New Search
both OSBEELS and OSBGE for their input. OSBEELS did not provide any <br /> comments. Gary Peterson, reviewed the Rule for OSBGE, and provided <br /> some comments. Many of those comments were incorporated into the Rule <br /> before the September 2002 commenting period. Due to the uncertainty of <br /> when OSBEELS and OSBGE will resolve the issue, the City must move <br /> forward to adopt administrative rules, as required by EC 9.6710. <br /> Comment 4: Expressing concern about the qualifications of the persons at the City who <br /> will review the reports. The express professional opinion of a certified <br /> engineer warrants a review under published standards by someone qualified <br /> to understand and comment professionally on the report. <br /> Finding: The City will not conduct an independent geological or geotechnical <br /> investigation oftheproposed development site as ameans of"reviewing" and <br /> verifying the qualified registered professional's opinions set forth in the <br /> submitted analysis. The investigation conducted by the professional and the <br /> professional's opinions set forth in the analysis will be relied upon by the <br /> City during the land use approval process as venfication that the site is suited <br /> for the proposed development. Also, the information contained in the <br /> analysis will be used by the City to determine if the applicant has satisfied <br /> code criteria requiring that the proposal not pose a significant risk to public <br /> health and safety (EC Sections 9.4885(4), 9.8515(5), 9.8320(6)). No change <br /> is being made to the rule as a result of this comment. <br /> Comment 5: More detail should be given regarding Attachment A, i. e., the source. <br /> Finding: Attachment A was provided by the late Joe Spigolon, and adjusted by City <br /> engineering staff to maintain consistency with the City's design and <br /> investigation standards. Attachment A is the minimum level of boring <br /> expected and is used to evaluate whether additional borings are necessary. <br /> The qualified professional is responsible for determining the full level <br /> investigation required to support the proposed development. No change is <br /> being made to the rule as a result of this comment. <br /> Comment 6: There appears to be a conflict between certain requirements for a Level One <br /> and Level Two analysis and the requirements contained in the code. For <br /> example, in section 4 of the Level One analysis, the rule states that if certain <br /> criteria are met, a Level Two analysis should be done. The code says nothing <br /> about going from a Level One to a Level Two analysis, only from a Level one <br /> to a Level Three analysis. <br /> Finding: The Rule has been changed so that the Rule requirements are consistent with <br /> the Code. <br /> Comment 7: The mere presence of "expansive soils" in a Level One analysis requires that <br /> a Level Two analysis be conducted. That requirement goes beyond the code <br /> provisions which provide when a Level Two analysis is to be conducted. <br /> Finding: The Rule has been changed so that the Rule requirements are consistent with <br /> the Code. <br /> <br /> Administrative Order - 8 <br /> R: WDMINORD\RULES\03geotech2ao.wpd(03/26/03 ) <br /> <br />