New Search
I <br /> 1 <br /> 1 <br /> Summary of Comments and Staff Response <br /> 1. Increased Costs to development in general, and single- family homes in particular, was <br /> one of the most frequent comments, both oral and written. Specific comments were <br /> directed at costs associated with the preparation of the Construction Site Management <br /> Plan, permit fee, and the installation of facilities. Suggestions were made to provide <br /> 1 financial incentives to builders for doing a good job and to require all residents to pay <br /> (through the stormwater user fee) for the new program as they are benefited by it <br /> j <br /> Response: It is City policy to place the financial responsibility for public infrastructure <br /> impacts with the party causing the i mpact. Construction activities are known to cause 1 <br /> water quality impacts and capacity depleting effects to the stormwater system. The <br /> proposed stormwater permit is an administrative tool to prevent and control impacts <br /> associated with construction activities. The proposed permit fees attempt to recover <br /> administrative costs associated with this program without exceeding the existing State fee <br /> structure. The citizens and staff of the Stormwater Department Advisory Committee <br /> (DAC) considered a variety of options to minimize costs including: <br /> la. No Staff Review. This option would not provide staff review for permits and plans. The <br /> theory is that there would not be a need for staff to review the plans since the plans would <br /> be prepared and stamped by a licensed professional. <br /> Recommendation: This option was not recommended for the following reasons: <br /> - left too much discretion to the developer for preparing a complete and thorough plan <br /> - lacks inspection and enforcement <br /> - lacks fairness; some would meet requirements while others wouldn't. <br /> ib. Two - Tiered Approach. This is a two -tiered administrative approach where permits <br /> would be required for projects with the highest potential for water quality impact (large <br /> size; sensitive areas) and an administrative checklist procedure would be required for all <br /> other conditions. Because the permit requires review of plans, site inspections, and <br /> potential enforcement actions, administrative costs for these procedures would be higher <br /> than for the checklist procedure. Of the remaining vacant parcels in the community, <br /> approximately 43% would be subject to the permit procedure and 57% for the checklist <br /> procedure. <br /> Recommendation: This option has been incorporated into the recommended provisions <br /> and serves to minimize costs. <br /> lc. - Exceptions. There are exceptions to the two -tiered approach that have the effect of <br /> 6 <br /> • <br />