Cargo container hearing continued to July to allow public review

The county’s Planning Commission continued a hearing on a proposed cargo container ordinance until July 28 to allow for sufficient public review of the draft ordinance.

The continuance from the May 19 hearing provides a 70-day period for public review and community planning group input, allowing for the 60-day period requested by some members of the Planning Commission. Additional County Counsel review on the proposed ordinance led to a delay in the availability of the draft ordinance, and the actual draft ordinance therefore could not be reviewed by members of the public until the week of the May 19 hearing.

“We’ve got 60 days to think about it,” said Planning Commission chair Adam Day.

During a December meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the supervisors directed a review of ordinances and regulations on the use of sea cargo containers, specifically in residential areas, to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses and community character. 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 which 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.

The current ordinance considers sea cargo containers to be accessory buildings. A building permit is required for containers exceeding 120 square feet, although containers smaller than 320 square feet do not require fees for permits, plan check review, or inspections if no plumbing or electrical permits are required. Such containers in residential zones must have stucco or frame siding materials and appropriate roofing materials attached to the outside to create the appearance of a normal frame or stucco storage building; such siding and roofing materials are not required outside of residential zones. The containers must also meet zoning requirements for use, size, and setback distance.

The proposed amendment would ban all sea cargo containers as accessory buildings in residential use zones, or zoning which begins with RS, RD, RM, RV, RU, RMH, RR, RRO, or RC. The draft ordinance allows for a two-year removal period for existing containers in those zones with building permits, although illegal structures would not have that grace period. The ban also would not apply to storage containers used during remodeling or other temporary construction provided that a building permit has been issued, although the building permit’s conditions will include removal of the containers prior to the final inspection for occupancy approval.

A complete ban on such containers, other than for temporary construction, would also apply to the entire Julian Historic District as well as to any subsequently-designated historic districts.

Containers would be permitted in areas with agricultural (A70 or A72) or special purpose (S80, S87, S88, S90, or S92) zoning if stucco or frame siding materials and a pitched roof, both similar to the main dwelling, are attached to the outside. Those zoning designations allow for residential uses but are not intended to create primarily residential neighborhoods, and those areas also tend to have larger lots which allow more options for placement and reduce the possibility of the containers being highly visible from the street.

The ordinance also defines a sea cargo container as any portable container six feet or more in length referred to as a sea cargo container, cargo container, storage container, or office container which is primarily designated or used for transporting freight by commercial transportation, storage, or as an office.

The proposed ordinance does not address such containers in areas zoned for industrial, commercial, or civic use.

The May 19 hearing included public comment, although the new public review period means that public comment was not closed and will be allowed at the July 28 hearing. “I think it’s good that you’re putting this into ordinance form,” said Robert Stuart of Julian. “We’ve got a real serious problem in Julian.”

Stuart also noted that the temporary construction exemption would likely work for contractors, who move such containers from site to site, but might be violated for owner-builders, especially when a spouse is tired of living in temporary housing and the family returns to the renovated house before the final inspection.

Stuart also noted that some agricultural activities such as citrus and avocado groves occur in residential zones and suggested a minimum lot size requirement as a possible option instead of bans for specific zoning designations. “Under an acre or two they’re just not appropriate,” he said.

“I support the ordinance, though I do not feel it goes far enough,” said Janis Shackelford of Blossom Valley.

Shackelford supports containers only in industrial zones and warned about abuses if containers were allowed on residential parcels with S88 specific plan zoning.

“These do not belong in residential zones,” Shackelford said. “They’re really compatible only with industrial type uses.”

The initial draft ordinance is opposed by the San Diego County Farm Bureau. “These are a great secure place to put tools or equipment,” said Farm Bureau executive director Eric Larson.

The solid exterior often makes such containers part of best management practices to store fertilizers and soil mixes. “They also meet the county’s requirement for pesticide storage,” Larson said.

The containers allow hazardous materials as well as tools to be stored under lock and key. “They’re affordable and they are very mobile,” Larson said.

Larson opposed the outright ban in residential zones. “A lot of our agriculture doesn’t occur in agricultural zones,” he said.

Larson supports a minimum lot size requirement. “We think that is the reasonable way to proceed on this,” he said. “We understand why this is an important residential issue. We have no quarrel with that.”

Because Larson received the information late, the Farm Bureau did not provide a specific recommendation for minimum lot size. The Farm Bureau sent out an electronic mail notification May 15 and received 23 phone calls to the office, a much greater amount than normal for such e-mail alerts.

Larson noted that two potential levels of security exist to prevent abuses. One is the minimum acreage requirement. The other is to restrict such exemptions to certified agricultural operations. The county already allows farmworker housing on certified farms. “We would suggest the same thing on these containers,” Larson said. “The hobby farms wouldn’t slip through.”

Larson also expressed support for the historic district ban.

Michael Thometz operates a recycling facility in Campo. He notes that the containers are waterproof and rodent-proof. He also cited the portability. “I can move it anywhere,” he said. “On larger parcels, particularly in the backcountry, I think it’s wrong and unfair to remove them.”

In his recycling business Thometz often handles sheet metal shed exteriors which have blown off their structures due to high winds. “These things don’t blow away,” Thometz said of the containers.

“On an eight-acre parcel or above, I think these should be allowed to be used,” Thometz said. “Large parcels are not Downtown La Jolla residential lots.” (La Jolla is in the City of San Diego and is not subject to county land use ordinances, but Thometz used the example to cite the differences between urban and rural communities.)

Robert Marin, who lives on Palomar Mountain, notes that the containers are fireproof. “I see cargo containers as a rescue method,” he said. “If there’s any disaster in this county these containers are going to survive.”

In 2004 the San Luis Rey Downs Thoroughbred Training Center was honored by the County of San Diego for its recycling efforts. “That’s where I put this waste, in these containers,” said Leigh Ann Howard, the general manager of San Luis Rey Downs. “You have to store them in a very secure area.”

Thometz noted that containers protect PVC pipe from the sun while Howard noted that galvanized pipe cannot be stored outside. “It’s absurd,” Howard said of the proposed ordinance. “This is the craziest thing I’ve ever heard.”

The Planning Commission voted 7-0 for the continuance, but some members expressed sympathy for the containers. “One of the real assets of these are that they are indeed portable,” said commissioner Read Miller.