This morning the tree cutting started at the school end of the road so they can be done with that before students return to classes.
It was sad watching large old trees disappear in moments. I shot some video but will not get it edited and uploaded til later tonight.
The cutting will continue westward as the weeks go on....
br>
Showing posts with label Bridgeton Road levee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bridgeton Road levee. Show all posts
Monday, August 25, 2008
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Oregonian article
Today's Oregonian has an article about the Bridgeton tree issue. Read it for an overview and update:
Click HERE
In my recollection of legal lingo there is a saying something like "a trial is the prime example of the failure of negotiation"....well that's what happened here. Only after a trial, and after the city's request that the two sides negotiate followed by the city's denial of the permit that the DD requested and requested that it happen AFTER negotiating - only then did the two sides sit and talk.
What a waste of tax payer monies. Not only is the BNA Board still looking for ways to raise money to pay off the legal fees, taxpayers paid for the court time and will also wind up paying for the cost of the DD attorney fees!
Maybe the next time an issue arises, the "powers that be" will not lie to the citizens but will try to communicate honestly and in good faith before taking unilateral action - and maybe the neighborhood association will start communicating to it's constituents openly and in a more timely manner.
Click HERE
In my recollection of legal lingo there is a saying something like "a trial is the prime example of the failure of negotiation"....well that's what happened here. Only after a trial, and after the city's request that the two sides negotiate followed by the city's denial of the permit that the DD requested and requested that it happen AFTER negotiating - only then did the two sides sit and talk.
What a waste of tax payer monies. Not only is the BNA Board still looking for ways to raise money to pay off the legal fees, taxpayers paid for the court time and will also wind up paying for the cost of the DD attorney fees!
Maybe the next time an issue arises, the "powers that be" will not lie to the citizens but will try to communicate honestly and in good faith before taking unilateral action - and maybe the neighborhood association will start communicating to it's constituents openly and in a more timely manner.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Poisoning of beavers and "spraying" of the levee
This letter was sent today to the Multnomah County Drainage district and our state rep Tina Kotek - via email. I will post a reply when I receive one.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Mr. Bob Eaton, Executive Director
Mr. Dave Hendricks, Deputy Director
Multnomah County Drainage District
Dear Mr. Eaton and Mr. Hendricks:
I am a Bridgeton resident. In October of this year a neighbor told me that your office poisoned the beavers in the Columbia River along the levees, including Bridgeton levee, and also sprayed “something” on the levee to curtail vegetative growth.
I find this worrisome and have a few questions:
1 – Did you poison the beavers?
If so, when specifically did this occur? Where were the beaver burrows located that were poisoned?
What poison[s] were used? Please be specific and also list all ingredients including information as to how long each of the ingredients is active.
Did you retrieve the dead animals?
If so, where were they found?
And if not retrieved – why not?
2 - Did you spray or otherwise cause chemicals or poison[s] to be put on the levee?
If so, when specifically did this occur?
Exactly what areas were subjected to this process and how close did the process come to the river's edge?
Did you first take care to note if any water fowl were nesting in those areas?
What specifically was used? Please list all ingredients and also include information as to how long each of the ingredients is active.
3 - Why were the neighbors not notified in advance of any of these events?
Many of us allow our pets to walk on the levee and explore the grasses along the slopes.
Many of us water our plants and vegetables with river water.
Many of us in the neighborhood swim and kayak in the Columbia Channel and River or otherwise come in contact with the water, as do many who do not live here but are out on the river in boats.
Assuming you have all this information readily available I expect a most rapid reply and expect an answer within 10 working days.
I am posting this letter on my neighborhood blog [http://ibridgeton.com] and will post your reply as well. As others have shown interest when I spoke of this, copies of this letter will be forwarded to persons and agencies in addition to those noted below..
Lynn Dorman, Ph.D., J.D.
205 N. Bridgeton Road #5
Portland Oregon 97217
503-477-5550
Cc: Peninsula #2 Drainage District Board of Supervisors Messrs. Schafer, Halsten, McBride
Tina Kotek, State Representative District 44
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Levee Facts - directly from FEMA
Some in this drainage district area have been getting erroneous information relating to the Bridgeton Levee. Here is some information directly from FEMA. [ I have added emphasis on the points most often misinterpreted. ]
In order to help you further understand the levee documentation, attached are some Fact Sheet FEMA has produced regarding the National Flood Insurance Program and levees. The main points to take from it are:
· FEMA Mapping Process
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintenance correction period ends June 11, 2008 and the preliminary FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are scheduled to be released in September 2008. FEMA will produce the preliminary FIRMs showing the current status of the levee (certified or not).
· Insurance
Regardless of the levee certification status, flood insurance will continue to be made available. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements for federally backed loans in the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) are related to effective maps. If a homeowner purchases flood insurance before the new maps become effective, the rating will be based on the map currently in effect when the building was constructed. This is known as “grandfathering.” I have attached a “Grandfathering Newsletter” to help you further understand this process.
· Disaster Assistance
Because the City of Portland participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the certification status of the levee (certified or not) does not affect your community’s ability to obtain FEMA disaster assistance. If a federally declared disaster occurs, disaster assistance will continue to be made available.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Summary of meeting with City's Urban Forester
I have edited together a few emails from Bridgeton neighbors who were at this meeting - along with some commentary by me and them.
I understand from some neighbors that Pen 2 has hired a company to remove the roots of the already cut trees at the Yacht Club end of the road. As some of those roots are fairly substantial in diameter and go under Marine Drive and Bridgeton Road - I do wonder how all this will be done - because in court - Pen 2 said they were going to fill in the excavated root areas with sand.
Anyone know the answer to this question? Please post it as a comment so we can all read it. Click on the word comment below.
BNA members, Pen 2 and others met last Friday with Dave McAllister, Urban Forester for the city of Portland to gather facts in anticipation of Pen 2's permit request to cut trees along Bridgeton Road.
The attorneys for the City and Pen 2 traded arguments several times on this issue whether Pen 2 needs permits to cut trees on the levee, or at least for most of them or does not need permits. And while there were some pointed questions of Dave McAllister to the Pen 2 representatives, the upshot was that the Drainage District has not applied for a permit to cut trees, and until they do, the Urban Forester can really not do much of anything. He did state that he expected Pen 2 to have a "mitigation plan" attached to any permit request, even though Dave Hendricks made quite a point of stating that he did not feel they should have to do this.
The City Attorney explained the Tree permit code and why and how it applied to Pen2.
Pen 2 argued that the tree removal was an "Emergency", which according to the City code would waive the requirement for permits or mitigation. GeoDesign said they would write up and stamp a statement saying there was no immediate emergency. In addition, GeoDesign stated that winter months, during high saturation, is the best time for compacting sand. An argument that negates Penn2's position that the work is weather driven.
BNA argued that the corps has noted in annual eligibility inspections the trees as needing maintenance since 1987 and Pen 2 has done no tree or vegetation maintenance during those 20 years and has not informed landowners of any tree threatening the levee or posing an "Emergency." For those 20 years trees could have been trimmed, pruned, thinned to manage vegetation and prevent encroachment in to the critical core and with infrastructure.
New development could have planted levee compliant trees, residents could have planted levee compliant trees or located trees to prevent violating the corps policy. IF SUCH AN EMERGENCY - WHY NO INFORMATION OR NOTICE FOR 20 YEARS FROM PEN 2 ?
McAllister stated that BNA had e-mailed to the City and McAllister the communication Alise Goforth had directly with FEMA explaining that flood insurance and disaster relief are always available and unrelated to whether a levee is certified or not.
Additionally, FEMA explained that Mandatory Flood Insurance would not be required until September 2009 when FINAL MAPS are released. Penn2 has until September 2009 to get levee certified. Also, FEMA has a grandfathering program so that all existing construction can obtain flood insurance at the reduced rates, if required. [emphasis added - LD]
At the end of the meeting, McAllister suggested that both sides (BNA and Pen 2) should go back to the negotiating table and hammer out a mitigation plan that we both could live with before any permits are requested.
I understand from some neighbors that Pen 2 has hired a company to remove the roots of the already cut trees at the Yacht Club end of the road. As some of those roots are fairly substantial in diameter and go under Marine Drive and Bridgeton Road - I do wonder how all this will be done - because in court - Pen 2 said they were going to fill in the excavated root areas with sand.
Anyone know the answer to this question? Please post it as a comment so we can all read it. Click on the word comment below.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
What's new with the tree cutting
from a neighborhood email - with minor edits :
The City Arborist is meeting with Dave Hendricks, operations manager at the drainage district, Wednesday to go over which trees the city controls through the tree permit process and which trees the drainage district can cut without city permits.
On Friday there is going to be a meeting at City Hall that will involve the drainage district, the BNA, the City Parks Bureau, and maybe city commissioners, to go over the whole process.
The City Arborist is meeting with Dave Hendricks, operations manager at the drainage district, Wednesday to go over which trees the city controls through the tree permit process and which trees the drainage district can cut without city permits.
On Friday there is going to be a meeting at City Hall that will involve the drainage district, the BNA, the City Parks Bureau, and maybe city commissioners, to go over the whole process.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Judge's Decision
Click on each page [ there are 4 pages ] for a larger image...the very fainter last page contains only the signature and date
Injunction denied
I can't copy from the format right now -
but in short the judge denied the request for the preliminary injunction!
I'll try posting the entire decision later
This hearing proceeded on the very restricted nature of what could be presented in a writ of review context...
It's a very technical legal procedural item and so everyone was restricted in what they could present.
The judge could rule only on evidence which, due to the nature of the hearing, was very limited.
but in short the judge denied the request for the preliminary injunction!
I'll try posting the entire decision later
This hearing proceeded on the very restricted nature of what could be presented in a writ of review context...
It's a very technical legal procedural item and so everyone was restricted in what they could present.
The judge could rule only on evidence which, due to the nature of the hearing, was very limited.
Closing arguments
I'm posting a brief summary of the closing arguments..
Attorney for the neighborhood:
Suggested that Pen2 might start cutting trees, even without a city permit, if the TRO is lifted.
Argued that the petitioners do have standing [the legal right to bring the action.]
That neighbors are likely to prevail at the writ of review hearing.
Attorney for Pen 2:
The 60 day time limit started in June.
Pen 2 understand they must comply with Portland's tree cutting standards.
The commission statute indicates a commission is only to be in place on as as needed basis and it and a licensed engineer are not needed now.
He recited the one line from a Corp person to Portland that the levee has deficiencies.
That harm comes to all 1500 acres and the businesses in the Delta Park area if the levee fails - not just the neighborhood.
Dr. Gray came with a foregone conclusion and did not do a local evaluation.
Says the Army corp of Engineers makes the decisions; DD is just for ministerial work.
Petitioners use the word "likely" to prevail - TRO needs a higher standard of surety- therefore neighbors lose on the merits.
Attorney for the RiverKeepers:
Suggested that if this was such an emergency situation, why weren't the Army Corp of Engineers and the geotech firm hired by Pen2 not here testifying?
Remarked that Pen2 is relying only on the one sentence about deficiencies taken from a letter from the Corp to a local politician.
Argued that the Commission is still necessary and that the court can appoint such a commission.
Judge:
I will issue a decision after lunch tomorrow
Attorney for the neighborhood:
Suggested that Pen2 might start cutting trees, even without a city permit, if the TRO is lifted.
Argued that the petitioners do have standing [the legal right to bring the action.]
That neighbors are likely to prevail at the writ of review hearing.
Attorney for Pen 2:
The 60 day time limit started in June.
Pen 2 understand they must comply with Portland's tree cutting standards.
The commission statute indicates a commission is only to be in place on as as needed basis and it and a licensed engineer are not needed now.
He recited the one line from a Corp person to Portland that the levee has deficiencies.
That harm comes to all 1500 acres and the businesses in the Delta Park area if the levee fails - not just the neighborhood.
Dr. Gray came with a foregone conclusion and did not do a local evaluation.
Says the Army corp of Engineers makes the decisions; DD is just for ministerial work.
Petitioners use the word "likely" to prevail - TRO needs a higher standard of surety- therefore neighbors lose on the merits.
Attorney for the RiverKeepers:
Suggested that if this was such an emergency situation, why weren't the Army Corp of Engineers and the geotech firm hired by Pen2 not here testifying?
Remarked that Pen2 is relying only on the one sentence about deficiencies taken from a letter from the Corp to a local politician.
Argued that the Commission is still necessary and that the court can appoint such a commission.
Judge:
I will issue a decision after lunch tomorrow
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Hearing is over
I just got home from court and will post this for now...I will post a summary later...but I know some are waiting for info : - )
The Judge said she would issue her decision tomorrow [October 5 ] early afternoon.
It will be emailed to attorneys on both sides and as soon as a copy comes to me - I will post it [if I can] or summarize it if posting can't be done. [Some documents I have received are in formats that will not let me post them.]
The Judge said she would issue her decision tomorrow [October 5 ] early afternoon.
It will be emailed to attorneys on both sides and as soon as a copy comes to me - I will post it [if I can] or summarize it if posting can't be done. [Some documents I have received are in formats that will not let me post them.]
Brief Summation of Wednesday's hearing
The following comments are from the notes of someone who was there for the entire day.
One of the big issues is the timing of the 60 days to file a TRO. Pen2 [ the Drainage District] is
claiming that the 60 days started running in June when the board
made a decision to cut trees. Neighbors [BNA] are claiming that we worked in good faith
with Pen2 until they finally gave us written notice of the number and
location of the trees to be cut - and that was the day before they started
cutting trees.
The Pen2 attorney has withdrawn the claim that FEMA mandated the cutting and
that the residents of Pen2 will not be able to get insurance. Actually, those now insured
will be able to grandfather in at low rates just before the 2009 remapping.
BNA called two administrators for the drainage district as witnesses and
one said basically said that he did not know as an answer to almost every
question. He said that he had no knowledge of obtaining the tree permit even
though he signed it. The second in command said that he has no kind of
college degree, but that he knows more about the structure and requirements
of a levee than a civil engineer would. He also said that he has a
disagreement with the urban forester and that he does not need a
cutting permit to cut any of the trees on the water side of the levee. These
two may also be testifying for Pen2 on Thursday - as will several land owners.
To be continued after today's hearing....
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
6:30 PM update
Just spoke with someone who was in court all day. The hearing went until after 5 PM and the neighborhood was still presenting it's case.
The hearing will continue tomorrow morning with a break at 11 as the Judge has something else on her schedule and then will re-convene at 1 PM tomorrow afternoon.
Apparently the neighborhood's attorney called some of the Drainage District as witnesses. The neighborhood still has witnesses who need to testify and then the Drainage District will present it's case.
Stay tuned. If I get any specifics tonight about today's testimony I will post them...
The hearing will continue tomorrow morning with a break at 11 as the Judge has something else on her schedule and then will re-convene at 1 PM tomorrow afternoon.
Apparently the neighborhood's attorney called some of the Drainage District as witnesses. The neighborhood still has witnesses who need to testify and then the Drainage District will present it's case.
Stay tuned. If I get any specifics tonight about today's testimony I will post them...
Slight update - sorry
The hearing started about 10:15 and was mostly about legalities, scope of the hearing, and opening arguments by both sides. At noon - the judge said time for a lunch break and the hearing was to continue at 1 PM.
What had happened by noon was that the first witness for the neighborhood was about half way through his testimony. So he had to finish and then be subjected to cross examination.
The heat was on in the courtroom but with the windows open making some of us feel headachy !
I was one of those and was among the many who left at the lunch break. We figured the hearing had little chance of finishing today unless things moved more quickly after the lunch break and I don't know how late Portland hearings can or do go on in the afternoon.
As soon as someone who stays gets back to me - I will post any updates.
Side note - even if you enjoy technical legal arguing - this was not enjoyable... and I am a legal junkie...
What had happened by noon was that the first witness for the neighborhood was about half way through his testimony. So he had to finish and then be subjected to cross examination.
The heat was on in the courtroom but with the windows open making some of us feel headachy !
I was one of those and was among the many who left at the lunch break. We figured the hearing had little chance of finishing today unless things moved more quickly after the lunch break and I don't know how late Portland hearings can or do go on in the afternoon.
As soon as someone who stays gets back to me - I will post any updates.
Side note - even if you enjoy technical legal arguing - this was not enjoyable... and I am a legal junkie...
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Judge and courtroom announcement
We are before Judge Alicia Fuchs at 9:00 a.m. in courtroom 324.
That's tomorrow - October 3
See you there - but if you can't make it check back here as I will post something as soon as I get home from the hearing
That's tomorrow - October 3
See you there - but if you can't make it check back here as I will post something as soon as I get home from the hearing
Friday, September 28, 2007
Legal update Sept 28th
The hearing did not take place this morning. Apparently there was a conflict of interest with the judge and the hearing is re-set for next Wednesday, October 3 at 9:30. As soon as I know what judge and room, that info will be posted.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Affidavit of C.J. Zadoorian
This is the geotechnical engineer who reviewed the arborist's report which was done at the request of the Drainage District.
I edited out the case caption and some other headers and footer but he affidavit is in it's entirety.
AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER J. ZADOORIAN
I, CHRIS J. ZADOORIAN, swear, affirm under oath that:
1. I am a resident of the State of California. I am a competent person 18 years of age or older.
2. I am a licensed professional geotechnical engineer and a graduate of the State University of New York at Buffalo with a degree in Civil Engineering and the University of Southern California with a Master’s Degree in Civil Engineering with and emphasis in Geotechnical Engineering. I am licensed to practice engineering in California and Nevada and have over 16 years of geotechnical engineering experience in California, Nevada and Oregon. Regarding the subject matter, I am working under the responsible charge of Scott V. Mills, a licensed civil and geotechnical engineer in the States of Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona with over 25 years geotechnical engineering consulting experience in Portland, Oregon.a licensed civil and geotechnical engineer in the State of Oregon. My involvement in this assignment is partially due to my general knowledge of the situation regarding woody vegetation on levees in Sacramento, California.
3. I am a Principal Engineer with GEODESIGN INC., a geotechnical and environmental engineering services firm with offices in Anaheim, California, Portland, Oregon, Vancouver and Seattle, Washington. I work from the office at 2121 Towne Centre Place - Suite 130, Anaheim, California and am the office manager and responsible Principal for this office.
4. GEODESIGN INC. has been retained by the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association to provide Geotechnical Consultation Service, including the review of an arborist report dated September 13, 2007 prepared by Mr. John O’ Shea, Consulting Arborist, regarding the condition of trees on the Bridgeton Road Levee. Mr. O’Shea’s report was prepared for the Multnomah County Drainage District.
5. In his report dated September 13, 2007, Mr. O’Shea has concluded that 120 trees should be removed immediately to meet federal standards. The letter does not establish a basis for this conclusion and generally lacks supporting documentation to validate the conclusion. A primary omission from the letter is detailed logs of excavations depicting root systems for trees identified for removal and positive confirmation that the subject tree root systems do in fact penetrate the critical section of the levee.
6. An arborist is not qualified or authorized by the Oregon Board of Engineering Examiners to perform an assessment of the structural integrity of the Bridgeton Road Levee and the effect of tree growth on this levee. These analyses must be completed by a Registered Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Oregon.
7. Oregon Revised Statutes Section 672.005 (b) defines the practice of engineering as the application of “special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences…for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects”. Persons found to practice engineering without a license are subject to civil and criminal penalties (ORS Section 672.991).
8. An evaluation of the effect of tree growth on the Bridgeton Levee requires an understanding of the equations and methods to calculate wind-throw forces, slope stability, definition of the critical section of the levee, and earthwork and grading practices. This expertise is clearly within the profession of geotechnical engineering. A licensed professional engineer must complete the engineering analyses of data regarding the levee, such as root depth and canopy size of the subject trees, and recommendations for mitigation, if required.
9. An on-going evaluation of the Army Corps of Engineers policy regarding woody vegetation appears to have resulted in a major change in the blanket policy as it applies to levees in Sacramento, California. Considerations made for Sacramento levees may be applicable to the Bridgeton levee, provided sufficient engineering evaluation is performed.
10. To date, sufficient and justifiable engineering data has not been provided that supports the plan to remove 120 trees from the Bridgeton levee. In addition, the very policy that is being referenced for the required tree removal is under intense scrutiny as there does not appear to be a justifiable basis for this policy.
11. The recent decision by the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate further evaluate the potential impact of woody vegetation on Sacramento levees should be considered in the evaluation of the trees on the Bridgeton levee.
12. Sufficient data has not been provided to demonstrate that the 120 trees on the Bridgeton Road levee constitute an immediate threat to the stability of the levee. Further, sufficient time has not been provided to evaluate alternative mitigation measures for trees that would constitute a threat.
13. Mass removal of large growth species may result in a less favorable condition for the levee as this would likely leave a significant quantity of dead roots within the critical section of the levee and the impact on the levee and risk associated with this potential condition has not been evaluated.
I edited out the case caption and some other headers and footer but he affidavit is in it's entirety.
AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER J. ZADOORIAN
I, CHRIS J. ZADOORIAN, swear, affirm under oath that:
1. I am a resident of the State of California. I am a competent person 18 years of age or older.
2. I am a licensed professional geotechnical engineer and a graduate of the State University of New York at Buffalo with a degree in Civil Engineering and the University of Southern California with a Master’s Degree in Civil Engineering with and emphasis in Geotechnical Engineering. I am licensed to practice engineering in California and Nevada and have over 16 years of geotechnical engineering experience in California, Nevada and Oregon. Regarding the subject matter, I am working under the responsible charge of Scott V. Mills, a licensed civil and geotechnical engineer in the States of Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona with over 25 years geotechnical engineering consulting experience in Portland, Oregon.a licensed civil and geotechnical engineer in the State of Oregon. My involvement in this assignment is partially due to my general knowledge of the situation regarding woody vegetation on levees in Sacramento, California.
3. I am a Principal Engineer with GEODESIGN INC., a geotechnical and environmental engineering services firm with offices in Anaheim, California, Portland, Oregon, Vancouver and Seattle, Washington. I work from the office at 2121 Towne Centre Place - Suite 130, Anaheim, California and am the office manager and responsible Principal for this office.
4. GEODESIGN INC. has been retained by the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association to provide Geotechnical Consultation Service, including the review of an arborist report dated September 13, 2007 prepared by Mr. John O’ Shea, Consulting Arborist, regarding the condition of trees on the Bridgeton Road Levee. Mr. O’Shea’s report was prepared for the Multnomah County Drainage District.
5. In his report dated September 13, 2007, Mr. O’Shea has concluded that 120 trees should be removed immediately to meet federal standards. The letter does not establish a basis for this conclusion and generally lacks supporting documentation to validate the conclusion. A primary omission from the letter is detailed logs of excavations depicting root systems for trees identified for removal and positive confirmation that the subject tree root systems do in fact penetrate the critical section of the levee.
6. An arborist is not qualified or authorized by the Oregon Board of Engineering Examiners to perform an assessment of the structural integrity of the Bridgeton Road Levee and the effect of tree growth on this levee. These analyses must be completed by a Registered Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Oregon.
7. Oregon Revised Statutes Section 672.005 (b) defines the practice of engineering as the application of “special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences…for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects”. Persons found to practice engineering without a license are subject to civil and criminal penalties (ORS Section 672.991).
8. An evaluation of the effect of tree growth on the Bridgeton Levee requires an understanding of the equations and methods to calculate wind-throw forces, slope stability, definition of the critical section of the levee, and earthwork and grading practices. This expertise is clearly within the profession of geotechnical engineering. A licensed professional engineer must complete the engineering analyses of data regarding the levee, such as root depth and canopy size of the subject trees, and recommendations for mitigation, if required.
9. An on-going evaluation of the Army Corps of Engineers policy regarding woody vegetation appears to have resulted in a major change in the blanket policy as it applies to levees in Sacramento, California. Considerations made for Sacramento levees may be applicable to the Bridgeton levee, provided sufficient engineering evaluation is performed.
10. To date, sufficient and justifiable engineering data has not been provided that supports the plan to remove 120 trees from the Bridgeton levee. In addition, the very policy that is being referenced for the required tree removal is under intense scrutiny as there does not appear to be a justifiable basis for this policy.
11. The recent decision by the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate further evaluate the potential impact of woody vegetation on Sacramento levees should be considered in the evaluation of the trees on the Bridgeton levee.
12. Sufficient data has not been provided to demonstrate that the 120 trees on the Bridgeton Road levee constitute an immediate threat to the stability of the levee. Further, sufficient time has not been provided to evaluate alternative mitigation measures for trees that would constitute a threat.
13. Mass removal of large growth species may result in a less favorable condition for the levee as this would likely leave a significant quantity of dead roots within the critical section of the levee and the impact on the levee and risk associated with this potential condition has not been evaluated.
Update on September 28 hearing
The hearing will take place tomorrow, September 28th at 9:30 AM in Room 410.
I will be there and will post relevant information afterwards.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Legal update
At today's hearing, the judge left the TRO in place and the hearing scheduled for Friday will go on as originally scheduled.
Stay tuned. If you are legal junkie like I am, the convolutions in this are matter are fun to hear about....
Apparently some from Pen2 are still yelling "chicken little the sky is going to fall"... reminds me of certain people in a certain administration ......but then I am a proud cynic! and one who used to live in Washington, D.C. - home of the henny penny the sky is falling gang!
Stay tuned. If you are legal junkie like I am, the convolutions in this are matter are fun to hear about....
Apparently some from Pen2 are still yelling "chicken little the sky is going to fall"... reminds me of certain people in a certain administration ......but then I am a proud cynic! and one who used to live in Washington, D.C. - home of the henny penny the sky is falling gang!
Monday, September 24, 2007
Miscommunication
So what else is new?
We arrived for the hearing that the Drainage District requested. But it seems they [or someone?] forgot to tell the docketing clerk that it was a hearing about a TRO.
The judge we met does all other expedited hearings - EXCEPT TROs!
Last I heard the hearing is now scheduled for tomorrow moringt [Tuesday Sept 25] at 9:30 AM.
In addition a permit for tree cutting that the City of Portland had issued is now revoked.
We arrived for the hearing that the Drainage District requested. But it seems they [or someone?] forgot to tell the docketing clerk that it was a hearing about a TRO.
The judge we met does all other expedited hearings - EXCEPT TROs!
Last I heard the hearing is now scheduled for tomorrow moringt [Tuesday Sept 25] at 9:30 AM.
In addition a permit for tree cutting that the City of Portland had issued is now revoked.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Legal matters
Legal scuttlebutt...I may be incorrect in some of the "facts" below as I got them not first hand....
After the injunction was ordered last week, the DD asked for a hearing to not only have the injunction dismissed, but they wanted the hearing now scheduled for the 28th to be expedited!
So a hearing was set for last Friday and guess what? The DD asked for it to be postponed as they were not ready!!!
So that hearing, on the dismissal of the injunction, will happen tomorrow - Monday - at 11:30 and I will be attending. Assuming the injunction stands, the hearing on the tree cutting itself will be Friday the 28th and I will attend that as well.
And a note for epicures - as the apple tree in my moorage was spared and tagged blue - I waited a few days to pick the now ripe apples and made a pie to take to a neighborhood gathering! YUM!!!!
After the injunction was ordered last week, the DD asked for a hearing to not only have the injunction dismissed, but they wanted the hearing now scheduled for the 28th to be expedited!
So a hearing was set for last Friday and guess what? The DD asked for it to be postponed as they were not ready!!!
So that hearing, on the dismissal of the injunction, will happen tomorrow - Monday - at 11:30 and I will be attending. Assuming the injunction stands, the hearing on the tree cutting itself will be Friday the 28th and I will attend that as well.
And a note for epicures - as the apple tree in my moorage was spared and tagged blue - I waited a few days to pick the now ripe apples and made a pie to take to a neighborhood gathering! YUM!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)