The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to approve a use permit to modify a static billboard at Bayshore Road overlooking Interstate 680 into a digital LED billboard. The City Council will now need to approve a lease. (File Photo)
By a slim margin, the Planning Commission approved a use permit to modify a conventional billboard on Bayshore Road into a digital LED billboard at Thursday’s meeting.
Associate Planner Charles Enchill presented a history of the project. In 2012, applicant Bruce Qualls of Clear Channel Outdoor proposed converting two static billboards— one on Park Road and one on Bayshore Road— into digital LED billboards. The project was approved by the Planning Commission that year and adopted by the City Council in 2013. However, the use permit was not exercised and eventually expired. Qualls returned to the city earlier this year, this time choosing to modify only the billboard at Bayshore Road.
Enchill said the upper structure and upper steel column would be replaced and there would be four new piles for support. There would be no changes to the orientation, and the height and sign area would remain the same. Since an environmental review was done when the project was first proposed in 2012, no additional environmental review was required, Enchill said.
However, Enchill noted there would be issues in the project, namely visual impacts such as brightness or potential for distractions. He said aspects like brightness and transition time between advertisements would need to comply with state and federal regulations. There was also an issue of gas lines located below the billboard. Enchill said they would be monitored by Kinder Morgan. He also said the applicants would need to notify the Benicia and Valero fire departments one week in advance. Staff recommended the commission approve the project.
Commissioner George Oakes, who was on the commission that approved the project in 2012, asked if it would be completed this time.
“It’s everybody’s intention,” Economic Development Manager Mario Giuliani said. “As of right now, provided the Planning Commission accepts staff recommendation and move the project forward, we will take it to the City Council to approve the lease in October with construction beginning soon thereafter with the sign erected before the new year.”
Commissioner Kathleen Catton if the project included shaders to prevent light from projecting upward and impacting birds in flight. Qualls said it would.
Commissioner Daina Dravnieks Apple sought clarification on if such signs would continue to be allowed in the future. Giuliani said Benicia has a moratorium on new billboards. He noted that five years ago, the city had four static billboards. Two of them were owned by CBS Outdoor— now Outfront Media—, and two were owned by Clear Channel. One of these is a Bay Alarm billboard which is on private property. Giuliani also noted the digital billboard at 4850 Park Road overlooking Interstate 680— also referred to as the Nationwide sign— which had been upgraded as part of a contract with CBS Outdoor.
“As part of that lease negotiation, one of the static Outfront Media signs went down,” he said. “I believe in five years, the other one will go down.”
Giuliani said that left the city with two static billboards: one whose digital conversion was going before the Commission that evening and the other which has a five-year term to extend and could be taken down after five years. He said new billboards would not be allowed in Benicia but existing signs could be converted to digital.
Chair Kari Birdseye asked Giuliani why the project would be beneficial from an economic standpoint. He noted that the current digital billboard generates $120,000 to the city each year and that Benicia companies, as well as events like the Benicia Film Festival and Coastal Cleanup Day, frequently advertise on it.
Apple felt digital billboards were not good for Benicia’s image as a small historic town.
“The fact that we’re not allowing large signs like that in the future, I’m questioning why we’re proposing to allow augmentation of the impact to existing signs when we don’t really want them in the future,” she said. “We need to make changes that are going to be bringing us to where we want to be in the future.”
Birdseye agreed with Apple.
“Since this proposal was approved, we have updated our ordinances to limit further growth and actually prohibit billboards in our town,” she said. “There’s a reason for that.”
Birdseye further commented that the mitigation for nesting birds and cultural resources, as well as the underground pipelines, were causes for concern.
“Is this really worth it for our town when we’ve already made a decision that this isn’t the way we want Benicia to look?” she asked.
Commissioner Trevor Macesnki disagreed, noting that its location off Interstate 680 near the refinery— which is lit up at night— was appropriate.
“(It’s) a different setting in and of itself,” he said. “If there has to be one, I would say it has to be over there.”
Ultimately, the commission voted 3-2— Apple and Birdseye voted no, and Commissioner Elizabeth Radtke was absent— to approve the use permit. It will go before the City Council in the future.
In other matters, the commission voted 4-0— Oakes recused himself due to having a business in the downtown — to adopt design guidelines for the Downtown Historic District and amendments to the Downtown Historic Conservation Plan. The matter will go before the City Council for a public hearing in the future.
The commission will next meet Thursday, Oct. 11.
Sharing is caring!
The Planning Commission’s 3-2 decision to approve the electronic billboard was a Economic Development action. This first came before the City Council in 2012 shortly after I took office. There was much discussion and theatrics about how replacing a static board with digital would create havoc. This has not been the case. The current 680 digital sign has produced a half million dollars in revenue for the City in the last 5 years. It has also provided City sponsored events like the recent Benicia Film Festival the ability to publicize their events as part of the agreement. The City’s effort to convert billboards to digital displays will reduce the total number of billboards from 6 to 3 over the next five years. Something that would not occur had the city not approved the leases to digital.
By not approving the permit, Chair Birdseye missed a chance to show her commitment to Economic Development as a candidate for City Council.
She is quoted
“Since this proposal was approved, we have updated our ordinances to limit further growth and actually prohibit billboards in our town,” she said. “There’s a reason for that.”
Billboards are not prohibited in Benicia. There is a moratorium on new ones.
Birdseye further commented that the mitigation for nesting birds and cultural resources, as well as the underground pipelines, were causes for concern.
This quote was similar to arguments used by Mayor Patterson when it came before the Council in 2012. As a new Council Member I was lobbied hard to deny the project by the Mayor using these tactics.
These type of decisions are part of the complexities of being on the City Council. Although I am all for the environment and natural habitat (I was just endorsed by the Sierra Club and the Solano County Orderly Growth Committee), there has to be a reality check. Our City’s budget is facing a crucial period in the future. We must find new revenue sources to maintain the City services and not walk away from nearly $175,000. a year in revenue.
Good job planning commission–even though 2 of you are neo-luddites.
So much for unity and loyalty in the PDB. Bitter over not getting the endorsement she sought from them, or for that matter any other (D) group in the county? The PDB should throw this woman out immediately. No wonder they chose not to endorse.
“We must find new revenue sources…”?
1. City of Benicia Cannabis Program; fees and taxes from a wide range of cannabusiness opportunities, not to mention abated sales tax leakage to other cities. A large majority of Benicians favor regulated cannabis. Earlier consultant estimates indicated over a million dollars annual charge of the GF.
2. Measure E, the local cannabis excise tax, projected to generate six to seven figures annually based on percentage assigned by council, not to exceed six percent. Initial staff projections are indicating a million dollars annual charge of the GF.
3. The Port Tax, another six to seven figure annual charge of the GF.
4. Resale of two million gallons per day of reclaimed water to refinery ops once the “purple pipe” system is operational. Even at half the baseline cost per unit of potable water, this represents a two million dollar annual charge of the GF.
In my opinion, this uninhibited late-night blast at two fellow PDB members will cause a lot of (D) voters to skip voting for her and increases the odds of the other candidates. It was not a smart tactical move to blast another candidate or the mayor. Clearly, if this woman is elected there will be divisiveness and cat fights on the dais. Birdseye need only stay on the high road and win. It’s as simple as that.
Birdseye is now backed by the Mayor and Vice Mayor both of their popularity is declining rapidly. Birdseye hooked her wagon to the wrong folks. The resale of the water will never happen. Vice Mayor WANTS Valero to pay full tab. That will never happen. The city will not get the estimate 1.5 mil from cannabis more likely about 1 mil.
sorry Stan, the law prohibits charging more for water than it costs to produce. If you send recycled water to Valero (or anyone else) you break even. Period. No extra revenue possible there. Go read Prop 218 if you don’t believe me (and the courts have already ruled on it). Furthermore, the water revenue stays in the water and wastewater enterprise funds, it cannot go to the GF.
Greg was not the issue to increase waste water to supply Valero and cut their use of untreated water. That would give the city an insurance policy of not having the issue of water shortage and also the ability to sell some of that Valero water to others in need. The big problem is that the cost of that plant has increased considerably and Valero would have to agree to pay for water at an increased rate. The main and possible only user would be Valero. Why would Valero pay an increased amount for the plant and then also pay considerable more for that treated waste water. They will not. The main benefit is to the city with a small benefit to Valero for available water at a very high price. No business in their right mind will go for it. I believe if the Vice Mayor had his way Valero would pay for it all. Not good. Please correct anything I said and give us your well advised understanding. I think the residents would appreciate it and so would I. Any correction to my comment would be greatly appreciated. Thank You.
That is basically correct. The benefit of providing recycled water to Valero would go to 1) more water for residential use in times of shortage, and 2) the ability to store more water or sell it to others in times of plenty. But revenue from the latter would remain first with the water enterprise fund (i.e., lower water rates).
The overall cost for recycled water to Valero would be greater than what they pay now, unless the City can sell enough of the supply Valero uses now to cover the increased cost, in which case it would be essentially the same. The big problem is that the wastewater has a huge amount of salt in it because of leaks in the sewer system that allow water from low lying areas (near the Strait) to seep in. Either those sewers need to be repaired/replaced or you need to put in desalination technology: either one is very expensive and that is currently the block.
In any event, this is the dilemma of recycled water: it is very expensive. It either needs expensive treatment or expensive pipes and pump plants and reservoirs, or both. It is very hard to find projects that pencil out as cost effective.
:
“So much for unity and loyalty in the PDB. ”
Nothing whatsoever wrong with disunity in a public board. That’s the only way you get to the heart of the matter (what ever the matter might be). All of benicia is not neo-luddites, nor are all benicians socialist communists or whatever the D are calling themselves this week. One of the things our national government gets right is the hurdles required to change anything (the originators were afraid (rightly) of mob rule).
{___________} once again professed an appreciation for the efficacy of cannabis in medicinal applications, but did not think access to our medicine was the right fit for Benicia. Consequently, a whole bunch of local patient/voters do not think {___________} is the right fit for our interests on council. I am surprised none of the hard-line three took safe harbor and expressed support for local medicinal access. Instead, they pledged to keep fighting to keep the city safe from cannabis.
When Vallejo was only medicinal, friends in the business told me they had a few hundred patients from Benicia. After “A” license activity was added, they tell me they have several hundred consumers from Benicia. You have to consider what percentage of the almost ten thousand voters in support of Prop. 64 here are also consumers in one form or another, or both. That is a whole bunch of voters, and sales tax leakage, not to mention consumers in Vallejo are paying an extra ten percent local tax helping to fatten the Vallejo GF. Vallejo retail stores expect to see a drop in sales volume once li’l old charming Benicia starts selling “that s–t”. Vallejo officials are mulling lowering their local tax. I believe they are waiting to see how our Measure E does, which I expect to win with a super-majority. Everybody wants the money.
Stan better get more info on Vallejo. Remember medical cannabis is exempt from sales tax with a prescription. Also ask them how the sales are going from medical to recreation. It does appear Stan recreational is the big move and will continue that way. Delivery in Benicia will be and may be available now for medical. If medical is your big push it will now be a distant second with recreational the most wanted of the two. By the way watch the sales in Vallejo. Within a few months their sales will drop from previous year because of completion and the excise tax of 10%. Our excise tax will not go into effect by about the 2nd quarter of 2019. I hope they put it at 3%.
Forgot to add that American Canyon just approved commercial ops except retail so they can lure tenants to their brand new Napa Logistics Park. This could have an impact on securing tenants for the vacancies in BIP. Given a choice, would an investor group find South Napa County or Benicia next to a refinery more appealing?
Good point, Stan.
Depends on what raw materials they need, how frequently and how they get there. Traffic in Napa is, to be generous, awful. Benicia OTOH, is outside the perimeter where much of the traffic is awful. Businesses that make money don’t care about next door neighbor businesses–unless one is youth oriented and a pot shop opens next door.