2026-09-14 - Committee on Ordinances

00:06Good evening everyone. Welcome to

00:08committee on ordinance. The five is the

00:10time is 5:37

00:13and today September 14th. Madame clerk,

00:16would you please call the role?

00:18>> Chairman Espino

00:20>> present.

00:20>> Vice Chairwoman Peterson

00:22>> present.

00:23>> Councilwoman Harris is absent.

00:26Councilman Vargas

00:31>> councel Roy

00:33>> present

00:34>> who are present when asking him you have

00:35a quorum.

00:36>> Thank you madam clerk. Okay the first

00:38thing that I'd like to do because I

00:40there's only two items on the agenda. So

00:42we should move rather quickly but there

00:44is one item that I will be taking out of

00:47order. So we'll hear that first. So I

00:50entered a motion to take item number two

00:52out of order

00:53>> made by council Peterson and second by

00:55council vargas. All in favor I oppos

00:58have it. Madam clerk um item number two

01:02please.

01:02>> Item two petition from Jeffrey Mark a

01:05owner of JC 131 realy LLC and president

01:09of EW and Sons Inc. requesting to change

01:13the official zoning map of the city of

01:16Providence by changing the zoning

01:18district from various properties from

01:20M-mu

01:22to M-1

01:24and to change the language in section

01:261202H of the zoning ordinance to add

01:30subse section 4 to read as follows. A

01:34storage container may be used for

01:36permanent storage. A storage container

01:38should not be stuck on site.

01:41Thank you, madam clerk. So, I know that

01:43we have a large number of people here to

01:45speak on this item, but unfortunately, u

01:49we're going to have to continue this

01:50item. Uh councelor Harris, who

01:53represents this ward, is not available

01:56and we continue last time uh as there

01:59was concerns that was pressed. So, we

02:01want to hear from both sides. But, uh

02:03for now, we will be continuing this to a

02:06day that is certain uh so that we don't

02:08have to readvertised. So, the next day

02:11will be October 13th at 5:30 p.m.

02:21So, with that said, I'll let I'll

02:24entertain a motion to continue item

02:26number two.

02:27>> So, move

02:28>> to a date certain of October 13 at 5:30

02:31by Council May Vargas, second by

02:33Councelor Peterson. All in favor? I

02:35oppose. The eyes have it. Thank you,

02:37Madame Clerk. Uh, item number one,

02:39please.

02:41>> Item one, petition from Dylan Coney

02:43Squire, Rhode Island Land Use Law of 123

02:46Dyer Street, sweet 3B, Providence, Rhode

02:49Island 02903,

02:51requesting an amendment to the official

02:53zoning ordinance of the city of

02:55Providence by adding a new subsection to

02:58the text of 20005 section F, billboards

03:03removal inventive.

03:06>> Thank you. But if you have not there are

03:10an opportunity for you to sign up if

03:12you're here to speak on this item item

03:14number one

03:16otherwise uh Mr. Asa please would you

03:18like to present on this? Thank you.

03:26>> Good afternoon.

03:26>> Good evening.

03:28>> Uh Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

03:30My name is Robert Azar. I'm the deputy

03:32director of the department of planning

03:34and development. I'm here to uh give an

03:37overview of this ordinance and to speak

03:39to the city plan commission's review of

03:43it and their recommendation to you. Uh

03:46this is a petition that came to us from

03:50Lamar, which is a company that owns and

03:53operates uh most of the billboards um

03:56that you see in the city of Providence,

03:58both uh facing uh highways and also uh

04:02throughout the neighborhoods. Um this

04:05may seem familiar to some of you because

04:07they came uh before the city council

04:10several years back with a with a similar

04:12proposal and that is uh they would like

04:15to turn some of these billboards into

04:19electronic message signs. Uh, in other

04:22words, they would go from being um a

04:25billboard with with a static message

04:28that's applied to a uh sign face and

04:32stays there for until it's changed out

04:34by human beings. uh to uh essentially

04:39very large television screens that um

04:43have the ability to chain change

04:45messages um as frequently as as would

04:50would be allowed by uh law or uh local

04:54ordinance. Um and the um the center

04:59piece of the uh proposal the actually

05:03there were there were two two aspects to

05:06the proposal. One is that for uh every

05:10one square foot of digital sign face um

05:15the ordinance would provide that two

05:19square feet of static sign faces be

05:22removed and discontinued.

05:25Um the other one was that uh they were

05:29offering to negotiate some sort of um uh

05:34impact fee with the city. Um this was

05:38reviewed by legal counsel and uh then by

05:42the city plan commission. First thing is

05:44that uh uh city's legal council from the

05:47law department determined that any

05:50payment by um by a private entity in

05:56exchange for zoning consideration would

05:58be considered contract zoning and and

06:01would not be legal in the state of Rhode

06:03Island. Uh the other uh thing is with

06:06respect to the two square foot exchange

06:09rate I'll call it. Uh we did some

06:12research throughout the country and we

06:14found that um this is actually a a a

06:18practice that you see in many places

06:20these this this taking down of static

06:22faces in exchange for um digital sign

06:26faces. Uh and we found that the exchange

06:30rate uh was as high as 13 to1 um in

06:34certain places in the country. So, um,

06:39our recommendation of the CPC and one

06:41that they adopted was, uh, an exchange

06:44rate of 10 to one. Uh, and as you can

06:48see in our, uh, in the city plan

06:51commission's recommendation to, uh, the

06:54council, the commission supported an

06:57ordinance, but one that would have to be

06:59entirely rewritten. uh and uh in our uh

07:05letter here you'll see that there are

07:07seven um points in addition to the the

07:12uh the provision that the proposal for

07:15payment to the city shall be struck but

07:18I'll summarize the seven points uh and

07:21if you are inclined to advance this

07:24ordinance I would suggest that uh this

07:27evening you um you substitute this

07:30language for what is uh currently before

07:33you. So the first one is that a a permit

07:36would be required. Um the the uh um that

07:41that would mean that they couldn't just

07:43do this uh u they would have to get a

07:46building permit and then and then um the

07:49department of inspection and standards

07:51would have to verify that all the the

07:53remaining conditions are met. Number two

07:56is that the electronic message sign

07:59shall comply with all applicable federal

08:01and state regulations and shall be

08:03approved by uh the Rhode Island

08:06Department of Transportation.

08:09Uh number three, the electronic message

08:11sign shall be located in either a

08:13commercial or an industrial district and

08:15shall not be located within 250 ft of a

08:18residential district as measured from

08:21the base of the sign. Uh number four,

08:24the sign face shall be oriented towards

08:26Interstate 95 and may only be

08:28incidentally noticeable from any

08:30residential district. Um

08:34the the original petition here had asked

08:36uh uh that these be approved when uh

08:40located uh adjacent to an interstate

08:42highway. Uh since I 195 through

08:47Providence was relocated after

08:49billboards were made illegal in

08:52Providence, there were no billboards

08:54facing uh the relocated I95. So that's

08:57why we specified that these can only be

09:00located facing I 95. And by the way, uh

09:04they wouldn't be on any other state

09:07roads like 146 or or 44 or one or or any

09:12of the other state roads that run

09:14through Providence. Uh number five, the

09:18area of the electronic message sign face

09:20shall not exceed the area of the

09:22existing sign face of the billboard. Uh

09:26and number six, the replacement shall be

09:29in exchange for the permanent removal

09:30and abandonment of non-elect electric

09:33non- electronic billboards as follows. A

09:36a combined square footage of non-

09:38electronic billboard sign face area

09:40removed shall be shall total at least 10

09:43times the square footage of the

09:45electronic message sign face proposed.

09:48B. The removal and abandonment must

09:50occur prior to the installation of the

09:53electronic message sign and must include

09:55structures and footings. C. For purposes

09:59of the this provision, backtoback signs

10:02and VType signs shall each be considered

10:05two sign faces.

10:07Seven, the replacement shall not change

10:10the billboard status as a non-conforming

10:13sign. Um,

10:15I will say, uh, if you had any questions

10:18about, uh, illumination and glare and

10:21such, um, the Rhode Island Department of

10:24Traportation does have regulations about

10:27billboards that face interstate

10:28highways, and within those regulations,

10:32uh, they speak to light levels and glare

10:35and such. Uh so um if this were to pass

10:39and be incorporated into the zoning

10:41ordinance, it would piggy back on state

10:44regulations.

10:46So uh that's the uh that's the extent of

10:50the CPC's

10:52uh uh report to you.

10:55>> And we have the report here.

10:57>> You have you have the staff report. Yes.

10:59And you'll see those seven points uh on

11:02page two.

11:05So that would also be found within the

11:07the substitution.

11:09>> That would be So this is this came to

11:12you as a as a petition. So uh this

11:15language, yes, you would if again if you

11:18were inclined to move forward, uh I

11:21would recommend that you substitute this

11:23language and then I'll work with the

11:25clerk to turn this into an actual

11:28ordinance that would then get forwarded

11:30to the city council.

11:32>> All right.

11:36Well, any question for committee member

11:38for Mr. Asa,

11:43>> councelor Peterson?

11:47>> Deputy director, I don't know that you

11:48can actually answer this question, but

11:50I'm going to give it a shot. um who

11:52controls the the way the signs are the

11:57change of advertising

11:59that would be on the sign if they're not

12:02these standalone since they're

12:03electronic. I'm assuming it's all done

12:06>> via computer some Yeah. the the owner of

12:10the sign would uh have the ability

12:15uh remotely

12:17>> Okay. you know, to to change the

12:20message. And uh if you've if you've seen

12:24these out on the highways, I presume

12:26most or all of you have um these

12:30messages have the ability to change um

12:34as you're moving past them. And and I

12:38believe the the state regulations say

12:40that they have to stay on one message

12:43for nine or 10 seconds.

12:46>> Okay? But you can imagine, you know, if

12:48you're in a slowdown, you might see

12:50several messages. Um, but but you know,

12:54this is clearly an advantage to the the

12:58uh to the billboard companies because

13:00they can uh much more easily change the

13:04message and they can put more messages

13:07in front of the the uh driving public.

13:10>> Can I ask the follow?

13:11>> Absolutely. Go ahead. So your the

13:14proposal is for a 10 to one exchange

13:16rate. So like 10 different Is that how

13:20it works? 10 to one.

13:21>> Yeah. So it's not 10 billboards to one

13:23billboard. It's it's based on square

13:25footage. Uh so for example, if um I I

13:30don't have the exact numbers, but let's

13:31say a billboard on the highway where

13:33they want to turn it into a digital face

13:36is uh 500 square feet. That would be

13:425,000 square feet of signs elsewhere

13:45that they would have to take down. Uh if

13:49uh a small billboard in a neighborhood

13:52is 200 square feet, that counts towards

13:56the 5,000

13:58>> um and and so forth.

14:01>> One more followup.

14:02>> Sure. Do we have a lot of the

14:06billboards, the standalone billboards

14:08that need to be rep like I guess I'm

14:09just trying to figure out how many

14:12versus how many we actually have right

14:14now versus what would be

14:16>> Yeah. Uh so so the my understanding is

14:22that

14:24I I don't have a a an actual number of

14:28billboards that are facing Route 95 in

14:32Providence.

14:33It might be a dozen, say, I'm sure Lamar

14:37will know very precisely how many there

14:39are. Um

14:43uh and then out in the neighborhoods,

14:47uh once you start looking for them,

14:50you'd be surprised at how many there

14:51are, right?

14:52>> They're on the sides of buildings.

14:53They're on vacant lots. Uh some of them

14:57are facing where I 195 used to be on top

15:02of buildings and so forth. So, you know,

15:05there's there's quite a number of them.

15:08And and you know, one thing about this

15:11program is that

15:14it's a it we have very few tools in

15:17zoning to actually make uh nonconforming

15:21things go away because the state law

15:24allows for uh nonconformities once

15:27they're established to to exist in

15:30perpetuity. Um, so this is an

15:33opportunity to kind of wind that back.

15:36Um, it's a way to reduce visual clutter.

15:40Uh, and also if somebody is, um,

15:45perfectly happy to collect the rent on a

15:47vacant lot as long as there's a

15:48billboard paying the paying the rent,

15:50maybe there's an opportunity to put that

15:53vacant lot to a more productive use,

15:56like housing for example.

15:58>> Thank you. Anybody

16:01else?

16:04Councelor Royas, please.

16:06>> Thank you, Chair. Um, question for you,

16:09Bob. Uh, is there does a city keep an

16:12inventory of in general uh where

16:17billboards are most concentrated in

16:19which neighborhoods? And did the CPC

16:24take account of any neighborhoods that

16:26would be disproportionately impacted

16:29uh by uh billboards and this potential

16:33new um change in law.

16:38Uh so

16:40um

16:42we did a little bit of um

16:48let's see

16:51we did we did a little bit of analysis

16:53uh mostly most of this information came

16:56from Lamar's website

16:59uh

17:00and our staff report to the CPC says

17:02that uh Lamar reports nearly 200 outdoor

17:06advert izing products in the city alone.

17:10Uh and that a majority of them are

17:13concentrated along highways. Uh and if

17:16you look at a map uh they a map from

17:19their website, you see them along uh

17:23Route 10 along 95

17:26um

17:28uh a little bit along the Route 610

17:31connector. Most of these tend to be

17:33clustered. Um

17:36I would I would say um you know there's

17:40a there's a relatively equal dispersion

17:44of them. maybe a slight more slightly

17:48more um you know in in Elmwood uh and

17:54then just a little bit sort of north of

17:57downtown where 146 and and 95 split. But

18:03um frankly they're everywhere.

18:12Oh, Councilman

18:15No, thank you. Uh, thank you, Mr. Azer.

18:19Uh, we'll be going back to you at some

18:21point for more question. Uh, city

18:23sergeant, please could you bring me the,

18:25uh, list

18:29and while we do that, we have certain

18:32uh, items that we need to put into the

18:35record. So, I'm going to take a motion

18:37to enter into the record the report from

18:39city planning commission.

18:42It's made by councelor Peterson, second

18:44by council bar. All in favor I oppose.

18:47The eyes have it. I'll also entertain a

18:49motion to enter the testimonies that

18:51have been received into the records.

18:54Made by councelor Peterson, second by

18:55council bag. All in favor I oppose. The

18:58eyes have it. I'll also enterain a

19:00motion to enter into the record uh

19:03letter of recommendation from CPC as

19:06well as the substitute for the petition

19:10made by councelor Peterson, second by

19:13council bag. All in favor I oppose the

19:16eyes have it. Thank you so much.

19:19All right. And um

19:23so we heard from the deputy director. Uh

19:27so although it's not the first person

19:31person that signed up, I want to hear

19:33from Mr. Dylan Connley who will be

19:35presenting the

19:37his [clears throat] side of this.

19:42>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um

19:43>> hello members of the committee. Uh it's

19:47good to be back. uh this has been

19:50ongoing for some time. I think the one

19:53of the core components of this and I

19:56want to make sure that it doesn't uh get

19:58lost within some of the finer forms of

20:00the debate is this does not allow for

20:03the construction of new billboards. It

20:05only allows for the conversion of an

20:06existing billboards to a digital face.

20:09Uh the specific billboard we have in

20:11mind is uh it is a billboard face. It

20:16faces the Providence Cranston line. It

20:19is the billboard that is in between

20:21Rhode Island Energies campus and the

20:24Good Fortune uh Asian supermarket. So,

20:27it sort of it faces south. So, if you're

20:29on 95 North, you see it on your lefthand

20:31side. Uh it's usually a Province College

20:34Friars billboard. Uh um Bob is correct.

20:38Uh the director is correct that it can

20:41change as frequently as every 10

20:42seconds. This is a state law. It's a

20:44federal law. Uh but when it changes,

20:47it's a static image to a static image.

20:49There's no um moving images. And um when

20:54asked about sort of where the billboards

20:56are in the city, there are none in the

20:58first three wards. The east side does

21:00not have a single billboard. So all the

21:03sign removals will come in other wards

21:06in other districts. Uh the one of the

21:09things I did want to focus on, we agree

21:11with every single one of the changes

21:13requested from the uh both the planning

21:15department and the CPC with one

21:17exception. Uh the two times billboard

21:20removal versus the 10 times billboard

21:22removal is a challenge for us. Uh the

21:26reason why is uh the other jurisdictions

21:30that have these sort of 10 times and

21:32three times excuse me 13 times billboard

21:35removals

21:37for example. So Providence proper has

21:39about 161 billboards in total.

21:43So the jurisdiction that covers those

21:45other ordinances

21:47uh say St. Petersburg and Tampa they

21:50have about 4,000 signs combined. Uh LA

21:54um another example that has a really

21:57high exchange rate, they have about

21:5915,000 billboards. So the Northeast is a

22:02little bit hard to compare with outside

22:04because the size of the municipalities

22:06get much bigger and the number of

22:07billboards grows pretty significantly.

22:10Uh we suggested two times the removal

22:13because that was the figure that

22:15advanced to the whole council several

22:17years ago. Uh we're requesting that this

22:20committee give the entire council a

22:22chance uh to vote and debate on that two

22:24times the square footage removal. Uh the

22:27size of the billboard to be converted is

22:30much larger than the smaller signs that

22:33are in the neighborhoods. Uh so there's

22:36two particularly small signs uh maybe as

22:39as much as a half dozen in the city. All

22:41of those would come down. Then the

22:43junior posters would start to come down.

22:45And so even at just twice the square

22:47footage, you'd probably see 12 to 20

22:50billboards being removed throughout the

22:52city. And again, that's no new

22:54billboards coming up. Uh the last time

22:57that we were uh having this presentation

23:00and this um sort of debate, uh there was

23:04questions about safety concerns. The

23:06Federal Highway Administration has found

23:08that there's no uh change in safety

23:10issues with a static billboard versus a

23:12digital billboard. However, it has found

23:15that there is a meaningful difference

23:16between a billboard existing and a

23:18billboard not existing. So, there's no

23:22net change in safety by changing to this

23:24digital billboard, but there's an

23:26improvement in safety because of all the

23:28billboard removals in each of those

23:30locations. So, our proposal is to have a

23:33net reduction in distractions

23:36uh and and a neutral uh distraction

23:39issue in the one location um by the Good

23:43fortune restaurant um excuse me, grocery

23:45store. Uh I I I think I would love to

23:48try to answer any specific questions.

23:51Um, one of the advantages of the

23:54billboards being able to change, it's

23:56not just an advantage for my client, but

23:59they do use the billboards for things

24:00like Amber Alerts, Silver Alerts, uh,

24:03and they do often have community

24:07uh, sort of flyers, if you will, where

24:10normally there's like eight images in

24:13rotation, but maybe there's a

24:15particularly important event going on in

24:17the municipality, we can add uh, a

24:19ninth, right? So there's would be a nine

24:23um image rotation for a certain time

24:25period and that could be for the benefit

24:27of the community as well. Uh I could

24:31talk about this for a very long time.

24:33This is literally like seven years about

24:36five years since um we've had like a

24:40meaningful round of debate in front of

24:42this particular committee. Uh, so I

24:44think maybe perhaps trying to answer

24:46questions may be more helpful than me

24:48leaning into the history. I know that

24:50some of you have been here before and I

24:52don't want to be repetitive.

24:54>> Any question from committee members?

24:57Councelor Peterson.

24:58>> Thank you. I actually kind of want to

25:00hear the feedback from previous and it

25:03didn't pass the previous term. So I was

25:04kind of hoping to understand why um what

25:07the what the issue was at hand. Um did

25:11it and also please forgive me I don't

25:13know did it go to the council the full

25:14council for

25:15>> full favorable recommendation from the

25:17ordinance committee went to the full

25:18council uh we never had the entire

25:21council present

25:23um this was during the 2020 era and over

25:27a series of zoom hearings uh and then we

25:30were able to finally be in person. Uh

25:32there was an open question uh when we

25:36moved for a vote about who would be

25:38performing the construction of the

25:41digital conversion.

25:43Uh that open question was very

25:46problematic that evening and the vote

25:48didn't go our way with a I think it was

25:50two or three council members were absent

25:53some of which were expected to be in

25:54support. Uh so uh we have since

25:57rectified that concern. It is a union

26:01and labor team that does the

26:02construction of these and the switch

26:04out. Uh it's a very technical um and

26:08skilled labor uh product. It's not like

26:11the traditional billboards which are uh

26:13somewhat more basic, but even that

26:14because of the height and the monopole,

26:16you do need a good amount of

26:17understanding on how to perform more

26:20complex construction. These billboards

26:22are usually shipped from Toronto. That's

26:26where the company is that tends to build

26:28build all of these even that is

26:31relatively complex. The delivery of the

26:33pieces and coordinating all of that and

26:34some of the steel construction uh

26:37ensuring that the um the pole is

26:40sufficient to manage the additional

26:42weight adding the additional structural

26:44support. So all of that was an open

26:46question uh when I was previously in

26:48front of the entire council.

26:53>> Anybody else?

26:56Hey, Mr. Connie. Thank you so much.

26:59>> Thank you.

27:00>> Insight. Thank you, Stephen Aquist.

27:13>> Good evening.

27:14>> Hi, everybody. Thank you. Um, I've been

27:17thinking about billboards a lot over the

27:19last five years since the last time

27:20something like this came before the

27:22council. And uh I want to start by

27:25saying that Lamar is not a great

27:27company. Under the Allora

27:29administration, they chopped down a

27:30bunch of trees in South Providence and

27:33they got for their actions a slap on a

27:35wrist, but they chopped down, I don't

27:38know, maybe a dozen trees that were

27:39blocking a sign of theirs, they said,

27:42and then they just tore those trees down

27:43without asking anyone. And then instead

27:45of giving them the full penalty, they

27:47got a much smaller penalty from the

27:48mayor at the time. I think you can call

27:51these billboards that the company is

27:52willing to give up. Neighborhood blight.

27:55If you see them in your neighborhood, if

27:56you have one, you'll see them. And

27:57they're gross. They're small. They're

27:59ugly. They're not well-maintained. The

28:01paint is chipping on them. These are

28:02just blight. And they sit there forever

28:06because, as he pointed out, they're

28:07grandfathered in under the legislation.

28:10We mentioned that men removing the

28:12smaller billboards would be a good for

28:14safety. As the council just said, a good

28:17company might remove them just because

28:19it would improve public safety. Um,

28:22instead of caring about the community

28:23and removing this blight, the company is

28:25actually using the threat of continued

28:28blight to extract concessions from this

28:31council. That is a billboard that they

28:33want. They want a flashy new light

28:35changing billboard. And they're saying,

28:37"Well, if you don't give that to us,

28:38we're going to have to leave these ugly

28:39signs all over your city forever." And

28:42as they point out, that'll be a safety

28:43issue. There's all sorts of concerns

28:45there. So, are they really being nice in

28:48making this offer or is it completely

28:50self-s serving? I will point out Lamar

28:52is not a company that's located in Rhode

28:53Island. Every penny spent on Lamar

28:55leaves Rhode Island. You might say,

28:57well, they do hire local people to

28:59maintain signs. That might be true, but

29:01under the new lighted billboards, those

29:04people who go out and change those signs

29:06will no longer exist, right? They'll

29:07just be a guy at home or some office

29:10somewhere clicking a button and brand

29:11new sign goes up. We they can probably

29:13do that from I forget where they are

29:15down south Georgia or something. Um I'd

29:18like to propose an alternative to this

29:20and this is the deny this vote it down

29:23in January. Go to the general assembly

29:25and ask them to pass an ordinance

29:27ordinance to allow the taxing of

29:29billboards per square foot. That way

29:33like you can actually generate some

29:34money for the city. That money could go

29:36towards beautifying the city, planting

29:38new trees for instance, in places where

29:40Lamar has shut them shut cut them down

29:41or beautifying the city in places where

29:43these billboards are blight. You could

29:45look at a blighted area and say, "Hey,

29:47how can we improve this?" And they're,

29:49let's say, $25 per square foot for every

29:51billboard in the city. And I just heard

29:52there's plenty of them would go a long

29:54way towards generating some money for a

29:56city that doesn't have a lot of money.

29:57And I think this is something that the

29:59general assembly could be persuaded to

30:01do because it doesn't really do anything

30:03but give everybody a little bit of extra

30:05income to get rid of blight in their

30:07neighborhood. It's not like this company

30:09Oh, I already said that part. Hold on.

30:12Um,

30:14what about probably one more thing? Hold

30:15on.

30:18Yeah, the less profitable billboards

30:19will be taken down right away because

30:21they won't be wanting to pay a large tax

30:23on these billboards and the more

30:25profitable billboards will stay for a

30:27while, but that doesn't mean that they

30:29can't be at after time you could

30:32increase the amount of money that you're

30:33taxing them on. And we could eliminate

30:35all these billboards without having to

30:37give them a new lighted sign, which may

30:40not be more dangerous than the signs

30:41that exist already, but they're not

30:43necessarily safe as he pointed out

30:45because uh the removal of those small

30:47signs can improve safety in the city. So

30:50that's my

30:52um take on this and I think it would be

30:54the better option to make sure that they

30:56actually are paying, not some nebulous

31:00promise of future goodwill. Thank you,

31:03Steve.

31:05>> Thank you so much.

31:06>> Uh, Linda Perry

31:38Good evening, Linda.

31:39>> Hi, my name is Linda Perry. I live on

31:42Alabama Avenue in Washington Park in

31:44Ward 10.

31:47And uh just to reiterate what Steve

31:50said, um Lamar cut down 110 trees on

31:56Aldrich Street at the behind the um

32:01self-s storage facility, which in the

32:04council's wisdom has banned self-s

32:08storage facilities because we need

32:11housing. And that was one of the

32:14arguments on number two which was

32:17cancelled.

32:19Um five years ago

32:23um a lawyer

32:26representing um scenic America

32:30fought for and had cancelled the idea of

32:36digital billboards on 95

32:40in in Providence. Providence, the

32:44creative capital.

32:46There's digital billboards in Warwick by

32:49the airport and

32:52on Route 10 where Lowe's is. Everybody

32:56knows that Rhode Islanders drive poorly.

33:01And that's saying it nicely.

33:04People zoom in and out and there's never

33:06a cop around. drive in the uh

33:11breakdown lanes and it's dangerous on

33:14the highway for those who have to

33:17commute.

33:19Um

33:21digital billboards are not only

33:24unsightly, but they're dangerous. And

33:28somebody yelled out from the council,

33:30"What about the big blue bug?" Well, the

33:33big blue bug is art. And it's like the

33:36sitco sign in Boston. It is not

33:41a dangerous moving image like digital

33:45billboards are. So I say no digital

33:49billboards

33:51for

33:53safety reasons, unsightly reasons. let

33:57them be in Warwick and in Pucket or

34:01Central Falls if they want them, but

34:03leave the corridor alone. There's so

34:06many accidents on 95 at Thurber's Avenue

34:10because of the

34:12embankment and everybody knows there's

34:15tons of traffic

34:18and accidents there.

34:21So for us that live near the highways

34:24and other people don't. I understand

34:27they live in their little neighborhoods

34:29away from the highways. For us who live

34:32in the highways we're going to be

34:33impacted by this without a doubt. And

34:38the 10:1 ratio in my opinion is not

34:42enough

34:43because

34:46well it's just not enough.

34:49Um,

34:52we who live near the highways

34:55like the self- storage facility right

34:58across the highway is residential

35:02and there's already a billboard there.

35:04If they electrify that, they will see

35:07it. You know, they will see it. They'll

35:10have to shut their blinds and, you know,

35:13they'll just see it. I think that the

35:17creative capital should stay without

35:20digital billboards and I don't and I

35:23think to Steve's point taxing them is a

35:27great idea. Thank you.

35:29>> Thank you, Linda.

35:31Did I have Zack B today?

35:36Zack.

35:39>> Oh, he left

35:42Aubrey Planith.

35:54Hello. Good evening.

35:55>> Good evening.

35:56>> Um, so you guys already probably got my

35:58lengthy email. I am a resident of W 10.

36:01I live on Vermont A. And I want to first

36:04and foremost start that in South

36:06Providence, we already are burdened with

36:08a lot of stuff that goes on between the

36:10port and these billboards are already

36:12unsightly. But having bright light

36:15billboards when we already deal with

36:17this enormous amount of light pollution

36:19is not going to be beneficial for if

36:21we're trying to reszone the other side

36:24of 95 for residential or mixed use when

36:27it comes to our comprehensive plan from

36:29the city. Also, I would love to see a

36:32complete inventory of the 200 plus

36:34billboards, which um a quick Google told

36:37me was roughly 97 billboards,

36:4030 posters, and a couple other items.

36:43And which ones exactly would be removed

36:45for the 10 to1 ratio, which I think is

36:47more than fair. But if we are going to

36:50remove these smaller billboards and

36:51allow a monopoly for Lamar in our city

36:53for advertising, we are not thinking

36:55about the small businesses predominantly

36:58here in South Providence that use those

37:00billboards and those posters to

37:01advertise their business. The Lamar CEO

37:04himself, Mr. Shan Riley in 2024 said

37:08that digital billboards get $15,000 per

37:12month compared to the static 3,000.

37:15The odds of somebody or a company that

37:17is smaller to be able to afford

37:19advertising on an LED billboard is not

37:21going to be likely when it comes to

37:23South Providence businesses.

37:25Also, light pollution. I lived next to

37:27an LED lightboard in um Boston. You see

37:30it all the time. It doesn't matter where

37:32it faces. There's also environmental

37:35issues we should talk about about

37:37traffic, nighttime vision, how it

37:39affects the animals. Also, if we're

37:41going to removing these other billboards

37:42that I heard said would be good for

37:44housing, I would like to know what the

37:47zoning is for all these billboard lots

37:49and where they fall in post removal.

37:54And one other thing is alternatives.

37:58There are alternatives for this and we

38:00should really consider if having digital

38:01billboards is necessary here. As

38:04mentioned, we already have them south of

38:06Providence on 95 and north. Um, and I

38:10don't think we need any more.

38:13>> Thank you so much.

38:14>> You're welcome.

38:16>> Mr. Ron Carlson.

38:24>> Good evening.

38:25>> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of

38:27the committee. Um, I'll be brief. I

38:29think you know when you look at the

38:31realistic um nature of the billboards

38:35with um the electronic visibility is an

38:39issue. Um I can see from my house the

38:43highway which is not close by but you

38:46know with a billboard that is lit up

38:48it's going to be there. It's going to be

38:50visual. So, um I know we talked about

38:54Florida or it was said about Florida,

38:56but when you look at the highway

38:58structure in Florida, it's very

39:00different from our highway right now

39:03that cuts through the middle of our city

39:05and cuts through our residences. Um

39:08whether you live underneath the signs,

39:11whether you live behind the signs, whe

39:13whether you live across the highway from

39:15the signs, it's going to impact.

39:18In addition to that, there was

39:19terminology that was used about um you

39:21know, reasonable glare, brightness

39:23levels. Um it's still going to be

39:26visible. You know, it's still going to

39:27be a difference than what you have right

39:30now with the uh static signs that are

39:32lit up. And also, we're going to be

39:36reducing visible clutter with visible

39:40light pollution. So where we make up

39:43with something that's not necessarily

39:45noticeable most of the times although

39:47when we want to utilize that property or

39:49whether you know you take a moment to to

39:52recognize a sign that's out there you

39:55know something that's lit up it's it's

39:57going to be pretty noticeable. The in

39:59addition to that the question which was

40:01a great question which was where are

40:04these signs located in what

40:06neighborhoods? uh and has there been any

40:08type of study that was done? When you

40:11notice the uh areas that was mentioned

40:14where these signs mostly are, it's in

40:17disproportionately impacted

40:19neighborhoods throughout our city. Um I

40:22know it was mentioned that um it would

40:25not have an impact on Ward One on the

40:27east side. um you know, we're we're

40:31still talking even from the east side,

40:33if you look at the new construction that

40:35looks across the bridge, some of those

40:37signs are going to be visible. So, in

40:40addition to that, I do really appreciate

40:43Steve Alquist's uh idea about talking to

40:46the state about being able to enable

40:49taxation of signage. Um, and that in and

40:53of itself will be a motivator at some

40:55point in time. If you have signage

40:57that's just sitting there that you're

40:58paying taxes on, you're going to, you

41:00know, get rid of it at some point in

41:02time. So, um, I appreciate your time.

41:04Thank you.

41:05>> Thank you, Richest Thing.

41:18>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh my name is

41:20Richard.

41:21>> Uh my name is Richard Stang. I'm with

41:24Conservation Law Foundation here in

41:26Providence. And I would also just re

41:30reiterate what everyone else has said.

41:32There's a lot of good reasons with

41:36respect to billboards in particular, not

41:39to mention electronic billboards. I'd

41:42like to focus, however, on more of a

41:45holistic macro view. In November 2024,

41:49the city completed a very largecale

41:53disciplined

41:55comprehensive

41:56plan process. There was thousands of

41:58people that participated in that and the

42:01idea was to come up with a new vision

42:03for Providence going forward.

42:06The electronic billboards are not part

42:10of that vision. They're not part of the

42:12creative capital. They do not push going

42:15and having more living livable streets,

42:18walkable neighborhoods, etc. It it just

42:21is not working. Um I would strongly

42:25consider if you have the chance to limit

42:28the growth of the billboards and not

42:30adopt anything new going on, you should

42:34really as the people in the city that

42:37have the power to do so seriously

42:39consider it. it really is more in line

42:42where people have voted. They want to

42:45see their neighborhoods, towns, and

42:48society going forward. So, thank you for

42:51your time. I appreciate it. Thank you.

42:53Thank you so much. And that ends the uh

42:57list of people that signed up to speak

43:00on this item.

43:06All right. So we heard from the

43:08presenter from the proponents and we

43:11also heard the in-depth analysis uh

43:15presented by Mr. Asa who represent the

43:17city planning commission and we also

43:19heard from the uh residents and anyone

43:22that showed up to speak on this um as

43:25well as uh testimonies written testimony

43:29that have been sent to us and we have

43:31put into the records and this has been

43:34uh over five years that we've been uh

43:37discussing this. has been back and forth

43:40and u so I I think at this point you

43:43know we're nearing the end of the year I

43:45think that it's time for the entire body

43:48to vote on this uh it should not be

43:50decided by this committee uh it should

43:53be by the entire council so I feel that

43:55it's time for us to send it to the full

43:57council and you know so I am going to

44:00entertain a motion to send to the full

44:03counsel without recommendations one way

44:06or the other without recommendations

44:08send it to the council so that the

44:10entire body can vote on this. All right.

44:12So, may I have a motion to send to the

44:15council without recommendation?

44:23It's what this would do is send it to

44:25the entire body.

44:29All right.

44:31So, move.

44:33>> So, the motion is made by Councilman

44:35Vargas. Do I have a second?

44:40hearing once,

44:44twice.

44:47>> So the

44:48>> point of personal expression.

44:50>> Yes, counselor. Go ahead.

44:52>> Um

44:57I I'm listening. I've listened to the

45:00testimony and I hear everything that

45:01we're we're doing and I understand um

45:05the potential of the request to go

45:08forward without recommendation. However,

45:11I do understand that

45:15the community has asked for

45:19uh an opportunity to really understand

45:22what communities are are being affected

45:24or will be affected by this. And I think

45:26that at the very least we should have

45:30that opportunity to see

45:33what wards um would have these uh

45:40whats would end up having some of these

45:42billboards a removed and b also the

45:45effects of what you know the electronic

45:48billboard mean you know if we're only

45:50doing one versus two or how it continues

45:52to grow. We I don't think I fully

45:54understand that in an effort to make a

45:57decision and vote on it quite yet. And

46:00so I don't feel comfortable pushing it

46:02forward as is without actually having

46:05some more understanding from um to to

46:09the effects of the nine I'm sorry 12

46:12wards that would be um involved in this

46:15seeing as though there's three wards

46:17that don't actually have any have any of

46:20them there. So, I just I'm hesitant to

46:23make that um to make that official move

46:26without really fully understanding where

46:28it would be affected and how and

46:32what could you know what the effects

46:34would be.

46:36>> Council Reyes.

46:37>> Thank you, Chair. And I I h share the

46:41same opinion uh of councelor Pearson and

46:45I

46:47you know while I I appreciate the spirit

46:50of allowing our colleagues to vote on

46:52this, I think there are certain moments

46:54where

46:56committees serve as the the safeguard

47:00and uh the body in which things are

47:04vetted. And I'm afraid that that very

47:08important point that councelor Pearson

47:11mentioned, which is

47:13we need

47:15um real data on which neighborhoods are

47:19currently disproportionately impacted by

47:21billboards.

47:23And I'm afraid that if we move forward

47:25with this to the in and kick it to the

47:28entire body, I'm not confident that each

47:31member would have that information

47:34uh to make an informed vote. And I would

47:36I just feel more comfortable

47:39that this committee have that

47:41information first before we allow the

47:45our entire body to vote on this. Um so

47:49um that being said I I too don't feel

47:52comfortable moving this forward to the

47:54entire uh body.

48:26All right. So, hearing the concerns of

48:28my two colleagues, I um I will withdraw

48:31the motion to send to the full body um

48:36without recommendation. Instead, what

48:39we're going to do, we're going to

48:40entertain a motion to continue to the

48:42date that is certain that we already

48:44described.

48:47>> I'll second that motion

48:48>> and and the motion is made by councelor

48:50Peterson.

48:51>> Second

48:51>> and a second by councilman Royes and

48:54this this will be continued to

48:59october October 13 at 5:30.

49:03Uh all those in favor I

49:06>> oppose. The eyes have it. So we'll see

49:09you on the 13th. U by then I think and I

49:12expect that any concerns that the

49:14council have expressed will be

49:16addressed.

49:18>> Thank you.

49:18>> Okay. Being that there's no further

49:20business in the calendar, I'll entertain

49:22a motion to adjurnn. So move

49:24>> made by council Vargas, second by

49:25councilwoman Peterson. All in favor? I

49:28post. The eyes have it. This meeting is

49:30>> adjourned.