Wednesday, May 22, 2013
CALIFORNIA'S OLDEST NEWSPAPER - EST. 1851
Volume 162 · Issue 61 | 99¢

Supes ban new sign apps for 45-days

El Dorado County has instituted an “urgency ordinance” that imposed a 45-day moratorium on the acceptance of new applications for “any freestanding signs that exceed 80 square feet in size and/or exceed 15 feet in height.”

The moratorium took effect immediately upon the unanimous vote of Board of Supervisors at Tuesday’s regular meeting and generally followed the recommendations of county counsel and the county’s Development Services Department. Under “urgency ordinance” guidelines, the county can declare that a situation exists that threatens the safety and general welfare of the public. In the case of billboards and other signs, the public welfare is compromised if it is determined that a sign blocks or otherwise negatively affects the “viewshed” or impacts a “scenic corridor.”

Viewsheds, scenic and historical routes are protected by the county’s General Plan adopted in 2004, while the current “sign ordinance” was enacted back in 1980. That ordinance (Section 17.16 of the County Code) “allows applicants to apply for a special use permit for any freestanding signs with a sign face greater than 80 square feet. The current (1980) ordinance does not specify architectural style, location, height, or size limitations.”

Rules governing signs are found in subchapters of the county’s Zoning Ordinance, which has been slated for comprehensive updating since 2010. However, public concerns “over the proliferation of freestanding signs” that may impact viewsheds in commercial areas or along public highways has brought the issue to the fore, according to county documents.

Staff reductions in the Development Services Department’s long-range planning division over the past several years have precluded substantive work on a sign ordinance, the board’s documents note. Until now, development services staff has urged that sign issues be addressed in the larger zoning ordinance update rather than dealing with it separately.

As part of Tuesday’s action, however, within the “urgency” designation, the board also approved a request for proposals targeting specialized firms that could develop the sign ordinance update rather than waiting for the zoning ordinance process to be completed.

The sign moratorium is in effect from date of execution for the next 45 days. At the end of that period, three options inform the county’s next move. If no further action is taken, the moratorium simply expires. On the other hand, the board can amend the ordinance at that time or add an extension. Under law, an extension may run for up to one year, 10 months and 15 days. Thus, the entire process may not exceed two years.

Supervisors added the proviso that the moratorium not affect any completed applications for special use permits currently in the system. Development Services Director Roger Trout told the board that no more than a half-dozen such applications exist.

Paula Frantz, deputy county counsel, assured and reassured supervisors that the proposed moratorium would restrict new applications for freestanding, oversized signs or billboards, particularly along Highways 49 and 50, but would not affect most businesses. Typically business signs are either attached to the building or do not exceed the 15-foot height limit as allowed in the current sign ordinance and the moratorium, Frantz explained.

Opponents of the moratorium argued from several different perspectives. Art Marinaccio of Shingle Springs said he favored some kind of moratorium, but urged that it be part of a “wider discussion” that could include  anything that might impact the viewshed. Further, he asked that there be “absolute clarity” regarding on-site as opposed to off-site signs.

Dennis Schneider, of Western Sign told the board, “Obviously we don’t want a moratorium” and recommended the board “take a deep breath and step back because the urgency ordinance could last two years.” Schneider then introduced Jeff Aran, legal counsel for the California Sign Association.

Aran took issue with the proposed moratorium, advising that the county had failed to clearly define and declare an actual emergency with respect to the urgency ordinance and also failed to clearly distinguish on-site from off-site signs.

“It will be a de facto change in the sign ordinance without due process,” Aran challenged.

Frantz interjected that the county “is well aware of the emergency code (section 65858) and the Board of Supervisors has the authority to determine (the required) urgency.”

She added that the proposed moratorium “does not limit on-site signs by right.” That is the right for a property owner to erect a business sign. Earlier, Frantz had made clear to the board that the moratorium would only address size and location of signs so as “not to run afoul of First Amendment rights.”

Ken Greenwood of Pollock Pines advocated (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) for a “chainsaw ordinance” to remove billboards erected without proper permits or “put up overnight.” Greenwood has complained to the board on numerous occasions about a billboard on Highway 50 near Riverton that he says was literally “put up overnight” several years ago.

Contact Chris Daley at 530-344-5063 or cdaley@mtdemocrat.net. Follow @CDaleyMtDemo.

Chris Daley

Chris Daley

Chris has written a weekly column for the Democrat for more than 20 years and has Master’s Degrees in Russian History, Psychology and Career Counseling. He has been a staff writer for a number of years and enjoys it because he "learns so much about so many things."
LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 9 comments

The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

  • EldoradoAugust 10, 2012 - 9:15 am

    Again proving that the Board of Supervisors is totally inept and unable to govern.

    Report abusive comment
  • Needed StepAugust 11, 2012 - 6:59 am

    The problem is that the current ordinance relating to billboards was deficient. This moratorium allows time to create a more substantial and legally defensible ordinate to meet the desired outcomes of the residents of this county.

    Report abusive comment
  • curiousAugust 11, 2012 - 8:29 am

    Needed Step: According to BOS, what are the "desired outcomes of the residents of this county"? And, how do you know what residents want?

    Report abusive comment
  • Needed StepAugust 12, 2012 - 12:10 am

    Curious: Directly from this article: 'However, public concerns “over the proliferation of freestanding signs” that may impact viewsheds in commercial areas or along public highways has brought the issue to the fore, according to county documents.'

    Report abusive comment
  • curiousAugust 12, 2012 - 5:40 am

    Needed Step: Are you saying that county documents identify the particulars - name, date, complaint - of those expressing concerns the county has decided to respond to?

    Report abusive comment
  • Kathleen NewellAugust 12, 2012 - 7:39 pm

    Why no mention of the three giant signs approved before they voted on the moratorium. The two that were denied back in March got the go ahead after the applicant said he would sue if not granted as proposed. Maybe I dreamed it all. Here's the Mt. Democrat story from March talking about the three billboards. Two of them are at the beautiful scenic view-shed by Ponderosa Road in Shingle Springs. http://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/supes-ok-1-of-3-billboards/

    Report abusive comment
  • Needed StepAugust 13, 2012 - 7:04 am

    Curious is playing a game, trolling for an encounter and probably someone's lawyer or paid staff. His/her handle should be Paid to be Curious. The summary remains the same: This moratorium allows time to create a more substantial and legally defensible ordinance to meet the desired outcomes of the residents of this county in managing signs.

    Report abusive comment
  • curiousAugust 13, 2012 - 8:20 am

    Needed Step: Nice try! Is your fascinating (paranoid?) response/assumption intended to delegitimize straightforward citizen questions? This county's record of planning in accordance the expressed needs of ordinary people short on political/economic influence is a bit . . . what shall I say . . . hmmm . . . (someone else fill in the blank, please.)

    Report abusive comment
  • curiousAugust 13, 2012 - 8:42 am

    "The 15 Rules of Web Disruption" - 14. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/the-15-rules-of-internet-disinformation.html

    Report abusive comment
.

News

 
Bass Lake Road closure announced

By Chris Daley | From Page: A1

Embezzler seeking resolution

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1

 
PHS cafeteria gets a do-over

By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1

Kids learn while having fun at Farm Day

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1 | Gallery

 
Wakamatsu branches out

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1 | Gallery

Rider saved after falling down cliff on quad

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A3, 2 Comments | Gallery

 
Quick hearing changes dates in child death case

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A3

Professional and business services led year-over growth

By Diane Patterson | From Page: A6

 
FLC celebrates 10th commencement tonight

Press Release | From Page: A7

Supes show military appreciation

By Chris Daley | From Page: A7

 
Statewide median income up in 2011

By Franchise Tax Board | From Page: A7

Regional HVAC company seeks a home to ‘help’

By Chris Daley | From Page: A11

 
.

Opinion

Take my word for it: Life gives you lemons

By Patrick Ibarra | From Page: A4, 1 Comment

 
Just plain wrong

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4, 11 Comments

My turn: Freedom under siege

By Tom Mcclintock | From Page: A4, 28 Comments

 
.

Letters

Austerity versus posterity

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 3 Comments

 
Austerity?

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 28 Comments

Logan/Victory Mine building

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 2 Comments

 
Where will they go?

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 4 Comments

Mediocrity

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5

 
.

Sports

Bruins’ return to finals was familiar territory

By Mike Bush | From Page: A8 | Gallery

 
Masters last stop before finals

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A8

Heinz-sight: Cheated

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A8

 
Ponderosa’s Pereira third at NorCals

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A8

Hangtown Classic draws record crowd

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A9 | Gallery

 
.

Prospecting

Culinary stars shine at Future Chefs

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
At a glance: Busy time

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2

Winning Ponderosa choirs to perform

Press Release | From Page: B2 | Gallery

 
Find special treasures in El Dorado

By El Dorado | From Page: B2 | Gallery

Grow For It! Vacation: What to know before you go

By Sarah Preiss-Farzanegan MD | From Page: B4

 
Future Chefs share recipes

By Democrat Staff | From Page: B4

Future chefs cook up scholarship wins

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B6

 
.

Essentials

Crime Log: April 25-28

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

 
DUI Log: May 2-4

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

.

Obituaries

Joan Marjorie Hughes

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
Suzanne L. (Moore) Lute

By Contributor | From Page: A2

Delta Mae Petersen

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
.

Real Estate

.

Comics

New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A12

 
Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A12

Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A12

 
Tundra

By Contributor | From Page: A12

Horoscope, Thursday, May 23, 2013

By Contributor | From Page: A12

 
Horoscope, Wednesday, May 22, 2013

By Contributor | From Page: A12

Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A12

 
TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A12

Shoe

By Contributor | From Page: A12

 
Sudoku

By Contributor | From Page: A12

Rubes

By Contributor | From Page: A12