Laserfiche WebLink
and formally engaged. The permits did not expire from inactivity; they <br />were declared “expired” because the City refused the § 105.5 extension <br />Respondents had requested in writing. <br />B. The staff report does not disclose that its approver was the City <br />official on the agreement at issue. Community Development Director <br />Jeff Schwob personally entered into the July 22, 2024 written agreement <br />with Respondents on the path to permit issuance (Exhibit M). On October <br />25, 2024, Mr. Schwob reconfirmed that agreement in writing: “I believe <br />this is the agreement we reached” (Exhibit N). On June 6, 2025, <br />Mr. Schwob personally telephoned Respondent Stephen Burns and stated <br />the agreement was “off” because the City had a “new City Engineer.” <br />Internal Engineering staff (Christian Craig) admitted in writing that the <br />repudiation had been agreed inside the City as early as January 2025 <br />(Exhibit YY). Mr. Schwob is the staff-report approver. The staff report <br />does not mention the July 22, 2024 agreement, the October 25 <br />reconfirmation, the June 6 phone-call repudiation, the Craig admission, or <br />that the staff report’s approver was the senior City official on each of those <br />communications. Council should weigh this when evaluating the staff <br />report’s framing. <br />C. The staff report improperly relies on bifurcated Violation 2 <br />material. The staff report includes as Attachment 3 the 1950 subdivision <br />map showing the public utility easement (PUE), and notes in the <br />background that “Redwood Creek and its bank abut and run parallel to <br />the PUE.” The PUE issue is the substance of Violation 2 (engineering <br />permit / stormwater easement), which the City Attorney bifurcated to a <br />separate proceeding by letter of April 27, 2026. The PUE has no bearing <br />on Violation 1, which is solely a building-permit count under CBC § <br />105.1. Even if the PUE were relevant to V1, the original 1951 garage <br />predates the 1971 easement by twenty years and sits approximately seven <br />feet inside the property line from the easement (Exhibit F). The City <br />Engineer himself acknowledged on the record on January 30, 2024 that <br />“normally they wouldn’t have dedicated any sort of easement with the <br />building in it, so you should be fine” (Exhibit JJ-6). The PUE attachment <br />imports bifurcated material; if Council weighs it at all, the licensed survey <br />and the City Engineer’s own concession resolve it in Respondents’ favor. <br />6.A. - Page 29 of 64 <br />31