Item 5 - EA CUP 94-19 Sandra Senior AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Mana~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City ManagerO~l e~_.,~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Plan~ing Servic
DATE: January 31, 1995
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 94-19, Sandra
Senior, Applicant.
ABSTRACT
A request to legalize an existing horse boarding operation at a density of more than
ten horses per acre, and to provide for on-site worker housing for the property located
at 14905 Garden Road, in the RR-B zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff recommends the issuance of a Negative Declaration with mitigation required in the
areas of concern.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public Notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 43 property
owners within a 500 foot radius of the project's boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration with mitigation
and approve Conditional Use Permit 94-19, with a limit of 75 horses, subject to the
conditions contained in the attached proposed resolution.
ACTION
~.k~(+,,totanning\report\cup9418.$um
1 of 18 JAN 3 1 1995 ITEM 5
-'-AGENDA REPOR
CITY OF POWAY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Mana~~)
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~k
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Plan~ing Services ~
Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner
DATE: January 31, 1995
MANDATORY
ACTION DATE: January 31, 1995
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 94-
19, Sandra Senior, Applicant: A request to legalize an
existing horse boarding operation at a density of more than
ten horses per acre, and to provide for on-site worker housing
for the property located at 14905 Garden Road, in the RR-B'
zone.
APN: 323-070-62
BACKGROUND
A horse boarding stable has been operated on the subject site since the mid-
1970's. The property contains a single-family home, a detached second living
unit which is utilized for worker housing, a pool, residential fencing, two small
wooden barns and a large metal barn, 72 corrals measuring 24'x 24' in dimension,
a wash-down rack, wooden foot bridge and an assortment of tack sheds and metal
storage buildings.
The property is 6.47 acres in size. Approximately one-half of it is located
within the lO0-Year Floodway. The large metal barn and one of the small wooden
barns are built within the area affected by the floodway. The manure disposal
area is also within the floodway.
FINDING~
The subject site is a flat, rectangular corner lot. It is bounded on the south
and west by similar horse keeping uses, in a rural residential setting. The San
ACTION:
2 of 18 JAN 3 1 1995 ITEM
- Agenda Report
January 31, 1995
Page 2
Diego Humane Society large animal facility to the south was approved by CUP 88-
01. A smaller stable to the west, which will be the subject of review as Minor
CUP 94-04 for Poway Horse Park, requires extensive site plan revisions and/or
reduction of the maximum number of horses due to floodway constraints over most
of the 4.1 acre site. Properties to the north and east are vacant acreage. A
flood control channel and a development of single-family homes on 6,000 square
foot suburban lots is located to the northwest, to the north of Garden Road.
The applicant is requesting permission to keep 75 horses on site, which is equal
to approximately 23 horses per acre, once floodway area is subtracted.
Facilities for the number of horses are available and staff has not received any
complaints about this facility.
Section 17.32.010 of the Poway Zoning Ordinance prohibits the placement of horse
corrals/enclosures within the lO0-Year Floodway. The applicant has submitted a
plan for the realignment of the corrals within the usable portions of the lot
only. In addition, tack sheds and storage buildings will also be moved to areas
not subject to flooding, as will the manure storage area. The large metal barn
and one of the two small wooden barns will remain for the near future. These
structures were accounted for during the hydrologic studies completed for this
- section of the Poway Creek floodplain, therefore, they do not pose an immediate
problem for the creek system's hydrologic efficiency.
The small secondary house presently provides worker housing. This application
requests the use to be permitted as a part of the conditional use permit. There
are building permit records for the house and it is shown on the County Property
Tax Rolls.
An arena, with minimal fencing, will most likely be constructed within the
floodway to replace the current one which is located on the northern one-third
of the lot. The floodway is also a suitable location for customer parking, but
not vehicle storage. On-site customer parking is ample. The arena and parking
uses would be temporary uses of portions of the site. Confined animal facilities
are prohibited within floodways by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board
due to water quality impairment of surface waters.
With the completion of all of the changes requested by staff in regard to the
placement of the principal elements of the boarding operation, the property will
be in compliance with all local and state codes governing its use as a boarding
stable.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted a site visit and completed an Environmental Initial Study.
The only major area of concern was Hydrology, particularly water quality and
flooding impacts.
Staff recommends the issuance of a Negative Declaration with mitigation required
in the areas of concern.
JAN 311995 ITEM 5
3 of 18
Agenda Report
January 31, 1995
Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCF
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chie?tain and mailed to 43
property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project's boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration with
mitigation and approve Conditional Use Permit 94-19, with a limit of 75 horses,
subject to the conditions contained in the attached proposed resolution.
JLB:JDF:RWQ:MVD:KLS
Attachments:
A. Proposed Resolution
B. Initial Study
C. Negative Declaration
D. Proposed Site Plan
JAN311995 ITIEM 5
4 of 18
RESOLUTION NO. P-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-19
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 323-070-62
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit 94-19, submitted by Sandra Senior,
applicant, requests approval to operate a stable for up to 75 horses on a 6.5
acre site located at 14905 Garden Road, on the southwest corner of Garden Road
and Sycamore Canyon Road within the Rural Residential B zone; and
WHEREAS, an investigation of the existing facility and constraints reveals
that the site is suitable for the keeping of no more than 75 horses; and
WHEREAS, on January 31, 1995, the City Council held a duly advertised
hearing on the above-referenced item.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: EnvironmentaJ--Findinqs:
The City Council finds that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment and hereby adopts a Negative Declaration
with mitigation measures.
Section 2: Findinqs:
1. The approved project is consistent with the general plan in that
stables are a permitted use on properties with the General Plan
designation of RR-B with the approval of a conditional use permit.
2. That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of
the approved use, as modified by conditions of this resolution, will
be compatible with and will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to adjacent uses, res.idents, buildings, structures, or
natural resources, in that the use is located on a generous size lot
which adjoins others of like kind and use.
3. That the approved use is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, in
that stables are a permitted use on properties in the RR-B zone and
the property will be required to comply with site and operational
standards listed in the large animal ordinance.
4. That there will not be a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood
characteristics, in that the site is 6.47 acres in size and the
conditions of approval will ensure that the use is conducted in a
way so as to be compatible with surrounding neighbors.
5. That the generation of traffic will not adversely impact surrounding
streets and/or the City's Circulation Element, in that traffic
mitigation fees will be paid and the applicant is required to
provide on-site parking.
JAN311995 ITEM 5
5 of 18
Resolution No. P-
Page 2
6. That the site is suitable for the type and intensity of the
designated use which is approved, in that the property is in a rural
area, relatively flat and large enough to accommodate the use.
7. That there will not be significant harmful effects upon
environmental quality and natural resources.
8. That there are no other relevant negative impacts of the approved
use that cannot be mitigated.
9. That the impacts and the location, size, design and operating
characteristics of the approved use and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity nor be contrary to the
adopted general plan.
10. That the approved conditional use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of Title 17 of the Poway Municipal Code and
all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Section 3: City Council Decision:
The City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 94-19 subject to
the following conditions:
Conditions marked with an "*" (asterisk) are mitigation measures.
1. Within 30 days of approval (I) the applicant shall submit in writing that
all conditions of approval have been read and understood; and (2) the
property owner shall execute a Covenant on Real Property.
2. The use conditionally granted by this permit shall not be conducted in
such a manner as to interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of
surrounding residential and commercial uses.
3. This conditional use permit shall be subject to annual review by the
Director of Planning Services for compliance with the conditions of
approval and to address concerns that may have occurred during the past
year. If the permit is not in compliance with the conditions of approval,
or the Planning Services Department has received complaints, the required
annual review shall be set for a public hearing before the City Council,
to consider modification or revocation of the use permit.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE~FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file
in the Planning Services Department and the conditions contained herein.
6 o£ 18 JAN 3 1 1995 ITEM 5
Resolution No. P-
- Page 3
2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all conditions of
approval shall be submitted to the Planning Services Department prior to
issuance of building permits.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
4. Building permits shall be obtained for any illegal structures by June 30,
1995, and all structures shall have received final inspection by June 30,
1996.
5. The applicant shall comply wit the latest adopted Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code,
Uniform Fire Code, and a)l other applicable codes and ordinances in effect
at the time of building:permit issuance.
6.* A site inspection by t~e County Health Department is required to verify
that manure stockpiling and usage on the site is sufficiently set back
from the floodway.
7. The operation shall coltinue to be maintained in a clean and sanitary
condition. Animal pens and arena shall be cleaned on a daily basis.
8.* Relocate the corrals an sheds to areas of the property outside the 100-
Year Floodway.
g. Horse trailers, tack she and metal storage buildings shall not be stored
within the lO0-Year Flo)dway.
10. Permanent on-site restr)om facilities for horse boarding customers shall
be provided within one ear of approval of this permit. Disable access
shall be provided to the restrooms.
11. The maximum number of horses permitted to be kept on the subject site is
seventy-five (75).
12. Existing on-site trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall be
maintained in a horticulturally acceptable manner. Dead, decaying, or
potentially dangerous trees shall be approved for removal at the
discretion of the Planning Services Department during the review of the
Master Plan of existing on-site trees. Living trees which are approved
for removal shall be replaced on a tree-for-tree basis as required by the
Planning Services Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES.
1. The applicant shall pay Traffic Mitigation Fees to the Engineering
Services Department within 30 days of approval of this permit. The fee
7 of 18 JAN 3 1 1995 ITEM 5
Resolution No. P-
Page 4
shall be paid at a rate of $10.00 per horse multiplied by the maximum
number of horses approved.
2. The existing and proposed fences shall not impede flow of water through
the property.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of
California, this 31st day of January, 1995.
Don Higginson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
8 of 18 JAN 3 1 1995 ITEM .5
CITY OF POWAY
INITIAL STUDY
ENV I ROI~IENTAL CHECY,/. I ST
APPLICANT:
F I L I NG DATE: II- I ~ - ~ LOG NUMBER: ~ q~-
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Fact-based explanations of all answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have
significant impacts in:
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in
geologic relationships?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or
burial of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
contour intervals? ~.~
d. The destruction, covering, or modification
of any untque geologic or physical
features?
e. Any potential increase'in wind or water
erosion of soils, affecting either on- or
off-site conditions?
f. Changes in erosion, siltation, or
deposition? ~'
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslldes, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
2. ~. Will the proposal have significant
impacts in
a. Changes In currents, or the course In
direction of flowing streams, rivers, or
ephemeral stream channels?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface water runoff? v~'
c.Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d,Change In the amount of surface water In
any body of water?
e. Discharge Into surface waters, or any alter-
action of surface water quality?
9 of za JAN 3[ 1995 ITEM- 5
ATTACHMENT B
Environmental Study Checklist
Page 2
YES MAYBE NO
f. Alteration of groundwater
characteristics? v
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions, or with-
drawals, or through interference with an
aquifer?
Quality?
Quantity?
h,The reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or seiches?
3, Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant
impacts in:
a. Constant or periodic air emissions from
mobile or indirect sources?
Stationary sources?
b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or
interference with the attainment of appli-
cable air quality standards?
c, Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air movement moisture
or temperature?
4. Flora. Will the proposal have significant
results In:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or number
of endangered species of plants?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of plants?
c.Introduction of new or disruptive species
of plants Into an area?
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural
production?
5. Fauna. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Change In the characteristics of species,
Including diversity, distribution, or
numbers of any species of animals? v
b, Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals? v
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species
of animals Into an area, or result in a
barrier to the mitigation or movement of
animals?
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish JAN 3 1 199 5 ITEM 5
10 of 18 or wildlife habitat?
Environmental Study Checklist
Page 3
YES MAYBE NO
6. Population. [Will the proposal] have significant
results in:
a. [Will the proposal] alter the location, distri-
bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of
the human population of an area?
b. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additiona~l housing?
7. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Change in local or regional socio-economic
characteristics, including economic or
commercial diversity, tax rate, and prop-
erty values?
b. Will project costs be equitably distri-
buted among project beneficiaries, i.e.,
buyers, taxpayers, or project users?
8. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. A substantial alteration of the present or
~- planned land use of an area?
b. A conflict with any designations, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any govern-
mental entities? ~,,
c. An impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing consumptive or non-consumptive
recreational opportunities?
9. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement? v'
b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for
new street construction?
c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
d. Substantial Impact upon existing transpor-
tation systems? I-'
e. Alterations to present patterns of circu-
lation or movement of people and/or
goods? v'
f. Alteration to or effects on present and
~ potential water-borne, rail, mass transit,
or air traffic?
g. Increases In traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? I,"
11 of 18 JAN 31 1995 ITEM
Environmental Study Checklist
Page 4
YES MAYBE NO
10. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have
significant impacts in:
a. A disturbance to the Integrity of archaeo-
logical, paleontological, and/or historical
resources? ~,~
11. Health. Safety. and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? v
c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances in the event of an accident?
d. An increase in the number of individuals or
species of vector or parthenogenic organisms
or the exposure of people to such organisms?
e. Increase in existing noise levels?
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels?
g. The creation of objectionable odors? v'
h. An Increase tn'light or glare? v"
12. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista or view?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site? v'
c. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors? v
13. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal
have significant need for new systems, or alter-
ations to the following=
a. Electric power?
b. Natural or packaged gas?
c. Communications systems?
d. Water supply?
e. Wastewater facilities?
f. Flood control structures?
g. Solid waste facilities?
12 of 18 h. Fire protection?
d-A l- l ITEM 5
Environmental Study Checklist
Page 5
YES MAYBE NO
I. Police protection?
j. Schoo I s?
I(. ParKs or other recreational fac itles? v
I. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities?
m. Other governmental services? v~
14. Ener~ly and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
have significant impacts in:
a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or
energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy? ~,~
c. An increase in the demand for development of
new sources of energy?
d. An increase or perpetuation of the consump-
..... tion of non-renewable forms of energy, when
feasible renewable sources of energy are
available?
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
or scarce natural resources? .. v
15. Mandatory Findin~ls of Sl~lniftcance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the qu'ality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-
life population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the
number of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of the California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term Impacts will
endure well Into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
Individually limited, but cumulatively
-- considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the Incremental effects of an
Individual project are considerable when
viewed In connection with the effect of
past projects, and probable future
projects. )
JAN 3 1 1995 ITEM 5
13 of 18
Environmental Study Checklist
Page 6
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? //
I1. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of
proposed mitigation measures.) .
III.DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
r---] i find the proposed project COULD NOT
have
a
significant
effect
on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the envlror~nt, there will not be a significant effect
in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project, A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
F --'-] project have a significant effect on the
I
find
the
proposed
MAY
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
DATE: /° ~-- ~ TITLE:SIGNAT
FORMS~E[$. rRM
JAN 3 1 1995 ITEM
14 of 18 -.
Environmental Study Checklist
Page 7
II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2. Hydroloq¥. Will the proposal have significant impacts in:
a,b,c,e,f,i. Two major streams cross this property which combine to form
Poway Creek. The property contains solid fencing running perpendicular to
the main channel. There are also horse corrals, tack sheds and an
assortment of small metal storage buildings, and a stockpile of manure
located within the lO0-Year Floodway.
Mitigation:
1. Relocate the corrals and sheds to less flood-prone areas of
the property.
2. Modify fencip~j-to provide break away sections, at a minimum,
and install open rail fencing at best.
3. Follow County Health Department's advice regarding best
management practices in the keeping of the horses and disposal
of manure.
JAN 3 1 1995I't'~.1'~ .5
15 of 18
DON "'OG'NSO , Mayor ITY OF Pow , Y
SUSAN CAI I ImP, Y, Deputy Mayor
MICKEY CAFAGNA, Councilmember
ROBERT EMERY, Councilmember
BETFY REXFORD, COuncilmernber
CITY OF POWAY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: Sandra Senior, 14905 Garden Road, Poway,
CA 92064
2. Brief Description of Project: Environmental Assessment and Conditional
Use Permit 94-19: A request to leqalize an existinq horse boarding
operation at a density of more than ten horses per acre and to provide for
on-site worker housinq.
3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of'Poway, implementing
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Poway has
determined that the above project will not have a significant effect upon
the environment. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of
Poway are on file in the Department of Planning Services of the City of
Poway.
5. This decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final.
Contact Person: Mari,io Van Dyke Phone: {619) 679-4294
Approved by: Date:
Reba Wright-Quastler, Ph.D., AICP
Attachment C
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive JAN 3 1 1995 I'fE~ 5
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 · (619) 748-6600, 695-1400
16 of 18
CITY OF POWAY ITEM: CU9 94-~9
TITLE : ZONING & LOCATION
SCALE : NONE ATTACHMENT: D
17 of 18
GARY FA1RBOURN
Horielhoelng
14327 Yo~k Ave,
Pow~y, CA 92064
(619) 486-2155 January 31, 1995
Cary L. Fa'~rbourn
14327 York Avenue
Poway CA 92064
Sandy Senior
14353 Twin Peaks RD
Poway CA 92064
RE: Garden Road Stables
To Whom It May Concern:
Over the past six years I have not only boarded my own horse at
Garden Road Stables but I have worked there as a horseshoer.
I have very much enjoyed the atmosphere and the attitudes of the
owners and boarders as they are very friendly and they really care about
the well being of the horses and the community. Garden Road Stables is
the only stables that enters tn the Poway Parade every year. Many
boarders are so involved in the community they participate and are on
call for Search and Rescue Patrols, PVRA Activities, Rodeo, and Trail
Ma iht enanc e.
I have always found the horses to be well fed and cared for. The
ranch is kept clean and safe for both people and horses. As I personally
know the owners I am aware of all the work and planning that is continually
going on to keep the ranch in excellent condition.
Sincerely
Gary bourn
Gnyle A. Hutchison
13454 Powny Ro~d #127
Pow~y, CA 92064
(619)486-1131
City of Poway
City Council
Jallllary 31, 1995
Dear Council:
Please approve the Conditional Use Permit application for Garden Road Stables on the grounds
that the stable is appropriate to the Poway environment and that a stable in that location is an
appropriaie use of flood control land.
I believe that the cxistence of onc or more boardlnE stables in Poway is appropriate to the image
of Poway as "The City bi the Conntry." Horses and horse trails have Iraditionally been a pa~t of
the Poway social and physic4tl environment. Excellent slable management practices at Garden
Road S~ble alleviate the ~,blems of smell and flies which are most commonly cited as horse-
caused problems. In addition, the use of the specitic location of Garden Road Stable for a stable
is an appropriate use of that property. As the site is in a flood channel, its use is liml!ed. Many
other land uses require permanent buildings, but a horse stable uses only few buiIdin? on a
relatively large parcel of property.
I urge you to approve the Conditional Use Permit application of Garden Road Stable.
C-ayle A. Hut~hi~on
January 30, 1995
Poway City Council
Poway, CA 92064
Ladies and Gentlemen:
GARDEN ROAD STABLES (Conditional Use Permit)
I would like to register my APPROVAL of a permit being issued to the Garden
Road Stables. I have boarded my horses at this stable since 1984. During that
time there have been as many as 70 horses on the property. It was my
observation that with the proper stable management that was in effect, that is
(stalls being cleaned on daily basis) etc., that this number of horses could be
comfortably accommodated.
I would like you to know that our horses are NOT just PET's. They contribute to
the community by being qualified as SEARCH & RESCUE Mounts for the San
Diego Sheriffs Department. They also are members of the VOLUNTEER
PATROL at Penasquito's Canyon Preserve.
Because of the time involved in our volunteer projects we prefer to board our
horses rather than have them on our own property because of the time and
maintenance involved in keeping a horse (feeding, repairing fencing, etc.).
We also feel that the stable helped us in raising our son by giving him a place to
play when he was younger. As he grew older it afforded him responsibility caring
for our horses and gave him the opportunity to work for others, grooming and
exercising horses, etc. Because of this he did not have a lot of extra time to get
into trouble.
In conclusion we would like to state that we feel the horses in Poway
CONTRIBUTE more to the Quality of Life in the Community than they take away.
Sincerely,
rs. James L. Hallam
P.O. Box 60745
San Diego, Ca 92166
· January 31,1995
Re: Garden Road Stables
I have had a horse (sometimes 2 horses) boarded at Garden
Road Stables since 1981. My long tenure there demonstrates
my satisfaction with the facility, the managers/owners,
the caretakers and the other boarders.
The property has continually been upgraded to better
accommodate the needs of the boarders and the welfare of
the horsesl
The stable is a positive example of Poway's commitment to
the equestrian community while at the same time it is a
viable business. The proximity of miles and miles of
riding trials makes~the most logical and convenient
location I could ever imagine for a riding stable.
Thank you for your attention.
Since/yly
Pati VanSise
Boarder