Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> Page 11 <br /> g) Ttem G.1.5(d�,substan�iatiy increase traffic hazards due to a design feature. <br /> nur comment Ietter prompted the applicants to commission Cheir own geotechnical <br /> consuitant,Bay Area Geotechnica�Group(BAGG),to evaluate GEaINSITE's <br /> observat�an�and conclus�ons.BAGG's report confirmed GE4INSITE's observations, <br /> but offered an aiternative vpinion as to the origin v�the features GEOtNSITE.Inc. <br /> interpreted as evidence for bank instabitity.This repvrt,atong with an earlier <br /> applicant-commissioned report�o.justi�}r the proposed sub-standard roadway,was <br /> incorporated into the Ci�y's Response to Comments(RTC)on the MND,dated <br /> February,20�9i�. <br /> The�tTC de�'ended the conciusions of the original M�I3,bu�did not take issue with <br /> any of the facts we presented in our comment letters or submitted expert reports. <br /> The RTC presented no new data;it mereiy reiterated the opinion of sta�f or of the <br /> appiicant's consuItan�s that the potent�al impacts we identifred were not sig.�ificant <br /> It also mischaracterized the conclusions of the GEQINSITE evaluatian by in�ima�ing <br /> �hat GE�INSITE agreed with BAGG's proposed slope stability mi�iga�ions. <br /> In response to the new consultant repvrts and the February RTC,we submitted an <br /> additional response letter from the neighborhood(dated Feb.3,ZQa9}�,a second <br /> review letter from GE�iNSITE,Inc.�,and a Iefiter firom noted CEQA attorney,Susan <br /> Brandt-Hawley,dated Feb.10,Z009�.Ms.Brandt-Hawtey reviewed the record and <br /> concluded: <br /> "Any disputie relating to facts or reasonabl�assum�tions/�xpert opinions <br /> based on facts as to whether there may be a significant project-reiated impact <br /> based on any af the environmentat issues before you must trigger the <br /> prepararion of an EIR unless you deny the pro�ec�.I have revieweci the <br /> Respattses to Comments and the various re�ports back and forth on al�sides. <br /> There is manifest fact-based disagreement here tltat meeis the fair argument <br /> level...even vn the hydroiogic issue�s,the experts take the same facts and reach <br /> different conclusions.Whether or not the context of the area may be historic <br /> indicates a gap in the descriphan of the Initiai Stud�s environmental setting <br /> upon whi�h patenrial impacts are measure_d:' <br /> At the February 10,Z009 Planning Commission hearing on the project, <br /> neighbarhoad spvkesman Dan Ponti gave an hour-long presentat�on,the bulk of <br /> which focused on the environmentat issues that we raised.This presen�attion <br /> expanded on.the informat�on su.bmitted ta date and demonstrated that: , <br /> a) the facts that we presented to support the conciusion for patential significan� <br /> impacts ARE NOT REFUTED IN ANY WAY by Che City,Che appiicant,or the <br /> applicant's consultants; � <br /> b) the conclusi�ns drawn by the City and the applicant for no s�gnificant <br /> �`�-�-�impac�s from the project are largely NOT supported by the facts we <br /> presented; <br /> c) with respect to the aesthetics and tz-a€fic impacts we raised,the initial Study <br /> and subsequent responses simpty do not address the�ssues.The City never <br /> 3 <br />