Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br /> Page 72 <br /> for reviewing Applicants' proposal, ignored these inputs and concerns, and, in <br /> practical fact, "rubber-stamped" Applicants' proposals. <br /> i. Applicants will acknowledge that Jill Ekas, Planning Department Head, will <br /> maintain that the Planning Department required numerous changes in <br /> Applicants' plans, but Applicants will show that the essentially <br /> objectionable elements remained after their review. <br /> ii. Appellant Marc Warsowe will testify that Christopher Rogers, Planner, and <br /> Blake Lyons, Zoning Officer, made a site visit to Appellants' house <br /> (a) looked out of the windows and stood on the deck that would be visually <br /> irnpacted by the Roof and agreed that the Roof would be, indeed, both <br /> overwhelming visually and out of place in the neighborhood. <br /> (b) looked at the proposed placement of Applicants' deck and agreed that <br /> someone standing on the end of the proposed Deck could look directly <br /> into Applicants' bedroom windows. <br /> (c) observed the Tree and stated that it appeared healthier than the redwood <br /> Applicants sought to preserve. <br /> iii. Notwithstanding, the Planning Department granted Applicants permission <br /> to proceed with the Deck, the Roof, and the Tree. <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 properiy <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 /> 2. Appellants would have identified one or more legal authorities, and/or City <br /> employees who would have testified orally or in writing that the Plannin� Department <br /> and the City Council violated its discretion and Appellants' equal protection and by <br /> imposing unreasonable and unnecessary impediments to Appellants' good faith effort to <br /> prepare appropriately to prevail on facts and law at the Hearing. This includes apparently <br />