct a market study         RE Further to suggest: The purpose of a market study is to determine
 (ED2.1-no purpose is articulated as to what the study would be           if demand exists for the project.
 used for) and to assess a tax (mitigation) on businesses,
 particularly ones in an EC is indicative of a lack of understanding
 of basic economic principles. This is an attempt at one-size fits all
 which is simply misguided. For example, in MC we have

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 211
 numerous employees working in stores and food service, who are
 happy to work part time as a social outlet but as they have
 limitations on income for Social Security reasons they are happy
 to work for wages below those set by the CCC. Should a building
 owner be taxed (mitigation) for this opportunity provided by a
 tenant? This makes no sense whatsoever.

 Further, there is no reflection of the fact that it is inherently less     RE Further there is no reflection: The Commission, under the Act,
 expensive to live in an EC as you have lower vehicle ownership             must encourage year-round livable wage jobs. This RPP, the
 needs and reduced costs, more access to public transit etc. If it          economic section in particular, directs growth to economic centers.
 costs less to live in an EC than it does commuting to work from            Hopefully, this will someday result in economic centers where the
 10-20 miles away, should all wages be the same and mitigated in            cost of living is reasonable and transit is a practical alternative to the
 the same way? Clearly not.                                                 car.

 Energy
 As previously stated, this section must focus on energy Savings
 not Generation. The greatest energy benefits can be derived
 through promoting development and redevelopment in Town
 Centers, which by and of themselves save more energy than any
 other approach to growth patterns. Only after the ‗place‘ has been
 made sustainable does it make sense to discuss sustainable
 buildings and alternative forms of energy. First and foremost our
 collective focus must be on providing all of the components of
 our daily lives within walking distance, so that driving is a
 choice, not a necessary act. The benefits of walking and biking go
 beyond energy savings, as they are the only modes of
 transportation that can increase your health as opposed to wasting
 fossil fuels. The RPP must reflect this approach to sustainable
 land use patterns as opposed to setting unrealistic goals of energy
 generation.

 The RPP should create incentives for building better (greener)             RE The RPP should create incentives: Staff is planning to propose
 buildings in EC's as opposed to mandating criteria that either             for the Energy section that mixed use buildings located in ECs may
 cannot be met or do not achieve the Green Building and Green               waive the energy requirements, as this type of development is

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                         DRAFT 10/16/08                                                              Page 212
 Site goals that we all want.                                              typically far more energy efficient than single use buildings. This
 The demands as to LEED certification are evidence that people             addresses Mr. Storr's concerns over the 10% on-site requirement, the
 do not understand LEED well and are unaware of its                        focus on promotion of energy savings (and not generation), as well
 shortcomings.                                                             as providing an incentive for development to locate in ECs.
 For example, you cannot get any LEED points for providing
 access to Public Transit, even thought Public Transit serves EC‘s         Staff acknowledges that LEED has many flaws, however we
 on the Cape, as LEED mandates access to TWO sources of Public             recommend that it remain an option for applicants seeking an
 Transit. It is all too easy to latch onto items such as LEED but          alternative to meeting the on-site 10% requirement. One of the
 when one learns more about it you realize it has many flaws. The          Commission planning actions in the energy section is to work with
 RPP should establish Green Standards for Cape Cod as its own              regional stakeholders to develop green building standards that are
 approach to green site and building design specific to the unique         appropriate to Cape Cod.
 aspects of the Cape and not rely on cookie cutter programs that
 do not fit Cape Cod, The CCC should be at the forefront of this,
 not simply regurgitating other programs.

 Affordable Housing
 The affordable housing section that mandates $/SF for different           RE The affordable housing section: With respect to promoting mixed
 uses 'for the purpose of creating affordable housing in the Town          use and affordable housing in ECs, staff is drafting the enabling
 in which the DRI is located' will certainly and simply insure that        regulations that will provide the framework and opportunity for a
 a large amount of new development will be built outside of the            significantly higher mixed use threshold in ECs. Staff is also
 jurisdiction of the CCC which is not beneficial to sustainable            discussing the relaxation of certain mitigation requirements for the
 patterns of development nor will it help direct growth etc. The           upper story/stories for mixed use developments in ECs. However,
 goal of providing affordable housing is an important one but              there will still need to be some regional and/or local affordability
 currently there is nothing in the RPP Affordable Housing section          requirement for the residential development within a mixed use
 that reflects the benefits of living where you work. Residential          project to insure that it is not just market rate development that
 units on the upper floors in a EC provide an opportunity for              occurs within ECs.
 significantly less living costs (less vehicle need/use, access to            With respect to the Nexus Study, the findings in the study about
 public transit, more energy efficient housing etc.)                       the numbers of below average wage jobs in various types of
 This leads to inherently affordable housing but this is not               development was left unchanged as staff believes that the data in
 reflected in the RPP. Again, one approach to affordable housing           Appendix C of the Nexus Study was valid and still applicable as
 does not fit all sites and types and this needs to be reflected in the    wage growth in individual job classifications generally mirrored the
 RPP.                                                                      3.7% regional average wage growth from 2004-2007 ($34,598 to
 It is unclear, at best, on what basis the 2005 Nexus study was            $35,880). Because of the dramatic change in the real estate market
 ‗updated‘. This needs science behind it, not interpreted art.             from 2005 through 2008, however, staff updated the residential

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 213
                                                                         mitigation calculation that was used in the Nexus Study. Based upon
                                                                         assessors‘ data from 11 Cape towns from 2002-2006, the average
                                                                         size of a new single family home on the Cape from 2002-2006 was
                                                                         2,485 square feet. Therefore, a 10 unit DRI would on average
                                                                         include 23,865 square feet of development (1,500 square feet was
                                                                         used for the one affordable unit that would have to be provided).
                                                                         Using HUD median income data from 2005-2007 and MLS data for
                                                                         those same years, the affordability gap for a household at 70% area
                                                                         median income to purchase a home at the top of the lowest quartile
                                                                         was $170,880. Therefore, the effective DRI residential mitigation is
                                                                         $7.16 per sf ($170,880 divided by 23,865). Consistent with the
                                                                         methodology recommended by the Nexus Study, the residential
                                                                         square foot mitigation amount was used as the basis for the office
                                                                         mitigation in non-EC areas. The mitigation for other types of
                                                                         development was then adjusted from the office standard depending
                                                                         upon the number of below average wage jobs in those types of
                                                                         development compared with office development. Staff believes that
                                                                         this analysis is sound and meets the legal ―rough proportionality‖test
                                                                         between the nature of the impacts and the assessment of the costs.

 Open Space
 While the 2:1 ratio for GIZ‘s and EC‘s is better than the 1:1 ratio
 for ‗other areas‘ this ratio does not create enough of an incentive.
 Why require open space for a project that is located where is
 should be and is of the type that is most sustainable? Again, by
 eliminating the requirement for open space in an EC the CCC can
 create a significant economic incentive for development in EC‘s.
 At the Open House, the statement was made that the category of
 designating SNRA for unfragmented forest would be eliminated.
 I trust this will be incorporated in the final RPP.

 Transportation
 Safety Impacts TR1.2 and TR1.3 refer to the need to identify
 safety impacts where there are 3 or more accidents…

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 214
 The lack of definition and clarity of the term ‗accidents‘ has
 created significant issues in the past. It is very important that the
 RPP define accidents and not include problems or accidents
 created by inattentive drivers (cell phones and text messaging)
 nor alcohol related problems. Again, one size does not fit all and
 the definition of what is a accident that is clearly a safety issue is
 crucial to the proper mitigation of accidents.
 The provision for 20 years of payments for such items as
 continuous year round traffic recording devices is excessive and
 should not be a requirement in GIZ/EC‘s.
 The continuing efforts to make happy automobiles has resulted in
 making humans miserable, to say nothing about the
 environmental costs associated with them. This section should
 focus more on the benefits of mixed use and traffic reduction
 benefits.


 CAPE LIGHT COMPACT
 September 10, 2008

 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Energy Section
 of the Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan (RPP). The Cape Light
 Compact ("Compact") is pleased to provide this letter of support
 as voted on at their September 10, 2008 meeting.

 In particular, the Compact supports:

 - the planning section (E-l: C-l, C-2, T-l and T-3) on energy
 efficiency provides for collaboration with regional agencies and
 local stakeholders and encourages consumers and businesses to
 take full advantage of the energy efficiency programs available
 through the Compact;

 - the regulatory standards (E1) provide flexibility in meeting the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 215
 minimum performance standards to promote energy efficiency,
 again through participation in the Compact's programs, and sets a
 good initial level for the on-site renewable energy generation
 criteria that should be helpful for businesses who seek to stabilize
 a portion of their energy costs for the long-term.

 We appreciate the tremendous effort in developing the entire RPP
 that will work for all our towns on the Cape and look forward to
 continuing to coordinate with its implementation and future
 updates.

 Sincerely,
 Robert P. Mahoney, Chairman
 Charlotte Striebel, Vice Chairman


 ELIZA COX
 September 14, 2008

 (E-mail to Heather McElroy)

 Hi Heather,

 I apologize that it has taken me so long to get back to you, but its
 been a crazy week. Anyway, I did review our comments on
 OS2.1 and then also OS1.10 which you pointed out.

 Based on the goal (OS2), our comments on OS 2.1 were intended            Based on the goal: Noted.
 to further incentivize the allowance, where appropriate, of public
 recreational access. I think that OS1.10 is helpful and somewhat
 addresses our comment in OS2.1. However, the qualifications in
 OS1.10 limit its application & based on the way its worded, I
 don't think that it gives the CCC the discretion to allow for a
 reduction if the site does not comply with the qualifications listed

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                       Page 216
 in that standard. There may be open space locations where public
 access is highly desired that are neither located in an SNRA, nor
 adjacent to other open space. And, I don't think there is much of
 an incentive for a property owner to allow for public access
 across his/her property. Therefore, I would suggest deleting that
 language from OS 1.10 (re: SNRA & adjacent to other open
 space) & just allow, at the discretion of the Commission, a
 reduction in open space amount where an applicant allows for
 public access through the open space. For your consideration...

 Please let me know if you have any questions.
 With best wishes,
 -Liza

 Eliza Cox, Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP
 1513 Iyannough Road, Hyannis, MA 02601
 (P): 508-790-5431    (F): 508-771-8079


 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
 September 19, 2008

 The enclosed detailed analysis of the Economic Development
 Section of the Draft RPP of 2008 has been approved as an official
 comment letter by the Cape Cod Chamber Board of Directors.

 While we acknowledge significant improvements over the 2002
 RPP, we have tried to offer constructive criticism of the current
 document in its present form. Chief among the concerns is the
 disconnect between laudable goals in the text that recognize the
 importance of economic centers but then lapses into extensive
 regulatory rules that basically are inimicable to a market driven
 system.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 217
 We believe that there is good reason for planners and regulators
 to concentrate on infrastructure issues including the designation
 of economic centers, trade centers, and village centers. Rezoning,
 including density and incentives for investment, are important to
 our economic well being as a region. This document, however,
 has a tendency to revert back to the 2002 RPP with an emphasis
 on detailed regulations that ignore market driven commercial
 initiatives. Regulations that describe local content, formula
 business, and selective pre-ordained industry clusters are not, in
 our view, in the best interests of our citizens or communities.

 Additionally, we continue to be concerned about the
 Commission's staff ability to implement solutions to complex
 problems. We have delineated what we believe to be five of the
 most serious issues that the region faces. With benefit of
 hindsight, we point to the fact that significant improvement on
 these issues has come from various combinations of leaders on
 the civic/political side.

 A far more powerful solution driven process would probably
 accelerate improvement in these different areas. A possible
 solution would be some form of an Advisory Board which would
 serve the purpose of initiating and monitoring these efforts to
 improve the well-being of our citizens.

 In any case, a far reaching discussion of an implementation plan
 could fill the gap between goals and measurability. We continue
 to believe that once the Land Use Vision Maps and completed
 and zoning density issues are settled, then regulatory intensity
 should be lessened and solved within the local control parameter
 without interference from the regional regulatory authority.

 Economic Development is easier to undertake when the rules are
 simple to follow and flexibility signals a welcoming backdrop for

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 218
 investment in commercial activity that the communities want.
 The Commission should not attempt to have a role in the
 determination of (market forces and the concept of free markets.

 Sincerely,
 Wendy K. Northcross, CCE CEO
 Richard W. Neitz, Chairman of the Board



 Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce Statement on the Draft RPP of
 2008

 The new draft 2008 Regional Policy Plan (RPP) document
 recognizes major shortcomings in the 2002 RPP. The new
 Growth Policy recognizes inevitable growth and change by
 proposing that we guide development towards areas that are
 adequately supported by infrastructure and away from areas that
 must be protected. The emphasis is on Regional Planning and
 Regional Regulations supported by a Land Use Vision Map. The
 focus is on economic centers, villages, and industrial and service
 trade areas.

 Planning is intended to be measurable and achievable in the next
 five years. The planning will be linked to resource maps, Local
 Comprehensive Plans (LCPs), Districts of Critical Planning
 Concern (DCPCs), Growth Incentive Zones (GIZs), and
 integrated infrastructure planning. The emphasis on regional
 regulations is intended to make Developments of Regional
 Impact (DRIs) more predictable, more flexible, limited,
 mitigatable, and linked to the regional land use map.

 New DRI flexible thresholds are being proposed that will have to
 be implemented through the County Legislative Process. These

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 219
 regulations will hopefully recognize both smart growth principles
 and the rural and urban nature of Cape Cod, rather than a one-
 size- fits-all policy.

 While there is important recognition of a changing Cape Cod
 inherent in the document, the Chamber believes that our economy
 and the public policy issues that affect our economic well-being
 deserve a much more thorough discussion that will lead to a more
 meaningful document used as a catalyst for advocacy and change.
 The Chamber's fundamental economic development efforts over
 the past few years have led to the belief that there is a complex
 relationship between public policy and private investment. In our
 market driven system, good public policy towards infrastructure
 issues is fundamental to economic prosperity for our citizens. The
 Chamber believes that there are five areas of concern for Cape
 Cod that cry out for strong regional cooperation:

 1. Wastewater
 2. Zoning and Sprawl
 3. Economic Development
 4. Transportation
 5. Affordable Housing

 We believe that there is a strong need for a detailed
 implementation plan that will help solve these problems. The
 question remains, can we overcome 15 strong local governments
 traditionally reluctant to change with incentives and education
 that attacks these problems regionally while preserving local
 community character? The evidence is that any progress on this
 front has come from sources other than the Cape Cod
 Commission. The COn1mission Act and the mandate given by it
 often have had the wrong target. Commercial development,
 arguably, has not been the Cape's growth problem.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 220
 The Chamber's role in the wastewater issue, the Business Round
 Table's role in zoning and sprawl, Coastal Community Capital's
 role in job creation and access to capital, Housing Assistance
 Corp.' s and others' role in affordable housing, and a variety of
 individuals and legislators role in transportation improvement,
 suggest that pragmatic solution-driven policy initiatives have
 come from sources other than the Cape Cod Commission.

 The point is not to denigrate individuals, but to recognize that
 planning is important and fundamental, and that advocacy and
 change has to come from the civic, business and political side.
 Such partnerships should be described in the RPP.


 The document is far off the mark when it describes an over-
 reaching detailed approach to every aspect of Cape Cod life
 without any recognition of the daily effort to implement
 solutions. Perfect examples are the two GIZs in Barnstable and
 Yarmouth and the formation of the Cape Cod Water Protection
 Collaborative (CCWPC). In a down real estate market, both GIZs
 are doing well, implementing a strategy of smart growth and
 guiding development to proper places. These efforts spring from
 the civic political side. In the case of the CCWPC, not even
 mentioned in the document, the Cape's civic and political side
 initiated the group which has already made its mark with both
 regional solutions to a regional problem and financial solutions to
 a very expensive capital outlay burden.

 Fundamentally, there is a public and a private interest in
 delineating the problem and then affecting a solution. Generally
 speaking, it is important to recognize that the public side has the
 stronger role in infrastructure issues, while the private side is
 better able to recognize and solve issues of investment and
 workforce development. In this regard, we believe that the

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 221
 Economic Development section lays out a detailed oppressive
 approach based on a set of assumptions that are questionable.
 Again, we live in a market driven economy that is affected by off-
 Cape forces out of our control.

 The Chamber recently initiated a demographic inquiry which is
 leading to an in-depth study of what makes our economy tick.
 Our economic development interest relies on knowledge of the
 market place, sources of capital, workforce development
 opportunities, and small business technical assistance. These
 solutions are driven daily by people dedicated to action and
 measurable results.

 In the draft RPP, we need to make certain that economic
 development goals are compatible with reality and that the
 responsibility for action is not left to a government agency where
 the policy is not a priority and, in fact, may be in conflict.


 Comments on Specific Sections of the RPP are as follows:

 Land Use (LU) Section

 LU 1.1
 Development Location
 No Land Use Vision Map is available                                    RE No Land Use Vision Map: The Regional Land Use Vision Map
                                                                        will be available as part of the final draft RPP submitted to the
                                                                        Assembly of Delegates.

 LU 1.2
 Compact Development
 Should not apply to redevelopment                                      RE Should not apply: MPS LU1.2 includes the phrase ―to the
                                                                        maximum extent possible‖ recognizing the site limitations faced by
                                                                        redevelopment.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 222
 LU 1.3
 Development Location
 Again, no Land Use Vision Map; does this apply to residential           RE Again, no Land Use: LU1.3 has been deleted.
 sub-divisions

 LU 1.4
 Reuse of Historic Buildings
 No definition of a significant historic building. No definition of
 standards. No exception for rehab or re-use

 LU 1.5
 Location of Public Offices
 Define a public office                                                  RE Define a public office: ―Public‖ has been changed to
                                                                         ―municipal‖.
 LU 2.1
 Connections with Existing Infrastructure
 Unclear what is required here. Unused capacity requirements,            RE Unclear what is required: LU2.1 has been revised to clarify that
 future credits, excess capacity?                                        the DRIs shall support compact land use patterns and the land use
                                                                         categories and characteristics of the various mapped areas according
                                                                         to the Regional Land Use Vision Map. The MPS is intended to
                                                                         discourage infrastructure development that adds to sprawling land
                                                                         use patterns.
 LU2.2
 Co-Locate, Public Infrastructure
 Should be more flexible to allow for financial negotiations.            RE Should be more flexible: This is an MPS from the 2002 RPP; it
                                                                         has been relocated to the land use section. As a policy, the
                                                                         Commission has encouraged co-location to minimize the
                                                                         environmental and visual impacts of wireless facilities.

 Economic Development Section, Pages 25, 26, & 27
 The opening statement should be rewritten because it is a mixture
 of subjective economic philosophy and wishful thinking on the
 advocacy side.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 223
 We agree that generally the public side needs to be involved in
 infrastructure issues, but the Commission does not have the staff
 or the inclination to carry out an effective economic development
 policy. Again, advocacy and change usually comes from the
 private side and involves individuals and institutions that
 understand competitive markets, demographics, and pragmatic
 approaches to incentives and capital formation.

 The Commission should push for elimination of sprawl caused by
 poor zoning decisions made decades ago. It should be involved in
 the location of major Growth Incentive Zones, but the references
 to McMansions and cottages intertwined with village settings is
 purely Disneyesque. These decisions as to what gets built and
 where it gets built are basically local in nature. The Commission
 historically has rarely been involved in residential development
 or commercial projects that are less than 10,000 sq. ft. in size.
 The statements about local business and concurrent market
 descriptions are contradictory, unenforceable, and not
 economically feasible in our market driven capitalistic system.

 The statement in general is not positive and has the effect of
 repelling capital rather than attracting it. We would respectfully
 refer you to the Town of Barnstable LCP Economic Development
 section for an example of a positive statement that is attractive
 and welcoming to capital investment while holding to principles
 that are in the best interest of the citizens of Barnstable.


 Specific Comments:

 ED1-C1
 Cape Cod Economic Development Strategy
 See previous comments. Strategy should not be driven by
 regulations.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 224
 ED1-C2
 Economic Development Education
 Again, this is a task that the civic/political side should take on

 ED1-C3
 Infrastructure Financing
 There is no evidence that the commission would take the lead on
 such things as EDIC's Redevelopment Authorities, Special
 Taxing Districts, Tax Increment Financing, TDR's, PWED,
 UDAG, SRF funding, etc.

 ED1-T1 Zoning in Economic Centers
 ED1-T2 Targeting Public Investment
 ED1-T3 Incentives to Locate in Economic Center
 After the Land Use Vision Map is completed, the Commission
 should encourage and support rezoning with density and flexible
 development diversity, supported by infrastructure improvement.
 The key is a flexible, less bureaucratic approach not given to
 excessive regulations.



 ED-2 Economic Development Goal

 The Statement on page 28 is unrealistic and vague. It appears to
 be a process of picking winners based on the collective judgment
 of planners and regulators rather than business people and trained
 business analysts who are experienced in risk associated with
 investment decisions.      We believe that infrastructure decisions
 and smart growth principles lead to proper public control that
 allows for individual economic decisions that are good for the
 region, the taxpayer, and the business person. The approach in
 this document turns this principle on its ear by starting out with

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 225
 preconceived notions about a mythical economic setting.

 ED2-C1 Regional Cost of Doing Business Analysis
 ED2-C2 Regional Market Analysis
 ED2-C3 Demographic and Economic Data Clearinghouse
 Could there be an inherent conflict for developers who must
 present market analyses based on this info while also being
 reviewed by the Commission? The cost of doing business will be
 compared to what other region? The Chamber should be a partner
 in these tasks.

 ED2-Tl Workforce Housing Incentives
 ED2-T2 Pressure/Reserve Specially Zoned Areas
 These zoning changes would be welcome, but history tells us that
 the initiative should come from the civic/political side. Zoning
 changes are difficult and messy. The Commission staff would
 have to be collaborative with local political/civic leaders in order
 to accomplish these goals. Additionally, the mitigation fees for
 affordable housing proposed are extremely expensive and would
 create a chilling effect on commercial investment. The fees
 prescribed are $9.26 to $13.89 per sq.ft. for restaurants and $6.49
 to $9.74 for retail.



 ED-3 Economic Development Goal

 The statement on page 30, again, completely ignores market
 forces in a capitalistic system and further forgets that there are
 economic forces that are beyond our capacity to control. Yes, we
 need higher wages, better jobs, and profitable enterprise, but it is
 not realistic to confer that mission on the Cape Cod Commission.

 Again, if the Commission concentrates on solving our

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 226
 infrastructure issues, then our economy would at least have a
 chance at improving as long as we had a workforce and capital
 available for this effort.

 ED3-Cl Fiscal Impact Modeling
 Vague and unrealistic. What in-house expertise would they draw
 on for the analysis?

 ED3-C2 Local and Regional Economic Tools
 Should be strictly limited to helping to set out GIZs and changing
 zoning. No expertise evident in setting up financial entities.

 ED3-C3 Economic and Business Development Partnerships
 How about listing some of these entities beginning with sister
 County agencies (CCWPC).

 ED3-Tl Focus and Limit Formula Business Activity
 This is very arbitrary and counter to local planning efforts.

 ED3-T2 Buy and Add Value Locally
 A good idea, but towns should allow business to operate
 unencumbered.

 ED3-T3 Improve Business Climate
 Best to focus on infrastructure and let the innovative free market
 develop opportunities. Public employees should welcome and
 encourage business investment



 ED 4 Economic Development Goal
 Capital Facilities and Infrastructure

 The introductory paragraph describes the need for capital

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 227
 facilities from good schools to wastewater infrastructure. Again,
 the problem is defining responsibility for planning and carrying
 out the initiatives that result in better facilities necessary for
 economic growth. The Commission historically has not been the
 agency that has successfully executed a plan for infrastructure
 improvement.

 Energy projects, wastewater solutions, and internet coverage have
 all come from the civic/political side of the Cape's leadership.

 ED4-Cl Infrastructure Assessment Mapping
 If the Commission would just do this in a reasonable period of
 time, that would be great

 ED4-C2 Infrastructure Financing
 The Commission has shown no appetite for this and it is not
 within their capability (see SRF funding for wastewater)

 ED4-C3 Hazard Mitigation Investment
 Some role in this, but natural disaster planning must be shared
 with other county agencies and state and local police and fire
 experts

 ED4-Tl Capital Facility Plans
 ED4-T2 Regional Collaborative
 ED4-T3 Distributed Energy Generation
 All of these undertakings require action and initiative from civic
 and political leaders. The Commission staff is not set up to
 accomplish these worthwhile steps. A deep discussion needs to
 take place on implementation plans with our appointed and
 elected leaders. These worthwhile goals require a well-defined
 implementation plan.




CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 228
 Specific Comments on Minimum Performance Statements and
 Best Development Practices

 ED2.1
 Market Impact Information Requirements
 These should not be required for all commercial development,
 particularly those in mapped areas.

 ED3.2
 Economic Impact/Net Income Growth Standard
 What does "unclear the monetary size of the regional economy"
 mean? Overly burdensome--what exactly does "locally" mean?
 Vague reference to "net economic impact." An attempt to tax,
 regulate, manipulate business.

 ED3.3
 Local Labor and Service Provision
 What if there are no "local" providers? Who specializes in these
 skills? How about effect on costs? Can the Commission tell
 anyone where to buy goods and services?

 ED3.4
 Local Ownership
 This means that any business with over 14 outlets might not be
 allowed on the Cape. Grocery stores, drug stores, and standard
 clothing stores would be effected significantly driving up the cost
 of goods to our citizens.

 ED3.5
 Diverse Employment Opportunities
 Workforce may not be available locally for a specific project--
 much too burdensome



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 229
 ED4.5
 Distribute Energy Generation
 Impossible to meet within realistic fiscal parameters.


 BRIAN CURRIE/TOWN OF FALMOUTH
 September 16, 2008


 Page 93: The Regional Land Use Vision Map should be qualified
 as ―Draft‖ or ―Partial‖ as not every town has participated or
 completed the mapping process.

 Page 93: Any clarification or definition of what would be
 required in a ―design and infrastructure plan‖ would be helpful.

 Page 95: LU1.2: ―Shall be clustered‖ may not always be prudent
 given the characteristics of the site or the uses involved. Local
 Fire Departments should be consulted regarding the clustering of
 buildings.

 Page 96: LU 2.2: There needs to be a municipal exception for
 radio towers having a public safety role.

 Page 97: ED 1.1: Why not use Best Development Practice ED
 1.3?

 Page 98: Is there a minimum threshold for green design? To
 what extent & based on what standards?

 Page 98: Shared Infrastructure: The CCC should assist towns and
 developers with getting permission from the utility companies to
 allow shared energy-generation facilities.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 230
 Page 99: ED2.2: The dominate industry sectors that would be
 required to provide mitigation should be specified. A dominant
 industry in Falmouth is marine biology where additional growth
 may be welcomed. The planning section of economic
 development calls on the Cape to ―protect & build on your
 competitive advantage,‖ yet this MPS seems to counter that by
 discouraging increased strength.

 Page 99: ED2.3: Who enforces if the newly created job includes
 benefits?

 Page 99: ED2.4: A definition of emerging industry would be
 helpful. Marine sciences have been located on the cape for a long
 time, as has arts & culture.

 Page 99: ED 2.5: We operate in a global economy, if local
 companies can‘t compete, is it government‘s job to protect
 (essentially a subsidy) them?

 Page 99: ED 2.6: Gaming should be addressed in the planning
 section to explain & defend the stresses listed. It should not be
 included in the regulatory section without any prior discussion.

 Page 100: ED3.2: A definition of ―local‖ is necessary. Do you
 mean the Cape Cod Region?

 Page 100: ED 3.3: To what extent should local labor be used? Is
 there a minimum percentage goal?

 Page 100: ED 3.4: It‘s not the role of local government to create
 an artificially protective business climate for certain ownership
 structures. While town can regulate use of land and to a limited
 extent, the design of structures, regulatory preference based on
 ownership would be considered discriminatory.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 231
 Page 101: ED 3.5: Percentage targets would be helpful.

 Page 101: ED 3.7: How will the CCC measure & enforce this?

 Page 101: ED 4.1: Proposed DRIs should be required to mitigate
 the additional impacts caused to their projects, not fix existing
 problems caused by others. If the demand for the infrastructure is
 already a problem, then the current residents & businesses have a
 responsibility to address it.

 Page 101: ED4.2: Telecommunication licensing is negotiated
 between towns and providers.

 Page 102: ED4.5: Is it worth the investment in the technology to
 realize such a small requirement? What is the break-even point
 of making the upfront capital investment?

 General Comment: The CCC needs to assess the purpose of the
 Economic Development Element and the role regional
 government plays in a free market economy.

 Page 102-103: WR 1.1 & 1.4: How can these be MPS when the             RE Page 102-103: Commission staff suspects that this comment may
 DRI threshold hasn‘t been met yet & there is no CCC                   actually be is intended for MPS WR3.1 & 3.4 rather than MPSs
 jurisdiction?                                                         WR1.1 & WR1.4.
                                                                       MPS WR3.1 states that in watersheds to estuaries/embayments
                                                                       where a critical nitrogen load has been determined, through either a
                                                                       Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), or a Massachusetts Estuaries
                                                                       Project-accepted technical report, development and redevelopment
                                                                       shall not exceed the identified critical nitrogen loading standard for
                                                                       impact on marine ecosystems, except as provided in WR3.3. The
                                                                       Commission shall maintain a list and map of estuary/embayment
                                                                       critical nitrogen loading standards; the list and map will be updated
                                                                       on a regular basis as TMDLs are approved by the Massachusetts

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 232
                                                                      Department of Environmental Protection and the US Environmental
                                                                      Protection Agency.
                                                                      MPS WR3.4 states that in watersheds to estuaries/embayments
                                                                      where development and redevelopment must meet either WR3.1 or
                                                                      WR3.2, development and redevelopment may meet these standards
                                                                      by providing an equivalent nitrogen offset contribution to be used
                                                                      toward meeting the intent of WR3.1 or WR3.2.
                                                                      The load requirements of WR3.1 and WR3.2 above may be achieved
                                                                      by providing wastewater treatment for the development or
                                                                      redevelopment and additional treatment capacity for nearby land
                                                                      uses, installation of alternative denitrifying technologies for existing
                                                                      septic systems in the same Marine Water Recharge Area, and/or an
                                                                      equivalent contribution of $1,550 per kg/yr of nitrogen towards a
                                                                      municipal or watershed effort that achieves the intent of WR3.1 and
                                                                      WR3.2.
                                                                      Under the 2002 RPP, the Commission limited project nitrogen loads
                                                                      based on nitrogen-loading and tidal-flushing assessments conducted
                                                                      by the Commission. The MEP process is now establishing critical
                                                                      nitrogen loads as the bases for developing nitrogen TMDLs that
                                                                      communities will need to meet through their comprehensive
                                                                      wastewater management planning processes.
                                                                      None of the towns on Cape Cod currently have impact-fee structures
                                                                      in place by which they could fund capital improvements that will be
                                                                      necessary to meet nitrogen TMDLs. The State will not enforce
                                                                      nitrogen TMDLs at the individual project level. Through the
                                                                      Regional Vision Map, towns have a great deal of control over the
                                                                      projects that are reviewed by the Commission as Developments of
                                                                      Regional Impact. Commission review provides towns with the
                                                                      opportunity to access mitigation funds collected under MPS WR3.1
                                                                      to pay for wastewater capital improvements.

 Page 103: WR 1.2: Within 400 feet of what, property lines, uses?     RE Page 103: MPS WR1.2 states that development and
                                                                      redevelopment shall identify their proposed drinking water wells and
                                                                      existing private drinking water wells on abutting properties within

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                   DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 233
                                                                    400 feet and assess the impact of the development on the water
                                                                    quality of these wells and all other existing wells that may potentially
                                                                    be affected by the proposed development. Septic systems and other
                                                                    sources of contamination shall be sited to avoid impacting
                                                                    downgradient existing or proposed wells.
                                                                    Development and redevelopment within 400 feet of proposed
                                                                    drinking water wells and existing private drinking water wells on
                                                                    abutting properties will be required to assess the impact of the
                                                                    development on the water quality of these wells and all other existing
                                                                    wells that may potentially be affected by the proposed development.

 Page 104: WR 1.9: Then the MPS should be strengthened so it‘s      RE Page 104: BDP WR1.9 states that development and
 clear what‘s expected.                                             redevelopment should attain greater groundwater or surface water
                                                                    protection than provided for in the Minimum Performance Standards.
                                                                    MPSs contained in sections WR1 through 7 provide strong
                                                                    protection of groundwater and surface water. BDP WR1.9 is a Best
                                                                    Development Practice, not a Minimum Performance Standard.
                                                                    BDPs seek greater protection than MPSs where feasible but are not
                                                                    required..

 Page 104: WR2: Why does the water have to be untreated?            RE Page 104 WR2: Goal WR2 is to maintain the overall quality and
                                                                    quantity of Cape Cod's groundwater to ensure a sustainable supply of
                                                                    untreated high-quality drinking water.
                                                                    Drinking-water treatment is necessary in communities that have not
                                                                    adequately protected drinking-water supplies. The Drinking Water
                                                                    goal of the Regional Policy plan is to avoid the need for drinking
                                                                    water treatment through the promotion of smart-growth and land-use
                                                                    & development practices that cluster development, preserve open
                                                                    space, incorporate low-impact designs, avoid the introduction of
                                                                    hazardous materials to wellhead protection areas, and provide for the
                                                                    collection and treatment of wastewater where necessary. Presently,
                                                                    only five of 150 gravel-pack wells on Cape Cod require treatment
                                                                    from contamination or the threat of contamination. Water districts
                                                                    will continue making pH adjustments to protect copper plumbing and

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                 DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 234
                                                                       occasionally chlorinate drinking water when bacterial contamination
                                                                       is identified (typically during the summer months). However, a
                                                                       strategy that incorporates appropriate and sustainable land-use and
                                                                       development practices is the most sustainable way to protect Cape
                                                                       Cod's drinking-water supplies. Reliance on expensive drinking-
                                                                       water treatment systems will be necessary only if Cape Cod fails to
                                                                       protect drinking-water supplies.

 Page 104: WR 2.2: It should be specified that this only apply to      RE Page 104 WR2.2: The Regional Policy Plan (RPP) only regulates
 DRI development. Or is it the intent to not allow any gas stations    projects and/or business subject to Cape Cod Commission review.
 or dry cleaners anywhere on Cape Cod?                                 As such, all of the RPP Minimum Performance Standards (MPS),
                                                                       including this one, only apply to projects under Commission review.
                                                                       At the same time, it has always been envisioned that the Towns
                                                                       would adopt local bylaws that would implement the intent of the
                                                                       Regional Policy Plan.
                                                                       In addition, if a project/business is subject to Commission review as
                                                                       a Development of Regional Impact, MPS WR2.2 only applies to
                                                                       those projects located in Wellhead Protection Districts/Areas/Zone II
                                                                       Areas. This MPS has been part of the Regional Policy Plan since
                                                                       1991, and has been applied in this manner since that original
                                                                       Regional Policy Plan.

                                                                       Water Resources response RE Page 104 WR2.2: MPS WR 2.2 states
                                                                       that development and redevelopment that involves the use, treatment,
                                                                       generation, handling, storage, or disposal of Hazardous Materials or
                                                                       Hazardous Wastes, with the exception of household quantities, shall
                                                                       not be permitted in Wellhead Protection Areas, except as provided in
                                                                       WM1.2 and WM1.3. This is a minimum performance standard
                                                                       located in the regulatory section of the RPP. As described in the
                                                                       introduction to the regulatory section, MPSs apply only to DRIs.
                                                                       The regulatory section of the RPP begins with a description of the
                                                                       regulatory program, process, and the types of projects reviewed by
                                                                       the Commission due to their size, location, or character, affect more
                                                                       than one community. Gas stations and dry cleaners because of their

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 235
                                                                      size typically do not meet Commission review thresholds.

 Page 105: WR 2.3: Does this also apply to public facilities? The     RE Page 105 WR2.3: MPS WR2.3 states that public and private
 heading & body don‘t match.                                          wastewater treatment facilities with Title 5 design flows greater than
                                                                      10,000 gallons per day shall not be permitted in Wellhead Protection
                                                                      Areas, except as provided in MPS WR5.2 below and subject to MPS
                                                                      WR6.1 through WR6.9. The standard applies to both public and
                                                                      private facilities. The new RPP format adds a descriptive header
                                                                      above each standard. The header for this standard will be changed to
                                                                      reflect the standard beneath it.

 Page 105: WR 2.4: In Zone II areas, or everywhere in the             RE Page 105 WR2.4: MPS WR2.4 states that uses prohibited in
 County?                                                              Zone IIs by state regulations shall not be permitted in Wellhead
                                                                      Protection Areas. Standards located beneath respective water-
                                                                      resource goals generally apply to mapped areas, such as wellhead
                                                                      protection areas. References to applicable mapped areas have been
                                                                      added beneath goals. Text has been added to MPS WR2.4 to clarify
                                                                      that the standard applies only to existing and future wellhead
                                                                      protection Areas.

 Page 105: WR 3.1: MEP accepted technical report – accepted by        RE Page 105 WR3.1: MPS WR3.1 states that in watersheds to
 who?                                                                 estuaries/embayments where a critical nitrogen load has been
                                                                      determined, through either a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL),
                                                                      or a Massachusetts Estuaries Project-accepted technical report,
                                                                      development and redevelopment shall not exceed the identified
                                                                      critical nitrogen loading standard for impact on marine ecosystems,
                                                                      except as provided in WR3.3. The Commission shall maintain a list
                                                                      and map of estuary/embayment critical nitrogen loading standards;
                                                                      the list and map will be updated on a regular basis as TMDLs are
                                                                      approved by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
                                                                      Protection and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
                                                                      Massachusetts Estuaries Project-accepted technical reports are the
                                                                      DEP-approved findings that provide the bases for draft TMDLs
                                                                      submitted to USEPA for final approval.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                   DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 236
 Page 106: WR 3.4: Do the systems also have to be maintained by     RE Page 106 WR3.4: MPS WR3.4 states that in watersheds to
 the applicant, or just installed? How many years will the          estuaries/embayments where development and redevelopment must
 payment be due? Should these payments lead to sewers in a          meet either WR3.1 or WR3.2, development and redevelopment may
 reasonable amount of time? If they don‘t, the money isn‘t doing    meet these standards by providing an equivalent nitrogen offset
 any good.                                                          contribution to be used toward meeting the intent of WR3.1 or
                                                                    WR3.2.
                                                                    The load requirements of WR3.1 and WR3.2 above may be achieved
                                                                    by providing wastewater treatment for the development or
                                                                    redevelopment and additional treatment capacity for nearby land
                                                                    uses, installation of alternative denitrifying technologies for existing
                                                                    septic systems in the same Marine Water Recharge Area, and/or an
                                                                    equivalent contribution of $1,550 per kg/yr of nitrogen towards a
                                                                    municipal or watershed effort that achieves the intent of WR3.1 and
                                                                    WR3.2.
                                                                    One-time nitrogen offsets are collected by the Commission from
                                                                    Developments of Regional Impact before a building permit is issued.
                                                                    The offsets are available to municipalities to reduce nitrogen loads in
                                                                    watersheds that drain to the affected nitrogen-sensitive coastal
                                                                    waters. MADEP has not established a formal timeframe within
                                                                    which municipalities will need to meet nitrogen TMDLs,
                                                                    municipalities have been encouraged to advance their comprehensive
                                                                    wastewater management planning to address nitrogen TMDLs.
                                                                    While large-scale sewering may not be necessary to meet nitrogen
                                                                    TMDLs for every watershed, reliance solely on on-site septic
                                                                    systems will not provide the nitrogen reductions that will be
                                                                    necessary for nitrogen-overloaded systems. The nitrogen-offset
                                                                    equivalent is available to municipalities for capital-infrastructure
                                                                    improvements and planning in watersheds where some level of
                                                                    wastewater aggregation and advanced treatment will be necessary to
                                                                    meet nitrogen TMDLs.
                                                                    The nitrogen-offset equivalent can be reduced if development uses
                                                                    MADEP-approved wastewater-denitrifying technologies. State-
                                                                    issued permits regulate operation, maintenance and monitoring

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                 DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 237
                                                                          requirements for these systems, the cost of which is borne by the
                                                                          owner. Acceptance and treatment of wastewater from existing
                                                                          development would also reduce the nitrogen-offset equivalent.

 Page 106: WR 3.5: If this is subjective, then it‘s not a MPS.            RE Page 106 WR3.5: MPS WR3.5 reads: In watersheds where the
 Standards to be used in making that determination should be              critical nitrogen load has not been determined, development and
 specified if this is a regulation.                                       redevelopment may be required to make a monetary contribution
                                                                          toward the development or implementation of appropriate nitrogen
                                                                          management strategies not to exceed $20 per gallon of design flow
                                                                          of wastewater per day. This standard allows the Commission
                                                                          flexibility to negotiate a monetary contribution due to the critical
                                                                          need for information and management strategies in areas where there
                                                                          are none. Fortunately, the MEP and others have developed the
                                                                          needed science for nearly 50% of the Cape and additional studies to
                                                                          complete the remainder are underway.

 Page 106: WR3.6: This is redundant; there is an entire goal (WR          RE Page 106 WR3.6: MPS WR3.6 states that public and private
 6) & set of MPS devoted to public & private WWTF. It would be            wastewater treatment facilities may be used within Marine Water
 helpful to have this consolidated in one place.                          Recharge Areas subject to MPS WR5.2 and MPS WR6.1 through
                                                                          MPS WR6.9 below.
                                                                          This redundancy is desired because, like MPS WR2.3, it ties
                                                                          standards applicable to the protected resource to standards that
                                                                          regulate wastewater treatment facilities. Standards that regulate
                                                                          wastewater treatment facilities are consolidated in RPP section 6.

 Page 107: WR 4.2: See WR 3.5 comments above.                             RE Page 107 WR4.2: MPS WR4.2 reads: If a fresh water pond has
                                                                          documented water quality problems, DRIs located in the pond's
                                                                          watershed may be required to make a monetary contribution toward
                                                                          the development or implementation of appropriate water quality
                                                                          assessment work or management strategies.
                                                                          This standard allows the Commission flexibility to negotiate a
                                                                          monetary contribution due to the critical need for information and
                                                                          management strategies for Ponds and their recharge areas where
                                                                          there are none. The Cape Cod Ponds and Lakes Atlas reports that

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08                                                          Page 238
                                                         over 78% of Cape Cod ponds have impaired water quality. Refer to
                                                         answer provided to NMF regarding this standard.

 Page 107: WR 4.3: See WR3.6 comments above.             RE Page 107 WR4.3 and WR5.2: MPS WR4.3 states that public and
                                                         private wastewater treatment facilities may be used within
 Page 108: WR 5.2: See WR 3.6 comments above.            Freshwater Recharge Areas subject to Goal WR6 and MPS WR6.1
                                                         through MPS WR6.9 below.
                                                         MPS WR5.2 states that use of public and private wastewater
                                                         treatment facilities shall be as follows: Within Water Quality
                                                         Improvement Areas that are in Wellhead Protection Areas, public
                                                         and private wastewater treatment facilities may be used to remediate
                                                         existing problems; within Water Quality Improvement Areas that are
                                                         in Freshwater and/or Marine Water Recharge Areas, public and
                                                         private wastewater treatment facilities may be used in conjunction
                                                         with any development or redevelopment.
                                                         These standards allow the use of wastewater treatment facilities in
                                                         pond recharge areas and Water Quality Improvement Areas. The
                                                         redundancy is desired because, like MPS WR2.3, it ties standards
                                                         applicable to the protected resource to standards that regulate
                                                         wastewater treatment facilities. Standards that regulate wastewater
                                                         treatment facilities are consolidated in RPP section 6.

 Page 108: WR 5.3: See WR 3.5 comments above.            RE Page 108 WR5.3: MPS WR5.3 states that development and
                                                         redevelopment in Economic Centers and Growth Incentive Zones
                                                         within Water Quality Improvement Areas that have been identified
                                                         as requiring comprehensive wastewater treatment solutions may
                                                         shall, in the Commission's discretion, be required to provide a
                                                         monetary contribution, not to exceed $20 per gallon of design flow
                                                         of wastewater per day, towards community wastewater facility
                                                         planning or implementation efforts that may include infrastructure
                                                         for wastewater management, if in the Commission's judgment, such
                                                         contribution would assist in the planning or implementation of such
                                                         infrastructure. In towns without designated Economic Centers, this
                                                         MPS shall not apply.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 239
                                                                     The provision of infrastructure in economic and growth incentive
                                                                     zones is necessary to accommodate more intense land uses. The
                                                                     standard allows the commission to negotiate on behalf of the town
                                                                     for mitigation to develop and or phase in needed infrastructure.

 Page 108: WR5.5: Alternative community water supply needs to        Page 108 WR5.5: MPS WR5.5 states that development and
 be explained. Do you mean town water?                               redevelopment in Economic Centers or Growth Incentive Zones in
                                                                     areas serviced by private wells shall provide alternative community
                                                                     water supply.
                                                                     The standard recognizes that existing private water supplies in ECs
                                                                     and GIZs are incompatible with the greater densities proposed for
                                                                     those areas and will need to be replaced. In addition to municipal
                                                                     water supplies, small-volume wells that are regulated as public water
                                                                     supplies due to the number of connections may be considered as
                                                                     suitable water-supply alternatives.

 Page 109: WR 6.3: Does balanced mean to the extent that there       RE Page 109 WR6.3: MPS WR6.3 states that sewage treatment
 are no ecological impacts?                                          facilities and their collection and discharge areas shall maintain the
                                                                     hydrologic balance of the aquifer and demonstrate that there are no
                                                                     negative ecological impacts to surface waters. Failure to maintain
                                                                     the aquifer's hydrologic balance could have impacts in addition to
                                                                     but not directly related to habitat. For example, large inter-basin
                                                                     transfers could risk intrusion of salt-water in some areas making
                                                                     water-supply development more difficult.

 Page 109: WR 6.4: How would this ever be in compliance with         RE Page 109 WR6.4: MPS WR6.4 states that the construction of
 local zoning?                                                       private wastewater treatment facilities shall not allow development to
                                                                     occur at a higher density than would be allowed by local zoning
                                                                     unless anticipated and approved through a Commission approved
                                                                     Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan.
                                                                     An approved CWMP that provides for by higher densities anticipates
                                                                     that zoning changes will occur to make them consistent with the
                                                                     CWMP.



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                  DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 240
 Page 109: WR 6.6: Why couldn‘t a PSTF be built in a wildlife               RE Page 109 WR6.6: MPS WR6.6 states that public and private
 habitat area if the habitat area was not in a ZOC to a public water        wastewater treatment facilities with greater than a design flow of
 supply or in an area of condemned groundwater?                             10,000 gallons per day shall not be constructed in FEMA V-Zones
                                                                            and floodways, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs),
                                                                            wetlands and buffer areas, barrier beaches, coastal dunes, or critical
                                                                            wildlife habitats. Public and private wastewater treatment facilities
                                                                            may be constructed in FEMA A-Zones only to remediate water
                                                                            quality problems from existing development within such A-Zones
                                                                            and consistent with MPS CR2.2 and CR2.8.
                                                                            Critical wildlife habitats are reserved for wildlife protection and are
                                                                            incompatible with the function of wastewater treatment and disposal
                                                                            facilities.

 Page 111: WR 7.7: Do you mean all MPS for storm water? How                 RE Page 111 WR7.7: MPS WR6.6 states that structured detention
 is this possible?                                                          basins, infiltration basins and galleries may be used for
                                                                            redevelopment in Impaired Areas, Economic Centers and Growth
                                                                            Incentive Zones provided that Minimum Performance Standards for
                                                                            stormwater are met.
                                                                            The clause "provided that Minimum Performance Standards for
                                                                            stormwater are met" has been struck.

 Page 112: WR 7.12: How does this comport with bike lane goals              RE Page 112 WR7.12: BDP WR7.12 states that road widths should
 in the plan? What if the local Planning Boards refuse to waive             not exceed 18 feet to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces.
 subdivision control regulations?                                           BDP WR7.12 is a Best Development Practice, not a Minimum
                                                                            Performance Standard. BDPs are discretionary because there may be
                                                                            cases when road widths over 18 feet may be required by local
                                                                            regulations or deemed necessary by municipal emergency
                                                                            responders.

 Page 113: CR 1.1: ―Historic‖ rights-of-way are not always
 ―legal‖. This is typically an issue resolved by courts, not the
 CCC.

 Page 113: CR 1.3: Most marine infrastructure (yacht clubs, boat

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                         DRAFT 10/16/08                                                            Page 241
 yards) is already private.

 Page 114: CR 2: Does the CCC have a policy position regarding
 coastal armoring?

 Page 114: CR2.4: By ―increase the existing site elevations‖ do
 you mean changes in topography?

 Page 117: CR2.8: Public infrastructure in land subject to coastal
 storm flowage includes Falmouth Town Hall, Falmouth Harbor
 Masters Office, Shining Sea Bikeway, numerous town roads, the
 Woods Hole sewer system, Steamship Authority facilities, etc.
 Categorical exemptions need to be included for certain public
 structures and facilities.

 Page 118: CR 3.2: What if the system is not ―mounded‖; does this
 policy apply?

 Page 118: CR3.5: When has a private dock ever been reviewed as
 a DRI? Does this policy include public facilities?

 Page 119: CR3.7: See comments for CR 3.5 above.

 Page 120: WWH 1.1: It would be helpful to have an explanation         Page 120: The 1996 and 2002 RPPs both explained why wetland
 in the planning section on why wetland creation/replication has       replication is not adequate means to mitigate wetland alteration. In
 been rejected as an alternative.                                      streamlining the 2008 RPP, this language has been cut. We could
                                                                       replace it, but that would get into a level of specificity that is lacking
                                                                       from the document overall.

 Page 122: WWH 2.2: All specimen trees, or a percentage?               Pg. 122: The standard is all specimen trees, but the practice in
                                                                       applying the standard has been more flexible.

 Page 123: WWH2.7: How does this interact with an owner‘s              Page 123: The standard supports minimizing impacts to agricultural
 property rights & uses allowed under local zoning?                    soils and activities; it does not ban activities that may be allowed by

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                              Page 242
                                                                         zoning. The goal is to make people aware of agricultural uses and
                                                                         encourage neighborly actions that do not result in conflicts with
                                                                         agricultural activities that are protected by state law.

 Page 123: WWH2.9: The estimated/priority habitat atlas includes         Page 123: WWH2.9 is a best development practice, not a MPS, so its
 entire towns. Are you suggesting that we take single family             application is in appropriate circumstances, and not by an unfriendly
 houses by emanate domain?                                               eminent domain taking. The wording of this BDP, " efforts should be
                                                                         made..." implies in appropriate circumstances.

 Page 124: Open Space & Recreation: There are no MPS for                 Page 124: The RPP includes elements that we believe address needs
 recreation. If there are no requirements or standards, why is this      on Cape Cod. Minimum Performance Standards may not be
 an Element?                                                             appropriate for all elements, but Best Development Practices may
                                                                         address some of the needs identified. BDPs may be incorporated into
                                                                         local comprehensive plans, into action items, or may be used as
                                                                         project benefits for DRIs that are reviewed.

 Page 126: OS1.3 (Redevelopment within GIZ/EC): Is infill on a           Page 126: OS 1.3: The intention is to allow the reduction for
 vacant parcel also eligible for the reduction in open space             redevelopment only, at this time. However, OS1.7 also provides an
 mitigation, or is only redevelopment, as stated after the comma in      opportunity to reduce the open space requirement for green field
 the 1st sentence of the paragraph?                                      projects that are not located in significant natural resource areas.

 Page 126: OS 1.5: How can these be MPS when the DRI                     Page 126: OS1.5: The idea is that this concept should be applied at
 threshold hasn‘t been met yet & there is no CCC jurisdiction?           the local level as well as at the regional level. In addition, we have
                                                                         had small subdivisions that do not meet the 30 unit threshold that
                                                                         have met the 30 acre threshold. In those cases, some number greater
                                                                         than 5 units of housing have been proposed, and we recommend that
                                                                         those developments should be clustered.

 Page 130: TR 1.3: The use of an accident rate would be more
 appropriate than a gross number of crashes regardless on the
 number of vehicle miles traveled.

 Page 132: TR2.1: Is 25% realistic in areas not served by transit?



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 243
 Page 137: TR3.1 & 3.3: I‘m not sure how these are standards.
 What is the DRI applicant supposed to do for these 2 items?

 Page 138: TR 3.5: Are ―no-build‖ conditions reasonable on a
 privately owned parcel with development rights?

 Page 138: Are both TR 3.6 & TR 3.7 required to meet the
 requirements of TR 3.5, or just one?

 Page 138: TR 3.9: Why are roundabouts the only allowable
 alternative & how does this relate to TR 3.5 & the entire network
 of regional roads & intersections?

 Page 139: TR 3.12: Could you please offer an
 example/explanation of how ROW limits trip generation?

 Page 143: WM2.1 is covered in WM 2.2 & WM2.3 for                      RE Page 143 WM2.1: The Solid Waste and Recycling Minimum
 construction & post-construction respectively. It would be            Performance Standards WM2.1, WM2.2 and WM2.3 can be
 helpful to incorporate 1 into the relevant parts of 2 & 3.            consolidated as shown below if the Planning Committee believes this
                                                                       would be helpful.
                                                                       Minimum Performance Standards
                                                                       WM2.1 Construction Waste and Post-Construction Solid
                                                                       Waste/Recyclables
                                                                       Development and redevelopment projects shall address both the
                                                                       construction and post-construction phases of development or
                                                                       redevelopment. To do so, a plan shall be provided to demonstrate how
                                                                       the applicant proposes to handle solid wastes, construction and
                                                                       demolition (C&D) wastes, and recyclable materials currently
                                                                       categorized by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
                                                                       Protection (MADEP) as a waste ban material.
                                                                       (Leave gap in text to denote language of standard)If C&D waste is to be
                                                                       generated as a part of the proposed development or redevelopment, a
                                                                       plan shall be provided that specifies:
                                                                       •a listing of C&D wastes that will be generated during the development

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 244
                                                                      or redevelopment
                                                                      •the method for separating, storing, transporting and disposing of
                                                                      gypsum (wall board and sheetrock) from the remainder of the waste
                                                                      stream
                                                                      •the methods that will be used to recycle or dispose of those remaining
                                                                      materials in the C&D waste stream
                                                                      (Leave gap in text to denote language of standard)
                                                                      A solid waste and recycling management plan shall be provided that
                                                                      identifies how both solid wastes and recyclable materials will be
                                                                      handled in the post-construction phase of the development. In particular,
                                                                      the applicant shall provide a plan detailing how waste ban materials
                                                                      (particularly plastic, glass containers, and cardboard) will be collected,
                                                                      stored on site, and recycled.
                                                                      WM2.3 Food Waste Recycling
                                                                      A post-construction management plan shall be provided by those
                                                                      developments generating significant amounts of food wastes (primarily
                                                                      supermarkets) to demonstrate how an applicant will recycle organic
                                                                      materials. A plan shall specify, at a minimum:
                                                                      •the anticipated amounts of organic wastes to be generated,
                                                                      •the manner by which the organic wastes will be stored on site prior to
                                                                      being sent off site,
                                                                      •the destination of the organic waste materials that will be composted,
                                                                      and
                                                                      •the organics recycling program shall be consistent with the standards
                                                                      outlined in the MADEP voluntary Supermarket Recycling Program
                                                                      Certification guidelines.


 Page 145: E1.3: It would be helpful to have a definition for major    RE Page 145 E1.3: ―Major renovation‖ has been removed and this
 renovation as a percentage of value or construction cost.             language has been modified for clarification. The revised language
                                                                       states, ―development and redevelopment‖.

 Page 145: E 1.6: On-site energy generation may not be realistic in    RE Page 145 E1.6: These case are anticipated to be rare, but as they
 all cases; however, there might be an optimal site that may serve     arise, invocation of the flexibility clause may be appropriate.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08                                                           Page 245
 a regional group of projects.

 Page 148: AH 1.1 & 1.2: The contribution of land only addresses        RE Page 148: The rationale that the off site contribution be made
 half the problem. The unit construction may lag behind for years.      prior to an applicant‘s building permit (AH 1.8) is so that the
 The applicant should be held responsible for ensuring that the         receiving entity has an opportunity to construct the units roughly
 actual unit is produced concurrently with the DRI project.             within the same time frame as the applicant‘s units. As the land must
 Banking the land without a clear development plan is not helpful.      be able to support the required number of units as of right and if the
                                                                        receiving entity was not the Town, then only a building permit would
                                                                        be required to start construction. If the Town received the donation,
                                                                        then it would take longer as there would need to be an RFP process
                                                                        to select a developer/builder. However, the Commission would take
                                                                        very seriously the Town‘s position of whether it wanted to be the
                                                                        recipient of a land donation or not. If it did not, it is the expectation
                                                                        that a recipient suitable to the Town and the Commission would be
                                                                        found. However, staff concurs that a development plan for a land
                                                                        donation would be reasonable and therefore recommends adding
                                                                        language to AH1.1 and AH 1.2 to the effect that ―a contribution of
                                                                        land shall be accompanied by a development plan acceptable to the
                                                                        Commission.‖

 Page 148: AH 1.1 & 1.2: The CCC should define ―equivalent‖             RE Page 148: Since residential development encompasses everything
 units. It would be very helpful to know in what ways the units         from nursing home beds, continuing care retirement communities,
 need to be equivalent.                                                 single family development, lot subdivisions, apartments above retail.
                                                                        etc., it would be very difficult to either define or provide a set of
                                                                        criteria for equivalency that would satisfy all of the potential
                                                                        development scenarios. Staff recommends leaving the language in
                                                                        the MPS‘ as is and for the Commission to use its best judgment on
                                                                        the nature of equivalency based upon the facts of each residential
                                                                        DRI application.

 Page 149: AH 1.5: The CCC should address how energy                    RE Page 149: The Commission‘s experience with redevelopment
 efficiency standards will be addressed in using existing building      projects that do not involve substantial rehabilitation that have been
 stock & how this MPS interacts with the energy element of the          funded through the HOME Consortium has been that it has been
 RPP.                                                                   difficult, if not economically cost prohibitive, to achieve an Energy

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 246
                                                                         Star rating; therefore, staff recommends maintaining the Energy Star
                                                                         requirement as is, i.e. applies to new construction only (AH 1.11).
                                                                         The energy section currently requires an Energy Star rating for all
                                                                         multi-family residential development, and staff will coordinate so
                                                                         that there are no inconsistencies in the final draft.

 Page 153: AH 3.3: Will the units be reserved for employees, or          RE Page 153: These units will be open to all and not simply reserved
 open to the general population? If the units are reserved & not         for employees. The units will be required to comply with the
 affirmatively marketed, they will be eligible for inclusion on the      affirmative marketing requirement (AH 2.3) so that the units will be
 town‘s SHI.                                                             eligible for inclusion on the town‘s Subsidized Housing Inventory.

 Page 153: AH 3.4: This technical bulletin is very important &           RE Page 153: As described in the response to a similar concern
 should be developed before this MPS is adopted.                         expressed by Nutter McClennen and Fish, staff has prepared a draft
                                                                         technical bulletin that could be reviewed by the Planning Committee
                                                                         once the draft RPP review process is completed. The approval
                                                                         process for the technical bulletin could be accomplished roughly
                                                                         within, or shortly thereafter, the time frame for the RPP‘s adoption.

 Page 155: HPCC 1.4: What is the nexus between a historical              RE Page 155: HPCC1.4 is a Best Practice, not a requirement, so the
 payment levied on a project that does not impact any historical         nexus argument may not be relevant. That said, any development
 resources?                                                              outside of historic areas may draw activity away from historic
                                                                         centers and structures which the Commission seeks to protect.
                                                                         Encouraging support for preservation projects in the community,
                                                                         even if they are not on the site of the proposed project, is appropriate.


 SUSAN KADAR
 September 24, 2008


 RE: Affordable Housing
 Dear Sharon and Paul;

 This is one of the proverbial ‗sticky wickets‘, I think.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                             Page 247
 As a County agency, the Commission is bound by regulations; as
 in the state‘s 10% policy.
 On the human side that should not be our guiding principle, but
 the goal should be to retain/create housing people can afford.
 We have witnessed for a number of years now the ‗out-migration‘
 of both young and old. Even in today‘s market the affordability
 gap is huge, it is insurmountable to far too many on the Cape.
 The nexus study showed clearly – at least to me – that certain
 businesses contribute to the housing problem.
 The questions Rennie raises are well thought out and tough, if not
 impossible to answer.
 In terms of practicality, and regulations, is it possible to establish
 a set of criteria that is fair to all?
 Could the RPP look ‗favorably‘ on new enterprises that benefit
 the community? Not necessarily the real POCB, but still offering
 services the Cape/communities need? Ion other words a way to
 apportion the burden based on need as well as salaries.
 The other side of the coin is the possibility of offering incentives;
 a lot easier said than done.
 To Rennie‘s statement of ―But just because we can, should we?‖
 my answer is a definite Yes. Indeed we must regulate that which
 we can. This peninsula would look a heck of a lot worse if we
 did not.
 The 10% ‗solution‘ is no solution, most agree. And, in Truro, for
 instance it is not even possible.

                Thanks for ‗listening.‘


 JOSEPH POTZKA, CCRTA
 September 25, 2008

 Sharon,



CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 248
 I recently received a comment regarding the Regional Policy Plan
 from CCRTA Board Member Bob Lawton, Town Administrator,
 Town of Yarmouth. His comment was that his Planning staff felt
 the RTA was not mentioned in the Plan and that there as no
 mention of the Regional Transportation Plan. I skimmed the Plan
 and looked on page 83, "Partnerships" and see no mention of the
 CCRTA. I did find on pg. 139, DRI Mitigation TR3.14 "MPO
 ..latest Regional Transportation Plan" mentioned. Is the CCRTA
 included anywhere else in the Plan?

 Joseph Potzka, Administrator, Cape Cod Regional Transit
 Authority
 215 Iyannough Road, PO Box 1988, Hyannis, MA 02601
 (508) 775-8504 x 204, (508) 775-8513 Fax


 SIERRA CLUB/CAPE COD AND ISLANDS GROUP
 September 29, 2008

 Additional comments from Robert F. Murphy, Vice Chair CC&I
 Group, on Regional Policy Plan:


 COMMENTS

 The Sierra Club's Cape Cod and Islands Group speaks for
 "environmental justice" on Cape Cod. We want people of
 different races, of different cultures, and of different economic
 classes, to live together in a just, peaceful, and sustainable world.
 Sierra Club members want to protect Cape Cod's natural areas
 and the Sierra Club has often spoken in defense of wetlands
 protection, wildlife protection, and related concerns. Our
 traditional efforts for environmental protection will continue.
 However, we don't want Cape Cod to become a "gated

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                        DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 249
 community" that is only accessible to the wealthy and the well-
 connected.

 As Barnstable County plans for its energy future, we suggest a
 clear statement that makes it clear that the County wants to
 provide all of its people with "adequate sources of energy that are
 safe, affordable, and sustainable." Energy efficiency and energy
 conservation are important. However, there is a need to recognize
 that many Cape Cod residents need low-income fuel assistance
 programs and adequate shelter. Some of our neighbors are
 homeless. Many of our elderly struggle to pay for a basics of
 home heating and light.

 What is needed on Cape Cod is an "energy justice" policy that          RE What is needed: Staff feel that the Energy goal addresses broad
 responds to the needs of low-income people, people with                scale equity issues by stating the following, ―To promote a
 disabilities, the elderly, and others, who suffer in today's fossil    sustainable economic, natural, built and social environment…‖.
 fuel economy. The need for "energy justice" needs more attention       Specific policies on ―energy justice‖ may be more appropriate at the
 in the Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan. Rising energy prices have        Town or community level.
 placed a major burden on many households. Advocates for the
 elderly can provide you with additional information.

 There is a need for improved cooperation between
 environmentalists and human services providers, and others, in
 planning for affordable housing and public transportation on
 Cape Cod. New partnerships can be created. Community gardens
 and clean sources of energy can be developed to help low-income
 people. Religious organizations, especially, have indicated an
 interest in working for "environmental justice."

 We ask the Cape Cod Commission to make more of an effort to
 work with the theme of "environmental justice." In addition to the
 issues already mentioned, the Sierra Club's Cape Cod and Islands
 Group is concerned about the costs of waste management and
 their impact on low-income people. To preserve Cape Cod

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 250
 communities, we would like to see new strategies for preserving
 traditional Cape Cod activities like farming, shellfishing, and
 commercial fishing. How can organic agriculture be encouraged?
 How can Barnstable County work with local fishermen to protect
 and improve commercial fishing in appropriate ways? How can
 public access to coastal areas be maintained? These are some of
 the basic "environmental justice" issues that need continuing
 attention on Cape Cod.

 ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
 Subject: Comments on Draft Cape Cod Commission's Regional
 Policy Plan
 From: "David Dow" <ddow@cape.com>
 Date: Sun, September 28, 2008 6:44 pm
 To:      srooney@capecodcommission.org
 Cc:      "Bob Murphy" <Murphydalzell@aol.com>
        "David Dow" <ddow@cape.com>
        "billie bates" <bcbts@yahoo.com>
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Cape Cod Commission
 Attn.: Sharon Rooney
 Chief Planner
 P.O. Box 226
 Barnstable, Ma. 02630

 Dear Ms. Rooney:

 The following comments on the Regional Policy Plan (RPP) are
 submitted by the Sierra Club's Cape Cod & the Islands Group.
 One general comment is that RPP doesn't appear to address the
 implications of future population growth as Cape Cod approaches
 buildout and how we will implement sustainable development,
 while protecting our wild places and wild things. Cape Cod is a

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                            DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 251
 microcosm on a smaller scale of the Chesapeake Bay watershed
 in which increased population growth has diminished water
 quality (loss of eelgrass beds and seasonal anoxia in the deep
 waters) and diminished potentially harvestable resources (oysters,
 blue crabs and striped bass). Tom Horton has written eloquently
 about the consequences of surburban spawl/poorly planned
 commercial development in the bay's watersheds and how this
 has diminished the quality of life in the coastal watersheds in
 Maryland and Virginia. The Cape Cod Commission and the
 towns on Cape Cod have a narrow window of opportunity to
 avoid the problem of population growth and the failure to
 implement the appropriate smart growth policies and
 infrastructure/services (provision of affordable housing, sewage
 treatment infrastructure, public transportation, production of local
 food, sustainable economy, etc.). The citizens of Cape Cod need
 to develop a joint vision of where we want to be in the future and
 an operational plan of how to get there from here. Otherwise we
 will suffer the same fate as the Chesapeake Bay watershed and
 New Jersey coast of too many people and sprawl development
 which will diminish why people consider this a special place to
 live and which supports a tourist-based economy.

 2. Human/Built Systems- Waste Management

 * WM-1 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management and WM-
 2: Solid Waste Management
 As we mentioned under "Water Resources" more attention needs
 to be given to the groundwater pollution plumes associated with
 the closed town landfills. In addition, attention needs to be given
 to be given to reducing the use of products in our homes that
 contain toxic chemicals (see results of the SSI's testing of air and
 dust in Cape Cod homes for endocrine disruptors). This will
 require an educational outreach program. The widespread use of
 compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) as a way to reduce our

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 252
 electricity use poses the challenge of low levels of mercury in
 these bulbs from breakage or disposal in trash. The Sierra Club
 supports the concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR)
 which would require those that sell these products to take them
 back and ensure safe recycling. CFL recycling is not currently
 addressed by our weekly/biweekly curbside program or annual
 hazardous waste collection. The EPR philosophy is an important
 component of "Zero Waste" (ZW) which is covered in WM-2.

 We support the goal in WM-2 of moving towards source
 reduction, recycling, reuse and composting as the answer to
 addressing our solid wastes (60% by 2012). Since there is a lot of
 embodied energy in our municipal solid wastes (msw) and key
 chemicals/minerals that should be reused , it makes no sense to
 send our solid wastes to be incinerated at SEMASS. Instead we
 need to pursue "ZW" strategies to reduce our costs of msw
 management and create local jobs from resuse, recycling and
 composting. The recent (June 2008) "Stop Trashing the Climate"
 report contains 12 priority policies that can be used to move
 towards the "ZW" goal. These principles include: provide policy
 incentives for locally- based recycling, reuse and composting
 jobs; adopt per-volume or per-weight fees for collection of trash
 (pay and throw concept); implement policies to encourage paper
 recycling; stop organic materials from being sent to landfills and
 incinerators; reject climate agreements that promote waste-to-
 energy incinerators ("Cool Cities"); etc. The national Sierra
 Club's Zero Waste Activist Team website contains model
 ordnances for pursuing zero waste goals. One of their members,
 Lynne Pledger (pledger@hardwickpostandbeam.com), is working
 to revise the Ma. DEP's Solid Waste Management Plan to move
 towards the "ZW" goal. Lynne is a member of the Massachusetts
 Chapter- Sierra Club's Zero Waste Committee.

 3. Natural Systems- Coastal Resources

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 253
 * CR-2: Coastal Hazard Mitigation

 The residents of Cape Cod are already being impacted by the
 perceived threats of global warming as it has become difficult to
 purchase home insurance in the private market forcing more
 people into the state's FAIR system. All of our residents face
 higher deductibles and rising costs for their home insurance.
 Rising sea level, increased coastal erosion, threats from more
 severe northeasters and hurricanes place development along our
 coasts in harms way. New England's home rule tradition places
 zoning, planning and regulation in the hands of local officials
 within a state/federal framework that provide minimum
 standards. For coastal hazards the Coastal Zone Management Act
 (CZMA) and Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
 provide the context for the state/federal standards. Given the
 extent of damages incurred on Cape Cod when Hurricane Bob
 paid a visit and how long it took to repair our utilities and basic
 infrastructure, we aren't prepared to deal with a major Hurricane
 like Katrina.

 We need a more integrated approach between the towns, Cape
 Cod Commission and state/federal disaster officials. We also
 need to organize a volunteer support network to support
 evacuation plans; rescuing citizens with medical issues; caring for
 those displaced by damages to their homes; use of the
 Massachusetts Military Reservation as a potential hurricane
 shelter; etc. Two recent publications contain good ideas for
 mitigation and adaptation strategies to address coastal hazards
 associated with global warming: "Literature Review of the U.S.
 Northeast Coastal Community: Management of Coastal
 Ecosystems and Natural Hazards" (NOAA Coastal Services
 Center; NOAA/CSC/RPT- 08-02; January 2008; 44 pp.) and
 "Coastal Community Resilience: An Evaluation of Resilience as a

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 254
 Potential Performance Measure of the Coastal Zone Management
 Act" (Coastal States Organization's Coastal Resilience Steering
 Committee; July 2008; 20 pp.). The Cape Cod Commission could
 help the Cape's towns conduct regional hazard risk assessments
 and vulnerability analysis (for social network and natural
 resources) and using new tools, such as NOAA Storm Surge
 Model and models identified in the NERACOOS survey (NOAA
 CSC, 2008). The CSO community resilience report (2008) list
 tools that help support CZMA responses to coastal hazard
 mitigation, such as HAZUS, Community Vulnerability
 Assessment Tool (CVAT), Habitat Priority Planner, SLOSH
 model and Social Vulnerability Index.

 The national Sierra Club's Climate Recovery Campaign (CRC) is
 developing a component entitled: "Safeguarding Communities"
 which deals with coastal hazard mitigation and adaptation from
 the threats posed by global climate change. It might be a useful
 source of information in the future. The Board of Director's will
 vote on this campaign plan at their November meeting.

 * CR-3: Preserving Coastal Water Quality and Habitat

 The water quality and habitats in Cape Cod's coastal embayments
 face multiple threats from: eutrophication, climate change,
 harvesting of shellfish, changes in habitat quality/quantity
 accompanying shore line development, etc. Over time the relative
 effects of these human stressors on coastal water quality and
 habitats will change. Thus the Cape Cod Commission will have to
 develop mitigation and adaptation strategies to address existing
 and emerging threats from these human stressors and their
 cumulative impacts. We recommend the use of Vulnerability
 Analysis (VA) to assess the relative effects associated with these
 changing human activities and changes in the characteristics of
 the underlying coastal ecosystems. Changing land use activities

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                    DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 255
 within coastal watersheds will alter the context in which the
 embayments operate and thus demand new management
 approaches.

 VA employs metrics for sensitivity/susceptibility and
 recovery/resilience of water quality and habitats to multiple
 human stressors and their cumulative effects. It is related to the
 ecological risk assessment (ERA) approach, but doesn't assume
 that one knows the cause/effects relationships between the human
 stressors and their ecosystem consequences. The ERA approach
 was utilized for the Waquoit Bay Watershed in which a
 quantitative model examined the relationship between nitrogen
 loading from the watershed and the loss of eelgrass
 beds/reduction in bay scallop populations within the bay. In this
 joint EPA and WBNERR (Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
 Research Reserve) ERA, the first step in the process was a
 qualitative VA which allowed the Risk Assessment Team to
 identify nutrients as the major human stressor within the
 watershed. Nitrogen was the major stressor for the coastal
 embayments, while phosphorus created the water quality and
 habitat concerns (anoxia in the hypolimnion) in ponds and lakes.

 In a VA each both metrics contain components that are scored on
 a qualitative scale that are averaged together to assess the relative
 threat from different human stressors. One can include a data
 quality/quantity metric to help managers/elected officials
 understand the uncertainty associated with the VA as a prelude to
 developing mitigation/adaptation strategies. Since the Cape Cod
 Commission has a geographic information system (GIS) with
 information on land use activities within a relational database, it
 could map the output from the VA and help the towns in
 managing land use activities in their watersheds in order to
 protect coastal water quality and habitats. This spatial approach to
 management is a key component of an ecosystems approach

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 256
 which was recommended by the reports from the U.S. and Pew
 Ocean Commissions. The commissions urged a more integrated
 approach to managing coastal resources based on action by local,
 regional, state and federal political jurisdictions. The Regional
 Policy Plan needs to develop options to participate in this
 integrated approach to managing coastal resources.

 * WR-1: General Aquifer Protection and WR-2: Drinking Water
 Quality and Quantity

 Cape Cod's "sole source aquifer" for drinking water faces
 challenges to its water quality from point and nonpoint sources
 and its quantity from balancing withdrawals with recharge from
 natural sources (precipitation - evaptranspiration), septic systems
 and wastewater disposal. For many years the Cape Cod and the
 Islands Group has been involved in the groundwater cleanup from
 military training at the Massachusetts Military Reservation
 (MMR) and feel that this should be used as a case study for
 groundwater contamination plumes associated with closed
 landfills and human land use activities on Cape Cod. Given our
 sandy soil, it is easy for toxic contaminants to enter our
 groundwater, but time consuming and costly to restore the aquifer
 water quality. The MMR cleanup has shown that many of the
 toxic contaminants (tungsten, dinitrotoluene isomers,
 RDX/HMX, etc.) entering our groundwater have no state/federal
 maximum contaminant levels (mcls) for drinking water.

 The same situation applies to the endocrine disrupting chemicals
 detected in our septic system effluent by the Silent Spring
 Institute's (SSI) Cape Cod Breast Cancer and Environment Study.
 Most of our closed landfills are not lined and have groundwater
 pollution plumes associated with them. In addition, road runoff        RE The same situation: Related to the aforementioned issues,
 during storms is a source of bacterial and chemical contamination      planning goals WR1-C2 and WR2-C2 state that input to State and
 of ground and surface waters here on Cape Cod. More attention          Federal Working Groups: The Cape Cod Commission will continue

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                    Page 257
 needs to be given to septic system effluents, land fill plumes and      to provide input and technical assistance to state and federal water
 road runoff. Source reduction of pollutants needs to receive more       resource working groups about the unique hydrogeologic conditions
 emphasis and our citizens have to reduce their "ecological              on Cape Cod. The Commission will also encourage the use of other
 footprint" on the landscape. The Cape Cod Commission needs to           appropriate regional tools, such as Districts of Critical Planning
 encourage EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and Ma.            Concern, for more effective management and regulation to protect
 DEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection) to           and maintain the hydrologic integrity and balance of the sole source
 develop mcls for non-traditional chemical pollutants in our             aquifer; and that the Cape Cod Commission will continue to work
 groundwater.                                                            with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, the
                                                                         Cape Cod Cooperative Extension, and the Barnstable County
                                                                         Department of Health and Environment to help towns deal
                                                                         effectively with hazardous waste sites, reduce hazardous materials,
 As the town's on Cape Cod move to reduce nitrate pollution of           and educate the public about other potential water quality impacts to
 our coastal embayments and phosphorus pollution of our                  drinking water and surface waters, such as contamination from
 freshwater ponds/lakes which cause eutrophication problems, we          personal care and pharmaceutical products.
 will be faced with wastewater treatment operations removing,
 treating and reinjecting "clean" groundwater in different portions      RE As the towns on Cape Cod: Planning goal WR1-C1 states that
 of the watershed. This poses challenges in addressing hydrologic        the Cape Cod Commission will help communities to incorporate
 balance in different portions of our coastal aquifers. In addition,     general aquifer-protection and stormwater management strategies
 continued population growth and development on Cape Cod                 and water conservation into local regulations.
 poses challenges during the Summer to balance seasonal
 withdrawals with the natural recharge that occurs in the Fall
 through early Spring. Excessive Summer withdrawals can alter
 the freshwater/saltwater interface in our groundwater lens which
 alters the geochemistry of the discharge at or near the shoreline.
 We have to guard against saltwater intrusion into the coastal
 portions of our groundwater lens. More emphasis needs to be
 given on water conservation measures by individual citizens and
 their communities.

 * WR-3: Marine Water Embayments and Estuaries and WR-4:
 Freshwater Ponds and Lakes

 Our coastal embayments are threatened with diminished water
 quality and changes in the biotic resources from excess nitrogen

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08                                                         Page 258
 enrichment, while our ponds and lakes face similar threats from
 excess phosphorus enrichment. Both of these problems are
 associated with human land use activities within the watershed
 and high levels of nitrates and phosphates in our groundwater.
 The Regional Policy Plan mentions the role of Total Maximum
 Daily Loads (TMDLs) as a tool to address non-point sources of
 nutrient enrichment. We feel that the Massachusetts Estuaries
 Project (MEP) models used to support the state TMDL targets
 load reductions should be peer-reviewed by an independent panel
 of scientists, since these models have never been published in the
 peer-reviewed scientific literature. In addition, an adaptive
 management approach and ecosystem monitoring program needs
 to be implemented in our coastal embayments to make sure that
 the groundwater treatment/surface treatment approaches required
 to reduce nutrient inputs actually work.

 Given the buildup of nutrients in the aquatic sediments and the
 continued input of nitrogen from the regional airshed, it will take
 a long time to see improvement in the nutrient concentrations in
 the water column and recovery of our biotic resources (eelgrass
 beds and associated animal life), even if the TMDL loading             RE Given the buildup: RPP planning actions include continued
 targets are met. Given the high cost of sewering and the               Commission participation in education to inform the public about the
 construction of new tertiary treatment plants and long time frame      Cape Cod aquifer and its water resources. The Commission also
 required to implement this program, other mitigation options           recommends continue local actions to educate residents, implement
 should be considered, including vegetated buffers/protecting           and provide incentives for the use of low-impact designs.
 forested lands, restoring wetlands, separating urine from fecal
 matter in residents' homes, nitrex systems, etc. The towns in each
 watershed will need technical support from the Cape Cod
 Commission and Ma. DEP to develop viable. cost efficient
 solutions for their watersheds.

  For phosphorus enrichment of local ponds and lakes, more
 emphasis is needed on source reduction (not fertilizing and
 watering lawns; use of native vegetation rather than grass;

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                     DRAFT 10/16/08                                                        Page 259
 household products; etc.) and not relying on treating pond
 sediments with "alum" to address the symptoms of this problem.
 Source reduction and living sustainable lifestyles need to be
 considered as approaches to reducing our "ecological footprint"
 on the landscape. In addition, the environmental justice
 implications of these technological solutions to our nutrient
 enrichment challenges need to be addressed by policy makers and
 elected officials. Many of our residents and service industry
 workers face serious problems in trying to live on Cape Cod
 which is why the Cape Cod and the Islands Group has a
 conservation focus on energy, peace and environmental justice.

 If time permits our Vice-Chair, Robert F. Murphy, may submit
 some additional comments on energy and environmental justice
 between now and the September 30, 2008 deadline. Thanks for
 your consideration in this matter.

 Yours truly,
 David Dow, Treasurer, Cape Cod & the Islands Group
 18 Treetop Lane, East Falmouth, Ma. 02536
 phone: 508-540-7142; email: ddow@cape.com




 LARRY COLE
 30 September 2008

 Dear Ms. Rooney:

 Here are a few comments on the May 29, 2008 Draft CAPE COD
 REGIONAL POLICY PLAN.

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                 DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 260
 Please understand that I am writing as an individual who happens
 to be a Harwich selectman, a member of the Business Round
 Table, a member of the 21st Century Task Force, and an alumnus
 of the Commission, but am not writing in representation of any of
 those bodies.

 In general, I applaud the clarity of the writing, the division of the
 document into Planning and Regulatory parts, and the designation
 of Growth Management Systems, Natural Systems, and
 Human/Built Systems.

 I also commend Commission staff for the manner in which they
 worked with the Harwich Planning Board and Planning
 Department to develop the Regional Land Use Vision Map as it
 pertains to Harwich. That working relationship, and the visit by
 Commission Director Paul Niedzwiecki to a Board of Selectmen
 meeting, are precisely what the task Force had in mind in
 recommending using maps to accomplish planning objectives and
 improving communications between the Commission and the
 towns.

 I also support the idea of towns having the option to apply to the
 Commission to have flexible thresholds that are higher in
 economic centers and industrial areas, and possibly in village
 centers, but lower in resource protection areas. I hope my town
 will apply for such thresholds, when our local comprehensive
 plan is complete and certified by the Commission.

 In the realm of Economic Development, I think the
 Commission‘s focusing on the adequacy and efficient provision
 of infrastructure is very appropriate, but I have some concerns
 about the Commission‘s legal authority to mandate some of the
 Minimum Performance Standards that are designed to foster a

CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                       DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 261
 more balanced economy and grow regional income, specifically
 ED2.1, ED2.2, ED2.3, ED3.1, ED3.2 and ED3.3. Does
 Barnstable County really have the authority to prevent new, legal
 and otherwise compliant businesses from opening in the county if
 they are of particular unwanted types, don‘t pay wages and
 salaries above a certain level, don‘t have a specific mix of full-
 time and part-time jobs, and don‘t hire locally enough?

 ED2.3, for example, is tantamount to a county-imposed industry-
 by-industry minimum wage at the living wage level. So-called
 Living Wages have been established elsewhere at jurisdictions
 below state level, but the process involves a lot more than a
 regulatory agency issuing a ruling, and an Assembly of Delegates
 approving. I think similar problems arise with the other MPSs.

 Finally, from the perspective of an economist, I know of no
 grounds to prefer any given size distribution of businesses, either
 by physical dimensions, value of assets, volume of transactions,
 or number of employees. Similarly with respect to a preference
 for local ownership.

 Yours truly,

 Larry Cole
 Lawrence P. Cole, PhD
 3 Parsons Path, Harwich, MA 02645-3307
 coleslaw1@verizon.net, (508) 432-2464




CCC Response to Public Comments, Draft RPP                      DRAFT 10/16/08   Page 262

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:45
posted:7/22/2010
language:English
pages:262
Description: Cape Cod Bank and Trust Investment Performance document sample