►
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Division Appeals Hearing - November 12, 2020
More information & Agenda here:
https://www.slc.gov/boards/appeals-hearing-officer-agendas-minutes/
A
A
This
is
a
webex
meeting
that
is
held
to
serve
as
the
appeal
hearing
for
two
appeals
that
are
on
the
agenda
and
they
are
both
from
the
same
appellant
reagan,
outdoor
advertising
related
to
two
properties,
one
at
10,
49
or
1051,
south
300
west.
There
seems
to
be
a
little
confusion
about
that
and
the
other
was
1650
south
state
street.
A
So
it
appears
that
the
parties
are
the
same
in
both
of
these
appeals.
This
is
a
public
meeting,
it's
being
recorded.
My
name
is
craig
call,
I'm
a
hearing
officer,
one
of
those
who
serves
to
handle
land
use
deals
in
salt
lake
city,
and
it
is
a
public
hearing
as
well.
If
members
of
the
public
do
show
up,
I
noted
that
a
web
link
was
circulated
for
the
public
to
use
as
well.
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
Thank
you
just
as
a
matter
of
housekeeping
tonight,
there's
two
appeals:
there's
one
with
regard
to
building
permit
number
two:
zero:
two:
zero
zero.
Two
one,
eight
eight,
that's
the
one
we'll
be
addressing
tonight.
The
second
appeal:
zero.
Two
one,
eight
nine
there's
there's
been
an
issue
with
the
property
owner
so
for
purposes
of
tonight.
That
appeal,
I
suppose,
would
be
rendered
mood
so
that
we're
not
seeing
sound
well,
the
one
on
300
west.
B
That,
okay,
well,
just
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
background.
The
facts
of
this
matter
are
very
straightforward
and,
and
they
are
as
follows-
that
my
client
reagan
has
an
existing
billboard
on
1700
south
with
an
east-west
orientation
and
we've
applied.
The
building.
Permit
that's
been
submitted.
Application
is
to
construct
a
new
billboard
at
1650,
south
state
street,
with
a
north,
south
orientation,
and
that's
really
the
facts
of
this
matter.
B
And
if
you
look
at
the
the
party's
briefs,
the
parties
appear
to
be
in
agreement
that
the
controlling
issue
in
this
appeal
is:
what
does
this?
The
phrase
quote
same
side
of
the
street
unquote
mean,
and
our
position
is
that
the
plain
language
of
this
ordinance
means
signs
on
the
same
side
of
the
street.
B
No
and
that's-
and
I
appreciate
you
bringing
that
up
because
that's
a
critical
distinction
for
purposes
of
today,
so
the
first
and
most
important
thing
to
point
out-
and
I
apologize
if
I
get
redundant
on
this
point,
but
it's
the
I
think
it's
the
same.
It's
the
controlling
issue
is
these
signs
are
not
on
the
same
street.
Therefore
they
cannot
be
on
the
same
side
of
the
street.
B
One
of
them
is
on
1700
south,
and
one
of
them
will
be
on
state
street
and
nowhere
in
the
in
the
city's
ordinances.
Is
there
a
spacing
prohibition
based
strictly
on
a
linear
measurement
as
the
city
advances?
Instead,
it
reads-
and
this
is
where
we
just
talked
about-
and
this
is
important
it
re.
It
talks
about
a
linear
measurement
when
you're
dealing
with
two
small
billboards,
it
says,
300
square
feet
or
less
in
size
shall
not
be
located
less
than
300
linear
feet
from
any
other
small
billboard.
B
B
What
the
city
is
trying
to
say
is
that
it's
strictly
a
linear
measurement
and
we've,
given
you
several
anecdotal
examples
of
how
classifying
these
two
signs
as
being
on
the
same
side
of
the
street
under
this
ordinance
would
be
a
frustrated
and
uncommon
usage
of
this
phrase.
For
example,
we
pointed
out
that
the
city
county
building-
we
have
two
examples
for
you-
that
the.
B
South
is
just
a
frustrated
use
of
that
phrase
and
further
re
reinforcing
reinforcing
this
interpretation
is
the
fact
that
billboards,
by
definition
in
state
and
city
or
in
state
and
city
city
ordinances,
are
designed
to
attract
attention
based
on
their
orientation,
and
we
pointed
this
out
in
our
brief.
This
is
21a
46160b.
B
By
definition,
a
billboard
is
a
freestanding
ground
sign
located
on
industrial,
commercial,
residential
property.
Here's
the
important
part
if
the
sign
is
designed
or
intended
to
direct
attention
to
a
business
product
or
service
that
is
not
sold
offered
or
existing
on
the
property
where
the
sign
is
located.
B
B
Therefore
they're
not
on
the
same
side
of
the
street.
These
billboards
are
oriented
to
entirely
different
streets
and
under
definition,
as
the
city
has
defined
them.
These
billboards
are
oriented
in
a
way
to
direct
attention
on
the
streets
that
they're
positioned
on
and
that's
important
to
this
as
well.
B
Throughout
its
brief,
the
city
argues
that
the
that
the
300
foot
spacing
applies,
which
is
not
correct.
We're
talking
about
the
800
foot
spacing
because
we're
dealing
with
a
large
sign
and
a
small
sign,
the
300
foot
spacing
requirement
applies
when
you're
dealing
with
a
small
sign
versus
a
small
sign.
B
B
B
B
The
the
proposed
sign
is
here
north
and
south
on
state
street,
with
a
north-south
orientation.
The
city
is
arguing
that
the
intent
of
the
statutes
prevent
clusters
of
billboards,
and
so
the
city's
saying
that
you
can't
put
a
sign
anywhere
within
800
feet,
north
of
1700
south.
But
if
we
take
that
to
its
logical
conclusion,
it
would
permit
a
sign
right
here
directly
across
the
street.
It
would
permit
a
sign
right
here
on
this
corner
of
state
street.
Ours
is
going
here.
It
can't
go
there,
but
under
the
city's
interpretation
it
could
go
right
here.
B
It
could
go
here
on
any
here
on
state
street.
It
could
go
on
1700
south
here,
so
we
see
that
their
their
interpretation
doesn't
advance
this
alleged
purpose
of
the
statute.
But
what
would
it
prevent?
Well,
if
we
measure
a
distance
from
here
we're
talking
about
800
feet
the
way
the
city
is
asking
you
to
interpret
this
is
it
would
prevent
putting
a
sign
clear.
B
B
B
B
But
if
that's
the
case,
that's
not
consistent
with
their
argument
that
you
have
to
interpret
this
in
a
way
to
avoid
clusters
of
signs.
We
have
signs
that
are
on
two
different
streets,
they're
oriented
in
two
different
ways
and
in
summary
again,
I'm
getting
back
to
the
redundancy
they're,
not
on
the
same
side
of
the
street,
because
they're
not
on
the
same
street.
B
B
Okay,
after
this
ordinance
was
enacted,
and
the
city
issued
two
permits-
this
is
california
avenue
and
redwood
and
redwood
road.
These
are
on
the
same
parcel.
One
has
california
road
frontage,
the
other
one
has
redwood
road
frontage.
There
are
343
linear
feet
from
each
other.
The
city
permitted
these
and
if
we
go
down
to
exhibit
e,
which
is
the
actual
permit
the
city
issued
you'll
know
it
says
two
billboards
on
this
lot.
This
sign
has
california
avenue
frontage
and
so
applying
the
same
ordinance.
That
was,
in
effect,
that's
in
effect.
B
Now
the
city
determined
that
it
met
the
spacing
requirements
because
they
have
different
orientations.
They
have
frontage
on
different
streets
and
so,
rather
than
belabor
a
point
these
points,
I
think
I
think
my
our
argument
is
clear:
that
two
signs
on
two
different
streets
cannot
be
on
the
same
side
of
the
street
under
the
plain
language
of
this
ordinance.
So
unless.
C
Conversation,
so
I
may
want
to
share
a
couple
of
pictures
and
stuff
with
my
screen,
so
it
does
something
need
to
be
done
to.
Oh,
no,
it
looks
like
I've
got
the
ball,
so
I
guess
just
start
with
just
as
mr
peterman
did
just
a
matter
of
housekeeping
with
regard
to
the
300
west
billboard
and
I'm
not
entirely
sure
what
reagan's
position
is
with
regard
to
that.
C
But
the
city's
position
is
that
the
appeal
should
be
dismissed
and
the
city
received
today,
unsolicited
from
the
property
owner,
an
email
and
directed
to
mayara
lima,
informing
the
city
that
the
property
owner
wasn't
going
to
enter
into
an
agreement
with
reagan
and
wasn't
going
to
allow
them
on
the
property.
Since
a
land
application
has
to
be
filed
by
the
owner
of
the
property
or
somebody
with
a
representative.
C
So
somebody
with
permission
it
would
render
the
appeal
moot
and
I
would
remember
the
application
invalid
and
then
the
appeal
and
that
email
from
the
property
owner
and
to
the
city
was
included
in
the
package
of
information
forwarded
to
the
hearing
officer
today.
So
the
city's
position
would
be
to
dismiss
the
appeal
and-
and
if
reagan
somehow
has
you
know,
manages
to
negotiate
a
another
deal
with
this
particular
property
owner
or
something
at
a
later
date.
They
can
be
filed
an
application
josh.
B
C
C
The
second
is
that
reagan's
fuel
brief
rely
quite
heavily
on
the
california
case,
which
is
readily
distinguishable
on
a
lot
of
grounds.
So
I'll
address.
That
kind
of.
As
my
second
point
and
and
third,
there
really
is
no
evidence
of
any
inconsistent
decision
from
1999
or
2000,
and
I'm
just
going
to
walk
through
the
the
city's
records
with
respect
to
those
opponents
to
demonstrate
that.
But
before
we
start,
I
was
wondering
if
it
would
I'm
thinking
it
might
be
helpful
just
to
share
my
screen
briefly.
C
C
Just
for
information
purposes,
what
reagan
is
requesting
to
do
in
this
case
is
to
take
down
a
sign
that
they
already
that
is
currently
in
existence.
So
it's
this
sign
down
here
that
I'm
kind
of
drawing
my
cursor
around
and
then
move
it
down.
So
it's
here
again
move
it
down
the
street
to
this
location
here
at
harvey's
and-
and
I
just
know
that
you
know
if
the
hearing
officer
can
just
know
for
the
moment-
there's
a
billboard
here
as
well.
C
I'm
going
to
return
to
that
point
and
slightly
later
here,
so
hopefully
that
kind
of
orientates,
like
from
the
street
view
what
we're
looking
at
and
where
the
new
billboard
potentially
potentially
wants
to
go.
So
this
is
obvious
from
the
you
know.
The
city's
briefing
on
this
and
the
city
contends
that
the
term
same
side
of
the
street
means
any
billboard
that
is
located.
C
That
is
located
geographically
to
the
same
side
in
relation
to
the
street
you're.
Moving
to
so
here
we're
talking
about
to
the
west
of
state
street.
Anything
to
the
west
of
state
street
would
sort
of
dictate
the
orientation
or
the
the
linear
measurements,
and
we
can
tell
that
this
interpretation
is
in
fact
consistent
with
the
plain
language
of
the
ordinance
and
its
purpose,
and
it
gives
effect
to
the
notable
missions
in
the
ordinance
and
avoid
some
absurd
results.
C
So
obviously
those
are
a
bunch
of
statutory
construction
rules
that
apply
I'll
talk
through
each
of
them
a
little
bit
more
slowly.
So
the
first
one.
With
regard
to
plain
language,
the
hearing
officer
will
note
that
the
ordinance
reads
on
the
same
side
of
the
street.
It
doesn't
read
the
same
side
of
the
same
street.
You
might
think
I'm
being
pedantic
here,
but
the
hearing
officer
may
have
noticed.
It's
had
opportunity
to
read
the
california
case.
That
reagan
is
relying
on
heavily
as
saying
that
their
position
is
correct.
C
C
C
That's
clearly
not
contributing
it's
kind
of
contrary
to
the
purpose
of
the
statue,
which
is
to
enhance
the
city's
gateways,
views
and
sisters
if
we
interpret
the
ordinance
as
reagan
wishes
us
to
interpret
the
ordinance
you'd
get
the
subservers
out
where
you
could
allow
this
cluster
of
billboards.
In
this
circumstance,
you
could
also
get
a
circumstance
where
you
could
have
billboards
up
and
down
a
street
that
had
lots
of
just
little
little
side
streets.
C
I
think
it's
notable
that
arguments
have
been
made
that
the
orientation
of
the
billboard
is
important
to
whether
the
linear
feat
applies.
I
think
again,
this
is
a
glaring
absence
from
the
city's
ordinance
there's
nothing
in
the
ordinance
that
limits
the
spacing
requirements
to
the
orientation
of
the
billboard,
whether
it's
facing
you
know
north
south
east
west,
and
I
think
that
this
emission
is
actually
particularly
notable
because
the
state
law
spacing
provisions,
do
limit
their
spacing
provisions
and
they
limit
them.
C
Based
on
whether
the
billboards
can
be
concurrently
viewed
viewed
at
the
same
time,
they
say
billboards
can't
be
within
500
feet
of
each
other.
You
know
adjacent
to
an
interstate
freeway
or
highway
unless
they
can't
be
concurrently.
Viewed
so
clearly,
there
are
ways
to
accommodate
like
the
idea
of
orientation
which
have
been
done
in
state
law,
and
it
hasn't
been
done
in
the
city's
ordinance
so
again
where
our
emissions
need
to
be
considered
purposeful
and
given
the
appropriate
effect.
C
C
How
else
do
you
describe?
Well,
let
me
let
me
put
it
this
way
many
times
in
in
both
the
reagan's
brief
and
in
their
romantic
briefs.
They
said
well,
if
the
city
intended
it
to
be
within
300
or
800
linear
feet
of
the
of
you
know
in
any
direction
to
the
east,
it
could
have
just
said
so,
but
the
response
is
well.
How
do
you
say
that,
because
streets
are
orientated
east
and
west,
there
are
entities
north
and
south
or
south
east
and
southwest?
C
C
I
don't
know
if
the
hearing
officers
have
the
opportunity
to
review
the
california
case
that
has
been
cited
in
reagan's
briefing.
I'm
happy
to
provide
a
small
overview
of
that
to
give
some
orientation
to
the
distinctions
that
I'm
about
to
draw
between
our
circumstance
and
that
ordinance.
So,
but
I
won't
waste.
I
won't
waste
the
hearing
officer's
time
if
you're
already
familiar
with
the
case.
A
C
So
you
probably
don't
need
to
know
too
much.
It
is
in
a
lot
of
respects
of
very
similar
circumstances,
the
case
that
concerns
the
corner
lot
and
billboards.
That
would
be
both
on
the
same
corner
of
autumn
orientation.
I
think
the
two
incredibly
distinguishing
factors
in
addition
to
the
fact
that
obvious
hits
the
california
case
are
not
finding
a
new
power,
but
I
think
that
more
notable
is
the
fact
that
the
california
city
chose
to
use
the
language
on
the
same
side
of
the
same
street.
C
I
think
the
other
thing
which
is
incredibly
notable
about
that
case
is
that
the
ordinance
had
a
specific
provision
for
spacing
requirements
at
four-way
intersections
which
these
billboards
met,
and
it
wasn't
an
issue.
So,
of
course,
they
had
a
much
more
specific
provision,
which
is
not
an
issue
in
this
case,
and
then
they
also
had
this
four-way
intersection
provision
that
they
met.
So
I
think
those
two
things
sort
of
the
most
notable
and,
as
the
hearing
officer
probably
noted,
there
were
additional
distinctions
and
that
were
drawn.
C
C
So
reagan
has
provided
a
couple
of
documents
that
say
that
they
received
a
permit
in
on
december
1st
2000
that
allowed
their
billboard
allowed
a
billboard
within
340
feet
of
that
existing
billboard.
So
we
went
back
to
look
at
the
history,
I'm
just
going
to
walk
you
through
it
just
briefly,
so
it
starts
in
september
15th
of
1999
and
as
you'll
see.
These
first
two
permits
are
issued
this
first
one,
and
it's
got
this
issue
date
up
here
of
9,
15
1999
and
then
the
second
one
is
9
15
1999.
C
C
C
So
essentially,
this
billboard,
this
permit
application
requesting
the
two
billboards
in
redwood
road
was
voided
to
allow
this
billboard
and
california
avenue
to
be
put
in
place
in
september
15th
of
1999.,
so
it
seems,
like
we've,
got
a
consistent
position
at
this
point.
We
can't
both
these
applications
because
it
requires
facing
provisions.
C
Now
we
wonder
what
this
subsequent
application
15
months
later
or
this
subsequent
permit
15
months
later,
is
to
be
honest,
we're
looking
at
20
years
ago.
So
of
course,
records
get
destroyed
over
time
with
you
know,
retention
policies
et
cetera.
So
what
do
we
have
here?
We've
got
this
permit.
It
says
new,
build
board
construction,
yeah
issue
date,
twelve
one,
two
thousand,
so
we
don't
know
what's
being
requested.
We
don't
know
how
many
billboards
were
being
requested
in
that
we
don't
know
if
it
was
a
small
one.
C
We
didn't
know
if
it
was
two
billboards,
and
notably
reagan,
hasn't
submitted
the
permit
that
was
issued
to
say
what
the
what
the
faces
were
or
what
it
was
that
was
allowed.
I
think
it's
also
interesting
to
note
that
this
application
says
it's
active
up
here.
What
that
means
is
that
the
applicant
has
never
called
the
city
for
an
inspection
to
confirm
that
whatever
they
requested
is
in
line
with
what
they
were
granted.
C
So
we
tried
to
do
a
little
bit
more
looking
to
see
what
we
could
find
and
to
see
what
was
out
there
and
what?
Actually
you
know
if
what
was
built
was
in
line.
The
best
we
could
find
was
that
an
aerial
photo
from
may
2002
and
which
still
shows
no
billboards
here
on
the
property
in
this
area,
where
these
two
billboards
are
so
really.
C
Even
if
the
hearing
officer
remove
reverses
the
city's
position
here,
the
city
is
still
going
to
have
to
deny
this
application
because,
as
you
notice,
the
billboard
is
going
to
go
in
here
and
there
is
another
billboard
here
which
I
don't
think
anybody
is
going
to
dispute,
but
that's
on
the
same
side
of
state
street,
and
these
are
within
the
documents
that
we
provided
to
you
and
a
rough
measurement
of
that
shows
that
that
is
104
feet
from
that
billboard.
There's
just
three
buildings
down.
A
A
A
We
ran
into
issues
on
construction
and
our
the
time
to
build.
It
ran
out,
so
we
had
to
apply
for
another
one
and
we
probably
have
those
permits
in
our
file,
both
of
them
we're
happy
to
provide
those
and
then,
with
regards
to
the
last
thing,
she
said
on
the
sign
that
she
pointed
to
next
door
that
has
not
been
permitted
as
by
salt
lake
city
is
a
billboard,
we've
researched
it.
A
A
B
Thank
you.
I
just
have
a
couple
of
points.
First
of
all,
it's
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
the
city's.
Now
I
mean
when,
when
miss
clark
put
up
the
the
california
road
or
california
avenue
in
redwood,
it
sounded
like
the
city
said,
we
don't
know
what
those
permits
are.
Well,
if
you
look
at
what
her
notes
said,
it
said
the
first
one
was
voided,
because
both
billboards
were
going
to
have
redwood
road
frontage
and
that
wasn't
permissible.
So
what
happened?
B
The
note
she
just
showed
if
she
wants
to
put
it
back
up,
is
it
was
voided
and
the
one
billboard
was
moved
around
the
corner
to
have
california
avenue
frontage
and
that
met
the
spacing
requirements.
So
no
the
city's
not
being
consistent
in
their
position
back
then,
which
it's
the
same
ordinance
that
was,
in
effect,
what
they
did
is
they
said
you
can't
have
them
both
on
redwood
road.
You
need
to
move
on
around
the
corner
and
to
I
can
show
the
billboard
or
the
permit
that
was
issued.
B
A
B
B
A
B
Because
if
so,
I
admit
it's
it's
a
little
bit
confusing
and
the
reason
because
the
redwood
road
one
had
actually
been
applied
for
first,
but,
as
mr
reagan
indicated,
the
time
ran
out
to
build
that,
so
they
had
to
resubmit
it.
So
at
the
time
the
one
was
issued
for
california,
redwood
road
permit
had
been
put
in,
but
not
built
yet,
and
so
that's
why
it
says
on
here
void
this
other
one,
an
applicant's
request,
because
we
couldn't
have
more
multiple
ones
on
redwood
to
meet
the
spacing
requirement
for
this
location.
B
Two
billboards
on
this
lot.
This
sign
will
have
california
road
frontage,
and
so
the
city
knew
there
was
one
on
redwood
going
up
and
to
meet
the
space
and
requirement.
We
had
to
move
it.
This
billboard
on
the
california
avenue
and
if
you
look
at
ms
clark's
notes,
that's
consistent
with
that,
and
I
do
it
was
20
years
ago,
but
her
notes
show
that
we
couldn't
have
two
on
redwood
road
space
like
that,
which
is
what
why
we
got
this
permit
for
california
avenue.
A
C
B
And
I
just
want
to
make
just
a
couple
more
brief
points,
the
first
of
which
is
that
it's
I
mean
this
california
case
keeps
getting
brought
up.
We
haven't
relied
heavily
on
the
california
case.
I
included
it
as
its
instructive.
I
think,
to
show
how
these
ordinances
should
be
interpreted
interpreted.
What
we
relied
heavily
on
is
the
plain
language
of
the
statute
and
the
way
that
the
city
has
chosen
to
word.
B
It
council
said
that
we
have
to
look
and
omissions
have
to
be
given
effect,
and
I
agree,
and
what
the
city's
ordinance
says
is
if
you're
talking
about
two
small
signs,
it's
a
linear
measurement,
that's
in
the
ordinance,
but
if
you're
talking
about
a
small
sign
versus
a
large
sign,
it's
a
different
spacing
requirement
for
signs
on
the
same
side
of
the
street
and
council
says:
well,
we
haven't
told
them
how
they
could
award
it.
Well,
first
of
all,
that's
not
our
job,
it's
not
our
job.
To
tell
the
city
how
to
word
their
ordinances.
B
The
city
draws
the
ordinances
and
our
job
is
to
comply
with
them,
which
we've
done,
but
if
they
didn't
want
to
make
it
a
linear
measurement,
they
state
that
the
stated
goal
of
the
cities
to
avoid
clusters
of
billboards-
it's
a
simple
remedy.
They
just
say
you
can't
have
any
other
billboards
within
x,
linear
feet
of
another
billboard.
It's
it's
not
a
difficult
drafting,
but
they
chose
not
to
do
that.
It's
not
a
linear
measurement
between
a
small
and
large
billboard.
B
It's
a
measurement
of
800
feet
on
the
same
side
of
the
street
and
the
way
they're
trying
to
twist
that
to
make
it
everything
north
of
1700
south,
just
it's
not
consistent
with
their
past
applications
and
it's
also
not
consistent
with
their
stated
goal.
As
I
pointed
out
earlier,
we
could
have,
we
could
put
a
permit.
B
We
could
put
a
billboard
directly
across
the
street
50
feet
away
and
it
would
be
acceptable
under
their
interpretation
and
that's
so
that's
not
consistent
with
their
stated
goal
of
preventing
clusters
of
billboards
and,
moreover,
that,
as
council
pointed
out,
there's
nothing
in
this
ordinance.
That
says,
you
can't
have
two
billboards
that
are
visible.
At
the
same
time,
the
state
statute
says
that
if
the
city
wanted
to
prevent
billboards
from
being
visible
at
the
same
time
again,
it
could
have
put
that
in
the
ordinance
and
that
omission
means
something
they
didn't
say.
B
You
can't
build
on
a
different
street
with
a
different
orientation,
because
you
can
potentially
see
both
of
them.
At
the
same
time,
I
want
to
go
back
to
what
I
said
at
the
beginning,
where
billboards
are
oriented
to
attract
attention
to
a
certain
direction
of
traffic.
My
client
could
never
sell
advertising
on
an
east-west
billboard
on
1700
south
to
an
advertiser
who
wants
to
advertise
to
traffic
on
state
street
simply
because,
as
you're
driving
past
a
business,
you
might
be
able
to
crane
your
neck
and
look
down
the
street
and
see
another
billboard.
B
So
I
think
that
I've-
I
I
probably
over
explained
our
position
on
this
and
I
think
I've
probably
over
explained
how
the
only
way
to
get
to
adopt
the
city's
interpretation
is
to
read
the
phrase
same
side
of
the
street
out
of
the
ordinance
and
read
a
linear
restriction
into
the
ordinance,
neither
of
which
is
permissible
under
the
rules
of
statutory
interpretation.
We
go
by
what
does
this
mean
by
its
plain
language?
B
And
I
don't
think
anybody
can
disagree
that
when
we
talk
about
things
that
are
on
the
same
side
of
the
street,
the
common
and
the
common
understood
usage
of
that
phrase
is
things
that
are
on
the
same
side
of
the
street.
We
don't
talk
about
things
that
are
just
simply
oriented
on
some
side
of
the
street,
regardless
of
how
far
they
are
away
from
a
particular
street.
So
I,
if
I
haven't
answered
your
questions,
I'm
happy
to
do
them
now
to
do
that
now.
C
I
don't
know,
but
that
was
the
clear
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
and
the
billboard
ordinance
is
actually
currently
going
under
amendment
and
as
referenced
in
our
briefing
that
provision
has
been
changed.
To
attempt
to
address
this
confusion.
It
says
it
provides
the
linear,
feed
measurement
and
then
accepts
the
opposite
side
of
the
street.
Maybe
we'll
be
back
here
some
other
day
to
argue
about
what
opposite
side
of
the
street
is.
But
I
think
that
sort
of
demonstrates
the
point
that
the
idea
was.
C
It
seems
that,
and
I
can
be
corrected
if
this
is
wrong,
that
I'm
hearing
reagan
say
that
council
for
reagan
said
they
agree
that
the
300th
measurement
is
a
linear
measurement
and
you
can't
have
a
billboard
within
three
small
worlds
within
300
linear
feet
of
another
small
billboard,
but
you
can
but
within,
but
you
can
within,
but
it
doesn't
apply
to
the
large
billboard,
but
that
seems
to
give
right
rise
to
an
absurd
result.
You
have
a
large
billboard
and
you
have
a
small
bubble
closer
to
a
large
billboard.
C
Doesn't
that
give
rise
to
larger
clusters,
it
doesn't
doesn't
seem
to
make
sense
to
make
the
distinction
between
those
in
that
way.
That
seems
to
be
contrary
to
the
very
purpose
of
you
know
not
having
clusters
or
billboards
having
their
views
and
getting
ways.
If
you
can
allow
a
small
billboard
to
be
near
a
big
billboard
nearer
to
a
big
billboard
than
it
can
be
to
another
small
report
that
doesn't
that
doesn't
make
much
sense
to
me.
C
If
that's
the
one
example
of
an
inconsistent
position,
I
don't
think
that
it
really
shows
a
pattern
of
the
city
permitting
bubbles
in
this
circumstance,
but
I
would
like,
but
I
think
I
understood
the
explanation
to
be
that
they
asked
the
two
billboards
on
redwood
road
and
they
weren't
allowed
to
have
two
billboards
beside
each
other
on
redwood
road.
So
they
took
one
round
the
corner
and
obviously
like
no
billboard
was
appears
from
the
photos.
C
No
billboard
was
built
there
for
a
long
time
and
then,
when
one
finally
was
it
was
two
right
beside
each
other.
So
and
again,
this
side
has
never
been
inspected
for
conformance.
So
I
don't
I'm
not
sure.
I
fully
follow
that
explanation.
It
doesn't
sound
like
one
of
the
billboards
was
in
fact
removed
from
redwood
road.
C
C
I
don't
agree
with
that
position
at
all
a
billboard,
zero
billboards
there.
So
if
reagan
has
beef
with
another
person,
I
mean
we
see
plenty
of
litigation
reported
and
like
et
cetera,
like
billboard
owners
fight
with
each
other
over
these
things.
Reagan
can
have
a
tour
with
that
billboard
owner
if
he
thinks
that
they're
inappropriately
there.
B
Well,
let
me
make
sure
I'm
clear,
so
the
council
is
saying
it's
our
duty
to
enforce
the
city's
ordinances.
To
have
I
mean
the
fact
that
somebody
else
put
up
an
illegal
billboard
has
no
bearing
on
the
fact
that
we're
legally,
that
we
have
legal
billboards
that
are
permitted
and
are
within
our
rights
under
the
ordinance
to
say
that,
because
somebody
else
put
up
an
illegal
billboard
that
somehow
impacts
our
rights
and
it's
not
the
city's
job
to
enforce
that,
and
it's
our
job
to
to
commence
litigation
to
have
a
deemed
an
illegal
billboard.
C
Problem,
so
I
would
say
that
it's
obviously
reagan's
position
that
it's
an
illegal
billboard,
I'm
not
sure
that
we
have
evidence.
That
would
support
that
and
we
have
it
on
our
inventory
as
a
billboard.
So
it
appears
to
be
a
billboard.
So
I
don't
know
what
what's
the
basis
for
reagan's
position,
that
it's
an
illegal
billboard.
C
A
B
Well,
I
mean,
I
think
the
ordinance
says
they
they
use
the
word
linear
feed
with
regard
to
small
billboards
versus
small
billboards
that
term
linear
feed
is
omitted
with
regard
to
small
billboards
versus
large
billboards,
so
I
think
I
agree
with
assuming.
I
understand
your
question.
Yes,
I
agree
with
it.
A
So
if
let's
say
we
want,
we
can
build
a
large
billboard
that
is
1600
feet.
You
know
1600
feet
or
1700
between
two
existing
billboards
and
we
want
to
put
a
new
one
in
your
position
is,
of
course
you
could
build
that
large
billboard
in
that
area
between
that
neither
one
is
closer
within
600
800
feet
of
the
other
large
billboard.
A
B
B
So
when
we're
dealing
with
large
billboards,
it
says
bill,
so
the
large
billboard
in
large
billboard
is
a
strictly
or
linear
measurement.
It
says
billboards
with
an
advertising
phase.
Greater
than
300
square
feet
shall
not
be
located
closer
than
800
linear
feet
from
any
other,
billboard,
small
or
large,
on
the
same
side
of
the
street,
so
that
is
a
strictly
or
that
is
a
linear
measurement.
That
applies
to
everything
if
you're
building
a
large
billboard.
So
it's
a
different
ordinance
that
doesn't
apply
to
this
to
this
matter.
B
A
A
A
Maybe
it's
me
I
quit
talking
and
the
noise
went
away
anyway.
Justice
zimmerman
and
the
supreme
court
wrote
that
the
cities
there
was
no
history
in
that
case
of
the
cities
interpreting
the
ordinance,
and
so
the
court
interpreted
in
favor
of
the
property
owner,
saying
that
it
was
building
to
building
measurement,
not
corner
of
property,
to
corner
of
property
measurement,
because
the
things
they
were
trying
to
regulate
occurred
in
the
building
and
not
in
in
the
parking
lot.
A
A
B
What
well
it's
certainly
not
too
small
signs,
so
I
think
I
can
say
that
with
some
certainty,
so
we're
not
we're
we're
not
talking
about
the
300
foot.
Spacing
we're
talking
about
the
800
foot
spacing
and
we've
shown
the
diagram
that
shows
they're
343
feet
apart
so
they're.
I
think
I
think,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
they're,
both
large
or
ones
large
and
one
small,
it
doesn't
matter,
they
both
fall
within
that
800
spacing
requirement
and
the
city
permitted
them
at
343
feet.
B
Well,
I
think
it's
clear
from
the
issuance
of
that
that,
what's
written
on
the
face
of
the
permit,
they
recognize
that
there's
two
billboards
on
this
lot.
This
sign
has
california
avenue
frontage
that
that's
what
the
city
said
they
recognize.
There's
we
have
one.
We
have
redwood,
we
have
california
different
frontages.
A
C
Yeah,
all
of
those
all
of
those
were
comments
which
we
made
and
we
haven't
really
seen.
I
mean
any
documentation,
because
it's
so
old,
you
can't
verify
what
the
documentation
is,
because
it's
20
years
ago,
if
I
might
indulge,
I
wouldn't
mind,
sharing
my
screen
again
because
I
didn't
read
the
language
on
the
face
of
those
permanent
issues
the
same
way
as
mr
peterman
did
so.
I
might
just
like
to
pull
those
up
again
just
for
a
moment.
C
Because
it
seems
a
perfectly
valid
interpretation
that
you
have
this
september:
15
1999
new,
billboard
construction
with
street
frontage
on
redwood
road,
two
billboards
on
same
lot,
so
they're
asking
to
build
two
billboards
on
redwood
road
and
then
the
next
one
says
billboard
sign
permit
to
be
voided
at
applicant's
request
to
meet
the
spacing
for
this
location.
Two
billboards
in
this
lot.
This
sign
is
california
avenue
frontage.
C
So
I
understand
that
with
the
fact
that
this
915
99
application
for
these
billboards
has
been
completely
voided,
that
they
avoided
that
application
to
allow
their
california
revenue
fronted
at
the
california
avenue
application
to
move
forward.
Of
course,
like
we're
all
operating
from
documents
at
21
years
old
and
again,
if
that's
the
only
example,
we've
got
where
it's
incredibly
vague.
What
actually
happened,
then.
C
I
don't
think
that
that's
a
pattern
and
practice
of
the
city
interpreting
its
ordinance,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
this
interpretation
from
september,
15
or
1999
is
exactly
the
same
interpretation
that's
happening
today.
It's
like
you
can't
have
these
redwood
road
billboards,
because
you
want
this
california
avenue
one.
So
they
said:
okay,
boy,
california,
the
redwood
rose
and
we'll
take
the
california
avenue.
So
that
appears
to
be
what's
happening
there
on
september
15th
what
happened
in
december?
C
1
2000-
I
don't
know
because
it's
very
vague
from
this-
and
I
didn't
like
today's
the
first
day
that
I've
seen
those
things
that
mr
peterman
put
up
on
the
screen,
but
they
were
far
from
clear
to
me
like
if
there
was
what
was
being
requested
and
what
had
been
done
and
again
like
this
has
never
been
inspected
like
so
I
don't
know
what
was
literally
approved.
Was
it
a
small
bubble
with
a
big
board?
You
know
and
it's
obviously
never
been
inspected
at
the
end.
B
A
B
B
B
So
what
we
have
here
is,
if
you
can
see
that
that's
a
this
is
udot.
This
is
that
billboard
on
redwood
road,
which
the
city
says
may
or
may
not
be
proper.
This
is
dated
12
28
2015..
You
see
the
address
1360
for
south
redwood
road
udot,
conforming
side
by
side,
permit
check.
1228,
I
mean
so
it
has
been
inspected
everybody's
aware
of
it.
This
is
a
udot
inspection
showing
that
it
was
inspected
as
recently
as
12,
28,
2015.
B
B
If
you
see
this
was
provided
to
the
city,
we
wanted
to
extend
permit
144081
for
180
days
the
the
structure
hadn't
come
in,
yet
we
have
two
permits
for
the
same
property.
We
have
built
one
signed,
but
we
haven't
received
the
other
science
structure
from
phoenix,
yet
we
should
have
it
within
45
to
60
days
now.
What
happened
is
the
city
I'll
show
you.
B
The
in
response
to
that
the
city
said,
in
regard
to
your
request,
for
an
extension
of
time
from
one
four
four
zero,
eight
one,
the
permit's
already
been
granted
on
extension,
the
permits
over
a
year
old,
we're
refunding
80
permit.
You
can
reply,
you
can
reapply
for
a
new
permit
when
you're
ready,
which
is
what
happened,
which
is
what
we've
represented.
A
A
Tell
me,
and
I
invite
both
the
city
and
the
appellant
to
answer
this
is
this.
Is
the
issue
we're
facing
tonight?
First
thing:
this
is
the
first
time
this
has
come
up
to
your
memory
in
the
last
20
years,
since
those
billboards
were
built.
Is
this
the
17th
time
the
city
has
interpreted
the
ordinance
this
way
and
we
just
simply
finally
appealed
it.
B
So
the
only
other
time
that
this
that
this
has
been
in
front
of
the
city
to
the
best
of
our
knowledge,
now
the
billboards.
So
here's
the
thing,
the
billboards
don't
move
very
often
they're
very
hard
to
move.
So
there
are
numerous
other
locations
throughout
the
city
where
there
are
billboards
around
the
corner
from
each
other,
but
they
predate
this
ordinance,
which
is
why
this
is
the
example
we
showed
so
the
only
time
to
the
best
of
our
knowledge
that
the
city
has
ever
interpreted.
This
ordinance
is
the.
Is
that
what
we
showed
you?
B
So
it's
not
something
that
the
city
interpreted
it
our
way
or
what
we're
advocating
for
in
2000
and
15
times
since
then,
they've
interpreted
it
the
way
they're
advocating
for
tonight.
The
only
history
we
have
on
interpretation
of
this
ordinance
is
what
we've
presented
to
you,
which
is
that,
if
they're
on
up,
if
they're
on
different
streets,
they're
permitted.
C
I
mean
I've
never
been
arguing
to
you
on
this
point
before
so.
In
my
seven
years
of
the
city,
I'm
not
aware
of
a
circumstance
where
it's
been
challenged
by
a
billboard
company.
Previously,
I
would
add
it
would
have
been
nice
to
have
received
some
of
the
additional
documents
prior
to
the
hearings.
We
could
respond
substantively
whether
we
agree
or
disagree
with
how
the
history
of
this
about
played
out,
because
obviously
reagan
doesn't
have
retention
schedules
in
the
same
way
as
we
do
so
that
would
be
those.
C
A
A
A
The
city
had
there
are
documents
that
appear
to
be
genuine,
that
everybody
may
want
to
have
time
to
look
at
again
where
the
city
acknowledged
in
several
places
that
these
were
two
billboards
in
the
same
lot
it
it.
You
simply
could
not
have
had
two
billboards
on
the
same
lot
on
that
lot,
that
were
800
feet
apart
under
the
current
interpret
under
the
interpretation
ordinance.
The
city
is
imposing
at
this
point,
but
not
only
do
you
not
have
the
documents?
Ms
dark,
I
don't
either.
A
In
other
words,
we've
seen
them
on
the
screen
and
nothing
more.
So
the
irony
of
this
is
that
if
I
go
down
that
path,
no
pun
intended
down
that
road.
The
that
leads
me
to
conclude
that
the
ordinance
has
been
interpreted
only
once
before
and
the
appellant
is
proposing
this
a
an
interpretation.
That's
the
same
and
and
there's
a
point
in
the
appellant's
favor.
A
If,
if
it's
interpreted
the
way
that
the
appellant
wants
it
interpreted,
then
large
billboards
can
be
closer
to
small
billboards
than
small
billboards
can
and,
and
that
doesn't
seem
to
be
consistent
with
the
ordinance
as
for
the
tattoo
billboard.
I
it's
not
before
me
and
I
don't
know
how
to
sort
through
that.
A
It
sounds
like
that
would
be
a
separate
issue
to
be
resolved
between
the
parties
anyway,
but
I
think
for
if,
in
fact,
the
parties
would
like
to
take
some
time
review
what
happened
with
redwood
road
in
california
avenue
make
sure
the
documents
we're
looking
at
are
authentic
and
incomplete.
So
we
can
really
understand
that
situation.
It
would
really
help
me
out
and
may
be
pivotal
pivotal
to
how
this
case
is
resolved.
A
C
That
would
be
fine,
I
mean
it
would
be
great
if
mr
peterman
could
provide
the
documents
that
he
has,
and
I
know
that
we
have
limited
documents
when
going
back,
but
we
could
and
we've
also
got
additional
challenges
because
folks
are
working
remotely,
but
I
would
like
the
opportunity
to
at
least
take
a
look
at
those.
Yes.
A
A
If
this
was
the
first
time
they've
been
able
to
see
him
tonight
and
I'm
you
know,
I'm
happy
to
say
that
seems
to
be
quite
an
issue
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
so
giving
both
parties
a
week
say
to
look
at
them
and
comment
on
them
and
to
respond
and
see
whether
their
arguments
may
be
available
may
be
helpful.
To
all
of
us
is
that
a
reasonable
plan.
C
If
it
would
be
okay,
I
would
actually
request
possibly
10
days.
I
just
have
a
significant
deadline
and
something
else
next
week,
so
I
would
like,
if
we
could
just
get
it
to
you,
maybe
the
day
before
thanksgiving.
I
think
that's
why
10
days
would
fall.
That
would
be
really
helpful
thanks
for
giving
break
the
wednesday
of
that
week,.
C
B
B
A
B
In
july
I
mean
this
isn't
a
surprise
argument
and
I
frankly
I
don't
think
it.
We
should
be
extending
this
at
all,
if
you're,
if
I'll,
defer
to
you,
but
when
we
had
an
opportunity
to
present
our
evidence
tonight
and
again,
it's
not
a
surprise.
It
was
provided
in
july.
So
I
don't.
I
don't
know
why
we're
extending
beyond
tonight.
I
don't
think
it
that
would
be
reciprocated
if
it
was
the
other
way
for
us
to
present
additional
argument
a
week
after
the
hearing,
so
I
would
object
on
that
basis.
B
C
B
A
It
doesn't
matter
the
issue
for
me
is,
I
think,
the
documents
you
showed
the
site
plan
and
the
note
from
mr
reagan
and
the
extension
are
helpful
to
me
to
understand
what
happened
and
the
city
says
they
haven't
seen
those
documents
before
so
I
would
like
them
to
have
the
10
days
to
see
if
there's
some
kind
of
context,
I'm
missing.
Okay,
if
you
want
me
to
consider
those
documents
that
you
showed
me
in
the
city
for
the
first
time
just
now.
A
A
B
A
If
they
want
to
just
mistark
you,
if
you
just
want
to
submit
comments
and
we'll
close
the
record,
and
let
me
decide
at
that
point,
we
can
do
it
and
mr
peterman,
if
miss
start,
provides
comments
on
it
before
the
25th
and
you
want
the
chance
to
respond
to
those
I'll,
extend
that.
And
if
you
say
no,
that's
you
know,
we've
already
said
what
we
need
to
say,
then
I
can
take
it
all
under
advisement
and
make
a
decision
at
that
time.
A
B
B
Okay,
so
just
to
make
sure
I
have
this
right,
so
I
will
circulate
these
documents
tomorrow.
When
I
get
is
that?
Okay,
yes
and
I
will
circulate
them
to
you
as
well
as
the
city
and
then
by
the
25th,
the
city
will
provide
comments,
and
I
have
24
hours
thereafter
to
reply
and
with
respect
to
when
these
doc,
when
that
and
and
I'm
not
saying
the
other
documents
were
submitted,
those
were
shown
for
the
first
time
today.