Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 20 2025 Item 7.4 - Electronic Billboards - John MillerCAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. From:John Miller To:Public Comments Subject:EXTERNAL - Letter Regarding Electronic Billboards to Gilroy City Council Date:Friday, October 17, 2025 8:12:51 AM Attachments:Responses to PROS for Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project.pdf PastedGraphic-1.pdf Dear Mayor Bozzo and Council Members, We represent No Digital Billboards in San Jose, a grass roots organization opposed to the erection of free-standing digital billboards in San Jose and throughout Santa Clara County. To be clear, we are referring to digital signs advertising products and services not available at the location of the sign, also known as off-premise advertising. We are writing today regarding a proposal under consideration to change the city Sign Ordinance to allow for off-premise digital billboard advertising in Gilroy. This is a re- submission of a proposal rejected by the City Council in 2023. All of the reasons why this was a bad idea then continue to make it a bad idea now. One or more digital billboards would compromise the city’s historic character, architectural integrity and natural environment primarily benefiting the billboard company, the landowner leasing property upon which the billboard would be erected and least of all (if at all) those advertising on the billboard. The broader community, not so much. Council Members 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 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 one or more giant intrusive digital billboards dominating the city’s appearance will trickle down to the community is nothing more than a combination of an urban legend and billboard industry talking points. As our group said in 2023, 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? In 2023 it was our view that the Initial Study upon which the Mitigated Negative Declaration was based concludes (and we 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 was very much debatable then as it is now. That’s because there were several assumptions inherent in the 2023 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 which then negatively impacts tourism by turning the destination into “anywhere USA"; • 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 capita gross domestic product while many of those who prohibit them score higher on that measure. None of this information in 2023 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 our 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 in 2023 were 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? We believe that Council Members, should want to fully understand why those significant impacts on the environment in the examples just identified and those that were referenced in the 2023 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 city decision makers were not told why other than in relation to 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 the Council today to ask, does the City Council, still approve of a Mitigated Negative Declaration that justifies the proposed billboards? Questions about the history and current community prohibition of off-premise advertising in the majority of municipalities in Santa Clara County were not answered early in the process in 2023 and apparently not today as well. One need only quote from the city of Santa Clara’s Zoning Code which states "It is the express intent of the Council to permit no further billboards within the City…" See Billboards, pursuant to Section 18.42.090 of the city of Santa Clara Zoning Code, July, 2024. Gilroy City Council members should know that other communities’ decision makers 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 Council Members 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 the City Council 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 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/ And speaking of special interests, we address the arguments put forward by the proponents of this scheme in the attached document entitled Responses to the PROS for Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project. For more information about No Digital Billboards in San Jose on X here is a link, https://twitter.com/BillboardsNo Our latest op ed on digital billboards can be found in San Jose Spotlight here And one more thing. You as City Council members 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. Jason Hemp, Les Levitt & John Miller Members of the Steering Committee No Digital Billboards in San Jose 408 354-2400 Here is a graphic of the path to an MND 1 Responses to the PROS for Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project 1. Electronic billboards are proven to generate more sales for businesses who advertise on them. Billboards are advertisers’ last advertising choice after putting their advertising dollars where it really counts, on the Internet, TV and radio. But billboards relatively low advertising cost compared to other media still makes them too expensive for most local mom and pop businesses to afford. Besides, billboard companies like to deal with national product and service advertisers who can commit to long term ad campaigns. 2.It will provide an opportunity for local businesses to advertise in a professional way to a wider, more diverse audience. When local businesses (ie. car dealers) do well, it beneflts the entire community, as sales tax goes right back to the city... thriving businesses = a better community for us all. Billboard proponents confiate local government with local business. Local government functions best when it refiects all of the values of the local community which are more diverse than just the values of the market. We do not operate public schools, libraries and civic organizations as proflt making institutions nor should we run local government as if it were an auto dealership. 3. This electronic billboard will be a cleaner, more professional design than the many traditional billboards and haphazard notices posted around the region. Why stop there with the comparisons that make electronic billboards look good. Think how much more attractive they are then abandoned cars, homeless encampments, and solid waste dumps. 4. The modern design will include the name of the City of Gilroy, bringing recognition and pride of identity to the community. Really? Is Gilroy so hard up that the community glows with pride at the thought the city’s name will be elegantly displayed on the frame of an off -premise billboard advertising toothpaste? 5. NO cost to the City of Gilroy to build or operate the sign. Beg to differ. Imposing an intrusive, in-your face off-premise advertising sign providing unsolicited commercial messages for which there is no off switch to residents and visitors alike on the public right of way constitutes signiflcant costs. Tax payers flnance the public right of way upon which they become a captive audience adds up to a far greater cost to the community than the proponents of this scheme want you to understand. 2 6. City of Gilroy will receive free advertising on the sign, and will actually generate revenue from the sign (% of gross sales). Proponents of this scheme should stick to arguing their proposed giant billboard will sell cars and avoid also crediting digital billboards with the ability to entice motorists to visit Gilroy spending money they would otherwise not because they saw the city’s name on a billboard. Show us the evidence, show us the social science show us the common sense supporting their argument. 7. Arguments against the sign stating that only the billboard company will gain are FALSE! The City of Gilroy, multiple local businesses and event organizers will beneflt. Please provide speciflcs. After that, please let us know how digital billboards are soon to be credited with curing cancer… 8. Special Events (ie. fairs, festivals, rodeos etc.) will be better advertised than by traditional methods (ie. small posters/paper fiyers). Perhaps the proponents of this scheme need to learn more about something called the Internet and it’s amazing ability to promote special events…small posters/paper fiyers…really? 9. One electronic billboard is better for the environment than hundreds or thousands of paper ads that get thrown away becoming litter and/or landflll. Ah, don’t stop there. One electronic billboard is better for the environment than a strip - mined mountain top, a clear cut forest, a micro plastic contaminated ocean ecosystem, a toxic waste dump and a lot of other things. What has any of this to do with the proposition now before the City Council??? 10. Sign can be utilized for state and regional Amber Alerts and Emergency Messaging. Proponents need to be reminded that most of us carry around something called a smart phone well designed to receive such messages. 11. It will NOT contribute to light pollution as opponents claim. Located along the highway, in a commercial zone, light emitted will be adaptive based on time of day, and will not affect any residential areas adversely. In 2023 a representative of Lick Observatory explained to the City Council why the light from even one additional digital billboard in the Santa Clara Valley would negatively impact astronomical observations. Please review his presentation regarding the sp eciflcs of the 3 case and ask yourself would a highly trained professional astronomer take time from his busy schedule to explain how digital billboards negatively impact Lick Observatory if it were not true. 12. Environmental study concluded there will be NO negative effects on local ecosystems or wildlife. What environmental study? The CEQA initial study declaring a Mitigated Negative Declaration was declared by city staff to speciflcally avoid having to undertake a much more comprehensive Environmental Report more likely to identify such problems. 13. Opponents have argued an electronic billboard would change the architectural integrity, historic character and natural environment... The requested location of the sign would make the community look more modern and relevant, while drawing the eye away from the degradation caused by a roaming transient population and paper/plastic trash. So, the proposed digital billboard would make the community look more modern and relevant. That’s reminiscent of language other billboard proponents often use suggesting digital billboards are artistic and even avant garde. But the real kicker here is that for every x number of roaming transients out there, one digital billboard would be just the antidote to that transient caravan of degradation, despair and desperation. Who would have thought? 14. The following cities in the Bay Area have successful digital sign programs: Santa Clara, Milpitas, San Carlos, Belmont, Millbrae, South San Francisco, Oakland, Hayward, Martinez, Fairfleld, Berkeley, San Pablo, Dublin, Benicia, and Alameda County. The following jurisdictions allow no new billboards and have gotten rid of what had been their existing old ones, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Campell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto, Mt. View, Menlo Park and the entire county of Marin. And the following states have passed state wide bans on new billboards and have removed their existing billboards : Alaska, Hawaii, Maine and Vermont. And here is the shocking news, the residents of those states are not wandering the highways wondering where the nearest car dealership is because there weren’t any billboards to provide them with directions. Neither are they starving to death for lack of knowing the location of the nearest restaurant. 15. Many of the opponents of the sign are not residents of Gilroy or the surrounding area. Quite a remarkable assertion on the part of the proponents of this scheme who seem to have forgotten that the highway adjacent to which they wish to erect their intrusive off - premise advertising is a federal highway paid for by tax payers far and wide, money from whom the car dealerships would welcome without requiring proof of local residency. Note that the public right of way is not supported by a special user tax on billboar ds such as the user tax on commercial trucking. To understand the reality of the billboard industry and all 4 associated with it, simply think of the word parasite and you will understand all you need to know.