2023-02-02 - Public Correspondence - Item 6.1 - Received 2023-01-301
Cindy McCormick
From:Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent:Saturday, January 28, 2023 10:12 PM
To:Sharon Goei
Subject:Fwd: EXTERNAL - Sign
Begin forwarded message:
From: s gamm
Date: Jan 28, 2023 at 7:44 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners <allplanningcommissioners@ci.gilroy.ca.us>
Subject: EXTERNAL - Sign
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and
caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Please do not. Hangs the sign ordinance.
Susan Gamm
Sent from my iPhone
2
While it has been over two decades since I sat on the Mountain View Planning Commission, and perhaps
things have changed since then, I cannot recall ever being put in the position of having to pass a
proposal under duress(1). Regarding the proposed changes in Gilroy’s Electronic Sign Ordnance, the
staff's wording demands that you delineate cause to justify a denial on this proposal. The burden has
always been on the proponent, to bring forth an acceptable proposal for consideration. To place the
burden on the Planning Commission, to justify a denial, runs contrary to accepted practice. Staff reports
should not be authoritarian, dictatorial or biased, but present the issue fairly without fear or favor. (2)
Staff’s due diligence on this Electronic Sign ordnance clearly shows to me that their threshold of
compliance with the directives of the City of Gilroy’s 2040 General Plan, while well intended, are
selective and not in line with, and set to a different level than, those of the general public in this matter.
There were several parts of the 2040 General Plan mentioned in the Negative Declaration that were
downplayed, and several that were favored. This was done, seemingly in the effort to justify this new
Electronic Sign Ordnance. As is the nature of a broad document, several of the goals of the 2040 General
Plan are conflicting. Staff has apparently exercised great prerogative in weighing the 2040 General Plan’s
elements when considering this ordnance for approval.
At the prior meeting, when one commissioner asked environmental questions regarding the sign’s
brightness, she was beset with technical obfuscation (6). Another commissioner asked if the average
Gilroy small business would be able to afford space on the electric sign, there was no clear answer
regarding affordability, which equates to opportunity(3). Many members of the public, spoke or wrote
about their environmental concerns regarding this electronic sign ordnance (7). All of these concerns are
part of the 2040 General Plan directives. The proponents are being very vague on important key issues,
and it is not clear to what extent small businesses could avail themselves of the signage. That
uncertainty in itself, should arouse suspicion, and give the commission sufficient grounds for denial, or
denial without prejudice (2).
By far, the most important and overriding question the Planning Commission should be considering in
this matter is: Cui Bono, Latin for who benefits. Ask yourself, does it appear that the small businesses in
Gilroy will directly benefit? Does it appear that the general population of Gilroy will see any benefit? Will
this kind of sign fit in with the general spirit and feel of Gilroy?(4)(5) Has this proposal been fairly
evaluated by staff for 2040 compliance?
It appears to me that the big economic winners in this matter will not be the many small businesses and
people of Gilroy, but the proponents of this proposal. Shakespeare once penned: "What is a city if not
the people?" For this ordnance, let us not adopt in haste, and repent at leisure.
Sincerely,
Bob Weaver
Footnotes.
1.
If the Planning Commission recommends denial, the
Commission shall recite the specific facts and evidential reasons why the Ordinance and
text amendments do not carry out the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the
General Plan.
2.
Pursuant to City Code Section 30.52.40, the Planning
commission may recommend approval, or deny or deny without prejudice the requested
ordinance amendment.
3.
Economic Prosperity
3
Goal EP 3: Maintain a
supportive business
climate that increases
the City’s ability to
support expansion of
existing businesses
and attraction of new
businesses.
The proposed electronic billboard ordinance provides
existing and future businesses in the City an opportunity to
advertise and potentially expand their business. The
ordinance provides Gilroy businesses an opportunity to
advertise their goods and services to visitors and the local
workforce, who may not reside in Gilroy but drive to Gilroy
for employment at local businesses including retail
establishments, restaurants, and offices, as well as schools
and service organizations.
4.
Land Use Goal LU 8:
Support growth and
development that
preserves and
strengthens the City’s
historic, small-town
character; provides
and maintains safe,
livable, and affordable
neighborhoods; and
creates beautiful
places
5,
Encourage the growth
and development of
retail, office, service,
and entertainment
uses in Gilroy to
provide jobs, support
City services, and
make Gilroy an
attractive place to live.
6.
2040 General Plan: The Gilroy 2040 General Plan was adopted in November 2020 and
has the following policies related to billboards and freeway signage. While the policies do
not directly address digital media, the policies do permit freeway signage and billboards,
so long as such signage has minimal negative impact on the visual environment
7.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning
Commission:
a) Recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
and find that: the MND was completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment; and the MND reflects the City’s
independent judgment and analysis; and
b) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance (Z 18-
04), approving changes to Section 30.37.30 (Prohibited Signs), Section 30.37.50
(Commercial and Industrial Districts), and Section 30.37.51 (Freeway Oriented
Signs) and creating a new Zoning Ordinance Article LV (Electronic Billboards).
1
Cindy McCormick
From:Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent:Sunday, January 29, 2023 6:25 PM
To:Sharon Goei
Subject:Fwd: EXTERNAL - Digital billboard
Begin forwarded message:
From: Libba Basile
Date: Jan 29, 2023 at 6:23 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners <allplanningcommissioners@ci.gilroy.ca.us>
Subject: EXTERNAL - Digital billboard
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and
caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
I vote a big no on the digital billboard. I’d rather they bring back the Casa de Fruta
billboard with the man flipping the cup before that horrible digital billboard, and
that’s probably aging me for people that haven’t lived here for 40 years. I just don’t
think we need that billboard.
Sent from my iPad
2
Energy - The 52,400 kWh needed to operate this sign annually is only compared to similar signs. There should be a
comparison to other forms of energy consumption.
Land use and planning - Compatibility with CalTrans Outdoor Advertising Act does not insure that the sign won’t affect
drivers or our natural environment. Chapter 8 of our General Plan 2040 - Natural and Cultural Resources - begins with
the following:
“Gilroy’s location in the southern Santa Clara Valley, surrounded by hills, streams, and
agriculture, is one of the many reasons that residents love living here. Gilroy has a proud,
multi-cultural heritage that spans centuries. These sensitive natural and cultural
resources are critical to Gilroy’s vibrancy and prosperity, and therefore deserve
protection.”
This sign does not protect our natural and cultural resources, it damages them.
Transportation - I believe it could cause distracted driving. Signs, by their nature, are designed to attract attention.
Mandatory Findings of significance - This section claims that the mandatory findings can be mitigated. I disagree for the
above reasons.
The data in this staff report were all geared to promote your approval of these drastic changes to our current sign
ordinance. The information provided is lengthy, detailed and bureaucratic, hoping you will forget to use your common
sense and our community values. Maybe Outfront Media thinks we are naive or not equipped to analyze this proposal.
Despite 500 pages in your packet I don’t believe you have been given the balanced information you need to determine
whether it is important to change our current sign ordinance. Please vote NO.
Sincerely,
Connie Rogers
1
Cindy McCormick
From:John Miller
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2023 4:07 PM
To:All Planning Commissioners
Cc:Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal; Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle; Planning
Commissioner Annedore Kushner; Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt; Planning
Commissioner Joan Lewis; Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez; Planning
Commissioner Kelly Ramirez; Cindy McCormick
Subject:EXTERNAL - Letter Regarding Electronic Billboards
Attachments:LETTER TO GILROY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JAN. 30, 2023.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Please see the attached letter to you regarding the proposed digital billboards in Gilroy.
Thank you.
John Miller
Los Gatos, CA
1
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 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
2
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
3
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.
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
4
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 council,
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
5
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
6
Here is a graphic of the path to an MND