AgdaPkt 2006-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A defined as properties with waterfront improvements that have the potential to compromisePage 4 the integrity of the lagoon bank and should be addressed prior to any further modifications to the lagoon bank (i.e., footings on lagoon bank, fixed piers in water, mid-size retaining walls, cut and fill on slope, boat ramps on slope, etc.) This represented approximately 16% of the properties inventoried. Seventy-four (74) properties were identified with "Level 1 significance", which has been defined as properties with waterfront improvements that have a minor potential to compromise the integrity of the lagoon bank (i.e., small retaining walls, landscaping header boards, planting on lagoon slope, footings on top of slope above a vertical retaining wall, rear yard fences at top of slope, etc.) This represented approximately 13% of the properties inventoried. At the June 21, 2005 meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Redwood Shores Lagoon Bank Policy and Construction Guidelines to the City Council and also directed staff to move forward only with the properties identified with a Level 3 and Level 1 significance. The properties identified with "Level 3 significance" would be subject to City Code Enforcement in an effort to correct life safety and structurally significant concerns. The properties identified with "Level 1 significance" would be allowed to remain pending the City Council's decision and would be recommended for '~grandfathering" following the signing of a hold harmless agreement. 6 Reclassification of Level 2 Sionificance . Before providing a recommendation on properties identified with "Level 2 significance" the Planning Commission requested further analysis on the structural significance of these properties and directed staff to further break down the Level 2 properties and report back to the Planning Commission before proceeding to the City Council. Based on the input received from the Planning Commission as well as the community, the information obtained while conducting the waterfront inventory, and additional research and analysis efforts staff developed a recommendation for addressing the waterfront properties that were previously categorized with "Level 2 significance", Per the Planning Commission's directions the Level 2 properties were re-classified and placed either into the Level 3 category or the Level 1 category. (Refer to Attachment 3 for photographic examples of Level 3 improvements. Refer to Attachment 4 for photographic examples of Level 1 improvements). The following analysis of these improvements / properties represented staff's evaluation of the aesthetic and health and safety issues associated with these improvements and not a specific structural engineering and/or legal analysis. From the City Engineer's point of view there is no engineer on City staff (i.e. a geotechnical engineer) who can say for certain that the encroachments are safe and that they should subsequently be allowed. Before determining the structural integrity of the improvement and it's potential impact on the lagoon bank, at a minimum the City would need specific information on how deep or what diameter piles were installed (in the case of pier supported decks). how wide the footing (in the case of retaining walls), what kind of inspection was performed (compaction and concrete strength), or anything having to do with the structural integrity of the supporting system. In most, if not all cases, this information is not currently on file with the City. 6 The City Attorney's office has recommended that property owners be required to obtain an Encroachment Permit and record it against the property instead of signing a hold harmless agreement as originally proposed. .d' .-..- -, ""-'--""""'._""'-"'~'-""'--"'"--'-"--"-'--' --,