Local

Airport Violates City Rules When It Comes to Digital Billboards

If there is a San Jose city council policy that is an exception to the city law and the airport goes further and claims that there is an exception to the council policy, it looks ridiculous and has no rules. Let’s explain how this applies to the Norman Mineta San Jose International Airport and Guadalu Perivert Trail signs near HWY101 …

City rules on signs are codified in city law, an extensive document consisting of 27 titles and hundreds of chapters. The code also includes titles that are specific to all aspects of airport planning and operation. Instead of revising its code, which is widely regarded as a dependable reference for city rules and processes, the 2018 City Council (without significant public involvement) has another call to City Council Policy 6-4 when it comes to signs. Many of the city’s ordinances do not apply to city assets (especially airports) that have created this policy.

It’s like having two sets of books. One is open to the public and the other is designed as a city code workaround to satisfy the sign lobby, revoke the 35-year ban on new signs, and allow landmarks to have more than 22 digital signs. I am. Buildings at airports and elsewhere facing downtown and highways.

Today, we are facing the prospect of the city’s first new sign as part of the US 101 Airport Electronic Sign Project. Despite being well documented, it turns out that bending the rules is a distinctive theme that facilitates efforts to force San Jose to take on new digital signs. And widespread public opposition.

Instead of following the traditional code that limits billboards to 500 sq ft in airport projects, plans to use council policy exceptions are 1,000 sq ft of new billboards along the Guadalu Perivar Trail that rise to a height of 60 ft. Must be huge. Instead of complying with existing city legislation that limits programmable signs to onsite and non-commercial messages, unless “expressly permitted by this title,” airport planning reorganizes rules. We propose to bypass and install a huge sign to show off national brand commercial advertising.

City Council Policy 6-4 of 2018 has a rational process and perhaps a high goal of reducing devastation by lowering static signs at a ratio of 4: 1 for each new digital sign built. It looked like. However, the reality of the 2021 airport sign project is far from the spirit of its policy, and is another example of overt accountability: policy avoidance and neglect.

Specifically, Board Policy 6-4 calls for a competitive bidding and request for proposal (RFP) process, but airport staff ignore the public interest protection of its best practices, and such kindness is “their kindness.” Insisted that it does not apply to signage projects. That view is well represented by Rebekah Bray, acting senior real estate manager at the airport, claiming such independence in an email stating: It is intended to run its own program for outdoor advertising. “

Abandoning the competitive bidding process altogether, airport staff with Clear Channel Outdoor to include the four 1,000-square-foot signs proposed at the airport, even with the city council’s 2018 false approval to allow digital. Claims to be free to modify the 2007 concession agreement. 8 years later.

What should not be overlooked is the airport’s notable claim that it is excluded from the 4: 1 static sign removal requirement, which is fishing to overturn the ban on new signs. It was a major issue repeatedly expressed by supporters of digital billboards. Ignoring this important plan in Council Policy 6-4 and longing to succumb to all the hopes of Clear Channel, airport staff have signed a contract to remove only two static signs for each new digital. created. San Jose!

Bending, rationalizing, and twisting reality of such derogatory rules involved violations of public engagement protocols. To make matters worse, the complex process of updating the Airport Master Plan EIR scrutinized every aspect of airport operations, but omitted references to signs, raising concerns about explicit conflicts of interest. rice field. Therefore, it is time to revisit and revoke policy 6-4 of the city council that caused this catastrophe.

Yes, it’s time for a thorough overhaul of the airport signage project we claim. It is done with deception, deliberate lack of transparency, and the fraudulent arrogance of powerful self-serving airport territories. It’s time to recognize and support the city’s own survey, showing that 93% of more than 2,000 respondents oppose the new sign along the highway and 85% oppose the new downtown sign. I did.

All members of the San Jose City Council understand whether they are on the side of the general public, on the side of the sign lobby, and to what extent Policy 6-4, a cavalier override of the exception-filled municipal code. It’s time to make it clear what it was. Theft of public trust and trust in the integrity of elected and appointed civil servants.

Jason Hemp, Les Levitt and John Miller are the founders of No Digital Billboards in San Jose.

Airport Violates City Rules When It Comes to Digital Billboards Source link Airport Violates City Rules When It Comes to Digital Billboards

Related Articles

Back to top button