Since the beginning of cityhood in 1987, the City of Santa Clarita has been spending significant time and money with the goal of beautifying our City.  The City’s very successful Graffiti Removal program, many new landscaped medians and side panels, the Urban Forestry (tree) program, city-wide recycling, thousands of acres of open space acquisitions, some undergrounding of utilities, regular community clean-up days and a myriad of beautification projects have gone a long way towards making Santa Clarita a beautiful city.

Billboards are also a high priority for eradication. The City has long-been interested in billboard removal, particularly along the railroad right-of-way, which would go a long way towards improving the look of our neighborhoods. Over the years, the City has explored purchasing billboards for the purpose of taking them down.  This has proved to be fiscally unattainable.  Recently, Metro (the California state-chartered regional transportation planning agency and public transportation operating agency for the County of Los Angeles) approached the City with a proposal to achieve our goal of continuing beautification by removing every billboard in the Metro (railroad) right-of-way, within the Soledad Canyon Road and Railroad Avenue corridors.

Existing Billboards Proposed BillboardsWhat they are proposing is the permanent removal of 118 billboards on 62 structures along the Metro right-of-way, in the center of the City, in exchange for permission to construct three, double-sided (6 faces) digital billboards along the freeways (two on SR 14 and one on I-5), on city-owned property on the outside areas of the City.  The three new billboards would be located as follows: SR 14 off Oak Springs Canyon; SR 14 on Remsen; I-5 on the east side of Magic Mountain Parkway by the current monument sign.

This proposal would eliminate billboards along the railroad corridor, thus improving the look of these areas.  The proposal calls for Metro to be responsible for negotiating removal of the billboards.  Metro would also indemnify the City against potential lawsuits that could arise from the removal of these billboards.

To be clear, the three digital billboards along the freeways would be two-sided with dimensions of 14 feet tall and 48 feet wide.  Pole height for each of the three signs would vary between 54 feet and 64 feet tall.  The total amount of square feet for the existing 118 billboards is 25,830.  The combined size of the three proposed digital billboards is 4,032 square feet. In comparison to the 118 current billboards, this would be a reduction of 21,798 square feet of ad space in the City. The elimination of 62 freestanding billboard structures in exchange for constructing three electronic billboards equals a removal ratio of 20-1.

It should also be noted that billboards not in the railroad right-of-way in the City are not part of the current proposal and would remain for the time being.  Additionally, if this proposal is consummated, the City would realize a percentage of future revenue from advertising on the digital billboards, which the City could use for additional beautification efforts, such as to purchase other billboards for removal.  The City would also have access to use of the 3 proposed digital  billboards for emergency and event messaging.

The proposal will go through an environmental process through the State (California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA).  It would also come before the Planning Commission and the City Council for public hearings in early 2014, offering the community ample opportunities to weigh in on this proposal.

We are interested in learning your thoughts and ideas about removing 118 billboards on 62 structures in the center of the City, in exchange for constructing three double-sided digital billboards along the freeways.  Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.


  1. Sounds better, however the digital signs are about 100 times more obtrusive as well as distracting. I would think the viewership would grow signifigantly on the freeways compared to the existing billboards which means a lot of money will be changing hands. Can the digital boards be approved by all regulatory parties? Can you negotiate three boards to two boards? Are the proposed boards solar powered? Can the size be negotiated? Who approves the advertising…such as will business be lost in the SCV as a result? For example, pretty sure the Valencia Auto Mall does not want to see advertising for the “fill in the blank auto mall”. I am all for whatever makes sense just don’t settle for less than you can reasonably obtain.

  2. Yes, please remove them. Remove as many as possible all over the city. Also the digital billboards should not be so bright to disrupt the lives of any nearby residents.

    • It is obvious our job does not depend on advertising or you wold not say this. You don’t own a busniess sucn as a muffler shop, or other service. Busniess depends on advertising. Signs work the best. No ads, no busniess. That is how it works.

    • Updated: The more I consider this, the less I am convinced this is a good idea. I am concerned about the effect on local businesses, and I am concerned about the safety hazard that large digital boards pose to drivers and the light pollution to neighboring residents. How can these concerns be addressed?

  3. Metro and The City of Santa Clarita are government agencies, where as the billboard owners are private companies that profit from them. I would like to know what public service this would allow? The Government can not take over private companies without due process. There is nothing in this site or the article that shows how the private companies will continue to generate a revenue stream.

    Now Do I prefer digital over the old fashion ones… Yes, but that is not the point here. This is another money grab by the government and providing commercial services for profit.

  4. A better proposal would be that the city lease the companies who operate these billboards so they are allowed to continue their businesses utilizing the electronic billboards and they make the decision as who can or can not advertise. The lease agreement can contain language that supports a common decency value system, limit competing area businesses. The government should stay out of for profit businesses. We already see how well they do in managing their own tax funds. I never see taxes go down due to efficiency or advances in technology. Stop attempting to take over businesses.

  5. I have lived in this valley for going on 40 years. I have to drive down Soledad Canyon every day to work, and those ads drive me crazy. The drive is bad enough with 27 traffic lights in a ten mile strech for me. Please take the ads down. It will make my drive a little more pleasant.


    • I have lived here over 40 years. The billboards were here when I moved in and just part of the city. Don’t mind them at all. They should be maintained, but other than that, I don’;t mind them. They are needed.

  6. I’m glad this is even an option to consider, the billboards aren’t in keeping with the constant improvements being made in the city. However, wouldn’t large billboards with so much information being streamed cause traffic to slow significantly on the freeways? Just a thought. And they may create an eyesore where we presently don’t have one.

    I’d love to see the boards on Main St. in Newhall disappear. They obstruct that beautiful site line from the top of Main down to the library.

  7. Taking down the majority of billboards would be a great boost toward beautifying the areas along the railroad. I like the idea of using the new digital display revenue to be allocated toward buying remaining billboards in order to remove those, too. So long as local business isn’t hurt by the new digital billboards and whatever advertisers are displayed

  8. I have concerns about the impact of digital billboards along the 5 and 14 freeways. Whenever CalTrans posts any message along the 5 freeway, traffic slows down and backs up for hours. Too many incompetent drivers already result in parking lot conditions and frequent accidents. Adding yet another distraction does not seem like a wise plan.

  9. Metro voted to charge us to use toll carpool lanes in santa clarita. we already paid taxes for these carpool lanes, that have been built without charge in other communities.
    The billboards along the freeway are a blight. take a look at the 405 freewaty in long beach.
    do we really need giant electronic billboards advertising
    2012 BMW……29999

    • I agree. As much I’d like to see the old billboards taken down within the city, I am very opposed to new digital signs along the 5 & 14. Even the monochrome one that’s there now (installed a few years ago), is a cheap eyesore. When I think of how more of those might look, I shudder. Please, no!

      • I aggree the monochrome digital board at Golden Valley Shopping center should be removed onlyi because it has not worked in over 6 months. Nobody maintains it. It is an eyesore and has no value with a blank screen either all lights on or off as it has been.

  10. I think the Digital Bill Boards would a VERY BAD IDEA. They would look much worse than what we already have. I think the digital bill boards would cheapen the look of the city to anyone passing by or living here!

  11. Whatever can be done to get rid of the billboard blight along Soledad Canyon Road is OK in my book! Freeway traffic travels so fast, the digital billboard will hardly be noticed anyway. Less is always better when it comes to billboards!

  12. Electronic billboards are a bad idea. They’re tacky and distracting. I much prefer the 100+ billboards that I can ignore than three that will slow traffic, cause accidents, and be annoying.

  13. Removing as many billboards as possible from within our city is a great idea! However, I don’t much like the idea of electronic billboards going up along the freeways either. I find that all billboards are distracting and unappealing to the eye. There are enough distractions to worry about while driving, especially when on the freeways. Is the possible revenue from the billboards worth the cons of having them? Is the revenue to the city guaranteed? Would the city have control over which businesses are allowed to advertise on the electronic billboards? Who pays the cost of building the electronic billboards? Who pays the cost of maintaining the billboards?

  14. Sounds like we’d be switching out one tacky disaster for another, unfortunately. Is ridding ourselves of 118 moderately tacky billboards worth having 3 obnoxious billboards welcoming every SCV resident/passerby? I’m thinking no, but could probably be convinced…

    The billboards – we’re talking huge Vegas style billboards, right? I read the dimensions and, while I’m not familiar with the size of the I15 billboards, I’m thinking that’s about what we’re considering. That would be pretty awful. The Newhall Pass, despite it’s flaws, is a beautiful welcome to our region. I hate the idea of some tacky Vegas style sign in the pass. The other two locations seem less visually offensive, IMO, and I’d consider them worth the trade off (removed billboards along RR easement). I think the Newhall Pass billboard is a deal breaker for me.

    • as far as the 14 x 48 billboards on the fwys… these are the biggest they make…. definitely thinking Vegas is the right track….

  15. Not enough information to make a decision (unless its a selfish one). The City needs to provide a lot more detail, costs, taxes, risk, etc before putting this out to the public like this. Of course most people are going to say get rid of them.

    While removing old out of date billboards would be nice, it does raise some concerns for local advertisers. The digital billboards will not have any value for local businesses, non profits, etc that use these billboards today – even the City does!

    Furthermore, do we really want to distract drivers at higher speeds on our freeways?

  16. All the billboards should be removed, they are visually offensive. Why should our tax dollars be spent to remove them? Make an ordinance/ law that mandates their removal by a certain date. Our HOA’s don’t allow us to post signs, the signs in Valencia are mandated, why should this be handled any differently? Santa Clarita doesn’t allow blight, period. Easy, done.

  17. I think Mr Boyer was on the original city council of Santa Clarita way back in the 1980s. They imposed city ordinances regarding billboards. The new electronic billboards do not meet city ordinance and are ILLEGAL. They also realized that they cannot take away private property of the billboard owners.

    It is not permissible in any society for government to perform ILLEGAL operations for the public good. Government cannot just decide to take private property. If that were so then the following would be ok!
    1. Steal a hundred dollars each from a thousand people to purchase art work that would be visible by a million people. The million people would enjoy it!
    2. Construct a massive indian style casino on the land presently used by the swap meet. That project could be paid by taxpayer money. Money made would pay the current owners of the property. That project would provide a ballroom that is needed by the elderly grandmothers on the city council. This would also generate 10-20 Million dollars in revenue for the city!

    • I completely agree. They want to remove billboards that are mainly in commercial area to install a gigantic electronic billboard right by several residential complexes. I am totally against the proposed location off the 14 freeway. Move it further up the 14 where it wouldn’t be such an eyesore for thousands of residents.

  18. I could support a trade off to remove billboards within the city limits if we could secure the following conditions: Only approving two electronic billboards, which must meet our aesthetic standards and be well maintained by billboard operator, one on Highway 14 and one on Interstate 5. Placement of any electronic billboards is such that it/they do not intrude into residential neighborhoods. The city retains complete and absolute authority to reject ANY content. We enact a permanent ban on any future billboards within the city if not already banned. All income due the city generated by electronic billboard(s) is placed in a dedicated fund not available for any other uses except for the removal of other billboards throughout the city until they have all been removed. After all the billboards are removed, place the issue on the voting ballot so that the taxpayers decide how the income generated is spent going forward.

    • Berta, thank you for your comment. I understand you are running for city council. Your opinion conflicts with a majority of the people in Santa Clarita who oppose ANY billboards, especially LARGE ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS ON THE FREEWAY. Your opinion of breaking city ordinances to make money for the city, unfortunately violates ethics and morality isssues. I CANNOT RECOMMEND YOU FOR A CITY COUNCIL POSITION. AND WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU.

  19. Berta González-Harper you have a right to state your opinion on the matter of electronic billboards. You are also running for a position on the city council. You advocate the placement of ILLEGAL electronic billboards since they bring income to the city. There are serious morality and ethics issues with this position. The citizens of Santa Clarita do not want electronic billboards that violate city ordinances. THEY ARE ILLEGAL! One problem the citiziens have with the city council is THEY DO NOT LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS. By not reading the comments here, you apparently favor this attitude.
    I cannot recommend, nor will I vote for you for the city council. You are no different than our current bought off city council who will only do what those who contribute to their campaigns want.

    • Concerned citizen, I was asked to give MY OPINION, not set city policy. You apparently have a difficult time distinguishing between the two. As a council member I would still have the ability to express my personal opinion but decisions are made by the entire council not one individual and only after legal counsel’s opinion, correspondence in opposition and support, receiving public testimony, staff report, etc have all be discussed, deliberated, and voted on. Losing your vote will not cause me to refrain from expressing my views. Thank you.

      • Anytime a government is planning on taking away private sector businesses and jobs for their own gain I am against it and anyone supporting government intervention. The MTA is attempting to get out of legal leases on the right of ways by paying the city to support their cause. The government is supposed to be for the people, not against them

  20. As these projects always go over budget $600,000+ for massive glowing screens to distract the already distracted drivers. What a complete and utter joke. Is there really truly nothing better to spend 600k on? And how much larger would you really want this city to grow via these privately operated and controlled marketing screens. The city is exploding and traffic, drug problems, homelessness and public saftey is begining to evolve. worst of all the erosion of our precious and beautiful nature is eroding away and all the wildlife that comes with it.

  21. $600,000 for massive privately owned and operated commercial screens to distract the already distracted drivers. Adds likely to include housing. Santa Clarita is expanding in population as it is ushering in more traffic and crime. Worst part is our precious nature and animal life alike are vanishing and will only increase in speed. Is there truly nothing more important to spend 600k on?

  22. Thank you all for your comments thus far. We have updated the Frequently Asked Questions section of this website to expand and clarify some of your questions. Please let us know if there are additional questions you have, we are happy to answer them.

  23. this a great idea, those billboards on Soledad and railroad look tacky and cheap. The city’s sign ordinance has worked great and I see citys all over the west coast reducing old signage with fewer digital signs. The new signs look clean and promote economic development. the revenue the city and metro receive for 50 years will continue to make Santa Clarita a great place to live and work. Another innovative idea from Santa Clarita!

    Q) will Metro spend the money they receive in Santa Clarita from this project on transportation for Santa Clarita, like more Metrolink train service??

  24. I do not want the billboards removed in exchange for digital billboards. It would be nice just to have the existing ones removed as they are tacky and ugly. Digital billboards are a complete eyesore and bring down the character and class of a neighborhood. Plus they are a distraction to drivers. I do not want bright, large digital billboards at all.

    • We all do not like the electronic billboards. According to City Laws, they are illegal. But the city does whatever it wants. The people have no say in anything they do.

  25. There are a couple of different companies supporting billboards on Railroad and Soleded. Metro is a large media company that sells national (too expensive for most local businesses) advertising space. The smaller billboards are privately and locally owned by Edwards Billboards and are more affordable for local advertisers and non-profits. Is the city suggesting the removal of the Edwards billboards too? The city should not get involved in private enterprise. More information is needed before the public can make a decision…..

  26. There are a couple of different companies supporting billboards on Railroad and Soleded. Metro is a large media company that sells national (too expensive for most local businesses) advertising space. The smaller billboards are privately and locally owned by Edwards Billboards and are more affordable for local advertisers and non-profits. Is the city suggesting the removal of the Edwards billboards too? The city should not get involved in private enterprise. More information is needed before the public can make a decision…..

  27. Billboards was and is an art. Once was done by hand, Pacific Outdoor comes to mind as one at the top.
    Sign Painting was and is an art. I personally painted the town for Newhall and land company via Rembrandt Sign Co. In the 70′s.
    I personally do not care of the word environmental; it is a word to me that means mechanical.
    nothing artist.

  28. Yes, yes, and yes! Billboards are huge monstrous eyesores, especially within the city limits. Removing them would be a breath of fresh air.

  29. I leave near SR14 and Oak Spring and our bedroom window faces the freeway. I am extremely concerned about the brightness of the billboards and if they can be been seen from the homes and apartments in the area. Of the three places selected, this is the most populated with many homes nearby.

    • This is also my worry, those signs would be so bright that you will have to get black out drapes in hopes to get your zzzs. Why would they decide to place a sign such as this, so close to so many residents?

    • Looking at the map, the sign would be placed on the south side of the freeway facing East bound traffic. Should not effect anyone. Probably why that location was selected. In other words, that sign would not advertise for Santa Clarita business due to the fact drivers are leaving town at that point.

  30. I strongly hope that Santa Clarita does not allow electronic billboards in our city. They are a huge eye sore and a big distraction to drivers. There are reasons why other cities have completely banned them, please don’t make the mistake to allow these.

  31. I do not want to see these here for several reasons.
    1. Many of our homes will have to see these light up the sky and ruin our views from our windows and backyards.
    2. I have seen these signs along the freeway down south and they are awful.
    I do not want to see ads for things that LA considers OK but we here in SCV do not. Bars, Nightclubs, Casinos etc.
    3. They can be hacked and who knows what will end up on them.
    4. Smaller local business use billboards to advertise and should be able to continue.
    5. I think less people are wanting to advertise on billboards so soon there will be less billboards anyway which is why the Metro is trying to work out a deal now.

    Isn’t this against the city rules anyway? The city should reject this or open it up for voting for SCV

    • The digital boards are placed away from where people live so no views would be ruined. I have never heard of one being hacked. The city seems to do what it wants. They use digital signs to promote their own events. and hang banners on bridges.
      The city does not follow their own code. They know advertising is very important to attract people to their events.

  32. These digital billboards are a total freaking eyesore. They cause light pollution, look like a tacky Vegas strip spectacle and are outlawed in many large cities…EVEN money grubbing Los Angeles…for good reason.

    • Digital boards were banned in Los Angeles because they were installed on busy city streets where they did in fact shine in to the windows of local residents. No other reason than that.

  33. You know we can still purchase billboards in SCV and get rid of them without this deal. Just not the ones owned by Metro. Over a period of time we can really impact the situation.

  34. The City of Santa Clarita advertises itself as business friendly. Removing billboards used by the small businesses in SC and closing a 41+ year old business is not business friendly. I don’t see how exchanging the small billboards around the city for digital billboards along the freeway promotes the small businesses in SC. Besides, I am not sure any small business can afford the cost of digital advertising. It is reported that the city will benefit financially through this exchange. This seems a lot like the Landscape Median Beautification project. The city eventually passes those costs from the general fund back to the taxpayer.

  35. I do think billboards cheapen the appearance of a city. They do nothing for the general public and only benefit the sponsor and the owner of the property they are on.

    • These signs let the general public know where a business is, when the circus is coming to town, sales a business might have to save you money. Yes, they can and do help the general public. They also help a business stay in business. A busniess that employs the general public.

  36. What is going to be done to the owners of the billboards in lost revenue for the rest of there life
    the small guys like edward signs

  37. No electronic billboards. You are devaluing homes nearby and they are so bright, their light will shine all night long into neighbors’ windows. These are extremely distracting and we do not need to add distraction to what we already have now with driving while texting, etc. If you want to do something helpful, figure out why we are having so many accidents north of SClarita at the Escondido curve. We need improved safety for our residents, not flashy advertising. Seriously, who is running this city and making these decisions? Why does it have to be one or the other? Remove some of the advertising AND do not install flashy signage.

  38. No on both! These are separate issues. One, should we have electronic billboards on the freeways? My opinion is no. Electronic billboards cheapen the suburban atmosphere and definitely distract drivers; see how much traffic slows when the current freeway signs change (“Click it or ticket”).

    Though I would like the local billboards removed, I am not as strongly opposed. I see more harm than benefit in the signs along Soledad and other roads; however, I recognize some of those signs are locally owned (Edwards advertising is local) and wouldn’t want to harm a local business.

    City of Santa Clarita, please listen to your constituents–we don’t want the highway signs–no matter what!

    • The suburban atmosphere we once enjoyed is going away. The city council saw to that when they put the One Valley One Vision General Plan into effect that will double the population with high density housing. We will soon look just like the San Fernando Valley. No More Suburban Atmosphere here.

  39. I can’t believe that someone from the City of Santa Clarita is wanting to put in big electronic billboards. The billboards will bring a negative first impression of our city. There are light polution laws that were put in place to eliminate large source of nightime light.. I am also troubled because I do not trust the Santa Clarita City Council from taking a correct stand on this issue. The large electronic billboards will only benefit a few who want to advertise and make money. They will have a large negative impact on the rest of us and our community. There is no amount of money that would justify them.

    • Where they want to place the signs will only allow people leaving the city to see them. Not as you enter the city.. I don’t trust the City Council either. Be sure to vote out the two incumbents running this year. They ruined our city..

  40. No digital signs! This is a huge mistake, people. Those small signs on Soledad Canyon Rd and Newhall Ave are minor compared to the bold & bright digital signs (Vegas-style) that are in-the-works. They will be 48 ft wide (not 22 ft like the small signs in town). They are distracting. Take a look at the ABC 7 sign on the 5 Fwy in Glendale. It’s so big and bright and in-your-face. Must be a good reason why the City of L.A. has outlawed them and has made the sign companies remove them!

  41. And the only entity benefitting from these signs are the people collecting the rent $$ and lots of it. Trust me… this is not a good deal for “Awesometown” How could these pass the environmental smell-test for CEQA? Someone is being paid-off big bucks for this project!

  42. I attended the SCV Planning Commission meeting last night. Very upsetting. The issue before the Commission was whether to recommend to the City Council to change the zoning to allow Metro (formally MTA) to enter into 50-year leases for three prime pieces of state highway-adjacent property to put up huge digital billboards (just 2 on the 14 and 1 on the 5 [for now] wink wink). In exchange, Metro will remove the outdoor signs that, pursuant to licenses or leases with MTA, outdoor advertising companies have put on its “right of way” along the tracks. Some of the businesses are small family-owned businesses, most of the businesses that use these small affordable billboards of locally-owned businesses. The Commission on a vote of 3-1 approved the recommendation to the City Council. Metro has quietly “reached out” (along with another company – Allvision) to cities in LA county to shut down the smaller outdoor advertising companies (in Downey, Irwindale, and now SCV [and I am sure many others]) in exchange for these sweetheart deals. This is not the way government should be making decisions. If cities want the signs gone or if Metro really cared about beautifying the area, Metro could terminate the leases, but the cities can’t because they have no jurisdiction and Metro won’t because, well, money talks. Instead, Metro gets to go into the outdoor sign business (thanks to it’s experts and partners Allvision [NY/Canada] and LW Associates [from Toronto]) and to leverage the City’s approval with property and businesses it doesn’t own. An important point to this is that Metro actually does have the right to terminate its leases for the billboards but without the security of this sweetheart deal with the city and what appears to an international partnership with a large sign business, it wouldn’t risk losing the money it makes from its leases with the local outdoor advertising companies who own and operate the billboards. Now instead of the magnificent valley we are greeted by as we pass from I-5 to the 14, we could potentially get dozens of shining digital billboards. This is not about beautification of the City it’s about Metro and AllVision getting a great deal and continuing their domination of the outdoor advertising business in the United States and Canada.

    Not only is this bad for the highways, it is bad for local business who will lose a valuable affordable advertising avenue, and it is bad for the businesses that have been owning and operating outdoor adveritising businesses for decades. These signs will give no consideration for local business, anyone can advertise and our local businesses will not be able to compete with this very expensive advertising. The City of Santa Clarita and LA County Metro should not be in the sign business nor should they be allowed to let AllVision come in and take over the view on our highways. The SCV should not allow them to get away with this here.

    As a twenty-year resident of the City, I have become familiar with and patronized a number of local businesses based on having seen their billboard as I travel through our Valley. I would much you rather see a billboard for a local business along the Railroad/Soledad corridor than be greeted by huge digital signs advertising Doritos as you come home to the Valley!

    • I couldn’t agree more. This is the best thought out piece on the subject I’ve seen. The problem is that just like all the developers who get instant approval from our City Council for (now) 40,000 homesites that have yet to be built. All the political power comes from having money to spend on their favorites so the more tax or fee money they can raise the better for them. Not for our city!

    • I agree completely. While I’m not a fan of billboards that advertise adult shops and cigarettes, I am totally opposed to the trashy electric billboards. They will NOT benefit local businesses and direct traffic to them– unless they are car dealerships who can afford to advertise there because they get ad dollars from manufacturers.
      These billboards will slow freeway traffic, distract drivers, and cause accidents. Bad idea. They will cheapen the look of Santa Clarita, devaluing the zip codes within. The light pollution will further detract from the city’s beauty. I am totally opposed to this plan and I believe if Santa Claritans were allowed to vote on erecting digital billboards, the measure wouldn’t pass.
      This isn’t Vegas, people. Let’s not make our home gross!

    • If the city wants to do proceed with the plan of removing the smaller cheaper signs along Metro property in favor of the electronic billboards they should do it so the small business of SCV prosper.

      1) Sign hardware is purchased from local SCV business(es) if possible.
      2) Work a deal so each sign is profiting a local SCV business, Edwards Outdoor would have a deal for one sign, and the other two should go to two different businesses so no one biz is getting the sweetheart deal.
      3) Local SCV businesses get a MAJOR discount advertising on them and require at least 50% local businesses to be in the rotation.

      This would address concerns of local SCV businesses getting shut out in favor of large outside corporations, both in sign hardware, management, profit and businesses being able to afford to advertise on them.

  43. Why doesn’t the city remove half of the billboards and call it a day. Why do they need to replace them? This city uses this leasing trick for the cellular sites also.
    Great extra income for a city who probably needs it apparently.

    • The city can not remove the signs. The property is own by METRO (the MTA) the space is leased to the various companies who own the signs. The city is only involved because METRO is proposing they be put on city property and then give the city gets paid. This is more about money than beautification.

  44. Our politicians think that the more money they have to spend, they have greater “power” and that is what drives their decision on developers as well as deals like this sign deal.

    Two simple points:
    1. It will hurt local business, both the local sign owners like Edwards Outdoor but also the hundreds of local small businesses that won’t be able to afford advertising on the only three billboards around (ever hear of supply and demand).

    2. Cities and Counties that have these monsters are already trying to get rid of them for many reasons, including an increase in traffic accidents. The wonderful City of Los Angeles is in many big fights about them.

    City Council members, PLEASE do what’s right for your citizens, not outside money.

  45. Really?! That is all I have to say to those of you who think THREE billboards that are off the FREEWAY would be worse than the 118 that are around town. They’re hideous–and there’s 118 of them!!! I hate waiting at a traffic light for 2+ minutes while having to look at a giant “Tilted Kilt” ad. Take them all down!!!

    • The plan is to only remove 62 over a 5-year period. No plan of how, when or which. Many small local business use those signs; additionally a local business owns many of those signs. This will greatly impact many, many businesses in the community none of whom will benefit from 3 digital signs 5 to 10 miles away. Sure lets get rid of the billboards but how about put digital in their place. Why move them to another location?

    • The city is only wanting to remove the ones along the Metro owned property. The Tilted Kilt sign @ Soledad and Sierra isn’t going anywhere, that’s private property.

  46. No. Seriously, no. These electronic billboards are simply hideous. There are big reasons places like LA City has banned them altogether, mainly due to complaints from the public, as well as paying out big lawsuits to residents AND companies. This is a horrible deal for SCV citizens. Why not ban ALL billboards in the city, can they do that? I’d rather they just leave the old existing ones, especially because they’re in places where I don’t think they really bother anyone, and they’re certainly not the blinding ugly eyesore that the giant electronic ones are! Hello light pollution! I can’t believe they want to put a bunch of these anywhere in our town, also there’s already a giant one right near MM Pkwy on I-5…and they want to put another one there? Ugh! Traffic already gets so backed up there in the summer for MM, I’ll bet those stupid things will be so distracting they’ll actually cause accidents. Why on earth do these commission people want to make this place look like the Vegas strip? Do they even live here? Nobody who doesn’t live here should get to vote on things that directly impact the community.

    I truly cannot believe that anyone would vote for these awful things! They’re HIDEOUS, tacky and I believe them to be a hazard due to the distraction they present. I will definitely be attending the meeting.

  47. I do not want the electronic billboards removed. There are many small business that depends upon these for advertising to the local community. I am afraid more small business will fail if this goes through. The City does not care about small business in the community.

    • The city does not care about local business. They already took away pole signs from business and require their signs to be on the gound. Tombstone type signs that can’t be seen.
      Many went out of business because of this law.

  48. I see Metro gave some money to the city for the expansion of McBean Pkwy. Since the city is bought off this is how they pay back. The story in Hometownstation said that this city web site was 20 to 1 in favor of getting rid of the billboards and putting up the electronic billboards. Are you kidding me?

  49. 1 million times YES! The proliferation of billboards have made the city of L.A. one of the ugliiest and most visually polluted cities on the planet. Take a snapshot of just about any major street…..Van Nuys Blvd. in the Valley, Santa Monica Blvd. in Hollywood, and notice the visual mess of billboards, unsightly signs, and overall visual chaos. The of Santa Clarita has an opportunity to take another step to beautify the area we live in and preserve it as one of the more desirable areas in Southern California.

    • The electronic billboards are very ugly, unsightly, a ditraction, and will have a negative impact on the look of our valley. The present billboards are used and needed by small business of Santa Clarita. If they are gone, I am afraid small business will be gone in Santa Clarita. Steve, the billboards are only along the Metro right of way. There are no billboards on McBean, Newhall Ranch Road etc or any “major” street.

  50. What is the purpose of this survey? Is it a joke?
    The majority of people do not want the electronic billboards, but the citys planning commission voted for them.

    • It is a done deal – Just looking for people to say they want the billboards removed, so they can justify their moving forward. They will ignore the comments about not wanting electronic billboards….

  51. I dont think people understand two issues: First – The Electronic Billboards will be OWNED by METRO, the City will only get a small fee for the lease of the property. That is VERY small compared to the large sums of money the HUGE Electronic boards will take in. Second – Between the cost of advertising on one of those big boards and the placement – They wont do LOCAL businesses any good – be more useful and affordable to outlet stores in Gorman than for local businesses… Separate the Two issues One-Remove Existing Billboards – Two-Allow HUGE Electronic Boards to be installed to benefit a private company.

  52. pdated: The more I consider this, the less I am convinced this is a good idea. I am concerned about the effect on local businesses, and I am concerned about the safety hazard that large digital boards pose to drivers and the light pollution to neighboring residents. I still think the current billboards are an eye sore, just don’t think this is the solution. Have they considered updating the billboards to improve their appearance?

    How can these concerns be addressed?

  53. This is just another scam to get money. The city is not really concerned with cleaning up blight, just making money. I have been trying for the last 5 years to get the city to do something about the abandoned house near the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station on Soledad (Address 22116 Soledad). The abandoned property is seen by thousands of people every day, driving by, and people on the train. Why has’nt the city done anything about this?

  54. The billboards are an eyesore and the electronic signs are awful. Can we not have either? Including the one off the 5 fwy near Valencia–please take that one down too! There are lots of ways to reach customers. We don’t have to erect awful looking signs anywhere near our beautiful city.

    • How else does a local business reach out to the public driving down the street? Local paper circulation is poor, mail ads are expensive, and neither reach out to visitors that drive through our city. Signs are the way to go and why we have them..

  55. Yes, we really need to get rid of these billboards, they are definitely an eyesore. I love all the improvements that have been made and look forward to future changes. What do other towns and cities do like Westlake, Camarillo, Thousand Oaks etc? I personally avoid the companies that advertise on billboards. That’s why we have newspapers, magazines, yellow pages, and the internet. That’s where I go if I need to find a business. I hope we can finally put this problem to rest, the City had been working on this for a long time.

  56. The City has already put many locals out of business and others are hurting with their sign regulations which puts their own advertising signs on the ground level where they can’t be seen by passing traffic and signs so small they are not readable at 45 miles per hour. We need signs.
    The city knows we need billboards and signs to advertise. The city uses pedestrian overpasses in Valencia all the time. Kind of a double standard. The city sign ordinance has forced many businesses to put people on street corners, or put illegal signs on side walks because the legal city approved signs they have just don’t work. I would never own a business in Santa Clarita.
    If you can’t advertise your business and attract people, you will not last long.
    I don’t see these billboards bothering residential areas as some have claimed. A business area should be able to have advertising signs. That is what you have in a business area.
    The city keep trying to make Santa Clarita look like Westlake Village. We will never come close.
    We need a new planning commission and replace the 3 incumbent city council members ASAP! They are ruining our city with high density housing. They should be more worried about where we will get water for this summer instead of stupid billboards. Where do these people come from?

  57. The Santa Clarita Valley is alive with history. The railroad tracks that run through it were one of the prime connections between Northern and Southern California in the 19th century. Early highways were built near railroads as the terrain was usually not too steep and the amount of earth moving was minimal compared to the amounts moved to build the Interstate Highway system.
    Signs were commonly erected along these rights of way all over the Country to advertise local businesses in a town or as the highway approached a town. I see these signs as a part of the history of our valley just as the telegraph lines that ran along side the tracks were a part of our history until they were removed in the 80′s or 90′s.
    The City of Santa Clarita has planted trees in front of a number of signs along Soledad Canyon Road in the name of beautification but the businesses still find value in advertising on these signs even with limited visibility.
    I believe the signs that are along the railroad should stay as they are to give the local businesses an affordable venue to get the information out to the public and to hold on to that little bit of history before it is removed forever.
    If there truly are as many people opposed to these signs as the City of Santa Clarita claims then it would be easy for them to make their positions known by not supporting the advertisers. As we all know, money talks. (Is electronic sign revenue talking to the City of Santa Clarita?)
    Driving southbound on State Route 14 just as it enters Rosamond there was an electric sign that was a huge distraction and was blinding at night. I have not seen that sign operating for a long time. Did it cause an accident? I don’t know but I understand how it could be possible.
    Will the new monster sized electronic signs be a liability for the residents and visitors to the Santa Clarita Valley? I don’t know but I think it is possible!
    If the City of Santa Clarita does go through with this poorly thought out idea I think the money that is made from the electronic signs every month should be given to the sign companies whose signs were removed in the amounts of rents that were lost every month and if businesses can quantify the amount of commerce lost due to not having their advertisements they should be compensated as well before one penny goes to the City of Santa Clarita.
    The City of Santa Clarita claims that they are not doing this for the money. Then prove it by not taking a penny!

  58. First they are ugly. second the property the signs are on are owned by Metro, they can do what they want with them, The current owner has leases for 19 of the 30 faces. The current owner has been trying to sell for YEARS,,, Why are we getting involved in an argument about property rights cause that’s what it boils down to. I would like to take down the signs. Give the woman a few bucks and send her on her way otherwise if metro gets tired of it, they can cancel the leases pull the signs and she gets nothing. It aint that hard!

  59. After reading the story about Edwards Outdoor that own most of the signs, I have to say when the horse and buggy went out of vogue, the buggy whips went with them. We need to look at this as progress for the better. At one time billboards were a good form of advertising, but now there is TV, the internet, newspapers and magazines.
    I say move on and get rid of all of them!

    • None of the above advertising means reach out to drivers passing through the city. Local business have no TV exposure, our local newspaper exposure is very poor. Signs are the way advertise to everyone.

  60. The primary question to ask regarding this plan is: does this billboard proposal bring a greater benefit to the community-at-large? I believe the answer is NO. The current billboard advertising system has been providing a valuable outlet for businesses and civic groups to communicate with consumers and supporters. If they lose this outlet, then their businesses will be adversely affected. Consumers will not be as well informed about businesses they might want to deal with. This hurts the consumers, and it hurts the businesses.
    One could argue that this proposal violates our First Amendment free speech rights too. Civic and political groups would also be denied the opportunity to express their views, in open public, if this plan goes through. These billboards are an affordable option that the new electronic sign plan could not match. The entities who stand to gain the most from this plan are the big money corporations. They have the resources to advertise on the proposed electronic signs, so this will give them an unfair advantage over their smaller competitors.
    And besides, “beautification” is a subjective term, open to a wide array of opinions and interpretations. For example, many people define “beautification” as having more parks and open spaces, and fewer houses, businesses and roads. So, based on this viewpoint, the billboard proposal has nothing to do with beautifying our community.
    Finally, we need to look at our elected officials who are supporting this proposal. If you look at their campaign finance reports (go to ) you will discover that their biggest supporters are the corporations that stand to gain the most by stripping away the affordable advertising choices their smaller competitors use. Therefore, this proposal is anti-small business, anti-free speech, and anti-American.

  61. I have been following this issue since I fist heard about it 2 days before the planning commission meeting. The local bill boards are not going away they are just trying to take away private property to start a competing business. This is not a good precedent for any city. The Billboard companies that have been here for ever have been trying to come up with a good way to reduce the signs with the city for years and have been stonewalled. Why does government continue to believe that the can our perform the private sector. There are very few examples of any business that a city runs that private sector can’t to a better job. We plan to be at the City Council Meeting on Feb 25th at 6 PM to let them know that this should be stopped and revisited with all parties bidding on the right solution to this issue with competitive bids. Nothing, I mean nothing is a good solution in a vacuum. I would like to see how many companies that no longer have the right to put signs on their building because of City rules. Will go out of business when their Currently legal signs are removed. Or maybe the plan is anything we advertise is owned by the city billboards and bus stations.

  62. What do I think about this billboard proposal? I think it stinks! This is nothing more than a despicable plan by our City to make money at the expense of local small businesses and advertising companies. If you want to reduce local billboards, fine – but please: (1) Form a committee of local citizens, small businesses, and outdoor companies to study this proposal; (2) See that billboard companies are fairly compensated for their property; and (3) Show us the wisdom of replacing small billboards along our streets with monstrous digital billboards along our freeways – which will do no good for small business and will not contribute to our local economy.

    • The City is not interested in any billboard blight issue. If they were, they would not replace local billboards with illegal ugly massive electronic billboards on open space near the freeways. The City is only concerned with making money off of the citizens and local business. If the city was concerned with blight, why has NOTHING been done about the ABANDONED HOUSE NEXT TO THE METROLINK STATION ON SOLEDAD? I have been trying for years to get the City to get rid of this. It is an eyesore that is visible by thousands of people driving by on Soledad, and is the first impression people see when getting off the Metrolink train is Santa Clarita.

  63. If it’s about blight, then just require the billboard companies to renovate the existing billboards. You local billboard owners should be ashamed of how ugly the stands are, some look like they are about to fall over. But I’m OK with billboard advertising around town, do you people really have such a good life that some billboards are THAT important? Seems like the majority of the billboards in SCV are actually advertising SCV businesses, which is good.

    If it’s THAT important to everyone to get rid of the paper billboards around town in favor of 3 freeway digital signs, then why not let the local billboard company own those new signs? Oh, because the city wants the money, of course.

  64. Not understanding the property rights issue in regards to the billboards. The existing billboards are on Metro owned property. Metro could just decide to get rid of them if they want at any time.

    However, this is the real issue. The City has been trying to get rid of billboards for years that are on Metro land. However, Metro has resisted because they bring in revenue to Metro. Metro would not consider removal unless there was some other form of revenue coming in.

    I am sure the City worked with Metro in coming up with this idea of letting these digital billboards at a couple locations on City property in order to get rid of the many old billboards. Revenue is probably the same or if not greater to Metro.

    The City is not getting into the billboard business. They are just providing the land in which they will get some revenue for leasing the land. Currently, the City gets nothing.

    Now, I hate the existing billboards. They are often peeling and sometimes are ripped off entirely. Also, not fond of the digital billboards but I rather have a few digital ones that are oriented toward the freeway instead of the older ones that are proliferated along Soledad and on Railroad in the middle of the City.

  65. There is a reality here NO ONE wants to seem to talk about and no amount of screaming will stop it. The Agreement Edwards has with metro can be cancelled with a 24 hr notice, she can be thrown out on her ear in a heartbeat. If Metro does that its bad PR but it will blow over. Everyone thinks the “Evil Empire = SC”
    is in it for some evil purpose. What could that be to get money from Metro that they can add to the general fund to help the Seniors, Youth Roads and more?. Thats a bad Idea. and we have electronic billboards in different places around town now. Keep them under control and not so bad… USE facts and you will see that the deal the city is proposing has everyone as a winner even Edwards, .Edwards could walk away with nothing if Metro pulls the trigger.. Is that really the best for Edwards as well?

  66. I live along the Railroad Avenue corridor and there are many billboards along Railroad Avenue. I do not believe this removal is a good idea because one you willl reduce the amount of advertising for our local businesses and because Railroad Avenue is highly traveled, a digital sign will be a complete distraction. We already have enough distractions as it is, flashing signs will not make this any better. Also, the people who own the boards, my understanding is there is no compensation for them, you will be just putting them out of business? We do not need any more business lost especially here in Santa Clarita. You can make the size of the billboards uniform or they have to be kept up but don’t to make one more fancy sign blink, NO..

  67. Looking at the digital board locations on google, it looks like the advertising will be for cars leaving the city of Santa Clarita. So who will advertise on these signs? Not the locals. Who would advertise on these signs to drivers leaving Santa Clarita? Just National advertisers like Coke? With signs removed from the inner city, local business has no way to advertise to automobile traffic. More business will fail. Many people don’t think about what will happen when billboards are removed and how it hurts business.

  68. I keep reading comments that say that both standard and digital signs are a distraction to drivers. Well, that is what advertising is all about. If they don’t attract your attention, then they are not doing their job. If you can’t drive by a sign or billboard that attracts your attention without getting into or causing an accident, you should not be allowed to drive a car. The world is full of distractions other than signs. A pretty girl on the corner, etc. A good driver can deal with them.

  69. Local, small business will not be able ot afford advertising on the freeway digital billboards at all. Sign space rentals are based on the number of vehicles that see the sign. Can you imagine the thousands of cars that would pass these signs on a daily basis, and the amount of money it would cost to put an ad on one of these signs? Again, the places these digial signs would be located, why would a local busniess want to advertise on a sign that is only seen by traffic leaving Santa Clarita.

  70. I am very much against this proposal that the city is considering with Metro. Since the city of Santa Clarita was formed in 1987 it seems that the main beneficiaries in the business community of its formation have been large, multi-national corporations. When the city was formed we had only one major store in this valley, and that was K-Mart. Now we have Wal-Mart, Best Buy, major retailers in Valencia Town Center, just to name a few. While this growth in not in and of itself wrong, I do not see any parallel to this growth among small business in this same timeframe. We must not forget that prior to the formation of the city this valley was almost exclusively dependent on small business to service its needs. So now that big business has gained a foothold in the city and small business has at best stagnated the city wants to take away one of the very last, if not the last, vestiges that small business has to survive on in Santa Clarita, namely, cost efficient outdoor advertising. With the removal of this option, for many small businesses survival will be threatened. We must remember that small businesses do not have the kind of advertising budgets of the Wal-Marts and Best Buys to draw in customers, and that reasonably priced outdoor advertising can often be our last refuge to competing in this marketplace.

    No, billboards do not have the same aesthetics as wandering around in our national parks, but they certainly are neither a blight on the landscape—in fact they certainly can be viewed as evidence of a thriving small business community, and I believe that that is a small price to pay for the success of a significant population in this community. I therefore believe for these reasons that the city should not embraced the current proposal with Metro and that the same should be rejected.

  71. I think the billboards whether they are traditional or digital should be gone. The traditional are just horrible and the digital will be a new kind of eyesore. They are an eyesore. I don’t see them in other parts of Santa Clarita and do not understand why in Sand Canyon, Soledad they need to be there. Please remove them and improve our side of Santa Clarita.

  72. Thank you for your letter. I share your opinions and your concerns. I hope you and as many of your friends as possible will come to the Council meeting Tuesday.

    I am appalled that our City is considering these Monster Digital billboards. Because of what has happened so far, It will be a done deal unless the people speak out in person.

    Thank you for speaking out.

    At Your Service,
    TimBen Boydston

    Sent from my iPhone

    On Feb 23, 2014, at 7:13 PM,
    Hello my City council representatives,
    I am writing to you as a concerned 22 year Santa Clarita resident on the matter of the proposal that would alter the cityscape and local advertising. I have lived in this city since 1992 and have seen many things that have improved our city and many things I also think have hurt our city. I know your job is not an easy one as I have served as a president on a 152-unit condominium board for over three years in the past. The experience opened my eyes on how hard it is to serve the people and make fair decisions whether or not you believe in the decision you are making is for the good of the people or not.
    I never miss a chance to vote in an election, whether it is for the President of our country, local city council members, city ordinances on water, school board members; basically all matters that are presented to me.
    On the matter that is being presented to you on February 25, 2014 that will alter the cityscape forever, it is very upsetting to me on a personal level. In my opinion, it should have never even been proposed to the City Council by the Planning Commission for many reasons. I personally found out about the proposal 3:30pm on January 7, 2014 (just by chance) the day of the Planning Commission’s meeting. I drive Soledad Canyon almost daily to pick up and drop off my kids, or just go to the doctor’s office. I always see signs posted notifying the public of what the city plans on doing, giving the citizens of the city a chance to voice their opinion on the situation. I believe somebody chose to post this proposal in a very inconspicuous manner. It was posted on a dead end street out of sight of the 99.9% of the public. It was posted sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas, in fact where people that use the Sand Canyon storage facility park large trucks at the end of this cul de sac which blocks the sign. As I have used this facility for over eight years now I assure you that a large truck containing a rock wall climbing unit parks at the end of this street. Maybe some of you council members aren’t aware of the location, but let me remind you, it is where we have no bike trails still. If you were trying to notify the public in this matter, why was the notice not posted on Soledad Canyon Road close to the million dollar on-ramp beautification that is being completed on February 26, 2014?
    I called the city council office immediately on January 7, 2014 and they informed me that notices were sent to our community. Let me assure you that no notices were sent to my community. My child attends Sulphur Springs School, and I sat down with the principal this week, and they are not aware of this matter either.
    I understand 62 billboard structures are coming down to put up three major obstructions that we will never be able to get rid of once they are put in, and more are to be proposed five years in the future.
    The billboards that the Planning Commission are getting rid of mostly consist in commercial areas around the railroad track barely noticeable to people like me who have lived here 20+ years. In fact, the city has planted so many trees around most of them, you can barely see the billboards. And let’s face it, if you lived there now close by in a trailer park or an apartment building, or maybe you do live in a house, you were aware of it when you moved in.
    Watching the Planning Commission’s meeting on January 7, 2014 concerned me. As the public spoke, one person brought up that you notified the public during the holiday season. The Planning Commission, for the most part, didn’t seem to care what the public’s opinion was, not even to grant a 30 day extension. In my opinion the guy in the middle, you know the one that works for the city of Palmdale, had his mind made up before anybody spoke. So many important facts were brought to their attention, including but not limited to, a bid process to ensure that we are getting the best deal for the city, and they talked about open park space being used now for profit and the Planning Commission’s reply was it was already property we owned. This city is starting double-talk so much I feel that I am living back in the San Fernando Valley again. What happened to our morals? Remember when the motto was, “we will never remove an oak tree for development.” How many oak trees are left in view of the public?
    But to be honest I don’t even care, I don’t think it should happen in any situation. Mayor Laurene Weste, I know you must abstain from this situation because you are in close proximity of one of these signs. I would still like to know your personal opinion because on February 25, 2014 it will become clear what the city council’s member’s are (depending on their vote).
    In considering the layout of what if being proposed for these visual obstructions, the 14/5 sign I believe is where the old gas plant used to be, and I don’t believe there are many homes around that. The one by Magic Mountain I believe is close to mostly commercial businesses. On the proposal on the placement of one of the billboards off Oak Spring Road, I am appalled that you have chosen to put one in a residential area close to a school where my children will be brainwashed by flashing animated advertising daily.
    I believe with an election coming in April for new city council members that this proposal should be postponed. Maybe some new blood on the city council will do us some good. All of Santa Clarita should be informed of this proposal not just those within 1,000 feet of the signs. The public should be able, in the next election, to vote on this matter, and it should not be left up to five city council members, whether incoming or outgoing.
    Thank you for your time and consideration

  73. There seem to be a couple of main issues with the removal of the signs and replacement with 3 digital billboards. There is so much hyperbole being thrown out there that is typical of not being educated on the issues.

    Hyperbole: The new digital signs would be Vegas style ugly and distracting.

    Reality: Take a look at the current signs in the night and daytime. According to the staff report the digital sign lighting will be limited to 0.3 foot-candles above the ambient lighting. Most of the current billboards are lit at night, exceed this limit and emit more light into the night sky than the proposed ones. And during daytime hours you couldn’t discern the difference between the current signs and the new digital ones. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Cal Trans have regulatory authority over digital signs. Caltrans’ letter to the City did not object to these signs. And FHWA has studied and found no adverse safety impacts with digital signs.

    Hyperbole: removing the signs will take away an affordable advertising option for small business which will drive them out of business because no one will be able to find their services.
    Reality: You don’t even have to know the exact total number of businesses in Santa Clarita to realize that the ones that use the billboards is a very small percentage of the total. Maybe 5%? Even if it’s 10% that means that 90% of the businesses in the SCV are thriving without using billboards. And once the billboards are removed, the 10% would follow the lead of the other 90% and would continue to thrive.

    And the comment that these signs are not that bad considering the trade off of business access to cheap advertising is specious. Have you driven on MMPkwy, Newhall Ranch Road, McBean Pkwy, Whites Canyon, The Old Road, Copperhill, etc,etc? If it’s so benign aesthetically and necessary for small businesses to survive; why doesn’t the city change it’s policy and allow billboards on all of these (and others) too? I say no, we should remove this blight where ever possible. And the income from this deal will over time allow the city to purchase the remaining billboards. The city has put so much into beautifying its corridors. Completing this proposal will continue these efforts to promote uniform standards throughout the city, not just in Valencia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>