HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 48121
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4812
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE
CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE SIGN ORDINANCE, TITLE
21, CHAPTER 21.41 AND THE SIGN CODE, TITLE 18,
CHAPTER 18.20 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.
CASE NAME: SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CASE NO.: ZCA 99.09/LCPA 00-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of August, 2000, on
the 16th day of August, 2000, and on the 20th day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
and Addendum according to Exhibit “ND” dated March 27, 2000, and “PII”
dated March 20, 2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration ZCA 99-
09ILCPA 00-02 and Addendum the environmental impacts therein identified for
this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the project; and
B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental,Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
1
t
>
c
l(
li
1;
1:
1‘
1:
l(
1:
12
15
2(
21
2;
2:
2L
25
2t
27
28
C.
D.
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City o:
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planniq
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of September 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Compaq Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpersgh
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HtiMILtiR
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4812 -2-
city of &&bad
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Citywide
Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
amend the City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code) to: add a Purpose and Intent Section to the Sign
Ordinance, create clear and comprehensive sign standards for the
C-M, M and P-M zones and add/revise sign related definitions to
clarify the sign ordinance and ensure its constitutional validity.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4611:
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
MARCH 27,200O
ZCA 99-091LCPA 00-02
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
MARCH 27,200O
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92006.7314 - (760) 602.4600 - FAX (760) 602.6559 @
ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZCA 99-09/LCPA OO-
02
The project description has been revised to specify that two of the proposed Sign Ordinance
definition amendments (“Sign Area” and “Sign Height”) will also apply to the City’s Sign Code
(Chapter 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The purpose of this addendum is to document
this change in project description and to clarify that this change, which makes the two codes
internally consistent, will not result in any significant environmental impacts or necessitate any
revision to the findings of the project negative declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA 99-09/LCPA 00-02
DATE: March 20.2000
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: Sian Ordinance Amendment
APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faradav Ave. Carlsbad,
CA 92008
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to amend the City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code) to: add a Purpose and Intent Section to the Sign Ordinance, create clear
and comprehensive sign standards for the C-M, M and P-M zones and add/revise sign
related definitions to clarify the sign ordinance and ensure its’ constitutional validity.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages,
[7 Land Use and Planning
q Population and Housing
0 Geological Problems
0 Water
0 Air Quality
q Transportation/Circulation [7 Public Services
0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Energy & Mineral 0 Aesthetics
Resources q Cultural Resources
0 Hazards
0 Recreation
17 Noise
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev.03128196
DETERMINATION. -
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[XI
q
q
q
q
I find that 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
environment, 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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-Ol),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
3121/m
Date
Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 4 potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev.03128196
-
. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev.O3128/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
4
b)
cl
4
4
proposal:.
Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source #(s): ()
Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project? ()
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ()
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses?
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed of‘icial regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing?
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal
result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure,
liquefaction?
including
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
t) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading, or
till?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
IV. WATER, Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? q q q
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
LhkSS
Mitigation
Incorporated
q q
q q
q q
q q
q q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Ul&?.S
Mitigation
Incorporated q
Less Than
Significant
impact
q
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
5
5
5
5
5
q b)
cl
d)
e)
t)
8)
h) i)
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements?
Changes in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability?
Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies?
q q
q q
q q
q q
q
El
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
q III] 5 q
B
q
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would
4 b)
cl
4
4
f)
the proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-
site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
8) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
El
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q 5
q 5
q .5
0 5
q 5 q q
6 Rev. 03128196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
hnpact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds?
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
VII.
4
b)
cl
4
e)
VIII.
4
b)
cl
q q q 5
q q
q q
q q
q q
q
q
q
q
5
5
5
5
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
5
5
El
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: q q 5 q 4 A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards?
Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
5
5
5
5
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
B
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
b) c) 4
4
XII.
4
b)
cl
XIII.
4
b)
cl
XIV.
4
b)
Cl
4
4
xv.
4
b)
XVI.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
Other governmental services?
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare?
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
proposal:
Would the
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area?
RECREATIONAL Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant significant significant
1lllpCt 1lllpCt Unless Unless
Mitieation Mitigation
lncor&rated incorporated
0
Ei
0
PI
0
Less Than
Significant
impact
1 q
NO
Impact
0
0
0
i
0
0
q
B
0
0
0
[XI
txl
Rev. 03/28/96
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Less Than NO
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated q cl 0 IXI
0
0
0
q
0
0
[XI
Rev. 03128196
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
4 Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
cl Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28196
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project consists of a zone code amendment and local coastal program amendment,
to amend the City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to:
(1) Add a Purpose and Intent Section to the Sign Ordinance. The existing sign
ordinance does not include a clearly stated purpose and intent for enacting the sign
ordinance. Pursuant to recent California and Federal Court decisions, a city’s
interest in sign regulation must be expressly stated in its ordinance. Legitimate,
compelling government interests for a sign ordinance include traffic safety and
aesthetics.
(2) Create clear and comprehensive sign standards for the C-M, M and P-M zones. The
City’s existing sign ordinance does not include detailed sign regulations for uses
within the C-M, M and P-M zones. With respect to these zones, the sign ordinance
generally permits a maximum of 1.5 square feet of sign area per lineal foot of
building frontage per lot. There are however no standards regarding the permitted
number and location of various sign types (i.e.; wall, monument and directional
signs) nor their physical attributes (i.e.; maximum sign area, letter height and logo
size ), Specific sign standards for proposed Industrial, office and commercial uses
within these zones have historically been regulated by Specific Plan sign
provisions, Within the City of Carlsbad, there exists three planned industrial
business-park specific plans (Carlsbad Research Center (SP 180(A)), Carlsbad
Airport Center (Specific Plan 181(A) and Carlsbad Airport Business Center (SP
200)). Many of the sign provisions of these specific plans are out of date and
sufficiently unclear (and in need of revision (see #3 below).
(3) Incorporate a provision into the sign ordinance which specifies that the new codified
sign standards for the C-M, M and P-M zones, supersede the existing Sign and
Graphic requirements of Specific Plans 180(A), 181(A) and 200, all sign programs
adopted pursuant to these Specific Plan Sign and Graphic requirements and the sign
provisions for Area 4 of the El Camino Real Development Standards.
(4) Add/revise sign related definitions to clarify the sign ordinance and ensure its’
constitutional validity. Definition additions include: “Commercial Signage”,
“Directional Sign”, “ Monument Sign” and “Non-Commercial Signage”. Definition
revisions include: “Building Frontage” and “Sign Area”.
Staff has determined that these proposed sign ordinance amendment could not have a significant
impact on the environment and has therefore prepared a negative declaration. No mitigation
measures are required. Specifically, the environmental analysis performed by staff resulted in
this determination for the following reasons:
1.
2.
The amendment is not associated with any specific development project and does not
propose any development;
The amendment does not affect: any General Plan or zoning designation, allowable
densities or land uses, or any environmental plan;
11 Rev. 03128196
3.
4.
-
The amendment does not directly or indirectly result in any significant physical,
biological, or human environmental impacts, and;
The amendment does not conflict with or affect any of the 14 environmental factors (i.e.,
Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing) as listed in this Environmental Impact
Assessment Form and as discussed in the related section below.
Sign permits are ministerial projects. Therefore any future sign permit processed pursuant to this
amended Sign Ordinance is statutorily exempt pursuant to Section 15268 of CEQA.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning - The proposed code amendment will not conflict with the
Genera1 Plan or zoning designations or any applicable environmental plans adopted by the City
because it does not affect density or allowed land uses. Signs are a typical accessory use
currently allowed in the office/industrial zones of the City. For this same reason the amendment
will not be incompatible with existing or planned land uses in any area and will not impact
agricultural uses or established communities.
2. Pooulation and Housing - Since this sign ordinance amendment does not propose any
development or affect allowable land uses or densities, the amendment will not affect any
population projections, induce substantial growth, or displace any existing housing.
3. Geoloeic Problems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, no changes in topography resulting in unstable earth conditions, erosion of soils,
ground shaking, landslides/mudflows, alteration of deposition patterns, or other geologic
problems will occur.
4. J&@ - As no site-specific project nor changes to standards or policies regarding water
related issues is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there will be no impact to water
resources.
5. Air Ouality - As no site-specific project nor changes to standards or policies regarding air
quality is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there will be no impact to air quality.
6. TransuortationCirculation - As no site-specific project nor changes to standards or
policies regarding transportation/circulation is proposed as part of this zone code amendment,
there will be no impact to transportation/circulation. One of the primary objectives of the
amended sign regulations is to ensure traffic safety.
7. Biological Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impact to biological resources.
8. Enerev and Mineral Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this
zone code amendment, there will be no impact to energy and mineral resources,
9. Hazards - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment,
there will be no exposure to hazards.
12 Rev.O3/28/96
10. Noise - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there
will be no exposure to noise impacts and no exposure to unacceptable levels of noise.
11. Public Services - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impacts to public services.
12. Utilities and Services Svstems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this
zone code amendment, there will be no impacts to utilities and services systems.
13. Aesthetics - As compared to the existing sign regulations, the new sign regulations will
result in the following changes:
l Reduce the maximum permitted Wall Sign Area/Building from 200 SF to 50 - 150
SF;
l Reduce the maximum permitted Wall Sign Area/Sign from 200 SF to 50 SF;
l Reduce the maximum permitted Monument Sign Area/Sign Face from 100 SF to 35
SF;
l Increase the Maximum Number of Wall Signs/ Elevation from 1 to 1-2. Two (2) wall
signs/elevation is only permitted under the following criteria:
1) the building is greater than 45,000 SF in area;
2) the building elevation must have a minimum of 100 feet of lineal frontage;
3) the minimum spacing between wall signs along an elevation shall not be less than
50 feet; and
4) the cumulative length of all wall signs along any elevation shall not exceed 25%
of the length of the elevation.
. Standards have been added regarding maximum sign letter and logo height.
. Design standards have been added requiring individual signs to be
compatible with building architecture and other project signage through the
use of similar materials, colors and typestyles.
One of the primary objectives of the proposed sign ordinance revision is to preserve and enhance
the aesthetic environment of Carlsbad, while providing channels of communication to the public.
The proposed sign ordinance revisions provide a reasonable balance between the right of a
business or an individual to identify itself and to convey its message and the right of the public to
be protected against the visual discord that results from the unrestricted proliferation of signs. As
shown above, the proposed sign standard revisions for the City’s office/industrial zones achieves
this objective through maintaining/reducing the permitted sign area per building or lot,
standardizing maximum sign letter and logo heights, and requiring individual signs to be
compatible with building architecture and other project signage, while increasing the permitted
number of wall signs per building elevation (up to 2) for larger buildings (greater than 45,000 SF
in area which have minimum 100 foot lineal frontages). Accordingly, these sign revisions will
not result in significant negative aesthetic impacts.
14. Cultural Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impacts to cultural resources.
15. Recreational - The proposed amendment will not increase the demand for parks or other
recreational facilities and will not affect existing recreational opportunities because the proposed
amendment will not induce growth in the City and will not reduce the number or amount of areas
I3 Rev. 03128196
currently planned for recreational uses.
14
-
Rev. 03/28/96