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
Thanks, Heather” <br />Exhibit WW — Stephen Burns to CD-Margaret Hernandez <br />and CD-Johnny Gusman <br />September 29, 2025 — Status Update and Three-Point Abeyance <br />Request <br />Issue. Ten days after the § 105.5 extension request and three days after the <br />City issued an “Intent to Issue an Administrative Citation,” Respondents <br />escalated directly to Code Enforcement (Ms. Hernandez and Mr. Gusman, <br />the very officials who would later sign the citation). Respondents made <br />three specific written requests: hold enforcement in abeyance, extend the <br />permits with plan review tolled, and confirm in writing that no citation <br />would issue on October 13, 2025 while counsel was engaged. <br />Significance. This is the second of two written notices to the City — <br />covering both Building (Exhibit VV) and Code Enforcement (Exhibit <br />WW) — that the matter was being actively addressed by Respondents’ <br />title insurer’s counsel and that statutory tolling under CBC § 105.5 <br />applied. The City had every senior official in the loop: the Building permit <br />technician, her supervisor, the City Engineer, the Code Enforcement <br />Manager, the Senior Building Inspector, and the Community Development <br />Director. None of the requested confirmations were given. The “Intent to <br />Issue” letter went out anyway on September 26; Mr. Gusman’s denial of <br />all three requests followed on October 17 (Exhibit XX). Respondents <br />made the formal record. The City made the choice. <br />6.A. - Page 59 of 64 <br />61
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.