HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-16; City Council; 6819-1; Amendment to the Sign Ordinanceca 0 \D cn
- &' AB# 68J?
MTG. 3/16/82
DEPT. PL
CIT'r 3F CARLSBAD - AGENDL dILL
DEPT. HD.ti=
CITY Ada,
TITLE: ZCA-139, CITY OF CARLSBAD - AMENDMENT
TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE.
CITY MGRQ 23-
The third part of the amendment allows the placement of non-com-
mercial signs on private property (e .g . , political campaign signs). This amendment is the result of a recent Supreme Court
decision regarding billboard signs which is explained in the City
Attorney's memorandum attached to the staff report.
The Planning Commission recommended that a specific definition of
"billboard" be added to the sign ordinance, however, staff and
the Attorney's office both feel that a billboard is considered an
"off premise" sign and an adequate definition for such sign is
contained within the existing ordinance. Staff, therefore, recommends that no definition be added.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Planning Director has determined that this project will not
cause any significant environmental impacts and, therefore, has
issued a Negative Declaration, dated January 29, 1982, which was
approved by the Planning Commission on February 24, 1982. A copy of the environmental documents is on file in the Planning Depart- ment.
I
AGENDA BILL
March 16, 1982
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACTS
The cost of removal of any non-conforming signs, even if removal is by the city, would be borne by the owner or tenant responsible
for the placement of the non-conforming sign.
ATTACHMENTS
A. PC Resolution No. 1921 B. Staff Report, dated February 24, 1982, w/attachments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1- 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
If
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1921
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.41, OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE
BY THE ADDITION OF SECTIONS 21.41.015, 21.41.081,
21.41.082, 21.41.083, 21.41.084, 21.41.085, 21.41.086 AND 21.41.087 TO PROVIDE FOR A HEARING
PROCESS FOR EXTENSION OF AMORTIZATION PERIODS FOR
SIGNS AND BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 21 -41.050 TO ALLOW NON-COMMERCIAL ON-SITE SIGNS.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
CASE NO: ZCA-139
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 24th day
February, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing as pre-
scribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and con-
sidering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
3esiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Code Amendment.
4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
:ommission as follows:
4) That the above recitations are true and correct.
3) That based on the evidence presented at the public hear- ing, the Commission recommends -- APPROVAL of ZCA-139
according to Exhibit "A", dated February 24, 1982, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
?indinas:
1) This ordinance is a continuation of the efforts of the city
of Carlsbad to regulate and eliminate certain signs and structures in the city and supplements the regulatory
provisions of Chapter 21.41 of the Municipal Code.
2) The Planning Cornmission recognizes that strict application
of the provisions of Chapter 21.41 may create hardships for
certain property regulated by those provisions. The
Commission also recognizes that this hardship rriust be bal-
anced against the detriment to the citizens of Carlsbad caused by noncompliance with Chapter 21.41. While existing provisions of the code provide adequate relief from the
6
7
e
9
1c
11
1%
12
14
15
le
17
1E
1s
2c
21
22
. 22
24
25
26
27
28
strict application of its regulatory provisions, the Com- mission finds that it is desirable to establish a special
hearing procedure for relief from the amortization provisions
of Chapter 21.41.
The Planning Commission finds that continued strict enforce-
ment of the existing sign ordinance is necessary to protect
the aesthetic quality of the city and is part of the city's
continued efforts to promote an attractive community. The Planning Commission recognizes that the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Metromedia Inc. v. City of San Diego has estab-
lished certain strict criteria to ensure that regulation of
signs does not unreasonably restrict first amendment free-
doms. The Planning Commission finds that no areas of the
city are compatible with billboard usage because of the
scenic nature of the city and its major arterials including,
but not limited to, Carlsbad Boulevard, El Camino Real,
Interstate 5, and Palomar Airport road and because Carlsbad's commercial and industrial areas have been planned in such a
manner that visual aesthetics are a primary concern. Older
areas of the city, particularly the downtown commercial and industrial areas, which at one time may have been suitable
for billboard uses are no longer suitable for that use be-
cause of the change the area is undergoing and because of the continued efforts by the city to upgrade these areas. The Commission finds that regulation of signs including on-site
signs and billboards is necessary to ensure that the social and aesthetic qualities of the city are maintained, to pro-
mote local business including tourism, and to enhance property values throughout the city. The Commission also finds that prohibitions against off-site signs are necessary
to prevent sign proliferation in th.e city. The Commission
further finds that regulations of signs both on and off-site are necessary to ensure the safe use of city streets and sidewalks and promote traffic safety.
Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the public
hearing, the Planning Commission finds that all signs and structures' which have become nonconforming because of expir-
ation of the time periods established by Section 21.41.080 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code are fully amortized and that
failure to immediately remove such nonconforming signs or structures will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and to the intent of the citizens of Carlsbad to enhance the aesthetic quality of their city in order to stim- ulate economic and social benefits including tourism.
That the amendment will not cause any significant environ-
mental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by
the Planning Director, dated January 29, 1982, and approved
by the Planning Commission on February 24, 1982. //
I/// FC RES0 NO. 1921 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E!
9
1c
11
12
12
14
15
1E
17
1E
1:
2c
21
22
2:
24
2f
2E
23
2E
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
?lanning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, held on
:he 24th day of February, 1982, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
VERNON J. FARROW, JR., Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
4TTEST :
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
ZARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
?C RES0 NO. 1921 -3-
STAFF REPORT
DATE : February 24, 1982
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: ZCA-139 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - An amendment to the
zoning ordinance to modify Section 21.41 (sign ordinance) to allow for the abatement of nonconforming
signs, to provide for a hearing process for amortized
signs, and to allow non-commercial on-site message signs..
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
This amendment to the zoning ordinance is an outgrowth of the city's efforts to regulate and eliminate nonconforming signs, and is designed to bring Carlsbad's ordinance into confornity
with the most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on signing.
On April 20, 1973, Cit'y Council Ordinance No. 9348 became effective, which adopted the following scale setting time limits
within which all existing signs in the city must conform to the
requirements of the sign ordinance:
NUMBER OF YEARS
IN EXISTENCE
NUMBER OF YEARS
TO CONFORM
Seven to eight years or more 4 years, six months
Five to six years 5 years, six months
Three to four years 6 years, six months
Two years 7 years, six months One year 8 years, six months
Since this ordinance is over 8-1/2 years old, the maximum time limit for all such signs has elapsed. The proposed zone code
amendment will permit the city to begin a program of enforcement against nonconforming signs and also allow the sign owner an
opportunity to present evidence to the City Council justifying
the extension of time for the amortization of a nonconforming
sign.
This admendment also would allow the owner or occupant of a pro-
perty to erect a sign displaying non-commercial messages (e.g., ' political campaign signs). This section is intended to bring the city's Ordinance into conformance with recent court cleci- sions (see attached meao from City Attorney, dated 10/22/81).
11. ANALYSIS
This Zone Code Amendment involves the addition of nine sections to the sign ordinance. These additions can be separated into
three categories:
1.
2.
3.
Sections 21.41.015, 21.41.081, 21.41.082, and
21.41.083, which determine that nonconforming signs
which have exceeded the time period as established by Section 21.41.080 (table above) shall be immediately abated as a public nuisance. This section of the
amendment also establishes the process by whi.ch such
signs shall be removed.
Sections 21.41.084, 21.41.085, 21.41.086, and
21.41.087, which allow for a sign owner to apply for an
extension of time, and City Council review of such a
request.
Somewhat unrelated to the abatement process is the
amendment of Section 21.41.050 by the addition of
Subsection (3)(F) which would allow ncn-commercial
messages by the owner or occupant of a property.
I11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project will not
have a significant adverse effect upon'the environment and,
therefore, has issued a Negative.Declaration on January 29,
1982.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Nega-
tive Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt
Resolution No. 1921, recommending approval of ZCA-139 to the
City Council based on the findings contained therein.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PC Resolution No. 1921 2. Exhibit "A" dated February 24, 1982
3. Memo to Mayor and City Council dated October 22, 1981
4. Memo to City Attorney dated Nov. 2, 1981
5. Memo to Michael Holzmiller dated Nov. 19, 1981
6. Environmental Documents
PK : ar
2/16/82
-2-
MEMORANDUM
DATE :
TO:
FROM :
SUBJECT:
October 22, 1981
Mayor and City Council'
City Attorney
SIGN REGULATION
I
In mid-1979, in response to the California Supreme Court decision in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, our office prepared a
memorandum outlining the City's options with regard to sign
regulation. At that time the Council indicated a desire for stfict enforcement of the sign ordinance. Pursuant to that
direction our office prepared an ordinance which would bring the
existing constitutional restrictions. That ordinance was never
presented to the entire Council for consideration. As a result,
removal of many nonconforming signs within the city has not taken place.
*City of Carlsbad regulations into conformity with the then
Earlier this year the U. S. Supreme Court came down with their decision in the Metroncdia, IRC. v. City of San Diego case. By a plurality decision, the court struck down San Diego's sign
ordinance on Firsk Amendment grounds. The courts analysis is
complicated by the different approaches'taken by the two
opinions which conclude that the ordinance is invalid, and the
three which conclude that it is valid. The five opinions total
eighty-two pages. Somewhat sympathetic to the plight of city
officials, Justice Rehnquist wrote in his opinion,
"...it is a genuine misfortune to have
the court's treatment of this subject be a
virtual Tower of Babel, from which no
definitive principles can be clearly drawn."
..
The City Attorney of San Diego and his deputy who tried the case
summarized the case as follows:
I' 1. Justice White, joined by Justices Stewart-, Marshall and Powell.
a. Because this ordinance is not a total
ban on outdoor advertising it is not necessary to
decide if such a ban would violate the First Amendment
. .. . , . . . . . . . .,. .... .I^.^ -. . -.-. - .
3) .I.
4 .. .*
Mayor and City Council October 22, 1981
guarantee.of free speech. [It is implied that
such a ban may be unconstitutional.]
b. As to restrictions on commercial
speech which concerns lawful activity and is
not misleading, the First Amendment is not
violated if the restrictions: 1) seek to implement a substantial governmental interest; 2) directly advance that interest; and 3)
reach no farther than necessary to accomplish the objective.
I c. San Diego's ordinance meets this test as to commercial speech--traffic safety
and the appearance of the city are substantial governmental goals and the different treatment for some commercial signs, e.g. on-site, is
reasonable where other interests outweigh the
main goals.
d. The First Amendment gives
noncommercial speech a greater degree of
protection than commercial speech, San Diego's ordinance givcs greater protection to commercial than to noncommercial speech--there is a broad exception for on-site commercial
signs but no similar exception for . noncommercial' speech.
e. The ordinance aliows some '
noncommercial signs while prohibiting others without regard to their effect on traffic
safety or aesthetics.
f. Because the ordinance reaches too far into the realm of protected speech, it is unconstitutional.
2. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice
Blackmun, concurring.
a. This ordinance presents the
total ban question since its practical effect is to eliminate the billboard as an effective
medium of communication.
Mayor and City Council -3- October 22, 1981
b. A bail on billboards does not
violate the First Amendment if a city can show that a sufficiently substantial governmental
interest is directly furthered and any more
narrowly drawn restriction would promote less well that goal.
c. The City has not provided ade- quate justification here. The ordinance is not narrowly drawn to accomplish traffic safety and
there is no showing that the interest in
aesthetics is substantial in commercial and
industrial areas.
d. Disagrees with plurality's view that an ordinance totally banning commercial
billboards but allowing noncommercial bill- boards would be constitutional. Such an ordin- ance would allow city officials to determine if
a sign is commercial. or noncommercial before approving .a.sign and the distinction is far
from clear.
3. Justice Stevens, dissenting.
a. Agrees with plurality that the ordinance is not unconstitutional due to its distinction between on-site and off-site commercial signs but disagrees with their
conclusion that it is invalid due to its
treatment of noncommercial signs.
b. The question of whether a city
may entirely ban a medium of communication is
raised by this ordinance. The constitution-
ality of such a ban involves two questions: 1)
is the regulation biased in favor of one point of view or another or a means of controlling
controversial subjects from public debate, or
2) is the market which remains open,for commun-
ication ample and not threatened with gradually
increasing restraints? The ordinance and its
exceptions do neither and are thus valid.
Mayor and City Council -4- October 22, 1981
4. Chief Justice Burger, dissenting.
a. The courts' disposition results in
cities electing between two unsatisfactory
options: a) allowing all noncommercial signs; or b) forbidding all signs. The opinions suggest
that the second option may be withdrawn.
b. The exceptions to the ordinancels
prohibition are few, are narrowly tailored to
peculiar public needs and do not remotely endanger freedom of speech.
e. [Citing Justice Brennan's opinion]. The plurality's treatment may very well create
the danger of discretion having the potential for becoming a means 0.f suppressing a particular
viewpoint by allowing municipal officials to determine what is and is not noncommercial
speech.
5. Justice Rehnquist, dissenting.
a. Aesthetic justification alone is
sufficient to sustain a total prohibition of billboards within a community.
.i
b. The limited exceptions do not render the ordinance unconstitutional.
c. A city should not be put to the task of convincing a local judge that the elimination of billboards would have more than a
negligible impact on aesthetics as Justice Brennan opines. "
Our own reading of the Metromedia decision leads us to believe there were sufficient votes on the Supreme Court to uphold stricter requirements within the City of*Carlsbad than the Court
would allow in the City of San Diego. The reason for this is Carlsbad's unique Location, its consistent efforts to have
attractive and aesthetically pleasing commercial and industrial zones and the fact that Carlsbad does not have an abundance of existing billboards. Therefore, despite the similarities between the Carlsbad ordinance arid the San Diego ordinance, we believe
that Carlsbad's ordinance, with some modifications, would be
found to be constitutional. One of the revisions suggested is that the City allow noncommercial messages by the owner or
occupant of the property. This modification will overcome the
objection that the ordinance discriminates in favor of commercial
speech over noncommercial speech.
.. . . .. . . . -. -
Mayor and City Council -5- October 22, 1981
ordinance accomplishes that revision. Findings are included in
Section 1 of the attached ordinance to ensure a foundation for our sign regulations. Section 3 of the ordinance readopts the
existing sign ardinance with certain amendments which are discussed in this memo.
The proposed ordinance also adds amortization appeal provisions to the sign code. These provisions, contained in Section 4 of the ordinance, are substantially the same as those proposed in 1979. The amortization appeal provisions provide a hearing process to allow a sign owner to appeal the order to take down
the sign. The amortization provisions will help ensure that the
city does not have to pay for any signs ordered to be removed.
In'our opinion, there is sufficient evidence for the Council to find that all signs erected prior to the adoption of the
existing sign ordinance have been fully amortized. The
ordinance was originally adopted twelve years ago and the last amendment of the Section requiring removal of nonconforming
signs was in 1974.
Under the existing ordinance the person who had a sign up for less than one year before the adoption of the ordinance, had
eight years, six months, to remove the sign or bring it into compliance with the code. . It is clear that the time for compliance has long since passed.
We have had numerous requests 'from the Planning Department over
the past several years to enforce the sign ordinance against old nonconforming signs. Because the state of our ordinance and the
uncertainty of the law in the area, we have been reluctant to
enforce the ordinance and require removal of the old signs. The code is vigorously enforced against new signs whenever a request to do so is made by Planning.
We are bringing this item before you at this time because we have
had a recent request from the Planning Department for enforcement
of the sign regulations against the Elm Street Auto Parts sign which is located on the pole holding up the Big Bear sign. Even though the sign does not comply with the orginance, it was our opinion that it would be improper to order Elm Street -Auto Parts to remove its nonconforming sign, but let Rig Bear and Poinsettia
Plaza continue to maintain their nonconforming signs. At an
office hearing we informed the sign owners that we intended to bring the matter before the City Council and to seek abatement of
the entire sign. A first step in this process would be the adoption of the ordinance that is attached to this memorandum.
4
Mayor and City Council -6- October 22, 1981
Once the ordinance is adopted our office will proceed with
enforcement of the sign code against that' sign and other nonconforming signs that are brought to our attention by the
Planning Department. Removal of billboards erected prior to
adoption of the original sign ordinance will have to wait until
. the ligislatively imposed statewide moratorium is either lifted or the issue of compensation for the billboards is resolved.
JR., City Attorney
I LA/' . BY (li. ,/\ DANIEL S. HENTSCHKE, *Assistant
City Attorney
DSH/mla
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
4
. .. ...
DATE: November 2, 1981
TO: City Attorney
FROM : Planning Director &,#
SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO SIGN ORDINANCE AND NONCONFORMING SIGNS
Attached is a list of the non-conforming signs in the city. The
time limits for removal of all of these signs pursuant to Section
21.41.080 of the Municipal Code has elapsed. Section 21.40.080
was adopted and became effective in its present form (Ordinance
9348) on April 20, 1973, over 8 and 1/2 years ago.
The Planning Department believes that the revisions to the Sign
Ordinance as proposed by your office will help greatly in enforc-
ing the retnoval of these non-conforming signs and in advancing
the continued implementation of the Sign Ordinance. .
One of the purposes of the Sign Ordinance is to preserve the vis-
ual quality and scenic nature of the city. Considerable planning
has been done along the city’s major arterials (i.e., Scenic Highways Element), in the industrial areas (i.e., the Planned
Industrial (P-M zone) and, in the Downtown Redevelopment Area
(i.e., Village Design Manual) to preserve and enhance the aesthe- tic quality of the city. Staff belieVes that the non-conforming
signs have a negative impact on the visual character of the city
and its on-going planning efforts.
All of the non-conforming signs are located near major streets
with high traffic volumes (both vehicles and pedestrian). There-
fore, removal of the signs is necessary to promote traffic safety
and insure the safe use of city streets and sidewalks.
Finally, one of the basic premises of the Sign Ordinance is to
allow adequate identification to all business properties but not
to allow undue advertising which tends to obliterate or be con-
fused with neighboring signs or degrade adjoining prtjperty
values. Presently, the businesses operating the‘ non-conforming
signs enjoy signing rights not allowed other businesses since all- other businesses must comply with the Sign Ordinance. Removal of
the non-conforming signs will result in equal treatment of all
properties.
For all of the above reasons, including visual quality, traffic
safety, fair and reasonable business identification, the Planning
Department requests and supports your efforts at enforcing the
provisions of the Sign Ordinance. I
JCEI : MJiI : wl ’
Attachment: List of Non-conforming Signs
c
MEMORA hDUM
DATE : Wvember 19, 1981
TO: Mi chae 1 Ho 1 zmi 11 e r
FROM : Paul Klukas
SUBJECT: NON-CONFORMING SIGhS IN CITY
As well as I can determine, this list contains the non-conform-
ing
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11.
12
signs in Carlsbad.
Big Bear (Poinsettia Plaza) and Tony's No. 2 Restaurant
(1025 Elm Avenue). Have two freestanding signs up to 71
feet high. May have only one, up to the maximum height of
the buildings.
Bakers Tacos (2952 Harding Street). Freestanding sign may
be no higher than height of the building.
Shell Station (1145 Elm Avenue). Freestanding sign 60 feet
high. May be no higher than 35 feet.
The Burger Host Restaurant .(was Bus Stop Restaurant) (3016
Carlsbad Doulevard). Roof sign not allowed. Must be below
roof line. .
Ocean Manor Apartments (2950 Ocean Street). Koof sign not
allowed.
Texaco Station (945 Tamarack Avenue). Freestanding sign 50
feet high. May be no higher than 35 feet.
Henry's Restaurant (264 Elm Avenue). Roof sign not
allowed.
Wayside Inn (3050 Pi0 Pic0 Drive).. Roof sign not allowed.
Carlsbad Liquors (2998 State Street). Roof sign not
allowed.
7-11 Food Store ,(201 Oak Ave.). Freestanding sign higher than roof line.
Wueste Realty (3126 Carlsbad Blvd.). Roof sign not
allowed.
O.J. Creel .Realty ( 3055 Madison Street). Roof sign not
allowed.
13.
14
15
. 16s
17
Carlsbad Car Wash (2608 State Street). Freestanding sign
higher than roof line.
McDonald Pharmacy (2898 State Street). Identification sign higher than roof line.
Coin-op Laundry (2599 State Street). Identification sign
higher than roof line.
Flo's Tave--n (201 Oak Avenue). Roof sign not allowed.
Pacific Federal Bank (699 Grand Avenue). Identification
sign higher than roof line.
PJK:kb
1
2
3
4
6
7
&
11
1% a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 9608
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.41, OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF
SECTIONS 21.41.015, 21.41.081, 21.41.082, 21.41.083, 21.41.084, 21.41.085
21.41.086, AND 21.41.087 TO PROVIDE FOR A
HEARING PROCESS FOR EXTENSION OF AMORTIZATION PEiRIODS FOR SIGNS AND BY THE AMENDMENT OF
SECTION 21.4 1 . 050 TO ALLOW NON-COMMERCIAL
ONSITE SIGNS.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbaa, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: This ordinance is a continuation of the
efforts of the City of Carlsbad to regulate and eliminate certain
signs and structures in the City. This ordinance supplements the
regulatory provisions of Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code. The Council recognizes that strict application of the
provisions of Chapter 21.41 may create hardships for certain
property regulated by those provisions. Council also recognizes
that this hardship must be balanced against the detriment to the
citizens of Carlsbad caused by noncompliance with Chapter 21.44.
While existing provisions of the code provide adequate rel'ief
from the strict application of its regulatory provisions, the
Council finds that it is desirable to establish a special hearing
procedure for relief from the amortization provisions of Chapter
21..41.
The City Council finds that continued strict enforcement
of the existing sign ordinance is necessary to protect the
aesthetic quality of the city and is part of the city's continued
efforts to promote an attractive community. The City Council
recognizes that the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Metromedia
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 c3 a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Inc. v. Citi of San Diego has established certain sti ict critei ia
to ensure that regulation of signs does not unreasonably restrict
first amendment freedoms. The City Council finds that no areas
of the city are compatible with billboard usage because of the
scenic nature of the city and its major arterials including, but
not limited to, Carlsbad Boulevard, El Camino 'Real, Interstate 5,
and Palomar Airport Road and because Carlsbad's commercial and
- industrial areas have been planned in such a manner that visual
aesthetics are a primary concern. Older areas of the city,
particularly the downtown commercial and industrial areas, which
at one time may have been suitable for billboard uses are no
longer suitable for that use because of the change the area is
undergoing and because of the continued efforts by the city to
upgrade these areas. The Council finds that regulation of signs
including on-site signs and billboards is necessary to ensure
that the social and aesthetic qualities of the city are
maintained, to promote local business including tourism, and to
enchance property values throughout the city. The Council also
finds that prohibitions against off-site signs are necessary to
prevent sign proliferation in the city. The Council further
finds that regulations of signs both on and off-site are
necessary to ensure the safe use of city streets and sidewalks
and promote traffic safety.
SECTION 2: Based on evidence and testimony presented at
the public hearing, the Council finds that all signs and
structures which have become nonconforming because of expiration
of the time periods established by Section 21.41.080 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code are fully amortized and that failure to
2.
1: 0,
19
2c
. 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2%
immediately remove such nonconforming signs or strr ctures v ill be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and to the
intent of the citizens of Carlsbad to enhance the aesthetic
quality of their city in order to stimulate economic and social
benefits including tourism,
SECTION 3: Title 18, Chapter 18.20 and Title 21,
Chapter 21.41 are hereby readopted in their entirety except as
amended by this ordinance.
SECTION 4: Title 21, Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Sections 21.41.015,
21-41.081, 21.41.082, 21.41.083, 21.41.084, 21.41.085,
21.41.086 and 21.41.087 to read as follows: .
"21.41.015 Removal of nonconforming signs. Signs or parts thereof, including sign supports, not conforming to the requirements of this code shall be abated as prescribed by law.
21.41.081 Removal of amortized signs. Signs made nonconforming by expiration of the time period established by
Section 21.41.080 shall be immediately abated pursuant to the
procedures established by Sections 21.41.082 through 21.41.087.
21-41.082 Declaration of" amortization; Notice of
Removal. (a) All signs and structures which have become
nonconforming because of expiration of applicable time period
established by Section 21.41.080, are hereby deemed to be fully amortized and a public nusiance, and may he removed by any city employee at.the direction af the City Manager, or his designee,
upon the expiration of thirty days after written notice of such nonconformance and order of reinoval has been made. The actual cost of such removal shall be charged to the display owner.
manner:
shall be posted on the structure for sign to be removed.
mail to the last known address of the display owner.
shall inform the recipient of the appeal process.
(b) Written notice shall be given in the following
1. Notice of nonconformance and order for removal
2. A copy of said notice shall be mailed by certified
(c) Said notice shall state the date for removal and
21.41.083 Removal of sign after notice. A nonconforming sign or structure shall be removed by the date
established on the order for removal,.
///
3.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12 9.
5 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_-
21.41.084 Application for extension of time for removal. (a) An application for an extension of time may be made by the owner of the property affected or by an occupant or tenant doing business on the affected property at any time prior to the expiration o€ the period established by the notice.
Filing an application for an extension of time shall stay the period for removal until final determination of the application.
on forms provided by the City Clerk and shall be verified.
information:
conditions relied upon as grounds for the application.
(b) The application shall be filed with the City Clerk
(c) The application shall contain the following
1. A full statement of the circumstances and
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
3a.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12 0 6'
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.-
2. A legal description of the property involved, name of the owner, or owners, of the property-upon which the sign is located. 3. Photographs of the sign, or signs affected.
4. The date and cost of original construction.
5. The date and cost of applicant's purchase or
other acquisition of the sign or structure.
6. The dates and costs of any repairs or
maintenance to the sign or structure.
7. The average monthly gross income derived from proceeds generated from the sign or structure measured over the period of existence or ownership.
8. The current value of the sign or structure.
9. A statement of whether or not the sign has been
completely depreciated for federal income tax purposes and if not, the amount remaining to be depreciated.
forward the application to the City Manager. .The City Manager, or his designee, may review the application, conduct an investigation if necessary and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the information contained in the application. The City Manager, or his designee, may seek information from any source in conducting the investigation.
hearing and give notice-of the time, place an purpose of such
hearing in accordance with the procedures established by law.
(d) Upon receipt of an application the City Clerk shall
(e)' The City Clerk shall s'et a date for a public
21.41.085 Council action. (a) After conducting a public hearing on an application for an extension of time, the City Council may by resolution deny said application or grant such an extension of time as it finds necessary to permit the applicant to recoup his investment in the particular sign involved. A grant of extension of time shall be based on
findings supported by hearing testimony or other evidence that:
code to a particular sign is unreasonable;
code create a hardship upon the applicant which was not brought about by an act of the applicant;
Carlsbad Municipal Code have been satisfied; and
of this code outweighs any detriment to the public caused by granting an extension.
extensions of time the City Council shall consider any evidence presented as to the following matters, but not limited thereto.
sign.
1. Strict application of the provisions of this
2. Strict application of the provisions of this
3. The provisions of Section 21.50.030 of the
4. The hardship resulting from strict application
(b) In making a determination as to granting or denying
1. Age, condition and physical characteristics of
2. Location. 3. Remaining economic life.
4. Depreciation treatment for income tax .
5. Investment in the,sign. .
purposes .
4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 0
0 k 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Y
L
6. Monopoly or advantage resulting from the fact
7. Costs to remove the sign and salvage value.
8. Extent of nonconformity.
9. Repairs or maintenance made during the period
that similar new signs are prohibited.
established by Section 21.41.080 shall not be considered so as
to extend the time for amortization.
21.41.086 Notice'of decision. A copy of the resolution made pursuant to this section may be filed with the City Clerk
and the Coulity Recorder of the County of San Diego and a copy
shall be mailed to the applicant. The resolution need not be
filed with the County Recorder if the resolution is a denial of
the extension of time.
21.41.087 Decision final. The decision of the City
Council, pursuant to Section 21.41.085, shall be final.
- SECTION 4: That Title 21, Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Section 21.41.050
by the addition of subsection (3)(F) to read as follows:
(F) Non-commercial messages by the owner or occupant of
the property .
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective
thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify
to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at
least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its
adopt ion .
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 16th day of March 1982
and thereafter
//
//
//
//
//
// 5-
II
- .' t-
c
L
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
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City
Council held on the 6th day of &ril , 1983 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES: NOTE!
Council Wers Packard, Casler, hear, Lewis and Kulchin
ABSENT: None
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kfil.:L.. J ALETHA L. RAUTWNKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
r