Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> Page 21 <br /> adve�se effects,includang the risk of loss,�rijury,ar death invotv�ng Iands�ides?"and <br /> (c}��Be loca#ed an a geoiogic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become <br /> unstable as a result of the projec�,and p�tenhalIy resu�t in o�-vr�ff-site�andsiide, <br /> lateraE spreading,subsideace,liqu�factian or couapse?" <br /> Recap <br /> I,n oux i.nitial response to the IS/MND,we noted that the Applicant's geotechnical reports <br /> had not been reviewed by a licensed engineering geoic�gist or registered geotechnical <br /> engixteer.in our respons�,we inctuded a report by GEOINSITE,INC.that iden�if ed a <br /> potentiallandslide on the site and concluded: <br /> , 1) the BAGG inv�stiga#ian had not fiYlly recognized clear evidence frnr angoing banlc <br /> faiiwre,includiug the l�cely pvtential for stvpe failure t�iat extends beyond BAGG's <br /> recommended engineereci setback; <br /> 2) as a resutt of the Applicant's failure ta propexly chaza�terize poten�al h�-ds at the <br /> sibe,BAGG's slope s#�bility anatysis may nvt be appropriate,in t�a�it may nvt have <br /> suffi�i�nt.�y accaunt�ed for sp�cific sit�cond�tions.GE4INSITE no#�ed in�lieir <br /> review f�BAGG had not presented t�i�.e geatechnicat data.and model.assumptions <br /> that wen#into their analysi.s and therefore it is impossible to independent�y review <br /> �ei�conclusions; <br /> 3) that�he praposed mitigation�o construct the creek side homes on piers i� <br /> insufficient in fihat it oniy guards against catastrophic collapse of die homes into the <br /> creel�.Because the project will pot�ntially be placing structures and imp�vv�ne�� <br /> within a zone where active str�n processes maEy erode or cause€ailure of the bank, <br /> #�iere is poten.tial for signifcant Ioss to t�e creekside properLies,inciuding removal <br /> of the rear yards and possibie exposure of fhe bwi�ding foundat�ons. <br /> This analysis caused BAGG to conduct a fiu�her evaluation in which they conc�uded that <br /> the features that GE(�Il�I5TT'E interpreted as resuiting from creek bank erasion and <br /> landsliding w�re instead produced by man-mads fill deposited in the croek.'They further <br /> concluded�aa�there is no e�vidence far cx�ek bank erosion at the si�.VVe responded ta this <br /> new re�port with a GEOINSTTE response lett:e�r and a present�tion to the Canunission where <br /> we demonstrated th�t: <br /> 1) there is no disagre�me,�t ove�t�e observations that an a�nomalous�pographic <br /> f�ahu.�e occurs on the si�e,or tha�t the creek bank on and near t�e project site is <br /> commoniy mant�ed with riP�rap>gunit�e,retauting walls,and other erosion conlxvl <br /> devices; <br /> 2) the conclusions presented by BAGG are argument only.They are advancing a <br /> professional opinian as to the origin of the observed features that dif�er from <br /> GEOINSITE's,but they have presented little data to support their <br /> znterpretation,nor have�hey presented an�facts to preclude the occurrence <br /> of landsliding and bank erosion; <br /> 3) landsli.ding is the most ptausible e�ianatian for features observed at the site <br /> and nearby,by sho�ing how the slide likely formed at the site,and e�ridence <br /> frorn LiDAR data that reveals.bank-�op scalioping and simitar kinds of <br /> features nearby to the property <br /> 4) active stxeam processes are ongoing by providing photographic <br /> documentation for bank erosion,soii falls abave retaining walLs,undercutting <br /> of banks,and retaining vvall€ailures at or nea�r the project s�te along <br />