My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2015-09-21 Joint Special SAF PAF
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
AgdaPkt 2015-09-21 Joint Special SAF PAF
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/22/2015 12:12:16 PM
Creation date
9/18/2015 8:41:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
9/21/2015
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
756
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
agreed with MacLeod's determination. (2AR 616 -617.) Bohley indicates in his letter <br />that he considered the municipal code definition of "top of bank" and stated: "I believe <br />that the word distinct is the operative word in this definition and is meant to be the location <br />of a realistic and readily apparent change in grade from creek to flood plain or an adjacent <br />more level grade." But Bohley provides no actual data or analysis of determination of the <br />line of "top of bank". Instead, Bohley's letter then focuses upon where lies the 100 -year <br />flood level, with no discussion of actual distinct grade changes on the subject property. <br />2AR 616 -617.) <br />By letter to Real Parties in Interest dated February 1, 2008, Jon Lynch as City <br />Engineer stated in pertinent part: <br />The setback requirement was established to provide a protective <br />area for sensitive (natural) streams, where there is significant potential for <br />erosion. Hisotrically, we know that Cordilleras Creek is highly prone to <br />erosion, and the City's objective is to maintain a protective area as large as <br />needed to provide effective protection. <br />In general, our review of the plans finds that the proposed <br />development would disturb a portion of the creek embankment, which is <br />not consistent with Section 32.12.F.2 of the Ordinance. Also, the proposed <br />project is not consistent with Section 32.12.F.2 with regard to activities <br />within a prescribed setback area, unless approved by the City Engineer. <br />That approval has not been granted. <br />2AR 624 -625.) <br />In July 2008, Jon Lynch, City Engineer, expressed to the Planning Commission a <br />strong concern about erosion and providing sufficient creek setback: "These two factors — <br />21 <br />8.B. - Page 80
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.