Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board defers decision on after‑the‑fact container storage; orders documentation and mediation
Loading...
Summary
After a multi‑hour hearing, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted to continue an appeal concerning an after‑the‑fact cargo‑container storage building, pond and unpermitted features in the La Honda scenic corridor for at least 60 days and directed staff to gather documentary evidence and arrange mediation.
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on March 24 continued for at least 60 days an appeal of the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of an after‑the‑fact agricultural permit for a cargo‑container storage building, man‑made pond and related unpermitted improvements on La Honda Road.
Planning and Building Director Steve Monowitz told the board the project site contains multiple unpermitted changes, including stacked shipping containers used for freezer and storage, a pond excavated without permits and an unpermitted bathroom. Staff recommended conditional approval that would require the removal of the top two containers, relocation of a generator outside the required setback, installation of a sound wall to address noise from a refrigeration unit and planting screening along the road, and it set time frames for submittal of building permits and implementation.
Crystal Shea, the neighboring property owner who appealed the Planning Commission decision, told supervisors the record lacks complete construction plans and raised concerns about grading, the creation of the pond and ongoing noise impacts. “There still does not appear to be a fully complete application with updated diagrams to support a fully informed decision,” Shea said, urging more time for review.
Members of the applicant’s family described a multigenerational agricultural operation and argued the structures are necessary for the ranch’s viability. Quince Marqu(e)gard, a student who said he works on the family ranch, told the board the container structure supports market sales that sustain the business.
Supervisors expressed differing views on precedent and process. Supervisor Ray Mueller said the board must verify disputed facts on which the Planning Commission relied — specifically whether power capacity was exhausted at farm sites (requiring the refrigeration to be sited elsewhere) and whether the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District would have allowed the units on its leased farmland. Mueller urged documentary evidence from PG&E and MidPen and asked that the appeal be sent back to the County’s Agricultural Advisory Committee (with the appellant recused) and that the parties undertake county‑facilitated mediation before the matter returns to the board.
Supervisor Lisa Spear said she was concerned about rewarding rule‑breaking by allowing an unpermitted permanent structure to remain without rigorous review, while other supervisors emphasized deference to the Planning Commission and the need to support local agriculture. The substitute motion requiring documentary confirmation, plans and mediation passed on roll call (Speer Aye; Mueller Yes; Gauthier Yes; Canepa No; Corso No).
The board’s directions require staff to seek a letter from PG&E clarifying available electrical capacity at the applicant’s farm parcel and a letter from MidPen clarifying whether refrigeration or storage could be located on the lessee’s farm parcel consistent with coastal plan requirements; require that final building plans be submitted and reviewed; send the matter to the Agricultural Advisory Committee for recommendation; and arrange county‑facilitated mediation between the parties. The item is expected to return within the approximately 60‑day timeline set by the board.