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
This appeal concerns a single building-permit violation: a roofline <br />extension built in February 2018 on a 1951 garage. Respondents <br />acknowledge the work required a permit. To resolve the violation, <br />Respondents filed Permit ADU22-0064 in November 2022 — an ADU <br />conversion of the garage that includes demolition of the 2018 unpermitted <br />extension as part of the approved scope. Respondents also filed Permit <br />C22-0027 at the same time for the unrelated main house renovation. State <br />law treats ADU permits as a housing-policy priority subject to expedited <br />review (Gov. Code § 65852.2). <br />Both permits have remained pending in plan check since November 2022 <br />because the City tied permit progress to a separate dispute over a CMU <br />wall and a creek-access gate. The City has held not just the corrective- <br />work permit (ADU22-0064) hostage to that dispute, but also the <br />entirely unrelated main-house-renovation permit (C22-0027) — for <br />the same forty-one months. In September 2025, Respondents formally <br />requested that the City extend the permits under California Building Code <br />§ 105.5 because plan progress had been blocked by City action outside <br />Respondents’ control. The City denied that request in writing. The City <br />then issued a citation faulting Respondents for failing to “reinstate” the <br />very permits the City refused to extend. <br />The relief Respondents seek is constructive and narrow: open both <br />permits at no additional cost, complete plan check within sixty days, <br />and allow the corrective roofline demolition and the planned ADU and <br />home work to proceed under the permits’ approved scope. <br />Timeline <br />Date Event Significance <br />1951 Garage built Predates everything <br />6.A. - Page 17 of 64 <br />19
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.