AgdaPkt 2010-11-22 clsd and regular

Browse Search

8.A Page114 Appeal of Issuance of Architectural Permit Page 6 of 13 ' 448 Saint Francis St. Project No. AP-2010-9 the Tree were to be removed. Neighbors are entitled to knaw of Applicants' plans before they are approved. '� b. There is no formal or informal mechanism for the neighbors to review and, if necessary, contest the Tree Replacement Plan after it has been approved. Conclusions of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: The Planning Department failed in its duty (a} to follow the Guidelines, and (b) to ensure that neighbors ' and residents at large would have a fair opportunity to present their objections to (or support o fl a vital element of the application review process. 6. Finally, Appellants would have identified one or more architects and urban planners who would have testified orally or in writing that the Applicants' architectural and site plans could have been easily modified so as to preserve the Tree, while providin� the Applicants with substantially all of their desired architectural features and benefits. Conclusions of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: The Planning Department failed in its duiy (a) to follow the Guidelines, and (b) to balance the desire of the property owner with the rights, needs, and interests of the adjoining and nearby property owners, of the neighborhood, and of all residents of Redwood City by unreasonably authorizing the removal of a valuable element of the streetscape and the neighborhood without first requirin�; the Applicants to submit alternative plans that would have preserved the Tree. Offer of Proof with Respect to Standard C and the Standing Seam Ouarter-Round Curved Metal Roof (Roof'1 1. Appellants would have identified one or more architects and urban planners who would have testified orally or in writing that the Applicants' approved Roof violated Standards B. and C. of the Guidelines, in that.