Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 49371 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. 4937 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM FOR A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT, ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE SIGN CODE, TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.20 AND REPEAL AND REENACT THE SIGN ORDINANCE, TITLE 2 1, CHAPTER 21.41 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE. CASE NAME: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CASE NO: ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of May, 2001, on the 6th day of June, 2001, on the 20th day of June, 2001, and on the 3rd day of October, 2001, 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: 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. W 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 15, 2001, and “PII” dated March 6, 2001, 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 OO- 04/LCPA 00-07 and Addendum, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and 1 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 B. C. D. 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 It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of 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 Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 3rd day of October, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Nielsen ABSTAIN: 1 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4937 -2- City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Citywide Project Description: Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and reenact the City’s Sign Ordinance and Sign Code (Chapters 21.41 and 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: comply with current case law regarding the constitutional validity of sign ordinances and to clarify the ordinance/code to make them easier for developers, business owners and residents to understand and use. 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) 602-46 11. DATED: DECEMBER 27,200O CASE NO: ZCA OO-04ACPA 00-07 CASE NAME: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE/SIGN CODE AMENDMENT PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 27,200O MICHAEL J. HOBMILQR Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 9 FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 43 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 DATE: December 14.2000 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Comnrehensive Sign Ordinance/Sign Code Amendment 2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faradav Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and reenact the City’s Sign Ordinance and Sign Code (Chapters 21.41 and 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: comply with current case law regarding the constitutional validity of sign ordinances and to clarify the ordinance to make it easier for developers, business owners and residents to understand and use. 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. q Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services q Population and Housing q Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics q Water q Hazards q Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation q Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03128196 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) lxl q cl cl 0 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 MITIGATED 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. A(n) Negative Declaration 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 EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. A/b P‘Ta;mer Signature 12- \(8-00 Date 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 fl 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. 03/28/96 l 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. 0 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. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. 4 b) cl 4 4 Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 37(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 XI. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: 4 b) 4 Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or 4 b) 4 d> d f) < g, h) i) expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 4 b) c> d> e> Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 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? Potentially Significant Impact q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 0 q q q q q q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q Less Than Significant Impact q q q q q q q q q q q q q 0 q q q q q q q q No Impact Ia lxl Ix1 IXI IXI Ix1 Ix1 El lxl lxl ia Ix1 lxl txl El Ix1 Ix] IXJ lxl lxl El lxl 5 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 8) h) 0 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? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) b) 4 4 Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? Create objectionable odors? VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the 4 b) cl 4 e) 0 !a 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)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result b) cl 4 4 VIII. 4 b) 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 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Potentially Significant Impact 0 cl q 0 q 0 cl 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 III q 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q Less Than Significant Impact No Impact El lxl Ix1 lxl lxl Ix1 lxl lzl ta ixl Ix1 El lzl lxl lxl lxl lxl lxl lzl lxl Ix] lxl 6 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) 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? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) b) 4 d> 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? 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: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? XIIUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the 4 b) 4 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? 4 Sewer or septic tanks?) 4 Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? is) Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 4 Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation hcorporated cl Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 El III 0 El cl El cl q cl El III 0 El q cl 0 0 0 cl III q No impact Lxl lxl lxl lxl Ix1 Ix1 lxl lxl lxl lxl Ix] Ix1 Ix1 IXI lxl Ix1 lxl lxl lxl lxl El Is1 lxl 7 Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: 4 b) XVI. a) b) 4 XVII. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Affect existing recreational opportunities? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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? 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)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact III 0 q 0 cl 0 III cl 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 q 0 0 0 0 III 0 q Less Than Significant Impact III 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 No Impact Ix1 lxl lxl IXI Ix1 lxl Ix1 lxl 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: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. ‘4 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. 8 Rev. 03128196 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. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project (ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07) entails the repeal and reenactment of the City’s Sign Ordinance and Sign Code (Chapters 21.41 and 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The primary objectives of this zone code amendment are to: A.) revise the Sign Ordinance and Sign Code to comply with current case law regarding the constitutional validity of sign ordinances and to B.) clarify the ordinance and code to make them easier for developers, business owners and residents to understand and use. A. The ordinance/code amendments that are proposed to comply with recent constitutional case law decisions include the following: . Modify the recently amended Purpose and Intent Section to specifically address the regulation of billboards and campaign signs. All sign ordinances must include a Purpose and Intent section that clearly states the City’s interest in regulating signs (i.e.; traffic safety and aesthetics) while providing adequate channels of communication; . Eliminate existing content based sign restrictions. Recent California and Federal court decisions have determined that sign ordinances can regulate the “time, place and manner” of signage (i.e.; the size, height, dimension, location and manner of construction), but must not regulate sign content, unless the regulation serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to meet that interest. In practice, almost all content-based regulation has been prohibited by the courts. Therefore the sign ordinance has been revised to be content-neutral. . Ensure equal treatment of “commercial” (i.e.; advertising) and “non-commercial” (i.e.; an ideological, political or non-commercial message) signage. The Supreme Court has determined that any sign ordinance that has the effect of permitting commercial speech in situations where noncommercial speech is prohibited is unconstitutional. A provision has been added specifying that non-commercial signage is permitted wherever commercial signage is permitted and is subject to the same signage standards. . Eliminate the sign exemption section. Court decisions have determined that a sign ordinance which exempts certain types of non-commercial signage (i.e.; governmental signs and flags and memorial tablets) is content based and therefore unconstitutional. B. The format and regulations of the existing sign ordinance (which was adopted in 1969 and last amended in 1996) are somewhat unclear, out of date, and in need of revision. A number of amendments are proposed to create an easy to understand sign ordinance that includes comprehensive sign standards that apply to all specific uses and zones, as discussed below. . The City’s existing sign ordinance includes maximum sign area regulations per zone, as well as some sign height and area standards for specific sign types by zone. The ordinance does not however include comprehensive sign standards regarding the permitted number and location of various sign types (i.e.; wall, monument, pole and directional signs) nor their physical attributes (i.e.; maximum sign area and letter height). 10 Rev. 03/28/96 Accordingly, the ordinance will be reformatted to incorporate user-friendly tables that include sign regulations (i.e.; type and number of permitted signs, maximum sign area and sign/letter height and permitted location) for: a. Permanent Signs Permitted by Type of Development and Zone with a Sign Permit b. Temporary Signs Permitted by Type of Development and Zone with a Sign Permit c. Signs Not Requiring A Sign Permit n A new Sign Design Standards section, that addresses: permitted sign colors, materials, illumination, logos and graphics, landscaping, and relationship to buildings, other signs and streets is proposed to be added. These design standards will promote the production of high quality, compatible signage that forms a strong connection to the building architecture and other project signage. l A number of sign related definitions have been added/revised to clarify the sign ordinance/sign code and make them easily understandable. Definition additions include: “Abandoned Sign”, “Abate”, “Address Sign”, Attraction Board”, “Banner”, “Beacon”, “Bench Sign”, “Billboard”, “Building Marker”, “Changeable Copy Sign”, “Channel Lettered Sign”, “Commercial Center”, “Construction Sign”, “Defamatory Sign”, “Directory Sign”, “Eaveline”, “Electronic Message Board Sign”, “Externally Illuminated”, “Flag”, “ Freestanding Commercial Building”, “Freeway Service Station”, “Internally Illuminated”, “Logo”, “Multi-Face Sign”, “Multi-Tenant Building”, “Neon Sign”, “Nonconforming Sign”, “Obscene Sign”, “Pennant”, “Permanent Sign”, “Portable Sign”, “Regional Commercial Center”, “Right-of-Way”, “Roof Sign”, “Sight Distance”, “Sign Permit”, “Sign Program”, “Site Development Plan”, “Specific Plan”, “Temporary Seasonal Sales Permit”, “Temporary Sign”, “Unsafe Sign”, “Vehicle Sign” and “Window Sign”. These sign types and terms are distinguished in the proposed sign ordinance, and therefore require definition. Sign definition revisions include: “Animated Sign”, “Awning Sign”, “Building Frontage” and “Freestanding Sign”. n A new General Sign Standards section is proposed. This section addresses : a. The methodology for Calculating Sign Area and Measuring Sign Height; b. The prohibition of off-site (commercial and non-commercial) signage; c. The prohibition of signs (including kiosk and campaign) from the public right-of-way fl The list of prohibited signs is proposed for revision to include: A Frame Signs, Abandoned Signs, Balloons, Beacons, Bench and bus or train stop/shelter signs, Billboards, Changeable Copy Signs, Defamatory Signs, Electronic Message Board Signs, Freeway-facing wall signs visible from and within 500 feet of Interstate 5 and SR 78, Obscene Signs, Portable Signs, Roof Signs and Signs affixed to Vehicles. H A new Application and Permit Procedures section has been added. n A new Sign Program section has been added. The Enforcement and Administration sections have been amended to clarify and simplify the procedures for: a. Removal of Prohibited Signs; and b. Removal of Non-Conforming Signs. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 1 A new Sign Construction and Maintenance section (which is consistent with the City’s Sign Code) has been added. . . A number of specific sign standards are proposed for revision. The new sign regulations will result in the following changes: Offsite Signs and Signs in the Public Right of Way . Clarifies that all commercial and non-commercial signage must be located on-site, whereby off-site real-estate signs and temporary community directional kiosk signs will no longer be allowed. . No longer allows temporary community directional kiosk signs, temporary campaign signs or A-Frame Signs in the public right-of-way. Project Construction Signs n Reduces Residential Project Construction Sign area from 100 SF/sign to 35 SF/sign . Adds a new standard that allows Project Construction Signs for Non-residential Projects Campaign Signs . Limits the maximum number of Temporary Campaign Signs permitted to 1 per lot rather than solely regulating cumulative sign area; . Reduces Campaign Sign area for non-residential properties from 16 SF to 6 SF. Real Estate Signs . Increases Real Estate Sign area for Residential Projects from 1 sign at 12 SF to 1 sign/street frontage at 16 SF/sign Pole Signs . Reduces Pole Sign area for Freeway Service Stations from 150-250 SF to 100 SF. . Adds a maximum sign area (100 SF) for Pole Signs at Regional Commercial Centers Bench Signs . No longer conditionally allows bench advertising signs; Residences . Increases permitted sign area fi-om a maximum area of 2 SF to 2 signs at 3 SF/sign. Residential Projects (Single Family, Condominium, Apartment and Mobile homes) n Revises permitted Community ID Signage f?om 100 SF + 3 SF/ acre to 15-35 SF/freestanding entry sign and 1 directory sign /building or project entrance at 6 SF/sign. Hotels/Motels . Revises total permitted signage from 100 SF to 1 monument sign/street frontage at 50 SF/sign, 2 wall signs at .5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage and 3 directional signs/driveway entrance at 6 SF/sign. Commercial Centers . Revises total permitted signage from 1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage to 1 monument sign/street frontage at 50 SF/sign, 1 wall sign/business at .5 SF/lineal foot of business frontage, 1 suspended sign/business at 5 SF and 3 directional signs/driveway entrance at 6 SF/sign. . Allows 1 pole sign/regional commercial center at 100 SF and 35’tall. 12 Rev. 03128196 Freestanding Commercial Building . Revises total permitted signage fi-om 1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage to 1 monument sign/street frontage at 50 SF/sign, 2 wall signs/building at .5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage and 3 directional signs/driveway entrance at 6 SF/sign. Of&e/Industrial Uses . Increases monument sign area fkom 35 SF/sign to 50 SF/sign. Freeway Service Facilities . The ordinance has been amended to delete the term “Freeway Service Facility” and replace it with the term “Freeway Service Station”. This revision will result in a reduction in the number of pole signs along the freeway in that pole signs would only be permitted for service stations (and no longer restaurants and motels) which are located at the apex of a freeway interchange quadrant. Service Stations . Revises total permitted signage from 1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage plus either 1 monument sign at 48 SF or 1 monument/pole sign (12-16 SF)/street frontage to 2 monument signs/site at 35 SF/sign, 2 canopy signs/site at 20 SF/sign and 1 sign/fuel pump at 2.5 SF/sign. Theatres n Revises total permitted signage from 1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage plus1 marquee sign at 160 SF to 1 pole/marquee sign (loo-160 SF), 1 wall sign/ street frontage at .5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage and 1 coming attraction poster/screen at 6 SF/poster. New Regulations = Adds new detailed sign standards for resort hotels, public parks and government, school and church uses. Other major standards revisions include the following: l The ordinance no longer makes a distinction between signage permitted within the Coastal Zone and all other zones of the City; l The ordinance has been revised to allow 1 grand opening banner at 30 SF for Commercial, Office and Industrial businesses, with a temporary sign permit, for a maximum of 45 days or until the permanent sign is installed. l The ordinance has been revised to allow within Commercial, Office and Industrial zones 1 banner or freestanding sign/street fi-ontage at 30 SF/banner for temporary seasonal sales for a maximum of 45 days with a temporary sign permit. l The ordinance has been revised to allow on City owned property 1 banner or freestanding sign/street frontage at 30 SF/banner for special or civic events for a maximum of 45 days with a temporary sign permit. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 l A new Table, “Signs Not Requiring a Sign Permit”, has been added and includes the following signs: a. Address Signs, b. Signs located in the interior of a building, c. Incidental signs, d. Window signs, e. Decorative flags f. Flags g. Traffic control, directional, warning or informational signs erected or required by government agencies. Staff has determined that these proposed sign ordinance/sign code 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. The amendment is not associated with any specific development project and does not propose any development; 2. The amendment does not affect: any General Plan or zoning designation, allowable densities or land uses, or any environmental plan; 3. The amendment does not directly or indirectly result in any significant physical, biological, or human environmental impacts, and; 4. 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/Sign Code is statutorily exempt pursuant to Section 15268 of CEQA. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Non-Relevant Items 1. w - The proposed sign ordinance/sign code amendment will not conflict with the General 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 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. Population and Housing - Since this sign ordinance/sign code 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. Geologic 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. Water - As no site-specific project nor changes to standards or policies regarding water 14 Rev. 03/28/96 related issues is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there will be no impact to water resources. 5. Air Qualitv - 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. Transportation/Circulation - 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. Enerw 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. 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 arnendment, 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: One of the primary objectives of the proposed sign ordinance/sign code revision is to preserve and enhance the aesthetic environment of Carlsbad, while providing channels of communication to the public. The proposed sign ordinance/sign code 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. The proposed sign ordinance/sign code revision achieves this objective through prohibiting off-site signs and signs within the public right-of-way, incorporating more restrictive provisions for pole signs, standardizing maximum numbers and types of signs by use/zone, adding new sign design and development standards that regulate sign and letter heights, permitted colors, materials, illumination, logos and graphics while requiring individual signs to be compatible with building architecture and other project signage. These new standards are intended to ensure the production of quality signage that is in better proportion to the building and or lot upon which it is located. 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 15 Rev. 03/28/96 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 currently planned for recreational uses. 16 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) NIA ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 17 Rev. 03l28l96 ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZCA OO-04/LCPA OO- 07 The project description has been revised to indicate that the proposed project will also include the repeal of 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 clarifjl that this change, which incorporates the structural sign regulations and sign violation enforcement procedures of the City’s Sign Code into the City’s amended Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41), will not result in any significant environmental impacts or necessitate any revision to the findings of the project negative declaration.