Laserfiche WebLink
�— <br /> 8.A <br /> Page118 <br /> Appeal of Issuance of Architectural Permit Page 10 of 13 <br /> 448 Saint Francis St. <br /> Project No. AP-2010-9 <br /> i <br /> bedroom/office, and fi•om two decks – would far outwei�;h any aesthetic <br /> compromise the Applicants would make. , <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 desu•e of <br /> the property owner with the rights, needs, and interests of the adjoining and nearby <br /> property owners, of the neighborhood, and of all residents of Redwood City by <br /> unreasonably authorizing the construction of a quarter-round standing seam metal roof <br /> that is discordant with the neighborhood's dorninant roof styles, thereby degrading a <br /> valuable element of the streetscape and the neighborhood. <br /> Offer of Proof with Respect to Standard C, and the Express and/or Implied Ri ng t of a <br /> California and U.S. Citizen to Reasonable Privacv and the Invasive Rear Deck t"Deck") <br /> 1. Appellants would have identified one or more architects, urban planners, and/or <br /> legaI authorities who would have testified orally or in writing that the Applicants' un- <br /> terraced, second-floor deck would unreasonably invade the privacy of Appellants. <br /> a. Although the deck itself is not excessively deep, it sits at the rear of a house <br /> that is possibly twice as deep as the existing structure, resulring in a deck that <br /> penetrates deeply into the rear yard of the Applicants. Moreover, ii is a second- <br /> floor deck that is on the same height as Appellants' second floor bedrooin. <br /> b. Consequently, anyone standing at the end of the Deck can look directly into <br /> Appellants' bedroom. <br /> c. By terracin�; the Deck, Applicants can eliminate this possibility, while <br /> possibly even gaining more usable space. <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 property <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 />