AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 106 The Honorable Mayar and Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 August 16, 2Q l. l in th� site specific investigations. Addip,onally, a registered geote�hnical e,agineer must rcview ea� site-speoific geotec�nical investigation and requir� oompliaace with tt�e mi�ig�zans, etc. The City Building Ser�ices Di�ision w�s required to revi�w all plans fnr permits to ensure compliance with the gevtechrucal investigation and othex applicable code req�irements. The prepsrers o� the EIIt relied on the draft Gevtre�hnicaI Investigstion prepared by ��dwell & Rollo. The Gent�hnical �nve.�tigation was aot a �inal sit�specific desigcx-level geotechnical study, but ratber it determined pxojcct feasibility in light of the sit�e geoteGhnical cflnditions. Th� EIIt report�ed that the Geotec�nical Inves�g�tian ineludcd nu.memus requirement� f+nr installing foun�datinns depending on the s�cifics af the finai proj ect design, and that the remedial methods an.d design measunes were "standard, accepted and pmven engineering practic�s used throughout the Bay Area to nvercome utifavorable sail contlitions. 'The c�ourt disagr�ed with the con,tention by the plaintiff that the City had improper�q deferred mitigation of the seismic effects o£ the �roject by lcavin� to the futwr� the �ormu�ativn of mitigation measures for seismic impacts and for failing to set objective performaz�oe standards fvr such mitigation. 'Ihe court said that when a p�blic agency has evaluated the potentially significant impac�s ar�d has identified measur�s tl.t�t wi1] mitigate thas,� impacts, the agency does nvt have ta cammit to any p�rtieular mi�tigation naeasuuro ix� thc EIR, as long as it oamrnits to mitigatirig the significa�t impacts of the groject. The details of exa�ly how mitiga'an will be achieved undex t�e ider�ti�ed measures can be deferred pending completaan of a fu�ue study (aw�h as wha� would be r�uired at the time tb.at specific pl�ns fflr building of a partacular home in the Y,aurel Way pmje�t are submitted). The oourt state�i that the G�ty did nat impmperly defer mitigation, tha� tho building code establishes standards far safety and design and , construction af bui�dings. The court said tb.at vvhen a public agency has evaluated the pt�enti�Ily significant i�mpacts o� a project and has identified measures that wi11 mitigate those impacts, and is committed to rni�gatitag thosc impacts, f�e agency may def� precisely how rnitiga�ion vu`ill he achie�ed under the identifiied me.�,sures penc�ing further study. Finally, the court said: "Althongh the fimal design of the structure,s, irxcluding seismic safety design, is defeaed until a later date, the revi�sed EIR gives ade�qa�e assuran�ces thaE seismic impac�s wi� be mitigated to e,uginaering methods known to bo feasible and e�ffectiva" In the case nf the Laurel Way project, Treadwe�l & Rollo a�ted as a rhixd partp review consulta,nt revievving the work don� by TRC Lown�y and Co�rnerstone Earrh Gr�up. In it� reparts Trea�iwe�l � Rolla reaomm�ds, a�ong othet t�hings, that it concttxs �vith the approach reoamEmended by �'RC L�wney that pmpvsed resEd�nc�s be suppatted on c�rilled pxexs ext�diun,g t�mug� the fil� and into the. underlying bcdroc�. 'T�nea�dw�ell & Rollo also re�ds t�at design Zevel geatechnical in�estigation s�auld in�lude an eva�ua#�on a� the layout o� unc�ergraund uti�ities� axtcrior hardscapc and retaining v�alls, and, if ner.essaty, mitigation recommendations shaald be �rovided in the �esig� Ievel �o�ck�nical invest�ations to be eanducted for e�.ch reside�ce o� a lot by-lot basis. �:�wpw�nr '�r � ��a c�r[o$ � 6 i i�.a�