San Mateo County Logo
File #: 18-1030    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Memo Status: Passed
File created: 10/23/2018 Departments: PLANNING AND BUILDING
On agenda: 11/13/2018 Final action: 11/13/2018
Title: Recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Hearing Officer's (ZHO) decision to approve the Non-Conforming Use Permit (PLN 2017-00517), by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval in Attachment A.
Attachments: 1. 20181113_es_ Kameli.pdf, 2. 20181113_att_Attachment A - Kameli, 3. 20181113_att_Attachments B through W - Kameli.pdf
Special Notice / Hearing: None__
Vote Required: Majority

To: Honorable Board of Supervisors
From: Steve Monowitz, Community Development Director
Subject: Consideration of an appeal of the Zoning Hearing Officer's approval of a Non-Conforming Use Permit, pursuant to Sections 6133 and 6173 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations, to enlarge an existing non-conforming single-family residence on a non-conforming parcel, by adding 180 sq. ft. to the first floor, while maintaining non-conforming side yard setbacks of 2' (right side) and 3' (left side) where 5' is the minimum required side yard setback; a new 698 sq. ft. second-story which will encroach into the 16'/45 degree daylight plane; and to allow the second required covered parking space to be uncovered and tandem to an existing one-car garage; on a non-conforming 2,549 sq. ft. parcel located at 338 Rutherford Avenue in the unincorporated Redwood City (Sequoia Tract) area of San Mateo County.
County File Number: PLN 2017-00517 (Kameli)

RECOMMENDATION:
title
Recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Hearing Officer's (ZHO) decision to approve the Non-Conforming Use Permit (PLN 2017-00517), by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval in Attachment A.

body
BACKGROUND:
The appellant is appealing the ZHO's approval of a Non-Conforming Use Permit to enlarge an existing non-conforming single-family residence on a non-conforming parcel located in the Sequoia Tract area of San Mateo County.

The appeal asserts that the project can only be approved through the issuance of multiple variances; the project fails to comply with the Zoning Regulations; the findings are not supported by evidence; the project is inconsistent with the County's General Plan; the County's action fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); too many exceptions are being requested; the addition is not appropriately sized and massed to the project parce...

Click here for full text