Attachment C - Opposition - Z-TA-7-20.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
16627 characters
CONCERNS WITH Z-TA-7-20
The staff report states that the proposed TA will strengthen regulation. That is a
falsehood especially on point 3 below.
1. The staff report correctly states that “Subsequent interpretations [emphasis added]
allowed the same amount of sign square footage to be removed as the square
footage converted to digital to satisfy the requirement outlined in Section
705.2.G.4.a.”
However, on page 2 in the “detailed breakdown” section, the staff report incorrectly
states:
705.2.G.4.b (Existing 705.2.G.4) - The current ordinance permits
[emphasis added] a nonconforming off premise sign to be rebuilt with
use permit approval and two of the following: removal of the same
amount of sign square footage to be removed as the square footage
converted to digital,…
To correct this misinterpretation, the proposed TA moves the provision to remove
“…1200 sq ft of existing nonconforming off-premise signs within the City limits for
each digital face requested….” from being 1 of 3 options to being an absolute
requirement, and adds the word “permanently.” This is a welcome revision. However,
there is no remedy for that requirement from being misinterpreted again. The original
misinterpretation came in the form of an email from Alan Stephenson in June 2012,
six months after the passage of the existing ordinance. See Exhibit A.
2. The proposed TA also requires that once a sign is removed from a specific parcel or
lot in exchange for digital, it cannot be rebuilt on the same parcel of land. This is a
welcome revision. However, be aware that the second sentence will allow for another
off-premise sign to be constructed on the same parcel of land as long as it is
confirming.
In addition, the verbiage “…parcel or lot…” and “…parcel of land…” is not consistent
and could lead to subjective interpretations.
3. Point D is a problematic revision. It provides for the applicant to select 1 of 2 options
to “Improve the surrounding area…” The options are 1. Street frontage landscaping
or a decorative pole cover, and 2. Reductions in height or changes in configuration,
angle or construction to bring the structure into greater compatibility with nearby
buildings.
It is also problematic that the proposed TA removes the reduction in size
consideration. This is a major concern for neighborhoods due to the possibility of
increased intrusion in the area in which we live, work and recreate.
The two remaining options are not comparable if the end goal is to improve the
surrounding area. Option 1 provides for eye-level improvement at the expense of
negative impacts of sightlines that are more distant. If the new sign has landscaping
or a pole cover, it can be any height, configuration, angle or construction. Digital
10-9-2020
Attachment C
signs that tower over nearby buildings, even though they have lovely landscaping,
would be eyesores for surrounding neighborhoods.
The terms “configuration,” “angle,” and “construction” need parameters. “Changes” is
not limited to improvements.
Considering the information that has been presented here, I request that you
deny the text amendment in its current iteration and ask that the points detailed
above be considered to improve the ordinance to reduce subjective
interpretations and strengthen the regulations on off-premise digital signs.
From:
Mary
To:
Sarah Stockham
Subject:
VPC 10/12/20 meeting; Z-TA-7-20:
Date:
Saturday, October 10, 2020 8:50:17 PM
Ms. Stockham -
I am writing regarding the upcoming Central City VPC meeting on October 12, agenda item 6, Z-TA-7-20.
I object to this text amendment in its current form. It is being rushed through for an unknown reason by an unknown
person or persons.
More time is needed for review and input by the stakeholders. In its current state, the text amendment is unclear and
would be detrimental to smaller billboard companies.
Please vote against Z-TA-7-20 as it currently stands.
Sincerely,
Mary K. Mulligan
Phoenix, AZ
Sent from my iPhone
From:
John Hathaway
To:
Sarah Stockham
Subject:
Opposition to item 6 , Z-TA-7-20, Central City Village Planning Committee
Date:
Saturday, October 10, 2020 9:32:52 PM
Dear Village Planning Committee Members,
I am writing to express my opposition to text amendment Z-TA-7-20, the request to amend Chapter 7
Section 705.2.G.4 to update criteria for digital conversions of nonconforming off-premise signage.
This text amendment has some ambiguous requirements that can be interpreted in multiple ways and
creates or restructures requirements that are unfair to smaller advertising companies. Furthermore, it is
being rushed through the approval process (for unknown reasons and by unknown or undisclosed
person(s)) without adequate community review and input. Please vote to deny this request for text
amendment so that it can re-developed using a process that is transparent and fair for all stakeholders.
Regards,
John Hathaway
125 E Maryland Ave, Phoenix AZ 85012
jehath@aol.com
602-769-2598
QB\65258266.1
1
Benjamin W. Graff
Direct Dial: (602) 229-5683
E-Mail: Benjamin.Graff@Quarles.com
Renaissance One
Two North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2391
602.229.5200
Fax 602.229.5690
www.quarles.com
Attorneys at Law in
Chicago
Indianapolis
Madison
Milwaukee
Naples
Phoenix
Scottsdale
Tampa
Tucson
Washington, D.C.
October 12, 2020
Central City Village Planning Committee
c/o Planning & Development
City of Phoenix
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Re:
Request for a Recommendation of Denial of Z-TA-7-20
Dear Chairman Frazier Johnson and Members of the Village Planning Committee,
I am writing on behalf of my client, American Outdoor Advertising, an independently owned
small to medium sized advertising company doing business in the Valley since 1996, to voice our
opposition to Z-TA-7-20 and to request the Central City Village Planning Committee recommend
denial of the same. The text amendment modifies the Code provision that sets forth the criteria a
billboard company must meet to upgrade a nonconforming off-premises billboard from static to digital.
Currently, a company may upgrade a billboard if it meets the use permit requirements of Code Section
307 and two of three additional criteria, one of which is the removal of 1,200 SF of existing
nonconforming off-premises signage. The text amendment, however, would make this optional 1,200
SF takedown criteria a mandatory requirement; if a smaller company, such as my client, lacks the
available and superfluous inventory to meet the takedown requirement, it cannot upgrade its
nonconforming off-premises signs to the significantly more desirable digital format.
The discriminatory effect of the text amendment is clear. It creates a competitive advantage for
large national advertising companies with substantial inventories of ageing signage while stymieing
competition with smaller local advertisers. In other words, the amendment inequitably and
unjustifiably restrains trade to further the interests of the same large national advertisers that created
the blight and over-abundance of signs in the City in the first place. Moreover, the amendment does so
while making it easier for new digital boards to be approved without required enhancements. Thus, it
fails to further improve or beautify the City.
The negative consequences of the amendment are not solely focused on smaller advertising
companies. Phoenix property owners bear these consequences as well. Currently under the Code, if a
nonconforming off-premises sign is removed from a property, the property owner has 180 days to
replace the sign with a new one. The amendment, though, prohibits replacement of signage removed
under the amendment’s takedown requirement. Thus, a property owner with a vested property right to
locate a nonconforming off-premises sign on his or her property could suddenly lose this right, without
input or consent, if an advertiser decided to take down a billboard located on the property owner’s land.
This not only places the property owner’s vested property right in the hands of the national advertiser
QB\65258266.1
2
but also creates unwarranted bargaining power to the land owner’s detriment. To our knowledge, no
property owners with vested rights to billboard placements have been notified of this text amendment.
Despite the tremendous impact the text amendment will have on the industry and community,
we are not aware of any outreach by the City to my client or other industry leaders. My client has
received no information on this text amendment from the City despite the City initiating the amendment
on September 3, 2020, and releasing its Staff Report on September 30, 2020. We have found this has
been the same with other similarly sized local companies in the industry. Instead, we have been forced
to quickly piece together information based on the Staff Report and public comments at recent
hearings.
Through my attendance at the five prior village planning committee hearings, I have heard
several community leaders express the same frustration with the City's lack of outreach on the
amendment. It is important to note that all other Village Planning Committees1 which have heard this
request to date have unanimously recommended denial of the proposed text amendment. A text
amendment is no minor process to be taken lightly; its consequences are wide-reaching and it deserves
significant input from those affected, both in the industry and community alike.
The text amendment creates a litany of issues for a large segment of the advertising industry
and the City’s land owners. Moreover, we are concerned that the City has pursued the text amendment
on an expedited basis with no industry or community input, leaving questions as to the source of the
motivation behind this initiative. The current, existing billboard ordinance in place is the result of
ample and historical outreach efforts and robust conversations with all industry leaders and has
remained in place without issue for a decade. Moreover, the current ordinance provides sufficient
flexibility for all segments of the industry to upgrade static signage while preserving property owners’
rights to negotiate with billboard companies through the use permit procedures. As such, I respectfully
request on behalf of my client that the Central City Village Planning Committee deny this request and
allow the current ordinance to continue to exist as is; no additional study groups or workshops are
necessary to discuss changes. Thank you for your time and attention on this matter. Please do not
hesitate to contact me with questions or to discuss further.
Very truly yours,
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
Benjamin W. Graff
cc:
Sarah Stockham, Central City Village Planning Committee Planner
Tricia Gomes, Zoning Administrator
Alan Stephenson, Planning and Development Director
1 As of October 12, 2020, the Encanto, Paradise Valley, Camelback East, Desert View, and North Gateway Village
Planning Committees have all voted unanimously to recommend denial of Z-TA-7-20.
JORDAN R. ROSE
7144 E. Stetson Drive, Suite 300
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Phone 480.505.3939 Fax 480.505.3925
JRose@RoseLawGroup.com
www.RoseLawGroup.com
October 12, 2020
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
C/O Planning & Development
City of Phoenix
200 W Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
RE:
Request for Denial of Billboard Ordinance Z-TA-7-20
Dear Village Chair Hall and Committee Members,
We represent LeClair Calihan Advertising, a local advertising company that focuses on
the Arizona market. Because they have been very involved in every policy discussion relating
to outdoor signage for over a decade, we were surprised to see a text amendment appear on
Village Committee agendas last week that had no stakeholder input process. We didn’t even
know changes to the Ordinance were being considered, let alone that there was need for these
types of changes.
We appreciate that the four Village Committees that have reviewed this ordinance so far
have all rejected the proposal.
Once we reviewed, we were shocked that the text amendment so clearly favored the few
national billboard companies with business in our state and makes it impossible for the vast
majority of Arizona billboard companies to do any further business in the City of Phoenix. The
amendment requires that an advertising company retire non-digital boards in order to gain
approval for a digital board. While oftentimes advertising companies do modernize non-digital
boards with digital displays, most local companies do not own enough non-digital assets to meet
this square footage trade requirement.
Stakeholders spent over a year in discussions prior to the adoption of the current City of
Phoenix billboard ordinance. That ordinance has been praised nationally for its fair approach to
beautification and non-conforming boards. There is simply no reason to reopen the current policy
that has served the City and all the small (and large) advertising businesses well. We ask that you
join the four Village Committees who have reviewed this already in denying the text amendment
as an unnecessary regulation that would favor national companies over our local advertising
businesses.
If you want to discuss further, please feel free to call or email me at (480) 505-3939 or
JRose@RoseLawGroup.com. Thank you again for your fair consideration of this important
issue.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jordan R. Rose
Jordan R. Rose
October 12, 2020
Central City Village Planning Committee
C/O Planning & Development
City of Phoenix
200 W Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
RE:
Request for a Recommendation of Denial of Z-TA-7-20
Dear Chairman Frazier Johnson and Committee Members,
Please accept this letter as a request for a denial of Z-TA-7-20, a Text Amendment to the
City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance (the “Code”) as it applies to Section 705.2.G.4. There
has been zero outreach done by the City of Phoenix regarding this text amendment and it is
being led by one billboard company to cut market competition that would end up hurting
landowners and neighborhoods needing aesthetic improvements to their streets. Therefore,
we request a denial of Z-TA-7-20 or that it be sent back to staff for all industry leaders to
discuss the updated criteria.
This firm represents Becker Boards, a local billboard company doing business in the Valley
for ten years. It is our understanding that there has been zero communication with our
client and other local billboard companies regarding this amendment. The City of Phoenix
initiated this text amendment on September 3, 2020 and released their staff report on
September 30. Even if there was sufficient outreach, there has not been enough time for
small businesses and local industry leaders to be able to discuss the criteria with the City.
The proposed language is being pushed by a national billboard company that has the largest
inventory to be able to trade in square footage for digital boards. This puts local and
smaller billboard companies at an extreme disadvantage. The Current Draft of Z-TA-7-20
picks one multi-national Corporate Advertising company over all the local, small
advertising companies, and makes it easier for new digital boards to be approved without
required enhancements. It does nothing to further improvements and beautifications
throughout the City.
In 2011, when the last change to this section of the Code was approved by City Council,
there were numerous discussions and meetings with staff that included all industry leaders.
The code amendment process took 12-18 months to work through in order to meet the
intent, which was to improve current legal non-conforming boards. This code has worked
for the past decade. The current code was created to allow a level playing field for small
businesses as well as large multi-national corporations.
William E. Lally
Attorney at Law
602.452.2716
wel@tblaw.com
2
Again, we ask the Central City Village Planning Committee to deny this request to allow
discussions between the businesses affected by this amendment and staff. Thank you again
for your time on this matter. I am available to discuss if you have any questions at 602-452-
2726 or wel@tblaw.com.
Sincerely,
William E. Lally