Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Equestrian Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Encinitas staff recommend approval for Olivenhain equestrian site; neighbors raise fire, drainage and access concerns

2264616 · February 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff recommended approval of a multi‑structure equestrian project at 3465 Boomen Road (4.98 acres) but neighbors urged the city to address wildfire evacuation, drainage and road-access concerns before the notice of decision is finalized. The applicant sought a minor use permit to exceed height, area and the parcel’s by‑right horse count (request:

City planning staff recommended approval Feb. 11 of a multi‑structure equestrian project at 3465 Boomen Road in the Olivenhain community, but neighbors at the zoning administrative hearing urged the city to resolve wildfire evacuation, drainage and access questions before the city issues a final notice of decision.

Staff described the project as a remodel with a 583‑square‑foot addition to an existing single‑family residence on a 4.98‑acre lot, plus a detached 1,184‑square‑foot accessory dwelling unit, a 4,946‑square‑foot 10‑stall horse barn with a 669‑square‑foot office, a 4,062‑square‑foot horse walker, and a combined detached garage and hay barn (approximately 1,169 and 908 square feet, respectively). The project also proposes an increase in the number of horses on the parcel from the nine allowed by right under the municipal code to 10, which required a minor use permit.

Planning staff said several proposed accessory structures exceed the municipal size and height limits for detached barns and garages and therefore require an administrative design review and a minor use permit. Staff cited applicable Encinitas Municipal Code sections (as presented at the hearing) allowing additional area, height and stories by issuance of a minor use permit and said staff could make the required findings for approval. Staff also stated the project has been determined exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a), 15303(e) and 15332.

Neighbors, represented at the hearing by Camille Perkins (a nearby property owner), urged caution, saying the property lies in a high fire severity zone and that community evacuation planning leaves limited time for residents to evacuate. Perkins said she believed the owner will not live onsite and expressed concern that adding animals and additional buildings could complicate evacuation and local road access in an emergency. Perkins also raised written concerns about drainage and potential road erosion on the western side of the property and requested city coordination on any road or off‑site improvements because underground private infrastructure is not fully mapped.

Architect Keith Wybrecht, speaking for the applicant, said the owner is an experienced horse owner and has successfully evacuated large numbers of animals in the past. Wybrecht said the owner does not plan to live onsite but has staff who may reside at the property during construction and transition, and he emphasized that the design will include fire‑safety measures. Wybrecht also noted a prior 10‑stall barn existed on the parcel in earlier years and that, at 4.98 acres, the lot is 0.02 acres shy of a threshold that would allow 10 horses by right under the municipal formula staff cited.

Staff reported the applicant held a Citizens Participation Program meeting April 9, 2024, attended by four people; staff also received a written comment from a neighbor about building heights and runoff. Notices were mailed Jan. 30 to owners and occupants within 500 feet and to those who had requested notice.

Hearing officer Anna Colomusi closed public comment after directing staff to review the specific fire, drainage and access questions and to include responses in the notice of decision before finalizing it. No formal vote was taken at the Feb. 11 hearing; staff recommended approval and indicated that conditions and responses to identified concerns will be added to the notice of decision when the administrative review is complete.