Suggestions for comments to Planning and Elected Officials:

Address the impact of the proposed development adding more than 300 people, 200 cars, pedestrians/bicycles, additional 1100+ cars daily, (not counting delivery trucks, service trucks, visitors, walkers) on Coles Road, well water capacity, WWTP capacity, the Maxwelton watershed, building over an identified critical aquifer recharge area, crowded intersections, development residents wandering on private property, increase in crime, few $25 hr+ jobs available, loss of rural environment, modification of critical slopes, removal of trees, wetlands contamination, affordable housing units occupied by other than S. Whidbey residents, occupants of the ‘50%’ provided affordable subsidized rentals have little discretionary income, traffic jams into and out of Langley, etc. Recommend an appropriate amount and type of housing units the parcel and local road can support (2005 MOU for the 24 home agreement protected much of the parcel for public and private trails).

From Developer’s Application: “1. That the “city” and its neighborhoods are arranged to reduce automobile use (requires a vehicle for transportation)

2. That areas of current and future hazard remain or become undeveloped to avoid unnecessary loss of life (except for variances)

3. That the regional watershed is protected to preserve the future water supply (for the Langley wellhead). 4. That critical areas are protected and enhanced (definition of critical area not included)

Los Angeles - Ethics Demand to City article

Developers and their special interest lobbyists must no longer be permitted to choose the consultants who literally write Environmental Impact Reports for their own developments. This obvious conflict of interest must be banned so that the actual environmental impact – not a consultant’s self-interested twisting of traffic, health, parking, open space and density impacts – will be fully mitigated, instead of ignored.

— There must be a clear and transparent process, including fast-tracked deadlines, for crafting the new Los Angeles General Plan that empowers the people to chart the future of our own city, slashing the undue influence of developers and their lobbyists over the L.A. River, neighborhood character, mansionization, small lot subdivisions and other crucial public concerns.

— Spot zoning exceptions to the General Plan, a practice which currently allows wildly inappropriate mega-developments in cherished neighborhoods, must become the rare exception to the rule, rather than routine, as it is today.

— Ex parte communications between developers and city elected officials or members of the City Planning Commission — also known as backroom meetings — must be eliminated. Just as we have seen with the California Coastal Commission, ex parte communications give developers an all-access pass to our government officials while regular people with a much bigger stake in their communities wait in line at long meetings for one minute of public comment. We are better than that.

It is our hope that we can put aside special interest politics and rally around a shared vision for our collective future that serves all the unique neighborhoods and communities of Los Angeles.

Coalition to Preserve L.A. is a citywide movement of concerned residents who believe in open government, people-oriented planning, equitable housing and environmental stewardship of Los Angeles through advocacy and empowering the community.
http://preservela.wpengine.com/category/fight-back/

Prepared by Donald H. Gray
July 2009

EFFECT OF WOODY VEGETATION REMOVAL ON THE HYDROLOGY AND STABILITY OF SLOPES
One way to settle the argument about the effect of woody vegetation on the hydrology and stability of slopes is to cut down all the trees and see what happens. The effects of wide spread vegetation removal on the stability of natural slopes have been studied extensively as a result of a timber harvesting practice known as clear-cutting. It is useful and instructive to examine the consequences of such a practice vis a vis a policy promulgated and now being carried out by the US Army Corps of Engineers to remove all woody vegetation over 2 inches in diameter growing on or near the toe of earthen embankments or levees.

Widespread removal (clear-cutting) of trees on natural slopes and streambanks generally leads to an increase in slope failures. This is the overwhelming consensus of papers published in the scientific and technical literature as documented in the attached literature review. In some cases there may be a short- term benefit from tree removal resulting from a decrease in shear forces transmitted to a slope from wind. The adverse effect of wind depends, however, on such factors as the size and height of the canopy, stand density, and wind direction. The presence of tall, rigid trees growing near the water line of levees may also promote scour erosion around the base of the tree. These offending trees can be identified, selectively removed and/or pruned as part of an alternative vegetation management policy.

In the long run, cutting of trees on slopes leads to a gradual decrease in mass stability as a result of the decay of roots which previously acted as tensile reinforcements in the slope. Root decay can also lead to the formation of pipes in a slopes which promote internal or seepage erosion. The removal of tree canopy results in the loss of interception and evapo-transpiration which tends to promote wetter and less secure slopes. Canopy removal also results in less attenuation in the delivery rate of rainfall to the ground surface

Groundwater Recharge

Groundwater recharge or the rate at which aquifers are replenished is one of the most difficult components of the water budget to quantify. Recharge rates are impacted by the amount and intensity of precipitation, soil and vegetation types, geology and topography. Recharge rates are highly variable in space and time. Global synthesis of recharge estimates revealed that after precipitation, vegetation type is the second most important factor controlling recharge rates (Kim and Jackson, 2012).

Recharge is viewed as the sum of several distinct flow pathways, including mountain system recharge that consists of mountain block recharge (lateral subsurface flow from mountains to valley aquifers) and mountain front recharge (infiltration of mountain stream runoff) (Wilson and Guan, 2004), diffuse recharge (direct infiltration of precipitation to basin floor), and focused recharge as a result of streamflow infiltration from ephemeral channels and/or perennial surface water bodies (Hogan et al., 2004). Recharge estimation methods can be classified into three main types depending on the source of data used to estimate recharge including surface water and water in the unsaturated and saturated zones (Scanlon et al., 2002). Providing robust recharge estimates is important for sustainable management of groundwater resources and estimating the groundwater footprint, defined as the required area to sustain groundwater dependent ecosystems and groundwater use (Gleeson et al., 2012).

Significance − rationale for assessment: The water stored in river and lake marginal wetlands from overbank flooding or slope run-off may percolate downwards into groundwater aquifers. This can replenish groundwater resources, maintain groundwater-dependent wetland ecosystems in discharge areas, or maintain base flow in rivers fed by discharge elsewhere.

Groundwater discharge

For the Groundwater recharge function to occur the following conditions must be met:

The HGMU must receive significant water inputs either from run-off or from overbank flooding. If the only inputs are from rainfall it is unlikely that recharge will occur at higher rates than in non-wetland areas.2.

Prior to water input, the water table must be sufficiently low to allow standing water to infiltrate the soil before it evaporates or runs off.3.

The HGMU must connect to an aquifer by means of a hydrological pathway. This usually means the HGMU must overlie the aquifer and not be separated from it by deposits of low permeability.4.

There can be no groundwater discharge.