AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 230 Response J-19 This respanse discusses the occurrence and possi�le origin of the "anomalous soil mass"that exists on lots 3 and 4.This is a bizarre response and is factually misleading.The response states that, regarding the sail mass "#hey [the reviewers] did not observe such a feature to be present".What?Prior to this FEIR response there had been disagreement betwEen consultants as to the origin of the feature,but no disagreement as to its existence.The feature is clearly observable in the field and identifiable on the Vesting Tentative Map. Furthermore,the response goes on to say"The topographic survey completed for the Vesting Tentative Ma�involves a remate sensinQ technique that does not have su�cient resolution forsuch a small(postulated)feature, and it is important to perform direct field observation of any features observed to reach a conclusion orr the origin af features". The comment that the VTM topography was generated by remote sensing and is therefore of limited resolution is patent�Iy false.The topographic survey was clearly proc�uced from a field leveling survey perform�d by a license engineer and sur�reyor. The VTM identifies the benchmark location and the assigned elevation for the survey origin [on Finger Avenue). Numerous eIevation points were determined on the project site and recorded on the VTM to one-hundredth ofa footprecfsion. Numerous elevation points are recorded on and araund the slump feature itself. Gontours are generated frorn these data at 1-foat cantour interval.THIS IS N�T a survey that does not have sufficient resoiution to define this feature,which covers portions of two lots.Why does the City feel compelled to mislead the public in this fashion? General Comments J-19 through J-22 These responses are directed toward comments we made regarding bank stability and other geologic conditinns alang the creek bank. Most of these responses refer second hand to observations and canclusians drawn from additional field observations from reviewers McCloskey and Stillman-includ�ng the statement discussed above.Their actual report is not included in the FEIR (and, as described below,was not available upon request of the City),so we are left to rely solely on infarmation and interpretations related second-hand by the FEIR preparers.If there are any qualifications by McCloskey and Stillman to the conclusions reported in the FEIR,there is no way for the public tfl know that.We requested Staff to provide a copy of the original McCloskey and Stillrnan report ta be included in the FEIR and for the recard.Their response [see attached] was tha�McCloskey and Stillman did not pravide a stand-alone report,but that"they provided administrative draft respanses�o the DEiR comments relative to their expertise". When we asked if the city could provide us with the original source informatian that was relied upan to produce the FEIR,the City claims that they have no records that respond to this request.This a�pears highly unusual and suspicious -that first hand observations and dacumentation of technical issues -substantial evidence to support expert