Laserfiche WebLink
The point for Council is narrow: with Violations 2 and 3 now bifurcated to <br />a separate proceeding by the City Attorney’s letter of April 27, 2026, the <br />linkage that has held both permits hostage for nearly three and a half years <br />is broken. Council can resolve Violation 1 by reinstating Permit ADU22- <br />0064 — the permit that authorizes the corrective demolition — and <br />directing plan check to proceed. Reinstating the unrelated Permit C22- <br />0027 at the same time is an equity matter (Burns paid for it; the City <br />stalled it alongside ADU22-0064 with no V1 connection). The corrective <br />roofline work the citation demands gets done under the ADU22-0064 <br />approved scope. The wall-and-gate matter is resolved on its own track in <br />the bifurcated proceeding. Both matters move forward, independently and <br />on their merits. <br />5. Impossibility of Compliance — The City <br />Refused to Extend the Very Permits It Now <br />Calls Expired <br />This is the heart of the appeal. <br />Respondents filed Permit ADU22-0064 in November 2022, with the <br />demolition of the 2018 roofline extension within the scope of work to be <br />approved (along with the companion Permit C22-0027 for the unrelated <br />main-house renovation). As of May 4, 2026, both applications have been <br />pending for forty-one months. <br />When the City began moving toward citation in September 2025, <br />Respondents asked the City, in writing, to do exactly what California <br />Building Code § 105.5 contemplates: extend the permits because progress <br />had been blocked by City action outside Respondents’ control. The City <br />refused. <br />September 19, 2025. Respondents formally requested that Permits <br />ADU22-0064 and C22-0027 be held open and extended (email to <br />Heather Spooner, cc’d Schwob and Werner). The request expressly <br />invoked California Building Code § 105.5, which provides that a <br />6.A. - Page 26 of 64 <br />28