My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2010-11-22 clsd and regular
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
AgdaPkt 2010-11-22 clsd and regular
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2012 11:22:57 AM
Creation date
11/18/2010 5:05:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
11/22/2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
418
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
i <br /> 8.A <br /> Page 111 <br /> Appeal of Issuance of Architectural Permit Page 3 of 13 <br /> 448 Saint Francis St. <br /> Project No. AP-2010-9 <br /> b. The co-dominant trunk over Appellants' properiy could have been trimmed to <br /> reduce the weight of that trunk; or <br /> c. The co-dominant trunk could have been removed and the resulting Tree would <br /> be structurally sound. <br /> d. Aapellants have been informallv advised bv an architect that a <br /> construction technipue referred to as "aost and grade beam with slab over" <br /> would nermit the Tree roots to survive the construction of Applicants' house <br /> as approved. <br /> Conclusions of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: Destroying the <br /> Tree is not necessary for Appellants to construct their house, even as is, and is a violation <br /> of Standard E, in that the Planning Department ignored these options, and failed to apply <br /> the guidelines appropriately. <br /> 2. Appellants would have identified one or more real estate appraisers with the <br /> relevant expertise who would have established that removing the fully mature Italian <br /> Stone Pine would reduce the property values of at least four adjoining or nearby <br /> properties. <br /> a. Appellants would have demonstrated that between 40% - 60% of the crown of <br /> the Tree is on Appellants' property, and that the removal of the Tree would have <br /> caused Appellants a financial loss amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. <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 financial interests of the adjoining and nearby property <br /> owners by unnecessarily authorizing the removal of a valuable element of the streatscape <br /> and the neighborhood. <br /> 3. Appellants would have identified one or more architects and/or urban planners <br /> who would have testified orally or in writing that the loss of aesthetic, social/community, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.