Stakes raised in Bonsall horse barn issue

Issues raised by the representatives of a Bonsall neighbor opposed to a horse barn on Aqueduct Road have also raised the stakes of the March 9 hearing of the County of San Diego’s Planning Commission.

Prior to the Planning Commission’s scheduled February 9 hearing, attorneys Carl Morrison, Kevin Sullivan and William Schwartz submitted documentation raising substantive issues about the county process for horse barns. The county’s Department of Planning and Land Use requested a continuance to review the issues addressed in the February 2 letter, and the decisions will have implications for stable operations throughout unincorporated San Diego County.

“If our one project is denied it will set precedent,” said Annette Puchta. “That would shut the entire show horse community down in San Diego County.”

The decision could even have adverse consequences for Jaime and Dawne Clayton, who are battling the attempt of David and Annette Puchta to obtain an administrative permit for the Puchtas’ proposed barn. “If the county interprets their own zoning code provisions to require some kind of use permit for the Claytons’ horses, then the Claytons will get that use permit or they’ll move their horses,” Sullivan said. “All we’re asking for is an equal application or an appropriate application of the law.”

A Major Use Permit would be required for breeding or boarding facilities on the site, but only an Administrative Permit is required for construction of a barn exceeding the by-right size for an accessory building. The Puchtas have proposed an 11,520 square foot barn which would include 40 stalls and a second story for hay storage on the western portion of the site and a 6,177 square foot barn near the southeastern portion of the site which would include 20 stalls, a hay and equipment storage area, and a tack and buggy storage area. The Puchtas, who show saddlebred horses, also plan to build two riding arenas which would include cut and fill of approximately 12,000 cubic yards of material.

The Puchtas’ 5.21-acre property in the 31900 block of Aqueduct Road near the intersection of Calle de Telar has A70 agricultural zoning and an “L” designator. County zoning designators include A70 (Limited Agriculture), A72 (General Agriculture), and RR (Rural Residential). A70 and A72 zoning are intended for crop or animal agriculture, and the number of animals allowed is specified by neighborhood regulations through a designator. Horsekeeping other than animal sales and services is permitted by right on properties with an “L” designator, while a Major Use Permit is required for breeding and boarding or for a public stable on properties with an “L” designator.

Barns and agricultural storage buildings are permitted in agriculturally zoned areas, but the maximum accessory building size is based on parcel size and a parcel between five and six acres is allowed 2,200 square feet by right. Additional area, as well as any height beyond that allowed by right, may be allowed by the issuance of an Administrative Permit after notice to all contiguous property owners and findings to support the additional structure area. Buildings on properties with an “L” designator are limited to 45 feet in height and four stories. Animal enclosures on properties with an “L” designator require a front setback of between 45 and 50 feet from the street center line with setbacks of 15 feet from the interior side lot line and 10 feet from the rear lot line.

Morrison, Sullivan, and Schwartz are representing the Claytons. The documentation they submitted February 2 notes that the definition of a boarding or breeding stable in the county’s zoning ordinance does not require that the horses housed in the stables be owned by someone other than the property’s occupants, thus raising the possibility that a person or couple may have a boarding or breeding stable which exclusively houses personally-owned horses.

“This is no longer a neighborhood dispute,” David Puchta said. “It bothers me to a certain extent.”

Sullivan said that he was unaware of a facility in the county with a higher density than the Puchtas would have if they were allowed an enclosure for 60 horses. “We’re raising these arguments because of the just exceptional nature of the density that the Puchtas are proposing,” he said.

It is common practice for show horse owners to sell horses they train. The debate whether show horses are a hobby or a business is not restricted to land use arguments; Federal and California tax laws create conflicting opinions. The 1986 changes to the Federal tax code limited deductions for show horses, but California Board of Equalization sales tax regulations for sales of “tangible personal property for substantial amounts” include the sale of horses. The Claytons’ attorneys noted that the Puchtas would be required to obtain a sales tax permit and pay sales tax on their horses sold if three or more horses, or only five percent of the total allowable number of horses, were sold within a 12-month period and indicated that such a sale threshold would subject the Puchtas to additional state and local permitting requirements.

“We’re not asking the county to go collect the tax,” Sullivan said. “The state recognizes that as a commercial operation that’s subject to certain further types of regulation.” An organic farm also exists on the Puchtas’ property, and Morrison and Schwartz also asked the Planning Commission to address cumulative noise and traffic impacts. “The county has an ordinance that says out in that part of the county noise can’t go beyond certain decibel levels,” Sullivan said. “That’s the law the county has had on its books for decades.”

The Claytons’ attorneys aren’t necessarily arguing that the horses will exceed the cumulative noise ordinance in conjunction with fruit processing equipment, but they believe that a study is required. “We’re not saying you can’t have it, but you need to take into consideration that there’s a county noise ordinance that limits noise to certain levels and that the California Environmental Quality Act requires noise to be studied,” Sullivan said.

The Claytons’ attorneys also believe that the California Environmental Quality Act requires traffic studies to determine cumulative impact. “They haven’t been studied at all. It could be that the study comes back and says we’re wrong. But the law requires that you do a study if there’s a potential for a significant impact,” Sullivan said.

David Puchta notes that the Planning Commission’s decision will have impacts not only for other horse owners but also for the upcoming county general plan. Parts of General Plan 2020 are in the environmental study phase, but the animal designations and zoning for General Plan 2020 have not yet been addressed. “They never defined how many horses you could have in that A70 zone,” he said. “These provisions would change the way the zoning ordinance would be written in the future.”

Puchta also cited agricultural market law, thus creating the possibility that right to farm provisions will allow the construction of any barn by right if the Aqueduct Road barn dispute is settled in court. “The process in its entirety is going against the Right To Farm Act,” he said.

“A barn may be allowed by right, but an 18,000 square foot barn is not allowed by right. A 2,000 square foot barn is allowed by right,” Sullivan said.

The Claytons’ attorneys also questioned the adequacy of the California Environmental Quality Act study for the groundwater and surface water impacts from the storage of manure and stable waste. “There wasn’t an adequate study, and there’s no mitigation measures that were imposed or any conditions for approval for the project that demonstrates that there won’t be a significant water quality impact from the tons of manure that are stored on the site from the 60-odd horses they can have,” Sullivan said.

David Puchta noted that no permit would be needed to house the horses in pipe corrals and that he was asking for the building to mitigate noise and waste factors. He also noted that the environmental negative declaration indicated that only 48 of the 60 stall rooms would be used for horses and the remainder would be used for feed, tack, and other supplies. Puchta added that the large size of the barn would enable quarterly delivery of hay, thus reducing traffic to and from the property.

Zoning Administrator Rose Garduno had approved the Administrative Permit on November 28 after including conditions which would ensure that the Puchtas would use the barn only for their own horses and not for breeding or boarding. The Claytons appealed Garduno’s decision to the Planning Commission. A Planning Commission decision can be appealed by either side to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.

What both sides agree is that the decision could affect more than just a Bonsall property. “We’re not dealing with an Aqueduct Road ordinance. We’re dealing with a county ordinance,” Morrison said.