Board delays decision on contested cargo-container storage permit after neighbor complaints
Loading...
Summary
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors continued for 60 days an appeal of a planning commission approval that would legalize an after-the-fact cargo-container storage building, man-made pond and water tank on a small coastal parcel after neighbors raised concerns about missing plans, noise and unpermitted work.
Crystal Shea, a neighbor, appealed a planning commission decision that conditionally approved an after-the-fact agricultural permit to legalize a multi-container storage building, an excavated pond and a nonpotable water tank on a small coastal parcel. The board voted to continue the matter for 60 days and directed staff to gather additional documentation and mediation between the parties.
The matter reached the board after a planning commission decision to permit the structure subject to conditions, including removal of upper containers, a sound wall to mitigate refrigeration noise, removal of an unpermitted bathroom, relocation of a generator out of the front setback, and new landscaping to reduce visual impacts. Planning staff said the applicant must submit building-permit plans within three months and complete required changes within six months of board action.
"There are multiple aspects of this project that remain unsolved," Crystal Shea told supervisors, pointing to apparent inconsistencies in timelines and missing engineering plans and asking for stronger enforcement and verification. She said photographs and attachments in the record suggest the pond excavation may have occurred in a single day rather than incrementally as the applicant had reported.
The applicant, represented by family members including Quince and Larry Marquegard, said the container structure and freezer are essential to their coastside ranching business and that they have worked to legalize the site after having exhausted freezer capacity elsewhere. "I really hope that you all recognize the need to support and help the regenerative local agricultural operations in this county," Quince Marquegard said in his remarks.
Supervisors and staff flagged disputed facts the board said needed documentary confirmation before a final decision. Supervisor Mueller asked staff to obtain a written statement from PG&E about whether additional electrical service could be provided at the applicant's leased farming sites and to request written confirmation from MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District about whether leased farmland could host refrigerated storage. The board also asked for complete engineered construction drawings so building officials can confirm structural and code compliance.
Citing the outstanding factual disputes and neighbor tensions, the board voted to continue the appeal for no sooner than 60 days, with direction that staff obtain: (1) a letter from PG&E regarding electrical capacity/upgrade feasibility to nearby farming parcels; (2) written confirmation from MidPen about whether the farming site cited by the applicant could host refrigeration units; (3) full building plans submitted for departmental review; and (4) a facilitated mediation between the parties to attempt to resolve neighbor disputes.
Supervisor Mueller framed the continuation as a way to resolve contested facts before rendering a quasi-judicial determination at the county level. Supervisor Canepa and others said they respected planning staff’s recommendation but supported the gathering of the narrow factual records requested. Planning staff cautioned that some items (such as scheduling the advisory committee review) might take longer than 60 days to complete.
The board did not make a final determination on whether the structure is consistent with the Local Coastal Program; that legal determination will be revisited after the requested documentation is submitted and evaluated. The item will return to the board following staff collection of the records and the advisory committee review.
