2024-09-26 PL-INT-2024-008840 GP 2045 Draft Comments - E. Dunn

Home

27.13 -27.15 Consider "require" instead of encourage or prioritize. Page 142, Objective 28 Policy 28.1 Please clarify if this is an aspect of private development projects. 28.3 Please consider using "shall" instead of should. Page 145. Please check, but I believe the Ukraine-Russia war started in 2022, not 2023. Objective 32 32.6, 32.10, 32.11, 32.15, 32.16. Consider "shall" instead of should. Page 171, 35b, and 351. Please consider creating a timing mechanism for an audit of the park dedication code, and subdivision requirements. Every 10 years? I think establishing a timeframe is good, and should be codified, so this kind of "housekeeping" occurs, and isn't lost or forgotten. 35r. I don't disagree with the statement, but wonder if this is the appropriate section for cemeteries, as the discussion is about Recreational Facilities Siting and Planning. 35y (ii). Consider language establishing a built in fee escalator tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or Cost of Living Allowance (COLA), whiter is higher, so that fees go up automatically annually without having to go back to Council for this action. Also, consider creating language that creates a schedule for reviewing fees, say every five years, so that this happens as a course of business and is a regular occurrence. If this needs to be codified please consider language to do that. Page 177, 36c. I don't disagree with this issue, but is the proper location within the draft General Plan for this issue? Objective 37 37.2 - Will this issue (incentive a mix of diverse housing types, including missing middle housing, smaller house designs, and mixed income communities - get relayed to developers? If so, perhaps this is an avenue to pursue for some kind of incentive for developers to pursue so this housing type is built. Built. Built. Built. It has to be built. And language in the conditions of approval has other be included that the project approval expires in X years if no building permit is issued, and acted upon. Page 183, 37f. Please elaborate on this. Does this mean work with communities before a development applications submitted? If so, please say that. If that's not meant, what is meant? 37h. How can this work with SHPD? I'm not against expedited permitting, and would encourage that. I'd also suggest that a higher fee is charge for this service. I would not encourage any fee waiver for in order to get smaller house designs to the community can have greater options in housing. 38.1 Please elaborate on this. Specially, what is the public policy that is to be achieved by this? Is the County trying to understand the age and quality of the housing stock? A little more explanation would make this item stronger.