Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br /> Page 67 <br /> would provide) that would go some distance to ameliorating the lost benefits if <br /> the Tree were to be removed. Neighbors are entitled to know of Applicants' plans <br /> before they are approved. <br /> b. There is no formal or informal mechanism for the neighbors to review and, if <br /> necessary, contest the Tree Replacement Plan after it has been approved. <br /> Conclusions of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: The Plannin� <br /> Department failed in its duty (a) to follow the Guidelines, and (b) to ensure that neighbors <br /> and residents at large would have a fair opportunity to present their objections to (or <br /> support o� a vital element of the application review process. I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> 6. Finally, Appellants would have identified one or more architects and urban � <br /> planners who would have testified orally or in writing that the Applicants' architectural <br /> and site plans could have been easily modified so as to preserve the Tree, while providing <br /> the Applicants with substantially all of their desired architectural features and benefits. <br /> Conclusions of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: The Planning <br /> Department failed in its duty (a) to follow the Guidelines, and (b) to balance the desire of � <br /> the property owner with the rights, needs, and interests of the adjoining and nearby <br /> property owners, of the neighborhood, and of all residents of Redwood City by <br /> unreasonably authorizing the removal of a valuable element of the streetscape and the <br /> neighborhood without first requiring the Applicants to submit alternative plans that <br /> would have preserved the Tree. <br /> Offer of Proof with Respect to Standard C and the Standing Seam Ouarter-Round Curved <br /> Metal Roof (Roof') <br /> 1. Appellants would have identified one or more architects and urban planners who <br /> would have testified orally or in writing that the Applicants' approved Roof violated <br /> Standards B. and C. of the Guidelines, in that. <br /> a. The standing seam metal roof is totally out of place in the immediate <br /> neighborhood and incompatible with the architectural and social harmony of the <br /> neighborhood. <br />