4704 HARBOR LN 2018-01-02 MF Import

that meets all the geotechnical reports criteria of stabilizing the slope. There are also other less costly structural solutions. Specific Comments after Reviewing the Restoration Plan • In section 2.1 it states that `... development is to be 25 feet beyond the point where the slope is less than 25 percent.' This means that the proposed wall project is within this buffer zone and which brings up the question of whether this is the correct and proper means to repair the slope. The wall is very intrusive and less structural solutions using 'bio-engineering' are available, but no other options are given, why? • In section 4.1 it states that "...applicant is proposing to mitigate for the site clearing and the slide through a two -phased restoration of the disturbed areas." Typically the restoration plan is pr ared rt in hillside restoration, there nre. is e c rant ictahn¢ what should be done first and second or at All? • Fu:lher in section 4.1, the restoration report author states '...phase one of the restoration will commence with removal of existing down trees as recommended in the Geotechnical report. Where in the geotechnical report does it state a phased approach and we wonder why this is needed. Why is the slope not being stabilized at the same time the wall is being built? • More in section 4.1, it states that '...following this, native trees will be planted throughout this area.' After reviewing page 6, 1 do not agree with this statement. I do not believe many Shore or White Pines are in the area naturally,so 1 wonder WHY these species far outweigh the quantities of Big -Leaf maple and Doug as fir. There is also no mention of Cedar trees, which appear to how been the majority of the trees cut. Why are they not being replanted if they arc native? • Also, since the trees that were illegally cut down were mature with some over 24 inches in diameter, why are such small trees being transplanted? • The restoration plan does not appear to address the soil removal issue and riprap bench presented in the geotechnical report or a plan on how to do that and why. It also does not mention the replacement of sword ferns, which are prevalent throughout the ravine. Their broad, year around leaves break the rain drops and add stability to the slope. General Comments I Concerns after Reviews • Both of the reports, in my opinion, are written in a bias manner in that they; o Barely comment on the adjacent Chase or other p. •erties, o Discuss only options that maximize backyard yardage and keep the current viewshed the was illegally obtained, and/or o They do NOT present the exact wall location, the methods of soil removal, and the exact erosion control / slope stabilizing methods and where they do what. • The existing flowing spring and its large flow of water (see photos) that begins on the Anderson property and is now partially buried under the slide material MUST 1109 1" Avenue, suite 501, Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: (206)588-8200 Fax: (206)588-8201 Page 3 gX0