2023-02-02 - Public Correspondence - Item 6.1 - Received 2023-01-311
Cindy McCormick
From:
Sent:Tuesday, January 31, 2023 6:38 AM
To:All Planning Commissioners
Cc:Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt; Cindy McCormick; Planning Commissioner
Kelly Ramirez; Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner; Planning Commissioner Joan
Lewis; Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal; Planning Commissioner Michelle
Montez; Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle
Subject:EXTERNAL - Letter Regarding Electronic Billboards
Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.pdf; PastedGraphic-2.pdf
Dear Planning Commissioners,
It has come to my attention that my email to you yesterday contained links that were not functioning. Therefore please
find below a version in which hopefully the links function properly. If not, please
copy and paste.
Thank you.
John Miller
Los Gatos, CA
Dear Commissioners,
I watched the video of your January 19th meeting in which you discussed the proposal to change the city Sign Ordinance
to allow for off premise digital billboard advertising in Gilroy.
The decision-making process regarding the proposed billboards while supposedly depending on a “scientific” evaluation
via CEQA is first and foremost an exercise in political judgment and community values. Since 2018 there has been only
one official applicant seeking the Sign Ordinance be changed to satisfy his financial interests and that of some car
dealers. Would not Politics 101 call indulging that applicant an example of catering to special interests over the interest
of the broader community?
Commissioners ought to be asking why one single applicant desiring to negate an existing ordinance is sufficient to put
in motion the time and energy of staff in various city departments over a period of months if not years to pursue
changing the ordinance? Obviously it is to further the interest of the applicant and his associates. Contending that
somehow some of the money generated by a giant intrusive digital billboard dominating the town’s appearance will
trickle down to the community is certainly not an inference to be drawn from the Mitigated Negative Declaration but
rather a combination of an urban legend and billboard industry talking points.
In that regard the position of city staff including the city attorney, instead of being honest brokers and presenting to the
Commission an even-handed presentation regarding the pros and the cons of the proposal being considered, behave as
if employed by Outfront Media. As far as I could tell, staff is 100% behind the proposal and very much relying on the
Mitigated Negative Declaration as the reason why.
The Initial Study upon which this Mitigated Negative Declaration is based concludes (and I quote), that the proposed
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or
responding to this email.
2
project, though having "a significant effect on the environment…will not be a significant effect in this case because
revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent…” So we are expected to believe that
whatever concerns the MND identified can be easily mitigated.
However, that conclusion is very much debatable. That’s because there are several assumptions inherent in this
Mitigated Negative Declaration that are not acknowledged. Prominent among them is that the CEQA process has been
designed to evaluate typical ecological and biological impacts of a proposed development and an MND is not the proper
tool by itself to comprehensibly evaluate the determinative aesthetic and economic dimensions unique to the impact of
digital billboards.
Examples of these types of impacts include:
• billboards causing residential property values to decrease;
• the problem of commercial properties sustaining business in tourist destinations experiencing a proliferation of off-
premise advertising;
• billboards associated with an increase in litter and graffiti;
• and very significantly how many of the cities with the greatest number of billboards have the lowest per capital gross
domestic product while many of those who prohibit them score higher on that measure.
None of this information was in the MND and the applicant’s apologists went so far as to comment that “Economic
impacts are not significant environmental impacts under CEQA. 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15131.” Precisely my point, which
reinforces the view that CEQA is not necessarily the best instrument to accurately measure significant impacts
associated with billboards which is why the proponents of this scheme are so enamored of it. What other method of
evaluation can so easily dismiss citizen concerns by claiming they are not relevant to what is being considered by the
method of analysis employed?
If I were a Commissioner, I would want to fully understand why those significant impacts on the environment in the
examples I just identified and those that were referenced in the Initial Study, should not have been thoroughly
addressed in a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Review. Somebody on the city staff made a decision not to
conduct an EIR and instead called for an applicant-friendly MND, but the public and the Commissioners have not been
told why other than the brief and self justifying reasons listed in the MND document itself.
That’s not surprising considering the Initial Study and decision to declare an MND were undertaken behind closed doors
and off the public’s radar. That should prompt Commissioners to ask, does the City Council, stating it is open to
considering this proposal, therefore approve (and by inference authorize) a blank check to pay for staff time and a
consultant to conclude that a Mitigated Negative Declaration justifies the proposed billboards?
Or, as asserted by Cindy McCormick in an email to me, “the applicant pays for staff time, attorney time, and consultant
time.” If the latter, as one long-time observer of the CEQA process told me, “when the applicant pays for the CEQA
document the applicant generally gets the results they pay for.” Can city staff inform the Planning Commission just how
many dollars have been spent on greasing the skids for this proposal prior to the project having even been presented to
you Commissioners for consideration?
Perhaps that lack of transparency explains why city attorney and planning department staff time was authorized for
work on this proposal prior to the Planning Commission having even preliminary answers to basic questions about the
alleged need to change the sign ordinance prohibiting off premise advertising. Questions about the history and current
community prohibition of off premise advertising in the majority of municipalities in Santa Clara County should have
been answered early in the process instead of being left out as they have been.
3
One need only quote from the city of Santa Clara’s Sign Code, 18.80.220 which states “It had been determined that
billboards, by their very nature, wherever located and however constructed, constitute visual clutter and blight to the
appearance of the City. It has also been determined that billboards impede traffic safety by unduly distracting motorists
and pedestrians, creating traffic hazards, and reducing the effectiveness of signs needed to direct the public. It is the
express intent of the City Council to permit no further billboards within the city and to reduce their number…”
Such an omission, seriously questions staff’s contention that the billboard policy “best practices” of neighboring
communities to Gilroy have been accurately related as part of staff’s due diligence. They have not.
Gilroy Planning Commissioners should know that Commissioners in other communities have voted no on proposed
billboards in part because information relevant to their making an informed decision was not provided by their staff.
Here is a link to an op ed in the Mercury News written by 3 of San Jose’s Airport Commissioners explaining why a
majority of their body recommended to the City Council that it reject the proposed digital billboards at the San Jose
airport. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/11/29/opinion-why-we-voted-against-san-jose-airport-digital-billboard-
plans/
Gilroy Commissioners should also know that CEQA protocol cautions about engaging in what is called “pre-
commitment,” a process whereby a proposed project, needing approval of a commission or city cou ncil, has become the
recipient of significant staff time and outside consultant input over several months. The impact of such a process makes
it much more difficult for a planning commission or city council to just say “no” when a final decision must be made to
approve a project. Not only does this diminish the role and purpose of your commission it will set up the city of Gilroy
for a lawsuit alleging CEQA rule violations. For more on pre-commitment see this article in California Environmental Law
Reporter, http://www.cbcearthlaw.com/uploads/1/1/8/8/11883175/timing_is_everything.pdf
Process often determines outcomes. In this case, the process that put this matter before the Planning Commission is the
equivalent of a thumbs-on-the-scale, stacked-deck approach on the part of city staff. Clearly, staff seems more
interested in supporting the objectives of the proposed project applicant than in staff’s responsibility to you and to the
taxpayers who expect decisions to be made by designated decision makers not by out of view city staff and costly
consultants seduced by special interests and dismissive of the community they serve.
I mentioned that values play a role in your decision-making process. In that regard, please find below a link to perhaps
the best presentation on how off premise advertising can destroy a community’s sense of place and self identity. It is a
TED talk by Ed McMahon who holds the Charles E. Fraser Chair on Sustainable Development at the Urban Land Institute
in Washington, DC. Well worth watching as a reminder that cities are first and foremost communities and not revenue-
generating enterprises catering to special interests, https://www.tedxjacksonville.com/talks/ed-mcmahon/
For a group with the right values closer to home follow No Digital Billboards in San Jose on Twitter here,
https://twitter.com/BillboardsNo
And one more thing. You as Commissioners are not legally or ethically bound to accept the conclusions presented in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Decision making bodies are free to accept or reject such off-the-shelf, one-size-fits-all
substitutions for serious and comprehensive analysis.
If you have problems with how this proposal has been presented to you by staff; if you need more time to review the
material; if you need to hear from those who oppose turning communities like Gilroy into venues for outdoor digital
advertising then you have the right and responsibility to take control of the process before you reach a decision on this
very important matter. Thank you for your attention.
John Miller
Los Gatos
4
Here is a graphic of the path to an MND
1
Cindy McCormick
From:
Sent:Tuesday, January 31, 2023 2:36 PM
To:All Planning Commissioners
Cc:Cindy McCormick
Subject:EXTERNAL - Fwd: 🌲Billboards, Byways... and the Beatles?
Dear Commissioners,
There are 2 articles about billboards in this email. I hope you will read them and learn that many jurisdictions either
prohibit billboards, especially electronic ones, or are trying to phase them out.
Thank you.
Connie Rogers
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Mark Falzone, Scenic America" <scenic@scenic.org>
Subject: ઍએઐ Billboards, Byways... and the Beatles?
Date: January 31, 2023 at 2:02:04 PM PST
To: Connie Rogers <jrogers@garlic.com>
Reply-To: scenic@scenic.org
Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or
responding to this email.
2
January News from Scenic America
The new year is off to a strong start at Scenic America as we celebrate a big victory against the billboard
industry in the courts and as we cheer Congress' decision to allocate $20 million for byways in the FY 23
appropriations act. Like many of you, we eagerly await the Federal Highway Administration's announcement
of the FY 21 and 22 byways grant awards. Read on for more news and updates, and we look forward to
your support and partnership in 2023.
Wisconsin Court Upholds Digital Billboard
Ban in Madison
A Wisconsin district court affirmed the City of
Madison's ban on digital billboards in a decision
announced earlier this month, citing Austin v.
Reagan.
LEARN MORE
3
Congress Funds Byways in FY 23
Appropriations Act
The FY 23 appropriations act signed into law late
last year includes $20 million for scenic byways, the
highest figure since Scenic America led the push
for the program's revival.
LEARN MORE
Scenic America President Appointed to
Route 66 Commission
Scenic America's Mark Falzone was appointed by
President Joe Biden to the Route 66 Centennial
Commission, which will develop plans to
commemorate the iconic roadway's 100th
anniversary in 2026.
LEARN MORE
4
Undergrounding Grant Applications
Process Underway
The Department of Energy has released updated
information about grants being awarded as part of
the $5 billion Grid Infrastructure and Resiliency
Program. Information and application guidelines are
now available via the link below. The application
deadline is March 31, 2023.
LEARN MORE
Byways to Explore for Black History
Month
Our scenic byways tell the powerful stories of
sacrifice, service, tragedy, and triumph of notable
figures from Harriet Tubman to Martin Luther King,
Jr. With Black History Month just around the corner,
here are a few routes to explore.
LEARN MORE
5
Scenic Heroes: Lady Bird Johnson
The First Lady's commitment to scenic beauty
prompted the passage of the Highway
Beautification Act, and her legacy continues to
inspire scenic conservation efforts today.
LEARN MORE
Placemaking Spotlight: Main Street
Success Stories
Main Street America highlights successful
community revitalization efforts in five communities:
Washington, DC; Laramie, WY; Livermore, CA;
Natchitoches, LA; and Washington, MO.
LEARN MORE
6
Community Building through Highway
Removal
In this post from Transportation for America
explores Milwaukee's fascinating plan to remove
sections of its highway system to rebuild and
restore communities-- and its interest in doing more
of this in the future.
READ THE ARTICLE
Scenic Beauty...with a little help from the
Beatles
Mark Falzone shared his "Fab Four" picks inspired
by Scenic America's mission with Sirius XM's The
Beatles Channel in a special segment that aired in
December.
SEE MARK'S PICKS
7
Take Action Against Billboards
If you’d like to see fewer billboards for safer and
more scenic communities, take a moment to sigh
our petition to stay up to date on more opportunities
for action.
TAKE ACTION
Remembering Geoffrey Clark
Scenic America mourns the loss of Geoffrey Clark,
who passed away on January 8. An accomplished
physician and entrepreneur, Jeff was the husband
of Martha Fuller Clark, a longtime Scenic America
board member and the daughter of one of the
organization's co-founders, Marion Fuller Brown.
READ MORE
8
Help Us Fight the Blight
As the only national organization focused on scenic
conservation, Scenic America has a big agenda
and a critical job, and we can't do take on this work
without your help. Every gift makes an impact.
GIVE NOW
Scenic America
727 15th Street NW Suite 1100, | Washington, District of Columbia 20005-6029
202.792.1300 | scenic@scenic.org
Follow Us
Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser
Unsubscribe or Manage Your
Preferences