AgdaPkt 2009-08-03 spc, clsd and jnt

Browse Search

7A Page 23 sufficient wi#hout accounting f.or the Iong-term impacts of creek erosion and bank instability.GEC}IlVSITE further states tbat they have not reviewed da#a that would support constructing the homes any closer to the creek edge than currently allowed.by . ardinance.T'he Applica��'s experts,hvwever,still de�y the possibility of any problems ... associated with rhe cxeek bank. Discussion The new plan submittals and report do not change our eonclusi.ons on the condirion af the creek bank ox�he poten.tial for exposing the cre�k side properties to adverse effects due to ba,nk co�lapse and/or erosion.V�e disagree with the mit�gation proposed for this impact. We urg�the Coynmission tia accept GEOI.NSITE's recommendation to en.force the City's required setback as a simple mifiigation.I£the Applicant is nat willing to comply vErit�the ordinaace,an E�2 should be requ�red to properly eva�.vate#he impacts and an�lyze alternatives. 6.8 HydraIogy aud Waxer Quality(c}-��S�xbstaatiauy aiter the egistiag drainage pattern of the�ite or area,�ncluc�n.g#hrough the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner,w�irch wouid resui#in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?" Recap - � 4ur discussion re,garding this iss�e revolved around the potenhal problems with a gabion retaining wall design that could result in substantia�erosion,eithcr due to ou�fa�impacts on creek bank instability or to direct failure of the gabion wall.Althaugh not part of the MND,the City's�eb. 10 st�ff report also recommended alternative designs to reduce t1a�s pote�itial impact,but a��.e time,f�e Applicant had nat agreed to any design c�anges. Update since the Feb. 10 hearing . The Applicant has since submitted a proposal fo tbe City for an atf�ua#e stoxn�wafi:ex plati that would detain and direct t�e site's stvrm watc�runoff�o#he City's catch bas in at the cvrner of Finger and El Ca�nino.This plan would eliminate#he need for an outfall or retaining shuchu�e to be construc�ed in the creel�. Discussion While there may be o#i�er moxe effc:ctive or tess exp�r�sive approaches to r�ar�aging th� site's storm wat3cer than what the Applicant has proposed,the new storm wafex plan,if iti pxoves feasible;will elimina#e the ne�d.for an outfaU�in the creek and would thus�educe the po�ntial impacts under this CE{ZA checklist ii�m t�a leve�of nat�signi.fiica�nc�.If t�iis or a similar stiarm water plan is adop�3.that m�s standards ar,d does not require ou�.ffall construction in the creek,we would support such a plan azxd drop our claims with respect to this item. 6.8 I3ydrology and Water Qua�ty(d)"Substa.ntially a�ter the egi.sting tlrainage pattern of the�si#e or area,iaclud�ing thrau�h the aiteration of the cours�of a.stream -. or river,or substantially increas�the rate ar amaunt of surface rt�nuff in a manner, which would result i�a flooding on or off site?"aad(h)"Pi�ce wi�thin.a 1Q0-year flood hazard area struc#�xres,which woutd impede or redirect flood flows?"