Laserfiche WebLink
Under California Building Code §105.5, a permit does not expire <br />when work is ‘suspended or abandoned’ if such suspension is <br />caused by legal proceedings or administrative action outside the <br />permit holder’s control. The City’s actions squarely fall within that <br />provision. Allowing these permits to lapse would expose the City to <br />further legal challenge. <br />I have filed a claim with my title insurance company regarding the <br />City’s violation of the easements, and litigation is being pursued. I <br />will also be raising these issues before City Council and in the <br />press. <br />Accordingly, I request confirmation in writing that both permits will <br />be held open and extended until resolution of this dispute. <br />Sincerely, Stephen Burns” <br />Exhibit BB — Heather Spooner (Building Permit <br />Technician) to Stephen Burns <br />September 23, 2025 — City admission that permits remained active <br />Issue. Four days after Respondents formally invoked California Building <br />Code § 105.5 to extend the permits (Exhibit VV), Permit Technician <br />Heather Spooner replied in writing on behalf of the City. Her reply <br />confirmed that, as of September 23, 2025, the permits remained active and <br />the resubmittal deadline was October 22, 2025. <br />Significance. This is the City’s own writing — its permit technician <br />confirming, in real time, that the permits Respondents are now charged <br />with letting “expire due to inactivity” were active and that Respondents <br />had a known deadline. Five months later the City would issue the <br />Amended Citation on March 24, 2026 calling the same permits “expired” <br />and faulting Respondents for failing to “reinstate” them. The Sept 23 <br />email is the City’s own contemporaneous contradiction of the staff report’s <br />6.A. - Page 57 of 64 <br />59