[00:00:01]
CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER OF THE SIGN SUBCOMMITTEE.IS THAT OKAY? IF WE CAN GET THE INTERPRETER OUT.
DON'T SAY I NEVER GAVE YOU ANYTHING.
I CAN'T SEE IT, SO IT DOESN'T MATTER.
JEREMY MCDONALD, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, STATE OF SAN ANTONIO.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY FOR THE 11TH MEETING AND FINAL MEETING OF THE SIGN CODE COMMITTEE.
WE'RE GONNA DO A QUICK ROLL CALL FOR QUORUM.
WE HAVE THREE OUT OF THE FIVE PRIMARY.
ADDITIONALLY, WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL FOR OUR NON APPOINTED MEMBERS, BIANCA MADDO.
UH, ONCE AGAIN, FOR THOSE THAT ARE TRACKING THIS INFORMATION, WE'LL HAVE THIS AT THE END AS WELL.
WE GOT 'EM ALL OUR MEETINGS SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.
ALRIGHT, OPEN IT UP FIRST TO ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 14TH, 2023.
CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOVE? SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE MOVING INTO OUR AGENDA ITEMS. UH, VERY FIRST ONE IS, UH, CHAPTER 28, AMENDMENT TWO DASH ONE.
EXTERNAL REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PROHIBITION UPON PREMISE.
DIGITAL SIGNS ALONG THE HILL COUNTRY GATEWAY CORRIDOR, GC ONE IS ADOPTED IN THE 2015 ORDINANCE, 2 15 6 18, 6 3 UNDER SECTION 28 DASH FOUR FOUR FOR ON-PREMISE SIGNS IN GENERAL OR SO THIS WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE A WHILE BACK, A COMMITTEE ASKED THAT WE CREATE A WORKING GROUP.
A WORKING GROUP MET, UH, THEY ONLY NEEDED TO MEET ONE TIME.
I THINK THE GENERAL CONSENSUS FROM THAT WORKING GROUP WAS TO TRY TO HAVE SOME MORE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
WE UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THE, UH, ISSUES THAT CAME FROM THE, GOING FROM THE 23RD OR THE 2003 VERSION OF THE GC ONE THAT ALLOWED A REDUCTION IN SIZE OF DIGITAL ON-PREMISE BILLBOARD, I'M SORRY, NOT BILLBOARDS, BUT SIGNS, UH, TO BEING PROHIBITED UNDER THE 2015 VERSION.
UH, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERNS FROM THE INDUSTRY AND, AND BUSINESS PROFESSIONALS THAT THEY WERE NOT NOTIFIED AND ALLOWED TO COME TO THE TABLE TO DISCUSS THAT.
SO THE GOAL WAS TO KIND OF GO BACK TO THAT, HAVE MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS, UH, WITH THE COMMUNITY BASED OF THAT.
UH, WE HAD TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT WE HELD IN FEBRUARY.
UH, WE FOLLOWED, UH, THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WHEN WE UPDATED, UH, THE HILL COUNTRY GATEWAY CORRIDOR.
SO WE, UH, DID A G I S OF THE OVERLAY OF THE HILL COUNTRY GATEWAY CORRIDOR.
BASED ON THAT, WE HAD 741 LETTERS THAT WERE SENT OUT NOTIFYING EVERYBODY ALONG THOSE, THOSE CORRIDOR, ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE TWO MEETINGS.
UH, ADDITIONALLY, WE SENT THE MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS OUT TO ALL THE CITY COUNCILS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS IN THE AREA, VARIOUS CHAMBERS, UH, INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS, UH, TO NOTIFY THEM ABOUT THOSE TWO MEETINGS.
AND AS WELL AS LETTING THEM KNOW HOW TO REACH OUT TO US VIA EMAIL IF THEY HAD ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS.
UH, WE HAD, BASED ON THAT, WE HAD ONE RESPONSE VIA EMAIL AND ONE RESPONSE, UH, VIA PHONE CALL.
I'LL GO OVER THE EMAIL RESPONSE.
THE PHONE CALL WAS A DISCUSSION ACTUALLY FROM TWO PEOPLE THAT THAT CAME TO THE MEETINGS, UH, FROM THE DOMINION.
SO D S D POSTED MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS.
ALSO, IN ADDITION TO SENDING IT OUT, WE PUT IT OUT THERE ON WEBSITE, ON OUR WEBSITE ESSAY SPEAK UP AND VARIOUS SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. IN TOTAL BETWEEN THE TWO MEETINGS, WE HAD NINE ATTENDEES, UH, EXCLUDING COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF.
SO WE HAD, UH, YOU KNOW, DISTRICT EIGHT WAS THERE.
UH, I THINK A MEMBER OF OUR ARTS, UH, DEPARTMENT WAS THERE AS WELL.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE MEMBERS THAT COME TO THESE MEETINGS REGULARLY, SO I DIDN'T COUNT THOSE.
SO REALLY NINE NEW INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THIS PROCESS.
[00:05:01]
OF THOSE REPRESENTED AT BUSINESSES, UH, TWO REPRESENTED AT HOAS AND TWO WERE UNDISCLOSED.SO THEY JUST SIGNED UP, DID NOT SPEAK OR PROVIDE US ANY INFORMATION ON IF THEY WERE REPRESENTING A CERTAIN ORGANIZATION OR JUST THERE AS CITIZENS, UH, RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
UM, TO BE NOTED, ONE OF THOSE GROUPS FOR THE BUSINESSES WAS THREE INDIVIDUALS FROM THE SAME BUSINESS.
UH, SO, YOU KNOW, REALLY IT WAS THREE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS AND TWO OF THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM H OAS WERE FROM THE SAME H O A.
ONE GROUP OF THE THREE REPRESENTING THE SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORTED DIGITAL SIGNS THROUGH THE CONVERSATIONS.
THAT WAS KIND OF THE TAKEAWAY, UH, WAS THAT THEY DID SUPPORT DIGITAL SIGNS.
THEY OWNED A DIGITAL SIGN ALONG THAT CORRIDOR.
UH, ONE OF THE GROUPS, UH, WHICH WAS TWO OF THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT CAME, UH, FOR THE SAME H O A, UH, DISCLOSED THAT THEY WERE AGAINST, UH, DIGITAL SIGNS ALONG THE HILL COUNTRY GATEWAY CORRIDOR.
THE OTHER ATTENDEES DID NOT HAVE ANY, UH, RESPONSE OR DID NOT PROVIDE ANY KIND OF INDICATION IF THEY WERE PRO OR AGAINST DIGITAL SIGNS.
IT WAS MORE JUST THERE FOR INFORMATION.
WE ALSO, AS I SAID, WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL.
UM, I THINK IF Y'ALL LOOK BACK THIS WAY, I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO READ ON THE SMALLER SCREEN, BUT IF YOU KINDA LOOK AT THE BIGGER SCREEN OVER HERE, I RECEIVED THIS FROM BONNIE CONNOR.
NOW, SHE DIDN'T SPECIFY ON THIS ONE, SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE COULD PROBABLY LOOK INTO FOR BOTH OF THE AGENDA ITEMS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DIGITAL.
I ASKED HER FOR A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION ON WHO RECEIVED THIS.
SHE MENTIONED, UM, YOU KNOW, THE WARS BLOCK AREA UP INTO THE HILL COUNTRY GATEWAY CORRIDOR, A LITTLE BIT EAST AND WEST OF THAT AREA.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT PLATFORM SHE USED, BUT, UH, I WOULD ASSUME SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINES OF LIKE A NEXTDOOR AREA TYPE THING OF THAT.
IT KINDA ALLOWED HER TO KIND OF POPULATE AREAS AROUND, UH, PROBABLY HER SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT, UH, I WANTED TO PROVIDE THIS TO YOU, UH, AS SHE SENT IT OVER TO US.
THE QUESTION WAS, DIGITAL SIGNS, DIGITAL SIGNS WILL BE MADE BE ON OUR ROADS AND ROADSIDES.
IF YOU DON'T THINK THIS IS WAY FOR OUR CITY TO APPEAR, PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN THE POLL.
THIS WILL BE VOTED ON BY CITY COUNCIL.
THE THREE OPTIONS WERE NO MORE DIGITAL BILLBOARDS AND SIGNAGE.
57% RESPONDED THAT WITH THAT OPTION, UH, I LIKE DIGITAL BILLBOARDS AND SIGNAGE.
19% RESPONDED WITH THAT OPTION.
AND IT DOES NOT, IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME.
UH, 23% RESPONDED TO THAT ONE OF 98 VOTES.
SO ROUGHLY, YOU KNOW, WITH 98 VOTES, YOU CAN SAY 57 OUTTA 98, UH, FOR THE MOST PART.
JUST TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ONCE AGAIN.
SO THOSE ARE THE RESPONSES WE'VE RECEIVED FROM ALL OF THE OUTPUT THAT WE PUT OUT THERE IN THE COMMUNITY, UH, MEETINGS THAT WE HELD.
AND SO THAT KIND OF CONCLUDES ALL THE INFORMATION WE HAVE TO PROVIDE.
HAPPY TO, UH, DISCUSS OR ADDING MORE INFORMATION.
UM, BUT AT THIS POINT I CAN PULL UP THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT I SENT OUT, UH, FOR, FOR THE COMMITTEE TO VOTE ON AND DECIDE HOW WE WANNA MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS TO DISCUSS.
YEAH, WHY DON'T YOU PUT THE LANGUAGE UP, PLEASE.
JEREMY, CAN YOU DO ME A FAVOR? SINCE I'M HAVING SOME EYE ISSUES, CAN YOU JUST READ WHAT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS OUT LOUD, PLEASE? YES, SIR.
SO THIS WOULD FALL UNDER SECTION 28 DASH FOUR FOUR ON-PREMISE SIGNS.
AND THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE ON-PREMISE SIGNAGE SECTION OF CHAPTER 28 IN WHAT WE CALL IN GENERAL.
THIS ORDINANCE WILL ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF ON-PREMISE DIGITAL SIGNS ALONG THE HILL COUNTRY GATEWAY CORRIDOR GC ONE, AND SUPERSEDES THE 2015 UPDATE TO THE CORRIDOR UNDER ORDINANCE 2 15 0 6 18 0 6 3 0 3 THAT PROHIBITED ONPREM ON-PREMISE DIGITAL SIGNS.
THE ON-PREMISE DIGITAL SIGNS MUST FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS PER SECTION 28 DASH SIX FOUR.
AND NO DIGITAL SIGN SHALL EXCEED 75 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.
SO 28 DASH SIX FOUR IS THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THE LANGUAGE BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF 2015.
AND ALSO WHAT'S USED IN A LOT OF THE OTHER GATEWAY CORRIDORS AND, UH, SCENIC CORRIDORS AND SUCH.
IT REVERTS BACK TO THE URBAN CORRIDOR SECTION OF CHAPTER 28, WHICH SPECIFIES THAT THE ALLOWABLE SIGN SIZE THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE ON YOUR PREMISE, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO 25% OF THAT SIZE FOR DIGITAL.
SO THE LARGEST YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE FOR AN EXPRESSWAY MULTI-TENANT IS 300 SQUARE FEET ALONG AN URBAN CORRIDOR, WHICH WOULD NOW KIND OF REVERT TO THE HILL COUNTRY GATEWAY CORRIDOR 'CAUSE THAT'S THE REFERENCE THEY USE.
AND 2020 5% OF THAT WOULD BE 75 SQUARE FEET.
NOW, I ALSO ADDED THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF 75 SQUARE FEET.
I THINK ONE OF THE SIGNS THAT COME ALONG THAT HILL COUNTRY GATEWAY CORRIDOR IS ON THE JURY.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN 75 SQUARE FEET.
I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DIMENSIONS, BUT IT'S, UH, LARGER THAN 75 SQUARE FEET.
THE REASON THAT HAPPENED WAS BECAUSE IT'S NOT A STANDALONE SIGN, IT'S
[00:10:01]
ACTUALLY ON THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING.AND THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS THAT ALLOWED THAT TO BE BIGGER.
SO WE, WE UNDERSTOOD THE INTENT OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE OF LIMITING THE SIZE.
SO I, I ADDED THAT EXTRA STIPULATION.
SO THIS WAY, EVEN IF SOMEBODY WERE TO USE A FACADE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE 75 SQUARE FOOT WOULD STILL BE THE MAXIMUM DIGITAL SIGN IF APPROVED.
AND ARE THERE ANY, JUST ONE QUESTION.
ALL THE SIGNS THAT GOT APPROVED ACCIDENTALLY, WOULD THEY MEET THIS STANDARD? I BELIEVE SO, THOUGH.
ALL OF THEM WOULD BE LESS THAN 75 SQUARE FEET.
THE ONES THAT WERE APPROVED AFTER 2015? YES.
SO TO GET IT STARTED, IT IF, UH, WE'RE EITHER GONNA HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THIS OR IT'S JUST GONNA DIE.
SO IS THERE A MOTION, MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE? SECOND, A SECOND DISCUSSION.
UH, BASED ON THE INPUT WE GOT, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY SHOWED SUPPORT FOR IT.
UM, YOU HAVE ONE, ONE BUSINESS, WHICH CURRENTLY HAS A SIGN, HE'LL BE ALLOWED TO KEEP HIS SIGN.
HIS CONCERN WAS MORE HE WANT WAS GOING TO WANT TO RAISE IT IN THE FUTURE.
UM, THE, UM, AND THEN WE HAD THE GENTLEMAN WHO CAME, WHO, WHO OWNS THE SILO AND ALL WHO SAID THAT THE BUSINESSES IN HIS AREA WERE, WERE NOT GOING TO SURVIVE BECAUSE OF IT.
AND, AND I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE.
AND WE DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THEM SHOW UP.
WELL, YOU BASICALLY DIDN'T SEE ANYBODY SHOW UP ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS IS, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES, I DID.
UM, I JUST WANNA THANK STAFF FOR DOING THE ROBUST PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OF SENDING OUT THE 741 LETTERS.
IT MAKES ME PAUSE AND WONDER WHY WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE FROM MORE RESIDENTS, UM, IN THIS AREA.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR STAFF TO MENTION IN THE PRESENTATION THAT YOU HAD ISSUED PERMITS, UM, FOR SIGNS THAT ARE CURRENTLY TURNED OFF RIGHT NOW.
I KNOW YOU DIDN'T PRESENT THAT IN YOUR INFORMATION, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S WEIGHING HEAVILY.
AND, UH, A A BIG REASON WHY THIS IS BEFORE US TODAY IS THAT THE CITY AIRED AND ISSUED PERMITS THAT ALLOWED, UH, DIGITAL ON-PREMISE SIGNS TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
AND THERE IS A, UM, UH, SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE MITIGATED, ESSENTIALLY.
AND SO, UM, I LOOK AT THIS AS A MITIGATION PRESENTATION TO MITIGATE AN ERROR THAT HAS OCCURRED BECAUSE THAT IS AN UNRESOLVED ISSUE WITH THE CITY AND THE SIGN INDUSTRY ON HOW MANY LOCATIONS IN THAT CORRIDOR.
THERE ARE FIVE PERMITS THAT WERE ISSUED, FOUR THAT ARE CURRENTLY OPERATIONAL AND ONE THAT IS TURNED OFF.
SO I I, I WEIGH ALL OF THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN I LOOK AT THIS.
UM, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SEND 741 LETTERS, WHY DIDN'T WE HEAR MORE? DID WE GET AN OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM THE COUNCIL OFFICE ON THIS, ON ANY RESPONSES THEY MAY HAVE RECEIVED THAT DIDN'T GET FORWARDED TO D SS D? THIS IS AMIN THOMAS.
UH, NO, WE DID NOT GET ANY OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM D EIGHT ON THIS MATTER.
AND, UH, CHAIR, IF YOU DON'T MIND, UM, I THINK JEREMY PREPARED DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR THIS.
SO, UM, I DUNNO IF YOU WANNA DISCUSS THOSE BEFORE YOU MAKE OFFICIAL, UM, DECISION, I GUESS.
SO BASED ON THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT, AND I WANTED TO HAVE SOMETHING LANGUAGE READY TO GO FOR THAT.
IF THE OPTION WAS TO CONTINUE ALLOWING, NOT ALLOWING DIGITAL SIGNS, BUT FIND A WAY TO ALLOW THE ONES THAT WERE ALREADY INSTALLED, UH, THE ONES THAT WERE ISSUED PERMITS, UH, BY D S T AFTER 2015, THIS WOULD BE THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR THAT WHERE WE SPECIFY THOSE FIVE SIGNS.
WE STILL NEED TO GO OUT AND GET THE LAST SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ONE OF THOSE.
WE DON'T HAVE THOSE IN OUR RECORDS.
UH, THINK IT'S THE ONE THAT'S CURRENTLY TURNED OFF.
WE WOULD SPECIFY THE ADDRESS AND I NEED TO CHANGE THAT FROM 10 TO 20.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THOSE WOULD BE, WOULD NOW BE APPROVED NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES.
SO, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MODIFY THEM, CHANGE 'EM IN THE FUTURE, BUT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO KEEP THEM.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH
[00:15:01]
THE PROCESS OF HAVING THEM DISCONNECTED AND AND REMOVED IF WE CHOSE THIS OPTION.MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, IF WE TAKE ACTION ON THIS FIRST OPTION, UH, BUT WE'RE NOT GETTING THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT FROM THAT, THAT WE MAYBE TAKE ACTION ON THE SECOND ONE AS KIND OF A BACKUP.
AND JOSEPH, LET ME KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
BUT IF WE GO FORWARD, I, I DON'T WANNA HAVE TO REVERT BACK TO THIS MEETING JUST TO SEE WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE TYPE THING.
SO I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD, UH, HAVING THAT KNOWLEDGE WITH P C D C AND THE FULL BOARD AND COUNCIL LATER ON.
IF, LOOK, IF Y'ALL ARE GONNA, YOU KNOW, TAKE ACTION AGAINST WHAT MAYBE THE BOARD OR, UH, THIS COMMITTEE DOESN'T APPROVE OF THE FIRST ONE AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS ONE, WHICH WE DID GET, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY COMMUNITY SUPPORT.
SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST GET SOME FEEDBACK ON THAT SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH, WITH WHAT BOTH OPTIONS.
IF Y'ALL ARE NOT GONNA, YOU KNOW, AS PATTY'S ALREADY KIND OF SAID, SHE'S GONNA BE AGAINST OPTION ONE.
UH, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AS STAFF WHEN WE PRESENT THAT TO P C D C AND CITY COUNCIL AS WELL.
SO, JUST A STRAW POLL, WE DON'T NEED ANY COMMENTS, BUT IS THERE ANYBODY IN HERE THAT FEELS THAT THE FIVE PEOPLE THAT GOT ISSUED THE PERMIT SHOULD HAVE TO TAKE THEIR SIGNS DOWN? SO, OKAY, I KNOW YOU WANNA STRAW A POLL, BUT I'M GONNA SPEAK ON THIS BECAUSE IT DID HAPPEN IN MY, IN A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN MY AREA WHERE DIGITAL SIGN WAS PUT UP AND THEY HAD TO TAKE IT DOWN.
SO I'M JUST SAYING I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT BEHIND WHY WE'RE HERE, THE CHALLENGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED WITH ELAPSE IN STAFF AND IMPLEMENTING THESE OVERLAY REGULATIONS.
IT DIDN'T JUST HAPPEN IN THIS CORRIDOR, IS MY POINT.
AND SO IT'S A LARGER ISSUE IN MY OPINION, WHEN NEIGHBORHOODS AND RESIDENTS WORK TOWARDS THESE OVERLAYS BECAUSE THEY ARE ADOPTED TO YOUR POINT.
AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE IF WE'RE GONNA CHANGE IT, WE HAVE AMPLE PUBLIC INPUT TO DO THAT.
AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME.
AND, AND SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE TODAY.
I'M MORE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS THAN TO OPEN IT UP FOR DIGITALS ALL ALONG THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR.
AND THEN ONE RECOMMENDATION THAT I WOULD HAVE THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS IS THAT ALL ISSUES DEALING WITH SIGNAGE END UP IN THE SIGN CODE VERSUS BEING ALL OVER THE PLACE WHERE, YOU KNOW, BE, BECAUSE IF IT GOES TO ZONING, IF IT'S A ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE PORTIONS OF THE, UH, THE ORDINANCE THAT DEAL WITH SIGNAGE SHOULD BE IN A SEPARATE SECTION UNDER IN CHAPTER 28 THAT SAYS SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
AND IT IDENTIFIES WHAT THE RULES ARE BECAUSE I GUARANTEE YOU THE SIGN INDUSTRY DOESN'T PAY ATTENTION TO ALL THE ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
THEY PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT'S THE RULES ARE IN CHAPTER 28.
THE SIGN INSPECTORS ARE PROBABLY VERY SIMILAR AND IT WOULD IN THE FUTURE, UH, BE ABLE TO, UH, BE EASIER ON EVERYBODY IF YOU JUST HAD AN APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 28 THAT LISTS OUT ALL THE RULES AND EVERY TIME THEY ADOPT A ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT, THEY'RE MODIFYING THE APPENDIX TO PUT THESE RULES IN, IN THIS AREA.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, AS WE MOVE FORWARD, YOU PROBABLY CAN PUT AN APPENDIX ON RIGHT NOW THAT'S NOT ADOPTED BY COUNSEL THAT JUST PULLS ALL THE RULES TOGETHER FOR INFORMATION ONLY.
BUT GOING FORWARD, IF THEY'RE GONNA CHANGE IT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO MODIFY 28 TO SAY, THIS IS WHAT THE RULES ARE FOR SIGNS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE LIKE THEM ADOPTING SOME ORDINANCE THAT APPLIES TO A BUILDING CODE THAT NEVER MAKES IT INTO THE AMENDMENTS FOR THE BUILDING CODE.
I'M THINKING HOW TO ANSWER THAT.
SO, UM, I AGREE WITH YOU ON CONCEPT, BUT THE U D C REALLY IS THE ONE THAT DEFINES THE DESIGN FOR ANYTHING WE DO IN THE CITY.
SO THE SIGNS IS PART OF IT AND THE ZONING IS PART OF IT.
SO, UH, WE CAN'T A HUNDRED PERCENT SAY EVERYTHING THAT IS, UH, DEALING WITH SIGNS GONNA BE IN CHAPTER 28, BECAUSE AGAIN, ZONING IS IN THE U D C AND WHEN THEY DO THOSE OVERLAYS AND CREATE THOSE, THAT, THAT'S STILL GONNA HAPPEN.
THE U D C NOW, CHAPTER 28, BASICALLY AT THE BEGINNING OF IT TALKS ABOUT CONNECTING WITH CHAPTER 35.
SO ANY CHANGES THAT'S AFFECTED IN 35, WE WILL APPLY IT HERE.
THE PROBLEM WITH THIS, OBVIOUSLY EVERYBODY KNOWS THE ISSUE WITH THIS ONE.
[00:20:01]
THAT HAPPENED NOT DURING U D C UPDATE, AND WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT TILL YEARS AFTER.THE, THE ONE THING I WANNA SAY I AGREE WITH, WITH COLLEEN, UH, OR BIANCA, I DON'T REMEMBER WHO SAID THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAD THOSE PUBLIC MEETINGS, NOBODY SHOWED UP ON BOTH SIDES, RIGHT? BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE WENT BACK, LOOKED AT OUR RECORDS, WE DIDN'T GET ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THOSE FOUR SIGNS THAT THEY'VE BEEN INSTALLED FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW.
SO NOBODY COMPLAINED ABOUT THOSE.
AND POTENTIALLY IF WE DIDN'T DISCOVER THIS ORDINANCE WHEN THE FIFTH ONE CAME IN, WE WOULD'VE ISSUED THE FIFTH ONE POTENTIALLY.
UH, BASICALLY, I MEAN, THE THREE OPTIONS I WOULD, I, I THINK JEREMY'S SHOWING TOO, BUT REALLY THE THREE OPTIONS, ONE IS TO SAY WE ARE GONNA STICK WITH THE 2015 ORDINANCE THAT CAME AND SAID THERE IS NO DIGITAL SIGNS.
SO THAT MEAN THE FOUR PLUS ONE, I GUESS THE FIVE SIGNS NEED TO COME DOWN.
OPTION TWO IS WE JUST SAY DIGI UH, DIGITAL ON-PREMISE SIGNS ARE ALLOWED, WE OPEN IT UP.
OR THE THIRD ONE IS THIS, WHERE WE SAY THOSE FIVE THAT THEY WERE ISSUED IN ERROR DURING THAT TIMEFRAME ARE ALLOWED, BUT WE GONNA STICK WITH THE ORDINANCE AFTER THAT.
SO I GUESS THOSE ARE THE THREE OPTIONS.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS THE THIRD ONE.
BUT MARK, AS TO YOUR STATEMENT, I CONCUR WITH YOU BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH THOSE IKE INFORMATION SIGNS THAT WENT UP.
IT NEVER CAME TO, TO THE SIGN CODE COMMITTEE.
IT WENT THROUGH OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION.
THERE ARE SIGNS THEY SHOULD HAVE COME HERE.
YEAH, I I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING IT NECESSARILY NEEDS TO COME TO THE COMMITTEE.
WHAT I AM SAYING IS SOMEWHERE IN CHAPTER 28, THERE NEEDS TO BE AN APPENDIX, AND IT MAY BE AN APPENDIX THAT'S NOT PART OF THE, NECESSARILY THE SIGN CODE, BUT IT IS, HERE ARE THE SIGN RULES EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY SO THAT IF I ASK WHAT THE SIGN RULES ARE AND THEY SEND ME A DEAL, IT HAS, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST WHERE TO GO TO FIND THOSE MAYBE AN INFORMATION SHEET.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UH, YES.
SO THIS CODE WAS CHANGED BASED ON THE FACT THAT 20 PLUS PEOPLE DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT DIGITAL SIGNS ON INTERSTATE 10 WITHOUT INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS ON EITHER SIDE.
I'VE SPENT A GOOD PORTION OF MY LIFE SITTING IN COMMITTEES LIKE THIS IN SAN ANTONIO, BEAUMONT, AUSTIN, CORPUS CHRISTI, DALLAS, HOUSTON.
AND I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN BEFORE WHERE, UH, CO A CODE WAS CHANGED WITHOUT INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS.
AND THE FACT THAT THEY, UH, THESE 20, 24 PEOPLE COULD MAKE THAT DECISION WITHOUT INVOLVING US IS ALMOST CRIMINAL.
AND, UM, AGAIN, THERE'S BEEN NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED.
WE HAD NINE PEOPLE SHOW UP TO THESE MEETINGS.
AND I THINK MOST OF THEM WERE STAKEHOLDERS.
AND THEN THREE OR FOUR WERE H O I H O A.
SO IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO ME LIKE THERE'S, UM, MUCH CONVERSATION ABOUT, UH, DIGITAL SIGNS BEING A PROBLEM ALONG INTERSTATE 10.
BUT THE BIG PROBLEM FOR ME IS THE WAY THIS HAPPENED.
AND I, I DOUBT THAT CITY COUNCIL KNEW.
I DON'T THINK THEY KNEW THAT STAKEHOLDERS WERE NOT INVOLVED WHEN PLANNING AND ZONING SENT THIS ALONG TO THEM.
JUST REAL QUICK, I, YOU KNOW, I JUST LOOKED UP ONE OF THESE THAT'S ON I 10 NEAR ROLAND THAT WAS THERE.
AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA SAY THAT.
NOT IT'S, IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL OR PEOPLE JUST DON'T CARE.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT'S NEXT? I'VE GOT TWO CELL TOWERS RIGHT THERE THAT ARE UGLY, BIG, UGLY CELL TOWERS, BUT THEY'RE NECESSARY PEOPLE USE THEM.
AND WHAT'S THE NEXT, IT GETS MANDATED BY A FEW THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN SEE 'EM, BUT THEY'RE BIG OLD GNARLY CELL TOWERS SITTING THERE RIGHT BY THE WHATABURGER, RIGHT BY THE SUPER EIGHT RIGHT NEAR THIS DIGITAL SIGN THAT'S THERE.
AND THEN LET ME ASK A QUESTION.
'CAUSE I JUST ARE MENU BOARDS THAT ARE DIGITAL BANNED ALSO.
SORRY, THAT DIGITAL SIGNAGE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY B BOARDS THAT ARE DIGITAL? HUH? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY A MENU BOARD THAT IS DIGITAL OR A TV, WHICH IS DIGITAL? OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ON A DRIVE THROUGH WHEN YOU COME UP TO A MCDONALD'S AND THEY HAVE,
[00:25:01]
I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S NOT REALLY SIGNAGE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT ORIENTED TOWARDS THE ROAD AND ADVERTISING THAT'S SPECIFIC TO, YOU KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER'S.SO THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT REGARDLESS.
THAT WOULD NOT FALL UNDER CHAPTER 28.
ALL IN FAVOR, COLIN WAPAC? YES.
UM, I WILL POINT OUT CITIZENS OR STAKEHOLDERS TOO, INCLUDING HOAS.
UM, ALSO IF YOU'LL, IF, IF, IF YOU'LL RECALL IN OUR ONE MEETING WHERE WE, IN THE WORKING GROUP WHERE WE DID DISCUSS THIS, I MENTIONED THAT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR US TO JUST SAY NO AT THAT TIME BECAUSE WE WOULD BE REPEATING THE SAME PROBLEM.
I FEEL LIKE WE OPENED IT UP FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH CLARITY ON EITHER SIDE.
SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, VOTE ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
CAN WE, UH, VOTE FOR THE OPTION? WELL, NO, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR THERE, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, SO IF YOU WANT TO VOTE IT DOWN, WE CAN DO AN OPTION AND IF, BUT THE MOTION'S ON THE FLOOR, SO IT'S EITHER YOU APPROVE IT OR DISAPPROVE IT, AND THEN I'LL DISAPPROVE.
AND THEN I, I WOULD MAKE THE COMMENT THAT THE, THE PLACE FOR THIS FORUM IS AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL.
AND I URGE BOTH SIDES IF YOU FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IT, EITHER WAY TO SHOW UP AND HAVE YOUR VOICES HEARD.
AND, AND YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T LIKE WHEN THE PROCESS GETS CHANGED AT THE 11TH HOUR WITHOUT ANY STAKEHOLDERS.
SO BASICALLY WE ARE MAKING THIS LIKE EVERY OTHER CORRIDOR IN, IN SAN ANTONIO WHERE THERE'S UNIFORM RULES ACROSS, SOMEBODY WANTS DIFFERENT RULES, THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO HAVE IT HEARD AT CITY COUNCIL AND HAVE ONE OF THE COUNCILMEN GET UP AND MAKE THE MOTION.
AND THE STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, EITHER TO SUPPORT IT LIKE THE CHANGE IS BEING MADE, OR TO OPPOSE IT AND ADOPT THE CURRENT ONE.
BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THERE IS A STRONG CONSENSUS THAT IF THE COUNCIL CHOOSES TO VOTE IT, UH, NOT ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE IS, I WOULD DELIVER THE MESSAGE THAT THERE'S CLEAR CONSENSUS THAT, UH, THE FIVE THAT GOT ISSUED THE PERMIT SHOULD BE GRANDFATHERED AND ALLOWED TO STAY.
NEXT ITEM, UH, REAL QUICK, YOUR HONOR, DO YOU HAVE OUR OPINIONS NOTED FOR THE RECORD? YES.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE THAT CLEAR.
IT'S, IT WOULD BE THE THREE NON APPOINTED MEMBERS ON, UH, HERE AGAINST OPTION ONE.
IS IT SAFE TO SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT AGAINST OPTION TWO OF, OF KIND OF NON, OF ADDING THOSE FIVE AS UM, NON-CONFORMING, NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES? YES.
AND I WOULD SAY IN THE BEST FINANCIAL INTEREST FOR OUR CITY, BECAUSE THAT COULD BE A LAWSUIT IN THE END, CORRECT? YEAH.
IF YOU DO NOT MITIGATE THIS ISSUE.
AND SO I WOULD LIKE THAT AS COMMENTED AS TO WHY I'M SUPPO SUPPORTING THAT OPTION, BECAUSE I THINK ALSO THE CITY IS A LITTLE BIASED IN THIS SITUATION.
THERE IS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE VALUING WHAT IT'S GONNA COST THEM IN THE LONG RUN TO MITIGATE THESE FIVE SIGNS BECAUSE THEY AIRED, BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE A HISTORY OF ASKING OTHER PEOPLE IN OTHER OVERLAYS, LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, THAT WHEN THEY AIRED AND ISSUED A PERMIT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WENT AND HAD TO CONVERT TO A STATIC SIGN.
I'M TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT JUST HAPPENED WITHIN THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS.
SO I'M JUST SAYING I UNDERSTAND, I HEARD WHAT THE INDUSTRY HAD TO SAY, BUT I DON'T THINK I HEARD ENOUGH FROM THE COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT THE FIRST INITIATIVE.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE OPTION TWO.
I JUST WANNA COMMENT ON ONE THING BIANCA SAID.
UM, AND DEFINITELY I CARE, IT'S NOT LIKE I DON'T CARE, BUT PLEASE DON'T MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED ON WHAT THE CITY NEEDS TO DO IN THE FUTURE.
IF THOSE SIGNS NEED TO GO, IF THOSE SIGNS NEED TO GO, AND THAT'S THE CODE, THEN THAT THOSE SIGNS NEED TO GO.
I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT LAWSUITS, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT WHO GONNA PAY FOR IT.
WE WILL IMPLEMENT THE CODE AS WRITTEN AND WE WILL ENFORCE IT ACCORDINGLY.
AS YOU SAID, WE DID THAT SIX, SEVEN MONTHS AGO.
[00:30:01]
THIS ONE HERE IS FOR DISCUSSION.WHATEVER THE DECISION IS, THE FINAL DECISION FROM COUNCIL, WE'RE GONNA IMPLEMENT IT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE OUTCOME IS.
SO JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, WELL, WE NEVER GOT A COST BREAKOUT OF WHAT THAT WOULD COST.
SO I'M JUST THINKING LONG-TERM, BIG PICTURE.
SO UNLESS IT'S GERMANE TO WHAT WE, THE, THE VOTE'S BEEN TAKEN.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT, I'M HAPPY, BUT IF I'M MAKING A COMMENT.
OKAY, MR. CHAIR, MY QUESTION IS, IF COUNSEL DENIES THIS, WILL THOSE SIGNS HAVE TO COME DOWN? YES, ABSOLUTELY.
WELL, SO THIS IS A MATTER OF, UH, INFORMATION.
SO IT, Y'ALL VOTED ON THE OPTION TO, TO ALLOW SIGNS IN THE GATEWAY CORRIDOR? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND THAT'S AN INDUSTRY MAJORITY VOTE, BY THE WAY, ON THE RECORD.
SO HOW WOULD THE COUNCIL, HOW WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THE OTHER OPTION WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM THE ONES, THE FIVE, HOW CAN THEY GO BACK AND CONSIDER THAT IF THAT'S NOT VOTED ON IN THIS BODY? NOW, COUNCIL CAN OVERRIDE ANY DECISION MADE BY THE BUILDING RELATED AND COUNCIL CAN OVERRIDE P C D C, SO STAFF, AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION.
AND SO THAT IF THEY HAVE PUSHBACK FROM OPTION ONE AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE DON'T WANNA DO THIS.
OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE SAYING NO, WE'RE NOT GONNA VOTE IN FAVOR WITH THE BOARD, THEN STAFF WOULD PROBABLY AT THAT POINT SAY, HERE'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE TOOK TO THE COMMITTEE.
AND ONCE AGAIN, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M ON THE SAME PAGE.
AT LEAST OUR, UH, COMMUNITY, COMMUNITY, UH, NON APPOINTED MEMBERS, WERE IN FAVOR OF AT LEAST ALLOWING THESE AS NON UH, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES TO ALLOW THOSE TO GO FORWARD.
BUT THEN MOVING FORWARD, NO NEW DIGITAL SIGNS ALLOWED IS KIND OF THE, THE TAKEAWAY THAT WE WOULD GO WITH.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
AND COLLEEN WAPAC, UM, I COULD NOT SUPPORT OPTION ONE.
I COULD SUPPORT THE OPTION THAT ALLOWS THE FIVE EXISTING ONES THAT WERE PERMITTED IN ERROR TO REMAIN.
THIS IS AN EXTERNAL REQUEST FOR THE SIGN CODE COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN CONSIDERATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WITH TXDOT.
WE HAVE, UH, PRESENTED THIS TO THE COMMITTEE A COUPLE OF TIMES.
THE VERY LAST MEETING, UH, WE PRESENTED TO THIS WAS IN DECEMBER.
THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR US TO SIT DOWN WITH, UH, THE PROPONENT OF THIS RECOMMENDATION, CLEAR CHANNEL.
I HAVE ANOTHER CONVERSATION AND LOOK AT IT.
NOW, THE BIG TAKEAWAY FROM THIS ONE IS, THIS IS NOT A CHAPTER 28 THING.
THIS IS ONCE AGAIN JUST THE COMMITTEE PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS NO MATTER WHAT STANCE THE CITY HAS MOVING FORWARD.
AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO, UH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOMAS, TO TALK ABOUT IT.
BUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS JUST PROVIDING SOME RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO CONSIDER IN HIS FINAL DECISION TO BE A CERTIFIED CITY OR NOT.
SO JUST REAL QUICK, UM, BASED ON YOUR REQUIREMENT, WE DID MEET WITH CLEAR CHANNEL AND WE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER.
AND KIND OF LIKE WHAT JEREMY JUST MENTIONED, WE BELIEVE THIS ISSUE IS REALLY NOT OFFICIALLY AS A TECHNICAL ISSUE IN CHAPTER 28.
IT'S REALLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE THING.
IF WE DECIDE AND WE END UP BEING A CERTIFIED CITY BY THE STATE, THEN THAT'S JUST BASICALLY ADMINISTRATIVE WORK THAT WE NEED TO DO AND WE NEED TO WORK WITH THE STATE.
SO IT REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHAPTER EIGHT, UH, CHAPTER 28, AS FAR AS THE TECHNICAL SIGN COMPONENT.
UH, SO OUR RECOMMENDATION AFTER WE MET WITH CLEAR CHANNEL WAS TO TABLE THIS AND WE'LL WORK ON THIS BASICALLY AFTER WE COMPLETE CHAPTER 8 28.
MR. CHAIR? YES, I HAVE A COMMENT.
IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE WAS LEGISLATIVE LEGISLATIVE ACTION AT THE STATE.
I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL ARE AWARE OF THIS OR NOT, BUT IT JUST CAME UP.
SO I WOULD SUPPORT THE CITY BECOMING, UH, AN ADMINISTRATIVE PER UH, ENTITY BECAUSE, UM, SENATE BILL 8 98 AND HOUSE BILL 28 0 6 HAS SEVERAL BILLBOARD.
THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE THERE WOULD BE NO CONTROL OVER CONTENT OR BILLBOARD VISIBILITY.
IT WOULD PLACE NEW BILLBOARDS AND NEW PRIME HIGH LOCATIONS FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER.
IT WOULD GIVE SPECIAL RIGHTS THAT BILLBOARD COMPANIES WOULD BE GRANTED.
UM, IF SIGNS ARE OBSCURED, THEY COULD JUST MOVE THEM AND PUT THEM UP HIGHER.
IT WOULD GIVE THE RIGHT TO UNLIMITED BILLBOARD HEIGHT.
THERE WOULD BE NO HEIGHT LIMIT, AND IT WOULD BE A RIGHT TO ANGLE THE BILLBOARDS
[00:35:01]
OVER AND TOWARD THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN AUTOMATIC APPROVALS VIA SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THE FACE OF CONFLICTING OR ORDINANCES OR COMMUNITY DESIRES.ARE Y'ALL AWARE OF THIS? WELL, I'M DISA I CAN SPEAK FOR
THIS, WE WERE, I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT WE WERE NOT INFORMED ABOUT THIS.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S A STATE, UM, IT'S A, APPLIES TO THE STATE.
WELL, WE'RE IN THE STATE, SO IF THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO, UM, MONITOR AND OVERRIDE ANY OF THESE, IF THEY'RE PASSED, THEN I THINK THE CITY SHOULD GO FORTH AND BECOME WHATEVER IT IS.
THIS IS, UM, CERTIFIED BECAUSE WE NEED TO PROTECT THE CITY.
WE CAN'T HAVE THE STATE COMING IN WITH REGULATIONS THAT ARE UN ALLOW UNLIMITED HEIGHT.
I DON'T THINK THAT THESE BILLS ARE GOING TO PASS.
THERE ARE ONE GUY'S OUTTA LEFKIN AND ONE GUY'S OUTTA TYLER.
BUT I THINK WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT AND I THINK WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY IF THIS PASSES IN PARTICULAR, TO BE ABLE TO MONITOR THESE NEW RULES.
I, I MEAN, A LOT OF TIMES IN THOSE KIND OF BILLS THAT DO THAT KIND OF THING, THERE'S A PREEMPTION AGAINST LOCAL ORDINANCES IN THE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE BILL, BUT MY, MY FEELING IS, YOU KNOW, AND HAVING, YOU KNOW, NO HORSE IN THE RACE AND JUST SITTING AND LISTENING IS THAT IF WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THIS, UH, TAKE DOWN WITH THE CARROT, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CERTAINTY AS TO WHAT THE RULES ARE.
AND WITH THE STATE, SOME, YOU KNOW, INTERPRETATION BY SOME NEW LAWYER THAT'S THERE CAN CHANGE EVERYTHING, WHICH IS KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED.
AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD THE LAST TIME THE CONVERSION DEAL HAPPENED.
AND SO I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT A MOTION FROM THE COMMITTEE, JUST A SENSE OF WHERE EVERYBODY IS OR TO HELP GUIDE YOU ON WHAT THE CITIZENS THINK OR IT, IT'S UP TO YOU CHAIR.
UH, MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO HEAR FROM CLEAR CHANNEL FIRST POSSIBLY, AND THEN OPEN IT UP.
AND WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS AND, UH, AROUND CERTIFICATION AND ITS ONGOING POTENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
THERE ARE A LOT OF APPLICATIONS TO IT AND AGREE THAT WE CAN TABLE THIS AND DOES NOT BE HA NEED TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S VOTED UPON, WHETHER TODAY, WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO JUST REMOVE IT OFF THE AGENDA AS THE GROUP THAT PUT IT FORWARD.
UH, BUT I THINK THOSE CONVERSATIONS WILL BE ONGOING FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON ALL THESE PIECES.
SO ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO COMMENT? UM, JEREMY, DO I REMEMBER THAT IT IS NOW WITH THEM BEING UNDER THE STATE REGULATION, UM, IF THE STATE REGULATION IS MORE PERMISSIVE THAN OURS ON A, ON AN ISSUE, IT IS OURS THAT THAT RULES CORRECT.
SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE, THEY HAVE TO GET TWO DIFFERENT PERMITS.
SO IF WE APPROVE A PERMIT BUT THE STATE DOESN'T, THEN THEY CAN'T INSTALL IT.
IF, IF THE STATE ALLOWS THEM TO DO SOMETHING BUT WE DO NOT PERMIT IT, THEN IT'S NOT ALLOWED.
SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A COMPARISON OF THE TWO JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO REAL OVERLAP IN THAT SENSE BECAUSE WE ONLY LOOK AT WHAT WE WOULD ALLOW FOR A PERMIT.
I I WOULD SUPPORT IT BEING WITHDRAWN.
UM, I'VE ASKED ALL ALONG FOR A COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF HOW CITY AND STATE DIFFER AND I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT.
WE KNOW THAT CLEAR CHANNEL PUT FORTH SOME PROVISIONS THAT WE PASSED THAT, UM, BRING US CLOSER TO THE STATE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S OUT THERE THAT, THAT, UH, DIFFERS THAT WE NEED, WOULD NEED TO GO THE OTHER WAY.
SO I, I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF, OF THIS MAY BE FALLING UNDER A C C R.
SO THERE'S STILL A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT, NOT A LOT, BUT, 'CAUSE WE NEVER GET A LOT, BUT
ANYONE ELSE? YEAH, AND, AND I WAS NOT SAYING WHICH RULES SHOULD APPLY.
I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S NEEDS TO BE ONE SET OF RULES SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THE DEAL IS.
[00:40:01]
YOU KNOW, HAVE A GROUP THAT WORKS FOR 13 MEETINGS TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING, THERE'S SOME CERTAINTY AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN THAT ARE EASY VERSUS AN ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, INTERPRETATION OF WHAT PUBLIC MEANS OR SOMETHING THAT SOME LAWYER IN SOME BACK OFFICE JUST ISSUES THE DEFINITION AND THAT'S IT.AND NOW IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
AND WE MIGHT FIND THAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE MINIMAL.
AND I WOULD CERTAINLY SUPPORT THE CITY TAKING THAT RESPONSIBILITY THEN I, IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING TO PERMIT AND FOLLOW TWO SETS OF RULES WOULD BE A BENEFIT FOR ANY BUSINESS.
SO SINCE THIS WAS POLLED BY THE APPLICANT, WE'RE JUST GONNA MOVE ON, CORRECT? YEAH, EXACTLY.
WE DON'T NEED ACTION ON THIS ONE.
WE'RE NOT CHANGING CHAPTER 28 AND WE'RE GO THE BOARD.
UH, IS THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? AND WE'LL JUST PUT THIS AS A NEXT ITEM.
OKAY, NOW WE'RE MOVING TO, UH, ITEM NUMBER FOUR, CHAPTER 28 AMENDMENT ITEM SEVEN DASH ONE, EXTERNAL REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE FOUR, DIVISION TWO, SUBDIVISION B OFF PREMISE SIGNS TO PERMIT SIGN BUILDERS TO CONVERT EXISTING 14 BY 48 FEET STATIC FACES TO DIGITAL SIGNS ALONG LIMITED HIGHWAYS WITHIN THE CITY.
AND I CAN PULL THAT LANGUAGE UP.
WELL, LET ME ACTUALLY, I APOLOGIZE.
I HAVE A FEW ITEMS TO DISCUSS HERE.
SO THE WORKING GROUP WAS CREATED BASED OFF OF THIS RECOMMENDATION.
UH, WE HIGHLIGHTED THIS DIGITAL CONVERSION AT ALL SIX OF OUR COMMUNITY MEETINGS.
SO EVERY TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, WE HIGHLIGHTED THIS ONE EVEN AT THE ONE SPECIFIC TO HILL COUNTRY GATEWAY CORRIDOR.
WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THIS ONE AS WELL 'CAUSE WE WANTED TO TRY TO GET AS MUCH COMMUNITY FEEDBACK, UH, IN REGARDS TO THE DIGITAL CONVERSION.
WE ALSO HAD A SURVEY THAT WE CREATED THAT WAS UP ON SA SPEAK UP FOR ABOUT SIX WEEKS.
ON THAT SURVEY, WE HAD THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WITH RESPONSES.
WOULD YOU LIKE THE NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS WITHIN CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CITY LIMITS, UH, TO EITHER INCREASE, DECREASE, OR HAVE NO OPINION? 81% PROPOSED THAT WE DECREASE.
EIGHT SAID WE SHOULD INCREASE.
10 SAID THEY HAD NO OPINION AT HUNDRED 24 RESPONDENTS, WHAT WAS THE TOTAL ACCOUNT OF REPLIES? 124 RESPONDENTS.
ITEM OR QUESTION NUMBER TWO, IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, WOULD YOU SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF 32 PRINTED STATIC BILLBOARDS PER YEAR WITH A MAXIMUM OF THREE YEARS IN EXCHANGE FOR CONVERTING NO MORE THAN EIGHT INTO DIGITAL BILLBOARDS PER YEAR, MAXIMUM OF 24 OVER THREE YEARS, THAT WOULD FOLLOW LIGHTING AND PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS? ONCE AGAIN, WE HAD 124 RESPONDENTS.
54 SAID YES, THEY WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE REDUCTION FOR DIGITAL.
FIVE SAID THEY CHOSE TO DO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND TWO HAD NO OPINION.
UH, THE NEXT ONE WAS, DO YOU THINK THE REMOVAL OF BILLBOARDS FROM SENSITIVE AREAS SUCH AS HISTORICAL AREAS IN DOWNTOWN SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED BY PROVIDING AN EXTRA CREDIT TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BILLBOARD REMOVED TO BILLBOARD COMPANIES SEEKING TO CONVERT HIS CURRENT STATIC BILLBOARD TO DIGITAL EXAMPLE? CURRENT CRITERIA IS REMOVE OF FOUR STATIC BILLBOARDS TO CONVERT ONE INTO DIGITAL.
IF THE COMPANY REMOVES ONE STATIC BILLBOARD FROM HISTORIC AREA, THE CREDIT WOULD BE THAT OF ONE IN ONE HALF FACES.
UH, IT WAS A PRETTY GOOD SPLIT.
51% SAID YES, THEY WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
UH, 45% SAID NO AND 3% SAID THEY HAD NO OPINION.
FINAL WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, A QUESTION OF WHERE THEY'RE AT.
SO 39% OF THE RESPONDENTS FROM DISTRICT NINE 20 FROM DISTRICT SEVEN, 14% FROM EIGHT, 10% FROM DISTRICT 10, SEVEN OF THEM DID NOT PROVIDE OR, UM, DID NOT KNOW.
SIX WERE DISTRICT ONE AND THEN THREE PUT DOWN AS OTHERS.
AND THAT WAS 115 OF THE RESPONDENTS.
ALSO, THE COMMITTEE'S ASKED US TO REVIEW THE COMMENTS.
SO A BRIEF REVIEW OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, I I I ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO GO AND LOOK AT THESE COMMENTS AND THE ADDRESS.
UH, ON THE BOTTOM THERE IS WHERE YOU CAN FIND THAT, BUT WE RECEIVED 27 SURVEY COMMENTS, UM, SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS.
THERE WAS A LOT MORE THAN THAT, BUT SOMETIMES PEOPLE WERE JUST PUTTING THEIR NAMES.
I THINK THERE WAS CONFUSION ON, ON FILLING IN THE SURVEY.
UH, WE HAD ZERO THAT I WOULD SAY THAT CAME OUT 100% PRO DIGITAL BILLBOARDS.
SO, UH, BUT WE DID HAVE SIX THAT WERE VERY MUCH AGAINST DIGITAL BILLBOARDS BASED OFF THE COMMENTS 11 THAT WERE AGAINST ALL FORMS OF BILLBOARDS.
SO THE COMMENTS GENERALLY JUST SAID, PLEASE REMOVE ALL BILLBOARDS NINE NOT AGAINST DIGITAL FOR REDUCTION IN INVENTORY FOR CITY.
SO I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THEY WERE PRODI BY ANY MEANS IN THEIR COMMENTS, BUT BASED ON THE COMMENTS THEY PROVIDED, IT WAS MORE CONSTRUCTIVE OF, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS, PLEASE LIMIT BRIGHTNESS HEIGHTS, REQUEST SMALLER BILLBOARDS.
SO WE HAD TWO COMMENTS THAT SPECIFIED THAT THEY THINK THE BILLBOARD SHOULD BE SMALLER THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
SO I I I TAKE THIS TO SAY, IF YOU HAVE A 625 SQUARE FOOT BILLBOARD, THEY WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE SMALLER IF YOU CONVERT IT,
[00:45:01]
UH, DISTANCES AND TIME ON NEAR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.SO WHAT THAT WAS IS LIMITING THE, UH, ALLOWING THEM AROUND RESIDENTIAL AND IF THEY DID FALL WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, THAT THEY'D BE TURNED OFF AT 11 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT AND, UH, NO ON ARTERIAL STREETS.
SO THEY DIDN'T WANT 'EM ON ANY OF THE ARTERIAL STREETS OR SMALLER.
SO MANY OF THESE I THINK, WERE ADDRESSED ON OUR, UH, PROPOSED CHANGES.
UH, THE SMALLER SIZE IS PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE THAT, YOU KNOW, WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE COMMENTS THAT WE DID NOT DISCUSS AT THE WORKING GROUP.
AND THEN ONE WAS AGAINST DIGITAL CONVERSION CREDITS.
SO WHEN, WHEN ADDING A COMMENT, THEY JUST SPECIFIED THAT THEY DID NOT THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY INCENTIVE, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE CREDITS.
AND ONCE AGAIN, I KIND OF ENCOURAGE, I I BRING THIS UP, YOU KNOW, IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, YOU KNOW, THIS IS FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES KIND OF A PILOT PROGRAM.
IT'S A THREE YEAR PROGRAM THAT WE NEED TO COME BACK AND REEVALUATE.
UM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYBODY THAT'S GONNA DO A CONVERSION IF APPROVED TO GO BACK AND REVIEW THESE COMMENTS AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COMMUNITY'S SAYING.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN TRYING TO APPROVE, UH, THIS IF IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS IF APPROVED.
NOW I'M HAPPY TO SEND THIS INFORMATION OUT TO, I KNOW IT'S KIND OF A HARD LINK TO, TO GRAB.
AND THAT IS PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING WE HAVE.
I'M HAPPY TO PULL UP OUR PROPOSED LANGUAGE.
I'VE SENT IT OUT TO EVERYBODY AS A DRAFT.
SO LET ME KNOW CHAIR AND COM AND COMMITTEE, UH, WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE.
YEAH, I JUST, FOR THOSE THAT WEREN'T PART OF THE PROCESS, BASICALLY THE CONCEPT WAS THAT WE TOOK FOUR OR FIVE OR SIX AREAS AND SAY YOU CAN'T PUT DIGITAL IF YOU'RE CONVERTING INTO THESE AREAS.
WE GAVE EXTRA CREDIT FOR TAKING THE, UH, SIGNS DOWN IN THOSE AREAS.
SO YOU GOT ONE AND A HALF CREDITS IF YOU TOOK IT DOWN IN THE HISTORIC AREAS ON AN ARTERIAL STREET ON THE DOWNTOWN U THE UH, HILL COUNTRY GATEWAY AND SOME OTHER AREAS AS A WAY TO INCENTIVIZE THE BILLBOARD COMPANIES TO TAKE DOWN SIGNS IN THOSE AREAS.
THE, UM, THERE'S A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT PER YEAR.
UH, CLEAR CHANNEL GETS FOUR, LAMAR GETS ONE OUT FRONT, GETS ONE, AND THEN EVERYBODY ELSE CAN GET TWO.
BUT THOSE CAN'T BE TRANSFERRED UP OR DOWN.
UH, SO IF THEY'RE NOT USED, THEY'RE JUST NOT USED.
UH, AT THE 11TH HOUR, UH, ONE OF THE COMPANIES CAME IN AND BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF WHAT DO WE DO WITH CREDITS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE? AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE, UH, VOTED TO ALLOW THEM TO USE CREDITS THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY BANKED, BUT THOSE CREDITS COUNT HALF, UH, TOWARDS, UH, THE TAKE DOWN REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE'RE IN AREAS THAT YOU GET EXTRA CREDIT.
SO INSTEAD OF GETTING ONE FULL CREDIT, YOU WOULD GET HALF.
AND UH, BASICALLY THAT'S THE PROPOSAL AND THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER RULES THAT GO WITH IT.
BUT BASICALLY THE PRINCIPLE IS, YOU KNOW, TO PUT UP A DIGITAL BILLBOARD YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE DOWN.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY.
THE, THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE WAS SENT OUT.
UH, I BELIEVE IT IS UNANIMOUS FROM BOTH SIDES THAT THIS IS A GOOD THING.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF COMPROMISING AND DISCUSSION AD NAUSEUM SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, WELL, BUT I MEAN, IT JUST, IT IT'S A HARD ISSUE AND, AND YOU KNOW, AND, AND YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK THE COMPROMISE IS GOOD AND I WOULD URGE EVERYBODY THAT PARTICIPATED IN IT, IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE, YOU KNOW, TO CONTINUE THIS PROCESS OF, YOU KNOW, WORKING TOGETHER FOR WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE CITY, WE ALL NEED TO GO INTO THE P C D C OR WHEREVER THIS THING IS HEADED AND, YOU KNOW, UNEQUIVOCALLY SUPPORT THE COMPROMISE.
BECAUSE IF WE CAN'T, YOU KNOW, COME TO SOME DISCUSSION AND, AND I WILL TELL YOU THERE'S MORE GIVE AND TAKE AT THIS, AT THAT, THOSE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AND GREAT DISCUSSIONS THAN THAT.
WE WORK REALLY HARD TO GET IT TO WHERE IT IS.
AND IT WOULD BE A SHAME AFTER ALL THAT EFFORT TO SEE IT GO, YOU KNOW,
[00:50:01]
WE PASS SOMETHING THAT NOBODY CAN EXECUTE ON.SO IF WE CAN START OUT, UH, WITH A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OR NO MOTION AND WE'LL JUST GO ON OUR WAY.
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WHAT DOES THE MOTION ENTAIL? I MEAN, THE MOTION IS, YOU TALKED FOR A LONG TIME THOUGH.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WHAT THE MOTION WAS.
WELL, THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S FROM US FIRST BEFORE THEY, NO, I, YOUR PART WE CAN CREATE GO AHEAD.
BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE IT SO I KNOW WE CAN'T.
WELL, YEAH, THANKS FOR, BUT THAT'S NOT OBVIOUS.
WE STILL, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO THAT'S ABOVE MY PAGE.
SOMEDAY THEY'LL CORRECT AND WE'LL GET ANOTHER RIGHT TO VOTE.
UM, BUT I THINK AS INDIVIDUALS WHO, WITH ALL THE, UH, SUBCOMMITTEE, I, I WANT TO THANK ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS WHO CAME.
AND I WILL TELL YOU HOW THAT PROCESS WAS VERY IMPORTANT.
WE DIDN'T HAVE A STAKEHOLDER WHO ENGAGED UNTIL THE VERY END, BUT IT WASN'T FOR A LACK OF TRYING.
AND WE HOPE THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL AND ENTITY CONTINUES TO BE ENGAGED WITH THE CITY.
'CAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND NOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS.
UM, IT REALLY DID SHAPE SOME MAJOR CHANGES TOWARDS THE END THAT WE ALL AGREED UPON, UM, THAT COLLECTIVELY SUPPORTED BY EVERYONE.
UM, I WISH MORE PEOPLE WOULD'VE TAKEN THE SURVEY.
I WISH MORE PEOPLE CAN DISTINGUISH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ON-PREMISE AND OFF-PREMISE SIGNS.
SO IF YOU GO AND LOOK AT THE COMMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUALS, UH, THERE IS STILL AN EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT THAT NEEDS TO BE HAD TO EDUCATE PEOPLE.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ON-PREMISE AND THE OFF-PREMISE, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT DIGITAL BILLBOARDS.
WE HAVE HAD COMPLAINTS ABOUT ON-PREMISE SIGN AND THE BRIGHTNESS WITH THOSE ON-PREMISE SIGNS.
WE HAVEN'T HAD THE MALFUNCTIONING DIGITAL BILLBOARD.
WE, WE HAVE HAD MALFUNCTIONING ON-PREMISE SIGNS, THAT KIND OF THING HAVE BEEN REPORTED.
AND TO DISTINGUISH THE TWO SO THAT, BECAUSE THEY ARE STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT IN THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO.
AND SO I WOULD JUST WANNA THANK EVERYONE FOR THE COLLABORATION IN, IN ADDRESSING SOME OF OUR SENSITIVE AREAS IN THE CITY.
UM, THAT SPEAKS TO WHY THEIR PROPOSAL OF THE CERTAIN BANS AND CONSIDERATION OF BUFFERS WITH CERTAIN, UH, UNIQUE LANDMARK PROPERTIES WITHIN OUR CITY.
AND I THINK THIS IS A, A GOOD BALANCE IN MOVING FORWARD.
IS IT MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY? NO, BUT IT IS A GOOD BALANCE AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT I THINK A TASK FORCE REALLY STRIVES FOR AND REALLY HOPES THAT ALL OF US ARE HERE SUPPORTIVE OF IT.
UM, WE, I THINK THERE WERE MORE THAN NINE MEETINGS,
UM, SO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR COMMITMENT AND THEIR TIME, MOST IMPORTANTLY BECAUSE IT, IT WAS MONTHS OF WORK.
UM, AND I JUST WANNA HOPE THAT YOU SUPPORT THE LANGUAGE AS SUBMITTED.
I KNOW WE CAN'T VOTE, BUT, UM, I WOULD HOPE THAT THERE WOULD BE A MOTION THAT WOULD BE INCLUSIVE OF ALL THE HARD WORK THAT WE HAVE WORKED TOWARDS.
AND IT'S REFLECTED IN THE LANGUAGE THAT IS UP ON THE SCREEN BEFORE YOU TODAY.
SO IF THAT IS HELPFUL FOR YOU TO MAKE A MOTION BASED ON THE LANGUAGE AS SUBMITTED AND PRESENTED BY STAFF TO YOU TODAY ON THE SCREEN WE HAVE CONSENSUS.
THIS IS JUST ON, ON NUMBER THREE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
NO, IT WOULD BE, SO LET ME GO THROUGH THAT REAL QUICK AND THEN CAN I CAN, YEAH, GO AHEAD COLIN.
CAN I CLARIFY, UM, WE SKIPPED ITEM FOUR.
IF, IF A MOTION IS MADE ON THIS AND PASSES, DOES IT IN EFFECT REPLACE ITEM FOUR? SO, SO ITEM FOUR WAS THE ONE WHERE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE, UH, THE, THE, THE RECOMMENDATION CAME IN AFTER THIS ONE, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TRY TO MAKE AS EQUITABLE AS POSSIBLE AND TO LOOK INTO THE INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, AFTER, IF WE APPROVE THIS ONE, IT'S A DISCUSSION.
I, I THINK OF A KIND OF SAYING, LOOK, DID WE TAKE THIS THIS INTO ACCOUNT? I THINK THE WORKING GROUP DID.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE TRY TO MAKE IT AS EQUITABLE AS POSSIBLE.
THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE THREE PHASES AND TRY TO MAKE IT WHERE ANYBODY THAT HAS AT LEAST SOME INVENTORY TO REDUCTION COULD DO A CONVERSION AS WELL AS.
SO WE KIND OF CHECK THAT BOX OF, OF PROPOSAL OF THAT PROPOSAL AND THEN ALSO, UH, LOOKING AT THE INCENTIVE PROGRAM OF TRYING TO REMOVE IT.
SO BY SAYING, LOOK, IF IT'S NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A DIGITAL SIGN THERE, IF YOU REMOVE A BILLBOARD FROM THAT AREA, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS KIND OF THE COMPROMISE.
I DON'T THINK WE WENT AS FAR AS WE WOULD REALLY LIKE IF TRYING TO SAY, HEY, IF YOU'RE GONNA TAKE ONE DOWN, IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE EXACT AREA.
DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WORK ON AS WE IMPROVE THIS AND KIND OF SEE HOW THIS PILOT PROGRAM GOES.
UH, BUT I THINK THERE WAS ONCE AGAIN, KIND OF A CONSENSUS OF A MIDDLE GROUND OF AT LEAST WE'RE ENCOURAGING THEM TO TAKE IT DOWN FROM NOT JUST FINDING A, A SIGN THAT IS OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT I WOULD SAY NOWHERE.
I KNOW THAT'S SOMEWHERE FOR SOMEBODY, SO I'M NOT TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, PUT ANY SIGN DOWN.
[00:55:01]
ENCOURAGE IT IN SPECIFIC AREAS THAT THE CITY HAS HIGHLIGHTED AND OTHER ORDINANCES TO PROTECT.SO THE ANSWER LEMME CLARIFY TO YOUR QUESTION IS I'M NOT SURE THE QUESTION WAS UNDERSTOOD.
I BELIEVE ITEM FOUR IS ONE THAT INCLUDED NO TAKEDOWNS.
SO JUST CONVERSION OF DIGITALS WITH NO TAKEDOWN REQUIREMENT.
I I WENT TO ITEM FIVE, I'M SORRY,
UM, SO IT WASN'T, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS KINDA THE IN INITIAL PROPOSAL, BUT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE USING AND DRAFTING AND, AND THE ORDINANCE GOING FORWARD WAS REALLY JUST HIGHLIGHTING CONVERSION.
SO INITIAL RECOMMENDATION WAS KIND OF HAVING A TYPE DISCUSSION OF CONVERSIONS USING MORE OF A PAY TO PLAY TYPE APPROACH WITH MAYBE SOME MINIMAL TAKE DOWNS.
UH, BUT THE COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW, EARLY ON AND THE WORKING GROUP EARLY ON KIND OF MOVED AWAY FROM THAT, UH, PLATFORM.
UH, SO THIS, YEAH, FOUR IS D O A AND IS REPLACED? NO, I, YEAH, NO, BECAUSE THERE'S NOBODY THAT MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT IT.
SO FIVE REALLY REPLA FOUR AND FIVE ARE REALLY THE SAME.
WELL, FOUR AND FIVE HAVE NOW TURNED INTO THIS PROPOSAL ORDINANCE LANGUAGE, RIGHT? SO THAT'S, YEAH.
SO IT'S MORE OF A TRACKING PURPOSE TO SAY WHERE DO WE GET TO HERE WAS SEVEN DASH ONE, BUT BY ALL LEGAL THANKS.
WHAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR IS THE PROPOSED PROPOSED LANGUAGE AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MOVE FORWARD.
SO THE, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WAS SENT OUT, CORRECT.
EVERYBODY ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS BLESSED IT.
AND SO IF WE CAN GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND ADOPT THE DRAFT OR RECOMMEND THAT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE OR SECTION BE ADDED.
AND IF YOU WANT EXACT SECTION, SO THE THE NEW, IT WOULD BE A NEW SECTION UNDER 28 DASH 54 AND WOULD BE SECTION F.
SO ALL OF SECTION F IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW.
SECOND
I, I APPRECIATE THE, THE EFFORT THAT'S BEEN GOING THAT GOES INTO THIS.
THE ONE THING I I, I HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING IS WE HAVE A SURVEY THAT REPRESENTS 8E-05% OF OUR CITY.
AND THAT WE EVEN GIVE THAT ANY CREDENCE AT ALL.
THAT 124 PEOPLE, I COULD CALL 124 PEOPLE RIGHT NOW AND SAY, HEY, YOU GOTTA GO TO THIS WEBSITE AND TRASH THIS SURVEY.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THAT SURVEY CAME FROM OR ANYBODY THAT I'D EVEN KNOW KNOWS ABOUT IT.
BUT IT JUST, SOMETHING OF THAT MINUTE AMOUNT IN THE CITY OF OUR SIZE IS, AND YOU KNOW, ONE SAID X I'M LIKE ONE OUT OF 1.4 MILLION PEOPLE.
BUT ANYWAYS, I SECOND THE MOTION.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? JUST ONE QUICK COMMENT.
JUST, I DO WANNA THANK EVERYBODY FOR ALL THE WORK.
I CANNOT BELIEVE IT WAS NINE MEETINGS.
I THINK THERE WAS A, THERE'S A ZERO MISSING SOMEWHERE IN THAT MEETING
AND THAT IS TO CONTINUE TO LOWER THE NUMBER OF SIGNS IN SAN ANTONIO AND TO DO THAT IN A FAIR WAY FOR, FOR BOTH CITY AND FOR STAKEHOLDERS AND COMPANIES.
UM, THERE IS ONE QUICK POINT I WOULD MAKE ON LANGUAGE JUST OF THE DRAFT, AND THAT WAS A DATE POINT ON IT AND HADN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH JEREMY ABOUT THIS YET.
BUT A DATE WAS SET FOR JANUARY 1ST, 2024 OR CALENDAR YEAR AND A CONSIDERATION OF THAT EITHER BEING FISCAL YEAR FOR THE CITY OR BEING UPON COMPLETION OF UH, THE AGREEMENT.
BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TALK ABOUT.
BUT I DO APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S HELP ON ALL THAT.
CLARIFY BY THIS COMMITTEE OR NO, NO, WE CAN, WE CAN ACTUALLY CHANGE THAT EVEN AFTER P C D C, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE THE INTENT, I JUST WANTED TO PUT SOMETHING OUT THERE OF A THIS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE, WE'VE SAID THAT YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE X NUMBER OF PERMITS PER YEAR.
SO THE INTENT IS YOU ONLY GET THREE OF THESE YEARS WHEN THAT YEAR STARTS.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE.
HEY, IT'S GONNA START HERE IF YOU WANT IT TO BE.
BUT THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE OR YOU KNOW, A CALENDAR YEAR STAFF DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY PART.
UH, THEY GAVE US PLENTY OF TIME.
'CAUSE YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT, WITH A KIND OF 90 DAY GRACE PERIOD IF WE GET TO COUNCIL IN, IN APRIL SURE.
THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT LATE SUMMER BEFORE THIS IS EVEN GOES INTO IT.
SO THAT ONLY GIVES US LIKE TWO OR THREE MONTHS BEFORE OCTOBER 1ST IF WE USE FISCAL YEAR, YOU KNOW, SO I WANTED TO GIVE THE AGE INDUSTRY ENOUGH TIME TO KINDA LIKE, HEY, GEAR UP AND FIGURE IT OUT.
[01:00:01]
LIKE SIT DOWN AND SAY, HERE, HERE'S OUR PROPOSAL.WE'RE GONNA REMOVE THESE, HERE'S OUR PERMIT.
GET THOSE DIGITALS DONE IN THAT FIRST YEAR BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THE NEXT YEAR.
AND IT GIVES ME THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO THANK STAFF AND CITI FOR ALL THE ASSISTANCE AND ALL THOSE MEETINGS.
'CAUSE IF, IF THERE WERE REALLY 90 MEETINGS, THEY RAN 'EM ALL.
WELL, I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT, YOU KNOW, OUT OF, I'VE BEEN ON LIKE SEVERAL COMMITTEES AND SOME OF THEM, UH, LATELY HAVE BEEN VERY CONTENTIOUS AND HOW RESPECTFUL BOTH SIDES WERE IN DISCUSSING THE ISSUE AND EXPRESSING THEIR FEELINGS AND COMING TO A COMPROMISE.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT COMMITTEE IS, SHOULD BE HELD UP AS THE WAY THINGS SHOULD BE DONE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
AND SAME THING FROM ALL THREE NON APPOINTED.
WHAT'S THE NEXT
LOOK, LOOK FOR THE CALENDAR INVITE.
SO, UH, CHAIR, SO I LIKE, ONCE AGAIN THAT'LL BE THE DRINKING PARTY.
WHAT CALLING BROUGHT UP OF CLARIFICATION.
SO ONCE AGAIN I JUST WANTED MAKE SURE WE HAD THESE BOTH ON THE AGENDA TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION ON 'EM, BUT I THINK AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR AND FIVE ARE COMPLETELY COVERED BY THAT ORDINANCE THAT WE JUST VOTED ON.
SO YES, YOU HAVE IT THERE AND JUST ENTER THAT INTO THE RECORDS SO IT'S CLEAR.
MOVING FROM THE BIGGEST SIGNS WE HAVE TO THE LITTLEST SIGNS, WE HAVE CHAPTER 28 AMENDMENT ITEM 11 DASH ONE EXTERNAL REQUEST TO AMEND THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY SIGNS WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES OR THE RIGHT OF WAY DIRECTLY ABUTTING THE PROPERTY OF THE SIGN INSTALLER AND SIGNS WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES WITHIN A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD OR HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION PER 28 DASH SEVEN FOUR C SMALL SIGNS.
SO WE'VE HAD A FEW ITERATIONS OF THIS.
LET ME PULL UP THE LAST ONE BASED ON CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PROPONENT OF THIS PROPOSAL.
SO ONCE AGAIN, UH, FOR CLARIFICATION SO EVERYBODY CAN KINDA SEE WHERE WE ARE, WE ARE UNDER TEMPORARY SIGNS.
SO NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROPERTIES AND NON RESIDENTIAL USES.
SO THIS IS SIGNS THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 SQUARE FEET.
TYPICALLY, THEY'RE YOUR LITTLE YARD SIGNS THAT ARE, I THINK TWO BY TWO AND A HALF ON ON AVERAGE.
BUT YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR ALL THE WAY UP TO 10 SQUARE FEET.
UH, TOTAL HIGH TO THE SIGN MAY NOT EXCEED THREE FEET ABOVE THE GROUND.
UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT EXEMPTIONS TO THE TEMPORARY PLACEMENT.
UM, ORIGINALLY I WAS LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE SECTIONS, BUT RIGHT NOW THE ONLY THING WE'RE LOOKING AT IS TEMPORARY PLACEMENT UNDER THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE.
SO THE APPLICANT IS STILL REQUIRED TO PULL AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT TO PLACE A TEMPORARY SIGN.
THE INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT MUST REVIEW THE APPLICATION THAT STILL WOULD BE ENFORCED AND THE SIGNS MUST STILL BE SELF-SUPPORTING AND PLACED IN THE GROUND BY A SINGLE STAKE OR NO MORE THAN TWO STAKES PLACEMENT ON UTILITY POLE STREET, LOWELLS SIGNS, ET CETERA.
UH, ARE NOT, ARE NOT, ARE, ARE, ARE PROHIBITED.
SO THE EXCEPTION IS REALLY JUST THE PLACEMENT THAT LIMITED THEM TO 9:00 PM ON THURSDAYS THROUGH, UH, NINE, I THINK NINE, EIGHT OR 9:00 PM ON, ON UH, MONDAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT MOSTLY THE HOLIDAYS OR THE WEEKENDS.
EXEMPTION ONE IS WITH AN ANNUAL TEMPORARY SMALL SIGN PERMIT.
IF PLACING THE SIGN DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ADVERTISED BY THE SIGN AND A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, ANNUAL PERMIT STICKER IS PLACED ON THE SIGN.
THE SIGN IS EXEMPT FROM REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN 20, UH, SECTION 28 74 C THREE C, BUT MUST BUT MUST FOLLOW A, B AND D.
SO THAT WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH ANY PROPERTY IN THE COUNTRY IN THE CITY.
IF THEY CAME AND PULLED THAT PERMIT AND HAVE THE STICKER, WE'D BE ABLE TO HAVE THE SMALL SIGN OUT.
WHAT IS THAT E, B AND D DO? WHAT? CAN YOU GO OVER WHAT A, B AND D OR THAT WAS WHAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT.
YOU GOTTA PULL UP, YOU GOTTA PULL A PERMIT.
IT HAS, THE APPLICATION HAS TO BE APPROVED AND THEY STILL HAVE TO BE SMALL SIGNS THAT ARE SELF-SUPPORTING WITH ONE OR TWO STAKES.
THE SECOND ONE IS WITH AN ANNUAL TEMPORARY SMALL SIGN PERMIT, REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND REGISTERED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS PER THE UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 38 4 0 8.
SIGNS PLACED WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES IDENTIFIED IN THE ASSOCIATIONS OR ORGANIZATIONS REGISTRY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN, UH, SAME SECTION WE JUST DISCUSSED, BUT MUST ALSO FOLLOW A, B AND D.
STILL A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ANNUAL PERMIT STICKER IS REQUIRED TO BE PLACED ON THE SIGN.
SO THE INTENT WITH THIS WOULD BE IF APPROVED, UH, WE WOULD USE AN ANNUAL PERMIT.
UH, WE WOULD ISSUE X NUMBER OF STICKERS.
WE WOULD LOOK AT THAT ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL AND THE COST OF THE PERMIT TO DECIDE HOW MANY OF THOSE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO, UH, RECEIVE IT ONE TIME.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IF THEY NEED MORE THAN THAT, THEN THEY WOULD'VE TO COME BACK AND GET MORE STICKERS.
UH, THE STICKERS WOULD BE GOOD FOR A YEAR, A CALENDAR YEAR.
[01:05:01]
SPECIFIC COLORS, UH, FOR THOSE STICKERS AND GOOD FOR THAT YEAR.UH, SO IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AND PULLS THE PERMIT IN JUNE, THEY GET SIX MONTHS WORTH OF USE OUT OF THOSE STICKERS.
SO THEY COME IN IN, IN JANUARY, THEY GET THE FULL 12 MONTHS, BUT IT'S GONNA BE CALENDAR YEAR ISSUES OF THOSE OF THOSE PERMITS.
AND ONCE AGAIN, IF THEY NEED TO, YOU KNOW, INCREASE THE NUMBER OF STICKERS THEY HAVE, IF THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, ATTACHED 'EM TO OTHER SIGNS AND THEY'RE NOW REPLACING THOSE SIGNS, THEY CAN COME BACK FROM A NOMINAL FEE OF, OF REPLACING THOSE AND EACH STICKER WOULD HAVE A SERIAL NUMBER ATTACHED TO IT THAT WOULD BE ALLOCATED TO THEIR PERMIT, UH, WITHIN OUR BUILD SA SYSTEM.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE UH, PROPOSED LANGUAGE, UH, FOR THIS EXCEPTIONS TO THE PLACEMENT TIMES.
JEREMY, I HAVE, WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION? I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A GOOD DEFINITION OF ANY OF THAT, THAT'S WHY I'M REPLYING ON THE U D C.
SO REALLY WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIND SOME TYPE OF WAY WHERE WE CAN GO WITH LOCATION.
'CAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE CAN
NO, NO, I KNOW, BUT SO A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COULD BE ANYWHERE, COULD BE THE FERAL CAT SOCIETY, COULD BE THE BOY SCOUTS, RIGHT? THEY ARE SIGNED UP AND REGISTERED AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION, BUT DO THEY HAVE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES SPECIFIED WITHIN THAT? SO THERE WAS A U D C AMENDMENT ABOUT THE ZONING NOTIFICATIONS FOR CASES AND IT ONLY SAID THAT THE CITY WOULD NOTIFY THEM IF THEY HAD GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES ESTABLISHED.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE STIPULATION BECAUSE SOME OF 'EM DON'T, IF ANYBODY HAS A GEOGRAPHICAL, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S INHERENTLY WHAT WE HAVE CONCERNS WITH WITH THIS WHOLE PROCESS AND THIS PROPOSED EXEMPTION IS ENFORCEMENT.
SO I'M JUST KIND OF SAYING, LOOK, I I NEED TO FIND SOMETHING WITHOUT HAVING US TO GO THROUGH AND START CREATING THINGS FROM SCRATCH WITHIN OUR SYSTEM.
I LEANED ON U D C TO SAY, LOOK, WE HAVE THIS IN PLACE, WE HAVE ALL THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES THAT ARE OVERSEEN BY ANOTHER DEPARTMENT.
YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW THAT DEPARTMENT'S KIND OF SHIFTING AROUND A LITTLE BIT, BUT UNDER THE U D C, THIS IS WHERE IT STIPULATES.
SO IF SOMEBODY COMES IN, PULLS THAT APPLICATION CAN PROVE US THAT, HEY, THIS IS US.
WE WOULD SAY, OKAY, YEAH, AS LONG AS YOU'RE WITHIN THAT ATE OR THAT GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES THAT YOU USE FOR YOUR REGISTRATION, THEN ANYBODY.
NOW THE CASE IN POINT, WOULD THAT BE IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, IF FERAL CAT THING, THEN THEY WANT TO GO START PUTTING, YOU KNOW, SIGNS ON SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY.
THAT PROPERTY OWNER HAS EVERY RIGHT TO SAY, I DON'T WANT YOUR SIGN HERE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S PERMITTED.
NOW THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THOSE AREAS IS WHERE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO KIND OF INSTALL THE SIGN.
SO LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A GROUP, I LIKE THE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.
I'M NOT REAL INTO THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, COLLEEN SITS ON A GROUP THAT REPRESENTS MULTIPLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAS A HUGE GEOGRAPHIC AREA.
THEY COULD LEGALLY COME IN AND BUY PERMITS AND PUT THINGS IN EVERYBODY'S NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT OF WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT.
IT WAS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD SIGNS WITHIN THEIR GEOGRAPHIC THAT, YOU KNOW, HERE'S AN ANNUAL MEETING, THE OAK WILT SIGNS.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST WE TAKE OUT THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND JUST LEAVE IT THE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.
I I THINK THOUGH THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF HOMEOWNER GROUPS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE FORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED.
SO, BUT THEY WOULDN'T, THEY WOULDN'T FALL UNDER EITHER I, CORRECT.
THEY STILL HAVE TO BE PERMITTED AND REGULATED.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.
WOULD YOU NOT? WELL, NO, BUT IF IT SAYS THAT A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION WITH A GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY CAN DO THAT, SO IF YOU HAVE A, A NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT EIGHT, WHICH I LIVE IN, YOU KNOW, UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS BASICALLY ALL NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN DISTRICT EIGHT, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO COME IN AND APPLY AND PUT SIGNS UP IN EVERYBODY'S NEIGHBORHOOD? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THE REGISTRATION PROCESS THROUGH THE E D C VERY WELL TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
AND, AND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM? I'M JUST USING, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE REQUEST FOR THIS EXEMPTION, I HAD TO FIND SOMETHING I COULD ATTACH TO AND SAY, LOOK, WE HAVE J GARAL BOUNDARIES BASED OFF OF THIS.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW,
YEAH, I MEAN I, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I I JUST DON'T KNOW IF WE RESTRICT REGISTERED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IF THAT'S DEFINED WITHIN THIS REGISTRATION PROCESS UNDER THE U D C, IT'S, WOULD Y'ALL HAVE ANY PROBLEM TAKING OUT THE REGISTERED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND JUST STICKING WITH THE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS? 'CAUSE THAT REALLY WAS WHO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT
[01:10:01]
I SUPPORTED IN ITS CURRENT FORM BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE ABUSED IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.AND IT STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND BE PERMITTED.
SO, WELL NO, IT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE, IT'S AUTOMATIC.
IF YOU HAVE THIS AND YOU DO STILL HAVE TO OBTAIN A, A SMALL SIGN PERMIT, IT'S STILL NO, I UNDERSTAND.
BUT THE BUT IT WOULD THEN NOT BE JOSEPH ONE ONCE IT PASSED ANYBODY METS.
YEAH, IT WOULD BE, YEAH, IT WOULD BE AUTOMATIC.
THERE WOULD BE, THERE IS NO REVIEW.
SO IF THE FERAL CAT ASSOCIATION SAYS MY, OUR GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY IS THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND THEY IDENTIFY THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT UP ANYTHING THEY WANTED ANYWHERE, BUT THEY WON'T.
UH, SO I THINK I DIDN'T NEED PICK ON THEM, BUT IT COULD BE ANYBODY.
I THINK WE'VE UN UN INTENTIONALLY SINGLED OUT A, A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION THAT DOES A LOT OF GOOD WORK.
BUT YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THEY GONNA SAY? FERAL CATS LIVE HERE.
AND I THINK YOU'RE OVERESTIMATING THE, THE MONETARY FUNDS OF THOSE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.
SO LET ME, LET ME JUST CLARIFY ONE THING BASED ON THE LANGUAGE HERE, THEY WILL HAVE TO PULL PERMIT, THEY WILL BE REVIEWED, BUT TECHNICALLY IF THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENT, WE CANNOT DENY IT.
BUT THEY WILL STILL BE REVIEWED.
I HEARD WE ARE NOT GONNA REVIEW IT AND THAT'S NOT ACCURATE.
YOU'RE GONNA REVIEW IT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE REGISTERED AND YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR REGISTRATION LISTED THEIR GEOGRAPHIC AREA.
BUT THAT GEOGRAPHIC AREA COULD BE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, CORRECT? CORRECT.
THERE'S ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO IT ANYWAY AND I'D RATHER SEE THEM REGULATED TO THE POINT WHERE THEIR SIGNS CAN BE REMOVED OR THERE IS SOME KIND OF CONTROL OVER IT.
IT CAN'T BE REMOVED IF IT'S IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY.
IF IT'S NOT PERMITTED, IT CAN.
BUT WHAT, WELL, IT CAN TECHNICALLY BE REMOVED NOW IF IT'S IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, IF THEY DON'T HAVE ANY STICKERS, I MEAN, WE COULD REMOVE IT NOW.
OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS, I MEAN, EVEN WITH THIS STICKER PROGRAM, WE STAFF STILL HAS CONCERNS OF, OF REGULATION AND NOT, YOU KNOW, SLOWING DOWN OUR ABILITY TO REMOVE SIGNS THAT ARE OUT THERE AND, AND INCREASE OF BANDIT SIGNS, UH, IS BEEN OUR CONCERN WITH THIS ONE.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO COMPROMISE AND, AND FIND A SYSTEM.
AT LEAST THIS ONE HAS A STICKER.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, WE, WE STILL HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT.
I I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS JUST GOING TO CREATE TOO MUCH IMPOR TOO MUCH WORK
EVEN THOUGH THEY'LL HAVE A STICKER, WHICH IS BETTER THAN A NUMBER, YOU KNOW, THEY STILL WILL HAVE TO GET OUT AND SEE IF IT'S WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME AND ALL.
UM, THEY'VE GOT ENOUGH TO DO, PICKING UP LITTLE SIGNS AND I DON'T THINK THEY, THEY HAVE THE TIME TO DO THAT.
I'D RATHER THEIR, THEIR TIME BE SPENT ON, ON BIGGER THINGS.
AND I I REALIZE THAT BY SAYING THAT, I'M SAYING THAT D S D WOULD BE ALLOWED TO PICK UP, UH, HOAS PREVENT OAK WILT SIGN.
I'M, I'M FULLY AWARE OF THAT, CHAIRMAN, MAY I? YES.
SO AGAIN, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
THESE TWO EXCEPTIONS ARE IN REALITY FOR SECTION SUBSECTION C.
SO IF WE APPROVE THESE AND ANYBODY PULL PERMIT AND THEY MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS, THEY'RE NOT, UH, ONLY TEMPORARY SIGNS AS FAR AS WE CAN BECAUSE AGAIN, THESE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO C C IS THE ONE WHERE IT SAYS YOU CAN PUT THE SIGN ON FRIDAY NIGHT ALL THE WAY TO MONDAY MORNING.
THE EXCEPTION FOR THAT SECTION IS THESE TWO.
THE FIRST ONE IS BASICALLY ANYBODY CAN PUT SIGNS, MCDONALD'S, BURGER KING, FEDEX, U P S, ANY STORE, ANY PLACE, ANYBODY CAN GET AN ANNUAL PERMIT AND PUT SIGNS FOR THEIR BUSINESS.
THE SECOND ONE IS THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE COMMUNITY.
SO BASICALLY THESE TWO EXCEPTIONS IS BASICALLY WAVING EVERYTHING WE HAVE.
AND I THOUGHT 10 MINUTES AGO WE TALKED ABOUT ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF SIGNS IN TOWN.
WE DID AWESOME JOB IN REGARDS TO THE BILLBOARDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THESE ARE SMALL SIGNS, I GET IT.
BUT WE'RE GONNA SEE A LOT OF THESE.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE THAT EXPENSIVE.
BECAUSE IF I HAVE MY BUSINESS, I'LL PERMIT IT.
I'LL HAVE MY SIGN ALL YEAR LONG, IT'S GONNA BRING ME BUSINESS.
SO FOR D S, D, IT'S AWESOME REVENUE, DON'T GET ME WRONG, DON'T GET ME WRONG.
[01:15:01]
IT? YES, WE CAN STILL GO.IF WE DON'T SEE THE TAG, WE CAN REMOVE IT.
WE CAN STILL DO THAT, BUT WE CAN SEE A LOT OF SMALL SIGNS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION.
'CAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE JUST DEALING WITH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS AND LIKE THE COMMUNITY, I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS FOR BUSINESSES TOO, OR LIKE, NOT BUSINESSES, LIKE MCDONALD'S APARTMENTS AND THINGS.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE THEY, THEY PUT 'EM OUT AND THEY'RE ON THEIR PROPERTY AND THERE IS A LIMIT TO THE NUMBER THEY CAN PUT OUT, CORRECT? WELL, ACROSS THE FRONT.
I MEAN, I WENT IN THAT I WAS IN THAT BUSINESS AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THEIR REGULATIONS.
BUT DON'T, THEY DON'T PUT IT EVERY TWO FEET.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST NOT PRACTICAL.
I THINK THE REGULATION CURRENTLY SAYS 200 FOOT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THEY GO BACK TO C OR WHEREVER WAS THAT AND, AND YET WHEN I LOOK, THEY TEND TO PUT 'EM CLOSE TO THE DRIVEWAY AND THEY'RE AT MOST 30 FOOT APART.
AND THERE'S USUALLY THREE ON EACH SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY.
SO THE CA THE QUESTION OF DISTANCE LIMITATIONS AND MINIMAL SPACING.
UH, 200 SQUARE, UH, 200 FEET DISTANCE FROM SMALL TEMPORARY SIGNS.
UNLESS YOU HAVE TWO PROPERTIES RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
SO YOU COULD HAVE TWO SIGNS WITHIN FIVE FEET EACH OTHER IF THEY'RE JUST AT A PROPERTY LINE.
TO ME, THIS JUST TAKES IT OUT OF BEING A TEMPORARY SIGN.
YOU'RE CREATING A PERMANENT SMALL SIGN.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANYBODY WANNA MAKE A MOTION? I CAN SUGGEST A MOTION FOR DENIAL.
WELL, IF IT DOESN'T GET A MOTION, IT'S DENIED.
NO, THAT WAS THE LAST AGENDA ITEM.
SO LET ME PULL UP THE ACTUAL AGENDA.
IT WAS MORE OF A DISCUSSION POINT.
SO CHAIR THAT CONCLUDED ALL THE PROPOSED CHANGES SUBMITTED, UH, THE COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED AND TAKEN ACTION ON THEM ONCE.
UH, WE'VE HAD A FEW THAT WE DID NOT TAKE AN ACTION ON.
UH, SO AT THIS POINT, WE ARE READY TO GO FOR THE FULL BOARD, UH, FOR THEM TO REVIEW THIS.
I WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ADDED ONE ITEM HERE SO THAT IF THERE'S ANY ITEMS THAT WAS TAKEN ACTION ON PREVIOUSLY, AND I HAVE ALL THE PROPOSED LANGUAGES AND ALL THE ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THIS COMMITTEE.
IF THERE'S ANY LAST MINUTE DECISIONS THEY WANNA MAKE, UH, BEFORE WE GET THERE, UH, REVIEW OF ANYTHING, WE HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
UH, IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT ANY MEMBER, UH, WANTED TO KIND OF REVISIT AS A FINAL BEFORE GOING TO THE FULL BOARD, ANYBODY GOING ONCE? GOING TWICE.
AND, UH, JUST SO KIND OF THE, THE STEPS MOVING FORWARD.
WE'LL MEET, UH, TOMORROW MORNING AT NINE O'CLOCK HERE AGAIN FOR THE FULL BOARD TO REVIEW THIS.
UH, THE, THE GOAL WILL BE TO KIND OF TAKE EVERYTHING ON A CONSENSUS UNLESS ANYBODY COMES TO DISCUSS A CERTAIN ITEM.
I'VE GIVEN THE FULL BOARD ALL THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE ALONG WITH WHAT WE DRAFTED AS POTENTIAL.
I LET THEM KNOW WHICH ONE ITEMS WERE NOT FULLY VOTED ON YET.
BUT IT, YOU KNOW, I'VE INSTRUCTED THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A CERTAIN ITEM YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT, THEN YOU NEED TO PULL THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
STAFF WILL PULL A COUPLE ITEMS THAT WE WANNA HIGHLIGHT AND, UH, HAVE BE AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
AND I ENCOURAGE ALL APPOINT, UH, ANYBODY THAT RECOMMENDED A CHANGE.
YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT WENT IN YOUR FAVOR OR NOT WENT IN YOUR FAVOR.
IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU WENT PULLED AND BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD AND BOARD TO TAKE INDIVIDUAL ACTION ON THAT, THEN YOU KNOW, COME TO THE MEETING.
UH, IT'S A REQUEST THAT THE BOARD PULL THAT ITEM AND WE WILL PULL THAT AND HAVE INDIVIDUAL ACTION AND DISCUSSION ON IT.
BUT EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD JUST BE VOTED ON BY CONSENSUS.
WHAT TIME IS THAT MEETING, SIR? TOMORROW AT NINE O'CLOCK.
I KNOW
TICKETS IF ANYBODY WANTS ANYA TICKETS.
WELL, THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH EVERYBODY.
I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A GRUELING ALMOST A YEAR THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS, SO THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH.