Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

And this meeting is now called to order. Commissioner Beard or or actually, before we do that, can you Key up there.

Control Room, can we please play the announcement?

Pursuant to the city council rules of procedure and order of business resolution, the members of all boards and commissions and the public are reminded that they must preserve order and decorum throughout the meeting. In that regard, members of the boards and commissions and the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the board or commission or the presiding officer constitutes a violation of these rules. The city of Riverside is committed to fostering a workplace that provides dignity, respect, and civility to our employees, customers, and the public they serve.

Thank you. Now, Commissioner Beard, would you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Thank you. Thank you. We'll now start with public comment.

Comment is now open for this item. (951) 826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press 9. Called to speak, press 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Okay. Do we have any comment from the audience?

I'm sorry? No callers

callers. Okay. No calls. Okay. Moving on then.

This time, the planning commission will open the public hearing to receive public input regarding

Good morning. Thank you chair and members of the commission. Sarah Zugayer, associate planner. The case before you this morning is a request for a conditional use permit to permit the on sale of a craft beer taproom within an existing commercial building. The 4649 square foot project site is developed with an existing multi tenant commercial building, which was originally constructed in 1924.

Surrounding uses include commercial to the North across Main Street, west across Poplar Street and south, and single family residences to the East. These photos depict the existing conditions of the site. Photos one and two show the project site from the public sidewalk facing south. Photo three shows the project site from across Main Street. And photo four shows the project site from the public sidewalk facing north.

The site is zoned Northside specific plan, mixed use neighborhood zone, which allows for the on sale of alcohol subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The existing commercial business I'm sorry, the existing commercial building is 4,649 square feet, and the craft beer tap room will occupy the front tenant space, totaling thirteen ten square feet. Patrons will access the tap room's entrance from the public sidewalk on Main Street, and no modifications to the site are proposed as part of this plan. The craft beer tap room known as twelve thirty four will operate Sunday through Thursday from 4PM to 10PM and Friday and Saturday from 4PM to 11PM with three employees per shift. The project includes the proposal for on sale of beer and will also offer non alcoholic beverages and prepackaged snacks.

No off sale of beer is proposed in conjunction with this project. The tap room will include a seven eighty three square foot tasting room, a 154 square foot central alcohol storage and bar area, an office, and two restrooms. No modifications to the exterior elevations are proposed except for three lighting fixtures that provide for illumination for security and safety of patrons, employees and surrounding businesses. Additionally, the project will remove existing wrought iron security bars from the windows and doors. The project site is located within Census Tract 30103, which currently contains one on sale license at Mr.

Taco, indicated by the blue star on the screen. The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control allows for two on sale licenses within the census tract. 123 Poor would constitute as the second license and therefore complies with ABC's standards. As shown on the screen, the project meets all minimum setbacks for the on sale of alcoholic beverages. The proposed taproom will complement surrounding commercial and residential uses by providing a community service to nearby residents and employees.

The site is consistent with all development standards of the zoning code and citywide design guidelines. With that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the project is exempt from CEQA per section 15,301, existing facilities of the CEQA guidelines, as the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and approve planning case PC twenty twenty five nine forty nine based on the findings outlined in the staff report and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. This concludes staff's presentations and the applicant team is present and available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Is the applicant present? Could you please come forward and state your name?

My name is Estelle Anfuro.

I am Brenton Aragon.

And do you agree with all the conditions set forth by city staff? Yes we do. Thank you. Did you have any presentation or anything that you wanted to add?

We just wanted to introduce ourselves. Are Riverside natives. We are trying to establish a staple in Riverside with having a artisanal and craft fine dining experience that is very casual. That differs with the rest of downtown that seems more to be more of a nightclub scene. We want everything to be, like I said, just very casual, but also bridging the arts and the arts culture with being part of Riverside Arts Walk because we intend to have a rotating

installations

and a rotating mural past.

I that's

case. And

just simple bar. Okay.

Thank you very much. Thank you. At this time, we'll open for a public comment.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call (951) 826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press 9. When called to speak, press 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Okay do we have anybody online or on the phone?

There are no callers.

No callers. Okay no one in the audience. Okay with that do I have a motion to close public comment

I second

we vote Okay, okay I'll bring it back to the commissioners. Does any of the commissioners have any comment? Commissioner Moon.

Good morning. There are four or five dedicated parking stalls in the front. Was it four or five? Around that number, right? And the only reason I'm asking is I frequent the business next door, which is a yoga studio and parking is extremely difficult.

Now that's different hours during the day. The other thing is that that corridor, I really have to watch when I'm even getting back into my car and putting things away because the speed is pretty high there. So that was my question about your patrons with limited parking. Would either the staff or the applicant discuss that for safe parking for the patrons that are going to be

coming to your business? Commissioner Mooney, I can answer that question. So this project site is subject to AB 2,097, which is an assembly bill from the state that does not require minimum parking if you're within a transit corridor area which Main Street is. It's close. So there's no on-site parking.

There is public parking on the right of way on Main Street there which customers would use. And I believe Public Works is also working on a project for a capital improvement project to improve Main Street. And so that will be coming in the next couple years or so. But we can also have Chris Nieto talk to that capital improvement project.

Very good, thank you.

Hello Commissioner.

Just to elaborate a little more, the Main Street improvement project that she's talking about is a Safe Streets Department of Transportation grant funded project that's in design right now. And the plan is to reduce driving lanes from four to two. Okay. They're gonna it's the work is gonna be in between the curbs so everything within the paving area is gonna include additional median parking in a zipper style Mhmm. Along the whole corridor.

And also change how bike lanes and all the striping will change along with that to one reduce speeds, increase parking, beautify the area, and help more of these businesses come through and start gaining patrons.

Oh that's great. I'm sorry, what was the timeline on that?

The anticipated project construction is 2027. Okay. So we have a little ways out. They're just under design right now. So it's a little bit of a process.

Yeah. It's just I'm sure you're aware because even though there's motorbike officers that patrol that area regularly, it is kinda scary just going back to your car. And as I say, I usually have to put something away in the back. And I haven't had anything to drink. So I'm, you know, I'm in the back and putting in and I'm really aware. And so it's just a safety issue that I would be concerned with. I've even seen people run across the street. And to me, the experience, it's folks gain a pretty good clip on that corridor there. And it's a safety issue that I would be wondering, especially if people are going be consuming alcohol.

Definitely in the short term it's kind of going to stay the way it is right now. But I can guarantee that with the updated design in this parking it's going to have multiple additions of crosswalks which are on their own going to slow down traffic as well. So reducing lanes, adding parking, increasing striping, adding pedestrian crossings are going to help with all your concerns in the long run.

Very good. Thank

you. Commissioner Baird.

Yeah. Thank you for bringing the proposal to us. Appreciate that. My clarification, this is a tap room, not a brewery, Correct? So, this is dispensing beer produced somewhere else on-site?

Correct. Yes.

Great. And then, my other concern was regarding parking and sufficient parking on-site. Seemed under parked, alright, for similar uses that I've seen around the city. You've explained the reasoning for that. So, it. Thank you again.

Commissioner Singh.

Good morning. I have a question. Now the only thing you're selling is a beer, no other alcohol? Yes sir. Yes sir. Okay. Based on what you see, in that area, maybe we have somebody from your side PD. What is the prime in that reporting history?

For that particular location, there's been very few calls for service. I checked additional addresses along the strip and it's very minimal and nonconcerning.

When you say few, what do you mean by few?

Disturbances, some vandalisms, some minor thefts. In 2024 at the applicant's location, we had a illegal marijuana grow that was there. So we ended up doing a search warrant, seizing all that product, but obviously it has nothing to do with them. And other than that, it's just normal calls for service, very few. 2024 in that general area within a couple of businesses, 10 to 15 calls for service, nothing compared to what's going on around the city.

How far is the next alcohol serving place to this place?

So that would be Mr. Taco just up the street. Let me go. So you can see it's just a couple streets north indicated by the blue star and that would be the other on sale license within the vicinity.

Do they have any problem with the crime?

And Mr. Taco? Yeah. Occasionally yes.

The reason bring this out is because I was looking at the crime statistics and our city is slightly higher than the national average and I'm wondering if we really look at it a little bit more seriously and see what we can do to curb it. So I'm wondering if applicants have any provisions to handle if there is kind of disturbance in the facility?

Well, between us, we have twenty years of experience of serving craft beer in a similar setting. And in the area that we are now, we have had no we've had in the ten years we've served, we've had three calls of service to our establishment In ten years. In ten years. And those calls weren't even about patrons. They were about outside entities that needed to be dealt with with the police to come in.

But this is unusual though. Right?

It's unusual, but it's not it's it's based on how we will run our business because the way we run our business, it's not like I said, it's not a typical bar. It's more of a community area. So the community we foster becomes more of the patrons wanting the establishment to continue to operate. So when anyone sees any behavior that is considered inappropriate, the patrons will sometimes regulate themselves and be like, hey, you need to calm down. We want this place to to remain.

We don't want any trouble here. And that is the kind of community they were trying to foster is the same thing that happened at this establishment. And that's what we've had for the last ten years. Like I said, we have no trouble at the place that we work at now. And it's because of the community that we foster with patrons.

Thank you. Commissioner Tennyson.

Thank you. In looking at this project, there have been some answers already given as far as parking is concerned and I have seen the conceptual on what they want to do on Main Street and I'm very excited about that. I think it will improve our city exponentially. I'm really excited that you're bringing this project to us and that you have a project behind it that will only enhance that area. You're starting it at the beginning and I hope that you continue to keep this area clean and healthy as it needs to be. And with that said, if it's okay, I would like to make a motion.

Not yet. We have more questions.

Do we? Sorry I missed that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Melendez. Okay. I had just a quick question regarding the serving of alcohol. Is there a limit to where you cut a patron off? I guess this would be addressed to the applicant.

There's not a set limit. It's based on our our experience in dealing with patrons. So every patron is different depending on their to how they invite alcohol and how they process alcohol. So when someone comes in, you have to ascertain if you think they've already been drinking, if you think they may be already impaired, and then you go from there. And if you feel like someone has been over served, then you establish a slow plate on them.

You offer them water, you offer them snacks, you try make sure that they're not in danger of themselves or others. The the key is always to make it to where it's an enjoyable experience and our the purpose of our bar isn't somewhere to go and get annihilated. It's not somewhere to go and get trash. It's somewhere to go and and taste rotating craft beer and more so to establish a community with each other, with people that wouldn't necessarily need each other because they're from different circles and it's a place for people to come together that wouldn't necessarily meet. And that's kinda what's happened with our establishment we work with now and that's what we wanna bring to Riverside.

Okay.

Thank you. You are welcome. Okay. No more speakers at this time. Do I have a

motion? I

would like to move that we approve planning case 20250949.

I second. Please vote.

Six votes yes motion passes and we'll move on to planning case p c two zero two five. Oh, before we go there, there is a ten day appeal period. If anyone chooses to appeal, please contact the planning division for your appeal information. Now we can move on to planning case PC 2025Dash01190.

Good morning, honorable chair, members of the commission, Matthew Taylor, principal planner and acting city planner today. I'm doing double duty. So I'm gonna hop down here, give this presentation, and I'll hop back up to the dais to answer any questions that you might have. This item is a comes from the land use committee, and it is a, proposed text amendment to title 19 to, regulate stand alone smoke shops, tobacco retail establishments. So in 2006, the city established a licensing procedure for all tobacco retail uses in the city.

And in 2021, that was updated to adapt to some changes in state law regulating the sale of tobacco products in California and also to improve those permit procedures. And we'll talk a little bit more about what those look like specifically, but those are housed in title six of the municipal code and the Riverside Police Department administers that program. In 2024, the city, partnered with the Blue Zones Project Initiative, for the Blue Zones Riverside Project, which has as a core pillar of, their efforts to improve health and well-being and longevity in the city, management of of tobacco use and reduction of tobacco use among the population. Also, that year, Assembly Bill three thousand two and eighteen banned the sale of flavored tobacco in California. In 2025, in response to some ongoing concerns about activity at some of our tobacco retail establishments, the city council did adopt a moratorium on the issuance of new tobacco retail permits with direction to staff to look at regulating these uses in a different way.

And then in December, the Land Use Committee of the city council, did staff did present on tobacco retail uses and some options for how to regulate them, and they did give direction to staff to prepare a code amendment that would prohibit them as a use. So we're looking at potentially prohibiting independent tobacco retail uses, smoke shops, citywide, and to come to the planning commission for a recommendation before returning to the committee for additional consideration. So that is why we are here today. This is a map that shows the known locations of tobacco retail permits through the police department. We actually do have some updated data from what you see on the slide here.

There are 226 known tobacco retail locations. Most of those have permits in good standing with the police department, and most of them are things like gas stations, convenience stores, grocery stores. They're not stand alone tobacco retail establishments or smoke shops. 31 of those, not 28 as shown on the slide, are standalone tobacco retail establishments. The tobacco retail permit process, as I mentioned, is administered through the police department.

They must be renewed every two years, and they have some stipulations on how they operate. And this permit requirement applies to anyone that sells tobacco in a retail setting, including smoke shops, but also including gas stations and grocery stores and the like. They can be, those permits can be revoked by the police department if there are operational issues or safety issues or the noncompliance issues. And currently, with the moratorium in place, we are renewing existing permits in good standing. We are not issuing any new tobacco permits this time during the moratorium.

In the zoning code, tobacco retail is regulated as any other retail use. We do not have specific requirements that apply to smoke shops or standalone tobacco retail establishments. Any zone that permits a retail use would permit smoke shop under today's code. The one exception to that is the University Avenue specific plan, which does specifically prohibit smoke shops, and that has been part of that plan since it was adopted in the early 2000s. The Land Use Committee's recommendation, which is shown here as option one, let me take a step back.

We're gonna present two options to you because the Land Use Committee's recommendation was not unanimous. So the majority recommendation of the land use committee, is shown here as option one, is to prohibit smoke shops, stand alone tobacco retail establishments citywide in all zones. This would still and then we would also amend the the permitted or the incidental uses table to clarify that incidental tobacco retail at your gas stations and your grocery stores and all of that is still allowed as it is today. One option that the Planning Commission can consider to recommend along with option one is amortization, and this was specifically requested by Land Use Committee members as well. Amortization would establish a period after which all existing tobacco retail establishments, standalone smoke shops, would need to wind down their operations and cease operating.

The draft amendment that we have provided to you would establish a three year amortization period from adoption, although that number could be modified. It also includes provisions for hardship exceptions for financial hardship with a maximum extension of that amortization period of up to one year for financial hardship. However, I wanna point out that if the Planning Commission chooses to advance option one, you can do that with or without the amortization provisions. If you choose to do so without the amortization provisions, then the existing legally established tobacco retail shops would become nonconforming, legal nonconforming uses. They would be grandfathered, as we say, and could continue operating indefinitely until they close and move on on their own volition.

The second option, which was also discussed at the Land Use Committee, although it was not the majority's recommendation, is to establish use specific regulations. So rather than prohibiting smoke shops, this would look to establish minimum distance requirements from sensitive receptors and from other tobacco retail uses, similar to the way that we regulate alcohol sales. This would establish what staff has drafted recommending 100 feet from a residential use, 600 feet from schools, parks, childcare, and places of worship, and 1,000 feet from other smoke shops. This is fairly consistent with how we regulate both tobacco retail I'm sorry, alcohol sales and cannabis uses. So with that, staff is recommending that the the planning commission recommend council determine this project is exempt from CEQA, recommend one of the two options for the council to consider and recommend approval of the planning case.

And I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

Thank you. Being that the city is the applicant, I think we could probably forego asking if the applicant is in agreement. Okay. So given that, at this time we'll open it up for public comment.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call (951) 826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press 9. When called to speak, press 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Do we have any online callers or In the audience, Paloma Montez?

Can you hear me?

Yes. Yes, three minutes.

Well, good morning. Thank you so much for considering this item. My name is Paloma Montes. I'm the public policy lead at Blue Zones Project Riverside. And our initiative is a community well-being initiative centered around individual, institutional, systemic changes that support better and longer healthier lives.

We, at this time, ask that the city carefully engage and support business owners to craft policy that could affect economic well-being. Our priorities, which are outlined in our blueprint, were informed and vetted by hundreds of Riverside stakeholders alongside national subject matter experts with policy priorities focusing on built environment, food systems, alcohol, and tobacco. When our national subject matter experts did early research on tobacco accessibility and proximity to sensitive receptors in Riverside, the research showed that 73 of Riverside's tobacco retailers were within 1,000 feet of a school affecting 66% of 50 schools within RUSD alone. Areas with a higher density of tobacco retailers experienced increased rates of tobacco use among youth and adults and higher rates of tobacco use initiation among young people. According to physicians on our own local steering committee, one of the best indicators of a long and healthy life is to not start smoking in the first place.

And one of our priorities is to collaborate with the city of Riverside to limit the location of tobacco and vape retail outlets. We have worked with the planning department, with the city council, and RPD to listen to their concerns, as well as consulted with the Blue Zone subject matter experts to understand these options before us today. As you consider this item, we want to express that we are happy to facilitate conversations between businesses, city staff, and health experts to find a way forward that makes the most sense for neighbors and businesses alike. Models such as the Heal Zone Initiative exist to show what is possible when considering health and well-being for all. So once again, please consider us a thought partner as we try to balance businesses and health and well-being for everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Any online callers? Okay. Do I have a motion to close public comment?

I'll motion to close.

I second. Please vote.

Okay. Six yes, zero no. Motion passes. Bring it back to the commissioners. Commissioner Mooney.

Of the 38 that are the standalone retailers, where are those located? Just generally, are they pretty diversely spread among the city or is there a location in the city where a majority of them are?

They're fairly widely distributed. I think you probably see moving around town, you know, they kind of tend to pop up everywhere here and there. We we do have a map in the presentation, although it does show all of the retail locations and not just the stand alone locations. So, I do apologize for that. But, like I said, they are permitted in any zone where retail uses are permitted, so you really could see them in any of our commercial or mixed use zones.

And and, you know, just anecdotally, we do frequently see them in shopping centers, you know, in in, you know, in line retail buildings, that sort of thing. There's a couple of locations here in downtown. And there's a handful of of stand alone commercial properties that are just occupied by a by a a smoke shop all by itself. I'm I'm thinking, for example, of the location on Central Avenue next to the Chick fil example of that one. So, you could really see them anywhere.

Thank you, Matthew. My other comment was that I really like the thought of the alignment with the Blue Zone policies as it relates to empirical research on how improving health and well-being in a community with a reduction of access to this particularly to the young because I'm sure it's common knowledge that earlier a person begins to start with a nicotine habit, the harder it is for them to quit as they go into adulthood. So I really like the focus on the Blue concept and improving our health and well-being here in the city. That's where my thoughts are on this. Thank you.

Commissioner Singh. Matt, can you go back to option one slide?

Brian is working on it. There you go. Yes, so

the first bullet item I'm not quite sure I understood. Can you explain that to me, the very first one?

Yes. So if we were to advance option one, this would create two changes to the municipal code or excuse me, to to chapter nineteen one fifty, which is our the section of the code that outlines what all the permitted uses are in all zones in the city. We would amend this table to right now, tobacco retail is not listed on that table. As I mentioned, we treat it as a retail use. So it just falls under the general retail category. What this would do is we would add smoke shops, tobacco retail establishments, as a line item in that table and then establish that it's prohibited across all zoning districts. Got it. Yes. That's what that would do.

Thank you, Matt.

Commissioner Baird. Yeah, thank you for

the presentation and some of the clarifications. Just a few questions here. So, are cigar lounges considered in this? I don't know if we have any in the community of those 30 plus, but how would that fall in the proposals here?

It depends on how they operate. They're I I think I can think of maybe one, that currently exists. But they would they would have be subject to tobacco retail requirements. But depending on how they operate, you know, if if the retail piece of it is not the primary piece of their operation, then they probably would not fall within the category of the prohibited use because the the primary use would be the lounge. And then the retail aspect of it would be sort of secondary to that. Of course, that will vary depending on the cases of whether or not how they function, how they operate. So we would need to take a look at those individual cases.

Okay. And if I understand it right, the Blue Zone intent here is to limit, you know, the access to the smoke shops. Right? And it it seems like option one without amortization would allow legal nonconforming potentially indefinitely. Right? I don't actually see that, at least in the immediate, accomplishing some of the objective. If I'm understanding that correctly, right, you could have 30 plus legal nonconforming, you know, forever, theoretically.

That that is that is correct. I I would I would add, in addition to alignment with Blue Zone's policy initiatives, there are other concerns that came out of the land use committee mainly related to police activity at standalone retail shops and enforcement issues around selling unpermitted products or contraband in those locations. So we're really dealing with two things here. One is the public health priorities of the Blue Zones Project Initiative. The other is the public safety dimension.

Is there any data that can be presented to this commission regarding the safety element of those existing operations? I I didn't see any in the presentation data. That's a key element here. It feels missing.

So, yes, so in the report, we have a couple of items in there about the police department's knowledge of unpermitted operations because some of these establishments that are out there are operating out of compliance with the, tobacco retail permitting requirements that the police department has. Unfortunately, it looks like we have lost our police department representative. Sergeant Karubakales, who was here earlier, is also one of the leads on the vice unit for dealing with tobacco retail permits. But, yeah, unfortunately, I don't have any I don't have specific data for you about enforcement activity, although it can be procured.

And then to amortization, as I understand, the proposal was three years with an option for extension one year due to hardship, which at which point smoke shops be no longer allowed to legally operate in the city whatsoever.

That's correct.

Is that correct? And then option two is zoning regulations that limit their placement. In this scenario, we'd also have legal nonconforming.

That's correct.

But new shops would be allowed within these limits or as modified, right, these limits?

That's correct. Okay.

Thank you for the clarifications. I get no further questions.

I had just one quick question. Regarding the amortization, does that open the city up for legal challenges?

Not typically, no, so long as the amortization period is reasonable. Cities, counties, states, nations generally have the right to ban nuisances. And it's like during prohibition, by the eye, you can declare alcohols illegal. Marijuana is made illegal. LSD was made illegal. Amortization is a nicer way to do it, and amortization itself is there's nothing you can do to stop a legal challenge, but I don't think you'd have a valid one in this case. Not at all.

Okay. Thank you.

You bet.

Commissioner Baird.

I got another question for you. Was just in regards to the safety element here, which seems to be a a key a key issue. Was consideration of limiting the number of establishments considered by staff or the land use committee?

It was not specifically. However, the land use committee, in addition to the zoning changes, are interested in changes to Title VI to the permitting program. And to my mind, that would be the mechanism through which you would establish something like a cap. And so that's if that's a a suggestion, that, you know, we can bring back to the land use committee as they they talk about potential changes to title six, we can certainly do that. But that would be the the the most likely mechanism the most likely way to do that to accomplish that is in title six.

Okay. Yeah. Because outside of amortization, I don't see a reduction in the nuisance use, as you said, in the community. Right? So either you need to you're gonna put up with

the we're gonna put up

with existing nonconforming uses for an extended period of time. Right? Or we're gonna need to cap and limit the location of the community to follow sort of the blue zone recommendations as we do other nuisance uses in in our community as we did with cannabis and and alcohol sales. So just not sure that option one actually accomplishes outside of a strict amortization, sort of the objectives of why this has been put forth to us. Seems that we'd wanna limit access to the youth.

I really agree with the the prior commissioner's comments here around limiting the locations near schools. I'm surprised to hear there's so many adjacent to schools and parks and such with a cap on that nuisance use so it can be managed effectively and not draw draw resources, you know, to those to those problem establishments.

If I may make a suggestion, an amortization provision can be also included with option two, which would mean that the uses that no longer meet the distance requirements that are established would be required to amortize, but the others that I see. Do comply would would be permitted to remain. That is also an option. It's not something that was discussed at the land use committee, but this item will go back to that committee. So there's an opportunity if that's a recommendation that planning commission wants to make.

I see. So just if I may, you know, that what what you're that option would be saying these existing operating businesses need to comply with the new regulations or shut down within a amortization period, call it three years, which is in the proposal. Is that the concept That's accurate. With those distances and minimum requirements of their locations within the community.

Okay. That seems to meet a lot of the Criteria. Criteria that I think the city might be looking for.

Yeah. I'm just I'm I'm curious why that wasn't considered by land use or or staff previously.

It's it's an uncommon tact to take, although it's certainly within the realm of possibility. I think the what you heard at the land use committee was, you know, a little a bit of a difference about the concerns about impacts to businesses from an economic standpoint and concerns about safety and public health and really attention there. But, you know, I'm I'm I'm happy to hear that through this discussion, we may be developing an alternative recommendation, which is which is fantastic.

Yeah. I appreciate the comments. I'm just the the suggestion the suggestion of an outright ban with 30 plus existing nonconforming uses forever, theoretically, does not seem to accomplish the objective of both Blue Zone or the public nuisance. And I don't I just don't see why I'm struggling. Right? Maybe anybody else can enlighten me why that would be a preferred suggestion in light of the objectives, you know, that that's been presented today.

Well, personally, I think the option two with the amortization offers the ability for existing facilities that are in non compliance. Gives them the time to either relocate, bring their business up to the new codes. And, you know, so that they can keep, you know, keep their business going. I think it could be a win win for both.

My only comment on that would perhaps be a cap. If this really is a nuisance in the community, you want to limit that. You want to limit the enforcement issues to particular locations. Right? You know, I don't have numbers, you know, in my mind, but I think that that could be considered as well. But I I generally think we don't want these businesses near schools, near parks. Right? Just like That we does not occur that does not exist today. That feels appropriate for the objectives of what what is what is being proposed. And I like the sort of business friendly approach of amortization.

Hey. You you have a business that's too close to a school and you give some opportunity to relocate Mhmm. In accordance with with better zoning for this use. So I'm I'm generally a fan of that approach from what I've heard today.

Do I have a motion then?

I'll make a motion to approve option two.

Excuse me. Commissioner Barrett, if you wouldn't mind. I just had a comment. Know. I didn't put my name up there.

Commissioner Mooney. Yes.

And thank you for bringing that up because I was looking to see if there was gonna be any discussion among us as commissioners to determine the thought process of which option we were going for. I'm just letting you know my strong opinion. I believe being in accordance and aligns with the Blue Zones would be to not have standalone. I know there's a business opportunity for the folks that currently have these. I understand I've already expressed before the accessibility to youth.

So, option two would address that. But, I think if we're looking at blue zones just outright, you know, tobacco is accessible in grocery stores and the convenience retail outlets and there are quite a number of them throughout the city. Any grocery store you go into, you can your local grocery store. I'm more in alignment with option one with the amortization so that those would eventually, the standalones, not be available. I know there may be a difference there in terms of business and active business that are offering this product to patrons.

But I'm really looking, me personally, at the whole alignment with the Blue Zone to not have them available at all. So that's all I wanted to say on that. I understand your focus is to maybe not look at an outright ban but have them have some regulations to comply so that accessibility to schools and other sensitive areas would be limited. I just wanted to be on the record and open to say that I'm more in alignment with the blue zone for option one with the amortization.

If I may respond, I I appreciate the comments. I my understanding of smoke shop versus a gas station is there is a there is a different there how do you say this? You know, you you may have cigars at a smoke shop and you may not at a gas station. You may have difference of quantities and variety, right, that that does provide a different use to those locations. Right? And I think that that should be considered in eliminating that access functionally citywide. Right? That should at least be considered when thinking about an outright ban while maintaining, you know, those uses for three, four years. Right? Thank you.

Commissioner Tennis.

Thank you. I'm more in alignment with the discussion that you've come up with Commissioner Baird in that we would do option number two with the enhanced regulations of when we're going to shut down because I agree with you there are different things that are provided in a smoke shop. It's just organic tobacco. I happen to have a friend that buys it and wraps his own. So if we take a lot of this away, then we're regulating absolutely every citizen in our city and I believe we can do it with regulations as opposed to outright banning. So, I'm more in alignment with what you are right now. Thank you.

I'll just speak louder. When it comes to smoke shops, I mean, we're now dealing with vapes. We're dealing with a lot of different things that I get to hear from now that my kids are in high school. But also, the idea around bongs and water pipes and other, let's say, other devices used for smoking other types of, you know, products. Will there be any restrictions on what they could sell in the store if we were going toward an option two?

So the those things would be regulated under the tobacco retail permit through the police department, which already does have some limitations on those things, plus state law, of course. The compliance piece has been a difficulty for the police department with with the stand alone retail shops of of of the types of items that that are offered versus what's required under the tobacco retail permit. And that may also Part of the land use committee discussion, moving forward with, modifying title six may incorporate more restrictions to that end. But that's a little bit of an unknown at this point.

Commissioner Tennyson. No. No? Okay.

Maybe one more. One more for staff. We receive any public comment from business owners, the community on this item? It didn't seem so from the documents, but I'm partly a little surprised by, you know, the number of businesses in the community and the impact that we received no comment. Was outreached on? Was there no comment?

So when we have a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the next step is to go back to the Land Use Committee and present to them and get direction to move forward. If the Land Use Committee's decision is yes, go forward with new regulations, we will then begin a consultation process with the business community before anything gets moving toward council for final action. I I will add that there's stakeholder engagement through the Blue Zones policy development process, but the next piece of that conversation is engaging the business community once we have some clarity about which direction that we want to go.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Mooney.

Here we go. Okay. So, Matthew, I know we don't have our RPD representative here, but speaking in a generality and are you the feedback or the conversation about this, was there a higher than average requirement for RPD to come out on instances?

Yeah. I can relate that the data that RPD has shared with us and the larger discussions that we've been having around this is that it really depends on the operator. There are some standalone smoke shops that are, know, good operators and have relatively few problems, and then there are others that are consistently violating the terms of their tobacco retail permit, generating calls for service, selling contraband materials, all of that. It really varies from operator to operator. And so that is what this is partially looking to address.

I have a quick question. Depending on if there is a motion to approve one of the options and it goes back to the land use committee. If they come back with a different option, does it come back to us or does it does it then go to city council?

Since this is title 19, if the their their recommendation is substantially different in that it would require different changes to the code because you have, you are required to approve changes to Title 19, it would have to come back. It's not substantive in terms of it doesn't require us to go back into the code and revise it further, then it would not necessarily need to come back to the Planning Commission.

Okay. Thank you. With that, do I have a motion?

Yes. I'll motion to approve Planning Case PC twenty twenty five-eleven 90. Option two with amortization.

I have a second.

Okay. Please vote. Okay. We have five yes, one no. So motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. K. Move. And there is a ten day appeal period.

So please contact the planning division for any appeal information. Let's see. That was is that okay. That was item number three. So now going to item number four.

So we'll open public hearing to receive input regarding planning case PC twenty twenty six dash seventy one.

Hi. Good morning, honorable chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name Daniel Palafox, associate planner. The item before you this morning is a request to consider amendments to the city's existing billboard relocation provisions. By way of background, the zoning code defines billboards as signs advertise products or services not located on the same property.

The photos here provide an overview of the most common types of billboards. Most people are probably familiar with the large double sided freeway signs shown on the bottom left and right. However, there are smaller static signs like the one shown in the center which are common throughout the city. When it comes to regulations, billboards are regulated across the federal, state, and local levels of government. The Federal Highway Beautification Act regulates outdoor advertising signs along the federal interstate system and is intended to reduce overall visual clutter.

Here in California, the Outdoor Advertising Act requires that billboard operators obtain permit from Caltrans. At the local level, cities have land use authority to regulate where and the extent to which billboards billboards are permitted. I will return to the city's current policy in a few slides. Last year, the city received an unsolicited proposal from a national outdoor advertising company to relocate and modernize a number of existing billboard signs throughout the city. The city's existing relocation provisions prevent the proposal from moving forward so a zoning code amendment is required.

Last month, staff had the opportunity to provide the City Council Economic Development Committee with an overview of the proposal and identify the proposed text amendments necessary to advance the proposal. The committee subsequently directed staff to proceed with the text amendments for planning commission and city council consideration, leading us to our conversation this morning. To provide additional context, in the city prior to 2005, billboards were permitted in certain commercial and industrial zones without discretionary review. After 2005, new billboards were prohibited throughout the city. Existing billboards were permitted to operate as legal nonconforming signs.

The city's existing billboard relocation provisions allow for certain billboards to relocate subject to a billboard relocation agreement. In order to qualify for a relocation agreement, eight criteria must be satisfied. First, the billboard must have been legally permitted by Riverside County and located on a parcel that was subsequently annexed from the county into the city. Second, the relocation must be city initiated, meaning the city is requiring or requesting the sign to be removed. Third, the relocation is limited in scope.

The sign may only be relocated on the same property. It must be built to the same dimensions. It must provide an aesthetic improvement to the project site and digital or electronic billboards are prohibited. Finally, all relocation costs must be borne by the billboard operator. Collectively, these requirements are narrowly defined and limit the eligibility to a small set of billboards throughout the city which are eligible for relocation.

As a result, the vast majority of billboards including those which may otherwise be eligible for otherwise be good candidates modernizing or relocating to a different area of the city are ineligible. To address this, staff has prepared amendments to Chapter 19.623 which expand the city's existing billboard relocation requirements to allow for both city and applicant initiated billboard relocation requests subject to a relocation agreement. The amendments establish the city council as the sole approving authority to negotiate, approve, or deny any billboard relocation request. This ensures that the council retains full discretion over both the approval and the terms of any agreement. The proposed changes also outline the eligibility and process for the issuance of a billboard relocation permit which is issued once the city council executes the billboard relocation agreement.

This change would broaden the number of billboards eligible for relocation addressing a barrier to the existing provisions. Additionally, staff recommends a minor revision to the changes to this chapter to clarify that the relocation of an existing sign also means the replacement and modernization of an existing sign. Lastly, the proposed changes make a minor revision to the approving and appeal authority table within chapter 19.65 to incorporate the community and economic development director as the approving authority for for the billboard relocation permit and the city council as the final approving authority on appeal. The existing table in chapter 19.65 does not identify this permit requirement. So this change helps to clarify the process after a billboard relocation agreement has been executed by the City Council.

This brings us to a close. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine planning case PC twenty twenty six-seventy one is exempt from further CECO review pursuant to the common sense exemption. And recommend approval of planning case PC twenty twenty six-seventy one including the clarifying revisions identified in this presentation. This concludes my presentation. I will be available for any questions the commissioners may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any callers online or anyone in the audience that would like to speak as we open public comment?

No callers for this item. And I don't see any speaker cards.

Okay. Do I have a motion to close public comment?

I move to close public comment.

Second.

Please vote. Six yes. Zero no. Motion passes. I'll bring it back to the commissioners.

Commissioner Beard. Guess I'm gonna

be talkative today. So appreciate the appreciate the proposal. When I first read this, know, it's listed in the in the paper as a clarification to the existing zoning code. I think this is anything but that. But this is this is a this is a complete sweep of the current zoning code for full discretion discretion by council.

You know, it seems like this is a dramatic policy shift to me, not not just a clarification. So I'm I'm looking for, I guess, the city, you know, to convince me otherwise here. Because what I'm seeing here, both from the the unsolicited proposal and the language, is that, you know, we we have a proposal at the city that would actually significantly increase the intensity of billboards in our community, not reduce them. And we have full discretion by council, by city council, on what those terms are and makes land planning part of a deal term with community benefits that are undefined. And bluntly, that's quite concerning to me that there's no proposal here that require a reduction ratio or reduction in square footage that define corridors of where billboards can be.

There's no definition here where CEQA is actually gonna be reviewed for lighting impact and community impact on specific projects. And so I'm quite concerned both in the presentation of this to the planning commission and both the long term impacts to our community with out actual zoning regulations that limit and specify where billboards can be in our community. So I'm really looking for a response here from from staff to these concerns, if if you may.

So I'm gonna jump in real quick on the CEQA issue. CEQA applies independent of whatever the municipal code would say. So before you could look at this, you'd have to ask yourself, is it a project? If so, is it exempt? If it's not exempt, could it have an impact? The CEQA would still apply.

At a specific project level here.

That's right.

A specific billboard agreement level.

If and when there's an application.

Okay. As reviewed by city council, if I'm understanding this right.

Well, who Yeah. Yeah. For a billboard relocation agreement, it would probably be by counsel or the administrative approval. Either way, before it's approved, it would get sequel review for sure.

Thank you for the clarification on this. Unless he has topic.

Yeah. So if I can maybe frame a little bit. Right now, the relocation agreement provisions within the code are so narrowly defined that a conversation about relocating any billboard that doesn't meet that eligibility criteria is basically not possible. And that's really what this code amendment is intended to do is to facilitate conversation about doing exactly what you are, you know, pointing out, is is, looking at taking the some of the existing inventory and, potentially consolidating or relocating and improving those. Because, you know, unless it's something that was annexed to the city from the county currently, it's just not even it's a nonstarter, essentially.

And so, you know, if I can maybe illustrate, you know, the there there there's a there's a a very narrow window, right, currently for what billboards could be potentially relocated or replaced in in in our code. This takes that narrow opening and, I think, widens it just a little bit, and and and and, does enable, you know, the ability to have safeguards that are that are baked into the enforceable terms of an agreement as negotiated by the city council.

If if I may respond, I I appreciate the comments. Right? But we're we're going from functionally prohibiting billboards in the community, right, which is functionally the case right now for the last twenty years, to a complete opposite. Right? That's full discretion of all land use of of this as a deal term with city council. Right? And it to to to me, this is the far opposite extreme. Right? There's if we want if we're gonna move away from a deliberate choice of banning billboards in the community, then we at least need to move towards a codified citywide billboard policy that, you know, has actual ratios on net reduction. Right?

It seems even the proposal today is like, we're gonna go take down the single sided static six foot by 12 foot billboard, and we're gonna put up a double face freeway, digital billboard that has far more impact to the community. Right? So there's there's no in what's been proposed here, there's no required reduction ratios. There's no definition of what a community benefit flowers at the bottom of a new billboard is a community benefit, then that's sufficient. Right? As determined by council, which, you know, is different tomorrow than it is today. Right? And we can't we have to consider the long term impact here. You know, where these billboards should go in our communities. Right?

Where are the corridors that these belong? There's lots of of commercial and industrial properties along our freeways. Right? There are a lot adjacent to residences, and the digital billboards will have a meaningful impact. So so where are the corridors that we're gonna allow billboards to go up in our community?

Know, a framework I I really believe should be developed in which gives the boundaries that city council can then negotiate deals with, right, of what some of those are. But right now, it is unbounded. Every land use of a new billboard is a deal term with the council, and that that is that is concerning. Right? It is concerning for the long term impact of this that actually, I believe, and what what I've seen today will increase the intensity of billboards in our community and not decrease them. And and that's how I see what's been proposed here. Bluntly, it's quite concerning.

I have a question as well. Has there been any studies done on the impact that the digital billboards have on traffic? If you go by any digital billboard, they're constantly changing the advertisement. And to me, that constitutes quite a distraction for drivers. Has there been any studies done on that?

So we are not looking at a specific proposal for a specific billboard as part of this item. So I can't say that any particular location has been studied as part of this item that's in front of the commission right now. However, if there is a need to as part of the permitting process, that can be looked at as well. And like Anthony mentioned, you know, a proposal is still A project is gonna be subject to CEQA and any other requirements to study impacts that we, you know, think are necessary. Not as part of this policy change, however.

Okay. I think as part of the policy change, I think it would be important to have some sort of an idea of what the impacts of this policy is gonna have. And I don't see that it's there. You know, so I'm kinda in a lot of ways in agreement with commissioner Baird is, you know, this kind of opens up the flood gates, you know, to a lot more billboards than think that the community would wanna see. That's my decision. Commissioner Mooney.

I'm looking at the paperwork I was reading through before the meeting. Even in the agenda, it relocation of existing off-site advertising signs. Right? So, and Commissioner Baird's concern was as it relates to would we, this new policy amendment allow additional and I'm looking to see that you can clarify that for me. So are we talking just about the existing and what those requirements are going to be if we now have an applicant eligibility to relocate existing billboard because there's not one right now.

It's only Citi, correct?

Correct.

So, now we're looking in this new policy to allow applicants who will also provide and I looked in the paperwork to generate revenue, correct, in order to update these according to what the city is requiring, what those parameters will be. So that's the second thing. And then what would that revenue look like in terms of is it an ongoing, one time? Could you speak to that? I know that's a lot.

I'll do my best. So I wanna be clear that what we're proposing is is an expansion of the existing relocation requirements and not the authorization of totally new. Thank you. And and now that could look a lot of different ways, and that's that would be subject to negotiation with the city council as part of the billboard relocation agreement. But we've clarified in the text that we're specifically looking at relocation, replacement, and modernization.

So an app an operator would need to bring something to the table to start that negotiation of, you know, of I you know, we we have three that we want to remove and we're looking to establish one, for example. Or it could look different ways too. It could look like, you know, cooperation or collaboration with large institutional landowners or, for example, as part of a more programmatic thing. Really, we're trying to you know, accommodate a variety of different mechanisms to see some level of improvement in the existing stock that we see. But it like I mentioned, the the agreement can be can can take different forms.

Related to that, an agreement could have a lot of different mechanisms for community benefit or revenue sharing and it would look different depending on what the proposal was negotiations played out at the council level.

So, improvement to existing stock, not necessarily an open gate to say, you We can have far more We can increase the quantity of the billboards, you know, we have existing in the city right now.

I would say that's correct.

Okay. Which is complete, in my opinion, different than, oh, now we have the floodgates open and we're going to have all these billboards popping up which I would agree if that were the situation, I would have some reservations. But this particularly is looking at the improvement of the existing stock. Would you mind if I may ask if you would put up those requirements on the screen, the proposed changes, what we're looking for if we were to have an applicant eligibility and what they would have to consider? And getting back to that other question, Matthew, in terms of revenue being generated, would that what would that generally look like?

Would it be a one time payment or would it be existing?

It could be. It could be a one time payment plus an annual sharing, revenue sharing agreement. Okay. If it's involving city property, it could involve a lease. So, it could take a number of forms depending on what the specifics of the proposal are.

Okay. And so, I'm inclined to think if we're having new proposed amendments to address aesthetics, to address keeping so we're not increasing the size of an existing and it cannot get larger. It has to stay within what that billboard currently the size of it now. Of course, also the federal and state law are going to trump whatever the city's law is on that. And then there's an opportunity to generate income for the city.

And ask, are there any comparative billboard type of policy with other municipalities in our area? And if you know that, is it have they updated it? Is it similar? And what kind of effects has that had? That's a general one, a question, in terms of the effects. But I'm looking even at maybe generating revenue.

Thank you for your question, Commissioner. If I could add, I know that the city of Corona, they do have a billboard ordinance that's similar to what we're proposing today. And they have been successful in negotiating various public benefits and removing certain billboards for the construction of new billboards. I'm not aware of kind of the effect that it's had on their community. But I know that they have processed various billboard relocation agreements.

And I'm sure it has a positive effect on their coffers, right, in terms of revenue? If it's similar, correct?

It is. And they have negotiated specific terms in their agreements that are one time payment and annual revenue.

Would be something I would be thinking about. If it's not and I keep going back to it, but I'm just thinking out loud that if this policy isn't going to open up that we can have far more billboards than we currently have, if it is an improvement of the existing stock, that's to me quite different. So, thank you for the clarification.

Commissioner Baird.

Yeah. I appreciate your comments, Commissioner Boone. I'd I'd just comment that there's there is no codified regulations proposed before us that ensure what you just said is true. It is the discretion of counsel to make those interpretations. There is no ratio requirement here that if you take down one billboard or you take down three billboards, you put up one of equal square footage.

There is and and all billboards are not equal. Right? If if I may. Right? You can have a junior billboard that's very small and single sided without illumination on a arterial street, or you can have a double sided digital billboard on a freeway that's, you know, 48 feet long. Right? And so there's nothing in the regulations proposed today that say, if you take down one on a minor street or take down three on minor streets, you can put one new one up. Right? In fact, the proposal that the city, for my knowledge, that the city received is a one to one ratio, and it's taking down smaller billboards and it's putting up larger ones that are digital with multiple faces. And so there's nothing in this proposed language that gives the boundaries, that gives the the codification of those requirements of a ratio reduction.

There's nothing that defines what a community benefit is. There's nothing that says it can't go on a commercial property that will light up the backyards of residences along the 91 Freeway or or 215 Freeway. And so it it is a complete discretion. And I think the language is sole discretion of city council to negotiate that land use element in the planning in the deal term. Right? And so, you know, relocation of a

Was that something sorry, Commissioner Barrett. I thought the administrator would look at that first. If there was an appeal, it goes to the city council.

To clarify, I I apologize for interrupting. Please. What once the agreement is executed, that spells out the terms and locations and dimensions and all of that. The administrative approval is for the actual issuance of the permit for the actual construction. So it's it's the second step. I see.

So my my concern here is that we've not been presented with language that puts the boundaries around the municipal code of where a billboard can go. Right? What the reduction ratios are that in terms of billboard faces and square footage, that ensure that we actually don't see a net increase in intensity of billboards in the community. I believe this will result in a net intensity, maybe not today, but maybe tomorrow on a different council or by the time we're far gone. Right?

That we're taking down unilluminated small billboards and we are putting potentially putting up larger digital, more intense billboards in our community for a benefit. And I'm all fan I'm a fan of the benefit. Right? I I want the coffers filled. Right?

I think I think I think we should get away from the we ban billboards philosophy. Wanna be clear about that. I think improvement needs to be made here to the codes. But I don't think it should be unbounded at full discretion of counsel forever. I think it needs to have its parameters that that are presented to this body for approval with language that's presented to us around where they can go, what corridors, minimum ratios, and what a community benefit looks like to be able to support this proposal today.

Might I suggest since there's some great concerns that commissioner Beard has brought up to our attention. I think it would be probably more appropriate to continue this item to give staff an opportunity to to either massage the language to bring those restrictions into the language? Is that something that we can propose?

It certainly is something that the commission can propose. That is an option for your action today. There is another option which is making a recommendation with directions for specific modifications to the language. So, that is something that you have the authority to do as well.

Okay. Personally, I think because lack of the language that has been there, I think it would be more appropriate, me personally anyway, to continue the item and give staff the opportunity to massage that language to bring it back to us.

So in fairness to staff, even though what you propose is entirely correct, you may want to give them some guideline of what you would want to see because at this point, you you're instructing them to come back with something, but you really haven't given them an idea of what it should be. So in order to make their job a little bit easier Sure. Maybe you could specify what kind of things you'd like them to look at.

Okay. And we can make that in motion.

Yeah. We can make that in a motion. Yes. You know, it's gonna be hard to be highly specific in a motion here, but I think you've heard generally from me and and some others on this dais that, you know, we at least speaking for myself, that we would look for required reduction ratios, both in terms of individual faces in square footage, digital limits on signs, corridors where they can and can't be outside of industrial and retail zoning, and some definition of what a community benefit is, I think would be the, maybe, the categories that I would look for staff recommendation on.

Before we go to a motion though, Commissioner Tennyson.

That was gonna be my request before we move this on to staff bring it back to us. I think we need to see where this motion goes and then either make a motion as it stands or if Commissioner Baird would like to make a motion with parameters, I believe that that needs to be back to staff before they just have So, here's what you Commissioner Baird, would you like to make a motion that they would bring back with specifics or I will make the motion as it stands? Okay.

Yes, so comments. I motion for a continuance of planning case twenty twenty six zero zero seven one that staff brings back recommendations on required reduction ratios of billboard quantity of faces and square footage, parameters for digital billboards, billboard corridors in the city, and definition of community benefit at the following meeting.

I just may ask for one clarification. Are we asking to continue to a date certain or to and and if that's the case, we can suggest a date. Or if it's off calendar, then we will need to re notice the public hearing, which is which is okay too. I just wanted to ask if there's a certain period of I

think it'll be good to have a continuation in some in some future date. What Instead of having specific date at this point. I'm not sure how much work is involved in this.

How much time do you think staff needs to accomplish these concerns?

Well the agenda for February 26 publishes tomorrow.

So that one. The

next earliest meeting we could come back to reasonably would be March 12 Or March 26 is an option too.

Can I have some clarity though, Commissioner Barrett, on what you're asking for? I understand about the digital, the definition of the benefit to the community. I'm assuming that would have to do with things like the aesthetics, the beautification and maybe in that of that nature. But, your concern also too was that there would be language and I don't know unless that might be we don't we do not as a body have any approval for municipal code or anything. But, is that reduction ratio is that what you're asking for in terms of some kind of language that there wouldn't be an open invitation to just or that there would be clarity that it wouldn't be increasing the amount of billboards that which is a concern that you brought?

Is that

That's the correct. I think it's important to clarify that reducing a an artery billboard that's junior in size and replacing it with a double sided digital freeway billboard is not a one to one ratio. Okay. Right? That the increase in intensity is considered in the relocations, both of the quantity of faces, the type, and the location.

And and it so I get that. But, also, are you gonna speak to because I thought I heard you very concerned about just additional not just the ratio, but additional billboards being placed throughout the city. Is there

Well, if you have a required staff. Sorry, if I may. If you if you have a required reduction ratio, you're not gonna have an increase. Right? There is no required reduction ratio today. It's completely the discretion of counsel. So if staff was to propose a four to one reduction ratio and, you know, that we would see a net decrease, but we would see those individuals billboards probably be digital and in a more prominent spot. Right? And so I don't I'm not I'm proposing a required reduction ratio that staff proposes to us that then city council gets to work with in their negotiations.

Commissioner

If if I may respond, I think the section you're referring to is 19 dot six twenty three dot zero three zero, which is relocation on parcel annex into the city of Riverside. The prior sections, I think, are the applicable point of the relocation agreement where city council and its sole and absolute discretion may negotiate upon the terms of the bill billboard relocation agreement. Right. And so the section you're referring to is is really the existing code section that fundamentally prohibited relocation

city. I

expect them to listen to your input just like

they would for any impact or any

I have a question. That is on behalf of city council, who works with the applicants? When they have to change or relocate?

Generally, the city manager would engage in that discussion and then the council would give direction and negotiate.

Okay. Thank Thank

you Commissioner Melendrez for that clarification comment. I would be in line with that thought of what you just had expressed regarding the role of the city council on that. So, I wanted to add to that.

Do we have a motion? Okay. Four yes to no. So, it passes. Okay.

Okay. Thank you very

much. Alright. Moving on. There is a ten day appeal period. Please contact the planning division for appeal information.

Moving on to the consent calendar. Does anyone wish to pull an item from the consent calendar for discussion? Given no, do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar? Please vote okay Six yes. Zero no.

Motion passes. Let's see. Items for future consideration.

Alrighty. So coming to the commission on February 26 will be a recommendation to revoke a minor conditional use permit for a a downtown night bar and nightclub that has had some issues. And so that will be happening on February 26. We will also be, conducting a discussion on the Planning Commission's annual work plan. So that will be a discussion item for you.

And that's just talking about what the overall mission of the Planning Commission is and and what kinds of priorities the commission would like to have for things that they would like to see come before it over the over the coming year. In the March, we will have a couple of items, a seven Eleven gas station and convenience store at Arlington and Monroe will be coming to that hearing as well as a proposed specific plan amendment having to do with the Canyon Springs area for a land swap that has proposed at that location. And that's all I have for the month ahead.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Well, with that, guess meeting is adjourned. Thank you.