Amador County – The Amador General Plan Update ended last week with direction to staff to look at a Water Element and also to Solar Power requirements on new projects with 6 or more units. The process took a 2-week break, directing staff to research those and other areas and report back in February. Among those was looking into having a water element in the plan. District 3 Supervisor Ted Novelli requested the matter be looked at because of funding from the state and federal governments that might be available if the county adds a water element. He said the state and feds might be “willing to give us 2 Million Dollars if we add a water element.” He suggested asking the Foothill Conservancy if they knew of the funding. He suggested working with Calaveras and Alpine counties on a watershed overlay with regional involvement that could help qualify for the funding. Planning Director Susan Grijalva said her department would see if there was money available and if the county would need to make a water element part of the general plan. Planning Commissioner Ray Ryan said he would “like to see what’s on the other end of that carrot.” Katherine Evatt of the Foothill Conservancy said “one of the best sources of new water is conservation” and she said that if governments don’t implement a water conservation program, they will not get state money. More study was also sought for Greenhouse Gas emissions policy, which required that “new residential building permits for more than 6 units provide solar power generation on 50 percent of units.” District 2 Supervisor and Board Chairman Richard Forster thought they should require 100 percent of units have solar power in projects of 6 units or more. District 5 Supervisor Brian Oneto said he thought the requirement would be expensive and suggested the county wait to see what the state requires. Forster said he thought the county would be “taking a big step backward because standards are coming down and the standards are coming down hard.” District 4 Supervisor Louis Boitano suggested and the panel agreed to leave the policy as it was for now, with planning staff research brought back in meetings February 17th, 18th and 19th. Story by Jim Reece (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).
Monday, 01 December 2008 00:02
Amador General Plan Looks At Inclusion of Water Element, Solar Power
Amador County – The Amador General Plan Update ended last week with direction to staff to look at a Water Element and also to Solar Power requirements on new projects with 6 or more units. The process took a 2-week break, directing staff to research those and other areas and report back in February. Among those was looking into having a water element in the plan. District 3 Supervisor Ted Novelli requested the matter be looked at because of funding from the state and federal governments that might be available if the county adds a water element. He said the state and feds might be “willing to give us 2 Million Dollars if we add a water element.” He suggested asking the Foothill Conservancy if they knew of the funding. He suggested working with Calaveras and Alpine counties on a watershed overlay with regional involvement that could help qualify for the funding. Planning Director Susan Grijalva said her department would see if there was money available and if the county would need to make a water element part of the general plan. Planning Commissioner Ray Ryan said he would “like to see what’s on the other end of that carrot.” Katherine Evatt of the Foothill Conservancy said “one of the best sources of new water is conservation” and she said that if governments don’t implement a water conservation program, they will not get state money. More study was also sought for Greenhouse Gas emissions policy, which required that “new residential building permits for more than 6 units provide solar power generation on 50 percent of units.” District 2 Supervisor and Board Chairman Richard Forster thought they should require 100 percent of units have solar power in projects of 6 units or more. District 5 Supervisor Brian Oneto said he thought the requirement would be expensive and suggested the county wait to see what the state requires. Forster said he thought the county would be “taking a big step backward because standards are coming down and the standards are coming down hard.” District 4 Supervisor Louis Boitano suggested and the panel agreed to leave the policy as it was for now, with planning staff research brought back in meetings February 17th, 18th and 19th. Story by Jim Reece (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).
