Laserfiche WebLink
multiple meetings with Mr. Schwob, the Building Official’s input, and <br />engineering and legal review. Schwob himself confirmed it with the City’s <br />Building Official before sending. <br />Significance. This is the third of three written agreements with senior City <br />officials. Mr. Schwob is the highest-ranking City staff member to commit <br />to a path forward. The agreement is concrete, technical, and signed by the <br />Director. Acting on it, Respondents revised plans, paid for a survey, and <br />resubmitted to plan check in January 2025. The agreement was repudiated <br />nearly a year later in a personal phone call from Mr. Schwob to <br />Respondent Stephen Burns on June 6, 2025: “the agreement is off; we <br />have a new City Engineer.” Internal Engineering staff (Christian Craig, <br />Exhibit YY) admitted in writing that the repudiation had been agreed <br />inside the City as early as January 2025, while Respondents were still <br />relying on the agreement. The repudiation directly produced the “expired <br />permits” framing the City now uses in the citation. <br />“Hello Stephen and James: I confirmed with our Building Official <br />that a building permit would not be required for the new fence <br />installation atop a shortened (<3-foot high) CMU base if the new <br />wall/fence combination remains under 7 feet in height. As we <br />discussed, the existing demolition permit will need to be <br />amended/revised to include the shortening of the wall. Finally, <br />when you resubmit, please show a drawing that demonstrates the <br />vision triangle and provide documentation from Public Works on <br />the gate relocation. Thanks again for moving this forward. <br />Sincerely, Jeff Schwob, Community Development Director” <br />6.A. - Page 50 of 64 <br />52