The County of San Mateo Design Review Committee approved plans Dec. 11 for a new two‑story, 2,739‑square‑foot single‑family residence with an attached two‑car garage and a 700–750‑square‑foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a legal 5,543‑square‑foot lot in El Granada.

The committee approved the project after hearing presentations from the applicant and public comments, voting to approve the design with two conditions: the applicant must upload the land survey and the missing drainage sheet (C‑1) to the planning record. Staff noted CDRC decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 working days of the letter of decision.

Neighbors questioned potential impacts from excavation on the steep lot, stormwater runoff, parking and some missing plan sheets. A nearby resident who identified herself as Vee told the committee: "My number 1 concern... the digging in the area and the implications it will have to my house," and asked whether drilling and foundation work could affect surrounding homes. The applicant responded that a local geotechnical firm, Sigma Prime, conducted test borings and a soils report and that a pier‑and‑grade‑beam foundation will be used. "They're drilling down deep into the rock substrate in order to set the foundation on a series of concrete beams that are held up by those piers into the... heavy rock below," the applicant said, adding typical drilling depth would likely be in the order of 12–16 feet and that geotechnical staff would observe excavations and backfill during construction.

On drainage, members and the applicant said the project includes a drainage plan and measures such as a cistern and dissipation area to prevent impervious‑surface runoff from being directed onto neighboring properties. Staff explained geotechnical and drainage reports are part of the public planning application and can be obtained from the project planner; "His information is on the agenda," staff said regarding project planner Randall Cohen.

Parking and FAR also drew questions. County code requires two covered spaces for the primary dwelling and one space (covered or uncovered) for the ADU; the applicant said the design provides two covered garage spaces plus additional off‑street capacity and that the ADU does not count toward floor‑area‑ratio. The applicant noted the design follows the county's 28‑foot height limit based on survey contours, but acknowledged the survey had not yet been uploaded to the public plan set and the committee required that upload as a condition.

The applicant confirmed a separate tree removal permit is being processed. County staff said the arborist had recommended removal of a severely damaged tree and that copies of the arborist report and application would be made available to interested parties.

After discussion, a committee member moved to approve the project with the two documentation conditions (upload the survey and the drainage sheet); a second was recorded, a roll call was taken and the motion passed. The committee then adjourned.

Next steps: the required survey and drainage sheet must be uploaded to the planning record; the committee's decision is appealable to the Planning Commission within the statutory appeal period.