COUNTY OF LAKE - File #: 18-107

Date	Ver.	Action By	Action	Result	Action Details	Meeting Details	Video
2/27/2018	1				Action details	Meeting details	Video
2/27/2018	1	BOARD OF SUPERVISORS	approved with conditions		Action details	Meeting details	Video

Title

Body

MEMORANDUM

TO: Board of Supervisors

FROM: Robert Massarelli, Community Development Director

Eric Porter, Associate Planner

DATE: February 27, 2018

SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Denial of Major Use Permit and Design Review (Montgomery; Files No. UP 17-06 and DR 17-07) to allow the Construction of a new Off-Site Sign (Billboard); Nice, CA. AB 17-06. APN 004-055-37. Supervisor District 3.

EXHIBITS: A. Vicinity Map

B. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 11, 2017

C. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2017

D. Appeal Application AB 17-06 with Applicant’s Exhibits I - IV

I. BACKGROUND

The appellant is appealing the Planning Commission’s October 26, 2017 denial of Major Use Permit, UP 17-06, and Design Review, DR 17-07 for an off-site sign (billboard) at 2325 E. Highway 20, Nice. A timely appeal to the Board of Supervisors (AB17-06) of the Planning Commission’s decision was received on November 2, 2017. Staff is recommending that the Board of Supervisors uphold the Planning Commission’s denial decision and deny the appeal.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Pursuant to CEQA Section 15270, projects which are disapproved are not subject to CEQA.

III. MAJOR USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS

There are six required findings for approval of a Major Use Permit and eight required findings for approval of a Design Review Permit. There is some duplicity in these findings, so they are identified by ‘UP’ and ‘DR’ to differentiate between them, as follows.

(a) The Review Authority may only approve or conditionally approve a major use permit and / or a design review permit if all of the following findings are made:

Use Permit Finding #1

That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the County.

The proposed sign will have a detrimental effect on the viewshed within this defined area within the Upper Lake - Nice Area Plan. The site is small (8200 square feet or about the size of a small residential lot) and vacant; the scale of the sign will stand out more due to the undeveloped parcel and its undeveloped neighboring parcels.

View of the Site and Viewshed from across Highway 20

Design Review Finding #1

That the proposed use is a permitted use in the district where located.

This site is zoned Service Commercial “C3” (and DR Design Review) which allows off site signs (billboards) subject to approval of a major use permit and design review.

Use Permit Finding #2

That the site for the project is adequate in size, shape, location, and physical characteristics to accommodate the type of use and level of development proposed.

Design Review Finding #2

That the site for the project is adequate in size, shape, location, and physical characteristics to accommodate the type of use and level of development proposed.

The subject site is small; about 0.19 acres (8200 square feet), which appears to be too small in terms of scale to easily accommodate this proposed billboard.

Use Permit Finding #3

That the streets, highways and pedestrian facilities are reasonably adequate to safely accommodate the specific proposed use.

Design Review Finding #7

That the streets, highways and pedestrian facilities are reasonably adequate to safely accommodate the specific proposed use.

The Planning Commission found that the sign would be a distraction to drivers and as such could become a safety issue, and could not make a finding that the sign complies with these criteria.

Use Permit Finding # 4

That there are adequate public or private services, including but not limited to fire protection, water supply, sewage disposal, and police protection to serve the project.

Design Review Finding # 3

That there are adequate public and private services, including but not limited to fire protection, water supply, and sewage disposal.

The site has adequate services for the sign which just requires power.

Design Review Finding # 5

That the placement and design of buildings and structures are compatible with existing development and will not detract from the visual setting.

The sign is large; 300 square feet per side, and 22 feet tall. The site however is small and undeveloped (8200 square feet in gross area, or about the size of a small residential lot). The immediate area is undeveloped, which will further exacerbate the scale of the sign. The impact of the sign would be lessened if there were development on the subject site and adjacent sites, however this area is primarily undeveloped. See photo below.

Aerial Photo of Site and Immediate Vicinity

Use Permit Finding #5

That the project is in conformance with the applicable provisions and policies of this Code, the General Plan and any approved zoning or land use plan.

Design Review Finding # 4

That the project is in conformance with the applicable provisions and policies of this Chapter, the Lake County General Plan and any approved zoning or land use study or plan.

This proposal is not consistent with certain policies in the General Plan (Policies no. LU 1.3, LU 5.4, LU 7.4, LU 7.7, LU 7.9, LU 7.19, T 1.11 and OSC 2.2), with certain Chapters of the Upper Lake - Nice Area Plan (Chapter 3, Scenic Corridors, page 3-20; Appendix B, pages B-9 and B-10, and Appendix C, page C-3), and with certain Zoning Code standards and criteria (Article 51.4(1), (2) and (4), and with this subsection). The discussion is as follows:

GENERAL PLAN.

The following General Plan policies relate to site development in the context of this proposal:

Policy LU-1.3 Prevent Incompatible Uses The County shall prevent the intrusion of new incompatible land uses into existing community areas.

The proposed sign is incompatible with certain General Plan policies and with several chapters within the Upper Lake - Nice Area Plan, which recommends that billboards be prohibited in Scenic Corridors.

The Upper Lake - Nice Area Plan, Chapter 3, Natural Resources, page 3-20, “Scenic Corridors”, states:

‘General plan policies encouraged the protection and enhancement of Lake County’s scenic highways and resources. The major purpose of this objective is to promote the county’s recreation-based economy and provide a high level of scenic quality to residents and visitors alike. There are many panoramic views and scenic highway viewsheds within the Upper Lake - Nice Planning Area, including mountainous and hillside vistas with riparian and natural resources.

‘Mountain viewsheds include Elk Mountain and Hogback Ridge to the north and the Mayacamas Mountains to the west of the planning area. Vistas of Blue Lakes and Clear Lake are also available along portions of Highway 20.

‘The value and continued enjoyment of these scenes is dependent upon the knowledge that views and viewsheds can change over time. To maintain the quality of the view shed, offsite commercial signs and billboards should be prohibited in designated scenic corridors. Increasing development, if not properly regulated, can also diminish this resource, (emphasis added)

The sign is large; 300 square feet per side, and 22 feet tall. The site however is small, 8200 square feet in gross area, or about the size of a small residential lot. The immediate area is undeveloped, which will further enhance the scale of the sign. The impact of the sign would be lessened if there were development on the subject site and adjacent sites, however this area is primarily undeveloped.

Policy LU-5.4 Compatibility with Surrounding Land Use. The County shall ensure that appropriate industrial / heavy commercial sites will not result in harmful impacts to adjacent land uses. In addition, sites should be designed to prevent the intrusion of incompatible uses into industrial areas. Infilling of existing industrial areas is highly desirable where feasible.

The sign will be located on a vacant lot. A finding of compatibility with vacant land cannot be made due to the disparity of the scale of the sign with the undeveloped land. The site is surrounded by vacant C3 zoning to the southeast, south and west. Across Highway 20 is land zoned PDC, similar to the C3 zone in terms of permitted uses.

Policy LU-7.4 Contextual and Compatible Design The County shall ensure that new development respects Lake County’s heritage by requiring that development respond to its context, be compatible with the traditions and character of each community, and develop in an orderly fashion which is compatible with the scale of surrounding structures.

There is already one billboard in the vicinity (see aerial photo below). The subject billboard is out of scale with the lot, which is about 8200 square feet in size. If there were buildings on the subject site, the scale disparity might not be as obvious, however the vacant lot causes the scale and size of the billboard to be much greater than it would be if the site were developed.

Subject site and existing vicinity billboards

Policy LU-7.7 Blight Removal Target Areas. The County shall eliminate or mitigate urban blight or factors that might lead to urban blight around Clear Lake, especially in the four redevelopment areas...

The new sign will not represent blight. It does however create the potential for future blight if it is not well maintained over the course of time.

Policy LU-7-19 Billboards. The County shall address, as part of a Zoning Ordinance update, commercial design guidelines on billboards, along with amortization provisions, as necessary to protect and preserve the beauty, character, economic and aesthetic value of the County.

The Zoning Ordinance was updated in 2009. This billboard will NOT protect or preserve the beauty, character or aesthetic value of the County. It will damage the sky line in this vicinity to a degree. It will add to sign clutter.

Policy T-1.11 Protection of Scenic Corridors. Develop and maintain roads and highways in a manner that protects natural and scenic resources.

Highway 20 in this location is a locally-designated Scenic Highway and is eligible for designation as a Scenic State Highway. The Upper Lake - Nice Area Plan says that billboards should be prohibited in Scenic Corridors.

The sign is within the Nice community growth boundary as well as within a scenic corridor. The sign is set back 10’ from the highway to maximize its functionality and exceeds its 20’ height limit by 2’. The height exception can be allowed by the Board of Supervisors subject to the approval of this Major Use Permit, however the sign itself is not compliant with this policy as it will block and obscure a portion of the viewshed in this location.

Subject Site and Western Limit Line of the Nice Community Growth Boundary

Design Review Finding #6

That the project is in conformance with any applicable community design manual criteria.

There are no applicable design standards in the Area Plan, however there are applicable design standards in the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 45, subsections 20 through 22). Conformance was not evaluated because of the denial recommendation.

Use Permit Finding #6

That no violation of Chapters 5, 17, 21, 23 or 26 of the Lake County Code currently exists on the property, unless the purpose of the permit is to correct the violation, or the permit relates to a portion of the property which is sufficiently separate and apart from the portion of the property in violation so as not to be affected by the violation from a public health, safety or general welfare basis.

Design Review Finding # 8

That no violation of Chapters 5, 17, 21, 23 or 26 of the Lake County Code currently exists on the property, unless the purpose of the permit is to correct the violation, or the permit relates to a portion of the property which is sufficiently separate and apart from the portion of the property in violation so as not to be affected by the violation from a public health, safety or general welfare basis.

The department has no record of current violations of Chapters 5, 17, 21, 23 or 26 of the Lake County Code.

IV. SUMMARY OF APPELLANT’S STATEMENTS

The applicant / appellant provided discussion on their position regarding the proposed sign (Exhibit D):

1. “Statements made by the planning commissioners which could be considered prejudicial prior to hearing any public testimony.

2. “Denying the project to receive direction from the Board of Supervisors rather than acting on the merits of the project.

3. “Using inapplicable policies and design guidelines in the Upper Lake - Nice Area Plan as reasons for denial.

4. “Assertions in the staff report that the project is incompatible with surrounding land uses without providing any significant discussion of compatibility.

5. “Insufficient consideration given to the General Plan and Upper Lake - Nice Area Plan policies which encourage growth and development at this specific site.

V. FISCAL IMPACT:

Budgeted X

Non-Budgeted _ None _

Estimated Cost: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Requested: N/A

Annual Cost (if planned for future years): N/A

VI. FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): Action taken by the Board will have no fiscal impact on the County.

VII. STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): N/A

VIII. CONCLUSION

The appeal form (BOS Exhibit D) submitted by the appellant disagrees with the findings that were made by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission found that the proposed sign was not in conformance with the Use Permit or Design Review findings due to the height of the sign requiring approval of a Major Use Permit for an increase in height, sign proliferation, existing poorly maintained signage and signs were distracting to drivers.

Staff is recommending denial of this Use Permit and Design Review and did not prepare the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. If the Board of Supervisors choses to uphold the appeal staff will need to prepare the environmental review and prepare conditions for the project.

Reviewed by:

Recommended Action

IX. RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors make a motion of intended decision to deny the Appeal AB 17-06 and uphold the Planning Commissions denial of Use Permit UP 17-06 and Design Review DR 17-07.

Sample Motion:

Appeal Denial

I move that the Board of Supervisors make an intended decision to deny the Appeal AB 17-06 and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of Use Permit 17-06 and Design Review DR 17-07 applied for by Stott Outdoor Advertising for property located at 2325 E. State Highway 20, Nice and direct County Counsel to prepare findings of fact.