HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-18; City Council; 10825; AMENDMENT TO CAMPAIGN SIGN ORDINANCE TO DECREASE THE NOTICE PERIOD TO REMOVE ANY CAMPAIGN SIGN THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE CARLSBAD MUNIDIPAL CODE FROM FIVE DAYS TO TWO DAYS0 cr) l-i I m 2
a b 0
a a, u 3 a 0 L4 4-l d -4
a 8
g -4 u (6 b cd 4 u a, Q
-4 $ u cd M a, 2
a, 5
a @J g
AMENDMENT TO CAMPAIGN SIGN ORDINANCE
MTG. ?I, y/ 7 o
AB#&= TITLE.
DEPT.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
TO DECREASE THE NOTICE PERIOD TO REMOVE ANY CAMPAIGN
SIGN THAT DOES NOT CONFORM To THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CIT'
CODE FROM FIVE DAYS TO TWO DAYS F PLN
The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that th
Council APPROVE by Minute Motion the Negative Declaration by the Planning Director and INTRODUCE Ordinance No. dS-
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Under Section 21.41.160 of the Zoning Ordinance, the 1)irec Building and Planning (Community Development Direct0
authorized, after giving five days written notice to rem0 campaign signs that do not conform to the Carlsbad. Mun
Code. Under this noticing provision, an illegally placed s
potentially in place for more than a week. When a s.
erected illegally on a Friday, the notice is often mailed
earlier than the following Monday. Allowing two days fo
delivery, plus the five day notice period; the earliest PO
date the sign can be removed is eleven days followirig th
the sign was erected.
On November 14, 1989, Council addressed a citizen's requ
amend the Carlsbad Municipal Code on Campaign Signs to eli
the five-day written notice for removal of non-conforming and authorize immediate removal by the Director of Btlildi Planning, or his designee. Staff recommended, and C
concurred with a two day notice period. This would techr allow for the removal of non-conforming signs within one P
placement. This would ensure a person's due process righ
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the proposed ZOI
amendment will not have any significant impacts c
environment, and therefore, has issued a Negative Declaral May 31, 1990. The Planning Commission recommended apprc
APPROVING ZCA 89-3.
a
cd
rl -4 u F:
a i!? +
0 -@ .. V g+
o\ Z 0 6 0 co l-i \
o\ a
i 0 z 3 0 0
environmental document is on file in the Planning Departn
FISCAL IMPACT
Some additional staff time may be needed to remove illega
which remain in place following the end of the two day
period. This should be offset, however, by the fee paid
applicant to process a sign permit application.
EXHIBITS
1. Ordinance No. h-/38 .
2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3053 & 3054
3.
4.
Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes dated July
Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July '
c P
1
1
2
3
4
53
6
7
8
9
10
I'
l2
l3
I.4
15
l6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
ORDINANCE NO. NS-130
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 AMENDMENT OF SECTION 21.41.160(E) TO
CHANGE THE WORDS "FIVE DAYS" TO "TWO DAYS". -
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad does ord
follows:
SECTION I: That Title 21, Chapter 21.41 of the Ca
Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Section 211.41.
to change the words "five days" to lltwo days" in the
sentence.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effe
thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall CE
to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be publisl
least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days aft(
adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting c
Carlsbad City Council on the 18th day of Septembel-
1990, and thereafter
...
...
.*.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
&
f
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
25th day of September
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Larson and Mamaux
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Pettine
ED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
CLAUDE A. L&S, Mayor
-2-
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
l6
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 e
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3053
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO DECREASE THE
NOTICE PERIOD TO REMOVE ANY CAMPAIGN SIGN THAT DOES NOT
CONFORM TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE FROM FIVE DAYS TO
TWO DAYS.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: ZCA 89-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of July, 1990,
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and cor
written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to
Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissic
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Comm
recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND" d
1990, and "PII", dated May 24, 1990, attached hereto and made a part hereof,
following findings:
Findings:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project rnay ha\
impact on the environment.
...
...
...
...
...
*
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
m a
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning I
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on ?he 18th day of July, 1990, by the following vote
Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes
Erwin, Marcus and Hall. AYES:
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None. ---
Grg/ ficLL&
SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
\
' . * /,, - 1 ; i,, i--.ff I 1 (" ..
MICHAEL J. HOLZMIUER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3053 -2-
E X H I B I '
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION : Citywide
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to Section 21.41.160 of the Zoning Ordin:
decreasing the notice period to remove any campaign sign that does not conform to the Carl:
Municipal Code from five days to two days.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described pr'
pursuant to the Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said revie
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a sigruficant impact on
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is 011 file U
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plan
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the publi
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the PlaIlning Department within 30 days of
of issuance.
%LL7&t,u &L -
DATED: May 31, 1990
CASE NO: ZCA 89-3 Planning Director
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH DATE: May 31, 1990
MICHAEL J. HO~ILLE~
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carisbad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 43
0 EXHlE 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COM'LETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. ZCA 89-3
DATE: MAY 24, 1
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CAMPNGN SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
2. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRNE
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 438-1161
4. DATE EM FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to Section 21.41.160 of the Zoni
decreasing the notice Denod to remove any campaim
not conform to the Carlsbad Municipal Code from fivl
daw.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the Cil
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on thi
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a c
checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted bj
project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether
Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence t
or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklis
checked to indicate this determination.
: An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that ar
project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects
insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings YES-sig"
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the e
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be giv
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
a 0
PHYSICAL EiNVlRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DtRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(SJ@ (Inslg)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air
2.
3.
4.
-
5.
6.
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
water, ground water or public water supply?
depletion of any natural resources?
-
7. Substantially change the course or flow of -
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface -
9. Substantially increase usage or cause -
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? -
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site, structure or object? - -
-2-
@ 0
BIOLOGICAL EWRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES P
(W (lmlg)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants) ?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
13.
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects? -
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
15.
16.
HUMANmom
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(SW (Wlg)
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area? - -
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? -
-3-
- e e
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
*_
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES I
(SW f mlg)
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems? -
20. tncrease existing noise levels? -
21.
22.
Produce new light or glare?
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? -
human population of an area?
for additional housing? -
23. Substantially alter the density of the -
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
27.
movement of people and/or goods? - -
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? -
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? -
emergency evacuation plans? - -
aesthetically offensive public view? -
existing recreational opportunities? -
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an -
32. Affect the quality or quantity of -
-4-
e 0
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFI~AI~CE
N
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(lnsrg) (5%)
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life 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 en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. - -
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) - -
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual 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.) - -
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 7 -
-5-
e e
DISCUSSION OF EWRONMEN IAL EVALUATION
The proposed Zone Code Amendment Will not affect any physical, biological or human resour(
as indicated in the checklist.
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the projecr,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed, and
g) no project alternative.
a) N/A
b) N/A
c) N/A
dl N/A
e) N/A 0 N/A
g) N/A
-6-
0
DETERMINATION (TO Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environm
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
- 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmen
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environmer
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
/]I //> ax/ , z;{yzY 5 - - D~fe Signature
I ; < -il . / 1 1 \wL ’ .,+\ J *@ . ’.- ’. ts ‘C - - - I1
Date Planning Director -J
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE]
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE]
N/A
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3054
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A Z CODE AMENDMENT, AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.
SECTION 21.41.160, OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE,
DECREASE THE NOTICE PERIOD TO REMOVE ANY CAMPAIGN S
THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICII?AL C FROM FIVE DAYS TO TWO DAYS. APPLICANT : CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: ZCA 89-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day
1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed k
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing arid cor
all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desir
heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to
Code Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correc'
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public
the Commission recommends APPROVAL of ZCA 89-3,, acc
Exhibit ltX1t, dated May 25, 1990, on file in the
Department and made a part hereof, based on the findings and subject to the following findings. 1 Findinqs:
1. The proposed amendment will reduce the notj-ce E
remove any campaign sign that does not conforr
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
...
...
...
...
...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
l3
14
15
3.6
17
18
19
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commissic
of Carlsbad, California, held on the 9th day of July, 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes, McFadden,
Erwin, Marcus & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None. - -,?-r*
,&m- p!5L4L0dflA
SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
\. 1
\, I ‘,I ,
1
f -4-+ ,.* ’ , !I,, \\ ,,I
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
PC RES0 NO. 3054 -2-
July 9, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION ,. page 14
,,
i Motion was duly made, seconded,'and carried to adopt
Planning Comission Resolut@ No. 3055 approving the
Negative Declaration issu9 by the Planning Director and
adopt Planning Comission Resolution No. 3056 approving
CUP 89-2(A), based o (he findings and subject to the conditions contain therein, with the following revisions:
(a) delete Condi on C17; (b) add a condition stating that the maxi water usage per month will be 10.000
gallons; an c) add the words "with the exception of
security rsonnel" to the end of Condition t10.
It 3 ).. Jf 9 and 10 were taken out of order (see pages 2 and
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
11) ZCA 89-3 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - An Amendment to Section 21.41.60 of the Zoning Ordinance decreasing the notice period to remove any campaign sign that does not conform
to the Carlsbad Municipal Code from five days to two
days.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and.,stated that in November 1989 the City Council voted to amend the CarLsbad Municipal Coda
on Campaign Signs to eliminate the five-day written notice
for removal of nonconforming signs and authorize inmediate
removal by the Director of Building and Planning, or his designee. Section 21'41.160 of the Carlsbad Wicipal Code decreasing the notice period from fiva days to two days.
reconmends approval.
Commissioner Erwin inquired why the signs cannot be removed
instantaneously. Ron Ball. Assistant City Attorney, replied that this would be unconstitutional.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if they could be removed within
24 hours. Mr. Ball replied that this would be constitutionally infirm.
Chairman Schr- opened the public testimony and issued the
invitation to spuk.
Therm king no persona desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairnun Schram daclarmd the public testimony
closed and oponed the itom for discussion among the
Cession membors.
Motion was duly made, secondad. and carried to adopt
Resolution No. 3053 recommding approval of the Nagative
Declaration issued by thm Planning Director and adopt Resolution No. 3054 recoatmndimg approval of ZCA 89-3,
based on the findings contained therain.
Council subseqmtly directed staff to amend
Staff
12) fIDP 90-17 - GHMISBAB - Raqwst for M appul of the
Planning Director's decision to deny a Hillside
Doveloptmnt Permit for a single family residmnce at 2530 La Costa Avanua.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Plnnnina Director, reviewed the
background of the reqwst and stated that on May 16, 1990 the
Planning Director determined that t3DP 90-17 was inconsistent
COMMISSIONI -
Erwin
Hall
Ho hes
Yarcus
McFaddi Sc h lehi
Schrann
Erwin rial I
130 lmes Harcus McFadd Schlah
Schram
a < W .-
!STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 9, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ZCA 89-3 - CTIY OF CARLSBAD - An Amendment to Section 21.41.60 (
Zoning Ordinance decreasing the notice period to remove any caimpaigr
that does not conform to the Carlsbad Municipal Code from five days tc
days.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 3053 recommending APPROV
the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No.
recommending APPROVAL of ZCA 89-3, based on the findings contained therein.
II. PROJECI' DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On September 27, 1988, in response to a request by a citizen to amend the Caimpaig~
Ordinance, Council voted to postpone consideration of any amendments to the Car
Sign Ordinance until after the November, 1988, election.
On November 14, 1989, Council addressed the request to amend the Carlsbad MUI
Code on Campaign Signs to eliminate the five-day written notice for removal oj
conforming signs and authorize immediate removal by the Director of Buildin,
Planning, or his designee. After a discussion of this proposal, Council action, consti
a Resolution of Intent, directed staff to rem with an amendment to Section 21.L
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code decreasing the notice period to remove any campaig
that does not conform to Code from five days to two days.
111. DISCUSSION
Currently, under Section 21.41.160 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Director of Buildii
Planning is authorized, after giving five days written notice to the person or persor
signed the sign permit, to remove any campaign signs that do not conform to the CE
Municipal Code. Under this noticing provkion, an illegally placed sign is potenti
place for more than a week. When a sign is erected illegally on a Friday, the nc
often mailed out no earlier than the following Monday. Allowing two d.ays fc
delivery, plus the five day notice period; the earliest possible date the sign can be re
is eleven days following the date the sign was erected.
(. 0 -
ZCA 89-3 - CITY OF CARLSBAD
JULY 9, 1990
PAGE 2
To decrease the length of time an illegal sign is potentially in place, the noticing F
must be reduced. Some period of time for noticing must be allowed, however, to el
that due process rights of the person or persons who signed the sign permit are se
As a result, on November 14,1989, staff recommended, and Council concurred with, i
day notice period to allow for the removal of non-conforming signs within one we
placement, and provide a reasonable amount of time for due process.
nr. ENVIRONMENTAL REvT;Ew
The Planning Director has determined that this project will not have a significant ir
on the environment, and therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on May 31, 1990
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 3053
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3054
3. Agenda Bill #10,385, dared November 14, 1989
EL