Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br /> Page 66 ' <br /> the adjoining and nearby property owners, of the neighborhood, and of all residents of <br /> Redwood City by unreasonably authorizing the removal of a valuable element of the I <br /> streetscape and the neighborhood. <br /> 4. The Applicants apparently intentionally provided incorrect information and failed <br /> to provide other necessary information about the tree (such as the practical and <br /> economical options available to preserve the tree, discussed above at 1.) in several <br /> official submissions, including the architecturaI plans themselves, substantially all of the <br /> first arborist report (which was so inaccurate that the City required the Applicants to <br /> submit a second report), and key aspects of the second arborist report (such as <br /> substantially understating the size of the crown). The City was aware of these <br /> inaccuracies and of the possibility that submission of at least some of the information <br /> may have constituted perjury, yet after giving Appellants written assurances that these <br /> allegations would be investigated, approximately three weeks before the Hearing, the <br /> City Attorney informed the Appellants that the City would not, in fact, investigate these <br /> alle�ations. Consequently, there was insufficient time for Appellants to seek an <br /> alternative official review of the submissions in question, and any transgressions (if any) <br /> are now effectively unenforceable. <br /> Conclusions of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: Principles of <br /> law and equity demand that someone who has coinmitted a wrong may not benefit from <br /> that wrong. In this case, the City intentionally failed to investigate the underlying truth or <br /> falsity of the perjury allegation, making it impossible to apply this legal principal to the <br /> Planning Department's decision to approve removal of the Tree. Therefore, the matter <br /> should either be investigated, or the approval of the reinoval of the Tree should be <br /> revoked on principal. <br /> 5. Appellants would have demonstrated that the Planning Department erred in <br /> issuing a permit before it had received and evaluated the Applicants' Tree Replacement <br /> Plan. <br /> a. Applicants are not required to replace the Tree with another tree on site — let <br /> alone with a tree with a mature crown (e.g., as a replacement tree in a 48" box <br />