Planning Commission makes progress on container ordinance

By Joe Naiman
The Alpine Sun

     SAN DIEGO — The County of San Diego’s Planning Commission recommended an ordinance on the use of cargo containers for adoption, although amendments to the staff-proposed language will result in a March 9 vote on the exact ordinance language — as well as a definition of a phrase, which would trigger restrictions — before the Planning Commission sends the recommendation to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors for adoption.
     The Planning Commission’s 5-0 vote, with Commissioners David Pallinger and Leon Brooks absent, recommends a total ban in historic districts other than temporary construction and a grace period for existing legal containers, color blending requirements, front yard prohibitions, and adherence to setback and total accessory structure requirements.
     Containers are also restricted on lots two acres or less where, “residential use is the primary use”, although the county’s Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) will work with the San Diego County Farm Bureau on the definition of that term to ensure protection for small farmers who live on their property while preventing abuses.
     Although sea cargo containers are intended for the overseas transportation of goods, used containers are often sold to individuals for use as storage facilities. Those that have been placed in residential areas are often not renovated or improved, and complaints to the county about such containers have increased in recent years.
     Under current county regulations sea cargo containers require a building permit unless they are less than 120 square feet and are used as accessory storage buildings without any associated plumbing, electrical, or mechanical permits.
     Containers of 320 square feet or less are exempt from permit and plan check fees under the county’s Homeowners Relief Act, and the container must meet all zoning requirements for use, size, and setbacks. A container on residentially-zoned property must have stucco or frame siding materials and appropriate roofing materials attached to the outside so that it appears to be a normal frame or stucco storage building; siding and roofing materials are not required in zones other than residential.
     The staff ordinance prohibited any container in any area designated as a historic or archaeological landmark or district while allowing containers in areas zoned for residential or agricultural uses if they complied with all building setbacks, were only used for storage, were on a property with a legal primary use and with no zoning or code enforcement violations, were painted a solid color on a list of colors approved by the director of DPLU, and did not exceed the total allowable square footage for accessory structures when added to other structures on the property. In all zones containers would be allowed at temporary construction sites even if permanent use was prohibited (the containers would need to be removed prior to final inspection), and legal non-conforming containers would be allowed for up to two years.
     Past hearings determined that the Farm Bureau was willing to accept a ban in historic districts and was amenable to minimum acreage and restriction of exemptions in residential neighborhoods to certified agricultural operations (the county already allows farm worker housing on certified farms). Because many farms operate on lots zoned for residential use, the Farm Bureau opposes a ban in residential zones.
     Proponents of a ban in the Julian Historic District, who have led the attempt for an ordinance, do not object to containers on farms or on large Back Country residential lots.
     The allowance for large residential lots pleased Michael Thometz of Campo.
     Thometz added that the difference between a cargo container and a trailer was the presence of a chassis and that trailers are often less aesthetic than cargo containers.
     “That’s something that needs to be considered,” he said.
     Murphy’s response to that focused on whether the trailers still had wheels.
     “Once they remove the wheels it’s structurally unsound,” he said. “That would be a code enforcement issue.”
Don Hickle, who represented the Descanso Community Planning Group, noted that his group approved of the staff recommendation with elimination of the requirements for a legal primary use (which would allow containers on an open lot) and for storage only (which would allow work to be performed in the container).
     Hickle also requested that painting be permitted for any solid color, rather than just colors approved by the DPLU director, and that existing non-conforming containers be grand-fathered rather than removed after two years.
     Pine Valley is surrounded by the Cleveland National Forest. Old Highway 80, a designated historical highway, runs through Pine Valley, and Sunrise Highway, a designated scenic highway, overlooks Pine Valley. Most of Pine Valley’s homes are on small lots.
     “This will definitely have an adverse effect on Pine Valley’s community character,” said Bob Smith, who represented the Pine Valley Community Planning Group.
     “The ordinance could allow multiple containers,” Smith said. “The containers pose a fire hazard with no second egress.”
     Container proponents have noted that the containers are fireproof and rodent-proof and allow hazardous materials as well as tools to be stored under lock and key. The solid exterior often makes such containers part of agricultural best management practices to store fertilizers and soil mixes, and many horse owners rely on the containers for feed and equipment storage.
     The staff recommendation was adopted after restricting colors to those that are compatible with the background, requiring containers to be behind a primary residence, and restricting containers on lots of two acres or less where residential use is the primary use to one container of no more than 320 square feet for a temporary period not to exceed six months.
     The limits on small lots cover both residentially-zoned and agriculturally-zoned parcels that addresses subdivisions in which agriculturally-zoned lots have been split into residential lots often falling below two acres.
     Although not all of the Planning Commissioners agreed with all of the elements of the final recommendation, the restrictions included created the unanimous support of those present.
     “This ordinance doesn’t deny anybody the right to meet their needs. It just requires that in meeting those needs they don’t have unfair impacts to their neighbors,” Beck said.

 E-mail the Editor