Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br /> Page 71 <br /> b. Consequently, anyone standing at the end of the Deck can look direcdy into <br /> Appellants' bedroom. <br /> c. By terracing the Deck, Applicants can eliminate this possibility, while <br /> possibly even gaining more usable space. <br /> Conclusions of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: The Planning <br /> Department failed in its duty (a) to follow the Guidelines, (b) to balance the desire of the <br /> property owner with the rights, needs, and interests of the adjoining and nearby property <br /> owners, of the neighborhood, and of all residents of Redwood City and (c) to give due <br /> consideration to the express and/or implied right to privacy accorded to citizens of <br /> California and the United States by unreasonably authorizing the construction of a rear <br /> deck that invades the privacy of the Appellants. <br /> Offer of Proof with Respect to Ec�ual Protection and Due Process Ri ts of Appellants <br /> 1. Appellants would have identified one or more architects, urban planners, legal <br /> authorities, and/or neighbors who would have testified orally or in writing that the City's <br /> treatment of neighbor/neighborhood inputs and concerns with respect to the Stanford In <br /> Redwood City Project ("Project") and Appellants' situation is starkly unequal and in <br /> violation of Appellants' due process rights. <br /> a. Appellants would have cited specific statements made by the City presenters <br /> and by the City Council in transcripts from the November 8, 2010 City Council <br /> Meeting to demonstrate that the Planning Department and the City Council accord <br /> far more importance to the inputs and concems of neighbors in the Project area <br /> than they do to the inputs and concerns of neighbors on St. Francis Street. <br /> b. Appellants would have demonstrated that the Planning Department was fully <br /> aware that four of the five neighbors adjoining or across from Applicants' <br /> proposed house strenuously objected during the review process at meetings, in <br /> phone calls, in writing, and in person to the Applicants' proposed treatment of the <br /> Tree, the Roof, and the Deck. <br /> c. Applicants would have further demonstrated that the Planning Deparlment, <br /> from its senior management to the planner and zoning administrator responsible <br />