Special Notice/Hearing: 10 days/ 300 feet
Vote Required: Majority
To: Honorable Board of Supervisors
From: Steve Monowitz, Director of Planning and Building
Subject: Consideration of the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve an After-the-Fact Planned Agricultural District (PAD) Permit to legalize an existing agricultural storage building constructed of cargo containers, a man-made pond, and a water tank at 350 Madera Lane in the unincorporated San Gregorio area of San Mateo County.
County File Number: PLN2023-00112 (Markegard)
RECOMMENDATION:
title
Conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approve an After-the-Fact Planned Agricultural District (PAD) Permit to legalize an existing cargo container storage building, a man-made pond, and a water tank on a legal 25,253 sq. ft. parcel located at 350 Madera Lane in the unincorporated San Gregorio area of San Mateo County:
A) Open public hearing
B) Close public hearing
C) Deny the appeal and adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the After-the-Fact PAD Permit, by making findings and adopting the conditions of approval in Attachment A.
body
BACKGROUND:
The proposed project is an After-the-Fact Planned Agricultural District (PAD) Permit to legalize a 1,659 sq. ft. (resulting size) cargo container storage building used to support off-site agricultural operations. The cargo container storage building was built without permits in violation of County requirements (VIO2022-00089). As currently built, the building is three stories on the north side (basement, first and second floor) and two stories on the south side (first and second floor). The uppermost story of the building is proposed to be removed and relocated to a different site/location, making this building single-story facing La Honda Road and two stories facing the internal property line.
The first story of this cargo container building contains a freezer unit that would be used for storing frozen, packed, and labeled beef, lamb, pork, and chicken associated with the property owner’s offsite cattle ranch operation, as well as a roofed area for hay storage and an enclosed area for tool and maintenance shop use (1,312.32 sq. ft.). The proposal also includes the legalization of a 5,000-gallon plastic water tank (to be used for fire suppression), a back-up generator to power the freezer, and an existing man-made pond that was built by the owner. This pond is located approximately 2 feet 6 inches south of the building. The project involved no tree removal and required approximately 98 cubic yards (c.y.) of grading for the pond. The site is located in La Honda Road County Scenic Corridor.
Report Prepared By: Sonal Aggarwal, Planner III, Saggarwal@smcgov.org <mailto:Saggarwal@smcgov.org>
Applicant/Owner: Erik Markegard
Public Notification: Ten-day advanced notification for the hearing was mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the perimeter of the project parcel and a notice for the hearing was posted in newspaper San Mateo County Times for general public circulation.
Location: 350 Madera Lane, San Gregorio, San Mateo County
APN: 081-320-030
Size: 25,253 sq. ft. (0.58 acres)
Existing Zoning: PAD/CD (Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development)
General Plan Designation: Agriculture
Local Coastal Plan Designation: Agriculture
Sphere-of-Influence: San Gregorio
Williamson Act: Not contracted
Existing Land Use: Developed with uses incidental to agriculture
Water Supply: There is one non-potable agricultural well and a 10,000-gallon permitted plastic water tank and another 5,000-gallon water tank that is proposed to be legalized under this permit. The 5,000-gallon plastic water tank is filled by the rainwater collected from the rooftop rain gutters of the proposed storage building and would be dedicated for fire suppression.
Sewage Disposal: There are no sewage disposal facilities at the site.
Flood Zone: Flood Zone X (area of minimal flood hazard), FEMA Panel No. 06081C0380E; effective October 16, 2012.
Setting: The project site is a triangular-shaped 25,253 sq. ft. lot at the northeast intersection of Madera Lane and La Honda Road. It is surrounded by other agricultural lots on the left and rear sides of the site. Aside from the proposed improvements, the site contains an existing barn (PLN2004-00647), one non-potable well, two water tanks (PLN2004-00647), one pump house (PLN2011-00192) and a shed (PLN2010-00117). The parcel is relatively flat and is elevated above Madera Lane and La Honda Road.
Chronology:
Date Action
1975 - Parcel legality was established through a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) Type-A Application, COC 75-0001 HIST.
June 21, 2022 - VIO2022-00089 case opened.
June 24, 2022 - Complaint recorded with the County for ongoing construction without permits.
June - December 2022 - Code Compliance Division conducts a site visit. Staff verifies that no one is living onsite and that construction activity occurred without permits.
July 11, 2022 - Notice of Violation, VIO2022-00089, sent to applicant and extension for compliance granted until September 21, 2022, for applicant to apply for permits.
September 7, 2022 - In response to noise complaints, Environmental Health Services conducted a site visit to measure noise level of freezer storage mechanical equipment and verified the noise levels between 42 dBA to 47 dBA (Noise Ordinance limit is 55 dBA daytime, and 50 dBA nighttime). Code Compliance Staff also confirmed that no one was living onsite (see Attachment H for noise readings).
March 31, 2023 - Subject planning application filed to address violation, Planning case PLN2023-00112. Insufficient information was provided for staff to deem the application complete. This continues to be the case. However, given the need to resolve the outstanding violations, staff presented the incomplete application for Planning Commission consideration at the November 12, 2025, Planning Commission meeting.
January 13, 2025 - First Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) meeting. The AAC expressed concerns regarding visual and noise impacts of freezer, unpermitted use of shed/barn and second-story containers as residence, required water rights, relocation of PG&E lines, purpose of existing well, required ADA compliant spaces, required planting/screening from public roads, etc. The AAC continues its review for the applicant to address these concerns.
October 15 to
November 5, 2025 - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) circulated for public review and comment.
October 20, 2025 - Second Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) meeting. The item was opened for discussion but could not be completed due to lack of time at the meeting. Staff started presentation and the item was voted to be continued.
November 12, 2025 - Planning Commission, after reviewing the project and receiving public comments, approved project.
November 26, 2025 - Appeal filled.
March 24, 2026 - Board of Supervisors hearing.
DISCUSSION:
A. APPEAL
At its regular meeting on November 12, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the project and public comments, adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approved the project with conditions, with a Commission vote of 4-0.
Staff received an appeal on November 26, 2025, from Crystal Chaix, the neighbor residing at 290 Madera Lane, stating that the project should not have been approved as the owner did not submit a complete set of drawings and the project does not comply with County General Plan Policies 4.15 (Appearance of New Development), 4.22 (Scenic Corridors), 9.23 (Land Use Compatibility in Rural Lands), and 8.18 (Commercial Buffers). A discussion of the project’s compliance with policies 4.15, 4.22, and 9.23 can be found in Section D.1. a. and b. below. Policy 8.18 is not applicable to this project as it only applies to urban properties, and this property is designated as rural. The appellant was present at the Planning Commission meeting. The appellant’s contentions are noted under Section B below.
At the Planning Commission meeting, staff explained that its recommendation of approval was based on the applicant’s agreement to make specific project modifications, which have been included as conditions of approval, such as removing the upper story, removing all illegal bathrooms, and installing new sound attenuating screening. Such modifications, to be confirmed at the time of building permit application and approval, would bring the project into compliance with relevant General Plan policies and zoning regulations. The applicant will be required to submit revised drawings and show correct elevations, plans, details, at the time of building permit application, which will be reviewed by the Building Inspection Section, Geotechnical Section, Environmental Health Section, Drainage Section, and Planning. A list of all incomplete items to be submitted at the building permit stage is shown under Section C below. Upon building permit issuance, the project would also be inspected by the relevant agencies for compliance with conditions of approval.
The Planning Commission heard the public testimony and staff’s recommendations and voted to approve the project with conditions.
B. APPEALANTS CONTENTIONS
|
|
Key Issues |
Staff’s Response |
|
1. |
Project should not have been approved as the owner did not submit a complete set of drawings |
Conditions of approval require the applicant to submit complete plans at the building permit stage and specify the details that must be included in these plans to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Please see list of required plan details below this table. |
|
2. |
Project does not comply with County General Plan policies 4.15 (Appearance of New Development), 4.22 (Scenic Corridors), 9.23 (Land Use Compatibility in Rural Lands), and 8.18 (Commercial Buffers) |
Please see staff’s discussion regarding these policies under Section D. 1. a. and b. below. |
|
3. |
Noise Thresholds violated and running noise of the generator is loud from appellant’s bathroom window. |
Per the inspection conducted by County staff on September 7, 2022, all noise readings for the refrigeration container unit were between 42 dBA - 47 dBA, which are within the allowable range of the Noise Ordinance. The daytime noise level limit is 55 dBA; nighttime limit is 50 dBA (these limits are based on a 30-minute period). To ensure that the noise generated by the unit remains below these limits, the conditions of approval require the installation of a sound attenuating wall in front of the generator used to power the refrigeration unit. |
|
4. |
PG&E power lines were moved |
The applicant has confirmed that the power pole was moved without permits. Condition 7 requires that the applicant obtain all necessary permits from PG&E and Caltrans for the work that is already performed. |
|
5. |
Purpose of the pond/why no grading permit was required? |
The pond was created by grading less than 150 cu. yd. within a calendar year. No Grading Permit is required for permits that stay under this threshold. Staff’s understanding is that the pond was installed as an ornamental and stormwater detention feature. |
|
6. |
Illegally constructed bathroom in the shed next to the existing barn |
The applicant has agreed to remove all illegal living units and bathrooms from the site. Per Environmental Health staff, no new septic system can be built at this site due to its small size. |
|
7. |
Access to any sanitation or drinking water for the employees and tenants |
No employees would be allowed to stay overnight at this site or work for an extended period of time. They will be only allowed to pick-up and drop-off produce within a stipulated time period. Per the applicant, the only tenant of the existing barn (Wings of Nature, Beekeeper) also accesses the site periodically, for short periods of time. Hence, no on-site sanitation facility is required. Any required drinking water would be provided through packed water bottles. |
|
8. |
Water run-off and drainage issues due to the current building |
The run-off from the container building is required to be diverted to the pond or to an on-site drainage basin. The County’s Drainage Manual requires all post development run-offs to match the pre-development levels, so no run-off from the site would overflow to Madera Lane or La Honda Road. A drainage plan addressing these requirements must be submitted with the required Building Permit application. |
|
9. |
Delivery trucks blocking the roadway |
All loading and unloading of the pick-up/delivery trucks related to the storage building shall occur on-site. The applicant will be required to show dedicated loading and unloading zones on the plans submitted for the Building Permit per Condition 5.f. |
LIST OF REQUIRED PLAN DETAILS AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
1. Revised elevations and structural plans showing a maximum building height of 20 feet, new roof, and new sound attenuating wall painted to match the colors of the existing barn.
2. Site plan(s) showing the location of the existing non-conforming well, the location of all nearby fire hydrants, and the property line setback distances for the container structure. While the as built container structure complies with setback requirements, these distances must be documented by project plans.
3. Floor plan of the existing barn documenting the removal of the existing bathroom and any other features that enable habitation of the barn.
4. Drainage plan meet County standards and show the location of all irrigation spigots.
5. Revised Geotechnical Report that addresses the County’s Geotechnical Standards.
6. Location of emergency generator moved from the front setback to the side or rear setbacks with a minimum setback of 3 feet.
C. KEY ISSUES
1. Compliance with the General Plan
a. Visual Qualities
Policy 4.15 (Appearance of New Development) and Policy 4.22 (Scenic Corridors) seek to regulate development to promote good design, site relationships, other aesthetic considerations, and to protect and enhance the visual quality of development within designated scenic corridors.
The project site is within the La Honda Road County Scenic Corridor. While the current building is visible from La Honda Road and Madera Lane, removal of the second story completely from the site, and planting of additional trees facing La Honda Road would help to meet the above stated policies by reducing the visibility of the development from public roads. The applicant has also agreed to paint the roof of the new building green to match the roof color of the existing barn, which helps blend the building with its surroundings. Mitigation measures 1 to 3 in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) require these modifications. See Attachment I for the published IS/MND
b. Rural Lands
Policy 9.23 (Land Use Compatibility in Rural Lands) and Policy 9.30 (Development Standards to Minimize Land Use Conflicts with Agriculture) encourage compatibility of land uses in order to promote the health, safety, and economy of rural lands, seek to maintain the scenic and harmonious nature of rural lands, and seek to: (1) promote land use compatibility by encouraging the location of new residential development immediately adjacent to existing developed areas, and (2) cluster development so that large parcels can be retained for the protection and use of vegetative, visual, agricultural, and other resources.
While the project parcel has a land use designation of “Agriculture” and is dominated by surrounding open rural land, it is relatively small and already developed with an existing barn and accessory structures. There is no prime soil on this parcel, and no residence is proposed. The second-story containers would be completely removed from the site. The pond and storage building are not located on prime soil and are clustered at the site. The applicant has also proposed other accessory activities such as growing herbs in the planter boxes and installing a new bee yard which are agriculturally supportive activities. The use is consistent with agricultural accessory use as confirmed by Resource Conservation District (see Memo from RCD under Attachment L). Per Condition 6, any non-agricultural, unpermitted use of this site, such unpermitted lodging and boarding, is prohibited and would be subject to County enforcement procedures to ensure that the property is continued to be used for agricultural purposes only.
2. Compliance with Local Coastal Program (LCP) Policies:
While a Coastal Development Permit is not required for the project, staff has included a discussion of project compliance with riparian corridor and wetland policies for the Planning Commission’s reference:
a. Riparian Corridor/Wetland
Policy 7.7 (Definition of Riparian Corridors) Define riparian corridors by the “limit of riparian vegetation” (i.e., a line determined by the association of plant and animal species normally found near streams, lakes and other bodies of freshwater: red alder, jaumea, pickleweed, big leaf maple, narrow-leaf cattail, arroyo willow, broadleaf cattail, horsetail, creek dogwood, black cottonwood, and box elder). Such a corridor must contain at least 50% cover of some combination of the plants listed.
Policy 7.17 (Definition of Wetland) Define wetland as an area where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to bring about the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of plants which normally are found to grow in water or wet ground. Such wetlands can include mudflats (barren of vegetation), marshes, and swamps. Such wetlands can be either fresh or saltwater, along streams (riparian), in tidally influenced areas (near the ocean and usually below extreme high water of spring tides), marginal to lakes, ponds, and man-made impoundments. Wetlands do not include areas which in normal rainfall years are permanently submerged (streams, lakes, ponds and impoundments), nor marine or estuarine areas below extreme low water of spring tides, nor vernally wet areas where the soil is not hydric. In San Mateo County, wetlands typically contain the following plants: cordgrass, pickleweed, jaumea, frankenia, marsh mint, tule, bullrush, narrow-leaf cattail, broadleaf cattail, pacific silverweed, salt rush, and bog rush. To qualify, a wetland must contain at least a 50% cover of some combination of these plants, unless it is a mudflat.
The existing pond on the property was created by the owner by grading less than 150 c.y. per year. It does not meet the definition of wetland or riparian corridor as it is man-made and has standing water during normal rainfall years. No riparian or wetland setbacks are required for manmade impoundments. Hence, no setbacks are required between this agricultural pond and the building.
This pond is filled with rainwater collected from the roof top gutters of the container storage building and could attract California red-legged frogs and other protected species, which may be impacted by other uses that occur on the site. This pond is located approximately 2 feet 6 inches from this building. Mitigation Measure 8 (Condition 16) has been added to avoid any potential future impacts to sensitive species associated with project operation, by requiring the installation of permanent exclusion fencing around the property to avoid any wildlife entering the property. It also requires the applicant to maintain exclusion fencing in working order for the life of the project.
3. Compliance with Planned Agricultural District (PAD) Regulations:
a. Development Standards
As shown in the table below, the proposed storage building complies with Sections 6358 and 6359 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations, which regulates the height and required setbacks of structures. Revised building elevations incorporating the changes discussed in this staff report, such as the screening sound wall, removed second story, painted green roof, would be submitted at the time of building permit application. Condition of approval no. 5 requires that the height of the revised building shall not exceed 20 feet.
|
Table 1 - Development Standards |
|
|
PAD Development Standards |
Proposed |
Complies? |
|
Minimum Lot Size |
N/A |
25,253 sq. ft. (0.58 Acres) |
Yes, legal parcel. |
|
Minimum Front Setback |
30 feet |
44 feet-1 ¼ inches |
Yes |
|
Minimum Side Setbacks |
20 feet |
69 feet - 8 ½ inches (right) 27 feet-4 ½ inches (left) |
Yes |
|
Minimum Rear Setbacks |
20 feet |
163 feet- 5 ¼ inches |
Yes |
|
Maximum Building Height |
36 feet |
Max. 20 feet, per Condition 5 |
Yes |
b. Substantive Criteria for the Issuance of a PAD Permit
In order to approve and issue a PAD permit, the project must comply with the substantive criteria for the issuance of a PAD permit, as outlined in Section 6355 of the Zoning Regulations. As proposed, the project complies with the following applicable policies.
(1) General Criteria
(a.) The encroachment of all development upon land which is suitable for agriculture shall be minimized.
The project site has no prime soil but contains other land considered suitable for agriculture. While 25,253 sq. ft sq. ft. of the property would be occupied by structures, the pond, and parking areas, the applicant proposed raised garden beds along the southern edge of the property. As the building will be used to store agricultural products, including butchered meat and hay, that would be distributed from this facility, the building has been determined to be supportive of agriculture. However, a PAD Permit is required as the project falls under Section 6353.B.12 as “Facilities for the processing, storing, packaging, and shipping of agricultural products.”
(b.) All development permitted on a site shall be clustered.
The proposed pond, water tank and storage building are clustered at the site.
(c.) Every project shall conform to the Development Review Criteria contained in Chapter 20A.2 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code.
The project has been reviewed under and found to comply with the Development Review Criteria in Chapter 20A.2 of the County Zoning Regulations. Specifically, the project complies with the Site Design, Primary Agricultural Resource Criteria, and Primary Natural Vegetative Area Criteria, as no significant trees were removed during construction, the development is clustered, and the proposed use is compatible with agriculture.
(2) Criteria for the Conversion of Lands Suitable for Agriculture and Other Lands.
Conversion of lands suitable for agriculture and other lands is permitted in the PAD when the following can be demonstrated:
(a.) All agriculturally unsuitable lands on the parcel have been developed or determined to be undevelopable.
The project site has no prime soil and is small for a large-scale agricultural operation; therefore, the site is appropriate for the proposed accessory to agriculture uses and can still be used for small-scale farming activities, as proposed, or other compatible uses listed under Zoning Regulations Section 6352.B. (Permitted Uses on Land Suitable for Agriculture and Other Lands).
(b.) Continued or renewed agricultural use of the soils is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
The subject parcel is not large enough to support large scale agriculture, grazing and/or cattle-raising operation. The proposed storage and refrigeration use directly supports the applicant’s agricultural operations both in San Mateo County and outside of the County. Furthermore, the applicant intends to utilize undeveloped areas of the property for growing herbs and vegetables and keeping bees.
(c.) Clearly defined buffer areas are developed between agricultural and non-agricultural uses.
Only agricultural and accessory to agricultural uses are proposed, which would have no off-site impacts to surrounding agricultural uses.
(d.) The productivity of any adjacent agricultural lands is not diminished, including the ability of the land to sustain dry farming or animal grazing.
The project parcel is located between two parcels practicing active agriculture towards the west and east of the site. The parcel to the north and northeast is a larger 624.21-acre parcel known as “Redgate Ranch”, while the parcel to the west contains residential use associated with an onsite agricultural operation. La Honda Road runs at the south of the parcel and separates the parcel from other agricultural parcels. The productivity of these adjacent agricultural lands is not expected to be impacted by the proposed project.
(e.) Public service and facility expansions and permitted uses do not impair agricultural viability either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality.
The site is not served by public water or sewer service.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The County prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project. The IS/MND was issued with a 20-day public review period, starting October 15, 2025, and ending on November 5, 2025. Staff only received a clarification question from Caltrans regarding the proposed location of trees, to which staff clarified that the required 4 to 5 (15-gallon screening trees as per condition 10) would be planted at the site. Any other comments received by staff after the printing of this report will be discussed at the public hearing.
E. REVIEW BY THE AGRICUTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AAC)
The project was presented at the January 13 and October 20, 2025 AAC meetings. Per the feedback received at the January 13 meeting, staff worked with the applicant to propose a new sound wall in front of the freezer unit, remove the second-story containers, and install more screening facing La Honda Road. A detailed discussion of all the issues raised by AAC and staff’s response is included in Tables 1 and 3 in Attachment F. The revised project includes changes that will help satisfy the AAC’s concerns as shown in Attachment F.
F. ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the recommended action, the Board of Supervisors may choose to continue its review of the project to request additional information; uphold the appeal, deny the project, and identify findings for such denial; or deny the appeal and approve the project with amendments to the suggested conditions of approval.
G. REVIEWING AGENCIES
Agricultural Advisory Committee
County Environmental Health Services
County Planning and Building Department’s Drainage Section
County Planning and Building Department’s Geotechnical Section
California Coastal Commission
San Mateo County Fire Department
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS)
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
Attachments
A. Conditions of Approval and Findings
B. Vicinity Map
C. Project Plans
D. Geotechnical Investigation Design Phase, prepared by Butano Geotechnical Engineering, Inc., dated September 2022
E. Site visit pictures from November 22, 2024
F. AAC Staff Reports of January 13 and October 20, 2025
G. Communication with Stetson Engineering, dated January 16, 2025
H. Noise Reading from Environmental Health Services Specialist, recorded September 7, 2022
I. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, circulated from October 15 to November 5, 2025
J. Public comments
K. PG&E Letter dated September 17, 2024
L. Memo from Resource Conservation District, dated March 6, 2024
M. Appeal Filed November 26, 2025, and appellant’s public comments