AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 229 retained or praperly maintained?The response is quiet on these issues,and non- resgonsive to the original comments. Response J-15 The FEIR appears ta canclude that as long as conditions af the stormwater ordinance are met, including findings to grant exceptions ta the creek setback,that construction of four large hames in close proximity to the creek wil� nat significantly impact the creek environment. Cordilleras Creek is a protected watercourse,with intent to preserve and restare creek conditions and riparian habitat. The point of our comment was to n�te that, as opposed to initial conditions,the only available private open-space available to creekside residents is largely contained within the 25'setback and as a result,there will be significantZy intensified l�uman use of the site, compared with initial conditions. It is not a matter of the number of residents present,but what portions of the property are available for what use and what activities are iikely to accur there.The t�uestion of how this change of use directly adjacent to the stream bank may affect riparian protection,hank integrity,wildlife corridors, environmental connectivity,and the natural functioning of the creek is nat addressed by the DEIR or the responses to comments. Referring to biology reports that discuss only initia� canditions, and then suggesting that those reports canstitute substantial evidence that the project will have no effect on creek canditions is not a responsive argument. Response j-16 The response to our comment regarding grading adjacent to the creek bank implies that the Stormwa#er Ordinance allows grading of the creek bank to alter the natural drainage pattern there.The response correctly notes that the Ordinance does allow grading to pccur for"normal maintenance of vegetation and protective restoration or maintenance to prevent fTooding,reduce siltation,or otherwise provide for the pubIic health or safery."Nowhere in the ordinance,however,does it state that grading is permitted to alter the drainage pattern adjacent to the creek.Yet the DEIR explicitly states that grading will be done to direct flow away from the creek. The response goes on to say that all runoff from pervious surfaces wil7 be directed toward the creek and all flow from impervious surfaces will he directed away from the creek How is this dor�e without grading within the setback? In addition,the drainage map,from what can be determined in the included Figure 1.0-5,shows that nearly all of the rear yards of Lots 1-4 drain toward the creek.What will occur if residents construct structures and impervious surfaces between their residences and the 15' eage of the nv build zone,which,accarding to the DEIR,will be aIlowed for in this project? [f this occurs, runoff wil�flaw into the creek and wiZl nnt be "filtiered over a minimum of twenty-five [25] feet of vegetation or through other equivalent means",as required by the ardinance-because there is not 25'available for fil�ratian. �n the face,the grading plan shawn in Figure 1.0-5 and the allowed provision for construction within 15'of the top of bank(post-development, presumably) directly violates the Stormwater Ordinance designed to pratect the creek environment,and which the FEIR claims is bezng complied with.