Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br /> Page 83 <br /> With regard to the appellants' contentions in ii. (a) and (b) above, City staff did have the <br /> opportunity to conduct a site visit and view the subject property from the appellants' <br /> home; however, the appellants' recount of the conversation has been misconstrued. <br /> During the site visit, City staff acknowledged hearing the appellants' concerns, but at no <br /> time did City staff offer, or imply, the definitive statements as suggested by the <br /> appellant. <br /> With regard to the appellants' contentions in ii. (c) above, the Zoning Administrator's <br /> decision regarding the Italian Stone Pine was based on the professional determinations <br /> provided by the Certified Arborist (Attachment 14) and the City's Urban Forestry <br /> Specialist, not on the comparison of trees. <br /> Conclusions of Fuct and Law that Appellants would have Demvnstrated: The Planning <br /> Department failecl in its duty (u) to follow the Guideline.s, (b) to balunce the de.sipe of the <br /> properry owner ivith the riglits, needs, and interests of the adjoining and nearby properry <br /> owners, of the neighborhoad, and of all residents vf Redwovd City and (c) to give due <br /> consideration to the express and/or implied rigltt to privacy accorded to citizens of California <br /> and the United States by unreasonably authorizing the construction of a rear deck that invades <br /> the privucy of the Appellants. <br /> Staff Response: The Planning Department has not failed in its duty to follow the <br /> Redwood City Zoning Ordinance or the Redwood City Municipal Code, and has issued <br /> this architectural permit in compliance with the requirements of the Article 45 of the <br /> Redwood City Zoning Ordinance in that consideration was given to the Architectural <br /> Standards set forth in Section 45.8. Upon the necessary consideration, the Zoning <br /> Administrator determined the project was in compliance with the Redwood City Zoning <br /> Ordinance. <br /> 2. Appellants wnuld have identifed one or more legal authorities, and/or City empinyees <br /> who would have testified orally or in writing that the Planning Department and the Ciry Council <br /> i�iolated rts discretion and Appellarrts' equal prolection and by imposing u�reasonable and <br /> unnecessa�y impediments to Appellants' good,faith effort to prepare appropriately ta prevail on <br /> . facts and law at the Hearing. This includes apparently uneyual treatment with respect to being <br /> reguired to submit this Of'fer of Proof ane week before the Heuring date, while, acc��rding to Jill <br /> Ekas, the Plunning Department need only submit it.s report 72 hours before the Hearing, tivhich <br /> would be the immcdiately preceding Friday, November 19, 2010. In doing this, tl:e City Itas <br /> ef)`'ectively denied the Appellants the right to timely review and prepare any necessary re,sponse <br /> to the City 's report prior to !he Hearing. <br /> 15 <br />