Hizzoner’s Sign: Much ado about nothing?
October 6, 2008 in Uncategorized By: Dave Emerson
The sign being appealed & the old "monument" sign at ground level
You’d think I should be thrilled with the Citizens for the Preservation of Los Alamitos, especially former Mayor and Council Member Charles Sylvia and his wife Carol. After all, they’re spending a lot of time reporting on their “research” on the two incumbent Council Members who are up for reelection, and I’m running for one of their seats.
I think they raise a number of valid issues, including the current majority’s ongoing spending down of our reserves, the dramatic turnover of staff, excessive travel spending, and Ken’s votes to increase both OC Sanitation Department fees & his pay as a Sanitation Board Member.
However, apart from traffic issues, the main motivation for my campaign is to get our Council to work together as a unified team, with mutual respect, even when they disagree. Too often, it seems to me like the C.P.L.A. is just pouring fuel on a fire that’s already raging out of control.
Take Mrs. Sylvia’s letter to the editor in last week’s News Enterprise about Mayor Ken Parker’s new sign for his recently relocated tax and accounting business. When I first scanned the letter, it impressed me as taking a step towards a more reasonable, fact based approach, and I actually called Carol to commend her for her new, less abrasive approach, as well as to thank her for an earlier suggestion that proved helpful.
Then, late Thursday, I picked up my candidate’s packet for tonight’s City Council meeting, where agenda item 9A is a public hearing on that sign, and I got a clearer picture of what’s going on. I was appalled.
Turns out there are several significant inaccuracies in Mrs. Sylvia’s letter. Now, to be fair, I don’t think that was entirely her fault. She didn’t have all the info in that Council Packet in front of her about a week earlier when she wrote the letter (that’s one reason I prefer electronic media like this blog over print media, with last week’s news). Still, we all tend to believe what we want to believe, and this may be another example of a divisive feud perpetuating itself. It also turns out that it was actually Council Member Troy Edgar who appealed the Planning Commission approval of the sign.
I think Mrs. Sylvia’s letter, Council Member Edgar’s appeal, and even the sign itself are three more examples of the “Hatfields vs. McCoys” feud that’s been dividing our Council for the past ten years.
I’ll print most of Mrs. Sylvia’s letter below, in a quote box, with excerpts from the staff report relative to this item on Monday’s Council agenda interspersed in bold italics, and my comments in [brackets in bold regular type]. [A link to the full staff report appears near the end of this post] :
[News-Enterprise headline for letter:] How did Parker get sign privilege?
Editor:
Anyone interested in witnessing Mayor Parker’s latest display of POWER and his disregard for our laws should take a drive down to the building at 5122 Katella (across from the racetrack). There you will see his Parker & Associates sign on the west side of the building. [see photo above] How do you know his sign is non-conforming? Because it’s the only one ON the building. Everyone else had to put theirs on the monument sign in front.
[from staff report, page 3:] All proposed signs [in the application for Parker's sign] comply with the size criteria specified in the Zoning Code. Pursuant to Section 17.28.090(3B) of the Zoning Code, the applicant is permitted to have a maximum of 24 square feet of wall signage per tenant (up to a maximum total aggregate of 50 square feet) for each building frontage. The applicant proposses 19.,13 square feet per frontage.
[Back to Carol Sylvia's letter:] How did he get that special privilege? By stacking the Planning Commission with his friends, especially Art DeBold, the chairman. Remember Art DeBolt–he’s the one-term councilman the electorate bounced in 2002. Mayor Parker must have heard the sign was being appealed, because he had it installed right away without getting the proper permit or paying the fees like everyone else.
[Staff report, p. 2:] The applicant approached the City with a request to install several wall mounted tenant identification signs on the subject property. . . . [staff research revealed factors that] require that the applicant receive approval of a Planned Sign Program by the Planning Commission in order to install the proposed signs. . . . [p. 3] An application for building permits for the two wall signs was submitted prior to the matter being considered by the Planning Commission. Processing of the building permit request was delayed pending consideration by the Planning Commission. In addition, when the Plannng Commission action was appealed to the City Council [on the last day of the 20 day appeal period by Council Member Edgar], that action further stayed the processing of the building permit application. . . . On September 8, 2008, one of the proposed wall signs was installed despite the fact that building permits had not been issued. Staff contacted the property owner [Abdul Mozayeni, not Ken Parker, who is a new tenant who requested the sign] who conveyed that the installation was done in error by the sign contractor.
[Again, back to Carol Sylvia's letter:] The City issued a “Stop Work” order to no avail since the sign is still there. [Carol, it was a "Stop Work" order, and the work stopped, pending the hearing of the appeal, which is scheduled for tonight's Council meeting.] If the sign stays, we can expect more and more signs to go up on office buildings and why should anyone bother with getting permission, getting permits, or paying fees? For that matter, why bother with the Planning Commission on anything? [The building owner, Mr. Mozayeni, did apply for permits and apparently paid the fees. The Planning Commission did approve the application. The building owner was not aware that the decision had been appealed, and stopped work as soon as he was aware of the problem. If the Council reverses the Planning Commission tonight and refuses to allow the sign, which the City Interim Planning Director states is in full compliance with all applicable codes, there is no doubt that the sign will be removed.]
[Again, back to Carol Sylvia's letter:] This is Mayor Parker’s second display of his POWER and lack of respect for the law. . . . [Actually, it would be Abdul Mozayeni's first display of his POWER and lack of respect for the law. . . . except that he's abiding by the city's request to stop work pending the Council's decision on Troy Edgar's appeal tonight.]
[Again, back to Carol Sylvia's letter:] . . . . When did telling the truth get to be dismissed as slimy politics? [When the C.P.L.A., Ken Parker, Carol Sylvia, Art DeBolt, on anyone else starts telling half truths and exaggerations instead of sticking to the issues that really matter to Los Alamitos' future.]
Well, that’s what I think. I’m passionate about avoiding a poisonous electoral environment in Los Alamitos, but I’m not intending to disparage anyone’s motives here.
The Citizens for the Preservation of Los Alamitos are also passionate about their beliefs, both as an organization and individually, and I respect them for that. What troubles me, as I’ve indicated before (see “Memo to the CPLA: Could you please be more forthright?“) is the lack of respect for our elected officials, which is also disrespectful of the many citizens who voted for them and still support them. We all need to work harder at disagreeing more agreeably, because civil discussion is essential to the preservation of Los Alamitos!
I’m also distressed by Council Member Edgar’s appealing the Planning Commission’s decision, for reasons that appear to be more related to the upcoming election than anything else. I believe Troy Edgar and Dean Grose have been treated badly by the current majority, just as Council Member Parker was treated badly by the previous majority during his first term. But that’s no reason for either of them to abandon reconciliation and respect for retaliation.
Frankly, we all should expect better from all parties involved.
As promised, here is the link to the full staff report on tonight’s public hearing on Council Member Edgar’s appeal of Ken Parker’s landlord’s sign application.
Please feel free to add your comments in the comment box below. No box? Scroll up & click the headline. Please keep your tone polite & respectful and your language “family friendly.” Everyone’s view is welcome here! Let’s see if we can start finding common ground and building briges, or at least set some positive examples. Thanks.
Dave, I’d have more respect for you if you had called me back to give me the benefit of your changed view rather than just calling me out on your blog. After all, you were quite pleased with my comments when we were talking in person. Is this an example of your abilities at team building?
The problem with this scenario about the sign is that it was all kept “hush hush” and most of information gathering occurred at last night’s meeting. And I am not sure I have the whole story yet. From what I gather, the monument sign in front of the building was built to code but they can’t find the paperwork in the City files, so the Planning Commission used that excuse to give this building an entirely new sign program, which included 50 sq. ft of signs to be allowed on the building – both sides will be allowed 50 sq. ft. BUT, so as to not punish the people already listed on the monument sign, I THINK the monument sign will be allowed to stay but they must change the color of the sign. Doesn’t that mean that we the neighborhood will be subject to 150 sq ft of signage on the one building? If you check around the city, office buildings have marquees or monument signs for a purpose which is to keep us from looking like Las Vegas.
As I mentioned at the meeting, I live in this neighborhood and I object to this new sign program. We are the only housing tract in the city that has to deal with commercial establishments and office buildings at their front doors. None of the older tracts – Highlands, Old Dutch, Suburbia, Greenbrook, College Park have commercial or office buildings right on their front steps. The city planned it that way and they have been protected.
When I first saw the sign, I was annoyed that any sign appeared on the building because it meant an escalation of blight on my neighborhood. I probably would not have wondered so much how it came to be if it had been Joe Blow’s sign but this was Ken Parker’s sign and that smacked of special privilege to me. Our neighborhood should have been consulted before this special privilege was granted and the full ramnifications of its presence explained to us. But that would have shined the light of day on this special privilige.
At the meeting I learned that not only was one sign going to be allowed on the West side but I could expect another sign on the North side (double the insult). Further, I could expect more signs because Mr. Parker’s signs did not take up the whole 50 sq. ft. on each side. By allowing this much space for the one sign means that anyone else coming along will be limited by size and number of people that can participate. Monument signs treat everyone the same. Going to the larger signs on the buildings discriminates against others and brings blight to my neighborhood.
Because Mr. Parker and his council majority have picked ALL the people who sit on the Planning Commission (and every commission), there is an inherent bias toward him at the start. He has said he is not the applicant that the management company is the applicant. But that is double speak. If the PC had been intent on serving the public, they would have given our neighborhood an explanation but they chose not to do so until the sign was already up. That is an attitude of not asking for permission and then saying “sorry” when you get caught.
Our nation is in deep trouble at this time because we have not demanded accountability from our elected representatives and their appointees. If not now, when? If not me, who?
As I have said to you before, you act as though you are running against the CPLA and me and my husband and not the incumbents. It is hard for me to tell which side you are on (yours or the incumbents) or if you are actually running against anyone and working to syphon off votes from the challengers.
Carol,
Thanks for your comment and constructive tone.
You’re right–I should have called you first, especially after the earlier phone conversation we had earlier. If I’d spoken with you I would have realized that you hadn’t yet received the information in my candidate’s packet. I’m sorry. I simply didn’t have the time. That’s not an excuse, just an explanation. Running for office is taking way more time than I thought–and I thought it would take a lot of time. My birthday & the Angels’ playoffs over the last week didn’t help, either, although I won’t be spending any more time on the Angels this year at least.
Anyway, I assumed that you were aware of Councilman Edgar’s appeal and the documents associated with it, which apparently was not the case. Had I called I would have been realized that apparently was not the case. I would suggest you click on the link above (next to last paragraph before comments) to get all 35 pages of the documentation, although the e-mails presented Tuesday morning (around 12:30 a.m.) aren’t included.
Actually, it appears that the Planned Sign Program was a requirement from 1984: Page 2 of those staff documents, under “Background,” indicates that “Staff research of City records indicated that Site Plan Review#202-84 [from 1984, when the building was built?] had previously been approved by the Planning Commission for the subject site and that a condition of approval was that a Planned Sign Program be submitted to the City.”
As for the 50 square feet of wall signage per “building frontage,” p. 3 of the staff reports indicates under “Sign Dimensions” that’s spelled out in Section 17.28.090(3B) of the Zoning Code, so the current 19.13 square foot signs are well within the code. I’m assuming the “building frontage” refers to frontage on a street, which would just be two sides of this building–one on Katella and one on Siboney, not all 4 sides.
Obviously there needs to be a balance between being “business friendly” and maintaining an aesthetically pleasing business district, but I don’t think those goals are necessarily mutually exclusive. In any case, this is the current zoning code, and the signs complied.
I think the current Council majority has appointed a majority of members on most Commissions, and I think all major view points need to be represented on Commissions, and Commissioners need to be appointed based on primarily on qualifications, not ideology. I also think a greater effort needs to be expended to attract our town’s “brightest and best” to serve on the various commissions.
I’m not running against anyone, and I’m certainly not running to siphon off votes from anyone. In fact, the day I announced I received two phone calls from two prominent members of the two major groups that have traded majorities over the past 10 years, and both of them enouraged me to withdraw because they thought I would siphon off votes from their candidates!
I’m running on the platform that we need to hear from both sides, and both sides need to learn to work together for the good of the community. When either side is excluded, our community is weakened.
It’s not easy to learn to work with someone you disagree with, but it’s worth the effort. It can start with simple things everyone agrees with, like the need to improve traffic flow, reduce cut-through traffic, or increase sales tax revenue without harming residents quality of life. Working together can and will build trust as people put their egos aside for the good of the community.
If we learn to work together, we can all win, regardless of which two candidates win the election. There’s enough work to be done for Los Alamitos that there’s room for everyone to join in!
Great picture Dave. It really is worth a thousand words. One picture that simply renders worthless, the 707 word litany of distortions and half truths of Carolyn Sylvia and her CPLA minions.
“…all kept “hush hush”. Hardly, the planning commission meets at regularly scheduled dates and times. The agendas are posted, published and posted on the city web site. Since notice of the appeal of the planning commission decision was sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the building. Cluck and Carolyn Slyvia should have received the notice.
..”excuse to give this building an entirely new sign program”. Simply untrue.
The staff report states …”although the code and the original site plan review in 1984 required a planned sign program, no such program currently exists in the city records for this site.”
“..both sides will be allowed 50sq.ft.”.
Again a distortion, either out of ignorance or intention by Mrs. Sylvia.
Based on the frontage of that specific building, the owner is allowed a maximum of 48 sq.ft. of wall signs for the entire building. That means the code will allow only 24 sq.ft. per wall sign if two signs are requested. In this case the landlord applied for an allowance of 19.13 sq.ft. on two sides of the building (North and West). That is the amount that was approved. Since 19.13×2= 38.26 sq. ft. this number is less than 48 sq.ft. which means……it is within the code. Since this is thee “sign program” for this building there can be no other signs on the building in any other locations of any size period!
In fact the size cannot be increased to the maximum 48 sq.ft. allowable total without again paying a fee and requesting a change by the planning commission.
…looking like Las Vegas”.
Look at the sign. It is set back on the right side (the side facing the neighborhood) You cannot see the sign from the homes because the building projects out on the right side of the sign. Gotta love that picture!. The lighting for the sign is LED no bulbs or tubes. The sign projects a soft glow that is stunning at night and is “Night sky compliant” not even a requirement for our city.
“…we (New Dutch Haven)are the only housing tract in the city that has to deal with commercial establishments and office buildings at their front doors”.
You really should exhale before you make a statement like that, because something more than your glasses are fogging up. Old Dutch Haven backs up to the Von’s Center, Suburbia backs up to the Motor Pool storage on the base aka the junk yard, Carrier Row backs up to Katella, Glenbrook backs up to Cerritos, College Park backs up to Downey Savings, The Highlands backs up to the Target Center, both sides of old town are surrounded, only Parkwood is safe and by itself.
…”an escalation of blight in my neighborhood”.
What an insult to your neighbors Mrs. Slyvia. Just how blighted do you think your neighborhood was before it was escalated by this sign? I always thought New Dutch Haven was a beautiful neighborhood like the rest of Los Al.
..”this was Ken Parker’s sign and that smacked of special privilege to me”.
He was not the applicant Ms. Sylvia, his landlord was. At least Ken Parker chose to re-locate his business in Los Alamitos. Of course you will apologize to Mr. Parker, his landlord and the planning commission for your unfounded “smacked” thought of special privilege, now that you know no privilege was given.
…”Parker and his council majority have picked ALL the people who sit on the Planning Commission”
What a distortion of the truth! I can only speak for my self; I was interviewed by the entire council and appointed by a unanimous vote. OK I guess your right, unanimous is a majority.
And finally the baseless and questionable politically motivated appeal by Troy Edgar only served to delay the already applied for permits for Ken Parker’s sign. Staff recommended rejection of the appeal and the council did reject it. For those that are interested go to the City Web site click on city council agenda. Click on Sept 6 and then “appeal of sign program”. Read the staff report and you will ask yourself “why are we here”. This appeal cost the city/you and I, the taxpayers over $3000 in attorney fees and staff time for Mr. Edgar to extract his “political pound of flesh” from Ken Parker, in Re-election Bid. This appeal was an unmitigated abuse of the process.
I am sure the Sylvia watchdogs of accountability think this was money well spent.
What hypocrisy and abuse of a great quote, “If not now, when? If not me, who?” I will tell you who not! Marilyn Poe or Ken Stephens, shills for CPLA and a giant step backwards for the future of Los Alamitos.
While
I love the open and frank communication.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. The CPLA shill/voice who complains about waste of city resources for personal gain has nothing to say about Troy wasting THOUSANDS of tax dollars on this?
I’m not just talking about the two hours of meeting time in which we paid staff salaries and city attorney fees, but we are talking about how he failed to follow the bloody code.
On LATV I saw Mr. Parker (since he was doing it from the floor and not the stage I’ll call him Mr. not Mayor) explain that Troy was supposed to take the request for appeal to the council members to discuss it and if they all agreed that there were open issues, it could be appealed by the entire council. Assuming mayor Parker recused himself from that discussion and all the same facts came out in the discussion as did in the meeting, and then they voted the same way there would have been no wasted time in the meeting for an appeal that wasn’t necessary.
Think of the cost savings.
On top of that, if I remember what was said correctly (and if not I’m sure Art or Dave will correct me). Troy sent a personal e-mail (just like any citizen) to the personal e-mail (not the city e-mail) of the City Manager. The City Manager them had the City Attorney do work to determine if Troy was going to have to pay or not pay the fee.
Now I could understand if City Councilman Troy Edgar had requested the City Manager for clarification through the City e-mail channels. But Citizen Troy Edgar asked if he as a citizen had to pay the fees. And the answer to that didn’t require any discussion with the City Attorney. In addition, does anyone else think it odd that the whole thing took place OFF the city system between the City Manager and Citizen Troy Edgar? I know that as a citizen I can’t send the City Manager e-mails on his private e-mail account and get the city to pay for my personal legal research.
Mrs. Sylvia, is CPLA investigating this fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars by Troy Edgar? I mean we are talking about thousands of taxpayer dollars wasted here on what appears to be nothing more than a political stunt during an election year.
As Ivler said during the meeting. Troy Edgar mentioned Mr. Parker’s name over a dozen times in his whine. At no point in any of the paperwork for the city is Mr. Parker’s name on any of it. So why mention the tenants name at all, much less over a dozen times?
Looks like a personal political vendetta during an election cycle. Can you put on your CPLA hat Mrs. Sylvia and explain why you aren’t going after Troy Edgar for this massive waste and abuse of taxpayer money?
Who is Met00?
Ditto for CPLA
Hi Carol, pleased to meet you. Are you and the CPLA going to investigate Troy Edgar for his waste of taxpayer money going after a property owner in Los Alamitos just because he happens to be Ken Parker’s landlord?
Inquiring minds want to know. As for who I am. Well I’m a Los Alamitos resident, just like you. But the big difference is you and your husband are CPLA and I wouldn’t know George Briggeman Jr. if he climbed the stairs and knocked on my door.
Speaking of trash…
That was from Jean O. Pasco at the LA Times.
CPLA with undisclosed funds… a city manager who has connections to a trash fiasco in Orange… attacks on two candidates for office who both have stated that they publicly support an open bid process for the next contract… Just what is that stench?
Dave, maybe you should call Dan Slater in Orange.