New Search
• Respond to the request by updating, but also in the context of the other CIP <br /> elements which were cut in 2003, and their comparative cost/benefits. <br /> • Respond to the request by updating, but also in the context of other <br /> stormwater program elements (including the CIP) which were cut in 2003, and <br /> their comparative cost/benefits. <br /> 3. What constitutes "brushin the stud off <br /> g Y <br /> • The minimum updating suggested above, or <br /> • Re-evaluating whether we have the highest priority sites identified, given <br /> changes over time due to development pressures (where is the most intense <br /> development, and does that change where the sites most at-risk are?), <br /> regulations (e.g. Goa15 water resources zone), and potential future regulations <br /> (e.g. water quality-protected waterways) and refining the stream, corridor <br /> acquisition corridors. <br /> 4. How do we want to characterize a future stream corridor acquisition program, as <br /> it would relate to Goal 5 sites? Some possible options include: <br /> • Stream corridor acquisition would compliment Goa15 by compensating <br /> property owners for: setback areas which would otherwise be exempt under <br /> Goal 5 ordinance provisions -and/or -areas beyond the Goa15 protected area <br /> which would benefit water quality if protected (e.g. adj acent wetlands, wider <br /> setbacks on steep slopes). <br /> • Stream corridor acquisition would be a mechanism to bring the identified <br /> priority stream corridors into public ownership, even though they are/will be <br /> protected to some degree under the Goal 5 provisions. <br /> • Other? <br /> <br /> 5. How do we want to characterize a future stream comdor acquisition program, as <br /> it would relate to (future, proposed) water quality protected waterways? Some <br /> possible options include: <br /> • Stream corridor acquisition would be considered another "tool" and would <br /> compliment regulated water quality protected waterways by compensating <br /> property owners for: setback areas which would otherwise be exempt under <br /> WQPWW ordinance provisions (yet to be defined) -and/or -areas beyond the <br /> area protected by WQPWW provisions, but which would benefit water quality <br /> if protected (e.g. adjacent wetlands, wider setbacks on steep slopes). <br /> • Stream corridor acquisition would be a mechanism to bring the identified <br /> priority stream corridors into public ownership, even though they maybe <br /> protected to some degree under the water quality protected waterway <br /> provisions (depending on the final set of waterways protected, and whether <br /> ordinance is adopted). <br /> • Other? <br /> <br />