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 an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the appeal of a Design Review permit and Grading Permit, for the construction of a new 5,935 sq. ft. two-story single-family residence with an attached 744 sq. ft. three-car garage, on Jefferson Avenue in the Emerald Lake Hills area of the unincorporated County.
County File No: PLN2025-00201 (Ernst/Simpson)
RECOMMENDATION:
title
Conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal of the Director of Planning and Building’s decision to approve a Design Review permit and Grading Permit for the construction of a new 5,935 sq. ft. two-story single-family residence on Jefferson Avenue in the Emerald Lake Hills area of the unincorporated County:
A) Open Public Hearing
B) Close Public Hearing
C) Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Building’s decision to approve a Design Review permit and Grading permit, by adding additional conditions that address the contentions of the appeal, and by making findings and adopting the conditions of approval in Attachment A, and finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
body
BACKGROUND:
The proposed project is a new 5,935 sq. ft. two-story single-family residence with an attached 744 sq. ft. three-car garage, on Parcel A (21,979 gross sq. ft.;19,882 net sq. ft.) of an approved subdivision (PLN2021-00357), located on Jefferson Avenue in the Emerald Lake Hills area of the unincorporated County. The existing single-family residence on the project site would be demolished. The project involves a staff-level grading permit for 420 cubic yards (c.y) of grading.
Report Prepared By: Jonathan Bruns, Project Planner
Appellant: Sung Sim Park
Applicant: Steve Simpson
Owner: Gary Ernst
Public Notification: Ten-day advanced notification for the hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project parcel and a notice for the hearing posted in a newspaper (San Mateo County Times) of general public circulation.
Location: Jefferson Avenue, Emerald Lake Hills
APN: 057-270-970
Size: 21,979 sq. ft. (19,882 sq. ft. net)
Existing Zoning: RH / DR
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Existing Land Use: Developed, single-family residence
Water Supply: Redwood City Municipal Water Department
Sewage Disposal: Emerald Lake Sewer District (County)
Flood Zone: Zone X (areas of minimal flood hazard), FEMA Panel 06081C0117F, Effective Date: August 2, 2017
Environmental Evaluation: This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303, Class 3(a), relating to the construction of one single-family residence in an urban residential zone.
Setting: The subject parcel is located in an area designated for single-family residential use and is currently developed. Developed parcels with residences are located on all sides, with the exception of the parcel to the south that contains the Upper Emerald Lake.
Chronology:
Date Action
October 24, 2022 - Minor Subdivision approved under PLN2021-00357
July 7, 2025 - Application received.
October 16, 2025 - Project deemed complete.
November 4, 2025 - Emerald Lake Hills Design Review meeting held. The Design Review Officer (DRO) received public comment from speakers including the appellant, who expressed concerns regarding work within an easement, house size and location, lake view blockage, and privacy impacts, among other concerns. The DRO addressed these concerns and recommended the project for approval.
November 26, 2025 - Director of Planning and Building issues Letter of Decision on project to applicant.
December 11, 2025 - Appeal of Director of Planning and Building decision filed with County.
April 8, 2026 - Planning Commission public hearing. Planning Commission upheld approval of the project.
April 23, 2026 - Appeal of Planning Commission decision filed with County.
August 11, 2026 - Board of Supervisors hearing.
DISCUSSION:
A. APPEAL
At its regular meeting on April 8, 2026, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the staff level approval, as well as public comments, and upheld the decision by the DRO to approve the project with conditions, by a vote of 3 - 0.
Staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission decision on April 23, 2026, from Sung Sim Park, a neighbor who resides at 3865 Jefferson Avenue. The appellant states that the permit should not have been approved, as there are outstanding privacy and drainage issues that are insufficiently addressed by the conditions set by the Planning Commission.
Concern with Condition 6 added to Require Privacy Screening
The appellant asserts that Condition 6 conflicts with the County Zoning Ordinance fence/hedge height rules and does not take into account impacts of the required landscape screening. Condition 6 reads as follows:
The screening materials between the two subject parcels shall be increased from the proposed 5-gallon, Pittosporum tenuifolia, to 15-gallon minimum size, evergreen species that achieves a minimum height of 20 to 25 feet in mature growth. The applicant shall provide photographs to the Design Review Officer to verify adherence to this condition prior to a final building permit approval by the Current Planning Section.
Expressing concern that high vegetation will block light and air to their property, and that privacy concerns (included in their previous appeal) are better addressed by Condition 16 (which recommends a second story clerestory window), the appellant requests a revision to Condition 6 to limit the height of vegetation to 6 feet and to avoid placement of vegetation in the lake pathway easement. Staff notes that trees are not subject to hedge height limits if maintained as separate trees. Staff has changed Condition 6 to require that the required planting be maintained as separate trees and not be located in the lake pathway easement.
Condition 16, as approved by the Planning Commission, recommends, but does not require, a clerestory window for the rearward-facing second floor bedroom to further alleviate privacy concerns for the rear neighbor. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant expressed reluctance to make this recommended change.
Drainage Concerns
Additionally, the appellant states the Grading Permit application is missing information required by Section 10.68.060(A)(5) of the Grading Regulations. The appellant contends that their only chance to comment on drainage issues is during the Design Review permit stage as there is no public comment or hearing aspects during building permit review. The appellant states that missing information, specifically contour lines on the appellant's property and the location of nearby protected trees, impedes their ability to understand how drainage and potential flooding issues involving their property will be resolved. The appellant asserts that the proposed new driveway profile as it connects to Jefferson Avenue will affect the existing drainage pattern. According to the appellant, their property has been subjected to flooding during heavy rains and that special care needs to be taken to prevent exacerbation of flooding from project runoff and any changes to the drainage profile.
The appellant made a similar assertion in their previous appeal. The project has been found to adequately comply with the requirements of the Drainage Manual; no additional information is needed prior to Planning approval. Upon building permit issuance, the project would also be inspected by the relevant agencies for compliance with conditions of approval.
B. KEY ISSUES
1. Conformance with the General Plan
The subject parcel is designated by the General Plan as a Low-Density Residential use area, with a density of 0.3 - 2.3 dwelling units per acre. The subject parcel is a standard-size parcel of 21,979 sq. ft., which, if developed with a single-family residence, would result in a density of approximately 1.98 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the General Plan density designation.
The proposed project conforms to General Plan policies 2.17 (Regulate Development to minimize Soil Erosion and Sedimentation) and 2.23 (Regulate Excavation, Grading, Filling, and Land Clearing Activities Against Accelerated Soil Erosion) through erosion control measures included in the plans.
2. Conformance with Design Review District Guidelines
a. Recommendation by the DRO
On November 4, 2025, the DRO reviewed the project at the Emerald Lake Hills Design Review Meeting. At that meeting, the DRO received public comment from speakers including from Sung Sim Park, the appellant at 3875 Jefferson Avenue, who expressed concerns regarding work within a pathway easement, changes to drainage flow with the proposed driveway, house size and location, lake view blockage, privacy impacts, among other concerns. The applicant responded that the second floor was narrowed to mitigate view impacts to the neighbor at 3875 Jefferson, that the house was sited in order to be as far from the adjoining property line as practical, that the appellant does not currently have a view of the lake (because it is blocked by existing vegetation on the subject parcel), and that privacy impacts would be minimal due to the distance of the appellant’s house and intervening vegetation. Based on the foregoing, the DRO recommended approval of the project as it was in substantial compliance with the design review standards. The DRO stated that the proposed project was in compliance with the Design Review standards based on site planning, colors, materials, and privacy, providing compatibility with other surrounding developments. In the Letter of Decision approving the project, the DRO included a recommendation for the applicant to change the second-story rearward facing bedroom window to a clerestory window in order to reduce potential privacy impacts to the appellant’s property.
3. Conformance with Zoning Regulations
a. Compliance with the RH Zoning District Regulations
The 21,979-square foot project site conforms to the minimum lot size of the RH/DR zoning district. As shown in the table below, the project complies with the requirements of this zoning district.
|
Table 1 - Compliance with the RH/DR Zoning District |
|
|
Required |
Proposed |
Complies? |
|
Min. Side Yard |
7.5 ft |
Right: 11 ft - 3 in |
Yes |
|
Setback |
|
Left: 35 ft - 2 in |
|
|
Min. Combined Side |
20 ft |
46 ft - 5 in |
Yes |
|
Yard Setback |
|
|
|
|
Min. Front Setback |
20 ft |
21 ft -1 in |
Yes |
|
Min. Rear Setback |
20 ft |
20 ft - 2 in |
Yes |
|
Max. Building Height |
28 ft |
27 ft - 10 in |
Yes |
|
Max. Floor Area |
30% |
29.86% |
Yes |
|
Ratio |
|
(5,935.86 sq ft) |
|
|
Max. Building Site |
25% |
22.76% |
Yes |
|
Coverage |
|
(4,524.25 sq ft) |
|
|
Min. Average Lot |
50 ft |
121. 71 ft |
Yes |
|
Width |
|
|
|
|
Min. Lot Size |
12,000 sq ft |
21, 979 sq ft |
Yes |
4. Conformance with Grading Regulations
The proposed project requires approximately 670 c.y. of cut and 130 c.y. of fill to accommodate the proposed driveway and residence. Planning and Geotechnical staff have reviewed the proposal and submitted reports and determined that the project conforms to the criteria for review contained in the Regulations for Excavating, Grading, Filling and Clearing on Lands in Unincorporated San Mateo County (referred to in this report as “Grading Regulations”). The findings and supporting evidence are outlined below:
a. That the granting of the permit will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
The project would have a less-than-significant impact on the environment with the implementation of standard conditions of approval which will require excavated earth to be hauled off-site and deposited to an approved disposal location, require application of erosion control measures prior to and during project grading and construction, place limitations on grading during the wet season, and require the Project Engineer to submit written certification that all grading has been completed in conformance with the approved plans, conditions of approval, and the Grading Regulations.
b. That the project conforms to the criteria of the San Mateo County Grading Ordinance.
The project, as conditioned, conforms to the criteria for review in the Grading Regulations, including an erosion and sediment control plan and dust control measures. The project was reviewed by the Geotechnical section and the Drainage section of the County Building department. Both reviewing sections gave conditional approval that the project conforms with the Grading ordinance.
c. That the project is consistent with the General Plan.
As outlined earlier in Section B.1 of this report, the project conforms to applicable components of the County’s General Plan.
C. ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the action, the Board of Supervisors may choose to continue its review of the project to request additional information; deny the project and identify findings for such denial; or approve the project with amendments to the suggested conditions of approval.
D. ENVIORNMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303, Class 3(a), relating to the construction of one single-family residence in an urban, residential zone.
E. REVIEWING AGENCIES
Department of Public Works - Roads Section
Department of Public Works - Sewers Section
Drainage Review Section
Geotechnical Section
Parks Department
Woodside Fire Protection District
This report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney’s Office as to form.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the County from denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the requested permits.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval
B. Location Map showing vicinity, subject site, and Appellant’s residence.
C. Plans reviewed by Design Review Officer on November 4, 2025
D. Staff Report Submitted to Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 2026
E. Appeal Documents Filed April 23, 2026
F. Appeal Documents Filed December 11, 2025