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 of the proposed development site as a means 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 verification 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), 9.851,5(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 />Administrative Order - 8 <br />R:\ADMINORD\RULES\03geotech2ao. wpd(03/26/03 ) <br />