Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating Chapter 21.54, related to billboards, read and adopted as read.  (Citywide)
I'd have never to go read it. That would be you. Course. It's a recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and declare the ordinance. Amending the zoning regulations of the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the regulation of billboards offsite advertising. Read the first time lead over to the next meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and to adopt a resolution directing the Director of Development Services to the Met to submit ordinance amendments to the California Coastal Commission for finding of performance with the logo with the Certified Local Coastal Program and to accept the categorical, categorical exemption of C 13 118. Thank you. Ms.. Frick. Yes, Mayor. Members of the council tonight seems to be the night where we hopefully conclude many issues that have been undergoing analysis and debate for years on end. This is one of those items, billboards, and we're hoping to present to you something that the council, in fact, will approve tonight so that we can get this taken care of. And Amy Burdick will provide the staff report is broader. I'm still. Here. Yes. Aren't we all? I apologize for my items. So we are here to talk to you about billboards tonight. You're probably familiar with this. 2009. It goes back to 2009 where the city council adopted a moratorium. The council extended that moratorium for a year and then asked us to come back with some revisions to the billboard ordinance. We did that in December of 2011. The first reading of the ordinance was presented and approved. The second reading of the ordinance did not pass. So the ordinance failed for lack of a majority vote. In March of 2012, we did come forward with some changes to off premise advertising, which you did approve. And then in October of this year, 2013, you directed us to go back to our original language from December of 2011. We have done that. In fact, you also asked us in October of 2013 to add some language related to the ability to enter into development agreements. For. The development of electronic billboards. So we have done that. We have presented to you an ordinance. We did take the liberty of making a couple of cleanup changes in the ordinance as well. And in the past six weeks or so, we have had meetings with all four major billboard companies to discuss the changes that we are proposing . In essence, we are suggesting that conversion of billboards to an electronic format could be permitted within the city. It does involve a cap and trade program, if you will, or a take down program with the goal of removing billboards in non-conforming areas. So we have presented to you the original language. We have made a couple of changes, as I said, to clarify the findings that we would make on a copy. And we are prepared to move forward with staff's proposal tonight. I'm sure you have questions. I'll wait for them. Okay, Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mayor and Miss Frick. You're right. This certainly has been a long, long saga. But we'll see what we do tonight. I first of all, I want to thank staff, particularly Amy Bodak, for your long, hard work on this item. And you democracy may not be the fastest system, but I do think it's the best because we'll end up having I think is a better product from robust discussion. So I just want you know, I think this council appreciates particularly your efforts whenever you have something that makes everybody happy, that's the nature of democracy. But I think tonight. Yeah, so that's that's pretty close to the best we're going to get. I do have one question. Miss Bodak, we had discussed about the map you had produced several times before, but I want to make sure it was available publicly and hopefully attach the item. Mr. City Clerk If possible, could you describe that map as. Modica? My understanding is this map, at least as that. Or as currently reads, shows the public where electronic billboards could be if I granted a copy accurate? Yes, sir. We did pass the maps out and we did work with the city clerk's department and the city clerk to make sure that this is attached to the agenda item. This map was originally presented in 2011 and it shows the approximate location of all 350 plus billboards within the city and our approximation of where we think the billboards could go in the future. This is an approximation. We did lay out the zones that they would be allowed, and we did include a landscaped freeway buffer as defined by Caltrans to try to demonstrate what areas of the city we expected electronic billboards to occur. It is an art rather than a science because it does depend on, you know, the approval of each individual copy. So we. We. Can't present this with with 100% accuracy, but certainly our best guess. Well, thank you, Ms.. Bodak and I encourage everyone who is interested to take a look at that online. I think the bottom line is that vast areas of the city, including residential neighborhoods, are not eligible for electronic billboards. Is that is that correct? As a as a generalization? Yes, sir. That's very fair to say. All right. Well, with that, I would like to go ahead and move the staff recommendation the second. The O'Donnell. Secondary. There's emotion in the second Constable Lowenthal. No past. Thank you. Councilmember Neal. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Miss BODETT, could you explain subsection C to me, please? Specifically 21.5 4.170. Yes. I think his. Page. Yes. So what we have defined under this ordinance, all billboards that don't have a copy would be considered non-conforming. That was not our intention. We are trying to define certain billboards as being non-conforming and then allow for the opportunity for other billboards to be converted. So the the the billboards that fall under this category, are you familiar with them? I believe it's like five of them. Are they conforming now? Are they are they conforming under our current? Well, no. They're not. They would be non-conforming. And. Have we. Had. But they're conforming under state law, correct? No. They would not be. If this is a defined landscape buffer under Caltrans definitions, they would not be able to build a billboard there now. Okay. So these particular billboards have been grandfathered in and they've been there for so long that. Have they had? I guess what I'm getting at is have we had complaints and challenges in regards to these as far as people trying to a requesting that they be removed. I'm not sure. What. Five billboards you're referring to. My understanding is that they are loaned the the four or five freeway. So there are a number of billboards along the four or five freeway and there are a number of electronic on-premise signs along the four or five freeway that the two electronic signs that you see on the four or five freeway are not considered billboards. So we do not have any electronic billboards today in the city. We only have static billboards. So we don't have experience in dealing with complaints related to electronic billboards because we technically don't have any in the city. Well, I would like to move a friendly amendment on this, if we could. And just as we strike subsection C 21.5 4.17 on. Okay. There's. Well. There was that. I'm sorry. I wanted to clarify that, actually. Was that a friendly amendment or without a substantive motion? No friendly amendment. Okay. Well, that's where Johnson. Thinks by spirit. Well, I guess I'd ask staff. Describe why. What is section C? What does it do? And what was staff's intention in placing subsection C? And finally, and I usually only ask three part questions, I apologize, but what would be the effect of removing subsection C? So we have defined existing billboards that are built within landscape buffers to be non-conforming, meaning that they would not be able to be built today. They're they're essentially illegal or non-conforming. We have established a series of criteria to define those billboards which we would allow to be converted, and those billboards which we do not believe should be converted. The removal of this section would negate the purpose of the ordinance, which is to remove non-conforming billboards. I'm sure you had more questions, sir. I can't remember them all. Oh, yeah. So based on what you're saying is the purpose of the substantive C is to provide an incentive for the billboard companies to participate in the cap and trade and convert to electronic or. In a sense, yes. You know, there are a number of billboards throughout the city that we believe should not convert to digital. And we believe that by complying with the Caltrans standards of not allowing an electronic billboard within the landscape, buffer is one of those situations. There is one caveat where an existing billboard within the landscape landscaped buffer along the four or five freeway could convert. And that is if they acquire credits through Caltrans, which a number of the billboard companies already have, and that Caltrans would allow them to use their credits that they've gained from another location in the state and apply them to the Long Beach location. Our ordinance specifically allows that to occur within the landscaped buffer, provided that they have the Caltrans credits and apply those to the Long Beach location. Otherwise, we are treating this as a consistent land use. We are not segregating one company versus another. We are looking at this as as one land use issue across the board. We have determined, you know, that there is a number of of non-conforming billboards within the city that that should be removed, that are in inappropriate locations. And the removal of this section would negate that purpose. I will given staff's opinion that removal would be against the integrity of the statute and given the fact we've talked about for three years. Mr. Neal, I respectfully not want to take that amendment. Are you making a substitute or are you just leaving it as is for now? I think I'm just going to leave it at that. Councilman O'Donnell. I actually James Johnson asked my question. So I'm I'm ready to hear from the public. Okay. So, you know, other counties coming in right now, I'm going to open it up to public comment. Please step forward if you have a comment. Good evening, Vice Mayor, council members. I'm Ron Miller, executive secretary of the Los Angeles Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council. We stand in support of this amendment. We have an agreement with a couple of the billboard companies that will put a lot of our folks to work, taking down the illegitimate billboards and putting up whatever new electronic billboards transpire, which are going to put men and women from your community to work. So that's the bare basics of it. So we stand in support. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Well, it's a little redundant because there's an agreement that we're going to have electronic billboards. But I would like to give my advocacy that, Proposition two, that we should have electronic billboards. Even if it sounds superfluous for me, I would say it first of all, it's an abridgment a speech. Not to have billboards, to make announcements. And Mr. Parkin might want to address himself to that problem after I'm finished. Would it be in the of the speech not to have them? I would also say that it beautifies the landscape. Really. It's like having lights on a Christmas tree with gifts. It because. Beautiful. Well, having a picture framed. Yeah, it's beautiful. Surely the Japanese and those in Las Vegas have learned this virtue. And that night, their streets are left with billboards that are quite beautiful and gorgeous to behold. Also, it would be to our advantage to see to for the rest of the public to see that we are really concerned with business and what makes business works. These billboards would be advanced and also be business oriented. They provide information. They are a virtue, not a defect, like some socialists might maintain who put a damper on business to attain the so-called public good. Well, it isn't. I would also like to say that this is a cue, Mr. O'Donnell, that when I spoke earlier about about having an advertisement film for a production company, film production companies might be amended to say that a film should be made a half an hour film made but provided with things that would make it memorable. Like Sharman and Champagne, they'll enjoy it and also go along with enlightenment in that regard. Oh, and what is conformity? What is a billboard? It doesn't conform. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Tim Fox. Same with CBS Outdoor based in Los Angeles. Thank you for your time. First, I want to thank staff. As you guys know, it's been a long process and a lot of work has been done. We have a few concerns about the proposed ordinance as it is. I have a letter I'll submit for the record, but the brief synopsis of it is the first issue in table 54 one. I believe the correct was there are some spacing issues that we would like to address. The industry standard in most cities is different than what is stated in the table, and we think that if we could address that and bring in an industry standard which would be approximately 500 feet between what we call posters and a thousand feet between digital signs. It's basically the Caltrans code, but it just maybe a little more clarification. And there is also no spacing entered in one of the boxes if you were going to take an existing sign and expand it. And there was another provision within the proposed ordinance that we're concerned about where if a our company is one of them, we do have inventory within the city that we could use to take down and build digital or convert. There is a requirement that all of the removals have to occur before we're allowed to build a sign. We would hope there would be some discussion on the ability to perhaps build the sign, not turn it on, and then we could do the removals just for some protections to make sure that we don't lose the rights to existing signs. I know that was addressed a little bit in the ordinance, but just maybe some more protection, that type of thing. Other than that, we're happy to move along with the ordinance, you know, and have if you have questions, we'd be happy to answer. But thank you again for all your help. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Vice Mayor. Council members. My name is Mike Murchison. I'm here on behalf of Regency. I want to clear up some issues on the subsection that was discussed here a minute ago. The purpose and intent, as I recall from the city council three years ago, was to focus on those billboards that were in the residential communities . Subsection C deals. Strictly with freeway billboards that are within the landscape. Area of 660 feet. Nothing but that. So we're talking about very few billboards. Very few faces. In the faces that Councilmember Neal is referring to are five faces that if subsection C was. Left in, there would be deferred. Non-Conforming. Now, what does it mean when they're deemed non-conforming? What it means is, is. That you got to go through a cap and trade program. Okay. So everybody's on board with cap and trade. So 4 to 1 ratio, I'm talking about five faces. So on a 41 ratio, if I've got five faces, then I'm gone. And in fact, in that particular instance, Regency is wiped out of half of their inventory in the city of Long Beach. So are you in a. Position tonight that you. Don't want to take out one subsection C an impact half the inventory of the company here in the city of Long Beach? I don't think so. Your purpose here is to vote on an issue that has to do with the billboards are in a residential community. The ones we're talking about, the. Freeways have never been discussed. Never had opposition. No comments that I'm aware of by any residents here in the city of Long Beach. Furthermore, we're not talking about replacing them with digital. We're talking about just leaving them alone. The reason why Regency. Has these five faces. Is because they had these billboards here longer than state law. They were grandfathered in. I understand where staff's coming from. I understand the fact that they want to be on the same page with state law. That makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, that one sentence in subsection C will basically take half of the inventory out of what Regency currently has and does very well with. I don't think that's your intent tonight. I thought your intent tonight from the last three years of going through this was to focus on the cap and trade program in a residential area with all the billboards are in the residence and what their concerns are not on billboards that nobody really comments about that are on the freeway. So I respectfully request that you consider subsection C all over again to. Remove it and get clarification. On the specific impact of that language. It's one sentence. Thank you very much. Thank you. The public comment. Very good. You? I'm always afraid of the creeping crud. I would suggest it. They've got those. The five billboards that the previous speaker just referenced, that you put in language that if those ever do go digital. Each one will be at a cost of $1,000,000 a month. Which would flow to the city. I don't like to use digital billboards. I've seen what happened up and in L.A. and the creeping crud and I can just see in a matter of it wouldn't be too too long one. Eventually they would be coming in, marching right down into neighborhoods. So restructure the language. So you make it very clear that there exists no conditions under which any digital billboard would be allowed, be it on near the signs that it's on city property or within the city of Long Beach, whether it be near the freeway or in a city that you don't want it. But if, in fact, it does happen. Million dollars per board per month. Thank you. And if you can't figure out what to do with $1,000,000 per boy per month, let me know and I'll show you where the money can best be used. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Council members Victor Dela Cruz with Manatt, Phelps and Phillips on land use council to Regency Outdoor Advertising. I just want to follow up on what Mike Murchison had said. The ordinance, as it's currently crafted, has four different types of non-conforming billboards. You have the billboards that are located in residential areas, in plan development districts, all those areas where we don't want billboards to. There are the billboards that are on local streets exactly where you want to remove the billboards from. Three There are the landscape freeway segments, the areas that frankly, nobody cares about. These are freeway oriented billboards that don't disturb residential neighborhoods at all. And then four, there are those billboards that are on rooftops. Those are the non-conforming signs we would like to do is to have subsection C removed because those particular billboards, one, don't disturb any residential neighborhoods and don't hurt the integrity of of our residential neighborhoods. Second, it's important to realize that these billboards on the four or five, we may talk about the integrity of the ordinance and the fact that there's somehow going to be a strong incentive to remove billboards on freeways to participate in the cap and trade. I can assure you that no billboard company is going to remove a single freeway off of the 405 as part of this program. They are way too valuable. These are the cream of the crop of the billboards. And unless if subsection C is not removed, what you would be forcing Regency to do is to take down its freeway, its freeway oriented signs on the four or five, its most valuable signs in order to be able to participate in the digital program. You may recall that at the last council meeting you directed staff to include development agreement language for those companies that could not participate in the cap and trade program. And we'd like to thank staff for working with us to incorporate that language. That language is in there. But unfortunately, because of subsection C, we would be precluded from participating in the development agreement process. What we're asking for is if we want to convert any of these billboards on freeways to digital. We would then go through a whole process of planning, commission planning, commission review, city council review in exchange for significant public benefits for the city and revenue. And you could choose to approve those digital conversions or not. We would still have to go through a very long process, but we would just ask you to remove subsection C so that Regency can participate in this program, just like all of the other billboard companies. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember DeLong. One of the speakers talked about the the permit process and when the the non-conforming signs would be taken down. And could staff elaborate on that? Certainly we did realize that this was be an issue the last time around, and we have tried to write the ordinance that would provide some level of protection to the to the applicant. We do have a requirement that when they get a a C up and a copy is being processed, the Billboard company has to provide us with a list of non-conforming billboards that they intend to remove as part of this cap and trade program. They get to determine which ones they want to put forth in terms of which ones they want to take down. As a package that would be part of their c u p permit. But in order to assure that a billboard does not get constructed or converted, we are going to require that the removal does happen of those non-conforming billboards. The assurances that we have provided is that the c u p, the one year vesting period of the c p is delayed or extended until such time that that bill, that last non-conforming billboard is removed, that they still have a full year under their c p to implement the electronic billboard. There is grave concerns that allowing somebody to essentially build a house and let them move their furniture in, but don't let them live there that they're going to, you know, end up living there when our back is turned. So we do have grave concerns that if we structure it in any other way, that the billboard company will effect effectively flip the switch and that the electronics will commence and we will have no authority to to get them to remove the non-conforming billboards. Okay. So but we're in the process. Do the old billboards come down. After they have been granted ACP by the Planning Commission? They apply for a demolition permits. They can certainly get building permits plan checked, but they don't get to have the building permit for the new electronic billboard until after the demolition of the old billboards are complete. Okay. But I guess my concern is maybe if I own that business, I wouldn't want to turn off all my revenue for X period of time before I had the new revenue coming in. And I guess what I like to propose and you can tell me what truck and would you see is I don't know why we wouldn't do it. More like a certificate of occupancy that will let you build the new board. But you can't occupy you can't activate it until the old billboards are down. And while I understand your concern that somebody might violate that regulation and turn it on, that we need to have a strict enforcement penalty, and I know it's a thousand bucks a day or, you know, do something that's extraordinarily painful, that if you turn on that sign before the old ones are removed, it's going to cost you dearly. I'm pretty sure we would not have a high enough citation that would accommodate that. $1,000 a day to an electronic billboard is really not a lot of money. Our issue is, you know, consistency with how we treat the building code across all land uses. We do not allow occupancy until all requirements are met. And so we are very firm on this. This position. Well. Kind of give me give me an example of that. When you say what's like a billboard, do you tear something down? And then you might have multi-month before you put something up and you lose your revenue in the meantime. Give me an example of something that's similar in the city. I'll give you an example of somebody who's not supposed to demolish a partial house in a in a while. They're waiting for their local coastal development permit and they still do it. Yeah, but they didn't lose revenue. In the meanwhile, we enforce them. Maybe they had rental income that that they ended up kicking out and then we've extended and delayed the process. Right. But that's completely different. That's that's where that building owner chose illegally. But that building owner chose to to move those tenants out and lose revenue. Show me an example where the city is insisting you lose revenue off the existing operation for a period of time. I don't think it's an issue of revenue for us. It's a it's a the perspective of you don't get to have the vested right or the opportunity until you have complied. And so there's there's no creative way that we can come up with to demonstrate that they're going to comply and remove their billboards in order to get the right that we are granting them for the electronics. It is a privilege that we are giving them to to allow them to convert to electronics. I think that's the difference between us. You know, when you say you don't look at the revenue perspective, you're not looking at it from the customer's perspective. They're a customers of the city. So I think we do need to give them the ability to get everything up and running, but they cannot turn it on. They can't occupy it right until they meet that. And then there needs to be some kind of a stiff penalty or some other action. And maybe, you know, we start a process, we have to take it down or something. But I don't know. I think we get here in a different way. And I also think that if a a billboard company tries to challenge us, challenge us and do something illegal, they're going to find it very difficult to continue to do business in the city of Long Beach. So let's let it percolate a little more. But I'm going to come back with a substitute or friendly amendment on this issue before we close it out. But could you also comment on the item regarding the number of feet, the 500 feet, a thousand feet that the gentleman referred to and what our requirements are and which ones are both confirmed to the state? I'm sorry, sir, can you repeat that? So one of the gentlemen talked about that. I guess in the language, it's 500 feet, maybe for some billboard, a thousand feet for a digital billboard, but that doesn't conform with what state code is. Can you elaborate on that? Or if not, we'll have the gentleman come back up and asked the question again. We're actually being more liberal than the state. We are allowing boards within 300 feet. Okay. Could you the gentleman that's a question for you. Could you come back up so we could resolve that? Tim Fox, CBS Outdoor. I'll read the paragraph I put together. Make it hopefully more clear. Sorry about that. Another issue of concern is in table 54, dash one as it relates to spacing between billboards. The city's proposed spacing is a minimum of 300 feet or Caltrans requirements as they are on the freeway. Most, if not all, cities require a spacing distance of 600 feet between larger non digital 672 square feet, what we call bulletins, billboards and 300 feet minimum, sometimes 500 feet, depending on the city. Between the smaller, non-digital, 300 square feet or less. Billboards. Those are called posters. There is also no spacing requirement noted for the enlargement of an existing sign, or at least the way we interpreted the the the table. We would propose that the city adopt the spacing of 600 feet between non-digital billboards, between the size of 300 to 672 square feet, which is a poster in a bulletin. A minimum of 300 feet between billboards, 300 feet or less, and a minimum of 1000 feet between all digital billboards. That's just a proposal. So how does that compare to what staff are recommending at other cities? Again, on on on the electronics, we are much more liberal. We are suggesting a minimum of 300 feet. The speaker just said a thousand feet. Okay. So I still believe that we're being more liberal. Okay, I'm finished for now. But maybe before this comes back, I say I'm going to ask for either friendly or a substitute to address the the permit issue. So perhaps you could give some thought to see if there is any other approach that might be satisfactory to both of us. Thank you. Councilor Johnson Well, thank you, Vice Mayor, but one of the speakers had mentioned about the non-performing billboards along the freeway and the desire to keep them static. If there were a static billboard along a freeway and the ordinance were to pass as proposed. Would that still be allowed to exist? Correct. It would be allowed to exist in its current state, and if the company wished to convert it, that would be allowed if it if that company had Caltrans credits. Okay. So basically illegal non-conforming, it. Would remain illegal non-conforming that would be allowed to remain in its static position. Okay. Thank you. Controversy. Gypsy But I think in following that up, if I understood Mr. Murchison, I think the issue is the the face requirement. It's not just that they should be allowed to continue there, but maybe if you clarify that a little bit more about when he mentioned five, five faces and that if you were to convert, that you lose , is that correct? You lose your inventory. That doesn't make sense. That's not seems to be our intent. Our intent is to remove non-conforming billboards throughout the city. We did not look at one company's inventory over another company's inventory. We kept this at a very neutral level where we did not get into qualifications and scenarios of what billboard would be converted and what building would not be converted. We did instead look at opportunities and granting the privilege of converting to electronic. There is a mechanism for all billboard companies to work with the other billboard companies to remove non-conforming billboards within the city. This ordinance does not limit a company from only removing nonconforming billboards within its own inventory. In fact, it it provides an incentive that when all nonconforming billboards are removed, the conversion is at a 1 to 1 ratio instead of 8 to 1 or 6 to 1 or 4 to 1. So we do stand by the position that this company in particular could continue to maintain its static billboard on the four or five freeway. It could continue to pursue conversion through the receipt of Caltrans credits. And if it wishes to convert to to electronic. Keep that can you or Mr. Chair if we could have the individual who brought that up, could you clarify what their concern focuses on about the five faces and, you know, obliterate the inventory? And I understand that we're not focusing on a particular company, but I think when a business comes and says, if we do this, we lose our inventory. So I do not believe that this is the only company that would be required to remove billboards in order to get the benefit of electronics. I didn't suggest that. But could we just get clarification? I mean, does that that's kind of an onerous thing to be presenting to the councilman? I need to understand a little bit more before I take a vote. I'm going to go and have customer ships. If you can, please answer the councilmembers question on that. Sure. So Regency has nine total billboard structures in the city, and they're all on freeways. All of the other companies have significantly larger inventories, but their billboards are, to a great extent, located in residential neighborhoods, on local streets, precisely the sorts of billboards that the city wants to come down. Relatively speaking, the terms that the value of freeway adjacent billboards verses the value of billboards that are located on residential streets where you don't have nearly as much traffic. It's it's it's it's apples and oranges. So if if subsection C were to remain Regency in order to convert one of its billboards to digital would have to take down four of its extremely valuable billboard faces on freeways. And those billboards don't really bother anybody because they're not in residential neighborhoods. And if I recall correctly, when stat when staff was asked to include a development agreement option, it was precisely to deal with this situation and the development agreement. Language right now allows a company to negotiate a development agreement for digital conversions if it can show that it is infeasible for them to take down enough nonconforming billboards. Unfortunately, because of that, because of that language, if if if our billboards on freeways are deemed non-conforming, then Regency might be in a position where it won't be able to negotiate a development agreement. So all we're asking for is the ability to participate in the digital conversion process by coming to the city, because it isn't feasible to take down our structures and we would negotiate a certain dollar amount and other community benefits as part of that development agreement that would go through planning commission and city council review. But does does that does that make sense in terms of. No, I understand that. And my my understanding I misspoke. I thought the council had asked staff to see if there was a possibility of being able to do that in lieu of coming up with some kind of cash in lieu of having to take them. We do have the ability and it is written in here to enter into development agreements. We do not set the negotiated positions because that would be based on individual negotiations of a development agreement. It is not an either or situation. You can't just walk in and ask for a development agreement in order to convert to electronics. You have to demonstrate, as Mr. de la Cruz mentioned, in feasibility to convert to electronics because you don't have enough inventory or because you are unable to come up with a cooperative relationship with somebody else who may have a lot of inventory. Those are all legitimate grounds for determining that it is infeasible for them to come to do additional takedowns. And so we do include language that allows them to enter into negotiations, but does not but does not guarantee, you know, a development agreement based on on specific parameters. We awareness park and other cities that have done this. Is this is this the framework in which they've handled this situation? That's my first question. Second question is, how many other freeway billboards are we talking about in the city? They're talking about, I believe, nine. We do have we are familiar with a number of other cities that do have development agreements for billboards. Each of them have their own unique terms because they are, you know, specific to those cities. West Hollywood industry are a couple of those cities. We do have I want to make it clear that there are nine structures that Regency owns, but there are 15 phases. And I think that that's what Mr. De La Cruz was referring to, that he had five places on the four or five, but I think that only equates to three locations. There are. According to this map, you know, probably 20 billboards within the freeway landscape by far along the four or five freeway that would be potentially impacted. So help me on that. So for these other entities, if they were to want to convert, they could take their inventories in other parts of the town and take those down and then convert along the freeway to electronic. But correct. No. Along the 405 freeway, no. Along other parts of the freeway, like the 710 freeway where there is no landscape buffer. Yes. So we are talking about 20 billboards that exist in a legal non-conforming state right now. And so none of those 20 would be allowed to convert to digital along the four or five freeway, but they would be allowed to remain as nonconforming billboards. And and, you know, and they would also be allowed to convert to electronics through the use of Caltrans credits. And just to add to that, if if we take these billboards out of the equation, I think one of the important things to understand is what is. So let's picture the future of the that the billboard landscape in Long Beach right after this ordinance is passed. What's going to end up happening is that all of the billboard companies will do a will will take down their significantly less valuable billboards on residential and local streets. And you're going to see applications as part of a cap and trade program to convert the billboards that that are not in landscaped areas into digitals and regency would also like the opportunity to be able to do that. And the only way that the only way that it would be able to do that is if if if those billboards that it has right now are not factored into the calculation of what is non-conforming only for purposes of removal. Because of the ordinance, the billboards would still be non-conforming under the ordinance. We're just address addressing subsection C for purposes of removal, which leads to the question of whether a billboard company would then be able to negotiate a development agreement. So it doesn't really it doesn't really radically change the equation at all. I think I think it conservatorships go very. Quickly when I'm understanding from this photo it does not preclude them coming to try to negotiate. That seems to be the crux of the question. Does that subsection preclude them from negotiating with the city or does it maybe the city attorney can opine on this since you wrote it. They have to demonstrate technical enforceability in order to come to us for a development agreement. So that means that the non-conforming billboards, you know, are infeasible for them to remove regardless of who owns it. Yes, but have we defined what their responsibility includes in terms for an argument? We have not. We have been very, very careful about being very narrow in in what, you know, what we're putting in there for in terms of terms for a development agreement. And again, I want to clarify, though, that they would be, Mr. Mayes, that you can address because that they would be able to negotiate with the city, obviously, considering whether or not they can make an argument about enforceability. The difficulty they had and I think this is what Mr. De La Cruz has articulated trying to articulate, is that they would have a non-conforming billboard in place. And the overall arching goal of this ordinance is to remove non-conforming billboards. If the current language remains, they could come to the city and try to negotiate with a development agreement or for a development agreement. But we would say you have a non-conforming billboard that you can remove. So how? There's nothing that would preclude them from removing it. So how do they demonstrate in feasibility? It wouldn't simply be because it doesn't make economic sense for them to do. It would have to be something more. And what the ordinance envisions in feasibility to be is a situation where a company simply has no. For instance, if a company came to the city and had no billboards in place, obviously they have nothing to take down. So they could demonstrate that it would be infeasible to for them to participate in cap and trade so they would be eligible, presumably to do a development agreement if they did not have a number. Let's say the number is they need to remove six in order to participate in cap and trade. If they said to us, yeah, but our inventory is only four, well obviously they can't remove six. So we would say, well, remove four, who will waive the other two and you can participate in a development agreement. Or the other alternative is that the ordinance envisions is that a company, this is another possibility has no current inventory. They could acquire inventory or partner with another company that has current inventory in the city to take those five down or whatever the number is they're going to be taking down. And then they could participate in the cap and trade and build a new electronic billboard someplace else. So it does provide flexibility, but Mr. De La Cruz is correct under their particular scenario. If that if the language remains the same, they most likely would not be able to participate in a development agreement because they could not demonstrate in feasibility. And let me ask, is there a way that we can. Struck some alternate language that protects the integrity of the intent of removing nonconforming but understanding that we've got a smaller business entity in the city so small but a an entity that doesn't have I mean, whose inventory is restricted in that particular case, what it kind of makes it difficult. There's really no way to do that because as Ms.. Black indicated, we didn't look, we can't treat each company differently. Their billboard is just as non-conforming as other companies billboards along the freeway. So that really can't make that. We can remove it altogether as a requirement, which is what he's requesting. And that would what. Would that do to them? The overall ordinance, if you remove that. Substitution, if you remove that, then those billboards would no longer be considered nonconforming. And so then they wouldn't have to use that as part of the equation. They would be able to come in and say, Well, we don't have any non-conforming billboards along the freeway, therefore we want a development agreement with you. Does that make sense? Yeah. No, it does. It just it's it seems to be particularly onerous on I know, you know, singling out a business, but we have a situation because we're developing an ordinance, putting it on top of an existing situation. That is and I think that's why we put the provision in there, not just specifically for this company, but for a situation that would still allow somebody like this to participate. In other words, if they had credits from somewhere else, Caltrans credits from someplace else in the state, they could use those credits to convert that? That's correct. They could use them locally. So if you have credits in another area, they can be used here under this under this ordinance. Okay. Well. I'm going to I'm going to move on to the next council members cued up. Councilman DeLong. Two questions, Mr. Mason. You know, you've talked about a feasibility and you said it doesn't include economic and feasibility. Could it or could they say, look, this is making it 4 to 1, just doesn't pencil? I think it maybe I was too strong on that. I mean, in theory, the way the ordinance is written, it could I'm just saying, practically speaking, you know, going through the planning commission, the city council, it may be difficult to make the argument that, you know, finances alone make it infeasible, because in theory, everyone could make that argument. But the the the development agreement section is broad enough. It's possible. I mean. Well, everybody could make that argument. I think it's going to resonate more along a freeway, high profile billboards. I mean, I do see that going to be a significantly higher value there than there would be something that's in a residential neighborhood that has a much lower traffic count, etc.. So I do think there's a an argument to be made. The second question I had is so these billboards that we're discussing now to today without the without a new ordinance, but the existing one, are they. Illegal, legal. Legal, non-conforming? What is their classification? Today, under our ordinance and under state law, they would be considered legal non-conforming. They were all the ones we're talking about were all built before Caltrans implemented their landscape freeway design guidelines. Okay. And in the new ordinance, they'll still be legal non-conforming. There's no requirement under the new ordinance that anything be removed unless someone wants to participate voluntarily in a cap and trade so they can stay there indefinitely. I guess the the if it's possible to do it, the only I would like to see is, you know, the last time we talked about this, what we were desirous of is trying to get staff the flexibility of negotiating development agreements when the formula just wouldn't work for whatever reason, whether it be technical, would it be lack of inventory, whether it be economic feasibility, whatever. But to have that and then candidly, you know, we're hoping to hold staff accountable that you're going to negotiate the appropriate deal. And, you know, they're going to have to justify to your satisfaction. And ultimately the council's through a copy process that it makes sense. So and I believe that we've built that flexibility in there. The section that we'd be talking about is section 21, 54, 112. And if you have the draft ordinance, that would be on page three, that line 14. A. And it simply says in the event that an applicant, applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and the City Council that it is infeasible to comply with the provisions of Section 2154 160, which is the removal cap and trade related to the removal of nonconforming. Or boards. An applicant shall then be eligible to apply for a development agreement in accordance with Chapter 2129, which is our development agreement section. I guess the major rhetorical question there, one, am I missing if if there is the ability to handle this situation and the proposed ordinance, I guess it's not clear to me why I changed anything. And I think what Mr. De La Cruz would say is that in a hyper technical sense, he I'm guessing he probably agrees with me that it would be difficult, practically speaking, to prove in feasibility if the only argument is I'm going to lose some money by not taking down this billboard on the freeway. That may that might be a hard sell in the community for and feasibility. And I think he wants more assurance or more certainty that they could participate in the development agreement without having to take down those billboards that have that they own specifically and adjacent to their freeway. And I guess while you can't predict the outcome, I guess what I would hope is that, you know, staff renegotiate the best deal they could with us for moving one or two or three. If it's something less than four, there's some number in there that makes economic sense for the for the business to go to digital. And yet the city has gotten the best deal that it can, you know, for us and our residents. And I don't want to speak for Regency, but I think Regency has said that they would not be interested in taking down any of those freeway billboards that they own as part of a cap and trade, even in the development agreement scenario. But. Some question. Dylan can ask a question if you'd like to. I'd like to ask that question. Please come forward. If you could address that, because clearly that would seem a bit rigid. To me if you had the ability to. You know. It's practically almost all our inventory to be able to participate in. And it's a very it's there particularly valuable billboards. But the reason I've been kind of scurrying up here and trying to get something in, which is I'm hearing that there's a little bit of hesitation to remove subsection C. I want to also propose another alternative that I think would do the job very simply through the through the insertion of some additional language. If you look at the section 21.5, 4.1 12, which deals with development agreements, it says in the event that an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and the City Council that it is infeasible to comply with the provisions related to the removal of nonconforming billboards. We could add some language saying excluding the removal of billboards in landscape buffer areas, then the applicant shall be eligible to apply for development agreements. And I think that that solves the problem quite, quite, quite simply. Hello, Mr. Mays. Do you want to. Opine on that? Well, I guess it has the exact same effect of removing subsection D, so it's really a policy decision of the council. And if it's council's desire to allow those billboards that currently exist adjacent to the freeway that are non-conforming to stay, then it's just too simple to remove subsection C as it is to try and fool around with the development agreement language. It has the same effect either way. I guess. You know, just speaking for myself, I mean, I'm supportive of staff negotiating a deal with that business and having the confidence and staff that, you know, they're going to extract something from those signs. And I would imagine if the company said, listen, we're not going to give anything, we're not giving a single sign, nothing. All we want is new. My hunch is staff isn't going to go for that deal. Hopefully I have the confidence and you know, if we can figure out how to direct this or they can go through the development agreement process and they still got to go through the planning commission, they still got to go through copy. I mean, there are a number of hurdles that they're going to have to go through to make their case. I don't mind giving them the ability to make the case. No more. It takes us out. But one of the things Ms.. Boda suggested is that we could change it. We couldn't do it tonight, but we could bring it back next week at second reading because you can't do this on the fly. But you could change the development agreement language to require specifically that as part of any development agreement that at least one billboard be removed. I don't know if that meets region C's concerns. Probably not, but. Yeah, I don't. I mean, I'd I personally be concerned about a number that is as as low as the floor likes. I want to give staff some flexibility about it. I don't want to be arbitrary, but I guess another perhaps way to do it. I say you couldn't do that tonight anyways. May we pass the ordinance as it is? We've we've taken a bite at this apple every once in a while and keep working this issue for another 30 or 60 days. And if we have to come back with another small tweak, do it at that time and maybe not not try and do it tonight, since it doesn't at least I'm not sensing any consensus here of what the best move forward is, other than a desire to to be open to a change in agreement. Okay, I see a few nods there so I'll, I'll relinquish the mic, but that would be where I think we ought to go. What is motion say right now? Mr. Johnson's motion is on the floor. Can't have accountability until next year. Just briefly, I would support what Councilmember DeLong proposed just now. It's come back with that. Is if I'm saying this correctly, what we have is we have a motion on the floor by Councilman Johnson to move the staff recommendation forward, but also with the understanding that we would possibly get additional information or some options on this one piece that's in discussion right now on this on the section. Mr. Johnson, are we okay with that? And that and that additional information on this one piece could come as soon as the second reading. Is that what I'm hearing also from Mr. DeLong. Would probably wouldn't bring it back at second reading. I think what Mr. DeLong was proposing, if I understood it, was just to pass it as is, which was Mr. Johnson's motion. And then at a later date, if council wants to take it up again, as you have this time, to insert something that would give more flexibility to staff after we had a reasoned opportunity to look at it, you could certainly amend like any ordinance amended at any time. Yeah, I guess what I see as part of this is we're directing staff tonight. You know, they come back in 30 days with a recommendation for how to tweak it again, if they have it or whatever a reasonable period of time. It's I think I think what we're doing is asking for a proactive that it would come back to us, that that piece of it is a correct. Yes, it could be a heck of a memo. It could be rescheduling through the council. But yeah, give a time certain. And you know, Amy, if you can comment on how much time you think you'd need to to address that issue. Could you give me 60 days? Sure. Thank you. Get 60 days. 60 days from the effective date of the ordinance. How about 60 days after second reading? Sure. Okay. And we try it out. We actually do need to vote on this because there's the ordinance and then there's a resolution referring it to the Coastal Commission. So we will need a second vote. Okay. And I still have the other issue, Vice Mayor, but if there's other people cued up with something, go to them too and I'll come back at the end. Conservatorships keep my question would be the staff. I know it was immediately shot down, but could staff give its reasoning why, if we were looking for an alternative that you offered that alternative of, they would have to replace at least one billboard if we get some. Just quickly the thinking behind that, because I don't think we you know, it was like, no, no, we want to do that. What was the reason for that? The intent of the ordinance is to remove billboards. If the development agreement does not address that intent of the ordinance, then, you know, that really should be the basis of where negotiations start. And so we would suggest that for any development agreement that would be negotiated related to billboards, that it starts with the basis that there has to be some removal. Right. Well, I would think that I think what Mr. DeLong said then is just a little bit more on point, and is that I think that's the intent of the ordinance is to do that. But staff should have the flexibility to figure out how that can be negotiated. I do agree with them. Also, I think that we'd all have a hard time supporting, you know, an adamant refusal not to remove any to be able to do that. So I think while you've indicated one, I think the intent of the ordinance is very clear is to remove. She removed Billboard. So I would feel comfortable that, you know, having staff, being able to negotiate what that entails and how that's done would be sufficient to follow through the intent. And if we can, Mr. Chair, just quickly, because we had this whole issue has been about them and they seem to be waving about. No, I know. As long as they have a question, customer ships keep going. What was your. Our our our big concern is just the nature of the billboard industry and what will happen if you move forward with this chunk of the ordinance and you leave us laying out there for for for 60 days. What will happen is that other companies and, you know, we all get along, but nonetheless, they will they will jump out of leases. They will go to property, and they will go to property owners and say, we have the right to enter into into agreements with these property owners for digital billboards. Regency does not. And and that's why you know, and this goes back I think we were at this, you know, 2 to 2 years ago or so. That was the key issue back then that we were already starting to have companies come to our to to come to our properties and talking to the company to to the property owners that we have relationships with to try to jump those leases. So I would beg you to please, you know, if you're going to do it, either table it and so that you can come back with the staff report or just direct staff to incorporate the simple language that would allow that would that that would not that would not require non-conforming billboards to be a part of the equation in order to participate in the development agreement process. I think my, my key thing, Mike, when I suggested that alternative language, the language pertaining to non-conforming billboards with about freeways and landscape buffer areas, those would still those would still remain non-conforming. So the ordinance wouldn't touch that. It would just basically say that, yes, Regency may have non-conforming billboards and freeways on freeways, but despite that, they can still negotiate a development agreement. And that and that's the little that's the difference between removing subsection C altogether and just including some language that has a carve out for it for development agreements. That's just as you know, it's not infeasible with the exception of those billboards that are in the landscape buffer areas. If you include that little parenthetical right there, you're not changing the ordinance at all except to be able to give Region C the opportunity to negotiate a development agreement. And as some of you have said as part of that process, staff, the Planning Commission, City Council could say we want X amount of dollars where they could say we want a billboard to come down. You know, it's within the discretion of the Planning Commission and city council as part of that negotiation to come up with a deal that works best for the city. Councilmember LOWENTHAL And back to Councilmember Dillon. Just if I could ask Dave's opinion, just based on what the speaker said. The issue of getting a jump on the leases that in that open market, that could happen anywhere. I don't know that that's a situation that we're specifically creating or unfairly creating. I see that that potential exists today. That is correct. All companies have the ability today to go negotiate leases for new billboards tomorrow, irregardless of whether we come back with two weeks, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days from now. It does not preclude anybody from negotiating in the free market. Okay. All right. The other thought that I have and wanted to see your thoughts on is if there is an interest and I'm not I haven't thought this through to ensure that that doesn't necessarily happen to a company that only has five billboards or however many how many billboards are we talking about where that potential could happen , where the jump on Lisas could take place? As described any freeway location. So it's five, right? No, no. This is four new freeway locations. And so there are property owners, for example, along the 710 freeway where electronic billboards would be allowed and that do not have any billboards from any company today. And so those property owners would certainly be in a position to negotiate the best lease that they wish to negotiate with the company that they choose. Okay. I understand that now. Thank you. Got somebody along. Okay. So my last item is biotech. I don't know if you had a chance to give any further thought as far as when the permits and so forth would be issued for the new building. If you have an idea, great. But if not, then I'll have Councilmember Johnson either take mine as a friendly amendment or I'll make a substitute, whatever your preferences. Mike May says he has some language. Come. Okay. Mr. Bass? Yeah. Councilor went along. I would clean this language up a little bit before it came back on second reading, but I think what we would be doing would be making an amendment to section 2154 161. What page. I'm sorry. 21 116. Mr. PAGE First. Page 12. Page 12. By 19, subsection D. All right, I'm ready. And what could work is something like that again. I would clean it up a little bit before it came back. In all cases, the new or replacement billboard shall not be activated or otherwise used for any purpose unless or until the non-conforming billboards have been completely demolished. Failure to abide by this provision shall result in an administrative fine of $1,000 per day. Okay. So, Mr. Johnson, you like a friendly amendment or substitute motion? Well, I guess I'll just ask staff. What? Do you have a concern with that or what would you do? I apologize to. The city attorney, but I do have concerns about that. And so if this is a the direction that the city council wishes to go, I would ask that there be in place a cash bond for each of the billboards that was supposed to have been removed but didn't get removed before the electronics were turned on. And that cash bond to be extremely significant and that that city council can direct where that money goes if we are to collect on that cash bond. I'm open to that. Yes. Councilman, darling, I don't have a problem with where you want to go. I want to make sure the the penalties are. Sufficient to do where. You want to go. I agree. So perhaps it makes sense to just ask them to come back with the second reading or I mean, I don't know. If we have the language. I don't want to I mean, I want to be able to get to a second reading times. That's minor. So we can't do that. I don't think we can do it justice tonight, but it's not a significant enough change that we could not. If we understand what the direction is and if the direction is a significant cash bond, we can certainly bring that back to you. That language on second reading, you may want to discuss again what significant is, but we'll come up with the number that we think is appropriate and then we can debate that number if we need to. Yeah, no, that's fine, Mary, to just just make it be careful that you don't make it so outrageously expensive to post the bond that it defeats the entire purpose that nobody does it. So let's just come up with an appropriate price. I just want to state that this is a very lucrative business. The conversion of billboards to electronics provides immense revenues and is of significant benefit to all of the companies who have inventory within the city. So I don't know what your realm of significance is, but it's in my realm, it's clearly more than $1,000. You know, I would probably add a few zeros to that. When you get the bond back, if. You. But you can't make the cost of providing the bond, you know, several. Months for what the revenue. At. That point you know over the. Clearly understood we're on the. Same page. Yes. So is that a friendly amendment? Okay. Okay. So we have a we have a friendly amendment on the floor. We've had public comment. We couldn't have a vote on the motion before us. And Mr. DeLong, just to just to clarify, is part of this motion still the additional request you had made earlier, Mr. Johnson, with it coming back, that piece of it. Or no? Yes. Correct. Correct. But we gave it 60 days, etc.. Okay, great. Okay. So do we have a motion on the floor? Members, who's going to cast your vote before? Excuse me, before we take a vote. And there's some confusion as to exactly what we're doing. But I think that what is taking place is it's basically a motion to approve staff's recommendation with two friendly amendments. The first would be to bring the audit, bring the report back with a recommendation within 60 days after the ordinance becomes effective that would give the city council more guidance or more suggestions in regard to whether or not it's appropriate to remove that section. See that we were talking about removing Modify. That's one friendly amendment. And the other friendly amendment is to not require the removal of all billboards that are being removed prior to the construction of the new billboard. But instead of that requiring a cash bond be posted in a significant amount at the time of approval, or in conjunction with the approval of a copy for each billboard that is to be removed? That is correct. Mr. WONG That is correct, yep. So. Johnson Ken, we're going to go ahead and go to a vote, cast your votes on a yes. Are we still ahead of schedule? Yes. Motion. Motion carries nine votes. Yes. We're getting we're getting close over three. The city attorney, we also need a motion on the resolution estimate. Wasn't there a second vote. On this item? Sorry, there's. We need a set. You're correct. We need a second.