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
Request: 1. Hold any code enforcement and citation in abeyance <br />pending resolution of the title claim and Engineering dispute. 2. <br />Reinstate or extend both permits through the conclusion of that <br />process, with plan review timelines tolled. 3. Confirm in writing <br />that no administrative citation will issue on October 13, 2025 while <br />counsel is engaged.” <br />Exhibit XX — Johnny Gusman (Senior Building Inspector / <br />Code Enforcement Supervisor) to Stephen Burns <br />October 17, 2025 — Denial of Permit Extension <br />Issue. This is the City’s formal denial of Respondents’ written § 105.5 <br />extension request. The denial came from the Senior Building Inspector / <br />Code Enforcement Supervisor — the same official who would later sign <br />the citation. Mr. Gusman gave Respondents a two-week ultimatum: issue <br />the permits by October 31, 2025 (an impossibility on a project that had <br />been in plan check for thirty-five months) or face citation. <br />Significance. This single email is the most important document in the <br />record on impossibility of compliance. Three things on its face: (1) the <br />City refused to extend the permits despite the express § 105.5 invocation; <br />(2) the City demanded the permits be issued within fourteen days, not <br />merely resubmitted, on a project that had already been in plan check for <br />nearly three years; and (3) the City conceded in writing that “Once the <br />permits are issued, enforcement will be suspended.” That last admission is <br />dispositive: the City has acknowledged that issued permits resolve <br />Violation 1. The remedy in this brief — open the permits, complete plan <br />check, allow the corrective work — is exactly the resolution Mr. Gusman <br />himself identified six months ago. The Amended Citation of March 24, <br />2026 then characterizes the very permits the City refused to extend as <br />“expired” and faults Respondents for failing to “reinstate” them. <br />6.A. - Page 61 of 64 <br />63
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.