Staff Report Date: December 30, 2005 Deputy Director:

Transcription

1 Staff Report Submitted to: SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Regarding: Santa Lucia Farm Veterinary Facility 01DVP /01CUP / 05CUP /05CUP Hearing Date: January 11, 2006 Supervisorial District: Third Staff Report Date: December 30, 2005 Deputy Director: Zoraida Abresch Planner: Brian A. Tetley Environmental Document: 03-ND-27 Phone No.: (805) OWNER/APPLICANT: Van E. Snow DVM, Inc West Highway 154 Santa Ynez, CA (805) AGENT: Ms. Tish Beltranena MNS Engineers, Inc. 201 Industrial Way Buellton, CA (805) Assessor Parcel Number , east of Highway 154, approximately ¼ mile northwest of the intersection of State Highway 154 and Baseline Avenue, 1924 West Highway 154, Santa Ynez Valley area, Third Supervisorial District 1.0 REQUEST Hearing on the request of Tish Beltranena, agent for the owner, Van E. Snow DVM, to consider the following: DVP [application filed on February 21, 2001] for approval of a Final Development Plan to approve 29,116 square feet of existing structural development; CUP [application filed on February 21, 2001] for a Conditional Use Permit allowing an animal hospital; CUP [application filed on July 29, 2005] for a Conditional Use Permit allowing a composting operation; and

2 Staff Report Page CUP [application filed on July 29, 2005] for a Conditional Use Permit allowing a farm employee dwelling; under the provisions of Article III (Inland Zoning Ordinance) of Chapter 35 of the County Code for land zoned Agriculture I, ten acres minimum parcel size (AG-I-10), and to approve the proposed revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 03-ND-27 pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Applications Filed: February 21, 2001 and July 29, 2005 Application Complete: May 7, 2001 and December 13, 2005 Processing Deadline: 60 days from acceptance of Negative Declaration 2.0 RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES Follow the procedures outlined below and conditionally approve Case Numbers 01CUP , 05CUP , 05CUP , and 01DVP marked "Officially Accepted, County of Santa Barbara January 11, 2006 Planning Commission Exhibit 1", based upon the project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and on the ability to make the required findings. Your Commission's motion should include the following: 2.1 Adopt the required findings for the project specified in Attachment A of this staff report, including CEQA findings; 2.2 Accept Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-ND-27, included as Attachment F, and adopt the mitigation monitoring program contained in the conditions of approval; 2.3 Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 01DVP subject to the conditions included as Attachment B of the staff report dated December 30, 2005; 2.4 Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 01CUP subject to the conditions included as Attachment C of the staff report dated December 30, 2005; 2.5 Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 05CUP subject to the conditions included as Attachment D of the staff report dated December 30, Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 05CUP subject to the conditions included as Attachment E of the staff report dated December 30, Refer back to staff if the Planning Commission takes other than the recommended action for appropriate findings and conditions.

3 Staff Report Page JURISDICTION This project is being considered by the Planning Commission based on the following: DVP Pursuant to Sec of Article III (Inland Zoning Ordinance) of Chapter 35 of the County Code which reserves all Development Plans in residential and agricultural zone districts to the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission CUP /01CUP /01CUP Minor Conditional Use Permits are normally under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Administrator. However, pursuant to Sec d of Article III (Inland Zoning Ordinance) of Chapter 35 of the County Code, projects with project components subject to the jurisdiction of more than one decisionmaker are decided by the decisionmaker with the highest jurisdiction. Therefore, the project in its entirety shall be under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. 4.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ISSUES 4.1 Location and Setting The proposed project location is approximately 2¼ miles southeast of the township of Los Olivos within the Santa Ynez Valley. The subject property consists of one (1) valid legal parcel of approximately 10 acres in area, referred to as Assessor s Parcel Number The project abuts Old San Marcos Pass Road, which serves as frontage adjacent to and parallel with Highway 154. The property is located approximately ¼ mile southeast of the intersection of Old San Marcos Pass Road and Highway 154. The surrounding area is designated as Inner-Rural and is predominantly rural in character and is surrounded by various small-lot agricultural operations and ranchette residential development. The landowner purchased the property in In 2001, a neighbor to the project site registered a complaint regarding excess lighting and glare from the project arenas. Subsequent to the complaint, P&D research indicated that the veterinary clinic use and some structures required permitting. The proposed project is proposed to validate the veterinary clinic use and all other uses and structures on the subject property.

4 Staff Report Page Project Components The project landowner intends to satisfy all permit requirements to provide a clean permit history for the subject property. The proposed project is intended to validate existing structural development and uses through four specific permit requests: Final Development Plan No. 01DVP The first request is for the approval of a Final Development Plan (01DVP ) to validate existing structures totaling 27,960 ft 2 of area. All of the existing structural development has been permitted with numerous Land Use and Building permits through the years, with the exception of those structures that date from the turn of the 20 th century, prior to the institution of zoning (c. 1958) and related permitting requirements. Another exception is a 2,304 s.f. structure (Bldg. 6,7,8) that serves as a barn, storage room, and farm employee dwelling that was constructed in the year 2000 without benefit of permits. The zoning ordinance requires approval of a Development Plan once structural development exceeds 20,000 ft 2 on any single parcel (Art. III, Sec ). Existing development on the subject property totals 27,960 ft 2, hence the Development Plan requirement. Please see Figure 1 below for a table of the existing structural development and respective sizes and uses. Figure 1 LAND USE DESCRIPTION (Date, Permit #) EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL AREA 1. Existing Main Residence (1907) 1, , Patio Cover (1977, #74909) Existing Barn / Proposed Equine Veterinary Facility (97LUN467, #262769) * 17, , Existing Equipment Barn (c.1900) * 1, , Existing Storage Shed (c.1900) * 2, , Existing 14-Stall Barn (1988, 88-LUN-467) * 2, , Proposed 8-Stall Foaling Barn to be legalized (1,728 sf) * 2, , Proposed Farm Employee Dwelling (432 sf) 8. Proposed Storage Room (144 sf) 9. Carport/Patio Cover (1951) BUILDING COVERAGE TOTAL 25, , Proposed Composting Area , , Roads, Parking, Walkways 86, <5,554.00> 81, Landscaping 67, , Equine arenas, paddocks, round pens, etc. * 280, , GROSS LAND TOTAL 460, , TOTAL: Water Wells # Septic Systems Parking Spaces (on-site) 32 n/a 32 * Proposed change of use to Equine Veterinary Facility

5 Staff Report Page Conditional Use Permit No. 01CUP The second request is for the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (01CUP ) to validate the existing veterinary clinic (animal hospital) use. Within the Agriculture I zoning designation, the use of property and/or structures as an Animal Hospital requires approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (Art. III, Sec ) Conditional Use Permit No. 05CUP The third request is for the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (05CUP ) to validate an existing 432 s.f. farm employee dwelling apartment located within portion 7 of Building 6,7,8. Within the Agriculture I zoning designation, the use of property and/or structures as a Farm Employee Dwelling requires approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (Art. III, Sec ). The farm employee dwelling is currently served by an existing septic system. A permit application has been submitted to EHS which has yet to be finalized Conditional Use Permit No. 05CUP Chronology The fourth request is for the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (05CUP ) for operation of a composting operation to manage on-site animal waste generation. Within the Agriculture I zoning designation, the use of property and/or structures as a Farm Employee Dwelling requires approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (Art. III, Sec ). The original project proposal was received on February 21, 2001 and determined to be a complete application on May 7, Progress stalled from this point until the CEQA Initial Study was prepared and the conclusions therein agreed to by the applicant on February 2, Members of the Planning Commission performed a site visit on September 20, 2004 in preparation for the Planning Commission hearing of September 22, During the site visit, an unpermitted barn (Bldg. 6,7,8) was discovered which contained an unpermitted Farm Employee Dwelling. During the September 22, 2004 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to allow time for the applicant and staff to revise the project to incorporate the newly discovered project components. Thereafter, the applicant submitted additional Conditional Use Permit applications for the permitting of the Farm Employee Dwelling and proposed Composting system on July 29, In response to the new applications, a revised application completeness determination was issued on December 13, Final analysis and preparation was then initiated in preparation for today s hearing.

6 Staff Report Page Land Use Compatibility The subject 10-acre parcel is located in an agricultural area within the inner-rural boundary of the Santa Ynez Valley and is surrounded by residential and agricultural development on parcels that average approximately seven (7) acres in size. The Santa Ynez Valley supports many kinds of equestrian activities. Therefore, an additional equine veterinary facility in the area is a valuable support use to promote ongoing equestrian activities in the area. The Agriculture I zone district allows the raising of one (1) large animal per 20,000 square feet of land per lot without a permit. Based on this ordinance standard, up to 23 large animals would be allowed to be raised on the subject parcel (10.57 acres) without a permit. At this scale, a horse operation would be considered compatible with the surrounding neighborhood de facto. However, unlike property within the Agriculture II zone district, the Animal Hospital use requires the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (01CUP ) in the Agricultural I zone district. This is due to the potential neighborhood compatibility issues raised by the localized concentration of animals and issues related to the normal operation of an agricultural/commercial enterprise (e.g. lighting, traffic, etc.) near residential uses. The proposed project description includes the boarding of up to 100 large animals 1. The facility is expected to approach maximum capacity only during the peak foaling season (April-June). Intensity of use is typically somewhat less during the majority (July-March) of the typical year. At peak capacity, this equates to a density of approximately 10 large animals per acre. In addition to the density of animals onsite, three key spatial factors are important in the determination of land use compatibility. These are: 1) character of neighboring properties (rural/urban), 2) distance to sensitive uses/receptors, 3) internal project site layout Character of Surrounding Neighborhood The surrounding neighborhood is designated as Inner-Rural and exhibits the key components of this designation, a mix of small to medium-sized rural agriculturallyzoned properties that range the gamut from parcels in active crop agriculture almost entirely under cultivation, to parcels in active forage/animal agriculture with large areas of pasture with a ranchette residential component, to smaller parcels with more space devoted to residential-related structures with space only for boarding personal riding horses, etc. In regards to the intensity of this or other agricultural uses in the inner-rural area, there may be benefit and detriment to minimizing the scope of operations of facilities since demand may require more, smaller facilities. 1 Mainly horses, with a few cattle for rehabilitation of cow cutting horses. For the purposes of this analysis, and to be consistent with past projects, the definition of one horse includes a mare and an unweaned foal (i.e. double occupancy in some stalls). Therefore, this approval would theoretically include up to 200 horses (mare and foal) during the peak foaling season. Practically, however, the number would range from significantly less than 100 to significantly less than 200.

7 Staff Report Page 7 Maximizing the scope of well-sited facilities may tend to benefit surrounding neighbors and the wider community at large. In relation to the subject parcel, properties to the north and west have large areas of cultivation/pasture that serve as buffers from residential uses. Those properties to the south and east, although not benefiting from similar buffer areas, are nearly optimally organized to place compatible uses (e.g. residential to residential/active ag./active ag.) proximate to each other. In this case, the layout of compatible uses and the significant buffer areas tend to maximize the neighborhood compatibility of the clinic operation while minimizing the potential of nuisance to the neighbors Distance to Sensitive Uses/Receptors Please see the following table (Figure 2) for a description of surrounding properties and the distances to sensitive uses/residences. The distances to residences subject to nuisance effects are shown for each parcel. Distance is a key factor on whether nuisance effects from odor, dust, flies, noise, and to a lesser extent light, would be significant from a neighboring property. The distance to a residence, if any, from a particular property is reported in two ways. The nominal distance is reported from the subject property boundary to the residence. However, since areas of the subject property are in residential or passive use as pasture, etc. the effective distance is reported from the active area of subject property to the residence. The effective distance is a better indicator of true potential for nuisance. Figure 2 SANTA LUCIA FARM VETERINARY CLINIC Neighboring Properties & Distance to Sensitive Receptors No. Direction Parcel No. Size (acres) Distance to Residence (nominal feet) Distance to Residence (effective feet) Wind Effect Buffer Area Screening Landscaping 1 North No residence No residence Upwind Yes No 2 Northwest * 813* Upwind Yes Yes 3 West Upwind Yes Yes 4 South Slightly downwind No Yes 5 South Downwind Yes Yes 6 South No residence No residence Downwind Yes Yes 7 Southeast ,004 1,350 Downwind Yes Yes 8 Southeast ,050 Downwind Yes Yes 9 Southeast Downwind Yes Yes 10 East Downwind Yes Yes * Residential use of barn instituted after establishment of vet. clinic.

8 Staff Report Page 8 The predominant wind direction also plays a role on whether neighboring properties are subject to nuisance effects from odor or dust. The predominant winds in the area are out of the northwest, with the exception of Santa Ana wind conditions during which winds are roughly reversed. Figure 2 denotes those surrounding properties that are upwind or downwind of the subject project site. With the exception of property No. 4 (Figure 2) which is positioned slightly downwind, those properties with residences that are downwind of the project site are quite some distance away, ranging between 630 and 1,350 feet effective distance. Figure 2 also denotes those neighboring properties with open space buffers and/or intervening screening landscaping from the subject property. Figure 3, below graphically depicts the spatial relationship between the subject facility and neighboring parcels. Figures 2 and 3 show that there are three neighboring properties that are upwind of the subject property. Two of these properties contain residences. Both of these two properties also have large areas of open buffer space between the veterinary clinic. However, there are six neighboring properties that are downwind of the subject facility. Five of these properties have established residences. These properties have residences that range from 630 to 1,350 feet effective distance from the active areas of the subject facility. However, these properties also have large areas of open space buffers and intervening landscaping from the subject property. Property No. 4 in Figures 2 and 3 has by far the closest residence to the subject property, 42 feet. And although the property is only slightly downwind of the subject facility and the residence is adjacent to the residence of the facility property buffered by intervening landscaping, the residence is also adjacent to the driveway access for the clinic facility. Of the neighboring properties, property No. 4 is expected to have the highest potential for nuisance effects from the subject facility.

9 Staff Report Page 9 Figure 3

10 Staff Report Page Internal Site Layout The layout of the subject horse operation can be delineated into zones of use/activity. These activity types are roughly categorized as follows: 1) active - more intense agricultural activity with concentration of animals in motion (e.g. arenas), 2) passive - animals present but either lodged or resting or cultivated fields (e.g. open pasture), 3) residential - actual residences with accessory buildings and adjacent lawns/gardens. The type of activity adjacent to neighboring properties can have a significant effect on the potential for nuisance to neighboring properties. In principle, when similar or compatible uses are adjacent across property boundaries in agricultural areas, potential for land use incompatibility is minimized (e.g. residences near residences or arenas near areas). Conversely, if dissimilar or incompatible uses are adjacent across property boundaries, potential for land use incompatibility is increased (e.g. residences near arenas). An analysis of Figure 3 shows that the internal layout of the subject facility is nearly optimal to maximize neighborhood compatibility. Of the six (6) neighboring properties that directly abut the subject parcel, five are buffered by internal or external passive and/or open spaces in cultivation or pasture uses. The one exception is property No. 4, which has no buffer, but does have a compatible residential use directly adjacent across the property line. However, the access driveway is also directly adjacent from the residence on Property No. 4, which is considered an active use Odor/Animal Waste Management The proposed concentration of animals would typically entail potentially significant nuisance effects to neighboring properties during the peak season (April-June). However, based somewhat on the discussion above, there are some spatial factors that can have a significant effect on the level of nuisance experienced by neighboring properties. In this case, the subject facility is nearly optimally laid out internally to provide adequate buffers from adjacent properties. Also, due to the configuration of the neighboring properties, sensitive residential uses are a substantial distance away from the active areas of the subject facility. In addition, in this case, the applicant is proposing a composting system to manage on-site animal waste in a manner that substantially reduces odor generation. The operation of the facility is estimated to generate a range from approximately 100 cubic yards of animal waste per month during the off-peak season (July-Mar) to 250 cubic yards per month during the peak months (April-June). In-lieu of the standard handling methodology of storing the waste for periodic removal off-site, the applicant is proposing to compost as much of the produced animal waste as practicable by utilizing a forced-air aerobic composting system. The system consists of four segregated waste piles, or cells, that would be tarped to retain moisture. A water emitter system would be installed to add moisture to the waste as necessary. An electric fan would continuously force air into the waste cells via PVC plastic

11 Staff Report Page Dust piping. Little or no manual turning or manipulation of the compost would be required with the exception of moving waste to and from the composting area. Odor generation from animal waste greatly increases over time as the waste is left to naturally decompose with an unaltered ratio of naturally-occurring aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. The vast majority of odor is created as inorganic compounds are generated as a result of anaerobic bacterial digestion of the animal waste in the absence of significant levels of oxygen. Enclosing the waste in a storage trailer and minimizing the volume of decomposing animal waste onsite are the standard methods of reducing this odor. In contrast, the proposed forced-air composting system is designed to maximize available oxygen, thereby altering the ratio of aerobic to anaerobic bacteria in the favor of the comparatively odorless aerobic bacterial process. Field testing of forced-air aerobic composting systems have shown that they generate little to no odor when properly managed (Pers. Comm., Lisa Sloan, Environmental Health Services, 11/23/05). An enclosed trailer for the storage of animal waste until transport off-site would be available as backup to the proposed composting facility. In addition to the composting process being less odor-generating than standard animal waste management techniques, the composting facility would also minimize odor impacts in the immediate area due to the following factors. The composting facility would be located on the northwest corner of the project site. This portion of the property is adjacent to farmed parcels devoid of nearby residences or other sensitive receptors. In addition, since the predominant wind pattern is characterized by gentle winds from the northwest, any odor related to the composting operation would need to travel over the subject parcel, and thereby largely dissipate, before potentially traveling off-site. A condition of approval of the proposed project requires an approved Enforcement Agency Notification Tier permit to be approved by Environmental Health Services in order to address odors associated with manure and bedding materials. Due to these spatial and operational factors, odor nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood is expected to be minimal. Similar to the above analysis for odor, nuisance from dust can be mediated due to spatial factors and internal organization. The subject facility is organized so that the most active, dust-generating activities are located as far as possible from neighboring residences. Intervening internal and external passive/open space buffers and landscaping would also tend to minimize any nuisance effects from dust. As part of project approval, conditions of approval require that a dust suppression plan be implemented and that a water reel be utilized to minimize dust generation. Due to these spatial and operational factors, dust nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood is expected to be minimal.

12 Staff Report Page Night Lighting Noise Unlike some of the other potential nuisance effects, lighting does not dissipate quickly over distance. In addition, zoning complaints received in the past have expressed concern about excess lighting. A proposed condition of approval is designed to address the issue of night lighting. This condition allows lighting only for the rectangular and round arenas on the northern portion of the property. Furthermore, the operation of night lighting has been restricted before 10 p.m., with dimming to occur after 7:00 p.m. during the fall and winter months only (September- February). No night lighting would be allowed during the balance of the year. Any existing lighting fixtures shall be modified or removed to ensure compliance with the condition. Due to these required lighting equipment and operational changes, night lighting nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood is expected to be minimized. Although noise from facility activities is not expected to rise to a high level, some facilities utilize amplified sound and voice in the rehabilitation of horses. A proposed condition of approval would not allow amplified sound or voice as part of facility operations. With inclusion of this condition of approval, noise impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are expected to be minimized. 4.5 Self- Monitoring Condition of Approval Staff is recommending that a condition of approval (Condition No. 19, 01CUP ) be added to the project which requires the applicant to document the activities associated with their operation and maintenance of the horse training facilities and provide the information to the county and interested parties periodically. Examples of activities that would require monitoring include waste management, dust suppression, vector control, weekly vehicle traffic counts and emergency planning (Attachment I). The reports would be prepared by the applicant and submitted to P&D for review and filing. Initially, the applicant would be required to submit the reports on a monthly basis. After 12 months of operation, reports may be submitted on a less frequent basis if there have been no violations identified by the county with respect to odor, flies, traffic and dust. Implementation of the waste management and vector control plan as well as a dust suppression plan would help ensure that flies, odors and dust would be kept to a minimum thereby reducing the associated nuisances of the commercial equestrian operation on neighboring properties. 4.6 Other County-Approved Commercial Equestrian Training/Boarding Operations Figure 4 below provides a summary of other commercial horse operations with approved Conditional Use Permits within the County. The information in the table reflects a range of densities and includes the proposed project site as well as two other currently pending projects (Shelley and Santa Ynez Equestrian Center) for comparison.

13 Staff Report Page 13 The information depicted in Figure 4 shows that on similar sized parcels with similar AG-I- 10 zoning the number of large animals that the county has allowed has varied from 15 to 25, but has not significantly diverged from the Article III requirement of one animal for each 20,000 square feet on parcels of less than 20 acres. The column on the right provides a breakdown of how many square feet of commercial space are dedicated per horse for each of the projects. This shows that the density ranges between 864 square feet to 19,163 square feet of commercial space per horse. While the number of large animals that the applicant is requesting is higher than what the County has approved in the past, the density of the proposed project (square footage of commercial space per large animal) would fall within the range of projects that the County has approved.

14 Staff Report Page 14 Figure 4 Comparison of other County Equestrian Training Operations Approved and Proposed Permit #: Name: Santa Lucia Veterinary Breeding Facility (Subject Project) Shelly Training and Boarding operation (Proposed) Porcher Commercial Horse Boarding operation Miller Commercial Horse Op. 96-CP-048 Address: APN: 1924 West Highway 154 APN Calkins Road APN Calzada Avenue APN Shoreline Dr. APN Zoning: AG-I-10 AG-I-10 AG-I-10 AG-I-10 Surrounding Uses: Parcel Sizes: Residential to the south and east with a horse facility to the east. Agricultural 19 acre parcel to the north. Agricultural 2 acre parcel to the east and Agricultural 10 acre parcels to the north south and west Residential 1 acre parcels to the south and Agricultural 10 acres parcels to the north, east and west Residential 7,000 sf; 20,000 sf Agricultural 5-10 acres Parcel Size: acres 10.0 acres 8.87 acres acres Area Devoted to Horses 362,285 sf. (8.3 acres) 322,150 s.f. 383,269 s.f. 390,595 (sf) # of Horses: Sq. Ft. Per Horse: 100 horses 3,622 s.f. per horse 78 large animals 4,130 s.f. per large animal 20 horses 19,163 s.f. per horse 25 horses 15, 624 sf/horse (barn, stable, pasture) 94-CP-055 Vintage Ranch 745 Puente Dr E-1 Residential varying densities, horsekeeping 1.35 acres 50,806 sf. 16 horses 3,175 sf/horse (stables, paddocks) 80-CP-47 Via Real Company 3280 & 3282 Via Real , - 19, -33, -34 DR-3.3 Polo Club Residential 12,000 sq. ft. to 30 acres 6.58 acres 261,361 sf. (6 acres) 20 horses 13,068 sf/horse (pastures) 81-CP-18 Edgewood Associates 368 Lambert Rd AL Rural Residential Agriculture 5-50 acres 70 acres 444,312 sf. (10.2 ac) 40 horses 11,107 sf/horse (paddocks) 82-CP-94 Arthur Cameron 2825 Padaro Ln E-1 Residential 3-6 acres acres includes polo field 34,560 sf. (paddocks) (0.79 ac) 40 horses 864 sf/horse (paddocks) 88-CP-10 Sunny Ridge Stables 7190 Gobernador Canyon Rd AG-I-10 Agriculture 5 acre 5 acres 217,800 sf. (5 acres) 15 horses 14,520 sf/horse (barn/paddocks/past ures) 88-CP-48 Summer Oaks Ranch Santa Ynez Valley Equestrian Center 255 Lambert Road Refugio Road APN AG-I AL-O AG-II- 100 Rural Residential Agriculture 5-50 acres Agriculture commercial boarding of animals (east and south). Vineyards 10 acres 87,120 sf. (2 acres) ,200 (20 acres) 22 horses 3,960 sf/horse (barn/paddocks) 100 horses and events 8,712 sf/horse

15 Staff Report Page Other Jurisdictions Staff reviewed regulations from three other jurisdictions that govern the keeping of horses. The three other jurisdictions are; the Town of Woodside, City of Norco and the County of San Luis Obispo. A summary of the applicable requirements is provided below. Salient sections of these other agencies regulations are provided in Attachment J Intensity of Animals Allowed 1. Santa Barbara County - Santa Barbara County currently allows one animal for every 20,000 square feet on AG-I zoned parcels of 10 acres or less (approximately 2 animals per acre.) 2. County of San Luis Obispo- The County of San Luis Obispo has similar regulations to the County of Santa Barbara allowing 14 horses on parcels of 19 acres or less without zoning clearance. With zoning clearance, the allowable number of animals increases to between 15 and 29 animals. (at the maximum allowable number, approx 3 animals per acre). 3. Town of Woodside - Regulations are also similar in the established horse community of Woodside, California. This community located in northern California is similar in atmosphere and character to the Los Olivos / Santa Ynez Valley and is also known for its native scenic beauty and welcoming attitude to horse activity. Woodside s Town municipal code permits two horse or cows per acre with exceptions granted by the planning director to allow no more than 7 horses per acre. However, a minimum shelter of 10 feet by 10 feet (12 feet by 12 feet recommended) per horse with access to an adjacent paddock of 600 square feet is required. 4. City of Norco - The Southern California community of Norco, where a more barren landscape is present allow a total of 11 animals (all species) per acre Setbacks 1. Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara County s AG-I-10 zone district requires a 20 foot side, rear, and front setback for all structures. 2. San Luis Obispo County - San Luis Obispo County specifies that any operation maintaining more than four cows per acre for periods exceeding 45 days is classified as a feedlot and subject to being located on a minimum of 20 acres with cattle enclosures no closer than four hundred feet from any dwelling other than those on the site itself. (Although the number of cattle proposed in the Shelly project translates to 3 head of cattle per acre [30 cattle on 10 acres = 3 cattle /acre], the number of total animals per acre would translate to almost eight per acre [78 animals on

16 Staff Report Page Public Comment 10 acres = 7.8 animal/acre] and would justify application of this or a similar distance rule.) 3. Town of Woodside - Woodside requires any barns associated with commercial stables be located at least 250 feet from the nearest offsite residence. 4. City of Norco The City of Norco requires that animals be kept a minimum distance of 35 feet from a dwelling located on an adjacent lot. Staff has reviewed public comment letters received regarding the proposed facility as of the date of this staff report. Copies of these letters are attached as Attachment??. Of the ten (10) letters received to date, seven (7) are in support of the project, and three (3) contained concerns about the project. 5.1 Site Information 5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information Comprehensive Plan Designation Inner Rural area, Agriculture, A-I-10, 10-acre minimum parcel size, and within the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan boundaries (as proposed) Zoning District, Ordinance AG-I-10, 10-acre minimum parcel size, Article III Site Size acres gross and net Present Use & Development Single Family Dwelling (1,144 sq. ft.) with attached porches and a patio cover (868 sq. ft.), Patio Cover (288 sq. ft.), Main Barn & Veterinary Facility (17,744 sq. ft.), Equipment Barn (1,344 sq. ft.), Storage Shed (2,160 sq. ft.), 14-Stall Barn (2,688 sq. ft.), an 8-Stall Foaling Barn (2,304 sq. ft.), and an Aqua Tred (1,320 sq. ft.) Zoning/ Surrounding Uses North: AG-I-10 / Agriculture South: AG-I-10 / Single Family Dwelling and Greenhouses East: AG-I-10 / Horse Facility and Single Family Dwelling West: AG-I-10 / Single Family Dwelling Access An existing 24 -wide, 150 -long driveway on the southwestern portion of the parcel that connects to Old San Marcos Pass Road, a 24 -wide existing frontage that is parallel to State Highway 154 Public Services Water Supply: Shared well located on APN (recorded on July 22, 1977 as Instrument No Official Records) Sewage: Private Septic systems Fire: Santa Barbara County Fire Station # 32, 906 Airport Road

17 Staff Report Page 17 Land Use Designation Map Zoning District Map

18 Staff Report Page Existing Setting Slope/Topography: The site is relatively flat, and does not contain steep slopes or severe changes in topography. Fauna: Animals located in the project vicinity may include rodents, common birds including raptors, and larger mammals such as skunks, raccoons and foxes. No rare or endangered species of animals are known to exist within the project site as shown by the County s Biological Resource Maps. Flora: The site contains non-native and native trees that would remain as part of the project. Specifically, evergreen trees line both sides of the 24 -wide, 150 -long driveway from Old San Marcos Pass Road. In addition, there are deciduous trees interspersed throughout the property. There are also trees between the 24 existing paddocks along the eastern side of the property. No known rare or endangered species of plants are known to exist within the project site according to the County s Biological Resource Maps. Archaeological Sites: There are no recorded archaeological sites located on the project site as indicated by the County s Archaeological Resource maps. However, there is a recorded archaeological site approximately one (1) mile northwest of the proposed project site. Soils: The proposed project site is underlain by Ballard gravelly fine sandy loam (BbA). This moderately fertile soil is designated as a Class II soil and has moderately slow permeability, very slow runoff and the erosion hazard is none to slight. The prime agricultural soil is typically found in areas with 0-2% slopes. Surface Water Bodies: There are no surface water bodies on the project site. The site is over half of a mile north of the closest blue line creek. Surrounding Land Uses: The site is surrounded by residential and agricultural development. There is a farming operation on a acre parcel to the north of the project site. There is a single family dwelling, guest house, and an accessory structure on a 4-acre parcel to the south of the site. In addition, there are greenhouses on a 5.22-acre parcel to the south of the site. There is a private horse operation and single family dwelling to the east of the project site. There is a single family dwelling on a 5.16-acre parcel to the west of the site. State Highway 154 is approximately 700 feet west from the northwestern corner of the parcel, while the 150 -long driveway on the southwestern portion of the parcel connects to Old San Marcos Pass Road, which abuts and is parallel to State Highway 154. Existing Structures, Horse Arenas, & Paddocks: The site contains a 1,144 square foot single family dwelling with 868 square feet of attached porches and a patio cover, an additional 288 square foot patio cover, a 17,744 square foot main barn (veterinary facility), a 1,344 square foot equipment barn, a 2,160 square foot storage shed, a 2,688 square foot 14-stall barn, a 2,880 square foot 8-stall barn, a 1,320 square foot Aqua Tred, a 45,887 square foot rectangular arena, an 11,304 square foot round arena, and 3.34 acres

19 Staff Report Page 19 of horse paddocks. According to the Assessor s Office 3, the single family dwelling was built in 1884, the storage shed and equipment barn are estimated to have been built in 1900, and the 14-stall barn is estimated to have been built in Project Description The Santa Lucia Farm Equine Veterinary Facility project entails: 1) a Final Development Plan (01DVP ) for existing development, both permitted and unpermitted; 2) a Minor Conditional Use Permit (01CUP ) for the existing equine veterinary facility (animal hospital land use); 3) a Minor Conditional Use Permit (05CUP ) for an employee dwelling (432 s.f.); and 4) a Minor Conditional Use Permit (05CUP ) for a composting facility as part of the Solid Waste Management Plan for the facility. 1. The Development Plan (01DVP ) would cover 29,116 square feet of existing structural development that includes: 1,144 sq. ft. Single Family Dwelling with 868 square feet of attached porches and a patio cover 288 sq. ft. Patio Cover 17,744 sq. ft. Main Barn & Veterinary Facility 1,344 sq. ft. Equipment Barn 2,160 sq. ft. Storage Shed 2,688 sq. ft. 14-Stall Barn 2,304 sq. ft. 8-Stall Foaling Barn with a 144 sq. ft. storage room and a 432 sq. ft. employee apartment Non-structural development includes: 1,320 sq. ft. Aqua Tred 3,250 sq. ft. composting area There are approximately two acres of roads, parking and walkways, approximately 1.5 acres of landscaping, and approximately 6.5 acres of equine arenas, paddocks, and round pens. There is existing outdoor lighting associated with the arenas on the northern portion of the parcel in the form of shielded arena lights. There are a total of 61 existing stalls on the property. Of these, 39 stalls are in the existing 17,744 sq.ft. main barn, 14 stalls in the 2,688 sq.ft. barn located southeast of the main barn and 8 stalls in the foaling barn located west of the arena. There are a total of 55 existing paddocks on the property, including 24 approximately 1,760 s.f. paddocks along the eastern side of the property, 9 large 3 Verbal Communication, Assessor s Office, December 9, 2003.

20 Staff Report Page 20 paddocks ranging from 5,800 to 8,400 s.f. south of the main barn, and 22 approximately 160 s.f. paddocks along the southern property line of the facility. 2. A Minor Conditional Use Permit (01CUP ) would legalize an existing Equine Veterinary Facility (animal hospital). It is a facility specifically designed for the medical and surgical treatment of animals. Boarding of animals is limited to short-term care incidental to the animal hospital treatment and rehabilitation services. Permanent boarding of the owner s personal horses (4) is included as part of this permit. Up to six (6) cattle are also periodically boarded on the site. The cattle are used in the rehabilitation of horses that have undergone treatment at the facility, as well as some personal training activities that the owner engages in during the off-peak season. The project proposes a maximum of 100 large (adult) animals on the acre site. The definition of one horse may include one mare and her unweaned foal(s) (i.e. double or (in the rare instance of twins), triple occupancy in some stalls) during the peak foaling season of April, May and June. This maximum number of large animals may include up to six (6) cattle, but is primarily adult horses. Office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but horses undergoing treatment or about to foal are frequently monitored at all times through the use of closed circuit television monitors and a night shift employee. This facility employs one (1) person to staff the office; two (2) veterinary technicians, two (2) veterinarians, and five (5) general horse care and facility maintenance staff personnel. Two (2) additional temporary employees are typically hired during the peak foaling season of April, May and June. One (1) employee would be needed to manage and market the product from the composting operation. Therefore the total number of permanent, full-time employees would be eleven (11), with two (2) additional temporary employees hired as needed during the three-month peak foaling season. Sanitary services are provided by three (3) existing septic systems - one for the single family dwelling, one for the main barn, and one for the employee dwelling in the foaling barn. Water is currently provided by an existing shared water system. However, since the existing multi-parcel water system is inadequate to serve additional connections, a new water well and water system is proposed to serve the facility under a Single Parcel Water System permit pursuant to Environmental Health Services regulations. Initial review by Environmental Health Services indicates that the local groundwater basin is more than adequate in quantity and quality to support the proposed project (Pers. Comm., Paul Jenzen, Environmental Health Services, 12/20/05). 3. An existing 432 s.f. farm employee dwelling within Building 6,7,8 would be validated through approval of a Conditional Use Permit (05CUP ) and, 4. Solid waste would be managed by the proposed composting facility located in the northwest corner of the property adjacent to a vacant, farmed parcel. A Minor

21 Staff Report Page 21 Conditional Use Permit (05CUP ) application has been submitted for approval of the composting facility. The composting operation would consist of forced aeration compost bays and an area for storage. The monthly volume would vary seasonally, ranging from approximately 100 cubic yards per month during the slow season upwards to 200 to 250 cubic yards per month during peak months. The compost facility design has been sized to accommodate peak conditions. It is estimated that approximately 250 cubic yards of compost would be in the bins undergoing active composting at any one time, plus an additional 200 cubic yards of compost in a separate pile undergoing curing or in temporary storage. The soil amendment produced by the composting facility would be marketed and sold to customers of the Santa Lucia Farm Equine Veterinary Facility. Any solid waste that cannot be processed at the proposed composting facility would be placed in an on-site dumpster and trucked to an appropriate disposal site. The management of solid waste pursuant to the proposed composting facility would be subject to all requirements contained within an Enforcement Agency Notification Tier Permit issued by Environmental Health Services. The large gravel parking area provides adequate parking for horse trailers along the western property line, as well as plenty of space for temporarily parked horse trailers to load and unload horses. In addition, there are 32 standard spaces for other vehicles such as trucks and cars. All parking of vehicles related to the Equine Veterinary Facility would be accommodated on site. The facility and parking areas are completely screened from Highway 154 by an existing row of mature poplars and a secondary, parallel row of evergreen Japanese privet hedge. The facility is screened from a single family residence adjacent to the southern property line by an existing, evergreen Japanese privet hedge. Access would be via an existing 24 -wide, 150 -long driveway on the southwestern portion of the parcel that connects to Old San Marcos Pass Road, a 24 -wide existing frontage that is parallel to State Highway Environmental Review 6.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS A Mitigated Negative Declaration, 03-ND-27, was prepared for the project and is included in the staff report as Attachment C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 21-day public review and comment period from February 25, 2004 to March 17, A separate environmental review hearing was not held due to the noncomplex nature of the proposed project. The Proposed Final Mitigated Negative Declaration went forward with the project proposal before the Planning Commission on September 22, Since the project did not receive approval, and changes to the project description have been made in the interim, minor changes were made to the

22 Staff Report Page 22 MND. This Revised Proposed Final Mitigated Negative Declaration was not recirculated for public review due to the changes being minor in scope and clerical in nature. No impact determinations or proposed mitigation measures have been changed Impacts The Negative Declaration, identified potentially significant, but mitigable impacts to aesthetics/visual resources, air quality, cultural resources, hazardous materials/risk of upset, and noise. Potential long-term impacts to aesthetics/visual resources were identified as a result of outdoor lighting and structures visible from a public view shed. Potential long-term impacts to air quality were identified as a result of odor and dust generation from the large animals at the veterinary facility. Potential short-term impacts to cultural resources were identified as a result of disturbance of cultural artifacts. Potential long-term impacts to hazardous materials/risk of upset were identified as a result of the storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Noise levels could potentially be raised as a result of amplified sound or from shouting during rehabilitation exercises Impact and Mitigation Aesthetics/Visual Resources: The project site is visible to travelers along designated Scenic State Highway 154 due to: 1) the proximity of the site to the traveled right-of-way, 2) the relatively flat topography, and 3) the sparse vegetation and landscaping along the western property boundary of the subject parcel. Two structures can be seen from State Highway 154, including the recently constructed unpermitted 2,880-square foot barn (13 in height) and the existing permitted 17,744 square foot veterinary facility barn. Additionally, parking for the visiting horse trailers is located in a parking lot area along the western portion of the parcel which can also be seen from Highway 154. Horse transportation vehicles vary in size (8-14 feet in height) and the proposed project does not limit the number or size of trailers potentially being stored or parked on site at any one time. Depending on the frequency of arriving trailers, as well as the duration of their stay, a potential visual impact may be imposed along the Scenic Highway. While it is anticipated that agriculturally zoned properties would be developed with agricultural structures, the development on this particular site (30,436 square feet of structural development) plus the frequent parking of multiple visiting horse trailers would pose a potentially significant impact to visual resources as seen from a designated State Scenic Highway. This potential impact to visual resources would be reduced to less than significant levels by maintaining evergreen landscaping to partially screen (i.e. at least 50%) the new barn, veterinary facility, and parking from the public view from State Highway 154. To address the impact, the applicant recently planted an evergreen hedge (Ligustrum Japonicum Texanum which has a maximum height of 6-9 ) along the western property line. This hedge covers approximately 450 lineal feet from the 1,344 sq.ft. equipment barn to the northwest corner of the property. Drip irrigation has been installed and is currently in use and shall be maintained until plants are