San Mateo AAC Tables After‑the‑Fact Request to Legalize 3‑story Shipping‑container Structure at 350 Madera Lane

San Mateo County’s Agricultural Advisory Committee on Jan. 13 reviewed an after‑the‑fact planned agricultural development (PAD) application for 350 Madera Lane in unincorporated San Gregorio and voted to table the matter pending additional information from county staff and state agencies.

The application, filed as PON202300112 by applicant Eric Markegaard, seeks to legalize a three‑story, approximately 2,299‑square‑foot shipping‑container storage structure, a pond and a 5,000‑gallon plastic water tank on a 25,253‑square‑foot parcel (APN 081‑320‑030). The proposal also references a separate 10,000‑gallon tank used for a fire water supply. County planner Sonal Agarwal told the committee that the project remains incomplete and is under active review by environmental health, geotechnical and drainage reviewers.

Why it matters: Neighbors and committee members raised water‑rights, public‑health and land‑use concerns that could affect adjacent agricultural operations if the county approves a legalization without resolving state water‑rights and code‑compliance issues. The committee requested follow‑up from planning staff before making a recommendation to the Planning Commission.

Public concerns and code issues

Neighbor Ronnie Cardoza, who lives immediately west of the parcel, said the property lacks recorded water rights and that the owner is relying on roof runoff to fill the pond and tanks. "From what I can see from Google Earth, the pond was dug between October 2009 [and] March 2010," Cardoza said, and he presented documents he said show no water rights tied to the APN. He asked how a pond supplied by roof runoff could be legal where no water rights exist and whether overflow would damage downstream crops.

Cardoza also complained about noise from a freezer on the property and presented decibel readings he said ranged between 42 and 51 dBA at night. He asked whether the freezer's operation exceeded county nighttime limits and whether the site had adequate vehicle access for emergency response.

Multiple members of the committee raised related issues: potential unpermitted living quarters in the older barn, previous county violations connected with grading and containers, setbacks for wells, adequacy of firefighting water, and whether roof runoff can be used to support commercial production of herbs or vegetables without potable water and state approvals.

Applicant response and staff status

Applicant Eric Markegaard said the structure was intended to support his agricultural business — primarily storage and cold storage for meat product distribution — and that he had no regular employees working at the site. "I'm proposing to legalize the structure for agricultural use," Markegaard said, and he said the 10,000‑gallon tank is used for fire protection and that the pond is small and percolates into sandstone.

Planner Sonal Agarwal confirmed the project remains incomplete and that several technical reviews are outstanding. She said the county requested a biological report to evaluate pond impacts, is reviewing geotechnical and drainage materials, and that environmental health is reviewing the well and septic issues. Agarwal also said fire has provided conditions and that staff will follow up with state agencies on water‑rights questions.

Committee action and next steps

Committee member James O'Hoo moved to table the item until the application is complete and outstanding questions are answered; the motion was seconded by Crystal Shea and carried on a voice vote. The committee asked planning staff to return with the results of pending reviews, clarifications on water‑rights status and the environmental health and fire conditions, and any records of code‑enforcement findings about prior inspections and alleged on‑site habitation.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to table consideration of PON202300112 until the county deems the application complete and staff has followed up on outstanding issues. Moved by James O'Hoo; seconded by Crystal Shea. Outcome: motion carried by voice vote (committee recorded "Aye"; no roll‑call tally provided in the meeting record).

Background and context

The parcel is within the county's planned agricultural development zone and the coastal scenic corridor for San Gregorio. The staff report (covering Nov. 25–Dec. 18) notes no prior coastal development exemptions during the review period and lists the project planner as Sonal Agarwal. The application packet lists multiple agricultural uses on the parcel, including cold storage, hay and beekeeping; county staff and committee members debated whether storage uses on a separate parcel can legally be considered supportive agricultural uses.

Several committee members emphasized that the panel's role is to advise the Planning Commission and that a complete administrative record is needed before making a recommendation. Planner Agarwal committed to returning with follow‑up information at a future meeting.

Ending

The AAC continued the item to allow county staff to complete environmental health, geotechnical and drainage reviews, clarify water‑rights issues with state agencies, and assemble available records of code‑enforcement inspections. The committee expects to revisit the application once staff reports back.