[00:00:01]
THIS MEETING TO ORDER, I WOULD LIKE THE PUBLIC TO[Call to Order]
KNOW THAT PURSUANT TO THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER AND 29 20, AND AN INTEREST IN PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF MAY ATTEND THE MEETING TELEPHONICALLY FURTHER ORDERS FROM THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER PREVENT PERSONS OTHER THAN CITY OFFICIALS AND ESSENTIAL EMPLOYEES TO BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT.THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW THIS MEETING, SUBMIT COMMENTS ON AN AGENDA ON AN ITEM ITEMS, AGENDA, OR SUBMIT A PUBLIC COMMENT THROUGH THE ZOOM WEBINAR MEETING.
PLEASE CLICK ON THE Q AND A ICON IN THE ZOOM MEETING SCREEN TO SUBMIT THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON EACH ITEM.
PLEASE MAKE SURE TO INCLUDE THE ITEM NUMBER.
COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO 300 WORDS AND WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE OFFICIAL COMMISSION RECORD.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE BEING ACCEPTED NOW.
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO WAIT UNTIL AN ITEM IS CALLED TO SUBMIT A COMMENT.
COMMENTS WILL BE READ DURING THE MEETING COMMISSIONERS.
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR.
ONLY ONE PERSON MAY SPEAK AT A TIME AND NOW I CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
PLEASE STAND FOR THE FLAG SALUTE IN A MOMENT OF SILENCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE REPUBLIC.
UH, MR. CHUTE, MAY WE HAVE ROLL CALL PLEASE? MR. CHAIRMAN.
SO I WILL, UM, DO MY BEST TO ATTEMPT TO, UH, ANNOUNCE THE ROLE, UM, MR. CIRCO PRESENT THE CIRCUIT BRERA PRESENT MR.
[Chairperson's Welcome]
ELKO AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APPEALS OF FINAL DECISIONS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST BE FILED APPEALS OF FINDING THEM.THERE WE GO, STARTING THE NEW YEAR OFF, RIGHT? APPEALS OF FINAL DECISIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THIS EVENING MUST BE FILED IN WRITING WITH THE CITY CLERK BEFORE 5:00 PM, FRIDAY, JANUARY 15TH, 2021, AND MUST INCLUDE THE PAYMENT OF A FILING FEE PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NUMBER ONE, ONE FOUR DASH SEVEN NINE I COMMISSIONER, WHO HAS RECEIVED EVIDENCE RELATED TO A MATTER BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER THAN AN UNINCORPORATED VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE SUCH INFORMATION AT THE HEARING
[Public Comment]
PUBLIC COMMENT.AT THIS TIME, WE WILL TAKE COMMENTS FROM ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ON ANY ITEM OF BUSINESS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA UNDER STATE LAW.
NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN ON ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT EXCEPT TO REFER IT TO STAFF FOR ADMINISTRATION OR PLACE IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
MR. CHUTE, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED, UM, VIA EMAIL.
AND IF YOU WOULD ALLOW, I WILL READ THIS INTO THE RECORD.
UH, THIS IS FROM, UH, STEPHANIE HARPER, UH, TO PLANNING.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT OUR CITY MUST BE GOVERNED ON FAIRNESS, UNDERSTANDING AND TRANSPARENCY WITHOUT THESE THINGS IN PLACE.
IN ALL BRANCHES OF OUR GOVERNMENT, YOU, AS REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT DOING YOUR JOBS, YOU HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE CHOICES THAT WILL AFFECT ALL THE CITIZENS IN OUR CITY.
AND WITH THAT, AND YOU HAVE GREAT RESPONSIBILITIES PLACED UPON YOUR SHOULDERS.
WE, AS A PEOPLE PUT OUR TRUST IN THE DECISIONS YOU WILL MAKE THAT THEY WILL BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST AND NOT YOUR OWN.
SO WHEN A PERSON WHO SITS AMONG YOU IS NOT UPHOLDING ANY OF THESE QUALITIES, IT IS YOUR PLACE TO STAND UP AND DO SOMETHING OR SIT TO SAY SOMETHING, BUT LET THEM KNOW THAT IT'S NOT HOW WE DO THINGS IN OKLAHOMA.
I BELIEVE THAT MR. CABRERA IS NOT A
[00:05:01]
FAIR PERSON, ALTHOUGH THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.MR. COOPER DID IN FACT LIE TO EITHER THE COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR OR TO THE REGISTER OF VOTERS.
EITHER WAY, THERE WAS A BIG LIE TOLD TO ONE OF THEM, AND THAT MAKES IT HARD FOR ME TO PUT MY TRUST IN SOMEONE LIKE THAT TO LEAD IN BIG DECISIONS FOR THE CITY.
I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS IN POOR TASTE FOR MR. CABRERA TO PHONE ME AND TELL ME, I SHOULD ASK FOR A RECOUNT REGARDING THE ELECTION AND TOLD ME THAT THE ONLY REASON WHY HE RAN WAS TO EVEN OUT THE PLAYING FIELD, SO TO SPEAK, MR. ZUCKERBERG MADE CLAIMS ABOUT OTHER CANDIDATES THAT WERE NOT TRUE.
AND TO ME, THAT IS JUST OLD FASHIONED MUDSLINGING.
I HAVE HEARD RUMORS ABOUT MR. CABRERA ACCEPTING CONTRACTS THAT WILL BENEFIT HIS BUSINESS WHILE BEING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND EVENING HEARD THAT HE WAS ASKED TO STEP DOWN FROM HIS POSITION ON THIS COMMITTEE, BY SOME CITIZENS WHO AFTER THAT WERE THREATENED FOR WHAT THEY SAID.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THE RUMORS ARE TRUE, BUT IT DOESN'T HOLD MR. CABRERA IN THE BEST LIGHT.
I TRULY HOPE THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL REEVALUATE AND LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT MR ZUCKERBERG HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF OR HAVE FOUND TO BE TRUE.
WE NEED TO KEEP THE MUDSLINGING AND THE DIRT OUT OF OUR POLITICS AND OUR CITY ALCOHOL HAS ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH AND WE NEED SOLUTIONS, NOT MORE PROBLEMS. THANK YOU.
[Consent]
TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR.A SINGLE MOTION WILL COVER ALL ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
DOES THE COMMISSION WISH TO PULL ANY ITEM FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR? YEAH.
DOES THE STAFF WISH TO PULL ANY ITEM FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION? NO.
ALL RIGHT, THEN CALL FOR THE MOTION.
SO TLA SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MOROSE.
MOTION PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
[Public Hearing Item 2]
HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.THIS IS A SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW SIGNS ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY UNDER CERTAIN CRITERIA.
THIS IS SECRET EXEMPT AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL STAFF.
MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST GIVE ME ONE MOMENT HERE TO GET MY SHARE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, AS YOU HAD INDICATED, UH, THIS IS A PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
UM, UH, JUST A BIT OF BACKGROUND BEFORE I GET STARTED.
UH, THE CITY COUNCIL INITIATED THIS BACK ON JUNE OF 2020.
UM, AT THAT TIME, THE STAFF DIRECT, OR THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO AMEND THE SIDE DOOR NUNES TO ALLOW SIGNS AND CITY OWNED PROPERTY.
SO AT ITS MEETING ON JUNE 9TH, 2020, UM, CITY STAFF PRESENTED UPDATED INFORMATION RELATED TO THE CITY'S, UM, FISCAL YEAR 2021 BUDGET AND REQUESTED FEEDBACK, UH, TO CITY STAFF ON VARIOUS PROPOSALS THAT COULD HAVE A POTENTIAL POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE CITY'S BUDGET.
THE CITY COUNCIL AGREED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A POSITIVE IMPACT EXISTS BY CONSTRUCTING AND LEASING CITY SIGNS, UM, ON, ON CITY PROPERTY, ALONG I EIGHT, AND THE CITY COUNCIL THEN DIRECTED STAFF TO RETURN WHAT THIS PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW SUCH SIGNS.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE PROPOSED SIGN, THE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, UH, TO ALLOW CITY SIGNS ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY HAS NO IMPACT TO EXISTING BILLBOARD REGULATIONS.
UH, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS ONLY,
[00:10:01]
UH, FOR CITY ON SIGNS ON CITY PROPERTY ALSO ALLOWS FOR TEMPORARY USE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, UM, BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR SHORT-TERM SHORT-TERM SIGNS.UM, I'LL GO A LITTLE, A LITTLE BIT MORE INTO THAT IN A MOMENT.
SO THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, UM, AGAIN, AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL COULD ALLOW A CITY SIGN ON CITY PROPERTY FOR GENERAL ADVERTISING PURPOSES.
UM, BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL COULD APPROVE SUCH A SIGN, THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER FACTORS AS MAXIMIZING POTENTIAL ECONOMIC VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY GENERATE REVENUE THAT COULD BE, UM, UH, PUT INTO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND AND ALSO DISSEMINATE CITIES, THE CITY'S OWN MESSAGES TO THE PUBLIC, UH, SUCH AS PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND OTHER MESSAGES, UM, ENCOURAGEMENT OF, UH, ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THE CITY.
UM, THESE MESSAGES THEN WOULD BE, UM, COULD BE PUT ON THE CITY SIGNS, UM, TO, TO BROADCAST SUCH MESSAGES, INCLUDING COMMERCIAL MESSAGES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, SUCH AS SIGN IF IT'S NEAR THE FREEWAY.
AND IN FACT, IF IT'S IN WITHIN 660 FEET OF THE FREEWAY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CALTRANS RULES, THE OTHER, UM, THE OTHER PART OF THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED AND I ARE FOR SIGNS IN THE CITIES RIGHT AWAY AND SUCH SIGNS, UM, WOULD, UH, REQUIRE CITY MANAGER APPROVAL.
THEY WOULD ONLY BE FOR LIMITED DURATION UP TO 15 DAYS.
UH, THEY COULD ONLY BE OF NON-COMMERCIAL SPEECH AND WOULD LIKELY BE MORE ALONG THE LINES OF INFORMATIONAL OR DIRECTIONAL.
SO THINK ABOUT, UM, THE CITY EVENTS LIKE AMERICA ON MAIN STREET OR, UM, CON FEST, UM, THOSE KINDS OF EVENTS, UM, THAT THE CITY ADVERTISES, THOSE KINDS OF SIGNS COULD BE PUT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, GENERALLY THOSE ARE THE PROVISIONS.
UM, THE DETAILS ARE, UM, INCLUDED IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET.
WE CAN CERTAINLY GO OVER THOSE IF YOU WISH, UM, STAFF IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, ONE BIG QUESTION TO START OFF WITH IS, UH, WHAT CITY PROPERTY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WHAT, WHAT DOES THE CITY OWN? SO OTHER THAN, UM, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF RIGHT OF WAY THE CITY THAT HAS RESERVED A, A SPECIFIC LOCATION, UM, CITY HAD THE FORETHOUGHT NUMBER OF YEARS AGO TO RESERVE PROPERTY ON THE MAZDA DEALERSHIP.
AND IF YOU GIVE ME A MOMENT HERE, WE, HERE WE GO.
SO THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THIS AREA, WHICH SHOWS THE, UM, MAZDA DEALERSHIP SITE, UM, HERE AT JOHNSON AND THE JOHNSON OFF-RAMP HEADING EAST ON I EIGHT.
AND IF YOU CAN SEE MY CURSOR MOVING, UM, WAS RESERVED AS PART OF THE SALE, UM, TO, UH, THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER FOR, UM, CITY PURPOSES.
SO THE, THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS INDICATE THAT IT'S, UM, SUCH SIGNS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A CITY MANAGER POLICY ESTABLISHING CRITERIA, BUT THE BASIC CRITERIA WOULD BE NO MORE THAN 18 SQUARE FEET AND NO MORE THAN FOUR FEET HIGH AND COULD NOT OBSTRUCT, UM, VIEW OR CAUSE HAZARD IN ANY WAY.
SO WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT ARE THE BANNERS THAT YOU NORMALLY SEE EACH YEAR THAT ADVERTISE FOR HOT FESTS OR AMERICA ON MAIN STREET.
UM, PRIVATE PARTIES COULD DO SIMILAR SIGNS FOR SHORT DURATION.
15 DAYS IS THE MAXIMUM, UM, INDICATING SUCH THINGS LIKE MAYBE THESE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WERE TO HAVE AN ADVERTISED ADVERTISING, A PANCAKE BREAKFAST OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, AT A PARK OR AT A, AT A CHURCH OR A, UM, REC CENTER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UH, I SAW MR. MORROW'S HAD HIS HAND UP.
DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? YES.
SO IS THAT THE ONLY LOCATION CURRENTLY THAT YOU HAVE FOR SCIENCE? IS THAT LITTLE SPOT THERE AT THE MAZDA DEALERSHIP OR IS THERE OTHER SPOTS IN TOWN?
[00:15:01]
WELL, CURRENTLY THAT'S THE LOCATION THAT WOULD HAVE THE, PROBABLY THE MOST POTENTIAL AT THIS POINT.AND WOULD YOU GUYS BE BUILDING A, LIKE A CLEAR CHANNEL TYPE SIGN, LIKE A BILLBOARD SIGN? IS THAT, IS THAT THE PLAN? I THINK THE EXPECTATION, WELL, THE PARAMETERS WOULD BE LEFT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, THE EXPECTATION THOUGH WOULD BE A SIGN OF SUBSTANCE OF THAT NATURE.
SO, UM, IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE, UM, UH, THE TOTE OF ALCOHOL SIGN YEAH.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU WOULD, WE WOULD START FROM.
I THINK THE EXPECTATION IS THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD START FROM.
SO BECAUSE IT'S CITY OWNED, I NOTICED THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AS PART OF AN AGREEMENT FOR AN OUTSIDE PARTY TO MANAGE THE SIGN, THE TYPES OF MESSAGES WOULD BE LIMITED AS INDICATED IN THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS.
ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT SOMEONE MAY COME TO YOU AND SAY, WELL, WE WANT YOU TO AT LEAST THE SIGN AND WE SELL CANNABIS AND THEREFORE, IF YOU DON'T ALLOW US OUR FREE SPEECH, WE'RE GOING TO SUE YOU, HAVE YOU VETTED THAT OUT YET? YES, WE HAVE.
UM, AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY, UM, BARB, BARB BLOCKED DEPUTY STATE ATTORNEY, KEN COMMENT TO THAT, BUT WE DO HAVE THOSE MEANS UNDER, UNDER THE LAW TO, UM, DICTATE WHAT TYPE OF COMMERCIAL MESSAGES CAN BE POSTED ON A CITY'S CONTROLLED SIGN, AS WELL AS WHAT NON-COMMERCIAL MESSAGES COULD BE POSTED.
AND THEN ARE THERE OTHER CITIES LIKE SAN DIEGO, CHULA VISTA, ANYWHERE ELSE THAT OWN SIGNS THAT ARE IN THE ADVERTISING BUSINESS? WELL, CURRENTLY NATIONAL CITY HAS A SIGN ALONG THE I FIVE LEMON GROVE HAS RECENTLY, UM, UM, APPROVED ASSIGN SIGN, A SIMILAR NATURE.
THIS HAS NOT YET BEEN CONSTRUCTED.
UM, THERE ARE OTHER CITIES PRIMARILY IN ORANGE COUNTY AND LA COUNTY THAT HAVE THE SIMILAR TYPE SIGNS ALREADY IN PLACE.
UH, BUENO PARK IS THE ONE IN ORANGE COUNTY THAT COMES TO MIND.
SO IF YOU BUILD THAT SIGN, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF THERE WAS NO DEMAND FOR IT, THE CITY COULD USE IT FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES, LIKE HAUNT FEST, AMERICAN MAIN STREET, UH, REMEMBER TO LOCK YOUR DOORS AT NIGHT, WHATEVER IT IS.
I THINK, I THINK THAT THE STRATEGY WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD PUT AN RFP OUT AND THAT WE'D LET THE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING WORLD, UM, UM, DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHAT COMPANY, YOU KNOW, WHAT BUSINESSES THAT COULD ADVERTISE.
I'M SURE WE WOULD, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD BE THE ONES TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS A CONSTANT FLOW OF BUSINESS BEFORE THEY EVEN BUILD SUCH A SIGN FOR THE CITY.
SO YOU WOULD JUST, IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN IF I OWNED A SIGN IN MY PRIVATE, YOU KNOW, A BUSINESS AND OUTDOOR CLEAR CHANNEL, OR SOMEBODY BASICALLY SAID, WE'RE GOING TO PAY YOU FIVE GRAND A MONTH.
IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? YOU CAN SAY SOME OF THAT ALONG THOSE LINES.
I SAW, UH, MR. CABRERA HAD HIS HAND UP.
I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER MEROSE MAKES A GOOD POINT.
UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS SECTION FOUR B3 AND I JUST KINDA WANT TO EXPOUND ON WHAT HE WAS, UH, HE WAS, UH, LEADING TO, WE HAVE, UH, ALCOHOL CANNABIS, TOBACCO, UM, ANOTHER SUCH ITEMS. UM, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE VAPE VAPING AS WELL? UM, WITHIN THAT, UH, KIND OF GENRE THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S ANY ADA RESTRICTIONS IN THAT AREA.
IS, IS, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THERE GETTING AROUND IT OR ANYTHING? UM, WELL, NO, SIR, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
THE, UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS BEING BUILT AS IT STANDS NOW FOR THE MAZDA DEALERSHIP SUBJECT TO ADA STANDARDS.
UM, THERE IS AN EASEMENT FOR CITY ACCESS, 15 FEET WIDE.
SO THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH ROOM FOR, FOR STAFF AND ANYBODY ELSE TO, TO, UM, TO GET TO THAT PROPERTY.
ALL I SAW, MR.
THAT'S GOING TO BE HANDLING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SIGNS.
[00:20:01]
THAT'S CORRECT.EXPECTATION WOULD BE THAT, UM, IF THIS, IF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS THIS ORDINANCE THAT, UM, AN RFP WOULD BE SENT OUT AND AN AGREEMENT THEN WOULD BE, WOULD BE DEVELOPED AND APPROVED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
ALSO, MAYBE THIS QUESTION IS FOR BARBARA LUCK, AS FAR AS RESTRICTING, WHAT KIND OF SPEECH CAN BE ON THE, ON THE SIGNS WITH THE INFRINGE UPON THE FIRST AMENDMENT, RIGHT? THE CITY OPENING ITSELF UP TO A POTENTIAL, UH, FIRST AMENDMENT, UH, FREEDOM OF SPEECH LAWSUIT.
WELL, I'M GOING TO DO THE LAWYER THING AND SAY, YOU CAN NEVER RULE OUT A CHALLENGE, BUT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE IT'S CITY OWNED PROPERTY AND BECAUSE CITY OWNED PROPERTY, THAT'S OPENED UP FOR COMMERCIAL AND LIMITED NON-COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING, UH, IS NOT A PUBLIC FORUM UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE US SUPREME COURT CASE LIMA AND THE SHAKER HEIGHTS SAYS THAT THE MANAGERIAL DECISION THAT WOULD BE ON THE PART OF THE CITY TO LIMIT THE SPACE TO INNOCUOUS AND LESS CONTROVERSIAL COMMERCIAL AND SERVICE ORIENTED ADVERTISING DOES NOT RISE TO THE DIGNITY OF A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION.
AND THAT'S THE U S SUPREME COURT.
AND THEN THAT, THAT SORT OF GENERAL HOLDING WAS LATER UPHELD IN CHILDREN OF THE ROSARY VS CITY OF PHOENIX IN THE CALIFORNIA, UH, THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL COURT, WHERE IT SAID THE CITY HAS NOT OPENED A PUBLIC FORUM.
SO IT'S NOT YOUR CORNER, YOU KNOW, PARK WHERE YOU CAN PRETTY MUCH SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T INCITE VIOLENCE.
UH, THE CITY HAS CONSISTENTLY RESTRICTED POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS ADVERTISING, UH, UNDER ITS PRIOR POLICY.
THE CITY DID ACCEPT SOME NON-COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING AS PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.
SO THE, THE FACT THAT IT'S A VERY LIMITED, IT'S NOT BILLBOARDS ALL OVER THE PLACE.
AND THE CITY HAS INDICATED IN ITS SIGN ORDINANCE, UH, THAT IT DESIRES TO LIMIT SPEECH IN A CERTAIN WAY.
AND IF YOU, IF YOU RECALL, YOU, YOU DON'T SEE ANY ADVERTISEMENTS FOR CIGARETTES IN CERTAIN MAGAZINES BECAUSE THE FORUM, THE PUBLIC FORUM, UH, YOU CAN SAY, WE WON'T ACCEPT THAT AS LONG AS IT'S NOT, UH, TOO MUCH OF A RESTRICTION ON FREE SPEECH.
AND IT'S BEEN UPHELD THAT IN A CASE LIKE THIS.
IT'S NOT ANY, YOU WANT TO HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH.
SO FAR AS THE, FOR EXAMPLE, PRETTY SURE MOROSE MENTIONED THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY WANTS TO ASSIGN ADVERTISING THEIR STORE OR WHATEVER.
THAT'D BE A POTENTIAL PROBLEM FOR THE CITY.
NO, NOT FOR THE CITY, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC FORUM, LIKE, LIKE A COMMERCIAL BILLBOARD WOULD BE, OR LIKE A CITY PARK WOULD BE, OR SOMEPLACE ELSE THAT'S BEEN OPENED UP TO ALMOST ANY FORM OF SPEECH.
IT HASN'T BEEN OPENED UP AND IT'S NOT CONSIDERED THE SUPREME COURT AND, AND OUR LOCAL FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT SAYS IT'S NOT A PUBLIC FORUM, SO IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO FIRST AMENDMENT, UM, RESTRICTIONS.
YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T RESTRICT SOMEBODY'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH WHEN YOU'RE ALREADY LIMITING WHO CAN SPEAK FROM THE LOCATION.
I'M NOT SURE THE THING IS WE CAN LIMIT BOTH THE COMMERCIAL AND THE SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS BECAUSE IT'S CITY OWNED PROPERTY AND THE COURT HIGH COURT, THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID, THAT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THE DIGNITY OF FULL FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR SPEECH.
WE CAN, WE CAN PUT REASONABLE LIMITATIONS ON WHAT GOES ON CITY OWNED SIGN.
UM, AGAIN, ANYBODY COULD CHALLENGE THAT, BUT IT'S BEEN DONE ON JUST MR. SHU TELLS ME IT'S BEEN DONE IN SEVERAL PLACES ALREADY IN CALIFORNIA WITH A LOT OF SUCCESS.
AND, UH, THAT, THAT BODES WELL.
AND, UH, YOU MENTIONED, UH, UH, WHAT'D YOU SAY, THE LADY OF THE ROSARY VERSUS THE CITY OF PHOENIX CHILDREN ON THE ROSARY VERSUS CITY OF PHOENIX.
WHAT, WHAT IS, UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT CASE, UH, AT ALL IT INVOLVED, UH, UM, CITIES, TRANSIT BUS HAD, UM, UM, CARDS
[00:25:01]
THAT WERE ON THE SIDE OF THE BUS AND THEY, UH, A ANTI-ABORTION GROUP, UM, PAID TO HAVE, UH, AN ANTI-ABORTION SIGN PUT ON THESE CARDS AND, UH, THE CITY OF PHOENIX REMOVED IT AND IT, AND THE REMOVAL WAS UPHELD BECAUSE WHILE, AND THIS IS THE WAY I EXPLAINED IT THIS MORNING, WHILE YOU CAN SAY THAT A CHURCH IS HAVING A PANCAKE BREATH BREAKFAST ON SUCH AND SUCH A DAY, YOU CAN'T SAY BAN ABORTION BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S A BIAS.THAT'S CONTROVERSIAL THE SAME WITH THE COMMERCIALS.
UM, SPEECH, THE CANNABIS IS IN ALCOHOL AND THAT'S CONTROVERSIAL BECAUSE WE DON'T, WE DON'T ALLOW DISPENSARIES.
AND WE WOULD BE PROBABLY WITHIN THE PROTECTIONS OF A NON PUBLIC FORUM.
IF WE WERE TO SAY, WE WON'T ACCEPT ALCOHOL TOBACCO OR CANNABIS ADVERTISING, AS LONG AS WE'RE CONSISTENT, CONSISTENCY SEEMS TO BE THE KEY HERE.
IF, UH, YOU WERE A CANDIDATE FOR POLITICAL OFFICE AND TRIED TO BUY SPACE ON THE CITY SIDE, AND YOU WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT EITHER.
IT'S THE SAME THING AS NOT HAVING YOUR PICTURE TAKEN WITH THE FIRE CHIEF, BECAUSE IT GIVES THE WRONG IMPRESSION THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE BEING THAT THE, THAT THE CITY IS ENDORSING THAT CANDIDATE, AND THAT'S NOT ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW.
SO YOU COULD HAVE A POLITICAL MESSAGE, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE BIASED.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I COULDN'T THINK OF A POLITICAL OPINION, WHICH IS NOT BIASED AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
I THINK I, IF I MIGHT ADD MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK WHAT BARBARA IS SAYING AND, AND, AND INCLUDING, UM, COURT DECISIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT, THAT BECAUSE IT'S A CITY OWNED SIGN, IT IS, THE CITY CAN REGULATE THE TYPE OF SPEECH.
IT CAN REGULATE, IT COULD LIMIT COMMERCIAL SPEECH AND IT CAN LIMIT NON-COMMERCIAL SPEECH.
THE CITY HAS THAT AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY CAN CON THEY CONTROL THE VENUE AND IT'S LIMITED ONLY TO A CITY SONG.
AND IT HAS TO BE REASONABLE AND CONSISTENT.
YEAH, THAT'S ALL, WE HAVE STRUCTURED THIS ORDINANCE IN A WAY TO ENSURE THAT BASED ON PAST COURT DECISIONS THAT WE ARE WITHIN THOSE BOUNDS, THAT THE COURT HAS SAID, CITIES CAN, CAN LIMIT THE TYPE OF SIGNAGE ON THEIR SIGNS.
UH, MR. CHUTE, IF I MAY, ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS REGARDING, UH, COMMERCIAL BILLBOARD COMPANIES, UH, FEELING THAT THE CITY'S IN COMPETITION WITH THEM SO FAR AS SIGNAGE IS CONCERNED, IS THERE A FEELING THAT, UH, THAT YOU'RE TAKING THIS AWAY FROM THAT THE CITY IS TAKING BUSINESS AWAY FROM THEM? WELL, I GUESS THEY, I I'LL LET BARBARA ANSWER AS WELL, BUT I, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY, I GUESS THEY COULD, BUT THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN OUR CODE THAT ALREADY ALLOW FOR PRIVATE BILLBOARDS TO BE LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
AND THERE ARE ABOUT 35 BILLBOARDS IN THE CITY TODAY, AND THERE ARE ALLOWED IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS ACROSS THE CITY.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COMMISSIONER, SO TLA IS SAYING IS WHEN YOU HAVE THE OPEN MARKET AND THE COMMERCIAL BILLBOARDS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IT'S DRIVEN BY MARKET PRICING.
PRICING'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
WILL THE CITY, YOU KNOW, APPLY TO THOSE SAME, SAME STANDARDS.
I MEAN, WHAT'S, WHAT'S TO STOP THE CITY FROM SAYING, HEY, LET'S, LET'S LOWER OUR PRICE BY $2,000.
CAUSE WE'RE THE CITY, WE'RE NOT A BUSINESS WHERE WE'RE, YOU KNOW, PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS.
HOW DO WE KEEP THE COMPETITION EQUAL, I GUESS? WELL, I THINK, I THINK THE CITY, UH, BASED, UH, BASED ON THE LANGUAGE IN THE PROPOSAL ORDINANCE, THE CITY WANTS TO MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY WITH A CITY SIGN.
SO I THINK THAT ENSURES THAT THERE IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR IN THE MARKET.
I THINK IT'S THE CITY'S POSITION BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION AND THE TYPE OF SIGN THEY CAN CAPTURE SOME OF THE MARKET AT THE PRICES AT THE, THAT THE MARKET HAS DETERMINED.
I DON'T THINK THE CITY WANT, WOULD EVER WANT TO, UM, GET, YOU KNOW, ATTRACT LOWER PRICES.
THE CITY WANTS TO MAXIMIZE REVENUE TO THE, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.
[00:30:02]
AND THAT BRINGS UP A QUESTION.HOW MUCH DOES THE CITY THINK THAT THIS WILL, UH, BRINGING IN? I KNOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T DEAL WITH PROPERTY VALUES, BUT THIS IS I THINK, PERTINENT TO THE DISCUSSION.
WELL, BASED ON THE MOST RECENT, UM, AND I'M USING LEMON GROVE AS AN EXAMPLE, THERE'S A POTENTIAL RANGE OF AN ANNUAL ANNUAL REVENUE BETWEEN TWO TO 300,000 OR FOR MULTIPLE SIGNS.
PARDON ME? NOT JUST IT'S FOR THAT LOCATION, FOR THAT LOCATION, THAT ONE SIGN COULD GENERATE BETWEEN TWO TO 300,000 ANNUALLY.
SEEMS QUITE A BIT TO ME, SIGNIFICANT THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT.
YEAH, WELL, UM, A LOT OF THE STATIC BILLBOARDS GENERATE BETWEEN FIVE AND 10 AND YOU KNOW, A MONTH.
SO THE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BUSINESS, UM, THERE'S QUITE LUCRATIVE.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY'S CONCERN REGARDING THE BUDGET AND ALSO WANTING FOR A REVENUE, BUT THE CITY OF, UH, ALCOHOL AND WOULD NOT BE BURDENED, BUT ALSO HAVE A CONCERN WHICH, UH, GOVERNMENT, UH, IS IN COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.
AND I THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE IN COMPETITION WITH AN ENTERPRISE BECAUSE GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND CODES AND SO FORTH TO BENEFIT THEM WHERE NOT NECESSARILY.
THAT'S MY, MY CONCERN IS THAT THE LINE HERE WHERE THERE'LL BE DRAWN, A LINE WHERE, UH, THE TASTE OF ALCOHOL IS IN COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.
AND IN MANY CASES, YOU KNOW, PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IS NOT GOING TO WIN WHEN IT'S IN COMPETITION WITH GOVERNMENT.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY? I BELIEVE YOU, I BELIEVE I DO.
HOWEVER, JUST TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE ALREADY REGULATIONS THAT ALLOW FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO PUT UP BILLBOARDS WITHIN THE CITY AND THOSE BILLBOARDS COULD BE OF A DIGITAL NATURE.
THEY'RE STATIC NOW THAT I'M SURE AS THE TIMES CHANGED, THAT THEY WILL CHANGE OVER TO DIGITAL.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT.
UM, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT AN ADDITIONAL ATTENDEE SO WE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DID WE GET ANY COMMENTS FOR THIS? NO, SIR.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE NO COMMENTS.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS, UH, ONE OF OUR NEWEST CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE, MICHELLE MATTSON.
IF SHE HAS NOTHING TO COMMENT ON THIS, THEN, UH, I MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SECOND, THAT MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER.
SERCO SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CABRERA.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
UM, I THINK THE, THE MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS FOR THE COMMISSION ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES, THE CONFLICTS, IF THERE ARE ANY WITH THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND ADJUSTING THE SIGN ORDINANCE OPENS UP POSSIBILITIES FOR OTHER SIGNS LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY.
BUT THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY IS FAIRLY LIMITED IN SCOPE.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET ANOTHER BILLBOARD ON THE CITY HALL PROPERTY.
THIS IS A BIG CENTER AND I REALLY DOUBT WE'RE GOING TO PUT A BILLBOARD OVER ON THE MAINTENANCE YARD.
SO THIS IS FAIRLY FOCUSED ON ONE PARTICULAR AREA, ANY
[00:35:01]
DISCUSSION? OH, IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER BOLLGARD IS HAVING ISSUES.I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, ALLOWING THE SIGNS ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY.
I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION LET'S HAVE A ROWBOAT, MR. CIRCO.
UH, THAT, UH, PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND RECOMMENDATION CITY COUNCIL PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
THIS IS GOING TO CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 26, 2021.
AND, UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYONE PRESENT WISHES TO MAKE AN APPEAL, BUT IF AN APPEAL WERE TO BE MADE, IT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE.
SO IN WRITING BY FRIDAY, LET'S GET THE RIGHT FRIDAY.
IT'S A FRIDAY, JANUARY 15TH, 2021.
THAT'S THE ONLY ITEM WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.
[4. Other Items For Consideration]
ANY UPDATES OR FURTHER ITEMS? I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T, UM, COME WITH ANY, BUT IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE, I'D BE, I DO MY BEST ANSWER SCHEDULED TO HAVE A, AN IN-PERSON MEETING.I COULD ONLY GUESS THAT IT MIGHT BE AS SOME MONTHS AWAY STILL.
UM, IF THERE ARE NO COMMUNICATIONS THROUGH REPORTS, THEN I WILL MOVE TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING TO JANUARY, 1920 21 AT 7:00 PM.
SECOND, THAT MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER.
SERCO SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSE.
HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE AND HAPPY NEW YEAR.