Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sustainability Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff proposes incentive‑based sustainability code; planning board defers after questions about subjectivity and trade‑offs
Summary
City staff proposed a point‑based sustainability ordinance offering permit fee reductions, expedited review and modest FAR/impervious‑area bonuses for green building features. Board members praised the approach but flagged subjectivity, enforcement and the math of trading green roofs for ground impervious area; the item was deferred for staff revision.
City planning staff presented a comprehensive, incentive‑based "sustainable development" ordinance that would reward energy‑efficient and climate‑resilient building practices with procedural and dimensional incentives.
Development services staff described a point system with tiered benefits — permit fee reductions (15%, 25%, 35%), expedited review, and limited bonuses for building coverage, floor area and impervious‑area allowances tied to sustainability outcomes such as preserved trees, locally sourced materials, green roofs, rainwater capture and bird‑safe glazing. The ordinance is intended to be voluntary and incentive‑based rather than mandatory; staff said the approach aims to avoid the cost burdens that led to the earlier solar moratorium.
Board members welcomed the intent but asked staff to clarify definitions, inspection protocols, thresholds and how trade‑offs would be measured. Concerns included: how to certify tree shading within a 5‑year window, whether bioswales or cisterns could create mosquito risks, and whether a small green roof (100 sq ft) should be rewarded with a disproportionate increase in ground‑level impervious area. Several members urged tighter, less subjective measures and asked staff to model typical local lot sizes to ensure any impervious‑area bonuses did not undercut environmental goals.
Staff accepted the feedback and the board voted to defer the ordinance so staff could refine numeric tradeoffs, inspection responsibilities and objective definitions. Staff will return with recalculated incentives, clearer pass/fail thresholds and suggested inspection protocols.
