• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Lot line window opening over property line

Well sounds like the owner followed the rules????
Click to expand...
Just because a permit was issued does not mean it meets code

2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE

[A] 105.4 Validity of permit. The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data. The building official is also authorized to prevent occupancy or use of a structure where in violation of this code or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction.
 
I understand that, just when they get very specific on what is required for plan review, and if all was submitted and reviewed

Especially like for like, I would have some heartburn also
 
Just because a permit was issued does not mean it meets code

2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE

[A] 105.4 Validity of permit. The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data. The building official is also authorized to prevent occupancy or use of a structure where in violation of this code or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
The state or city can write all the exculpatory laws it wants but at civil law (separate from administrative law) if you damage someone through negligence you are liable for those damages, this is especially true in California with a constitutional amendment prohibiting AHJs from profiting from permits. A good attorney, after filing an action, would serve extensive interrogatories on the city with all kinds of questions making them document the costs of running the department, once those interrogatories are answered then the CBO would be sitting in multiple depositions explaining every nickle spent in the department. Another subject that would be delved into at length would be whether the homeowner and her architect had the right to rely upon the approved plans and why they were initially approved with the window being "replaced in kind", language right out of the city's amendments to the code.

No city attorney is going to want to defend a lawsuit wherein he/she has to defend the competence of the city employees, especially if the city is at risk for getting hit by a large judgment for profiting from permits, it will also look bad in the press and the San Francisco Building Department has been hit by some bad press, including but not limited to, criminal behavior.
 
http://sfdbi.org/sites/sfdbi.org/fil...ion%202015.pdfhttp://sfdbi.org/sites/sfdbi.org/fil...lterations.pdf
Click to expand...
CDA:

As I've tried to explain over the years the public, and even us contractors, do not look at building permit fees isolated from the total fees we pay to walk out of a city hall with a permit. At one time I had a line item for "Building Permit" in the cost breakdown I present to owners architects, and lenders, other fees skyrocketed so I replaced "Building Permit" with "Government Fees" All Steam knows and cares about is it cost her $10,000 to get a permit to do the remodeling, she does not say what the total cost of the remodeling was when she paid the $10,000 fee, but San Francisco is expensive. I've had fees to the Environmental Department exceed the permit fee itself.

I'll give you an example of a small one: In permitting a whole house remodel I was accessed a $450 fee by Roads and Airports, I had to appear in front of them in a public hearing and explain that the new home would be 450 square feet smaller, have one less bedroom and one less bathroom, and the owners had two children and didn't intend to have any more children, so the roads and airports in the county would not be significantly impacted, I would have had to pay more had the commission not bought my story. That worked fine but Environmental Health came onto the job later and determined that I actually had the same number of bedrooms because an office could be used as a bedroom, I ended up paying them $650 more in the middle of the job, I made the usual argument that there was no closet, that the room was construed with electrical outlets all over the place including in the middle of the floor for built in cabinets, they said but someone could sleep in that room, I countered with someone could sleep in a kitchen or bathroom, but paid rather than delay the job.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He's out for a few days, this is from the website

Building Permits are required for replacing or adding new windows

Standards for Window Replacement

A GUIDE TO APPLYING FOR A WINDOW REPLACEMENT PERMIT

http://sf-planning.org/ftp/files/publications_reports/Standards_for_Window_Replacement.pdf
Click to expand...
You guys are awesome, thanks for all the thoughts and input.

Mark, I'd appreciate if you would hold off on contacting folks at the SF building department. This is a small city, and I would prefer to be the initiator of further discussions with them.

Thanks again to all of you, I've learned a lot.
 
You guys are awesome, thanks for all the thoughts and input.

Mark, I'd appreciate if you would hold off on contacting folks at the SF building department. This is a small city, and I would prefer to be the initiator of further discussions with them.

Thanks again to all of you, I've learned a lot.
Click to expand...
small city? 900,000 PEOPLE?small city
 
small city? 900,000 PEOPLE?small city
Click to expand...
Geographically it's small, with a lot of people packed in, it's also a city with a history of corruption especially in the building department.

\ said:
Federal agents and district attorney's investigators descended on San Francisco's controversy-plagued building department Thursday and led away a longtime city employee in handcuffs after arresting him on felony bribery charges. Augustine Fallay, head of the Department of Building Inspection's one- stop permit program, faces 10 counts of bribery and three counts of perjury resulting from an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the San Francisco district attorney's office.

Fallay, 47, had worked for years as an official in the planning department before transferring to Building Inspection in 2001. There he had been manager of the 10-member one-stop permit unit, which put reviews of complex construction projects on a fast track.

He was arrested after FBI agents, dressed in blue raid jackets bearing their agency's logo, and investigators from District Attorney Kamala Harris' office arrived mid-morning at the building department's Mission Street offices to cart off boxes of documents.

The charges filed by the district attorney allege that Fallay took bribes over a 12-year period, including a $50,000 loan, payments of cash "in approximately four separate red-colored envelopes" and services for improvements on a kitchen, a bathroom and an entryway of his private home.¹
Click to expand...
Knowing San Francisco the inspector may be looking at a payoff to make her problem go away, I would caution her to not pay a bribe even if they ask for it, they are still probably under constant under surveillance there.

¹ http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Permit-official-faces-bribery-charges-District-2618578.php
 
I don't agree with the position the inspector has taken but he has been a total professional.
Click to expand...
That's fine, but I'm pointing it out because of all the bad press the San Francisco has received over the last several years the City Attorney is not going to want to fight you in court, that allows you to settle this issue on favorable terms, as I've said above a simple letter from your attorney should take care of it. They should either allow you to do what they approved or reimburse you for the damages they caused you, they won't go to court because they will have to admit in court that they were wrong to have approved it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top