[Comment NDBSJ1] We call for you to reject this report because accepting the report would be accepting a process fraught with delays, lack of transparency, and incomplete information. We urge you to defer action and to request more comprehensive information be made publicly available, before rubber stamping approval. [Comment NDBSJ2]: From the 1970s until 2018 the City of San Jose had a ban on new billboards on pubic property based on the planning principle that beautifying the city would be good for business and good for the environment. [Comment NDBSJ3] We have asked many times for evidence of the community engagement in this time period, and no evidence has been produced. A 2020 City of San Jose survey with >2,000 respondents found 90% were either “strongly opposed” or “somewhat opposed” to new digital billboards in the city. Not one small business showed up to the Community meeting focused on Billboards in 2020. [Comment NDBSJ4] Could it be that an art museum in a historic building is no place for electronic billboards with beer and soda advertisements? The fact that this site was ever considered calls into question the common sense and intentions of the entire billboard initiative.
[Comment NDBSJ5] What panel? The City's Phase 1 plan for billboards on public sites is shrouded in secrecy despite this being the public's business and a project that would alter public buildings with commercial advertising on large digital screens.
For well over a year, the City’s Office of Economic Development has refused to respond to our repeated Public Record Act requests for relevant documents that contain details of the proposed billboards.
You should demand release of information about each proposal now so the City Council and the public will have adequate time and information upon which to make an informed judgment about these proposed billboards.
[Comment NDBSJ6] Please provide an update on the (2) remaining alternative sites and confirm that all other sites and proposals for alternate sites were permanently rejected. Is the site that is at HWY 87 & Mission still proceeding considering the site is now under construction for housing?
[Comment NDBSJ7] This is precommiment. Beginning CEQA review too late can mean the City no longer comes to the project with an open mind and that opportunities to implement feasible alternatives may have been lost. In such a case the City has unlawfully precommitted to the project.
[Comment NDBSJ8] The City continues to use scare resources for the billboard project.
For nearly four years, this project has been shrouded in secrecy, delayed, and costing tax payer dollars, You should shut this entire initiative down now before wasting more time and money.
[Comment NDBSJ9] A glaring omission from this update is that the first new billboard project in 35 years is already mired in a lawsuit that contends the project was a backroom deal done without competitive bidding and in conflict with a contract that expressly prohibits billboards. Expect more litigation and more legal expenses if the City proceeds with more billboards.
https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-gets-sued-for-ignoring-its-billboard-rules/ [Comment NDBSJ10] See the attached Op-Ed discussing the takedown concept. https://sanjosespotlight.com/op-ed-taking-down-billboards-in-san-jose-who-benefits/ San Jose’s implementation of the takedown concept is a case study of how stupid just counting billboards is vs. scoring them for a list of characteristics that would facilitate and justify their removal.
We’ve cited the flaws in the takedown requirement from our first involvement in the billboard issue and suggested a process to inventory billboards, score them for size, environmental impact, power consumption and other factors. Then when takedowns are feasible, the process is driven by this comprehensive matrix of information and community input to decide locations for removal.
Note: There is no takedown requirement for downtown billboards in the Phase 1 project. Is that clear to all of you?
10/23/22, 10:44 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Wanda
Fri 10/21/2022 3:12 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you.
Wanda Waldera
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/23/22, 10:45 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
lucille david
Fri 10/21/2022 3:13 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> 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 downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you.
Lucille David
10/23/22, 10:46 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Michael Kevane
Fri 10/21/2022 3:13 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you.
Michael Kevane
10/23/22, 10:47 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?Print 1/1
Electronic billboards
Sandi Strouse
Fri 10/21/2022 3:18 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Electronic Billboards are a distraction to drivers, causing accidents. The city should not allow trees to be eliminated to put up billboards! Our trees are very important to our environment. Instead of billboards we should be planting more trees!
Sandi Strouse
Sent from my iPad
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/23/22, 10:47 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Bette Linderman
Fri 10/21/2022 3:24 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Listen to the people who have voted for you and expect our voices to be heard.
I am oppo ed to the in tallation of new electronic billboard downtown or anywhere el e in San Jo e Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboard are not what the public want , and it i not in the be t intere t of the City Thank you.
Bette Linderman
10/23/22, 10:48 AM
outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Perig Vennetier
Fri 10/21/2022 3:37 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [External Email]
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you.
Perig Vennetier
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/23/22, 10:49 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
April Halberstadt
Fri 10/21/2022 3:38 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
I am absolutely opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose. Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
City leadership has totally lost any credibility on this issue. This makes any claims of "transparency" ludicrous.
Historically Yours,
April Halberstadt
Voting in Naglee Park since 1973.
10/23/22, 10:50 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?Print 1/1
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
David Chai
Fri 10/21/2022 3:50 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
To whom it may concern,
Considering the outpouring of opposition to new billboards in San Jose, I can't understand why this topic keeps coming up.
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you,
David Chai
10/23/22, 10:50 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Massimo Maniaci
Fri 10/21/2022 3:51 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> 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 downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Do the right thing.
Thank you.
Massimo Maniaci
10/23/22, 10:52 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Patricia Gomez
Fri 10/21/2022 5:15 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara <[email protected]> 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 downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas. Thank you. [your name here]
10/23/22, 10:53 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 NO electronic billboards in San Jose
RC Lavia
Fri 10/21/2022 5:55 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District1 [email protected] ;District2 [email protected] ;District4 [email protected] ;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]> [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[E ternal Email]
We along with the majority of residents are vehemently opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources and our ta dollars on this proposal ! Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City.
Listen to us the people!
Do not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you.
Roseanna and Anthony Lavia
San Jose
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/23/22, 10:54 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Aine O'Donovan
Fri 10/21/2022 10:47 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara <[email protected]> You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose. Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboard are not what the public want , and it i not in the be t intere t of the City Li ten to the people! Let' not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you
Aine O'Donovan
10/23/22, 10:54 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Joseph Gemignani
Fri 10/21/2022 10:50 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [External Email]
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you.
[your name here]
Joseph (amateur weatherman)
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/23/22, 10:55 AM
outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Janet Gillis
Fri 10/21/2022 11:23 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
I AM OPPOSED to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting city resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are NOT what the public wants, and it is NOT in the best interests of the City. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas. Thank you, Janet Gillis
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/23/22, 10:55 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Bob Burres
Sat 10/22/2022 5:20 AM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [External Email]
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you.
[your name here]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/23/22, 10:57 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Olga Martynenko
Sat 10/22/2022 7:58 AM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you.
[your name here]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/23/22, 10:58 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Ryan Smith
Sat 10/22/2022 9:02 AM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> 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 downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you.
Ryan H, Smith
10/23/22, 10:59 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Do NOT do any type of billboards in San Jose
Bill H
Sat 10/22/2022 9:31 AM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Please do not install billboards (electronic or otherwise) in San Jose. This issue comes up over and over, and every time the citizens voice their overwhelming opposition.
Please listen to us and stop allowing “business interests” to push their own agenda! Best regards,
Bill Herndon
10/23/22, 10:59 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Oscar M. Siguenza
Sat 10/22/2022 9:59 AM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you.
Nadine & Oscar Siguenza
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/23/22, 11:00 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Doris Tuck
Sun 10/23/2022 7:57 AM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara <[email protected]>;No Digital Billboards In San Jose <[email protected]>
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [External Email]
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
The city of San Jose is trashy enough without you greedy and ignorant people making it so many times more disgusting. Please find a bit of sense, and have a touch of caring and grace for the citizens (and taxpayers) of what was once a safe and decent city.
Please.
Thank you.
Doris Tuck, Noble Neighborhood
--
Doris Tuck
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/23/22, 11:00 AM
outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Judith Wells-Walberg
Sun 10/23/2022 10:06 AM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara <[email protected]>;NDBSJ Steering Committee <[email protected]>
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 downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you.
Judith Wells-Walberg, , San Jose, CA
10/23/22, 11:42 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources No digital billboards in San Jose
Lincoln Bourne
Sun 10/23/2022 11:17 AM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected] ;District9 [email protected] Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important I understand the San Jose City Council’s Community & Economic Development (CED) Committee will be discussing “Electronic Billboards on City-Owned Property Status Report” tomorrow.
Why the heck i the city till pu hing digital billboard when it' clear there' overwhelming public oppo ition? Stop it! Lincoln Bourne
Di trict 9
San Jose
10/24/22, 10:47 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?Print 1/1
I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Suzanne Morrone
Sun 10/23/2022 4:28 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
I am utterly opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose. Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
I will not vote for anyone who supports electronic billboards. Ever.
Thank you.
Suzanne Morrone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/24/22, 10:47 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 Another citizen opposed to digital billboards.
vickie r
Sun 10/23/2022 10:36 PM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [External Email]
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose.
Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City. Listen to the people! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Thank you
Victoria Rivard
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/24/22, 10:48 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/3 Status Review of Digital Billboards, 24 Oct 2022
plynam
Mon 10/24/2022 2:04 AM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara <[email protected]> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [E ternal Email]
Dear Members of the Community and Economic Development Committee, The University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory (UCO/Lick) urges the City of San Jose to adopt the 2022 recommendations of the City's appointed panel of e pert advisors (i.e. the Airport Commission) regarding electronic billboards on City owned property.
Lick Observatory, the world's first high altitude astronomical observatory, stands sentinel atop Mount Hamilton, overlooking Santa Clara Valley. The observatory hosts multiple cutting edge research instruments, serving 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 in radio transmissions during the (20 July 1969) 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. Ne t month (December 2022) shall mark the 140th anniversary of Lick Observatory's unique observations of the 1882 transit of Venus. This heritage and catalog of world renowned, on going scientific contributions could not have been achieved without cooperation between the observatory and neighboring settlements.
In 2018, the City of San Jose consulted with UCO/Lick. The billboards then under consideration were limited to 17 City owned locations, primarily in San Jose's downtown. This understanding shaped UCO/Lick recommendations, a denuded selection of which appeared in Council Policy 6 4. Post 2018 phasing and proposed e pansions of electronic billboard initiatives on City owned property have relied upon unjustified e trapolations of out of date, out of conte t recommendations. These post 2018 billboard initiatives are incompatible with other City Council policies (e.g. 4 2) which strive "to meet the astronomical research needs of the University of California Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton". By adhering to the inadequate guidance of Council Policy 6 4, 10/24/22, 10:48 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 2/3 the proposed advancement of electronic billboard initiatives by the City of San Jose shall exacerbate the already-vexing phenomenon of anthropogenic light at night (ALAN) and render a disproportionate and deleterious impact on astronomical pursuits, fauna, flora and public health. Despite Council Member Peralez (25 September 2018) urging "industry experts to [...] speak with representatives of Lick Observatory", no such consultation has subsequently taken place. Quite apart from astronomers’ niche concerns, the most commonly cited objection to billboards (electronic and conventional) is visual blight.
Billboards are notorious for intrusive, poorly-maintained, malfunctioning, decrepit and unsightly structures, often imposed on under-served neighborhoods. The outdoor advertising industry is noted - even celebrated - for wasteful practices. Outdoor advertising typically constitutes a minor fraction of overall advertising budgets. As on-line media continues to grow, revenues derived from outdoor advertising are projected to decline.
In the case of electronic billboards, it appears that preservation of dark sky environments of the Santa Clara Valley is being neglected. We are not alone in our anxieties. 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 complained of "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) assured us that "with individual studies on individual sites we think we can ameliorate the concerns [...] or those sites can be rejected by planning commission or Council".
Tremendous (in excess of 93 per cent) community opposition to digital billboards has not been assuaged. "Immense public outcry" has been repeatedly cited, 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". In the 15 February 2022 City Council meeting, Mayor Liccardo proclaimed "the Public hates billboards [...] if you took a poll on the Council it would be 11:0 [...] we would be happy to have a city without billboards".
Given this widespread dissatisfaction, it is confounding that the advancement of electronic billboards persists as a priority issue for the City. The most recent, thorough and unbiased review of billboards on City property has been the 2021/2022 analyses undertaken by the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose Airport Commission. Any succeeding status report on electronic billboards on City-owned property cannot be considered representative if the work of the Airport Commission goes neglected or understated. At minimum, the recommendations of the Airport Commission should be reiterated. Furthermore, we urge the City to adopt the 2022 recommendations of the Airport Commission in full.
10/24/22, 10:48 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 3/3 Yours sincerely,
Dr Paul D Lynam FRAS
Astronomer
University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
10/24/22, 10:48 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Laurel Torney
Mon 10/24/2022 8:14 AM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Reid, Tara
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> 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 downtown or anywhere else in San José.
Please stop wasting resources on this proposal that the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants and it is not in the best interests of the city. Listen to the people! It is bad for the environment (light pollution and urban wildlife).
Thank you!
~Laurel Torney
10/24/22, 10:49 AM
outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhlNWVhNmM3LTdjYmUtNGVhNi04YjhlLTk2M2M1ODVjNzM3YwAuAAAAAACL7LuCGWFuRqzFyywsmR8… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I oppose electronic billboards in San Jose
Connelee Shaw
Mon 10/24/2022 9:46 AM
To: CEDCommittee [email protected]
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards downtown or anywhere else in San Jose. Stop wasting City resources on this proposal which the overwhelming majority of residents oppose.
Billboards are an eyesore and a distraction for drivers. Electronic billboards are a waste of energy and a source of light pollution, adversely affecting wildlife.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the City.
Listen to the people! If we wanted to live in a "well lighted" area we would move to Las Vegas or Times Square.
Thank you, Conne Shaw
CED Committee
Re: Electronic Billboards on City-Owned Property
October 23, 2022
“The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390, citing Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.) “CEQA embodies a central state policy to require state and local governmental entities to perform their duties ‘so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage.’ [Citations.] [¶] CEQA prescribes how governmental decisions will be made when public entities, including the state itself, are charged with approving, funding — or themselves undertaking — a project with significant effects on the environment.” (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, supra 7 Cal.5th at 1185, citing Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority (2017) 3 Cal.5th 677, 711-712.) Overall, the basic purposes of CEQA are to: (1) inform the government and public about a proposed activity's potential environmental impacts; (2) identify ways to reduce, or avoid, environmental damage; (3) prevent environmental damage by requiring project changes via alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and (4) disclose to the public the rationale for governmental approval of a project that may significantly impact the environment. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15002(a).) Accordingly, CEQA requires that “a development decision having potentially significant environmental effects must be preceded, not followed, by CEQA review.” (Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 132, citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 394.) CEQA applies when a public agency proposes to “approve” a “project.” (Public Resources Code § 21080(a); Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 15004.) Under CEQA, “project” is broadly defined as
an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following:
(a) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency. (b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
(c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
(Pub. Resources Code, § 21065.) The CEQA Guidelines also add (a) “Project” means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following:
CED Committee
Re: Electronic Billboards on City-Owned Property
October 23, 2022
(1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700.
(2) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
(3) An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 15378, emphasis added.) The “approval” of a CEQA project is not merely the formal and final approval of a project, but also extends to the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person. (Cal.
Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 15352(a).) Moreover, “With private projects, approval occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy, loan, or other form of financial assistance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project.” (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 15352(b).) “On its face, this regulatory definition suggests a public agency's execution of a contract to convey a property for development would constitute approval of the development project.” (Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, supra, 45 Cal.4th at 132.) In addition,
public agencies shall not undertake actions concerning the proposed public project that would have a significant adverse effect or limit the choice of alternatives or mitigation measures, before completion of CEQA compliance. For example, agencies shall not:
(A) Formally make a decision to proceed with the use of a site for facilities which would require CEQA review, regardless of whether the agency has made any final purchase of the site for these facilities, except that agencies may designate a preferred site for CEQA review and may enter into land acquisition agreements when the agency has conditioned the agency's future use of the site on CEQA compliance.
(B) Otherwise take any action which gives impetus to a planned or foreseeable project in a manner that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part of CEQA review of that public project. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15004(b)(2).)
CED Committee
Re: Electronic Billboards on City-Owned Property
October 23, 2022
According to the staff Memorandum, City staff has undergone a site selection process for digital billboards which has been divided into two efforts: 1) the Select Site process, and 2) the Alternative Sites process. In the Select Site process, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for signage at eight properties in the downtown core. The solicitation sought proposals for leases to install, operate, and manage building-mounted static and/or digital commercial advertising signs in eight City locations. Though a NOIA has not been issued yet, the Memo states that “For the Select Sites process, staff intends to issue the NOIA in fall 2022. Projectlevel CEQA analysis would then be completed.” (Memo, p. 3.) In other words, the City plans to select the project prior to CEQA review.
With respect to the Alternative Sites Process, the City issued an NOIA to Clear Channel Outdoor for a digital, commercial, free-standing sign at three locations: Hwy 87 and West Mission (APN 259-04-019), 1404 Mabury Road (APN 254-01-004), and a site on I-880, just south of Hwy 87 (APN 230-38-111). In that NOIA, City staff analyzed the aesthetic qualities of the proposals without the requisite environmental review. (See Exhibit A attached hereto.) We expect that the NOIA proposed to be issue this fall will have the same analysis. Based on the limited documents available to the public, issuance of an NOIA would constitute a precommitment to move forward with a project without conducting review prior thereto. Several cases, including those brought before the California Supreme court, have made clear that such precommitment actions violate CEQA.
In Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, supra, 45 Cal.4th 116, the California Supreme Court analyzed whether CEQA review was required before the City of West Hollywood approved a land conveyance and development agreement for the construction of 35 housing units. West Hollywood and real parties in interest argued that, “‘commit[ment]’ that constitutes approval of a private project for CEQA purposes” is limited “to unconditional agreements irrevocably vesting development rights. In their view, ‘[t]he agency commits to a definite course of action ... by agreeing to be legally bound to take that course of action.’” (Id. at 134.) The court disagreed.
We note as well that postponing EIR preparation until after a binding agreement for development has been reached would tend to undermine CEQA's goal of transparency in environmental decisionmaking. Besides informing the agency decision makers themselves, the EIR is intended “to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has in fact analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its actions.” [Citations.] When an agency reaches a binding, detailed agreement with a private developer and publicly commits resources and governmental prestige to that project, the agency's reservation of CEQA review until a later, final approval stage is unlikely to convince public observers that before committing itself to the project the agency fully considered the project's environmental consequences. Rather than a “document of accountability” [Citation], the EIR may appear, under these circumstances, a document of post hoc rationalization.
CED Committee
Re: Electronic Billboards on City-Owned Property
October 23, 2022
(Id. at 136, emphasis added.)
The court in Riverwatch v. Olivehain Municipal Water Dist. (“Riverwatch”) (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1186 dealt with a similar issue on whether a municipal water district’s agreement to provide recycled water, which was to be used in support of landfill operations, constituted an approval of part of the landfill project. The Riverwatch court concluded that such actions constituted improper precommitment approval, reasoning
Under CEQA, “approval” is a “decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person.” (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15352, subd. (a), italics added.) Furthermore, “[w]ith private projects, approval occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract ....” (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15352, subd. (b).) Because the Agreement set forth the specific details regarding OMWD's 60–year obligation to deliver recycled water to GCL, and the construction required to allow that delivery, OMWD's approval and signing of the Agreement satisfied the definiteness requirement (i.e., a definite course of action). Furthermore, when on February 17, 2006, OMWD's board approved the Agreement and OMWD's execution of the Agreement, OMWD clearly committed itself to the course of action set forth in the Agreement, which is a discretionary contract. Therefore, by February 17, 2006, OMWD made its earliest commitment to a definite course of action regarding its part of the Landfill project (i.e., to deliver up to 244,000 gallons of recycled water to GCL per day for a period of 60 years for use at the Landfill project site).
(Id. at 1212.)
In John R. Lawson Rock & Oil, Inc. v. State Air Resources Bd. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 77, the court considered whether the State Air Resources Board violated CEQA by issuing a “regulatory advisory” concerning its plans to issue amendments to “Truck and Bus Regulations” before analyzing the environmental impacts of said amendments. The court found that the issuance of the regulatory advisory constituted the improper precommitment approval of the project under CEQA. (Id. at 98.) The court explained
A project is a broad concept under CEQA that asks whether certain entities' activities “ ‘may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.’ ” (Friends of the Sierra Railroad v. Tuolumne Park & Recreation Dist. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 643, 653, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 500.) Analogous to this case, “[t]his means that agency action approving or opening the way for a future development can be part of a project and can trigger CEQA even if the action takes place prior to planning or approval of all the specific features of the planned development.” (Id. at p. 654, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 500.) This “opening the way” can trigger CEQA where it constitutes an approval. …
CED Committee
Re: Electronic Billboards on City-Owned Property
October 23, 2022
While the Board contends no project approval could exist prior to the formal approval from the Board, this is not correct. An approval under CEQA is “the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15352, subd. (a).) “Generally speaking, an agency acts to approve a proposed course of action when it makes its earliest firm commitment to it, not when the final or last discretionary approval is made.” (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 832, 859, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 229, italics omitted.) Approvals under CEQA, therefore, are not dependent on “final” action by the lead agency, but by conduct detrimental to further fair environmental analysis.
(Ibid., emphasis added.)
Here, City staff is prematurely determining which billboard proposals it prefers despite the possibility of alternative proposals that could present less environmental impacts. As explained above, approvals under CEQA are not limited to final actions by the lead agency. (John R. Lawson Rock & Oil, Inc. v. State Air Resources Bd, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at 98.) Approvals under CEQA extend to commitments to a particular action. (Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, supra, 45 Cal.4th at 136.) By issuing NOIA’s before undergoing CEQA review, the City is prematurely committing to a “definite course of action” by narrowing its potential project components and locations without considering the environmental impacts of doing so. Such actions are in direct violation of CEQA.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Very truly yours,
WITTWER PARKIN
/s/
Antoinette Ranit
cc: Client
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
EXHIBIT A