COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

Date:

October 24, 2001

Set Time:

9:30 a.m.

Hearing Date:

November 6, 2001

To:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

From:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

Subject:

Confined Animal Regulations

RECOMMENDATION

That the Board of Supervisors:

1.

Certify that the Negative Declaration (Attachment 7) is complete, correct and adequate, and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and applicable State and County guidelines.

2.

Adopt an ordinance amending the County Ordinance Code to replace the existing chapter entitled Stables with the proposed chapter entitled Confined Animal Regulations, as shown in Attachment 1.

3.

Adopt an ordinance amending the RE, R-1, R-1/CCP, RH, COSC, PAD, RM, RM-CZ, TPZ, and TPZ-CZ zoning district regulations to delete existing terms for the keeping of horses, and substitute the term "keeping of confined animals," as shown in Attachment 2.

4.

Adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Nonconformities Chapter to allow abatement of a non-conforming confined animal use or structure that degrades water quality or sensitive habitats, as shown in Attachment 3.

5.

Adopt an ordinance amending the County Building Regulations to establish an exemption to building permit requirements for small confined animal structures, as shown in Attachment 4.

6.

Adopt a resolution amending the County Planning Service Fee Schedule to replace "Stable Permit" with "Confined Animal Permit," and to lower permit fees, as shown in Attachment 5.

7.

Adopt a resolution directing staff to submit the regulations to the Coastal Commission for certification, as shown in Attachment 6.

BACKGROUND

The County's "Stable Ordinance" was originally adopted in 1959, and has not been significantly changed since. During the past eight years, various committees have convened to assist staff in updating the regulations. Most recently, an advisory committee comprised of advocates for horse keeping organizations, stable operators, environmental groups, farmers, and real estate interests met and provided staff with suggestions for regulatory change.

The most common complaints about the existing stable regulations are that permit fees are too high, the process so onerous that it discourages compliance, horse owners are being singled out, and protection of natural resources, especially aquatic resources, from animal waste runoff is not adequately emphasized.

With an improved understanding of the needs and expectations of horse owners and conservationists, between December 2000 and March 2001, staff prepared the draft Confined Animal Regulations.

On April 25, 2001, the Planning Commission convened a public workshop to discuss the proposed regulations. The purposes of the workshop were to ensure a general understanding of the proposal, and provide the public an opportunity to identify problems and suggest changes before the formal hearing process began. The Planning Commission subsequently held four public hearings on the proposed regulations, on May 23, June 13 (in Half Moon Bay), August 8 and September 12, 2001. Following each of the first three hearings, staff modified and refined the regulations to address concerns of the public and the Planning Commission. On September 12, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the final revised regulations to your Board for adoption as outlined under the recommendation above.

The ordinances and resolutions being presented to your Board are verbatim those recommended by the Planning Commission.

DISCUSSION

1.

Benefits and Impacts of Keeping Confined Animals

Many County unincorporated areas provide a desirable environment for keeping large domesticated animals for riding, pleasure or companionship. However, when a site's carrying capacity is exceeded, or the facility is inappropriately managed, keeping confined animals has the potential to adversely impact the environment, particularly through the transport of sediment or pollution from animal waste to nearby streams and other aquatic resources.

2.

Principles Guiding Preparation of Confined Animal Regulations

The primary principles guiding preparation of the proposed regulations were to:

a.

Assure proper and responsible management of confined animals.

b.

Protect people from potential health and safety impacts of keeping confined animals.

c.

Ensure that keeping confined animals does not degrade water quality, or adversely affect sensitive habitats, or impact surrounding natural resources.

d.

Provide opportunities to keep large domesticated animals for riding, pleasure or companionship.

3.

Scope of Proposed Regulations

The scope of the proposed regulations differs from the existing Stable Ordinance in two key ways: (1) it applies to other large domesticated animals, instead of solely to horses, and (2) it applies only to confined, not open range pastured, animals.

The proposal's inclusion of wider range of animals is in response to the fact that there are recreation animals similar to horses that are equally capable of degrading the environment, but are not equally regulated. For example, llamas and donkeys are commonly kept for pleasure, but are not subject to the same regulatory controls as horses.

Regulating only confined animals responds to the generally held belief that confined animals pose a higher potential for impacts on water quality and other resources than animals kept in open pasture.

4.

Content of Proposal and Comparison with Current Regulations

a.

Regulated Animals

(1)

Proposal

The proposal applies to confined animals which are defined as domesticated animals generally kept for pleasure, companionship, or traditional transport where all of the following criteria apply:

(a)

The animal's typical adult weight exceeds 300 pounds.

(b)

The animal is generally not used for agriculture, nor defined as an exotic animal.

(c)

The animal is regularly kept in a confined area, and not solely in a pasture or range area.

(2)

Existing Regulations

The existing Stable Ordinance applies only to keeping horses, and not to keeping other confined animals.

b.

Permit Requirement

(1)

Proposal

The proposal requires that a permit be obtained when keeping confined animals, except when:

(a)

Keeping animals in the rural area for less than 30 days.

(b)

Keeping up to five animals in rural areas zoned for open space, agriculture, or timber production, subject to a certificate of exemption.

(c)

Keeping up to two animals in urban areas zoned for open space or agriculture, subject to a certificate of exemption.

A certificate of exemption would be granted upon demonstrating that:

(a)

The proposal conforms to minimum parcel size, maximum number of animals criteria, and minimum setback requirements.

(b)

The confined animal structures are not located:

(i)

Within 300 feet of the beach, high tide line, or top of a coastal bluff.

(ii)

Within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream.

(iii)

Within 50 feet of riparian corridors or a domestic well.

(iv)

On slopes of 30% or more.

(v)

Above a septic system.

(c)

The operation will include runoff control and manure management measures that protect water quality and sensitive habitats from potential adverse impacts.

The proposed exemption recognizes that keeping a limited number of animals in suitable locations is not likely to pose significant environmental or coastal resource impacts.

c.

Public Hearing Requirements

(1)

Proposal

The proposal streamlines the permit review process by eliminating the public hearing requirement when keeping a compatible number of animals for the particular setting or location, as shown below:

Where a hearing is required, the decision-maker would typically be the Zoning Hearing Officer. Where a hearing is not required, the decision-maker would be the Planning Director.

The proposal eliminates the public hearing requirement in areas with less intensive land uses where animal keeping is generally more compatible.

(2)

Existing Regulations

The existing Stable Ordinance requires consideration of all new permits at a public hearing, regardless of location and number of horses.

d.

Application Requirements

(1)

Proposal

The proposed permit application requirements include preparation of a site management plan that contains:

(a)

A written description of the project, including the number of animals proposed to be kept on the property.

(b)

A site map showing confined animal areas, confined animal structures, pasture areas, domestic wells and septic systems, lakes and streams, and sensitive habitats including riparian corridors and wetlands.

(c)

A drainage component showing the slope of the confined animal areas, direction of water flow, and the site drainage system, including natural and built improvements.

(d)

A manure management component describing the method and frequency of collecting, storing, processing, and disposal of manure.

The regulations acknowledge that the County has source maps available for preparing the site management plan, and that it is not necessary for applicants to retain a professional consultant.

The site management plan is to enable staff, the public, relevant public agencies and the decision-maker to effectively evaluate project conformance with the required criteria and standards.

(2)

Existing Regulations

The existing Stable Ordinance does not require preparation of a site management plan, but rather only requires a statement of the number of horses, a site map with plot plan, and a statement of the proposed drainage and sewage disposal system.

e.

Criteria and Standards

(1)

Minimum Parcel Area

(a)

Proposal

The proposal requires one acre as the minimum parcel size to keep confined animals.

The proposal does not distinguish between private and commercial facilities since the same protective measures would be applied to all operations, regardless of whether there is a profit factor.

(b)

Existing Regulations

The existing Stable Ordinance requires:

(i)

Private Stables - One acre is the minimum parcel size to keep horses.

(ii)

Commercial Stables - Five acres is the minimum parcel size to keep horses.

(2)

Maximum Number of Animals

(a)

Proposal

The proposal allows the following number of confined animals on a parcel, based on parcel size:

(i)

One animal per 1/2 gross acre for the first two animals.

(ii)

One animal per 1/2 net acre for the third through tenth animal.

(iii)

One animal per 1/4 net acre for the eleventh animal, and each animal thereafter.

A net acre excludes portions of the parcel that are:

(i)

Within 100 feet of wetlands.

(ii)

Within 50 feet of lakes, and perennial creeks and streams, and 30 feet of intermittent creeks and streams.

(iii)

With slopes exceeding 50%.

Staff and the Commission believe that the proposed net acre measurement better reflects a parcel's carrying capacity for animals than does the gross acre measurement. With this approach, the parcel area not suitable for animals would not generate additional animals on the property.

(b)

Existing Regulations

The existing Stable Ordinance allows the following number of horses per parcel:

(i)

Private Stables - One horse for each 1/2 gross acre.

(ii)

Commercial Stables - One horse per 1/4 gross acre.

A comparison between the number of animals allowed according to the existing and proposed regulations is shown below:

(3)

Prohibited Locations

(a)

Proposal

The proposal prohibits confined animal structures on, and animal use of the following areas of the parcel:

(i)

Within 100 feet of wetlands.

(ii)

Within 50 feet of lakes and perennial streams, and 30 feet of intermittent streams.

(iii)

Within 50 feet of riparian corridors.

(iv)

On slopes exceeding 30% for structures, and 50% for animal use.

(v)

Above a domestic well, septic tanks or leach lines.

Prohibiting confined animals being kept near sensitive resource areas averts potential environmental damage or health and safety hazards.

(b)

Existing Regulations

The existing Stable Ordinance does not preclude horse keeping on specified portions of the property.

(4)

Minimum Setbacks

(a)

Proposal

The proposal requires the following setback requirements for confined animal structures such as stables, corrals, paddocks or pens, and barns:

(b)

Existing Regulations

The existing Stable Ordinance establishes the following setback requirements for commercial and private stables:

Although the proposed 50-foot front setback is less restrictive than the existing Stable Ordinance, it conforms with the front setback required for all buildings in the rural area, and is 30 feet greater than the front setback required in residential areas.

The proposed reduction in side and rear setbacks, and building separation distance should not result in land use compatibility problems. These development controls are still more restrictive than are those for other permitted uses in the zoning district, and they are similar to the standards applied for keeping horses in a nearby predominantly residential community.

(5)

Drainage

(a)

Proposal

The proposal requires that:

(i)

Runoff not come into contact with stored animal waste or drain directly into a water body.

(ii)

Standing water not accumulate near animal structures.

(iii)

A 2% downward slope be maintained for drainage away from animal structures and that ditches, berms and other diversion devices be used to direct water flow.

(b)

Existing Regulations

The Stable Ordinance does not establish specific stormwater runoff controls, but declares that it is unlawful to keep horses on the premises in an offensive, obnoxious or unsanitary manner.

(6)

Manure Management

(a)

Proposal

The proposal requires that all animal waste be collected daily, and managed properly to prevent buildup of insects. The type of manure management shall be determined by the operator, and may include composting, mulching, spreading of aged manure, and covered storage. Stored animal waste may not be kept on site longer than 14 days, and must be covered and separated from the ground by an impermeable material. Composted wastes must be mixed often for adequate aeration.

Staff believes that it is preferable to establish performance criteria without prescribing a particular manure management technique. If an owner prefers one technique over another, e.g., spreading aged manure over composting, that is a private decision.

(b)

Existing Regulations

The Stable Ordinance requires that stables be cleaned daily, and corrals cleaned weekly. Manure shall be managed, and the facility sprayed periodically to prevent the breeding of flies and insects.

(7)

Resident Supervisor

(a)

Proposal

The proposal does not require a resident on-site, full-time supervisor, but does not preclude it. Should a dwelling unit for a caretaker or supervisor be desired, it shall comply with zoning density limits.

Again, staff believes that it is preferable to establish performance criteria without prescribing how compliance is to be achieved. If an owner desires a full-time supervisor, that is a private decision.

(b)

Existing Regulations

The Stable Ordinance requires that commercial stables maintain a full-time, on-site supervisor.

5.

Exceptions

The proposal allows for an exception to any required criteria or standard, subject to findings that:

a.

Compliance with the requirement is not reasonably possible and the proposal is as nearly in conformance with the requirement as is reasonably possible.

b.

The exception will not adversely impact adjoining properties, or be injurious to public health or welfare.

c.

The exception will not significantly degrade water quality or sensitive habitats.

The exception process may be summarized as follows: (a) the Planning Director is the decision maker unless a public hearing is requested; (b) at least ten days in advance of the Planning Director's decision, written notice would be sent to surrounding property owners, the Technical Advisory Committee, and any relevant advisory council; (c) any member of the public may request in writing a public hearing by the Zoning Hearing Officer; and (d) the decision of the Planning Director or Zoning Hearing Officer may be appealed to the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors thereafter.

6.

Expiration, Renewal and Review

A Confined Animal Permit would expire six years after the date of approval. At expiration, the permit would automatically be renewed for another six years providing that the operation continues to conform with the terms of the permit.

An approved permit would be administratively reviewed every three years for compliance with the conditions of approval. Such review would involve site inspection, particularly for number and location of animals, and manure management/drainage compliance. No public hearing is required for permit review.

If at any time the confined animal operation is found not to comply with the approved permit, the operator would be notified and given a reasonable period of time to comply. Continual non-compliance may result in permit revocation.

7.

Establishment of a Technical Advisory Committee

The proposal establishes a 9-member Confined Animal Technical Advisory Committee that would be appointed by the Board of Supervisors and would be constituted as follows:

a.

Confined Animal Expertise

Five members (and one alternate member) with experience in keeping confined animals, and knowledge of animal behavior, as well as facility management and operations. The five members would include at least one commercial stable operator and one private stable operator.

b.

Resource Protection Expertise

Three members (and one alternate member) with experience in resource protection and environmental planning, and knowledge of water quality protection, erosion and sediment control, and animal waste management.

c.

Environmental Health Expertise

One member with experience in protecting public health from potential impacts due to confined animals.

A 5-member quorum is required for Technical Advisory Committee meeting, with at least one member representing each of the three categories (a, b and c above).

The duties of the Technical Advisory Committee would be: (a) providing pre-application guidance to Confined Animal Permit applicants, (b) commenting on submitted Confined Animal Permit applications, (c) reviewing site management plans and proposing best management practices, (d) assisting in resolving illegal situations, and (e) providing educational outreach on facility management.

Planning staff would refer to the Technical Advisory Committee for review and comment on: (a) Confined Animal Permit applications, including site management plans; (b) requests for exception to the criteria and standards; and (c) abatement notices for operations shown to significantly degrade water quality or sensitive habitats.

Participating horse keepers, staff and the Commission believe that establishing the Technical Advisory Committee would both foster achieving the objectives of the proposed regulations, and benefit animal owners by promoting best management practices through educational outreach.

8.

Reduced Permit Fees

The proposed fee structure is, as follows:

Planning Service

Fee

Certificate of Exemption

$50

Initial Permit

No Hearing Required

$400

Hearing Required

$800

Permit Self-Renewal (six years)

None

Permit Review (three years)

$200

The proposed fees include all associated Planning Services fees. In addition, the Environmental Health Division will charge $174 inspection fee every three years.

The proposal also provides fee reductions for the initial Confined Animal Permit to: (1) existing operations with an approved Stable Permit, and (2) existing and proposed operations in conjunction with 4-H and similar educational projects.

The table below compares existing Stable Permit fees with the proposed fees:

Location

Number of Horses

Existing Fee

Proposed Fee

Rural Area (RM, PAD, TPZ)

5

$1,494

$50

10

$1,619

$400

20

$1,939

$800

Urban Area (RM, PAD)

2

$1,419

$50

4

$1,469

$400

6

$1,519

$800

Urban Area (R-1)

2

$1,419

$400

4

$1,469

$800

¹The existing fee column does not include existing fees for other Planning permits and environmental review. The proposal would not include such additional fees.

The table below compares cumulative existing fees with the proposed fees for first ten years, including permit review and renewal fees.

Fee Over Ten Years

Location

Number of Horses

Existing

Proposed

Rural Area (RM, PAD, TPZ)

5

$4,236

$50

10

$5,516

$1,000

20

$8,096

$1,400

Urban Area (RM, PAD)

2

$3,516

$50

4

$4,016

$1,000

6

$4,516

$1,400

Urban Area (R-1)

2

$3,516

$1,000

4

$4,016

$1,400

9.

Building Permit Exemption

Animal owners have requested relief from the requirement to obtain a building permit for small structures and buildings which are incidental to the keeping of confined animals.

The Building Regulations do not currently include a specific exception for confined animal structures, although there is an exception for a detached accessory building not exceeding eight (8) feet in height and 120 sq. ft. in area. A horse stall is commonly ten (10) feet in height and 12 feet x 12 feet (144 sq. ft.) in area, and hence does not qualify for this exemption.

Staff and the Commission recommend a Building Regulations amendment to exempt small confined animal structures that: (1) do not exceed ten (10) feet in height and 150 sq. ft. projected roof area, and (2) do not include or involve installation of electrical or mechanical equipment. This exemption would typically allow self-powered portable appliances and hoses attached to an approved plumbing outlet.

10.

Zoning Nonconformities; Limited Abatement

There are existing confined animal operations that conform to the current zoning regulations. These existing "legal" operations have either been issued a Stable Permit for keeping horses, or have not been previously regulated, as is the case when keeping llamas or donkeys.

Some existing "legal" operations may conform to the proposed regulations, while others may not. Those that conform would be termed "legal, conforming." Those that do not would be considered "legal, non-conforming" and are governed by the Zoning Nonconformities Regulations. These regulations allow a legal non-conforming activity to continue in operation. The proposed regulations do not require legal non-conforming stable operations to reduce the number of horses on the property, or remove or relocate existing structures, unless water quality or sensitive habitats are being degraded. However, such existing "legal" operations would be required to comply with all other provisions and permit requirements. Compliance would either be at the time of permit renewal or initial permit application.

There are also existing operations that are technically "illegal," i.e., have not been issued a Stable Permit for keeping horses. This type of facility could not be considered nonconforming by the Zoning Regulations. Accordingly, the proposal requires full compliance with the new regulations.

If an existing stable structure was built in accordance with County Building Regulations at the time, regardless of whether a Stable Permit has been issued for horse keeping, the "structure" is recognized as legal. If the structure does not conform to the proposed siting or location criteria, it is considered "legal, non-conforming." The proposal allows such a non-conforming structure to remain at its present location, as well as be repaired and upgraded, unless water quality or sensitive habitats are being degraded.

Staff and the Commission propose that the abatement process (described under Section 11, Implementation, below) apply to legal, non-conforming operations and structures which degrade water quality or sensitive habitats. This would be contrary to the existing Zoning Nonconformities Chapter. For that reason, the recommendation includes appropriate amendments to the Nonconformities Chapter (Attachment 3).

Finally, the proposed regulations establish an exception process described under 5, above, which could be utilized to address problems presented by illegal or non-conforming confined animal uses or structures which cannot be resolved in other ways, provided the required findings can be made.

11.

Implementation

Limited Amnesty. The proposal includes limited amnesty provisions which are intended to provide an incentive for legalizing existing confined animal operations within the first year of the new regulations:

First Year. For twelve months after adoption of the new regulations, whenever Planning staff confirms a violation, the property owner would receive a written notice describing: (a) the nature of the violation and the process to remedy it; and (b) that no further enforcement actions will occur or fines be levied, if the owner initiates corrective action, e.g., files a permit application within three months and demonstrates continued progress toward full compliance thereafter.

After the First Year. After one year of the adoption of the new regulations, whenever Planning staff confirms a violation, the property owner would receive a written notice describing: (a) the nature of the violation and the process to remedy it; (b) that fees will be doubled, and no further enforcement actions would occur, if the owner initiates corrective action, e.g., files a permit application within three months and demonstrates continued progress toward full compliance thereafter; and (c) that if corrective action has not been initiated after three months, the case would be referred to the District Attorney or County Counsel for possible legal action. Additional penalties may be levied as allowed by law.

Enforcement/Abatement. The enforcement/abatement process, if required, would then proceed as follows:

a.

The Planning Director would refer a copy of the abatement notice to the Technical Advisory Committee for review and comment, particularly the feasible time frame for compliance.

b.

The owner may request a hearing before the Zoning Hearing Officer. At the hearing, the owner may: (1) present evidence showing that the operation does not significantly degrade water quality or sensitive habitats, or (2) request a longer abatement period based on demonstrated hardships.

c.

The Zoning Hearing Officer would consider the facts, and determine whether to proceed with abatement, and under what time frame.

d.

The Zoning Hearing Officer's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors thereafter.

12.

Miscellaneous Refinements During Planning Commission Hearing and Review Process

During the course of the Planning Commission's review of the proposed Confined Animal Regulations, the following refinements were made to address various concerns raised by the public and Commission.

a.

Revised the definition of "confined animal structure" to clarify and distinguish which structures have and do not have roofs.

b.

Revised the definition of "sensitive habitat" to identify which plant and animal species are protected by State and federal law.

c.

Revised the section entitled "Prohibited Locations" to clarify that "septic systems" include land above leach lines.

d.

Revised the section entitled "Minimum Setbacks" to require a setback from a vacant adjacent parcel.

e.

Revised the section entitled "Facility Management" to clarify and distinguish active composting from passive or static composting.

f.

Revised the section entitled "Nonconformities" to state more clearly and explicitly that any facility operating under an approved Stable Permit will not be required to reduce the number of horses on the property, or remove or relocate existing structures because of the proposed regulations.

g.

Added a section that clarifies the permit amendment requirements and process.

h.

Clarified that the 14-day limit on manure storage applies only to covered storage for off-site use or disposal, and not to other manure management methods, such as composting or spreading.

i.

Changed the Applicability section clarifying that the regulations apply only when keeping confined animals as defined in the Chapter.

j.

Revised the exemption criteria to include conformance with minimum setbacks and prohibited locations provisions of the Chapter.

k.

Revised the exception provisions to clarify that any member of the public may request a public hearing, including the Technical Advisory Committee or its members.

l.

Clarified enforcement options during the first year the regulations are effective. Specifically, the Planning Director may grant an extension of up to a year from the date of the violation notice if the owner shows a reasonable basis for the extension and provides a schedule for compliance.

m.

Clarified that the regulations govern only animals regularly kept in structures or areas that are no larger than one-half (1/2) acre per animal.

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

An Initial Study and Negative Declaration (Attachment 7) were prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study found that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and that mitigation measures are incorporated into the proposed project. The Negative Declaration was distributed on May 16, 2001 and the public review period ended on June 15, 2001.

After the Negative Declaration was distributed, the proposed regulations have been continuously revised. In each case, however, the revised provision was more protective of the environment than the preceding language. Accordingly, the Negative Declaration continues to comply with CEQA and its conclusions valid.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

County Counsel

Environmental Health Division

State Water Resources Control Board

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Ordinance establishing the Confined Animal Regulations.

2.

Ordinance amending multiple zoning district regulations to delete existing terms for keeping of horses, and add keeping of confined animals.

3.

Ordinance amending the Zoning Nonconformities Chapter to allow abatement of a non-conforming confined animal use or structure shown to degrade water quality or sensitive habitats.

4.

Ordinance amending the Building Regulations to establish an exemption to building permit requirements for small confined animal structures.

5.

Resolution amending the County Fee Schedule to establish Confined Animal Permit fees.

6.

Resolution directing staff to submit the regulations to the Coastal Commission for certification.

7.

Project Initial Study and Negative Declaration.

8.

Letter from State Water Resources Control Board (June 13, 2001).

9.

Letter from Planning staff to State Water Resources Control Board (July 17, 2001).