BY ELAINE GOODMAN
Daily Post Correspondent
When a tree fell on the roof of their outdoor storage area, Redwood City residents Stephen and Sharon Burns had no idea the incident would spark a years-long building-permit battle with the city.
The battle has cost the Burnses more than $10,000 so far since January 2023, while the permits have “remained pending in plan check,” the couple’s attorney said.
And after denying their request for a time extension, the city cited the couple for violating city code. The couple’s attorney says “the ‘violation’ … is the consequence of the city’s own delay.”
The Redwood City council will hold a hearing tonight on the couple’s appeal of the citation.
The couple’s attorney, Norm Matteoni, said the permitting delay was due to “a separate city dispute” over a concrete masonry wall and a chain link fence at the back of the property, where the city has an easement for a storm drainage channel. That dispute has left the couple’s heads spinning as one city official seems to approve of a solution only to be contradicted by another official, the attorney alleged.
The disagreement has disrupted the couple’s plans to convert their garage into a granny or in-law unit — which the city calls an accessory dwelling unit or ADU — at a time when the city faces a severe housing shortage. It’s also stymied their plans to renovate the main house.
The Burnses bought the property in Redwood City’s Westwood neighborhood in 2012, according to a brief that Matteoni filed with the city.
In 2015, a fallen tree destroyed a roof that covered a storage area next to the home’s garage. Matteoni said the “shanty-style” corrugated roof was propped up with 2-by-4 supports.
A city inspector told the couple they wouldn’t need a permit to extend the roof of the garage over the same area.
Permit blocked
The Burnses extended the roof in 2018 — but also built walls around the storage area, the brief stated, creating a garage addition. The couple admits they should have gotten a building permit for that work, the brief said.
To fix the situation, they applied for a permit to remove the unpermitted work and to convert the garage into a granny unit. They also applied for a permit to renovate the main house, paying $10,650 in permit fees in January 2023.
With the permits stuck in plan check, according to their attorney, the couple asked the city for a time extension in October 2025 “because plan progress had been blocked by city action outside (their) control.”
“The city denied that request in writing,” the attorney’s brief said. “The city then issued a citation faulting (the Burnses) for failing to ‘reinstate’ the very permits the city refused to extend.”
As for the controversy over the masonry wall and chain link fence next to the storm drainage channel, Matteoni said the city attorney moved those issues to a separate proceeding.
“That dispute concerns where the structures sit relative to recorded easements, whether engineering inspection confirms structural condition, and what corrective action, if any, the city may require,” Matteoni wrote.
Engineer says wall is sound
Matteoni referred to comments from a city engineer in January 2024, who said if a structural engineer found the masonry wall was in sound condition and not harming the creek, he’d be open to letting the wall remain.
The Burnses paid an engineering firm $6,141 for a report that found the masonry wall was in good condition.
But a few months later, another city engineer rejected the engineer’s report and “demanded additional unspecified analysis,” Matteoni said.
The administrative citation that the city issued to the Burnses alleges three violations: no building permit for the garage addition; no permit issued by the city engineer for construction in the city easement; and masonry unit wall blocking visibility of the sidewalk. The fine for each is $100, for a total of $300.
The Burnses are asking council to reopen their building permits at no additional cost, complete plan check within 60 days, and allow the demolition of the garage addition, the conversion of the garage to a granny unit, and renovation of the main house to proceed.
Be the first to comment