AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 319 apinion,would t��cancealed within an administrative draft report that apparently is nnt availah�e fflr puhli�review. Disc�assing issues of poten�iai risk tin t�e properties frorn sirearn bank erosion and slumping�s frustrated by this insistence that this is a case of disagreeing��erts, when in fact�he City and developer have been playing cat and rr�ouse regarding this issue for years.The developer and his c�nsultant insisted thera is na evidence far bank erosion d�spite the clear observation of the 50a cott�age foundatians being undermined and th�e e�ensive occurrence ofrip-rap and vario�as erasion contra] structures installed all along the creek ctzannel.F'ar the DE[R,�he City ao`y admits that erosian is adjacent to Lot 3,where the 5Qa cattage now stands (�n fact,this ongaing erasion is cited in fihe EIR as a reason that some nf the alternatives that retain this strucCure are infeasible ar undesireable),but daes not seern ta cQnsider, in sug�esterl rnit�gatians that only affect Lot 3,tk�at the probletn is likely extant along the entire stream bank-especially where retaining walls(sozne fafling] and other erosion control structe�res have been utilized in what�s clearty a�iutile attempt ta thwart Mother Nat�re.As regar�s evidence�ac slumping oFthe�bank,the City argUed in the DEIR that such a�n oc�urrence is unIikely insofar that bvwed trees, which are evidence far lateral sail movement,were nat abserved,When we identified bowed trees in our DEIR comments,the�respons�now is that this evidence is not indicative of the t,ype ofslum�features that we suggested rnay be present in tJ�e creek area.In fact,they�n�y claim the featr�a�e of con�ern does not exist (see above).Lat's be cleat�.There is clear,substantial evidence for bank erQSion.7"here is undisputed evidence of a sa�l mass adjacent to lots 3 and 4 that has producea a narrowing of�he creek channel,�nd has,as evidencec��y the VTM contours,morpholo�,y consistent with a soi�slump.There is clear evidenee fram trenching investigations that rriost material comprising this feature is of natural origin and not rr�an-made�11.There is clear evidence of lateral soi!movement evidenced hy bowed trees [a Mz0 degree bow is nat minor bowing as shown in photographs presented in ouz-D�IR comments) and rracked anti deformed retaining wa�Is. None of this evidence matters to the reviewers,The old adage that ff it"looks like�duck,walks like a duck,an�l c�uacks like a duck,�hen in must be a duc[c" apparemly does not influence expert opinion in this case. If such a slump exists,th�ass�m�tians of uniform soil strength that is likely us�d to design appropriate setbacks are na#`ralid.We have asked repeatec�Iy for documentation to support tl�e suggest�d setbac�CS and founda�#on design,and no data has been presented.The EIR timits erosion mi�igativn to Iat 3 near the existing 50a eattage,which is,beGause of the�astence af the sfiructure,the only p]ace that we can measure the impact of erosion, tt clvesn't mean it isn't happening elsewhere on the prvject site.7'he mitigatian limit�d to Lot 3 is insufficient because the a�railable data sug�ests the entire creek bank SW ofthe slunnp area shauld be equally prateeted.Furthermvre,the EIR has not dernonstrated hnw effective the praposed erasian znitigation ptanting plan will bs; ir�fact it does not describe that planting at all.