SR 06:089 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT pursue incentives for builders who meet and exceed the checklist. She believed that expediting plan check and processing would be an appropriate incentive for those builders. She noted that while fee reduction may not be practical for the City, it would be attractive for the builders. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether an incentive to streamline the planning and plan-check process would be attractive enough, Ms. Hardy agreed that would be an attractive incentive. She inquired about the following comment in the staff report on page 13: "At the local level, some of the points that can be obtained require the contractor to purchase locally (Bay Area) produced or manufactured products." She inquired whether it was staff s intention to put that language in the ordinance and noted that she would not support that language. She had concerns that if this were made a part of the ordinance or as a requirement, it may indirectly cause increased costs for builders. Ms. Decker confirmed that the language related to purchasing from local markets was not included in the checklist. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Blank believed the priority handling was of primary importance to the builders, followed by fee reduction. He would like to see an incentive program developed that included some form of fee reduction and priority processing. He believed, however, that it needed to be based on a much higher level of green building measures that would be implemented; for example, a required threshold of 100 points. Ms. Decker noted that through the process, there has been a desire to consider an incentive program; however, it was considered to be inappropriate to codify it within this Code amendment since there could be City fiscal ramifications that were outside the scope of this amendment. She added, as an example, that if several applicants came in with the same number of higher points qualifying for priority processing, albeit unlikely, staff would be faced with the issue of determining who would receive that priority processing, Mr. Roush stated that staff could return with information that may clarify the legal and budget issues. Commissioner Blank suggested that if a 100-point home was very difficult to attain, that builder would receive top priority. If there were any budgetary issues that would negatively impact the City, he wished that staff could perhaps determine what other mechanisms could be implemented for an incentive program. He did not believe the priority processing would have a financial impact on the City and that it would yield a building with maximum green points. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding whether staff could evaluate what a potential incentive scale could be, Ms. Decker replied that staff could re-examine it before going to Council and then return with additional information. Commissioner Blank noted that private industry was incentive-based and did not believe the priority handling should be easy to attain and that the threshold should be set very high. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 5 March 8, 2006