Laserfiche WebLink
aesthetics, and not CEQA .environmental concerns, seems appropriate. <br />Top ofBank <br />Although expert reports on the determination of "top of bank" were submitted and <br />attached as part of the Elk the Court agrees that in this situation -- and as reflected in the <br />environmental analysis in the EIR -- the "top of bank" determination is not a CEQA <br />concern. <br />More specifically, the EIR's focus was upon environmental concerns of erosion of <br />the Creek bank, stability of the bank, and other potential environmental damage to the <br />Creek or the bank of the Creek, or injury to property and people living in the proposed <br />houses. In this regard, all of the expert reports and the EIR analysis reflect that (for <br />purpose of these CEQA concerns) they all concentrated upon and specifically referenced <br />the relevant measuring points from the "toe" of the creek bank, not the top of the creek <br />bank. (2AR 620 -777.) <br />Even more specifically, the experts were concerned if any building would be within <br />30 feet of the toe of the creek, and found that only the house on Lot #3 would invade that <br />space. Wigging foundation requirements were suggested, but they ultimately became <br />moot when Respondent required that the Project move the proposed houses on Lot #3 and <br />Lot #4 outside of 25 feet from the top of bank would then also moved them outside of 30 <br />feet from the toe of the bank. <br />Thus, the 25 foot setback was literally a line drawn on a map, but not relevant to <br />CEQA determination. <br />In addition, from a CEQA standpoint, the Finger Avenue Project was found in the <br />EIR to be superior to existing "baseline" conditions. For example, the existing house on <br />32 <br />8.B. - Page 91