Laserfiche WebLink
it’s unclear whether the slab does benefit the channel and likely <br />means we need to drill another pole into the channel, introducing <br />more risk. <br />I will be following the instruction of my supervisors and the public <br />works department so if I receive different direction, I will revise my <br />comments accordingly. <br />Thanks, Christian Craig, EIT Assistant Engineer I Engineering & <br />Transportation Department” <br />Exhibit VV — Stephen Burns to CD-Heather Spooner <br />(Permit Technician) <br />September 19, 2025 — Request for Permit Extension under CBC § <br />105.5 <br />Issue. Once it became clear the City would not honor the Schwob <br />agreement, Respondents formally and in writing invoked California <br />Building Code § 105.5 — the State statute that tolls permit expiration <br />when permit progress is suspended by administrative action outside the <br />permit holder’s control. Respondents asked the City to hold both permits <br />open and extend them. <br />Significance. This filing matters because it eliminates the only fault-based <br />theory the City could plausibly assert against Respondents on Violation 1. <br />Section 105.5 exists precisely for the situation Respondents were in: a <br />permit application blocked by City conduct, not by applicant inaction. <br />Respondents invoked the statute by name, in writing, in advance of any <br />expiration date the City later asserted. The City’s permit technician <br />acknowledged receipt at 1:58 p.m. the same day and forwarded the request <br />to her supervisor for decision. The supervisor’s decision came one month <br />later through Senior Building Inspector Gusman: denial. Respondents <br />6.A. - Page 55 of 64 <br />57