Fred Chang’s Newsclips

Geiger’s theater unspoken focus of debate
By Aaron Burkhalter
Port Orchard Independent, Staff Writer

The Port Orchard City Council debated and ultimately tabled discussion
on an interim ordinance regulating signs on commercial buildings along
Bay Street at its meeting Monday evening.

Although the ordinance would only enforce signage until the Downtown
Overlay District is completed with a permanent set of regulations, the
council debated at length and in detail certain aspects of the ordinance
that limit where building owners and tenants can hang signs on the
downtown marquee.

The ordinance offers temporary guidelines for businesses given the lack
of railing on the marquee, on which signs were previously hung. The
proposed interim ordinance allows businesses to hang signs directly on the
building, but not to the marquee.

Councilman Bob Geiger protested the portion of the ordinance that reads
until the provisions of this ordinance are repealed, no signs may be
attached to the downtown marquee. Geiger said business owners should be allowed to attach signs to the top of the marquee.

Maher Abed, Port Orchard Public Works director, said attaching signs to
the top of the marquee could lead to more leaks and damage the marquee.
Geiger argued properly attached signs would not cause real problems.
Geiger said allowing business owners to use the top of the marquee
increases visibility and flexibility. He suggested that business owners
could present a V-style sign on top of the marquee, visible to drivers
traveling either direction along Bay Street.

Though he did not specifically mention the theater building he owns
along Bay Street, the situation he described closely resembles the reader
board at the currently closed theater.

Several council members and Mayor Kim Abel noted that the discussion of
attaching signs to the top of the marquee has been passed to the Public
Property Committee for discussion and would be dealt with after that
conversation, but Geiger maintained he wanted to remove the restriction
in the interim ordinance.

He said he felt the council was in agreement previously about allowing
signs on top of the marquee.

Councilman Fred Chang disagreed, saying that the business owners he
spoke with were not in favor of placing signs on top of the marquee. From what I heard, he said, they were up in arms when one merchant/owner put signs back on top of the marquee.

Downtown business owner Mallory Jackson said Wednesday that members of
the Bay Street Association made a public statement requesting that businesses not attach signs on the front or top of the marquee which she prefers to call the awning. “We formed a committee that was business owners and building owners and they studied the issue and made recommendations to our group we agreed with,” Jackson said.

She said the issue was a matter of safety and aesthetics. Additionally, she said merchants have discussed the sign on top of Geiger’s property.

“It’s not representing the theater,” Jackson said, referring to an exception in regulations that allow larger signs for theaters. As long as it’s a theater, it could be an oversized sign. It’s no longer a theater, so it’s no long appropriate.”

Chang also did not refer directly to Geiger’s sign at the meeting, but
said Wednesday that he was speaking about the reader board at the
former Plaza Theater.

“I wish Bob would just come out and say that he is talking about an
exemption for this theater,” Chang said in an e-mail Tuesday. “Since the
issue is so close to him, I think it might be better if he did not
participate in the discussion, but (I) left it to the rest of the council to
come up with guidelines.”

However Chang, who said he attended Geiger’s theater on a weekly basis
when it was open, thought some exceptions could be made to Geiger’s
particular situation if it was discussed specifically.

“I think his personal anecdotes are often enlightening, and I think the
rest of the council would want to come up with consistent guidelines
that took into consideration this particular case,” Chang said, referring
to the buildings farther distance from the road.

Abel said Wednesday that Geiger would not need to recuse himself from
the conversation because the matter is legislative and not specific to
his situation.

The council debated various amendments, including Geiger’s to remove an
entire section, and ultimately tabled the discussion entirely after bouncing back and forth on the issue.

Councilman Rick Wyatt requested the board table the discussion at the
beginning of the meeting he said later he wished to speak further with
Councilwoman Carolyn Powers, who wasn’t present at Monday’s meeting,
but serves as head of the Public Property Committee.

Wyatt again proposed tabling the discussion until a later date, and the
council approved.

After clarifying that a council member could move to bring a tabled
item back into discussion at any time, Councilwoman Rita DiIenno
immediately requested the council reopen the discussion, saying that the
ordinance is an interim decision and will only last until final regulations
are completed.

“This doesn’t have to be the cure-all,” DiIenno said. “I think we’re
doing (business owners) a disservice to postpone it again.” DiIenno proposed to reopen the conversation and approve the interim ordinance without any further amendments and let public property discuss the bigger issue.

The motion to reopen discussion failed.

Abel said Wednesday that the Public Property Committee will likely
return another draft of the interim ordinance to council for consideration,
and the current incarnation will probably remain tabled indefinitely.