Laserfiche WebLink
Burns: “I call public works later on and she goes, oh, no <br />problem… I got a quote from All Fence who was the city’s <br />contractor and they say, yeah, we’ll move the gate. We’ll just move <br />the gate over to here and they’ll have access to it… I said, I’ll pay <br />for it. And she goes, don’t worry. The city has budget for this to <br />fixing these fences. We’ll pay for it.” <br />Linda Chang (Public Works) didn’t merely agree to a gate-relocation <br />solution (Exhibit I) — she offered to pay for it under the City’s All Fence <br />contract. The City Attorney’s office (Exhibit ZZ) later took the position <br />that no such agreement existed. <br />JJ-6. The City Engineer confirmed the original garage does not violate <br />the easement (Lines 781-792): <br />O’Connell: “normally they wouldn’t have dedicated any sort of <br />easement with the building in it, so you should be fine.” <br />O’Connell: “once you clear, you know, that overhang structure, <br />that should be up to where the easement is.” <br />This forecloses the City’s position that the garage itself violates the <br />easement. The factual record is even stronger than O’Connell’s <br />framing: the original 1951 garage was built twenty years before the <br />1971 storm-drainage easement was created. The Hogan Retracement <br />Survey of December 6, 2023 (Exhibit F) shows the original garage eave <br />sits approximately seven feet inside the property line from the <br />easement — i.e., the original underlying structure has never encroached <br />on the easement at all. The 2018 roofline extension reduced that buffer by <br />extending the eave toward the rear CMU wall. The corrective work the <br />citation now demands — removal of the 2018 extension — restores the <br />6.A. - Page 43 of 64 <br />45