Laserfiche WebLink
I:' <br />Si <br />■ i <br />tv’ <br />f <br />! :■ <br />■hi <br />i. <br />k <br /><m>3113 <br />June 20,2003 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />access proposed, the old access must be elimituited. If the outer structure of the <br />existing staircase is proposed to remain as part of the bluff preservation plan, a <br />structural engineer should verily the structural integrity of wfaiat will remain, llie <br />concern is most of the timber v^ls making up the outer structure are in excess of <br />4’ in height, ^^lereby an engineered design is required by the Building Code. <br />Simply allowing these walls to remain without looking at their structural integrity <br />would not alleviate the concerns of erosion and washing out of this area of the <br />bluff. The violation of the intensive vegetation removal only adds to the erosion <br />concern. <br />The i^licant has mentioned reviewing the restoration separately from the new <br />stair access, or even not doing the new stair access. From staffs perspective, if <br />die new stair access is removed from the proposal, the City Engineer still doesn't <br />have sufQcient information and if a new stair access is proposed later, the issues <br />noted in the first bullet come back into affect. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Deny the plans as currently submitted. The applicant should be given direction on what <br />level of restoration/preservation is expected to correct the existing violation of Section <br />78-1285 (b). <br />1'-^ <br />i