Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br /> Page120 <br /> Appeal of Issuance of Architectural Permit Page 12 of 13 <br /> 448 Saint Francis St. <br /> Project No. AP-2010-9 <br /> elements subject of this Appeal, and that essentially all three objectionable <br /> elements remained after their review. Appellants would argue that this is <br /> tantamount to a"rubber stamp" of Applicants' objectionable proposals, <br /> ii. Appellant Marc Warsowe will testify that Christopher Rogers, Planner, and <br /> Blake Lyons, Zoning Administrator, made a site visit to Appellants' house <br /> (a) looked out of the windows and stood on the deck that would be visually <br /> impacted by the Roof and agreed that the Roof would be, indeed, both <br /> overwhelming visually and out of place in the neighborhood. <br /> (b) looked at the proposed placement of Applicants' deck and agreed that <br /> someone standing on the end of the proposed Deck could look directly <br /> into Appellants' bedroom windows. <br /> (c) observed the Tree and stated that it appeared healthier than the redwood <br /> Applicants sought to preserve. <br /> iii. Notwithstanding, the Planning Department granted Applicants permission <br /> to proceed with the Deck, the Roof, and the Tree essentially as submitted. <br /> Conclusions of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: The Planning <br /> Department failed in its dury (a) to follow the Guidelines and exercise independent <br /> judgment with respect to the architectural elements subject of this Appeal, (b) to balance <br /> the desire of the property owner with the rights, needs, and interests of the adjoining and <br /> nearby property owners, of the neighborhood, and of all residents of Redwood City and <br /> (c) to give due consideration to the express andlor implied right to privacy accorded to <br /> citizens of California and the United States by unreasonably authorizing the construction <br /> of a rear deck that invades the privacy of the Appellants. <br /> 2. Appellants would have identified one or more legal authorities, and/or City <br /> employees who would have testified orally or in writing that the Planning Department <br /> and the City Council violated its discretion and Appellants' equal protection and by <br /> imposing unreasonable and unnecessary impediments to Appellants' good faith effort to <br /> prepare appropriately to prevail on facts and law at the Hearing. This includes apparently <br /> unequal treatment with respect to being required to submit this Offer of Proof one week <br />