Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> 8.A <br /> Page 72 <br /> adjoining and nearby properry owners, of the neighburhood, an�l o f all residents of Redwood <br /> Ciry by unreasonably authorizing the removal of a valuable element of the streetscape and the <br /> neighborltood. <br /> Staff Response: The Zoning Administrator's decision was consistent with the <br /> requirements of the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance and consideration has been <br /> provided. Please refer to discussion above in support of this conclusion. <br /> 4. The Applicunts apparently intentionally provided incorrect infc�rmation and failed to <br /> provide other necessary inforrrtation about the tree (such as the practical and ecanomical <br /> options available tv preserve the tree, discussed above at 1.) in severul o�cial submissions, <br /> including the urchitectural plans themselves, suhstantially all vf'the ftrst arborist report (which <br /> was so inaccurate that the City reguired the Applicants to submit a secund repurt), and key <br /> aspects of the second arborist report (.such as substantially understating the size of the crown). <br /> The City was aware of these inaccuracies and of the possibility that submission of at least snme <br /> qf the information may have constituted perjury, yet after giving Appellants written us.surances <br /> that these allegations tivould be inve.stigated, approximately three x�eeks hefore the Hearing, the <br /> City Attorney informed the Appellants that the City would not, in, fact, investigate these <br /> allegations. Consequently, there was insu�cient time for Appellants to seek an ulternative <br /> o�cial review vf the submissions in gue.rtion, and any transgressions (i f any) are n��w effectively <br /> unenforceable. <br /> Staff Response: The initial Arborist Report is provided in Attachment 12. After review <br /> of the report, City staff found it to be incomplete and subsequently notified the applicant <br /> of the need to revise or resubmit (Attachment 13). A new Arborist Report was prepared <br /> and provided to the City on August 27, 2010 (Attachment 14), which was determined to <br /> be complete and consistent with industry standards. City staff relied only on the August <br /> ' 27, 2010 Arborist Report in making a determination on the project and the permit. <br /> Conclusions ofFact and Law that A�pellants would have Demonsti°ated: Prineiples of law and <br /> equity demand that snmeone who has committed a wrong may not benefit_from that wrong. In <br /> this case, the City intentionally to investigate the underlying truth or.falsity orthe perjury <br /> al[egation, making it impossible tn apply this legal principal to the Planning Departn�ent 's <br /> decision to approve removal qf the Tree. Therefore, the matter should either be im�estigated, or <br /> the approval of the removul of the Tree should be revoked on principal. <br /> Staff Response: City staff and the Zoning Administrator must comply with the <br /> Redwood City Municipal Code and the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance. The scope of <br /> the Zoning Administrator's authority to approve architectural permits is set forth in <br /> ' Article 45, Section 45.6, which provides that applications for architectural permits shall <br /> be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator in order to ensure that the functional <br /> arrangement and the general appearance of the structures from the street or other <br /> ublic lace will be in kee in with the ur oses outlined in Section 45.8. To the extent <br /> p P P 9 P p <br /> 4 <br />