HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.01 Billboard Ordinance 4 - Attachments 3-6 ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESO. NO. 32-18
ORDINANCE NO. 01-19
JANUARY 8, 2019
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION N0. 1860-18
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT BILLBOARD CONVERSION
RESOLUTION NO.PC 32-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMNIISSION
RECOMIVIENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1860-18 WIT� AN ASSOCIATED
MITIGATION MO1vITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND DELETING
CHAPTER 5.62 OF THE ORANGE MiTNICIPAL CODE AND
AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING SECTION 17.36.180 REGULATING THE CONVERSION OF
EXISTING BILLBOARDS ALONG FREEWAY CORRIDORS TO
ELECTRO1vIC BILLBOARDS
APPLICANT:
CITY OF ORANGE
Moved by Commissioner Correa and seconded by Commissioner Willits that the following
resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code(OMC)
Table 17.08.020 and Section 17.08.020.B.2a to review and make a recommendation to the City
Council on environmental documentation including Mitigated Negative Declarations; and,
WHEREAS,the City and Outfront Media entered into a tentative Relocation Agreement
on November 14, 2017 for the relocation and consolidation of billboard signs that could result in
the removal of five sign faces and the upgrade of the existing billboazd at 1939 Katella Avenue to
LED contingent on the City's adoption of the Billboard Ordinance Update; and,
WHEREAS, Mitigated Negative Declazation No. 1860-18 was prepared to evaluate the ,
physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in
conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines.The Mitigated Negative Declazation finds that the
project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of
certain conditions and mitigation measures;and,
WHEREAS,a Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-18 was
published on November 7, 2018 and was made available for a 20 day public review and comment
period from November 7, 2018 to November 29, 2018, in compliance with Sections 15072 and
15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code(OMC)
Section 17.08.020 to hold a public hearing to make a finding by resolution stating its
Resolution No.PC 32-18
Page 2 of 3
recommendation to the City Council on amendments to the zoning code and makes the following
findings with respect to the Ordinance.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing on
December 3,2018, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support
of or opposition to Mitigated Negative Declazation No. 1860-18 and the proposed changes to the
Orange Municipal Code contained herein,and has determined the proposed amendment is justified
and recommends approval thereof.
Exhibit A to this Resolution
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends
• City Council approval of the subject Ordinance Amendment, along with associated adoption of
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-18 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
as described in Planning Commission Resolution No.PC 32-18 based on the following findings:
SECTION 1—FINDINGS
1. The Ordinance Amendment achieves multiple goals of the General Plan. Consistent with
the Land Use Element,the Ordinance Amendment promotes revenue-generating land uses
that help defray the costs of high quality public services. Consistent with the Urban Design
and Economic Development Elements,the upgrade of existing billboards to smaller digital
faces and the removal of billboards atong the City's arterials and within the City's
viewshed would improve the aesthetics of those azeas of the City.
2. The Planning Commission finds the aforementioned recitals true and conect and adopts
the recitals by reference as if fully set forth herein. This proposed ordinance amendment,
as described in Attachment A, would allow for the upgrade to LED for billboazds located
in the Freeway Corridor.
SECTION 2—ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-18 has been prepazed for this project to evaluate the
physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in
conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines.The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated
Negative Declazation and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contain an
adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.The Planning
Commission finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment,with
the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures addressing potential impacts
to Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and
Transportation/Traffic included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted on December 3, 2018, by the Planning
Commission of the City of Orange by the following vote:
Resolution No.PC 32-18
Page 3 of 3
AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Correa, Gladson, Simpson, and Willits
NOES: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
:•��',•- ',j',•�•'.
Ern st . o g Commission Chair ',�i;�•:'�+ `� ' �
1��/y �zo/t1
—_ _—
Date
N:\CDD�PLNGIOrdinance Amendments�Bilthoard Ordinance 2018\Planning CommissionlPC Reso No.32-18 Billboerd Ordinance.docx
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DATED DECEMBER 3, 2018
ORDINANCE NO. 01 -19
JAN UARY 8, 2019 �
Planning Commission December 3,2018
FINAL Minutes
Planning Commission December 3, 2018
City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson,Willits, Simpson, Correa
STAFF
PRESENT: Mr. Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Anna Pehoushek,Assistant Community Development Direc.tor
Ashley Brodkin,Associate Planner
Will Kolbow,Administrative Services Director
Simonne Fannin,Recording Secretary
REGULAR SESSION
1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Glasgow called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Willits led the flag salute.
1.3 ROLL CALL: All Commissioners were present
1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None
1.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS:None
2. CONSENT CALENDAR:
2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED
MEETING OF OCTOBER 15,2018.
2.2 Condition of approval of Administrative Adjustment No. 0253-17, requiring a Parldng
Management Plan for Buildings A and B, in association with Mitigated Negative
Declaration No.1855-17,Tentative Tract Map No.0045-17,Major Site Plan Review No.
0906-17, and Design Review No. 4914-17, for a new 727 unit development (653
apariments and 74 townhomes)at 702-1078 West Town and Country Road.
Motion was made to approve the consent calendar items as submitted:
MOTION: Commissioner Gladson
SECOND: Commissioner Correa
AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson,Willits, Simpson and Correa
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION CARRIED.
' 1
Planning Commission December 3, 2018
3. NEW HEARING:
3.1 Staff proposes to repeal and delete Chapter 5.62, Signs and Billboards, in its entirety,
and to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.36 Sign Regulations�to add a new Section 17.36.180
that would provide guidance for the conversion of an ezisting static billboard display
to a digital display, subject to the removal of other existing billboard faces on major
arterial streets in the City or within the view shed of the
RECONIlV�NED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.32-18 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1860-18
WITH AN ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM, AND AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ANI) DELETING CAAPTER 5.62
OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE
ORANGE MUI�ICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 17.36.180 REGULATING
THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING BILLBOARDS ALONG FREEWAY
CORRIDORS TO ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-
18 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in
conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA
Guidelines (Exhibit A). The Mitigated Negative Declaration finds that the project would
have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of
standard conditions and mitigation measures.
Ashley Brodkin, Associate Planner, provided an overview of the revised Sign and Billboard
regulations consistent with the staff report.
Commissioner Gladson asked staff to provide a brief history of the billboards in Orange,how the light
source would be measured if there is a complaint and how would Code Enforcement resolve any
issues.
Ms. Brodkin stated some of the billboards were in the incorporated areas of the City during the 1970's
and as the areas were incorporated, the billboards remained. There was an ordinance and 1995
settlement agreement.
Mr. Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney, explained that pre-1995 the City moved to amend the
zoning ordinance to prohibit billboards; however the billboard company sued the City. The existing
billboards were grandfathered into a settlement agreement in 1995 when the litigation was resolved.
The settlement agreement allows them to update billboards including technology; however the face
2
Planning Commission December 3, 2018
of the billboard cannot be expanded. They were not allowed to change or expand anything unless
there was a subsequent change to the City's Zoning Code which is what the City is doing today.
A brief section of the contractual agreement regulated content; it would not allow any advertising for
tobacco products or alcoholic beverages except beer, wine and any beverage with an alcohol content
under 40 proof.
Chair Glasgow, Commissioners Gladson, Correa, Willits disclosed for the record that they met with
the applicant and staff. Commissioner Simpson stated he only met with staff; however, he did have
conversations with the applicant and a couple of inembers of the community.
Commissioner Gladson asked how the enforcement would be handled.
Ms. Brodkin stated it would be handled like any other Code Enforcement issue and there would be a
24-hour hotline to call with concerns.
Commissioner Simpson asked the City Attorney what process would be used to control inappropriate
content.
Mr. Sheatz responded that when they receive complaints, the City calls the billboard company who
reviews the advertising that was sold for that location. Typically, it takes them approximately a week
to take down any static displays; LEDs can be remotely changed immediately. In the past, he has also
given the billboard company phone number to area residents and has gotten immediate results.
Commissioner Simpson asked what happens to the LED lighting at night.
Ms. Brodkin stated the LED stays constant due to automatic sensors that measure the ambient lighting;
they will get brighter during the day and dimmer at night.
Commissioner Correa asked who the contractual agreement is with and how it carries over to another
company if they are bought out and how often are the billboards inspected.
Mr. Sheatz explained the original agreement was with the City and National Advertising Company. If
billboards are sold to somebody else, all the rights and obligations go with it. If there is a dispute, it
could be litigated.
Commissioner Wllits asked when the billboard on Katella was erected and if any lighting
modifications been made to the billboard since then.
Ms. Brodkin responded that the billboard was built in the 1990's and assumes that the lighting has
been updated since then.
Chair Glasgow opened the public hearing.
Robin Auorback, 2543 E. Coolidge Avenue, stated that she has lived on that street since 1992 and was
there when it transitioned to a illuminated board. She asked the Commission to visit the billboard at
night because she feels the statements are inaccurate; the sign is very bright. She is also concerned
3
Planning Commission December 3, 2018
about content such as alcohol, tobacco, adult entertainment and marijuana. She also stated that the
residents in her neighborhood were not properly noticed.
Shelly Archer, 2602 E. Coolidge Avenue, spoke in opposition and stated the light representation is not
accurate and doesn't take into account what is really taking place there. She has a significant concern
about a decrease in property values due to the brightness of the sign.
Ray Burke, has lived at 2328 E. Hoover Avenue since 1988 and spoke in opposition of the billboard
for the same reasons as the prior speakers and does not support changing the sign regulations.
Chair Glasgow closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Correa asked staff to explain why the residents were not properly noticed.
Ms. Brodkin responded that the notifications were based off of the notification of a 2017 City Council
� meeting; 461 residents and other interested parties were notified, it was posted on the City website, in
City libraries and at City Hall, as well as other organizations and interested agencies. The notices
were mailed out to residents who live beyond the required 300ft.radius.
Will Kolbow, City of Orange Administrative Services Director, explained staff had to use their best
guess to determine the mailings because the 300 foot radius went up against the freeway, so they went
block by block and did their due diligence as best as they could.
Chair Glasgow stated the billboard face is being reduced by 12ft and inquired if the sign could be
reduced 12ft (in height) and go from 95ft to 83ft keeping the bottom of the billboard the same height
which would reduce some of the lighting.
Ms. Brodkin explained the relocation agreement allows them to keep the initial height of the billboard.
Mr. Sheatz stated they could ask the billboard company about a reduction in height size.
Chair Glasgow asked if there is a way to control the content, especially on the signs close to
residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Sheatz stated the billboard company has a manual that determines appropriateness based on its
location and that anyone can contact the billboard company regarding its content. The company does
respond and they have entertained changes when people have found inappropriate advertising.
Commissioner Willits asked staff how they determined the brightness since there are no similar
billboards in the area and how they determined that it would not be as bright as the existing board.
Ms. Brodkin responded that the billboard company provided a photometric analysis for the Katella
location and provided a location in Garden Grove with a billboard that has the same size and light
output. The environmental analysis found that if the light was increased, it would be less than
significant and would have a very similar light output,if not less,to what is existing.
Commissioner Simpson stated he drove around the neighborhood at night and found it to be big and
4
Planning Commission December 3, 2018
bright. He also drove past the Garden Grove sign on Newhope Street and found the light output to be
similar or slightly less.
Ms. Brodkin stated she also visited both sites and feels that the sign is very prominent and bright from
Coolidge Avenue. There is reflection of light from the ambient light and headlights that bounce off
causing it to shine brightly.
Commissioner Simpson asked if there would be a way to regulate marijuana content.
Mr. Sheatz stated cannabis businesses are illegal in Orange so there would not be any advertising for
establishments located inside the City, however, there could be advertisements for establishments
outside of the City.
Commissioner Gladson asked staff, who would be reviewing the individual Minor Site Plan requests
and if there would be any benefit in allowing the Design Review Committee to look at the aesthetic
aspects and photo metrics.
Ms. Brodkin stated the companies are required to submit a Minor Site Plan Review consisting of
plans, operational information and a site-specific lighting study which would be reviewed by Planning
staff and approved by the Community Development Director. The company would also be required to
obtain appropriate building permits.
Ms. Pehoushek stated the plans are also reviewed by other departments in the City such as the
SMART (Streamlined Multi-Disciplinary Accelerated Review Team) Committee comprised of
members from the Planning and Building Divisions, Public Works, Traffic Engineering, Police and
Fire Deparhnents and the Community Services Landscape Coordinator. She stated for the record, the
Minor Site Plan Review process does not involve any kind of public notification.
Commissioner Willits stated he's had real estate relationships in that area and the question of the light
from the sign has never come up, not even along Sacramento Street. The freeway noise tends to be
discussed and hurting the property values; not the light from the sign. He feels the smaller sign should
be helpful.
Commissioner Simpson asked if the City Attorney had any information about the experience that the
City of Placentia has had with the installation of their new billboards.
Mr. Sheatz explained City of Orange City Manager, Rick Otto, contacted Placentia's City Manager
and asked him if they had received any complaints about the four brand-new billboards that were
installed along the 57 freeway. One of the boards is less than 200 feet from the residential property; to
date they have not received any complaints from any of the residents or anyone else.
Mr. Correa asked if the City's billboard requirements are more strict than the state of California's
standards.
Mr. Sheatz read the vehicle code section that regulates billboards and explained how the City came to
their revised standards and how they took an extra step to accommodate the community.
Commissioner Correa said that he feels the City has gone the extra mile to try to make sure that it
5
Planning Commission December 3,2018 I
doesn't impact the community. He stated that there is a reduction in the billboard size, it is an existing
billboard on the freeway corridor not a new one, it could possibly serve a public service benefit and
the LEDs are more condensed with less glare than the current lights. Commission Correa said that he
supports the recommendation.
Commissioner Willits hopes it would be a win for the residents and does not think that there is
justification to not support the request. The LED technology is more productive in controlling light.
Commissioner Gladson supports the ordinance. The City would prefer to not have billboards but it is
not logical or effective. The goal of the ordinance removes (3) boards that are not located near the
freeway and it cleans up the process to remove more of them Citywide. It is also asking the owners to
look at a size reduction. The freeway corridor is a logical place for a billboard. She would like staff to
consider a Design Review Process that would provide a public hearing notification to the resident to
allow them to voice their opinions.
Commissioner Simpson stated the Commission read all the letters from the public. Overall he sees
this as a benefit because there would be increased flexibility to control the LED lighting, the
downsizing seems appropriate and he feels the City is getting the best deal possible and therefore he
supports the ordinance.
Chair Glasgow knows the track very well and feels the diminished light output would be a benefit;
light pollution from an LED is much less than a static light and over time the residents on Coolidge
Street won't realize the sign is there because of the diminished light. He supports the ordinance
because it would clean up the City by removing some of the billboards.
A motion was made to adopt a Resolution of the Planni�►g Commission recommending
City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-18 with an associated
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and an Ordinance repealing and
deleting Chapter 5.62 of the Orange Municipal Code and amending Title 17 of the
Orange Municipal Code by adding Section 17.36.180 regulating the conversion of
existing billboards along freeway corridors to electronic billboards.
Chair Glasgow added he would like to recommend that staff limit content because it is close to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Sheatz responded that they can talk to the billboard company and express their concerns about the
content. They can also provide contact information to the neighbors to report any offensive or
inappropriate content.
Commissioner Correa amended the motion to add the wording by the City Attorney.
MOTION: Commissioner Conea
SECOND: Commissioner Willits
AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson Simpson,Willits and Correa
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
6
Planning Commission December 3, 2018
Commissioner Gladson suggested that the Design Review Committee review billboards in order to
allow a public process for the neighbors to be notified.
Chair Glasgow stated billboards would have aluminum frames and therefore really isn't anything for
the Design Review Committee to look at.
Mr. Sheatz stated there is a section in the Relocation Agreement that requires notices to be mailed to
all residential properties owners located within 500 feet of the proposed electronic billboard
installation 14 days prior to City Council consideration.
Commissioner Gladson responded that this addresses her concerns and is satisfied if it does not go to
the Design Review Committee.
A motion was made to adjourn at 8:22 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled on
Monday,December 17,2018, at 7:00 p.m.
MOTION: Corrunissioner Willits
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson, Simpson,Willits and Correa
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATED DECEMBER 3, 2018
ORDINANCE NO. 01-19
JAN UARY 8, 2019
��P���: Planning Commission
Gti�s.,;,�*����
*� �* Agenda Item
a. .
�.
���s�� :
�.
December 3, 2018
TO: Chair Glasgow and
Members of the Planning Commission
THRU: Anna Pehoushek,Assistant Community Development Director-�
FROM: Ashley Brodkin,Associate Planner
SUBJECT
PUBLIC HEARING: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-18 and an Ordinance Anaendment
regul.ating the conversion of existing billboards.
SiTMMARY
Staff proposes to repeal and delete Chapter 5.62, Signs and Billboards, in its entirety, and to amend
Title 17,Chapter 17.36 Sign Regulations to add a new Section 17.36.180 that would provide guidance
for the conversion of an existing static billboard display to a digital display, subject to the removal of
other existing billboazd faces on major arterial streets in the City or within the viewshed of the City.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The following Planning Commission actions are recommended:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 32-18 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMNIISSION RECOMMENDING
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF NIITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 1860-18 WITH AN ASSOCIATED MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND AN ORDINANCE
REPEALING AND DELETING CHAPTER 5.62 OF THE ORANGE
MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ORANGE
NI[TIVICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 17.36.180 REGULATING THE
CONVERSION OF EXISTING BILLBOARDS ALONG FREEWAY
CORRIDORS TO ELECTROIVIC BILLBOARDS
Planning Commission Staff Report
December 3, 2018
Page 3
'I�e City of Orange Billboard Ordinance,Municipal Code Title 5,Chapter 5.62,Signs and Billboards,
does not address new billboard construction or the conversion of existing billboards ta a digitaJ format
for those billboazds seeking to advertise a message not d'uectly related to the property the billboard is
located on. Furthermore, the Orange Municipal Code does not have provisions elsewhere that
specifically addresses billboards. Thus, the City has decided to update its Billboard Ordinance, as
described in more detail in the following section.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Billboard Ordinance Update
The CiTy is proposing an update to the Billboard Ordinance. The updated Billboazd Ordinance would
completely repeal and delete Chapter 5.62 (Signs and Billboards). Specifically, the update would
amend Title 17, Chapter 17.36(Sign Regulations)of the Municipal Code,which would still prohibit
the construction of new billboards,but would allow retention of existing billboards and the conversion
of the five billboards located within the Freeway Corridor where conversion would "...include the
removal of a display and construction of a new display to substitute for the display removed, as
defined in California Business and Professional Code Section 5412."
The updated Billboard Ordinance would include a provision for a Relocation Agreement that would
allow a billboard company to convert an existing traditional billboard to digital display in exchange
for removing five existing billboazd faces. As such,conversion of any of the five billboards specified
in the table below would be contingent on the removal of other existing billboard faces.
. ^:' . ..�;. . � x,��*P S ]i� 't F �, �..
s.: °�� � s ';�p ; � �.dvert�iisingl+
��i< �� ;� � �° . Surface�� ;
' �� � � � � �Biilboerd� �� B�iboard( ��� � Ar"�ea�EerF��i
� �;;, � �� - R �Strueture� `� FY�ame� '�;1�1um�per�of' , eFac i�,'���i
�Billboar�a!,�- �illboardhsocatiou� }�eight�(deet)�! . ,(�feet)? � ���aesi �,(sguare�iee�)�
1 West'side of SR=55, 100 feef'south Static ' 95 '20 x 60 2 " � 1,200 '.`
! of East Katella Avenue ' LED 90 14 x 48 2 672
2 !West side of SR-55, 1,900,feet north Static 70 20 x 60 2 1,200
� �ofMeats Avenue
; LED 65 14 x 48 ' 2 672
� 3 West side of SR-57,250 feet.south Static 55 20 x 60 2 1,200
� of West Chapman Avenue LED 50 14 x 48 2 672
4 East side of SR=57, lU0 feet south of Static 55 20 x 60 2 1,200
�the Santa Ana'R.iyer • LED 50 14 x 48 2 672
�
5 East side of SR-57,220 feet east of Static 70 � 20 x 60 2 . � 1;200
the SR-57 North onramp '
, LED 65 •14 x 48, 2 672
Under the proposed ordinance,conversion would be subject to the discretionary approval of a Minor
Site Plan Review application. Additionally, proposed Section 17.36.180(D)(2) stipulates that
Planning Commission Staff Report
December 3,2018
Page 5
1. 140 North Prospect Street
2. North Orange Olive Road,250 feet south of LincolnAvenue
3. 2875 North Orange Olive Road (located on unincorporated (County) lands that could affect
viewsheds within the City).
APPLICATION(5) REQUESTED/REQUIItED FINBINGS
Zonin�Code Te�t Amendment: The Ordinance proposes to change the Zoning Code to allow for
the conversion of existing traditional billboards within the Freeway Corridor to digital billboards.
Required Findings: There are no required findings for a Zone Code Text Amendment since
it is considered a legislative action.
ANALYSIS/STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Issue 1: Compatibility of Project with Surroundin�Uses
The praposed ordinance stipulates that electronic billboazds may only be located within the Freeway
Corridor which includes the SR-55 and SR-57 corridors.Adjacent development and the visual setting
of the potential upgrade locations consists of developed properties with commercial and residential
buildings, local roadways, minimal landscaping, roadway signage, and above-ground infrastructure
including power lines adjacent to a heavily traveled highway. In addition, existing billboards
(Billboard Locations 1 and 2)are visible frorn the elevated neighborhoods on the hillsides to the east.
Conversion to an LED face from a static face would not change the visua.l chazacter of the surrounding
area, and would remain consistent with the urban environments surrounding,these residences. In
addition,the LED face would be in the same orientation as the existing static face,which is oriented
towazd highway motorists.
The billboard sites are located in an urban setting neaz several other sources of nighttime lighting
including car headlights,parking lot lighting, streetlights,security lighting on buildings,and internal
lights in buildings. With respect to brightness, it is not possible to directly compare the light output
of existing static billboards to the light output of a LED billboard. It is difficult to quantify the light
output of a static billboard (light reflected off vinyl) because there are too many surrounding light
sources and the reading would quantify all the light in the vicinity. In comparison, it is possible to
adjust the light output for LED lights on digital billboards. Unlike static billboards that reflect
surrounding light sources, LED billboazds can be programmed to ensure brighiness levels are well
below applicable standazds. The standard that is incorporated into the proposed City ordinance is that
signs cannot have a light output that exceeds 0.3 foot candles at 250 feet,which is approximately one-
sixth of the maximum brightness level for LED billboards set forth by the Outdoor Advertising Act.
Outfront Media has prepared a Photometric Analysis for the Billbaard 1 location(Exhibit D). The
study concluded that the billboazd would not produce light levels in excess of 0.3 foot candles at 250
feet. Additionally the study found that there would not be a significant impact to the adjacent property
provided that the sign brightness is reduced after dark to the 300 candela per square meter(NITS).
Planning Commission Staff Report
December 3, 2018
Page 7
• Status of permits for Billboard 1 with Caltrans;
• Changing message would create light strobe affect;
• Concerns about potential impacts to property values;
Responses were prepared to all comments receivecl and were forwazded to the commenting parties in
compliance with CEQA. R1ith the concurrence of the Planning Commission.on the information
provided when acting to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, the issues are
considered resolved. The comments received and the responses are provided in the MND (provided
in Exhibit B).
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Ordinance Update was not reviewed by the City's internal review team (SMART�
because, as an ordinance, there aze no technical issues that specifically necessita.te any department
review. Future billboard applications would be reviewed by the staff team individually..
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachments to Report:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 32-18
2. Draft City Council Billboard Ordinance(redline)
3. Draft City Council Billboard Ordinance(clean)
4. Local Vicinity Map
5. Public Comments
Exhibits provided to the Plannin��Commission:
A. Mitigated Negative Declazation No. 1860-18, Letters Received from Responsible Agencies and
Members of the Public
B. Response to Comments and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
C. Staff Report from November 14,2017 City Council Meeting including the Relocation Agreement
with Out&ont Media,LLC
D. City of Orange, 1936 E. Katella Ave. Digital Billboard Photometric Analysis
N:1CDDIPLNG\Ordinance Amendments\Billboard Ordinance 20181Planning Commission�Planning
Commission StaffReport 12-03-18 FINAL.docx
Resolution No.PC 32-18
Page 2 of 3
recommendation to the City Council on amendments to the zoriing code and makes the following
findings with respect to the Ordinance.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing on
December 3, 2018, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support of or Qpposition to Mitigated Negative Declazation No. 1860-18 and the proposed
changes to the Orange Municipal Code contained herein, and has determined the proposed
amendment is justified and recommends approval thereof.
Exhibit A to this Resolution
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends
City Council approval of the subject Ordinance Amendment, along with associated adoption of
Mitigated Negative Declazation No. 1860-18 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
as described in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 32-18 based on the following fmdings:
SECTION 1—FINDINGS
1. The Ordinance Amendment achieves multiple goals of the General Plan. Consistent with
the Land Use Element, the Ordinance Amendment promotes revenue-generating land
uses that help defray the costs of high quality public services. Consistent with the Urban
Design and Economic Development Elements, the upgrade of existing billboazds to
smaller digital faces and the removal of billboards along the City's arterials and within
the City's viewshed would improve the aesthetics of those azeas of the City.
2. The Planniug Commission finds the aforementioned recitals true and correct and adopts
the recitals by reference as if fully set forth herein. This proposed ordinance amendment,
as described in Attachment A,would allow for the upgrade to LED for billboards located
in the Freeway Corridor.
SECTION 2—ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-18 has been prepazed for this project to evaluate the
physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in
conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission finds that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
contain an adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.
The Planning Commission fmds that tb.e project will have less than significant impacts to the
environment, with the unplementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures
addressing potential impacts to Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials,Noise,and Transportation/Traffic included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted on December 3, 2018, by the Planning
Commission of the City of Orange by the following vote:
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE ADOPTING NIITIGATED
NEGATNE DECLARATION NO. 1860-18,
REPEALING AND DELETING CfIAPTER 5.62 OF
THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE IN ITS
ENTIRETY, AND AMENDING TITLE 17 OF TAE
ORANGE MUI�TICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION
17.36.180 REGULATING THE CONVERSION OF
EXISTING BII.LBOARDS ALONG FREEWAY
CORRIDORS TO ELECTRO1vIC BILLBOARDS.
WHEREAS, Section 5412 of the Outdoor Advertising Act (Bus. & Profs. Code,
§ 5200 et se�encourages local governments and owners of billboazds to enter into relocation
agreements, pursuant to which local governments can continue development in a planned
manner without expenditure of public funds, while allowing the continued maintenance of
private investment and a medium of public communication; and
WHEREAS,the City's municipal code does not currently allow the construction and
operation of a digital billboard within the City's jurisdictional boundaries through a relocation
agreement, though California state law authorizes such, and the City municipal code would
require the adoption of an ordinance amendment establishing standards that, pursuant to the
provisions of the Orange Municipal Code, Minor Site Plan Review, and the terms of a
relocation agreement, an outdoar advertising media company may rehabilitate and operate a
digital billboard in place of an existing static billboard in exchange for the removal of existing
billboards at other locations(the"ordinance amendment"); and
WI-i�REAS, the City has entered into an agreement with Outfront Media, LLC, for
the right to operate a digital billboazd,wholly contingent upon the City adopting an ordinance
that would regulate the conversion of the existing static billboard to a digital billboard; and
WHEREAS, the City has not committed to any particular course of action by
tentatively entering into the aforementioned agreement,but is making an effort to reduce visual
blight within its jurisdictional boundaries and other nearby areas visible to the City's residents,
by removing e�sting billboards on local roadways in exchange for allowing digital billboazds
along the freeway corridor; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the passage of the ordinance amendment would have
any reasonably foreseeable,non-speculative environmental impacts,the ordinance amendment
has been evaluated in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-18,prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), consistent with the findings in Section III
below.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL
BILLBOARD ORDINANCE(redline) ;
,
.. . .. . . - ,. . � . . � ., b .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . ._ !
. �
, _ e
e �
1.,«.i�,..,,,e.� �.ee.,.,,., .,.1,;..t,e..e..;�l�+e..
y .
SECTION II:
Title 17, Chapter 1736 is hereby amended to add Section 17.36.180,which shall read
as follows:
17.36.180 Billboards
A. Prohibition. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code,except for the
relocation of existing billboazds pursuant to this section,no new billboards shall be constructed
within the City limits. For purposes of this section, "relocation" includes the removal of a
display and construction of a new display to substitute for the display removed, as defined in
California Business and Professions Code Section 5412.
B. Relocation of Existing Billboards. An owner of an existing billboazd located
within the City may apply for a billboard relocation subject to the following procedure and
criteria:
1. Process. An applicant for a billboard relacation shall file an application for
Minor Site Plan Review approval with the City, pursuant to Orange Municipal Code
Section 17.10.060.
2. Criteria. The Community Development Director shall apply the following
criteria in making his determination on the site plan:
a. The structure shall be constructed on two or less steel supports;
ORD 11-18 3 GAS
5412, and compliance with the additional requirements set forth below, the owner of
an existing billboard within the City may convert a static copy billboard to an electronic
billboard, provided such billboard is located within the Freeway Corridor, subject to
approval of a Minor Site Plan Review application pursuant to section B.
3. In addition to such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to approval of a
Minor Site Plan Review application for a billboard relocation pursuant to subsections
B.3., above, electronic billboazds shall be subject to the following criteria and
conditions:
a. An electronic billboard may only be located within the Freeway
Corridor. ,
b. Electronic billboards shall comply with all applicable location,distance,
size,operational,permit or licensing,and/or other requirements or limits
imposed by Federal, State or local law, including, without limitation,
the California Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business and
Professions Code Section 5200 et seq., and its implementing
regulations, including applicable amendments thereto. To the extent a
conflict arises between any provisions of this section and applicable
Federal, State or local law,unless otherwise preempted,local law shall
control.
c. Each sign face of an electronic billboard shall be oriented primarily for
viewing from the Freeway Corridor and away from any residentially
zoned property.
d. No electxonic billboard shall be located on or within 300 feet of any
property zoned single-family residentially, as measured from the base
of the structural support column of the electronic billboazd to nearest
property line.
e. Each electronic billboard proposal must have undergone the proper
level of environmental analysis required under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
E. No electronic billboard shall be located within S00 feet of any other billboard
located on the same side of the freeway or within 1,000 feet of any other electronic billboard
or on-premises electronic sign located on the same side of the freeway.
F. The permitted height of an electronic billboard shall be determined through the
Minor Site Plan Review process and shall be limited to the maximum height necessary to
ensure adequate visibility of the display from the Freeway Corridor,however in no event shall
an electronic billboard exceed 60 feet in height,as measured from finished grade to the top of
the billboard structure, or in the case of the conversion of an existing billboard,the height of
the existing billboard,whichever is greater.
G. The area of each electronic billboard sign face,including framing and trim,sha11
not exceed 680 squaze feet.
ORD 11-18 S GAS
SECTION III:
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
Ordinance No. 11-18 was adequately described and evaluated in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-
18 to determine the level of environmental impacts associated with the project that could result
in: 1) the potential removal of existing billboard faces within the City of Orange; and, 2)
potential upgrade of up to five existing static billboard signs to LED signs within the City of
Orange. The analysis contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)deternuned that
implementation of the project may result in potentially significant environmental effects
without mitigation to the following environmental factors: Aesthetics, Biological Resources,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Transportation/Traffic. Incorporation of the
mitigation measures into the project results in a reduction of significant impacts to less than
significant levels.
SECTION N•
If any section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional,such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one(or more) section, subdivision,paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase had been declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION V:
A summary of this Ordinance shall be published and a certified copy of the full text of
this Ordinance sha1l be posted in the Office of the City Clerk at least five(5)days prior to the
City Council meeting at which this Ordinance is to be adopted. A summary of this Ordinance
shall also be published once within fifteen (15) days after this Ordinance's passage in a
newspaper of general circulation, published, and circulated in the City of Orange. The City
Clerk shall post in the Office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of such adopted
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the
Ordinance in accordance with Govemment Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take
effect thirty(30)days from and after the date of its final passage
ADOPTED this day of , 2018.
Teresa E. Smith,Mayor, City of Orange
ORD 11-18 7 GAS
ORDINANCE NO. ll.-1.8
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE ADOPTING NIITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1860-18,
REPEALING AND DELETING CHAPTER 5.62 OF
THE ORANGE MiTNICIPAL CODE IN ITS
ENTIRETY, .AND AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE
ORANGE MIJNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION
17.36.180 REGULATING THE CONVERSION OF
EXISTING BILLBOARDS ALONG FREEWAY
CORRIDORS TO ELECTRO1vIC BILLBOARDS.
WHER.EAS, Section 5412 of the Outdoor Advertising Act (Bus. & Profs. Code,
§ 5200 et se� encourages local governments and owners of billboards to enter into relocation
agreements, pursuant to which local governments can continue development in a planned
manner without expenditure of public funds, while allowing the continued maintenance of
private investrnent and a medium of public communication; and
WI�REAS,the City's municipal code does not currently allow the construction and �
operation of a digital billboard within the City's jurisdictional boundaries through a relocation
agreement, though Califoriva sta.te law authorizes such, and the City municipal code would
require the adoption of an ordinance amendment establishing standards that, pursuant to the
provisions of the Orange Municipal Code, Minor Site Plan Review, and the terms of a
relocation agreement, an outdoor advertising media company may rehabilitate and operate a
digital billboard in place of an existing static billboard in exchange for the removal of existing
billboazds at other locations(the"ordinance amendment");and
WHEREAS, the City has entered into an agreement with Outfront Media, LLC, for
the right to operate a digital billboazd,wholly contingent upon the City adopting an ordinance
that would regulate the conversion of the existing static billboard to a digital billboard;and
WHEREAS, the City has not committed to any particular course of action by
tentatively entering into the aforementioned agreement,but is making an effort to reduce visual
blight within its jurisdictional boundaries and other nearby areas visible to the City's residents,
by removing existing billboards on local roadways in exchange for allowing digital billboards
along the freeway comdor; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the passage of the ordinance amendment would have
any reasonably foreseeable,non-speculative environmental impacts,the ordinance amendment
has been evaluated in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-18,prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), consistent with the findings in Section III
below.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: �
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL
BILLBOARD ORDINANCE(clean)
i
I
3. Conditions of Approval. The Community Development Director may require
reasonable conditions of approval to protect the public health, welfaze, and safety of
the community
4. Findin�s. The Community Development Director sha11 make a finding in
approving such a request that the construction of the structure and approval of the
Minor Site Plan Review will not have an adverse effect on the public health,welfare,
and safety of the community.
C. Publicly Caused Billboazd Relocations. Any proposal to relocate an existing
billboazd structure,which relocation is caused by a City or State project,shall be subject to the
Minor Site Plan Review process above.
D. Electronic Billboards Within the Freeway Comdor.
1. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the following
meanings:
a. "Billboard"has the same meaning as those advertising displays defined
in California Business and Professions Code Section 5202.
b. "Electronic billboard" means an internally or externally illuminated
billboard that utilizes digital message technology capable of
instantaneously changing the static message or copy on the sign
electronically.
c. "Freeway Corridor" means the azea within the City comprised of the
land within 300 feet of either edge of the right of way of the following
freeways: California lnterstate Highway 5; California State Route 22;
California State Route 55; and California State Route 57.
2. Noiwithstanding any other provision of this code, subject to the discretionary
approval of a Minor Site Plan Review application above, enhy into a relocation
agreement with the City in accordance with Business and Professions Code Section
5412, and compliance with the additional requirements set forth below, the owner of
an existing billboazd within the City may convert a static copy billboazd to an electronic
billboard, provided such billboard is located within the Freeway Corridor, subject to
approval of a Minor Site Plan Review application pursuant to section B.
3. In addition to such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to approval of a
Minor Site Plan Review application for a billboard relocation pursuant to subsections
B.3., above, electronic billboazds shall be subject to the following criteria and
conditions:
a. An electronic billboard may only be located within the Freeway
Corridar.
b. Electronic billboards sha11 comply with all applicable location,distance,
size,operational,permit or licensing,and/or other requirements or limits
imposed by Federal, State or local law, including, without limitation,
ORD I1-18 3 GAS
K. As a condition to approval of the relocation and/or conversion of a billboard to
an electronic billboard, the owner of the electronic billboazd shall execute a relocation
agreement with the City pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 5412
on terms approved by the City Council in its sole and absolute discretion.At a minimum,such
a relocation agreement shall: (i)require the permanent removal of a minimum of five existing
billboard faces within the city or visible from a City street for each relocated electronic
billboazd consisting of two faces, (ii)provide for mitigation by the oumer of aesthetic andlor
other impacts caused by the electronic billboard(s), (iii)require the owner to comply with any
and all required mitigation measures,conditions of approval, and applicable provisions of this
section and this code,(iv)require notice to be mailed to all residential property owners located
within 500 feet of the proposed electronic billboard installation, 14 days prior to City Council
consideration of the relocation agreement; (v) provide for the payment by the owner of
applicable fees and costs, (vi)require each owner to indemnify, defend and hold hazmless the
City from any arid all claims, lawsuits, awards and judgments, including any reasonable
attorney's fees and court costs, that may arise from the approval of the relocation and/or
conversion of a billboazd to an electxonic billboazd and/or the removal of other existing
billboazds, pursuant to this section or any other provision of the code, subject to the terms of
the agreement, (vii)require the owner(s)/operator(s)of the electronic billboard to donate up to
10%of the total advertising time on the electronic billboard to community events,as requested
by the City Manager; and (viii) any other terms and conditions the City may find reasonable
in approving said agreement, and consistent with applicable law. Nothing herein shall be
construed to require the City to enter into such an agreement or to allow the relocation of an
existing billboard or the conversion of an existing billboard to an electronic billboard.
L. The owner of an electronic billboazd authorized pursuant to this section may,at
its sole option, remove the digital display from the billboard structure at any time, for any
reason, and temporarily or permanently replace such digital display with state-of-the-art non-
electronic static sign faces of the same or smaller dimensions. ,
SECTION III:
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
Ordinance No. 11-18 was adequately described and evaluated in accordance with the
California Environmental Qualiiy Act (CEQA) in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-
18 to determine the level of environmental impacts associated with the project that could result
in: 1) the potential removal of existing billboard faces within the City of Orange; and, 2)
potential upgrade of up to five existing static billboard signs to LED signs within the City of
Orange. The analysis contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)determined that
implementation of the project may result in potentially significant environmental effects
without mitigation to the following environmental factors: Aesthetics, Biological Resources,
Hazards and T-Iazardous Materials, Noise, and Transportation/Traffic. Incorporation of the
mitigation measures into the proj ect results in a reduction of significant impacts to less than
significant levels.
ORD 11-18 5 GAS
}
T,ROBERT ZORNADO, Chief Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at the regulaz meeting of the City Council held on the
_day of , 2018, and thereafter at the regular meeting of said City Council
duly held on the _ day of , 2018, was duly passed and adopted by the follawing
vote,to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: �
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Robert Zomado, Chief Clerk, City of Orange
ORD 11-18 7 GAS
' ATTACHMENT NO. 6 �
EMAILED -PUBLIC COMMENTS
ORDINANCE NO. 01-19
JAN UARY 8, 2019
Ashley Brodkin
From: Will Kolbow
Sent: Tuesday, November 13,2018 7:48 AM
To: Ashley Brodkin
Cc: Gary Sheatr
Subject: FW:[BULK] RE:Digital Billboard
Attachments: image001.gif
Witl Kolbow, MPA, CPA
Administr�tive Services Director
City of Orange
From:Will Kolbow
Sent:Sunday, November 11,201812:39 PM
To:Shelly Archer<Shelly.Archer@360dg.com>
Cc:Robin Auerbach<robin@edgemac.com>
Subject: Re: [BULK] RE:Digital Billboard
Hi Shelly,
The date references when the relocation agreement was approved,which is the action that I had sent the notice
previously and is discussed in the original email below(November 14,2017).The next action is for the Planning
Commission's consideration of the Ordinance that would allow the relocation agreement to be implemented.The
review period for the environmental documents is through November 29,2018.The Planning Commission notice that
should have been included with the letter you attached discusses whom to contact for written comments.The Public
Hearing by the Planning Commission will be on Monday,December 3 at 7 PM in the City Council Chamber.As this is now
in the environmental and ordinance phase,it is being handled by Ashley Brodkin,Associate Planner,in our Community
Development Department.However,if you have any questions,you can still contact me and I can get answers from her.
Or,you can contact her directly at 714-744-7238 or abradkin@citvoforan�e.or�.
Will Kolbow
Administrative Services Director
City of Orange
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11,2018,at 12:09 PM,Shelly Archer<SheIlv.ArcherC�360d�.com>wrote:
Hi Will — v�
�
I received the attached notice. Can you clarify? Does this mean they are discussing the digital billboard �
subject at the Nov 14�'meeting or is it already approved and moving forward? Can you explain to me
the steps that are taking place? What are the next steps? It appears it was already approved? 0
U
I received this notice on Saturday, November 10th. This is not enough time to get the word out to a
everyone that is against this,clear our calendars and attend the meeting. The notice does not give any �
details on the meeting? What time?Where exactly? a+
�
Partner .
360 Destination Group
California � Arizona � Texas � Chicago � Florida
D 949.544.7101 � O 949.348.1900 � C 714.476.6488
Shelly.Archer@360dg.com � www.360d .q com
From:Wil!Kolbow fmailto:wkolbow@citvoforan�e.or�]
Sent:Tuesday, November 21,z017 3:01 PM
To:Shelly Archer<SheIlv.Archer@360d�.com>
Subject:RE: Digital Billboard
Please see my responses below. As stated below, I will get back to you with answers to those questions
I could not completely answer. It may not be until sometime next week,depending on how quickly!can
track them down.
Thank you,
Wili Kolbow, MPA, CPA
Finance Director
City of Orange
From:Shelly Archer[mailto:Shellv.Archer@360d :�coml
Sent:Tuesday, November 21,20171:45 PM
To:Will Kolbow<wkolbow@citvoforan�e.or�>
Subject:RE: Digital Billboard
Thank you for the response. I have a few further questions:
1. I see this project came to fruition at the request of Outfront Media. When did the project
originate? How many times has the owner(regardless of who)of this billboard requested this
conversion in the past?
- We were first approached in April of this year on this latest proposal. At first,we did not give much
thought about proceeding,but after some internal discussion,staff felt it was time to gauge the City
Council's interest. Since this type of discussion has to happen in open session,we had to bring the
praposal formally to the City Council,which we did last week. The first formal proposaf was submitted
in June. We negotiated terms back and forth far a few months for it to resemble something that the
Council would even consider. ,
As far as the number of times we have been approached in the past, I am not too sure. There are no
official records to go back to because no previous proposal came formalfy before the City
Council. Houvever, I do know that back in 2009 there was a discussion at a City Council meeting in
regards to digital billboards,and the outcome of that discussion was for more research to be done
before any changes were adopted. To my knowledge,that discussion did not come as a result of a
specific proposal. Back then, I believe a different company owned the billboard in question.
2. Can you define the word"Relocation"in this Agenda Item document? Is the billboard being
relocated or converted?
3
I will have to check into this issue further and get back to you.
9. Besides money,what community or city benefit is there7 Does this city get free ad space?
The City would receive free ad space to promote community events. We are also able to preempt their
advertisin�for emergency notifications.
10. Can you define mitigation fee?
The Agreement does not deflne the phrase"mitigation fee",but the purpose of the fee is to defray the
cost of providing services within the City. It is not meant to meet any definition for a mitigation
program.
11. How many complaints have been logged regarding this conversion?
Including your e-mail,we received a total of 4 written correspondence,3 phone calls,and 4 public
comments at the City Council meeting(of which 2 had already log�ed opposition in written
correspondence or phone calls)that voiced their opposition to the conversion.
12. Are there any limitations about who gets to advertise and its content? is the city able to limit
who or what can be shown?For example,is it possible that one of the revolving adds be a
marijuana store? Is the content on this billboard proposed to be moving and animated? Or will
the content be static like it is now.
The Agreement does not eontain specifics as to what can be advertised. However, I intend to include ad
content limitations within the OMC amendments that would govern this billboard. To use your
example,I would inciude a ban on marijuana advertising in any proposed language since this City has a
ban on marijuana dispensaries and related businesses. I would also anticipate that the code change
would include a provision that all ad faces must be static(i.e.the only changes allowed are for the
rotation of ads). Further,the standard that most cities have adopted,and 1 am sure we would follow,is
that there must be a miniinum of eight seconds between rotations. So,although the intention is to
aliow multiple advertisements,the goal would be to limit each ad displayed so that they must be static
(hope this answers the last part of your question).
If you have any additional questions,please let me know. I will aiso follow up with you on those items
that I was not sure about.
Thank you.
Shelly
Shelly Archer
Partner
360 Destination Group
California � Arizona � Texas � Chicago � Florida
O 949.348.1900 � C 714.476.6488
Shelly.Archer@360dg.com � www.360dg.com
From:Will Kolbow [mailto:wkolbow@cit�oforan�;e.org]
Sent:Monday,November 20,z017 3:07 PM
To:Shelly Archer<SheIlv.Archer@360d�.com>
Subject:RE: Digital Billboard
5
Ashley Brodkin
From: Ashley Brodkin
Sent: Wednesday, November 14,201810:08 AM
To: 'gin.lorimor@gmail.com'
Cc: 'Shelly.Archer@360dg.com'; 'robin@edgemac.com';Will Kolbow;Chad Ortlieb;Anna
Pehoushek
Subject: RE: Digital Billboard
Hella Ms. lorimor,
Thank you for reaching out to us.
Will Kolbow forwarded your email to me because a proposed billboard ordinance and associated environmental
document is being processed by the Community Development Department for review and recommendation by the
Planning Commission and then a fna!decision by the City Council. If the Billboard Ordinance is approved,it would
implement the relocation a�reement with Outfront.
The proposed Bil{board Ordinance would allow for the conversion of static billboards to digital billboards.A Miti�ated
Negative Declaration-was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Ordinance in
accordance to the California Environmentat Quality Act.The environmental document and notice are posted on the
City's website at:httQS://www.citvoforan�e.ora/292/Proiect-NoticesRelated-Environmental-Doc.
There are several opportunities for the public to comme�t on the proposed Ordinance as follows:
�
1. Written comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received in the offices of the City of Oran�e
Planning Division or via email at abrodkin@citvoforan�e.or�by 5:00 p.m.on November 29,2018.
2. The City will hold a Planning Cammission Hearing at 7:00 p.m.on December 3 in the City Council Chambers and
you may speak at that hearing and/or provide wrrtten comments for it. Please find attached the Notice o#
Planning Commission Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Ne�ative Declaration(do.1860-18.
3. A notice of a City Council hearin�for the proposed Ordinance will be distributed in the same manner as the
attached notice once a date is established. You or anyone else will have another opportunity to speak a�d/or
provide written comments on the project at that City Counci) hearing.
To respond to your question regarding the economic benefit to our community,the Reloca#ion Agreement with Outfront
includes compensation in the form of an annual mitigation fee.Additionally,the Agreement includes provision to aliow
for free advertising of City events and for emergency information(such as evacuation notices or Amber aterts,for
example).
Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.
Regards,
Ashley Brodkin
Assaciate Planner
Community Development Department
300 E Chapman Ave Orange,CA 92866
(714)744-7z38 � abrodkin@cityoforange.org
1
I received this notice on Saturday,November 10�'. This is not enough time to get the word out to everyone that
� is against this, clear our calendars and attend the meeting. The notice does not give any details on the
{ meeting? What time?Where exactly?
�
�
i
; What are the alternatives here?
,
�
i
!
1
i Shelly
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� Shelly Archer
�
� Managing Partner
� 360 Destination Group
�
�
i
� Califarnia � Arizona � Texas � Chicago � Florida � New York
? O 949.348.]900 � C 714.476.6488
�
j Shelly.Archer@360dg.com � www.360da.com
i
i
i
; From: Will Kolbow<wkolbow(a�citvoforange.org?
�
? Sent: Thursday,December 07,2017 8:57 AM
z To: Shelly Archer<She1lv.Archer(a�,360d .�com>
� Subject: RE: Digital Billboard
i
�
r
i
� Good morning Ms.Archer,
s
i
i
;
[
� I reviewed my response and realized i forgot to answer one of your questions. In regazds to City Council and
� their consideration of property values,the City Council takes into consideration various factors in their
j decision;some are explicitly stated,others aze just in their minds so it is impossible to speculate on what goes
� on there. In my presentation to them,that is one of things I stated as a concern for the neighborhood. As far as
� analysis,there was no analysis specifically on this factor. I am not aware of any research that has been done
� specific to conversion of traditional billboazds to electranic billboards and I am not sure how that would be
`; quantified and isolated as a factor in relation to property values.
: I realize this is not the answer you probably wanted,but I wanted to make sure that I at least addressed it.
�
�
3
,
._..�.�9.__..._.�........_.�. ..._.__..�..._ . ...,_.. _ . . _._._ . .
; From: Will Kolbow fmailto:wkolbow(c,�citvoforan�e.or�l
� Sent: Tuesday,November 21,2017 3:01 PM
; To: Shelly Archer<She1ly.Archerna,360dg.com�
' Subject: RE:Digital Billboazd
I '
!
I
� Please see my responses below. As stated below,I will get back to you with answers to those questions I could
� not completely answer. It may not be until sometime next week,depending on how quickly I can track them
; down.
1
3
!
1
; �laIlk�►OU,
!
E
,
; 1Nill Kolbow, MPA, CPA
; Finance Director
�
� City of Orange
I
�
� From: Shelly Archer fmailto:Shellv.Archer(a�360d .�coml
? Sent: Tuesday,November 21,2017 1:45 PM
fTo: Will Kolbow<wkolbow .ci oforan�e.or�> _
! Subject: RE:Digital Billboard
I
1
; Thank you for the response. I have a few fiu�ther questions:
I
i
� 1. I see this project came to fruition at the request of Outfront Media. When did the project
. ; originate? How many times has the owner(regardless of who)of this billboard requested this
1 conversion in the past?
,
;
I
;
�
4 We were first approached in April of this year on this latest proposal. At first,we did not give much thought
; about proceeding,but after some internal discussion, staff felt it was time to gauge the City Council's
� interest. Since this type of discussion has to happen in open session,we had to bring the proposal formally to
t the City Council,which we did last week. The first formal proposal was submitted in June. We negotiated
! terms back and forth for a few months for it to resemble something that the Council would even consider.
i
i
5
i
1 6. Will this be the first di 'tal billboard in the ci ? Are there an more convertin or an other re uests to
i' � tY Y g Y q
convert?If so,where?
i �
� This will be the first digital billboard within the City of Orange. We do not have any other requests to convert.
�
(
�
( 7. I see that 346 notices went out regazding this conversion. Was this a letter sent out via mail? What was
� the date this notice was sent out?. How can I be included in the upcoming notices that will be sent
; out? My street is one block away from area shown on page 22.
�
�
;
E
' The notice was sent out as a postcard on Thursday,October 30. I personally wrote the notice and generated the
! addresses via tax roll recards. We tried to make our best guess as to who should be included in the
� notification. Since this is not a land use issue,notificativns were not required to be done,which is why it was a
� discretionary call an our part. We were debating back and forth as to do certain blocks or a radius. Normally,
' when notices are r�quired for items,the radius is 300 or 500 feet,depending on what type of work is being
� done. By those standazds;we probably would have sent only about 50 notices,which we felt would not have
� been neatly enough.
i
1 .
{ In terms of receiving notices in the future,I am not sure if you aze referring to notices for this particular item or
; in general. I would have to speak with Planning to see if they maintain a list on top af those that they are
� required to send notices to. But if you are referring to this particular issue,I will personally ensure that you are
! included in future notices. I can do that via e-mail,US mail,or both.
i
�
i8. When does the city council members consider the decrease in value of the properties affected? Is there
� any analysis done regarding this and who conducts this investigation?
� �
i
fI wilf have to check into this issue further and get back to you.
�
s
� 9. Besides money, what community or city benefit is there? Does this city get free ad space?
� �
i
�
� The City would receive free ad space to promote commuriity events. We are also able to preempt their
{ advertising for emergency notifications.
j
z
� Parfner
� 360 Destination Group
I
� California � Arizona � Texas � Chicago � Florida
� O 949.348.1900 � C 714.476.64$8
� SheIlv.Archer@360dg.com � www.360dq.com
�
i
j , .. ., .
� From: Will Kolbow�,mailto:wkolbow(a�citvoforan�e.or�l
' Sent: Monday,November 20,2017 3:07 PM
To: Shelly Archer<She1ly.Archer(�a,360d .�com>
� Subject: RE:Digital Billboard
�
_
� Good afternoon Ms. Archer,
�
�
�
,
_
i Thank you for reaching out to us for a status on the digital billboard that was proposed at Katella Ave. and the
; SR 55 Freeway. The item was presented to the City Council for discussion and consideration at their Regulaz
; City Council meeting on Tuesday,November 14. After presentation from staff,public comment(four people
; spoke in opposition of the item),questions from the City Council to both staff and the applicant(Outfront
; Media),the City Council approved the Relocation Agreement with Out&ont Media.
f �
jI want to emphasize that this is just the first step in the process. The Agreement in and of itself does not allow
; Out&ont to begin converting the billboard. We still need to go through a process to update the Orange
j Municipal Code(OMC)in order for the conversion to take place. The update will be heard and considered by
I both the Planning Commission and City Council before being put into effect. If for whatever reason a change
� to the OMC is not made,the conversion cannot rnove forward and,Iikely,that would lead to the Agreement
`� being terminated.
i
I
E
;
; Below are a few helpful links that give further details about the Agreement and the actual discussion at the
� City Council meeting on November 14.
i
�
i
x
i
` Link to Staff Report&Agreement:
� http://citvoforan�e.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=3&clip id=315&meta id=26669
F
i
�
; Clip from City Council meeting:
� http://city.oforange.�ranicus.com/MediaPla�php?view id=3&clip id=315&meta id=26668 (please note that
! you may need to turn up your audio during some parts...i apologize for this inconvenience)
9
Ashley Brodkin
From: Ashley Brodkin
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 3:47 PM
To: Ashley Brodkin
Subject: RE:Unhappy with the handling of the billboard
From: Robin Auerbach<robin�ed�emac.com>
Sent:Monday, November 12,201812:02 PM
To:councilinfo<councitinfo@citvoforange.or�>
Subject: Unhappy with the handling of the biliboard
Mayor Smith and City Council Members, My neighbors and I have been corresponding overtime with Will regarding the
billboard at the west end of the Presidential tract. We just received notices that this is now going for the environmental
review and approval. I am letting you know that there are quite a few of our neighbors that are very upset, including
myself at the handling af this action. For those of us in the 2500 block of Coolidge who were not included in the original
notices,we are playing catch up on the issue and feel that this build board is not in our best interest as
homeowners. Those living much closer than us have viable concerns as to their privacy and property values. I more so
am concerned with the constant changing of inessages, light strobe affect and the content. How are you going to
control the content on that billboard such that it is child appropriate or that they lights changing constantly don't affect
my enjoyment in my own home? My understanding is that billboards are protected speech...does that mean you are
going to allow Cannabis and Strip club ads to be visible in our neighborhood. Certainly if you have mitigated this issue
we would like to hear about it because that has not been in any of the information we have received.
Please advise me as to the next course of action I should take to be heard on this issue. What time and where is the
next meeting that this will be discussed?
Regards,
Robin A. Auerbach
President and CEO
EdgeMAC
714.564.5821 direct
2125 E. Katella Avenue-Suite 350
Anaheim, CA 92806
www.edgemac.com
s.
Ashley Brodkin
From: Ashley Brodkin
Sent: Thursday, November 15,2018 11:39 AM
To: 'Shelly.Archer@360dg.com'
Cc: 'max.ashburn@scenic.org'; 'robin@edgemac.com;Will Kolbow;Anna Pehoushek;Chad
Ortlieb
Subjed: RE:Questions: Digital Billboard
Hello Ms.Archer,
Thank you for reaching out to us.
Will Kolbow foruuarded your email to me because a proposed billboard ordinance and associated environmental
document is being processed by the Community Development Department for review and recommendation by the
Plannin�Commission and then a final decision by the City Council.
Please see below for the responses to your questions:
1. l want to be sure I understand the notice that was received. It states there are 5 billboards up for
discussion on Dec 3. I believe that originally Outfront Media was proposing the removal of some
billboards in leu of converfing the one on Katella to digital. Is this still the plan� Can you elaborate on
which ones will be removed� Is the only proposed digital billboard currently the one on Katelfa�
- In November 2017,the City and Outfront Media entered into a tentative Relocation Agreement for the
relocation and consolidation of signs that would �esult in the removal of flve sign faces and the upgrade of
the existing billboard at 1936 Katella Avenue to LED(Billboard 1). This Relocation Agreement did not
commit the City to approvin�the project or to any course of action,and was wholly contingent on the City's
later adoption of the Billboard Ordinance Update. If the ordinance amendments are adopted,this
Relocation Agreement would become effective and Outfront would be entitled to apply for remaining
approvals to remove various si�ns and construct a new sign at the Katella Avenue site, including any
necessary building permits,electrical permits,demolition permits,and Minor Site Plan Review.
Three specific locations with static billboard faces were identified by Outfront Media for potential removal
as part of the proposed upgrade of Billboard 1: 140 North Prospect Street;North Orange Olive Road,250
feet south of lincoln Avenue,and 2875 North O�ange Olive Road. The billboard at 2875 North Orange Olive
Raad is located on unincorporated(County)lands that could affect viewsheds within the City.
Potential upgrades to LED would occu�as part of implementation of the Billboard Ordinance Update. The
five billboard locations identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)could be upgraded to an
electronic billboard with two LfD display faces because they are located within the Freeway Corridor in the
City of Orange. The Freeway Corridor is defined as the area within the City comprised of the land within
300 feet of either edge of the right-of-way of the following freeways:California lnterstate 5(I-5);Catifornia
State Route 22(SR-22);California State Route 55(SR-55);and California State Route 57(SR-57).
The timing of these upgrades has not yet been determined. Howrever,as discussed above,Outfront Media
has proposed the conversion of an existing traditional billbaard located at 1936 East Katella Avenue
(Billboard 1)#o a digital LED billboard and the removai of a total of five billboard faces. It is reasonably
foreseeable that the upgrade of BiHboard 1 and removal of five billboard faces would move forward soon
after the implementation of the updated Billboard Ordinance.
i
Ashley Brodkin
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
300 E Chapman Ave Orange,CA 92866
(714}744-7238 � abrodkin@cityoforange.org
�City of
ran��
�is Qco'�e,a�Q�an���ai�
�]tlE Of iNE�RtA(�8.[H�NEP.MA
From:Shelly Archer<SheIlv.Arche�@360d�.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 13,2018 2:18 PM
To:Will Kolbow<wkolbow@citvoforan�e.or�>
Cc:max.ashburn@scenic.ors: Robin Auerbach<robin@ed�emac.com>
Subject:Questions: Digital Billboard
Hi Will-I have a few more questions....
]. i want to be sure I understand the notice that was received. It states there are 5 billboards up for
discussion on Dec 3. I believe that originally Outfront Media was proposing the removal of some
billboards in leu af converfing the one on Katella to digital. Is this still the plan� Can you elaborate on
which ones will be removed� Is the only proposed digital billboard currently the one on Katella�
2. Can you also clarify exactly what the financial benefit is to the city� You mentioned an annual fee, but
can explain exactly the financial gain to the city� I also understctnd fihe city receives free adds and use
of it in emergency situations but I am more interested in the exact money the city will receive.
3. You mentioned previously you were working on "Proposed language that will govern this (City Zoning�)
and any future digital billboards". Was this finalized� Can you please share�
4. You also mentioned earlier there would a ban on marijuana advertising (for example) due to the City's
current ban on marijuana dispensaries and related businesses. However what would happen if the city
liffed this ban�
5. Did Outfront Media obtain the necessary permits from Caltrans�
6. Citizens Committee: We are creating a Citizens Committee to provide thoughtful, organized and
researched information on this project. What are the steps for allowing this committee to present during
the upcoming Planning Commission hearing?
7. We are hiring an property assessor to understand the decrease in value of the properties that will be
affected. What are the steps for allowing this expert to present during the upcoming Planning
Commission hearing?
Thank you,Shelly
Shefly Archer
Managing Partner
36Q Desfinatior�Group
O 949.348.1900 � C 714.476.6488
SheIlv.Archer@360dg.com � www.360dg.com
,3
Ashley Brodkin
From: Kenneth Piguee <kpiguee714@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday,November 28, 2018 7:44 PM
To: Ashley Brodkin
Subject: Billboard Ordinance Update
Ms Broadkin-
My name is Kenneth Piguee, I live at 1327 E.Locust Ave in Orange. I am in support of the Biliboard ordinance update
item on the December 3rd Planning Commission agenda.
I am particularly supportive ofthe City identifying new revenue sources such as an electronic billboard Pn an age of lower
sales tax revenue and increasing service costs.
I also support the fact that the actual amount of billboards throughout the City will decrease with each electronic
billboard conversion.
While I do not live immediately adjacent to the Katella location or any of the others identified in the report, I believe this
is a great move by the City and will not have a major negative impact on the surrounding property owners.
Kenneth Piguee
714-402-8533
Sent from my iPhone
1
the Vision,as printed in the Urban Design Element,it states,"The City will work to improve the quality of
life for all residents by providing residential,commercial,industrial and public uses that exist in harmony
with the surrounding urban and natural environments." A 672 square foot digital billboard adjacent to
low density residential does not improve the quality ef life and does not provide for harmony between
land uses. The digital biliboard projects commercial advertising images,rotating every 8 seconds,24 hours
a day,into residential neighborhoods and serves as a distraction to thousands of motorists each day. The
Ordinance Amendment is therefore not consistent with the Land Use Element.
How there is a finding that ties in the removal of s#atic billboards and the erection of a digital billboard to
the Economic Development Element is curious. From the General Plan, "The Economic Development
Element outlines goals and policies that promote sustainable, market-driven economic growth and
activity without compromising the City's identity,herita�e,or the quality of life of those who live,work,
and play in Oran�e." While three areas,one outside the City proper,would see the elimination of older
billboards, the allowance for a 672 square foot digital billboard affecting hundreds of low density
residential homes is not a fair nor equal trade of aesthetics as stated in the Findings. Further,the finding
is not consistent with the intent of promoting sustainable, market-driven economic growth and activity.
The digital billboard does not create economic activity for the city other than for one indivPdual property
owner through enhanced lease payments and the outdoor advertising agency. Most importantly, it
compromises the quality of life for many who will live near the digital billboard. The Ordinance
Amendment is therefore not consistent with the Ecanomic Development Element.
The single finding, comprised of loose parts of three different Elements from the General Plan, fails in
every regard and is most certainly not consistent with nor achieves goals of the General Plan. Since the
Finding cannot be made to support the recommendation of approval to the City Council, the Planning
Commission should amend the Resolution to recommend the City Council deny the Ordinance
Amendments.
Additional comments for the Planning Commission consideration include that the proposed project is not
compatible with surrounding uses at the Katella site. The staff report states that the existing billboards
are visible from elevated neighborhoods on the hillsides to the east. That is not correct. The Presidential
Street neighborhood bounded by Katella, Wanda, Collins and the 55 Freeway can see the existing
billboards from the relatively flat nature of the area. When we lived on the corner of Sacramento and
Adams, exiting the side door you could see the billboard by Katella over our fence. As you drive west
down neighborhood streets,you can see the billboard. A digital billboard will be ever present and alive
at night with its changing advertising every 8 seconds.
The same paragraph describes the visual characterof the area as an"urban environment." While planning
definitions generally describe any built area,to include cities and suburbs as urban,the reality is that the
neighborhoods to be mostly affected by the digital billboard are low density, residential neighborhoods
with a high pride of ownership. A digital billboard will affect the visual character of the adjacent
neighborhoods and regardless of photometric studies and brightness control,the fact is that residents will
still see a 672 square foot LED movie screen that changes content every 8 seconds.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed
Ordinance Amendments to the City Council. The financiaf impact to the City is not worth the negative
consequences of digital billboards. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
�� Do,��,� �� �o��,�
Ken&Kim Domer
1534 N.Harding Street,Orange,CA 92867
Ashley Brodkin
From: Shelly Archer<Shelly.Archer@360dg.com>
Sen� Wednesday, November 28,2018 3:59 PM
To: Ashley Brodkin
Cc: max.ashburn@scenic.org;robin@edgemac.com;Will Kolbow;Anna Pehoushek;Chad
Ortlieb; 'Steve Shanahan'
Subject: [BULK] RE:Questions: Digital Billboard
Importance: Low
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Ashley—
• You mentioned the Dec 3 Planning Commission meeting will be discussing the Environmental review
documents. Can you specifically let me know which documents will be reviewed from this
link: http://www.citvoforan�e.or�/1841/Billboard-Ordinance-Update Or wi{I it be all of them?
• In the original Staff Report and Agreement from the November 14,2017 City Council Meeting,this document
only mentions the conversion of the one billboard on Katella. No other billboard conversions are mentioned in
this document. Can you tell me when the change took place and provide any updated documentation that
states this change? When was it brought in front of the City Council again with this change of converting 5
billboards? What is the change in the financial aspect from Outfront Media based on converting 5 billboards vs.
17
� Let me know how the decisions were made regarding#6 and#7 below. ls this standard procedure and
process? Are these rules or regulations posted somewhere that you can send me to?
• As I mentioned on our phone call,there is a conflict of interest of having Outfront Media pay for and select the
vendor of the Photometric Analysis. At a minimum the City should select the vendor,not Outfront Media.
• The Photometric Analysis is not taking into the account the complete impact of the current billboard let alone a
digital version. The report is only showing the results based on a 250 ft radius.This radius only extends midway
across the freeway and therefore not taking into the account the homes nearby that will be severely affected.
• Combined with an unbiased Photometric Analysis,a professional Real Estate appraiser needs to be hired by the
city to report on the decrease in value of the homes directly affected. The digital billboard will be categorized as
an External Obsolescence and will directly effect the value of the homes within view of the billboards. A digital
billboard will increase the External Obsolescence and therefore wil{decrease the home values even more in the
area.
1'hank you and please advise.
Shelly
Shelly Archer
Managing Partner
360 Destination Group
1