File #: 24-67    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Action Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 1/11/2024 In control: Planning Commission
On agenda: 1/25/2024 Final action:
Title: PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of a proposed one-year extension (UPX 23-02), to Major Use Permit (UP 21-18), Applicant: Sunrise Shore Mutual Water Company / Brelje Engineering; Location: 6030 Sunrise Court and 6200 Sunrise Drive, Lower Lake (APNs: 043-302-04 and 043-310-05)
Sponsors: Community Development
Attachments: 1. Approved Site Plans, Project Description and Existing Photographs, 2. Draft Condition of Approval, 3. Initial Study (IS 21-19), 4. Agency Comments, 5. Staff Report
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.

Staff Report

 

 

Date:                                          January 25, 2024

 

To:                                          Planning Commission

 

From:                                          Mireya G. Turner, Director

                                          Michelle Irace, Principal Planner

                                          Prepared by: Eric Porter, Associate Planner

 

Subject:                       Consideration of a one-year extension (UPX 23-02), to Major Use Permit (UP 21-18); Applicant: Sunrise Shore Mutual Water Company / Brelje Engineering; Location: 6030 Sunrise Court and 6200 Sunrise Drive, Lower Lake (APNs: 043-302-04 and 043-310-05)

 

Executive Summary:

Consideration of a one-year extension to Major Use Permit (UP 21-18) for the expansion of and improvements to a water production facility. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (file no. IS 21-19) was completed for the project in 2021.

 

The two lots are developed with an aging water treatment plant in need of upgrades. The two existing 15,000-gallon redwood water tanks are leaking and need to be removed and replaced along with the concrete pads that support them. The catch basin under the filtration system is faulty and must be replaced along with the concrete pad beneath. The facility’s water demand and amount of potable water storage needed has also increased, and the applicant is proposing two 45,000-gallon water tanks to replace the aging 15,000-gallon redwood tanks.

 

Recommended Action: 

Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

 

A.                      Approve the one-year extension for Major Use Permit (UP 21-18) with the following findings:

 

1.                     That the proposed extension is not classified as a project under CEQA section 15060(c)(1) through (3), and no additional environmental review is necessary to approve this extension.

 

2.                     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.

 

3.                     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.

 

4.                     That the streets, highways and pedestrian facilities are reasonably adequate to safely accommodate the specific proposed use with mitigation measure added.

 

5.                     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.

 

6.                     That the project is in conformance with the applicable provisions and policies of this Code, the Lake County General Plan, the Lower Lake Area Plan and the Lake County Zoning Ordinance.

 

7.                     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.

 

8.                     That the project meets all requirements found within Articles 8, 36, 41 and 51.4.