Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Are we ready? All right. Good evening. This is the regular session of the planning commission for April 22nd, 2026. We'll call the meeting to order at 6:00. Could I get a roll call, please? Commissioner Southern here. Commissioner Kulie stated he would be absent this evening. Commissioner Copeland here. Vice Chair Qua present. Chairman Smith here. Right. Uh request for excused absence was Commissioner Kley, I believe. Correct. Uh and if you'll join me for the pledge of

allegiance. To the flag of the stands, one nation under God, indivisible.

All right. Do we have any adjustments to the agenda this evening? There are no adjustments. Any conflicts of interest to disclose? All right. Seeing none, we'll move on to item B, public comment period. uh for items not on the agenda. So anyone person may address the committee on any matter not on this agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out a public comment form provided at the back table and give it to the committee chair or secretary. There is a three-minute limit on public comments. There will be no sharing or passing of time to another person. State law prohibits the committee from discussing or taking actions brought up by your comments. Do we have any requests to speak at this time?

Not for this portion of the agenda. Andrea, do we have any callers on the line? Andrea, I think you might be muted. There you go. Try one more time. I'll check with her on Teams and uh I'll let you know. Okay. Thank you. Uh the meantime, we'll jump into item C for action items, public hearings, and requests. First item of business, item C1 is the approval of the minutes. Uh, is there any discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve.

Oh, second. Okay. Uh, could a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Southern, yes. Commissioner Copeland, yes. Vice Chair Qua, yay. Chairman Smith, yes. Item C2, the billboard survey results report and workshop on regulation of electronic billboards. Uh, can we get a staff report, please?

Yes. Good evening, chair, commissioners. Stephen Jones for the community development department. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight on the electronic billboards community survey results and our workshop for potential updates to the city's outdoor advertising regulations. We also have on our hand on our on hand our public information officer Julie who will be assisting with this presentation as well. Uh for many years Bowmont has maintained a prohibition on new electronic billboards to protect community aesthetics, reduce visual clutter, and maintain safety along major transportation corridors. Under the current code, new billboards are currently only permitted by development agreement and/or relocation agreements and only limited modifications to existing non-conforming structures are allowed. As development has continued along the I 10 corridor and as technology and industry practice practices have evolved, the city has received multiple inquiries from property owners and outdoor advertising companies regarding potential opportunities for digital displays, relocations, or modernization of existing structures. This has prompted staff to evaluate whether the city's current prohibition remains the most effective regulatory approach. Many cities in California do use agreements, relocation agreements or development or otherwise to manage billboard activity. These tools allow cities to remove older non-conforming or illegal billboard structures, consolidate signage into fewer, betterlo sites, allow limited digital billboards in exchange for public benefits, and or ensure long-term control over placement, design, and operational standards. These agreements could also support community messaging time, revenue sharing, or corridor beautifification. Examples of these types of agreements in Bulmont include the Regency target cent's Oak Valley Village project, which you all are familiar with, which authorizes the developer to request

entitlement. So, they need to come back for the planning commission's approval to construct an electronic or digital used interchangeably billboard. The discretion would still be with the planning commission on final action. And another recent agreement is a relocation agreement that actually ultimately expired in December of 2025 due to inaction and no issuance of a building permit. But we would have seen based on your recommendation and the council's approval the existing welcome to Bowmont static structure demolition and relocation and conversion into an electronic billboard at the easterly Bont Banning city limit adjacent to the I 10. Final action on any agreements entered into the city entered with the city would occur at the council level on your recommendation and that's what currently exists. Implementing the current ordinance prohibition may hinder economic development limit the city's ability to take advantage of modern technology and risks leaving Bulmont behind comparable communities. And in the community survey results to better understand the community sentiment, the city recently conducted a community survey focused on electronic billboards. The public information officer is on hand again to provide insight on those results and I can advance your slides as you need. Okay. That way you don't have to worry about pushing them. Can the public see the PowerPoint? Okay. All right. Wonderful. Uh Julie Van Hook, PIO, thank you um planning commission for having us. Um we launched an 8week survey um at the request of city council just to garner some general sentiment. It um was released on social

media, our website, and our public access channel slides. So not a scientifically valid survey but to garner general feedback and and outliers right is there a strong opposition is there general support and um as you probably see in the the staff report you can you can tell that there is a general supports we had under 200 respondents roughly 90% indicated they are Bont residents um nearly 70% neutral expressed neutral to um supportive response to um the city generating revenue for billboards. Um about 70% um was also expressed for neutral to supportive for um providing space for community messaging um with primary concerns um around um locations near neighborhoods. And these are all what we all expected, right? Brightness, driving distractions, visual clutter. Um it was a short survey and um that was presented to council back in March. One second. Let me toggle over to my results. And so with the um the overall summary, the majority of those responding to the survey was supportive. There was um about a 20% opposition to modernizing billboards, which was expected. Um and the public um open comment section of the survey did ex have some concerns regarding the visual impacts and protection of neighborhood character and prioritizing safety. Um and so with that, if you have any additional questions, I'm here to answer it.

Thank you. Staff also reviewed billboard regulations in surrounding jurisdictions. Many nearby cities allow digital billboards under strict takedown ratios, corridor specific overlay zones, or relocation agreements as discussed. Common regulatory tools include restrictions on spacing, height, limits on animation, dwell time, transitions, requirements for public messaging time, and prohibitions on scenic or residential areas. These examples demonstrate that cities can balance economic opportunity with visual quality and safety. The cities of Banning and Ukipa employ provisions to authorize billboard billboards, excuse me, in certain zones. So, if the city were to consider regulating electronic billboards after direction from the council, an ordinance consistent with state law would be required to amend the city's municipal code. Primary goals could include reducing the total number of billboards citywide. And what we'd be asking you to do tonight is to also consider whether or not structures versus faces would be considered or would be the methodology for replacement. So would we be considering the pole as one structure and if your ratio is two or three or four to one would it be three four two or three or four poles or would we be considering static faces and so that if the ratio is two faces to one then we would say it's going to be it could be one pole but two faces. So that distinction may need to be considered tonight. We would also look at eliminating illegal or non-conforming signs, improving aesthetics along major corridors, providing opportunities for controlled digital displays, ensuring public safety through brightness and operational standards, supporting community messaging and emergency

notifications, and protecting neighborhoods and scenic views. Uh to be to be fair, there are no protected scenic views in the city. So that would be something you would need to define as well if or we would look to define as well if it were a consideration. A key policy consideration again would be the takedown ratio. So what we've gotten in terms of clues from the city council meeting and discussion so far is an aggressive ratio is preferred especially where there is an overconentration or clutter. As you can see the red dots and the current billboards along the 10. And if those areas could be addressed separately from the rest of the city or the rest of the areas considered to be appropriate for billboards, that would be probably the uh best ratio for higher returns. And then staff could also build in certain findings that must be met if lower ratios are to be considered on an individual basis. Tonight's workshop is informational and staff presented background survey results and how other cities are addressing electronic billboard outdoor advertising. Also, potential Bulmont alternatives were expressed in the staff report. Staff is requesting that planning commission recommend that the city council consider providing staff direction to draft an ordinance regulating electronic billboard outdoor advertising. So, it wouldn't be that you guys would say, "Yeah, let's go ahead and do it, but we're recommending that the city council consider it." And then also, we would be allowed to allow the preparation of a comprehensive, legally defensible, and community informed ordinance that balances economic development and future private endeavors. Thank you. And I'm

available for questions. Thank you. All right. So, this is workshop format. So, you know, it's kind of open questions. Uh we'll start over, you know, Commissioner S if you want to ask any of your questions. We'll just kind of move down the line. Yeah. Uh going back to the map that shows all the billboards in Bowmont. Is there uh the ownership of those? Is there primarily, you know, two owners, three owners? Is does that universe does that vary or is there like one primary owner of the billboards in the city? I would say there's one major stakeholder that owns most of the billboards and so that's probably private agreements between Lamar advertising and private property owners andor structure owners. So Lamar, short answer.

Sure. Um and so that might make it easier as you're going through the regulate to renegotiate where those sites would be and take down some of those older non-conforming or Yeah. So, if they're illegal, for sure, there there's probably more u support for removing those. If they're non-conforming, then there's certain amortization periods that could come into play that may challenge whether or not those are included in any ratios to be removed. But yes, one one property owner makes it a little one structure owner makes it a little easier, I believe. That's all my questions for now, Mr. Qua.

Okay, first question. Um, which jurisdiction takes precedent over a billboard, CALR or city of Bulmont? Would depend on the location, but we would need to create an ordinance, for example, if it's along the 10, the 60 or the 79 with Calrans in mind, and so they would have a heavy influence on our regulations. So, does CALR allow for a billboard? That's something that the city may not want to pursue. It could. And so that that that would leave it to the local jurisdiction to uh either take the more restrictive or if there's something that they allow that we don't want, we wouldn't have to.

So we wouldn't have a problem with Calrans accepts it because they're the ones that are going to issue the permit. We'd be issuing the permit, but they'd also have uh the right of review for certain billboards along in certain areas. So a property so would a property owner be able to say the CALR allows the allows us to make a bigger brighter sign that we may not want and what happens in that situation. Yeah. So we have precedent right we would have precedent if we're restricting in a in a bigger way if we're more restrictive than the local jurisdiction takes precedence.

Okay. Um, and so it would take precedence if let's say they allow more uh billboards in a uh linear footage. So if let's say within 100 linear feet you can put one, two, three. What are we looking at doing as a city? What are we recommending to do? So, we're looking at probably a thousand, but it's really going to be up to you guys tonight to make a a determination on what that might look like. Ultimately, we're just looking for the ideas and the feedback if we think on order of magnitude it's going to be a thousand. And that's just a number I'm throwing out there because that's what I heard at city council. Uh it could be addressed in an actual draft. Right now, there's no example of what the city would like to see until we hear from you. Okay, I'm going to table. Any other questions?

I I missed that. I'm sorry. Your hypothetical thousand pertains to what? Distance between eligible or other billboards. Oh, okay. Yeah. Do we have anything any ordinance or restrictions on how close to the freeway a billboard can be? Now,

we have a definition of a freeway sign, and forgive me if I don't know what the number is. I'll look it up right now. on order of magnitude. It's like 500 600 feet. If it's within that radi or within that radius, uh it's considered a freeway sign. So that's the long and short of it for now is we have a definition of a freeway sign. But there's no restriction as to you can only be that one proximity to the road. So, uh, the 10 is going by and using an example eastbound approaching Highland Springs on the south side of the freeway. How close can the sign be to the freeway? Is it can't be within 50 feet, can't be within 100 feet.

We don't have that regulation. And so, CALR, for example, then would would take precedent. So if they have a buffer of 100 feet or whatever it might be, that's where we would defer. Uh is there any um also uh any thought given to uh specifics on revenue sharing? Just that it's a possibility.

Okay. Um I I know for a fact some of the uh enormous profits from that. Uh so I would like to see the city participate. Last question. Will the city have any opportunity to have or have you thought about control of the contents in the sense of in the event of an emergency, the city could then post emergency messages on the signs, right? Absolutely. That could be a part of of uh regulations. It could be part of a development agreement or relocation agreement even now, but it would be something that could be could be codified in that Yeah. When there's an emergency, those broadcasts take precedent over,

right? Advertising as well as content. Content in what regard? In terms of advertising content, I don't think that we would be able to restrict content per se where you start getting into some tricky first amendment. That would be up to the sign owner then. Fine. Right. Okay. Yeah. So, but if there if there were an emergency, for example, we can interrupt the broadcast of Yeah. someone's maybe there's provisions for refunds and things like that that would happen on the developer side, but we could say, "Hey, we need to broadcast this because Commissioner Co needs to get through traffic and we want to blast that on."

Yeah. Accident on the freeway or heaven forbid there's an earthquake or natural disaster, right? It would be important to tell our residents as well as others um you know, get out ahead of them and what's absolutely Yeah, that's definitely a part of look into that. Good. Thank you. So, some thoughts a little bit scattershot at this point, but um no, I like the idea of the aggressive ratio on it. I think kind of bringing down the number, especially if we're going to go digital, you're able to get a lot more advertising up there, clean up some of the old stuff on there. I would I would be fine with a 3:1 um you know, billboard face reduction. Um, you know, as as we're looking forward on this, I think for me, one of the the keys that we really need to consider is the proximity to residences and the proximity to uh view sheds. Um, you know, personally coming in over the 60, you know, as especially as you come around those first corners, you know, it's it's always just been stunning and I don't want to see, you know, Bill's bail bonds or something on an electronic sign as we come around that corner. So, as we're looking at the at this, I would even, you know, suggest that the the corridors along the freeway should even be restricted a little bit further. So it's east of pro, east of u Oak Valley and then up to the city limit. So it's adjacent to commercial or industrial kind of already urbanized areas and not necessarily adjacent to the residential zones. So that would be recommendation um that I would have on that. Um you know I think as far as the spacing goes, it's going to be dependent on what's available from, you know, property owners and so forth on there. And maybe instead of a hard, you know, one per thousand foot, maybe what we can look at is, you know, two between any adjacent intersections, you know, something like that. They're generally a quarter or half a mile to a mile apart. So that might be a way to, you know, if we have two that maybe it's 750 ft, they're not working on a variance at that point, you know, if if they're not able to meet a thousand or something along those lines.

But it still is a a limiting um it still has a limitation on how many we're going to be putting along the freeway as we move through.

I don't know if two is the right number or not, but just as suggestion for consideration there. Uh for me, I think the one of the other things that we need to really be aware of is how we do comply with dark skies. Um, you know, I know that for some of the other um, you know, signings that we've had on there that the after 10 o'clock, they've indicated that they're able to dim the signs a little bit so it's not quite as obtrusive there. And I think we need to be taking a look at either that for the electronic billboards or potentially even if there is a shut off time. I know that that would impact revenues, but you know, if we got to a point past, you know, 10:00 or something like that, they would need to transition off um you know, between then until like 6:00 in the morning or something like that as as a way that we're not impeding where they're going to be very visible from residences, you know, areas that maybe a little further away. If we're in the we're in the Y there between the 60 and the 10, right?

You know, it's less likely you're going to be impacting residences. So, you know, it might be a little bit more flexibility in those cases. Um, so I think location is going to be real important there. Um, I would try to keep them, you know, if you can like a thousand foot away from nearest home, you know, so that could dictate what side of the freeway is going to be eligible as you move through the corridor. I know Calrans is going to have some input on how quickly you're able to actually transition between because they don't want it to be a distraction and I think they're like 10 or 15 seconds I think is what they kind of recommend is that you know you have a static image up there for about that amount of time. Um and then you know I'd worked on previous um previous applications of Riverside where the I think the community was it was 15 minutes out of every six or 15 seconds out of every minute would be available for community messaging. You know that could be in in in a shorter burst but you know something along those lines so we can get something out there. I think the the key is going to be that it's really going to be freeway facing. It's going to be the through traffic that's seeing it more than the community is really seeing as we come through. So, you know, how much we utilize that, you know, do we would we want to advertise, hey, it's bulky item cleanup day on a freeway sign that now everybody else is going to see it and want to come to, you know, that trash collection. Um, so I think just being real cognizant of what we're advertising on there or what the community advertisement is. Um, you know, that if it's we're advertising Cherry Festival, I think that's great. you know, it draws people in the community, but something that we really want to focus just on the community members might be different.

If I can just chime in. So, we we do have some contracts with um billboards both in Riverside and in Redlands. So, it would be a chance to um you know, maybe even cut spending in that area and utilize billboards here locally, which you know, as you drive through the city would make more sense. Okay.

I see the ones that are open your business in Bowmont. Yeah. Um, so no, I I think that overall to me that there is the advantage of moving forward with the with the digital signs just to help to clean up the area. I think if we keep them limited and we really kind of community focus it. Um, I I would hate to see just the post with the electronic sign on top of it. I think that they should do something else that's, you know, architecturally, you know, consistent with the community or the area that they're building in, you know, specifically to kind of mask the post as well, though. So, all right. Go back and follow up in with any other comments.

Oh, so I want to jump on what Nathan said, and I didn't think about that. Um, is the 60 freeway. So, when we were looking at the 60 freeway, did we take the general plan what zoning is going to be in there? Because I I know that tends to be a darker area. So the dark skies in my mind and if there's any residential components in there that might be a concern of mine. The 10 freeway I understand it's a little more urban urbanized. So um the zoning there now is neighborhood commercials. It's more commercial uses in that general um exit on Sixth Street is

so the the a little further down the 60 where that line development is is that the extent of the residential zoning for that area. Yes. So the olivewood is the the limit limits of it. That's why I was thinking Proo, if we say east of Portro, we're not impacting that community, but we're putting it along kind of with the the mixeduse area, the industrial area, you know, and it kind of fits in there, I think, a little bit more appropriately and preserves the view as you're kind of coming around this first corner. Yeah. Because once you start getting into that canyon, you're not I don't see billboards going in there unless No. No. God, could you imagine electronic billboards back when it was undivided?

Yeah. All right. Thank you.

Any other thoughts from the commission? No, I'll just uh jump in and I'll just echo chairman's uh sentiment about maintaining the views. I think that's a really important asset for our city. Um it's one of the things that drew my family here to Bowmont. So, uh, being mindful of that as we're planning this out, ensuring we're maintaining those views, I think is really important. So, want to make sure we reflect that in anything we do going forward. Now, we this the likely locations doesn't include anything on 79 is some is are we looking that we would exclude electronic billboards coming in from that direction. So far, that's been the direction. Yes, chair. I would agree. I would agree with that. So,

and part of it is the general plans mobility element and circulation element designate that as a highway and not a freeway. And so, the freeway was considered to be the trigger point for us to look at the opportunities. Okay. But as we go down the 79, isn't it in the sphere of influence only and not in the city? Cuz I thought back then at a certain point. Yeah. Yeah. So past California. Yeah. How much influence would we have over it if if it's just a sphere of influence that we have?

So the influence would be I'd say minimal. Right now it's in the county. So they could designate that. But in the same way their general plan doesn't design designated as a freeway. It's still a highway. And so it's unlikely that they would because of night sky ordinance because of the designation in the mil and their mobility element. It's unlikely that they were looking to address any outdoor advertising needs there. Okay. So, right now, I would say the influence is probably light, but they uh they're definitely open and willing to have a dialogue if the city has comments on any changes that they're proposing. Okay. Thank you.

Right. So, this is not a public hearing, but we are going to take any public comments. Are there requests to speak on this item? Um, I have a business card from Lesie Lockin. Did you want to speak? Okay.

And thank you um, planning commission for allowing me to speak on this issue. Um, I wanted to address a couple of your comments related to CALR. Uh, CALR does permit billboards. Uh so billboard companies such as Lamar or any other companies are required to get permits from CALR. Calrans also um let's say that we have an application with the city to amend a billboard and it's within the freeway or um an area that CALR um has jurisdiction. They require us to show a copy of the permit for any change we're going to do any permit from the city. So they they aren't going to approve something if the city hasn't approved something. So there's there's definitely um uh checks and balances if you will there. Um let's see my scribbled notes here. Sorry. Um that was that. Okay. Uh Kelr also uh has regulations in related to where a billboard can be located. A billboard has to be within 1,000 ft of a business. So, you're not going to see one on the 60 freeway where there's no business um near it. They also designate certain highways as um beautifification. So, for example, the 62 leading up to Joshua Tree, um that's that's designated uh a beautifification highway. You're not going to see a billboard there. So 70 M pardon me 60 may have the same designation. I haven't looked into it. Lamar does not have any billboards in the city of Bowmont that are on the 60. Um let's see in uh thousand feet of business. Um and as far as in a residential

neighborhood, we wouldn't be in favor of putting a bill a digital billboard in a residential neighborhood. That's not what we do. Um, we do look at hightra areas and we would not want to um have something in a residential neighborhood that impacts the neighbors. That's that we're we're good community stewards and we want to um always think what's best for the community and what's best for the city as well. Uh there with that said just so just for information only there is technology if a billboard is near and has a digital billboard has light that's reflecting anywhere near a neighborhood. The technology um that's in place is a mechanism that shields um it doesn't allow a a neighbor or a home resident near that billboard to see it. there's a there's kind of like a barrier that doesn't allow the light to go that way or it the billboard to be seen. So, there is some technology around that. Um, as far as messaging on a billboard or having that in a development agreement or relocation agreement, we've always um been in favor of that and worked on that with other cities where on a space available basis, we will advertise city sponsored events. So, your cherry festival, etc., any city sponsored events. Um, as far as emergency messaging, absolutely. Um, we have the technology with bill with digital billboards to immediately put something up. I mean, you we can actually go in um enter into the computer what we want it to say and it's it's instantaneous. So, in the event of any type of emergency or warning that needs to be put out, we absolutely um would be in favor of using our our space

for that without any cost to the city. Um I wanted to address also um a decorative poll. So, I have an example here. Um, we actually have an application in with the city. Um, that's going to come forth at another time, but it is on Highway 79. And I also want to mention, I don't know if before we go in, if we do have future business items, that's something that we Oh, I'm sorry. Should I not go? I just I'm going to give you an example of what could be done. Okay.

Um, as far as a decorative poll and identity, business identity. So, our city identity. So, we do have, you've seen them in other cities, I know. Um, this is something that we would propose. Um, as far as 79 goes, uh, there are two existing boards on Highway 79, one at the Mr. Taco location, and that will come forth at another time, um, for a digital conversion. The other, um, thing I want to mention, the city also um, benefits from a revenue share. We have a billboard on city property at the entrance to the to the freeway from 79. So if you're on 79, you're about to enter the freeway, there is a billboard that is on city property and the city does we do pay a guaranteed minimum rent as well as a revenue share to the city. Um and I I do believe there might be a provision in there that the city can also advertise on a space available basis. So, um, one of the reasons we looked at 79 is because it's a gateway into your city and we like that it would give identity into the city of Bowmont.

And then before you go, just your name uh name and Oh, sure. She's has my card, but it's Lesie Lockan with Lamar. I'm the real estate manager and manage uh billboards for the uh Lamar Palm Springs. The territory runs from Mecca through Bumont. Okay. Any other questions or that I can answer? Any questions? Thank you very much. No, I have some. Thank you. But all right. Well, thank you for your time. Nicole, do we have any commenters online? Andre, do we have any callers on the line?

No callers. So, it sounds to me that there's some alignment with what we're talking about here and what the, you know, the billboard representatives are seeking as well, especially avoiding residential areas using technology. Um, generally, I would imagine, you know, if you're putting up a digital billboard, it's going to be two faces and it's going to be angled towards the freeway, not towards the homes. You know, that's the target audience there. So, uh, I think there are the opportunities for for that protection and, you know, we'll have to evaluate that as the individual applications come in. Um, they bring up 79, you know, so we are looking at the corridor, you know, is there a point along 79 that it could make sense like maybe from first street up to the interstate up over the freeway. Um, you know, I don't necessarily see going back into the hills, but as we're getting a little bit closer, is that something to to consider as part of a policy?

But how do we consider it if it's part of the sphere of influence and ultimately it's the county that well, if we would say that we just limit it from like first street to I 10, you know, it's really going to be just that block as you head over the rail tracks and that is our jurisdiction. And I think Lamar mentioned there that there is an exist now. Yeah. One is the city's Yes. So yeah, that be use for that. Excuse me. We also had a public comment. Is that going to be brought into the record? Is there a written comment? Yeah, there is. There's one public comment per um person. Was the email from you or from a separate

person? Okay. Sorry, I was under the impression you were going to read that into the record. Oh, I I could read it into the record. I thought I was Yeah, I'd be happy to read it into the record. Uh, let me let me pull up the public comment that was emailed. Okay. Um, any other comments?

So, as we get the record, Nicole, were you would you read that in? Okay. Okay, this email is um from Theodore Stream. Um it's written to Stephen. Um, Stephen reviewed the planning commission staff report for the April 22nd meeting regarding billboard survey results and workshop on regulation of electronic billboards and wanted to provide some thoughts in advance of the planning commission's discussion of that agenda item. First, we want to acknowledge the work staff has done in laying out the policy alternatives and the city's effort to move forward to a more modern regulatory framework. As you know, the city has previously allowed digital conversions through relocation agreements. So, this is really a continuation and refinement of a model that has already been successfully implemented in Bulmont. From Lavar, from Lamar's perspective, we are supportive of both alternate alternate limited corridor based allowance and alternative three CUP framework depending on how they are structured. Even if the city ultimately moves forward with alternative alternative two, that is something we could work towards. We could work with if the designated corridors are expanded in a practical way to include appropriate freeway adjacent locations. In the context of our current project, alternative two would work if the corridor is broadened to capture this site. Alternatively, the COP based framework could also be effective, especially where it allows the city to maintain control over spec sight

specific approvals, incorporate public benefits such as emergency messaging, and ensure that older static billboards are removed and replaced with modern digital structures. That type of approach creates a clear community benefit while still allowing flexibility for the city to evaluate each project as it merits. We are happy to provide examples of ordinances and regulatory frameworks we have helped develop in other jurisdictions if that would be helpful as the city continues refining its approach following the planning commission's recommendation. With that broader policy discussion in mind, we also wanted to outline a proposal for the project currently under consideration in addition to removing the application site.

So again, I think just because that's specific business that's going to come in front of us, let's hold off on Okay. those comments. Got it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Um so for the commission here it sounds like we have general consensus that we agree that this is a policy to move forward with ex exploring on it. Uh from staff you know you have uh comments and thoughts and notes and stuff from us. Is there any anything up here that's a you know major disagreement point or you know an item that you have? So the the action tonight is looking for a recommendation to the city council to direct staff to prepare the necessary ordinance and documents. That correct?

Yes. There's a lot of recommending in there, but yes, we recommend that you recommend that they recommend to us to start. So, uh, with that, I would entertain a motion. If there's no further discussion, I would entertain a motion. Uh, so moved. Second. Okay. Uh, with that, we get a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Suther, yes. Commissioner Copeland, yes. Vice Chair Qua, yay. Chairman Smith, yes. All right. And thank you all. Uh, with that, we'll move on to staff comments.

Yes. Really quickly, I will say that the Inland Empire section of the American Planning Association California chapter has congratulated the Community Development Department Planning Division for receiving an excellence award in the category of implementation of the zoning code update. So that's in part because of your work. Thank you very much for receiving, analyzing, and recommending approval on the zoning code update to implement our general plan. So that just happened and I uh thank you for your time and hope that you'll congratulate our staff for absolutely will. Your staff has put in

a tremendous amount of hours getting that uh completed and to us and and uh making sure to continue to you know poke and prod to make sure we were doing our job on it as well. So you know without without the staff putting the effort into it that they did you know we we wouldn't have been able to get that. So, thank you and congratulations on the award. They've done a great job. The rest of the staff is in in training today and tomorrow and this week with uh the American environmental the American environmental professionals conference. Um the environmental review it's mostly related to SQA and environmental review.

So, we'll we'll pass along that congratulations from you. And then the Inland Empire Awards 2026 are being held at the State Bridge Suites in East Bale, California May 21st, 2026. So we'll be receiving that award then and hopefully there's some big shiny trophy weekend come up and display it next time we're here for sure. I'm expecting like a Heisman like just a huge something over there. I don't know. We'll see what happens. And then the other item for us is to verify or confirm that you can uh make quorum on May 27th for our climate adaptation climate action adaptation plan. Um an important document that we'd like to to get through uh I would say this year it's been lingering and during the pandemic and different things that have occurred it's been slow to fruition. We're we're nearing our culmination for a recommendation from you on the uh climate action adaptation plan before the council. So May 27th is that sound like a quorum that we're going to make.

I have that on my calendar for for this. So yep, my schedule. Okay. All right. Are we expecting a May 13th meeting at this point? No, I think we're going to be able to cancel. So, I don't know that there's any um items just yet ready. So, um yeah, we'll confirm this week, but we definitely want to make sure that the cap is on for uh May 27th and then we'll we'll confirm if there are any items for May 13th. I don't think there will be though. Uh commissioner comments.

All right. So, then with that, should we adjourn to the regular May 13th or should we adjourn to where we have known for May 27th? What's the We can just adjourn this meeting and um state that the next um meeting is scheduled for May 13th unless otherwise posted. Okay. So with that then before you do. Oh yes Nicole I will not be available on the 13th of May. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So with that then we will adjourn the meeting tonight at 6:45 until the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday May the 13th. Right. Thank you all.