HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-23; City Council; 16404; Comprehensive Sign Ordinance & AmendmentCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB# J&q(Jlf TITLE:
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AND
MTG. 10 -&I3 -C’( SIGN CODE AMENDMENT
ZCA OO-04ILCPA OO-07IMCA 01-01.
DEPT. PLN ti
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinances No. W -606 and Ids- (497 APPROVING
Zone Code Amendment 00-04, Local Coastal Program Amendment (if required), and Municipal
Code Amendment 01-01 respectively and ADOPT Resolution No. 2aDI-323 ADOPTING the Negative
Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and APPROVING Zone Code Amendment 00-04, Local
Coastal Program Amendment 00-07 and Municipal Code Amendment 01-01.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On December 14, 1999, the Carlsbad City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance NS-526 to prohibit
the issuance of sign permits for and/or the construction, erection, placement or generation of large
freestanding signs pending a review and study of the sign ordinance and a report or recom-
mendation of the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. Concurrent with this action,
the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 99-535 directing staff to revise the City’s Sign Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21, Chapter 21.41) to: 1) legally update the ordinance,
and 2) to clarify the ordinance to make it easier for developers, business owners and residents to
understand and use.
On June 6, June 13, June 20 and October 3, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted public
hearings and unanimously (5-O) recommended approval of a Negative Declaration, Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and reenact the City’s Sign
Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to achieve the above noted City Council
objectives. Additionally, prior to this Planning Commission recommendation, the Comprehensive
Sign Ordinance Amendment was reviewed at a special Planning Commission workshop (June 13,
2001) and by a City Council appointed Citizens Committee (July 30 - August 27, 2001). The
recommendations of the Citizens Committee were reviewed and approved by the City Council on
September 18, 2001.
At the October 3, 2001 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the ordinance as submitted to the City Council with this agenda bill.
The major revisions to the Sign Ordinance include the following:
1. The Sign Ordinance has been legally updated to comply with constitutional case law.
2. A new City Council Policy, “Signs on Public Property,” is proposed. This policy will enable
the City to continue to permit Subdivision Kiosk Signs, Campaign Signs, Special Event
Signs, and A-Frame Signs and Lamppost Banners (in the Village Redevelopment Area) in
the public right-of-way while minimizing legal risks to the City associated with allowing these
signs.
3. A new section has been added which allows noncommercial messages to be substituted for
any legally permitted commercial or noncommercial sign within the City on private property.
4. The ordinance has been reformatted to incorporate three (3) user-friendly tables that include
detailed regulations for: A) Signs On Private Property Not Requiring a Sign Permit, B) Permanent Signs Requiring a Sign Permit, and C) Temporary Signs Requiring a Sign Permit.
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 b I qo+
5. New Sign Design Standards addressing permitted sign colors, materials, Illumination, and
landscaping have been added. These new design standards will promote the production of
high quality, compatible signage that forms a strong connection to the building architecture
and other project signage and improves traffic safety.
6. Allow existing nonconforming signs to be refaced with a different sign face or sign copy
provided that no structural or electrical alterations to the sign are required.
7. Mobile Billboards (vehicles whose primary purpose is to display general advertising) and hand held signs displaying commercial messages would no longer be permitted in the public
right-of-way.
8. Pole signs for restaurants and motels that are located along the l-5 scenic corridor would no
longer be permitted.
Associated with this project, is a Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 01-01) recommending that the
City’s Sign Code (Chapter 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) be repealed. The City’s Sign
Code includes the structural sign regulations, pursuant to the Uniform Sign Code, and the City’s sign violation enforcement procedures. The structural sign regulations and sign violation enforcement
procedures of the Sign Code have been incorporated into the amended Sign Ordinance. The
Uniform Building Code (Chapter 18.04) and the National Electric Code (Chapter 18.12) are still
applicable.
The proposed actions to implement a revised ordinance includes a local coastal program amend-
ment if required. This was added in the event Council adopts changes to the section regulating
signs in the Coastal Zone. Neither staff, the Citizens Committee, nor the Planning Commission have
recommended changes to the Coastal Zone sign regulations. Therefore, if the Council concurs with
the recommendation regarding sign regulations in the Coastal Zone, its action would be to delete the
LCP amendment. If Council acts to amend the Coastal Zone sign regulations at this time, then the
LCP amendment would be necessary and the proposed sign ordinance regulations would not become effective in the Coastal Zone until the Coastal Commission acts on the amendment (a
process that takes 3 months to one year). Under this last scenario, the existing sign regulations in
effect in the Coastal Zone would remain in effect in the Coastal Zone until Coastal Commission action.
Based on recommendations from the Citizens Committee, Council at its September 18, 2001
meeting, directed staff to subsequently study and make recommendations on: 1) an update to the
design standards for the subdivision kiosk signs; 2) possible expansion of the lamppost banner
program currently operating in the Village Redevelopment Area; and 3) directional signs for
historic/cultural events and points of interest. After staff evaluation, amendments to the City Council
Policy regarding signs permitted in the public right-of-way will be processed.
It is standard practice to include a bold/strike-out version of proposed ordinance amendments as an attachment to the agenda bill. This assists the decision makers and interested parties in identifying
the precise changes that are being recommended. However, a bold/strike-out version is not being
provided with this agenda bill because the proposed changes are so comprehensive (format,
language, standards, etc.) that the previous code sections are being repealed and being reenacted.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
On October 3, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on March 15, 2000.
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. \ b J Lto 4
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
City Council Ordinances No. tQ (j- b 0 b _ & N35-607
City Council Resolution No. ~CO I- 8 a3
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4937, 4938 and 4939
Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated May 16, and October 3, 2001
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 16, June 6, June 13, June 20, and
(Draft) October 3,200l.
3
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
ORDINANCE Nd. Ns-606
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REENACTING
THE SIGN ORDINANCE, TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.41 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH
CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL CASE LAW AND TO
CLARIFY THE ORDINANCE.
CASE NAME: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE
CASE NO.: ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That title 21, Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is repealed and
reenacted to read as follows:
21.41.005 Purpose
21.41 .OlO Applicability
21.41.020 Definitions
21.41.025 General Provisions
21.41.030 Prohibited Signs
21.41.040 Signs On Private Property Not Requiring A Sign Permit
21.41.050 Application and Permit Procedures
21.41.060 Sign Programs
21.41.070 General Sign Standards
21.41.080 Sign Design Standards
21.41.090 Coastal Zone Sign Standards
21.41.095 Permitted Permanent Signs
21.41.100 Permitted Temporary Signs
21.41.110 Construction and Maintenance
21.41.120 Removal of Signs
21.41 .I25 Appeal of Denial or Revocation
21.41.130 Nonconforming Signs
21.41.140 Remedies and Penalties
21.41.150 Violations
21.41.160 Severability
“CHAPTER 21.41”
SIGN ORDINANCE
21.41.005 Purpose
The purposes of this Sign Ordinance include to:
A. Implement the City’s community design and safety standards as set forth in the
General Plan; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
?6
27
28
B. Maintain and enhance the City’s appearance by regulating the design, character,
location, number, type, quality of materials, size, illumination and maintenance of signs; and
C. Protect and improve pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety by balancing
the need for signs which facilitate the safe and smooth flow of traffic (i.e., trafftc
directional signs) without an excess of signage which may distract motorists, overload
their capacity to quickly receive information, visually obstruct traffic signs or otherwise
create congestion and safety hazards; and
D. Eliminate the traffic safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists posed by
off-site signs bearing commercial messages; and
E. Generally limit commercial signage to on-site locations in order to protect
the aesthetic environment from the visual clutter associated with the unrestricted
proliferation of signs, while providing channels of communication to the public; and
F. Allow the communication of information for commercial and
noncommercial purposes without regulating the content of noncommercial messages;
and
G. Allow the expression of political, religious and other noncommercial
speech at all times, and allow for an increase in the quantity of such speech in the
period preceding elections; and
H. Respect and protect the right of free speech by sign display, while
reasonably regulating the structural, locational and other noncommunicative aspects of
signs, generally for the public health, safety, welfare, and specifically to serve the public
interests in traffic and pedestrian safety and community aesthetics; and
I. Minimize the possible adverse effects of signs on nearby public and
private property; and
J. Serve the City‘s interests in maintaining and enhancing its visual appeal
for tourists and other visitors, by preventing the degradation of visual quality which can
result from excess signage; and
K. Protect the investments in property and lifestyle quality made by persons
who choose to live, work, or do business in the City; and
L. Defend the peace and tranquility of residential zones and neighborhoods
by generally forbidding commercial signs on private residences, while allowing residents
the opportunity, within reasonable limits, to express political, religious and other
noncommercial messages from their homes; and
M. Enable the fair, consistent, and efficient enforcement of the sign
regulations of the City.
21.41.010 Applicabilitv
The provisions of this chapter shall apply generally to all zones established by this Title.
Properties and uses in the Village Redevelopment (VR) Zone are regulated first by the sign
standards of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, and then, to
the extent not covered by said Master Plan and Manual, by the provisions of this chapter. Signs
on public property, both within the Village Redevelopment Zone and other zones, are controlled
by City Council policy.
In those areas of the City where master plan or specific plan sign standards or sign
programs were adopted by ordinance as special zoning regulations, those sign standards or sign
programs shall apply; however, the “substitution” provisions of this chapter, section
21.41.025(2), shall apply to such programs and plans.
-2-
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
All other sign programs that were approved prior to the effective date of this chapter, but
not by ordinance, are subject only to the “substitution” provisions of this chapter (section
21.41.025(2)), except that if any such sign program is proposed for amendment to increase
overall sign area allowed, ‘then the sign program must be amended to conform with all
development and design standards of this Chapter.
Except as noted in the preceding paragraph, a sign, as defined in this chapter, may be
affixed, erected, constructed, placed, established, mounted, created or maintained only in
conformance with the standards, procedures and other requirements of this chapter. The
standards regarding number and size of signs regulated by this chapter are maximum standards,
unless otherwise stated.
21.41.20 Definitions
(1) Abandoned Sign - means any sign located on property that (a) becomes vacant or
unoccupied, or (b) which pertains to any occupant or business unrelated to the premises’ present
occupant or business, or (c) which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies.
(2) Abate - means to put an end to and physically remove. Discontinuance of a sign
without removal of the entire sign structure shall not constitute abatement.
(3) Address Sign - means the identification of the location of a building or use on a
street by a number(s).
(4) A-Frame Sign - means a freestanding sign, not higher than five feet and not wider
than three feet, designed to be easily movable and to rest on the ground without being affixed to
any object or structure. Such signs are commonly in the shape of the letter “A,” but may also be
in the shape of an inverted letter “T” or a letter “H.”
(5) Animated Sign - means any sign with action or motion or color changes, whether
or not requiring electrical energy or set in motion by wind. This definition excludes flags.
(6) Attraction Board - means a sign capable of supporting copy which is readily
changeable, such as theater marquee, and which refers to products, services or coming events on
the premises.
(7) Average Grade - means the average level of the finished surface of the ground
directly beneath a monument or pole sign.
(8) Awning Sign - means a sign that is a part of or attached to an awning,
canopy, or other fabric, metal, plastic or structural protective cover over a door,
entrance, window, architectural feature or outdoor service area. A marquee is not an
awning or canopy.
(9) Balloon - means a small inflatable device used for purposes of
commercial signage, advertising, or attention getting. See also, definition of “Inflatable
signs.”
(10) Banner - means any sign made of cloth, lightweight fabric, bunting, plastic, vinyl,
paper or similar material that is permanently or temporarily placed on, or affixed to, real property
in a location where it is visible to the public from outside of the building or structure. A flag, as
defined, shall not be considered a banner.
(11) Beacon - means a stationary or revolving light (including laser lights, klieg lights,
spot lights, search lights, projected image signs and similar devices) with one or more beams
projected into the atmosphere or directed at one or more points away from the light source and
used for purposes other than police, fire, public safety or news gathering operations.
(12) Bench Sign - means a sign painted on or affixed to any portion of a bench or
seating area at bus stops or other such pedestrian areas.
-3-
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
(13) Billboard - means an off-site permanent structure sign which displays a
commercial message.
(14) Building Frontage - means the total width of the elevation of a building
which fronts on a public or private street or the building elevation atong which the main
entrance exists. For the purposes of calculating permitted sign area, every building has
only one building frontage. If more than one business is located in a single building,
then such area shall be limited to that portion which is occupied by each individual
business or establishment.
(15) Building Marker - means a sign cut into a masonry surface or made of bronze or
similar material. permanently affixed to a public building or building of designated historic
significance.
(16) Bus Stop Signs - a sign mounted on a shelter which serves as a bus stop or
passenger waiting area for public transportation; this definition does not include devices giving
the schedule and/or prices for the transportation service. (17) Canopy Sign - see definition of “Awning Sign.”
(18) Changeable Copy Sign - means a sign or portion thereof with characters, letters or
illustrations that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign.
(19) Channel Lettered Signs - signs with individually cut, three-dimensional letters or
figures affixedto a building or sign structure.
(20) Commercial Center - means a commercial development that includes
predominantly retail businesses with access driveways or parking spaces shared by one or more
of the businesses.
(21) Commercial Signage or Commercial Message - means any sign or sign copy with
wording, logo, or other representation that, directly or indirectly names, advertises or calls
attention to a business, product, service, or other commercial activity, or which proposes a
commercial transaction, or relates primarily to commercial interests.
(22) Construction Sign - means a temporary sign on real property on which
construction of new improvements is occurring.
(23) Cornerstone - stone or other wall portion laid at or near the foundation of a
building, and which indicates in permanent markings the year of construction.
(24) Directional Sign - means an on-site sign designed to guide or direct pedestrian or
vehicular traffic to uses on the same site.
(25) Directory Sign - means a sign listing the persons, activities or tenants located on-
site.
(26) Eaveline - means the bottom of the roof eave or parapet.
(27) Electronic Message Board Sign - means a sign with a fixed or changing
display composed of a series of lights, light emitting diodes (LED) or liquid crystal
display (LCD), or functionally similar devices.
(28) Establishment - means any organization or activity which uses land for
purposes other than residential use. Includes all business and commercial uses, as well as institutional, public, semi-public and other noncommercial uses, but does not
include a permanently enclosed place or use where people regularly sleep or prepare their own meals (not including hotels, motels, or other places offering temporary or short
term accommodations to the public which are within the meaning of establishment).
(29) Externally Illuminated - means illuminated by a light source that is located externally to the sign surface. This method of lighting may include, but is not limited to,
spotlighting or backlighting.
-4-
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
(30) Fascia Sign - means a sign fastened to or engraved in the band or board
at the edge of a roof overhang. (31) Flag - a device, generally made of flexible materials such as cloth, fabric,
paper or plastic, and usually used as a symbol of a government, political subdivision,
public agency, company logo, belief system or concept.
(32) Freestanding Commercial Building - means a building occupied by a
single user retail business, or a noncommercial use located in a zoning district where
commercial activities are allowed, that has direct vehicular access to an adjacent street.
(33) Freestanding Sign - means a sign supported upon the ground and not attached to
any building. This definition includes monument signs and pole signs.
(34) Freeway Service Station - means a gas/service station located on a
property that is contiguous to a freeway interchange.
(35) Frontage - see street frontage.
(36) General Advertising - means the business or practice of offering sign
display space, usually for a fee, to one or more commercial advertisers.
(37) Hand Held - means those signs or devices which are held by or otherwise
mounted on human beings or animals.
(38) Inflatable Signs, or Inflatable Attention-Getting Devices - means any air or gas filled device located, attached or tethered to the ground, site, merchandise, building,
or roof and used for the purposes of commercial signage, advertising or attention
getting.
(39) Internally Illuminated - means the illumination of the sign face from behind so
that the light shines through translucent sign copy or lighting via neon or other gases within
translucent tubing incorporated onto or into the sign face.
(40) Logo - means a trademark or symbol of an organization, belief system or
concept.
(41) Marker Board - means a board designed for displaying images made by
chalk, markers or similar devices; includes devices commonly known as blackboards,
whiteboards, and chalkboards.
(42) Marquee - means a permanent canopy structure attached to and supported by a
building, and projecting near or over private sidewalks or public right-of-way, generally located
near the entrance to a hotel, theater, or entertainment use, and used as a display surface for a sign
message.
(43) Master Plan - means a plan prepared and adopted pursuant to Chapter
21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
(44) Mobile Billboard - a vehicle for which the primary use is to display a
general advertising message.
(45) Monument Sign - means a freestanding sign, which is supported by a base that
rests upon the ground and of which the display or copy is an integral part of the design.
(46) Multi-Face Sign - means a sign displaying information on at least two surfaces,
each having a different orientation, or on a curved surface so that the copy or image is different
when viewed from different angles.
(47) Multi-Tenant Building - means a nonresidential building in which there
exists two or more separate nonresidential tenants or businesses.
(48) Neon Sign - means a sign that utilizes neon or other gases within
translucent tubing in or on any part of the sign structure.
(49) Noncommercial Signage - means any sign which is intended to convey a
noncommercial message including, by way of example and not limitation, commentary
-5-
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
on social, political, educational, religious, scientific, artistic, philosophical or charitable
commentary subjects. Also includes signs regarding fund raising or membership drive
activities for noncommercial or nonprofit concerns.
(50) Nonconforming Sign - means any sign which was legally established in
conformance with all applicable laws in effect at the time of original installation but which does
not conform to the requirements of this chapter.
(51) On-Site Sign - a sign displaying a commercial message which relates or pertains
to the business conducted, services available or rendered, or goods available for sale, rent or use,
upon the same premises where the sign is located. A sign program may define “on-site” in a
manner which applies only to that program.
(52) Off-Site Sign - means any sign that gives directions to or identifies a commercial
use, product or activity not located or available on the same premises as the sign.
(53) Pennant - means a lightweight plastic, fabric or other material, whether or
not containing a message of any kind, suspended from a rope, wire or string, usually in
series, designed to move in the wind.
(54) Permanent Sign - means any sign which is intended to be and is so
constructed as to be of lasting and enduring condition, remaining unchanged in
character, condition (beyond normal wear and tear) and position and in a permanent
manner affixed to the ground, wall or building.
(55) Person - means any natural person, marital estate, sole proprietorship,
partnership, limited partnership, corporation (of any type or form, regardless of where
incorporated), trust, association, limited liability company, unincorporated association, or
any other juridical person capable of legally owning, occupying or using land.
(56) Pole Sign - means a freestanding sign, that is greater than six feet in
height and is supported by one or more vertical supports.
(57) Portable Sign - means a sign made of any material, which, by its design, is
readily movable, including, but not limited to, signs on wheels, casters and rollers, “A-
frame” signs and signs attached to vehicles or trailers, water vessels, humans or
animals.
(58) Premises - the place where a business or other establishment is located.
If there is only one business or establishment on the legal parcel, then the entire parcel
is the premises. If there is more than one business or other establishment on a single
parcel, then the premises is the portion of the parcel actually occupied or exclusively
used by the business or other establishment, except that signs relating to the owner or
manager of the entire parcel may be considered on-site when placed anywhere on the
parcel.
(59) Prohibited Sign - means any sign that is specifically not permitted by this chapter, or was erected without complying with the regulations of this chapter in effect
at the time of construction, display or use.
(60) Projecting Sign - means a sign which projects more than ten inches from a
wall or other vertical surface, generally at about 90 degrees.
(61) Property Owner - means the owner of the property on which the sign is
displayed or proposed to be displayed. When the property is land, “owner” includes the
legal owner according to the official land records of the San Diego County Recorder, all
beneficial owners thereof, and all persons presently holding a legal right to possession
of the subject property.
(62) Public Property - means all land located within the corporate limits of the City and which is either owned by the City or the Redevelopment Agency, or is part of
-6-
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
the public right-of-way located within the City. The definition also includes programs or
facilities owned or operated by the City.
(63) Regional Commercial Center - means a commercial development located upon a
property with a Regional Commercial general plan designation and having the following
characteristics: project site area between 30 and 100 acres; gross lease area between 300,000 and
1,5OO,OOO square feet; major tenants may include full-line department stores (2 or more), factory
outlet centers, power centers of several high volume specialty stores, warehouse club stores or
automobile dealerships; secondary tenants may include a full range of specialty retail, restaurants
and entertainment. A center is still within this definition even if it includes one or more
noncommercial uses.
(64) Right-of-Way - means an area or strip of land, either public or private, on which
an irrevocable right-of-passage has been recorded for the use of vehicles or pedestrians or both.
(65) Roof Sign - a sign erected and constructed wholly or in part upon, against or
above the roof of a building. For purposes of this chapter, any portion of a building above or
behind the fascia or parapet of a building shall be considered part of the roof.
(66) Shopping Complex - means the same as “Commercial Center.”
(67) Sign - any device, fixture, placard, or structure that uses any color, form,
graphic, illumination, symbol, image or writing to advertise, announce the purpose of,
identify a person, product, service or entity or to communicate information of any kind to
the public. However, the following are not within the definition of “sign” for the regulatory
purposes of this chapter:
a. Any public or legal notice required by a court or public agency;
b. Decorative or architectural features of buildings, except letters,
trademarks or moving parts;
C. Holiday decorations and lights, clearly incidental to and associated
with holidays or cultural observances and which are on display on a given parcel for not
more than 45 calendar days in a calendar year;
d. Building markers, as defined herein;
F’
Cornerstones, as defined herein;
Symbols or insignia which are an integral part of a doormat or
welcome mat, or embedded directly into the sidewalk or entrance surface, so long as
such device is otherwise legal and is located entirely on private property and on the
ground or sidewalk;
9 Items or devices of personal apparel or decoration, but not
including hand held signs;
h. Marks on tangible goods, which identify the maker, seller, provider,
or product, as such are customarily used in the normal course of the trade or
profession;
i. Symbols of noncommercial organizations or concepts, including but
not limited to religious or political symbols, when such are permanently integrated into
the structure of a permanent building which is otherwise legal;
Property entry and security protection notices and signs warning of
dangers or hkalth and safety policies, such as, by way of example and not limited to,
“Beware of Dog,” “ Danger High Voltage, ” “No Shirt No Service,” etc., when such are not
over one square foot on residential uses or two square feet on other uses, and firmly
affixed to their mounting surface or device;
k. The legal use of fireworks, candles, and artificial lighting not otherwise regulated by this chapter;
-7-
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
I. Devices which are located entirely within an enclosed structure and
are not visible from the exterior thereof; m. Advertisements or banners mounted on or towed behind free-flying
airborne vessels or craft, such as airplanes, dirigibles, blimps, and the like;
n. Advertisements or banners mounted on trains which legally pass
through the City;
0. On street legal vehicles and properly licensed water craft, license
plates, license plate frames, registration insignia, noncommercial messages, messages
relating to the business of which the vehicle or vessel is an instrument or tool (not
including general advertising), and messages relating to the proposed sale, lease or
exchange of the vehicle or vessel. (68) Sign Area - means the display or message area of the sign. The methods of
computing sign area are detailed in section 21.41.070(A).
(69) Sign Height - means the height of the highest point on the sign structure above
grade or ground beneath. The methods of calculating sign height are stated in section
21.41.070(B). (70) Sign Permit - means an entitlement from the City to place or erect a sign.
(71) Sign Program - a plan that integrates signs for a project with buildings, circulation
and landscaping to form a coordinated architectural statement.
(72) Site Development Plan - means a plan required pursuant to Chapter 2 1.06 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
(73) Specific Plan - means a plan prepared and adopted pursuant to Section 65451 of the California Government Code.
(74) Street Frontage - means the distance along which a lot line adjoins a public street,
from one lot line intersecting said street to the furthest distant lot line intersecting the same
street. A development project containing more than one lot along a street shall be considered to
have only one street frontage on that street. Comer lots have at least two street frontages.
(75) Suspended Sign - means a sign hung from the underside of a marquee, pedestrian
arcade or covered walkway, usually at approximately 90 degrees to the building wall or
storefront.
(76) Tall Freestanding Sign - means a monument or pole sign that is greater than 14
feet in height.
(77) Temporary Seasonal Sales Permit - means a permit to allow outdoor seasonal and
holiday sales, including but not limited to, Christmas trees, pumpkins and flowers, on private
property. (78) Temporary Sign - means a sign, including paper, cardboard wood, plastic,
synthetic, fabric or similar materials, which by virtue of its physical nature may be used
only for a limited period of time and is not permanently mounted.
(79) Traffic Directional Sign - means a sign which indicates place, location or
direction, for the information of drivers or pedestrians.
(80) Unsafe Sign - means a sign posing an immediate peril or reasonably
foreseeable threat of injury or damage to persons or property, on account of the
condition of the physical structure of the sign, or its mounting mechanism. A sign may
not be considered “unsafe” within this definition by virtue of the message displayed
thereon.
(81) Vehicle Sign - a sign mounted upon a vehicle which may legally be parked on or
move on public roads, as well as a sign mounted upon a water vessel which may legally move
upon the waters,
I -8-
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
(82) Vessel Sign - means a sign mounted upon a water vessel which may
legally move upon the waters. (83) Wall Sign - means a sign attached to a wall surface that does not project or extend
more than ten (10) inches from the wall, which is confined within the limits of an outside wall
and which displays only one display surface.
(84) Window Sign - any sign painted or affixed to the inside or outside of a window
surface, or otherwise located within a building so as to be visible from the exterior of the
building. Does not include window displays of merchandise offered for sale, so long as such
displays are located at least 12 inches from the window on the interior.
21.41.025 General Provisions
(1) Owner’s Consent Required: The consent of the property owner is required
before any sign may be displayed on any real or personal property within the City. In
the case of public property, the owner’s consent shall be pursuant to a policy adopted
by the City Council.
(2) Substitution of Noncommercial Message: Subject to the owner’s consent,
a noncommercial message of any type may be substituted for all or part of the
commercial or noncommercial message on any sign allowed pursuant to this Chapter.
Design criteria which may apply to commercial signs, such as color, lettering style or
height, and compatibility with other signs on the same parcel or other signs subject to a
sign program, do not apply to noncommercial message signs even when they are in an
area subject to a sign program, master plan or specific plan. No special or additional
permit is required to substitute a noncommercial message for any other message on an
allowable sign, provided the sign is already permitted or exempt from the permit
requirement. When a noncommercial message is substituted for any other message,
the sign is still subject to the same location and structure regulations, such as size,
height, illumination, duration of display, building and electrical code requirements, as
would apply if the sign were used to display a commercial message or some other
noncommercial message. This substitution provision shall prevail over any other
provision to the contrary, whether more specific or not, in this chapter, and applies
retroactively to sign programs, master plans and specific plans which were adopted or
approved before this chapter was enacted.
(3) Substitution of Commercial Messages: This Substitution provision does not automatically allow substitution of one commercial message for another commercial message,
nor does it automatically allow free substitution of a commercial message in a place where only a
noncommercial message is allowed; however, such substitutions may be allowed by other
provisions of this Chapter. This provision does not, by itself, allow off-site commercial
messages to be substituted for on-site commercial messages; however, such substitution may be
allowed by other provisions of this Chapter.
(4) Location of Noncommercial Speech: for purposes of this chapter, all
noncommercial speech messages shall be deemed to be “on-site,” regardless of
location.
(5) Legal Nature of Sign Rights and Duties: All rights, duties, and
responsibilities related to permanent signs attach to the land on which the sign is mounted, affixed or displayed, and run with the land or personal property. The City may
demand compliance with this Chapter and with the terms of any sign permit from the
-9-
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
permit holder, the owner of the sign, the property owner, or the person mounting the
sign.
(6) Transfer of Signage Rights: Rights and duties relating to permanent signs
may not be transferred between different parcels of real property. All duly issued and
valid sign permits for permanent signs affixed to land shall automatically transfer with
the right to possession of the real property on which the sign is located.
21.41.30 Prohibited Sians
The following signs, as defined in this chapter, are prohibited in all zones of the City,
unless a more specific provision or City Policy allows them at certain times and places:
(1) Abandoned signs, including their structures and supports;
(2) A-frame signs;
(3) Animated signs, including but not limited to signs that move, blink, flash, change
color, reflect, revolve, or make noise;
1:;
Balloons or other inflatable signs or devices, as defined herein;
Beacons, as defined herein;
(6) Billboards with a display face greater than 60 square feet, as defined herein;
Ii;
Bus stop bench/shelter signs, as defined herein;
Electronic message board signs;
(9) Exposed neon lighted signs on any building elevation that faces and is
within 500 feet of any property line that adjoins residentially zoned property;
(10) General advertising messages displayed on vehicles parked on any public
property within the City;
(11) Hand held or sandwich board signs carried by a person on public property
or in the public right-of-way and displaying a commercial message;
(12) Marker boards, as defined herein;
(13) Mobile billboards or any other type of vehicle whose primary purpose is
displaying general advertising that is moving or parked on City streets;
(14) Off-site commercial signs;
(15) Portable signs with commercial messages; except for temporary signs as
indicated in Sections 21.41.040 and 21.41 .lOO;
(16) Roof signs (except holiday decorations and lights);
(17) Signs attached to trees, plants, rocks, fences, utility poles/cabinets, or other
objects, the primary function of which is not to support a sign;
(18) Signs blocking doors, firescapes or public rights-of-way;
(19) Signs erected on or over public property including public easements and public
rights-of-way, except those needed for traffic and public safety regulation as indicated in Section
2 1.41.070(C) and those erected pursuant to a policy adopted by the City Council regarding signs
on public property;
(20) Signs simulating in color or design a traffic sign or signal, or using words,
symbols or characters in such a manner as to be reasonably likely to interfere with, mislead, or
confuse pedestrian or vehicular traffic; (21) Signs that do not conform with applicable Uniform Building Code and
National Electric Code regulations;
(22) Temporary signs, including but not limited to banners and pennants, except as
provided for in Sections 21.41.040 and 21.41.100;
(23) Unsafe signs, as defined in this chapter.
-lO-
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
21.41.040 Sians On Private Propertv Not Requirinq A Siqn Permit
The signs listed in Table A do not require a sign permit, and their area and number shal not be included in the aggregate area or number of signs subject to a permit requirement, for an!
given property.
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
SIGNS 0:
TYPE OF SIGN
Traffic Control,
Directional or
Warning Signs
erected or required
by government
agencies.
N: -
I
Address Sign Wall 1 per building 6SF
Noncommercial
Signs on
residential property
Window Signs
located in
commercial
centers and
freestanding commercial
buildinas
Single Dwelling
Unit or
Condominium Unit - property which is
for rent, sale or
TABLE A
PRIVATE PROPERTY NOT REOUIRIN
PLACEMENT MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
NUMBER SIGN AREA
Freestandinai
OF SIGNS PER SIGN
Wall/Freestanding 6 SF per or Window residential unit.
Window
Freestanding sign
displayed on the owner’s real property or real property owned by others with their consent (Pursuant to California Civil
I per dwelling
unit
-ll-
Total copy area shall not exceed 25% of the
window area.
4SF
; A SIGN PERh MAXIMUM
SIGN/LETTER HEIGHT
The minimum number height shall be: Residential - 4” and Nonresidential - 6” unless the Fire Marshal requires a greater height.
5 feet above average
grade
7 feet above average grade/6 inches
5 feet above average
grade
:T
REMARKS
1. Maynotbe illuminated 2. Must be located on the residential
property I. Fluorescent, neon or ‘day-
glow” colons are prohibited.
Shall be removed from the building
or property within fifteen ( 15) days after the sale, rental or lease
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
?6
27
28
lease Code section 713)
TYPE OF SIGN PLACEMENT
Additional Political and
other Noncommercial
Signs on private property during campaign periods
Flags with
commercial
symbols
Flags with
noncommercial
symbols
Freestanding
Freestanding pole or pole-mounted on side of building.
Freestanding pole
or pole mounted on side of building.
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
NUMBER SIGN AREA SIGN/LETTER
OF SIGNS PER SIGN HEIGHT
1 flag per non- residential establishment located in the C-
M, P-M and M zones
24 SF
No Restriction No Restriction
-12-
8SFper residential unit
I6 SF per non- residential lot
5 feet above average grade or 3.5 feet above average grade
if in the front yard
Flag Pole Height - The lesser of 35 feet or the height of the tallest legally permitted structure existing on the
premises Flag Pole Height - Maximum of 2 The lesser of 35 feet Flag Poles per or the height of the occupied tallest legally dwelling unit and permitted structure 3 Flag Poles per existing on the nonresidential premises establishment.
REMARKS
I. Maybe located on any
private property, with owner’s consent
2. Display time
limited to 45 days preceding any federal, state or local (primary, general or special) election
and shall be removed, by the person placing or erecting such
sign within ten (IO) days following such election. 3. This is in
addition to the noncommercial signage allowed
under the substitution provision and the noncommercial
signage allowed at all times in residential zones. 4. Non- commercial signs
may also be allowed on public property per City Council policy.
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
TYPE OF SIGN
Temporary signs
attached to parked
or stationary
vehicles visible
from the public
right-of-way
Signs permanently
attached to or
painted on
vehicles, with non-
changeable copy,
used in the day-to-
day operations of a
business
PLACEMENT 1 MAXIMUM 1 MAXIMUM 1 MAXIMUM
Inside windows
NUMBER
OF SIGNS
2 per vehicle
SIGN AREA
PER SIGN
IO” x 12”
SIGN/LETTER
HEIGHT
REMARKS
No limitation if sign not visible from public right-of-way
Does not apply to “general
advertising” or mobile billboards”
21.41.050 Annlication and Permit Procedures
A. Sian Permit Required. It shall be unlawful for any person to affix, place,
erect, suspend, attach, construct, structurally or electrically alter (not including a change
in sign copy or sign face), move, or display any temporary or permanent sign within the
City without first obtaining a sign permit in accordance with the provisions of this
section, unless the sign is exempt from the permit requirement under Section
21.41.040.
1. A sign permit shall not be required for cleaning, or other normal
maintenance of an existing sign, unless a structural or electrical change is made.
2. No sign permit is required when a political, religious or other
noncommercial message is substituted for another commercial message on a pre-existing sign, or
when a noncommercial message is substituted for a noncommercial message on a properly
permitted sign..
B. Application for Permit. The application for a sign permit shall be made in
writing on the form provided by the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by
the required fee. Such application shall set forth and contain the following information:
1. A drawing to scale showing the design of the sign, including
dimensions, sign size, colors (applies to commercial message signs only), materials,
method of attachment, source of illumination and showing the relationship to any
building or structure to which it is proposed to be installed or affixed, or to which it
relates.
2. A site plan, including all dimensions, drawn to scale indicating the
location of the sign relative to the property line, rights-of-way, streets, sidewalks,
vehicular access points, and existing buildings or structures and off-street parking areas
located on the premises.
3. The number, size, type and location of all existing signs on the
same building, lot or premises.
-13-
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
4. Any structural information and plans necessary to ensure
compliance with the latest adopted building code and electrical code.
C. Fees. All signs require a sign permit fee and plan checking fee (if applicable) that
shall be paid in accordance with the schedule estabhshed by Resolution of the City Council.
D. Method of Review. The purpose of a sign permit is to ensure compliance with the
provisions of this chapter and the relevant building and electrical codes. After receiving a
complete sign application, the Community Development Director or designee shall render a
decision to approve, approve with modifications or deny such sign application within 15 days;
however, an approval with modifications shall be limited to requiring compliance with this
chapter. The application shall be approved and the permit issued whenever the proposed sign
meets the following requirements:
1. The proposed sign conforms to all size, height and other standards for signs
subject to a permit requirement, as such requirements are set forth in this chapter.
2. The proposed sign is consistent with any applicable sign program.
3. That the sign conforms to the construction standards of the latest adopted building
and electrical codes.
E. Revocation or Cancellation of Permit. The Community Development Director or
designee shall revoke any issued permit upon refusal of the holder thereof to comply with the
provisions of this chapter after written notice of noncompliance and 15 days opportunity to cure.
If the work authorized under a sign permit has not been completed within six months after the
date of issuance, such permit shall become null and void.
21.41.060 Sian Proqrams
A. The purpose of a Sign Program is to integrate signs with building, site Purpose.
and landscaping design to form a unified architectural statement. Sign Programs may not
supersede the dimensional and number limits provided in Tables “A,” “B,” and “C” of Sections
21.41.040, 21.41.095 and 21.41.100. All Sign Programs must incorporate the substitution
provisions of this chapter, section 21.41.025(2). Sign Program design standards do not apply to
noncommercial messages, and substitution of noncommercial messages is subject to owner’s
consent.
B. Anplicability. A sign permit for a sign program shall be required for: 1) Master
Plans, 2) Specific Plans, 3) nonresidential projects requiring a Site Development Plan processed
pursuant to Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and 4) Planned Industrial or Office
parks of greater than 25 acres in area.
For those projects requiring a sign program, no sign permit shall be issued for an
individual sign, unless and until a Sign Program for the lot or building on which the sign is
proposed to be erected has been approved by the City in conformance with this chapter.
C. Application Requirements. The sign permit application for a sign program
shall be made in writing on the form provided by the Planning Department. The
application shall be accompanied by the required fee. Such application shall contain
the following information:
1. A copy of an approved development plan (master plan, specific
plan or site development plan) drawn to scale showing the location of property lines,
rights-of-way, adjacent streets, sidewalks, and on-site buildings, landscaped areas, off-
street parking areas and vehicular access points.
2. A drawing to scale showing the design of each sign, including
dimensions (height and width), sign size (area), colors, materials, method of
-14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
attachment, source of illumination and location of each sign on any building, structure or
property.
3. Computation of the total number of signs, sign area for individual
signs, total sign area and height of signs for each existing and proposed sign type.
4. A materials board or sign sample that is an accurate representation
of proposed colors, material and style of copy.
5. The number, size, type and location of all existing signs on the
same building, lot or premises.
D. Method of Review. After receipt of a complete application for a sign program,
the Community Development Director, or designee, shall render a decision to approve, approve
with modifications or deny such sign program application within 30 days. The decision of the
Community Development Director is final, but appealable pursuant to this chapter. No sign
application for a sign program shall be approved unless and until the requirements in Subsection
21.41.050 (D) are satisfied.
E. Existing Sian Programs. Existing sign programs approved prior to the effective
date of this chapter are subject only to the substitution provision of this chapter; all other terms
of the existing Sign Program shall continue in force. However, if any existing sign program is
proposed for amendment to increase overall sign area, then the sign program must be amended to
conform with all development and design standards of this Chapter.
F. Amendments. An amendment to a sign program shall be processed in the same
manner as an original application for a sign program.
G. Binding Effect. After approval of a Sign Program, all signs subject thereto shall
be erected, constructed, installed, displayed, altered, placed or maintained only in conformance
with such program.
21.41.070 General Sign Standards
The following sign standards shall apply to all signage within the City.
A. Sign Area - is computed as follows:
1. Wall, Retaining Wall, Fascia, Awning, Window and
Landscape/Hardscape Feature Signs - sign area shall be computed by measuring the
smallest square, rectangle, triangle, circle or combination thereof, that will encompass
the extreme limits of the writing, representation, emblem or other display, together with
any material or color forming an integral part of the background of the message or
display or otherwise used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop or structure against
which it is placed, but not including any supporting framework or bracing.
2. Monument, and Suspended Signs - sign area shall be computed by
measuring the entire area contained within the frame, cabinet, monument, monument
base or fixture.
3. Pole Signs - sign area shall be computed as the area of the
surface(s) upon which the sign message is placed including the supporting column(s) if
decorated or displayed with advertising.
4. Multi-faced Signs - the sign area for a two-sided or multi-faced sign
shall be computed by adding together the area of all sign faces, as described above,
visible from any one point. When two sign faces are placed back to back, so that both
faces cannot be viewed from any one point at the same time, and when such sign faces
are part of the same structure, the sign area shall be computed by the measurement of
-15-
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
one of the faces. In the case of a sign of spherical or cylindrical shape, the area of the
sign shall be one-half (l/2) of the surface area.
5. Flags, banners, pennants, etc.: Sign area is the entire surface area,
one side only.
B. Sign Height is measured as follows:
1. Wall, Retaining Wall, Fascia, Awning, Suspended, Monument, Pole
and Window Signs - is specified as the greatest vertical measurement from the top of
the sign cabinet, including all ornamentation and supports, to the average grade
beneath the sign.
C. Siqns on Public Propertv, lncludinq the Public Riqht-Of-Way - Signs may
be placed on public property only in accordance with a policy adopted by the City
Council. Signs placed on public property in violation of the City Council’s policy may be
summarily removed by the City, and all persons responsible for placing such signs on
public property contrary to the City Council’s policy may be charged with the cost of
removal.
D. Placement of Commercial Sians - Commercial signs shall be placed on
the property of the use for which the sign is intended to identify or relate, unless
placement on another property is specifically allowed by this chapter or other relevant
law.
E. Noncommercial Siqns - Noncommercial signs are allowed wherever
commercial signage is permitted within Chapter 21.41 and is subject to the same
standards and total maximum allowances per lot or building of each sign type specified
in this Chapter. A permit is required for a noncommercial sign only when the sign
structure has not been previously permitted.
21.41.080 Sign Design Standards
Each permanent approved sign shall meet the following design standards.
A. For signs displaying commercial messages, fluorescent, “day-glo,” and Colors.
similar colors shall not be used.
B. Materials. All permanent signs shall be constructed of durable materials, which
are compatible in kind and/or appearance to the building supporting or identified by the sign.
Such materials may include, but are not limited to: ceramic tile, sandblasted, hand carved or
routed wood, channel lettering, concrete, stucco or stone monument signs with recessed or raised
lettering.
C. Relationship to Buildings. Each permanent commercial message sign located
upon a premises with more than one (1) main building, such as a commercial, office or industrial
project, shall be designed to incorporate the materials common or similar to all buildings.
D. Relationship to Other Signs. Where there is more than one (1) sign on a lot,
building or project site, all permanent signs displaying a commercial message shall have designs
which similarly treat or incorporate the following design elements:
1. Type of construction materials.
2. Sign/letter color and style of copy.
3. Method used for supporting sign (i.e., wall or ground base).
4. Sign cabinet or other configuration of sign area.
5. Illumination.
6. Location.
-16-
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. Relationship to Streets. Signs shall be designed and located so as not to interfere
with the unobstructed clear view of the public right-of-way and nearby traffic regulatory signs of
any pedestrian, bicyclist or motor vehicle driver.
F. Sight Distance. No sign or sign structure shall be placed or constructed so that it
impairs the sight distance requirements at any public or private street intersection or driveway.
G. Sian Illumination.
1. General Limitation. Illumination from or upon any sign shall be shaded,
shielded, directed or reduced so as to minimize light spillage onto the public right-of-way or
adjacent properties. Externally illuminated signs shall be lighted by screened or hidden light
sources.
2. Free-Standing and Building-Mounted Signs. Free-standing and building-
mounted signs shall either be non-illuminated or externally illuminated, except for signs with
opaque backgrounds which give the appearance of individual channel letters and changeable copy
signs.
H. Logos and Graphics. Corporate logos and graphics may be used in conjunction
with wall, monument and pole sign.
I. Landscauing. Each monument and pole sign shall include landscaping around the
base of the sign, at a minimum ratio of two (2) square feet for every one (1) square foot of sign
area, so as to protect the sign from vehicles, improve the appearance of the installation and
screen light fixtures and other appurtenances.
21.41.090 Coastal Zone Sign Standards
The following sign restrictions apply to properties in the coastal zone except the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon and Village Redevelopment segments. If there is a conflict between the
coastal zone sign standards of this section and any regulations of this chapter, the standards of
this section shall prevail. Otherwise, within the coastal zone, the sign regulations of this chapter
shall apply.
A. Each business shall be entitled to one facade sign.
B. Each shopping complex shall have only one directory sign not to exceed fourteen
feet in height, including mounding.
C. Monument sign height including mounding shall not exceed eight feet and shall
apply where three or fewer commercial establishments exist on a parcel.
D. Tall freestanding and roof signs shall not be allowed.
E. Off-premises signs shall not be allowed.
21.41.095 Permitted Permanent Signs
Table B states the criteria for a permit for permanent signs for each type of development
and/or corresponding zones. In addition to the type of sign permitted, Table B provides the
maximum number, maximum sign area per sign, maximum sign height and letter height,
permitted location and other provisions.
TABLE B
PERMANENT SIGNS PERMITTED BY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND ZONE WITH A
SIGN PERMIT
TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT AND OR ZONE
TYPE OF
SIGN MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM LOCATION REMARKS NUMBER SIGN AREA SIGN/LETTER OF SIGNS PER SIGN HEIGHT
-17-
1 Single Family
Residential Lots See Section 21.41.100
Temporary Signs
See Section
21.41.040 Signs Not
Requiring a
Permit
-18-
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
TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT AND OR ZONE
Residential Subdivisions,
Condominiums, Apartment Projects
and Mobilehome Parks
Commercial Centers and Freestanding
Commercial Buildings
TYPE OF SIGN
Freestanding Community/
Project Identity Sign
Directory Signs
-Wall Mounted or Freestanding
Monument
Wall or Fascia
or Awning Signs
Suspended
Directional Sign
MAXIMUM NUMBER
OF SIGNS
1 per project
entry
1 per entrance to a building
> 25 dwelling units - 35 SF
(See Note #I below)
6 SF
1 per street 50 SF (See
frontage Note #l below)
Commercial Center -
Freestanding Commercial Building
150 SF
Commercial Center - 1 per establishment
5 SF
3 per
driveway entrance
6 SF per sign
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
SIGN AREA SIGN/LETTER PER SIGN HEIGHT
IO-25 6 feet above
dwelling units average
-15SF grade/l 8”
-19-
4 feet above average grade/6”
6 feet above
average grade / 18”
Varies/Tenant Leased Space:
< 3,500 SF - 24”
3,500 - 10,000 SF-30”
10,001 -50,000 SF-36”
> 50,000 SF - 48”
Underside of walkway Underside of walkway/l”
4 feet above average gradel6”
LOCATION REMARKS
Driveway entrance
Signs are to be located
and oriented to direct visitors upon
entry into the project
or building. Primary
driveway entrance or
at other
strategic
location
I. Wall
Signs - Below
eaveline. Not allowed
on any parapet or
equipment enclosure. 2. Fascia
Sign - Centered on
Fascia. 3. Awning
Sign - Over
doors or windows.
Underside of walkway
overhang at
90 degrees to the business Establish-
ment
Should be located to
facilitate
t&-iC internal to the site
1. Total sign
area shall not
exceed 1 SF
per each lineal foot of
building
frontage.
2. The width
of any sign shall not
exceed 75%
of the width
of the
building
frontage or lease space to
which the
sign pertains.
(see Note #2 below)
(see Note #4 below)
May not be illuminated.
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
TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT AND OR ZONE
Drive-Thru Facilities
Regional Commercial Centers
Office, Industrial and
Retail uses in the R-
P, 0, C-M, P-M, and
M zones (See Note
#7)
Buildings < 35,000 SF in area
Buildings 35,000 SF - 60,000 SF in area
Buildings > 60,000 SF in area
TYPE OF SIGN
all or xtument ader Board
Pole 1 per center 150 SF per 35 feet above sign average grade
Monument 1 per lot 50 SF (See
Note #l below)
Directional
Signs 3per driveway entrance
6 SF 1 4 feet above
Wall 1 per building 50 SF
Wall I/building or 50 SF
Z/building
(See Note #5
below)
Wall I/building or 50 SF
Restaurants - 2 per establishment
Other Drive-
thru Facilities
- 1 per establishment
Z/building or
3/building
(See Note #6
below)
LOCATION REMARKS
average grade 12”
Near primary
project
entrance
6 feet above
average grade/S”
Near
primary project
entrances or at other
strategic 1 locations 1 Should be
average grade&”
1 the site
located to facilitate traffic
I
internal to
(see Note # 8 below)/24”
(see Note # 8 (see Note #4
below)136” below)
(see Note # 8 below)/ 24”
(see Note # 8 (see Note #4 below)/36” below)
(see Note # 8 below)/24”
(see Note # 8 below)/24”
Reader boards are allowed in
addition to other signs
permitted for Free-
standing Commercial Buildings.
Pole sign is
allowed in
addition to other signs permitted for
Commercial Centers.
1. Must
include building
address 2. (see Note
#3 below)
(see Note #4 below)
-2o-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.8
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
AND OR ZONE
TYPE OF SIGN
Ground Floor Retail establishment with a
separate building entrance in a multi-
tenant building
located in the R-P, 0, C-M, P-M and M
zones
Wall or Fascia 1 per
Sign establishment
Retail establishment with a separate building entrance in a multi-tenant building
located in the R-P, 0, C-M, P-M and M
zones
Suspended 1 per Sign establishment
Office/Industrial Freestanding
Projects Sign
Hotels/Motels Monument
Professional Care
Facility
Wall or Fascia
or Awning
Directional
Monument
Wall
Directional
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGN AREA SIGN/LETTER SIGNS PER SIGN HEIGHT
1 per each project
entrance that is located
along an arterial road
I per street frontage
2 Wall or
Fascia or Awning Signs per Building
(See Note #4
below)
3 per driveway
entrance
1 per street
frontage
I per street
frontage
3 per driveway
entrance
20 SF Wall Sign - Not permitted above
the plate height elevation of the ground floor/l 8”
5 SF Underside of walkway I 8”
75 SF per sign 6 feet above (see Note # 1 average
below) grade/l 8”
30 SF per sign (see #l below)
Total sign area
for 2 signs shall not
exceed .5 SF per each lineal
foot of building
frontage.
6 SF per sign
35 SF per sign
30 SF per sign
6 SF per sign
-21-
6 feet above average
grade/ 18” (see Note # 8
below)/24”
4 feet above average
grade&”
6 feet above
average grade/ 18”
fsee Note # 8 below)/24”
4 feet above average gradei6”
LOCATION REMARKS
1. Fascia Sign -
Centered on fascia,
directly above establish-
ment entrance
1. Must be oriented
towards the parking area
2. May not be illumi- nated
Underside of walkway overhang at
90 degrees to the retail business
establish- ment
Near primary
project entrances
May not be illuminate
I. Fascia
Sign - Centered on
Fascia 2.Awning
Sign - Over
doors or windows
(see Note #2
below)
(see Note #4 below)
Illumination is to be
external, except for channel and
reverse channel letters.
(see Note #4 below)
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
2.6
27
28
TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT AND OR ZONE
Resort Hotels Monument
Gas/Service Stations Monument
Theater or Cinema
TYPE OF SlGN
Wall
Directional
Canopy
Fuel Pump
Pole
Wall
Attraction Board (Pole or Marquee)
Coming
Attraction Poster
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF SIGN AREA SIGN/LETTER SIGNS PER SIGN HEIGHT
1 per street frontage
1 per street
frontage
5 per
driveway entrance
1 per street
frontage
50 SF per sign (See Note #l below)
50 SF per sign
10 SF per sign
30 SF per sign
6 feet above
average grade/l 8”
(see Note # 8 below)/30”
5 feet above average
gradeI6”
6 feet above
average gradei24”
4 per site
1 per fuel
pump
1 per site
1 per street frontage
1 per site
1 per screen
or stage
Total sign area
for all canopy
signs shall not exceed 40 SF
2.5 SF per sign
50 SF
Total sign area for all wall
signs shall not exceed .5 SF per each lineal
foot of
building frontage.
100 SF plus 10
SF per screen or stage over 1,
uptoa maximum of 160 SF
6 SF per sign
-22-
Attached to canopy, not to extend beyond
or above the canopy/l 8”
35 feet above
average gradeI36”
(see Note # 8 below)/24”
Pole - 35 feet
above average gradeJ24”
Marquee - (see Note # 8 below)/24”
(see Note # 8 below)
Sign may
include motor fuel
prices
Must be designed as an integral
part of the
canopy structure
I 1 Only
permitted at freeway
service
Marquee
signs must be building
mounted.
Must be building mounted
TYPE OF TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT SIGN
AND OR ZONE
Government, Church Wall
Monument
Directional
Signs
Public Parks, Playgrounds and
Recreational
Facilities
Monument
Directional
Produce/Flower Wall Mounted Stand in the E-A, R- or Freestanding A and L-C zones
Nursery, Freestanding
Greenhouse, Packing Shed, Stable, Riding
Academy and similar uses P-U zone Freestanding
Wall
Directional Signs
OS zone See Section 21.41.100- Temporary
Signs
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
SIGNS
1 per street
frontage
1 per street
frontage
3per driveway
entrance
1 per street frontage
5Per driveway
entrance
2 per produce stand
I per site
I per street frontage
I per street frontage
3 per
driveway entrance
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA PER SIGN
30 SF per sign
30 SF per sign 6 feet above
(see Note #l average below) grade/ 18”
6 SF 4 feet above
average grade/6”
30 SF per sign (see Note #l
below)
10 SF per sign
9 SF per sign
35 SF
35 SF
20 SF
6 SF
27
28 -23-
MAXIMUM
SIGN/LETTER HEIGHT
(see Note # 8
below)/24”
6 feet above average
gradel24”
5 feet above average g&e/6”
(see Note # 8 below)/24”
Freestanding - 6 feet above
average grade
6 feet above average gradel24”
6 feet above average
grade/l 8”
(see Note # 8 beIow)f24”
4 feet above average grad,”
Illumination
is to be
external, except for
channel and
reverse channel letters.
Near
Wmary project entrance
Should be
located to
facilitate
t&k internal to the site
Near
Shall be displayed only during
the time period the produce is
available on
the property
Should be located to facilitate
tdfiC
internal to the site
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
Note #l. Signs on entry walls or retaining walls (e.g., curved, angled or similar walls integrated
into a project entry or perimeter) are encouraged. In cases where such walls are on both sides of
an entry drive, two (2) signs (each at the maximum square footage) are permitted.
Note #2. Building elevations on restaurants, hotels or motels which front along or are within 500
feet of the right-of-way of and visible from Interstate 5 shall not have more than one (1) wall
sign along those elevations.
Note #3. No monument sign shall be located within 100 feet of another monument sign for the
same project. However, if more than 1 building shares a common driveway, then a maximum of
2 monument signs can be located along the common driveway, provided that the signs are
located on opposite sides of the driveway.
Note #4. Illuminated wall signs are prohibited on any building elevation that faces and is within
500 feet of any property line that adjoins residentially zoned property.
Note #5. No more than one (1) wall sign permitted along a building elevation.
Note #6. Building elevations which front along or are within 500 feet of the right-of-way and
visible from Interstate 5, State Route 78, Palomar Airport Road, or El Camino Real shall not
have more than one (1) wall sign along those elevations. Notwithstanding, the above, two (2)
wall signs along any other building elevation are only permitted under the following
circumstances:
n A building elevation must have a minimum of 150 lineal feet in order to have more than one
(1) wall sign along that elevation.
. The minimum spacing between wall signs along an elevation shall not be less than 75 feet.
. The cumulative length of all wall sign(s) along any building elevation shall not exceed one-
third (l/3) of the length of that same elevation.
Note #7. These sign standards supersede the sign standards for the C-M, M and P-M zoned
properties that are located within Area 4 of the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards.
Note #8. Wall sign must be located below the roof eaveline, and is not allowed on any
architectural projection, parapet or equipment enclosure located above the roof eaveline.
21.41 .I00 Permitted Temporary Sians
Table C provides a listing of all temporary signs permitted for each type of development
and corresponding zones with a sign permit. In addition to the type of sign permitted, Table C
provides the maximum number, maximum sign area per sign, maximum sign height and letter
height, permitted location and other provisions.
//I
Ill
Ill
-24-
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
TABLE C
TEMPORARY SIGNS PERMITTED BY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND ZONE WITH A
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
AND ZONE
Projects which are
under Construction - all zones
Real Property
which is for rent, sale or lease - all
zones
TYPE OF SIGN
Wall or
Freestanding
Freestanding
sign displayed on the owner’s real
property or real property owned by
others with their consent
(California Civil Code 713)
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS
1 per project
1 per
property
SIGN PERh
MAXIMUM
SIGN AREA PER SIGN
Residential Projects of 2 to 10 units -
12SF
Residential
Projects of more than 10 units, Zommercial,
Office or Industrial
Projects 32 SF
Residential Projects of 2
to 10 units, - 12SF
Residential Projects of
nore than 10
mits, zommercial,
Mice and Industrial Properties -
35 SF
-25-
MAXIMUM
SIGN/LETTER HEIGHT
5 feet above
average grade
6 feet above
average grade
5 feet above average grade
6 feet above average grade
LOCATION REMARKS
Must be
located on the project site
May not project into the public
right-of-way
1. May not be illuminated 2. Shall be
removed prior to the granting of a Certificate
of occupancy
by the City
May not
project into the public
right-of-way
1. May not be illuminated 2. Residential
Projects - shall be removed
from the
property within one
year from the
issuance of the
first building permit or within 15 days
of when all the properties are sold or no
longer for sale, whichever occurs first.
3. Commercial
and OffkeIlndus-
trial Properties
- shall be removed from
the building or
property within fifteen
(15) days after the sale, rental or lease.
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
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND ZONE
All Commercial.
Office and
Industrial zones
All Commercial, Office, and
Industrial zones
Any Public or
Private Property with a Special
Events Permit (C.M.C. Chapter
8.17)
Community Event at Public Parks/
Recreational Facilities
TYPE OF
SIGN
Banner
Banner or Freestanding Signs with a
Temporary
Seasonal Sales
Location Permit
Banner or Freestanding
Signs
Banner or Freestanding
Signs
MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF SIGNS
1 per establish- ment
1 per street
frontage
MAXIMUM
SIGN AREA PER SIGN
30 SF
30 SF
50 SF
50 SF
MAXIMUM SIGN/LETTER HEIGHT
I 8 feet above
average grade
LOCATION REMARKS
Attached to
monument or wall at the establishment
location
Must be located on the
site of the seasonal sales
event
See City Council Policy
“Signs on Public
Property”
Private Property -
Must be located on the site of the special event
See City
Council Policy
“Signs on Public Property”
I. Permitted
only for
businesses waiting for
permanent sign
construction and installation
2. Approval limited to 45 days
maximum or
when the permanent sign is
installed whichever occurs first
3. A City sign permit for the
permanent sign must first be secured.
Limited to the period of time
specified in the
Temporary Seasonal Sales
Location Permit
Limited to the time specified
in the Special
Events Permit
Limited to the duration of the
event
21.41.110 Construction and Maintenance
A. Construction - Every sign, and all parts, portions and materials thereof
shall be manufactured, assembled, and erected in compliance with all applicable State,
Federal, and City regulations and the latest adopted versions of the Building Code and
the National Electric Code.
-26-
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
76
27
28
B. Maintenance - Every sign and all parts, portions and materials shall be
maintained and kept in good repair. The display surface of all signs shall be kept clean,
neatly painted and free from rust, cracking, peeling, corrosion or other states of
disrepair.
21.41.120 ‘Removal of Sians
A. Any sign which is unsafe, as defined herein, or which does not conform to
Uniform Building Code and National Electric Code standards, or installed or placed in the
public right-of-way or on public property contrary to the City Council’s policy, may be
removed by any officer or employee of the City designated to do so by the Community
Development Director without prior notice. Alternatively, the Community Development
Director may issue a notice of nonconformance and give the sign owner and/or the
property owner 15 days in which to cure the nonconformance.
B. Any other sign that is in violation of the provisions of this chapter, must be
removed by the permit-tee, owner, or person in charge of the sign upon written notice by
the Community Development Director. Such written notice shall specify the nature of
the violation, order the cessation thereof and require either the removal of the sign or
the execution of remedial work in the time and in the manner specified by the notice.
C. The time for removal or repair shall not be less than thirty (30) calendar
days from the date of mailing the notice for permanent signs and not less than fifteen
(15) calendar days for temporary signs.
D. Within ten (10) days of the mailing of the notice, the permittee, owner, or
person in charge of the sign may request a hearing before the Community Development
Director to determine whether the sign was erected or maintained in violation of this
chapter. Such request must be made in writing and received by the City within the ten
(10) days after mailing of notice.
E. Upon receipt of a written request for a hearing, the Community
Development Director shall schedule a hearing and send a written notice by first class
mail of the time, place, and date for the hearing, which shall be no later than thirty (30)
days after the date of receipt of the written request, unless the party responsible for the
sign requests a later hearing date. The time for compliance with the original order shall
be stayed during the pendency of the hearing. The Community Development Director
will notify the appellant of the decision to affirm, modify or revoke the order to remove or
repair within ten (IO) days of the conclusion of the hearing; failure to give such notice of
decision shall result in the withdrawal of the notice of violation, but shall not prevent a
new notice of violation being issued for a different time period from that specified in the
original notice.
F. Whenever the permittee, owner or person in charge of the sign fails to
comply with an order of the Community Development Director requiring compliance with
this chapter, any expense of such inaction shall be charged to the permittee, owner or
person in charge of the sign. Such amount shall constitute a debt owed to the city. No
permit shall thereafter be issued to any permittee, owner, or person in charge of the
sign who fails to pay such costs. Any costs, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the
city in collection of the costs shall be added to the amount of the debt.
G. Every person billed may request a hearing regarding the accuracy of the
amount billed. Following the hearing, the Community Development Director shall within
ten (10) days of the conclusion of the hearing notify the person billed of any adjustment
-27-
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
to the bill or any determination not to make an adjustment. This notification shall specify
the date by which such bill shall be paid. Nonpayment becomes a lien on the property.
21.41.125 Appeal of Denial or Revocation
A. Any person seeking to appeal a decision of the Community Development Director
granting or denying an application for issuance of, or renewal of, a sign permit, revoking a permit,
or ordering the removal of a sign, must file a written notice of appeal with the Planning Director
no later than ten (10) days after the date of the notice of the decision. The notice shall state, with
specificity, the factual and legal basis of the appeal. The Planning Director shall expeditiously
schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission and notify the appellant, in writing, of the
day, time, and location of the hearing, which shall be held not later than thirty days after the
notice of appeal is received by the City. The time for compliance of any original order shall be
stayed during the pendency of the hearing before the Planning Commission.
B. The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing and provide the appellant with a
written decision within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the hearing. If the approval, denial,
revocation or removal order is affirmed on review, the appellant may file a written notice of
appeal to the City Council with the City Clerk no later than ten (10) days after the date of the
notice of the decision. The City Clerk shall then schedule a hearing before the City Council,
which shall be held within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the notice of appeal, and notify the
appellant, in writing, of the day, time, and location of the hearing; however, the hearing may be
held later than thirty (30) days upon the request or concurrence of the appellant. The time for
compliance of any original order shall be stayed during the pendency of the hearing before the
City Council.
The City Council shall provide the appellant with a written decision within ten (10) days
of the conclusion of the hearing. Any person dissatisfied with the City Council’s decision may
seek prompt judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.8.
21.41.130 Nonconforming Signs
Except for normal repair and maintenance and any modification required for NBC
compliance, no nonconforming sign shall be expanded, structurally or electrically altered (not
including a change in sign face or sign copy), moved, relocated, unless it is brought into
conformance with all current provisions of this chapter. When a sign, which was in
compliance with all applicable laws in effect at the time it was originally erected, is physically
damaged, whether by vandalism, forces of nature, or other causes, the sign may be repaired or
restored to its original size, shape, height, orientation and message; however, the repair or
restoration must be done in a manner which complies with current building and electrical codes.
21.41.140 Remedies and Penalties
Any sign, which has been properly removed under this chapter may be returned to the
owner upon payment to the city of the costs of removal. If no timely request is made for hearing
or if no demand is made for the return of the sign removed, the Community Development
Director or his designee is authorized to destroy or dispose of the removed sign not earlier than
thirty (30) days after the removal of such sign.
21.41 .I 50 Violations
-28-
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
It is unlawful for any person to:
A. Install, mount, affix, create, erect, display or maintain any sign in a manner
that is inconsistent with this Chapter or any permit for such sign;
B. Install, mount, affix, create, erect, display or maintain any sign requiring a
, permit without such a permit;
C. Failure to remove any sign which the Community Development Director or
designee has ordered removed as being in violation of this chapter.
Violations of any provisions of this chapter shall be subject to the enforcement remedies
and penalties provided for herein and in Chapter 1.08 of this Code. The City may also Pursue anY
civil remedies provided by law, including injunctive relief, as to signs not in conformance with
this chapter:
A. Each day of a continued violation shall be considered a separate violation
when applying the penalty portions of this chapter.
B. Each sign installed, created, erected or maintained in violation of this
chapter shall be considered a separate violation when applying the penalty portions of
this chapter.
21.41.160 Severabilitv
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or part of this chapter is for any reason
found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter, which shall be in full force and
effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this chapter with each
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or part thereof irrespective of the fact that any one
or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or parts be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) 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 a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen (15) days after its adoption. Upon its effective date, Interim Ordinance No. NS-562 is
repealed.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 23rd day of OCTOBE@OO 1, and thereafter.
Ill
i/l
//I
-29-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3
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 the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEW
-3o-
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
ORDINANCE NO. NS-607
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING THE SIGN CODE, TITLE 18,
CHAPTER 18.20 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.
CASE NAME: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN CODE AMENDMENT
CASE NO.: MCA 01-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That title 18, Chapter 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is repealed.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) 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 a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen (15) days after its
adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on
the 23rd day of OCTOBER 2001, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
on the day of 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
All-EST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
33
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-323
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVING ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, TO
REPEAL AND REENACT THE SIGN ORDINANCE, TITLE 21,
CHAPTER 21.41; REPEAL OF THE SIGN CODE, CHAPTER
18.20 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY
WITH CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL CASE LAW; TO CLARIFY
THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT USER FRIENDLY; AND
ADOPTING COUNCIL POLICY NO. 65 - SIGNS ON
PUBLIC PROPERTY.
CASE NAME: SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CASE NO.: ZCA OO-04/LCPA OO-07/MCA 01-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on June 6, June 20, and October 3, 2001,
hold duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration, Zone Code
Amendment 00-04 and Local Coastal Program Amendment 00-07 and adopted Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4937,4938 and 4939 recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to repeal Chapter 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, a policy is necessary to establish the City Council’s role with respect to signs
located in the public right-of-way of which the Council serves as manager of Public Lands; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 23rd day of OCTOBER 2001 hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration and proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program and repeal of the Sign Code; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to
the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Sign Code.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolutions No. 4937, 4938 and
4939 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
3. That the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal
Program Amendment, ZCA 00-04 and LCPA 00-07 respectively, are approved as shown in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4937, 4938 and 4939 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference.
4. That the Sign Code found in Chapter 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
hereby repealed.
.J$i
6
7
E
s
1c
11
12
<
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a part hereof, is necessary and will guide applicants, and the City in reviewing the placement,
construction, and modification of signs; and
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
on the 23rd dayof OCTOBER , 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
5. That Policy No. 65 , “Signs on Public Property,” attached hereto and made
(SEAL)
-2-
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 1 of8
Policy No. 65
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued October 23, 2001
Effective Date October 23, 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: Signs on Public Property
Specific Subject:
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
SECTION ONE: PROPRIETARY CAPACITY; CHANGES TO POLICY
In adopting this policy, the City Council acts in its proprietary capacity as to Public Property within the City. This Policy
Statement may be changed at any time, using any procedure allowed by California and City law.
SECTION TWO: INTENT AS TO PUBLIC FORUM
The City declares its intent that all Public Property in the City shall not function as a designated public forum, unless some
specific portion of Public Property is designated herein as a public forum of one particular type; in such case, the
declaration as to public forum type shall apply strictly and only to the specified area and the specified time period, if any.
SECTION THREE: SIGNS MUST BE PERMITTED OR EXEMPTED
No “sign,” as defined in the sign ordinance, may be displayed on Public Property, unless a Public Property Sign Permit
therefore has first been issued, or the subject sign is expressly exempted from the Public Property Sign Permit
requirement by this Policy Resolution or another applicable Policy Resolution.
All Public Property Sign Permits must be consistent with the policies stated herein. Any sign posted on Public Property
within the City, contrary to the policies stated herein, may be summarily removed as a trespass and a nuisance by the
City.
SECTION FOUR: TEMPORARY POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS, LABOR PROTEST AND OTHER NONCOMMERCIAL SIGNS
IN TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM AREAS
This section applies only when the Special Events Chapter of the Carlsbad Municipal Code does not. In areas qualifying
as traditional public forums, such as streets, parks and sidewalks, persons may display noncommercial message signs
thereon without first obtaining a Public Property Sign Permit, provided that their sign display on Public Property conforms
to all of the following:
1. The signs must be personally held by a person, or personally attended by one or more persons. “Personally
attended” means that a person is physically present within five feet of the sign at all times.
2. The signs may be displayed only during the time period of sunrise to sunset.
3. The maximum aggregate size of all signs held by a single person is IO square feet.
4. The maximum size of any one sign which is personally attended by two or more persons is 50 square feet.
5. The displayed signs may not be inflatable or air-activated.
5. In order to serve the City’s interests in traffic flow and safety persons displaying signs under this section may not
stand in any vehicular traffic lane when a roadway is open for use by vehicles, and persons displaying signs on
public sidewalks must give at least five feet width clearance for pedestrians to pass by.
SECTION FIVE: PUBLIC PROPERTY SIGN PERMITS; APPLICATION FORMS AND PROCEDURES
The Community Development Director shall prepare and make available to the public a form for Application for a Public
Jroperty Sign Permit (Permit), which shall, when fully approved, constitute a Permit and indicate the City’s consent, in its
Droprietary capacity, for placement of a sign. The applicant for the permit must be the same person or entity who is to be
:he owner of the sign. The processing fee for each application, which shall not be refundable even if the application is
denied, shall be the same as the fee for a sign permit under the sign ordinance. To each application form shall be
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject:
Specific Subject:
Signs on Public Property
Page2 of8
Policy No. 65
Date Issued October 23, 2001
Effective Date October 23, 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
attached a copy of this Policy Statement. The application form shall require the applicant to indicate that he or she has
received a copy of this Policy Statement, and that they shall abide by its terms, as well as any special terms or conditions
which may be stated on the Permit, and to abide by any new or different conditions which may be imposed on all
permittees who are similarly situated.
Any Public Property Sign Permit issued in error may be summarily revoked by any officer of the City, by simply informing
the applicant of the nature of the error in issuance; any applicant whose permit is revoked as issued in error may, at any
time thereafter, submit a new permit application which cures any deficiencies in the original application. The application
fee shall apply separately to each new application. Applications which fully comply with the terms and conditions of this
Policy Statement shall be duly issued. Applications which are denied, or permits which are revoked or suspended, may
be appealed in the same manner as denials of sign permits, as described in the Sign Ordinance.
SECTION SIX: EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMIT REQUIREMENT
The following signs are exempted from the Permit requirement: Traffic control and traffic directional signs erected by the
City or another governmental unit; official notices required by law; signs placed by the City in furtherance of its
governmental functions; signs allowable under Section Four of this Policy.
SECTION SEVEN: PERMITS FOR A-FRAME SIGNS IN CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA, BEARING
COMMERCIAL MESSAGES ONLY
1. INTENT AS TO PUBLIC FORUM
The areas and times controlled by this section are designated to constitute a limited access, non public forum which is
strictly limited to commercial messages, and which is open only to those persons described in this section and on the
terms stated in this section.
2. WHERE A-FRAMES MAY BE PLACED; PHYSICAL STANDARDS
” A-Frame” signs, as that term is defined in the sign ordinance, may be placed in particular portions of the public right-of-
way, within the Carlsbad Village area only, namely, on the public sideway directly in front of the store or other
establishment displaying the sign.
Such signs may have no more than 2 display faces, every display face shall be a flat, smooth surface, and remain
completely free of dangerous protrusions such as tacks, nails or wires however, cutouts of any shape are allowed. Sign
faces shall be back to back. No banners, ribbons, streamers, balloons, or attachments of any kind may be affixed to the
sign. The sign may not use any moving parts or include a display face which is hinged, or which otherwise swings or
hangs from a frame. No glass, breakable materials or illumination is allowed. The signs shall be physically stable and
balanced flat on the sidewalk. The sign must be self-supporting, stable and weighted or constructed to withstand
overturning by wind or contact.
All such signs may be placed in the permitted space on the public right-of-way only when the retail establishment is
actually open for business. The sign must be placed on the public sideway within the 2 feet closest to the curb or edge of
the sidewalk, directly in front of the business which owns the sign.
-.. 7 : #e”
* I IS
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page3 of8
Policy No. 65
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued October 23, 2001
Effective Date October 23, 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: Signs on Public Property
I
Specific Subject:
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
Each display face shall have a maximum area of 15 square feet, and shall not exceed 5 feet in height or 3 feet in width.
Changeable text area of the sign may not exceed 50% of the display face. No such sign may have special illumination
and the display portion may have no parts which move, flash, blink or fluoresce. Fluorescent or “day glow” colors are not
allowed. No paper or non-rigid changeable text areas are allowed.
The sign shall not be permanently affixed to any object, structure, or the ground, including utility poles, light poles, trees or
other plants, or any merchandise of products displayed outside permanent buildings.
At no time may the sign be placed in the street or in any position which impedes the smooth and safe flow of vehicular
and pedestrian traffic, or which interferes with driver or pedestrian sight lines or corner clear zone requirements as
specified by the City. No sign shall be placed in such a manner as to obstruct access to a public sidewalk, public street,
driveway, parking space, fire door, fire escape or access for persons with disabilities. A clear area of at least 5 feet in
width must be maintained for pedestrian use over the entire length of the sidewalk in front of the business.
Signs shall not obscure or interfere with the effectiveness of any official notice or public safety device. Signs shall not
simulate in color or design a traffic sign or signal, or make use of words, symbols, or characters in such a manner as may
confuse pedestrians or drivers.
Every sign and all parts thereof shall be kept in good repair. The display surface shall be kept clean, neatly painted, and
free from dust, rust and corrosion. Any cracked, broken surfaces, missing sign copy or other unmaintained or damaged
portion of a sign shall be repaired or replaced or removed within 30 days following notice by the City.
The copy on the sign must be strictly of a commercial nature, must not include copy or messages pertaining to
“noncommercial speech” as that term is defined in the Sign Ordinance, and must refer or pertain to goods, activities or
services which are actually available in the subject store at the time the sign is displayed.
3. WHO MAY DISPLAY AN A-FRAME SIGN IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
The A-Frame Signs allowed by this section may be displayed only by the operators of retail commercial establishments
with ground floor frontage on streets within the Village Redevelopment Zone, who hold a currently valid City business
license, who are not currently in violation of, or nonconformance with, any of the zoning, land use, environmental or
business regulatory laws, rules or policies of the City.
Each eligible business location is allowed a maximum of one A-Frame sign. However, when a business is located within
a business arcade or courtyard area, in which case only one “tenant directory” sign, which lists all of the businesses within
the arcade or courtyard, is allowed. The display area of the permitted A-Frame sign shall not count as part of the total
signage for the business, which is allowed under the Sign Ordinance.
4. TRANSFER OF PERMIT
The Permit attaches to the business at the location specified. If the business is sold or transferred, and remains at the
same location, then the Permit shall automatically transfer to the new owner or transferee, who shall be bound to the
terms and conditions of the original Permit. However, if the business which first obtained the Permit moves to a different
location, or if the location is then taken by a new business, a new application and Permit shall be required.
*- ., I -\ \ w._.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject:
Specific Subject:
Signs on Public Property
Page4 of8
Policy No. 65
Date Issued October 23. 2001
Effective Date October 23, 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
~ 5. TERM OF CONSENT INDICATED BY PERMIT; REVOCATION AND RENEWAL
~ The Permit is revocable or cancelable at will by the City. However, the City will cancel a Permit without cause only when
it does so to all permittees who are similarly situated. Any Permit may be revoked for noncompliance, 30 calendar days
after notice of noncompliance remains uncured, or in the case of a noncomplia?ce condition which constitutes a threat to
the public health, safety or welfare, summarily. When a Permit is revoked, the owner of the sign must physically remove it
from the public right of way within 24 hours of notice of revocation; upon failure to do so, the City may summarily remove
the sign and hold it in storage until all costs of removal and storage are paid by the sign owner, upon which condition the
sign shall then be returned to its owner. There is no guarantee that the City will continue the policy stated herein.
Permittees hold no expectation of renewal of any given Permit, acquire no vested right to continue displaying the sign on
public land, and waive all claims of inverse condemnation (uncompensated taking of private property) as to the permitted
sign, when they submit the original application.
6. TEMPORARY REMOVAL
The City may give notice, by any reasonable means, that consent to display an A-frame is or shall be withdrawn
temporarily so as to serve a more urgent or more important public need, such as, without limitation, dealing with a natural
disaster, a traffic emergency, a temporary need to make more space available on the public right-of-way, a civil
disturbance, a parade, an election, or other special event. In urgent situations, the City may summarily remove a
permitted sign without notice, for a time sufficient tp deal with the urgency. All permittees shall comply with all notices to
temporarily remove the permitted signs, and to return them to display only in accordance with the City’s directions.
7. INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY
A Permit under this section will be issued only to an applicant who provides evidence of comprehensive general liability
insurance coverage, in a form satisfactory to the Community Development Director, which shall name the City as an
additional insured and provide thirty day notice of cancellation. The minimum liability coverage on such policy shall be
one million dollars; such coverage shall apply to claims of personal injury including death, property damage and
advertising injury. Application for a Permit shall constitute an agreement to hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City
against all claims relating to property damage or personal injury, including death, which assert that the permitted sign
played any legally significant role in the creation of the liability.
8. CANCELLATION OR MODIFICATION OR PROGRAM
The City may, at any time and for any reason, cancel or modify this program allowing commercial A-Frame signs in the
public right-of-way in the Village Redevelopment Area.
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page5 of8
Policy No. 65
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued October 23. 7001
Effective Date October 23, 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: Signs on Public Property
I
Specific Subject:
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
SECTION EIGHT: REAL ESTATE FOR SALE “KIOSK” SIGNS IN PARTICULAR LOCATIONS
1. INTENT AS TO PUBLIC FORUM
The City’s intent as to this section is to designate a strictly limited public forum, which allows only the posting in
convenient places of directional information regarding tract housing developments which are currently selling homes
located within the City.
2. KIOSK SIGNS FOR NEW TRACT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
Kiosk signs are permanent freestanding structures, not exceeding 10 feet in height, 5 in width, which contain modular
information strips, not exceeding 10 inches in height, 5 feet in width, providing information about tract housing
developments (of more than 4 units) which are currently selling new homes located within the City. Such signs may
display only the following information: the name of the development, developer and/or marketer thereof, and the direction
to the development from the sign.
Each kiosk will have “City of Carlsbad” or the city logo displayed in a prominent location on the sign.
One kiosk design will be utilized throughout the city. This kiosk design is on file in the Planning Department. All tract
housing development signs mounted on the kiosks shall be the same design and shall be dark brown wood with routed-in
white lettering. Letters shall be consistent in size, width and thickness of print. Letters shall be all upper case letters not
more than 6 inches in height.
Individual tract housing development directional signs shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to mounting on a
kiosk to ensure compliance with this section. In no case shall a sign be mounted on a kiosk before building permits have
been issued for the model homes.
There shall be no additions, tag signs, streamers, devices, display boards, or appurtenances added to the sign as
originally approved. Further, no other directional signing may be used such as posters, trailer signs or temporary
subdivision directional signs.
Any sign placed contrary to the provisions of this section may be removed by the city without prior notice.
Each approved tract housing development may have up to a maximum of 8 directional signs. Upon approval by the
Planning Director, directional signs shall be permitted until the homes within the housing development are sold or for a
period of one year, whichever comes first. Extensions not exceeding one year may be granted by the Planning Director.
A neighborhood shall not be allowed any directional kiosk signs if there are any other offsite signs advertising the housing
development anywhere in the City. If any advertising signs are erected and not promptly removed upon demand by the
city, all kiosk signs for that subdivision shall be removed, the lease cancelled and no refund given.
3. PRIVATE CONTRACTOR FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE KIOSKS
The City may enter into a contract with a private contractor to design, erect, modify, replace, maintain and manage the
kiosk signs allowed by this section. Such contract must be approved by the City Council, and may require that the
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject:
Specific Subject:
Signs on Public Property
Page6ofX
Policy No. 65
Date Issued Ortoher 71, 71101
Effective Date October 23. 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
~ contractor pay to the City a rent or royalty on advertising revenues. All the terms of said contract, and all payments to the
1 City thereunder, shall be public information.
4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENT
In the event the City selects a private party contractor to manage the kiosks, the City may require the private party
contractor to provide evidence of comprehensive general liability insurance coverage, in a form satisfactory to the
Community Development Director, which shall name the City as an additional insured, and provide 30 day notice to the
City of cancellation. The minimum liability coverage on such policy shall be one million dollars. Any private party contract
must include a provision for the contractor to hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City against all claims relating to
property damage or personal injury, including death, which assert that the kiosk sign played any legally significant role in
the creation of the liability.
5. ALLOWABLE LOCATIONS
The kiosks allowed by this section may be located only as shown on Attachment A.
SECTION NINE: TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DURING CAMPAIGN PERIODS
1. INTENT AS TO PUBLIC FORUM
In this section only, the City’s intent is to designate a public forum which is available only at limited times and places for
sign expression on political and other noncommercial topics, absolutely without favoritism as to any speaker, topic or point
of view. The display opportunities afforded by this section are in addition to those in the Sign Ordinance which allow
noncommercial speech at all times.
2. TEMPORARY CAMPAIGN SIGN PERMIT; APPLICATION FORMS AND PROCEDURES
The procedure for the approval of a temporary campaign sign permit is as follows:
. The zoning enforcement officer shall notify candidates and/or their state/local campaign committee chairpersons
for national, state, local or county office and chairpersons of campaign committees for or against any measure
appearing on the ballot for a statewide, local or county election of the temporary campaign sign requirements as
provided herein.
Prior to the posting of any temporary campaign signs, the candidate, the chairperson of a campaign committee
or any other person designated by the candidate or chairperson who is responsible for the posting of said sign,
shall obtain a temporary campaign sign permit. The permit, on a form prescribed by the community development
director or his designee, shall include the name, address and phone number of the candidate or campaign
chairperson and any person responsible for the posting of signs. The permit shall be signed by the candidate,
chairperson or person responsible for the posting of the signs.
. A nonrefundable processing fee, in an amount established by City Council, shall be paid at the time the
application for the permit is made. The fee shall be used to defray the cost of issuing the permit and
administering. These fees apply to all signs which may be displayed under this section for the relevant period,
and shall not be assessed on a per sign basis.
/ CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject:
Specific Subject:
Signs on Public Property
\
Policy No.
Date Issued
Effective Date
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
Page 7 of 8
65
October 23, 2001
October 23, 2001
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
. A refundable deposit, in an amount established by City Council, shall be paid at the time the permit is issued.
This deposit shall be refunded to the permittee within 5 days after the removal of the permittee’s temporary
campaign sign or signs. If the permittee does not remove the signs they may be removed by the Community
Development Director or designee without further notice. The deposit may be used to defray the cost of removal.
The Community Development Director or designee may also charge any expense incurred hereunder to the
permittee. Any candidate or campaign committee which is able to show financial inability to pay the refundable
deposit may request a waiver from the City Council.
n The Community Development Director or designee is authorized, after giving 2 days written notice to the person
or persons who signed the sign permit, to remove any temporary campaign signs that do not conform to the
standards herein provided. The cost of such removal may be charged to the permittee.
3. TIME PERIOD
The signs allowable under this section may be displayed only during the period of time 45 days preceding and 10 days
following a general, special or primary election. All political and other noncommercial message signs must be removed
from public property, by the same persons who originally displayed it, not more than 10 days after the election.
4. LOCATIONS
This section allows the display of signs expressing political or other noncommercial messages. The signs allowable under
this section may be placed in the public right-of-way adjacent to a public street in commercially or industrially zoned areas
or in residentially zoned areas along prime or major arterials as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
5. PERSONS WHO MAY RECEIVE A PERMIT UNDER THIS SECTION
Any person who will abide by the terms and conditions of this section may receive a permit. Removal, defacement,
alteration, obliteration, destruction or tampering with signs permitted under this policy without the permission of the owner
is prohibited. Such signs may not be placed in such a manner as to obscure or cover, in whole or in part, any other sign
permitted under this section.
6. PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
Signs which are allowable under this section may not exceed 6 square feet in display area, must be made of materials
and construction methods to withstand normal weather conditions for the period of display, and mounted in such a
manner that they will not be blown away or dislodged by normal weather and climate conditions for the area. Each sign
must be mounted at least 1 foot above grade, and no higher than 6 feet above the grade. Permitted signs may not be
specially illuminated.
No sign shall be: . attached to any utility pole, bus bench, pole or structure supporting a traffic control sign or device, or
hydrant. . placed on any tree or shrub by any nail, tack, spike or other method which will cause physical harm to the
tree or shrub.
. placed in such a manner as to obstruct the public use of the sidewalk or interfere with the visibility of
persons operating motor vehicles or constitute a hazard to persons using the public road right-of-way.
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 8of8
Policy No. 65
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued October 23. 2001
Effective Date October 23. 2001
Cancellation Date
c Supersedes No.
General Subject: Signs on Public Property
I
Specific Subject:
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
. placed in the roadway or on the sidewalk.
. placed in that portion of the public right-of-way or easement past the sidewalk without the consent of the
adjoining property owner or person in possession if different than the owner.
7. REMOVAL OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS
Signs which do not conform to this section or any permit issued under this section shall be summarily removed by the City
1 upon discovery of the nonconformance.
’ SECTION TEN: SIGNAGE ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR SPECIAL EVENTS
When the City allows a special event, sponsored by a private entity, the City shall state only the time, place, manner and
quantity of signage allowed, and leave decisions as to which signs may be displayed as part of the event to the private
party sponsor.
When the City sponsors a special event, public property may be used to promote and identify the special event, but co
sponsors, if any, shall be limited to commercial entities and commercial sign messages only.
SECTION ELEVEN: USE OF PUBLIC LAND FOR BANNERS
Banners may be placed by the City on Public Property in the public right-of-way only in the Village Redevelopment Area.
ATTACHMENT “A”
REAL ESTATE FOR SALE
“KIOSK” SIGNS
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4937
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
ADDENDUM FOR A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT,
ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE SIGN CODE,
TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.20 AND REPEAL AND REENACT
THE SIGN ORDINANCE, TITLE 2 1, CHAPTER 2 1.4 1 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.
CASE NAME: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
_
CASE NO: ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of May, 2001, on the
6th day of June, 2001, on the 20th day of June, 2001, and on the 3rd day of October, 2001,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
and Addendum according to Exhibit “ND” dated March 15, 2001, and “PII”
dated March 6, 2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration ZCA OO-
04/LCPA 00-07 and Addendum, the environmental impacts therein identified
for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the project; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B.
C.
D.
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 3rd day of October, 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
-0
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL JxOLmILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4937 -2- 46
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Citywide
Project Description: Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal
and reenact the City’s Sign Ordinance and Sign Code (Chapters 21.41 and 18.20 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code) to: comply with current case law regarding the constitutional validity of sign
ordinances and to clarify the ordinance/code to make them easier for developers, business owners
and residents to understand and use.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-46 11.
DATED: DECEMBER 27,200O
CASE NO: ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07
CASE NAME: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE/SIGN CODE AMENDMENT
PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 27,200O
MICHAEL J. HOtiMIL’@R
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07
DATE: December 14,200O
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Comprehensive Sign Ordinance/Sign Code Amendment
2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
repeal and reenact the City’s Sign Ordinance and Sign Code (Chapters 21.41 and 18.20 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: comply with current case law regarding the constitutional validity
of sign ordinances and to clarify the ordinance to make it easier for developers, business owners
and residents to understand and use.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
III Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
III Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
[7 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96 Y8
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
l.xJ
q
cl
El
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A(n) Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
-,
PlZkner Signature
/ 2 - ) q. ._ c;- <;
Date
Date
Rev. 03/28/96 49
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been anaIyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been, avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196 5b
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City. may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96 257
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a>
b)
c>
4
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s):
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses?
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure’
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
c>
d)
e)
f)
g>
h)
i)
expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture?
Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
Landslides or mudflows
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
4
b)
cl
4
e>
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
5
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q q
cl
q
q
q
q q q q q q
q q q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
q cl
0
q
q
q
q q q q q q
q q q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant Impact
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
q q q q q q
q q q
q
q
0
q
q
No
Impact
lxl
El
Is1
IXI
!xl
lsi
(XI
El
lxl
ISI
Ix1
lxl
IXI
(XI
lxl
lzl
Ix]
lxl
lxl
IXI
EKI
lxl
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
c)
4
e)
0
Id
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
4
b)
c)
4
4
VIII.
a)
b)
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds?
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q q q
q
q 0
q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q q
q q
q q
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q
0 0 q
cl
q cl
q
q q
q q u q
q
q
q q
0 q
q q
Less Than Significanl
Impact
q
q q q
q
q 0
q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q q
q q
q q
No Impact
1x1
[XI
lxl
txl
El
Ix]
El
Ix]
lxl
lxl
lxl
IXI
El
lxl
Ix1
lxl
lxl
Ix]
lxl
lxl
lxl
(XI
6 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
b)
c>
d)
4
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a)
b)
c>
4
e)
f)
is>
XIII.
4
b)
c)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?)
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare?
Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q q
q q
q q
q q
q q
q q
q q q q
q u q q q
q q q q q cl
q q q q q q q q
q q q q q q
Less Than Significanl
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q q q q q
q q q
q q q q
q q q
No
Impact
El
[XI
[xl
[XI
lzl
El
Ix]
(xl
lxl IXI lxl
txl lxl lxl El
El lxl lxl
7 Rev. 03/28/96 5Y
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIV.
4
b)
cl
4
e)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
4
b)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
XVI.
a>
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
b)
4
XVII.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce *he number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Significant Impact
q q q g
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q q q q
q
q
0
q
q
q
Less Than Significant Impact
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
No Impact
lxl
!xl
ixl
Ix]
Ix1
Ix]
Ia
IXI
!xl
lxl
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a> Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
8 Rev. 03128196 55
c> Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 silo
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project (ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07) entails the repeal and reenactment of the City’s Sign
Ordinance and Sign Code (Chapters 21.41 and 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The
primary objectives of this zone code amendment are to: A.) revise the Sign Ordinance and Sign
Code to comply with current case law regarding the constitutional validity of sign ordinances and
to B.) clarify the ordinance and code to make them easier for developers, business owners and
residents to understand and use.
A. The ordinance/code amendments that are proposed to comply with recent constitutional case
law decisions include the following:
n Modify the recently amended Purpose and Intent Section to specifically address the
regulation of billboards and campaign signs. All sign ordinances must include a Purpose
and Intent section that clearly states the City’s interest in regulating signs (i.e.; traffic
safety and aesthetics) while providing adequate channels of communication;
n Eliminate existing content based sign restrictions. Recent California and Federal court
decisions have determined that sign ordinances can regulate the “time, place and manner”
of signage (i.e.; the size, height, dimension, location and manner of construction), but
must not regulate sign content, unless the regulation serves a compelling governmental
interest and is narrowly tailored to meet that interest. In practice, almost all content-based
regulation has been prohibited by the courts. Therefore the sign ordinance has been
revised to be content-neutral.
. Ensure equal treatment of “commercial” (i.e.; advertising) and “non-commercial” (i.e.; an
ideological, political or non-commercial message) signage. The Supreme Court has
determined that any sign ordinance that has the effect of permitting commercial speech in
situations where noncommercial speech is prohibited is unconstitutional. A provision has
been added specifying that non-commercial signage is permitted wherever commercial
signage is permitted and is subject to the same signage standards.
. Eliminate the sign exemption section. Court decisions have determined that a sign
ordinance which exempts certain types of non-commercial signage (i.e.; governmental
signs and flags and memorial tablets) is content based and therefore unconstitutional.
B. The format and regulations of the existing sign ordinance (which was adopted in 1969 and last
amended in 1996) are somewhat unclear, out of date, and in need of revision. A number of
amendments are proposed to create an easy to understand sign ordinance that includes
comprehensive sign standards that apply to all specific uses and zones, as discussed below.
n The City’s existing sign ordinance includes maximum sign area regulations per zone, as
well as some sign height and area standards for specific sign types by zone. The
ordinance does not however include comprehensive sign standards regarding the
permitted number and location of various sign types (i.e.; wall, monument, pole and
directional signs) nor their physical attributes (i.e.; maximum sign area and letter height).
10 Rev. 03/28/96 3-7
Accordingly, the ordinance will be reformatted to incorporate user-friendly tables that
include sign regulations (i.e.; type and number of permitted signs, maximum sign area
and sign/letter height and permitted location) for:
a. Permanent Signs Permitted by Type of Development and Zone with a Sign Permit
b. Temporary Signs Permitted by Type of Development and Zone with a Sign
Permit
c. Signs Not Requiring A Sign Permit
. A new Sign Design Standards section, that addresses: permitted sign colors, materials,
illumination, logos and graphics, landscaping, and relationship to buildings, other signs
and streets is proposed to be added. These design standards will promote the production
of high quality, compatible signage that forms a strong connection to the building
architecture and other project signage.
. A number of sign related definitions have been added/revised to clarify the sign
ordinance/sign code and make them easily understandable. Definition additions include:
“Abandoned Sign”, “Abate “, “Address Sign”, Attraction Board”, “Banner”, “Beacon”,
“Bench Sign “, “Billboard”, “Building Marker”, “Changeable Copy Sign”, “Channel
Lettered Sign”, “Commercial Center”, “Construction Sign”, “Defamatory Sign”,
“Directory Sign”, “Eaveline”, “Electronic Message Board Sign”, “Externally
Illuminated”, “Flag “, “Freestanding Commercial Building”, “Freeway Service Station”,
“Internally Illuminated”, “Logo”, “Multi-Face Sign”, “Multi-Tenant Building”, “Neon
Sign”, “Nonconforming Sign”, “Obscene Sign”, “Pennant”, “Permanent Sign”, “Portable
Sign”, “Regional Commercial Center”, “Right-of-Way”, “Roof Sign”, “Sight Distance”,
“Sign Permit”, “Sign Program”, “Site Development Plan”, “Specific Plan”, “Temporary
Seasonal Sales Permit”, “Temporary Sign”, “Unsafe Sign”, “Vehicle Sign” and “Window
Sign”. These sign types and terms are distinguished in the proposed sign ordinance, and
therefore require definition.
Sign definition revisions include: “Animated Sign”, “Awning Sign”, “Building Frontage”
and “Freestanding Sign”.
. A new General Sign Standards section is proposed. This section addresses :
a. The methodology for Calculating Sign Area and Measuring Sign Height;
b. The prohibition of off-site (commercial and non-commercial) signage;
c. The prohibition of signs (including kiosk and campaign) from the public right-of-way
. The list of prohibited signs is proposed for revision to include: A Frame Signs,
Abandoned Signs, Balloons, Beacons, Bench and bus or train stop/shelter signs,
Billboards, Changeable Copy Signs, Defamatory Signs, Electronic Message Board Signs,
Freeway-facing wall signs visible from and within 500 feet of Interstate 5 and SR 78,
Obscene Signs, Portable Signs, Roof Signs and Signs affixed to Vehicles.
. A new Application and Permit Procedures section has been added.
. A new Sign Program section has been added. The Enforcement and Administration
sections have been amended to clarify and simplify the procedures for:
a. Removal of Prohibited Signs; and
b. Removal of Non-Conforming Signs.
Rev. 03/28/96 56’
. A new Sign Construction and Maintenance section (which is consistent with the City’s
Sign Code) has been added. .
. A number of specific sign standards are proposed for revision. The new sign regulations
will result in the following changes:
Offsite Signs and Signs in the Public Right of Way
. Clarifies that all commercial and non-commercial signage must be located on-site,
whereby off-site real-estate signs and temporary community directional kiosk signs will
no longer be allowed.
. No longer allows temporary community directional kiosk signs, temporary campaign
signs or A-Frame Signs in the public right-of-way.
Project Construction Signs
n Reduces Residential Project Construction Sign area from 100 SF/sign to 35 SF/sign
. Adds a new standard that allows Project Construction Signs for Non-residential Projects
Campaign Signs
. Limits the maximum number of Temporary Campaign Signs permitted to 1 per lot rather
than solely regulating cumulative sign area;
. Reduces Campaign Sign area for non-residential properties from 16 SF to 6 SF.
Real Estate Signs
n Increases Real Estate Sign area for Residential Projects from 1 sign at 12 SF to 1
sign/street frontage at 16 SF/sign
Pole Signs
. Reduces Pole Sign area for Freeway Service Stations from 150-250 SF to 100 SF.
. Adds a maximum sign area (100 SF) for Pole Signs at Regional Commercial Centers
Bench Signs
. No longer conditionally allows bench advertising signs;
Residences
n Increases permitted sign area from a maximum area of 2 SF to 2 signs at 3 SF/sign.
Residential Projects (Single Family, Condominium, Apartment and Mobile homes)
. Revises permitted Community ID Signage from 100 SF + 3 SF/ acre to 15-35
SF/freestanding entry sign and 1 directory sign /building or project entrance at 6 SF/sign.
Hotels/Motels
. Revises total permitted signage from 100 SF to 1 monument sign/street frontage at 50
SF/sign, 2 wall signs at .5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage and 3 directional
signs/driveway entrance at 6 SF/sign.
Commercial Centers
n Revises total permitted signage from 1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage to 1
monument sign/street frontage at 50 SF/sign, 1 wall sign/business at .5 SF/lineal foot of
business frontage, 1 suspended sign/business at 5 SF and 3 directional signs/driveway
entrance at 6 SF/sign.
n Allows 1 pole sign/regional commercial center at 100 SF and 35’tall.
12 Rev. 03/28/96 5
Freestanding Commercial Building
m Revises total permitted signage from 1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage to 1
monument sign/street frontage at 50 SF/sign, 2 wall signs/building at 5 SF/lineal foot of
building frontage and 3 directional signs/driveway entrance at 6 SF/sign.
Office/Industrial Uses
n Increases monument sign area from 35 SF/sign to 50 SF/sign.
Freeway Service Facilities
. The ordinance has been amended to delete the term “Freeway Service Facility” and
replace it with the term “Freeway Service Station”. This revision will result in a
reduction in the number of pole signs along the freeway in that pole signs would only be
permitted for service stations (and no longer restaurants and motels) which are located at
the apex of a freeway interchange quadrant.
Service Stations
. Revises total permitted signage from 1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage plus either 1
monument sign at 48 SF or 1 monument/pole sign (12-16 SF)/street frontage to 2
monument signs/site at 35 SF/sign, 2 canopy signs/site at 20 SF/sign and 1 sign/fuel
pump at 2.5 SF/sign.
Theatres
. Revises total permitted signage from 1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage plus1
marquee sign at 160 SF to 1 pole/marquee sign (100-l 60 SF), 1 wall sign/ street frontage
at .5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage and 1 coming attraction poster/screen at 6
SF/poster.
New Regulations
. Adds new detailed sign standards for resort hotels, public parks and government, school
and church uses.
Other major standards revisions include the following:
l The ordinance no longer makes a distinction between signage permitted within
the Coastal Zone and all other zones of the City;
l The ordinance has been revised to allow 1 grand opening banner at 30 SF for
Commercial, Office and Industrial businesses, with a temporary sign permit, for a
maximum of 45 days or until the permanent sign is installed.
l The ordinance has been revised to allow within Commercial, Office and
Industrial zones 1 banner or freestanding sign/street frontage at 30 SF/banner for
temporary seasonal sales for a maximum of 45 days with a temporary sign
permit.
l The ordinance has been revised to allow on City owned property 1 banner or
freestanding sign/street frontage at 30 SF/banner for special or civic events for a
maximum of 45 days with a temporary sign permit.
13 Rev. 03/28/96 tM
l A new Table, “Signs Not Requiring a Sign Permit”, has been added and includes
the following signs:
a. Address Signs,
b. Signs located in the interior of a building,
c. Incidental signs,
d. Window signs,
e. Decorative flags
f. Flags
g. Traffic control, directional, warning or informational signs erected or required
by government agencies.
Staff has determined that these proposed sign ordinance/sign code amendment could not have a
significant impact on the environment and has therefore prepared a negative declaration. No
mitigation measures are required. Specifically, the environmental analysis performed by staff
resulted in this determination for the following reasons:
1. The amendment is not associated with any specific development project and does not
propose any development;
2. The amendment does not affect: any General Plan or zoning designation, allowable densities
or land uses, or any environmental plan;
3. The amendment does not directly or indirectly result in any significant physical, biological,
or human environmental impacts, and;
4. The amendment does not conflict,with or affect any of the 14 environmental factors (i.e.,
Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing) as listed in this Environmental Impact
Assessment Form and as discussed in the related section below.
Sign permits are ministerial projects. Therefore any future sign permit processed pursuant to this
amended Sign Ordinance/Sign Code is statutorily exempt pursuant to Section 15268 of CEQA.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land IJse and Planning - The proposed sign ordinance/sign code amendment will not
conflict with the General Plan or zoning designations or any applicable environmental plans
adopted by the City because it does not affect density or allowed land uses. Signs are a typical
accessory use currently allowed in the zones of the City. For this same reason the amendment
will not be incompatible with existing or planned land uses in any area and will not impact
agricultural uses or established communities.
2. Population and Housing - Since this sign ordinance/sign code amendment does not
propose any development or affect allowable land uses or densities, the amendment will not
affect any population projections, induce substantial growth, or displace any existing housing.
3. Geologic Problems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, no changes in topography resulting in unstable earth conditions, erosion of soils,
ground shaking, landslides/mudflows, alteration of deposition patterns, or other geologic
problems will occur.
4. Water - As no site-specific project nor changes to standards or policies regarding water
14 Rev. 03/28/96 61
related issues is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there will be no impact to water
resources.
5. Air Oualitv - As no site-specific project nor changes to standards or policies regarding air
quality is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there will be no impact to air quality.
6. Transportation/Circulation - As no site-specific project nor changes to standards or
policies regarding transportation/circulation is proposed as part of this zone code amendment,
there will be no impact to transportation/circulation. One of the primary objectives of the
amended sign regulations is to ensure traffic safety.
7. Biological Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impact to biological resources.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this
zone code amendment, there will be no impact to energy and mineral resources.
9. Hazards - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment,
there will be no exposure to hazards.
10. Noise - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there
will be no exposure to noise impacts and no exposure to unacceptable levels of noise.
11. Public Services - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impacts to public services.
12. Utilities and Services Systems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this
zone code amendment, there will be no impacts to utilities and. services systems.
13. Aesthetics - As compared to the existing sign regulations, the new sign regulations will
result in the following changes:
One of the primary objectives of the proposed sign ordinance/sign code revision is to preserve
and enhance the aesthetic environment of Carlsbad, while providing channels of communication
to the public. The proposed sign ordinance/sign code revisions provide a reasonable balance
between the right of a business or an individual to identify itself and to convey its message and
the right of the public to be protected against the visual discord that results from the unrestricted
proliferation of signs. The proposed sign ordinance/sign code revision achieves this objective
through prohibiting off-site signs and signs within the public right-of-way, incorporating more
restrictive provisions for pole signs, standardizing maximum numbers and types of signs by
use/zone, adding new sign design and development standards that regulate sign and letter
heights, permitted colors, materials, illumination, logos and graphics while requiring individual
signs to be compatible with building architecture and other project signage. These new standards
are intended to ensure the production of quality signage that is in better proportion to the
building and or lot upon which it is located. Accordingly, these sign revisions will not result in
significant negative aesthetic impacts.
14. Cultural Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impacts to cultural resources.
15. Recreational - The proposed amendment will not increase the demand for parks or other
15 Rev. 03/28/96 44
recreational facilities and will not affect existing recreational opportunities because the proposed
amendment will not induce growth in the City and will not reduce the number or amount of areas
currently planned for recreational uses.
16 Rev. 03/28/96 tJ3
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
17 Rev. 03/28/96 loq
ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZCA OO-04/LCPA OO-
07
The project description has been revised to indicate that the proposed project will also
include the repeal of the City’s Sign Code (Chapter lg.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code). The purpose of this addendum is to document this change in project description
and to clarify that this change, which incorporates the structural sign regulations and sign
violation enforcement procedures of the City’s Sign Code into the City’s amended Sign
Ordinance (Chapter 21.41), will not result in any significant environmental impacts or
necessitate any revision to the findings of the project negative declaration.
b 5
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4938
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, REPEALING
AND REENACTING THE SIGN ORDINANCE, TITLE 21.
CHAPTER 21.41 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO
LEGALLY UPDATE THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND TO
CLARIFY THE ORDINANCE TO MARE IT USER FRIENDLY.
CASE NAME: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
CASE NO: ZCA 00-04
WHEREAS, on December 14, 1999, the Carlsbad City Council adopted
Urgency Ordinance NS-526 to prohibit the issuance of sign permits for and/or the
construction, erection, placement or generation of large freestanding signs pending a
review and study of the sign ordinance and a report or recommendation of the Planning
Department and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, concurrent with this action, the City Council also adopted
Resolution No. 99-535 directing staff to: 1) revise the Sign Ordinance to comply with
current case law regarding the constitutional validity of sign ordinances, and 2) to clarify
the ordinance to make it easier for developers, business owners and residents to understand
and use; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council
Ordinance, Exhibit “X” dated, October 3, 2001, and attached hereto COMPREHENSIVE
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ZCA 00-04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of May, 2001, on the
6th day of June, 2001, on the 20th day of June, 2001, and on the 3rd day of October, 2001,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
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
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 Zone Code Amendment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of ZCA 00-04 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, based on the following findings:
Findinps:
1. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment ZCA 00-04 is consistent with the General
Plan in that the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements include a number
of community design and safety goals, objectives and policies as follows:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Land Use Element Policy C.7 (Overall Land Use Pattern) - “Evaluate each
application for development of property with regard to the following specific
criteria:
1. Site design quality, which may be indicated by the harmony of the
proposed buildings in terms, of size, height, and location, with respect
to existing neighboring development.
2. Site design quality, which may be indicated by the arrangement of the
site for efficiency of circulation, or onsite and offsite traffic safety,
privacy, etc.”
Land Use Element Policy C.6 (Industrial) - “Ensure that the physical
development of industrial areas recognizes the need for compatibility among
the industrial establishments involved . ..”
Land Use Element Policy C.10 (Industrial) - ‘&Require new industrial
development to be located in modern, attractive, well-designed and
landscaped industrial parks in which each site provides for internal traffic,
parking, loading, storage and other operational needs.”
Land Use Element Commercial Objective B.3 - “TO establish and maintain
commercial development standards to address landscaping, parking, signs
and site, and building design, to ensure .that all existing and future
commercial developments are compatible with surrounding land uses.”
PC RESO NO. 4938 -2- bl
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
E. Circulation Element Objective B.2 (Streets and Traffic Control) - “To design
streets for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services
within and through the City in the most environmentally sound and
aesthetically pleasing manner possible.”
This proposed Comprehensive Sign Ordinance amendment is consistent with the
applicable goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that the proposed sign
development and design standards will: (1) Preserve the City’s aesthetic environment,
improve traffic safety and enhance project/community design and compatibility.
Specifically, the revised standards will:
2.
..a
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
n Add new sign design standards, i.e., sign color, materials, illumination and
landscaping to promote the production of high quality, compatible signage
that forms a strong connection to the building architecture and other
project signage;
. Require comprehensive sign programs for major projects for the purpose
of integrating signs with buildings, site and landscaping design to form a
unified architectural statement;
. Revise sign standards, i.e., dimension, number and location to achieve a
good balance between providing residents and businesses an adequate
opportunity to communicate while maintaining the City’s aesthetic
environment;
9 Reduce the number and permitted sign area of tall pole signs along the I-5
scenic corridor.
That the proposed ZCA reflects sound principles of good planning in that the
proposed sign development and design standards will preserve the City’s aesthetic
environment, improve traffic safety and enhance project/community design and
compatibility.
PC RESO NO. 4938 -3-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 3rd day of October, 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compaq Heineman,
and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
&v
CARLSBkI PLANkNG ?:k?-&SSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4938 -4- I?
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4939
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,’ RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE MELLO II
SEGMENT LAND USE PLAN SIGNAGE POLICY 8-5 AND
ALL SIX SEGMENTS OF THE CARLSBAD LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AND ADOPT THE CITY’S
REENACTED SIGN ORDINANCE AS AN IMPLEMENTING
ORDINANCE FOR CARSLBAD’S LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM.
CASE NAME: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
CASE NO: LCPA 00-07
WHEREAS, the City is amending Chapter 21.41 of Title 21 (Zoning
Ordinance) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to comply with current constitutional case law
and to clarify the ordinance to make it user friendly; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the
City’s Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program, and
the Zoning Ordinance be in conformance and therefore amendments to the implementing
ordinance also require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program to ensure consistency
between the two documents; and
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal
Program has been filed with the Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit(s) “X9’ attached to Resolution No. 4938 and “Y”
attached hereto, dated June 6, 2001 as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and
Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations of the California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of May, 2001, on the
6th day of June 2001, on the 20th day of June 2001 and on the 3rd day of October, 2001 hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on December
28, 2000 and ending on February 9, 2001, staff shall present to the City Council
a summary of the comments received.
Cl That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT - LCPA 00-07 based on the following findings, and subject to
the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda, Redevelopment, East Batiquitos and West
Batiquitos segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that the proposed
coastal zone sign regulations in association with the other proposed sign design
standards (which require sign compatibility with building architecture and other
project signage) will promote the production of quality signage that preserves and
enhances the aesthetic environment of the coastal.
2. The proposed sign ordinance as reenacted will not impact coastal resources in that the
proposed sign standards would only apply to building signs and freestanding signs which
are located on the developable (unconstrained) area of any property within the coastal
zone. Such signage would not be approved for development within coastal wetlands, or
upon coastal slopes with gradients equal to or greater than 25% inclination with or
without native vegetation.
PC RESO NO. 4939 -2- 71
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
3.
4.
5.
6.
The proposed sign ordinance as reenacted will not damage the visual beauty of the
coastal zone in that ocean views and panoramas will not be affected by wall-
mounted signs on existing or proposed buildings.
Coastal views will not be obstructed, but will instead potentially be enhanced in that
the proposed sign standards revisions reduce the permitted height of freestanding
directory (from 14’ to 5’) and monument signs (from 8’ to 5’).
Consistent with existing coastal zone sign regulations, the revised sign code will
specifically prohibit roof signs, off-site signs and billboards throughout the City.
That the proposed amendment to the segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is
required to bring it into consistency with the proposed zone code amendment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 3rd day of October, 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H&iMIktER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4939 -3- 74
EXHIBIT “Y”
June 6.2001
LCP POLICY
This exhibit includes the proposed text amendment (strikeout/highlight format)
to the Mello II Land Use Plan Signage Policy 8-5.
MELLO II
POLICY 8-5 SIGNAGE
On premise signs should be designed as an integral part of new development. In
addition, all signs shall conform to the City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter
21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
73
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSI&i4
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
Item No. 12 0
\
Application complete date: N A
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 16,200l Project Planner: Chris DeCerbo
Project Engineer: WA
SUBJECT: ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07- COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT - A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to repeal and reenact the City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.41 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code) to comply with current case law regarding the
constitutional validity of sign ordinances and to clarify the ordinance to make it
easier for developers, business owners and residents to understand and use.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4937
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration and addendum issued by the
Planning Director and ADOPT Planning Commission .Resolutions No. 4938 and 4939
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of ZCA 00-04 and LCPA 00-07 based on the findings
contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This zone code amendment proposes some major revisions to the City’s Sign Ordinance
(Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). These new regulations will create a more
restrictive sign environment within the City. However, they are in keeping with the City’s
interest in preserving community aesthetics and traffic safety, while complying with current
constitutional case law. Such revisions include: prohibiting commercial off-site signage
(including kiosk signs) and prohibiting campaign and A-Frame signs within the public right-of-
way. Other revisions (adding sign. design standards) are recommended for the purpose of
ensuring the production of high quality signage that maintains the community’s aesthetic values.
The proposed sign ordinance amendment is in compliance with all City regulations and
implements the goals of the General Plan. There are no outstanding issues.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On December 14, 1999, the Carlsbad City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance NS-526 to
prohibit the issuance of sign permits for and/or the construction, erection, placement or
generation of large freestanding signs pending a review and study of the sign ordinance and a
report or recommendation of the Planning Department and the Planning Commission.
Concurrent with this action, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 99-535 directing staff
to: 1) revise the Sign Ordinance to comply with current case law regarding the constitutional
validity of sign ordinances; and 2) to clarify the ordinance to make it easier for developers,
business owners and residents to understand and use. To accomplish these City Council
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMFREHEXSIVE SIGN ORDI-NAYNCE AMEKDXlENT
May 16,200l
objectives, this project (ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07) entails the repeal and reenactment of the
ci ‘s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
.:-Lsociated with this project, is a recommendation to the City Council to repeal Municipal Code
Chapter 18.20, the City’s Sign Code. Chapter 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code adopts the
Uniform Sign Code (USC) and also includes the City’s s&n violation enforcement procedures.
The USC is a structural guide, which refers sign designers to the applicable sections in the
Uniform Building Code for structural sign regulations. Rather than having both a Sign Code and
a Sign Ordinance, staff is recommending to the Council that the Sign Code (Chapter 18.20) be
repealed and that the structural sign regulations and sign violation enforcement procedures of
this code be incorporated into the City’s amended Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41). This will
result in a “one-stop-shopping” municipal code section for signs, which contains: structural sign
regulations (via reference to the latest adopted versions of the building and electric code), sign
development and design standards, and sign permit and enforcement procedures.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance also functions as the implementing zoning for Carlsbad’b ,:tcal
Coastal Program (LCP). Accordingly, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is being pri.::ssed
to adopt the proposed amended zone code as part of the City’s LCP.
IV. ANALYSIS
Included below is a discussion and analysis of the specific Sign Ordinance revisions associated
with each above noted project objective. Reference can be made to Exhibit “X” to review in
detail all text revisions. Due to the extensive changes (repeal and reenactment) to the existing
sign ordinance, a re-lined/strike out version is not included in this staff report. The
recommendation for approval of this Zone Code Amendment/Local Coastal Program
Amendment was developed by analyzing its achievement of the overall City Council project
objectives and its compliance/consistency with the Carlsbad General Plan and applicable Local
Coastal Program policies.
As compared to the existing sign regulations, the new sign regulations will result in the following
changes:
A. Proiect Obiectives
1. Comply with Constitutional Case Law
The ordinance amendments that are proposed to comply with recent constitutional case law
decisions include the following:
. Purpose and Intent - All sign ordinances ~5;: .:id include a Purpose and Intent section
that clearly states the City’s interest in regula!..-.g signs (i.e., traffic safety and aesthetics)
while still providing adequate channels of communication. This existing code section
was recently amended (ZCA 99-09) in February, 2001 to accomplish this constitutional
requirement. Staff is recommending minor revisions to this code section to: (1) clarify the
City’s interest in eliminating the visual blight created by billboards, and the potential
hazards to pedestrians and motorists posed by their distracting nature, and (2)
75
ZCA OO-04LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINAWE AMENDMENT
May 16,200l
acknowledge the need for additional avenues for political expression (campaiq signs)
during governmental elections.
. Content Neutrality - Eliminate any existing content-based sign restrictions. Recent
California and Federal court decisions have determined that sign ordinances can regulate
the “time, place and manner” of signage (i.e., the time for which they may be displayed,
permitted sign location and physical attributes including size, height, dimension, and
manner of construction), but must not regulate sign content (the message), unless the
regulation serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to meet that
interest. In practice, almost all content-based regulation has been striken by the courts.
Therefore, the sign ordinance has been revised to delete all content-based sign
restrictions.
. Commercial/Non-Commercial Signage - Ensure that “non-commercial” signage (i.e.,
an ideological, political or non-commercial message) is allowed wherever commercial
signage (i.e.; advertising) is allowed. The Supreme Court has determined that any sign
ordinance that has the effect of permitting commercial speech in situations where
noncommercial speech is prohibited is unconstitutional. A provision has therefore been
added specifying that non-commercial signage is permitted wherever commercial signage
is permitted subject to the same time, place and manner limitations.
. Sign Exemptions - Eliminate the sign exemption section. The existing sign ordinance
exempts a variety of non-commercial sign types (i.e., address signs, governmental signs,
flags and memorial tablets). Some types of exemptions to a sign ordinance may diminish
the credibility of the City’s rationale for the restrictions on speech. Also, because
exemptions require City officials to examine the content of the signs to determine
whether the exemption applies, they are disfavored by the courts. Accordingly, the
ordinance has been amended to delete all sign exemptions. Rather, the ordinance either
clarifies that certain messages (i.e., officiaYlega1 notices of public agencies, holiday
decorations and building markers) are not “‘signs” as defined in the code, or that certain
types of signs do not require a sign permit. A new Table “A” that identifies “Signs Not
Requiring a Sign Permit,” has been added to the ordinance and includes the following
signs:
a. Traffic control, directional, warning or informational signs erected or required
by government agencies;
b. Address Signs;
c. Signs located in the interior of a building;
d. Residential signs;
e. Commercial window signs;
f. Single dwelling unit for-sale signs;
g. Campaign signs; and
h. Flags.
2. User Friendly Sign Ordinance
The format of the City’s existing Sign ordinance (which was adopted in 1969 and last amended in
1996) is somewhat unclear, some of the regulations are out of date, and overall, the ordinance is
ZCA OO-04iLCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMEKD~lEST
May 16,200l
in need of revision. For example, the existing ordinance includes: maximum sign 3rea
regulations by zone (i.e., 2 square feet (SF) for R-l and R-2. 20 SF for R-3 and R-D-M and 1.5
square feet of sign area per lineal foot of building frontage for all other nonresidential zones), as
well as some sign height and area standards for specific sign types by zone. The ordinance does
not however include comprehensive sign standards regarding the permitted number and location
of various sign types (i.e., wall, monument, pole and directional signs) nor their physical
attributes (i.e., maximum sign area and letter height). The ordinance is proposed for amendment
to create an easy to understand sign ordinance that includes comprehensive sign standards that
apply to all specific land uses and/or zones, as discussed below.
* Tabular Format - The ordinance has been reformatted to incorporate three (3) tables
that include detailed regulations for: A) Signs Not Requiring a Sign Permit (discussed
above), B) Permanent Signs Requiring a Sign Permit, and C) Temporary Si_gns Requiring
a Sign Permit. These tables indicate by specific land use or zone, the type and number of
signs that are permitted and the maximum sign area, sign height, letter height and
permitted location for each sign type. The tabular format will be considerably more user-
friendly than the existing predominant text format.
9 Sign Design Standards - A new Sign Design Standards section has been added to the
ordinance. This section addresses:
A. Sign Colors - A maximum of 3 colors in addition to black or white
per sign are permitted and the colors must be harmomous with
building/project colors;
B. Materials and relationship to on-site buildings and other project
signs - Signs are required to be constructed of durable materials
(no plastic faced signs except for individually mounted channel
letters) which are compatible (regarding materials, color, copy
style, method of support and illumination) with building facades
and other project signs;
C. Illumination - Requires that: 1) signs be externally illuminated
(except for individually-mounted channel letters and opaque
background signs, c\vhich give the appearance of individual channel
letters); 2) sign illumination be adequately buffered from adjacent
properties; and 3) prohibits exposed neon lighting for signs;
D. Logos and graphics - May comprise up to 25% of the permitted
sign area if the logo is harmonious in scale, colors and materials
with the building;
E. Landscaping - Requires a minimum landscaped area (4 SF/l SF of
sign area) around the base of pole and monument signs; and
F. Relationship to streets - Requires all signs to be designed and
located so as not to impair sight distance or interfere with a clear
view of the right-of-way.
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
May 16,2001
Page 5
These new design standards will promote the production of high quality, compatible
signage that forms a strong connection to the building architecture and other project
signage and improves traffic safety.
n Definition Additions/Revisions - A number of sign related definitions have been
added/revised to clarify the sign ordinance and make it easier to understand.
The following sign types and terms are distinguished in the proposed sign ordinance, and
therefore require definition.
Sign definition additions include: “Abandoned Sign”, “Abate”, “Address Sign”,
Attraction Board”, “Banner”, “Beacon”, “Bench Sign”, “Billboard”, “Building Marker”,
“Changeable Copy Sign”, “Channel Lettered Sign”, “Commercial Center”, “Construction
Sign”, “Defamatory Sign”, “Directory Sign”, “Eaveline”, “Electronic Message Board
Sign”, “ Externally Illuminated”, “Flag”, “ Freestanding Commercial Building”, “Freeway
Service Station”, “Internally Illuminated”, “Logo”, “Multi-Face Sign”, “Multi-Tenant
Building”, “Neon Sign”, “Nonconforming Sign”, “Obscene Sign”, “Off-site Sign”,
“Pennant”, “Permanent Sign”, “Portable Sign”, “Prohibited Sign”, “Regional
Commercial Center”, “Right-of-Way”, “Roof Sign”, “Sign Permit”, “Sign Program”,
“Site Development Plan”, “Specific Plan”, “Temporary Seasonal Sales Permit”,
“Temporary Sign”, “Unsafe Sign”, and “Window Sign”.
Sign definition revisions include: “Animated Sign”, “Awning Sign”, “Building Frontage”
and “Freestanding Sign”. All of the definition revisions are proposed for the purpose of
clarifying the terms and none include substantive changes.
. General Sign Standards - A new General Sign Standards section is proposed. This
section addresses:
a. The methodology for Calculating Sign Area and Measuring Sign Height (the
methodology for calculating sign area and measuring sign height is not proposed for
revision);
b. The prohibition of off-site commercial sigxiige; and
c. The prohibition of signs (including kiosk and campaign) in the public right-of-way,
. Off-Site Signs/Signs in the Public Right-of-Way - The new sign prohibition provisions
of the ordinance clarify that all commercial signage must be located on-site. The revised
sign ordinance will therefore no longer allow off-site real-estate signs, or temporary
community directional (kiosk) signs. One of the primary objectives of this sign ordinance
amendment is to prohibit commercial off-site signs, and particularly billboards, based
upon the City’s interest in preserving community aesthetics and in avoiding traffic safety
hazards. Off-site signage, and particularly signage within the public right-of-way, is
intended to divert a driver’s attention from the roadway. In that the proposed off-site
signage prohibition directly advances the City’s interest in traffic safety, it is also
recommended that even non-commercial signs, such as campaign signs, be prohibited in
the public right-of-way.
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE &IEr\DhlENT
May 16,200l
Page 6
The only exceptions to this prohibition include: traffic control. safety and emergent!’
warning signs that are erected on behalf of a governmental agency within the public
right-of-way.
Kiosk Signs - The City’s temporary community directional (kiosk) sign program sunset
as of January 1, 1997. Accordingly, staff recommends that the program not be continued
and that all City kiosk signs be abated within 1 year from the effective date of this
ordinance amendment.
n Campaign Signs - The existing sign ordinance allows temporary campaign signs to be
located within the public right-of-way as well as on private property with the approval of
a sign permit. The revised sign ordinance prohibits temporary campaign signs within the
public right-of-way, but will allow them on private property (with the permission of the
property owner) without the requirement to process a sign permit.
n A-Frame Signs - The existing sign ordinance permits A-Frame directory signs (a single
sign for a group of businesses) to be located anywhere in the City upon private property
within a pedestrian courtyard, arcade or mall. The Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Master Plan permits A-Frame signs (for individual businesses) to be located in the public
right-of-way within the Village Redevelopment Area. The revised sign ordinance will
prohibit all types of A-Frame signs throughout the City. Accordingly, the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan will be subsequently amended to be consistent with this
citywide A-Frame signage prohibition.
. Prohibited Signs - The list of prohibited signs has been amended to add the following
signs: Abandoned Signs, A-Frame Signs, Balloons, Beacons, Billboards, Bus Stop
Bench/Shelter Signs, Defamatory Signs, Electronic Message Board Signs, Handheld
commercial signs on public property, Portable Signs, Roof Signs, Vehicle Signs (except
for 2 signs of up to 10” x 12”) and Unsafe Signs.
A review of numerous sign ordinances of other California coastal cities concludes that
such sign types are consistently prohibited. In fact, most of these signs are currently
prohibited within the City, although the sign ordinance doesn’t clearly state this.
Therefore, this amendment will clarify these sign prohibitions.
. Bus Stop Bench/Shelter Signs - Under the existing sign ordinance, bench advertising
(within the public right-of-way) may be conditionally allowed by the Planning
Commission/City Council. However, the proposed prohibition of all signs from the
public right-of-way (see discussion above) precludes the City from allowing bus stop
bench/shelter signs.
. Exposed Neon Signs - The existing ordinance prohibits “lighted signs, which by reason
of brilliance, reflected light or otherwise, are injurious to the health, safety or welfare of
the surrounding neighborhood.” Through this existing prohibition, the city has
historically denied requests to construct exposed neon lighting (on primarily non-
residential buildings) based upon its attention getting characteristic. The sign ordinance is
therefore proposed for amendment to clarify that “exposed neon lighting for signs” is not
19
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMEKDMENT
May 16,200l
Page 7
permitted. Internal neon lighting is however permitted for lighting individual mounted
channel letter signs or opaque background signs.
m Applicability - The existing sign ordinance (and the proposed ordinance) specify that the
provisions of the ordinance apply generally to all zones within the City. except for
properties and uses in the Village Redevelopment (VR) Zone, for which signs are
regulated by the Village Master Plan.
This section has been revised to specify that, in those areas of the City where there are
Specific Plan or other special sign standards adopted by ordinance as special zoning
regulations (i.e.; Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone), those special regulations
shall apply. However, staff is recommending that the sign standards of the amended Sign
Ordinance supersede all existing sign programs (not adopted by ordinance) that were
approved prior to the effective date of this amended ordinance. All of these sign
programs are nonconforming, and will be required to be amended to conform with all
revised development and design standards of the ordinance prior to the issuance of any
future sign permits within the specific sign program area.
. Application and Permit Procedures - A new Application and Permit Procedure section
.has been added. The existing sign ordinance does not include an application and permit
procedures section. Nor does the existing sign ordinance specify that a sign permit is
required or when a .sign permit is required. Currently, sign application permits are
processed through the Planning Department and are reviewed and approved by the
Planning Director.
. This new section: 1) clarifies that a sign permit is required to erect, display, use,
construct, move, alter, reface, change, change sign copy, place, suspend or attach any of
permanent and temporary signs within the City (a sign permit is not required for cleaning
or maintaining an existing sign, unless a structural change is made); 2) establishes
application submittal requirements and that a permit processing fee will be charged; and
3) identifies the procedure for permit review (i.e., the permit is reviewed by the
Community Development Director or his designee and approved within 30 days if
required findings can be made). The findings include required conformance with: the
purpose and intent provisions of the ordinance (traffic safety and aesthetics) and the sign
development, design and building code standards.
Staff recommends that the decision-making authority for sign permits be revised from the
Planning Director to the Community Development Director based upon the concurrent
proposal to incorporate the structural (building code) sign regulations and sign violation
enforcement procedures (formerly in Chapter 18.20) into the Sign Ordinance. The
Community Development Director may however delegate this responsibility.
. Sign Programs - A new Sign Program section has been added. This section explains the
purpose of a sign program and when one is required, establishes sign permit application
and fee requirements, method of review, and required findings for approval. A sign
program is a coordinated plan that integrates signs with buildings, site and landscaping
design to form a unified. architectural statement. A sign program also functions as a
master record of permitted and actual signage on a property. This information provides
ZCA OO-04,‘LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMEA-DMEST
May 16,200l
the city a significant benefit in administering signs for a property. A sign p ‘gram shall
be required for: 1) Master Plan,-. 2) Specific P&X; 3) non-residential proj.. ,-equiring a
Site Development Plan; and 4) ‘,lan.ned Industrial or Office parks of greaw . ..an 25 acres
in area. A Sign Program is however not intended to allow for the development of project
signage that does not comply with the sign standards of the Sign Ordinance.
n Revised Sign Standards - As a part of this comprehensive sign ordinance amendment,
staff is recommending a number of revisions to specific sign standards (i.e.. permitted
number, size, height, and location of sign types by use). The proposed revisions are
recommended to achieve a good balance between providing residents and businesses an
adequate opportunity to communicate while maintaining the Ci:. -s aesthetic
environment, and are based upon a detailed review of updated sign ordir,. :LJS of other
similar California coastal communities. Attachment “A,” dated May 2, 2i includes a
comparison of the existing sign standards by zone or use with the proposed sign
standards.
To summarize, the new sign regulations will result in the following changes:
Real Estate Signs
n Reduce ResidentiaI/Non Residential Subdivision Real Estate Sign area from 100 SF/sign
to 50 SF/sign for Commercial, Office and Industrial Properties and Residential Projects
of more than 10 units.
An inventory of existing subdivision signs within the City reveals that most do not
exceed 50 SF in area. Reducing the permitted sign area reduces potential aesthetic
impacts associated with large 100 SF signs while providing adequate sign area (50 SF) to
advertise the sale, lease or rental of a building, suite or site on which it is placed.
Project Construction Signs
m Add a new standard that allows one (1) Project Construction Sign for Residential and
Non-residential Projects of greater than one (1) dwelling unit. These signs, which
typically include the name of the construction project and the names of project
contractors, engineers or architects, are commonly allowed in other jurisdictions. Such
signs shall be removed prior to the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City.
Campaign Signs
l Limits the maximum number of Temporary Campaign Signs permitted to one (1) per lot
rather than solely regulating cumulative sign area. Limiting campaign signs to one (1) per
lot will mitigate the potential aesthetic impacts of an over-concentration of such signs,
especially in residential neighborhoods.
l Increases the permitted time period for erection from 30 days to 45 days preceding an
election. This increased time period is consistent with recent court decisions regarding
adequate time periods for allowing campaign signs.
Flags
n The existing code allows a “company flag” (24 SF) for a single tenant lot or non-retail
building located in the M, C-M or P-M zone. This company flag provision was added to
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMEhDMENT
May 16,200l
Page 9
the City’s sign ordinance in 1996 at the request of representatives of the larger corporate
industries and businesses that were located within, or proposing to locate in Carlsbad.
The ordinance otherwise allows, without restriction, “flags that are used as a symbol of a
nation, state, city, school, religious group or agency” to be located anywhere in the city.
As previously discussed, the courts have ruled that sign regulations must be content
neutral. Accordingly, the sign ordinance has been amended to define ‘*flag” as a device,
“usuallv used as a symbol of a government, political subdivision or other public agency”.
By amending the definition of a “flag” so that it no longer regulates the permitted
message (or content) on a flag, (i.e., that it be a company flag or a symbol of a nation,
state, city, school, religious group or agency) the ordinance comports with constitutional
case law.
This proposed definition revision, in association with a new standard (that allows for up
to two 24 square foot flags for every non-residential building or occupied dwelling unit
without a sign permit), will continue to allow company flags and government/political
flags in addition to other types of flags (i.e., decorative flags) irrespective of message
content.
Pole Signs at Freeway Service Facilities
m The ordinance is proposed for amendment to delete the term “Freeway Service Facility”
and replace it with the term “Freeway Service Station”. A “Freeway Service Facility” is
defined as a restaurant, motel or service station that is located contiguous to a freeway
interchange. The existing sign ordinance allows a freestanding (pole) sign (up to 35 ‘ tall
and between 150 and 250 SF in area) for “Freeway Service Facilities”. In comparison, a
“Freeway Service Station” is defined as a gas/service station that is located contiguous to
a freeway interchange.
This proposed revision would result in a reduction in the number of tall pole signs along
the I-5 scenic corridor in that pole signs would only be permitted for freeway service
stations (and no longer restaurants and motels). This staff recommendation acknowledges
that freeway travelers have a need (based upon health and safety considerations) to locate
service stations and therefore tall pole signs, which are readily visible from freeways, can
be justified. However, restaurants and motels do not provide a service that necessarily
requires immediate fi-eeway visibility.
Pole Signs
m Reduces Pole Sign area for Freeway Service Stations from 150-250 SF to 50 SF. An
inventory of existing fkeeway service station pole signs within the City reveals that none
of the existing pole signs exceed 50 SF in area. Reducing the permitted sign area per pole
sign to 50 SF provides service stations adequate sign area to identify their business to
freeway travelers while reducing potential aesthetic impacts (especially along the City’s
freeway scenic corridor) associated with allowing larger freestanding pole signs.
n Adds a maximum sign area (150 SF) for Pole Signs at Regional Commercial Centers.
There. are two Regional Commercial Centers located within the City including: Plaza
Camino Real and Car Country. This maximum pole sign area standard would permit the
ZCA OO-04LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMEKDXJEST
May 16,200l
existing pole signs at Plaza Camino Real and Car Country.
Single Dwelling Units
m Increases permitted sign area for single dwelling units from a maximum area of 2 SF to
two (2) signs at 3 SF/sign. This modification will allow for the location of accessory
signs (i.e., “no trespassing”, “garage sale”, “beware of dog” and other similar’
informational messages) that are typically associated with residences without a si_3
permit.
Residential Projects (Single Family, Condominium, Apartment and Mobile homes)
m The existing sign ordinance allows community identity signage (i.e., community identity,
entrance/exit and directional signs) for residential projects of any size that are located in a
Master Plan, Specific Plan or Planned Unit Development. The total permitted community
identity sign area is 100 SF + 3 SF/acre. The maximum permitted sign area per sign is
150 SF and 15’ tall.
The proposed ordinance revision will allow residential projects (i.e., subdivisions,
condominiums, apartments and mobile homes) of more than 9 dwelling units to have a
freestanding project entry sign (between 15-35 SF in area depending on number of units)
and one (1) directory sign/building or project entrance at 6 SF/sign. This revision will
enable all residential projects of 10 or more dwelling units (including projects which
aren’t located within a Master/Specific plan or processed as a Planned Unit development)
to have community identity/directional signs. Reducing the permitted project entry sign
area from 150 SF to 15-35 SF will result in residential project entry signage that is more
compatible (in scale) with residential communities. The directory signs will help to
facilitate vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the project.
Offce/Industrial~Us&
n The City’s existing sign moratorium (12/14/99) established a maximum 35 SF sign area
for freestanding signage throughout the City pending the adoption of a Comprehensive
Sign Ordinance Amendment. Consistent with this sign area regulation, the Planning
Commission and City Council adopted this standard as part of ZCA 99-09 (Sign
Ordinance Amendment for the City’s Office/Industrial zones) and directed staff to
consider amending this standard when the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Amendment is
processed. Accordingly, staff is recommending that the maximum permitted monument
sign area for office/industrial uses be increased from 35 SF/sign to 50 SF/sign.
Grand~Openings/Special Events/Temporary Seasonal Sales
n The sign ordinance currently allows pennants, banners, streamers, whirligigs or similar
attention getting devices for the grand opening of a commercial use or for events of a
civic, political or recreational nature for a maximum period of 30 days upon the approval
of the City Manager.
With regard to the these temporary events, the code has been revised to allow the
following temporary signs subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director:
For Commercial, Office and Industrial businesses, one (1) grand opening banner
83
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
May 16,200l
Page 11
or freestanding sign/street frontage at 30 SF/banner.
Within Commercial, Office and Industrial zones, one (1) banner or freestanding
sign/street frontage at 30 SF/banner for temporary seasonal sales for a maximum
of 45 days.
For Public Parks, one (1) banner or freestanding sign/street frontage at 30
SF/banner, for special or civic events for a maximum of 45 days.
Other Sign Standards
As previously discussed, the existing sign ordinance generally regulates the maximum
sign area permitted on a lot by the zone of the property. Rather than just limiting the total
permitted sign area allowed per lot (by zone), the new ordinance will include new
detailed sign regulations for hotels/motels, commercial centers, freestanding commercial
buildings, service stations, professional care facilities and theatres that address the
specific number, size (area and height) and permitted location of the various types of
signage as identified below.
Hotels/Motels
. Revises total permitted signage from 100 SF to one (1) monument sign/street frontage at
30 SF/sign, two (2) wall signs at .5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage and three (3)
directional signs/driveway entrance at 6 SF/sign.
Commercial Centers
. Revises total permitted signage from 1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage to one (1)
monument sign/street frontage at 50 SF/sign, one (1) wall sign/business at .5 SF/lineal
foot of business frontage, one (1) suspended sign/business at 5 SF and three (3)
directional signs/driveway entrance at 6 SF/sign.
Freestanding Commercial Building
l Revises total permitted signage from 1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage to one (1)
monument sign/street frontage at 50 SF/sign, two (2) wall signs/building at .5 SF/lineal
foot of building frontage and 3 directional signs/driveway entrance at 6 SF/sign.
Service Stations
. Revises total permitted signage from 1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage plus either
one (1) monument sign at 48 SF or one (1) monument/pole sign (12-16 SF)/street
frontage to two (2) monument signs/site at 35 SF/sign, two (2) canopy signs/site at 20
SF/sign and one (1) sign/fuel pump at 2.5 SF/sign.
Theatres
9 Revises total permitted signage f?om 1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage plus one (I)
marquee sign at 160 SF to 1 pole/marquee sign (loo-160 SF), one (1) wall sign/street
frontage at .5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage and one (1) coming attraction
poster/screen at 6 SF/poster.
New Regulations
. The revised ordinance also includes new detailed sign standards for resort hotels, public
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
May 16,200l
parks, produce/flower stands, nursery/greenhouse/packing sheds and government, school
and church uses.
Other major sign standards revisions include the following:
l Coastal Zone - The sign ordinance no longer makes a distinction between signage
permitted within the Coastal Zone and all other zones of the City.
m Sign Construction and Maintenance - A new Sign Construction and Maintenance
section has been added. This section paraphrases the City’s Sign Code and requires: 1)
that all signs be constructed in compliance with all applicable building and electric codes
and 2) that all signs be maintained in good repair.
. Removal of Signs - A new section has been added regarding the procedures for the
removal of prohibited signs. A prohibited sign is defined as any sign that is specifically
not permitted by the sign ordinance and which was erected (illegally) without complying
with the regulations of the sign ordinance that were in effect at the time of its
construction. As previously discussed, the sign ordinance contains a list of prohibited
signs that includes such signs types as A Frame, Abandoned, Balloons, Billboards,
Defamatory, Obscene and Unsafe Signs.
This new code section includes the same enforcement procedures that exist within the
City’s Sign Code (Chapter 18.20). Specifically, any unsafe sign or illegal sign placed in
the public right-of-way may be removed without prior notification to the owner or
person responsible for the sign.
The cost for sign removal may be billed to the sign owner. The owner of such prohibited
sign may request a hearing before the Community Development Director to discuss the
accuracy of the amount billed and/or whether the sign was either unsafe and/or located
upon public property in violation of the sign ordinance.
For all other prohibited signs, the abatement process requires written notification by
certified or registered mail to the owner of the prohibited sign to remove or repair such
sign. Any person so notified may request a hearing before the Community Development
Director to discuss whether the sign was erected or maintained in violation of the sign
ordinance. After the hearing the Community Development Director may affirm, modify
or revoke the order to remove or repair.
If the sign is not removed or repaired within a specified number of days from the notice
to remove/repair or hearing date (whichever is later), then it may be removed or altered
in conformance with the sign ordinance by authorization of the Community
Development Director, and the costs for removal/repair billed to the owner. Any person
billed may request a hearing regarding the amount billed.
. Appeals’- A new section has been added to address the procedures for appealing to the
Planning Commission any decision of the Community Development Director to remove a
sign or deny or revoke a sign permit.
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMEhDMEKT
May 16,200l
m Non-Conforming Signs - The existing provisions regarding Non-Conforming Signs are
proposed for revision.
A non-conforming sign is defined as any sign that was legally established in conformance
with all sign regulations which were in effect at the time of original installation but which
does not conform to the existing sign regulations. All of the existing non-conforming
signs within the City today are located on private property.
The existing sign ordinance allows non-conforming signs to remain in existence for a
period of time (between 4.5 and 8.5 years depending on the number of years that the sign
has been in existence) fi-om the effective date of the ordinance creating the non-
conformity. This sign amortization schedule was established to enable the owner of a
non-conforming sign to recoup the value of the sign prior to removal. The signs are
required to be removed upon the expiration of the amortization period.
Historically, the City has not proactively abated non-conforming signs. Such an effort
would necessitate a significant commitment of staff resources to identify all non-
conforming signs within the City and inventory each sign relative to the date that each
sign became non-conforming. As a consequence, the City has not abated non-
conforming signs based upon the existing code’s amortization schedule. Instead, most of
the existing non-conforming signs within the City are abated or brought into conformance
with the existing sign regulations when an applicant either proposes a change of use on
the subject property or a modification to the non-conforming sign. Accordingly, this
section of code is proposed for amendment to delete the sign amortization provisions,
Consistent with existing practice, non-conforming signs will be required to be brought
into conformance with the existing sign regulations upon the submittal of a sign permit
application to modify a non-conforming sign or to propose a change of use upon a
property which has a non-conforming sign.
B. General Plan
The General Plan Land Use, and Circulation Elements include a number of community design,
and safety goals, objectives and policies, which are listed below.
1. Land Use Element Policy C.7 (Overall Land Use Pattern) - “Evaluate each
application for development of property with regard to -the following specific
criteria:
A. Site design quality, which may be indicated by the harmony of the proposed
buildings in terms of size, height, and location, with respect to existing
neighboring development.
B. Site design quality, which may be indicated by the arrangement of the site for
efficiency of circulation, or onsite and offsite traffic safety, privacy, etc.”
2. Land Use Element Policy C.6 (Industrial) - “l&sure that the physical
dkvelopment of industrial areas recognizes the need for compatibility among the
industrial establishments involved . . .”
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMEST
May 16,200l
3. Land Use Element Policy C. 10 (Industrial) - “Require new industrial de\*elopment
to be located in modem, attractive, well-designed and landscaped industrial parks
in which each site provides for internal traffic, parking, loading. storage and other
operational needs.”
4. Land Use Element Commercial Objective B.3 - “To establish and maintain
commercial development standards to address landscaping, parking, signs and
site, and building design, to ensure that all existing and future commercial
developments are compatible with surrounding land uses.”
5. Circulation Element Objective B.2 (Streets and Traffic Control) - “To design
streets for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services within
and through the City in the most environmentally sound and aesthetically pleasing
manner possible.”
This proposed Comprehensive Sign Ordinance amendment is consistent with the applicable
goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that the proposed sign development and
design standards will: (1) Preserve the City’s aesthetic environment, improve traffic safety and
enhance project/community design and compatibility. Specifically, the revis:;! standards will:
. Prohibit off-site commercial signage (real estate) and signage within the public
right-of-way (billboards, kiosk, campaign and A-Frame signs) to improve
streetscape aesthetics and traffic safety;
. Add new sign design standards (i.e., sign color, materials, illumination and
landscaping) to promote the production of high quality, compatible signage
that forms a strong connection to the building architecture and other project
signage;
. Require comprehensive sign programs for major projects for the purpose of
integrating signs with buildings, site and landscaping design to form a unified
architectural statement;
. Revise sign standards (i.e., dimension, number and location) to achieve a good
balance between providing residents and businesses an adequate opportunity to
communicate whle maintaining the City’s aesthetic environment; and
. Reduce the number and permitted sign area of tall pole signs along the I-5
scenic corridor to improve scenic conidor aesthetics.
C. Local Coastal Program
Currently, the City’s Sign Ordinance constitutes the implementing signage regulations for the
Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP). Specifically, Subsection _’ - .41.070(11) of the existing
Sign Ordinance includes specific sign restrictions for proper-t.: within the coastal zone,
excluding the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Village Redevelopmi:::: segments. Accordingly, a
Local Coastal Program Amendment is being processed to ens;lre consistency between the
proposed amended zone code and the City’s LCP. The LCP amendment will add the amended
version of the Sign Ordinance to the implementation portion of all of the City’s LCP segments in
addition to amending Land Use Plan text (Policy 8-5 Signage) of the Mello II segment of the
Carlsbad LCP. This will accomplish the required consistency between the City’s Zoning
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
May 16,200l
Page 15
Ordinance and its LCP.
As discussed below, because the proposed sign ordinance revisions will not adversely impact
coastal resources, obstruct coastal views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal
zone, this proposed Sign Ordinance amendment is consistent with the applicable coastal policies
of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program.
Coastal resources will not be impacted in that the proposed sign standards would only apply to
building signs and freestanding signs which are located on the developable (unconstrained) area
of any property within the coastal zone. Such signage would not be approved for development
within coastal wetlands, or upon coastal slopes with gradients equal to or greater than 25%
inclination with or without native vegetation.
These proposed coastal zone allowable signage and proposed sign design standards will promote
the production of quality signage that preserves and enhances the aesthetic environment of the
coastal zone since the proposed revisions add sign development and design standards that require
sign compatibility with building architecture and other project signage.
As compared to the existing coastal zone sign regulations, the new sign regulations will result in
the following changes:
Faqade Signs
. The existing coastal zone regulations allow each “business” (i.e., commercial, office, or
industrial) to have one (1) facade sign (1.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage/sign). The
proposed modifications would allow: (1) office/industrial uses to have one (1) to three
(3) wall signs per building (depending on building area) plus individual tenant
identification wall, signs (5 SF/sign) for multi-tenant industrial/office buildings where
each tenant has a separate external building entrance; (2) commercial centers to have one
(1) wall sign/business (.5 SF/lineal foot of building frontage/sign); and, (3) freestanding
commercial buildings to have two (2) wall signs (total signage .5 SF/lineal foot of
building frontage). Compared to the existing wall sign standard, these proposed sign
revisions will potentially increase the number of facade signs while reducing the sign
area/sign for commercial/office/industrial businesses that are located within the coastal
zone. The visual beauty of the coastal zone will not be impacted in that ocean views and
panoramas will not be affected by wall-mounted signs on existing or proposed buildings.
Directory/Monument Signs
H The existing coastal zone sign regulations allow each “shopping complex” to have one
(1) directory sign not to exceed 14’ in height and, for parcels with three (3) or fewer
commercial establishments to have one (1) monument sign, not to exceed 8’ in height.
The proposed modifications would reduce the maximum permitted height of a
commercial directoryknonument sign to 5’ in height. Coastal views will not be
obstructed, but will instead potentially be enhanced in that the proposed sign standards
revisions reduce the permitted height of freestanding directory (from 14’ to 5’) and
monument signs (from 8’ to 5’).
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
May 16,200l
Prohibited Signs - Tall Freestanding, Roof, Off-Sit? and Billboards
n The existing coastal zone sign regulations prohib: .Jl frees:;nding signs. roof signs, off-
site signs and billboards within the coastal zone. _ ile revised sign code \vill specificall\
prohibit roof signs, off-site commercial signs and billboards throughout !::e City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this Zone Code Amendment/Local Coastal Program
Amendment (ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07) to the City’s Sign ‘Ordinance and Sign Code (Carlsbad
Municipal Code, Chapters 21.41 and 18.20 respectively), will not have a significant impact on
the environment and therefore issued a Negative Declaration on December 27, 2000. The
environmental analysis (EL4 Part II) concluded that this ZCWLCPA will not result in any
physical, biological or human environmental impacts and the amended sig:- development and
design standards are comparable to the existing standards with respect to environmental
protection. Therefore, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated to occur. Future sign
permits processed pursuant to this amended Sign Ordinance are statutorily exempt from
environmental review (CEQA Section 15268). There were no letters of comment received during
the public review period for this Negative Declaration An addendum to the Negative
Declaration has been prepared to indicate that the proposed project will also include the repeal of
the City’s Sign Code (Chapter 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. ’ Planning Commission Resolution No. 4937 (Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4938 (ZCA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4939 (LCPA)
4. Attachment “A”, dated May 16. 2001
CD:cs
a9
The City of Carl&ad PIamhg Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0 3
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: October 3,200l Project Planner: Chris DeCerbo
Project Engineer: NM
SUBJECT: ZCA OO-04iLCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT - A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment, if necessary, to repeal and reenact the City’s Sign Ordinance
(Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to legally update the sign
ordinance and to clarify the ordinance to make it easier for developers, business
owners and residents to understand and use.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4937
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration and addendum issued by the
Planning Director and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4938 and 4939
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of ZCA 00-04 and LCPA 00-07 based on the findings
contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This staff report discusses the revisions to the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Amendment
(CSOA) to implement the Citizen’s Committee recommendations and City Council policy
direction. Staff is also proposing some minor technical revisions to the ordinance. The Revised
CSOA (RCSOA) is in compliance with all City regulations and implements the goals of the
General Plan.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On June 6, June 13 and June 20,2001, the CSOA was before the Planning Commission. At the
conclusion of the June 20, 2001 public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously
continued the matter to a date uncertain, and adopted a minute motion requesting that the City
Council direct that public workshops be conducted to provide additional public input on the
proposed CSOA (ZCA OO-04ILCPA 00-07).
On July 10, 2001, the City Council discussed the Planning Commission’s minute motion and
unanimously determined that the general public should be provided additional opportunity to
comment on the proposed CSOA at meetings to be conducted by a citizen’s committee.
On July 24, 2001, the City Council: 1) appointed a fifteen-member citizen’s committee to study
the proposed CSOA, and report its recommendations to the City Council for appropriate
revisions; and, 2) authorized the City Attorney to retain the services of an attorney (Randal R.
Morrison) specializing in the constitutionality of municipal sign regulations.
ZCA OO-04KCPA 00-07 - L’OMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCc AMENDMENT
October 3,200l
The Citizen’s Committee convened its first meeting on July 30, 2001 and met one day per week
over the following 4 weeks (concluding on August 27, 2001). The Citizen’s Committee: 1)
reviewed the City’s existing Sign Ordinance, the proposed CSOA (which includes those
revisions made as a result of public input at Planning Commission), major reference materials
used to prepare the CSOA and staff report and minutes of Planning Commission deliberations; 2)
City staff provided a detailed overview of the proposed CSOA and the legal and technical
reasons for the revisions; 3) consultant legal counsel (Randal R. Morrison) explained the
constitutional freedom of speech issues associated with sign ordinance regulation and provided
specific legal advice on identified sign ordinance issue areas; 4) the public was provided an
opportunity for input on the CSOA at every meeting; 5) the major sign ordinance issue areas
were clearly identified, and vigorously discussed; and, 6) the Citizen’s Committee proposed
recommendations regarding each of the identified eight (8) key issues areas including:
1. Retain the City’s Kiosk Sign Program and continue to allow them in the public right-
of-way;
2. Continue to allow A-Frame Signs (in the Village Redevelopment area) in the public
right-of-way;
3. Allow Special Event Signs to be located off-site and in the public right-of-way;
4. Allow Political Campaign Signs on private property according to the original staff
recommendation (8 SF/Residence and 16 SF/Non-Residential lot);
5. Continue to allow Political Campaign Signs in the public right-of-way;
6. Allow Wall Sign Area for Commercial Uses according to the original staff
recommendation (1 SF/lineal foot of building frontage);
7. Prohibit real estate signs in the public right-of-way according to the original staff
recommendation; and
8. Allow City-installed lamppost banners with non-commercial messages (in the Village
Redevelopment area) in the public right-of-way.
On September 18, 2001 the City Council accepted the Citizen’s Committee report and
recommendations and directed staff to make revisions to the CSOA and return to the Planning
Commission. Consistent with this direction, special legal counsel revised the CSOA (rather than
the City’s existing sign ordinance) to implement the Citizen’s Committee recommendations.
Staff is also proposing some minor technical revisions to the ordinance.
In retrospect, it is noted that after a thorough review of the CSOA by the Citizen’s Committee,
only 8 issue areas were identified. Of these 8 issue areas, the Citizen’s Committee concurred
with 3 of staffs original recommendations; the remaining 5 issue areas all deal with signs in the
public-right-of way.
To recall, the original staff recommendation was to “prohibit commercial signs (i.e., kiosk and
A-Frame) and non-commercial signs (campaign signs) in the public right-of-way”. Although the
staff recommendation is clearly more restrictive than the City’s existing sign regulations, it was
based upon an over-riding City objective of achieving a sign ordinance that minimized legal risk
to the greatest extent possible.
The original staff recommendation regarding the prohibition of commercial and non-commercial
signage in the public right-of-way is in fact consistent with the government acting as a
“regulator” of signage on public property. 91
ZCA OO-04LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCc AMENDMENT
October 3,200l
However, new information brought to light by the City’s legal consultant, indicates that under the
public forum doctrine, courts give governments more latitude when they are acting as a
“manager” or proprietor of public property (i.e., the public right-of-way) than when acting as a
regulator of private property (See Attachment “A” for details).
In laymen’s terms, the public forum doctrine allows governments to set special access rules for
use of public property for commercial or non-commercial messages (signs). Drafting a sign
ordinance wherein this distinction is clarified, and other specific provisions are incorporated (i.e.,
required property owner’s consent to post a sign and redefining the term “on-site”) can enable the
City to permit commercial/noncommercial signs within the public right-of-way at specified times
and places, while keeping legal risks modest. As discussed below, a new City Council policy
establishing these rules is proposed. For this reason, the Citizen’s Committee is recommending to
permit signs in the public right-of-way, provided that language is added to the sign ordinance to
minimize legal risks to the City associated with allowing these signs. Otherwise, the Citizen’s
Committee generally concurs with the balance of the proposed Sign Ordinance revisions as
originally recommended by staff.
The Revised CSOA (RCSOA) is attached as Exhibit “X” to Resolution No. 4938. A bold-
redline/strikeout copy is also attached as Attachment 6, and includes: 1) that version of the
Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Amendment that was last before the Planning Commission on
June 20,2001,2) revisions (in (redlined) bold font and underlined) to implement the Citizen’s
Committee recommendations and 3) staffs minor technical revisions.
The revisions to implement the citizen’s committee recommendations include the following:
1. Supplement the Purpose and Intent section (21.41.005) to further clarify the City’s
compelling interests (i.e.; pedestrian/traffic safety and aesthetics) for sign regulation. This
will aid a reviewing court.
2. Add/revise sign related definitions to clarify the terms used in the ordinance, thereby
hopefully making it easier to understand. Sign definition additions include: “Bus Stop
Sign”, “Chalkboard”, “Cornerstone”, “City Property”, “Establishment”, “General
Advertising”, “Hand Held Sign”, “Marker Board”, “Mobile Billboard”, “On-Site Sign”,
“Person”, “Property Owner”, “Premises”, “Projecting Sign”, “Public Property”,
“Shopping Complex “, “Tall Freestanding Sign”, and “Vehicle Sign”.
The definition of “sign” has been revised to more thoroughly identify things (i.e.; tattoos,
apparel, religious symbols, warning signs, vehicle for-sale signs, banners towed by
aircraft, license plates and bumper stickers) that are not considered signs for regulatory
purposes.
The rules for calculating “Sign Area” and “Sign Height” have been moved from the
Definitions section to the General Provisions section of the ordinance.
3. A new Section 21.41.025 (General Provisions) has been added.
establishes the following:
This new section
. Owner’s Consent Required - Requires the consent of the lega .1 owner of a parcel
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCti AMENDMENT
October 3,200l
on which a sign is to be displayed prior to the display of such sign. In the case of
property that is owned by the City, including the public right-of-way, owner’s
consent shall be pursuant to a proposed new draft City Council Policy, “Signs on
Public Property” (see Attachment “B”). This new policy establishes the special
access rules required under the public forum doctrine for the display of signs on
public property. Such rules specify whether the public forum is for commercial
and/or noncommercial signs, and the time, place and manner for location of such
signs in this public forum. As proposed, this new policy will enable the location of
off-site noncommercial Special Events signs, subdivision kiosk signs, campaign
signs, and A-Frame signs (in the Village Redevelopment Area) in the public right-
of-way.
n Substitution of Noncommercial Messages - Clarifies that “a non-commercial
message of any type may be substituted for all or part of the commercial or non-
commercial message on any sign allowed pursuant to the Sign Ordinance. In other
words, the owner of any permitted commercial or noncommercial sign may
substitute a noncommercial message on that sign. Such substitution would not
require an additional sign permit from the City. This provision is intended to
legalize political and other noncommercial speech at all times and at any place
where any kind of sign is allowed, subject to the owner’s consent. . Location of Noncommercial Speech - Specifies that all non-commercial speech
messages shall be deemed to be “on-site”, regardless of location. This provision
should aid a reviewing court.
n Lena1 Nature of Sinnane Rights and Duties - Specifies that all signage rights and
duties regarding permanent signs attach to land or personal property on which the
sign is displayed and run with the land or personal property. . Transfer of Signage Rights - Specifies that all signage rights and duties may not
be transferred between different parcels of real property.
4. Revise the Prohibited Signs Section 21.41.030 to:
n Clarify that commercial billboards exceeding 60 SF in area are prohibited.
Because billboards generally require a much greater sign area, this clarification
will effectively prohibit off-site commercial billboards, while enabling the City to
continue to permit off-site commercial subdivision (kiosk) signs (that are a
maximum of 50 SF in area) in the public right-of-way.
Continue to prohibit signs erected on or over public property and the public
rights-of-way, except those (i.e., kiosk, campaign, special events, banners and A-
Frame signs that are located in the Village Redevelopment Area) that are
specifically allowed by the proposed new draft City Council Policy, “Signs on
Public Property”.
Rather than prohibiting all exposed “neon” signs, the ordinance more
appropriately prohibits exposed “neon” signs on any building elevation that faces
and is within 500 feet of any property line that adjoins residentially zoned
property. This revision will effectively mitigate potential glare impacts from
exposed neon lighting on nearby residential uses while still allowing such signs
within other areas of the City. 93
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - iOMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCti AMENDMENT
October 3,200l
. A new provision has been added to prohibit mobile billboards (i.e., off-site trailers
or vehicles that display general commercial advertising messages).
5. Apply discretionary design standards, such as permitted sign “color”, “materials” etc.,
only to commercial signs (and not to noncommercial signs).
6. The existing sign ordinance specifies that a sign permit is -required to “alter” an existing
sign. Section 21.41.050, “Sign Permit Required”, is proposed for revision to clarify that a
sign permit is required to “structurally or electrically alter” an existing sign but is not
required to reface an existing sign with a different sign face or sign copy.
7. The existing sign code requires non-conforming signs to be brought into conformance
with existing sign regulations when they change. The nonconforming sign section is
proposed for revision to permit the sign face and/or sign copy of a non-conforming sign
to be changed, provided that no structural or electrical alterations to the sign are required.
Staffs minor technical revisions include the following:
1. Revise the total number and area of flags per non-residential building or occupied
dwelling unit from 3, with a maximum flag dimension of 8 feet along a side to; no
regulation for the number or area of flags with noncommercial messages (i.e., flags with
symbols of government or political subdivision) and one 24 square foot flag with a
commercial message (company logo) per non-residential establishment in the C-M, P-M
and M zones.
2. Increase the permitted monument sign height from 5 feet to 6 feet for Residential
Projects, Office and Industrial Uses, Hotels, Government and Church Uses, Professional
Care Facilities, Gas Stations and Public Parks. This revision will standardize monument
sign height for various uses throughout the City.
3. Increase the maximum number of gas station canopy signs from 2 per site to 4 per site
and reduce the maximum sign area per canopy sign from 20 square feet to 10 square feet.
This revision acknowledges the need for more than one sign per canopy.
4. Add a monument wall sign letter height of 24” for professional care facilities,
government and church buildings, flower stands and buildings in the P-U Zone. This
revision will standardize wall sign letter height for uses throughout the City.
IV. ANALYSIS
The proposed RCSOA, which will basically maintain the City’s existing regulations regarding
signs in the public right-of-way, is in compliance with all City regulations (i.e., General Plan,
Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program).
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
94
ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - tiOMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCti AMENDMENT
October 3,200l
The Planning Director has determined that this Zone Code Amendment/Local Coastal Program
Amendment (ZCA OO-04LCPA 00-07) to the City’s Sign Ordinance and Sign Code (Carlsbad
Municipal Code, Chapters 21.41 and 18.20 respectively), will not have a significant impact on
the environment and therefore issued a Negative Declaration on December 27, 2000. The
environmental analysis (EL4 Part II) concluded that this ZCALCPA will not result in any
physical, biological or human environmental impacts and the amended sign development and
design standards are comparable to the existing standards with respect to environmental
protection. Therefore, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated to occur. Future sign
permits processed pursuant to this amended Sign Ordinance are statutorily exempt from
environmental review (CEQA Section 15268). There were no letters of comment received during
the public review period for this Negative Declaration. An addendum to the Negative
Declaration has been prepared to indicate that the proposed project will also include the repeal of
the City’s Sign Code (Chapter 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4937
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 493 8
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4939
4. Attachment “A”, Key Concepts of Sign Regulation, Randal Morrison, August 3 1,200l.
5. Attachment “B”, draft City Council Policy “Signs on Public Property”
6. Bold/redlined copy of ordinance.
ATTACHMENT “A”
KEY CONCEPTS OF SIGN REGUL.4TION
by Randal Morrison, Attorney and Consultant on Sign Regulation signla\i..com
August 3 1,200 1
SIGNS: PROS AND CONS
Every retail business views effective signage as essential to success; manufacturers.
distributors and professionals often want signs to identify their office or place of operations.
Travelers and visitors need signs to direct them to the place or services they seek. Dog oumers.
operators of heavy equipment, and mm,’ others have a legal duty to warn of kn0m-n dangers.
Without regulation signs, traffic wou!d be chaotic. Those who wish to influence public opinion.
especially at election time, often view signs as the most efficient wa>’ to ‘raise alvareness. The\.
know that the sign can be strategically placed to address only the target audience. and to a\yoid
the wasted coverage inherent in more expensive media such as radio, television, or nelvspapers.
However, like most good things, signage can be “too much,” or simply “inappropriate.”
Cities try to properly balance need and function against excess through sign regulation.
However, all too often they are frustrated in their efforts because the field is one of the most
complex in government, standing at the confluence of free speech rights, zoning and planning
law, and property concepts. Given the importance of signs, many people are willing to sue when
they are ‘told their sign does not meet local code.
LEGAL ENVIRONMENT
The federal civil rights remedy law’ applies to sign regulation. Challengers may seek
court orders barring enforcement. Billboard companies often file challenges to entire sign
ordinances, and sometimes succeed in having the local law completely invalidated by a court.
Attorneys’ fees can be awarded to successful challengers. Compensatory damages for
infringement of the free speech and free press rights are theoretically available, but only rarely
awarded, according to the reported cases. Unfortunately, the court decisions are inconsistent
from region to region, and sometimes even inconsistent within the same federal appellate circuit.
Give,1 the inconsistencies in the court decisions, an absolutely “bullet proof’ ordinance is not
possible, and the topic must be approached with the greatest of care and deliberation.
’ 42 USC 1983
THREE BIG IDEAS
Three “big ideas” form the foundation of the law of signs. First is the distinction her\\ ten
wo different roles the government may play: regulator of private property and manager of public
property.’ In general, courts give governments greater latitude when managing public land than
when regulating private propem; clarifying this distinction, and drafting the sign ordinance
accordingly, can have a profound effect if and when a sign ordinance is reviewed by a judge.
The second concept is the difference between commercial speech - advertising - and
noncommercial speech - advocacy on issues of public debate. Noncommercial speech,
sometimes called “core speech” is “of a higher constitutional moment” than commercial speech;
this means that a greater degree of regulation of commercial speech is constitutionall>.
permissible.3 And third is the idea of the “time place and manner” regulation, lvhich allo\\s
governments to control signs by size, spacing, height, illumination and other “structure” rules. so
long as the rules operate are “viewpoint neutral” and leave open other means for expression.
KEY CASES ON SIGN REGULATION
THE REGULATION CASES: METROMEDIA, LADUE AND LINM.~
The most important sign regulation case is Metromedia 19. San Diego,’ decided in 198 1 b}.
a badly split U.S. Supreme Court; the official case report runs 80 pages and features heated
debate among the justices. Despite the five differing opinions, the case makes clear that: 1)
restrictions on commercial and noncommercial speech are analyzed separately; 2) greater
restrictions are allowed on commercial speech, ixluding a complete ban on offsite commercial
speech (i.e., billboards); 3) the government may not favor commercial speech over
noncommercial speech. The plurality opinion (4 votes out of 9) on noncommercial speech held
that the government may not show favoritism to certain speakers or messages within the category
of noncommercial speech; that point is treated by most lower courts as if it were a majority
holding. The Metromedia decision addresses only the government acting as a regulator.
’ The government may also act in its capacity as an employer, and condition employment
upon restriction of free speech rights, including political signs in private yards; however such
matters are treated in employee handbooks, not sign ordinances.
.
’ Several current members of the U.S. Supreme Court, including Justices Thomas and
Kennedy, have stated in official opinions that wish to abandon the principle of lower protection
for commercial speech when the message concerns a legal product and is not deceptive;
however the Court’s most recent sign case, Lorillard v. Reilly [June 2001 J, 121 S.Ct. 2404,
rejects their call to change constitutional doctrine in this area.
’ 453 U.S. 490 (1981)
97
In Ladue 1’. Gilleo’ the h;gli court held. in a unanimous decision. that the go\‘emmem
may not completely ban political s&is in residential neighborhoods. But the decision also
indicated that “more temperate measures” - rules short of a complete ban - could be upheld.
In Linmark Realc- I*. FW1ingboro,6 the Court held that a ciq could not completely* ban
“real estate for sale” signs placed on residential properties.
THE PUBLIC FORUM CASES: LEHMA% AND VINCENT
A close second to Meetromedia, in terms of importance. is Members of Cicv Council qf
Los Angeles \‘. .Taxpa-vers for Ikcent,’ a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision which upheld the
right of the City to completely ban pcl’tical campaign and all other signs. commercial and
noncommercial, from public utility poles. Thus, Vincent is a leading case on the government as
manager of public property.
Even though the Metromedia case says the government may not favor commercial speech
over noncommercial messages, this rule does not necessarily apply when the government acts as
a manager of public property. The archetype of the principle is Lehman 13. Shaker Heighrs.” .4
political candidate wanted to buy “car cards” in public transportation vehicles which served his
district, but the government refused to sell the space, saying their policy was to allow only
commercial messages on that particular line. Political advertising had been accepted on other
lines in the same system. The LT.S. Supreme Court upheld the government’s right to refuse the
ads. Four votes turned on the government ownership factor, and a concurring vote turned on
“captive audience” considerations.
Today, Lehman is widely viewed as one of the, foundation cases for the “public forum”
doctrine, which allows governments to set special access rules for the use of public property as a
place for debate or expression. Lehman provides authority for the City to limit political and
other noncommercial speech on public property to certain times and places, while Vincent
provides authority for a complete ban on political speech on public property.
5 512 US 43 (1994)
6 431 U.S. 85 (1977)
‘104 S.Ct. 2118 (1984)
* 418 U.S. 298 (1974)
9s
THE PUBLIC FORUM DOCTRNZ - AREAS OF RISK
However, other “public forum” cases warn that the policy, must meet certain requirements
to be validated by a court: 1) it must be clear and reasonable, although it need not be vvritten; 2)
the policy must not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint; 3) the policy must be consistently
enforced. The importance of these factors is emphasized by comparing wo cases with highly
similar facts - abortion related protest signs on public transportation vehicles - but opposite
results. In both cases the government denied access to established sign display, areas to groups
who were willing to pay the standard rate and provide ready-to-mount signage. In both cases the
government claimed a policy of accepting only commercial advertising. and refused the ads. In
the Philadelphia case, Christ’s Bride v. SL’PTA,9 the challengers proved that the government had
allowed messages on family planning, AIDS prevention, and rape counseling: the reviewing
court said that having opened the door to the subjects of sex and reproduction, the government
could not discriminate against the abortion protests, and had to accept them. But in the Phoenix
case, ‘Children of the RosaT v. Phoenix,‘O the city proved that it had consistently enforced the
policy of accepting commercial messages only; thus, the city could refuse the protest ads. Other
cases holding that when acting as a manager of public property, the government may favor
commercial speech over noncommercial speech, are listed in the footnote.”
COMMERCIAL “A FRAME” SIGNS I-N THE VILLAGE
The main legal concern about so-called “A frame” commercial signs is that they are an
exception to the City’s general policy of not allowing offsite commercial signs. However,
whether a given sign is “onsite” or “offsite” is a matter of definition. Most sign ordinances
define “onsite” in terms of the parcel or lot on which the business or other establishment is
located, but the term could also be defined to include signs directly in front of the establishment,
even if on a different parcel. The second issue is “owner’s consent,” which in this case would
mean the City’s consent. That consent could be granted on conditions such as maximum size,
height, display times, and requiring insurance which names the City as an additional insured. As
discussed above, the courts allow governments to restrict particular locations on public property
for commercial messages only. This comment addresses legal issues only; esthetic and planning
factors should also be considered.
9 148 F.3d 242 (Third Circ., 1998)
lo 154 F.3d 972 (Ninth Circ., 1998) (decision written by Byron White, retired former
member of the U.S. Supreme Court)
‘I DiLoretto 1’. Downela, 196 F3d 958 (Ninth Circ., 1999), Lebon v. Amtrak, 69 F.3d 650
(Second Circ., 1996)
99
TRACT HOUSING “KIOSK” SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTJ
The “kiosk” signs, giving directions to various tract housing developments. are also
exceptions to the general policy of disallowing offsite commercial s&s. However. in this case it
would be illogical to define such signs as being “onsite” since they refer to many projects. and
are located far from the developments. Yet the principle of allowing onl>p commercial si_gns. and
excluding all noncommercial signs, from certain locations on public property. still applies in this
context. The City’s consent for private commercial companies to utilize this space could be
based on conditions, including payment of a rent or royalty on sales, accepting only ads for
housing developments located within the City- and currently offering units for sale. etc. Although
no reported case precisely on point has been found. a judge would likely validate such a
program, provided he or she is given adequate briefing on the public forum doctrine and the
principle that commercial speech enjoys a lower degree of protection than noncommercial
speech. As in the section on A frames, this comment addresses only legal issues.
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
Attachment 6
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REENACTING
THE SIGN ORDINANCE, TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.41 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH
CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL CASE LAW AND TO
CLARIFY THE ORDINANCE.
CASE NAME: COMPREHfZNSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE
CASE NO.: ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That title 21, Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is repealed and
reenacted to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 21.41”
SIGN ORDINANCE
21.41.005 Purpose
21.41.010 Applicability
21.41.020 Definitions
21.41.025 General Provisions
21.41.030 Prohibited Signs
21.41.040 Signs Not Requiring A Sign Permit
21.41.050 Application and Permit Procedures
21.41.060 Sign Programs
21.41.070 General Sign Standards
21.41.080 Sign Design Standards
21.41.090 Coastal Zone Sign Standards
21.41.095 Permitted Permanent Signs 9
21.41.100 Permitted Temporary Signs
21.41.110 Construction and Maintenance
21.41.120 Removal of Signs
21.41.125 Appeal of Denial or Revocation
21.41.130 Non-Conforming Signs
, 21.41.140 Remedies and Penalties
21.41.150 Violations
i 21.41.160 Severability
21.41.005 Purpose
The purposes of this Sign Ordinance include to:
A. Implement the City’s community design and safety standards as set forth in the
General Plan; and
/o/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. Maintain and enhance the City’s appearance by regulating the design, character,
location, number, type, quality of materials, size, eelor illumination and maintenance of signs;
and
C. Protect and improve pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety by balancing the need
for signs which facilitate the safe and smooth flow of traffic (i.e.; traffic directional signs)
without an excess of signage which may distract motorists, overload their capacity to quickly
receive information, visually obstruct traffic signs or otherwise create congestion and safety
hazards; and
D. Eliminate the traffic safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists posed by
b+Qbo~& offsite signs bearing commercial messages; and
E. Limit-Generally limit commercial signage to on-site locations in order to protect
the aesthetic environment from the visual clutter associated with the unrestricted proliferation of
signs, while providing channels of communication to the public; and
F. Allow the communication of information for commercial and non-commercial
purposes without regulating the content of ~noncommercial messages;
and
G. . . . . . IAllow the
expression of political, religious’and other noncommercial speech at all times, and allow for
an increase in the quantity of such speech in the period preceding elections; and
H. Respect and protect the right of free speech by sign display, while reasonably
regulating the structural, locational and other non-communicative aspects of signs,
generally for the public health, safety, welfare, and specifically to serve the public interests
in traffic and pedestrian safety and community esthetics;
I. Minimize the possible adverse effects of signs on nearby public and private
-property; and
J. Serve the City’s interests in maintaining and enhancing its visual appeal for
tourists and other visitors, by preventing the degradation of visual quality which can result
from excess signage; and
K. Protect the investments in property and lifestyle quality made by persons
who choose to live, work, or do business in the City; and
L. Defend the peace and tranquility of residential zones and neighborhoods by
generally forbidding commercial signs on private residences, while allowing residents the
opportunity, within reasonable limits, to express political, religious and other
noncommercial messages from their homes; and
M. Enable the fair, consistent, and efficient enforcement of the sign regulations
of the City.
21.41.010 Applicability
The provisions of this chapter shall apply generally to all zones established by this Title.
Properties and uses in the Village Redevelopment (VR) Zone mare regulated
first by the sign standards of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual, and then, to the extent not covered by said Master Plan and Manual, by the provisions
of this chapter. Signs on public proper& both within the Village Redevelopment Zone and
other zones, are controlled bv Citv Council policy.
In those areas of the City where -Master Plan or Specific Plan sign standards or
sign programs were adopted by ordinance as special zoning regulations, those sign standards or
-2- /a
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
sign programs shall apply; however, the “substitution” provisions of this chapter, section
21.41.025(2), shall apply to such programs and pZans.
All other sign programs -that were approved prior to the
effective date of this amended ihapter, but not by ordinance,
are subject only to the “substitution” provisions of this Chapter (section
21.41.025(2)), except that if any such sign program is proposed for amendment to increase
overall sign area age allowed, then the sign program must be amended to conform with all
development anddesign standards of this Chapter.
Except as noted in the preceding paragraph, a sign, as defined in this chapter, may be
afftxed, erected, constructed, placed, established, mounted, created or maintained in-&k&d
only in conformance with the standards, procedures and other requirements of this Qrdkan~
Tkgchapter. The standards regarding number and size of signs regulated by this &this
9hapter are maximum standards, unless otherwise stated
stated.
21.41.20 Definitions
(1) Abandoned Sign - means any sign located on property that (a) becomes vacant or
unoccupied, or (b) which pertains to any occupant or business unrelated to the premises’ present
occupant or business, or (c) which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies.
(2) Abate - means to put an end to and physically remove. Discontinuance of sign
without removal of the entire sign structure shall not constitute abatement.
(3) Address Sign - means the identification of the location of a building or use on a
street by a number(s).
(4) A-Frame Sign - means a freestanding m or at&&e&n 3 ~ cr* 33
vsign,
not higher than five feet and not wider than two feet, designed’ to be easily movable and to
rest on the ground without being affixed to any object or structure. Such signs are
commonly in the shape of the letter “A”, but may also be in the shape of an inverted letter
“T” or a letter “H”.
(5) Animated Sign - means any sign with action or motion or color changes, whether
or not requiring electrical energy or set in motion by wind. This definition excludes flags.
(6) Attraction Board - means a sign capable of supporting copy which is readily
changeable, m , such as theater marquee, and which refers to products,
services or coming events on the premises.
(7) Average Grade - means the average level of the finished surface of the ground
directly beneath a monument or pole sign.
(8) Awning Sign - means a sign that is a part of or attached to an awning, canopy, or
other fabric, metal, plastic or structural protective cover over a door, entrance, window,
architectural feature or outdoors service area. A marquee is not an awning or canopy.
definition of “Inflatable signs.”
(10) Banner - means any sign made of cloth, lightweight fabric, bunting, plastic, vinyl,
paper or similar material that is permanently or temporarily placed on, or affixed to, real property
-3- /03
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
in a location where it is visible to the public from outside of the building or structure. A flag, as
defined, shall not be considered a banner.
(11) Beacon - means a stationary or revolving light (including laser lights, klieg lights,
spot lights, search lights, projected imane sinns and similar devices) with one or more beams
projected into the atmosphere or directed at one or more points away from the light source and
used for purposes other than police, fire, public safety or news gathering operations.
(12) Bench Sign - means a sign painted on or affixed to any portion of a bench or
seating area at bus stops or other such pedestrian areas. . . (13) Billboard 3 , , . . . . . *means an
off-site permanent structure sign which displays a commercial message;
(14) Building Frontage - means the total width of the elevation of a building which
fronts on a public or private street or the building elevation along which the main entrance exists.
For the purposes of calculating permitted sign area, every building has only one building
frontage. If more than one business is located in a single building, then such area shall be limited
to that portion which is occupied by each individual business or establishment,
(15) Building Marker - means a sign cut into a masonry surface or made of bronze or
similar material permanently affixed to a public building or building of designated historic
significance.
(16) Bus Stop signs: a sign mounted on a shelter which serves as a bus stop or
passenger waiting area for public transportation; this definition does not include devices
giving the schedule and / or prices for the transportation service.
(17) Canopy Sign - See definition of “Awning Sign.”
(18) Changeable Copy Sign - means a sign or portion thereof with characters, letters or
illustrations that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign.
(19) Channel Lettered Signs - signs with individually cut, three-dimensional letters or
figures affixed to a building or sign structure.
(20) Commercial Center - means a commercial development that includes
predominantly retail businesses with access driveways or parking spaces shared by one or more
of the businesses.
(21) Commercial Signage or Commercial Message - means any sign or sign copy
with wording, logo, or other representation that, directly or indirectly names, advertises or calls
attention to a business, product, service, or other commercial activity, or which proposes a
commercial transaction, or relates primarily to commercial interests.
(22) Construction Sign - means a temporary sign on real property on which
construction of new improvements is occurring.
(24) Cornerstone: a stone or other wall portion laid at or near the foundation of a
building, and which indicates in permanent markings the year of construction.
W) C-W
(25) Directional Sign - means an on-site sign designed to guide or direct pedestrian or
vehicular traffic to uses on the same site.
(26) Directory Sign - means a sign listing the persons, activities or tenants located on-
site.
(27) Eaveline - means the bottom of the roof eave or parapet.
-4- 104
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
(28) Electronic Message Board Sign - means a sign with a fixed or changing display
composed of a series of lights, light emitting diodes (LED) or liquid crystal display (LCD), or
functionally similar devices.
(29) Establishment - means any organization or activity which uses land for
purposes other than residential use. Includes all business and commercial uses, as well as
institutional, public, semi-public and other non-commercial uses, but does not include a
permanentlv enclosed place or use where people regularly sleep or prepare their own meals
(not including hotels, motels, or other places offering temporary or short term
accommodations to the public are within the meaning ofestablishment).
(30) Externally Illuminated - means illuminated by a light source that is located
externally to the sign surface. This method of lighting may include, but is not limited to,
spotlighting or backlighting.
(31) Fascia Sign - means a sign fastened to or engraved in the band or board at the
edge of a roof overhang.
(32) Flag - a device, generally made of flexible materials such as cloth, fabric, paper
or plastic, and usually used as a symbol of a government, political subdivision, public agency or
v company logo, belief system or concept. -I
(33) Freestanding Commercial Building - means a building occupied by a single user
retail business, or a noncommercial use located in a zoning district where commercial
activities are allowed, that has direct vehicular access to an adjacent street.
(34) Freestanding Sign - means a sign supported upon the ground and not attached to
any building. This definition includes monument signs and pole signs.
(35) Freeway Service Station - means a gas/service station located on a property that is
contiguous to a freeway interchange.
(36) Frontage - see street frontage.
(37) General advertising - means the business or practice of offering sign display
space, usually for a fee, to one or more commercial advertisers;
(38) Hand held - means those signs or devices which are held by or otherwise
mounted on human beings or animals.
(39) Inflatable Signs, or Inflatable Attention-Getting Devices - means any air or
gas filled device located, attached or tethered to the ground, site, merchandise, building, or
roof and used for the purposes of commercial signage, advertising or attention getting.
(40) Internally Illuminated - means the illumination of the sign face from behind so
that the light shines through translucent sign copy or lighting via neon or other gasses within
translucent tubing incorporated onto or into the sign face.
(41) Logo - means a trademark or symbol of an organization, belief system or
concept.
(42) Marker board - means a board designed for displaying images made by
chalk, markers or similar devices; includes devices commonly known as blackboards,
whiteboards, and chalkboards;
(43) Marquee - means a permanent Canopy structure attached to and
supported by a building, and projecting near or over private sidewalks or public right-of-way,
generally located near the entrance to a hotel, theater, or entertainment use, and used as a
display surface for a sign message.
(44) Master Plan - means a plan prepared and adopted pursuant to Chapter 21.38 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
(45) Mobile Billboard: a vehicle for which the primarv use is to display a general
advertising message;
-5-
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
(46) Monument Sign - means a freestanding sign, which is supported by a base that
rests upon the ground and of which the display or copy is an integral part of the design.
(47) Multi-Face Sign - means a sign displaying information on at least two surfaces,
each having a different orientation, or on a curved surftice so that the copy or image is
different when viewed from different angles.
(48) Multi-Tenant Building - means a nonresidential building in which there exists two
or more separate non-residential tenants or businesses.
(49) Neon Sign - means a sign that utilizes neon or other gases within translucent
tubing in or on any part of the sign structure
(50) Non-Commercial Signage - means any sign which is intended to convey a non-
commercial message including, by way of example and not limitation, commentary on social,
political, educational, religious, scientific, artistic, philosophical or charitable commentary
subjects. Also includes signs regarding fund raising or membership drive activities for
noncommercial or nonprofit concerns.
(51) Nonconforming Sign - means any -sign which was legally
established in conformance with all applicable laws in effect at the time of original installation
but which does not conform to the -requirements of this chapter.
fC ==---w
pertains to the business conducted, services available or rendered, or goods available for
sale, rent or use, upon the same premises where the sign is located. A sign program may
define” on site” in a manner which applies onlv to that program.
(53) Off Site Sign - means any sign that gives directions to or identifies a commercial
use, product or activity not located or available on the same premises as the sign.
(54) Pennant - means a lightweight plastic, fabric or other material, whether or not
containing a message of any kind, suspended from a rope, wire or string, usually in series,
designed to move in the wind.
(55) Permanent Sign - means any sign which is intended to be and is so constructed as
to be of lasting and enduring condition, remaining unchanged in character, condition (beyond
normal wear and tear) and position and in a permanent manner affixed to the ground, wall or
building.
(56) Person - means any natural person, marital estate, sole proprietorship,
partnership, limited partnership, corporation (of any type or form, regardless of where
incorporated), trust, association, limited liability company, unincorporated association, or
any other juridical person capable of legally owning, occupying or using land.
(57) Pole Sign - means a freestanding sign, that is greater than six feet in heiaht and
ksupported by one or more vertical supports.
(58) Portable Sign - means a sign made of any material, which, by its design, is
readily movable, including, but not limited to, signs on wheels, casters and rollers, “A-Frame”
signs and signs attached to vehicles or trailers, water vessels. humans or animals. ~MS@++H
31 /I- Al 1 AI.. .
(59) Premises: the place ‘whe other establishment is located. If
there is only one business or establishment on the legal parcel, then the entire parcel is the
premises. If there is more than one business or other establishment on a single parcel, then
the premises is the portion of the parcel actually occupied or exclusively used by the
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
business or other establishment, except that signs relating to the owner or manager of the
entire parcel may be considered onsite when placed anywhere on the parcel.
(60) Prohibited Sign - means any sign that is specifically not permitted by this chapter,
or v+hi& was erected without complying with the regulations of this chapter in effect at the time
of construction, exeou&n , display or use.
(61) Proiectinn Sinn - means a Sian which proiects more than ten inches from a wall
or other vertical surface, generally at about 90 degrees..
(62) Property Owner - means the owner of the property on which the sign is
displayed or proposed to be displayed. When the property is land, “owner” includes the
legal owner according to the official land records of the San Diego County Recorder, all
beneficial owners thereof, and all persons presently holding a legal right to possession of
the subject property.
(63) Public Property - means all land located within the corporate limits of the
City and which is either owned by the City or the Redevelopment Agency, or is part of the
public right-of-way located within the City. The definition also includes programs or
facilities owned or operated by the City.
(64) Regional Commercial Center - means a commercial development located upon a
property with a Regional Commercial general plan designation and having the following
characteristics: project site area between 30 and 100 acres, gross lease area between 300,000 and
1,500,OOO square feet, major tenants may include full-line department stores (2 or more), factory
outlet center, power center of several high volume specialty stores, warehouse club stores or
automobile dealerships, secondary tenants may include a full range of specialty retail, restaurants
and entertainment. A center is still within this definition even if it includes one or more
noncommercial uses.
(65) Right-of-Way - means an area or strip of land, either public or private, on which
an irrevocable right-of-passage has been recorded for the use of vehicles or pedestrians or both.
(66) Roof Sign - a sign erected and constructed wholly or in part upon, against or
above the roof of a building. For purposes of this chapter m any portion of a building
above or behind the fascia or parapet of a building shall be considered part of the roof.
(67) Shopping Complex -means the same as “Commercial Center’.
(68) Sign - any device, fixture, placard, or structure that uses any color, form, graphic,
illumination, symbol, image or writing to advertise, announce the purpose of, identify a person,
product, service or entity or to communicate information of any kind to the public. +&h-the
w However, the following are not within the definition of “sign” for
the regulatory purposes of this chapter:
it.
Any public or legal notice required by a court or public agency;
Decorative or architectural features of buildings, except letters, trademarks
or moving parts;
C. Holiday decorations and lights, clearly incidental to and m
associated with holidays or cultural observances and which are on displav on a aiven parcel
for not more than 45 calendar davs in a calendar year;
d. . . Building markers, as defined herein, 7
Symbols or insignia which are an integral part of a doormat or
welcome mat, or embedded directly into the sidewalk or entrance surface, so long as such
device is otherwise legal and is located entirely on private property and on the ground or
sidewalk;
-7- /b 7
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
I3 Items or devices of personal apparel or decoration, but not including
hand held signs;
h. Marks on tangible goods, which identify the maker, seller, provider,
or product, as such are customarily used in the normal course of the trade or profession;
i. Symbols of noncommercial organizations or concepts, including but
not limited to religious or political symbols, when such are permanently integrated into the
structure of a permanent building which is otherwise legal;
.i- Signs warning of dangers or health and safety policies, such as, by
way of example and not limitation, “Beware of Dog,” “Danger High Voltage,” ‘No Shirt No
Service,” etc., when such are not over one square foot on residential uses or two square feet
on other uses, and firmly affixed to their mounting surface or device;
k. The legal use of fireworks, candles, and artificial lighting not
otherwise regulated by this chapter;
1. Devices which are located entirely within an enclosed structure and
are not visible from the exterior thereof;
m. Advertisements or banners mounted on or towed behind free-flying
airborne vessels or craft, such as airplanes, dirigibles, blimps, and the like;
n. Advertisements or banners mounted on trains which legally pass
through the City;
0. On street legal vehicles and properly licensed water craft, license
plates, license plate frames, registration insignia, noncommercial messages, messages
relating to the business of which the vehicle or vessel is an instrument or tool (not including
general advertising), and messages relating to the proposed sale, lease or exchange of the
vehicle or vessel;.
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
(69) Sign Area - means the display or message area of the sign. The methods of
computing sign area are detailed in section 21.41.070(A).
(70) Sign Height - means the height of the highest point on the sign structure
above grade or ground beneath. The methods of calculating sign height are stated in
section 21.41.070.B.
(71) Sign Permit - means an entitlement from the City to place or erect a sign.
(72) Sign Program - a plan that integrates signs for a project with buildings, circulation
and landscaping to form a coordinated architectural statement.
(73) Site Development Plan - means a plan required pursuant to Chapter 21.06 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. e
the California Government Code.
(75) Street Frontage - means the distance along which a lot line adjoins a public street,
from one lot line intersecting said street to the furthest distant lot line intersecting the same
street. A development project containing more than one lot along a street shall be considered to
have only one street frontage on that street. Corner lots have at least two street frontages.
(76) Suspended Sign - means a sign hung from the underside of a marquee,
pedestrian arcade or covered walkway, usually at approximately 90 degrees to the building . . wall or storefront.+ 3
feet in height.
(78) Temporary Seasonal Sales Permit - means a permit to allow out-door seasonal and
holiday sales, including but not limited to, Christmas trees, pumpkins and flowers, on private
property.
(79) Temporary Sign - means a sign, including paper, cardboard wood, plastic,
synthetic, fabric or similizr materials , which isby virtue of its physical nature may be used
only for a limited period of time and is not permanently mounted.
(80) Traffic Directional Sign - means a sign which indicates place, location or
direction, for the information of drivers or pedestrians.
(81) Unsafe Sign - means a sign posing an immediate peril or reasonably foreseeable
threat of injury or damage to persons or property, on account of the condition of the physical
structure of the sign, or its mounting mechanism. A sign may not be considered “unsafe”
within this definition by virtue of the message displayed thereon.
(82) Vehicle Sign: a sign mounted upon a vehicle which may legally be parked on
or move on public roads, as well as a sign mounted upon a water vessel which may legally
move upon the waters.
(83) Vessel Sian - means a sign mounted upon a water vessel which mav leaall~
move upon the waters.
(84) Wall Sign - means a sign attached to a wall surface that does not project or
extend more than ten (10) inches from the wall, which is confined within the limits of an outside
wall and which displays only one wisplay surface;
(85) Window Sign - any sign painted or affixed to the inside or outside of a window
surface, or otherwise located within a building so as to be visible from the exterior of the
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
building. Does not include window displays of merchandise offered for sale, so long as such
displays are located at least 12 inches from the window on the interior.
21.41.025 General Provisions
(1) Owner’s Consent Required: The consent of the property owner is required
before any sign may be displayed on any real or personal property within the City. In the
case of public property, the owner’s consent shall be pursuant to a policy adopted by the
City Council.
(2) Substitution of Noncommercial Message: Subject to the owner’s consent, a
noncommercial message of any type may be substituted for all or part of the commercial or
noncommercial message on any sign allowed pursuant to this Chapter. Design criteria
which may apply to commercial signs, such as color, lettering style or height, and
compatibility with other signs on the same parcel or other signs subject to a sign program,
do not apply to noncommercial message signs even when thev are in an area subject to a s&n
pronram, master plan or specific plan. No special or additional permit is required to
substitute a noncommercial message for any other message on an allowable sign, provided
the sign is already permitted or exempt from the permit requirement. When a
noncommercial message is substituted for any other message, the sign is still subject to the
same location and structure regulations, such as size, height, illumination, duration of
display, building and electrical code requirements, as would apply if the sign were used to
display a commercial message or some other noncommercial message. This substitution
provision shall prevail over any other provision to the contrary, whether more specific or
not, in this chapter, and applies retroactively to sign programs, master plans and specific
plans which were adopted or approved before this chapter was enacted.
(3) Substitution of Commercial Messages: This Substitution provision does not
automaticallv allow substitution of one commercial message for another commercial
messape, nor does it automaticallv allow free substitution of a commercial message in a
place where only a noncommercial message is allowed: however, such substitutions mav be
allowed by other provisions of this Chapter. This provision does not, bv itself, allow off-site
commercial messapes to be substituted for on-site commercial messages; however, such
substitution may be allowed bv other provisions of this Chapter.
(4) Location of Noncommercial Speech: for purposes of this chapter, all
noncommercial speech messages shall be deemed to be “onsite,” regardless of location.
(5) Legal Nature of Sign Rights and Duties: All rights, duties, and
responsibilities related to permanent signs attach to the land on which the sign is mounted,
affixed or displayed, and run with the land or personal property. The City may demand
compliance with this Chapter and with the terms of any sign permit from the permit
holder, the owner of the sign, the property owner, or the person mounting the sign.
(6) Transfer of Signage Rights: Rights and duties relating to permanent signs
may not be transferred between different parcels of real property. All duly issued and
valid sign permits for permanent signs affixed to land shall automatically transfer with the
right to possession of the real property on which the sign is located.
21.41.30 Prohibited Signs
The following signs, as defined in this chapter, are prohibited in all zones of the City,
unless a more specific provision or Citv Policy allows them at certain times and places:
-lO-
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
(1) Abandoned signs, including their structures and supports;
(2) A-frame signs;(3) Animated signs, including but not limited to signs that
move, blink, flash, change color, reflect, revolve, or make noise;
(4) Balloons or other inflatable signs or devices, as defined herein;
(5) Beacons, qas defined
herein;
(6) Billboards with a displav face treater than 60 square feet, m
sas defined herein;
(7) Bus stop bench/shelter migns, as defined herein;
w
e9
(8)
(9) Exposed neon lighted signs on anv buildinn elevation that faces and is within
500 feet of any propem line that adjoins residentially zoned property;
(10) General advertising messages displayed on vehicles parked on any public
property within the City.
(11) Hand held or sandwich board signs carried by a person on public property or in . . . . the public right-of-way and -
Wisplaying a commercial message.
(12) Marker boards, as defined herein;
(13) Mobile billboard vehicles on City streets;
WV
(14) Off-site commkrcial signs;
c&w
except for temporary signs as
indicated in Sections 2 1.4 1.040 and 2 1.4 1.100.
(16) Roof signs; (except holiday decorations and lights)
(17) Signs attached to trees, plants, rocks, fences, utility poles/cabinets, or other
objects, the primary function of which is not to support a sign;
(18) Signs blocking doors, firescapes or public rights of way;
(19) Signs erected on or over public property including public easements and public
rights-of-way, except those needed for traffic and public safety regulation as indicated in Section
21.41.070 C and those erected pursuant to a policy adopted by the City Council regarding
signs on public property; . . ww (20) Signs simulating in color or design a traffic sign or signal, or using words,
symbols or characters in such a manner as to be reasonably likely to interfere with, mislead, or
confuse pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
(21) Signs that do not conform with applicable Uniform Building Code and
National Electric Code regulations;
(22) Temporary signs, including but not limited to banners and pennants, except as
provided for in Sections 21.41.040 and 21.41.100;
(23) Unsafe signs, as defined in this chapter;
(24) . . Vehicle Signs: e x 12 e ,
“I
W,‘. :’ ” 5 ,
-ll- ///
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
vehicles which are parked on public streets or public property. This provision does not
prohibit parking on a public street of a vehicle bearing’ a commercial message when the
vehicle is regularly used in the normal day to day operations of a business, and the message
thereon pertains to the same business, or advertising that the vehicle is offered for sale,
rent, lease or exchange.
21.41.040 Signs Not Requirina A Sign Permit
The signs listed in Table A do not require a sign permit, Wand their area and
number shall not be included in the -aggregate area or number of signs pew&t&
w subject to a permit requirement, for any given property.
TABLE A
SIGNS NOT REOUIRIN(
TYPE OF SIGN PLACEMENT MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
Traffic control, directional or warning signs erected or
required by government
Address Sign Wall 1 per building 6SF
SIGNS
Freestanding/ .
Wall/Banner
Noncommercial Signs on Jj&&Freestandin 2 per dwelling
Residential Property. g or Window unit
-12-
A SIGN PEI
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA
PER SIGN
6 3SF
m
MAXIMUM SIGN/LETTER
HEIGHT
REMARKS
The minimum
number height shall be: Residential - 4”
and Nonresidential
- 6” unless the
Fire Marshal
reauires a neater
height.
m
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
TYPE OF SIGN PLACEMENT
Window Signs located in Commercial Centers and
Freestanding Commercial Buildings.
Single Dwelling Unit or Condominium Unit -
Property which is For Rent, Sale or Lease
Additional Political and
other Non-Commercial SignsDuring Campaign Periods
Window
Freestanding sign displayed on the
owner’s real property or real property owned
by others with their consent
(Pursuant to
California Civil
Code section
713).
Freestanding
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
SIGNS
I Der dwellinp
Ullif -
-13-
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA
PER SIGN
Total copy area
shall not
exceed 25% of the window
area.
4SF
S SF per residential unit
16 SFper
non-residential lot
MAXIMUM SIGN/LETTER
HEIGHT
7 feet above average grade I6
inches
5 feet above average grade.
5 feet above 1. May be average grade or located on any
3.5 feet above private
average grade if in property, &
the front yard. owners
REMARKS
1. Fluorescent, neon or “day-
glow” colors are prohibited.
Shall be removed horn
the building or property within fifteen (15)
days after the sale, rental or lease.
y-@?&=+
consent.
2. -
Dismizv time
limited to 45
days preceding any federal,
state or local
(primarv.
general or
soeciall election and shall be
removed, by the person placing or erecting such sign within ten
(10) days following such
election.
3. This is in
addition to the
I siPnaPe
allowed under
the
m
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
Flags with Commercial
Svmbols
Ft%us with Noncommercial
Svmbols
w
Temporarv sipns attached
to parked or stationarv
vehicles visible from the
public riuht-of-way
Siens permanentlv
attached to or painted on
vehicles. with non-
changeable CODV. used in
the dav-to-dav operations
ofa business.
Freestanding pole or pole
mounted on side
of buitdina.
Freestandina pole or pole
mounted on side
of buildina.
Inside windows 2 per vehicle lo” x 12”
1 fI& per non-
residential
establishment
located in the
C-M. P-M and
h4 zones
No Restriction
24sf
&et
No Restriction
Flag Pole Height -
The lesser of 35 feet or the height
of the tallest legally permitted
structure existing on the premises.-
Flaa Pole Height -
The lesser of 35
feet or the height of the tallest
legally permitted structure existing Dn the premises.
substitution
provision and
the - noncommercia
1 sianape
allowed at all
times in
residential
zones.
4
Zoncommerci
al signs mau_
also be allowed
on oublic
propertv per
Citv Council
policv.
Maximum of 2
Flak Poles per
occupied
dwelling unit
and 3 Flap
Poles per non-
residential
establishment.
No limitation if sign not visible
from public right-of-way 8~
Does not apulv
to “eeneral
advertisinlp” or
mobile
billboards”
21.41.050 Armlication and Permit Procedures
. . Sign Permit Required. It shall be unlawful for any w
“I -person to aff:x, place, elect, kspend,
-14- P/r’
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
attach, construct, structurally or electricallv alter (not including a change in sign copy or s&n
facej-mxPfy, r 7 move, or display any temporary or
permanent sign wiihin the City m in Section 2!.? 1.848) without first
obtaining a sign permit in accordance with the provisions of this section, unless the sign is
exempt from the permit requirement under Section 21.41.040.
1. A sign permit shall not be required for cleaning, or other normal
maintenance of an existing sign, unless a structural or electrical change is made.
2. No sign permit is required when a political, religious or other
noncommercial message is substituted for another commercial message on a pre-existing sign, or
when a non-commercial message is substituted for a commercial message on a properly
permitted sign.
B. Application for Permit. The application for a sign permit shall be made in writing
on the form provided by the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by the required fee.
Such application shall set forth and contain the following information:
1. A drawing to scale showing the design of the sign, including dimensions,
sign size, colors (applies to commercial message signs only), materials, method of attachment,
source of illumination and showing the relationship to any building or structure to which it is
proposed to be installed or affixed, or to which it relates.
2. A site plan, including all dimensions, drawn to scale indicating the
location of the sign relative to the property line, rights-of-way, streets, sidewalks, vehicular
access points, and existing buildings or structures and off-street parking areas located on the
premises.
3. The number, size, type and location of all existing signs on the same
building, lot or premises.
4. Any structural information and plans necessary to ensure compliance with
the latest adopted building code and electrical code.
C. &. All signs require a sign permit fee and plan checking fee (if applicable) that
shall be paid in accordance with the schedule established by Resolution of the City Council.
47 Method of Review. The purpose of a sign permit is to ensure compliance
with the provisions of this chapter and the relevant building and electrical codes. After w+#
of receiving a complete sign application, the Community Development Director or his designee
shall render a decision to approve, approve with modifications or deny such sign application
within 15 mays; however, an approval with modifications shall be limited to
requiring compliance with this chapter. The application shall be approved a . . ~G&&4-M%+31an/c\ the nermit issued whenever the . .
proposed sign meets the following reauirements:
1. The proposed sign conforms to all size, height and other standards for
w as signs subiect to a permit requirement. as such requirements are set forth in this . . . . chapter. 1 21 %tFn ‘l nr !X? ?l Al 898 . I . I”) 11..A. “) &I.ll. ,
91 nr
2: ’ * The proposed sign is consistent with any applicable sign program.
3. That the sign conforms to the monstruction standards i-n of the
latest adopted building cedes and electrical codes.
E. Revocation or Cancellation of Permit. The Community Development Director
or designee shall revoke any issued permit &t&++m upon refusal of the holder thereof to
comply With the provisions of this chapter after written notice.of noncompliance and 15 days
opportunity to cure. If the work authorized under a sign permit has not been completed within
six months after the date of issuance, such permit shall become null and void. Any permit
-15-
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
issued in error may be cancelled or revoked, with notice riven as to the nature ofthe error
21.41.060 Sim Programs
Purpose. The purpose of a Sign Program is to integrate signs with building, site and
landscaping design to form a unified architectural statement. T
&-Sign Programs may not supersede the dimensional Band number
limits provided in Tables “A ” “B” and “C” of Sections 21.41.040,21.41.095 and 21.41.100. ,
All Sign Programs must incorporate the substitution provisions of this chapter,
section 21.41.025(2). Sign Program design standards do not apply to noncommercial
messages, and substitution of noncommercial messages is subject to owner’s consent.
A. Applicabilitv. A sign permit for a sign program shall be required for: 1) Master
Plans, 2) Specific Plans, 3) non-residential projects requiring a Site Development Plan processed
pursuant to Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and 4) Planned Industrial or Office
parks of greater than 25 acres in area.
For those projects requiring a sign program, no sign permit shall be issued for an
individual sign, unless and until a Sign Program for the lot or building on which the sign is
proposed to be erected has been approved by the City in conformance with this erd&an~
chapter.
C. Application Requirements. The sign permit application for a sign program shall
be made in writing on the form provided by the Planning Department. The application shall be
accompanied by the required fee. Such application shall contain the following information:
1. A copy of an approved development plan (Master Plan, Specific Plan or
site development plan) drawn to scale showing the location of property lines, rights-of-way,
adjacent streets, sidewalks, and on-site buildings, landscaped areas, off-street parking areas and
vehicular access points.
2. A drawing to scale showing the design of each sign, including dimensions
(height and width), sign size (area), colors, materials, method of attachment, source of
illumination and location of each sign on any building, structure or property.
3. Computation of the total number of signs, sign area for individual signs,
total sign area and height of signs for each existing and proposed sign type.
4. A materials board or sign sample that is an accurate representation of
proposed colors, material and style of copy.
5. The number, size, type and location of all existing signs on the same
building, lot or premises.
D. Method of Review. After receipt of a complete application for a sign program,
the Community Development Director, or his designee, shall render a decision to approve,
approve with modifications or deny such sign program application within 30 days. The decision
of the Community Development Director is final, but appealable pursuant to this chapter. No
sign application for a sign program shall be approved unless and until the lkdkg~ reouirements
in Subsection 21.41.050 (D) are satisfied MIS&.
E. Existing: Sign Programs. Existing sign programs approved prior to the effective . . date of this gt to ;
chapter are subject only to the substitution provision of this chapter; all other terms of the
existing Sign Program shall continue in force. However, if any existing sign program is
proposed for amendment to increase overall w sign area, then the sign program
must be amended to conform with all development and design standards of this Chapter.
F. Amendments. An amendment to a sign program shall be processed in the same
-16- /4
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
manner as an original application for a sign program.
G. Binding Effect. After approval of a Sign Program, w4g~ all signs subject
thereto shall be erected, constructed, installed, displayed, altered, placed or maintained except
only in conformance with such program.
21.41.070 General Sirm Standards
The following sign standards shall apply to all signage within the City.
Sign Area - is computed as follows:
1. Wall, Retaining Wall, Fascia, Awning, Window and Landscape/Hardscape
Feature Signs - sign area shall be computed by measuring the smallest square, rectangle, triangle,
circle or combination thereof, that will encompass the extreme Iimits of the writing,
representation, emblem or other display, together with any material or color forming an integral
part of the background of the message or display or otherwise used to differentiate the sign from
the backdrop or structure against which it is placed, but not including any supporting framework
or bracing.
2. Monument, and Suspended Signs - sign area shall be computed by
measuring the entire area contained within the frame, cabinet, monument, monument base or
fixture.
3. Pole Signs - sign area shall be computed as the area of the surface(s) upon
which the sign message is placed including the supporting column(s) if decorated or displayed
with advertising.
4 Multi-faced Signs - the sign area for a two sided or multi-faced sign shall
be computed by adding together the area of all sign faces, as described above, visible from any
one point. When two sign faces are placed back to back, so that both faces cannot be viewed
from any one point at the same time, and when such sign faces are part of the same structure, the
sign area shall be computed by the measurement of one of the faces. In the case of a sign of
spherical or cylindrical shape, the area of the sign shall be one-half (l/2) of the surface area.
5. Flags, banners, pennants, etc.: Sign area is the entire surface area, one
side only.
B. Sign Height is measured as follows:
-17- //7
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
1. Wall, Retaining Wall, Fascia, Awning, Suspended, Monument, Pole and
Window Signs - is specified as the greatest vertical measurement from the top of the sign
cabinet, including all ornamentation and supports, to the average grade beneath the sign.
C. Signs on Public Propertv, Including the Public Right-Of-Wav - Signs may be
placed on public property only in accordance with a policy adopted by the City Council.
Signs placed on public property in violation of the City Council’s policy may be summarily
removed by the City, and all persons responsible for placing such signs on public property
contrary to the City Council’s policy may be charged with the cost of removal.
D. Placement of Commercial Signs - Commercial signs shall be placed on the
property of the use for which the sign is intended to identify or relate, unless placement on
another property is specifically allowed by this chapter or other relevant law.
E. Non-Commercial Signs - Non-commercial -signs are allowed
wherever commercial signage is permitted within Chapter 21.41 and is subject to the same
standards and total maximum allowances per lot or building of each sign type specified in this
Chapter. A permit is required for a noncommercial sign only when the sign structure has
not been previously permitted.
21.41.080 Sign Design Standards
Each permanent approved sign shall meet the following design standards.
A. C;rrn Colors. . .
“ B For signs displaying commercial messages, fluorescent, ‘day-glo,”
and similar ‘colors shall not be used.
B. Materials. All permanent signs shall be constructed of durable materials, which
are compatible in kind and/or appearance to the building supporting or identified by the sign.
Such materials may include, but are not limited to: ceramic tile, sandblasted, hand carved or
routed wood, *hannel lettering, concrete, stucco or stone
monument signs with recessed or raised lettering.
C. Relationship to Buildings. Each permanent commercial message sign located
upon a -premises with more than one (1) main building, such as a commercial,
office or industrial project, shall be designed to incorporate the materials common or similar to
all buildings.
D. Relationship to Other Signs. Where there is more than one (1) sign on a lot,
building or project site, all permanent signs displaying a commercial message shall have . . designs which 1 similarly treat or
incorporate the following design elements:
1. Type of construction materials.
2. Sign/letter color and style of copy.
3. Method used for supporting sign (i.e., wall or ground base).
4. Sign cabinet or other configuration of sign area.
5. Illumination;
6. Location.
-18- //s I
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
E. Relationship to Streets. Signs shall be designed and located so as not to interfere
with the unobstructed clear view of the public right-of-way and nearby trafftc regulatory signs
of any pedestrian, bicyclist or motor vehicle driver.
F. Sight Distance. No sign or sign structure shall be placed or constructed so that it
impairs the sight distance requirements at any public or private street intersection or driveway.
G. Sign Illumination.
1. General Limitation. Illumination from or upon any sign shall be shaded,
shielded, directed or reduced so as to minimize light spillage onto the public right-of-way or
adjacent properties. Externally illuminated signs shall be lighted by screened or hidden light
sources.
2. Free-Standing and Building-Mounted Signs. Free-standing and building- * . . mounted signs shall J
wither non-illuminated or externally illuminated, except for signs
with opaque backgrounds which give the appearance of individual channel letters and
changeable copy signs. ‘1 J
H ’
M- CY
Logos andraphics. Corporate logos and graphics may be used in conjunction . . . with wall, monument and pole signs]
I. Landscaninq. Each monument and pole sign shall include landscaping around the
base of the sign, at a minimum ratio of two (2) square feet for every one (1) square foot of sign
area, so as to protect the sign from vehicles, improve the appearance of the installation and
screen light fixtures and other appurtenances.
21.41.090 COASTAL ZONE SIGN STANDARDS
The following sign restrictions apply to properties in the coastal zone except the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon and Village Redevelopment segments. If there is a conflict between the
coastal zone sign standards of this section and any regulations of this chapter, the
standards of this section shall prevail. Otherwise, within the coastal zone, the sign
regulations of this chapter shall apply.
A. Each business shall be entitled to one faCade sign.
B. Each shopping complex shall have only one directory sign not to exceed fourteen
feet in height, including mounding.
C. Monument sign height including mounding shall not exceed eight feet and shall
apply where three or fewer commercial establishments exist on a parcel.
D. Tall freestanding and roof signs shall not be allowed.
E. Off-premises signs shall not be allowed.
21.41.095 PERMITTED PERMANENT SIGNS
Table B -t&es the criteria for a permit for permanent signs
per&#&-for each type of development and/or corresponding zones v. In
addition to the type of sign permitted, Table B provides the maximum number, maximum sign
area per sign, maximum sign height and letter height, permitted location and other provisions.
,19-
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
2f
2’j
28
TABLE B
PERMANENT SIGNS PERMITTED BY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND ZONE WITH A
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
AND OR ZONE
Single Family Residential Lots
TYPE OF SIGN
See Section
21.41.100 Temporary
Signs
See Section
21.41.040- Signs Not
Requiring a
sn IN PERMIT
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
NUMBER SIGN AREA OF SIGNS PER SIGN
Residential
1 Permit
1 Freestanding 1 1 per project
Subdivisions, Condominiums,
Apartment Projects
and Mobile-home
Community/ e&y- -
Project Identity Sign
Freestanding
10-25 5-6 feet above
dwelling units average grade !
- 15SF 4-W 18”
> 25 dwelling
units - 35 SF (See Note #l
below)
6SF
-2o-
MAXIMUM SIGN/LETTER
HEIGHT
4 feet above Signs are to
average grade I be located
6” and oriented
LOCATION REMARKS
Driveway entrance.
la.0
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
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
AND OR ZONE
Commercial Centers and Freestanding Commercial
Buildings
Drive-Thru Facilities
Regional Commercial Centers
TYPE OF SIGN
Monument
Wall or Fascia or Awning
Signs
Suspended
Directional
Sign *
Wall or Monument
Reader Board
Pole
MAXIMUM NUMBER
OF SIGNS
1 per street frontage
Commercial Center I
Freestanding Commercial
Building
Commercial
Center - 1 per Bt&nass establishment
3per driveway
entrance
Restaurants - 2perbn&mss
establishment Other Drive- thru Facilities
- 1 per - establishment
1 per center
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA
PER SIGN
50 SF (See Note #l below)
MAXIMUM
SIGN/LETTER HEIGHT
6 feet above
average grade I
w 18”
1. Total sign area shall not
exceed 1 SF
per each lineal
foot of building frontage or 100
SF, whichever is less
Varies I Tenant Leased
Space:
c 3,500 SF - 24”
3,500 - 10,ooo SF - 30” 2. The width
of any sign shall not
exceed 75% of the width of
the building
frontage or
lease space to which the sign
pertains. -
10,001-50,ooo SF - 36”
> 50,000 SF - 48”
5SF
Underside of walkway Underside of
walkway I 8”
6 SF per sign 4 feet above
averagegrade/
6”
l-6 &SFper sign 5-i feet above average grade f
44% 12”
150 SF per 35 feet above
sign average grade
-21-
LOCATION REMARKS
Primary
driveway
entrance or at other
strategic location
1. Wall Signs -
Below eaveline.
Not allowed on any
parapet or equipment enclosure.
2. Fascia Sign - Centered on
Fascia. 3 .Awning
Sign - Over
doors or windows.
Underside of
walkway overhang at 90 degrees
to the
business
establish- ment
Should be
located to
facilitate
trafflC
internal to the site.
Near
Primary project entrance.
(See Note #2 below)
(see Note #4
below)
May not be
illuminated.
Reader boards are
allowed in
addition to
other signs permitted for
Free- standing Commercial
Buildings.
Pole sign is allowed in
addition to other signs permitted for Commercial renters.
13f
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
TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT
AND OR ZONE
Office, Industrial and Retail uses in the R- P, 0, C-M, P-M, and
M zones (See Note
E.l
Building c 35,000 SF
in area
Building 35,000 SF -
60,000 SF in area
Building > 60,000 SF
in area
Ground Floor Retail
- establishment with a separate building entrance in a multi-
tenant building located in the R-P, 0,
C-M, P-M and M
zones.
Retail &s&ess establishment with a separate building
entrance in a multi-
tenant building located in the R-P, 0, C-M, P-M and M zones.
TYPE OF
SIGN
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGN AREA SIGN/LETTER
SIGNS PER SIGN HEIGHT
Monument 1 per lot 50 SF (See
Note #l below)
Directional
Signs 3per driveway
entrance
6SF
Wall 1 per building 50 SF
Wall l! building or 50 SF
21 building (See Note Ica
#s below)
Wall l/building or 50 SF
21 building or
Wall or Fascia Sign
31 building
(See Note #6 below)
1 per-
establishment
20 SF
Suspended Sign 1 per&t&es5 establishment 5 SF
5-A feet above
average grade I 4-X 18”
4. feet above average grade /
6”
(see Note I# 8 (see Note #4 below) 124” #4 below)
4aFie5- (see Note # 8
below) 136”
J4aFie6 (see Note #8 below)1 24”
AbFies {see Note # 8 below) 136”
4kkFies
(see Note # 8 below1 124” VaFies
(see Note # 8 below1 I 24”
Wall Sign - Not permitted above
the plate height elevation of the ground floor I
‘e&es 18”
NFifs Underside of walkway / 8”
LOCATION REMARKS
Near
primary project
entrances or
at other strategic locations.
Should be
located to facilitate
tdfk internal to
the site.
1. Fascia
Sign - Centered on fascia, directly
above
establish-
gt& entrance.
Underside of walkway overhang at
90 degrees to the retail business. establish-
ment.
1. Must
include building
address.
2. (see Note #5 #3 below)
(see Note #6 #4 below)
(see Note #% #4 below)
1, Must be oriented
towards the parking area.
2. May not be illuminated.
May not be illuminated.
-22- /&2
TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT
AND OR ZONE Office/Industrial
Hotels/Motels
Professional Care Facility
Resort Hotels
TYPE OF
SIGN
Freestanding
Sign
Monument
Wall or Fascia
or Awning
Directional
Monument
Directional
Monument
Wall
Directional
MAXIMUM
NUMBER
OF SIGNS 1 per each
project
entrance that
is located along an
arterial road.
1 per street frontage
2 Wall or
Fascia or Awning Signs
per Building (See Note %I
#4 below)
3per driveway
entrance
1 per street frontage
1 uer street frontage
3per driveway
entrance
1 per street frontage
1 per street frontage 5 per
driveway
MAXIMUM
SIGN AREA
PER SIGN 75 SF per sign
(See Note #I
below)
30 SF per sign (See #I below)
Total sign area
for 2 signs shall not
exceed .5 SF per each lineal
foot of building frontage.
6 SF per sign
35 SF per sign
30 SF Der sinn
6 SF per sign
50 SF per sign (See Note #I below)
50 SF per sign
10 SF per sign
r- MAXIMUM
SIGN/LETTER
HEIGHT 5 d feet above
average grade 1
4xI8”
5-A feet above average grade ! W 18”
A4%&35
(see Note # 8
below) / 24”
4 feet above average grade !
6” -
5 d feet above
average grade / 18”
(see Note # 8 below) / 24”
4 feet above
average grade 1
6”
5&, feet above average grade I
18”
(see Note # 8
below) / 30” 5 feet above average grade /
Near
Wmary project
entrances
1. Fascia
Sign - Centered on Fascia
2..Awning
Sign - Over doors or
windows
[See Note #2 below)
(see Note #4 below)
Illumination
ktobe external,
exceut for channel and reverse
channel
letters.
(see Note #4 belowA
-t-
-23-
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
DEVELOPMENT TYPE OF SIGN
Monument
Canopy
Fuel Pump
Pole
Wall
Attraction
Board (Pole or Marquee)
Coming
Attraction Poster
Wall
Monument
Directional Signs
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS
1 per street
frontage
2 +er site
1 per fuel pump
1 per site
1 per street
frontage
1 per site
1 per screen
or stage
1 per street frontage
1 per street
frontage
3per driveway entrance
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA
PER SIGN
30 SF per sign
MAXIMUM LOCATION REMARKS SIGN/LETTER
HEIGHT
5-‘6 feet above Sign may average grade/ include 24” fuel motor
WgSFper
sign
Attached to
canopy, not to extend beyond
or above the canopy I 18” .
2.5 SF per sign
50 SF
Total sign area
for all wall signs shall not
exceed .5 SF per each lineal foot of
building frontage.
100 SF plus 10
SF per screen or stage over 1,
uptoa
maximum of
160 SF.
6 SF per sign
Pole - 35 feet Marquee above average signs must
grade 124” be building mounted.
Marquee -(see Note # 8 below)/
24”
(see Note # 8 Must be below) building mounted.
30 SF per sign (see Note # 8 below) 124”
30 SF per sign 5 6 feet above
(See Note #l average grade/
below) l-&E
6SF
Must be
designed as an integral
part of the
canopy structure.
4 feet above
average grade / 6”
Below
eaveline.
Not allowed
on any architectural projection,
parapet or equipment
enclosure.
Near
primary project entrance. Should be
located to facilitate traffic internal to
the site.
Illumination
is to be
external,
except for channel and reverse
channel letters.
l2f -24-
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
TYPE OF TYPE OF MAXIMUM MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT SIGN NUMBER SIGN AREA AND OR ZONE
Public Parks,
Playgrounds and
Recreational Facilities
Produce/Flower Stand in the E-A, R-
A and L-C zones
Nursery, Greenhouse, Packing
Shed, Stable, Riding Academy and similar uses
P-U zone Freestanding
OS zone
! Monument
Directional 5 per 10 SF per sign driveway
entrance
Wall Mounted 2 per produce 9 SF per sign
or Freestanding stand
1 per street frontage 35 SF
Wall
Directional Signs
1 per street frontage
3per driveway
20 SF
6 SF
See Section 21.41.040-
Signs Not Requiring a
Permit
entrance
5 feet above average grade I
6”
(see Note # 8 below) 124”
Freestandina -
6 feet above
averaee arade
Shall be
displayed
only during the time
period the
produce is available on
6 feet above average grade 1
18”
(see Note # 8 below) 124”
4 feet above
averagegrade!
6”
Near primary project
entrance
Should be
located to
facilitate
traffic internal to
the site.
Note #l. Signs on entry walls or retaining walls (e.g. curved, angled or similar walls integrated
into project entry or perimeter) are encouraged. In cases where such walls are on both sides of
an entry drive, two (2) signs (each at the maximum square footage) are permitted.
Note #2 Building elevations on restaurants, hotels or motels which front along or are within 500
feetf the right-of-way of and visible from Interstate 5 shall not have more than one (1) wall
sign along those elevations.
Note #3 No monument sign shall be located within 100 feet of another monument sign for the
same project. However, if more than 1 building shares a common driveway, then a maximum of
2 monument signs can be located along the common driveway, provided that the signs are
located on opposite sides of the driveway.
Note #4 Illuminated wall signs are prohibited on any building elevation that faces and is within
%%et of any property line that adjoins residentially zoned property.
-25- H 125
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
Note #5. No more than one (1) wall sign permitted along a building elevation.
Note #6 Building elevations which front along or are within 500 feet of the right-of-way and
visible from Interstate 5, State Route 78, Palomar Airport Road, or El Camino Real shall not
have more than one (1) wall sign along those elevations. Notwithstandinn, the above, two (2)
wall signs along any other building elevation is only permitted under the following
circumstances:
m A building elevation must have a minimum of 150 lineal feet in order to have more than one
(1) wall sign along that elevation.
. The minimum spacing between wall signs along an elevation shall not be less than 75 feet.
9 The cumulative length of all wall sign(s) along any building elevation shall not exceed one-
third (l/3) of the length of that same elevation.
Note #7 These sign standards supersede the sign standards for the C-M, M and P-M zoned
properties that are located within Area 4 of the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards.
Note #8 Wall sign must be located below the eaveline, and is not allowed on any
architectural projection. parapet or equipment enclosure.
21.41.100 Permitted Temnorary Signs
Table C provides a listing of all temporary signs permitted for each type of development
and corresponding zones with a sign permit. In addition to. the type of sign permitted, Table C
provides the maximum number, maximum sign area per sign, maximum sign height and letter
height, permitted location and other provisions.
TABLE C
TEMPORARY SIGNS PERMITTED BY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND ZONE WITH A
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
AND ZONE
Proiects which are under Construction
- All zones
TYPE OF SIGN
Wall or Freestanding
MAXIMUM NUMBER
OF SIGNS
1 per project
SIGN PERh
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA PER SIGN
Residential
Projects of 2
to 10 units - 8-s:
Residential Projects of more than 10
units, Commercial, Office or Industrial
Projects 4
S&32 SF
-26-
T L MAXIMUM
SIGN/LETTER HEIGHT
5 feet above
average grade.
6 feet above average grade.
Must be
located on the project site.
May not
project into
the public right-of-way.
of a Certificate
by the City.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TYPE OF TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT SIGN AND ZONE
Real Property which is For Rent,
Sale or Lease - A11
zones
All Commercial, Office and
Industrial zones
Freestanding sign displayed
on the owner’s real
property or real property
owned by others with their consent (California
Civil Code 713).
Banner
MAXIMUM
NUMBER
OF SIGNS
lJl&
proverty
1 per -
establish- ment
MAXIMUM
SIGN AREA
PER SIGN
Residential Projects of 2
to 10 units, -
12 SF
Residential
Projects of more than 10 units, Commercial,
Office and Industrial Properties -
3.5 SF
30 SF
-27-
MAXIMUM
SIGN/LETTER HEIGHT
5 feet above
average grade.
6 feet above
average grade.
18 feet above average grade
LOCATION REMARKS
May not project into
the public
right-of-way.
Attached to monument or wall at the
establishment location.
1. May not be
illuminated. 2.Residential
Projects- Shall be removed from the
property within one year from the
issuance of the
first building pemlit E
within 25 davs of within all
the moverties are sold or no
Ionper for &le-
whichever occurs first. 3. Commercial
and OfticelIndus- trial Properties
- Shall be removed from
the building or
Prope*Y within fifteen
( 15) days after the sale, rental
or lease.
1 1. Permitted only for businesses
waiting for permanent sign
construction
1 and installation.
2. Approval limited to 4.5
days maximumor
when the permanent
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
TYPE OF TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT SIGN
AND ZONE
All Commercial,
Office, and Industrial zones
Aa Public or
Private Property with a Special
Events Permit (C.M.C. Chapter 8.17 ) .
Community Event at Public Parks/ Recreational
Facilities
Banner or
Freestanding Signs with a
Temporary Seasonal
Sales
Location Permit.
Banner or
Freestanding Signs
Banner or
Freestanding Signs
MAXIMUM
NUMBER
OF SIGNS
1 per street frontage
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA
PER SIGN
30 SF
50 34lSF
MAXIMUM SIGN/LETTER
HEIGHT
LOCATION REMARKS
Must be located on the
site of the seasonal sales
event.
Policv “Signs on Public
ProDem”
Private
Property -
Must be located on the site of the
special event.
E See City
Council Policy “Sims
on Public Proper@”
Limited to the period of time
specified in
the Temporary Seasonal
Sales Location Permit.
Limited to the time specified in the SDecial
Events Permit
Limited to the
duration of the event.
21.41.110 Construction and Maintenance
A. Construction - Every sign, and all parts, portions and materials thereof shall be
manufactured, assembled, and erected in compliance with all applicable State, Federal, and City
regulations and the latest adopted versions of the Building Code and the National Electric Cede . . 8 Code.
B. Maintenance - Every sign and all parts, portions and materials shall be maintained
and kept in good repair. The display surface of all signs shall be kept clean, neatly painted and
free from rust, cracking, peeling, corrosion or other states of disrepair.
21.41.120 Removal of Signs
A. Any sign which is unsafe, as defined herein, or which does not conforming to
Uniform Building Code and National Electric Code standards, or sign installed or placed in the
public right-of-way or on public property contrary to the City Council’s policy, may be
removed by any officer or employee of the City designated to do so by the Community
-28- la
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
Development Director without prior notice. Alternatively, the Community Development
director may issue a notice of nonconformance and give the sign owner and / or the
property owner 15 days in which to cure the nonconformance.
B. Any other sign that is in violation of the provisions of this chapter, must be
removed by the permittee, owner, or person in charge of the sign upon written notice by the
Community Development Director. Such written notice shall specify the nature of the violation,
order the cessation thereof and require either the removal of the sign or the execution of remedial
work in the time and in the manner specified by the notice.
C. The time for removal or repair shall not be less than 30 calendar days from the
date of mailing the notice for permanent signs and not less than 15 calendar days for temporary
signs.
D. Within 10 days of the mailing of the notice, the permittee, owner, or person in
charge of the sign may request a hearing before the Comrnunity Development Director to
determine whether the sign was erected or maintained in violation of this chapter. Such request
must be made in writing and received by the City within the ten days after mailing of
notice.
E. Upon receipt of a written request for a hearing, the Community Development
Director shall schedule a hearing and send a written notice by first class mail of the time, place,
and date for the hearing, which shall be no later than 30 days after the date of receipt of the
written request, unless the party responsible for the sign-reque& requests a later hearing
date. The time for compliance with the original order shall be stayed during the pendency of the
hearing. The Community Development Director will notify the appellant of the decision to
affirm, modify or revoke the order to remove or repair within 10 days of the conclusion of the
hearing; failure to give such notice of decision shall result in the withdrawal of the notice of
violation, but shall not prevent a new notice of violation being issued for a different time
period from that specified in the original notice.
F. Whenever the permittee, owner or person in charge of the sign fails to comply
with an order of the Community Development Director -requiring compliance
with this chapter, any expense of such inaction shall be charged to the permittee, owner or
person in charge of the sign. Such amount shall constitute a debt owed to the city. No permit
shall thereafter be issued to any permittee, owner, or person in charge of the sign who fails to pay
such costs. Any costs, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the city in collection of the costs
shall be added to the amount of the debt.
G. Every person billed may request a hearing regarding the accuracy of the amount
billed. Following the hearing, the Community Development Director shall within 10 days of the
conclusion of the hearing notify the person billed of any adjustment to the bill or any
determination not to make an adjustment. This notification shall specify the date by which such
bill shall be paid. Non payment becomes a lien on the property.
21.41.125 Anneal of Denial or Revocation
A. Any person seeking to appeal a decision of the Community Development Director
granting or denying an application for issuance of, or renewal of, a sign permit, revoking a
permit, or ordering the removal of a sign, must file a written notice of appeal with the Planning
Director no later than 10 days after the date of the notice of the decision. The notice shall state,
with specificity, the factual and legal basis of the appeal. The Planning Director shall
expeditiously schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission and notify the appellant, in
writing, of the day, time, and location of the hearing, which shall be held not later than thirty
-29- / 2.q
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
days after the notice of appeal is received by the City. ‘The time for compliance of any
original order shall be stayed during the pendency of the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
B. The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing and provide the appellant with a
written decision within 10 days of the conclusion of the hearing. If the approval, denial,
revocation or removal order is affirmed on review, the appellant may file a written notice of
appeal to the City Council with the City Clerk no later than 10 days after the date of the notice . . of the decision, The City Clerk shall t then schedule a hearing
before the City Council, which shall be held within thirty days of the receipt of the notice of
appeal, and notify the appellant, in writing, of the day, time, and location of the hearing;
however the hearing may be held later than thirty davs upon the request or concurrence of the
appellant. The time for compliance of any original order shall be stayed during the pendency of
the hearing before the City Council.
The City Council shall provide the appellant with a written decision within 10 days of the
conclusion of the hearing. TC
qpelk+Any person.dissatisfied with the City Council% decision may seek prompt judicial
review r\C3~ 5 and-the
Gt++altpursuant to California Code of Civi; Procedure section 1094.8. ’ kake+H
21.41.130 Nonconforming Signs
Except for normal repair and maintenance, no nonconforming sign shall be expanded,
structurally or electrically altered (not including a change in sim face or sign copy), moved, . . . relocated, &a& 1 3 * *,
sign+e& unless it is brought into conformance with all current provisions of this chapter.
When a sign, which was in compliance with all applicable laws in effect at the time it
was originally erected, is physically damaged, whether by vandalism, forces of nature, or
other causes, the sign may be repaired or restored to its original size, shape, height,
orientation and message; however, the repair or restoration must be done in a manner
which complies with current building and electrical codes.
21.41.140 Remedies and Penalties
Any sign, which has been properly removed under this chapter may be returned to the
owner upon payment to the city of the costs of removal. If no timely request is made for hearing
or if no demand is made for the return of the sign removed, the Community Development
Director or his designee is authorized to destroy or dispose of the removed sign not earlier than
30 days after the removal of such sign.
21.41.150 Violations
. . . . It is unlawful for any * , , , ,
k@-eM+person to:
A. Install, mount, affix, create, erect, display or maintain any sign in a manner that
is inconsistent with this Chapter or any permit for such sign;
-3o- /so
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. Install, mount, affix, create, erect, display or maintain any sign requiring a
permit without such a permit;
C. . . Failure to remove any sign 5 which
the Community Development Director or designee ‘has ordered removed as being in . . violation of this i chapter,
Violations of any provisions of this chapter shall be subject to the enforcement remedies
and penalties provided for herein and in Chapter 1.08 of this Code. The City ifmaY also en+&d
&+pursue any civil remedies provided by law, including injunctive relief, as to signs not in
conformance with this mhapter.
A. Each day of a continued violation shall be considered a separate violation when
applying the penalty portions of this chapter.
B. Each sign installed, created, erected or maintained in violation of this chapter
shall be considered a separate violation when applying the penalty portions of this chapter.
21.41.160 Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or part of this chapter is for any reason
keel found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter, which shall be in full force
and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this chapter with each
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or part thereof irrespective of the fact that any one
or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or parts be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
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 a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the day of 2001, and thereafter.
//I
//I
I//
//I
Ill
Ill
-31- /3/
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
I//
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the of day 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-32- 1%
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 33 EXHIBIT 5
1. ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - A
Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and reenact
the City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to comply with
current case law regarding the constitutional validity of sign ordinances and to clarify the
ordinance to make it easier for developers, business owners and residents to understand
and use.
Due to a large agenda, the Commission continued the above hearing to the next meeting.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to continue ZCA OO-
OWLCPA 00-07 - Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Amendment, to the meeting of
June 6,200l.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compaq L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker,
Trigas
None
None
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 3
1. ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07- COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - A
Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and reenact
the City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to comply with
current case law regarding the constitutional validity of sign ordinances and to clarify the
ordinance to make it easier for developers, business owners and residents to understand
and use.
Mr. Wayne stated that this action is advisory on the part of the Commission and will be forwarded to the
City Council for final action. He introduced Principal Planner, Chris DeCerbo.
Chairperson Segall requested that on this particular item that the Commission hear the staff report,
entertain questions, have the public hearing portion, taking public testimony and then determine the next
step, whether they will want to continue this to the next meeting in two weeks or what other actions they
may want to take, based on both public input and the staff report. Chairperson Segall asked if everyone
was in agreement with continuing this item to the next meeting if that was the decision?
Commissioner Heineman asked if it is understood there will be no more public testimony at the next
meeting if it should be continued?
Chairperson thanked Commissioner Heineman for bringing that up and confirmed that the Commission
would take all the public testimony at this meeting and make a decision at the next meeting. He suggested
during the interim two week period the Commission would then have the opportunity to study the issue,
read all of the comments from the stack of letters received, get public input and clarification as needed
from staff so they will be able to make a more informed decision in two weeks.
Commissioner Baker asked if it was Commissioner Segall’s idea that, through testimony, the Commission
will know what they do not know and know what maybe they need to investigate further? She asked if that
was his reasoning for proceeding with the public testimony this evening?
Chairperson Segall answered that is what he is thinking because right now he does not know what he
does not know and he might not know at the end, but at least he will be further along in the process.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if they could possibly continue it for one month instead of two weeks?
Chairperson Segall stated he thinks any of those options are available and he does not want to make any
decisions as to whether they are going to continue for two weeks or a month or whatever until they take
the public testimony, hear what people have to say, hear the staff report, the full presentation and then
they can make a more intelligent decision. He stated his only point in bringing it up now is that he thinks it
is important that everyone here tonight know that they most likely are not going to make a decision tonight,
that it is going to be at some point in the future.
Commissioner Trigas asked for clarification, as she agrees with Commissioner Heineman regarding that if
they do continue this item, she does not want to have it open in the sense that they hear the same public
hearing for hours and hours and obviously if they open for one person, they would have to, of course,
open it for everyone, therefore, can they then have it where there would be no ability for anyone to testify
on that particular subject matter when it is brought up again for decision?
Chairperson Segall answered affirmatively, which would be contained in the motion to continue, if that is
what they do, to the date they want to continue and then whatever parameters the Commission wants to
put around it, for they also may want more information to come back to the Commission at that time and
that could be part of the motion.
Commissioner Baker stated she wanted to make sure that the public understood that if that is what the
Commission decided to do that there would be no further public testimony, to make sure that everyone
understands that.
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 4
Chairperson Segall stated the Commission would not know that until they get to the motion, but if that is
the consensus of the Commission then they would make that clear at that time. He reiterated that they are
probably not going to make a decision tonight. He opened the public hearing.
Ms. Mobaldi reminded the Commission there is an Urgency Ordinance in effect in regards to the Sign
Ordinance that requires the City Council to take final action by December 14th of this year, presenting a
required report ten days prior to December 14th. She pointed out that they would need at least 40 days
lead time for a decision by the Council. She stated that the Ordinance could not be extended any further.
Chairperson Segall responded he thought the Commission was aware of it, but he also stated they wanted
to make sure they are making the right decision.
Mr. Wayne added that there is also a Local Coastal Program Amendment which means the Ordinance
cannot go into affect without Council action, which would need to occur in July for it to go into affect by
December.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that in December of 1999, the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance declaring
a moratorium on the issuance of sign permits for large free-standing signs within the City. Concurrent with
this action, the City Council directed staff to, in a timely manner, amend the Sign Ordinance as necessary
to conform with Constitutional Case Law regarding Sign Ordinances. Mr. DeCerbo stated that the adopted
Urgency Ordinance, as the City Attorney mentioned, will expire on December 14th of this year and
because of the acknowledged complexity of adopting a constitutionally valid Sign Ordinance within the
identified time constraints, the City Council did not establish a citizen’s committee to review the Ordinance
or request or direct staff to conduct a public outreach program. He stated that this public hearing as well
as the subsequent City Council hearing provides an appropriate forum for resident and stake holder public
input on this amended Sign Ordinance. He further stated that, if during the course of public testimony
tonight, suggested Ordinance modifications are proposed, and the Commission so desires, staff is more
than willing to evaluate those modifications and return in two weeks with text amendments or responses.
Mr. DeCerbo shared that this project is a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment
to repeal and re-enact the City’s Sign Ordinance as follows: 1) comply with Constitutional case law
regarding Sign Ordinances; 2) clarify the Ordinance to make it easier for developers, business owners and
residents to understand and use; and 3) to update and revise sign standards as necessary. He stated that
the Sign Ordinance has been amended to comply with recent Constitutional case law judicial decisions,
specifically, “the courts have ruled that Sign Ordinances must comply with the following free speech
principles of the U.S. Constitution-all Sign Ordinances must be drafted to clearly state the City’s interest
in regulating signage while still providing adequate channels of communication. The accepted reasons by
the courts are: preservation of traffic safety and aesthetic interests. He stated that the City’s Ordinance
has been amended to establish this purpose and intent.
Mr. DeCerbo explained that Sign Regulations must be content neutral which means that Sign Ordinances
can regulate the time, place and manner of signage and that would include: the time for which they may
be displayed, the permitted sign locations and the physical attributes including the size, height, dimension
and manner of construction. Sign Ordinances must not regulate sign content--the message--unless the
regulation serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to meet that interest. He
added that those interests would have to do with traffic safety and aesthetics. Mr. DeCerbo stated that
Sign Ordinances shall impose no greater restrictions on non-commercial signage--which would include an
ideological, political or non-commercial message--than on commercial signage--would be advertising
signage. He stated that the Supreme Court has determined that any Sign Ordinance which has the effect
of permitting commercial speech in situations where non-commercial speech is prohibited is
unconstitutional and the preference is actually given to non-commercial speech with respect to the courts.
He stated that these are the three reasons that the Ordinance has been amended to comply with
Constitutional Case Law.
He went on to say that the City’s existing Sign Ordinance, which was adopted in 1969, is proposed for
Amendment to create an easy to understand Ordinance that includes comprehensive sign standards
which apply to all specific land uses and/or zones. He explained that toward this goal, the Ordinance has
been reformatted to incorporate three user-friendly tables which include detailed regulations for the
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 5
following: 1) signs not requiring a sign permit; 2) permanent signs requiring a sign permit; and, 3)
temporary signs requiring a sign permit. Mr. DeCerbo said the existing Sign Ordinance indicates that a
commercially zoned lot may have a total sign area of 100 square feet without regard to how the sign area
is allocated--by number of signs, type of signs or dimensions. He explained that the new sign tables will
indicate--by specific land use zone--the type and number of signs that are permitted and the maximum
sign area, sign height, letter height and permitted location for each sign type. He made clear that this
format would be considerably more user friendly than the existing format. Mr. DeCerbo also shared that a
new sign design standard section has been added to the Ordinance which addresses permitted sign
colors, materials, relationship to buildings, other signs and streets, illumination, permitted logos and
landscaping requirements. He added that it will promote the production of high-quality, compatible signage
that forms a strong connection to the building architecture and other project signage as well as improving
traffic safety.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that there are forty-four new sign-related definitions and four definition revisions in this
amended Ordinance. He then explained these new definitions, which include sign types and terms, which
are required because they are used in the revised Sign Ordinance. All the definition revisions are
proposed for the purpose of clarifying the terms and none include substantive changes. He further
explained that, as part of this comprehensive Sign Ordinance Amendment, staff is recommending a
number of revisions to specific sign regulations and procedures to comply with previously discussed
Constitutional case law decisions as well as to achieve a good balance between providing residents and
businesses an adequate opportunity to communicate with signs while maintaining the City’s aesthetic
environment and ensuring traffic safety. Mr. DeCerbo assured the Commission and audience that our
City’s existing Sign Ordinance is rather conservative when compared to Sign Ordinances of other
jurisdictions which is based upon a basic sign philosophy of allowing an adequate amount of signage to
identify a business or a communicate a message without being used as a medium for advertising, which
has been a long-time signage policy for our City. He confirmed that staff is not proposing revision to this
area in the Sign Ordinance amendment.
Mr. DeCerbo reiterated that the proposed standards revisions will not change the existing conservative
sign philosophy that sits within the Ordinance today; that is not the objective. He stated he would discuss
some of the major revisions that are within the Ordinance. He stated that the list of prohibited signs is
proposed to be amended and the major additions to this list include: offsite commercial signs, billboards,
real estate signs (included as a new prohibited sign but, in fact, is an existing type of sign which will not be
permitted offsite of a property), signs in the public right-of-way which include kiosks signs, campaign signs
and A-frame signs. He continued that the only exceptions to this public right-of-way prohibition include
traffic control signs, safety signs and emergency warning signs (which are erected on behalf of a
government agency). Mr. DeCerbo explained that one of the primary objectives of this Sign Ordinance
amendment is to prohibit commercial offsite signs, particularly billboards, based upon the City’s interest in
preserving community aesthetics and avoiding traffic safety hazards. He further stated that offsite signage
(particularly signage within the public right-of-way) is intended to divert a driver’s attention from the
roadway. He said the proposed offsite signage prohibition directly advances the City’s interest in traffic
safety as it is also recommended that even non-commercial signs, such as campaign signs, be prohibited
in the public right-of-way. He explained that the prohibited sign list includes human-directional signs, roof-
top signs, vehicle signs greater than 1 O”xl2” visible from the public right-of-way, exposed neon signs, bus
stop bench shelter signs and kiosks located offsite, subdivision signs located at major intersections
throughout the City which include names of subdivisions and directions to them. He stated that these
types of signs would no longer be allowed with the adoption of this proposed Ordinance Amendment.
Mr. DeCerbo showed slides of various types of signage in locations throughout the City. He shared that
most of these signs are currently prohibited although the Sign Ordinance does not clearly state this. He
also stated that City staff has reviewed numerous Sign Ordinances of other California coastal cities and
concludes that such sign types are consistently prohibited in these cities as well. He stated that this
amendment will clarify these sign prohibitions. Mr. DeCerbo stated that a new application and permit
procedure section has been added to the code which addresses the following questions: A) When is a
sion permit required? [He stated that it is required for the construction of any new sign or structural change
to any existing sign including a change of sign copy.] B) What projects are exempt from the new sion
standards? [He answered that the proposed Ordinance applies to all zones within the City, however, the
new standards do not apply to areas of the City where there are specific plans or other special sign
/3&
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 6
standards which were adopted by Ordinance as special zoning regulations, which would include the
signage within the Village Redevelopment Master Plan Area. It has its own special sign standards that are
adopted to the Village Master Plan which is Ordinance. He explained that the recommendations tonight do
not directly affect any of the sign provisions that exist in that Master Plan and they stay in affect until they
are appropriately amended.] C) Do the new requlations aoplv to proiects with existinq sign programs?
[His answer was yes, the new regulations apply to all existing sign programs that were not adopted by
Ordinance. These sign programs will be required to be amended to conform with all the revised
development and design standards of the Amended Ordinance prior to the issuance of any future sign
permits within the specific sign program area. He explained that this is a consistent application across all
jurisdictions at which they looked with respect to non-conforming sign programs.
Mr. DeCerbo then began listing the following nine sign types as some of the specific standard revisions
that were made to the Sign Ordinance: 1) subdivision real estate sions-he explained that they are to be
reduced from 100 square feet per sign to 50 square feet per sign for commercial office, industrial
properties and residential properties of more than ten units. He shared that reducing the permitted sign
area reduces potential aesthetic impacts associated with large hundred square foot signs while providing
adequate sign area of 50 feet to advertise the sale, lease or rental of a building, suite or site on which it is
placed. 2) proiect construction m-the newly proposed standard allows one project construction sign
for residential and non-residential projects. 3) campaion signs--the revised Sign Ordinance prohibits
temporary campaign signs within the public right-of-way, but will allow them on private property with the
permission of the property owner without the requirement to process a sign permit. He pointed out that this
is a major change to not have to process a sign permit to do campaign signs. 4) pole signs--the existing
Sign Ordinance allows a 35 foot tall pole sign between 150 and 200 square feet in an area for restaurants,
motels or service stations that are located contiguous to a freeway interchange, but that the proposed
revisions to the Sign Ordinance will reduce this to 50 square feet and in addition, will no longer allow pole
signs at freeway restaurants or motels which will result in the reduction of the number of tall pole signs
along the l-5 scenic corridor. 5) free standinn siqnaqe--the City’s existing Sign Moratorium established a
maximum 35 foot sign area for free standing signage throughout the City, pending the adoption of this
Comprehensive Ordinance amendment. He explained that the Planning Commission and City Council
adopted this standard as part of the Sign Ordinance amendment for the City’s office and industrial zones
and directed staff to consider amending the standard when the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance
amendment is processed. He stated, accordingly, that staff is recommending the maximum permitted
monument sign area for office and industrial uses be increased from 35 square feet to 50 square feet. 6)
temoorarv banners--the Ordinance is proposed for revision to allow temporary grand opening banners for
commercial office and industrial businesses which are awaiting the installation of permanent signs; for
temporary seasonal sales banners for commercial office and industrial businesses, plus temporary
banners for special or civic events within City parks. He continued to explain that these temporary banners
will be allowed for a maximum of 45 days, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director
and are allowed to be there while they are waiting for their sign permit or their sign to be constructed once
the permit has been issued, as staff is aware of the possible lag time. He added that there are regulations
for the size and numbers of banners per use. 7) W-Mr. DeCerbo stated that the Ordinance is
proposed for amendment to allow for up to two 24 square foot flags for every non-residential building or
occupied dwelling unit without a sign permit. He explained this revision will continue to allow corporate
flags and government flags in addition to other types of flags, including decorative flags irrespective of the
message content. 8) sir-role dwellins units siqn area-Mr. DeCerbo shared that the Ordinance is also
proposed for Amendment to increase the permit and sign area for single dwelling units from a maximum
area of two square feet to two signs at three square feet which will allow for the location of accessory
types of signs such as no trespassing, garage sale, beware of dog and other informational messages
typically associated with residence. He added these accessory types of signs would be without the
requirement of a sign permit. 9) various commercial zone lots-Mr. DeCerbo explained that rather than
just limiting the total permitted sign area allowed per lot by zone, the new Ordinance will include new
detailed sign regulations for such uses as hotels, motels, resort hotels, commercial centers, free standing
commercial buildings, service stations, theatres, professional care facilities, public parks, produce and
flower stands, nursery greenhouse and packing sheds plus government, school and church uses. This
concluded the list of main revisions to the Ordinance.
Mr. DeCerbo then shared about the existing provisions regarding non-conforming signs that are proposed
for revision. He explained that a non-conforming sign is defined as any sign that was legally established in
/33
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 7
conformance with all sign regulations which were in effect at the time of the original installation, ‘but which
do not conform to the existing sign regulations or the new regulations. He further explained that the
existing Ordinance allows non-conforming signs to remain in existence for a specific period of time from
the effective date of the Ordinance creating the non-conformity. He stated that the specific time period is
referred to as an amortization period and was established to enable the owner of a non-conforming sign to
recoup the value of the sign during that time period prior to removal and that the signs are required to be
removed upon the expiration of the amortization period. He shared that the sign amortization provisions
are proposed to be deleted. Mr. DeCerbo stated that, instead of deleting the sign amortization provisions
that staff is recommending that non-conforming signs be required to be brought into conformance with the
existing or new sign regulations upon the submittal of a sign permit application to modify a non-conforming
sign or to propose a change of use upon a property which has a non-conforming sign. He shared that this
zone code amendment does propose some major revisions to the City Sign Ordinance and that these new
regulations will create a more restrictive sign environment within the City, particularly with regard to the
time, place and manner of construction regulations; however, the revisions are in keeping with the City’s
interest in preserving community aesthetics and ensuring traffic safety while compliant with current
Constitutional case law. Mr. DeCerbo stated that the proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment is in
compliance with all City regulations, implementing the goals of the General Plan and is consistent with the
applicable Coastal Policies of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. He stated in conclusion that staff
recommends approval of Zone Code Amendment 00-04 and Local Coastal Program Amendment 00-07.
Commissioner Heineman asked if there are any service station pole signs that are between 150 and 200
square feet presently?
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the City’s inventory does not conclude that there are any, but that the majority are
in the 50 square feet per face range.
Commissioner Nielsen asked regarding private signs on private property if there is any limit on the number
of signs.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the Ordinance recommends on residential lots to have one sign at six square feet
and for non-residential properties, one campaign sign at 16 square feet.
Commissioner Nielsen concluded that if you are a homeowner, you are limited to one sign for your favorite
candidate.
Mr. DeCerbo confirmed that was the recommendation
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. DeCerbo to clarify how the City will deal with signs that will no longer be in
conformance if this Ordinance is passed.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the City will not proactively abate (take out) any existing non-conforming signs
but will require conformance when there is a change in use or a new sign is requested.
Mr. Wayne added that it would be a legally non-conforming sign that would not be abated, but illegal signs
would be abated as they are discovered.
Commissioner Baker clarified that she was referring to currently legal signs before the new Ordinance
caused them to become illegal.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that this Ordinance also distinguishes between a prohibited sign and a non-
conforming sign in which each has it own rule.
Commissioner Baker asked what happens when a business has a sign that is currently allowable but
becomes prohibited?
Mr. DeCerbo responded that it would depend on where it is located, but if it is a health and safety issue
with respect to the sign or if it could create some hazard, or if it is in the public right-of-way, then the City
Manager or the Community Development Director could request them to take it out without any notice to
/38
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 8
that person. He further stated that if it is a sign that is not in the public right-of-way or is a danger, then the
provision requires that a written notification be sent to the sign owner and that they get an appeal process
to come and state whether there are accurate findings to say that their sign is not legal anymore and
whether they have a right to appeal, which is a formalized process.
Commissioner Baker asked what the thinking was on allowing only two flags, for example if a business
may want a California flag, a U.S. flag and their corporate flag?
Mr. DeCerbo replied that they picked two flags because they believed they were not compromising the
aesthetics by allowing two, especially if one was a corporate flag and the other a U.S. flag, and if more
they would have to allow it for every property which could be an issue in a residential neighborhood, for
instance if somebody opts to put three 24-foot flags on their property and never take them down.
Commissioner Baker asked if the City could allow two in a residential and three in a commercial area?
Mr. DeCerbo stated that it is possible to do that.
Chairperson Segall pointed out that since Daniels Cable Vision and Four Seasons both have three flags,
would they each have to remove one at this point?
Mr. DeCerbo answered no because since the third flag would be a non-conforming flag, by virtue of
change in the new regulations (only two flags being allowed), then the City would not abate them nor tell
them to remove it ever, as flags do not require a sign permit application (which would be needed for
construction of any new sign or structural change or modification to any existing non-conforming sign or to
propose a change of use upon a property which has a non-conforming sign), therefore, they would not be
coming in to get a new sign permit in the future. He clarified that under the new Ordinance only two flags
would be allowed unless a flag permit was requested for any additional flags.
Commissioner Baker, regarding the vehicle sign regulation, asked if the following example would be
considered a sign-a vehicle belonging to a commercial entity doing business in the City and it is parked
in their parking lot which could be seen from the right-of-way?
Mr. DeCerbo replied no, that those are signs that are associated with a business on the vehicle and is not
used to advertise or to locate a sign for an off-site good.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. DeCerbo to clarify concerning campaign signs in the public right-of-way
as to where the City has been in the past and where the City might be going in the future with it. She
stated that there is a conflict in Title 18 and Title 21 regarding the campaign signs.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that campaign signs have not been prohibited in the public-right-of-way, but they are
permitted in the public right-of-way with a permit.
Mr. Wayne stated that the conflict of Title 18 and Title 21 is one of the issues staff is trying to rectify
through the amendment of the Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Trigas shared her concerns on the content issue regarding sign advertisement on company
vehicles even though they are using it to transport goods and it is allowed on the right-of-way. She
expressed that she was having a problem with the gray areas.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that pursuant to the definition it basically says, “vehicle signs, except for two signs of
up to lO”xl2” each mounted inside vehicle windows while the vehicle is parked or stationary, invisible from
the public right-of-way; all other signs attach to or are painted on vehicles which are parked or stationary
and visible from the public right-of-way shall be prohibited unless said vehicle is regularly used in the
normal day-to-day operations of a business.”
Commissioner Trigas asked if the regulations would be the same for a local bakery truck compared to a
truck that is a national corporation and has trucks all over the place? She asked if it was ok if the
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 9
advertisement is painted on the truck, and not ok if it is placed on the truck? She stated that she is
confused and asked for clarification.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that typically they are regarded as portable signs when they are being used
exclusively as an off-site advertising device.
Mr. Wayne directed everyone to page 7 of the Ordinance, line ##24. He stated that they are not trying to
regulate Beacon’s Moving Vans or Yellow Cabs or anything else. He agreed there needed to be more
clarification in this area because the last thing the City wanted to be is content based.
Commissioner Trigas asked if a prohibitive temporary sign is put up and the City removes it, but it is put
back up, is there a possibility of some sort of fine and is there something more the City can do where there
is an intentional violation?
Ms. Mobaldi responded that Mr. DeCerbo has provided for enforcement provisions in the new Sign
Ordinance and they include citing someone for an infraction. She stated if someone is cited for four
infractions in a twelve month period, they can be cited for a misdemeanor. Ms. Mobaldi said assuming that
the violations were that grievous, there are appropriate remedies. They could also be charged the cost for
removing the sign.
Commissioner Nielsen asked Mr. DeCerbo if the City is going to do away with kiosk signs for subdivisions
on the corners and on private property, plus the people who stand on the corners with the arrows pointing
somewhere?
Mr. DeCerbo replied that yes, it is the City’s intent to do away with kiosks, and if they are on private
property, they are still offsite.
Commissioner Nielsen asked Mr. DeCerbo if that is legal to ban the people who stand on the corners with
the arrows pointing?
Ms. Mobaldi replied that yes it is legal because it is commercial signage and the law makes distinction
between commercial signage for advertising purposes and expressive speech which is allowed in a
traditional public forum such as a sidewalk.
Commissioner Nielsen asked what if a Mayor candidate had somebody with a movable sign, is that
commercial or is that private?
Ms. Mobaldi replied that that is expressive speech, non-commercial, and political.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if you have to ban that too.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the courts make distinctions between picketing, leafleting etc. where people are
moving around on a sidewalk as opposed to signage in the sense that is being discussed this evening and
they allow more leeway for people who are expressing themselves, live people, standing out there
expressing their political, philosophical and religious views, That is a different issue than somebody
standing on a sidewalk with an arrow that says, “Such and Such Homes are down the street.” That is
prohibited and I believe the law allows that.
Chairperson Segall asked if there are two types of real estate signs which were discussed tonight, real
estate signs and subdivision real estate signs.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that the subdivision real estate signs are the kiosk signs. He explained that the other
is just a real estate sign located in the right-of-way. He stated it is allowable to have a real estate sign,
although the City cannot say what can be put on the real estate sign.
Chairperson Segall asked if this Ordinance would ban all “Open House” real estate signs?
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 10
Mr. DeCerbo answered yes, if they were on public property, but it could be put in a neighbor’s property, if
they would allow it.
Chairperson Segall asked if a real estate sign could be put on a corner at a major intersection, where
there might not be a property owner, to inform people there is property for sale? He asked if no, would it
be a misdemeanor to have four infractions?
Ms. Mobaldi replied that the misdemeanor is discretionary and she does not think historically, that the City
has issued very many citations in relation to signs. Typically the person is contacted and they then
cooperate or if the sign is someplace where it is creating a hazard, it is removed by the City.
Chairperson Segall also asked if the Redevelopment Agency is exempt at this point from this Sign
Ordinance and where is this information?
Commissioner Baker stated it is at the bottom of the paragraph on A-frame signs, and she read “the
revised Sign Ordinance will prohibit all types of A-frame signs throughout the City accordingly. The Village
Redevelopment Master Plan will be subsequently amended to be consistent with the City-wide A-frame
signage prohibition.”
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the Provisions in the Ordinance Amendments in this Code do not apply to the
Village Master Plan. It might be presumptuous to assume that they ever will, but that is what was stated in
the staff report.
Chairperson Segall said accordingly the Village Redevelopment Master Plan will be subsequently
amended to be consistent, in other words, it is not going to happen right now, but it will happen.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that she believes Mr. DeCerbo could qualify this for her, but she believes this
Ordinance does apply to the Village as far as provisions which are not provided for otherwise in the Village
Master Plan. She stated that the Village has its own Master Plan Sign Regulations, which is fairly
comprehensive, but where they do not cover a subject matter, the City’s Sign Ordinance applies which is
the way it is written in the revised version.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the Village Master Plan specifically allows A-frame signs and where it calls out a
standard that is different than the City’s Sign Ordinance, the Master Plan sign provisions would be in
effect. He pointed out if there were not special standards for a suspended sign, if they were the same,
they would not be addressed separately in the Village Master Plan sign provisions because they would be
the same as in our existing Code. If you are talking about suspended signs you just look in our Code to
see what the regulations are, but for A-frames, they have their own regulations in the Village and they
would not be affected by the City’s Sign Ordinance.
Chairperson Segall recalled about six months ago the Planning Commission approved an Ordinance for
commercial buildings and asked if the essence of that Ordinance is in this report?
Mr. DeCerbo reported that “yes.” Staff has taken that report and put it in this document and explained that
it was put in a tabular format.
Chairperson Segall stated that an issue that he has raised in the past is in the industrial corridor the street
addresses appear to be indiscriminately placed; they are hard to find in some cases as their sizes are
different and there appears to be no standard. In the past he has been told that those were either building
or fire-related and not under the department. He asked if that issue is being addressed in this Ordinance?
Mr. DeCerbo pointed out in Table A on page 7 of the Ordinance that it includes signs not requiring a sign
permit and the second section is address signs which talks about the standards (which are from the
Building Code) being 4” in residential and 6” in non-residential.
Chairperson Segall pointed out that the problem which currently exists is that these signs are not put up in
appropriate locations, they match the background of buildings and in some cases, as up on Fleet Street,
you cannot even see the address, it blends instead of standing out. He said he was told that is a concern
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 11
with the Fire Department, they need to know where to go so they have signs in certain places, but they
already know what the buildings are. Its customers of people in the industrial park that do not know where
they are going and cannot find the numbers.
Mr. DeCerbo stated when the City did the industrial signage they required that the monument signs
include the addresses on them. He continued that even if you have a building that is set back off the
street, at least you would have the range of numbers that are on that lot or property. Mr. DeCerbo stated
that the City has a standard provision in its conditions that the building addresses have to be visible to
emergency services. He suggested if that if they are not being built that way the City needs to look at it.
Chairperson Segall asked if it is something staff could look at in terms of putting it into a Planning
document rather than Building and Fire Services, so it comes under a more consistent approach.
Mr. DeCerbo stated it is reviewed by the Safety Services.
Chairperson Segall asked if it is correct that the report indicates that staff would only permit three colors
for logos from now on for buildings and signs?
Mr. DeCerbo answered yes, it is three colors plus black.
Chairperson Segall asked Ms. Mobaldi if that is legal and if a company has four colors how can the City
come in and say they can only have three of their four colors for their logo?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that she thinks the preferable way would be to allow them to use whatever colors their
logo consists of.
Chairperson Segall stated then there is a conflict with that in saying we can only have three colors?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that she is assuming that Mr. DeCerbo has looked at various logos of companies and
so far, including black and white and three additional colors, has not seen any that exceed that.
Chairperson Segall stated that the City’s logo would be prohibited based on this regulation and asked staff
to look into it. He went on to state that they do not have an applicant for this item, as the City is the
applicant.
RECESS:
Chairperson Segall called a Recess at 7:lO p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:
Chairperson Segall called the Meeting back to order at 7:20 p.m., with six Commissioners present.
Chairperson Segal opened public testimony on the Sign Ordinance. He announced that they will listen to
everyone and their goal is to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. but they have two other significant hearings as well
tonight.
Bud Schlehuber, 2720 Jefferson, Carlsbad stated he is here tonight on behalf of the Old World Center and
its anchor tenant, the Giblin Restaurant. He explained the history, and described the sign. He stated that
after investing in the sign for his restaurant, Mr. Giblin was told it is illegal. He shared that he has a
concern the City Ordinance is going to end up the Redevelopment Ordinance too. He stated that it says in
December 1999 the City was given instruction to do a new Sign Ordinance. He discussed the subsequent
actions concerning the sign and potential revision to the Redevelopment Master Plan. He continued that
they reached an agreement with the City Attorney’s office in which they agreed that they would not
prosecute and not push this until they finally got a new Redevelopment Ordinance. He shared that he is
concerned about the Ordinance. Discretionary enforcement is not fair and it has to be uniform
enforcement for everybody.
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 12
Ned Giblin, 640 Grand Avenue, Carlsbad explained that his is an Irish restaurant and he took it over in
1998. They fell in love with the building because it was so authentic and was the Old World Center and
they used the existing sign because it fell in with the Village theme which is what they were looking for.
He invested about $3,000 to maintain that theme with gold leaf and the proper coloring. He stated he was
sorry to hear the issue of color come up. He said that under this new proposal, they are actually illegal
twice, one by being a pole sign over eight feet and the other possibly by being a roof sign because it goes
through the cantilever of the roof. He wanted to see if there could be some provision where you could
have an individual application not slip through, but be taken up on its own merit. This would be in keeping
with the City and the whole purpose with the plan by keeping up the aesthetics for the City.
Diane Scheer, Carlsbad Village Business Association, P.O. Box 1460, Carlsbad stated that everyone
appreciates the value that the City places on maintaining an environment free of billboard signs and no
one wants to see the l-5 corridor littered with huge signs. She thinks everyone appreciates an easy to
understand Sign Ordinance. She stated that is was unfortunate that the new proposed Ordinance is so
restrictive. It will definitely have a negative impact on the ability for many businesses to maintain their
current level of income. She pointed out that the A-frame signs are dragged out every morning to be put
on a curb and at the end of the day are dragged back into the business and they do this simply because it
does make a difference in the bottom line. She stated that businesses who use A-frame signs do so
because there is poor visibility of their business due to either trees that are along the street or other
landscaping that blocks the signs that are painted on their building. She added that community directional
kiosk signs are beneficial to visitors to our city.
Tracy Carmichael, 4566 Horizon Drive, Carlsbad stated she comes before the Planning Commission this
evening with great concern over the Sign Ordinance Amendment that could stipulate unfunded mandates
for our schools. She shared that her daughter attends Kelly School where currently there is one marquee
on the front of their building obtained with bond money, through the gracious community supporters who
passed that bond at quite a large rate, one of the largest in the state. She noted that the school (Kelly)
made the site decision to purchase another marquee and is on order ready to be processed soon, within
the next six to eight weeks. She stated that the first thing when she looked at the Ordinance is how will
this impact them, does it fit under the new Ordinance and applications. Does it fit into the color
coordination and the logo specifications in the Ordinance? She said they use that marquee to
communicate with not only the parents but the school community and people who do not attend the
schools. She gave another example that this week Carlsbad High School received for its gymnasium a
flag that was flown over our Capitol and it is a huge flag. She did not know its exact dimensions, but it is
greater than a 24’x24’ flag. It was given to Carlsbad High through the Optimist Club from Duke
Cunningham, and to be flown over their new gym. She questioned whether or not if they fly a D.A.R.E.
flag, a California Distinguished School flag, an American flag, and a California State flag, have they
violated this ordinance? If they build a new school, how many flags are they going to be able to fly? She
stated they take great pride in what they do at their schools and in achieving awards and sometimes that
is the only way that they can send to their community exactly what it is that they are doing. If it is a
California Distinguished and National Blue Ribbons school, an American High School flag, they are very
proud just like they are in flying that American flag.
Commissioner Trigas asked if she checked with her legal council on this issue, as she thought that public
buildings, as she is representing the State and school districts etc, would be exempt from this.
Ms. Carmichael replied that she did not know, but she did call staff yesterday when she picked up the
Ordinance last week. They were not aware of the Ordinance itself and were looking into it. She stated they
never got back with her today whether or not legal council had been able to get hold of the Ordinance
itself.
Commissioner Trigas assumed that they would be exempt, but she said she would look into it herself.
Lee Ann Lilinthall, 2728 Grove Avenue and business is 580 Grand Avenue, Carlsbad. She stated that she
has been addressing the sign issue for over 15 years working with the Master Plan in the Redevelopment
Area. She stated that her question tonight is with the (Redevelopment) Master Plan in effect. Does that go
longer than the Redevelopment or does it stop in the 2006 when the Redevelopment is over in the
Village? She stated that she would like to see some workshops and noted that there is a short time span,
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 13
but she thinks everyone is in agreement that it is not an easy Ordinance and there are a lot of things that
need to be discussed regarding it. She said that A-frames in the Village are obviously important and she is
one of those that haul it out in the morning and haul it in, in the evening, and they are heavy. She stated
that she has a million dollar liability insurance policy on her A-frame sign that they had to put forth the last
go around on these signs. She said the aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. She stated that it is
important to be able to work with the City and to work through the problems and for everybody to be
satisfied. She said without kiosk signs in Aviara, as she does not live there, she would be totally lost. They
need more around the Village for the general public as they do not know where all the parking is in the
Village and they think parking is hard to find. Better signage is needed, for the ones who have lived there
and worked there know where it is. She stated that signs make or break a business and they are not all in
retail centers with large parking lots in front of them and so there are different needs for different parts of
the City.
John Jones, 3292 Roosevelt, Carlsbad stated that he came here ready for fire and brimstone, but the
Commission just about took care of everything. He said there was only one thing he was a little bit short
on and that is the business of signs and vehicles such as cars and so forth. He said that he noticed that
now you are allowed to put up any kind of a sign up to a certain size in a vehicle, regardless what you do
with it. He stated that he would like to find a way, if possible, to prohibit putting vehicles on main arterials
strictly for the business of selling because you have a lot of these used car dealers and other car
dealerships in other cities that bring their cars over here and park them on our streets trying to make a
sale, not paying city taxes. He felt that should be looked into. He stated he thinks it is an excellent Sign
Ordinance and as far as he is concerned it could have been a little more restrictive than what it is right
now.
Kelli Moors, 4025 Crescent Point Road, Carlsbad, stated she was elected in November 2000 to the
Carlsbad School Board. Business and real estate have been well presented here, so she stated she was
going to speak about campaign signs, which is her concern, particularly those in the public right-of-way.
She stated she ran against an incumbent, an appointed incumbent and a former school board member
and she got the most votes. She stated that signs posted by a committed and eager candidate can level
the playing field for a newcomer. She said she applied for and received a temporary sign permit from the
City, paying her fee and deposit which allowed her to place conforming signs in the public right-of-way for
a thirty-day period prior to the election. She said now that she is an incumbent it would be easy to favor
the proposed Ordinance which would keep the advantage offered to her by her elected position, but she
stated that she does not favor it as it is written. She stated that signs help citizens learn about issues and
candidates, prompting them to be better and informed voters and we have a good history here in Carlsbad
of our candidates behaving responsibly and conforming to the rules that are offered by our City for sign
placement. She said she hopes the proposed provisions for campaign signs will be reconsidered to allow
campaign signs to continue to responsibly inform the voters of their choices.
Andre LeCault, 2903 Carlsbad Blvd, Carlsbad stated he is also the President of the Carlsbad Village
Business Association. He stated that CVBA is quite apprehensive about the language of the new Sign
Ordinance which affects a lot of businesses all over town. They feel that the circumstances of the drafting
of the sign language appears to be somewhat covert as they just found out about three weeks ago and
have not had time to provide their input to the words behind the language. He said that he wrote a letter to
the Mayor volunteering the fact that they would like to participate in any review and provide comments or
at least try to be heard and the next thing they knew the Sign Ordinance was out and there was a draft
coming before the Planning Commission and/or to the City Council. He asked what the forum is by which
the citizens provide input to the Planning Commission or to the City Ordinance. He stated that having
several workshops or at least providing a venue for input would at least alleviate some of the
apprehension. He asked what the underlying agenda was for having such a restrictive Sign Ordinance,
perhaps is the most restrictive in the State of California. Why is there the making of so many rules? He
said he understands the freedom of free speech etc., but it seems like this is happening so secretly and
they do not know what is really going on. Mr. LeCault stated he is also concerned about the statement that
the Carlsbad Village would not be affected because of the Redevelopment Master Plan. He stated that the
Redevelopment Agency is going away in 2006. The plan is silent, and asked if the City is building a
concrete foundation here by 2006 and citizens will be stuck with something that they cannot live with and
do business? He stated that they are concerned and tonight, for instance, by the Planning Commissions
questions, the citizens heard a lot of the answers were technically “no, but” and this is what they heard
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 14
many times. He said that these are some of the questions they as business owners have also and they
have not had a chance to ask the Planning Commission. He asked why the City favors gas stations over
restaurants and motels.
Allan Wanamaker, 2399 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad stated he owns a restaurant on the corner of Carlsbad
Village Drive and Jefferson. He shared that in the Village of Carlsbad they are facing a recession starting
the end of this year, as there is going to be a major street project to do with sewer lines that is going to
impact the entire Village. He stated that with a restrictive Sign Ordinance plus the problems with
construction and the extended period of time it is going to take, it is going to devastate business. He
further stated that the City spends a lot of money and local business does also attracting tourists to town.
If we enact a Sign Ordinance that is so restrictive that visitors unfamiliar with our town cannot find their
way around and find it difficult to find the attractions they are looking for, they have wasted that money for
they will not get those people back again and the City which is now receiving in excess or close to $10
million a year in TOT taxes, and that is just TOT taxes from hotels. That does not include the taxes the
tourists who pay those TOT taxes drop in local businesses and attractions. He said that a restrictive Sign
Ordinance can only hurt the businesses. He explained there are several service clubs in town who, over
the last 20 years, have contributed and raised money in excess of $500,000 for local charities. For
instance, the Rotary Clubs in town have their annual Octoberfest, and they rely on off-site signage to
attract the community to this event, using 4’x8’ signs. They put them in various sections of the City. He
said that just having a banner in the park is not going to have the effect that an off-site sign will have. He
asked if it is the intention of the City to restrict that sort of thing.
Tom McMahon, 4028 Park Drive, Carlsbad stated that his family owns Carlsbad Village Theatre
downtown. He said generally he has not observed a non-aesthetic level of sign abuse in Carlsbad. He
said that this Ordinance to him seems overly restrictive and was wondering why it is so overly restrictive
and comprehensive when we really do not appear to have a problem. He shared that Al (Wanamaker) did
a good job of expressing his sentiments also, and he asked staff about the amortization of non-conforming
signs, and was it 2, 3, 5, 10, 20 years? He also asked how many outdoor advertising off-site signs do we
have in the City currently, defined as billboard signs? Do we have 1, 15, 20 or what is the number we
currently have? He stated a couple weeks ago they were given a presentation by the City Attorney down
at the CVBA about the Sign Ordinance and one of the questions that came up was the fact that the Village
Master Plan would have to be put in conformance to the City Ordinance if the Sign Ordinance was
adopted by the City. The Village Master Plan subsequently would have to be brought into conformance
which is a very key issue and going along with that issue is also the fact that what happens in 2006 like
somebody else mentioned earlier? He stated that he believed the City has a choice of adopting the zoning
and the Village Master Plan or just discarding and going with their own zoning in the year 2006, so that is
a very important point for the Village owners. He asked how the Sign Ordinance impacts historic buildings
and is there some kind of provision for historic buildings? He mentioned concerning the staffs
discretionary activity that they will not abate signs that are non-conforming until somebody comes along
and requests a permit. Using the example of the Giblin sign, when a new owner came in he was surprised
to find out when he applied for a small change in a sign. It was a non-conforming sign and he would really
have to buy an entirely new sign which may discourage that new business owner from coming to town. He
said there are a lot of things in this Ordinance that are probably unnecessary and he requests that the
Commission really seriously think about limiting the scope of the Ordinance.
Louis A. Wallace, Caldwell Banker, Suite 160, 505 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad stated that specifically he
was going to talk about “Open House” signs and the prohibition of real estate signs, which severely
impacts the marketing of real estate. He stated that the prohibition or restriction of “Open House” signs
seems a bit excessive and it appears to him that it might be a better idea to consider something along the
lines of some time limitations, such as “Open House” signs are allowed during a certain period of time on a
weekend or on a daily basis; they have to be out by 530 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. or something like that, rather
than no signs at all. He went on to say that some interesting statistics that the California Association of
Realtors have provided us is that “Open House” activity, actual sales of “Open Houses”, 60% of them are
simply people who went out to get a carton of milk, saw a sign, stopped in and bought a house. He stated
that he did not even know what a kiosk sign was, but now that he has been enlightened he kind of likes
them and he too gets lost in Aviara. It is nice to see where the new Aviara complex is and he would like to
see more of them, for he thinks rather than a hindrance to the City they beautify the City. He thinks they
are an attractive sign, if done in the City colors with tact and taste, he sees nothing wrong with it.
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 15
Bill Kornik, General Manager of Bob Baker, Chrysler-Volkswagon, in Car Country Carlsbad, 4800 Paseo
Del Norte, Carlsbad stated he came with a whole list of items to discuss, but has recently discovered that
Car Country Carlsbad would be exempt from this because it has a specific plan and would not fall under
the auspices of this. He stated that however, regarding the Car Country Carlsbad freeway sign, the
dealers in Car Country have been discussing it and have been intent upon updating that sign for many
years. The current proposal that you have in front of you seems to limit not only the size and scope, but
also the type of sign that goes in there. He pointed out that currently they have a pole type sign and with
the proposed ordinance they would be limited to a pole sign basically like the one they have there which
they feel is very outdated. Possibly some language that would give us some leeway to go with a much
more attractive sign that is in tune to the community and fits in to Carlsbad would be a consideration. He
said that with the current sign they have right now, they are looking at refacing it and if they do it would be
a non-conforming sign if this proposal goes through, because it is internally lit and does not have channel
letters. To update that sign, which is truly in need of updating, is going to require a new sign. He asked
that they consider that when the Commission is revising the Ordinance or looking at this proposal.
Carlton Lund, 1320 Corvidae Street, Carlsbad said that he has some real economic concerns and he is
really concerned with the Sign Ordinance. To loose a kiosk in some of these commercial areas where
people will be wandering around and looking around he thinks will cause greater safety concerns. He said
he thinks A-frame signs are wonderful and that A-frame signs are safer than stake signs. He is concerned
about exposed neon signs. He thanked the Planning Commission for all their work hard, and staff also. He
said if it is not broke, don’t fix it. Let us have some more community forums or there will be litigation and
there will be problems that will far exceed any kind of restrictions.
William Ostrie, part owner of Carlsbad Village Art and Antique Mall, 2752 State Street, Carlsbad, stated
that he just wanted to briefly speak in favor of A-frame signs throughout the City. He realizes that this
proposed Ordinance does not immediately affect the Village and the signage, but of course by 2006 it
certainly could and probably would affect it. He mentioned that A-frame signs in the Village are pedestrian
oriented and not car oriented and they are totally ineffective as far as cars driving because parked cars
block all the A-frame signs. They are effective for pedestrians, so merchants do depend on the A-frame
sign to collect some pedestrian traffic. He stated that he believes that the A-frames contribute to the new
character of the Village rather than detract from it and he is certainly is not aware of any hazards they
have created. It could be that the City has a long list of accidents and injured people resulting from A-
frames, he is just not aware of it and have never seen anything like that. They obviously have adequate
insurance programs to protect against that. He said they have only received compliments on their signage
program including their A-frames and certainly have seen no reason to put that program in danger.
David Adlard, 7720-C El Camino Real, Carlsbad, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to stand
there and speak against the proposed action by the Commission to recommend the Sign Ordinance. He
stated that after reviewing the Ordinance, it is apparent there are meaningful changes being made to the
Sign Ordinance which will affect all property and business owners within the City and have a significant
effect on the owners of shopping centers. He stated he is there today as a representative of La Costa
Towne Center Shopping Center which is located at the corner of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real;
the old Vons Center. He stated that they have invested a substantial amount of money into the community
and they believe they have a vested interest in the Sign Ordinance and what it is going to say and what
effect it will have on us as a property owner. He said they are particularly concerned because they have
recently revamped their sign program at the shopping center to bring more uniformity and conformity
within the sign program at the shopping center and they were trying to rectify a haphazard situation that
had gone on there for quite a few years. He stated that they are now looking at a changed Ordinance that
potentially could put them back into a haphazard situation. He said that because there is apparently no
grandfather provision for shopping center owners, as compared to tenants. He stated that potentially a
tenant of ours in the shopping center could come along and not be able to put up a sign that is in
conformity to the existing sign program that they have at the shopping center, thereby creating more
disuniformity throughout the center. This is one area that we would ask for the issue to be addressed. He
went on to say that with leases expiring over a IO to 20 year of time in the shopping center, he believes
that this is going to reduce the quality of signage within existing properties and be harder to create a more
aesthetic situation. He asked the Commission to delay the implementation of their decision until property
and business owners have had a reasonable period of time to study the Ordinance and provide input into
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 16
how such changes are going to affect property and business owners, with the opportunity to suggest
improvements. He said it would make only sense to solicit input from the people that are going to be
affected by the Ordinance. He stated that the potential aesthetic and monetary costs of passing the
Ordinance are very, very substantial for owners such as them. He stated that as a real estate owner, they
have worked very hard to provide a quality environment and they have spent a significant amount of time
and money and they support a good quality and aesthetically pleasing sign program within the community
and they do not see that the proposed Ordinance meaningfully moves them towards those objectives.
Chairperson Segall asked, based on what Mr. Adlard has seen now in the Ordinance and what the
existing signs that they have, what changes would occur?
Mr. Adlard replied that the problem they are having right now is they do not quite understand how the
Ordinance is going to apply to their storefront signs within the shopping center, to their under-canopy
signs and their building signs; again because they have tried to create the uniformity through their own
private legislative action, and their leases require conformity. They have spent over $50,000 doing that in
the last couple years. They do not know what it is going to look like in the future and so they have made
this effort hiring architects and planners etc. to come up with something that they believe is positive for the
community and now a number of years down the road they do not know if it is deemed a non-conforming
sign. Their issue is how that tenant making a change is going to work with their own fairly restrictive sign
criteria within the shopping center.
Gary Piro, 2641 Valewood Avenue, Carlsbad. He stated he would like to urge the Commission to
recommend to the Commission to consider forming a Citizen’s Committee; to take a step back and really
look at this Sign Ordinance before it goes much further. He said he has been coming here since the 50s
when he was a little boy and he could not wait to move down here. He stated that he remembers the
Duley McCluskies sign and it is very pleasing to him. He also stated that the A-frame signs too is very
much a part of our heritage and it is very traditional and it would be sad to see that go. He said that the
City of San Diego specifically passed an Ordinance to encourage and make it easier to put those A-frame
type structures in their redevelopment areas such as in the Gas Lamp Quarter, since they have redone
that redesign, He said that the Gas Lamp Quarter, Adams Avenue and North Park-they specifically have
Ordinances that allow for that which the City of Carlsbad is trying to outlaw. He asked that the
Commission please consider a Citizen’s Committee to step back and take all this in and come up with
some modifications to this to keep what is good.
Gaylor Smith, 7030 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad stated he is with Prudential California Realty and he has
been a broker for the past 15 years. He is here tonight representing the San Diego North County
Association of Realtors. He stated that on page 10 of the proposal is a comment regarding
communications which says “all Sign Ordinance must include a purpose and intent section that clearly
states the City’s interest in regulating signs while providing adequate channels of communication.” He said
it has to be considered that buyers and sellers, which he is including “for sale by owners,” and they need
the opportunity to have directional signs, particularly a “for sale by owner.” He only has about three
different ways he can put his property toward the public interest and that is through the signs or through
the newspaper advertising or flyers or a yard sign that is fairly restrictive. If you take the directional sign
away from him, then you have virtually eliminated that choice for those individuals. He asked the
Commission to consider that and confirmed that it is a communication and they need to allow for it. He
went on to say that if they take the advantage of the signs as they are now, people will use those signs not
only for finding a home but he stated he has had people come and follow his signs because they are
looking for people to represent them in the sale of their home. He suggested if they have to make a
change, perhaps the signs for “Open House” be permitted during certain hours of a day, for instance 9:00
a.m. or even 10:00 a.m. and that they must be removed by 6:00 p.m. He said he does not want his signs
to out there overnight or a long time. He went on to point out the size of the sign which on A-frame is about
18” to 20” high or a stake sign is about 18” wide to 30” high, the sign itself, not the stake and a sign this
size is not a real blight on the neighborhood.
Jan Sobel, Suite #128, 5620 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad. CEO of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce,
representing 1,700 businesses in Carlsbad and 35,000 employees. She said that she can appreciate the
time and the energy the City has put into this Ordinance as she met with them last August regarding the
industrial area. They did take input from the business community and that is why she is somewhat
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 17
surprised in the business community that they did not know until three weeks ago that this was coming
before you. She said that since 1999 the City has been working on the amended Sign Ordinance and they
were able to bring together the business community to look at the industrial. She asked why they could not
look at the whole Sign Ordinance and workshops prior to this until they find out they have several weeks
just to get it passed, she said she is curious why they could do it one time and not the other. She stated
that in the last three weeks she has received around 50 phone calls from businesses concerned about
how this will impact their business and many of them spoke tonight regarding A-frames and retail and
directional signs. She said that from an organization that answers thousands and thousands of phone
calls every year for people looking for things, especially housing, that the lack and the loss of kiosks where
they say, “get to Palomar Airport Road and it will tell you where certain roads etc are.” She stated that it
will impact the traffic, people lost and looking for things, but she stated she understands there are
Constitutional issues on public right-of-way, that some kind of alternate opportunities could perhaps be
looked at. She said it should not be something just to accept as on the weekends people will be driving
around forever looking for homes to buy. She added that last weeks Benefit Improvement Meeting for the
Village, the number two issue that was brought forward was directional signs, which was one of the items
they had to work on the most. She pointed out without directional signs you will not be able to see where
the library, the Visitor Center, or any of the other things that are important to the City of Carlsbad are, in
dealing not only with their residents, but their visitors as well. She said for the last 3 % years the City of
Carlsbad and the Chamber have been working together on transportation issues and one of the things
they noted was the need for sheltered bus benches in the industrial park. She said they hoping they could
get some opportunity so that if a sheltered bus bench was in front of “Taylor Made” they could some
discrete sign on that $3,500 investment that said, Donated or Sponsored by Taylor Made Golf or Callaway
Golf or whoever is where the bus stop is, because she said they find that people do not use bus stops
unless there is a bus shelter especially in the winter and colder months. She stated that she knows no one
else is going to speak on bus benches as they are not very popular and she asks that signage not be
totally prohibitive, that it remain the same way it is now, which is that on an individual basis in some kind of
discrete way they might be able to develop those shelter systems for those of us who are promoting public
transportation. She said she hopes the Commission would consider that. She added that they have the
Village Faire that about two or three weeks before the Village Faire they put out signs to notify the people
when it is, even though 80,000 people seem to know it is the first Sunday in May and the first Sunday in
November, but again she stated that it brings people to Carlsbad, they spend an awful lot of money here
on those two days and she said she would hate for them not to be able to put those signs out to remind
people that it is important.
Larry Tucker, One Upper Newport Plaza, Newport Beach, California 92660, pointed out that unlike the
merchants in the Village he did not hear about this three weeks ago, he heard about it last Thursday and
the first thing he did was to try to get hold of the staff report and the Ordinance. He said he got the staff
report on Friday and the Ordinance on Monday afternoon. He stated he would be able to make some
detailed comments tonight and would try to defer those so you do not have to listen through them to see if
it is something he can work through with staff. He said the first thing he did when he got the staff report is
that he noticed it referred to a Council Resolution so he contacted the City Clerk and got the Council
Resolution which says, the purpose of the Resolution with the Urgency Ordinance was so the staff could
bring to the Planning Commission and the Council a revision to the Sign Code, “to comply with current
case law, articulate Legislative interest [which he said he presumes is meant to be intent] and clarify the
City’s Sign Regulations.” He said nowhere did it talk about changing the amount of signs, the size of signs,
the locations of signs-that is not something that was contemplated by the Resolution. He stated that if
you want to solve the Constitutional problem that you have, and he stated that he understands that it is a
serious and significant one. He said that the Commission could do that in a few paragraphs by just
addressing the Constitutional issues. He pointed out that what has happened here is the Sign Ordinance’s
revision has taken on a life of its own and gotten much beyond what the Council directed to be brought
back. The big problems that the businesses and citizens have with it is that it takes an amount of signage
that is available today and sign programs that are in effect today, and wipes them all out unless their sign
programs are adopted by Ordinance, which most in the City; shopping centers generally are not. He
stated that he suspects that the City has received no complaints and probably the Commission has no
complaints with the sign programs in the Ralph’s Center off Poinsettia and l-5; the center that Mr. Alard
referred to; the Old Vons Center; nor the new Vons Center at Alga and El Camino Real. He went on to say
that the consequences to those centers and to the center which he is in the process of developing, La
Costa Avenue and El Camino Real, will be significant. For the proposed Albertson’s building, it will be a
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 18
53% reduction in the amount of signage available. It will be a 51% reduction in the amount of shop
signage available. He stated that this is not something that they are just “seat of the pants” applying for but
this is a sign program that they submitted to the City on the La Costa Plaza which is 19 pages, stamped
approved. It details where the signs will go, the size, the lettering, and the style, which is not something
that just gets made up as you go along. They do that for their own internal purposes as Mr. Alard indicated
(for if it was left to the retail dealers you would end up with way too much signage). The City has a limit.
They came in and went through a design criteria, and he said they took a lot of time and effort to do that.
He stated that it is really not right that that program could be superceded, but he said one of the things he
thinks that was extremely clear from the sign program is that “the sign standards of this chapter shall
supercede all sign programs which were not previously adopted by Ordinance” [which most are not] which
would include his sign program. He stated that he signed leases with tenants that he has promised them
things because he had an approved sign program and now he cannot deliver on those things. He said that
he believes that if this matter goes on for a couple of weeks instead of just hearing about it on last
Thursday and seeing it on Monday and realizing that it is very significant to shopping center owners, even
those with approved programs, you would have a lot more of us here that would be raising the issues that
they are raising tonight. Albertson’s building is almost 61,000 square feet, 280 feet of frontage, 30 feet
high and the maximum letter height with the new Ordinance would be 18, which is going to look silly and
is not practical. He stated that they had letter heights that were as high as five feet on the Lucky sign (it
was originally approved as a Lucky), the L stuck up higher, some of the others were three to four feet high,
but he said they thought through the whole program and now it gets wiped out and an 18” letter height
comes in. There is no discretion that you have to do anything with that if it goes through. He stated they
are seeking a continuance, but in a lot of ways unless you have heard of problems coming forth and
people are complaining about the signs in the shopping centers which he said he really doubts, he said he
is not sure where the problem is that is being addressed. He said in summary that the Commission can
solve their Constitutional problem by addressing their Constitutional issues and not addressing other
things and if they are going to address other things, then existing programs ought to be honored. He
pointed out to the Commission that if they stay away from the size and the amount of signage, then they
will not have a whole bunch of people coming down and complaining. He stated it is not a problem he
thinks needs to be addressed as Carlsbad’s signage overall is pretty good.
Robert Payne, PO Box 130262, Carlsbad, CA 92013-0202 asked if the lO”xl2” signs on automobiles
apply to newspapers in the streets and shop windows. If the papers are on sale and the headlines are
larger in font size and allowed by the Ordinance will those newspapers be abated and does it apply to T-
shirts if a political candidate or a supporter of a political institutive has a T-shirt which is too large and the
format for a T-shirt by the way is lO”xl3”, will that T-shirt be abated from their body? He pointed out, in
regards to the discussion by the Commission and staff about semi trucks and trailers, that Vons Markets
uses graphics 8’x20’ on their trailers and these signs create name recognition and will these signs be
allowed? He asked if he were to paint his house to promote an enterprise or to create name recognition,
will the City abate his house? He also pointed out the concept of discretionary enforcement mentioned by
the representative of the City Attorney’s Office, if you do not enforce the rules on real estate signs, will you
enforce the rule on political candidates? He asked, speaking as a taxpayer, if the City Attorney’s Office
was going to hire more staff to deal with the lawsuits.
Doug Char-tier, 2697 Wilson Street, Carlsbad, stated that he is also a member of the CVBA and has lived
in Carlsbad for 16 years. He said he believed he could help by simply defining what he thinks the issue is.
This particular Ordinance, from what he has read and understands, came about from a ruling which came
down on an Oceanside court challenge which had to do with billboards. He stated if they focus on that and
then they take a look at the proposed Ordinance that is being presented to them, several rather interesting
things leap off. He stated that he has briefed and read the Ordinance which is very onerous, heavy
handed, over burdening and it is all encompassing and an extremely large bite to chew off and sounds a
death knell for small businesses by obliterating the A-frames. He stated that the Commission really needs
to see that it does that because little folks in small business are going to be hurt if they loose that A-frame.
He said that it overrides old law and it defers to the Coastal Commission as he understands, so that is the
City’s new place to go to get restitution which he calls “forum shopping” which is to say, “put it off to
someplace else where they do not have to bother us here in the City of Carlsbad, they have to go to the
Coastal Commission.” He stated that it will defer from the Planning Commission and take it over to the
Community Development organization of which he said he does not understand if this is not simply to
confuse the people who have to try to comply with this heavy handed document. He asked why is that
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 19
change being proposed? He said it takes the heavy handed approach of limiting to one sign per residential
lot of a specific size, your right to express something, regardless of the issue or the point you are trying to
make. He mentioned that he has a personal friend in the City who has many signs and has had them on
his property for many years and he asked if the City is now prepared to say he now has to put everything
on one small sign and if he decides to hold a yard sale, that that sign has to come down and a new yard
sale sign goes up. He stated it almost comes as a personal attack and it bothers him. He next mentioned
flags and asked why we were even going there and brought up the gentleman with the car lot and the
many flags. He asked that the City just get out of the flag issue, to not go there and not touch it. He said
the campaign signs appear and last about 30 days and it is being called visual clutter. He stated that that
is the American process at work and that is how we have run this country for over 200 and some odd
years and it is our political expression, our time to get silly and a time to do things. He pointed out that tie
is not burdened by a 30 day window, even though that is also being controlled by having one sign, one
residential lot and a lot more heavy handed approach. He thanked Kelli Moor for point out that even
though she is an incumbent, she is very strongly opposed to modification downward in this Sign
Ordinance as it pertains to campaign signs. He said that this Ordinance would throw out the baby with the
bath water, as it is simply too heavy, onerous, all encompassing and he asked the Commissioners who
are obviously concerned and knowledgeable to send it back for revision and recommend that they delete
offensive and/or sensitive issues for further discussion, delineation, outlining and address the public so
that we all get a chance to talk about each one of those issues which are A-frames, grandfathering, the
campaign issues, flags and real estate. He asked that the Commission go back to what it started off with
which apparently was billboards and he said they do not want billboards cluttering up the hi-ways and bi-
ways.
Kirsten Recce, 7442 Trigo Lane, Carlsbad, stated that she owns Black Whale Lighting at 560 and 562
Carlsbad Village Drive. She said she understands the purpose of the Sign Ordinance, but she is
concerned that it is being designed for a sterile and very generic community. She stated that she lives in
Carlsbad and owns a business in Carlsbad because of its charm and because of its character. She said
sterility is not inviting and generic is not charming and the lack of visibility is poor for business. She said if
she looses her A-frame sign for her business down the road, she is left with a flat space above her
windows which is blocked by the palm trees that are planted on Carlsbad Village Drive and a
perpendicular sign would not be anymore visible except for pedestrians walking along the street. She
stated that she is the only lighting store in Carlsbad and she is one of the largest ones in North County
and that she chooses to keep her business here because it is convenient for her customers to find and
because she finds the Village to be charming. She said that without adequate signage, they will not find
her business and without that customer she is out of business. She stated that this is not about seasonal
flags, this is about paychecks that she delivers to her employees, and to the customers she serves. She
stated that her store is 5,000 square feet and very expensive to operate. She said that her goal in going
into business was not to disappear. She went on to say that many areas in Carlsbad are not pedestrian
friendly, Carlsbad Village Drive included, and the City cannot set a sign standard for everyone assuming
that people will only be on foot when searching for a place to have their lamp repaired or looking for the
closest gas station. She agreed that she too is distressed and offended that no public notice was sent out
regarding this meeting as she just found out about it last Saturday. She said that she was notified and
attended the workshops put on by Housing and Redevelopment six years ago because she was invited
and she is concerned that this plan has been formed too quickly without the best interest and input from
the people that it affects and that it is overly restrictive to protect all circumstances thus hurting many
businesses in our community unnecessarily. She explained that she just attended a workshop last week
on the potential of a business improvement district in the Village of Carlsbad and the number one
concerns and interest by the merchants who attended was the lack of signage in the Village. She stated
that as a resident she is also very disheartened that the Ordinance calls for the removal of community
kiosks and directional signage as she understands that the Government is exempt from this restriction but
finding parks and libraries is no more important than finding the grocery store and everyday services that
we all use and enjoy.
Richard Jones, 2608 State Street, Carlsbad stated he has been a merchant in Carlsbad for 31 years and
he does not use A-frame signs. He stated that if the City takes these A-frame signs away from small
merchants and you will see a blight in two years that looks like the 80’s as they have to have these A-
frame signs. He pointed out that in San Diego in some places they encourage them as they are beneficial.
He stated that he does not know why the City is attacking the A-frame signs. He said he was at the City
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 20
Council meeting last night where two of the Council people recommended a workshop and he does not
know if it has gotten back to the Commission yet, but one of them was the Mayor. They want the citizens
to have an opportunity to gather more of the merchants because this was put on the merchants so quickly
that it has been impossible for everybody to be notified. He stated that he was sure the Commission has
the best intentions in mind, but that he highly hopes that they will postpone this, step back and see all of
the problems that this very restrictive Ordinance is going to create as it is very terrible. He mentioned that
the campaign signs have never been a problem in this community as they have been picked up within a
week. He stated that he has personally financed what he could and volunteered for three of the people
who are on the Council now, and they got on there by the signage, for it is part of the American way. He
asked the Planning Commission to not take that away from a person that maybe only has a few dollars but
has good ideas. He pointed out that if the Commission takes that signage away it will take $20,000 or
$30,000 to run for Council, which is not right and it is not fair.
Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150, Carlsbad stated that this is
tough, as he thought the Hillside Ordinance and the Planned Development Ordinance were. He stated that
he had one specific point he wanted to talk about which is Section 21.41.060 Sign Programs which
requires establishing a Sign Program for Master Plans. He thinks it is pretty clear that you can do the Sign
Program after the Master Plan is approved, but he stated that he wanted to make sure it was clear that
that would not open up the Master Plan for an amendment, and that it is something that can be done
afterwards. He stated that it is very difficult to do a detailed sign program when you are developing a
Master Plan, as you are so worried about land forms, roads, circulation and density that you do not have
the time to develop a Sign Program and it is something that has to come in later on when you are starting
to do the marketing phase. He just wanted to make sure that that could be done as a Sign Program
without opening up the Master Plan after it is approved.
Chairperson Segall seeing no one else wishing to speak closed public testimony.
RECESS:
Chairperson Segall called a Recess at 8:47 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:
Chairperson Segall called the Meeting back to order at 8:58 p.m., with six Commissioners present. He
stated that he is going to open Commission comment as there are a couple ways the Commission can go
on this-try to respond to all these questions, but the Commission also has another hour with the PD
Ordinance still before the Commission. His concern is trying to start that as well. He stated that they know
they are going to come back and they do not know if it is going to be in two weeks or four weeks and he is
going to look to the Commission on this Sign Ordinance. What he is thinking is having staff respond either
by changes to the Sign Ordinance based on what they have heard today or giving us comments for the
next meeting, instead of trying to answer everything tonight. He is looking for a consensus from the
Commission as to if they like any of those ideas or have other ideas.
Commissioner L’Heureux stated that she thinks both points are well taken that staff could simply run down
the list of questions then possibly in answer to that staff could highlight suggested changes and bring it
back at whatever point it will be brought back by the Commission. She further stated that she is in a state
of confusion again and she thinks that the Commission owes much more time and effort on this matter in
the future.
Commissioner Nielsen was wondering if the Commission could have some input also prior to the
postponement on questions the Commission may have that they would like staff to address.
Chairperson Segall asked if the people who were here for the PD Ordinance had left and was told they are
in the other room.
It was asked if the Commission was going to do Livable Streets and PD Ordinance?
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 21
Mr. Wayne asked if he could make a suggestion on the response before the Commissioner actually give
direction on other things that they are interested in. He said that they heard a lot of good testimony tonight
and as he was looking through the Ordinance he found that there are a couple of things missing and there
are some things that he thinks warrant some changes, which is a good thing. He stated that the public
hearing process has done what it is supposed to do and what staff needs to do is go back and take a look
at the Ordinance in the context of the questions that were brought up. There are some things that staff
believes conceptually they cannot change, but they may be able to address them in other ways. They will
try to look at that creatively and what they will then do is to come back to the Commission and tell you why
or why not staff would recommend a change. For example, on campaign signs or on real estate signs or
on A-frame signs. He said that some of the things are a little bit more generic like on size of a sign in
relationship to the size of the building. He stated that staff agrees. He said that some of the things on
abatements of our existing Sign Programs were very good points and staff wants to address that. He
stated that something was omitted on flags, as there was another section on flags that dropped into limbo
someplace. He said that staff needs to find some of these things, come back to the Commission with them
and give them at the next meeting, whenever that is. Staff will have both a response to the comments of
why or why not staff would recommend changes and then also come up with recommended changes
based upon the testimony tonight.
Commissioner Heineman asked if staff would address A-frame signs. He stated that he is hearing different
things from different people and he thinks everybody deserves to know exactly what the program is going
to be for A-frame signs and go straight down the line and tell the Commission why staff wants to do what
they want to do.
Mr. Wayne assured the Commission that staff will address that. The Commission and public as well
deserve a response of why staff recommended eliminating A-frame signs. He stated that staff has, in the
past year and a half, studied so many cases on signs and gone to so many workshops and seminars
given by the actual attorneys that fight these cases in the Supreme Court, and what staff has tried to do is
come up with a legally defensible Sign Ordinance.
Chairperson Segall asked if the Commission was going to come back in two weeks and Staff would be
done in two weeks?
Mr. DeCerbo agreed they could be ready in two weeks.
Mr. Wayne stated that the Planning Commission’s full agenda may have to be bumped a little bit as this
item is critically important timing-wise. Chairperson Segall asked if the PD Ordinance was as critical?
Mr. Wayne responded that it could wait for a month if necessary even though it would not be something
staff would like, but if need be they could do that.
Commissioner Baker asked if Chairperson Segall intended to have Commission discussion on this item so
that then staff could take that back and bring revisions?
Chairperson Segall responded that he is looking for input at this point.
Commissioner Baker replied that she thinks that is critical because the public has had their chance to give
their input and she thinks that the Commission needs also to weigh in on that.
Commissioner Trigas stated that she is seeing two separate things with this particular issue, one is
aligning it constitutionally and also clarifying and making things clear that which may be confusing, or is a
contradiction within our current policy. She stated that the other issue is substance of changes which is
where she is hearing the concern. That they have changes in policy; that there is confusion on these
changes and she is confused. She also has a concern that they put in something that is sort of a wink type
of thing, in other words., let’s put it in but we are not really necessarily going to look at it and kind of avoid
it or not enforce it or we can work around it. She stated that she feels uncomfortable with that. She stated
that she would like the Commission to have a workshop or something separate from this meeting as this is
too important and too confusing to deal with it on the basis of having 20 minutes left in the meeting and we
have fit it in. She stated that she would like to look at the document, separate those two issues so that we
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 22
can clearly deal with the constitutional and clarity issues and then deal obviously with issue that is
controversial, and that is these changes. She would like to have the workshop and work it through and just
have this as an agenda item. She feels pushed and feels like she is being asked to deal with something
that she is not quite sure she knows what she is dealing with.
Chairperson Segall confirmed that they already have had public testimony, so she is talking about a
workshop where the Commission can be educated and the Commission can ask the questions. During Mr.
DeCerbo’s presentation there were a lot of things that I wanted to interrupt, but in that format you cannot.
He asked if there was a consensus with other Commissioners that that would be an appropriate thing that just having this on the agenda?
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the Commission is going to have a workshop in two weeks and then bring
it back again?
Commissioner Trigas stated that her proposal would be to have a workshop before the next meeting so
that there is clarity on this, and obviously the Commission would be doing it according to the Brown Act.
Chairperson Segall confirmed that it would actually have to be next Wednesday. He asked if there is a
consensus on this?
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he could agree with a workshop, but he stated that if the Commission
tries to do it between now and two weeks, they are going to be jamming it down again.
Commissioner Baker pointed out that with the July 4th holiday, there would only be one Planning
Commission meeting in July.
Commissioner Trigas asked what the reality is of this legal crunch on time?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that it is a reality in a sense that as Mr. Wayne said this has to go to the Coastal
Commission and if the Ordinance is adopted by Council it will not take effect for 30 days even internally
and then it still has to go to the Coastal Commission. Plus there is a ten day time prior to the actual
adoption of the Ordinance by the City Council. She stated that the Planning Commission does need quite
a bit of lead time in order to have a new Ordinance adopted prior to that Moratorium expiring on December
14th.
Commissioner Baker asked what will happen if the Moratorium expires and there is no new Ordinance?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the City might get billboards.
Commissioner Heineman stated that that is not to be considered.
Commissioner Trigas asked if a temporary Moratorium could be passed?
Ms. Mobaldi pointed out that the Government Code provides for these Urgency Ordinances and the City
enacted the Ordinance initially and extended it for a year. That is the maximum time that it can be
extended, so the City now needs to take action to alleviate the concerns.
Commissioner Nielsen asked about the comments from the Council last night about a workshop? He
asked if they are imposing additional time?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that she did not hear that, but it was her understanding that they may consider some
additional time, but she was thinking it was in terms of in between Planning Commission recommendation
and it actually getting to Council.
Chairperson Segall asked if the City Council wanted a workshop for the same reason the Planning
Commission does now?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that she does not know if they decided they want a workshop, but they definitely have
people that are asking for that input.
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 23
Commissioner Baker asked to propose that if the Council feels the Planning Commission has done their
due diligence and they have gone out and gotten the input and have the information for them and also that
the Planning Commission has considered what the Coastal Commission’s major concerns might be, in
other words the Planning Commission is better prepared in their recommendation, would not that in turn
expedite the Council’s process as well as the Coastal Commission’s process?
Ms. Mobaldi replied that she does not know that they can accomplish all that prior to the time that this
Urgency Ordinance is going to expire.
Mr. Wayne asked if the Commission would consider having a special meeting?
Chairperson Segall stated that is what they are considering on June 13th.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the Planning Commission could separate out the constitutional issue from
the total revision of the Sign Ordinance. Is the removal of the A-frame signs, for instance, required by the
constitutional problem?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the A-frame issue is very intricately tied to the constitutional issue as they are very
much related. She stated that she was concerned that if you tried to separate constitutional versus strictly
size etc. that you may be able to do that to a certain extent, but inevitably you are going to run into places
where these overlap as they are very much interrelated to one another. She said that she does not
recommend that approach.
Commissioner Trigas stated that this is what she thinks the Commission has to understand and she does
not think the Commission does. She thinks that is why they need this special meeting as the Commission
does not have that comprehension.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the constitutional issue is affected by the real estate signs?
Ms. Mobaldi said absolutely and that this ordinance was originally enacted in 1969 and it was due for an
overhaul in any event. She thinks that is part of what the Planning Department was trying to accomplish,
but also all of these issues of signs in the public right-of-way relate to constitutional issues and indirectly
relate to things like billboards.
Commissioner Baker asked if the Planning Commission has the meeting on June 13th would that take the
form of a workshop meeting and that the Commission would be more informally sitting around the table
hammering this out, or would it be the sort of forum that we are doing business?
Commissioner Heineman stated that he thinks it needs to be a forum because if it is informal they are not
going to hammer anything out. He said he thinks it has to be organized to a point where the Commission
reaches some conclusions or receive some specific information.
Chairperson Segall pointed out that there is no public testimony so it allows the Commission to break the
barrier of the formality of the public hearing of having a presentation and not being able to ask questions.
Commissioner Heineman asked if it does have to be open to the public though?
Chairperson Segall replied yes, absolutely, that it is a public meeting.
Commissioner Baker affirmed that it would be a public meeting with no public input whatsoever. She
asked if that was some of the issues tonight that there has not been public input, there has not been
workshops; that this has been sprung on them, or does the public feel that they have had an opportunity to
address the Commission tonight with their concerns but then the Commission has the ability to talk about
it?
Chairperson Segall replied that he could not address that as he does not know.
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 24
Commissioner Trigas stated that she would think that they have given the input but also they will certainly
have the opportunity if they want to further send letters or whatever if they have further information. She
stated that she was sure they also can contact staff to give any further input and that staff would relay that
for our workshop if they have specific things beyond what they gave today.
Chairperson Segall stated that is seems like the Commission has gotten the essence of the concerns that
the community has and they are issues that he has been concerned about.
Commissioner Baker asked if the Commission would still take written comment from the public?
Chairperson Segall stated yes if anyone wants to provide something written, but the Commission would
not be opening public testimony again. He asked for a motion to continue this item at the special meeting
on June 13th.
Ms. Mobaldi asked if the Commission will be giving staff some feedback this evening so that the staff can
evaluate these things and take another look at it, and then staff will be coming back to this workshop with
responses, and then the Commission will be taking action on that item at that time?
Chairperson Segall replied that it will be a workshop but then the Commission will be taking action at the
regular public hearing on June 20th.
Commissioner Trigas stated that they would not be taking action at the workshop, they would just discuss
and get information etc.
DISCUSSION
None.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to have a special meeting
next Wednesday, June 13,200l at Faraday at 6:00 p.m.
VOTE:
AYES:
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen,
Trigas
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
None
None
Commissioner Trigas withdrew her motion.
Chairperson Segall suggested to start with questions that the Commission would like staff to address.
Commissioner Heineman stated that they could not avoid but must address A-frames and address the
point that has been brought up by a number of speakers that the Village Redevelopment Plan ends on
2006. This could have a profound effect on signs and another that occurs to him and has been brought up
several times is real estate signs. The real estate people want them, “Open House” signs etc. but
unfortunately they are always putting them on private property. He wanted to know if they have the right to
do that as it seems to him that this very definitely must be addressed.
Commissioner Baker stated that she appreciated Commissioner Trigas’ remarks on the discretionary
enforcement. She stated that she does not see the point of passing an Ordinance and then deciding that
the City is sometimes going to enforce it and sometimes not, so if the Commission decides that we want
campaign signs in the right-of-way and real estate signs as well, then she thinks the Commission needs to
find another way to make it more palatable. She stated that there are communities that do not allow real
estate signs, so to say it is impossible to buy a house or sell a house without real estate signs is not
necessarily true. It still needs to be addressed how to handle things in the right-of-way. Maybe we restrict
Planning Commission Minutes June 6.2001 Page 25
the hours or the time period 30 days or 45 days. She also was concerned about allowing residents to only
have one campaign sign in their front yard. That would mean that you could have a City Council but not a
school board sign. This needs to be reconsidered. Then the flag issue to have three flags if you look at it
as being a State flag, National flag and a corporate flag to revisit that issue. Look at kiosk signs, if they
really are performing directional services to people who are trying to find their way around our City; also A-
frame, we need to deal with that. She also stated that she was concerned about the point that Mr. Tucker
brought up that he has a sign program that they are working on. He is leasing to tenants based on that
Sign Program and this may cause him some problems. We need to see how we might be able to rectify
that.
Ms. Mobaldi asked to briefly discuss the discretionary issue. It has been brought up by so many people
and apparently I misspoke myself and I was not very articulate because I am not getting across the point I
wanted to make. She stated that this Ordinance refers to Chapter 108 of the Muni Code which applies to
all Muni Code Ordinances, and not just the Sign Ordinance and that says, “that Municipal Code violations,
unless otherwise provided, can be charged as infractions and then may be charged as a misdemeanor if
there are four violations within a 12 month period.” She stated that the point she was trying to make is that
charging someone with a misdemeanor is not a mandatory action. For District Attorneys, or anybody else,
it is always discretionary to the extent that someone has to sit down and decide whether to charge
someone with a violation and what violation is appropriate, and what severity of violation is appropriate.
What she stated that she was trying to say is that we prefer to have people cooperate with the City once
the City explains they are violating the Muni Code. That is what we typically do, and our preferred method
is not to charge people with anything or cite people for anything. She stated that we have those
alternatives provided to us in the Code if they are necessary and she said that she does not think
discretionary is synonymous with arbitrary and that is the point that she was trying to make.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he may need some definition from Mr. DeCerbo about his questions. He
asked how does this affect off-site signs like the 5-K, or Carlsbad Village Faire that posts the signs around
the City. Is it applicable to them? Mr. DeCerbo mentioned what areas are exempt from this Ordinance,
somebody mentioned that the overlay like the Lego area is exempt from this Ordinance, why are they
exempt and how did they get exempt? He asked about murals, if they are signs or not signs, which may
depend upon the content of the mural as a point to be raised. He said the rest of them were covered.
Commissioner Trigas stated that she was trying to get across, it was not so much the discretionary as
much as we are putting something on the books that we may not really seriously want to enforce. For
example real estate signs. We may be overlooking it but it is there, perhaps legal reasons, that I am not
aware of, Constitutional reasons, but that we are not going to necessarily have a police force out there
pulling them etc. She stated that she needs to understand legally, constitutionally, what must we do to be
in compliance to avoid lawsuits and that is what she is confused on. She wants to know why
constitutionally, they have to get rid of A-frames and if there is a way constitutionally to soften that and still
be in compliance; if there are examples of other cities that you have and how they work this through, and
their community has felt comfortable with that. She mentioned the issues of the shopping center and
expressed that the City should be upfront about what the ultimate goal is regarding signage and that the
City should make that clear right now rather than later.
Chairperson Segall pointed out the pole signs and Giblin’s sign. We need to come to grips with that issue
and put it to rest. The marquee in the school; balloons are they the big ones; sign ordinance on historical
buildings; addresses on industrial and commercial buildings; the abatement process (to flush out); coast
highway - putting a sign all the way across; signs on bus benches/shelters; A-frames and the trees block
the other signs-a proposal to replace what we are taking away and be still constitutionally correct and
limiting signs to three colors and precluding our seal.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Wayne for some protocol/direction about the special meeting motion.
Ms. Mobaldi stated the special meeting needed to be noticed and the Commission should make a motion
to continue the Sign Ordinance to the 20th of June.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 26
None.
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission continue Item No. 1, Comprehensive Sign Ordinance to the June
20th meeting.
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen,
Trigas
None
None
Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission hold a special meeting on the Sign Ordinance at a site to be
determined on June 13th at 6:00 p.m.
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen,
Trigas
None
None
Planning Commission Minutes June 13,200l
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:00 P.M.
June 13,200l
SENIOR CENTER
Page 1
CALL TO ORDER
Planning Commission Chairperson Segall called a special Meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas
Absent: Commissioner L’Heureux
Staff Present: Gary Wayne, Planning Director
Jane Mobaldi, City Attorney
Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
Adrienne Landers, Principal Planner
Chairperson Segal opened the meeting and announced the purpose of this special meeting was to have a
Workshop on the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Amendment and also a Preview of the Amendment for
the Planned Development Ordinance.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Larry Tucker, One Upper Newport Plaza, Newport Beach, California 92660. Mr. Tucker shared that he has
given this a lot of thought since the last regular Planning Commission Meeting. He stated he would defer
further comment to the next meeting to share his concerns.
David Adlard, 7720 El Camino Real, Carlsbad stated he represents the La Costa Vons Shopping Center.
He asked what the difference was between then and now and what is required by the constitutional
requirements versus what is not required between the existing Sign Ordinance and the New Sign
Ordinance being discussed.
Cindy Vigne, 387 State Street, Carlsbad stated that it is important to maintain the signage that is in effect
now as the new Ordinance will decrease a lot of what is unique to the charm of the Village. She stated that
the businesses in the Village want to have more pedestrian traffic and taking away the A-frames, banners,
and pole signs would take away their business.
Richard Jones, 1608 State Street, Carlsbad stated that even though he does not have an A-frame, he felt
it would impact other businesses, as five have already gone out of business on State Street in the last six
months. He asked why Car Country would be excluded. He also asked why it was not done before and
stated that this is taking rights away.
Gene Forsythe, 2704A Roosevelt Street has had his business since 1979 and stated that no one wants to
have large signs. He stated that they have spent years setting up signage in the Village and if there is no
A-frame allowed, the businesses which are located behind another one will not get pedestrian traffic.
Chairperson Segall seeing no one else wishing to speak closed public comment.
Chairperson Segall pointed out that the Coast News, dated June 14-20th, had a headline story saying
Carlsbad saw the writing on the wall etc. and had already passed the amended Sign Ordinance. He
stated this article is not correct and no decision has been made.
Planning Commission Minutes June 13,200l Page 2
He requested the Commissioner to follow a pattern of asking questions and then Mr. DeCerbo, Ms.
Mobaldi or Mr. Wayne would respond. He wanted to clear up tonight what the intent was of Council when
passing the Agenda Bill in 1999. The Commission requested a copy of the agenda bill and minutes be
given to the Commission so they could see what Council had said concerning holding a workshop to
involve the public.
Mr. Wayne stated he talked to Mr. DeCerbo before the meeting and they decided to structure their
presentation to revisit the Sign Ordinance concerns and give an introduction to set context to address the
two issues.
Mr. Wayne explained that the City of Oceanside had been sued and lost in court over billboards on l-5. He
stated that sign companies can dissect a Sign Ordinance and challenge it in court and if any one part of
the Ordinance is invalid, it will cause the Ordinance to be completely annulled. He stated that if we leave
the Sign Ordinance alone we are open for court challenges. He stated that the main goal is to protect
against billboard owners attacking the Sign Ordinance through the courts.
Chairperson Segall discussed Council Resolutions 99-535 and 99-526.
Mr. Wayne explained they would have copies of both before the June 20th meeting.
Ms. Mobaldi confirmed that the new Ordinance would specify the sign standards in straightforward and
easy to understand language so that the courts would not void the Ordinance as incomprehensible. She
stated that the rationale for restrictions and allowable signage should be consistent throughout the
Ordinance.
Commissioner Baker asked if it would be helpful to have a copy of the portion of the Council Minutes
where they discussed the workshops etc.
Commissioner Trigas asked if it would be possible to have a separate billboard Ordinance? She requested
clarification between commercial and non-commercial speech, limiting political signs, and the First
Amendment.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that they could not segment billboards only, that it was all interrelated. She explained
that also during elections property owners could have one additional sign besides whatever other sign
they might already have in their yard.
Commissioner Nielson asked about the nexus.
Commissioner Compas asked why City Council did not call for workshops; whether it was because of time
constraints; and if the Sign Ordinance is foolproof?
Mr. Wayne stated that it does say in the Urgency Ordinance that it is timely, but he was not sure of the
Council’s intent. He stated that to find the Sign Ordinance is not constitutional, you are open to any kind of
signs. He said the Sign Ordinance has yet to be tested.
Concerning the Redevelopment Area, Ms. Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director, stated
that Council would have three options in July 2006 when the current Redevelopment Plan expires: 1)
extend the Redevelopment Plan to 2014, and certain findings will need to be made in order to do that; 2)
Council can state the effectiveness of the plan continue; or 3) let the plan expire and use the Master Plan
to regulate the land uses. She stated if none of these are done, then it will come under jurisdiction
standards in the City. She suggested that in the Village they could, as an option to A-frames, put up
projecting signs perpendicular to the building.
Commissioner Baker asked if there are examples of other cities that have and have not A-frames.
Ms. Fountain said she would look into it and get some information.
P-9
Planning Commission Minutes June 13,200l Page 3
Chairperson Segall said there were a number of ways to mitigate impacts to business and some have
been monetary.
Ms. Fountain stated that the Municipal Code, Chapter 21.41, will not change until 2006 so they would hold
public workshops between now and then.
Mr. DeCerbo read page 6 of the Ordinance, Definition #52 and stated that this applied to the following: 1)
public or legal notices 2) decorative or architectural features of buildings; an example is a crucifixion on a
church 3) holiday decorations and lights and 4) building markers.
Chairperson Segal requested that the Commissioners go on to finish the rest of the Discussion Topics as
they have already dealt with #I Village Redevelopment Area and #2 What Signs are Exempt.
#3 Sinns on Historical Buildinos:
Mr. DeCerbo stated that pursuant to the proposed definition of “sign” an historical building marker is not a
sign.
Mr. Wayne explained that if the signage is part of the building it is different than if the business wants to
place it on the building.
#4 Siqn Across Coast Hiuhwav:
Mr. DeCerbo stated that it is permissible in the General Provisions, page 12, Section 21.41.070 C.l (which
he read), but it may not be approved anyway.
#5 Existino Sian Pronrams:
Mr. DeCerbo stated that, in effect, that conforming sign programs can remain as is until the party comes
forth to amend the sign program to increase the permitted sign area, and then they would be required to
conform to the new Ordinance. However, there would be no abatement.
Mr. Nielson asked if this would be the same for the shopping centers when a new owner comes in to one
of the stores.
Mr. DeCerbo said yes, it would be the same as he just stated.
#6 Permitted Number of Camoaian Sions:
Mr. DeCerbo stated that in the existing Code, it allows six square feet of campaign sign area on a
residential lot and non residential campaign sign area is 16 square feet. Campaign signs would not be
permitted in the right-of-way.
The Commission discussed the problems that could prevail if permission were given to put campaign
signs in the right-of-way, which is in essence the whole Ordinance which would become void if challenged
in court and the City were to lose.
#7 Permitted Number of Flags:
Mr. DeCerbo stated that staff is considering a change to the standard to allow three flags, and increase
the area dimension of the flags. He stated it would be included in the Errata Sheet and available on
Monday.
#8 Restrictions on Sian Colors:
Mr. DeCerbo stated the number of permitted sign colors would be three with the exception of corporate
logos, where there would be no restriction of the number of colors.
#9 School Marquee Sinn:
Mr. DeCerbo stated the schools, private or public, are exempt from City Regulations and the Sign
Ordinance. They may even fly larger flags.
#IO Balloons in ROW:
Mr. DeCerbo read a quote and stated that balloons held by children would not be included.
Planning Commission Minutes June 13,200l Page 4
#l 1 Off-Site Banners for Soecial Events (Villane Fair, 5-10 K events. etc.):
Mr. DeCerbo stated that offsite banners such as for the IOK, Village Fair, Octoberfest etc. would have a
special event permit. The sign ordinance has been revised to specify that special event signs must be
located on the site of the special event. He stated that a free-standing sign is a pole sign or a monument
sign.
#I2 Civil Remedies:
Ms. Mobaldi spoke of the criminal remedies in the last report. Civil remedies, including injunctive relief,
will also be provided for in the revised Ordinance.
#I 3 Constitutional Issues - Off-Site Commercial signs in public right-of-way, kiosk signs, off-site real
estate, open house signs, bus stop bench/shelter signs:
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the Civil Code allows for open house signs on other private properties if they get
property owner permission. It is ok then if off-site, in that area and is four square feet per sign and as
many as you want.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Civil Code allows for the prohibition of real estate signs on public property and
in the public right-of way.
#I 4 Murals/Art
Mr. DeCerbo said murals and art on buildings is not currently regulated by the City.
#15 Buildinq Addresses
Mr. DeCerbo read Chief Smith’s report which stated that the Fire Department recommends that premise
identification requirements for new and existing buildings and the manner in which it is satisfied remain
under the authority of the Building Official and Fire Chief. Mr. Smith had said he would be available for the
June 20th meeting.
Commissioner Nielson asked if the searchlights would be banned.
Mr. DeCerbo said they are recommending that searchlights for search and rescue be allowed.
Commissioner Baker had concerns regarding billboards blocking the ocean view on scenic corridors in
Carlsbad.
Mr. Wayne said the Coastal Act does not disallow billboards. He assured her it was touchy as the
individual can cause a lot of trouble and look for loopholes to annul the City’s Ordinance. He said these
codes go into the City Codes. He stated that some corridors have not received the Overlay Zone and thus
do not have that protection.
Chairperson Segall had concerns regarding the public being notified of the changes in the new Sign
Ordinance.
Ms. Mobaldi assured the Commissioners that they do not need to send notice as it affects everyone in
Carlsbad, but putting a public notice in the paper is ample enough notice, because it affects more than
1,000 people.
Mr. Wayne said they will make the revisions available at the front counter at Faraday.
In addition, Ms. Hoder stated they would also make the information available to the public at both Libraries
and City Clerks Office and put out a press release to that effect.
Chairperson Segall asked the Commissioner their opinions concerning having a public workshop before
the next meeting.
Both Commissioner’s Baker and Trigas pointed out that the public would have another chance to voice
their opinions at the next meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes June 13,200l Page 5
Ms. Mobaldi reminded Chairperson Segall that they should adjourn to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 20,
2001.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Wayne to introduce the next item.
Mr. Wayne introduced Adrienne Landers to present Item No. 2, Preview of Amendment to Planned
Development.
Ms. Landers shared the differences between the newly proposed livable neighborhoods with homes in
scale with lot size and garages in the back; and more yard upfront, to the homes presently being built. She
shared detail in the proposed sizes of lots, streets, lot coverage, building separation, garages, private
recreation area and architectural design.
Mr. DeCerbo spoke on the design standards from the amended Council Policy #44. He discussed the
percentage of homes that would be single story, have balconies, covered porches and open courtyard,
with front entry clearly visible from the street and the different designs. He also discussed multi-family
zones and RV Parking.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission of June 13, 2001 was adjourned at
lo:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
GARY WAYNE
Assistant Planning Director
Judy Kirsch
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
Planning Commission Minutes June 20,200l -AMENDED Page 8
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Segall called the Meeting back to order at 7:05 p.m., with five Commissioners present,
Commissioners Compas and L’Heureux being absent.
4. ZCA 00-04/LCPA 00-07- COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - A
Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and reenact
the City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to comply with
current case law regarding the constitutional validity of sign ordinances and to clarify the
ordinance to make it easier for developers, business owners and residents to understand
and use.
Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing and asked Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne to
introduce the next item.
Mr. Wayne introduced Item No. 4 as a continued item, which is the Sign Ordinance. He introduced Mr.
DeCerbo to do the presentation.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that staff is proposing an amendment to the existing Sign Ordinance whereby all
existing Sign Programs that are approved prior to the effect of date of this Amended Ordinance are not
subject to the provisions of the Ordinance except that if any of the existing Sign Programs are proposed
for Amendment to increase overall signage area, then they would be required to be amended to conform
with the Development Design Standards of this proposed Amended Ordinance. He explained that the Sign
Programs would remain in effect and would not be required to be amended until and if the owner came
forward to request an amendment to increase sign area within that Sign Program.
Mr. DeCerbo stated staff has added a new definition, in response to the clarification of prohibition of
balloons in the public right-of-way, which defines a balloon as “any air or gas-filled device located,
attached or tethered to the ground site, merchandise, building or roof and used for the purpose of signage,
advertising or attention-getting” which would not include balloons that were held by somebody standing in
the right-of-way or balloons that were put there to announce a party.
Mr. DeCerbo stated further that staff has concluded that you are allowed to have open house or real
estate signs off of the subject property (property that is for lease or for sale or for open house) and they
would be allowed to place these signs on any other property with the permission of the property owner. He
explained that the code has been amended to “permit free standing open house or real estate signs on the
owners real property or real property owned by others with their consent.”
Mr. DeCerbo shared that the Ordinance has been amended regarding campaign signs, increasing the
number of signs from the one sign per residential/non-residential lot (which was originally recommended)
to an unlimited number of campaign signs per lot provided that the total sign area did not exceed eight
square feet per a residential lot or 16 square feet for a non-residential lot.” He stated that this is the
existing standard in the Code today which does not regulate number of permitted campaign signs, but it
just regulates the total area that is allowed per lot and that is what staff has put back in the Code. He
noted that staff has increased the existing six square feet that is allowed on a residential property up to
eight square feet which was based upon some commentary that there could not be more than possibly
one sign in six square feet, so staff has increased it to eight which would be four l’x2’ in addition to the
permitted signage allowed otherwise which would be two signs at three square feet each on a residential
lot.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the Ordinance has been amended to increase the number of flags from a
maximum of two flags with a total area of 24 square feet to three flags with a maximum flag dimension of
eight feet per flag whether non-residential or occupied residential with a maximum flag size per flag of
eight foot in any dimension, for example three flags with an area of 64 square feet.
Chairperson Segall asked how it was determined there should be three flags. What if you have a foreign
company, such as Four Seasons. It’s a Canadian company, America, they have a bear flag and a
Planning Commission Minutes June 20,200l - AMENDED Page 9
corporate flag. Does this mean they could never have four flags, or is there a provision they could come
in and say we need four and they could do that?
Mr. DeCerbo stated that as proposed we are recommending three. That was the number discussed by
several of the Commissioners. Staff is recommending a limitation.
Mr. DeCerbo stated there is no limitation on the number or size of vehicle signs if the vehicle is not visible
from the right-of-way or if the vehicle signage is non-changeable and is regularly used in the day-to-day
operations of the business. He stated that the limitation staff is recommending of two signs at an area of
12”x10” only applies to vehicles that are visible from the right-of-way and are not normally used for day-to-
day business operations. He pointed out that this is to address signs that are placed on vehicles for
advertising purposes otherwise, which tend to include movable billboards and does not apply to normal
signage on vehicles in day-to-day operations of the business. He added that two signs in or on a vehicle
parked on the public right-of-way was ok.
Commissioner Trigas shared her concerns for allowing any signage on a vehicle in the public right-of-way
at all. She asked about the rationale for allowing any type of sign in the public right-of-way.
Ms. Mobaldi stated this has to be allowed as there is case law regarding this issue (for sale signage on
vehicles), which she shared with the Commission. The court ruled there aren’t adequate alternative
means of communication in that particular instance because putting an ad in the paper isn’t as effective as
actually seeing the vehicle. The courts indicated that means of advertising should not be completely
prohibited although you could make reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
Commissioner Trigas stated that one could use this argument for almost anything for which you wanted to
erect a sign.
Mr. DeCerbo went on to say that with respect to Master Plans, the Sign Ordinance indicates that if you are
doing a Master Plan, a Specific Plan, a Commercial or Non-Residential Site Development Plan you are
required to have a Sign Program. He shared that there was a questions regarding if a Sign Program was
to be amended that is part of a Master Plan, would the Master Plan have to process a Master Plan
Amendment too? He answered no and the Ordinance has been amended to clarify that an amendment to
a Sign Program for a Master Plan would be processed in the same manner as the original Sign Program
which would include the Administrative review and approval by the Community Development Director. It is
never included within the Master Plan but it is always approved outside of that Master Plan, a Specific
Plan, a Commercial or Non-Residential Site Development Plan,
Mr. DeCerbo stated that it was noted that our City logo has more than four colors in it. He stated that staff
has added a provision which says, “Company logos and trademark signs are not subject to the sign color
restrictions of the Ordinance,” and stated that there is case law on that as well.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that staff is proposing to revise standards following meetings with the retail
development company to: 1) allow for taller commercial monument signs, going from five feet to six feet in
height, with bigger sign letters - going from 12 inches to 15 inches; 2) to allow more wall fascia awning
sign area from a half square foot per lineal square foot of frontage to one square foot per lineal square foot
of frontage; and 3) to allow taller letter heights up to a maximum of 48 inches tall depending on the size of
the store for businesses. He stated this is a similar approach taken for the Office Industrial Signage that
staff brought before the Planning Commission this past year.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the Ordinance has been amended to not include any sign regulations for schools.
He shared that the California Government Code provides that zoning regulations, including signage
regulation, is not applicable to school properties that have classroom facilities. He stated that schools
would be able to put on whatever signage that they adopted as part of their school.
Commissioner Baker asked if this applied to churches that have classroom facilities that have daycare
facilities as well?
Planning Commission Minutes June 20,200l -AMENDED Page 10
Ms. Mobaldi stated the Government Code talks about school districts so technically it only applies to
school district facilities.
Chairperson Segall asked if the schools could put in four nine foot flags?
Mr. DeCerbo stated the City could not regulate that either as the flag regulations sit within the City’s Sign
Ordinance and school districts would not have to comply with that standard either.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the Sign Ordinance has been clarified to indicate that any special event signage
must be located on the site of the special event. He explained that if the special event did not occur in the
right-of-way signage could not be located in the right-of way; but if it did, such as the Village Faire where
the public right-of-way effectively becomes the gathering place for the event, that signage would be
allowed there, but it would not be allowed off-site.
Commissioner Trigas had a question regarding the placement of signage on City-owned property (one
banner or freestanding sign) for special events or civic events for a maximum of 45 days with a temporary
sign permit. Isn’t that content driven?
Mr. DeCerbo responded that government agencies are allowed to put signage for purposes of traffic
safety, directional signs or informational signs. That’s always been in our Code. It isn’t necessarily
content based, but it is based upon the sign applicant, which would be the City.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that there can be signage on public property related to community events if those
events are subject to a Special Events Permit and the event is going to be held in the public right-of-way,
such as a marathon or some such thing, where the event is actually in the right-of-way.
Mr. Wayne explained that it is limited to the duration of the event or 45 days from the date of erection of
the signage whichever is less.” He stated the limitation is consistent with time, place and manner allowing
on-site signage for the event itself.
Rik Espinosa, a reporter with the Coast News interrupted the proceedings and stated that the additions of
the materials to the Ordinance being presented to the Commission violates the Brown Act for materials
given out at a meeting, a public hearing. The public did not have a chance to read them within the
required time so they could comment on what is before this Commission. He also stated that the notice of
the item on the agenda was inadequate.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that in terms of the actual notice in the Agenda it is adequate because it is talking
about the repeal and re-enactment of the City’s Sign Ordinance.
Mr. DeCerbo explained that this is a standard Errata sheet that can come before the Commission at the
Public Hearing. He stated that they had a revised Ordinance which was delivered to the Commissioner’s
homes on Friday and was available to the public on Monday morning at the public libraries, the City
Clerk’s office and the Faraday Building, which has the substance of the changes. The errata sheet
contains some minor changes that are before the Commission as well.
Mr. DeCerbo explained further in detail what documents the Commission had before them. He went on to
explain that the special event sign regulations are for traffic safety and aesthetics.
Mr. DeCerbo explained further if roads are closed for special events the City has to put up signs
concerning traffic closures in advance. He stated the event cannot be promoted by signage offsite. He
cited Chapter 8, line 17 of the Special Events section. He stated the City is trying to say that the City has a
right to regulate traffic for safety and aesthetics, not content (of the sign).
Chairperson Segall asked specifically about the Village Fair. It is a one-day event, so according to this
they can’t advertise 45 days prior to the event - they can only have it up for the duration of the event. So
they can’t promote the event until the day of the event.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that was correct.
Planning Commission Minutes June 20,200l -AMENDED Page 11
Mr. Wayne stated they cannot promote the event with off-site signage. The government has a compelling
interest that if it’s going to close a road, we will erect signs in the road saying that this road is going to be
closed on such and such date for (name of the event). That announces to all people in advance so that
you don’t have tremendous traffic jams with people trying to get through when all the roads in the Village
are closed for the event. The City puts those signs up. The events have to be promoted by other means.
Chairperson Segall stated that the ordinance needs to be clarified for this type of event to say this is only a
City street closure, this isn’t to the public.
Mr. DeCerbo stated there is a “before” and “after” event time for a civic event. The current ordinance
allows signage up for 30 days before the event. This has been extended by 15 days, up to 45 days.
Mr. Wayne added that Mr. DeCerbo has referenced a section of Code (Chapter 8.17 of the Municipal
Code - the Special Events Section). All special events do have what Mr. DeCerbo is talking about. They
have a duration, a set-up, a pre-, the actual duration of the event, and the take-down. That is the actual
duration of the event. The signs would be issued based upon the Special Events Permit. They are in
association with the special event. If they are on public property, such as a park or the public right-of
way, it is in the public’s interest for us to announce to people that we are closing (e.g., College Blvd)
because there’s going to be a bicycle race on it.’ In the case of private property, we are going to be saying
that for the event of your Special Events Permit - that is when you can have your signage. That includes
a time before and a time after. In some cases, for big events, it’s about a week or week and a half early
and for small events, maybe a day or two for pre- and post. There’s a Special Events Committee that
reviews each and every request for a special event. Part of the special events are these special sign
needs.
Commissioner Nielsen asked about the “forthcoming signs” to advertise the event, and cited specifically
erecting a sign at Cannon Park for the Village Faire. Are they allowed to have that sign up 45 days in
advance?
Mr. Wayne responded that since it is located on public property, and that is allowed. He went on to say
that the amended ordinance is trying to stay very true to what the City has a compelling interest in, which
is to not allow any signs in the public right-of-way that are not traffic-related signs.
Mr. DeCerbo stated the Ordinance has been amended to specify that the City is entitled to pursue any
Civil Remedies provided by law including injunctive relief as to signs not in conformance with the Sign
Ordinance.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the Constitutional issue is basically dealing with off site commercial signs or non-
commercial signs in the public right-of-way. He explained that signage in the public right-of-way is
basically perceived as an intrusion on the public property forum which the City is seeking to preserve
exclusively for official Government communications for traffic safety or aesthetic reasons. He added that
the courts have concluded that a City cannot simultaneously ban all signs within the public right-of-way,
yet create an exemption for one category sign and such provision could compromise the Constitutional
integrity of the Sign Ordinance and accordingly staff is recommending no revisions to the proposed
prohibition on kiosk, A-frame, campaign or bus stop bench shelter signs in the public right-of-way. He
stated they are not recommending any revisions to what they have been talking to the Commission about
over the last 10 hours of public hearing. He said the public right-of-way is not for advertising but is to
ensure traffic safety above all else and aesthetics as well. Staffs recommendations are based on
analysis of case law.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that building markers on historical buildings are not defined as signage in the
Ordinance, but signs that are attached or put on the lot would be subject to the same sign regulations
pursuant to the zone that the property has.
Concerning a City entry sign across Coast Highway, Mr. DeCerbo stated that it could be permitted
according to the Code. If the City wanted to put up an informational or entryway sign, they could choose
to do that for directions or information to the public.
Planning Commission Minutes June 20,200l - AMENDED Page 12
Mr. DeCerbo stated there was a question concerning art and murals. Through the City Attorney’s
research of case law it was concluded that a mural on the side of a store would not be considered a
commercial sign unless it contained advertising text.
Concerning the Coastal Zone, Mr. DeCerbo stated that staff is recommending that the revisions contained
in the existing ordinance be maintained in the ordinance. The maintenance of this existing text will ensure
that we can make a finding of consistence with the City’s Local Coastal Program, since staff is not
recommending any changes to those sign regulations.
Mr. Wayne clarified that this would exclude areas located in the Redevelopment Area, and the areas in the
Coastal Zone. He went on to say that the Redevelopment Area and Coastal regulations prohibit tall free-
standing signs, and especially target off-premise signs.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if Coastal Zone sign standards ban billboards and if so why couldn’t we do
the same.
Mr. Wayne confirmed that they do ban them. The issue we are facing is that if a sign company comes in
and erects a billboard and challenges our ordinance and finds some section of our ordinance
unconstitutional, the courts could throw out our ordinance. We have to make certain that our ordinance is
constitutional. When you start to run into the constitutional issues is when you get into regulating one type
of signage differently than another type of sign. According to the courts, there are two compelling
government interests - aesthetics and traffic safety. We are recommending that no other signs than traffic
control signs be allowed in the public right-of-way. If you start to allow another type of sign in the public
right-of-way, than you allow them all. If you exempt certain ones and not other ones the courts will find
that your ordinance is unconstitutional and throw it out. Staff has tried to be very consistent on the
constitutional issues. The question is whether you allow certain classes of signs to go in the public right-
of-way and not others. If you do then you have to open up the entire public right-of-way and you’ve lost
your compelling argument for traffic safety.
Mr. DeCerbo went through the list of outstanding items from the previous public speakers regarding their
questions and concerns about the new Sign Ordinance and gave details as to the changes to be made in
the Sign Ordinance to accommodate these concerns. Among the concerns covered were the balloons,
open house signs, campaign signs, flags, vehicle signs, colors on logos, commercial size and letter height
on signs, school signs, special events, civil remedies, constitutional issues and historical building markers.
These were discussed in detail among the Commissioners and staff doing the presentation.
There was discussion regarding the First Amendment, the Urgency Ordinance, why some areas like the
Redevelopment Area is separated from some of the signage rules and others are not, where the cut-off is
and when the proposed change begins and why.
Mr. Wayne explained that the Coastal Zone prohibits tall free-standing signs and if there is anything left
out of the new Sign Ordinance for the City, then some companies or individuals can come in and
challenge the Sign Ordinance in court. If there is a loophole, then our Sign Ordinance will become invalid
and billboard signs will be able to go up as a result. He said the Sign Ordinance needs to be Constitutional
or there is trouble when getting into other areas other than traffic and aesthetics and if you allow some you
have to allow all. If the City makes an error in the Sign Ordinance, then the whole Sign Ordinance will be
thrown out.
Commissioner Baker asked for an explanation of severability, because in the Ordinance it says that if any
part of the Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the decision shall not affect the balance of
the remaining portions.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that typically the Council, when enacting an ordinance, will have a severability clause
in that ordinance that says that if one provision of this ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid
we don’t want our entire ordinance to be thrown out. We will defer to the courts judgment on that
particular issue and we’d like the rest of the ordinance to stand. However, what has happened in a lot of
these sign cases is that if the court deems your ordinance to be so infirm, then they will say they are going
Planning Commission Minutes June 20,200l - AMENDED Page 13
to disregard the severability clause because we don’t think this ordinance makes any sense, conceptually,
constitutionally, without the part of the ordinance we are severing. Because of that, even though we have
always prohibited billboards in the City, our concern is that other cities that have also prohibited off-
premises commercial signage have had their entire ordinance invalidated by the court if the court felt that
they had other unconstitutional provisions in their ordinance which were substantial, and in essence put a
cloud over their entire ordinance. It is the degree of risk you are looking at when allowing anything in the
public right-of-way other than traffic signs. Staff has taken a conservative approach, and you are less
likely to be challenged and less likely to lose if you are challenged. Their recommendations are based on
what they feel is the most risk-free approach to sign regulation.
Commissioner Trigas asked how you can constitutionally justify having different regulations in the Coastal
Zone and Redevelopment than in the rest of Carlsbad.
Mr. Wayne stated that in the General Plan all regulations apply except where they are in conflict with the
Local Coastal Program and where they are inflect, the Local Coastal Program takes precedence. If were
to allow (for example) roof signs (which we are not), in the Coastal Zone, it says you cannot have roof
signs. This is the same principal behind the sign regulations in the Redevelopment Area. They are the
City’s sign regulations, except where those types of signs are specifically addressed in the Master Plan.
For example A-frames., which are not allowed anywhere else, but they are specifically allowed in
Redevelopment today and they are off-premise signs. There are layers of regulations.
Mr. DeCerbo went on to discuss the three recommended revisions contained on the errata sheet. The
first deals with the definition of an electric message-board sign. He corrected the explanation of LED from
“liquid electrical display” to “light emitting diode.” Secondly, concerning logos and graphics, there is no
suggested color regulations on logos. Following consultation with a sign expert who drafts sign
ordinances all over the country, we were encouraged to modify our regulations on corporate logos and
graphics. Thirdly, the timeframe for the period of temporary signs with a sign permit, is changed to 45
days or the duration of the event. The duration is decided upon when the sign permit for the special event
is granted.
Mr. Wayne explained the duration for special event signs is the same for commercial and non-commercial.
Commissioner Trigas pursued her questioning about the language for special event signage and asked for
suggestions to clarify the intent.
Commissioner Nielsen asked what necessitated going into corporate flags, logos, etc
Mr. Wayne stated that we were advised by the person that Mr. DeCerbo referred to that we cannot
regulate the logos, registered trademarks, etc. which have to be copied exactly as they are registered.
We are obligated to allow a trademarked sign or whatever size the ordinance says, with their various
difference colors.
Commissioner Nielsen said he is alluding to the number and size of corporate flags; monument signs. For
instance, Lakeshore Gardens sign would be illegal under this ordinance and yet it was permitted at the
time.
Mr. Wayne stated that we did a great deal of research on monument signs and broached the subject
during the revisions on industrial signage - on the size of the monuments. That is what we are
recommending for the size of monuments in the City of Carlsbad. In the Coastal regulations, it talks about
the size as well. We are not recommending abatement of signs which will become non-conforming with
this new ordinance. If the owner does want to come in and change their sign, then they would need to
come into conformance with the newer regulations. Mr. Wayne stated that Aviara has a Community Sign
Program, as do most of the master plans. If a new motel were to be established they would then have to
conform to the new Sign Ordinance from the start.
Chairperson Segall asked about traffic control/directional warning/informational type signs, and if the signs
on Cannon Road that say “Legoland” are legal.
168
Planning Commission Minutes June 20,200l -AMENDED Page 14
Mr. DeCerbo stated they are probably constructed consistent with the existing Sign Program adopted by
ordinance for that Specific Plan. If the ordinance is approved, they would be prohibited signs. If they
come in to change the signs, we would have to look at them at that time. If you are not going to increase
the square footage of signage, we are not going to make you amend your Sign Program to conform.
Mr. Segall asked about address signs. Why limit to one sign and not two or three? If the building wraps
around, why not one on each side?
Mr. Smith stated that the Building Code and Fire Code is in line with the proposed code and is typically on
the front of the main street. He stated that campus’ need more than one sign on a building normally. He
said that the Building and Fire Codes are in line with the proposed ordinance and set the minimum
standards.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that new wording would read “a minimum of one per building.”
Chairperson Segall asked for the definition of a residential sign.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the City cannot say what the content can be in a sign, but that on a residential
property a total of eight square feet of signage can be added for campaign signs and this is where they get
the additional campaign signs on private property.
Both Commissioner Baker and Heineman suggested that “residential signs” by amended to “signs on
residential property.”
Mr. Wayne stated that they have never had addresses in the Sign Ordinance and he suggested to keep it
the same as in Section 502 of the UBC-it does not address maximum or minimum but leaves it to the
discretion of the Fire and Building Codes.
Before moving into public testimony, Chairperson Segall suggested that the Commission continue Items
No. 5 and 6 to the July 18, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting.
DISCUSSION
None.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to continue Items No. 5 and
6 to be first on the July 18, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting.
VOTE:
AYES:
5-o-o
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
Chairperson Segall opened public testimony.
Patty Blank, Vinaka Cafe, Village Faire, Carlsbad. Ms. Blank did not wish to speak but only wanted to
record her protest.
Jan Jones, 2608 State Street, Carlsbad stated she is totally against billboards, but shared her concern
that the City had been working on the Sign Ordinance for 2 % years and the merchants and community
has only been notified two weeks ago. She shared her concern about the year 2006 when the Village will
have to comply with the new Sign Ordinance and the Village will loose its unique place. Ms. Jones stated
that if one business loses then all the businesses will lose as it (the business) is not a hobby, but their
living, utilities and food.
Planning Commission Minutes June 20,200l -AMENDED Page 15
Robert C. Ladwig, 703 Palomar Airport Road, #300, Carlsbad shared that the older businesses would
have an advantage over the new businesses as they are able to keep their signage as is, but the new
businesses will start with the new Sign Ordinance. He stated that he felt a workshop would be helpful.
Kurt Burkhart, Executive Director of the Carlsbad Visitor’s and Convention Bureau, 400 Carlsbad Village
Drive, stated that he is not here in opposition to the changes, but in support of his constituency - the
hospitality and tourism industry. We need to be careful about the special events portion of the ordinance.
Signage is part of the visitor’s experience - hotels, restaurants, etc. After their sign had been ripped out in
January, people say it is hard to find them. He was in support of special events and the visitor’s
experience of the signage in the Village.
Steve Avoyer, 3131 Camino Del Rio North, San Diego, CA 92108, a commercial real estate broker. He felt
Carlsbad has good and fair signage. He pointed to page 16 of the Sign Ordinance, regarding shopping
centers throughout San Diego County and added in line #3 to keep it at “not to exceed 1.5.”
William Sharon, Smith Consulting Architects, 12220 El Camino Real, Ste 200, San Diego, CA 92130,
shared that the Council could have asked commercial retailers regarding their needs for signage. He
proposed at least two signs at each major entry of a shopping center.
Emmett Durnan, 4900 Neblina Drive, Carlsbad stated that Carlsbad is clean regarding signs and
recommended having workshops as he does not yet understand the definition of event duration for signs.
John Healy, (owners of the Plaza Camino Real Mall) 11601 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA. He stated he
is one of the largest property owners in Carlsbad and he just recently became aware of the Ordinance. He
stated that the Commission seemed rather confused and the audience must also be. He shared that of the
30-40 exterior signs at the Plaza Camino Real Mall, there certainly will be changes. He stated a workshop
is needed.
Jan Sobel, 5620 Paseo del Norte, #128, Carlsbad, CEO of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce. She
stated that page 4, line No. 29, the definition of flags does not include Corporate flags and she would like it
to. She shared that the permit they give for special events is exactly the time of the event and her office is
required to put up signs and pay for them for directions to the events. She asked if the City has ever hired
an expert on the Sign Ordinance and billboard laws to see that in the gray areas would still hold the City
harmless. She asked if there was a Sign Ordinance for the Scenic Corridor and asked what was the
necessity of the Urgency Ordinance.
Diane Scheer, Carlsbad Village Business Assn., P.O. Box 1460, Carlsbad. She was concerned that the
new Sign Ordinance will change the Village area and asked if the City hired an attorney who specialized in
billboards. She was concerned that there was no workshop for the businesses. She asked how a
restaurant could advertise their specials as they now do on chalkboards outside.
LeeAnn Lilinthall, 2728 Grove Avenue, 580 Grand Avenue, Carlsbad. She stated that several years ago
Carlsbad required A-frames to be taken down for 30 days and her business lost 30% during that time. She
asked if Rotary OctoberFest Signs by the duck pond were on City property or private property and if we
have consulted Constitutional lawyers. She shared that to turn and look at a smaller sign versus the A-
frame on Carlsbad Village Drive is more dangerous.
Bud Schlehuber,2720 Jefferson Street, stated that the monument sign affects page 4, line 37 and page
17, takes away freedom and aesthetics of the sign.
Doug Chat-tier, 2697 Wilson Street, Carlsbad. He asked that this not to be rushed through. He stated he
works in the Village and they need to have A-frames. He asked that the Commission hold a workshop and
take the time to do what is necessary.
Larry Tucker, One Upper Newport Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660, gave a handout with changes he
had suggested for pages 9,15,16,19 and 24.
Planning Commission Minutes June 20,200l - AMENDED Page 16
Andre LeCault, 2903 Carlsbad Blvd., Carlsbad, asked why the City is discriminating against restaurants
over gas stations. He stated he would like to see more kiosks and they need more informational signs for
directions into the Village. He stated his concern for the need of government for the people.
Barbara Shartzer, 487 Alondra Way, Carlsbad, shared that in the past 25 years she has had signs pulled
four times and her signs in the windows were stolen six times. She stated that they had a sign out for eight
years and then was told it is in violation. She stated that they need communication as to what the rules are
and it needs to be clear and defined.
Chairperson Segall seeing no one else wishing to speak closed public testimony.
Commissioner Trigas asked to propose to continue this item and have a public workshop, get input.
Ms. Mobaldi suggested that she make a Minute Motion to ask Council to direct the Staff to conduct a
workshop. She stated that the Mayor did not direct a workshop and typically Council directs staff to
conduct workshops. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Commission can basically continue this item until a date
uncertain until you get the direction you are asking from Council.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Baker asked if a public workshop will add more of what they have heard and will this be re-
inventing the wheel?
Commissioner Trigas stated they have heard the concerns but not the recommendations from all of the
public. She stated they needed to have more specifics and the process is important. They must allow
those who are directly involved to give input.
Commissioner Heineman stated that staff has been working hard and came up with 15 items to go over.
Commissioner Nielsen concurred with everyone and was hoping the citizens will attend the workshops
and give their input.
Chairperson Segall referred to the Urgency Ordinance, and stated that the business community and
residents should attend the workshop.
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
DISCUSSION
None.
MINUTE MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to continue Item No. 4 to a
date uncertain in order to ask Council to consider a minute motion that there be
public workshops to be held to provide input and clarify the Ordinance.
5-o-o
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas
None
None
Minute Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to request City
Council to direct Staff to conduct a workshop on the Sign Ordinance to seek input
from business owners, developers and residents in the City of Carlsbad.
5-o-o
Planning Commission Minutes June 20,200l - AMENDED Page 17
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of May 20, 2001 was adjourned at
9158 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
GARY WAYNE
Assistant Planning Director
Judy Kirsch
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
Planning Commission Minutes October 3,200l DRAFT page 4
3. ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - A Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and reenact the City’s Sign
Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to comply with current case law
regarding the constitutional validity of sign ordinances and to clarify the ordinance to make it
easier for developers, business owners and residents to understand and use.
Mr. Holzmiller introduced the last item on the agenda, Item #3, stating that it is a continued public hearing
on the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance update.
Commissioner Dominguez stated he was going to excuse himself from the deliberations of Item #3 at the
suggestion of the City Attorney. Commissioner Dominguez stepped off the dias at 6:15 p.m.
Mr. Holzmiller addressed the Chairman and Commission and provided background on Item #3. He stated
that the Planning Commission has considered this matter at public hearings on June 6, June 13, and
June 20, 2001 at which time it was decided to continue the item, and they made a minute motion
requesting the City Council to find a forum to get additional public input. In response to the request, the
City Council appointed a fifteen-member citizen’s committee to review the existing ordinance, the
proposed ordinance, and items brought up at previous Planning Commission public hearings. City Council
authorized staff to hire an attorney to assist the committee and staff. The citizens committee met for a 5-
week period and their report and recommendation were reviewed and approved by the City Council in
August. The Citizens Committee identified eight key issues they decided to focus on. Six of these dealt
with signs that would be permitted in the public right-of-way: Kiosk, A-Frame, Special Event, Political
Campaign, Real Estate, Lamppost Banners. They also focused on campaign signs on private property
and amount of sign area permitted for commercial -development. He stated the ordinance before the
Commission tonight represents a combination of what was originally proposed by staff, changes made in
previous public hearings, modifications made based on recommendations of the Citizens Committee, and
additional changes suggested by the sign law attorney. He then introduced Randal Morrison, the sign law
attorney, to give an overview of the assistance and input he provided to the staff and Citizens Committee.
Prior to beginning his presentation on the legal concepts for sign regulations, Mr. Morrison expressed his
appreciation for the exemplary dedication and work of the Citizens Committee. He also stated how
pleased he was to work with the Planning Department staff; Bobbie Hoder, who kept everyone informed;
Michael Holzmiller, Gary Wayne, and Chris DeCerbo who were on top of the details every step of the way.
He was impressed by everyone who took part in it. He described the approach they used as one that
would accommodate citizen concern issues and minimize legal risk as well.
Mr. Morrison stated that when determining whether a rule regarding a sign is constitutional or legally valid,
it first needs to be decided if the government is speaking as a regulator or a manager. This makes a
difference in the courts analysis and public understanding. Government can speak as regulator of private
property, such as the sign ordinance. It can also speak as manager of public property, that is for land
owned by the City or managed for the benefit or the public, such as the public right-of-way.
Mr. Morrison explained that “speaking” by sign is a form of free speech that is protected equally by the
U.S. and California constitutions. However, free speech is not an absolute freedom, and the courts strive
for reasonable regulation which balances the public’s need for control of spillover effects against the free
speech right; this is called balancing of interests. He stated if we restrict free speech we must have a good
justification to do so - this is one of the core ideas. He referred to a Supreme Court case about signs,
Ladue v Gilleo (1994) and read some lines from the case. He stated the following is one of the key
phrases, “It is common ground that governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs--just
as they can, within reasonable bounds and absent censorial purpose, regulate audible expression in its
capacity as noise.”
Mr. Morrison said we must remember that judges are trained to think every case is unique and want to
look at the particular facts of each case. He described the analysis generally used in cases to determine
the balancing of interest.
)73
Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2001 Page 5
Mr. Morrison stated we must keep in mind why we have freedom of speech in our constitution and that the
main purpose of the First Amendment is to protect debate on issues of public controversy. He described
the categories of speech, which include core speech or “noncommercial speech” and commercial speech
(advertising) which is entitled to limited protection. He stated that the courts are very sensitive to the issue
of the government regulating the message. The law is not completely clear, but is based on the idea of
neutrality. There is content neutrality, especially important for core speech, where the government does
not even look at what the sign says. There is also viewpoint neutrality which is usually good enough for
commercial speech regulations and when using categories, such as real estate signs or gas station signs
- we must treat everyone within the category equally. He stated that it doesn’t mean if we regulate on the
basis of content that it’s automatically unconstitutional, but proving the justification is more difficult.
He stated that when regulations meet the time, place, and manner (TPM) requirements, the courts almost
always approve. Mr. Morrison described the various property concepts and how they play a role in sign
regulation. He explained the rights for private and residential property. He stated that when it comes to
public property, the government has property rights and it’s okay to have different rules in different zones.
If certain signage rights are attached to a particular kind of use, most courts will approve. Signage rights
attach to the land, not to the person. Trademark is considered intellectual property and local sign
regulations cannot require a federally registered trademark to be changed to comply with the local zoning
rules.
Mr. Morrison went on to describe the basic concepts when the government is speaking as a regulator.
These were primarily derived from the case, Metromedia v San Diego, 1981. He stated the #I rule is that
government may not favor commercial speech over noncommercial speech because it inverts the value
hierarchy of the First Amendment. The City could completely ban all offsite commercial billboards,
however, if exceptions are made to the general ban, it could create justification problems. There can be
no favoritism within the noncommercial ban. Rules based on message content are harder to justify.
When regulations concern the content of commercial signs, most cases seem to accept the idea that
viewpoint neutrality is enough and we can treat discrete categories as a separate group, however, it is still
somewhat in debate in the courts.
Mr. Morrison stated that when the government is acting as a manger of public land, the property interests
move to the government’s side which significantly shifts the balance. More flexibility is allowed when the
government is managing its own land. However, if it is an area for traditional public forum, such as parks,
the rules are exactly the same as if acting as a regulator, due to the traditional importance of core speech.
For areas not traditionally public fora, it becomes a public forum if the government designates it as such.
The policy must be viewpoint neutral, clear, reasonable, and consistently enforced. If the area is not
traditionally a public forum, but has been designated as such, it can be changed. They also look carefully
at the special purpose and nature of the area.
He stated that when managing public land, the rule out of Metromedia which says you can’t favor
commercial speech over non-commercial no longer applies. He referred to challenges in Phoenix and
Philadelphia and stressed the importance of having a clear policy that is consistently enforced. He
concluded his presentation stating that working together with the sign committee and staff, they came up
with a version of the ordinance similar to the one last seen, but it accommodates some of the additional
signage issues that the committee and citizens wanted.
Mr. Holzmiller suggested that they complete the presentation by having Chris DeCerbo summarize the
recommendations of the Citizens Committee ,and then have Diane Scheer make any comments if she
wishes.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that there is an asterisk after each recommendation because the committee wanted to
add language to the Sign Ordinance to minimize any legal risks to the City associated with allowing these
signs. The Citizens Committee Recommendations are as follows:
1. Retain the City’s Kiosk Sign Program and continue to allow them in the public right-of-way.
2. Continue to allow A-frame signs in the Village Redevelopment Area in the public right-of-way.
3. Continue to allow political campaign signs in the public right-of-way.
/74
Planning Commission Minutes October 3,200l
4. Allow special event signs to be located off-site and in the public right-of-way.
5. Allow City-installed lamppost banners with non-commercial messages (in the Village
Redevelopment Area) in the public right-of-way.
6. Prohibit real estate signs in the public right-of-way according to the original staff recommendation.
7. Allow political campaign signs on private property according to the original staff recommendation
(8 sf/residence and 16 sf/non-residential lot)
8. Allow wall sign area for commercial uses according to the original staff recommendation (1
sf/lineal foot of frontage).
Mr. Holzmiller stated he would like to introduce Diane Scheer who did an outstanding job chairing the
Citizens Committee.
Ms. Scheer stated that due to time constraints to work on the detailed documents, the eight items they
chose were those they had received the most public input on, however, there were other items that were
important to some people. She mentioned that they made a recommendation to update the kiosk signs
which are currently brown and white. They also made a recommendation that City Council consider other
corridors of the city, besides the Village Redevelopment Area, that would be appropriate for city-installed
lamppost banners. She stated the committee was in favor of having directional signs for historical sites
and cultural facilities. She added that Mr. Morrison had indicated that these signs would be noncommercial
speech and most judges would accept them as functional information, so they wanted to have that
considered and added in the language of directional signs.
Mr. Holzmiller recognized two other members of the sign committee who were in attendance, Scott
Brusseau and Leslea Meyerhoff.
Mr. Holzmiller then stated that he would like Mr. DeCerbo to go through the changes that were made and
the analysis that staff did based on the Citizens Committee recommendations and the input from Mr.
Morrison.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the City Council accepted the Citizen Committee’s recommendations and to keep
in mind that the original staff recommendation was to prohibit off-site commercial and non-commercial
signs in the public right-of-way in order to minimize legal risk to the greatest extent possible. He stated
that Mr. Morrison identified the public forum doctrine that states courts give governments more latitude
when acting as a manager of public property, including public right-of-way. He said the specific
recommendations are included in a new draft City Council policy which is included as an attachment to the
staff report and will be brought forward to the City Council making detailed recommendations on these
signs recommended to be allowed in the right-of-way. The new policy is titled “Signs on Public Property”
and is intended to enable the location of offsite noncommercial special event signs, campaign signs,
lamppost banners, subdivision kiosk signs, and A-frame signs in the Village in the public right-of-way.
More analysis needs to be done before going to the City Council. Other recommended revisions to the
ordinance include the following:
1. Prohibit exposed “neon” signs on any building elevation that faces and is within 500 feet of
adjoining residentially zoned property. This addresses the light and glare impacts.
2. A sign permit is not required to reface an existing sign with a different sign face or sign copy.
3. The sign face and/or sign copy of a nonconforming sign may be changed provided no structural or
electrical alterations to the sign are required.
4. Flags - no regulation for the maximum number or area of flags with noncommercial symbols (i.e.;
flags with symbols of government or political subdivision). May revisit at later date.
5. Eliminate color restrictions for commercial and noncommercial signs.
Mr. Holzmiller wanted to clarify that the additional recommendations presented by Ms. Scheer are not
necessarily reflected in the ordinance, because the signs that are going to be permitted in the public right-
of-way are going to be addressed and allowed by a separate City Council policy. He said when the
Council reviewed the Citizens Committee recommendations and agreed with them we indicated to the
Council we would be bringing this policy forward once the ordinance is updated. He stated the
Planning Commission Minutes October 3,200l
recommendations of updating the kiosk signs, expansion and enhancement of lamppost banners, and
cultural and historical directional signs would be further analyzed and presented to City Council.
Mr. Holzmiller indicated they provided some minor changes to the ordinance and put them in ordinance
form. These changes were based on questions or clarifications that Planning Commissioners had at their
briefings. He pointed out the following changes: On page 1, added the words “On Private Property” to
21.41.040; on page 7, Section J, added the words “Property entry and security protection notices and” to
expand examples of things that are not considered signs; on page IO, it was felt that the language in items
13 and 24 was duplicative, so the words “or any other type of’ vehicles “displaying general advertising that
are moving or parked” was added to #13, and #24 was deleted since it basically applied to the same thing;
added the words “On Private Property” to the bottom of page 10, to the top of page 11, and to the left
column on page 12; and on page 24 in the far left column “within” was changed to “when”.
Chairperson Segall asked if Mr. Kelly would be speaking on enforcement issues. Mr. Holzmiller said Mr.
Kelly was available to answer questions on code enforcement. Chairperson Segall asked if Mr. Brusseau
or Ms. Meyerhoff wanted to make any comments. Chairperson Segall said on behalf of the Commission
he wanted to thank the committee for the time and effort they put in helping the Planning Commission do
their job and asked that this be passed on to the rest of the committee.
Scott Brusseau of Newport National Corporation stated he had been with the sign program since the end
of 1998 when they were developing a new project in Carlsbad. He said this has been a long process, staff
did a phenomenal job, and Mr. Morrison was invaluable in helping them better understand the legal
aspects. The Citizens Committee was comprised of a wide breadth of backgrounds. Mr. Brusseau stated
that during this process he focused on people in the shopping center development business, Building
Industry Association, National Association of Office and Industrial Parks, landowners and developers in
the City of Carlsbad. He said they had an opportunity to give their input and had some specific issues with
the ordinance. He thanked the Commission for allowing the Citizens Committee to get together.
Chairperson Segall asked him to comment about the feedback he received from the various associations
and the Board of Realtors.
Mr. Brusseau stated they are supportive of the final ordinance that’s before the Commission; it’s not
everything they wanted, but they think it’s a proper balance of the issues they looked at. One committee
member was on the Board of Realtors and they had a lot of discussion regarding the real estate signs that
are currently prohibited offsite. They agreed to keep it that way and when it came to the vote, 8 out of 10
said no for real estate signs offsite as a continuance of staff,
Commissioner Compas referred to Item 13 on page 10 and asked if it’s prohibited for such vehicles to
move on our city streets, how is it determined that their primary use is to advertise, and if we’re going to
have people looking for that.
Mr. Holzmiller explained that there are now businesses that hire people to basically make their vehicle a
sign and drive it around the city. It would be very difficult to stop and enforce it, but wanted to have
something in the ordinance in the event it became a problem.
Mr. Morrison stated that one of the responses from the billboard industry to the increasing restrictions on
their signs has been to turn to mobile billboards - vehicles that do nothing but function as a sign. He said
the reason we want to prohibit this is because it adds to traffic congestion and parking problems. This
issue has been decided by the city courts of New York a couple times and they have said that the City’s
interest in reducing traffic congestion is enough to keep these vehicles off the street when all they do is
function as a sign.
Commissioner Baker asked how we determine if the vehicle has other purposes or its sole purpose is
advertising. Mr. Morrison stated there’s a sign on the side of the truck that says “mobile ad - your ad here
- call this number.”
Planning Commission Minutes October 3,200l Page 8
Commissioner Trigas asked if the language should say that it’s for vehicles whose sole purpose is for
general advertising. Mr. Morrison said it’s in the definition of mobile billboard on page 5, #45.
Commissioner Trigas stated when the other language was added we opened it up more and asked if the
wording should be changed to any other type of vehicles ‘whose primary purpose” is displaying general
advertising.
Chairperson Segall stated there’s a company based in Carlsbad that has a Volkswagen that looks like a
billboard but it’s a corporate vehicle, so that would not fit under this definition. Mr. Morrison said that’s a
policy call but he as he understands it, that vehicle would continue to be legal.
Mr. Holzmiller said he thought the wording that Commissioner Trigas suggested would be fine and they
would not have to work on it any more.
Commissioner Compas asked what the probability would be of the City losing a lawsuit if one was filed on
any part of the ordinance if approved as currently written.
Mr. Morrison stated we have to remember that judges have their own perspectives, attitudes and
interpretations. The law of signs is notorious for cases not being consistent on detailed points. He
believes if we had a challenge, the chance of having it sustained is quite good if the judge is properly
briefed. He said there is no such thing as a bulletproof sign ordinance, but is confident we should win.
Commissioner Trigas wanted to clarify that we can prohibit noncommercial A-frame signs in public right-
of-way as we’re doing now and allow commercial.
Mr. Morrison said yes, that’s the importance of the distinction between the regulator hat and manager hat.
When regulating, we cannot do that but when we’re managing we can because the property interests
shifts.
Commissioner Baker said originally we looked at prohibiting political signs in the public right-of-way and
then there were issues of not charging a fee because that could prohibit someone from being involved, but
now we’re considering charging a fee again. She asked if there was case law regarding this.
Mr. DeCerbo said that the existing ordinance requires a fee for a political campaign sign and a refundable
deposit to make sure they are retrieved after the election. He said they were recommending to prohibit
campaign signs in the right-of-way and if they were only allowed on private property they would not charge
a fee.
Mr. Morrison said he was aware of one case that discusses this issue and the decision says you can’t
have a separate fee for every sign the candidate puts up, but you can have a one-time fee to process the
permit to put up all the signs. He said he thinks it makes sense to seriously consider taking the fee
entirely off the political signs.
Commissioner Baker asked if the city installed banners would be printed and funded by the City or could
an outside company ask to have them put up and pay the City to do that.
Mr. Holzmiller said that has not yet been determined. The program now is entirely operated by the city.
They pay a company to prepare the banners and they put them up. It is a very limited program and they
are considering if it should be expanded in the redevelopment area and identify more things and whether
there should be other areas outside the village area where lamppost banners should be considered. It
hasn’t been finalized yet because it raises a lot of policy issues.
Commissioner Baker asked if it’s noncommercial speech on the banners, would it mean the City would be
advocating noncommercial speech. Mr. Morrison said he has never seen a reported case that talks about
it. He thinks the way they want to go is to not only have the City manage its own property, but also be the
speaker, and not open it up to be a forum for a discussion of issues.
177
Planning Commission Minutes October 3,200l Page 9
Commissioner Baker asked if there were any issues with Christmas banners on public property. Mr.
Morrison said many cities have gotten involved in very long legal battles but wasn’t aware of this being an
issue in this city.
Ms. Mobaldi stated she didn’t believe it has been in the past, but she thought the thrust would be a non-
denominational and more of a decorative holiday-type theme, but this would be policy decision to be made
by Council at some later point.
Commissioner Trigas asked a question on enforcement; how would people be made aware that real
estate signs are not permitted offsite in the public right-of-way, and what happens if they violate.
Mr. Pat Kelly responded they would be discussing that upon implementation, they would have an
awareness campaign for the principal interest groups that have the signs and let them know what the new
regulations are, and that we have to consistently enforce existing regulations that may have not been
enforced before. The City is committed to enforcing whatever is approved because it is apparent that
consistent enforcement is a critical component of maintaining the ability to defend the ordinance.
Commissioner Trigas asked if there would be fines. Mr. Kelly said we have the ability to do that.
Commissioner Trigas stated she heard time limitations on political signs haven’t been a problem in the
past. Mr. Kelly stated the only political signs that gave them problems were from the national candidates
who come to town and put signs up on poles; they are difficult to get down but not to enforce. He said
they send out sign permit packages to all candidates at the beginning of the election season. Usually only
the locals get sign permits but national and statewide candidates never get sign permits for signs they put
on public property. He said we have to raise the level of understanding that it’s important to enforce the
ordinance.
Chairperson Segall asked how signs for churches and temples are addressed in the ordinance.
Mr. Kelly replied if it’s in the right-of-way it is going to have to be a component of the City Council policy as
to what they allow as manager of public property. Chairperson Segall asked if it is or can be addressed in
the policy; Mr. DeCerbo replied that it can be and it’s currently in there in draft form.
Chairperson Segall asked what the process is for the public to complain, for instance, on the weekend.
Mr. Kelly replied they would probably call police dispatch; they have no on-call person so they would
probably call him, because police dispatch calls him for other things. They also consistently apply the
rules that are in place when they give someone a permit; they don’t allow exceptions to the rules.
Chairperson Segall asked if the level of quality and standards of signs for special events would be
addressed in the policy, not in the ordinance. Mr. DeCerbo responded the policy would deal with that and
thought it currently was doing that in draft format.
Chairperson Segall asked where the public right-of-way begins or ends in master planned communities
such as Aviara and Ranch0 Carrillo, or is there any public right-of-way in those communities. Their kiosk
signs are directional but they’re different from the city signs, so how do we differentiate.
Mr. DeCerbo said the master plans have their own sign programs which allow directional and entry signs.
They could have public right-of-way as well that would typically be 10 feet back from the curb. Depending
on whether they have variance to the city policy they might allow special things within their right-of-way as
well as having private easements that would be governed by the CC&Rs.
Chairperson Segall asked if political candidates wanted to put their signs in the public right-of-way and if
they have a permit can they go into any part of the city, including the master planned communities.
Mr. DeCerbo replied if it’s public right-of-way they would be complying with the policy that would be
coming through the City Council. Mr. Holzmiller said the existing ordinance allows that but has conditions
on the types of streets you can put them on. It also says you must get the consent of the adjoining
Planning Commission Minutes October 3,200l Page 10
property owner next to the public right-of-way. Those provisions will probably be carried over. Mr.
Morrison added that when the policy is done there will be a chart or map where signs are allowed; it’s
location specific.
Chairperson Segall stated in past elections some homeowner associations go in the public right-of-way
and takes the signs down that had been put up legally. He asked if there is a form that will be generated
to get the consent of private residences. Mr. Morrison replied that he’s not aware that’s been discussed in
the policy before and needs to talk it through before putting it in there. He said they don’t want to blur the
line between our public property manager hat and giving private veto to someone else.
Commissioner Heineman brought up the subject of private streets and it would seem that the governing
documents would override this ordinance because there is no public right-of-way. Mr. Holzmiller said
under the current regulations permits do not apply to private streets.
Chairperson Segall asked about the grandfathering clause - if someone has a sign in a business and they
change the name but not the sign, they will not have to follow the new policy. Mr. DeCerbo stated that is
correct. He mentioned he thought he read somewhere that if at some point the law changes the city can
go back and require the signs to be modified.
Mr. Holzmiller replied that it may have been in the section regarding if a permit is issued for a sign in error,
the city has the right to revoke the permit. Mr. Holzmiller said that Mr. Brusseau was going to address the
issue and suggest that it be removed. The City has the right in some cases to revoke the permit if issued
in error, but it is done on a case-by-case basis. He said they would have no problem removing that
section from the ordinance because its covered by other laws.
Commissioner Trigas asked what happens if someone decides to put a non-commercial message on a
commercial sign. Mr. DeCerbo replied that a new section was put into the code that allows substitution of
a noncommercial message of any type for any legally permitted commercial sign. Commissioner Trigas
said she wanted to understand the legality because they could now have some businesses proselytizing
some controversial issues.
Mr. Morrison, referring to the Metromedia case, said the one clear rule from the case is we cannot favor
commercial speech over noncommercial speech. We have a legal vaccination to avoid the problem and
it’s called the substitution clause which allows anyone who has a sign to substitute the existing message
for any kind of noncommercial message and there is no permit required. He emphasized we want to stay
completely away from Metromedia problem.
Commissioner Trigas asked if there’s no way to control the message even if we say we don’t want any
noncommercial messages on commercial signs. Mr. Morrison responded, when speaking as a regulator
that’s true, when speaking as a property manager it’s our choice.
Commissioner Trigas asked if that would leave us open for the possibility of noncommercial speech and
legally there’s no way we could say no noncommercial speech. Mr. Morrison said that is correct; we can
make that rule on public property, but not on private property.
Commissioner Trigas asked if there were instances in terms of public safety or obscenity that
noncommercial speech would be prohibited. Mr. Morrison said that is a very tough area and the approach
he usually recommends is to use State law for that and not cover it in the sign ordinance. If a sign is so
extreme that you think it violates State law, then call the district attorney to see if they are interested in
prosecuting it as a crime. In terms of public safety, you can advocate anything, but if you take action on it
you get into an entirely different area.
Commissioner Trigas commented that there are certain messages a city obviously does not want to have,
and asked if there is no way we could say you can change the message if it’s commercial speech, period.
Mr. Morrison replied wearing the regulator hat we do not want to repeat San Diego’s mistake.
179
Planning Commission Minutes October 3,200l Page 11
Chairperson Segall stated that on one of the regulations it states no billboards can exceed 60 square feet
and asked if that’s the standard size of billboards.
Mr. Morrison replied that for freeway billboards, a junior billboard is 10 x 30, a bulletin is 12 x 40, and a
jumbo is 14 x 48, so we’re talking about square footages vastly higher than the 60 square feet.
Chairperson Segall asked about the number and signs for gas stations. He stated that the regulation
states gas stations can have 4 signs up to 10 feet each, but some stations may not be able to do that. Mr.
DeCerbo said they can make a revision on page 21, Table B, under Gas/Service Stations, Canopy, to
change it to read all canopy signs cannot exceed 40 square feet.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions for the sign committee.
Commissioner Compas asked if the Citizens Committee voted on each of the eight recommendations and
what the vote was on each one. Diane Scheer responded they did vote and none were very close and
none were unanimous.
Chairperson Segall asked if the Citizens Committee went through the entire sign ordinance and just had
the eight issues. Ms. Scheer said they did not have time to go through all the details in the ordinance so
they selected the 8 issues and concentrated on those. There were details in the ordinance they did not
discuss, so it was not reviewed in totality.
RECESS:
Chairperson Segall called a recess at 8:00 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Segall called the meeting back to order at 8:lO p.m. with five commissioners present.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Segall invited Scott Brusseau of Newport National Corporation, 2117 Industrial Court, Suite 3,
Vista, California to speak to the Commission. Mr. Brusseau stated there were a few points in the
ordinance he would like the Commission to consider making some changes or additions to, as follows: He
suggested that the terms listed as definitions be capitalized throughout the ordinance. On page 14,
section E, remove last line. Chairperson Segall asked if staff was in agreement with this. Mr. Holzmiller
said he didn’t have any problem and asked if there were any legal issues with Ms. Mobaldi or Mr.
Morrison. He said the City has general provisions and legal principles that apply to issuing things in error
and doesn’t think we have to be specific about signs. Ms. Mobaldi stated that these issues are dealt with
in fairness and recommended to take out the language. Mr. Brusseau suggested that on page 15, Section
21.41.070, #4 Multi-faced Signs, the language be clarified to make sure the square footage is only
considered for one face side. Chairperson Segall asked him to go off-line with Mr. DeCerbo to work out
the language before leaving. On page 18, 4th section down, he asked to delete #l and proposed to
replace with “Maximum sign area is 150 SF” and the comment #I would be moved over to the Remarks
and restated as “The total sign area for the project shall not exceed 1 SF per lineal foot of building
frontage.” Mr. Brusseau proposed that on page 23, Note #8, be changed to “Wall sign must be located
below the roof eaveline, and is not allowed on any architectural projection, parapet or equipment
enclosure located above the roof eaveline.” Chairperson Segall asked Mr. DeCerbo if he was clear and in
agreement with this. Mr. DeCerbo stated he was.
Chairperson Segall stated that those who filed forms to speak on the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance
would now be given the opportunity to address the Commission.
Jan Sobel, CEO of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, thanked the Planning Commission, the Staff,
and the Council for their work on the sign ordinance. She stated that the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Board of Directors unanimously supports the recommendations of the Citizens Committee. She stated
Planning Commission Minutes October 3,200l Page 12
they support the need for more directional signs to some of Carlsbad amenities, including museums, GIA,
Visitor Center, and the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce. She stated Carlsbad is the only city in North
County that does not have directional signs to the Chamber of Commerce so she would like that to be part
of the consideration of adding those non-government agencies that are important to traffic flow. She
congratulated everyone for getting this far and for their perseverance, due diligence and responsiveness.
Commissioner Baker asked Ms. Sobel if she had any thoughts on who should pay for the directional signs.
Ms. Sobel responded she would like to see what other cities do and have conformity with other cities;
maybe it would be a partnership.
Commissioner Heineman asked what groups should be featured in the points of interest. Ms. Sobel said it
would probably be the areas of interests they are asked about most. She said she could give a list of the
top ten places people are looking for.
Chairperson Segall stated for the record that he is on Board of the Chamber and he did not participate in
the discussion or the vote on this action.
Shari West, 503 N. Tremont Street, Oceanside, California, thanked the Commission, Citizens Committee,
and Planning Department for their hard work on the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Amendment. She
stated she is a board member of the Carlsbad Convention and Visitors Bureau and Founding Director of
the Museum of Making Music in Carlsbad. She stated that the museum’s front desk and volunteers report
that approximately 30% of all visitors complain about not being able to find the museum due to a lack of
signage. The vast majority of these complaints come from local residents as opposed to tourists who
generally call for directions. She stated the museum as well as other cultural sites need their help in
getting the directional signs and greatly encourages the Planning Commission and Planning Department
to consider this issue, and encourages the City to adopt the Citizens Committee’s recommendations
concerning special event signs and the expansion of lamppost banners to the area of Armada Drive where
both the GIA Museum and Museum of Making Music are located.
Marietta Rogers, 300 Carlsbad Village Drive, #103, Carlsbad, California 92009, stated she is Director of
Development at the Children’s Discovery Museum in Carlsbad. She thanked the Sign Committee and
Commission for the work they did on the sign ordinance. She stated that prior to the popularity of cell
phones they occasionally heard stories of people who could not find their museum. Since cell phones
have become more widespread, she now knows how many people are having trouble finding their
museum. She told of incidents of visitors asking where the signs are. She said visitors leave with
impression that the area is unfriendly and very difficult to maneuver and that’s not the impression we want
to give visitors or local residents. People are accustomed to looking for standard directional signage and
she hopes the recommendations for directional signage will be taken to heart.
Gary Hill, 3289 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, California, stated he is the Community Development Director for
the Gemological Institute of America and also a lifetime member of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Foundation. He stated he would like to reinforce the cultural signage that was discussed. He stated the
area he is looking at is the area more central to the City of Carlsbad that includes the Nature Center on
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon that hopefully will be coming on line next year, GIA, and the Museum of
Making Music. He said his comments are directed to that area both for directional signs and for having
lamppost banners. He stated the City Arts Office is considering beginning a regional arts fair that will be
located on Armada starting next year. He said the cultural directional signage is on the agenda for the
Carlsbad Arts Commission on October 4th.
Chairperson Segall closed the public testimony at 8:35 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
Chairperson Segall asked if staff wanted to respond to any comments that were made. He stated that all
the comments on directional signs will be addressed by Council policy and everyone’s aware of that, Mr.
DeCerbo stated they are aware of the interest and will make sure those signs get addressed with respect
to the Council policy. Chairperson Segall asked if the Commission wanted to make a recommendation
Planning Commission Minutes October 3,200l Page 13
that the Chamber, ConVis, the Village Business Association, and the Arts Commission be part of a group
that is available to support those signs if that comes to pass. Mr. Holzmiller stated when they have it
finalized they will bring it back for Planning Commission comment. He said legally they don’t have to
approve it because it’s a Council policy but there’s no problem in reviewing it and making
recommendations to the Council.
Commissioner Baker asked if the Council policy needs to be in place on the December 4th deadline. Mr.
Holzmiller replied that it doesn’t. If the ordinance is approved it will say that there will be a policy and will
reference it and say signs in the public right-of-way are permissible according to the policy adopted by
Council.
Commissioner Compas wanted to confirm that the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Amendment is a living
document and if approved, it can be changed if necessary. Mr. DeCerbo said that is correct.
Prior to making the motion, Commissioner Trigas reviewed the recommended changes. Mr. Holzmiller
brought up the item of capitalizing the definitions throughout the document as requested by Mr. Brusseau.
Ms. Hoder stated that it would be an exercise in futility because the company that does the codification
would take out the capitalization.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded that Planning Commission
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 4937, recommending approval of a
Negative Declaration and addendum issued by the Planning Director and adopt
Planning Commission Resolutions 4938 and 4939, recommending approval of
ZCA 00-04 and LCPA 00-07 based on the findings contained therein and
according to the October 3, 2001 copy of the Ordinance with the additional
changes as noted.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Compas said all the time and effort put into this document have been very worthwhile and
he supports it entirely.
Commissioner Heineman stated that staff, Mr. Morrison, and all involved came up with a coherent vehicle
for signs in spite of the many constitutional issues and they deserve commendation and he supports it in
its present form.
Commissioner Baker thanked all the citizens involved in the process, the sign committee, Mr. Morrison for
clarifying many of the complicated issues, and staff for their great job. She said she feels very confident in
supporting it because many people have had an opportunity to participate and speak.
Commissioner Trigas thanked the staff, Citizens Committee, Mr. Morrison, and the Planning Commission
and stated she feels very comfortable with it and can fully support it. She said she hopes this type of
process will be considered in the future when making important decisions that impact citizens and
businesses.
Chairperson Segall commented that everyone summed up his comments. He said having the input and
recommendations from the Citizens Committee, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Brusseau made it a lot easier to
look at it more objectively and make a decision. He said he knows it had a rough start at first but thinks
the end result is a far better product and that’s a compliment to the community and the whole process. He
stated he totally supports the project and thanked all the parties involved, especially Mr. DeCerbo for his
time and efforts.
VOTE:
AYES:
5-o-o
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman and Trigas
Planning Commission Minutes
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: None
October 3,200l Page 14
The Coast News
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court
of San Diego County.
Rc3 l(&KN
*4
IO-e-01
Mail all correspondence regarding public
notice advertising to a3
The Coast News, P.O. Box 232-550,
Encinitas, CA 92023 (760) 436-9737 Space above for County Clerk’s Filiiyg Stamp
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and-a resident of the
county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or
interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of The Coast News, a
newspaper printed and published weekly and which news-
paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation
for the cities of De1 Mar, Solana Beach, EncinitasKardiff,
Carlsbad, Oceanside, San MarcosNista and the County
Judicial District by the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego (8/4/94, #677 114, B2393,
P396); and that the notice, of which the annexed is a print-
ed copy, has been published in, each regular and entire issue
of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to-wit:
October 11, 2001
I certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of
California on the 11 th day of October, 2001. .
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newapapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
that the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
October 12, 2001
I certie (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
San Marcos Dated at , California
this 12th day
October, 2001 of
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 2001, to
consider a Zone Code Amendment, Local
Coastal Program Amendment and Municipal
Code Amendment to repeal and reenact the
City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the
Carlsbhd Municipal Code) to comply with
current case law regarding the constitutional
validity of sign ordinances and. to clarify the
qrdinance to make it easier for developers,
business otiners and residents to understand
and use; to repeal the City’s Sign Code
(Chapter 18.20); and to adopt a Council Policy
Statement entitled “Signs on Public Property.”
Those persons wishing to speak on this
proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be
available on and after October 19, 2001. If you
have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo
in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4611.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment,
Local Coastal Program Amendment or
Municipal Code Amendme,nt in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing
described in’ this notice or in written
correspo?dence delivered to ,,the City, of
Carlsbad at or prior to the,public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 00-04/LCPA OO-07/MCA 01-01
CASE NA’ME: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Legal 71230. October 12,200l
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 2001, to consider a
Zone Code Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Municipal
Code Amendment to repeal and reenact the City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter
21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to comply with current case law regarding
the constitutional validity of sign ordinances and to clarify the ordinance to make
it easier for developers, business owners and residents to understand and use;
to repeal the City’s Sign Code (Chapter 18.20); and to adopt a Council Policy
Statement entitled “Signs on Public Property.”
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after
October 19, 2001. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the
Planning Department at (760) 602-4611.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment
or Municipal Code Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the
public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 00-04/LCPA OO-07/MCA 01-01
CASE NAME: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
PUBLISH: THURSDAY, OCTOBER II,2001 (COAST NEWS)
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12,200l (NORTH COUNTY TIMES)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
Smooth Feed SheetsfM Use template for 5160@
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024 _.
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 6
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT CHATENEVER
3639 HARBOR BLVD SUITE 103
VENTURA, CA 93001
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
e c
CITY OF CARL&AD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER
CHRIS DECERBO
/o -//-cl /
Address Labels Laser
lO/lO/Ol WED 08:24 FAX 700 701 0908 NORTH COUNTY TIMES SM MOO1
lOlZ-Carlsbad-3x9
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 2001, to
consider a Zone Code Amendment, Local
Coastal Program Amendment and Municipal
Code Amendment to repeal and reenact the
City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code) to comply with current case law regarding the constitutional
validity of sign ordinances and to clarify the
ordinance to make it easier for developers,
business owners and residents to understand
and use; to repeal the City’s Sign Code
(Chapter 18.20); and to adopt a Council Policy
Statement entitled “Signs on Public Property.”
Those persons wishing to speak on this
proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing, Copies of the staff report will be
available on and after October 19, 2001. If you
have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo
in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4611.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment,
Local Coastal Program Amendment or
Municipal Code Amendment in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE; ZCA 00-04/LCPA OO-07/MCA 01-01
CASE NAME; COMPREHENSIVE SIGN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Legal 71230. October 12, 2001
% \+?* \ /4 . , 0 @y;\: 4 #J@
DATE: October 23,200l
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Planning Department
For the Information of the:
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANC
As discussed at the City Council briefings on the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance
Amendment, Councilmember Hall is requesting the following Sign Ordinance/Sign
Policy revisions:
1. SIGN ORDINANCE (Handwritten page 30)
21.41.130 Nonconforming Signs
Except for normal repair and maintenance and any modifications required for
NEC compliance, no nonconforming sign shall be expanded, structurally or electrically
altered (not including a change in sign face or sign copy), moved, relocated, unless it is
brought into conformance with all current provisions of this chapter.
When a sign, which was in compliance with all applicable laws in effect at the
time it was originally erected, is physically damaged, whether by vandalism, forces of
nature, or other causes, the sign may be repaired or restored to its original size, shape,
height, orientation and message; however, the repair or restoration must be done in a
manner which complies with current building and electrical codes.
2. COUNCIL POLICY “SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY”
. SECTION ONE: PROPRIETARY CAPACITY; CHANGES TO POLICY
(Handwritten page 36)
In adopting this policy, the City Council acts in its proprietary capacity as to
Public Property within the City. This Policy Statement may be changed at any . . ~ a regular public
meekng of the City Council.
. SECTION NINE: TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY DURING CAMPAIGN PERIODS (Handwritten page 42)
. TIME PERIOD
The signs allowable under this section may be displayed only during the period of
time 45 days preceding and 10 days following a general, special or primary
election. All political and other noncommercial message signs must be removed . . from public property, by the 5 ’ permittee
or his/her designee, not more than 10 days after the election.
l Direct staff to amend the Village Redevelopment Master Plan to allow an owner
of an establishment with a nonconforming sign to be eligible to apply for an A-
Frame sign.