HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05061997 - D9 '1 J Contra
I ,•
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON _ �~
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �srq'coiiKC'i
DATE: MAY 6, 1997
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
ON DORAN SHOW STABLES (APPLICANT) NORMAN HUECKEL (OWNER) , COUNTY FILE .
DP963034 TO ESTABLISH A HORSE TRAINING FACILITY INCLUDING A NEW COVERED
ARENA AND A MANUFACTURED HOME, IN THE TASSAJARA AREA.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Find the environmental documentation prepared for this project
as adequate.
2 . Adopt the Findings contained in Resolution No. 10-1997 as the
Board's own.
3 . Uphold the DECISION of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission and deny the Appeal of Paul Speroni.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The background for this project is contained in the March 19, 1997
staff report to the . San Ramon Valley Regional Commission
("Commission") . The Commission at their March 19, 1997 meeting
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE` '
r
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMM TTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 6 , 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
.See ,the attached Addendum.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - - TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:DEBBIE CHAMBERLAIN 335-1213
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED May 6 , 1997
cc: Public Works-Attn: Mitch Avalon PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Doran Show Stables THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Paul Speroni ANT COUNTY A I ISTRA OR
DC/df B , DEPUTY
bo3 :dp963034.bo
0
I
PAGE TWO
took testimony which focused on the issues of traffic, drainage and
manure management. The Commission approved the application with a
modification to Condition of Approval #14 , requiring no street
lights and replaced Condition of Approval #20 in it's entirety with
the requirement for a submittal of a manure management plan.
The decision of the Commission was appealed by Paul Speroni on
March 28, 1997 . The appeal letter is included with this Board
Order. The issues of appeal are summarized below with staff
response.
Issue 11: "Nothing in the permit gives (me) the confidence that the
facility will not expand beyond it's current size. . .horse riding
lessons times are expanded, shows last for multiple days and
facilities are overloaded."
Staff Response: The Conditions of Approval placed on the permit
limit the number of horses that may be trained at the facility to
90 (COA#3) , hours of operation are limited from 8: 00 am to 6: 00 pm,
Monday through Saturday (COA#7) and Condition of Approval #1 states
the application is approved per plans dated October 29, 1996 and
elevations dated December 4, 1996. Any requested modification to
the approved permit will require the filing of a new application,
environmental review and noticed public hearing.
Issue 12: "The appellant is most concerned about lack of controls
over the six horse shows per year. . ." Additionally the appeal
letter addresses a specific incident that the appellant alleges
resulted in traffic congestion. Finally that "there is no
effective controls or monitoring measures to ensure that the human
and animal waste do not pollute either surface runoff or ground
water."
Staff Response 12: Condition of Approval #5 limits the shows to be
private (e.g. by invitation only) , to six per year with a maximum
of fifty guests at each one. Finally, the Community Development
Department must be notified in advance of these shows.
The incident the appellant identifies in his appeal letter was
traffic related to an annual horse endurance ride. In rebuttal
testimony, the applicant indicated the existing horse arena was
used as a staging area for the annual endurance ride to Mt. Diablo.
The ride has occurred for numerous years prior to the applicant
acquiring the property.
Condition of Approval #6a. addresses the issue of controls over
effective disposal of human and animal waste. This condition
requires "adequate fly control as required by County Health
Services Department, including thorough removal of all accumulated
moist manure and bedding material and proper treatment or disposal"
and Condition of Approval #6c. "Requires that sewage disposal is
subject to review and approval by the County Health Services
Department prior to issuance of building permits". Additionally,
Condition of Approval #20 added by the Commission requires the
filing of a manure management plan for review and approval of the
County Health Services Department.
Any building permits issued for construction of the covered arena
or the second residence will require review and approval of the
County Health Services Department. This review will ensure that
adequate manure management is approved and that proper facilities
for the six private shows is available.
Issue 13: The appellant indicates that he received no Notice of
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance posted for the
project and would have provided substantial comments on the
Proposed Negative Declaration. Furthermore, the appellant states,
"the lack of comments on the proposed negative declaration was a
product of inadequate public notice."
PAGE THREE
Staff Response 13:
The appellant resides at 245 Joseph Lane, approximately z mile west
of the subject property. The California Environmental Quality Act
§15072 requires "direct mailing to owners and occupants of property
contiguous to the project. " Mr. Speroni is not an adjacent owner
or occupant and thus would not receive the Proposed Notice of
Negative Declaration. Mr. Speroni did attend neighborhood meetings
relating modification to drainage improvement for MS63-82 . The
modification to MS63-82 was approved by the Zoning Administrator on
January 22, 1997 on the Consent Calendar. No one appeared to
testify for or against the modifications. Those who attended these
neighborhood meetings were mailed notice of the public hearing of
this application. Furthermore, the Commission in approving the
application was required to find the environmental documentation
prepared for the project as adequate. Testimony was given at the
hearing in regards to the potential environmental impacts of water
quality, traffic and manure management issues. The Commission in
approving the application found the Negative Declaration was
adequate and approved the project with the modified conditions as
noted above.
issue 14a: The appellant indicates that the project has the
potential to impact well water and "from his observations, most or
all of the manure generated in the past from the 90 horses appears
to be piled and stored in the infield of the racetrack".
Staff Response: The applicant testified that the manure generated
on-site is stored in a concrete enclosure on the northern portion
of the property and is recycled on the property in the pastures,
sold as soil conditioner to landscape contractors or used by
neighbors as a soil additive in agricultural fields. Agency
Comments received by the County Health Services Department did not
indicate the wells in the area have been contaminated. In a follow-
up 'conversation with the Health Services Department ("HSD") , HSD
indicated that concerns have been raised by residents in the
general Tassajara Area, but no formal complaints have been filed or
water quality samples submitted by residents for verification.
Furthermore, the Proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance was distributed to the adjacent owners and occupants
as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. No
comments were received on the document.
Issue 14b. "Staff materials and the Planning Commission ignored the
potential impacts related to possible overloading of the septic
systems due to the number of people who will be present at up to
six horse per year, perhaps lasting several days."
Staff Response: The application materials provide to HSD for their
comment by Community Development Department ("CDD") included the use
of the facility for a maximum of six horse shows per year. The HSD
response to CDD's request requires that "All wastewater shall be
disposed into a septic system meeting Environmental Health Division
requirements applicable to new construction." Furthermore, there is
no evidence in the record based on the application materials
provided and testimony by the applicant that the proposed shows
would last more than one day. Additionally, Condition of Approval
#5, states "the applicant shall submit the date and hours of the
event. . ." As identified in the conditions of approval, the horse
shows are to be a one day event, similar to a wedding reception.
Issue #4c: The applicant contends the project "will generate
substantially more use and traffic than other uses (single family
homes) in the area."
PAGE FOUR
Staff Response: Staff agrees that the proposed use would generate
more traffic than a typical single family residence in the
immediate area. However, the Environmental Impact Report prepared
for the Rezoning Application in 1982 include an analysis of the
traffic impacts and mitigation measures associated with the horse
training facility, one estate lot and an open space parcel.
Additionally, as stated in the Negative Declaration and application
materials, the maximum number of employees associated with the
facility is six and the horses are primarily trained by the
employees of the facility. There is no request for lessons to be
given at the facility. The projects as proposed does not trigger
100 more PM peak trips, therefore Measure C analysis is not
required.
Finally, the appellant raises the issue that the "traffic impacts
could be cumulatively significant when traffic from other proposed
development projects in the area are added to traffic from this
project." It is not appropriate to require this project to mitigate
traffic impacts from future projects that may or may not occur. Any
future developments which may add traffic to the circulation system
will be required to mitigate any identified impacts generated by
that project.
Issue 15: Consistency with County Ordinance Code. The appellant
contends that the proposed site plan did not identify parking
facilities or sewage disposal facility to accommodate the patrons
of the horse, employees and any other guest who might use the
facility.
Staff Response: The proposed site plan dated October 29, 1996
identified an "existing paved parking" in the northeast corner of
the property. Staff for the purposes analyzing the project,
determined the minimum of 23 parking spaces could be accommodated
in the area. Additionally, per staff's field visit, six paved
parking space are directly east of the proposed covered arena.
Please see previous response to Issue 14b. for discussion of sewage
disposal facilities.
Issue #6. The appellant contends that the "installation of a
manufactured housing unit was approved by the Regional Planning
Commission purportedly for a caretaker. [The appellant] can find
no indication that the project has complied with the provisions
applicable to use of manufactured housing or mobile homes for
caretaker, set out in Ordinance Section 84-68. 1804."
Staff Response: The application request filed by the applicant was
to establish a second residence not a caretaker mobilehome,
therefore the criteria outlined in §84-68.1804 of the County Code
is not applicable. There is no restriction placed on the permit
that would limit the applicant's use of the second residence. The
second residence may be occupied by a family member, rented, leased
or used by a caretaker of the facility.
CONCLUSION
Based on staff' s review of the information provided in the appeal
letter, there is no new information that was not known to the
Commission at the time of Public Hearing or testified to at the
Public Hearing. Staff recommends the Board approve the project,
deny the appeal based on the conditions as approved by the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on March 19, 1997.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.9
May 6, 1997
This being the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for
hearing on the appeal by Paul Speroni (Appellant) from the decision of the San
Ramon Regional Planning Commission on the application of Doran Show Stable
(Applicant and Owner) (County File #DP 96-3034) for approval for a final
development plan for a horse training facility, including a new covered area and
manufactured residence. The subject land is located approximately 1 mile east
of Finley Road at the terminus of Old School road, addressed as #5900 Old
School Road, Tassajara/Pleasanton area.
Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Department presented the
staff report on this matter.
The public hearing was opened, and the following people presented
testimony.
Norm Hueckel, Applicant, 5900 Old School Road, Pleasanton;
Paul Speroni, Appellant, 245 Joseph Lane, Pleasanton;
Cory Soltau, 240 Joseph Lane, Pleasanton;
Kim Ryan, 5730 Old School Road, Pleasanton;
Robert Zupetz, 5525 Old School Road, Pleasanton;
Robert Hoffinan, 5505 Old School Road, Pleasanton;
Marvin Hale, 5401 Old School Road, Pleasanton.
All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the public hearing was
closed, and the Board discussed the issues presented.
Supervisor Gerber moved approval of recommendations 1, 2, and 3, and
urged that periodically it be confirmed that the applicant is complying with the
approved conditions.
Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion, and proposed that the
motion include an annual review of Condition 21 (see attached Page 2).
Supervisor Gerber concurred.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing is CLOSED; and
staff s recommendations 1, 2, and 3 with amended conditions are APPROVED.
(Exhibit A attached).
RESOLUTION NO. 10-1997
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEAL - Doran Show Stables, Applicant
Norman Hueckel, Owner
Development Plan DP963034,
Tassajara area
WHEREAS, a request by Doran Show Stables (Applicant) and
Norman Hueckel (Owner) , County File #DP963034, for final
development plan approval for a horse training facility including
a new covered arena and a manufactured residence was received by
the Community Development Department on October 29, 1996; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
was posted for this application on February 13 , 1997; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a
public hearing was scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission on March 19, 1997, whereat all persons
interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 1997, after the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and
evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission APPROVED the request for a horse
training facility including a new covered arena and a manufactured
residence; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this
recommendation are as follows:
1. The applicant intends to start construction within two and
one-half years from the effective date on the final
development plan approval.
Page Two Resolution No. 10-1997
2 . The proposed final development plan is consistent with the
approved preliminary development plan (County File #2482-RZ)
and the County General Plan.
3. The horse training facility is needed at the subject property
to provide adequate horse training facilities, and that
traffic congestion will not likely be created by the training
facility and the facility will be an attractive and efficient
facility that will fit harmoniously into and will have no
adverse effects upon the adjacent or surrounding properties.
4 . The development is a harmonious integrated plan that justifies
exception from the normal application of this code.
BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing APPROVAL was given by
vote of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission in a
regular meeting Wednesday, March 19, 1997 as follows:
AYES: Commissioners - Pancoast, Neely, Couture,
Mulvihill, Gibson
NOES: Commissioners - None
ABSENT: Commissioners - Matsunaga
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on March 28, 1997 an appeal was
filed by Mr. Paul Speroni.
ATTEST:
& &4!31
Harvey E. Bragdon, Se retary
of the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission, County
of Contra Costa, State of
California
DJC/df
bo3:dp963034.res
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPROVED PERMIT
APPLICANT: Doran Show Stables APPLICATION NO. DP963034
P. O. Box 2437
Danville, CA 94526 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 204-050-025
OWNER: Same as above ZONING DISTRICT: P-1
APPROVED DATE: 5/6/97
EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/6/97
This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors has granted your request for a final development plan,
subject to the attached conditions.
HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Director
Community Development Department
By: A. &4m —
Dennis Barry, Deputy Director
PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, and be aware of the renewing requirements as no further
notification will be sent by this office. The Clerk of the Board will provide you a copy of the Board
Order with approved Conditions of Approval. This permit will expire ONE YEAR from the effective
date of this permit.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3034-96 AS
APPROVED BY THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 19, 1997
Findings
A. The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective
date on the final development plan approval.
B. The proposed final development plan is consistent with the approved preliminary
development plan (County File#2482-RZ) and the County General Plan.
C. The horse training facility is needed at the subject property to provide adequate horse
training facilities, and that traffic congestion will not likely be created by the training facility
and the facility will be an attractive and efficient facility that will fit harmoniously into and
will have no adverse effects upon the adjacent or surrounding properties.
D. The development is a harmonious integrated plan that justifies exception from the normal
application of this code.
Conditions of Approval
1. Development of a horse training facility and a new covered arena and second residence is
approved as shown on the site plan received by the Community Development Department
on October 29, 1996 and the elevations dated December 4, 1996, subject to the final review
and approval of the County Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit
and subject to the conditions listed below.
2. The conditions of approval from preliminary development plan 2482-RZ and MS 63-82
remain in full force and effect.
3. No loudspeakers or amplified music shall be permitted outside the enclosed building.
4. A maximum of 90 horses may be trained at the facility.
5. Prior to holding a private horse show, the applicant shall submit the date and hours of the
event to the Community Development Department. No more than six shows may be held
in a calendar year and a maximum of 50 guests at each one.
6. Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the County Health Department as follows:
A. Maintain an adequate fly control program, such as thorough removal of all
accumulated moist manure and bedding material, and provide for proper treatment
or disposal.
2
B. No moist manure or material containing live. fly pupae may be removed from the
premises and deposited on any property within the Contra Costa County unless by
prior approval of County personnel responsible for fly control.
C. Sewage disposal shall be subject to review and approval by the County Health
Department prior to the issuance of any building permits or establishment of the use.
7. Hours of operation shall be Monday through Saturday, 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the covered arena, submit the final elevations for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the second residence, submit final elevations and
color samples for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
10. An entrance sign not exceeding 16-square feet identifying the subject property may be
installed, following review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Public Works Conditions
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Titles 8, 9, and 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any
Ordinance Code exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of.Approval. Conditions of
Approval are base on the plan received by Community Development dated October 29, 1996.
Comply with the Following Conditions of Approval Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit or
Initiation of Use:
11. General:
Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees,
and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of
approval for this project.
12. Frontage Improvements:
Applicant shall be granted an exception from this requirement because of the large parcel
involved and the agricultural nature of the project.
13. Access to Adjoining Property: _
Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for
the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage
improvements.
3
14. Street Lighting:
Application for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting District shall be
submitted prior to issuance of building permits.
15. Utilities/Undergrounding:
Applicant shall be granted an exception from this requirement because of the agricultural
nature of the project.
16. Drainage Improvements:
Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering or originating
within the subject property shall be conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate
storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an
existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural
watercourse.
17. Applicant shall comply with the collect and convey requirements of the Ordinance Code by
construction improvements that are consistent with the drainage requirements specified in
the modified conditions of approval for Minor Subdivision 63-82.
18. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design
standards of the Public Works Department.
19. Discharging concentrated storm water into roadside ditches is prohibited by the Ordinance
Code. However, as roadside ditches are characteristic of the area, an exception from this
requirement is granted provided the applicant verifies the adequacy of the downstream ditch
system and constructs necessary improvements to make this system adequate to convey the
storm water run-off from this property.
20. Applicant shall proivde a manure management plan subject to the review of the Health
Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
21. The manure management plan shall be updated annually and submitted to the County's
Clean Water Program for review and comment and to the Zoning Administrator for review
and approval. The first report shall be submitted prior to May 1, 1998. Subsequent reports
shall be filed on an annual basis prior to May 1 of that year.
22. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):
Applicant shall be granted an exception from these requirements because the project is
considered an agricultural operation and because of the large parcel involved.
4
21. Metric Units:
The County Public Works Department is requiring that all first check submittals and
accompanying calculations including subdivision grading plans, improvement plans,
hydrology and hydraulic maps, final maps, parcel maps, right of way plat maps and
descriptions will be in metric units. Exceptions may be permitted by the Public Works
Department, Engineering Services Division, based upon evidence of substantial hardship.
ADVISORY NOTES
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE
PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH
DEVELOPMENT.
A. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District, the Health Department and the _.
Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to
requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project.
B. The Building Inspection Department will require two sets of building plans which must be
stamped by the Community Development Department and by the Sanitary District or, if the
site is not within a Sanitary District, by the County Health Department.
C. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for municipal,
construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources
Control Board or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay-
Regional II or Central Valley-Region V).
D. Some of the roadways that are used to access the subject property are private roads that may
have a vehicle weight limit. You should be aware of those weight limits and your
responsibility for road repairs when you bring construction equipment and materials onto
your site.
E. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare
Fee Ordinance for the South County Area of Benefit and the ordinance requirements for the
Southern Contra Costa Fee Areas (Southern Contra Costa Regional Fund and Southern
Contra Costa Sub-regional Fund) as outlined in the SCC JEPA and as adopted by the Board
of Supervisors.
y
5
F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47,
Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may
affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish& Game Code.
G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained.
DJC/aa
DPII/3034-96c.DJC
3/5/97
3/19/97 - SR(do
5/13/97