My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2018 10:39:26 AM
Creation date
3/12/2018 10:38:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/7/2018
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
334
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Throughouttheapplication,therearemanyeffortstominimizetheimpactsofcuttingwhat <br />wouldendupasthemajorityoftreesontheentiresite.Thiswouldbetheresultofclearingtrees <br />forconstructinginfrastructureforroadway,utilities,watersupplyandwastewater,drains,storm <br />waterrunoff,andothererosioncontrolandstabilityfeatures.Notethequalificationof“as <br />practical”whichappearsthroughout.Thepriorityisgiventotheexpediencyofclearingrather <br />thanpreservingtreesandenvironment.Justificationisofferedbyassertingthatthesiteoverall <br />hasbeen“unmaintained,”thetrees“rangefromfairtopoorcondition,”andmanyare“low- <br />valuespecies”(p.14of67). <br />InadetailedForestryReport(SeeAttachmentH),Mehrweindisputestheclaimthattheforested <br />areaoftheproposedCHPUDsiteisunhealthy.Significantly,hedescribeshowtheproposed <br />harvestingofthelargenumberoftrees(abouthalfofallonsite)andthesizeofthosetrees <br />(especiallythemajorityofallthoseoverthreefeetindiameter)would,ineffect,producethe <br />equivalentofasmallclearcutwithinthelargerridgeline,HendricksPark,andRibbonTrail <br />environment.Thus,remainingadjacenttreeswouldbevulnerabletodamageandwind-throw. <br />Moreover,thereisevidencefromresearchstudiesthatgreaterslopeinstabilityanderosionresult <br />fromtheremovaloftreesandexcavationsforconstruction,becausesoil-stabilizingroot <br />structuresaredamagedandeventuallydie,leadingtoerosion. <br />Applicationstates(p.14of67):“Thelotsareclusteredaroundthetransportationsystem, <br />whichallowslargerstandsoftreestobepreservedasaunitandtopreservetheforestedlook <br />ofthesite. <br />Theadditionofstreettrees,privatetrees,andlandscapingonthesitewillcreateahabitat <br />thatisappropriateandtypicalofanurbaninfillproject.Thetreestoremain,proposedtrees, <br />andlandscapingwillberoutinelymaintainedandthriveandmatureintoahealthy <br />environment.” <br />Theapplicationmakesreferencethroughoutto“thetransportationsystem,”whichisa <br />misnomer.“System”isdefinedasa“set”or“number”ofrelatedthingsthatareunifiedintoa <br />coherentwhole.Applicationproposesa“PrivateRoadway”(p.10of67)thatloopsbackon <br />itselftotheexistingCapitalDr.“Theprojectcontainsaprivatestreet”(p.19of67). <br />Applicationstates(p.31of67):“TheproposedCupolaDrive(privatedrive)hasbeenlocated <br />ascloselyasispracticalintheexistingfootprintofthevehicularcirculationthatwas <br />previouslycreatedonsite…andtheremovalofthosetreesrequiredtoinstallthedriveis <br />minimal.” <br />Applicationadmitsthat“secondaryaccessisnotavailable”(p.41of67)toCapitalDr.orthe <br />proposedprivatedrive,thusmakingtheproposeddevelopmentandtheexistinghomesinthe <br />areamorevulnerabletohealthandsafetydangersandtodelaysforemergencyresponseservices <br />\[Seediscussionof EC9.8320(5)(b),(6)and(11)regardingrisksandsafety\]. <br />Theproposalof“aprivatestreettominimizeimpacttothesite”(p.14of67)doesnotensure <br />whatthiscodecriterionasksfor:“preservation”ofnaturalresourcesand“enhance”habitat. <br />144 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.