AgdaPkt 2015-09-21 Joint Special SAF PAF

Browse Search

the naturally steep condition of the creek, and the volume of water that is carried in the creek — together create a condition of unstopable [sic] erosion. My concern is that these factors should be seriously considered when reviewing the setback from the top of bank." 2AR 626.) Interestingly, Respondent's City Engineer did not use the municipal ordinance definition of "top of bank" but rather utilized a manual of guidelines and standards used in Santa Clara County. (2AR 627, 631.) C. Barry Butler of Cornerstone Earth Group provided an expert opinion to Respondent on "top of bank" after reviewing documents and going to look at the subject property. (2AR 620 -622.) Butler states: "[I]t appears that the top of bank designations are in relatively close agreement except for Lots 3 and 4, where the differences generally vary from several feet up to around 10 feet." (2AR 621.) Butler acknowledged the lack of disclosure of what criteria was used by MacLeod for delineating the "top of bank ". 2AR 621.) Butler also noted that Respondent was using a measure of 100 -year flood level plus one foot. (2AR 621.) Butler did not utilize the applicable Zoning Ordinance definition of "top of bank" but rather opined that looking at the changes in grade is variable, "there is no clear top of bank transition ", and the Creek bank and where Real Party in Interest claims is the "top of bank" is still below the high flow level of Cordilleras Creek. (2AR 622.) Accordingly, Butler suggests that a &fferent definition and criteria be used to determine "top of bank ", i.e., 100 -year flow elevation plus one foot, and that Butler agrees with the determination made by the City Engineer as to the "top of bank" locations. (2AR 622.) The Zoning Ordinance indicates that if the "top of bank" cannot be determined by distinct changes in grade, "the top of banks shall be as determined by the Engineering and 22 8.B. - Page 81