AgdaPkt 2015-09-21 Joint Special SAF PAF

Browse Search

Construction Division based on the adjacent slopes and/or the extent of riparian vegetation." Thus, this dispute would ordinarily rest in a final determination by the Engineering and Construction Division of the Community Development Services Department, and specifically the City Engineer or the Department Director. Such a determination was made by Chu Chang as Acting Director of the Community Development Services Department in an opinion letter dated December 17, 2008. (2AR 618 -619.) According to the Ordinance itself; the final authority for determination falls to the Engineering and Construction Division only if there is no distinct change ofgrade showing a distinguishable top of bank. According to the Ordinance, the Respondent is then to make the "top of bank" determination "based on the adjacent slopes and/or the extent of riparian begetation". Chang failed to indicate that he did so. Unfortunately there is no analysis or discussion of the "adjacent slopes" or the "riparian vegetation" at the Project site (or specifically as to Lots #3 and #4, which are the "top of bank" determinations in dispute). Thus the legal definition and criteria for determining "top of bank" in Redwood City was ignored and/or was not followed by the Respondent. Even more troubling is that the Director opined that the "top of bank" depends upon the particular use of the land! The top of bank is a topographic delineation, a slope of grade, an imaginary line on a map, a hydrological boundary — it is a line of demarcation. It would have nothing to do with determination based upon use of the property. (2AR 619.) After issuance of the Writ and fiuther consideration of the Finger Avenue Project by Respondent, in making the determinations pertaining to the 25 -foot creek setback, Respondent should be mindful of following its own law, including the definition of "top of bank" and factual evidence supporting the determination utilizing the ordinance standards. 23 8.B. - Page 82