My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Agda Pkt 2026.05.04 Special Council Meeting
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2026
>
Agda Pkt 2026.05.04 Special Council Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2026 11:38:11 AM
Creation date
5/5/2026 11:37:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Special
Agency Type
City Council
Date
5/4/2026
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
“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 />Exhibit YY — Christian Craig admission of internal <br />repudiation <br />May 1, 2025 — Engineering staff confirms the Schwob agreement was <br />walked back inside the City in January 2025 <br />Issue. This is Engineering Assistant Christian Craig’s email response to a <br />Stephen Burns email asking the City to honor the July 22, 2024 Schwob <br />agreement. In a single line, Mr. Craig admits in writing that the City had <br />internally walked back the Schwob agreement five months earlier — in <br />January 2025 — without telling Respondents. <br />Significance. This is the smoking gun on the third reneged agreement. The <br />exact line: “Public Works has asked that the original access be restored so <br />that is the instruction that should be followed. I reaffirmed this with Jeff <br />in January when the resubmission was received.” Translation: when <br />Respondents resubmitted plans in January 2025 in good-faith reliance on <br />Mr. Schwob’s July 22 / October 25 agreement, the City had already <br />privately decided to repudiate that agreement. Respondents continued <br />paying for plan revisions, surveys, and engineering for an additional four <br />months without notice that the City no longer recognized the agreement. <br />The City did not communicate the repudiation to Respondents until <br />6.A. - Page 53 of 64 <br />55
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.