Laserfiche WebLink
seven-foot buffer between the original garage eave and the easement line. <br />The City Engineer’s words confirm what the licensed survey shows: the <br />building was there before the easement, and the easement was drawn <br />around it. <br />JJ-7. The City Engineer laid out a clean written-confirmation path <br />that Code Enforcement would accept (Lines 332-359): <br />Burns: “So, can we adjust the corrective actions with the, and if <br />this is met, then we will let the wall stand?” <br />O’Connell: “Yeah… Because then it becomes a fence. It’s not a <br />building structure.” <br />Burns: “I’d like it in writing.” <br />O’Connell: “Yeah, yeah. If you want to put that into an email as far <br />as the corrective actions that you intend to make, we can essentially <br />respond to that and make sure that Christian’s on it because he’s the <br />one that’s been reviewing… once you submit what you intend to do, <br />we can respond back and essentially say this would be satisfactory <br />for meeting the requirements of the permit. And I, you know, code <br />enforcement will accept that… once we have that thing that shows <br />exactly and that you’ve satisfied the city engineer, then, yeah, you <br />should be golden as far as the creek aspects go.” <br />This is the procedural backbone for Exhibit DD (Christian Craig’s Feb 5, <br />2024 written confirmation of corrective actions, “If the channel and CMU <br />wall are in good condition, the CMU wall can remain”). The path was: <br />Burns → submit corrective actions in writing → City confirms in <br />writing → Code Enforcement accepts. Respondents followed that path <br />exactly. The City confirmed in writing on February 5. Engineering then <br />6.A. - Page 44 of 64 <br />46