Laserfiche WebLink
WET WEATHER FLOW MANAGEMENT PLAN <br /> <br />The following is a general description of the evaluation criteria that were developed, <br />followed by Table 3-1, which describes how each selected alternative performed for a <br />specific criterion. <br /> <br />Factors to be considered in the alternative evaluation include: <br /> Improvement in water quality <br /> <br />· Limitation of overflow locations - Minimizes exposure to personal property- <br /> - Minimizes exposure to public locations <br /> <br />'. l.imitation of overflow volumes <br /> - Minimizes exposure to personal property , , <br /> ~ Minimizes exposure to public locations <br /> - Ability to add park, open space, or other values desired by the communi. 'ty <br /> - Ability to equitably distribute cost between jurisdictions <br /> <br />· Cost-effectiveness <br /> - Capital <br /> - Operation and maintenance. <br /> - Life cyde <br /> <br />· Addresses neighborhood compatibility issues (consistency of zoning) or through <br /> mitig~l:ion <br /> - Odor <br /> - Aesthetics <br /> - Constructionimpac~ <br /> - Locatioml acccTtability <br /> - .Fzluitable dist~'b~tion of impacts betweenjurisdictiom <br /> <br />· Confidence <br /> <br />FollOwin§ the listing of factors for evaluation in Table ~-1 is a listing of pros and cons for <br />each of the alternatives developed (Table ~-2), which was also produced to assist in the <br />alternatives evaluation process. <br /> <br /> <br />