Loading...
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: ઍ઎એઐ 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