HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-13; City Council; 15314; Sign Ordinance Amendment Resolution Of IntentionAB# 15.3/y
MTG. 7-13- $9
DEPT. PLN .bP
A
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL m: DEPT. HD.
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RESOLUTION OF INTENTION
CITY ATTY. @
CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution of Intention No. 9-258 to initiate a zone code
amendment to amend the City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to
incorporate clear and comprehensive sign standards for the C-M, M and P-M zones.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
In March of 1999, the Planning Director denied a Sign Program, PS 98-132 for the Cornerstone
Corporate Centre office project which is located adjacent to Palomar Oaks Way and Wright Place in
the Carlsbad Airport Center (Specific Plan 181(A)). The Planning Director’s denial of said Sign
Program was based upon the finding that it did not comply with the Sign and Graphic requirements
of Specific Plan 181(A). The project applicant appealed this denial to the Planning Commission
based upon the contention that the Planning Director incorrectly interpreted the sign provisions of
Specific Plan 181 (A) and therefore was in error in denying the Sign Program.
On May 19, 1999, the Planning Commission upheld (6-0; Compas absent) the Planning Director’s
decision to deny this Sign Program. While the Planning Commission agreed with the Planning
Director’s interpretation of the sign provisions of Specific Plan 181(A), they also acknowledged that
the Sign and Graphic requirements of this plan are sufficiently unclear. Accordingly, the Planning
Commission made a Minute Motion to direct staff to submit a Resolution of Intention to the City
Council to undertake an amendment to Specific Plan 181(A) to clarify the Plan’s sign regulations to
be consistent with the past administrative practice of allowing no more than one wall sign per
building frontage.
Within the City of Carlsbad, there exists two other planned industrial business-park specific plans
(Carlsbad Research Center (SP 180(A) and Carlsbad Airport Business Center (SP 200)) which
contain similar (unclear) Sign and Graphic requirements as Specific Plan 181(A). Additionally, there
are other industrially zoned properties (Le. C-M - Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial, M -
Industrial and P-M - Planned Industrial) for which no specific sign regulations exist within the City’s
Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
In view of these considerations and a desire to have clear sign standards that are consistently
applied to all officelindustrial zones across the City, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommendation to amend and clarify the sign provisions of Specific Plan 181(A) be
modified to amend the City’s Sign Ordinance to create clear and comprehensive sign standards for
the C-M, M and P-M zones. This proposed Ordinance amendment would include: standards for
maximum sign area per building, or multiple tenant building, and a provision which specifies that the
Sign and Graphic requirements of Specific Plan 180(A), 181(A) and 200 are superseded by the new
codified sign standards.
This proposed zone code amendment will result in sign standards for the C-M, M and P-M zones
that are clear, understandable and simple for all customers to use; therefore enabling expeditious
processing of officelindustrial sign programs and permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of the Resolution of Intention is statutorily exempt from CEQA review since there is no
3ossibility that this activity will have an adverse effect on the environment.
I
C.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA aiLL NO. I 5.3 /
FISCAL IMPACT:
An expenditure of staff time will be required to process the zone code amendment. Anticipated time
for completion is approximately 3-5 months and will include Planning Commission, City Council and
Coastal Commission (for the LCP amendment) review.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution of Intention No. 94 -2s 8
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4558
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 19, 1999
4. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 19, 1999.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1'
21
2
2:
2:
2,
2:
26
27
28
II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
1
5
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 99-258
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO
DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO
INCORPORATE CLEAR AND COMPREHENSIVE SIGN
CHAPTER 21.41 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.
STANDARDS FOR THE C-M, M AND P-M ZONES INTO
Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, thai
pursuant to Section 21 52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the City Council of the City c
Carlsbad hereby declares its intention to consider an amendment of Chapter 21.41 of thc
Carlsbad Municipal Code to incorporate clear and comprehensive sign standards for the C-M, h
and P-M zones.
The Planning Director is directed to prepare said zone code amendment and se
the matter for public hearing before the Planning Commission and this City Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City o
Carlsbad on the 13 day of July 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila & Kulchin
NOES: Council Member Hall
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
ALwA L. &dmNK@$Z, City Clerk
(SEAL)
KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Azistant City Clerk
3
1
1
-
L
C -
c
I
8
5
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- -
EXHIBIT 1
ELANNING CO-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S DENIAL OF A SIGN PROGRAM
FOR THE CORNERSTONE CORPORATE CENTRE ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO
PALOMAR OAKS WAY AND WRIGHT PLACE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5
CASE NAME: CORNERSTONE CORPORATE CENTRE
SIGN PROGRAM
CASE NO: PS 98-132
WHEREAS, Cornerstone Corporate Centre, “Developer” and “Owner”, has
filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 7, 8, 11 and 15 of Carlsbad Tract No. 81-46 Unit No. 1, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 11287, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, July 16,1985.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided by Specific Plan
181(A); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Sign Program as
shown on Exhibit “A”. dated September 24,1998, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department,
CORNERSTONE CORPORATE CENTRE SIGN PROGRAM - PS 98-132, provided by
Section F. Sign and Graphic Requirements of Specific Plan 181(A); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of May, 1999, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Sign Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 4
1
‘
t
z
5
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission A of the
based on the following findings:
CORNERSTONE CORPORATE CENTRE SIGN PROGRAM - PS 98-132
1. That Sign Program 98-132 does not comply with the Carlsbad Airport Center
Specific Plan (SP 181(A)) sign standards for multi-tenant buildings in that: 1) the
number of tenant wall signs per building elevation that are proposed (up to 4 signs)
exceeds the maximum number permitted (1 sign per building elevation); 2) the sign
area per proposed sign exceeds the maximum permitted (5 square feet) sign area per
sign, 3) the proposed location of wall signs along 1st and 2nd story building facias
does not comply with the requirement to locate multi-tenant signage over the
building entrance(s); and 4) the proposed sign letter height (18”- 24”) exceeds the
permitted 6” sign letter height for multi-tenant industriaYofice buildings.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of May, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners L’Heureux, Nielsen,
Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Compas
ABST_AIN:
erson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI~SION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4558 -2- 5
l’he City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 3
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: NIA
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 19, 1999 Project Planner: Chris DeCerbo
Project Engineer: NIA
SUBJECT: PS 98-132 - CORNERSTONE CORPORATE CENTRE SIGN PROGRAM -
Request for an appeal of the Planning Director’s decision to deny a sign program
for the Cornerstone Corporate Centre office project located on lots 7, 8, 11 and 15
in the Carlsbad Airport Center (Specific Plan 181(A)) adjacent to Palomar Oaks
Way and Wright Place in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4558, upholding
the Planning Director’s decision to PS 98-132, a Sign Program for the Cornerstone
Corporate Centre, based upon the findings contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Planning Director’s
denial of a Sign Program for the Cornerstone Corporate Centre office project which is located in
the Carlsbad Airport Center (Specific Plan 181(A)). The proposed sign program includes up to
four (4) tenant wall signs to be displayed along each building elevation whereas the Sign
Requirements of the Carlsbad Airport Center Specific Plan allow either one (1) tenant wall sign
per building elevation or smaller multiple tenant signs to be located at the building entrance(s).
Staff recommends that the Planning Director’s decision to deny PS 98-132 be upheld by the
Planning Commission in that the sign program does not comply with the Sign and Graphic
Requirements of Specific Plan 18 1 (A).
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On October 20, 1998, the project applicant submitted a Sign Program (PS 98-132) for the
Cornerstone Corporate Centre (See Exhibit ”A”), an office project which is located within the
Carlsbad Airport Center. Specific Plan 181(A) regulates all development within the Carlsbad
Airport Center. Pursuant to Specific Pan 181(A), each project within the specific plan area is
required to have a sign program approved by the Planning Director. Upon the approval of a sign
program by the Planning Director, all individual project signs are subsequently required to
comply with the sign program.
The approval of a project sign program by the Planning Director is contingent upon it being
found to be in compliance with the Sign and Graphic Requirements of Specific Plan 181(A) (See
Exhibit “B”). As discussed below in the “Analysis” section of this staff report, the proposed
Sign Program 98-132 does not comply with the Sign and Graphic Requirements of Specific Plan
PS 98-132 - CORNERSTblqE CORPORATE CENTRE SIGN PROGRAM
May 19, 1999
181(A). Accordingly, on December 4, 1998 and again on March 10, 1999 correspondence was
sent to the project applicant identifylng what the project (Sign Program) issues were (see analysis
section of this staff report) and requesting that Sign Program 98-132 be revised to comply with
the sign provisions of Specific Plan 181(A). In the interim, Planning staff met on several
occasions with the project applicant to clearly discuss the identified Sign Program issues relative
to the applicant’s project signage requests, and the need for the applicant to process an
amendment to Specific Plan 181(A) in order to enable the consideration and possible
achievement of the proposed project signage. Rather than processing an amendment to SP
181(A), on March 22, 1999, the project applicant submitted a request to the Planning
Commission to appeal the Planning Director’s decision on Sign Program 98-132. The subject
appeal request is processed pursuant to Section 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and
contends that, “the Planning Director has applied an interpretation of the applicable language of
the Specific Plan which is at odds with its meaning and is therefore in error in denying the
approval of the proposed sign program”.
Sign Program 98-132 is subject to the Sign and Graphic Requirements of the Carlsbad Airport
Center Specific Plan 181(A).
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation to uphold the Planning Director’s decision to deny PS 98-132 is based
upon the finding that the subject sign program does not comply with the Sign and Graphic
Requirements of Specific Plan 181(A) as discussed below.
Table I includes a summary comparison of the Sign and Graphic Requirements of SP 18 1 (A)
relative to the signage proposed through Sign Program 98-132.
TABLE 1 - COMPLIANCE WITH SIGN AND GRAPHIC REQUIREMENTS OF SP 181(A)
SPECIFIC PLAN SIGN STANDARD I PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM I COMPLIES I I
General Sign Standard:
Only one single or double-faced permanent sign Up to four wall (4) signs and 1
#2 below).
exception refers to multi-tenant buildings (see per building. tenant (except as otherwise indicated). The
monument sign per street frontage (wall or ground mounted) per street frontage per
NO
I
7
PS 98-132 - CORNERSTUNE CORPORATE CENTRE SIGN PRUtiRAM
May 19, 1999
Paee 3 -
Buildings which front along Palomar
Airport Road:
1. Single-Tenant Buildings - Maximum of
1 wall sign per street frontage.
a. Maximum of 200 square feet of signage
(ground or wall signs) per lot.
b. Maximum of one and one-half square
building frontage. feet of wall signage per foot of lineal
4. Multi-Tenant IndustriaVOffice Bldgs - Each tenant may have a wall sign over the
entrance. Each sign shall be limited to 5
square feet in area with a letter height not to
exceed 6” high.
Buildings “A” - “C”
1. None of the buildings are
proposed as single tenant occupancy.
2. Building “A”-“C” - Each
building includes from 6 to 12
tenant wall signs and 1 to 4 signs
per building elevation. Each of the
signs are larger than 5 square feet in area, have letter heights ranging
from 18” - 24” tall, and arem located above the entrance, but are
instead prominently displayed
along the building elevations.
NIA
NO
To summarize, for single tenant buildings within the Carlsbad Airport Center which do not
front along Palomar Airport Road, the Sign and Graphic Requirements of SP 181(A) allow
one (1) sign (wall or ground mounted) per street frontage and a maximum of 200 square feet of
signage per lot. Notwithstanding the provision which allows only one (1) sign per street
frontage, the specific location of single tenant building signage is not hrther regulated.
For single tenant buildings which do front along Palomar Airport Road, the Sign and
Graphic Requirements of SP 181(A) allow a maximum of four (4) wall signs per building, two
(2) wall signs per street frontage and a maximum of 100 square feet of wall signage per building.
For multi-tenant industriaVoffice buildings which either front or do not front along Palomar
Airport Road, each tenant is allowed a wall sign (restricted to a maximum 5 square foot area and
a maximum 6 inch letter height) that must be located over the building entrance. No other wall
siens are oermitted for multi-tenant buildinps.
Sign Program 98-132 indicates that none of the buildings within the Cornerstone Corporate
Center are proposed as single tenant buildings. Accordingly, all of the buildings are regarded as
multi-tenant industrialloffice buildings and are therefore subject to the applicable standards. As
shown in Table 1 above, Sign Program 98-132 clearly does not comply with the Carlsbad Airport
Center Specific Plan sign standards for multi-tenant buildings. The proposed project signage
does not comply with respect to: 1) the number of tenant wall signs per building elevation (1 8
PS 98-132 - CORNERSTONE CORPORATE CENTRE SIGN PROCiRAM
May 19, 1999
Page 4
sign permitted; up to 4 signs proposed), 2) the maximum sign area per sign (5 square feet
permitted; in excess of 5 square feet proposed), 3) the location of wall signs (permitted over
building entrance; proposed along 1st and 2nd story building facias) and 4) sign letter height (6”
permitted; 18”- 24” proposed).
Staff acknowledges that the sign provisions of SP 181(A) are more restrictive for multi-tenant
compared to single-tenant buildings. However, these sign standards allow for the “reasonable
identification” of businesses within the Carlsbad Airport Center without compromising building
architecture or creating sign clutter. This community objective is particularly important for
buildings that are located along or visible from Palomar Airport Road, which is designated as a
future community theme (“scenic”) corridor. As a general rule, with the exception of a few non-
conforming wall signs that were issued in error, these Specific Plan sign standards have been
consistently applied to all projects within this business-park. It is also important to note that
these same sign standards apply to other industriaVoffice developments with approved sign
programs within the City.
In conclusion, because Sign Program 98-132 does not comply with the Sign and Graphic
Requirements of Specific Plan 181(A), staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4558 upholding the Planning Director’s decision to deny
Sign Program (PS 98-132). Pursuant to Section 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the
Planning Commission action on this matter is final and is not subject to further appeal to the City
Council.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Cornerstone Corporate Centre Sign Program (PS 98-132) was denied and is, therefore,
exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15270 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
In the event the Planning Commission approves the applicant’s appeal of PS 98-132, then the
Sign Program must be sent back to staff for environmental processing.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4558 (PS)
2. Location Map
3. Appeal Letter from Applicant, dated March 22, 1999
4. Exhibit “A” - Cornerstone Corporate Centre Sign Program, dated September 24, 1998.
5. Exhibit “B” - Sign and Graphic Requirements of Specific Plan 181(A).
6. Copy of original application
7. Letter dated December 4, 1998 to Dave Holt
8. Letter dated March 10, 1999 to Scott Brusseau
CDehmh
CORNERSTONE CORPORATE
CENTRE
PS 98-1 32
LAW OFFICES OF
STANLEY D. PROWSE
CAMlNO CORPORATE CENSER
2385 CAMlNO VlDA ROBLE. SUlTE 101
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-1509
TELEPHONE (7601 438-8460
FAX ,7601 438-4379
March 22, 1999
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
2075 Los Palmas Drive
Carlsbad; CA 92009-IS76
Re: Cornerstone Corporate Centre Sign Program
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We represent Cornerstone Corporate Centre, the developer of a four building class A
office building project adjacent to Wright Place and Palomar Oaks Way in the City
of Carlsbad.
Cornerstone Corporate Centre hereby appeals the decision of the Planning Director,
by Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner, denying approval of the sign program proposed
by Cornerstone Corporate Centre pursuant to the provisions of Specific Plan 18 1 (A)
as amended July 199 1 requiring the approval by the Planning Director of a sign
program as a precondition to the issuance of any sign permit.
The reason for this appeal is that Cornerstone Corporate Centre is unable to fulfil its
obligations to tenants to erect signage on the buildings without the approval of a sign
program by the Planning Director. The manner in which the decision of the Planning
Director is in error in denying approval of the sign program submitted by
Cornerstone Corporate Centre is that the proposed sign program complies in every
respect with the plain language of Specific Plan 18 1 (A) as amended, but that the
Planning Director has applied an 'interpretation' of the applicable language of the
Specific Plan which is totally at odds with its plain meaning.
Secretary, Planning Commission
Page 2
March 22, 1999
We look forward to receiving a notification from you regarding the date, time and
place where the appeal will be heard by the Planning Commission, after receipt of
which we will submit a detailed brief for the Commission’s consideration. Thank you
for your anticipated cooperation.
0 Stanley D. Prowse /
SDP: mjg
cc: Scott R. Brusseau
John Couvillion
.I
- EXHIBIT "B"
24
J City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92009
-
(760)438-1161
REVIEW FOR SIGN PERMIT
Planning Department
All plans submitted for sign permitdsign programs shnll consist of a minimum of a site plan and sign
elevations containing the following information:
I. North arrow and scale.
2. Location of existing buildings or structures, parking areas, and vehicular access points to
the property.
3. Location of all existing and proposed signs for the property.
4. Distance to the propem line(s) for all proposed freestanding sign(s).
5. Provide an elevation for all proposed sign(s) which specifies the following:
A. Dimensions and area for all existing and proposed sign(s).
B. Materials the sign(s) will be Constructed of.
C. Proposed sign copy.
APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT TRREE (3) SETS OF SIGN/SITE PLANS, A COMPLETED
APPLICATION FORM, AND THE APPLICATION FEE.
The anplication must be submitted Drior to 4:OO a.nL Average processing time: 2 weeks
NAME OF PROJECT: rrzektohc cQ&*
ADDRESSOFPROJECT: 1700 1902, 1903 \F3& m-/1917 ~ot~W.4- 1
' &G W4y ASSESSOR PARCELNUMBER: Lor5 7 0 11 h c ?) &c*rt*boA T~& &I-& tpqpv: aIZ-m1-/6
RELATED PLANNING CASE NUMBER(S):
SIGN TYPE: @ Commercial
(d) Real Estate
(6) Community identity (11) Service Stn. Prices (i) Campaign
(h) Industrial (c) Residential
(e) Freeway (f) Marquee
SIGN PROGRAM AND/OR
SPECIFIC PLAN CRITERIA Yes d No 0 Specific Plan Number 9p- I01@)
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA Yeso No d Requires VR Approval
SIGN ORDINANCE: Yes d 0
COASTAL ZONE: Yeso NO 0 Coastal Permit Yes 0 NO 0 ............ 1...l.~o,,,,,,,~,,,~~,,~~**
Form IO 09/97 Page I of2
*'
/ f: , 1. ,I
E: 7 I
-
Number Stbe (In Square Feet)
(a) Pole
(b) Monument
(c) Wall
PERMITS ISSUED FOR EXISTING SIGNS: Yes 0 No 0 Date .
TOTAL BUILDING STREET FRONTAGE *A- 2%'/*6- t4q:/*G I&'/& -273 ' ft.
TOTAL SIGNAGE ALLOWANCE fpnz CRl~RlA\ , sq. ft.
EXISTING SIGNAGE (SQ. FT.) Noble sq. ft.
REMAINING SIGN ALLOWANCE AT PRESENT sq. ft.
PROPOSED SIGNAGE (SQ. FT.) sq. ft.
RbMAIIVlNti SltiN ALLUWANCE, AFlk.K PKi)i'U'USkU SIGN sq. ti.
2117 INDUSTRIAL COURT, SUITE B
I/ CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE CITY AND STATE ZIP a TELEPHONE
VISTA, CA 92108 (760) 727-428 65dh , CJk qJQ2i'(t60)7&*
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMA-
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE TlON IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE
PLANNER CHECK LIST:
I. Field check by planner.
2. Within maximum length, area.
3. Style consistent with Sign Program and/or Specific Plan criteria, if applicable.
4. Location: .:. In right-of-way
-3 In visibility triangle at comer
.3 On roof
5. Pole and monument signs to be checked by Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer, for visibility issues.
6. When approved route copy to Data Entry
APPROVED: Planner: Date:
Form IO 09/97 Page 2 of 2 40
December 4, 1998
Mr. Dave Holt Holl Design
Erwrdido, California 92027
1815 S. Cimw Avc.
Dear Mr. Hol~
The sign program for the Cornemone Corponh Ceafze Uul you submitted for WVISW
with the Planning Dcpatanmt ig not cauimt with the Culsbld Airpon Carkc Specific Plan (SP 181). The Specific Plm .stcttc( that in multi.tcnmt induruiirl buildingo, oach individunl burincsa may hnve n wdl oign oyer the to idsmify the tQunl. The
said sign will give only the name of the company aad will be limited to six inch- high and shall not cxmed ir mimum of five quuc feet. Themfore, plcvrs mir tbe
prop06Cd sign progrun to include one wall sign WR each amaCs in aaordmcc with the
above rneotimd crith and delete other groporcd tenant wall si-.
axl. 4329.
If you have any opooi!ic questions or coneems regarding air please call me at 438-1 lGl
Sinccdy, e Pluming Intern
lU*.
‘I
City of Carlsbad
March 10, 1999
Mr. Scott Brusseau
21 17 Indusmal Court, Suite C
Vista, CA 92083
Dear Scott:
It was a pleasure meeting with you on March 9, 1999 to discuss the proposed Cornerstone
Corporate Center Sign Program. As we discussed at this meeting, the proposed Sign
Program does not conform with the Sign and Graphic Provisions of Specific Plan 181(A).
Specifically, the sign provisions of SP 181(A) allow the following signage:
Buildings which front Palomar Airport Road (i.e.; Building “D)
1. Maximum of 100 square feet of wall signage per building.
2. Maximum of 4 wall signs per building.
3. Maximum of 2 wall signs per elevation.
Buildings which do not front along Palomar Airport Road (i.e.; Buildings “A-C”)
1. Maximum of 200 square feet of signage per lot.
2. Maximum of one and one-half square feet of wall signage per foot of lineal
3. Single-tenant buildings -Maximum of 1 wall sign per building.
4. Multi-tenant buildings - Each tenant may have a wall sign over the entrance.
Each sign shall be limited to 6” high and not exceed 5 square feet in area.
If you have any questions or concerns please call me at (760) 438-1161, Extension
4445.
building frontage.
Sincerely,
CHRIS DeCEREiO
Principal Planner
CDdl
c: Assistant Planning Director
22
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1161 - FAX (760) 43a-0894 @
EXHIBIT 4
3. J'S 98-132 - CORNFRSTONF CORPORATF CENTRE SIGN PROGW - Request for an
appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny a sign program for the Cornerstone Corporate
Centre office project located on lots 7, 8, 11. and 15 in the Carlsbad Airport Center (Specific Plan
181(A)) adjacent to Palomar Oaks Way and Wright Place in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Chairperson Heineman advised the applicant that there were only six Commissioners present and asked if
with less than a full Commission,
he wished to continue this hearing without a full Commission. The applicant chose to continue the hearing
Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne introduced the item and stated that the Commission's action on
this item is final.
Mr. Wayne introduced Principal Planner Chris DeCerbo who presented the staff report as follows: This is a
request for an appeal to the Planning Director's decision to deny a sign program for the Cornerstone
Cornerstone Corporate Centre office project, located in the Carlsbad Airport Center. Specific Plan lSl(A)
Corporate Centre project. On October 20, 1998, the applicant submitted a sign program for the
within a Specific Plan area is required to have a sign program approved by the Planning Director. Upon
regulates all development within the Carlsbad Airport Center. Pursuant to that Specific Plan, each project
approval of a sign program, sign permits are issued consistent with that sign program. The approval of a
sign program by the Planning Director is contingent upon the program being found to be in compliance
with the sign and graphic requirements which are contained within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan
essentially functions as a zoning ordinance for the Carlsbad Airport Center and includes development
standards, including sign regulation. On December 4, 1998, and again on March.10. 1999, staff reviewed
and re-reviewed the proposed sign program and determined that it does not comply with the sign and
graphic requirements of Specific Plan 181(A). Staffs recommendation to uphold the Planning Director's
decision to deny this sign program is based upon the finding that it does not comply.
Mr. DeCerbo presented a series of slides comparing the design standard and the appellant's proposed
sign program as follows: The general sign standard for this Specific Plan is one single or double faced
permanent sign, per street frontage, per tenant, except as otherwise indicated. The exception refers to
multiple-tenant buildings. The appellant has proposed up to four wall signs and an additional monument
sign per street frontage per building. The Specific Plan has language which deals with buildings which do
not front along Palomar Airport Road (this sign program covers four buildings, three of which do not front
along Palomar Airport Road). The sign program allows only one wall sign per street frontage, per tenant,
with a maximum of 200 square feet of signage. The standard is based on a maximum of I .5 square feet
The sign standard basically applies to single-tenant buildings and it distinguishes the general standard,
of wall sign per foot of lineal building frontage, meaning that one sign per tenant per frontage is allowed.
which staff interprets as applied to single-tenant buildings, from another standard which applies to
multiple-tenant occupancy. The standard for multiple-tenant occupancy states that there may be a wall
sign, over the entrance, and each Sign shall be limited to 5.0 square feet in area, and with a letter height
not to exceed 6 inches. This Size sign would not be used for advertising but would instead be used for
identification. Buildings A through C which are multi-tenant buildings in this proposal, include from six to
twelve tenant wall Signs and one to four Signs per building elevation. Each of the signs are larger than 5
square feet in area and have letter heights ranging from 18 inches to 24 inches and are not located above
the entrances to their reSPeCtiV8 Offices. They are, instead, prominently displayed along the building
elevations which is inconsistent with the standard of the Specific Plan. Building D fronts along Palomar
Airport Road and Palomar Airport Road has some different signage allowances. Basically it would allow a
single-tenant building to have four wall signs per building and two street signs per Street frontage.
what would be allowed by the multiple-tenant standard and instead they are proposing eight tenant wall
Interestingly. Building D is alSO proposed as a multi-tenant building and we find that they are not proposing
signs and two to four Wall Signs per building elevation which is again Consistent with the Specific Plan
standard.
23
MlNUTES
-
PLANNING COMMISSION
-
May 19, 1999 Page I9
In effect, the sign program No. PS 98-132 on appeal before this Commission indicates that none of the
buildings within the Cornerstone Corporate Centre are proposed as singletenant buildings (accordingly all
of the buildings are recorded as multipletenant occupancies) and are therefore subject to the applicable
multiple-tenant standards. The sign program clearly does not comply with the Carlsbad Airport Centre
Specific Plan sign standards for multipletenant buildings. A recap of which follows:
5 square feet of sign area per sign In excess of 5 square feet of sign area per sign
Signs over the entrance Locate signs along the first and second story
6 inch maximum letter height per sign 18 inches to 24 inches in height per sign
Specific Plan 18I(A). staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission
In conclusion, because the sign program does not comply with the sign and graphic requirements of
Resolution No. 4558, upholding the Planning Director's decision to deny Sign Program PS 98-132.
Commissioner Welshons indicated that in the agenda packet, the appellant stated that there was a long
delay between the time of their submission of their sign program and action taken by staff, and asked Mr.
DeCerbo if he can explain that delay.
Director and due to the great length of these sign programs, they cannot be processed within a short
Mr. DeCerbo replied that sign programs are under the administrative review and approval of the Planning
period of time. Mr. DeCerbo then explained all the steps necessary to review, calculate, and take action
on a sign program and that it takes considerably longer than a routine sign permit. He added that more
than one staff member takes part in the review and it is not a speedy process. Mr. DeCerbo explained
that this sign program was initially reviewed by another staff member and re-reviewed by himself in
consultation with both the Planning Director and the Assistant Planning Director. A very long time was
spent on arriving at this decision based on what the appellants were proposing. We simply could not
support their sign program as proposed.
Commissioner Welshons asked why only two pages of the proposed sign program, dated 9-24-98. were
included in the Commissioner's packets.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that those two pages identify the locations and the numbers of the signs that were
being proposed and it was felt that that is all that is necessarily relevant to presenting a recommendation.
The appellant has the responsibility of documenting why they are appealing the Director's decision and
for staff to respond to any of their particular concerns because they did not identify what those concerns
they did not do that. We provided them the opportunity to come forward but in that context, it was difficult
were and why staff was incorrect in addressing them. Consequently, staff felt it important to include in its
response, the exhibits that justify why staff does not support the sign program. The first of the two exhibits
included in the packet, basically identifies the buildings, the maximum number of signs, and where the
signs are proposed to be located. The second exhibit provides the worst case scenario of four signs on
one building elevation.
Given that the appellant has submitted their packet and attachments which includes thirteen pages of
argument that references their sign proposal as well as the Specific Plan 181 sign program, Commissioner
Welshons asked Mr. DeCerbo if he or the City Attorney can respond to their points and arguments or give
anything in addition to his presentation.
which the Commission approved some time ago, and see if you (collectively) agree that staff3
Ms. Mobaldi interjected and stated that the Commission's task here is basically to look at the Specific Plan
interpretation of that plan has been reasonable, given all the particular circumstances of this sign program
as proposed. The Commission also has to determine whether or not it is keeping with past administrative
overturn the denial of this program. It is not the responsibility, in this case. for the City Attorney to respond
practices as well. If not, the Commission must determine that it is arbitrah and capricious in order to
building facades
-
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999 Page 20
to counsel's arguments but is the Commissioners' obligation to listen to both the applicant and staff and
determine whether or not staff reasonably applied the Specific Plan to the appellant's sign program.
Commissioner Welshons stated that, after reading all of the material, it seems that they are trying to make
the point that this sign program is open to interpretation and that staff has made some inaccurate
interpretations to which they can reply with 180" interpretation.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that in that regard, the Commissions' task is to determine whether or not the
interpretation given to the Specific Plan, by staff, is a reasonable one.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the applicant included in his letter, some pictures of buildings with multiple
signage, throughout the business parks, and contends that past practices tend to approve more than one
wall sign. Staff does admit to having erred at one time or another and looking through the sign permits
relative to those buildings, found that with the exception of the Merrill LyncMJohn Bumham 8 Company
building, there is not another building with multiple signage that has a legal sign permit for more than one
sign per elevation.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the Commission should consider how reasonably or c.onsistently an
interpretation has been made in the past.
Ms. Mobaldi responded affirmatively.
Commissioner L'Heureux asked if there is a way to revisit sign and graphic requirements with the Specific
Plan.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that there is a way to revisit the requirements but that issue is not before the
Commission at this time. She further stated that the Commission must rule on this specific denial of
and the interpretation that was given to those standards by staff under the existing regulations.
approval of this specific sign program, given the specific plan sign standards that were in effect at the time
If the Commission should deny this appeal, Chairperson Heineman asked what avenue of appeal is left to
the appellant.
the Superior Court and challenge the Commission's decision in that way.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that it is final in terms of appeals within the City but. the developer could bring a writ to
addressing their concerns.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. DeCerbo if he had offered the appellant any other alternatives
Mr. DeCerbo replied that they would need to pursue a Specific Plan Amendment to change any of the sign
provisions that might enable them to achieve what they have proposed with respect to signage.
choice but to deny the proposal based on the interpretation and administration of the sign program.
Given the constraints that this sign program dictates, Commissioner Welshons asked if they had any other
Mr. DeCerbo replied that they had no other choice but to deny. He added that they first. asked the
appellant to revise their proposal as they were out of compliance and they needed to change a number of
things. Then they were told that if they could not work within the sign program, they could propose an
amendment to the Specific Plan and that channel would take them through the Planning Commission and
on to the City Council.
To clarify. Chairperson Heineman asked if he understood correctly that of all of the buildings shown in the
appellant's packet, only one had mistakenly been permitted and all of the others do not have valid sign
permits.
-
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999
Mr. DeCerbo replied affirmatively.
Page 21
Stanley Prouse. Attorney at Law, 2385 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 101. Carlsbad. representing
presented to them by Counsel and stated the following: The level of logical capacity on the part of the
Cornerstone Corporate Centre, asked the Commission to turn to Tab B (sign requirements) in the packets
Planning Department is demonstrated by the first slide shown by Mr. DeCerbo. On the left of the slide it
states, "One single or double-faced permanent sign per tk?nanr. In the center it states, "Up to four wall
signs and one monument sign per street frontage per building". Finally, on the right, it says "Complies -
sign. There is absolutely no suggestion that that standard precludes one sign per tenant if there are
No". Well, no suggestion was made in the sign plan-that one tenant was going to have more than one
multiple tenants. In other words, if there are four tenants, four signs are allowed. Where does the No for
compliance come from? I have to take umbrage with Mr. DeCerbo's assertion that we were granted an
appeal and that staff could not respond to our points in detail because they didn't know what they were.
We had several meetings with Mr. DeCerbo and Mr. Wayne and they knew exactly what was on our minds
and exactly what our position was. This appeal is not a matter of privilege that the Planning Department
gives to us. It is a matter of right under the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The first general standard: Only
one single or double-faced permanent sign will be allowed per street frontage, per tenant. One permanent
wall sign will exceed an area equal to 1.5 square feet of sign area for each foot of lineal frontage of the
sign applies to everything. The following is a general rule for all wall signs-all buildings. Wall Signs: "No
feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage produces an awfully large sign if it applies to a 200 to 300 foot
building or store." That is straight out of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as indicated in my letter. 1.5 square
building. "Total signage shall not exceed 200 square feet in area per lot or comprise more than 10% of the
area of the elevation upon which the sign is located, whichever is less." Also in buildings of this size, it is
down is the "200 feet per lot." Each of our buildings is on a separate lot and we're entitled to 200 square
discovered that the 10% area rule doesn't do much either. The only provision that knocks the sign area
feet of sign area, per building, unless something else tells us we cannot. Mr. DeCerbo would like to read A, as if it started with, "in single-tenant industrial office or commercial buildings . . ." It doesn't say that.
There is absolutely no limitation in that language or in the heading that says it is a limit. It is not. It is the
general rule. At the end of the first sentence of Sub-paragraph F.1.a.. there is a parenthetical phrase, ". . .
primary rule of statutory interpretation is , 'You give fact to every phrase and word and sentence that it is
(except as otherwise indicated)." We're dealing with statutory interpretation and this is a statute and the
in it. You do not render anything negatory."
This tells us that if we keep reading, we're going to find an exception and the exception is going to permit
someone, under some circumstances, to have more than one sign per tenant. If your turn to B and C,
under Wall Signs, you will find that they are both directed toward multi-tenant buildings. The person who
wrote this had in mind, "in multi-tenant buildings". B says , "in multi-tenant industrial or office buildings". C
says. "in multi-tenant commercial buildings." A multi-tenant building is the kind of building that is
recognized by real estate professionals, developers, and buildings and is generally a "tilt-up", one story
tall, and has a separate entrance for each tenant. The issue here is the fact that we have a multi-tenant
building that has a separate entrance for each tenant and how do we put signs on it. An industrial or office
multi-tenant building will have a small wall sign over the entrance. 2C says "may have", 2A says "will
tenants each have a separate entrance, they can have more than one sign per tenant per street frontage.
have", B and C are the exceptions indicated in F.1 .a. and they tell that in a multi-tenant building, where the
They can have a big sign on the facade of the building if the landlord allows it and if it meets any other city
requirements. Then they can have a small sign over their entrance if they are industrial or office so people
will know where they are. If they are in a commercial building they get the big sign, maybe on one side of
the building, and maybe on the side where they are, they get a 35 square foot sign, again so people can
find them. That's what this is about. 2A is a general rule for all buildings. We are not here to suggest that
the Planning Department has one interpretation and we have another. If we are forced to file for Writ of
Mandate in the Superior Court, and it is now our position that the Planning Department's so-called
interpretation of this statute, is totally unreasonable. It is like a rabbit pulled out of a hat. They are playing
the role of the White Queen in Alice In Wonderland. You can't read this specifc plan with a straight face,
with a command of the English language, and with integrity and come up with the so-called interpretation
that Mr. DeCerbo has visited upon us. It cannot be done. Why should you approve this sign plan? You
should approve it first because we have complied with the law. I don't care whether lots of signs are good,
-
PLANNING COMMISSION Page 22
whether no signs are good, or whether some small number of signs are good. It isn't germane to this
discussion. We have complied with Specific Plan 181(A) is requirements for our sign program. It meets
them in every way. I have laid it out, in detail and clearly, in the letter that I have sent to each of the
approved. Step up to the plate, Ladies and Gentlemen, and strike a blow for the rule of law here. We are
Commissioners and staff. There is no way around this. We are entitled to have our sign program
supposed to live in a society governed by laws, not men. When the laws are available to be seen and
read by the citizens, and are such that they can be understood, the laws are not supposed to be made up
from time-to-time no matter what they say, because someone doesn't like the result. The result is the
result. Why else should you approve our sign plan by granting our appeal? Our sign plan is a lot more
stringent than these rules. As I have tried to describe (and I think successfully in the letter delivered
earlier) we're going to have a lot fewer signs and a lot fewer areas of signage on these buildings than we
could have if we took full advantage of these requirements. We have imposed upon ourselves a 100
square foot per elevation requirement. That is not much sign. This sign (exhibit) is already on the
building. We thought we could do business with the Planning Department when we started in on this
the number of signs we would put up. We're reducing our 100 square foot per elevation maximum. They
process. They, in fact, let us put up this sign and gave us a permit for it. We. in fact, discussed limiting
thought about it and then they wouldn't hear of it. Instead, the rabbit came out of the hat. Suddenly, 28
was the general rule for all multiple-tenant buildings. It just ain't so.
Commissioner Welshons stated that Mr. Prouse is directing the Commission to the word multi-tenant, as
opposed to multiple-tenant, and that it appears to be a difference of semantics, and asked if he is
interpreting that staff is applying the word multi-tenant to a building regardless of whether it is a one-story
with separate entrances or a two-story with one entrance.
Mr. Prouse replied that staff is applying F.2.a. to any and all buildings that have more than one tenant,
regardless of whether they are office buildings with lobbies and directories. Staff is applying it to tilt-up
buildings that have both single and multiple entrances. Staff if applying F.2. b.. to every building in the
City of Carlsbad that has multiple tenants, regardless of whether it is a multi-tenant building or not. .The
each tenant, they should have some addRional signage to help people find the right entrance.
person who wrote the statute intended that because multi-tenant buildings have separated entrances for
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Prouse how he defines "frontage" and does he measure his signs
based on the frontage of the building or the frontage on the road.
Mr. Prouse replied that he doesn't think that the term frontage is used with respect to determining the area
of the signs, unless it is in conjunction with the word lineal frontage. Lineal frontage means the distance
between one corner of the building and another along the same elevation.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Prouse if staff has conveyed to him that lineal frontage is along a
road.
out of a hat in claiming that Part 4 of Section F pertains to buildings fronting Palomar Airport Road. There
Mr. Prouse replied negatively and stated that there is no dispute in that respect. There is, again, a rabbit
is absolutely no textural evidence that it refers to buildings. In fact, all the internal textural evidence is that
it refers to signs. ". . . signs fronting Palomar Airport Road . , , " is a phrase that is repeated approximately
seven or eight times within the text of Part 4, and staff has chosen to expand its reach by claiming that it
says " . . .buildings fronting Palomar Airport Road . , , "
Referring to the words "intransigently hostile" that Mr. Prouse used on Page 3, Paragraph 1 of his letter of
May 14. 1999. Commissioner Welshons stated the dictionary definition as "refusing to compromise; come
to an agreement, or be reconciled" and pointed out that later in his letter he also implied or stated that he
felt that staff had not negotiated the sign program or come to an agreement with him.
Mr. Prouse could not recall stating that staff had not negotiated the sign program or come to an agreement
with him.
-
PLANNING COMMISSION
-
May 19,1999 Page 23
Commissioner Welshons went on to point out that Mr. Prouse (in his lelter) stated that the Carlsbad
Airport Center Owner's Association approved the sign program on Sept. 9, 1998. Cornerstone then
submitted the program to the Planning Department and the program languished there until December 4,
1998. Commissioner Welshons then stated that, in reality, Cornerstone's application, with two signatures,
was not dated until September 30, 1998 and October 1. 1998, respectively. Also, the Planning
Department Application is stamped and dated, by a staff member, with the date of October 20, 1998.
for approximately five or six weeks, contrary to Mr. Prouse's implication that the application "languished
Commissioner Welshons further pointed out that in reality, the application was in the Planning Department
for over three months.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Prouse if Cornerstone has made lease commitments to its tenants ..
regarding signs on the outsides of their buildings.
Mr. Prouse replied, "absolutely."
the date(s) of application.
Chairperson Heineman asked Mr. Prouse to respond to Commissioner Welshons' observations regarding
Mr. Prouse replied that he took the date of 10-01-98 from a notation at the bottom of a letter to Mr. Dave
Holt from staff member, Jordan Kass. and stated that the notation must have been put on the letter by
someone in the Planning Department because it certainly was not put there by him or his client.
Again Commissioner Welshons pointed out that the application was not received in the Planning
Department until 10-20-98 to which Mr. Prouse replied that if he mistakenly took the wrong date, he
apologizes.
Given the types of business in this locale, Commissioner Welshons asked if their tenants are seeking to
advertise their locations and therefore need both walk-up and drive-up business.
Mr. Prouse referred to a letter from James Boyce, President of Rancho Santa Fe National Bank. to Scott
Brusseau, President of Newport Nation Corporation, in which he states (in part) ". . . the office must have
sufficient identification through appropriate signage to identify its location in the complex in order to project
the appropriate image and to avoid unnecessary confusion in the attempts to locate the bank's office. In
our current location, 21 11 Palomar Airport Road, we have enjoyed prominent signage on the building in
which the branch office is located. It is important that we have the same signage benefits in the
Cornerstone Corporate Centre. We are very concerned that the inability to identify our location in the
market will create unnecessary confusion and potential disturbance for other building tenants that could be
eliminated by the continuation of the sign opportunities we enjoy in our current location."
Commissioner Welshons asked if this is the bank on Palomar Airport Road across from the airport.
Mr. Prouse responded affirmatively
Commissioner Welshons asked if that is a regular bank
Mr. Prouse again quoted from Mr. Boyce's letter, "Rancho Santa Fe Bank is a business bank and
therefore generates very little lobby traffic in contrast to those banks that are considered retail oriented."
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Prouse to define the words "business bank" as opposed to most
banks as we know them.
Mr. Prouse stated that they do not have many retail customers and deal, primarily, with businesses that do
not generate foot traffic.
Commissioner Welshons asked if that means that only people from the business park use the bank.
-
PLANNING COMMISSION
-
May 19,1999 Page 24
Mr. Prouse replied that it does not mean that only people from the business park use the bank and that
(example) he might use the bank for his business deposits, checking accounts. and trust accounts.
Scott Brusseau, President, Newport National Corporation, 21 17 Industrial Court, Suite C. Vista. stated that
the Rancho Santa Fe National Bank is currently located in the old Graham property but is not the retail
bank that Commissioner Welshons referred to on the comer. Their primary business is from business
bank loans. Do they take deposits - yes. Do they have an ATM - no. He went on to state that Carlsbad
probably has at least six of this type of bank within the City. Mr. Brusseau also stated that Rancho Santa
there is Rubio's. They have 17,000 square feet and were re-located here from the City of San Diego and
Fe National Bank is just one of the tenants needing signage. One of the other tenants that is already in
they need and want to portray the corporate image. He went on to state that if Carlsbad wants to grow up
and have the mature, white-collar jobs that we all aspire to have in our cities, then Carlsbad has to give
these entrepreneurs (that have huge egos) some identification. Another tenant is San Ello National Hills
that is constructing a 1,000 acre subdivision in North County, again needing corporate recognition for
those values. Until February of 1998. he continued, (his company) owned six office buildings in the City.
Every one of those buildings is a multiple-tenant, multiple story office building and every one of those
about whether signage is included in our leases is yes. But. it was not done without past experience. Mr.
buildings have tenant signage consistent with what Cornerstone is proposing. The answer to the question
Brusseau indicated that Cornerstone has been developing within the City of Carlsbad since 1975. Mr.
Brusseau suggested that the interpretation that staff is coming up with is totally changing the sign program
that has been administered for decades.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Prouse to explain Item 5, 56 of his Tenant Building I.D. and Location
Plan.
Mr. Prouse explained their Sign Location Plan and stated that it is important for the Commissioners to
understand the character of the tenant sign area designations and the relationship between those areas
and the criteria of the sign program. The first point is that the tenant sign area shown will not be occupied,
one would find that all of the signs are required to be placed within the tenant's sign area and they also
in full, by a sign except under some very extraordinary circumstances. By reading all of the sign criteria.
other words, the signs are supposed to be in the locations indicated on the Location Plan.
have to be placed on one end; the end corresponding to the end of the building next to the sign area. In
Chairperson Heineman asked Mr. Prouse to state the approximate height of the letters in his exhibits.
Mr. Prouse replied that the maximum size of the letters is called out on each of the elevation drawings.
The letters, on the second floor, are a maximum of 24 inches high and the letters. on the ground floor. are
a maximum of 1.5 feet high and are in scale on the drawings.
Commissioner Segall stated that it appears, on Buildings D, that there are signs on three of the four sides
and asked why.
exhibits to clarify exactly where the tenant sign areas are.
Mr. Prouse replied that they have tenant sign areas on three of the four sides and presented some
Commissioner Segall pointed out that F.1.a.. states, ". . . per street frontage. . ?' and yet in Building C.
Cornerstone has signage in the back of the building as well as in a variety of places other than just street
frontage.
Mr. Prouse explained that it is a statute and it has to be read very carefully to find that the rule is "only one
permanent sign per tenant per street frontage." He pointed out that this issue never arose with the City
but Mr. Holt and Cornerstone interpret street frontage to mean any place on the building that has exposure
to a street or an adjacent parking lot. He added that if they are successful in this appeal, they would be
happy to make a commitment to re-visit the issue of "frontage" with the Planning Department, One of the
mentioned buildings.
proposals that Cornerstone has made is to eliminate the signage areas on the east side of the above
-
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999 Page 25
Commissioner Segall stated that earlier in this meeting there was an opportunity to re-visit the Specific
Specific Plan 181(A) to change wording or to clarify wording.
Plan and asked Ms: Mobaldi if there was an opportunity for them to go back and make an amendment to
Ms. Mobaldi replied that it is her understanding that Staff offered Mr. Prouse the alternative of requesting
an amendment to the Specific Plan if he feels that that Specific Plan is not appropriate and he chose to
appeal the denial of his sign program instead.
Mr. Prouse stated that there is no reason to amend the Specific Plan, that it is just fine and provides for
because they don't need more than one sign per tenant.
more signage than they have asked for. He also stated that the issue of one sign per tenant never arose
Referring to his letter of May 14, 1999. Mr. Prouse stated that as the letter indicates, they would be happy
to stipulate, agree, or commit, at this meeting, that there will be no more than one sign per tenant.
multiple interchangeably, define them differently, or is multi the consistent term. For clarification, Commissioner Trigas asked if there is any place where the City uses the words multi and
Mr. Wayne replied that multi is the consistent term
Therefore, Commissioner Trigas continued, the City uses that word in a generic way meaning multi-
tenants and not defining it from a real estate definition.
Mr. Wayne stated that the City does not recognize the real estate definition.
Mr. Prouse stated that he has been able to obtain a copy of a page out of a survey performed by the
National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. which has in excess of 7,000 members and one of
the categories in this survey was "Flexible Multi-tenant Industrial Commercial Buildings" and offered it as
evidence that this term does have a custom and usage meaning in the development business.
Commissioner Trigas stated that it appears to her that, looking at this document, the Commission is only
dealing with two types of buildings, single-tenant and multi-tenant. Multi-tenant including buildings that
differentiation and asked Mr. Wayne if she was correct.
have more than one tenant. She pointed out that throughout the document, she has not seen any other
any other way, you get to a position where you could have hundreds of tenants and hundreds of signs on
Mr. Wayne replied that Commissioner Trigas is correct and the reason is that if you interpret the statute
a building. The logical conclusion is not what was in the mind of staff, the Planning Commission, nor the
City Council when they were approving this statute and that is why it is only single-tenant or multi-tenant.
If the multi-tenant has only one door, the names can be placed over the door.
Regarding the Rubio's sign, Commissioner Trigas asked if there was any indication that this was going to
be one of several signs on the building when you went in for the permit,
Mr. Prouse replied that they made it quite clear that they believed in their sign program and they wanted
the signs permitted by the sign program and by the Specific Plan and that this is only one of several signs
that will be on the building.
wishing to testify, Chairperson Heineman closed Public Testimony.
Chairperson Heineman opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak. Seeing no one
that it was not in compliance. Staff arranged a meeting but before coming in, they had submitted the
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the sign program was reviewed and a letter was sent to the applicant indicating
in review.
Rubio's sign for a sign permit, not having a sign program previously approved. In other words, it was still
-
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999 Page 26
Mr. DeCerbo responded to earlier testimony as follows: In this whole discussion, what is being talked
about is how many signs would be allowed upon a building’s facade fronting or not fronting along a
roadway. If it is decided to uphold the Planning Director’s decision, that would be consistent with historical
practice and how the City has implemented the sign provisions of the Specific Plan. This is one Planned
Industrial Permit that has come through the City and they asked to do something and were denied
because it is inconsistent. Others have come forth and asked to do similar things and they have been
denied. Some of those denied have done nothing and others have done what they wished, illegally. The
staff has consistently interpreted throughout and that is evidenced by what Mr. Prouse has brought to light
by submitting evidence which he thinks exhibits that staff hasn’t administered the sign program properly.
Our research, on the other hand, has shown that illegal signs have been installed after being denied sign
permits and staff will follow through with the appropriate enforcement, if required.
At issue here is also whether there are things that could be more clearly written. Staff is consistently
applying the standard where applicable and whether we agree or disagree with how we are doing it, if it is
done consistently, that seems to be the hub of the issue. That is why Carlsbad has an industrial park that
does not have, as a general rule, multiple-tenant signage upon the facades of the buildings.
Referring to Mr. DeCerbo’s statement regarding enforcement of illegal signage. if necessary.
Commissioner Welshons. asked Mr. DeCerbo if staff will consistently go out and noti all the people
whose buildings are in violation of the sign program to try to enforce the sign program.
Mr. Wayne replied that what staff will do is take what Mr. Prouse has put into evidence (the document that
shows illegal signs) and notify those responsible parties that they are in violation and initiate action.
ACTION:
Commission Resolution No. 4558. upholding the Planning Director’s decision to
Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
deny PS 98-132, a Sign Program for the Cornerstone Corporate Centre, based
upon the findings contained therein.
sides, but that he does not feel that it is in the Commission’s purview to overrule an ordinance that they
Commissioner Nielsen stated that after listening to this discussion, he feels that there is right on both
have been enforcing throughout. He added that he regrets that this matter stops here and cannot go to
City Council where the decision makers there should be the ones to make these decisions. Also, because
those can probably be resolved at some point in time. Commissioner Nielsen stated his support for the
there have been many wrongdoings, they don’t make something right. Interpretations have .differed and
denial.
Commissioner Welshons stated that she believes that staff has used consistency in interpreting the sign
program and in administering the same and that is why she can support it. The people that come to the
City are not clients and the City does not give good faith obligations as an owner or leasing agent would
give to a future tenant. The City tries to be consistent across the board with everyone that comes to the
City. She pointed out that she knows that staff would never take a position of negotiating a sign program
for one project, treating it on a case-by-case basis, because to do so would set a precedent and for every
applicant thereafter, staff would be obliged to enter into similar negotiations. Commissioner Welshons
amending the sign program was a good one. Perhaps if it is brought to the attention of the City Council
stated that the language is not easy to interpret and the recommendation that staff gave the applicant for
that there is this much difficulty in interpreting the language, they may feel that it is time to make an
amendment to clarify the sign program,
Commissioner Trigas asked if there is an opportunity for the Commission to request that staff go to the
City Council to give input focussing on tightening up the language of the sign program.
Mr. Wayne stated that a Minute Motion to the City Council would be one way and the other is that the
the Zone Code although not codified. If it is the Commission’s desire to direct staff to return with a
Planning Commission can amend the Zone Code and can do so by a Resolution of Intent. This is part of
-
PLANNING COMMISSION May 19,1999 Page 27
forward with that.
Resolution of Intent to amend Spec&; Plan 181(A). with respect to the sign provisions. staff could go
commissioner Trigas stated that she would be more comfortable if this were brought to the attention of the
City Council, since this is just one of several Specific Plans. She further stated that she is happy to know
that the sign violators will be dealt with. She also expressed her pleasure with the fact that staff is
consistent in their dealings with the public. She voiced her support for the denial.
third interpretation. He stated his support for a Minute Motion to the City Council. to have this Specific
commissioner Segall stated that after reading all of the documents, he could probably come up with a
Commissioner Segall stated his support for the denial.
Plan re-written in such a way as to be much dearer than it is today and to define what the intent is. .
Commissioner L'Heureux concurred with the statements and concerns of all of the Commissioners
Chairperson Heineman also concurred and stated that there is a great deal of room for misinterpretation
and that he also would support a Minute Motion to City Council.
..
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Heineman, L'Heureux. Segall. Trigas. Welshons, Nielsen
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
MINUTE MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas. and duly seconded. to direct staff to submit a
ROI to City Council requesting an amendment to SP 181(A) to clarify sign
regulations.
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Heineman. L'Heureux, Segall. Trigas. Welshons. Nielsen
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
To:
From:
Jim Elliott
Gary Wayne
Subject:
Date: 7/13/99 11:19:52 AM
Council Request
Council member Hall has requested the following list of the peoplelbusinesses located within the Airport
Center Specific Plan that were notified of illegal or nonconforming signs:
1. Helders Revocable trust, owners of 1901 Camino Vida Roble(sign on south elevation).
2. Bassi Family Trust, owners of 5841 Edison Place (International Technology Group),
3. I-PAC, 1958 Kellogg ( Photomatrix sign).
4. Camino Properties, 1947 Camino Vida Roble (VCL Construction and Jems Communications signs).
5. Carlsbad Crossroads Ltd., 2738 Loker (Interior Specialists and Closet Crafters signs).
6. Spieker Properties. 5950 La Place Court (United Pacific Securities and Base 4 Bioinformatics signs)
7. Techbilt Construction Corporation, 2875 Loker Ave. East (La Costa Products sign).
Lynch signs, that one of the sign permits was issued in error. The owner was informed that the signs are
I have also notified the owner of the building along Palomar Oaks Way that has the John Burnhaml Merrill
considered "nonconforming" and cannot be altered, expanded, repaired, etc.
All of the notifications took place on July 1st and the illegal signs were to be removed by August 1st
otherwise code enforcement action would proceed.
GARY
Please let me know if either you or any of the Council members have questions or want more information.
Gary Wayne
Carlsbad Planning Department
gwayn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us (760) 438-1 161 ext 4430
cc: Chris DeCerbo. Marty Orenyak, Michael Holzmiller
ALL RECEIVE
CITY COUNCIL
CAJ - cc
DATE 7\15 CITY MANAGER
AGENDA ITEM # i
-
1 Jim Elliott - Sig , , , . . . , . , Page 1
From: Cynthia Haas
To:
Date:
Jim Elliott
711 3/99 11:20:52 AM
Subject: Signage for businesses
JimlMa rty....
In response to your inquiry regarding any experience I have had with complaints or concerns around
signage of buildings for businesses in Carlsbad:
1. Complaints have tended to come from developers who are attempting to market their building and see
largerlmore signs as a big seiiing point for the property.
I 2. I have periodically heard from individual businesses regarding the restrictive nature of our sign program, but they tend to be businesses who utilized their signs for advertising or bringing in clientele
rather than for identification of their tenancy.
Although I don't personally believe that our sign ordinance significantly hinders Carlsbad's ability to draw
good tenantslemployers for our industrial, commercial or office buildings, for some businesses signage is a critical marketing tool for their business and could play a role in whether they decide to locate here, I see
this mainly with retailerslrestaurants.
The one area that I believe is important to consider, for the City Council, is the benefit the City recieves by
etc ....). Visibility of this type of company via tasteful but prominent signage in our industrial area is very
having prominent tenants identified (like a Lucent Technologies, Callaway, Taylor Made, IBM, ViaSat,
of Carlsbad), and they do drive the area looking at who their "neighbors" willhould be.
important in drawing other similar quality businesses to the area (it makes it easy to see the "who's who"
If you have any other questions let me know (~4214)
cc: Marty Orenyak
ALL RECEIVE
CITY COUNCIL
DATE W3 CLV MANAGER
1 AGENDA ITEM # '3
7"
~. ... . . ~
I