mr. patterson, unusual way of doing this legislation. the planning commission should weigh in on this. >> there are no changes to the planning code. the planning commission would not rehear this. the original amendments were made in 2017. again, those have not changed. it's a substantial community presentation to do the 2017 changes, which was passed in 2017. the provision here is that the repeal, because there's several clause if this were to go forward and enacted by the board of supervisors, the repeal would take place immediately. if it were challenged in court for the legal reasons, presented by mr. patterson, the repeal means our code reverts prior to 2017 without these housekeeping changes. that's if we go forward. if we were to continue, the city would continue not to enforce any of those provisions. it would delay the city's ability to repeal the ordinance as directed by the court. the basis for this ordinance was to repeal the ordinances in the entirety and readopt the provisions that were not subject litigation prior. >> presi

mr. patterson approached -- approach the race, and why is it that your father lost to him? ms. edy: well, john patterson was -- have the support of the -- had the support of the klan, and alabama wanted segregation. so john patterson ran on that, and he was elected. my father ran on good roads, better school. that's not what alabama wanted, so john patterson -- they had a runoff and john patterson pulled that one out. susan: what was your father's take away lesson from that race? ms. kennedy: he would do anything to win next time. and that's what he did. he chose power over principle. and he used racism and segregation to win the 1962 governor's race. susan: how long did it take for him to decide who's going to run again in 1962, and what was it like in your family during those years he was making that decision? ms. kennedy: well, i think he decided the day after he lost that we was running. so he was gone all the time. things got very, very bad. for his family, the life went. my mother in 1959, she left him and took us to our grandparents. she filed for divorce. and when she di

mr. patterson requested, a notice of special restrictions? >> no. that would come before the board. what we are going to do and typically -- we'll be flexible with -- first of all, that hasn't been proposed to my knowledge. that's the first that's being heard. i had a conversation with him and he didn't mention about continuing it to allow them to do the c.u. process. our standard direction is we won't be able to go through the legalization process or give them time to come into compliance but not indefinitely. we would say you have to address this by the end of the year, 60 days, 90 days, depending facts of the case but never such an open-ended resolution where it would be put on ice in perpetuity. >> nothing within your power to do to extend something like that? >> not something we have made a practice of. whether we have the ability to -- then we are going to be getting that request for every case that comes before us and we are never going to be resolving things. everything will be -- in this case why did we do it here for this nice family but we are not doing it. >> well, you c

mr. patterson requested, a notice of special restrictions? >> no. that would come before the board. what we are going to do and typically -- we'll be flexible with -- first of all, that hasn't been proposed to my knowledge. that's the first that's being heard. i had a conversation with him and he didn't mention about continuing it to allow them to do the c.u. process. our standard direction is we won't be able to go through the legalization process or give them time to come into compliance but not indefinitely. we would say you have to address this by the end of the year, 60 days, 90 days, depending facts of the case but never such an open-ended resolution where it would be put on ice in perpetuity. >> nothing within your power to do to extend something like that? >> not something we have made a practice of. whether we have the ability to -- then we are going to be getting that request for every case that comes before us and we are never going to be resolving things. everything will be -- in this case why did we do it here for this nice family but we are not doing it. >> well, you c

mr. patterson. >> i'm on behalf of the appellant. as you may recall this was an appeal and as we got in the appeal hearing there was a shocking revelation that my client's driveway may not in fact belong to my client. and there's two rectangles and in playing on the flag lot. on that basis the board denied the permit because the pipes were being installed on the permit holder's property not mine. sometimes things are as they seem. as we went back and investigated the new issue that was raised at the hearing, we found in fact this property does belong to my client as we had believed all along. we also had a survey prepared to confirm the location of the pipe and property line. here's the map itself which shows the line here for the flag. there is confusion and ambiguity in the process of the lot split but as a matter of law the personal map controls. the subdivision map act states filing for record of a final parcel map by the county recorder shall automatically determine the validity and shall construct notice thereof. this meaning r

mr. zach friedman? yeah, okay. >> this letter is from zach friedman and patterson, a public comment, dear president mccarthy and honorable members of the building inspection commission, our office represents the s.r.o. hotel coalition, hotels, and other individual owners of s.r.o.s who will be affected by this proposed ordinance. in light of yesterday's shelter in place order and the serious public health risk of covid-19 we reject to this hearing taking place without public participation as required by the ralph m. brown act. neither my clients nor attorneys or other concerned members of the public can violate the order and risk their health to attend this hearing. this hearing must be pro postponed. and including reacting the record in real-time and the statements by city staff and other members of the public. this is not an imminent matter. and this could be accomplished without the proposed new amendments contained within this ordinance. these amendments are not urgent and do not affect any government function as defined by the order. we respectfully request that this hearing be postponed until the shelter in place o

mr. zach friedman? yeah, okay. >> this letter is from zach friedman and patterson, a public comment, dear president mccarthy and honorable members of the building inspection commission, our office represents the s.r.o. hotel coalition, hotels, and other individual owners of s.r.o.s who will be affected by this proposed ordinance. in light of yesterday's shelter in place order and the serious public health risk of covid-19 we reject to this hearing taking place without public participation as required by the ralph m. brown act. neither my clients nor attorneys or other concerned members of the public can violate the order and risk their health to attend this hearing. this hearing must be pro postponed. and including reacting the record in real-time and the statements by city staff and other members of the public. this is not an imminent matter. and this could be accomplished without the proposed new amendments contained within this ordinance. these amendments are not urgent and do not affect any government function as defined by the order. we respectfully request that this hearing be postponed until the shelter in place o

mr. zach friedman? yeah, okay. >> this letter is from zach friedman and patterson, a public comment, dear president mccarthy and honorable members of the building inspection commission, our office represents the s.r.o. hotel coalition, hotels, and other individual owners of s.r.o.s who will be affected by this proposed ordinance. in light of yesterday's shelter in place order and the serious public health risk of covid-19 we reject to this hearing taking place without public participation as required by the ralph m. brown act. neither my clients nor attorneys or other concerned members of the public can violate the order and risk their health to attend this hearing. this hearing must be pro postponed. and including reacting the record in real-time and the statements by city staff and other members of the public. this is not an imminent matter. and this could be accomplished without the proposed new amendments contained within this ordinance. these amendments are not urgent and do not affect any government function as defined by the order. we respectfully request that this hearing be postponed until the shelter in place o

mr. zach friedman? yeah, okay. >> this letter is from zach friedman and patterson, a public comment, dear president mccarthy and honorablembers of the building inspection commission, our office represents the s.r.o. hotel coalition, hotels, and other individual owners of s.r.o.s who will be affected by this proposed ordinance. in light of yesterday's shelter in place order and the serious public health risk of covid-19 we reject to this hearing taking place without public participation as required by the ralph m. brown act. neither my clients nor attorneys or other concerned members of the public can violate the order and risk their health to attend this hearing. this hearing must be pro postponed. and including reacting the record in real-time and the statements by city staff and other members of the public. this is not an imminent matter. and this could be accomplished without the proposed new amendments contained within this ordinance. these amendments are not urgent and do not affect any government function as defined by the order. we respectfully request that this hearing be postponed until the shelter in place orde

mr. zach friedman? yeah, okay. >> this letter is from zach friedman and patterson, a public comment, dear president mccarthy and honorable members of the building inspection commission, our office represents the s.r.o. hotel coalition, hotels, and other individual owners of s.r.o.s who will be affected by this proposed ordinance. in light of yesterday's shelter in place order and the serious public health risk of covid-19 we reject to this hearing taking place without public participation as required by the ralph m. brown act. neither my clients nor attorneys or other concerned members of the public can violate the order and risk their health to attend this hearing. this hearing must be pro postponed. and including reacting the record in real-time and the statements by city staff and other members of the public. this is not an imminent matter. and this could be accomplished without the proposed new amendments contained within this ordinance. these amendments are not urgent and do not affect any government function as defined by the order. we respectfully request that this hearing be postponed until the shelter in place o

mr. zach friedman? yeah, okay. >> this letter is from zach friedman and patterson, a public comment, dear president mccarthy and honorable members of the building inspection commission, our office represents the s.r.o. hotel coalition, hotels, and other individual owners of s.r.o.s who will be affected by this proposed ordinance. in light of yesterday's shelter in place order and the serious public health risk of covid-19 we reject to this hearing taking place without public participation as required by the ralph m. brown act. neither my clients nor attorneys or other concerned members of the public can violate the order and risk their health to attend this hearing. this hearing must be pro postponed. and including reacting the record in real-time and the statements by city staff and other members of the public. this is not an imminent matter. and this could be accomplished without the proposed new amendments contained within this ordinance. these amendments are not urgent and do not affect any government function as defined by the order. we respectfully request that this hearing be postponed until the shelter in place o