1. Did the court fail a constitutional right to due process when the City: failed to honor previous Historic Conservation Board (HCB) determinations; failed to adhere to the limited scope of the guidelines; and, failed to comply with their own rules of order?

2. Was the court a neutral arbiter, repeating conclusions based on erroneous facts demonstrating a prima facie 'congruence and proportionality ' approach disproportionate to their effects?

3. Did the court fail to recognize the City caused a violation of appellant beneficiaries ' civil rights by: erasing their participation; cancelling their wealth building opportunity; and, disregarding community derived social goals in favor of a regressive traditional preservation practice focused on achieving an engineered gentrification instead?

Did the court fail to recognize a constitutional right to due process?