Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> 8.A <br /> Page126 <br /> � <br /> was spent considering the appellants concerns, as evident in the finding and required <br /> changes referenced in the Notice of Official Action (Attachment 3). ln fact, the Zoning <br /> Administrator did not "rubber stamp" approval of the project, but rather conditioned <br /> approval after conducting the analysis, including Conditions 7-9 (relating to the tree <br /> removal and replacement), 13-15 (relating to the roof color and material), and 16-17 <br /> (relating to the deck), to ensure compliance with the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance. <br /> p. 12 Conclusion of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: <br /> The Planning Department, failed in its duty (a) to f�Ilow the Guidelines <br /> and exe�•cise independent judgment with respect tv the architectural <br /> elements subject of this Appeal <br /> Staff Response: The Planning Department relies on and complies with the Redwood <br /> City Zoning Ordinance. More specifically, the Planning Department relies on and <br /> complies with the Architectural Standards established by Article 45, Section 45.8, when <br /> evaluating Architectural Permit applications. However, to the extent members of the <br /> community feel their interests have not been fully considered by City staff, they may <br /> utilize the City's established appeal process under Article 48 of the Redwood City <br /> Zoning Ordinance to ensure adequate review. <br /> 5 <br />