* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:05] WELCOME TO THE OCTOBER 12TH, 2021 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT'S NOW CALLED TO ORDER. WELL, NOW TAKE A MOMENT FOR SILENT PRAYER OR MEDITATION FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WILL BE LED BY VICE CHAIR LEWIS. UH, LIBERTY, CAN YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL? UM, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. UH, START WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. ISN'T COMMISSIONER. YOUR TERRACE. MISSIONER HANG A VICE-CHAIR LEWIS AND CHAIR. BISSERA YEAH, [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] TONIGHT WE HAVE THE MEETINGS FOR THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2021. AND FROM THE SPECIAL MEETING ON OCTOBER 4TH, 2021. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CHANGES TO EITHER SET OF MINUTES? THE MINT, THE MINUTES FOR BOTH MEETINGS ARE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. WE HAVE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS EVENING. SO MOVE ON TO NON-HEARING MADAM CHAIR, SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS. UH, THERE WERE NO ARE COMMUNICATIONS ON HERE. WE NEED TO DO ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. YEAH, WE CAN ASSIGN IT INTO THERE'S ANYONE THAT'S LIKE TO SPEAK? I'M SORRY. WE CAN ASK THE AUDIENCE. IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING? OKAY. WE HAVE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS EVENING. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO NON-HEARING [(1) SIGN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 21-01] ITEMS. LINA WHO WILL PRESENT THE STAFF BEFORE MADAM CHAIR, JOANNE, OUR PLANNING MANAGER WILL PROVIDE THE STAFF REPORT. YOU MEAN MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND ALSO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. CAN'T HEAR YOU. I'M SORRY. OH, HE'S OFF. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? IS IT BETTER? OKAY. GOOD EVENING. MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS ASSIGN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW APPLICATION OR A BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN, WHICH IS ALSO A WALL SIGN THE ITEM BEFORE YOU, UM, THAT'S UH, WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW IS TO, TO ENSURE THAT THE APPROVED SIGN MEETS THE CITY'S. AND ONE OF THE CIVIL CODE STANDARDS, UM, WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW, THIS, UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY ONLY MAY ONLY REVIEW THE APPROVED SIGNS BASED ON ITS AESTHETICS, WHICH IS COLOR SIZE LOCATION, INDOOR FONT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY NOTS REGULATE CONTENT. UM, THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BRANCA STREET AND GARVEY UP EAST GARVEY AVENUE NORTH. THE PROPOSED SIGN IS LOCATED TO BE INSTALLED ON THE BAY BRANCA TOWER ON ONE, 100 NORTH BRANCA STREETS ON IT'S SOUTH SIDE, WHICH IS THE SIDE THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED WITH THE RED LINE ON THE PROJECTOR. THE REQUEST IS FOR A NEW 249 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING IDENTIFICATION WALL SIGN. THE APPLICATION WAS FIRST SUBMITTED ON JULY 29TH, 2021. IT WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IN AUGUST 5TH IN AN APPEAL WAS FILED AN AUGUST 13TH, 2021. THE PROPOSED SITE IS TO BE EXACT THIS 249 POINT 37 SQUARE FEET. THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED [00:05:01] SIGN AREA IN THIS SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS 543 POINT 75 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS BASED ON THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA FABULATION OF THREE SQUARE FEET OR AIR ON THREE SQUARE FEET FOR EVERY LINEAL FOOT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE WITH A 5% INCREASE FOR EVERY FLOOR ABOVE THE FOURTH STORY. THE BUILDING FRONTAGE, UM, ALONG GARVEY AVENUE IS 125 FEET. WELL THAT EQUALS A MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIGN AREA OF 543.75 ON THE SCREEN IS A RENT, A RENDERING OF WHAT THE SIGN WOULD LOOK LIKE WHEN INSTALLED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THIS SIGN IS INTER INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS. THE TEXT IS A WHITE COLOR, SIMILAR TO THE COLOR OF THE JOLLY B SIGN LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF THE SAME BUILDING. IF THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 21 DASH 6 1 0 0 APPROVING, UM, SITE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 21 DASH ZERO ONE, DENYING THAT FEEL IN UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION. THIS IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS SIGN IS WITHIN THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS. UM, AND, UH, THE COLOR AND MATERIAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING SIGN ON THE BUILDING. IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER YOU, DID THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? CAN WE SHRINK THE TEARS? YEAH. UM, I'M LOOKING AT A JELLY BEANS LETTER AND IT SAYS THAT WE WERE PREVIOUSLY INFORMED BY THE CITY THAT NO MORE SIGNAGE WILL BE ALLOWED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD, AS JELABY TOOK OVER ALL THE SIGNAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE EAST AND WEST. THEREFORE WE DID NOT BOTHER TO FILE FOR ASSIGNMENT EARLIER. ALL THINGS CONSIDER WE RATHER THAT NO FURTHER SILENCE SHOULD BE GRANTED ON THE SOUTH SIDE, FAKE APE TO MAINTAIN THE CLEAR AS STATIC OF THE STRUCTURE. UH, DO WE KNOW THAT IF, UH, THE STAFF CAN STAFF THE STAFF KNOW IF JOHN JOLLIBEE BE EVER ASKED DISCRETION? UM, WE, I, I DON'T RECALL INFORMING ANYBODY THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A SIGN ON THAT LOCATION JOLLY BE, DID, UH, UM, ATTEMPT TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR ASSIGNED ON THAT SAME LOCATION. THE FA THE FOLLOWING DAY AFTER THE DIRECTOR HAD APPROVED THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE AND THEY WERE INFORMED THAT TH THAT THE CITY HAS ALREADY APPROVED ANOTHER SIGN ON THAT SAME LOCATION WHEN THEY ATTEMPTED TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION. SO WHEN THEY FIRST SAW THAT THE FIRST APPLICATION, THEY NEVER DO YOU RECALL IF THEY EVER WANTING TO PUT JOLLY ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF THE BUILDING OR, WELL, WHEN THEY FIRST INITIALLY SUBMITTED THE FIRST APPLICATION, THERE WERE TWO. UM, AND THEY WERE IN A SIMILAR SITUATION, TWO DIFFERENT, UM, BUSINESSES OCCUPYING TENANT SPACE WITHIN, WITHIN THE SAME BUILDING. AT THAT TIME, IT WAS CITY NATIONAL BANK AND JOLLY B, THEY HAVE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION OR SIGNAGE ON THIS, ON THE SAME BUILDING, IN THE SAME LOCATION. AND AT THAT TIME IT WAS SUBMITTED. ONE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED A DAY AFTER THE OTHER. SO ACTION. WASN'T TAKEN BY THE CITY ON ANY APPLICATION WHEN THAT WAS DONE. AND THAT DISPUTE WAS RESOLVED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER THEN. OKAY. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THE APPLICANT AT ONE POINT DID APPLY FOR IT OUTSIDE, BUT IT WAS, YEAH, MAN CITY NATIONAL. IT WAS NOT THE SAME SIDE. INITIALLY THEY CAME WITH THE EAST SIDE AND THEN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THEY CAME WITH, I'M SORRY, THE F INITIALLY THEY CAME WITH THE WEST SIDE AND THEN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THEY SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION FOR THE EAST SIDE. JOANNE, ARE THOSE WHERE THE SIGNS CURRENTLY ARE RIGHT NOW? YES. OKAY. YOU, YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS [00:10:01] MR. GUTIERREZ? THAT COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? NONE AT THIS TIME. OH, I'M SORRY, CHAIR. UM, CHAIR, IF I MAY ALSO ADD THAT IN, IN 2019, UH, THE, THE DIRECTOR AT THAT TIME, UM, BECAUSE IT WAS, IT WAS A BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN. UM, HE HAD MADE THE TERMINATION THAT TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES CAN NOT OCCUPY, UH, THE, THE TOP PORTION OF THE BUILDING. HOWEVER, WHEN THE APPLICATION FOR, OR PK SCHRIEFER, UM, WAS, WAS SUBMITTED, I W I WAS DIRECTED TO CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO, UM, BECAUSE THERE IS CASE LAW PR, UM, PROHIBITING THE CITY TO REGULATE CONTENT. AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DID CONFIRM THAT WE CANNOT REGULATE CONTENTS. SO WE CANNOT SAY WHAT NAME IS ON THE BUILDING. WE CAN ONLY REGULATE THE SIZE AND COLOR AND AESTHETICS. OH, UM, I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT I WAS ONE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER THAT APPROVED THE JOLLY V SIGN AT THE TIME. AND ACCORDING TO MY UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME WAS THAT BUILDINGS IN WEST COVINA IS ONLY ALLOWED ONE SIGNAGE. NOW, THIS JOLLY JOLLIBEE WAS THE ONLY SIGN ON THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING. UM, THERE WERE SOME ISSUES THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PUT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, BUT THE EAST OF THE BUILDING IS NOT COMPLETELY S LIKE SQUARE OR STRAIGHT IT'S IT'S CURVED A LITTLE BIT. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO PUT THE JOLLIBEE THE BIG PICTURE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SO THEY ENDED UP PUTTING IT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS AT THE CURRENT POSITIONS RIGHT NOW. AND THEN PRIOR TO THIS PARTICULAR SIGN, IF YOU NOTICE THAT THERE'S ANOTHER BUILDING THAT IS CLOSE TO THE IN AND OUT BURGER IN AND OUT BURGER, THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THE TWO SIGNAGE IN, AND THEY'RE HAVING A HARD TIME AT THE TIME BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND ALSO THE DIRECT, THE OLD DIRECTOR AT THAT TIME WAS STATING THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE FOR A BUILDING. SO I'M NOT SURE HOW, OR HOW THIS CAME ABOUT IN TERMS OF APPROVING TO IDENTIFICATION BUILDING. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AROUND IN WEST COVINA, BESIDES ALL THE BUILDING, WHILE IDENTIFICATION, BUILDING ONLY HAS ONE SIGNAGE, LIKE THE CHASE BUILDING, WHICH IS THE OTHER SECOND BIGGEST VOTE IN CLOSE TO THIS ONE ONLY HAS A CHASE BUILDING SIGN VERSUS THE OTHER BUILDINGS AROUND YOU LOOK AROUND. IT'S ONLY HAS ONE SIGNAGE. THE OTHER ONE THAT I KNOW AND GOT APPROVED WAS THE BUILDING JUST RECENTLY NEXT A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK NEXT TO IN AND OUT BURGER, THERE WAS A NIGHTCLUB THERE. I FORGOT WHICH BUILDING THE NAME OF THAT BUILDINGS. I'M SORRY. WINGS. NO, IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE AFTER THAT. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. MADAM CHAIR. IT WAS WINGS. IT'S THAT BUILDING ACROSS FROM, IN AND OUT ON A GARVEY SOUTH. CORRECT. AND EVEN WITH THAT PARTICULAR, BECAUSE THE BUILDING AT THAT TIME, WE DECIDED TO, TO APPROVE IT FOR TWO SIGNAGE IN THAT PARTICULAR BUILDING OF IS BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A LONG STRETCH. UM, AND THE BUILDING IS A LOT LOWER IN TERMS OF ELEVATIONS. AND BECAUSE OF THE LONG STRETCH, YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE FROM ONE SIDE THAT, THAT ID THE BUILDING PER SE. SO ACCORDING TO MY KNOWLEDGE FOR THE LAST FIVE OR SIX YEARS OR SO, AND PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS, UM, REALLY THE BUILDINGS ONLY HAS ONE SIGNAGE THAT I AM AWARE OF. SO I DON'T IN WEST COVINA. SO THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND ONE THAT IF WE WERE TO APPROVE TONIGHT, THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND SIGNAGE ON A BUILDING OR TWO TO TWO SIGNAGE IN A BUILDING TO IDENTIFY THE BUILDING, UM, COMMISSIONER HANG. UM, SO I BELIEVE THAT THE BUILDING THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO NEXT TO THE IN AND OUT, I THINK JOANNE MAYBE CAN CLARIFY THAT ONE WAS GIVEN A DIFFERENT OR MORE THAN ONE SIGNAGE BECAUSE THEY, ONE OF THE UNITS DID HAVE, UM, UH, A DOOR THAT OPENED TO THE FRONT. SO THAT WAS THEIR FRONT DOOR, THEIR, UH, FACADE TO THEIR, UH, TO THEIR, UH, UH, UNIT, UM, IN REGARDS TO WHY WE ARE NOW ALLOWING, UM, A SECOND, INCLUDING CODE ASSIGNED ON THIS BUILDING FROM A DIFFERENT, UH, BUSINESS IS BECAUSE OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS CLARIFIED THAT WE CAN'T, UM, REGULATE CONTENT, WHICH IS DIFFERENTIATING IT BETWEEN ONE BUSINESS AND THE OTHER. AND I THINK I'LL LET HER CLARIFY TO THAT, UH, COMMISSIONERS. AND I THINK JOANNE CAN SPEAK TO THIS. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CODE REQUIREMENTS PROHIBITING THE MULTIPLE SIGNAGE AND DIFFERENT IDENTIFICATION [00:15:01] OF THE BUSINESSES. AND, UH, WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE SIGN, IF YOU LOOK AT ATTACHMENT NUMBER THREE IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET, UH, THE LESS SORE OF THE PROPERTY CLEARLY IS ALLOWING THE, THE SIGN APPLICANT, THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE SIGN ON THE PROPERTY. SO FROM A PROPERTY OWNER PERSPECTIVE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO REJECT THAT APPLICATION. AND IT MET THE SIGN CODE REQUIREMENTS. UH, TONIGHT YOU'RE REVIEWING AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION, APPROVING THAT SIGN BASED ON THE SIGN CODE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH DO NOT RESTRICT IT TO, UH, IDENTIFICATION OF A SINGLE OWNER IN THAT PROPERTY. AND YOU WERE REVIEWING IT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE SIGN REQUIREMENTS WERE MET PER OUR CODE, GIVEN THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER GAVE PERMISSION FOR THE SIGN ON THAT PROPERTY, ON THAT SIDE. AND, UM, YOUR DECISION IS AN APPEAL TO THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION. SO YOUR DECISION WOULD BE FINAL, BUT, UM, ANYBODY CAN REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HERE AT, ON APPEAL, AND IF THE CITY COUNCIL WERE TO ACCEPT THAT APPEAL, IT WOULD GO UP. SO PROCEDURALLY THAT'S HOW THIS WORKS TONIGHT WAS JELLY BE INFORMED OF THE NEW POLICY BEING IN PLACE BY THE CITY. THEY WERE NOT, THEY WERE NOT INFORMED, BUT AGAIN, THEY ATTEMPT, THEY DID SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR THE SIGNS. SO THEY, THEY KNEW THAT THEY, THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PUT A SIGN THERE IN THAT SAME LOCATION. SO I GUESS THE QUESTIONS COMES IN IS, UH, IS, ARE WE SETTING A PRECEDENCE WITH ONE BUILDINGS WITH MANY SIGNAGE AND HOW MANY, I MEAN, THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND ONE, UM, THAT IS A BIG TALL BONING. AND DOES THAT MEAN THAT, YOU KNOW, IT CAN JUST CONTINUE GOING DOWN THE LINE? YEAH. SIGNAGE IS NOT CONSIDERED. UM, OKAY. SO THE CODE ALLOWS FOR ONE SIGNAGE FOR EVERY BUILDING FRONTAGE STREET. UM, AND THIS IS, UH, THIS, THE SOUTH SIDE IS A STREET FRONTAGE. SO THE CODE DOES ALLOW ONE SIGN THE CODE, DOESN'T SAY WHAT THE SIGN HAS TO BE OF. UM, IT JUST, IT JUST SAYS THAT IT ALLOWS ONE SIGN PER STREET OR PER FRONTAGE. SO, SO WE'RE NOT SETTING PRECEDENT, WE'RE FOLLOWING CODE. SO THIS IS A ONE SIGN. IT'S NOT ONE SIGN WHERE JOLLY READS OUT ONE SIDE PER FRONTAGE. SO, SO IT HAS FRIENDLY GERMINATES. AND THEN THIS IS, UH, THE OTHER FRONTAGE. THAT'S A FUNDAGE FACING BRANCA, AND THIS IS THE FRONTAGE FACING NORTH GARVEY AVENUE EAST. SO THAT PARTICULAR BUILDING HAS FULL FRONTAGE. SO THEY CAN TECHNICALLY HAVE FOUR SIGNS UP THERE. YES. AND TO IDENTIFY A BUILDING. SO YOU CAN SAY THAT IS THE JOLLY B. THAT IS THE PK SCHEIFFER O L P AS A BLAH-BLAH-BLAH AND THAT'S THE BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, FOR A BUILDING. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST UNHEARD OF NORMALLY THERE'S ONE BUILDING, ONE SIGNAGE TO I D A BUILDING. I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE. GO DOWN YOUR FINGER. 1, 2, 3, 4 TO NAME ONE BUILDING. ANYWAY, JUST A THOUGHT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IT'S BOTH PARTIES HERE TODAY. COMMISSIONER? YES. THERE'S REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH PARTIES. PAULINA. HAS THERE EVER BEEN MORE THAN ONE SIGN ON THIS BUILDING OR JOANNE? SORRY. IS THERE EVER BEEN MORE THAN ONE SIGNAGE? UM, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY A WELLS-FARGO BUILDING. THAT'S ALL. UM, YES. SO IT'S, IT'S UH, TYPICALLY FOR SIGNAGE, SIGNAGE IS ALLOWED BASED ON WHAT TYPE OF SIGNAGE IS ALLOWED IS BASED ON TYPICALLY THE CODE AND ALSO WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD ALLOW ON, ON THEIR BUILDING. OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS TIME WE WILL, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO'VE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT? SO WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANTS. WE HAVE ONE, COULD YOU PLEASE COME UP TO THE GAME, SIR? WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM YOU AFTER THE APPELLANT. THEY'LL PULL AT FIRST. OKAY. THEN RICK, COME ON UP. NICE TO HEAR ME OKAY. WITH THIS, BUT EVENING. UM, I'M EXCITED TO BE HERE BECAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING, SOMETHING IMPORTANT. UM, [00:20:01] I'M GONNA TELL YOU A QUICK STORY ABOUT HOW THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGED THE HORIZON. AND YOU ARE GOING TO THINK OF THIS NIGHT'S MEETING WHEN RICK TOLD YOU ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME. BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU SEE THE HORIZON LINE OF LOS ANGELES, YOU'LL SEE WHAT'S DIFFERENT. 1974, THERE WAS A MOVIE THAT CAME OUT CALLED THE TOWERING INFERNO. YOU GUYS ALL LOOK PRETTY YOUNG, AND I DOUBT THAT YOU WOULD EVEN REMEMBER IT, BUT IT WAS A STORY OF, OF 94 FOOT GLASS TOWER. IT BURNED. AND IT SCARED THE CHIEF, THE FIRE CHIEF FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. AND HE WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HE GOT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CHANGE THE WAY THEY BUILD HIGH RISES IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. AND YOU GO TO NEW YORK, CHICAGO, ATLANTA, YOU SEE PEAKED BUILDINGS, DON'T YOU. AND YOU GO TO LOS ANGELES AND THEY'RE FLAT. SO A HELICOPTER CAN LAND ON. SO MY POINT IS, THEY'VE GOT A SYSTEM IN PLACE BECAUSE THEY HAD A VISION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THIS HAPPEN. RE-ASKING YOU GUYS MAKE THIS HAPPEN FOR YOUR CITY. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ASKING OF YOU IS THAT YOU REQUEST OF THE LANDLORD TO DO A PLAN SIGN PROGRAM. I AGREE WITH YOU. WE DON'T WANT A BUNCH OF SIGNS. YOU STUDY SUBMIT THE STUDY WITH THE PLAN SIGNED PROGRAM, STAY WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THIS CITY. AND THAT WAY YOU CAN CONTROL HOW MANY PEOPLE, HOW MANY NAMES ARE ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING. ONE OTHER THING, PLAY A GAME WHEN YOU'VE GOT KIDS IN YOUR CAR OR SOMETHING, YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND YOU LOOK UP AT THE BUILDING AND YOU SAY, YOU GUYS THINK THAT WELLS FARGO OWNS THAT BUILDING, OR ARE THEY JUST A TENANT? YOU THINK LANCE PALMER OWNS THAT BUILDING? OR ARE THEY JUST A TENANT? THERE'S A PERCEPTION THAT WHO HAS EVER NAME IS AT THE TOP OF THE BUILDING IS THE OWNER OF THAT BUILDING. AND JOLLY BEE WAS LOOKING FOR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS. THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR. SOMETHING EXCLUSIVE. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO LA. PART OF WHAT I HAD TO TURN IN WAS A ACCOUNTING OF THIS HIGH RISE SIGNS IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. THERE'S ONLY 35 HIGH RISE SIGNS IN LOS ANGELES THAT ARE IN THE DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT'S VERY LIMITED. IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO HAVE AN INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, THERE'S VERY FEW PLACES TO GO AND THEY CHOSE YOUR CITY. THEY CHOSE WEST COVINA. THAT WOULD BE THEIR INTERNATIONAL. SO I'D LIKE YOU TO USE YOUR POWER, YOUR STRENGTH, YOUR VISION, AND ASK THE LANDLORD BY THE PLAN SIGN PROGRAM SO THAT YOU CAN BETTER CONTROL. OKAY. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. JOSEPH DUNDEE, OLIVINE REPRESENTATIVE. GOOD EVENING. UH, CHAIR BESERA VICE-CHAIR LEWIS COMMISSIONER MACKERRAS MISSIONER HANG SHARON WILLIAMS. I FEEL LIKE I'M, UH, BECOMING MORE AND MORE FAMILIAR WITH THIS BUILDING. I THINK THIS IS MY SECOND DIAMOND VERSON UH, THERE THREE TIMES, IF YOU COUNT THE VIRTUAL EARRING THAT I, WHERE I REPRESENTED JOLLIBEE FOR THE STORE THAT WE WERE BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR CORPORATE HQ, UM, THEY SENT ME HERE, UM, NOT PART OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. I'M NOT PART OF OUR ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN DEPARTMENT, I GUESS AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY ALL WOULD BE WANTED TO SIMPLY BRING A MESSAGE OF, YOU KNOW, TRANSPARENCY AND AIMING TO BESIDES THE KIND OF DRY LETTER WE SENT, BASICALLY GIVING A LITTLE, UM, CONTEXT. WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO SAY HERE IS IF I MAY, AGAIN, UH, IF YOU WILL PERMIT ME THROUGH READ VERY BRIEFLY WHAT WE SAID, POINTS 1, 2, 3, AND THEN I'LL ADD THE LITTLE BIT THROUGH IT. AND I PROMISE NOT TO TAKE UP TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME. I KNOW YOU'RE ALL BUSY. YOU'VE HAD BUSY DAYS AND PROBABLY MORE BUSY, MORE WORK TOMORROW. SO NUMBER ONE, WE, JOEL WOULD BE BELIEVES THAT ADDING A DIFFERENT ENTITY SIGN ON THE BUILDING WOULD UNINTENTIONALLY CHEAPEN THE IMAGE OF THE BUILDING AND THE SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL AREA, [00:25:01] MAKING THE WHOLE BUILDING LOOK LIKE A BILLBOARD INSTEAD OF A CORPORATE HQ. NOW NOTICE WE SAID LIKE, WE'RE NOT SAYING IT'S A BILLBOARD. WE UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, OUR TENANTS BE CASH RIFER WE HAVE RESPECT FOR THEM. WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. IN FACT, WE DON'T MIND THEM HAVING A SIGN ON THE BUILDING, BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMISSION, ALTHOUGH YOU CANNOT CONTROL CONTENT, YOU CAN CONTROL THE LOCATION, NOT JUST THE SIZE, NOT JUST THE COLOR, BUT THE LOCATION. SO IF LET'S SAY THE TENANT, UH, OUR FELLOW TENANTS WANT TO PUT A SIGN, AN EYEBROW SIGN ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS MORE APPROPRIATE. ANYWAY, WE'RE NOT AGAINST IT. IT'S WHEN YOU ADD TOO MANY SIGNS AS COMMISSIONER HANK SAID, NOW YOU MUDDIED THE WHOLE AESTHETIC AND THE WHOLE HARMONY OF THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING. SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY, OH, LET'S MEET AT THE WHAT BUILDING NOW. SO THAT'S ONE CONCERN. THE SECOND CONCERN AS WAS MENTIONED BY RICK EARLIER, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE PLAN TO STAY IN WEST COVINA FOR THE LONG-TERM. WE SIGNED A 10 YEAR LEASE. WE HAD EXTENSIONS MY JOB WHEN WE NEGOTIATED, THIS WAS DEFINITELY THE LOOK TO THE FUTURE OF EXPANSION AND BRINGING IN MORE PEOPLE, WE PURCHASED COFFEE, BEAN AND TEA LEAF SMASHBURGER. BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE PLANNING TO BUILD THIS WHOLE, UH, THIS, THIS, THIS SET OF CONCEPTS. AND WE PLAN TO MAKE THE CENTER MORE OR LESS, AT LEAST FOR THE JOLLIBEE, UH, BRAND IN WEST COVINA. NOW IMAGINE FOR A SECOND. AND THIS IS AT THE MOMENT UNLIKELY, BUT IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. SAY FIVE YEARS FROM NOW DOES THE LANDLORD, WHICH WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH DECIDES TO CALL IT QUITS AND SELL THE BUILDING TO A DIFFERENT LANDLORD WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE AS GOOD TASTE. SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, OUR NEIGHBORS SPEAK H FRY FOR DECIDE, YOU KNOW WHAT WE WANTED TO RELOCATE TO SEND THEM ON MONICA, NOT IN WEST COVINA. SOMEBODY IS GOING TO TAKE THAT NEW SIGN ON THE SOUTH SIDE, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BE OUR NEIGHBOR. I UNDERSTAND YOU CANNOT CONTROL CONTENT, BUT WHAT IF IT'S PORNHUB.COM? WHAT IF IT'S WE WANT TO GO RODEO.COM. YOU UNDERSTAND THE RELUCTANCE NOW THAT JOLLIBEE FEARS MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. IF WE NEED AS A FAMILY ORIENTED COMPANY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SIGNAGE, RIGHT? BESIDE POTENTIAL SIGNAGE. THAT'S NOT AS APPEALING. SO WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE SAYING THAT LET'S AVOID THIS PROBLEM FOR THE FUTURE. LET'S KEEP THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BUILDING. THAT'S THE LAST POINT. WE, WE CAN NOT PINPOINT EXACTLY HOW WE WERE INFORMED. MY DESIGN TEAM TOLD US IN THE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT THAT JOSEPH WE'VE ALREADY APPLIED FOR ALL AVAILABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SIGNAGE IN THAT BUILDING EAST AND WEST. IN FACT, WE THOUGHT WE WOULD ONLY GET THE WEST SIDE BACK THEN. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS KIND ENOUGH TO POINT OUT THAT WHY NOT TAKE THE EAST SIDE OF SWELLS AND IT SITS ALSO FACING THE FREEWAY. YOU SAID, YES. UH WE'LL WE'LL WE'LL DO WHAT WE CAN. WE APPLIED, WE GOT IT. BUT THEN WE WERE TOLD THAT, OKAY, THAT'S IT, THERE'S NO MORE SIGNAGE LEFT. YOU HAVE IT ALL. SO WE SAID, OKAY, WE'RE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE GREEDY AND GRAB ALL FOUR SIDES. SO WE WERE, WE WERE UNDER THAT ASSUMPTION. NOW, DO WE HAVE A PAPER TRAIL AND EMAIL TRAIL? WE DON'T, UM, AT THIS POINT WE'RE SIMPLY A POINT WE WOULD LIKE TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT OLD GOOGLE MAP PICTURES, WELLS FARGO ONLY HAD TWO SIGNS, THE EAST AND THE WEST, NO UNDER SCIENCE, I GUESS EVEN THEN AESTHETICS AND GOOD TASTE AND HARMONY OF THE BUILDING WAS ALREADY A CONSIDERATION. SO THAT IS OUR APPEAL THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND, UH, WE HOPE THAT, UH, AT THE VERY LEAST YOU WILL CONSIDER, UH, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. THANK YOU. I HAVE A CRUSH. UM, WE'RE CRESTRON. UM, IT'S JUST AN IDEA. DO YOU THINK, UM, IF YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, HAVE A MEETING WITH THE LANDLORD AND, AND, UH, OR TO CALL IT PK, SHAFFER, LLP, THAT, UH, THAT A POSSIBLE RESOLUTION COULD OCCUR, UH, IN THE, AT A LATER TIME? ABSOLUTELY. THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD NOT BE OUTSIDE THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY. WE HAVE TALKED TO THE LANDLORD. UH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOOD PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY'RE TRYING THEIR BEST TO, I GUESS, IS HAVE, YOU KNOW, AN EXTRA INCOME STREAM. WE GET IT. UM, WE, WE [00:30:01] WERE FRANKLY, A LITTLE SURPRISED WHEN IT ALL HAPPENED AT, OH, SUDDENLY TO SOUTH SIDE IS AVAILABLE AND, OH, UH, WE ALREADY LANDLORD INFORMED US THAT THEY APPROVED, UH, ANOTHER TENANT TO GET IT. WE HAD ALWAYS ASSUMED IN GOOD FAITH THAT THEY WOULD APPROACH US FIRST WITH AN OFFER. LIKE, HEY, JOSEPH, WOULD YOU LIKE, THAT'S OUTSIDE SIGNAGE FOR JOLLY BEACH. SO IT'S A MORE UNIFYING PICTURE. OH, BY THE WAY, WE'LL CHARGE YOU 3000, 5,000. WE WERE OPEN FOR NEGOTIATIONS. AND, UM, WE NEVER GOT THERE, UNFORTUNATELY. NOW, DOES THAT MEAN THAT ANY FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ARE OUT OF, UH, OUT OF THEIR OWN POSSIBILITY? NO. I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER WILL, WE'RE ABSOLUTELY OPEN TO IT. JOEL OBESE WAY OF DOING BUSINESS IS WIN-WIN AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WILLING TO TALK TO PK SHRIVER. WE'RE WILLING TO TALK TO THE LANDLORD. WE'RE JUST REALLY AT D AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE JUST SAYING AESTHETICALLY ALSO WHAT'S PLEASING TO THE COMMUNITY. NOW ON THE SIDE OF THE SOUTH SIDE, YOU HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS. THEY'RE GOING TO SEE THIS. THEY'RE GOING TO SEE THAT, OKAY, THIS, THIS IS CONFUSING. SO, AND, AND AGAIN, THE PRECEDENT FOR THE FUTURE, HOW MANY SIGNS DO YOU WANT UP THERE AT THE END OF? OH, I WOULD ASSUME THAT IF, UM, OBVIOUSLY I, AS I, AS GROWING UP IN WEST COVINA, I KNOW JELABY HAS BEEN IN OUR COMMUNITY FOR, UH, TONS OF YEARS, UM, OFF, UH, SUZANNE EMAR. AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT IF JOLLY BEE KNEW THAT THEY WERE GOING TO MOVE THEIR CORPORATE OFFICES TO WEST COVINA, TO A BUILDING THAT THEY WERE AT THAT TIME, TILL THAT THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT BUILDING MAY BE A DIFFERENT NAME. I'M SURE YOU GUYS WANT TO HAVE RECONSIDERED. I MOVE. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS. UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YES, I DO. YES. MA'AM. UM, AT THE TIME THAT YOU SIGNED YOUR LEASE, UM, YOU WERE, I GUESS THE BUSINESS OWNER WAS TOLD TO CONTACT THE CITY AND ACTUALLY, UM, THERE WERE FOUR SIDES ON THE BUILDING AND ULTIMATELY, I GUESS YOU GUYS INITIALLY WERE GOING TO TAKE EITHER THE EAST OR WEST SIDE. AND THEN WHEN YOU CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THEY SUGGESTED THAT YOU TAKE ANOTHER SIDE THAT COULD BE SEEN EAST OR WEST ON THE 10 FREEWAY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU HAVE NOW, CORRECT? YES. EXCUSE ME. SURE. WHEN WE FIRST, UM, AT DISCUSSIONS WITH BUILDING OWNERSHIP AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY WITH THE CITY, IT WAS ALWAYS OUR, NOT JUST IMPRESSION, BUT WE WERE TOLD MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THIS USED TO BE THE WELLS FARGO BUILDING. LOOK AT THE PICTURES. THERE'S A SIGN ON THE EASTENDERS, A SIGN ON UNDER WEST, IDEALLY FROM A REAL ESTATE STANDPOINT, WE WOULD HAVE WANTED EVERY SIDE TO HAVE A JOLLIBEE SIDE, BUT WE WERE REALISTIC. AND WE, AS I'VE SAID, WE WERE REASONABLE. YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T, WE WERE TOLD THAT ONCE YOU APPLY FOR THAT, DEPENDING ON HOW BIG THE LETTERS ON YOUR SIGN ARE GOING TO BE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THAT KIND OF LIMITS YOU ON HOW MANY MORE, UM, SIDES YOU CAN TAKE. THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE TOLD MORE OR LESS. AND SO WE SAID, OKAY, LET'S GET THE BIGGEST SIGN WE CAN ON THE WEST SIDE WITH THE LOGO. SO WHEN WE FINALLY PRESENTED, UH, EMISSION WAS KIND ENOUGH TO APPROVE THAT, BUT THEN THEY ALSO SUGGESTED, THEY SAID, NO, JOLLY BEAT. THERE'S THE EAST SIDE THAT USED TO HAVE THE WELLS FARGO SIGN. WHY DON'T YOU APPLY FOR THAT AS WELL, MIGHT AS WELL. AND SO WE SAID, OH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH PLANNING COMMISSION. WE'LL, WE'LL DO IT. AND SO HERE WE ARE WITH THOSE TWO SIGNS, BUT WE ALWAYS HAD, WE KNOWN THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A POSSIBILITY FOR THE SOUTHSIDE TO BE AVAILABLE AS WELL. YOU PROBABLY WOULD HAVE GONE FOR IT. YEAH, BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE SECTION 26 DASH 3 41 TALKS ABOUT SIGNAGE FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS, INCLUDING INSTITUTIONAL USES. AND IT DOES INDICATE THAT WITH THE BUILDING, AS FAR AS LONG AS IT'S IDENTIFICATION, THAT, UM, IT ALLOWS ONE SIGN HER FACING WALL, WHETHER IT'S FACING A STREET OR A PARKING LOT. AND SO I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION IS I'M UNDER THE IMPRESSION YOU GUYS WERE WORKING WITH THE SIGN CONTRACTOR. AND I NOTICED THAT YOU MENTIONED YOU WANTED THE BIGGEST SIGN THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO HAVE AND APPARENTLY THE EAST AND WEST SIDE ALLOWED FOR THAT. YES, YES. UH, WE, UM, AGAIN, WE ARE IMPRESSION MAYBE WE WERE WRONG WAS THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE HAD AT THAT TIME, ONCE WE APPLIED FOR THE MAXIMUM AVAILABLE SIGNAGE ON THE EAST AND WEST, THERE WOULD BE NO MORE AVAILABLE FOR THE SOUTH. AND THE NORTH WAS NEVER IN QUESTION. NOW, THERE WAS MENTIONED ABOUT LOWER, LIKE AN EYEBROW SIGN ON THE STREET LEVEL ON THE FIRST STORY. AND WE DISMISSED THAT. WE SAID, HEY, SOMEBODY ELSE CAN TAKE IT, YOU KNOW, AND UNDERTENANT, WE, AGAIN, WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE GREEDY. WE WANTED IT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. SO IF ANOTHER [00:35:01] TENANT CAME IN AND SAID, HEY, CAN WE PUT A SIGN ON THE LOWER END? WE WERE OKAY WITH IT. IT WAS JUST THE UPPER PART OF THE BUILDING WHERE YOU HAVE THAT CORPORATE IDENTITY THAT WE WERE AIMING FOR, THAT WE WERE REALLY GUARDING. AND SO THIS AGAIN, UM, WE COULD HAVE BEEN WRONG. WE MIGHT HAVE DROPPED THE BALL AND MISSED THAT SOUTH SIDE, UM, AVAILABILITY. SO HENCE WHEN WE ACTUALLY, WHEN WE FOUND OUT THAT SOMEBODY HAD APPLIED FOR IT, YOU SCRAMBLED AND TRIED TO APPLY AS WELL. AND, UH, HERE WE ARE. THANK YOU. LET ME SHOW HIM, I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NOW WE WILL HEAR FROM PAUL SHAFFER. I'M SORRY. I SPELL IT RIGHT BACK SCHRIEFER. HOW'S IT GOING? NICE TO MEET EVENING. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME OUT OF YOUR EVENING TO, UH, LISTEN TO OUR OPINIONS AND THE WHOLE APPEAL PROCESS. UM, FIRST OFF I THINK THIS WHOLE SCENARIO WITH THE SIGN IS PRETTY SIMPLE. I THINK IT GOES DOWN TO TWO ISSUES. ONE, WHETHER THE SIGN IS CODE COMPLIANT, WHICH AS WE'VE BEEN SHOWN TODAY, IT IS, UH, THE COMMISSION APPROVED IT. AND OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO APPEAL THE SIGN, BUT UNDER THE CODE OF THE CITY, IT'S BEEN GRANTED AND IT IS CODE COMPLIANT. AND I BELIEVE ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS TODAY SAID THAT ANOTHER BUILDING WAS APPROVED WITH ANOTHER TWO SIGNS ON THE BUILDING. SO IT INDICATES THERE'S SOME PRECEDENT WITH THE CITY OF APPROVING THIS KIND OF, I GUESS, APPLICATION FOR A SIGN. UM, AND SECONDLY, GOING TO THE CONTENT OF THE SIGN, UM, AS THIS WOMAN OVER HERE, SORRY, I DIDN'T GET HER NAME. UH, IT SAID THAT THE CITY IS NOT ALLOWED TO REGULATE THE CONTENT. AND I THINK IT BOILS DOWN TO JOLLY B'S APPEAL LETTER, UM, WHICH I THINK EVERYONE HAS A COPY WAS KIND OF EYEOPENING, UH, IN RESPECT TO PK SCHRIEFFER, UH, MAINLY BECAUSE THEY QUOTED THE WORD DILUTING OF THE IDENTITY PK SCHRIEFFER HAS BEEN AROUND IN WEST COVINA FOR 20 PLUS YEARS. UM, THAT'S WHERE MY FATHER STARTED THE BUSINESS WHERE WE STILL HAVE IT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE 11TH FLOOR. WE'VE EMPLOYED A NUMBER OF WEST COVINA RESIDENTS, OTHER RESIDENTS OUTSIDE THE CITY, AND WE'VE DONE COMMUNITY OUTREACH AS WELL. AND THE NOTION THAT HAVING OUR NAME ON A BUILDING THAT WE'VE BEEN TENANTS OF FOR 20 PLUS YEARS IN GOOD FAITH, UM, IS A LITTLE INSULTING. I MEAN, JOLLY, B'S BEEN HERE FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AND THAT'S GREAT. WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THEM BEING ON THE BUILDING. AND THEY'RE DEFINITELY ENTITLED TO HAVING THEIR SIGN, WHICH IS UNDER THE CONTRACT OVER THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE THAT THEY'VE SIGNED. DOESN'T ENTITLE THEM TO A NORTH AND SOUTH FACING SIGN EITHER. AND OUR EFFORTS TO GO TO THE CITY AND GET APPROVED WAS IN GOOD FAITH. AND THE APPROVAL OF THEIR SIGN IS CONTINGENT UPON THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU, YOU MADE THE ARGUMENT, WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE'S MULTIPLE SIGNS, IT DILUTES THE WHOLE APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING AND IT COULD AVALANCHE INTO HAVING OTHER SIGNS OR OTHER BUILDINGS WITH MULTIPLE SIGNS. UH, IT GOES DOWN TO THE POINT OF THE BUILDING OWNER PROVIDES THAT APPROVAL. IT'S JUST A UNILATERAL ACTION OF A COMPANY BY SAYING, WE WANT OUR SIGN ON THE BUILDING. IT BOILS DOWN TO THE OWNER, PROVING IT. UM, AND BACK TO MY POINT WITH THE WORD DILUTING, UM, IN THEIR LETTER, THEY SAID THAT IF WE WERE TO HAVE OUR SIGN ON THE BUILDING, IT WOULD MAKE A POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE EXPANSION, LESS APPEALING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT JOLLY B'S OPENING A NEW STORE OR A RESTAURANT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING. AND THIS, UH, BECAME BROKE AROUND IN THE LAST YEAR. UM, I THINK JOLLY BEE'S WORLD RENOWN, IT'S A FAMOUS FOOD CHAIN. AND TO SAY THAT WE CAN'T HAVE OUR NAME ON A BUILDING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT RELATED IN, IN THE CUISINE, UH, MARKET IS, IS A LITTLE RIDICULOUS. I DON'T THINK WE SEE BUILDINGS WITH TWO SIGNS HAVING TO MATCH THE SAME INDUSTRY. I THINK THAT'S JUST UP TO THE BUILDING OWNER AND IT ALSO PROMOTES ENTREPRENEURSHIP. IT PROMOTES BUSINESSES, ESPECIALLY SMALL BUSINESSES WANTING TO PROMOTE THEMSELVES IN THE COMMUNITY AND JOLLY B'S EXPERT KEPT USING THE WORD EXCLUSIVE AND OWNERSHIP, TRYING TO REPRESENT THE BUILDING'S OWNER BY OWNED BY JOLLIBEE AND IT MISREPRESENTING TO THE PUBLIC, OH, JOLLY BEE OWNS THIS BUILDING WHEN THEY DON'T AND THIS WORD EXCLUSIVITY, IT'S KIND OF NOTING THAT JOLLY BEE WANTS TO HAVE A MONOPOLY OVER THE CITY. JUST, WE WANT TO BE KNOWN AS JOLLY BE THE ENTITY THAT CONTROLS WEST COVINA. [00:40:01] AND FOR US HAVING OUR SIGN ON THE BUILDING IS, IS MORE OF A IT'S PRIDE. AND TO PROMOTE THAT WE'RE FROM WEST COVINA, WE HAVE BUSINESS GLOBALLY, AND WE'RE PROUD OF THAT. AND WE LIVE IN SOUTH HILLS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET, AND WE'RE PROUD TO BE FROM WEST COVINA. UM, AND SO COMPARE OUR NAME TO A PORNOGRAPHY WEBSITE IS KIND OF A LITTLE RIDICULOUS, TO BE HONEST, I THINK COMING HERE TODAY, WE WANTED TO BECOME, UH, COME IN GOOD FAITH AND SAY, LISTEN, WE HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER THE LAW. WE HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER OUR CONTRACT. AND OUR SIGN IS, IS PROMOTING A LAW FIRM. IT'S NOT PROMOTING A SLEAZY WEBSITE. IT'S NOT PROMOTING A SLEAZY BUSINESS. IT'S A WHOLESOME COMPANY THAT EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES, FAMILIES, AND EVERYONE. SO, UM, I THINK I DON'T WANT TO RAMBLE TOO, TOO MUCH LONGER, BUT, UM, I THINK WE DESERVE THIS SIGN. I THINK WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME AND WE'VE GIVEN BACK TO THE COMMUNITY A LOT AND WE LOVE THIS COMMUNITY AND MY FATHER STRIVES TO INVOLVE US MORE AND MORE YOUR COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND OTHER AVENUES AS WELL. SO, UM, I REALLY HOPE THIS COMMISSION FOLLOWS THEIR RECOMMENDATION ABOUT REJECTING THE APPEAL. AND I DO APPRECIATE YOU GUYS TAKING THE TIME TODAY TO LISTEN. THANK YOU. OKAY. MAXWELL. OH, I'M SORRY. SORRY. THAT WAS ME. THAT'S ALL. OKAY. SO PAUL WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD. WELL, UH, MR. SCHAFFER, IF YOU COULD SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, WE DO NEED IT TO GET ON. THANK YOU. I THINK YOU'RE IN COURT. JUST TALK LIKE YOU'RE IN COURT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU. AND I'LL JUST STAY ON TOP OF WHAT MY SON JUST SAID. AND FOR EVERYBODY HERE, OUR CITY AND DOING THE GREAT THINGS THAT YOU DO, UM, I DON'T WANT TO BRAG A LOT, BUT OKAY. I'M VERY CLEAR. WE'RE A GREAT LAW FIRM. OKAY. WE DO THINGS FOR OTHER PEOPLE REPRESENTING UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, LLOYD'S OF LONDON, AIRBNB, ALL OF THOSE THINGS. AND GUESS WHAT? WE'RE A LITTLE LAW FIRM IN WEST COVINA, AND WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR ALL THAT. MY SUNSET, A LONG, LONG TIME. WE HAVE A LOT OF PRIDE IN, I DON'T WANT US, BUT FOR A FANCY COMPANY TO COME IN. AND IN MY OPINION, KICK OUR FACE OFF OF THE SIDE OF THIS BUILDING. AFTER WE'VE BEEN IN HERE FOR 20 YEARS, LOVING THIS TOWN, EMPLOYING PEOPLE, AND THEN TO SAY, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE GONE AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OVER THE JOINT THEN IMPACTS ME A LOT OF WAYS, NOT ONLY WITH OUR LAW FIRM, BUT IN GENERAL WITH THE CITY. AND, UM, I COULD GO ALONG AND PROBABLY SAY A LOT OF BAD THINGS. I MEAN, BAD WORDS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. BUT, UM, YEAH, WE, UH, WE STAND FIRM IN WHERE WE ARE AND THIS TOWN ON OUR FARM. AND, YOU KNOW, I COULD GO TO BIG DOWNTOWN. I CAN GO TO OUT OF THE BEACH. I COULD GO TO BEVERLY HILLS WITH THIS FIRM AND WHO WE REPRESENT AND GO THERE. RIGHT. AND BE IN THE FANCY PLACES. AND GUESS WHAT, WE'RE STAYING IN WEST COVINA. I STARTED THIS FIRM OVER 20 YEARS AGO AND I WAS DOWNTOWN AND I'M MARRIED. MY WIFE, HER FAMILY WAS IN WEST COVINA. AND I THOUGHT, WELL, AFTER I MARRIED MY BEAUTIFUL WIFE FOR A YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO FANCY DOWNTOWN. GUESS WHAT WE DIDN'T. WE STAYED. AND I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE TOWN AND RAISE MY SON MAXWELL. AND HE'S VERY PROUD TO BE HERE. HE COULD GO ANYWHERE TO WORK DOWNTOWN AND SEE LAW FIRMS ALL THAT GUESS WHAT HE DID STAYS HERE. SO IN ANY OF THAT, I PROBABLY TALKED TOO MUCH ALREADY, BUT, UM, THANK ALL OF YOU, WHAT YOU DO FOR OUR CITY AND ALSO FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO THIS. AND I THINK YOU CAN KIND OF TELL I'M A LITTLE EMOTIONAL RIGHT NOW WHEN I'M IN THE COURT. I'M USUALLY THANK YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I REPRESENT UNIVERSAL STUDIO, BUT I AM, I, I DON'T THINK I'VE BEEN [00:45:01] LIKE THIS IN 20 YEARS. SO ANYWAY, ALL RIGHT. ENOUGH TALKING LIKE THAT, GET TO THE POINT SHARIF AND THE POINT IS RELYING ON YOU TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT. AND THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY RIGHT NOW. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR ALL. YOU DO. NOT ONLY FOR THIS RIGHT NOW, BUT ALL, ALL OF OUR GREAT. I HAVE A QUESTION. I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, YES. UH, QUICK QUESTION. UM, WILL YOU BE OPEN TO, UH, DISCUSSING THIS MATTER FURTHER WITH JOLLIBEE? OF COURSE, YES. OKAY. AND, UH, AND THEN WHEN WE, AND WE WERE W OBVIOUSLY WE, I HEAR YOU AND I HEAR THEM AND I MEAN, YOU JUST HAVE, I MEAN, UM, JUST OUT OF A GENERAL, UH, IDEAS, IT'S JUST LIKE, IF, SO, JUST SAY CITY NATIONAL BANK HAS THEIR TOWER, AND THEN LET'S JUST SAY ANOTHER COMPANY COMES OUT AND WANTS THE OTHER SIDE OF THEIR BUILDING. I'M SURE. ANY APPLICANT IN DOWNTOWN LA WILL ALSO BE ANGRY AT THE IDEA THAT THE BUILDING THAT THEY THOUGHT MAY HAVE BEEN EXCLUSIVE TO THEM. UH, THE SIGNAGE MAY BE, I MEAN, THEY MAY NOT BE HAPPY WITH THAT IDEA THAT ANOTHER COMPANY'S GOING TO BE TAKING THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT BUILDING, UM, FOR WHATEVER REASONS THEY MAY HAVE. BUT, UM, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO ASK IF YOU WERE OPEN TO THAT, AND IT'S GREAT TO KNOW THAT, SO THANK YOU. THANKS, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UM, NO, I DON'T. CAN WE SURE. HANG. OKAY. NO OTHER QUESTIONS. OH, I'M SORRY. VICE CHAIR LISTS. OKAY. SIT DOWN. THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU. UH, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING THE MATTER, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OR CHAIR BEFORE YOU, IT WAS PUBLIC COMMENT. UM, JUST FOR THE RECORD, MAKE SURE THERE'S NOBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER. I HAVE SOME COMMENTS. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. UM, I WOULD JUST URGE, UH, THAT SINCE THERE'S TWO APPLICANTS, WHO'VE BEEN IN OUR CITY FOR SO MANY YEARS, I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE A BAD IDEA JUST TO LET THEM SEE IF THEY CAN RESOLVE THE MATTER OR SORRY, RESOLVE THE MATTER MATTER INTERNALLY FIRST, UH, IT WOULDN'T BE A BAD IDEA TO GIVE THEM THAT OPTION AND, UM, AND ALLOWED THEM TO COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING. AND, AND BETWEEN THAT TIME THEY COULD NOTIFY CITY STAFF OF, OF IF A RESOLUTION WAS, UH, HAS BEEN REACHED BY THEN, IF NOT, THEN OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO VOTE IN THE BEST INTERESTS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CODE, BUT THE CODE ALSO GIVES US THE RIGHT TO SAY, LET THEM TALK IT OUT. AND, UH, LET'S, LET'S GIVE THEM THAT CHANCE SINCE THERE'S TWO APPLICANTS HERE WHO HAVE BEEN IN OUR CITY FOR SO MANY YEARS. SO I WOULD JUST URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO GIVE THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT BOTH PARTIES WOULD ENTERTAIN AND WE CAN BRING IT BACK AT THE RIGHT NEXT FOLLOWING MEETING. THAT'S COMING UP ONCE THE NEXT MEETING TO THE STUFF. I BELIEVE IT'S OCTOBER 26TH. OKAY. OCTOBER OVER 25TH. WE'LL CHECK THOUGH. SORRY. SURE. YES. OCTOBER 26TH WOULD BE THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. UM, WHAT KIND OF RESOLUTION ARE YOU GUYS? UH, IT WAS JUST AN IDEA ON MYSELF THAT MAYBE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU GUYS JUST SIT DOWN AT A TABLE AT YOUR OFFICES AND MAYBE THERE'S A CHANCE TO SPEAK IT OUT AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER OPTIONS BETWEEN YOU BOTH TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY AT THE NEXT MEET, THIS COMMISSION IS GOING TO FOLLOW THE CODE AND VOTE BASED UPON THE CODE. BUT WE WANT TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE I KNOW YOU BOTH HAVE BEEN HERE FOR SO MANY YEARS. I GREW UP IN OUR CITY. SO I KNOW BOTH OF YOU HAVE BEEN HERE SO MANY YEARS, THEN I WAS JUST ENCOURAGED BOTH OF YOU TO JUST, JUST SIT DOWN AND SEE ONE C UH, RESOLUTIONS POSSIBLE, UH, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. OBVIOUSLY I CAN ENCOURAGE WHICH WAY AND HOW TO MAKE IT SETTLEMENT OR WHICH WAY, HOW TO DO IT. BUT I COULD JUST SAY THAT MAYBE OFFER A MEETING THAT YOU BOTH COULD HAVE, THAT MAYBE A RESOLUTION COULD OCCUR. AND AS LONG AS YOU'RE BOTH ARE OPEN TO THAT, I, I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT MATTER AND, AND BRING IT BACK AT RIGHT ON THE 20 ON THE 26 AT THE UPCOMING COMMISSION MEETING IN, WE DON'T REACH RESOLUTION, JUST GIVEN THE STARKLY DIFFERENT. I, UH, [00:50:01] UNDER THE BROWN, I CAN TELL YOU HOW WE'LL VOTE, BUT I CAN SAY THAT THIS COMMISSION AND WELL MYSELF AND I'M SURE MY COLLEAGUES ARE AS WELL, VOLTAGE, WELL, BASED UPON THE CODE. AND IF THE CODE SAYS, WHAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS, THEN THIS COMMISSION HAS TO VOTE BASED UPON THE CODE. SO I COULD, I COULD GIVE YOU THAT, THAT IDEA. YEAH. SO THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. SO REALISTICALLY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND TRY TO, UM, RESOLVE THIS BETWEEN YOU, WHAT ARE YOUR ALTERNATIVES? NO SIGN OR LOW SIGN. I MEAN, IT IS, THAT'S NOT AN OPTION FOR YOU. THEN WE NEED TO VOTE THIS TONIGHT. I MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL MAKE THE SECOND EMOTION. WELL, SO IF THEY WERE TO SIT DOWN, I'M SURE THEY COULD TALK ABOUT MAYBE A MONETARY COMPENSATION. WE CAN'T REALLY GO INTO THE NEGOTIATIONS OF WHAT THEY DO. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. UM, MADAM CHAIR, IF I CAN CLARIFY, IS YOUR MOTION TO, UH, UH, UH, DENY THE APPEAL AT FIRST HOUSE RECOMMENDATION OR TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. I'M SORRY. CAN YOU SAY THAT? I WANTED TO, IF I CAN CLARIFY THE MOTION, IS IT TO, UH, DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OR TO APPROVE THE APPEAL, BUT WE'RE APPROVING THE SIGN. OKAY. SO YOU, THEN YOU ARE, UM, YOUR MOTION IS TO DENY THE APPEAL AT THIS EVENING. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND, BUT DOES COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? YEAH, I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE GIVE THE APPLICANT, UM, THAT CITY SOUTH SAY YOU'RE GOING TO BRING BACK AN EMERGENCY MEETING PRIOR TO THE OCTOBER 26TH MEETING. NO, WE ONLY, THE NEXT MEETING IS THE OCTOBER 25TH. SO MY MOTION IS THAT WE BRING THIS BACK ON OCTOBER 26 AND NOW WE DO DUE DILIGENCE. CAUSE I KNOW, UH, THE CONSOLE HAS, UH, SUPPORTS BOTH COMPANIES. UH, AND SO TO, UH, TO GIVE A FAIRNESS IN THIS PROCESS THAT I WORKED IN, UH, ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO GIVE BOTH APPLICANTS OPPORTUNITY, TO SIT DOWN IN A CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSION THAT THEY COULD HAVE BETWEEN THEMSELVES. UM, SINCE I CAN GIVE THEM AND TELL THEM HOW TO SETTLE THIS, OR IF A RESOLUTION, IS THAT ANY, MAYBE JOLLIBEES OFF REALLY TO OFFER MONEY AND MAYBE ALLOW, I MEAN, RESOLUTION TO LOWER ASSIGNED SIGN SOMEWHERE ELSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I CAN'T OBVIOUSLY, UH, GIVE SPECIFICS ON THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT MY DUTIES TO DO THAT, BUT I CAN SAY THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO GIVE BOTH THESE APPLICANTS WHO HAVE BEEN IN OUR CITY FOR SO MANY YEARS, THE CHANCE TO SIT DOWN AND SEE IF A RESOLUTIONS POSSIBLE, UM, AND SO FORTH. EXCUSE ME, COMMISSION. WE'VE HEARD FROM ONE SIDE, I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR FROM THE APPELLANT TO SEE IF THEY'RE OPEN TO THIS CONTINUANCE AS WELL. OKAY. UH, I DIDN'T GIVE A POSITION AS ELLUCIAN IDEAS. UM, I SPOKE WITH ALL THE PRINCIPAL OF THE LAW FIRM AND, UM, IT'S NOT REALLY A MATTER OF COMPENSATION OR MONEY, IF ANY SIGN OF ANY SORT. UM, FOR US, WE JUST WANT TO HAVE OUR SIGN UP THERE CAUSE WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR SO LONG AND YOU SPOKE ABOUT FAIRNESS AND I THINK RUSS, IT'S PRETTY FAIR IF, IF THE TERMS THAT PENANCE WE SIGNED TO THE AGREEMENT, IF IT LAYS OUT THESE TERMS THAT SAY DOLLY, B'S ENTITLED TO TWO SIGNS. YEAH. I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M NOT TELLING YOU GUYS HOW TO SET. I MEAN, IT'S HOW TO DISCUSS A, A MEETING. BUT WHAT I'M SEEING IS THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THEY WERE GIVEN EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO THE BUILDING, UH, BY THE LANDLORD. OBVIOUSLY YOU GUYS ALL HAVE ALSO BEEN TOLD THAT YOU HAVE RIGHTS TO THAT OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE TO OBVIOUSLY TO PREVENT ANY LITIGATION THAT, UH, BUT THAT'S NOT MY BUSINESS, BUT IN GENERAL, TO PREVENT ANY SORT OF LITIGATION BETWEEN YOURSELVES, I WOULD ENCOURAGE ELISA SIT DOWN MEETING. SO YOU GUYS COULD TRY TO SEE IF THERE'S A RESOLUTION AND IF NOT, AND THERE'S NOT. AND, AND, UH, THE CODE WILL BE HONORED, BUT I GUESS TO PUT A SHORTER ANSWER TO MY LONG RAMBLE, UH, WE DON'T WANT TO DO A INITIAL SOLUTION BECAUSE OUR POSITION IS JUST TO HAVE THE SIGNS. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AND, AND WHAT THE, OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU CITY STAFF FOR THIS, UH, W THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THIS TO THE CITY CONCEPT. THEY WANT IT TO, UH, THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IS FINAL, BUT THE CITY, SOMEBODY CAN REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE IT ON APPEAL. AND IF THE CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTS IT, THEN IT WILL GO UP. [00:55:03] SO MY MOTION IS THAT WE GIVE THE APPLICANT, UH, A CHANCE TO SIT DOWN AMONGST THEMSELVES AND TO, UH, UH, SEE, HAVE A, UH, INTERNAL RESOLUTION AS POSSIBLE, SINCE BOTH PARTIES ARE SAYING THE OPPOSITE IN WHAT THEIR, WHERE THEY WERE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO APPLY FOR. AND SINCE ONE OF THE LETTERS INDICATE THAT THEY WERE INFORMED BY THE CITY THAT DON'T SUCH SIGNAGE WAS AVAILABLE. AND BECAUSE THERE'S HISTORY THAT WELLS FARGO, WHO I CAN REMEMBER IS ONE MAJOR TENANT WHO HAD A SIGN UP THERE ONLY USE THE FRONT ON BRANCA AND THE BACK OF THAT BUILDING FOR THEIR SIGN ANSWER. THERE'S NEVER BEEN SIGNAGE ON THE LEFT OR RIGHT SITE. AND THE LAST OTHER BIG TENANT WHILE WELLS FARGO WAS THERE WAS FOOTHILL TRANSIT AND FOOTHILL TRANSACT. SHE HAD THE SIGN IN THE LOWER AREA OF THE BUILDING, BUT THAT'S MY EMOTION. I ACTUALLY LIKE TO SECOND THE MOTION WITH THE ADDITIONS THAT I LIKE TO FIND OUT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER SIGNS ON A BUILDING D I IDENTIFICATION IN TERMS OF SIGN IN WEST COVINA, AND TO SEE IF ANY OTHER LARGER BUILDINGS WITH MULTIPLE SIGNAGE, I WOULD ONLY CALL SEEING IT ONE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE THAT WE APPROVED A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK. SO I LIKE TO SEE IF WE HAVE SOME TYPE OF INFLAMMATIONS THAT WITH BUILDINGS I WILL LIKE TO, UH, INCLUDE, UH, COMMISSIONER HANGS, UH, COMMENTS INTO MY MOTION. OKAY. WILL WE BE VOTING ON BOTH MOTIONS? SO WE'LL VOTE ON THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ AMENDED BY, UH, COMMISSIONER HANG FIRST. OKAY. UH, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. NO, UH, COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ. YES. COMMISSIONER HAYNE, UH, VICE CHAIR, LEWIS CHAIR. BESERA NO MOTION DOES NOT APPROVE. SO NOW WE WILL GO BACK TO YOUR MOTION, UM, UH, UH, UH, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DIRECTORS, UH, APPROVAL OF THE SIGN. OR DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE DID. WE DID. I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. SO THEN, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. OH, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. I, UH, COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ, UH, COMMISSIONER HANG, UH, VICE CHAIR LEWIS AND, UM, CHAIR BESERA AYE. MOTION PASSES 3 1 1 EXTENSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WOULD ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO REPORT OR COMMENT ON AN ITEM ONLY NOW, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS TO REPORT [3. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT:] TO THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONER? UM, AND I'M CHAIR ON, I BELIEVE WE ARE TAKING THE RESIDENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 19TH, AS WELL AS, UM, THE, UH, AMAZON, UM, THE LAST MILE, UH, PROJECT WILL ALSO BE ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ON THE 19TH, IN THE STATE OF THE CITY. OH, I'M SORRY. YES, I GOT THAT. AND THE STATE OF THE CITY IS THIS THURSDAY. SO EVERYONE IS INVITED, UH, INFORMATION FOR THE EVENT IS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE, WEST COVINA.ORG. UM, WE ALSO HAVE A FILIPINO, UH, EVENT AT PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PLAZA WEST COVINA MALL ON OCTOBER 23RD, UM, WITH THE, UH, CEREMONY WITH THE CITY DIGNITARIES AT 2:00 PM. AND WE WILL ALSO BE HOSTING, UM, A HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL ALSO IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PLAZA WEST COVINA ON OCTOBER 31ST. UM, AND MORE INFORMATION FOR THOSE EVENTS IS ON THE WEBSITE [4. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:] OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR BY THE COUNCIL THAT PERTAINED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, WHAT WAS TAKEN TO THE LEFT? OH, YES. SO THAT WAS THE SECOND HEARING AT THE LAST COUNT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE, UH, OVERLAY ZONE AT THE AUTO PLAZA. AND THAT'S IT FOR ME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, Q SINCE THERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS OR TO CONSIDER THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 8:02 PM. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.