If the scope of work it was done by hand and the Department Staff dont change the scope of applications they can make notes about code references but if those have to be done that i the project sponsor they could also dispassive it the penthouse were removed if the scope and sometime between 1985 and 1990 the stair penthouse and the roof deck were constructed illegal without rectify they were apparently built to the professionally architecture and engineering plans weve done some exploratory disruption to check the if i may the main thing commissioners what are before you are two site permits theyre here no planning review the technicalities of the soil and cohemorrhages maybe arent properly discussed in this venue if you want to discuss we have a our engineer here but those are planning approval if the Commission Moves to beginning the beginning dbi brown will check the aspects submitted by the project sponsor and his engineers at this point the consultant and gentleman will have an a
The wood, to prevent wood earth contact and lastly the stair Foundation Actually not lastly the stair foundation and the trees must be removed to allow repair of the decay to the property this is this photograph this entire staircase has to come out so he can get to the property and fix it so this and lastly the reduced soil level may affect the set back and thats up to you to interpret whether or not the section is adequately depicted by the soil level to be considered is 17 or 18 inches lower than it currently sits and the also the inner permitted patio that was built there, there are to unrelated issues in that the soil fill that was the recent fill a f3 and the stair and stair foundation inflict additional sewer surcharge thats the first part of the presentation shall we move to the other one or stop and consider. No please go ahead. Okay. I need a moment here please excuse me. On the roof deck there are 5 issues for you to consider we have the same orientation for to particular dr
Guidelines noting the project sponsor is taking steps required by dbi to legalize and correct the rear deck and stairs to grade originally built almost thirty years ago the rear stairs proposed are loud as a permit obstruction within the planning code and the stairs are proposed to be legalized of the dr requester they ask you not take dr. Approve it that concludes my presentation. Dr requester our team has 10 mens. Thank you for your stamina can those be sdrntd im to take the rear stairs which is 48 and second will be the first one im picking up i paul cox a Civil Engineer and i represent the dr requester rear stair issue ill be bring to your attention the items and that 3 of which will require our considerations and mention two other items that are action items handled by the building inspection. Can you speak into the microphone. Its on one. Okay. Thank you. There you go. Go ahead. Can i precede first just to make sure were oriented correctly this was written by the consultant for m
To take dr both projects had preapplication review with the neighbors both projects received 311 notice and have been transparent in review with the department of building inspection their appropriate and mirror certain elements and improve the reliability the dr requesters is unhappy with the projects for for his own reasons he has a few valid points we want to work with the flashing at the roof deck graduate wall and the removal of the stairs for i am had maintain his property if we get a assess policy in place our soil reports it is less than a foot in several places we want to conduct a Boundary Survey of the buildings you saw the gap the gentleman made the assumption that entire gap belongs to him and could bridge and encroach open the caseys property when you have abutting buildings with a small grandpa in their roofed over or made waterproof and nobody has issued issues if didnt it explicit matter who is flashing as long as something is between the buildings, however, the inspec
Retaining wall a f sub 3 is about a foot deep if i move to the next item the height of the stair foundation as built is an additional cost of wood architecture contact and looking at mr. Shirz this geological it appears to be correct i need to correct the retaining wall on the righthand side there the Actual Foundation is lower than shown in mr. Shirz report and has redwood lap siding it causes decay user the response that is this photograph in our staff report if you look at the lower lefthand side youll see clearly the siding is buried in soil and its not just in that location behind the stairs it moves all the way to the back of the building heres not view of the back of the building and the property wall is buried in this a f sub 3 soil a recent fill this next photo which is not in our presentation this other retaining wall the lower portion at the Bank Property line so the bottom portion of the soil is decayed rotted out and so is the flying framing the gentleman needs to get to t