Title
Body
MEMO
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 (Kuehn, Files No. UP 17-10 and DR 17-05) to allow the Construction of a new Off-Site Sign (Billboard); Clearlake Oaks, CA. AB 17-05. APN 006-510-31. Supervisor District 3.
EXHIBITS: A. Vicinity Map
B. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 10, 2017
C. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2017
D. Appeal Application AB 17-05 with support statement
I. BACKGROUND
The appellant is appealing the Planning Commission’s October 26, 2017 denial of a Major Use Permit and Design Review (files no. UP 17-10 and DR 17-05) that would have allowed an off-site sign (billboard) at the subject site, 13550 E. Highway 20, Clearlake Oaks. A timely appeal to the Board of Supervisors (AB17-05) 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 Shoreline Communities Area Plan by adding to sign clutter and diminished viewshed within this scenic corridor.
Subject Site
Design Review Finding #1
That the proposed use is a permitted use in the district where located.
This site is zoned “Planned Development Commercial - 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 4.1 acres in size, large enough to 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 this criterion.
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; 20’ tall and 200 square feet per sign face (two faces total). The 4.1 acre site is undeveloped and has been used for wine grape production.
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 7.9, LU 7.19; T 1.11; OSC 1.18, OSC 2.2 and OSC 2.13), and with portions of the Shoreline Communities Area Plan (Chapter 6, subsection 6.4, pages 6-14 and 6-15; and Chapter 7, subsection F). The discussion for each 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 Shoreline Communities Area Plan, which recommends that billboards be prohibited in Scenic Corridors.
Page 6-14 of the Shoreline Communities Area Plan states:
“…Large individual advertising signs along the highway frontage should be avoided. Offsite billboard type advertising should also be prohibited.”
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 subject site is zoned PDC (Planned Development Commercial, but has historically been used for agricultural (wine grape) production.
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.
The billboard is out of scale with the vacant lot. If there were buildings on the subject site, this might not be the case, however the vacant lot causes the scale and size of the billboard to appear much greater than it would be if the site were developed.
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...
During the October 26th 2017 hearing, several Planning Commissioners stated that there are many billboards in the County, and that a number of them are poorly maintained. 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, Chapter 45 (Signs), subsection 20-22 (Off Site Signs and Billboards) 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. It is immediately adjacent to another lot that was approved for a similar billboard on April 24, 2014.
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 proposed billboard with not protect natural or scenic resources, but rather will detract from them by adding to sign clutter and reducing visibility of the natural surrounding environment.
Policy HS-2.2 Development Near Fault Zones The siting of residential, commercial, recreational, or industrial structures on or adjacent to known active or potentially active fault zones should be avoided. In areas of known seismic hazards, building intensity should be dictated by a scale of acceptable risks as shown in Table 7-1.
The subject site is not located in a mapped fault zone, however there is a mapped fault zone located directly across Highway 20 from the subject site. If disturbed by a seismic event, it is unlikely that the sign could cause damage to vehicles or persons given its height (20 feet tall) and its setback from the property line (20 feet).
Policy OSC-2.2 Design Guidelines for Structures in Urbanized Areas In the urbanized areas of the County (within Community Growth Boundaries) structures within the immediate foreground of a scenic roadway should be constructed at a height and/or sited at a sufficient distance to maintain roadway and adjacent structures’ views of distant, but visually significant natural features.
The sign is located within the Clearlake Oaks community growth boundary (see graphic below), and is within a scenic corridor, although Scenic Corridor standards don’t apply to commercially zoned land. The sign is set back 20’ from the highway to maximize its functionality and is at its height limit allowed without an exception being granted.
Clearlake Oaks Community Growth Boundary
Design Review Finding #6
That the project is in conformance with any applicable community design manual criteria.
The Shoreline Communities Area Plan does not contain community design criteria. The Zoning Ordinance however does; it is within Chapter 45 (Signs), subsection 20 - 22 (Off Site Signs and Billboards). 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.
V. APPELLANT’S STATEMENT. The appellant sent an email to staff on January 2, 2018 that contained the following statement as justification for this appeal:
“Members of the planning commission violated the brown act by making prejudicial comments regarding my application prior to the hearing.”
VI. FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): Action taken by the Board will have no fiscal impact on the County.
VII. CONCLUSION.
The appeal form (BOS Exhibit D) submitted by the applicant 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, sign proliferation, existing poorly maintained signage and signs were distracting to drivers.
Staff recommends 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
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors make a motion of intended decision to deny Appeal AB 17-05 and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of UP 17-10 and DR 17
Sample motion:
Appeal Denial
I move that the Board of Supervisors make an intended decision to deny the Appeal AB 17-05 and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of Use Permit 17-10 and Design Review DR 17-05 applied for by Richard Kuehn for property located at 13550 E. State Highway 20, Clearlake Oaks and direct County Counsel to prepare findings of fact.