pf_03081 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

OCT-23-98 FRI 10:34 AM P.01 (O<~ 3'C\ f ,.~o., To, Subj.ct. Molly Shodeen Jostine Langton Lake, RoeevillQ I spoke should the nu 1030.00 their 0 they we any tim for gui or regu to Pat ~ohnBon ~oday and told her the following. The city eg1n the process to amend their shoreland ord to change er of Langton from 49W ~o 49P and justify i~ under sub14(8) about public access. We could then approve d. Actually, we have never approved their ord because e 8 priority 3 and we had been instructed not to spend on these at ~hat time (and even now, we are still waiting ance). It really makes no difference to us from a protection atory standpoint, how it is classified. The pro lem about the NE vs GD as the city has it classified (in the ord that we did not approve), is not as simple. It is and has been ap ropriately classified as NE based on the develop density and tho e old classifLc8tion parameters. I told her that we" at the region ould just have to work with the city on a hallistic approach to beet anagement of an improving but degraded resource. I suggest d that the interested citizens perform some depth analysis so that e can evaluate the likelihood of massive distribution of water l"liee. That is their big fear. If the lake is currently deep enough' the middle, then the lilies won't be able to grow and there i "0 reason to be alarmist about the future. She said she will g9 me the depth info and then Mike Halverson and I will maybe 9 together with them to discuss a plan for the future. I think t "s can all be accomplished ~ithout Legislative involvement by just rying to aesiat the city in maLnt8in1ng a valuable urban resourc, using a common sense approach that doesn't necessa ly conform to the letter of current regs. but will certainlY meet th intent with a win-win for the community and the resource. How's t t for optimism??? cc: Dahomuth, Mihalver -. - -.--.- - --. - -- --.-- ---.... . ----