Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br /> Page 81 <br /> promote privacy on their own property. Design options include, but are not limited to, <br /> planting of additional landscaping between the residences or construction of an arbor or <br /> trellis. <br /> Conclusions ofFact and Lativ that Appellunts would huve Demonstrated: The Planning <br /> Department_fuiled in its duty (a) to follow the Guidelines, (b) to balance the desire of the <br /> property owner tivith the rights, needs, and interests of the adjoining and nearby properry <br /> owners, of tlie neighborhood, and of all resident.s of Redwood City and (c) to give due <br /> consideration to the express and/or implied right to privacy accorded to cilizerrs of California <br /> and the United States by unreasonably authorizing the construction of a rear deck that invade.s <br /> the privacy of the Appellants. <br /> Staff Response: The Zoning Administrato�'s decision to approve the Architectural <br /> Permit (AP2010-09) was consistent with the requirements of the Redwood City Zoning <br /> Ordinance, including Architectural Standard C. Privacy is not a valid consideration for <br /> issuance of an Architectural Permit. <br /> Offer ofProof with Respect to Egual Protection und Due Process Ri�htr f Appellants <br /> 1. Appellants would have identified ane or more architectc, urban planners, legal <br /> authorities•, and/or nerghbors who ivould have testi�ed orally or in writing that the City's <br /> treatment of neighbor/neighhorhond inputs und concerns with res�ect to the Stanford In <br /> Red►vood City Projeci ("Project ") and Appellunts' situation is starkly unequal and irr violation <br /> of �Appellants ' due process rights. <br /> a. Appellants would have cited specific statements made by the City presenters and by <br /> the City Council in transcripts the November $, 2010 City Council Meeting to <br /> demonstrate that the Planning Department and the City Council accord,far more <br /> importance tv the inputs and concerns of neighbors in the Project area than they do to <br /> the inputs and concerns of neighbors on St. Francis Street. <br /> b. Appellants would have demonstrated that the Planning Department tivas fully aware <br /> that_ four o f the, f ve neighbors adjoining or across from Applicartts ' proposed house <br /> strenuously objected during the review process at meetings, in phone calls, in writing, <br /> and in person to the Applicants ' propnsed ireatment of the Ti•ee, ihe Roof, ancl the Deck. <br /> Staff Response: City staff afforded aU interested parties the opportunity to provide input <br /> with respect to this architectural permit for construction of a single-family home. A full <br /> account of the Architectural Permit Application Procedures 8� Project Chronology is <br /> provided in Attachment 2. The review process for the proposed application incorporated <br /> early notification of adjacent property owners and posting of the subject property. <br /> Secondly, the review process incorporated two neighborhood meetings, one of which <br /> 13 <br />