Cargo container ordinance expected to supervisors April 18

For the most part the county Planning Commission’s March 9 adoption of ordinance language on the use of cargo containers was routine, as most of the issues had been settled at a February 23 hearing which returned the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission for a vote on the exact language. One significant addition approved March 9 provides an April 18, 2007, start of a two-year period to remove containers no longer conforming to permitted use, thus signifying a planned April 18 date to docket the ordinance before the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.

The February 23 hearing had been the Planning Commission’s fourth, and the 5-0 vote with two commissioners absent recommended a total ban in historic districts other than temporary construction and a grace period for existing legal containers, color blending requirements, and adherence to setback and total accessory structure requirements along with restrictions on lots two acres or less “where residential use is the primary use.”

The county’s Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) worked with the San Diego County Farm Bureau to ensure that “where residential use is the primary use” exempted legitimate small farming operations. “We asked for a menu of choices on how you can prove that you’re ag,” said Farm Bureau executive director Eric Larson.

The county’s Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures can certify a farm as an agricultural operation; this certification is already in use for zoning exemptions to allow farmworker housing on certified farms. DPLU will rely on farm certification for the cargo container exemptions. “I think we’ve got that one taken care of,” said DPLU director Gary Pryor.

The February 23 amendments to the staff recommendation included requiring containers to be behind (as viewed from the street) a primary residence, and the Farm Bureau had expressed concern that some nurseries have extremely large front areas with sufficient setback distance for a container in front of a residential structure. In the final language, however, the requirement that a container not be visible from the front yard or any roadway along the parcel applies only to sites “where the primary use of the property is residential.” That front-yard prohibition applies to properties of all sizes where the primary use is residential, and on such properties under two acres only one container is allowed, the footprint of the container cannot exceed 320 square feet, and the site can only have a container for 180 days during any five-year period.

Another February 23 amendment covering exterior color requires that the selected color matches the surrounding natural environment as closely as possible. The staff recommendation had required the container to be painted a solid color from a list of colors approved by the DPLU director. At a previous hearing a recommendation that containers be painted a neutral or earth-tone color produced a Farm Bureau suggestion to allow white paint for containers near greenhouses so that the container would blend in with the greenhouse structure.

The ordinance content in addition to the Planning Commission’s February 23 amendments also prohibits 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 comply with all building setbacks, are only used for storage, are on a property with a legal primary use and with no zoning or code enforcement violations, and do not exceed the total allowable square footage for accessory structures when added to other structures on the property. In all zones containers will 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 will be allowed for up to two years.