Laserfiche WebLink
Page 123, Objective 24. <br /> Please consider using "shall" for 24.1 and 24.7. It would make these policies stronger. <br /> Page 126, Drinking Water <br /> Please consider creating legislation that requires a water study for residential, commercial or <br /> industrial developments of a certain size (over 50 residential units, 50,000 sf. for example). This <br /> should ensure that water availability is not in question for these developments. Additionally, for <br /> projects that are on the books, but have not been built, and any money that has been paid for <br /> water credits, this money, and the credits revert to the Department of Water Supply after 5 <br /> years if no building permit has been issued. There has to be some way to incentivize <br /> development to occur (if that's the intent) and to discourage land banking/holding by entities <br /> that type up land without developing it for needed housing. <br /> Table 34. <br /> Please elaborate about the seventh bullet point under drinking water. What does this mean, <br /> and what is the thought process or public policy behind this statement? <br /> Wastewater <br /> First and sixth built points - consider preparing and adapting a Recycled Water Ordinance for <br /> this purpose, and to enact the County's "One Water" scheme. <br /> Stormwater <br /> Second bullet: Please consider creating a schedule for a regular review of County codes, and <br /> codify this so it's a clearly understood and agreed upon, and not something that happens "as <br /> needed". <br /> Page 130 - Objective 25 <br /> 25.5 Consider using "require" instead or encourage. <br /> Actions <br /> 25a. Consider language establishing a built in fee escalator tied to the Consumer Price Index <br /> (CPI) or Cost of Living Allowance (COLA), whichever is higher, so that fees go up automatically <br /> annually without having to go back to Council for this action. Also, consider creating language <br /> that creates a schedule for reviewing fees, say every five years, so that this happens as a <br /> course of business and is a regular occurrence. If this needs to be codified, please consider <br /> language to do that. <br /> Objective 26 <br /> 26.6 Please consider using "shall be" instead or "reasonably possible". That is vague language. <br /> 26.12 Please consider using "shall" for backup standby sources. <br /> 26c. Same language as 25a about a built in cost escalator, and a schedule of reviewing fees. <br /> Page 137, Objective 27 <br /> 27.7. Same language about a built in cost escalator, and a schedule of reviewing fees. <br />