Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Equine Sdr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County committee asks staff to study removing site development review for horse boarding
Summary
Community members urged the Transportation and Planning Committee to eliminate the countysite development review (SDR) requirement for boarding stables and riding academies; supervisors directed staff to research state-law conformity, CEQA implications and coordinate with other agencies before returning with a proposal.
Community advocates and horse owners urged Alameda County supervisors on Oct. 6 to drop the planning departmentsite development review (SDR) requirement for horse-boarding facilities and riding academies, arguing the permit process is costly, duplicative and discourages small operators.
Dan Divini, a Castro Valley MAC member who presented the proposal in his personal capacity, told the committee that boarding and riding facilities already face ongoing oversight from environmental health, public works and other county agencies and that the five-year SDR renewal requirement imposes onerous steps including a long application, an initial $2,000 deposit and, in some cases, expensive surveys and outside reports. "It starts off with a 15-page application, a $2,000 initial deposit...then it requires a survey of the property," Divini said, adding that operators sometimes are asked to hire outside inspectors and perform costly septic-system upgrades.
Supporters in the room and on the phone echoed the request. Larry Gostin, an Ag Advisory Committee member, said prior studies and an Equine Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) have repeatedly recommended streamlining the permit process but implementation stalled. Horse owner Bobbie Britting and other riders described economic and youth-health benefits tied to local barns and warned that excessive permitting burdens reduce the number of operators and damage a small, interdependent local economy.
Planning staff and county counsel told the committee that a change in SDR requirements is possible but would have to conform to state law and could trigger CEQA review depending on the scope of any replacement regulations. Staff recommended the committee direct planning to consult with partner agencies (environmental health, public works, fire and others) to determine whether other permitting backstops would adequately address public-safety and environmental concerns if SDRs were removed.
The committee did not vote to change the code at the meeting. Instead, supervisors asked staff to research legal conformity with state law, assess CEQA implications and report back after conferring with partner agencies. The chair also asked planning staff to bring proposed definitional changes and to consider taking incremental, low-hanging administrative fixes first.
What happens next: Planning staff will coordinate with relevant agencies, return with legal and environmental analysis, and the committee indicated it may route subsequent proposals to the Agricultural Advisory Committee and Planning Commission before any final action at the full Board of Supervisors.
