AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 231 opinion,would be concealed within an administrative draft report that apparently is not available for public review. Discussing issues af potentia�risk to the properties from stream bank erosion and slumping is frustrated by this insistence tl�at this is a case of disagreeing experts, when in fact the City and developer have been playing cat and mouse regarding this issue for years.The developer and his consultant insisted there is no evidence for bank erosion despite the clear observation of the 50a cottage foundations being undermined and the extensive occurrence of rip-rap and various erosion control structures instatled all along the creek channel. For the DEIR,the City now admits that erosion is adjacent to Lat 3,where the 50a cottage naw stands (In fact,this ongoing erosion is cited in the EIR as a reason that some nf the alternatives that retain this structure are infeasible or undesireable],but does not seem to consider, in suggested mitigatiaz�s that only affect Lat 3,that the problem is likely extant along the entire stream bank- especially where retaining wails (some failing) and other erosion control structures have been uti�ized in what is ciearly a futile attempt to thwart Mother Nature.As regaz-�s evidence for slumping nf the bank,the City argued in the DEIR that such an occurrence is unlikely insofar that bowed trees, which are evidencE far lateral soil movement,were not observed.When we identified bowed#rees in our DEIR comments,the response now is that this evidence is not indicative of the type of slump features that we suggested may be present in the creek area.In fact,they naw elaim the feature of coneern does not exist [see above).Let's be clear.There is clear,substantial evidence for bank erosion. There is undisputed evidence of a sail mass adjacent to lots 3 and 4 tnat has produced a narrowing oF the creek channel, and has,as evidencet�by the VTM contours,marphology consistent with a soil slump. There is clear evidence from trenching rnvestigations that rriost material comprising this feature is of natural origin and�at man-made fill.There is clear evidence of lateral soil mnvement evidenced by bawed trees [a �2� degree bow is not minor bowing as shown in photographs presented in our DE1R comments) and cracked and defarmed retaining walls. None of this evidence matters to the reviewers. The old adage that if it"looks like a duck,walks like a duck,and qua�ks like a duck,then in must be a duck" apparently does not influence expert apinion in this case. If such a slump exists,the assumptions of uniform soil strength that is likely used to aesign appropriate set�acks are not�alid.We have asked repeatedly for documentation to support tne suggested setbacks and foundanon design,and no data has been presented.The EIR limits erosion mitigation to lot 3 near the existing 50a cottage,which is,because of the existence of the structure,the only place that we can measure the impact of erosion. It doesn't mean it isn't happening elsewhere on the project site.The mitigatian limited to Lot 3 is insufficient because the available data suggests the entire creek bank SW of the slump area should be equally protected. Furthermore,the EIR has not demonstrated how eff�ctive the proposed erosion mitigation planting plan will be; in fact it does not describe that planting at all.