Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-06; Planning Commission; Minutest I- Planning Commission Minute+ Minutes of: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: June 6,2001 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:OO P.M. June 6,2001 COUNCIL CHAMBERS h Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Planning Commission Chairperson Segall called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was led by Commissioner L’Heureux. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas Absent: Compas Staff Present: Gary Wayne, Planning Director Jane Mobaldi, City Attorney Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Adrienne Landers, Principal Planner Paul Godwin, Planning Technician I1 Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer Mike Smith, Fire Battalion Chief APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. Chairperson Segall directed everybody’s attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following for tonight‘s public hearing. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing and asked Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne to introduce the first item. 2. CDP 00-65 - CLEMENTS RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow for the construction of an 824 square foot second story addition to an existing single-family residence within the City’s Coastal Zone located at 5021 Tierra Del Oro within Local Facilities Management Zone 3. 3. CT 98-05x11HDP 98-03x1 - DEJONG PROPERTY - Request for a one year extension of time to allow for the final map to be approved on property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Black Rail Road and future Poinsettia Lane in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 20. 4. CUP 96-03~1 - CARLSBAD PACIFIC CENTER PCS FACILITY - Request for an extension of CUP 96-03 to allow the continued operation of nine roof-mounted cellular communication antennas at 701 Palomar Airport Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 3. Planning Commission Minute+ June 6,2001 h Page 2 Mr. Wayne stated that staff would recommend they begin with Items No. 2, 3 and 4 and take them as a group. He explained that they are normally heard in a public hearing context, they are all minor and there are no outstanding issues to be resolved. He said that staff is recommending approval of all three items. He recommended that the Commission open and close the public hearing and vote on the items as a group. He stated that if either the Commission or anyone from the audience wishes to have an item pulled, then trail that item and staff will address questions. Mr. Wayne stated that Item No. 2 is a request for a Coastal Development Permit for the Clements Residence; Item No. 3 is a request for an extension of a Tentative Map and an extension of a Hillside Permit for the development of the DeJong Property which is up along Black Rail in Zone 20; and Item No. 4 is an extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Communications Facility located around Palomar Airport Road in Zone 3. He noted that these three items are final at the Planning Commission unless appealed to the City Council. Chairperson Segall opened public testimony. He asked if any of the Commissioners wanted to pull any of the items to which there was no response. He then asked if any of the applicants were present for any of the three items and if they would like to make any comments to which there were none. Chairperson Segall asked if anyone in the public was present to speak to which there were none and he closed public testimony. DISCUSSION None. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4996 approving the Clements Residence Coastal Development Permit, CDP 00-65 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and to approve Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 4985, 4986 and 5004 adopting a Negative Declaration, a one-year extension of the De Jong Properties CT 98-05 and HDP 98-03 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4995 approving a five-year extension of Carlsbad Pacific Center PCS Facility, CUP 96-03 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 6-0-0 AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing and asked Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne to introduce the next item. 1. 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. 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 Planning Commission Minute+ June 6,2001 h Page 3 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. 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. Planning Commission Minute+ June 6,2001 Page 4 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 freestanding 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 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. Planning Commission Minut- June 6,2001 h Page 5 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 10x12 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 sian 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 Droiects are exemDt from the new sim 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 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 reaulations amlv to Droiects with existinsl sian Droarams? [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. Planning Commission Minute+ June 6,2001 h Page 6 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 sians-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 --the newly proposed standard allows one project construction sign for residential and non-residential projects. 3) campaign ---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 1-5 scenic corridor. 5) free standinq siqnaae--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) temporaw 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) sinale dwellinn units sign 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 nonconforming signs that are proposed for revision. He explained that 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 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 Planning Commission Minut- June 6,2001 h Page 7 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 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 Planning Commission Minut- June 6,2001 Page 8 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”x12” 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 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. Planning Commission Minut* June 6,2001 h Page 9 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? 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 comer 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. Planning Commission Minut* June 6,2001 n Page 10 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 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. Planning Commission Minut- June 6,2001 Page 11 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 1O:OO 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. 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. Planning Commission Minut- June 6,2001 h Page 12 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 1-5 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, 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 Planning Commission Minut- June 6,2001 h Page 13 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 andlor 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 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. Planning Commission Minutes June 6,2001 h Page 14 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 AI (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, IO, 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 stars 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:OO 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. 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 Planning Commission Minut- June 6,2001 h Page 15 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 10 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 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? Planning Commission Minutqs- June 6,2001 h Page 16 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 1O:OO a.m. and that they must be removed by 6:OO 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 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 Planning Commission Minut- June 6,2001 h Page 17 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 W 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 1-5; 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 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 . Planning Commission Minut- June 6,2001 - Page 18 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 10x12” 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 10x13, 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 Chartier, 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 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 Planning Commission Minut- June 6,2001 ‘4 Page 19 some odd years and it is our political expression, our time to get silly and a time to do things. He pointed out that he 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 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 Planning Commission Minut- June 6,2001 Page 20 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 858 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? 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 Planning Commission Minute= June 6,2001 - Page 21 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 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? Planning Commission Minute% June 6,2001 h Page 22 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. 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. Planning Commission Minute+ June 6,2001 h Page 23 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. 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? Planning Commission Minutee. June 6,2001 Page 24 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 13,2001 at Faraday at 6:OO p.m. VOTE: 6-0-0 AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas NOES: None ABSTAIN: 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 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. Planning Commission Minute+ June 6,2001 Page 25 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 Leg0 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 protocoVdirection 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 20” of June. DISCUSSION None. MOTION ACTION: VOTE: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission continue Item No. 1, Comprehensive Sign Ordinance to the June 20th meeting. 6-0-0 Planning Commission Minute+ June 6,2001 Page 26 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: MOTION ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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:OO p.m. 6-0-0 Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas None None Chairperson Segall closed the public hearing, and asked Mr. Wayne to introduce the next item. He also announced that the Commission had a half hour left in the meeting until 1O:OO p.m. The Commissioners discussed the options of staying longer, which item to present next and what procedure would be needed to finish as far as was necessary tonight. Mr. Wayne stated there is a request by someone in the public to make a presentation for 20 minutes on Item No. 5, Livable Streets. Chairperson Segall stated he had three public speakers as well and the Commission did not have 20 minutes tonight. He pointed out that he thinks the Planning Commission should at least hear the item and move forward, start the item, hear the issue and then continue it. He asked if they needed to continue Item No. 6 before starting Item No. 5? Ms. Landers stated that the Commission indicated in their briefings that there was a lot of information that is coming before the Planning Commission relating to the PD Ordinance. She was going to suggest that perhaps the Planning Commission may want to have a presentation on the Planned Development Ordinance when they have their special workshop to give them the opportunity to hear a little bit more and understand it a little bit before the Planning Commission continues it to another meeting. Chairperson Segall related this information to the Planning Commission that in addition to the Sign Ordinance discussion that they also have a presentation on Item No. 6 and he pointed out that that could be a four hour meeting with all of that. Commissioner Nielsen asked if that would be a redundancy if we would hear the same thing again when the Planning Commission does hear the issue? Ms. Landers pointed out that at the hearing she would give the Commission an abbreviated version. Commissioner Nielsen asked Ms. Mobaldi if they could do that. Ms. Mobaldi responded that she thinks the public that comes to the hearing on the matter has to have a complete picture of what the Ordinance does and says, but if the purpose of the workshop is to give the Commission a preview and familiarize the Commission with the basic issues she did not see a problem with that. DISCUSSION None. Planning Commission Minute* June 6,2001 h Page 27 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission hold a special meeting on June 13, 2001 at 6:OO p.m., site to be determined, to have a workshop on Item No. 1 (Sign Ordinance) and Item No. 6 (Planned Development Ordinance). VOTE: 6-0-0 AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, L'Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas NOES: None ABSTAIN: None There was a discussion as to the proper procedure for continuing Item No. 6 and to what date it is to be continued. DISCUSSION Chairperson Segall asked if it is possible to have it then and Ms. Landers answered affirmatively. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, that Item No. 6 (Planned Development Ordinance) be continued to the meeting of June 20,2001. VOTE: 6-0-0 AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, L'Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Segall opened public hearing on Item No. 5 and gave the floor to Mr. Wayne. Mr. Wayne stated that Item No. 5 is a request by the City for a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Code Amendment dealing with the Livable Streets concept. He introduced Principal Planner, Dee Landers, assisted by Fire Marshall, Mike Smith, the Deputy City Engineers Bob Johnson and Bob Wojcik. Ms. Landers shared that Item No. 5 includes the addition of several goals, objectives and implementing policies and programs to both the Land Use Elements and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. She stated that the new policy statements are proposed for inclusion to incorporate the principles of Livable Neighborhoods and Livable Streets and to the General Plan, the City's primary Land Use document. She said that the project also includes a Zone Code Amendment addressing residential street widths and street designs that appear in several sections of the Zoning Ordinance and the intent here is to basically provide consistency between documents. Ms. Landers stated that last year the City Council adopted a goal to create more Livable Neighborhoods in the City. Staff has been preparing a number of different programs to address this goal, of which Livable Streets is one component. She pointed out that staff wanted to start out by giving the Planning Commission an overall picture of the types of things that they have been working on to address this issue. She referred to the screen and stated that the items shown in red represent those that she will be speaking about now; she will be talking about General Plan Goals, emergency egress and Livable Streets with this particular item. She said that with the Planned Development Ordinance, a new Council Policy, delineating the City's neighborhood, their Vision for Residential Neighborhoods, Revised Council Policy 44 on Architectural Guidelines and the Planned Development Ordinance itself. She expressed that tonight they would be looking at and considering goals, programs and policies for both Livable Streets and Neighborhoods and the intent for that was to do just one General Plan Amendment rather than to do two. She said that the Engineering Department has a Planning Commission Minute% June 6,2001 Page 28 Traffic Management Program for Residential Neighborhoods that has been going on for some time now and was approved by City Council a couple months ago that will incorporate some of the Livable Streets concepts via the Traffic Calming Measures, in existing Residential Neighborhoods. Ms. Landers stated that this topic though is being addressed only at the Council level. She went on to say that new development in in-fill areas will be impacted by some of the issues that they will be discussing tonight, primarily that of City Council Policy 44 related to Architectural Guidelines. She stated that in the Planning Commission’s actions this evening she will be asking them to act by Resolution on the General Plan Amendments and then by minute motion on the City Council Policies. Staff will be taking forward the Planning Commission’s comments and recommendations on those policies to the City Council and they will be the decision-making body on those particular items. Ms. Landers stated that the action on Livable Streets basically was confirmed by the City Council in its action on April 3rd of this year. At that time they did direct staff to pursue the Livable Streets concept and to meet with the various stakeholders including the Development Community, the trash companies, the Post Office and anyone staff thought would be impacted with the City’s decisions on the street widths. She said City Council also then directed staff to present the document revisions to the Planning Commission, which staff is doing this evening, and then return to City Council. Ms. Landers pointed out that this is a fairly new topic to some of the audience and stated that tonight she would like to give them a brief overview of what is included there, She discussed the Planning Commission Actions that will be before them tonight which includes a General Plan Amendment and the Zone Code Amendments. Ms. Landers stated that when they are talking about Livable Neighborhoods, they are talking about creating a new vision for Carlsbad with regards to streets, creating streets where there is access to homes and designations for pedestrians so they can go from one daily destination to the other comfortably on safe, attractive streets; and they provide a place for human interaction even though we say kids should not play in the streets, they do anyway. She added that this is really an old approach to planning and designing urban environment, as it is something that has been on the East Coast for years and years and is not a cutting edge idea. It is a return to the past in some sense. She said that it also provides a strong sense of community, neighborhood feeling and perceptions of safety and comfort and when some of these things happen, community is established. She quoted Phelton Harris, “Community happens when people are in the street, when people are speaking to each other and when there are activities that bring people together.” She went on to say that when we talk about Livable Neighborhoods, we are talking about neighborhoods designed to encourage interaction between residents, where homes have the visual prominence on the street rather than the garages; where homes are in scale to the size of their lots, there are not the big monster houses on small lots; where pedestrians can walk freely on tree-lined streets; where there are walkways to common destinations; and where there are central gathering areas. Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, pointed to the slides as an example of a Livable Street with the relatively narrow street, tree-lined parkways and non-contiguous sidewalks. He pointed out the question of ‘why promote Livable Streets, why would the City want to consider such a concept?’ He stated that here in Carlsbad there is an opportunity because of the number of remaining units to be built in Carlsbad, (about 20,000 dwelling units). He said that currently there are speeding concerns in existing neighborhoods that have been addressed by the City Council by adoption of the Carlsbad Residential Management Program last month. There was a citizen’s committee that worked on that for almost a year; there are a lot of good recommendations in that document that should help with the speeding that currently occurs. He shared that what the City would like to do is not repeat the problems they have had in the past with our streets so that we have to implement retrofit-type measures to control speeding or cut through traffic. He said that Livable Streets and the concepts contained therein is one way to do that. We then have the opportunity to deal with the emergency evacuation capabilities and that will be addressed by Fire Marshal Smith in a minute. He also said that some of the character of our neighborhoods can be changed and improved through these concepts. Mr. Johnson shared some examples of what Livable Streets look like as visually it is easy to see it is conducive to speeding whereas a tree-lined street with non-contiguous sidewalks does promote the Livable Street concepts and encourages pedestrian activity, walking, neighborhood interaction and establishes community. He pointed out that current street designs are wide, 40 feet curb-to-curb and fairly stark with no trees lining the streetscape and are more conducive to speeding under this type of existing design. He said on Planning Commission Minute- June 6,2001 Page 29 the Livable Streets with the cars parked on both sides of the streets, it does help slow the vehicles down, not everyone, but it is getting to where the City would like to see vehicular travel on the streets meaning slow speeds. Mr. Johnson said that some of the considerations that staff has been working on for over a year, and recognize with slower speeds, if there is an incident, an accident, injuries are less severe. For instance, the pedestrian has a much greater chance of survival, being involved in an incident at 20 - 25 mph range than 35 mph or 40 mph. He shared that the emergency vehicle access had to be considered in the Livable Streets concept on the narrower streets and one way to address that was to make sure that the 20 foot minimum access width as required by the Fire Code has been provided. That has been accomplished in what staff is proposing and to provide the area on the street that is needed by the Fire Department for their efficient operations in taking care of the emergency. He noted staff looked at impacts to the Livable Streets concept by the construction of cul-de-sacs and the proposal was to try to limit and minimize the number of cul-de-sacs in a new development. He stated that there are environmental issues such as asphalt versus parkways, the benefits and the costs, cost savings, trade-offs. He said regarding maintenance issues with parkways and parkway trees that generally most of the developments will be Master Plans so the concept is that the Homeowners Association would maintain the trees and the parkways and also the sense of pride by each homeowner would also be involved in the maintenance of the parkway and the frontage in front of the homeowner. He said root barriers will help with the protection of the infrastructure when the trees are planted. Underground utilities can be placed under the sidewalk as they currently are in many locations today. Drainage can be an issue, providing more pervious surfaces versus impervious surfaces improves drainage, helps with the ground water recharge and that is a positive environmental benefit. Mr. Johnson pointed out that one of the bigger issues, the marketing issue with developers, is limiting cul- de-sacs and he stated that having multiple points of ingress and egress is a benefit to be achieved. He stated that the proposed Livable Street Design is a reduction in curb-to-curb width from 40 feet to 34 feet, which is accomplished by providing two seven-foot parking lanes, which is parking on both sides of the street. They currently assume an eight foot wide parking width, but in doing research from other agencies, measuring a number of cars in Carlsbad in parking situations, staff has determined that they are quite comfortable with assuming that seven feet adequately represents a parallel parking space in a residential street. He said that the street design would have to incorporate traffic calming measures as the street design will not work without them. He said simply narrowing the street to 34 feet is not going to do the job as far as vehicle speed, so the Livable Street Design does propose that there be traffic calming measures to be determined at the time of design subject to the approval of the Fire Department and with fewer cul- de-sacs and parkways with the non-contiguous sidewalks (meaning sidewalks are not adjacent to the curb as they are now in our current standard) they can provide that necessary street calming activity. He showed examples of the current standard. He stated that the 34 foot cross section has the 20 foot minimum which the Fire Department needs to meet the Fire Code and to meet their operational needs. The 34 foot cross-section also provides the 7.5 foot parkway and the five foot sidewalk with a half foot utility strip on each side within a 60 foot right-of-way. Mike Smith, Fire Department Battalion Chief, stated that street connectivity is a very important element of the Livable Streets and cul-de-sacs are counter to the objective of the Livable Street concepts for two reasons; one having to do with the social concerns, encouraging neighbors in Livable Neighborhoods to interact and create a sense of community and they are more confining and tend to isolate portions of the neighborhood which runs counter to the Livable Street concept. He stated that the other two items to which cul-de-sacs run counter have to do with safety-for the ability of the Fire Department and other emergency agencies to access and provide the necessary services to the community; and the other is the impairment that the residents experience when trying to evacuate, having only one direction by which to evacuate. If that evacuation route takes them closer to the incident or closer to the danger, then it is questionable as to whether that is effective. Chief Smith shared that during their research they determined that the Institute of Transportation Engineers has had a long-standing recommendation to limit the number of residential units on cul-de-sacs and the City has used that standard for many years of which the limit is 20 residential units. He said that the concern of the ITE is with the potential for limiting the access to or the egress from a street that could be blocked for any number of reasons. Chairperson Segall apologized for interrupting and pointed out that it is almost 1O:OO p.m. Due to the lateness of the hour, he asked the Commission to extend to 1O:lO p.m. and pointed out that the Commission has to have a motion. Planning Commission Minutes- June 6,2001 Page 30 Commissioner Heineman asked if the Commission would have a discussion and try to make a decision tonight? Chairperson Segall asked what the Commission’s preference is? He stated that there were more people shaking their head no than yes and he stated that they would end the presentation at 1O:lO p.m. and then they will have to have a motion to continue to the June 20th meeting. DISCUSSION None. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, that tonight’s meeting will end at 1O:lO p.m. and that Item No. 5 (Livable Streets) will be continued to the June 20th, 2001 meeting. VOTE: 6-0-0 AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, L‘Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Wayne if the motion was acceptable. He asked if the individual who had a 20 minute presentation was present and asked if Mr. Piro could do that on June 20th, 2001? Mr. Piro stated that Jamie Streelow is President of Walk San Diego and also from SDSU and Andy Hamilton is Vice President of Walk San Diego and also from the Air Pollution Control District. He said he does not need to speak, but if they could have 10 or 15 minutes as they have a power point presentation and they have come all the way from San Diego and they have been here for four hours if you could just extend it for 10 or 12 minutes to hear that as he has the power point all set up. Chairperson Segall stated that he has to look to the Commission and three people say yes and three people say no. He stated the Commission is in a stalemate. He apologized and asked if they could come back? Mr. Smith continued that the staff recommendation for cul-de-sacs are that the units are limited to 20 or fewer, street width remains at 36 feet and the only change would be the addition of fire sprinklers in each of those homes to mitigate their concern for access. He said that they expect there to be a topographic and environmental conditions that would create a problem for the development community and in some cases when those are demonstrated, the number of units can be extended to fifty. In those cases the street width needs to be widened to 40 feet and again the homes need to be protected by sprinklers. He said that all streets will incorporate the use of traffic calming devices, of which he shared a couple of examples via slides; one measures the traffic circle, median island, and the bulb-out, all of which are very common traffic calming measures. Ms. Landers stated that they are looking at adding some goals, objectives and policies to address Livable Streets and Livable Neighborhoods concepts in both the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element. She said they are very general goals and policies relating to some of the items that were discussed today in attempting to create these features and setting them forward in the primary Land Use document. She pointed out that they have a Zone Code Amendment that addresses several issues, one of which is to revise definitions and Code sections to create consistent reference to the 34 feet as the width of public streets. She said these reference are found in the definition of Lot and Street in Rural Residential Estate which typically now allows somewhat narrower street such as the Residential Mobile Home Park Zone, which actually has the requirement for a little bit wider street. Staff feels that it would be preferable to have consistent references to 34 foot streets in both of those Code sections. She also said these basically Planning Commission Minutep June 6,2001 h Page 31 address the width of public residential streets and the private residential streets will be addressed in the Amendment to the Planned Development Ordinance, which is the way it has always been and will remain. She concluded that staff is therefore recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Code Amendment. Chairperson Segall stated that we do not have time for questions and answers and already have made the motion to continue this item. He asked if any Commissioner had anything they wanted to bring up. Chairperson Segall closed Public Hearing on this item. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS Mr. Wayne stated he could pass out three letters on Item No. 6 and pointed out that last night Council approved the Zone 5 Park, the Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of June 6, 2001 was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. "GAI+WAYNE / Assistant Planning Director Judy Kirsch Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.