AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 318 Response J-14 This response discusses#he occurr�nce and pussible arigin of the"anomalous soiI mass"that exists or�lots 3 and 4.This is a 6izarre response ar►d is factually misleading.The response states that,regard3ng the sail mass "they[the reviewers] did nat abserve such a�eature ta be present"'.What?Prior ta this FEIR respanse there had been disagxeernent between cons�ltants as to the ori�in of the featur�,but na disagreement as ta its existence.The feat�re is ciearly abservable in the field and identifialale on�he Vesting Tentative Map. �urthermare,the response gves on ta say"The topographr"r survey completed for the Vesting Tentative Map involves a remote sensirrg Cechnique that rioes not have su�cientresolu�ion forsucn a sr»alf�pastulated)feuture,and ir rs impartanC ta perforrn drrect freld observaEian of any features abserved to reach a conefusion orr the origin of fea�tures". The corr�ment that the VTM tapagraphy was generated by remote sensing and is thereFore of limited resolution is patently false.The topographic survey was clearly produced from a fie7d feveiing survey performed by a license engir�eer and surveyor. The VTM identifies the benchrnark locatian and the assigned elevation fflr the survey origin [on Finger Avenue).Numer�us eIevation points w�ere determined on the project site and reearded on the VTM to one-hundredth of a faot precisiarr. Nuraerous eievation poinirs are recorded on and arou�d the slurnp feaCure itself. Contours are generated from�hsse data at 1-foot contaur interval.THIS IS NQT a s�rvey that does not have sufficient resolution to de�ne this feature,which covers partions of two lots.Why does th��ity feel cnmp�Ilet�tv mislead the public in this fashion? G�neral Cnm��e�ts J-19 t�aau��j-22 These responses are directed toward camments we made�regarding bank stability and other geologic conditions along�he er�ek banlr.Most of�hese r�sponses refer second hand to abservanons and conc�usivns drawn frorn additional f�eld observations from reviewers McCloskey and Stillrr�an�-including#he statement discussed abave.Their actual report is not incladed in the FE�R (and,as described beIow,was not ava�lable upan req�est of th��ity),sa we are left to z�ely solely on informatian and interpretatians related second-hand by t�ie FEI R preparers,If there are any qua�ifieations by McCloslcey and Stillrnan to the�anclusians r�ported in the �EIR,there is no way far the public to knaw t�at We requested Staff ta provide a copy af the original McCloskey and Stillznan report to be included in the�EIR and for the record,Their response(see attached]waS that l�c�loskey and Stil�man c�id not provide a stand-alone report,but that"they provided adrninistrative draft respnnses to the DEIR comments relative to their expertise". When we ask�d ff th� city could provide us with the original source information that was relied upon to produce the F�IR,the Gity claims that they h.ave no records that respand to t�is reyuest,This appears highly unusual and s�spicious-that first hand observatians and documentation of technical issues-substantial evidenc�to support exper�