Loading...
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