Decision on contentious Fountain Valley LED sign put off — again
On Tuesday evening, Mary Spadoni lugged a small light with her to Fountain Valley City Hall. When it was her turn to talk during the evening’s council meeting, she placed it on the public speaker’s podium and turned it on.
“Here we go,” Councilman John Collins said, moments before the device shone directly into his face.
For Spadoni, the gesture was symbolic of what Fountain Valley and residents in the northwest end of her city, Costa Mesa, would endure should the Fountain Valley City Council approve a proposed electronic advertising sign off the 405 Freeway, near Euclid Street and the Santa Ana River.
For Collins and his colleagues, the meeting was yet another in which they heard a litany of criticism for the light-emitting diode (LED) sign, designed to have two 672-square-foot displays that form a “V” shape.
As it turned out, Tuesday’s meeting was a reprieve for all, albeit temporary.
Clear Channel Outdoor — a national advertising firm that wants a 30-year deal to have the 65-foot sign on city-owned property at 10955 Ellis Ave. — requested that it be “continued to a date uncertain.” The correspondence sent prior to the meeting from John Duong, Clear Channel Outdoor’s Southern California division vice president of real estate and public affairs, did not give a reason.
In follow-up inquiries to the Daily Pilot, a Clear Channel representative said the company wished to conduct more public outreach on the project.
Tuesday’s meeting was the third time this year that the matter — which has been in the works for more than a year — was postponed.
In October, the council voted to delay the item. In January, the Planning Commission’s review of the item was delayed, and after the panel did hear the plans in August, five commissioners said they could not support it.
Since October, Clear Channel has proposed giving more money in rent for the LED displays: $200,000 for the first year, rather than $150,000.
The resulting difference, according to city officials, would be about $8.1 million, instead of $6.2 million.
Clear Channel has also agreed to give the city $60,000 toward buying signs for its recreational center that would display city offerings, not advertising.
The company also agreed to remove two non-electronic signs elsewhere in the city.
Councilman Michael Vo was singled out by residents for receiving $1,000 in campaign funds from Clear Channel.
Vo, a councilman since 2010, said the contributions were perfectly legal, and they supplemented hundreds of other donations he got from area businesses. He added that Clear Channel is already a long-standing business partner with the city, which benefits in the tens of thousands of dollars each year from that relationship.
“It’s not like they’re doing something for the first time,” he said.
Mayor Cheryl Brothers did not offer an opinion on the matter, but noted that she has spoken with Costa Mesa residents about it.
Leston Trueblood was among the Fountain Valley residents who contested the sign, saying its installation would damage the city’s motto as being “a nice place to live.”
“This will forever cement your legacy of how you’ve lost respect and trust for the people who call Fountain Valley our home,” he said.
Robin Leffler, a Costa Mesa activist, compared Clear Channel’s sign to something out of the 1982 sci-fi movie “Blade Runner,” which depicts a dystopian Los Angeles containing large electronic advertising billboards.
Peggy Partnoff, who would be able to see the sign across the Santa Ana River from her Costa Mesa home, called it a “giant TV that never goes off.”
She and others threatened a referendum or recall if the project is approved.
On Fountain Valley’s city website, under its “Rumors Page,” on the top of the list is city officials’ response to allegations that Clear Channel’s proposal is illegal. They contend that because the company is proposing to put the sign, which they dub an “electronic message center,” on public property, it has different regulations than those on private property and is under the City Council’s legal purview to approve.
