My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75D
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2019
>
11/19/2019
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75D
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2020 3:16:37 PM
Creation date
11/13/2019 5:37:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Date
11/19/2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
429
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Salas, Diana <br />From: Bill B <billbonnett@gmail.com> <br />Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 9:48 AM <br />To: Fregoso, Vince; Kelaher, Selena; eComment <br />Cc: North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance NSAPA <br />Subject: Fwd: EIR COMMENT: 2525 Main St. identified as being in a liquefaction zone, yet <br />appropriate Geologic study not performed <br />Dear Vince and Selena, <br />Below are a number of concerns that residents of Park Santiago and advisors have in regards to the geologic <br />studies performed on 2525 Main Street Residential Project. <br />I submit these concerns to be formally on the record, on these items, as the EIR has NOT been certified, and as <br />a result, comments regarding concerns about the EIR are still allowed. <br />These concerns could be subject of further action as the project evolves. <br />Regards, <br />Bill Bennett <br />To the Santa Ana Planning Department <br />Regarding: The 2525 Main Street Residential Project. EIR related to Geology Studies Concerns. <br />11-19-2019 at 9:45AM <br />The first geology study that was performed is too general to certify the project is safe from liquefaction. <br />The second (Geosoils, 2017) might suffice as a seismic hazard study, however, it was certified as a soils study. <br />Does Geosoils, 2017 have sufficient accuracy, scope, and depth ? Park Santiago's legal advisors don't believe <br />so and will be sending formal comments to City. <br />Only professional geologists or civil engineers are qualified to decide or put their seal on that decision, and <br />therein lies the problem <br />- there have been NO independent reviews of the report by engineering professionals with expertise in <br />that area. <br />The developer commissioned the Geosoils report preemptively, handing the highly technical report's assessment <br />to overworked planning staff, not engineering professionals with expertise in that area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.