Letters from the Public - 7 of 7 — San Jose City Council, February 15, 2022

2/14/22, 1:50 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 Fwd: digital billboards
City Clerk <
Mon 2/14/2022 11:50 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Suzanne Morrone <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:40:33 AM
To: Jones, Chappie < Cohen, David < Davis, Dev
< Carrasco, Magdalena < Mahan, Ma
< Esparza, Maya < Foley, Pam
< Peralez, Raul < Liccardo, Sam
< Jimenez, Sergio < Arenas, Sylvia
<
Cc: < City Clerk
<
Subject: digital billboards

[External Email]
Dear Elected Officials,
I have to ask why this topic is still being discussed when the overwhelming majority of people you represent do not want digital billboards. It is the most environmentally UNFRIENDLY thing you can support.

If you are so swayed by lobbyists, and have so little interest in the future health of our environment and in representing the people who elected you I would want to see you removed from office, and will do my best to support any efforts to do so.

You’ve wasted money and time on this issue that could be spent on more important and urgent matters.

I couldn’t be more opposed to digital billboards and hold each and every one of you responsible to do the right and honorable thing.

NO DIGITAL BILLBOARDS IN SAN JOSE!

Sincerely,
Suzanne Morrone

2/14/22, 1:50 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

2/14/22, 1:50 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fwd: No Billboards in SJ
City Clerk <
Mon 2/14/2022 12:22 PM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Judith Wells-Walberg <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:05:50 PM
To: Jones, Chappie < Cohen, David < Davis, Dev
< Carrasco, Magdalena < Mahan, Ma
< Esparza, Maya < Foley, Pam
< Peralez, Raul < Liccardo, Sam
< Jimenez, Sergio < Arenas, Sylvia
<
Cc: City Clerk <
<
Subject: No Billboards in SJ

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

I am writing AGAIN to let you know that the citizens of SJ overwhelmingly DO NOT WANT these Billboards in SJ....Frankly, I feel like you are trying to wear us down, but we won't give up....NO BILLBOARDS IN SJ and that isn't going to change....AND you already know ALL of the excellent and valid reasons for not allowing them, so DO YOUR JOB and STOP THIS NONSENSE....NOW!!!!! PS...If you haven't done your homework, please note the reasons below:

Here are reasons why the proposed digital billboards at the Airport are a bad idea:
· Driver distraction - Digital billboards threaten driver safety and runs counter to the city’s Vision Zero policy to eliminate traffic fatalities.
· Energy hogs - Although LEDs by themselves may be energy efficient, these energy intensive billboards are massive (1000 sq ft per display), require constant cooling and computer systems to operate continuously, and would be giant symbols of disregard for the City’s Climate Smart and Carbon Neutral 2030 policies.

Tree removal Over 43 mature, healthy tree are to be razed for a clear view of the e billboards from the freeway. These trees currently act as a buffer between the freeway,

Guadalupe River Trail, and the airport.
· Wildlife disruption - The airport billboards proposed adjacent to the Guadalupe River will negatively impact wildlife and the ecosystem, and are opposed by the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club.
· Light pollution - Lick Observatory would be negatively impacted due to light pollution, similar to the Levi’s stadium Jumbotrons.
· Local businesses do not benefit - Billboards typically advertise national consumer products, and only 10% of screen time may be devoted to airport services. · Insignificant revenue - Any proceeds from these billboards would be a tiny fraction of 1% of the Airport’s annual budget; is it worth the trade- off for more visual blight and an assault on our quality of life?
· Litigation threats - Billboard companies are already threatening to sue the City and each other over these billboards. This risk of endless litigation does not appear to be factored into the cost/benefit here.
· Overwhelming public opposition - There are many contentious issues but billboards are clearly a public consensus issue and people from every Council district responded in opposition. --
Judith Wells-Walberg
Cynicism is Obedience; Optimism can be Revolutionary.
(from The Politics of Optimism by Alex Steffen, 2015)
"It's hard to fight an enemy that has an outpost in your head" (Quote by Sally Kempton, a widely respected teacher of meditation and spiritual wisdom.)

2/14/22, 1:48 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fwd: REJECT the Airport Billboard Project
City Clerk <
Mon 2/14/2022 12:22 PM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Lisa Wangsness <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:08:02 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: REJECT the Airport Billboard Project

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

February 14, 2022
Council Member X
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Council Member X,
Listen to the overwhelming public opposition and vote to reject the Airport billboard project.

As a San Jose resident, home and business owner, I am with the great majority of constituents who oppose the further introduction of electronic billboards at the airport and throughout the city. Why would you, as a representative of the citizens of San Jose, the city which you also share, side with the Special Interest groups? What outside influence is louder and more convincing than the voice of the people of San Jose? There are so many reasons to not further the introduction of electronic billboards and the excuse of increased revenue is not a valid nor convincing one. It seems possible that further untransparent influence is at play, beyond the sensible and dramatic arguments against the billboards and the best interests of San Jose residents.

Please LISTEN to the people you represent, the Airport Commission, and Lick Observatory representatives and end this expensive and wasteful exercise which distracts from real issues and city priorities Please REJECT the Airport billboard project Yours,
Lisa Wangsness
L
WGraphics

2/14/22, 1:47 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fwd: Proposed Airport Digital Billboards
City Clerk <
Mon 2/14/2022 12:51 PM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Peter Ross <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:49:24 PM
To: Jones, Chappie < Cohen, David < Davis, Dev
< Carrasco, Magdalena < Mahan, Ma
< Esparza, Maya < Foley, Pam
< Peralez, Raul < Liccardo, Sam
< Jimenez, Sergio < Arenas, Sylvia
<
Cc: City Clerk <
<
Subject: Proposed Airport Digital Billboards

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

San Jose City Council,
Please reject the Proposed Airport Digital Billboards, if only because of Driver distraction; Digital billboards threaten driver safety and run counter to the city’s Vision Zero policy to eliminate traffic fatalities.

Sincerely,
P
eter Ross

Dear Mayor Liccardo and City of San Jose City Councilmembers: Feb 13, 2022

Subject: 2/15/22 Agenda Item 5.1 22-148 Advertising Digital Billboards

Dear Mayor and City Council-

Recommendation- Defer decision of Digital Billboards until the issues below are reviewed.

There is more to digital billboard issue now before San Jose City Council than discussed in the EIR.

These electronic digital billboards interfere and interrupt community and private space making them mediums for selling information (and misinformation) from those who have the money to sell their corporate goods and ideas to influence you , commodities and messaging ( think mis- information “news” outlets and their cohorts with this access ) from cable interests who have distorted the public discourse having 24 - 7 access to your unwanted attention on the public roadways . and plazas. think of the various messaging voices with their own disinformation and now write it large - think of political demagogues using these billboards.

This is more than trees, bird disruption, sky pollution for Lick, visual blight, driving hazards, and sleep disruption.

The revenue to the City in exchange for the goods is not in the public interest.

Public organizations will need to be anticipatory in rising to the challenges that we face today and tomorrow.

Sincerely,
Rita Norton
Los Gatos

February 11, 2022
RE: Item 5.1 on the February 15th agenda - Outdoor Advertising Digital Billboards Dear Mayor Liccardo and San Jose City Council members,
The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) is one of the largest Audubon Society chapters in California. Our mission promotes the enjoyment, understanding, and protection of birds and other wildlife by engaging people of all ages in birding, education, and conservation.

SCVAS has been consistently and vocally opposed to electronic billboards in San Jose since 2017. In the 5 years since Council started promoting electronic billboards, as the community became aware and educated, anxiety spread and opposition grew. Scientists, environmental groups, grassroot community groups, and thousands of residents have engaged, all expressing unwavering opposition.

The overwhelming opposition to electronic billboards is not surprising. These billboards create visual clatter and light pollution that increases stress, harms birds and wildlife, and degrades quality of life for all. They attract drivers' attention and are hazardous to drivers, bikers and pedestrians. Their messaging communicates with electronic devices, invading people’s privacy. Unlike other issues in the public realm, where opinions differ and compromises are feasible, the pervasive and unavoidable impacts of electronic billboards are impossible to reconcile.

The Airport Commission provided good recommendations for Council to act on: 1) Reject the billboard proposal, 2) Amend the City’s Sign Code and policies to eliminate billboards , 3) Study other ways to generate revenue, and 4) enforce the prohibitions of illegal billboards and blighted billboards. SCVAS supports these recommendations.

Respectfully,
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society

No Digital Billboards in San José

1 Date February 13 th 2022

From: No Digital Billboards in San Jose

Subject: City Council Meeting 2/15/22 Agenda Item 5.1 Digital Billboards

We recommend the City Council support the (3) key
recommendations from the Airport Commission that were
made after a deliberative 4+ hour meeting entirely on this subject:

 Reject the Airport billboard project

 Revisit Council Policy 6-4 that allowed for new
billboards, particularly in the context of San Jose’s
Climate Smart and Vision Zero policies

 Study ways other than billboards to generate revenue
and use code enforcement to take down blighted and
illegal billboards

Sign our petition here
Website: www.billboardsno.org
Visit us on Facebook here
Email us: [email protected]
Twitter @BillboardsNo
Instagram: @nobillboardssj
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhWYWzj2bjc

We are a coalition of citizens from all Council districts and beyond, environmental groups, and neighborhood and historic preservation organizations working to inspire people who care about San Jose to send the San Jose City Council the explicit message, No Digital Billboards! 2/14/22, 8:35 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [E ternal Email]
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Billboards at the Airport, Policy 6 4
City Clerk <
Mon 2/14/2022 4:11 PM
To: Agendadesk <

From: John Miller <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 2:53 PM
To: Jones, Chappie < Cohen, David < Davis, Dev
< Carrasco, Magdalena < Mahan, Ma
<Ma Esparza, Maya < Fole y, Pam
< Peralez, Raul < Liccardo, Sam
< Jimenez, Sergio < Arenas, Sylvia
<
Cc: City Clerk < No Digital Billboards In San Jose
<steering.commi
Subject: Billboards at the Airport, Policy 6-4

Hello Mayor and Council Members,

I am emailing to request that the City Council reject the proposed Airport billboards and to pause the implementaon of Phase 1
to review Policy 6-4 per the recommendaons of the Airport Commission. Please consider the following reasons why I think the Council should take these acons.

First and foremost, even though unl last year billboards have been a city priority as far back as 2015, too many quesons about signiﬁcant aspects of
Policy 6-4 and the speciﬁcs of 22 plus locaons declared eligible for the erecon of digital billboards remain unknown at this late date. They include:

• the total amount of revenue the city would receive annually when all 22 plus locaons have a digital billboard in operaon.

• the total number of exisng convenonal billboards that would remain standing at the end of implementaon of Phase 1.

• the total number of exisng convenonal billboards currently in San Jose.

• who would decide which convenonal billboards would be taken down using what standard? It appears that decision would be made
by the billboard companies (not the city) which would mean the billboards to be removed would be the least revenue-generang not the most
objeconable to the community.

2/14/22, 8:35 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. • if taking down convenonal billboards is so important, why then under current regulaons is it permissible to erect new convenonal billboards downtown?

• and, if a major reason to allow digital billboards is to take down convenonal billboards why are public buildings downtown eligible under Phase 1 for digital billboards
exempt from the take down requirement?

• and if billboard proponents contend taking down convenonal billboards is important why did the City Council reject the Planning Department’s recommended
10 to 1 replacement rao and adopt a 4 to 1 rao instead?

• each convenonal billboard taken down under Phase 1 requirements would therefore mean a property owner currently leasing his or her
property to a billboard company would lose a revenue stream that would then be going to the city from a new billboard on city property. How many property owners
would be involved and collecvely how much money would they lose to the city?

• proponents of digital billboards claim they will improve the local economy when it is esmated 80% of adversing on digital billboards is from naonal consumer product and service companies such as McDonalds, Cibank and Verizon. How will billboards with such adversing create urban vibrancy (whatever that is) and increase dining, theater going and spending money downtown? Where is the evidence and the data to support such billboard industry talking points?

• why have billboards (of all things) been a city priority and over the years have jusﬁed staﬀ involvement from the Planning Department, the Airport, the Oﬃce of Economic Development, the City Aorney’s oﬃce and the City Manager’s Oﬃce the collecve cost of which is declared unknown by the City Manager? How many residents of San Jose are employed by the billboard industry whose agenda the city is so dedicated to fulﬁlling?

• why is the city ﬁghng in court to prevent illegal digital billboards on private property on the one hand, while at the same me spending countless hours of city staﬀ me at an esmated cost of millions of taxpayer dollars to allow new digital billboards on public property?

• why aer almost 7 years since billboards were ﬁrst declared a city priority do these quesons remain unanswered?

Given these and other unanswered quesons, I submit that the City Council cannot possibly be prepared adequately enough to endorse the proposed Airport billboards or to open the construcon of those billboards to a new RFP and compeve bidding process. The only thing the City Council can responsibly do is vote to reject the proposed Airport billboards and convene a study session to thoroughly review Policy 6-4 per the Airport Commission’s recommendaons.

John Miller
A founder of No Digital Billboards in San Jose and a member of the Steering Commiee

2/14/22, 8:35 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

FW: NO Digital Billboards in San Jose
City Clerk <
Mon 2/14/2022 5:02 PM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Lisa Heler-Smith <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 4:26 PM
To: Jones, Chappie < Cohen, David < Davis, Dev
< Carrasco, Magdalena < Mahan, Ma
<Ma Esparza, Maya < Foley , Pam
< Peralez, Raul < Liccardo, Sam
< Jimenez, Sergio < Arenas, Sylvia
<
Cc: City Clerk < steering.commi
Subject: NO Digital Billboards in San Jose

I have written you before, so there is no need to repeat myself here.

I fail to understand why, despite HUGE public sentiment against this proposal, and many, many reasons why this is terrible for our city, the SJ City Council is still considering this ill conceived plan. In addition, the threat of lawsuits ALONE should stop this in it's tracks.

I, and many, many other SJ citizens who are against this proposal, will not, in the future, vote for any Council Member who votes in favor of digital billboards. If you vote for these billboards, you are not voting for our benefit, you are voting for your own.

NO DIGITAL BILLBOARDS IN SAN JOSE

Lisa Hettler-Smith

2/14/22, 8:34 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Frankly, the whole push for digital billboards lacks imagination. We pride ourselves as being the "Capital of Silicon Valley." Surely we can come up with community-supportive and -supported ways to generate income and create vitality other than by adding power-intensive, bright and unsightly, widely opposed digital billboards.

Please listen to the people you were elected to represent. Let's go back to the drawing board and do this right.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Karen Matsueda

P.O. BOX 85, MT. HAMILTON, CA 95140
Phone: 4082389619 Fax: 4082380757

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OBSERVATORIES/LICK OBSERVATORY MT HAMILTON, CALIFORNIA 95140

14 February 2022
Honorable Mayor and City Council,

Agenda Item 5.2: Amendment to the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport Master Plan EIR for the Outdoor Advertising Digital Billboards.

The University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory (UCO/Lick) urges San Jose City Council to adopt the latest recommendations of the Commissioners of Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport, regarding digital billboards.

Lick Observatory, the world's first high altitude astronomical observatory, hosts 10 telescopes, plus multiple cutting-edge research instruments. The Observatory serves hundreds of faculty (including Nobel laureates) and students of the University of California system, in addition to 35,000 visitors annually. Named in classic literature and during the Apollo 11 Moon landing, Lick Observatory leads the world, setting standards on astronomical matters and responsible lighting. New vistas on the universe and new worlds are routinely discovered from Santa Clara County. This could not have been achieved without the fruitful relationship between the Observatory and neighboring settlements. This cooperation is honored in the official name of asteroid 6216: San Jose. In contrast, Denver and Atlanta (cited by proponents as exemplars of billboard deployment) bear no such honor. These cities do not have world-leading active research observatories in their vicinity.

From an astronomical perspective, it would be ideal to have no illuminating sources at all. However, UCO/Lick has no wish to crusade in pursuit of this ideal. A higher aspiration is to sustain the rapport and understanding between City and observatory that has endured since the 1870s. Responsibly installed billboards can benefit communities. In 2018, the City consulted with UCO/Lick. It was understood that billboards then under consideration were limited to 17 City -owned locations, primarily in San Jose's downtown. This understanding shaped our recommendations, a denuded selection of which appeared in Council Policy 6-4. No further consultation ensued until December 2021. This, despite Council Member Peralez (25 September 2018) urging “industry experts to [...] speak with representatives of Lick Observatory”. In contributions prior to the latest Airport Commission study session, UCO/Lick outlined concerns - that the proposed deployment of digital billboards (and their disproportionate contribution to scattered light) relies on unjustified extrapolations of out -of-date, out-of-context and denuded recommendations. In contrast to Airport staff, environmental consultants, representatives of Clear Channel Outdoor and Out Front Media, UCO/Lick was not invited to present to the Airport Commission. Therefore, the present proposal for airport digital billboards results from a flawed process. We are not alone in this opinion. During the 25 September 2018 City Council meeting, Mayor Liccardo expressed reservations regarding public consultation: “there has not been a lot of generalized outreach”.

Council Member Rocha expressed “frustration” with the process. Council Member Peralez stated “there may be a change of heart or direction based on what we hear back from our community”. Similarly, Mr Bruce Qualls (Clear Channel Outdoor) stated: “with individual studies on individual sites we think we can ameliorate the concerns [...] or those sites can be rejected by planning commission or Council”. The subsequent tremendous community opposition to digital billboards has not been assuaged. “Immense public outcry” was cited during the January Airport Commission meeting, augmented by other concerns including contract validity, energy consumption and inconsistencies with the City's long-term objectives. Mr Anthony Leones (Out Front Media) stated “there is a fundamental flaw in this process”.

Regardless of whether one favors or opposes billboards, we invite the Council to entertain the possibility that concerns pers ist.

If so, then the recommendations of the City's appointed panel of expert advisors (i.e. the Airport Commission) present the most concordant way forward. We urge the City Council to adopt those recommendations.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Paul D. Lynam FRAS
Astronomer

BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO

SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
2/15/22, 8:56 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Digital Billboards in San Jose
City Clerk <
Tue 2/15/2022 6:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Oﬃce of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main 408 535 1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Gene Valenn <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:53 PM
To: Jones, Chappie < Cohen, David < Davis, Dev
< Carrasco, Magdalena < Mahan, Ma
<Ma Esparza, Maya < Fole y, Pam
< Peralez, Raul < Liccardo, Sam
< Jimenez, Sergio < Arenas, Sylvia
<
Cc: steering.commi <steering.commi City Clerk
<
Subject: Digital Billboards in San Jose

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Dear San Jose City Council,
Don’t we already have enough glowing screens in our lives that we should make them inescapable? I don’t understand why the city council and its staffers insist on considering digital billboards in our city. The vast majority of people are against it. It vandalizes San Jose. The only ones who would benefit from digital billboards are rich men living far away.

Because the City Council and it’s staffers are undaunted, ignoring the people’s will, it looks like something improper is afoot. Even if it isn’t, it looks that way. And these days especially, looking corrupt is as problematic as corruption itself.

2/15/22, 8:56 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Scott Wells, the CEO of Clear Channel, lives in Wellesley Hills Massachusetts. Do you imagine there are digital billboards near his house? Why should any of us have this around us? Billboards, digital ones especially, are nothing but corporate sponsored vandalism. Can the City Counsel say how those differ from spray painted graffiti?
Can the City Council explain its fascination with digital billboards? The “No Digital Billboards In San Jose” steering committee has provided a list of clear, coherent, common sense arguments against these things. I’ve seen no equivalent arguments for digital billboards from the Council or it’s staff.

There’s some piddly idea about money for the city but that will be chewed up, and then some, in no time by future litigation.

San Jose is a beautiful city. It has real problems. Envy of Times Square by the current or future members of the City Council should not be one of them.

Sincerely, Gene Valentin
San Jose homeowner

2/15/22, 8:56 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 Fw: Reject the Airport billboard project
City Clerk <
Tue 2/15/2022 6:37 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Oﬃce of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main 408 535 1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: JULIA LONG <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:06 PM
To: Jones, Chappie < Cohen, David < Davis, Dev
< Carrasco, Magdalena < Mahan, Ma
< Esparza, Maya < Peralez, Raul
< Foley, Pam < Liccardo, Sam
< Jimenez, Sergio < Arenas, Sylvia
<
Cc: Tim Clauson < Vendome Neighborhood Associaon
< City Clerk <
<
Subject: Reject the Airport billboard project

[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear SJ City Council,
Please revisit Council Policy 6-4 that allowed for new billboards, particularly in the context of San Jose’s Climate Smart and Vision Zero policies.

It is necessary that you study other ways other than billboards to generate revenue and use code enforcement to take down blighted and illegal billboards.

Below are a list of questions for the SJ City Council to respond:

Despite the lack of data or any research that shows new digital billboards will promote urban vibrancy, if you vote yes today, why would you blatantly approve a pro billboard public policy not based on logic

2/15/22, 8:56 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 and science but billboard lobby talking points?
If you vote yes to these digitals, after overwhelming public opposition, why are you pursuing a special interest over the public interest?
If you vote yes thinking that putting up new digitals would somehow clean up the City by taking down some conventional billboards do you understand that only a small number of billboards would come down and hundreds would still be in place (probably 500)?

If you think any billboards would come down in your District, why do you think that is the case given the policy allows the billboard company to decide which billboards are to be taken down, not the City?”

How was a policy ever adopted that was so favorable to billboard companies! The billboard companies consider a two sided V-shaped (1K sq.foot each side) electronic billboard to be defined as a single “sign” equivalent to a 350 sq. foot single sided static billboard? Don't you see the flaws in this policy (Council Policy 6-4)?

Do you know the amount of money estimated to be earned by the City, if all new billboards under Phase 1 (22 or more billboards at 17 sites) on public property are approved? Shouldn’t you know the amount before voting?

Why you are OK spending inordinate amounts of City staff time and taxpayer money on digital billboards (dozens of people and millions of dollars to date) while there are real priorities like affordable housing, homelessness, and city services to deal with and where money should be focused?

Lastly, as a city council are you willing to do better at making processes transparent and accountable? If you vote yes today, are you willing to overlook the evidence about how shrouded in secrecy the Airport billboard project has been – as flagged by the

Airport Commission, and NDBSJ?
The public voted you in your role to stand up for the residents in your districts, the overall city. An overwhelming majority of the public is against the Council Policy 6-4 (electronic billboards) so why don't you listen to those that voted you in as a council member! NO ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS! NO ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS!!! DELETE Council Policy 6-4!

Thank you,
J. Skordos
Vendome Neighborhood Homeowner
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

2/15/22, 8:55 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: I oppose electronic billboards at San Jose Airport
City Clerk <
Tue 2/15/2022 6:38 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Oﬃce of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main 408 535 1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Don Chamberlin <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 8:15 PM
To: Jones, Chappie < Cohen, David < Davis, Dev
< Carrasco, Magdalena < Mahan, Ma
< Esparza, Maya < Foley, Pam
< Peralez, Raul < Liccardo, Sam
< Jimenez, Sergio < Arenas, Sylvia
<
Cc: City Clerk <
<
Subject: I oppose electronic billboards at San Jose Airport

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Council members,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property or anywhere in San Jose. I also support the Airport Commission recommendations to 1) Reject the billboard proposal, 2) Review the City’s Sign Code, 3) Study other ways to generate revenue beyond digital billboards, and 4) enforce the prohibitions of illegal billboards and blighted billboards.

I am especially concerned about the impact of electronic billboards on Lick Observatory. The Observatory is an important center of scientific research and student learning. It is also a historic treasure for our region and our university. The observatory uses sensitive instruments that are adversely affected by broad-spectrum light pollution from electronic billboards. The proposed billboards near the airport would be in direct line of sight to the observatory. Please respect the needs of the University of California, which owns and operates the Observatory, and reject the digital billboard proposal.

2/15/22, 8:55 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Thank you.

Donald Chamberlin
Citizen of San Jose

2/15/22, 8:55 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/4 [External Email]
Fw: Vote NO on Digital Billboards
City Clerk <
Tue 2/15/2022 6:38 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Oﬃce of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main 408 535 1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Elizabeth Menkin <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 6:23 PM
To: Davis, Dev <
Cc: City Clerk <
<
Subject: Vote NO on Digital Billboards

Dear Dev Davis,
I am writing to you to make three requests about the upcoming Council meeting on Tuesday February 15th:
· Please reject the Airport billboard project
· Please revisit Council Policy 6-4 that allowed for new billboards, particularly in the context of San Jose’s Climate Smart and Vision Zero policies.
· Please initiate studies to find ways other than billboards to generate revenue and use code enforcement to take down
blighted and illegal billboards.

II have a number of important questions I hope you may answer:
§ Despite the lack of data or any research that shows new digital billboards will promote urban vibrancy, if you vote yes today,

2/15/22, 8:55 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/4 why would you blatantly approve a pro billboard public policy based not on logic and science but billboard lobby talking points? §
If you vote yes to these digital billboards, after overwhelming public opposition, why are you pursuing a special interest over the public interest?
§ If you vote yes thinking that putting up new digital billboards would somehow clean up San Jose by taking down some
conventional billboards, do you understand that only a small number of billboards would come down, and hundreds (probably > 500) would still be in place?
§ Do you think any billboards would come down in your District? Why do you think that is the case given the policy allows the billboard company to decide which billboards are to be taken down, not the City?
§
How was a policy was ever adopted that was so favorable to billboard companies that it considers a two sided V shaped (1K sq foot) each side electronic billboard to be defined as a single “sign” equivalent to a 350 sq foot single sided static billboard? Do you see any flaw in this policy (Council Policy 6-4)? §
Do you know the amount of money estimated to be earned by the City, if all new billboards under Phase 1 (22 or more billboards at 17 sites) on public property are approved? Shouldn’t you know this before voting?
§
Why are you OK spending inordinate amounts of City staff time and taxpayer money on digital billboards (dozens of people and millions of dollars to date) while there are real priorities like housing, homelessness, and city services?
§
Are you willing to do better at making processes transparent and accountable? If you vote yes today, are you willing to overlook the evidence about how shrouded in secrecy the Airport billboard project has been – as flagged by the Airport Commission, and NDBSJ (No Digital Billboards in San Jose)?

2/15/22, 8:55 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/4 Here are reasons why the proposed digital billboards at the Airport are a bad idea:
· Driver distraction - Digital billboards threaten driver safety and runs counter to the city’s Vision Zero policy to eliminate traffic fatalities. · Energy hogs - Although LEDs by themselves may be energy efficient, these energy intensive billboards are massive (1000 sq ft per display), require constant cooling and computer systems to operate continuously, and would be giant symbols of disregard for the City’s Climate Smart and Carbon Neutral 2030 policies.
· Tree removal - Over 43 mature, healthy trees are to be razed for a clear view of these billboards from the freeway. These trees currently act as a buffer between the freeway, Guadalupe River Trail, and the airport
Wildlife disruption The airport billboards proposed adjacent to the Guadalupe River will negatively impact wildlife and the ecosystem, and are opposed by the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club
Light pollution Lick Observatory would be negatively impacted due to light pollution, similar to the Levi’s stadium Jumbotrons · Local businesses do not benefit - Billboards typically advertise national consumer products, and only 10% of screen time may be devoted to airport services.
· Insignificant revenue - Any proceeds from these billboards would be a tiny fraction of 1% of the Airport’s annual budget; is it worth the trade- off for more visual blight and an assault on our quality of life? · Litigation threats - Billboard companies are already threatening to sue the City and each other over these billboards. This risk of endless litigation does not appear to be factored into the cost/benefit here. · Overwhelming public opposition - There are many contentious issues but billboards are clearly a public consensus issue and people from every Council district responded in opposition.

We hope you agree that more billboards in San Jose is the last thing we need, and that city resources could be better spent on more important issues facing our community.

2/15/22, 8:54 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fw: I oppose electronic billboards at San Jose Airport
City Clerk <
Tue 2/15/2022 6:44 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Oﬃce of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main 408 535 1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Annamarie Stoddard <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 5:43 PM
To: Jones, Chappie < Cohen, David < Davis, Dev
< Carrasco, Magdalena < Mahan, Ma
< Esparza, Maya < Foley, Pam
< Peralez, Raul < Liccardo, Sam
< Jimenez, Sergio < Arenas, Sylvia
<
Cc: City Clerk <
<
Subject: I oppose electronic billboards at San Jose Airport

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property or anywhere in San Jose. I also support the Airport Commission recommendations to 1) Reject the billboard proposal, 2) Review the City’s Sign Code, 3) Study other ways to generate revenue beyond digital billboards, and 4) enforce the prohibitions of illegal billboards and blighted billboards.

Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the airport. Listen to the people, and vote no! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.

Thank you.

Annamarie Stoddard

2/15/22, 8:54 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 Fw: NO Billboards
City Clerk <
Tue 2/15/2022 6:45 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Oﬃce of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main 408 535 1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Tod <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 5:08 PM
To: Jones, Chappie < Cohen, David < Davis, Dev
< Carrasco, Magdalena < Mahan, Ma
< Esparza, Maya < Foley, Pam
< Peralez, Raul < Liccardo, Sam
< Jimenez, Sergio < Arenas, Sylvia
<
Cc: City Clerk <
<
Subject: NO Billboards

[External Email]
Dear Mayor and City Council,
San Jose residents have overwhelmingly rejected electronic billboards.

Please represent and speak for the people. Vote NO on any new billboards and refocus efforts on removing ALL billboards in San Jose.

Let’s clean up San Jose and make it a beautiful city again starting with NO Billboards! Thank you,
Tod Williams

2/15/22, 8:54 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

2/15/22, 10:40 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [E ternal Email]
Fw: Don’t Approve Digital Billboards
City Clerk <
Tue 2/15/2022 9:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Susan Butler-Graham <
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:14 AM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOﬃ District1
< District2 < District3 < District4
< District5 < District 6 < District7
< District8 < District9 < District 10
<
Cc: City Clerk <
<info.ca.norca ; <
Subject: Don’t Approve Digital Billboards

Dear Mayor Liccardo, Vice Mayor Jones, and Councilmembers Jimenez, Peralez, Cohen, Carrasco, Davis, Esparza, Arenas, Foley, and Mahan,
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley urges you to reject digital billboards at the airport. They are not climate friendly; in fact, they exacerbate the climate crisis Last Tuesday you approved a plan to increase the tree canopy in San Jose, with the protection of mature trees a high priority. The City Arborist and Councilmember Carrasco shared information on the decline of our tree canopy in San Jose, which is making San José hotter and less resilient to the climate crisis. In light of this crisis, it makes no sense to approve an electronic billboard project which would involve the removal of 43 mature trees!

We must protect our mature trees we are losing unnecessarily through development The digital billboard project would sharply undermine the laborious work of nonprofits such as Our City Forest and the investment made by the city in planting trees. Mature trees are

2/15/22, 10:40 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. already being removed faster than we can plant new trees. We cannot keep up our urban forest canopy simply by planting new trees, as it takes decades to form a mature tree canopy.

In addition, digital billboards consume large amounts of electricity and create light pollution.

This is not in alignment with our Climate Smart goals.

Please vote no and oppose the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property or anywhere in San Jose. Support the Airport Commission recommendations to 1) Reject the billboard proposal, 2) Review the City’s Sign Code, 3) Study other ways to generate revenue beyond digital billboards, and 4) Enforce the prohibitions of illegal billboards and blighted billboards.

Digital billboards are not what the public wants. Please guide development so that San Jose can be a world-class, environmentally-aware city that we can be proud of.

Sincerely,
Susan Butler-Graham
Team Coordinator
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
Pronouns: she/her/ella
"Climate justice is making sure that everyone has an equal opportunity for a healthy and safe life." -Dr. Ayana Elizabeth John on
“The iron law of climate change i that the le you did to cau e it, the ooner you feel it effect Tho e who poured the most carbon into the air will be dead before its effects are fully felt.” -Bill McKibben

UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA OBSERVATORIES

BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
375 INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES BUILDING

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ
SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA 95064

Re: Agenda Item 5.2: Amendment to the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport Master Plan EIR for the Outdoor Advertising Digital Billboards.

Honorable Mayor and City Council,

The University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory (UCO/Lick) urges San Jose City Council to adopt in full the latest (January 2022) recommendations of the Commissioners of Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport, with respect to digital billboards.

Lick Observatory, the world's first high altitude astronomical observatory, presently hosts 10 telescopes that are used full-time for astronomical research, with multiple cutting-edge research instruments. The Observatory serves hundreds of faculty members (including Nobel laureates) and students of the University of California system. In addition, 35,000 visitors Lick Observatory annually to learn about astronomy and the latest discoveries. Named in both classic literature and during the Apollo 11 Moon landing, Lick Observatory is a world-recognized site for astronomical research. We note that the proponents of the current electronic billboard proposal cite examples of billboard deployment near observatories outside Denver, Colorado and Atlanta, Georgia. Crucially, in both cases the observatories are not currently used for astronomical research. Meyer-Womble observatory formerly located atop Mt Evans, West of Denver, has been closed down. The University of Denver Humphrey Chamberlin observatory is a public outreach observatory. Fernbank Science Center in Atlanta is also a public outreach center and not an active research observatory. New knowledge about our universe and new worlds are routinely discovered from Lick Observatory, right in Santa Clara County. None of this can be achieved without the collegial relationship between the Observatory and neighboring communities. This cooperation is eternally honored in the official name of asteroid 6216: San Jose.

From an astronomical perspective, it would be ideal to have no illuminating sources at all.

However, we realize that billboards that are located and installed consistent with responsible guidelines can benefit the local community. The goal of UCO/Lick is to continue the excellent collaboration with the City of San Jose that has been successful for more than 100 years. In 2018, the City consulted with UCO/Lick about billboards. It was understood that the billboards then under consideration were limited to 17 City-owned locations, primarily in San Jose's downtown. This understanding shaped our recommendations, a reduced selection of which ultimately appeared in Council Policy 6-4. We emphasize that no further consultation about billboards occurred until December 2021. This, despite Councilmember Peralez (25 September 2018) urging "industry experts to [...] speak with representatives of Lick Observatory."

In a written contribution prior to the 26 January 2022 Airport Commission special study session, UCO/Lick outlined concerns that the proposed deployment of digital billboards (and their disproportionate contribution to scattered light) does not take all previous recommendations into account and relies on unjustified assumptions about the impact of LED lighting. While Airport staff, environmental consultants and representatives of both Clear Channel Outdoor and Out Front Media were invited to present at the special study session, UCO/Lick was not. This flawed process, without any consultation with UCO/Lick, resulted in the present proposal for digital billboards on airport property that is against previous recommendations.

We are not alone in this opinion. During the 25 September 2018 City Council meeting (where discussion focused almost exclusively on downtown), Mayor Liccardo expressed reservations regarding public consultation, "there has not been a lot of generalized outreach". Councilmember Rocha expressed "frustration" with the process. Councilmember Peralez stated "there may be a change of heart or direction based on what we hear back from our community". In the same meeting, Mr. Bruce Qualls (of Clear Channel Outdoor) stated "with individual studies on individual sites we think we can ameliorate the concerns [...] or those sites can be rejected by the planning commission or Council." The subsequent tremendous community opposition to digital billboards has not been assuaged. "Immense public outcry" was cited during the Airport Commission meeting of 26 January 2022, along with multiple other concerns including contract validity, energy consumption and inconsistencies with the City's stated long-term objectives. In that meeting Mr. Anthony Leones (representing Out Front Media) stated "there is a fundamental flaw in this process".

We ask the City Council to consider that concerns persist about this billboard proposal from the local community. The concerns of UCO/Lick are aligned with the concerns of others in San Jose.

We hope that the City will adopt the January 2022 Airport Commission recommendations regarding digital billboards.

Yours sincerely,

Connie Rockosi, Interim Director
UC Observatories
University of California at Santa Cruz

2/15/22, 4:57 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/1 Fw: Electronic billboards
City Clerk <
Tue 2/15/2022 4:06 PM
To: Agendadesk <
Oﬃce of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main 408 535 1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Mimi McDonald <
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1:03 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Electronic billboards

[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Hello - whenever the City Counsel is to discuss adding electronic billboards at the San Jose Airport, I would like to let them know that it is a bad idea. Not enough money could be gained that would eliminate the driving distraction and light emitted by another electronic billboard.

Thank you for sharing my opinion with the City Counsel members.

Mimi McDonald

San Jose, CA 95130
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2 Fw: I oppose electronic billboards at San Jose Airport
City Clerk <
Wed 2/16/2022 6:32 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Oﬃce of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main 408 535 1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: sharon meixner <
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 6:11 PM
To: Jones, Chappie < Cohen, David < Davis, Dev
< Carrasco, Magdalena < Mahan, Ma
<Ma Esparza, Maya < Foley , Pam
< Peralez, Raul < Liccardo, Sam
< Jimenez, Sergio < Arenas, Sylvia
<
Cc: City Clerk < steering.commi
steering.commi
Subject: I oppose electronic billboards at San Jose Airport

[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property or anywhere in San Jose. I also support the Airport Commission recommendations to 1) Reject the billboard proposal, 2) Review the City’s Sign Code, 3) Study other ways to generate revenue beyond digital billboards, and 4) enforce the prohibitions of illegal billboards and blighted billboards.

Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the airport. Listen to the people, and vote no! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.

Thank you.

Sharon Meixner

2/16/22, 9:12 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

San Jose City CouncilFebruary 15, 2022

San Jose City Council
February 15, 2022