Admin Order 58-02-25-F - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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