Laserfiche WebLink
#05-3113 <br /> June 20,2005 <br /> ' Page 3 of 3 <br /> access proposed, the old access must be elimiiiated. If the outer structi.ue of the <br /> _ eaisting staircase is proposed to remain as part of the bluff preservation plan, a <br /> struct�u•al engineer should verify the struch.iral integrity of what will remain. The <br /> concern is most of the timber walls making up the outer structure are in excess of <br /> 4' in height, whereby 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 tlie <br /> bluf£ The violation of the intensive vegetation removal only adds to the erosion <br /> concern. <br /> • The applicant has inentioned reviewing the restoration separately from the new <br /> stair access, or even not doing the new stair access. From staff s perspective, if <br /> the new stair access is removed from the proposal, the City Engineer still doesn't <br /> have sufficient information and if a new stair access is proposed later, the issues <br /> noted in the first bullet coine 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 />