Agenda packet — Gilroy City Council, March 20, 2023 (part 4 of 5)

10.1 p. 768 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Salazar, Salvador <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 10:30 AM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Cc: Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Fred Tovar
Subject: EXTERNAL - Re: Billboard
Morning
To whom It may concern, but I am against a “Giant Electronic Billboard in Gilroy” This just takes away from its community. Does Los Gatos, Willow Glen, Morgan Hill have one that looks appealing?... NO. What it does need is Downtown Gilroy upgraded, but also keep original.

And if revenue is the issue, start by having a traffic unit for commuters cutting through town and locals speeding and not following traffic signs.

Thanks!
S.SALAZAR
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 769 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Tess Reed <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 8:54 AM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Vote No against Billboard
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Hello,
From a pleading homeowner, this will be a site for sore eyes in our city. Please vote No! Thanks,
Tess
Sent from my iPhone

10.1 p. 770 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Jack Nogosek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:23 AM
To: Planning Division (Public); All Planning Commissioners Cc: Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Carol Marques
Subject: EXTERNAL - Giant Electronic Billboard(s) in Gilroy Hello, and good morning!
I am a resident of Gilroy, and I just learned about a proposal for consideration to install/erect an extremely large, digital/electronic advertising billboard somewhere off Highway 101. Or if that is not the case, the consideration of changing zoning and/or ordinance laws to allow for such signs.

I respectfully request that the City of Gilroy votes NO, on these electronic billboards and/or any changes to allow for such signs.

Thank you,
Jack
John (Jack) A. Nogosek
Branch Manager
Direct Mortgage Funding, Inc.

Office: 408-559-0600, ext. 115
Cell: 408-529-5482
Fax: 408-558-4474
3190 S. Bascom Ave. # 100
San Jose, CA 95124
[email protected]
Need to send me a file securely? Click Here
NMLS 227765 / 150052
Equal Housing Lender
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 771 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: John Franzen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 11:16 AM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Proposed Electronic billboard
I've seen
signs like
this on 101. I find them distracting. They change before I can digest what the message it. I've made it habit to note their presence and then ignore them.

Please do not change our current sign laws to allow this to be built.

John
John Franzen
Practical Data Management
Helping you 'tame' your computer
[email protected]
510-903-2074 Work
408-799-3635 Cell
408-427-9391 Fax
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 772 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Lisa Pickrel <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 9:44 AM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - 7 story sign
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am a long time resident of over 40 years. I have seen some good improvements to Gilroy with shopping options like Target, the Outlets and the Eagle Ridge community which compliments the existing landscape. Additionally there were improvements to Gilroy with the addition of grocery options like Costco, Safeway and NobHill.

However, I think the new proposal of a 7 story electronic sign in a scenic, bedroom community, is a VERY poor choice and takes away from the beauty and small town atmosphere you are selling to people who look to move here. That type of sign belongs in industrial and large cities not rural areas.

Please reconsider this project and reject the income opportunity that so often takes precedence in your office at the expense of residents. Examples of this would include large transition housing developments (adding to crime and the already higher than average homeless population), putting up large low income apartments on 1 street instead of shopping and restaurant options which would have improved residents lives. Now with the other high density housing planned for prime real estate on first street, when will it end? Are you guys trying to ruin this town? This sign will be just one more thing to make Gilroy feel ghetto, which is how this town is now being described, by those who have lived here long enough to know the difference. I urge you to start caring about the people who live here and not just the bottom line.

Respectfully,
Lisa Pickrel
Sent from my iPhone

10.1 p. 773 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Steph LeMieux <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 1:45 PM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - New Billboard
Planning Commission,
My name is Stephanie LeMieux, and live at 2140 Hollyhock Lane, Gilroy. I vote NO on the new LED billboard.

Having lived in San Jose most of my life, I've seen billboards like this on my commute. They represent the worst of urban blight. People don't live in Gilroy because they want "big city" life. They live here because the pace is slower, and the presence of farmland is refreshing and peaceful. While growth is inevitable, it doesn't need to look exactly like other large cities. We can choose to be different. We can choose to be better. Don't ruin the landscape of our city.

Thank you,
Stephanie LeMieux
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 774 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 12:05 PM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Cc: Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Fred Tovar; Cindy McCormick Subject: EXTERNAL - HUGE Electronic Billboards are NOT a good look for Gilroy Dear Members of the Gilroy Planning Commission,
I am heartily in favor of our car dealerships thriving. But not at the expense and assault on our eyeballs and view shed that behemoth electronic billboards would bring: with faces as big as a small apartment, flashing and looming 7-stories high in the sky, they would likely be the most prominent structures in all of south county, visible possibly from across town, in addition to northbound and southbound travelers on 101; AND, a terrible first impression of Gilroy.

One nice advantage to the more modern internet media for advertising, is the electronic glare is blissfully limited to the pixel size of our smartphones and digital screens in our private homes. I would encourage businesses who would advertise on the billboards to thoroughly explore internet options, as a favor to the residents and smaller businesses of Gilroy, who they share an environment with.

Gilroy is also blossoming as an agritourism, cycling and family recreation destination. Car dealerships are not the only gig here. Let’s not disturb that momentum by allowing digital billboards that will make many potential visitors say, ‘no thank you’.

Blighting our major gateway at the highways, when we are working to beautify other gateways such as the Monterey / Leavesley, makes absolutely no sense at all.

We want visitors to stay awhile, explore all we have to offer (which is improving continuously) fill up local lodging—collect that 11.5% TOT—not just leave for home after buying a car.

Many of the people who live here enjoy the quiet small-town appeal, surrounded by a beautiful greenbelt of our natural and agricultural lands.

Electronic billboards are not “on-brand” for Gilroy. They do not harmonize with our small town and pastoral charm. Gilroy is not poised to become like Las Vegas. Adding digital billboards to our environment is glaringly worse than pairing wingtip shoes with shorts, and will confuse the target audience of visitors we are trying to lure to stay a while.

Are digital billboards a first impression of Gilroy, we really want travelers to have of us? Do we as a community really want to live in both the glare and shadow 24/7/365, subjected to the business dealings of a massive NYC corporation who would build and own the billboard, and also book the ads? Let’s stick with the sensible sign ordinance Gilroy currently has, and say “no thank you” to Outfront Media and their proposal to mess with our town’s codes, General Plan and aesthetic.

Beautiful small towns that people flock to, like Monterey, Carmel, San Luis Obispo, do not have these monsters.

Thank you for your attention and consideration of this important planning decision. Your community is counting on you.

Sincerely,
Chrys Diskowski, 24-year Gilroy resident and voter
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 775 of 947
2 10.1
p. 776 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Ed Merrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:46 AM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Do not modify Gilroy's sign ordinance Good day,
I do not support any modifications to Gilroy's sign ordinance that would permit the proposed 80-foot high, 30-by-22.5- foot LED billboard sign. This type of sign will have a significant effect on Gilroy. It will distract drivers and it will impact the beautiful views of our surrounding hills.

Please vote no on any modifications of Gilroy's sign ordinance.

Thank you, Ed Merrell
Gilroy resident
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 777 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Ann Marie McCauley <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2023 7:54 PM
To: Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Fred Tovar; Planning Division (Public) Subject: EXTERNAL - Electronic Billboard
Dear City Officials,
While I am not directly opposed to this sign, I would like to know how you will deal with the other business owners who, in the past, were denied larger and taller signs. Approving this will set a new precedent for signs in Gilroy. Would it require changing the existing regulations for all signs? Will the business owners rejected in the past now be allowed to increase their sign size?
Thank you for your consideration,
Ann Marie McCauley
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 778 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 2:30 PM
To: Cindy McCormick
Subject: Fw: EXTERNAL - Proposed Off Premise Billboards Hello Ms. McCormick,
Thank you for forwarding the various emails received opposing the billboards. I also received this one and, since I did not see it with the others you sent, thought I should forward so that it could be shared with all the commissioners.

Thanks,
Kelly
From: John Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2023 11:08 AM
To: All Planning Commissioners <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Proposed Off Premise Billboards
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Commissioners,
I am emailing to express my opposition to the proposal to allow off premise billboards in Gilroy.

The General Plan 2040 specifically prohibits off premise advertising so what is the justification for not following the General Plan? Can one applicant advocate for a proposal such as allowing digital billboards and on the basis of that advocacy convince the city to simply ignore its own General Plan? What then was the point of establishing a General Plan if it is so easy to ignore it?
Secondly, no members of the public have undertaken an effort to allow this. Something as intrusive as digital billboards cannot be justified in the absence of clear community support.

The applicant behind this scheme is a landowner who is looking for a revenue stream from Outfront Media, a billboard company which will generate revenue by selling advertising of products and services not available at the location of the sign. This is the very definition of off premise advertising currently prohibited. Understand that the majority of off premise advertising is for national consumer product and service companies such as McDonalds, Verizon, Citibank, etc. not for local businesses.

Furthermore the city has relied on a CEQA environmental review of the proposed billboards and then declared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and uses that as an excuse to dismiss any and all comments expressing opposition to this scheme. CEQA environmental reviews, which seem to be designed to evaluate ecological impacts of proposed development, do not adequately address the issues raised by off premise advertising which include aesthetic degradation and the deterioration of the community’s architectural integrity, by among other impacts, subjecting tax payers to unsolicited commercial advertising for which there is no off switch. Nor does CEQA address the fact that the value of off premise advertising is a function of that advertising’s exposure to the publicly financed right of way the maintenance of which is not supported by user fees paid by either the billboard company or property owner leasing land

10.1 p. 779 of 947
2 to the billboard company. Using an inadequate CEQA tool and then claiming the city has adequately analyzed this proposal is misleading and does not serve the best interest of the people of Gilroy.

In addition, a 500 plus page “information packet” (with inadequate page numbering and table of contents) compiled by the city to evaluate a proposal to allow two digital billboards is not helpful to achieving public understanding. Rather, the city is burying the truth of the matter in needless verbage, drowning the public in irrelevant material to discourage people from easily grasping the reality of the situation. And what is the dollar amount of staff and consultants’ time spent on preparing such extensive but needless documentation? Has the city staff nothing else to do? The question is simple. Why is the city spending staff time greasing the skids for a scheme to introduce off premise advertising into a community that has historically and repeatedly opposed doing so? I look forward to a response.

John Miller
Los Gatos, CA

10.1 p. 780 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Anne-Marie Hamilton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 9:48 PM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Proposed billboards
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Gilroy Planning Division,
I’m writing to let the Planning Division know that as a Gilroy resident and homeowner I am against the two large billboards proposed for downtown Gilroy. I feel they would be not only be ugly and garish but also a dangerous distraction for passing motorists. If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Anne-Marie Hamilton
8266 Gaunt Ave, Unit G3
Gilroy, CA 95020
408-420-0569
Sent from my iPhone

10.1 p. 781 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Debbie Wilkey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 7:14 PM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Ginormous Sign on 101
NO
Please No
Debbie Wilkey
7151 Pitlochry Dr
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 782 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 9:37 AM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Giant ad screens
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

I want it noted that I am against the proposal of installing giant screens for advertising in Gilroy as a resident.

Sincerely, Lee C. Spieller
Sent from my iPad

10.1 p. 783 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 11:54 AM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - No electronic billboards
Please do not approve electronic billboards in our city Sandy Hanes
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 784 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Alexis Arredondo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 2:21 PM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - no on the billboard
Please consider saying no to the proposed billboard off of 101. It doesn't fit with our city vibes.

I am originally from Texas and there are billboards all along the highway and it looks cheap and destroys the natural landscape.

They are a distraction to already distracted drivers and that endangers everyone who drives on the 101.

I know we need revenue, but please find something other than this.

Thank you
Alexis Arredondo
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 785 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Gene Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 4:34 PM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Billboard
As a resident of Gilroy since 1983, I vehemently oppose even the idea of allowing an electronic billboard being installed anywhere within the city. I move here to raise my family with a small town atmosphere in mind, much like the city of Milpitas in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

With the advent of an electronic billboard, the visual pollution must out weigh any monetary benefit to the city. Are we that desperate?? NO!!

GENE PHILLIPS
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 786 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: John Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 6:13 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners
Cc: Cindy McCormick
Subject: EXTERNAL - Correction regarding Proposed Off Premise Billboards CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Commissioners,
I am submitting a correction to my email of January 15 opposing the proposal to allow off premise billboards in Gilroy.

The General Plan does not specifically prohibit off premise advertising. But In the GP under Land Use 8.7 Signs & Billboards, it says among other things, “enforce sign regulations.” I assume that is a reference to ARTICLE XXXVII. SIGN REGULATIONS. In Section 30.37.30 number 16 prohibits: Any off-site advertising sign, including billboards, in any district except as exempted in section 30.37.90.” Section 30.37.90 exempts temporary real estate and A frame sidewalk signs from those signs prohibited under Section 30.37.3.

I think it is safe to say that the General Plan implies, that to achieve the Plan’s stated objectives, enforcement of the existing Sign Regulations is necessary and proper.

Thank you.

John Miller
Los Gatos, CA

10.1 p. 787 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Shirley Willard
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 12:48 PM
To: Planning Division (Public); Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; [email protected]; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Fred Tovar Cc: Shirley Willard
Subject: EXTERNAL - New Billboards-Gilroy
Dear Planning Division and Gilroy City Council Members, Please vote NO on this proposal for 2 new billboards for Gilroy, CA. This is not what we are about or need to be about.

Absolutely ridiculous! I feel that the billboard project would appear to be so cheap looking, though so very expensive, not classy or just plain vulgar for our community. They are too big, too tall, too bright, not wanted, and a very poor representation of Gilroy.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and your time.

Shirley Willard
caring, involved resident of Gilroy
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 788 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Sharon Goei
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:19 PM
To: Robert Weaver
Cc: Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt; Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner; Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis; Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez; Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal; Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez; Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle; Cindy McCormick
Subject: RE: Electric Sign Ordnance
Hello Bob,
Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the public record.

Sincerely,
Sharon
Sharon Goei, P.E., CBO, LEED AP
Community Development Director
(408) 846-0467 |[email protected]
7351 Rosanna Street |Gilroy |CA 95020
www.cityofgilroy.org
From: Robert Weaver <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 9:01 PM
To: Sharon Goei <[email protected]>
Subject: EXTERNAL - Electric Sign Ordnance
Sharon, Please share with Planning Commission.

Paula and I attended the most recent Planning commission meeting to give new Commissioner Kelly Ramirez a welcoming audience. The topic of the sign ordnance was not our motivation. The discussion of the topic however, prompted me to these comments.

1. While LED lighting can appear as different colors, its inherent basic underlying color is blue. Blue light is stimulating to our brains, and should be thought of as “visual caffeine”. While this is of little concern to the passing motorist with a brief exposure, it is of great concern to people in its visual proximity who are exposed for long periods of time. Why does the X-ray technician go behind a lead wall while you get X-rayed; short term, no problem, all day, a cumulative issue.

Refer to footnote 1.

Refer to footnote 2.

2. Growing up in Stockton, I would watch the sun set behind Mt. Diablo, which appeared as a big mountain relative to the rest of the range. In fact, Mt. Diablo is not that big, and only stands out because it is so much taller than the surrounding hills, and has only flat farm land between Stockton and itself. This sign ordnance, as proposed, would allow an electric sign to be 75 feet above grade, the height of a 7 story building. Gilroy is mostly flat farm land and a 7 story CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 789 of 947
2 electric sign would loom mightily, and could possibly even be seen in Hollister. In Gilroy, those who live on hillsides with a valley view, will be getting an eyeful.

3. A major concern for astronomers is light pollution and sky glow. When Lick Observatory was established, these things were not an issue. Today, the sky glow from the south bay is an issue. Certain frequencies of light also interfere with their work.

Refer to footnote 3.

Refer to footnote 4.

4. This ordnance change request has caused a focus on the current proponent. Any change to the current ordnance is a gateway for whatever signage that comes along in the future. If we change this ordnance, it will be difficult to deny future signs that comply. We are Gilroy, we know who we are and what we are. We have a sense of place that keeps us here, and for some, is the very reason why we are here. Signage as proposed in the ordnance change, will not harmonize with our bucolic and rural nature. To approve this ordnance change, will allow the camels nose under the tent.

Sincerely,
Bob Weaver
706 Gage Ct.

10.1 p. 790 of 947
3 Footnote
1 10.1
p. 791 of 947
4 10.1
p. 792 of 947
5 Footnote 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_effects_of_high-energy_visible_light Footnote 3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lick_Observatory
Footnote 4.

10.1 p. 793 of 947
6 10.1
p. 794 of 947
7 10.1
p. 795 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: LISA DICKNSON <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 8:09 AM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Vote no
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

We Don’t Need these big city flashy huge signs telling people to stop in Gilroy. Our small town appeal is what people appreciate about our sweet town. Let it be. vote NO on the huge flashing sign.

Sent from my iPhone

10.1 p. 796 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Sharon Goei
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 9:22 PM
To: Robert Weaver
Cc: Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt; Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner; Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis; Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez; Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal; Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez; Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle; Cindy McCormick
Subject: RE: Electric Sign Ordnance letter #2 Cui Bono
Hello Bob,
Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the public record.

Sincerely,
Sharon
Sharon Goei, P.E., CBO, LEED AP
Community Development Director
(408) 846-0467 |[email protected]
7351 Rosanna Street |Gilroy |CA 95020
www.cityofgilroy.org
From: Robert Weaver <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 11:05 AM
To: Sharon Goei <[email protected]>
Subject: EXTERNAL - Electric Sign Ordnance letter #2 Cui Bono Sharon, Would you see that this is sent out to all Planning Commissioners today. Thank You.

Planning Commissioners,
By design, a community's General Plan is just that, general. It is not overly specific, but stating its future goals in generalities. The General Plan is a community's “dream sheet” for its future development. Many goals are included, but because of its general wording, those goals are often in conflict, as we find with the proposed Electric Sign Ordnance.

When a proposal such as the Electric Sign Ordnance contains conflicting General Plan goals, it should be treated in a fair and sensitive manner. Appearances are, that without sufficient public discourse, some General Plan goals and objectives have been discounted in favor of others. I base this observation on the number of public comments opposing this measure versus those supporting, and it is not just about the numbers of comments, but the who. By the wording of the Electric Sign Ordnance staff report, staff has become an advocate in this matter.

CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 797 of 947
2 While it has been over two decades since I sat on the Mountain View Planning Commission, and perhaps things have changed since then, I cannot recall ever being put in the position of having to pass a proposal under duress(1). Regarding the proposed changes in Gilroy’s Electronic Sign Ordnance, the staff's wording demands that you delineate cause to justify a denial on this proposal. The burden has always been on the proponent, to bring forth an acceptable proposal for consideration. To place the burden on the Planning Commission, to justify a denial, runs contrary to accepted practice. Staff reports should not be authoritarian, dictatorial or biased, but present the issue fairly without fear or favor. (2) Staff’s due diligence on this Electronic Sign ordnance clearly shows to me that their threshold of compliance with the directives of the City of Gilroy’s 2040 General Plan, while well intended, are selective and not in line with, and set to a different level than, those of the general public in this matter.

There were several parts of the 2040 General Plan mentioned in the Negative Declaration that were downplayed, and several that were favored. This was done, seemingly in the effort to justify this new Electronic Sign Ordnance. As is the nature of a broad document, several of the goals of the 2040 General Plan are conflicting. Staff has apparently exercised great prerogative in weighing the 2040 General Plan’s elements when considering this ordnance for approval.

At the prior meeting, when one commissioner asked environmental questions regarding the sign’s brightness, she was beset with technical obfuscation (6). Another commissioner asked if the average Gilroy small business would be able to afford space on the electric sign, there was no clear answer regarding affordability, which equates to opportunity(3). Many members of the public, spoke or wrote about their environmental concerns regarding this electronic sign ordnance (7). All of these concerns are part of the 2040 General Plan directives. The proponents are being very vague on important key issues, and it is not clear to what extent small businesses could avail themselves of the signage. That uncertainty in itself, should arouse suspicion, and give the commission sufficient grounds for denial, or denial without prejudice (2).

By far, the most important and overriding question the Planning Commission should be considering in this matter is: Cui Bono, Latin for who benefits. Ask yourself, does it appear that the small businesses in Gilroy will directly benefit? Does it appear that the general population of Gilroy will see any benefit? Will this kind of sign fit in with the general spirit and feel of Gilroy?(4)(5) Has this proposal been fairly evaluated by staff for 2040 compliance?
It appears to me that the big economic winners in this matter will not be the many small businesses and people of Gilroy, but the proponents of this proposal. Shakespeare once penned: "What is a city if not the people?" For this ordnance, let us not adopt in haste, and repent at leisure.

Sincerely,
Bob Weaver
706 Gage Ct.

Footnotes.

1. If the Planning Commission recommends denial, the
Commission shall recite the specific facts and evidential reasons why the Ordinance and text amendments do not carry out the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.

2. Pursuant to City Code Section 30.52.40, the Planning commission may recommend approval, or deny or deny without prejudice the requested ordinance amendment.

3. Economic Prosperity

10.1 p. 798 of 947
3 Goal EP 3: Maintain a
supportive business
climate that increases
the City’s ability to
support expansion of
existing businesses
and attraction of new
businesses.

The proposed electronic billboard ordinance provides
existing and future businesses in the City an opportunity to advertise and potentially expand their business. The
ordinance provides Gilroy businesses an opportunity to
advertise their goods and services to visitors and the local workforce, who may not reside in Gilroy but drive to Gilroy for employment at local businesses including retail
establishments, restaurants, and offices, as well as schools and service organizations.

4. Land Use Goal LU 8:

Support growth and
development that
preserves and
strengthens the City’s
historic, small-town
character; provides
and maintains safe,
livable, and affordable
neighborhoods; and
creates beautiful
places
5,
Encourage the growth
and development of
retail, office, service,
and entertainment
uses in Gilroy to
provide jobs, support
City services, and
make Gilroy an
attractive place to live.

6. 2040 General Plan: The Gilroy 2040 General Plan was adopted in November 2020 and has the following policies related to billboards and freeway signage. While the policies do not directly address digital media, the policies do permit freeway signage and billboards, so long as such signage has minimal negative impact on the visual environment

7. RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission:
a) Recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and find that: the MND was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and the MND reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis; and
b) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance (Z 18- 04), approving changes to Section 30.37.30 (Prohibited Signs), Section 30.37.50 (Commercial and Industrial Districts), and Section 30.37.51 (Freeway Oriented Signs) and creating a new Zoning Ordinance Article LV (Electronic Billboards).

10.1 p. 799 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 10:13 PM
To: Sharon Goei
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Proposed Billboard Signage
Begin forwarded message:

From: Linda Clark <[email protected]>
Date: Jan 27, 2023 at 7:19 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Proposed Billboard Signage
Dear Commissioners:

I am writing with the hope that you will consider denying the Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to changes in the ordinance which would allow an electronic billboard to be erected in Gilroy.

As you know, Gilroy is a special place and adding a billboard to its environment would only allow it to become like any other big city. I have lived in Gilroy for ten years and have come to love this community. I love the agricultural fields that surround us, giving our town the country feel that most of its residents have come to enjoy and most visitors comment on.

Driving past Auto Row is not one of my favorite places to pass, but by erecting a billboard in its vicinity will only make it that much more undesirable. Flashing lights that advertise cars, food, or whatever is not my idea of giving people any idea of the kind of city that Gilroy has become over the years.. As it is, Gilroy is growing in leaps and bounds. Ask yourself, what real benefit would a huge electronic billboard really add to Gilroy's attraction? Billboards wouldn't contribute to our tourism. It's Gilroy Gardens, the wineries, the hiking trails, and so much more.

Please do not support changing the ordinance which would allow this type of signage. It adds nothing to the beauty of our town, and that is what we should be protecting.

Sincerely,
Linda Clark
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 800 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 10:12 PM
To: Sharon Goei
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Electronic Billboard
Begin forwarded message:

From: Kelly Larsen <[email protected]>
Date: Jan 28, 2023 at 9:14 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Electronic Billboard
Hello,
I have been a resident of Gilroy for 15 years now. I moved here to get away from the city (San Jose). I just wanted to state my opinion that I think allowing electronic billboards, like the one being suggested near 10th street is a bad idea. Gilroy is not an urban center with skyscrapers. They are distracting, especially at night, in cities that have them. I don't think they fit with the esthetic that the city of Gilroy is going for.

Thank you,
Kelly Larsen
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 801 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 10:13 PM
To: Sharon Goei
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Electronic Billboards!
Begin forwarded message:

From: Lizanne Davey <[email protected]>
Date: Jan 28, 2023 at 4:53 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Electronic Billboards!
Please NO Electronic Billboards for Gilroy!!!
We are not Las Vegas, nor do I want it to turn into anything like them! Lizanne Davey
Gilroy resident
408-846-3807
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 802 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 10:12 PM
To: Sharon Goei
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Sign
Begin forwarded message:

From: s gamm <[email protected]>
Date: Jan 28, 2023 at 7:44 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Sign
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Please do not. Hangs the sign ordinance.

Susan Gamm
Sent from my iPhone

10.1 p. 803 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 7:15 AM
To: Sharon Goei
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - letter re MND and electronic billboard application Begin forwarded message:

From: james rogers <[email protected]>
Date: Jan 29, 2023 at 10:53 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - letter re MND and electronic billboard application Dear Commissioners,
I’m writing to urge you to NOT APPROVE the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Initial Study regarding changes in our sign ordinance. I urge this because I believe that the effects of changing our ordinance WILL be significant and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Here are my reasons:

Aesthetics - A sign of 75 or 80 feet tall and 30’ x 22.5’ in area will definitely be visible from our southern gateway at quite a distance. It may only be legible at 250’ but the brightness will certainly be visible for miles in all directions. You were not given any data about the distance from which this light is visible, but Professor Lynam has told me he can see the San Jose signs from Lick Observatory.

Although the sign will be near its primary beneficiaries, the auto dealers, it is also near and will be visible from our hills and agricultural fields. The sign may be located in an urbanized area, but it is very close to our non-urbanized countryside. You should consider the effect beyond the site where it is erected. 101 has been designated as a scenic highway by Santa Clara County. The sign will also be visible from Pacheco Pass and probably Hecker Pass highways.

Biological Resources: The lack of special status species on the site cannot be construed as saying this very tall, bright light will not affect all species within a few miles, including humans. It has the potential to alter animal pathways and flight patterns and will certainly be more stressful for humans.

Cultural Resources: The Amah Mutsun Tribe considers the Sargent Ranch and a large area south of Gilroy to be part of their spiritual heritage. They believe in caring for Mother Earth and living in harmony with nature. Since the light will be visible from quite a distance it will affect views to and from their heritage land.

CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 804 of 947
2 Energy - The 52,400 kWh needed to operate this sign annually is only compared to similar signs. There should be a comparison to other forms of energy consumption.

Land use and planning - Compatibility with CalTrans Outdoor Advertising Act does not insure that the sign won’t affect drivers or our natural environment. Chapter 8 of our General Plan 2040 - Natural and Cultural Resources - begins with the following:
“Gilroy’s location in the southern Santa Clara Valley, surrounded by hills, streams, and agriculture, is one of the many reasons that residents love living here. Gilroy has a proud, multi-cultural heritage that spans centuries. These sensitive natural and cultural resources are critical to Gilroy’s vibrancy and prosperity, and therefore deserve protection.”
This sign does not protect our natural and cultural resources, it damages them.

Transportation - I believe it could cause distracted driving. Signs, by their nature, are designed to attract attention.

Mandatory Findings of significance - This section claims that the mandatory findings can be mitigated. I disagree for the above reasons.

The data in this staff report were all geared to promote your approval of these drastic changes to our current sign ordinance. The information provided is lengthy, detailed and bureaucratic, hoping you will forget to use your common sense and our community values. Maybe Outfront Media thinks we are naive or not equipped to analyze this proposal.

Despite 500 pages in your packet I don’t believe you have been given the balanced information you need to determine whether it is important to change our current sign ordinance. Please vote NO.

Sincerely,
Connie Rogers

10.1 p. 805 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 6:25 PM
To: Sharon Goei
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Digital billboard
Begin forwarded message:

From: Libba Basile <[email protected]>
Date: Jan 29, 2023 at 6:23 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Digital billboard
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

I vote a big no on the digital billboard. I’d rather they bring back the Casa de Fruta billboard with the man flipping the cup before that horrible digital billboard, and that’s probably aging me for people that haven’t lived here for 40 years. I just don’t think we need that billboard.

Sent from my iPad

10.1 p. 806 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: John Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 4:07 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners
Cc: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal; Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle; Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner; Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt; Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis; Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez; Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez; Cindy McCormick
Subject: EXTERNAL - Letter Regarding Electronic Billboards Attachments: LETTER TO GILROY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JAN. 30, 2023.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Planning Commissioners,
Please see the attached letter to you regarding the proposed digital billboards in Gilroy.

Thank you.

John Miller
Los Gatos, CA

10.1 p. 807 of 947
1 Dear Commissioners,
I watched the video of your January 19th meeting in which you discussed the proposal to change the city Sign Ordinance to allow for off premise digital billboard advertising in Gilroy.

The decision-making process regarding the proposed billboards while supposedly depending on a “scientific” evaluation via CEQA is first and foremost an exercise in political judgment and community values. Since 2018 there has been only one official applicant seeking the Sign Ordinance be changed to satisfy his financial interests and that of some car dealers. Would not Politics 101 call indulging that applicant an example of catering to special interests over the interest of the broader community?
Commissioners ought to be asking why one single applicant desiring to negate an existing ordinance is sufficient to put in motion the time and energy of staff in various city departments over a period of months if not years to pursue changing the ordinance? Obviously it is to further the interest of the applicant and his associates. Contending that somehow some of the money generated by a giant intrusive digital billboard dominating the town’s appearance will trickle down to the community is certainly not an inference to be drawn from the Mitigated Negative Declaration but rather a combination of an urban legend and billboard industry talking points.

In that regard the position of city staff including the city attorney, instead of being honest brokers and presenting to the Commission an evenhanded presentation regarding the pros and the cons of the proposal being considered, behave as if employed by Outfront Media. As far as I could tell, staff is 100% behind the proposal and very much relying on the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the reason why.

The Initial Study upon which this Mitigated Negative Declaration is based concludes (and I quote), that the proposed project, though having "a significant effect on the environment…will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent…” So we are expected to believe that whatever concerns the MND identified can be easily mitigated.

10.1 p. 808 of 947
2 process has been designed to evaluate typical ecological and biological impacts of a proposed development and an MND is not the proper tool by itself to comprehensibly evaluate the determinative aesthetic and economic dimensions unique to the impact of digital billboards.

Examples of these types of impacts include:
• billboards causing residential property values to decrease; • the problem of commercial properties sustaining business in tourist destinations experiencing a proliferation of off-premise advertising;
• billboards associated with an increase in litter and graffiti; • and very significantly how many of the cities with the greatest number of billboards have the lowest per capital gross domestic product while many of those who prohibit them score higher on that measure.

10.1 p. 809 of 947
3 necessarily the best instrument to accurately measure significant impacts associated with billboards which is why the proponents of this scheme are so enamored of it. What other method of evaluation can so easily dismiss citizen concerns by claiming they are not relevant to what is being considered by the method of analysis employed? If I were a Commissioner, I would want to fully understand why those significant impacts on the environment in the examples I just identified and those that were referenced in the Initial Study, should not have been thoroughly addressed in a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Review. Somebody on the city staff made a decision not to conduct an EIR and instead called for an applicant-friendly MND, but the public and the Commissioners have not been told why other than the brief and self justifying reasons listed in the MND document itself.

That’s not surprising considering the Initial Study and decision to declare an MND were undertaken behind closed doors and off the public’s radar. That should prompt Commissioners to ask, does the City Council, stating it is open to considering this proposal, therefore approve (and by inference authorize) a blank check to pay for staff time and a consultant to conclude that a Mitigated Negative Declaration justifies the proposed billboards?
Or, as asserted by Cindy McCormick in an email to me, “the applicant pays for staff time, attorney time, and consultant time.” If the latter, as one long-time observer of the CEQA process told me, “when the applicant pays for the CEQA document the applicant generally gets the results they pay for.” Can city staff inform the Planning Commission just how many dollars have been spent on greasing the skids for this proposal prior to the project having even been presented to you Commissioners for consideration?
Perhaps that lack of transparency explains why city attorney and planning department staff time was authorized for work on this proposal prior to the Planning Commission having even preliminary answers to basic questions about the alleged need to change the sign ordinance prohibiting off premise advertising. Questions about the history and current community prohibition of off premise advertising in the majority of municipalities in Santa Clara County should have been answered early in the process instead of being left out as they have been.

One need only quote from the city of Santa Clara’s Sign Code,

18.80.220 which states “It had been determined that billboards, by

10.1 p. 810 of 947
4 their very nature, wherever located and however constructed, constitute visual clutter and blight to the appearance of the City. It has also been determined that billboards impede traffic safety by unduly distracting motorists and pedestrians, creating traffic hazards, and reducing the effectiveness of signs needed to direct the public. It is the express intent of the City Council to permit no further billboards within the city and to reduce their number…”
Such an omission, seriously questions staff’s contention that the billboard policy “best practices” of neighboring communities to Gilroy have been accurately related as part of staff’s due diligence. They have not.

Gilroy Planning Commissioners should know that Commissioners in other communities have voted no on proposed billboards in part because information relevant to their making an informed decision was not provided by their staff. Here is a link to an op ed in the Mercury News written by 3 of San Jose’s Airport Commissioners explaining why a majority of their body recommended to the City Council that it reject the proposed digital billboards at the San Jose
airport. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/11/29/opinion-why-wevoted-against-san-jose-airport-digital-billboard-plans/ Gilroy Commissioners should also know that CEQA protocol cautions about engaging in what is called “pre-commitment,” a process whereby a proposed project, needing approval of a commission or city council, has become the recipient of significant staff time and outside consultant input over several months. The impact of such a process makes it much more difficult for a planning commission or city council to just say “no” when a final decision must be made to approve a project. Not only does this diminish the role and purpose of your commission it will set up the city of Gilroy for a lawsuit alleging CEQA rule violations. For more on pre-commitment see this article in California Environmental Law Reporter, http://www.cbcearthlaw.com/uploads/1/1/8/8/11883175/timing _is_everything.pdf
Process often determines outcomes. In this case, the process that put this matter before the Planning Commission is the equivalent of a thumbs-on-the-scale, stacked-deck approach on the part of city staff.

Clearly, staff seems more interested in supporting the objectives of the proposed project applicant than in staff’s responsibility to you and to the taxpayers who expect decisions to be made by designated decision

10.1 p. 811 of 947
5 makers not by out of view city staff and costly consultants seduced by special interests and dismissive of the community they serve.

I mentioned that values play a role in your decision-making process. In that regard, please find below a link to perhaps the best presentation on how off premise advertising can destroy a community’s sense of place and self identity. It is a TED talk by Ed McMahon who holds the Charles E. Fraser Chair on Sustainable Development at the Urban Land Institute in Washington, DC. Well worth watching as a reminder that cities are first and foremost communities and not revenue-generating enterprises catering to special interests, https://www.tedxjacksonville.com/talks/edmcmahon/ For a group with the right values closer to home follow No Digital Billboards in San Jose on Twitter here, https://twitter.com/BillboardsNo And one more thing. You as Commissioners are not legally or ethically bound to accept the conclusions presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Decision making bodies are free to accept or reject such off-the-shelf, one-size-fits-all substitutions for serious and comprehensive analysis.

If you have problems with how this proposal has been presented to you by staff; if you need more time to review the material; if you need to hear from those who oppose turning communities like Gilroy into venues for outdoor digital advertising then you have the right and responsibility to take control of the process before you reach a decision on this very important matter. Thank you for your attention.

John Miller
Los Gatos

10.1 p. 812 of 947
6 Here is a graphic of the path to an MND

10.1 p. 813 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Division (Public)
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 12:54 PM
To: Cindy McCormick
Subject: FW: EXTERNAL - no electronic billboards in Gilroy please Hi Cindy,
Please see public comment below regarding Public Hearing Item 6.1.

Kind regards,
Ariana
From: Penny Noel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 12:21 PM
To: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal <[email protected]>; Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner <[email protected]>; Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle <[email protected]>; Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt <[email protected]>; Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis <[email protected]>; Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez <[email protected]>; Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - no electronic billboards in Gilroy please PLEASE , no electronic billboards in Gilroy.

They distract already distracted drivers and they harm wildlife and people with disabilities Thank you
Penny Noel
--
Penny Noel
Web Design | Photo Compilation | Graphic Design
www.studio1070.com
408.634.5182
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 814 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: james rogers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 2:36 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners
Cc: Cindy McCormick
Subject: EXTERNAL - Fwd: 🌲 Billboards, Byways... and the Beatles? Dear Commissioners,
There are 2 articles about billboards in this email. I hope you will read them and learn that many jurisdictions either prohibit billboards, especially electronic ones, or are trying to phase them out.

Thank you.

Connie Rogers
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Mark Falzone, Scenic America" <[email protected]> Subject: ઍ઎એઐ Billboards, Byways... and the Beatles?
Date: January 31, 2023 at 2:02:04 PM PST
To: Connie Rogers <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 815 of 947
2 January News from Scenic America
The new year is off to a strong start at Scenic America as we celebrate a big victory against the billboard industry in the courts and as we cheer Congress' decision to allocate $20 million for byways in the FY 23 appropriations act. Like many of you, we eagerly await the Federal Highway Administration's announceme of the FY 21 and 22 byways grant awards. Read on for more news and updates, and we look forward to your support and partnership in 2023.

Wisconsin Court Upholds Digital Billboard
Ban in Madison
A Wisconsin district court affirmed the City of
Madison's ban on digital billboards in a decision
announced earlier this month, citing Austin v.

Reagan.

LEARN MORE

10.1 p. 816 of 947
3 Congress Funds Byways in FY 23
Appropriations Act
The FY 23 appropriations act signed into law late
last year includes $20 million for scenic byways, the
highest figure since Scenic America led the push
for the program's revival.

LEARN MORE
Scenic America President Appointed to
Route 66 Commission
Scenic America's Mark Falzone was appointed by
President Joe Biden to the Route 66 Centennial
Commission, which will develop plans to
commemorate the iconic roadway's 100th
anniversary in 2026.

LEARN MORE

10.1 p. 817 of 947
4 Undergrounding Grant Applications
Process Underway
The Department of Energy has released updated
information about grants being awarded as part of
the $5 billion Grid Infrastructure and Resiliency
Program. Information and application guidelines are
now available via the link below. The application
deadline is March 31, 2023.

LEARN MORE
Byways to Explore for Black History
Month
Our scenic byways tell the powerful stories of
sacrifice, service, tragedy, and triumph of notable
figures from Harriet Tubman to Martin Luther King,
Jr. With Black History Month just around the corner,
here are a few routes to explore.

LEARN MORE

10.1 p. 818 of 947
5 Scenic Heroes: Lady Bird Johnson
The First Lady's commitment to scenic beauty
prompted the passage of the Highway
Beautification Act, and her legacy continues to
inspire scenic conservation efforts today.

LEARN MORE
Placemaking Spotlight: Main Street
Success Stories
Main Street America highlights successful
community revitalization efforts in five communities:

Washington, DC; Laramie, WY; Livermore, CA;
Natchitoches, LA; and Washington, MO.

LEARN MORE

10.1 p. 819 of 947
6 Community Building through Highway
Removal
In this post from Transportation for America
explores Milwaukee's fascinating plan to remove
sections of its highway system to rebuild and
restore communities-- and its interest in doing more
of this in the future.

READ THE ARTICLE
Scenic Beauty...with a little help from the
Beatles
Mark Falzone shared his "Fab Four" picks inspired
by Scenic America's mission with Sirius XM's The
Beatles Channel in a special segment that aired in
December.

SEE MARK'S PICKS

10.1 p. 820 of 947
7 Take Action Against Billboards
If you’d like to see fewer billboards for safer and
more scenic communities, take a moment to sigh
our petition to stay up to date on more opportunities
for action.

TAKE ACTION
Remembering Geoffrey Clark
Scenic America mourns the loss of Geoffrey Clark,
who passed away on January 8. An accomplished
physician and entrepreneur, Jeff was the husband
of Martha Fuller Clark, a longtime Scenic America
board member and the daughter of one of the
organization's co-founders, Marion Fuller Brown.

10.1 p. 821 of 947
8 Help Us Fight the Blight
As the only national organization focused on scenic
conservation, Scenic America has a big agenda
and a critical job, and we can't do take on this work
without your help. Every gift makes an impact.

GIVE NOW
Scenic America
727 15th Street NW Suite 1100, | Washington, District of Columbia 20005-6029 202.792.1300 | [email protected]
Follow Us
Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser Unsubscribe or Manage Your
Preferences

10.1 p. 822 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 8:44 PM
To: Sharon Goei; Cindy McCormick
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Bill board
Begin forwarded message:

From: Linda Ford <[email protected]>
Date: Jan 31, 2023 at 8:33 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Bill board
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

I am a resident of Gilroy, and I am opposed to putting up such a huge billboard. It does not represent our city. It will be an eyesore.

Sincerely
Linda Berti

10.1 p. 823 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: John Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 6:38 AM
To: All Planning Commissioners
Cc: Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt; Cindy McCormick; Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez; Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner; Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis; Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal; Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez; Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle
Subject: EXTERNAL - Letter Regarding Electronic Billboards Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.pdf; PastedGraphic-2.pdf
Dear Planning Commissioners,
It has come to my attention that my email to you yesterday contained links that were not functioning. Therefore please find below a version in which hopefully the links function properly. If not, please copy and paste.

Thank you.

John Miller
Los Gatos, CA
Dear Commissioners,
I watched the video of your January 19th meeting in which you discussed the proposal to change the city Sign Ordinance to allow for off premise digital billboard advertising in Gilroy.

In that regard the position of city staff including the city attorney, instead of being honest brokers and presenting to the Commission an even-handed presentation regarding the pros and the cons of the proposal being considered, behave as if employed by Outfront Media. As far as I could tell, staff is 100% behind the proposal and very much relying on the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the reason why.

The Initial Study upon which this Mitigated Negative Declaration is based concludes (and I quote), that the proposed CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 824 of 947
2 project, though having "a significant effect on the environment…will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent…” So we are expected to believe that whatever concerns the MND identified can be easily mitigated.

However, that conclusion is very much debatable. That’s because there are several assumptions inherent in this Mitigated Negative Declaration that are not acknowledged. Prominent among them is that the CEQA process has been designed to evaluate typical ecological and biological impacts of a proposed development and an MND is not the proper tool by itself to comprehensibly evaluate the determinative aesthetic and economic dimensions unique to the impact of digital billboards.

Examples of these types of impacts include:
• billboards causing residential property values to decrease; • the problem of commercial properties sustaining business in tourist destinations experiencing a proliferation of offpremise advertising; • billboards associated with an increase in litter and graffiti; • and very significantly how many of the cities with the greatest number of billboards have the lowest per capital gross domestic product while many of those who prohibit them score higher on that measure.

None of this information was in the MND and the applicant’s apologists went so far as to comment that “Economic impacts are not significant environmental impacts under CEQA. 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15131.” Precisely my point, which reinforces the view that CEQA is not necessarily the best instrument to accurately measure significant impacts associated with billboards which is why the proponents of this scheme are so enamored of it. What other method of evaluation can so easily dismiss citizen concerns by claiming they are not relevant to what is being considered by the method of analysis employed?
If I were a Commissioner, I would want to fully understand why those significant impacts on the environment in the examples I just identified and those that were referenced in the Initial Study, should not have been thoroughly addressed in a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Review. Somebody on the city staff made a decision not to conduct an EIR and instead called for an applicant-friendly MND, but the public and the Commissioners have not been told why other than the brief and self justifying reasons listed in the MND document itself.

That’s not surprising considering the Initial Study and decision to declare an MND were undertaken behind closed doors and off the public’s radar. That should prompt Commissioners to ask, does the City Council, stating it is open to considering this proposal, therefore approve (and by inference authorize) a blank check to pay for staff time and a consultant to conclude that a Mitigated Negative Declaration justifies the proposed billboards? Or, as asserted by Cindy McCormick in an email to me, “the applicant pays for staff time, attorney time, and consultant time.” If the latter, as one long-time observer of the CEQA process told me, “when the applicant pays for the CEQA document the applicant generally gets the results they pay for.” Can city staff inform the Planning Commission just how many dollars have been spent on greasing the skids for this proposal prior to the project having even been presented to you Commissioners for consideration?
Perhaps that lack of transparency explains why city attorney and planning department staff time was authorized for work on this proposal prior to the Planning Commission having even preliminary answers to basic questions about the alleged need to change the sign ordinance prohibiting off premise advertising. Questions about the history and current community prohibition of off premise advertising in the majority of municipalities in Santa Clara County should have been answered early in the process instead of being left out as they have been.

10.1 p. 825 of 947
3 One need only quote from the city of Santa Clara’s Sign Code, 18.80.220 which states “It had been determined that billboards, by their very nature, wherever located and however constructed, constitute visual clutter and blight to the appearance of the City. It has also been determined that billboards impede traffic safety by unduly distracting motorists and pedestrians, creating traffic hazards, and reducing the effectiveness of signs needed to direct the public. It is the express intent of the City Council to permit no further billboards within the city and to reduce their number…” Such an omission, seriously questions staff’s contention that the billboard policy “best practices” of neighboring communities to Gilroy have been accurately related as part of staff’s due diligence. They have not.

Here is a link to an op ed in the Mercury News written by 3 of San Jose’s Airport Commissioners explaining why a majority of their body recommended to the City Council that it reject the proposed digital billboards at the San Jose airport. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/11/29/opinion-why-we-voted-against-san-jose-airport-digital-billboardplans/ Gilroy Commissioners should also know that CEQA protocol cautions about engaging in what is called “precommitment,” a process whereby a proposed project, needing approval of a commission or city council, has become the recipient of significant staff time and outside consultant input over several months. The impact of such a process makes it much more difficult for a planning commission or city council to just say “no” when a final decision must be made to approve a project. Not only does this diminish the role and purpose of your commission it will set up the city of Gilroy for a lawsuit alleging CEQA rule violations. For more on pre-commitment see this article in California Environmental Law Reporter, http://www.cbcearthlaw.com/uploads/1/1/8/8/11883175/timing_is_everything.pdf Process often determines outcomes. In this case, the process that put this matter before the Planning Commission is the equivalent of a thumbs-on-the-scale, stacked-deck approach on the part of city staff. Clearly, staff seems more interested in supporting the objectives of the proposed project applicant than in staff’s responsibility to you and to the taxpayers who expect decisions to be made by designated decision makers not by out of view city staff and costly consultants seduced by special interests and dismissive of the community they serve.

I mentioned that values play a role in your decision-making process. In that regard, please find below a link to perhaps the best presentation on how off premise advertising can destroy a community’s sense of place and self identity. It is a TED talk by Ed McMahon who holds the Charles E. Fraser Chair on Sustainable Development at the Urban Land Institute in Washington, DC. Well worth watching as a reminder that cities are first and foremost communities and not revenuegenerating enterprises catering to special interests, https://www.tedxjacksonville.com/talks/ed-mcmahon/ For a group with the right values closer to home follow No Digital Billboards in San Jose on Twitter here, https://twitter.com/BillboardsNo
And one more thing. You as Commissioners are not legally or ethically bound to accept the conclusions presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Decision making bodies are free to accept or reject such off-the-shelf, one-size-fits-all substitutions for serious and comprehensive analysis.

John Miller
Los Gatos

10.1 p. 826 of 947
4 Here is a graphic of the path to an MND

10.1 p. 827 of 947

10.1 p. 828 of 947

10.1 p. 829 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 7:25 PM
To: Sharon Goei; Cindy McCormick
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Please vote down increased allowance for digital billboards in Gilroy Begin forwarded message:

From: Bruce England <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 1, 2023 at 7:14 PM
To: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Division (Public) <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Please vote down increased allowance for digital billboards in Gilroy Dear Planning Commission members:

As a South Bay Area resident with grave concerns about overlighting in our region, I'm very troubled about any plans to change the zoning rules for increases in billboard lighting allowances, and I urge you to vote this down and to be strong in your opposition during deliberations.

Note that we in your neighboring city of Mountain View are preparing to tighten lighting rules this year through ordinance updates and with guidance from the International Dark-Sky Association and other related advisory bodies.

The background that I'm aware of:

The City of Gilroy is in the process of changing the City’s zoning code to allow digital billboards and approve a 75-foot, 2- sided electronic billboard aimed at motorists on Highway 101 to advertise (mostly) car dealerships to motorists. The plan has drawn opposition from the residents, environmental organizations (including Loma Prieta Chapter) and the Lick Observatory, suggesting that the billboards despoil the rural nature of the town, introduce harmful light pollution to the environment, and add to the light clatter that constrains the work of the Lick observatory on Mt. Hamilton. This is despite the City’s environmental review that concluded that electronic billboards will not have a significant impact on the environment.

Electronic Billboards purposely distract drivers. Some studies show that more accidents occur on highways near billboards. Light pollution permeates our environment, harming ecosystems, wildlife, and people, as well as research by astronomers. Electronic billboards create visual clatter that increases stress and degrades quality of life for all. Unlike other issues in the public realm, where opinions differ and compromises are feasible, the pervasive and unavoidable CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 830 of 947
2 impacts of electronic billboards are impossible to reconcile.

The project is coming to a second discussion at the Thursday, February February 2, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting.

The meeting starts at 6PM, and this item will be discussed after some process issues and general public comments.

Thanks for your consideration,
Bruce England
328 Whisman Station Drive
Mountain View, CA 94043

10.1 p. 831 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 7:25 PM
To: Cindy McCormick; Sharon Goei
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Electronic signage
Begin forwarded message:

From: Genevieve Corbin <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 1, 2023 at 7:10 PM
To: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Electronic signage
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

I am so totally against this type of distractions being imposed upon us.

I SAY NO!!!!!!
Sent from my iPhone

10.1 p. 832 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 7:56 PM
To: Sharon Goei; Cindy McCormick
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Opposition to electronic billboards in Gilroy Begin forwarded message:

From: rmloui <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 1, 2023 at 7:48 PM
To: Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Division (Public) <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Opposition to electronic billboards in Gilroy Hello,
I recently learned that the City of Gilroy is in the process of changing the City's zoning code to allow digital billboards and approve a 75-foot, 2-sided electronic billboard aimed at motorists on Hwy 101 to advertise.

I strongly oppose that electronic billboards be allowed, for several reasons.

The addition of billboards is first, quite unsightly to look at, spoiling the rural feel of the town. When visiting or driving through Gilroy, I enjoy viewing the natural environment and the farms with its trees, crops, and animals. The last thing I want to see are ugly signs advertising products that I am not interested in and distracting me from driving safely. Secondly, the light pollution generated from the digital billboards will be disruptive to the environment (plants and animals), as well as the Lick Observatory.

There are already plenty of avenues for car dealerships to advertise. The last thing we need is unnecessary "development" with these hideous billboards, marring the peaceful natural beauty that Gilroy is right now. If ppl want to buy a car, they know where to go already.

No to digital billboards.

CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 833 of 947
2 Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Rachel Loui
Mountain View, CA

10.1 p. 834 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Ronnie Burttram <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 10:15 PM
To: Cindy McCormick; Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Electronic Billboard Ordinance
Dear City of Gilroy,
I am writing to show support for the Electronic Billboard Project. I live and have family in Gilroy. I believe that Gilroy and the businesses in Gilroy would benefit greatly from allowing electronic billboards along the freeway. It would bring Gilroy more relevance in the Bay Area, as many other cities already have these signs. It would also increase sales for Gilroy's local businesses.

Sincerely,
Ronald G. Burttram, Jr.

CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 835 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 7:57 PM
To: Sharon Goei; Cindy McCormick
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Please reject electronic billboards in Gilroy Begin forwarded message:

From: Ronit Bryant <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 1, 2023 at 7:52 PM
To: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Division (Public) <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Please reject electronic billboards in Gilroy Dear Gilroy Planning Commissioners,
Please listen to your residents and reject the proposed zoning changes that will allow electronic billboards along the freeways in your town. I am not a Gilroy resident. I live in the Bay Area and work to help preserve what is left us of nature and beauty. Please help.

These billboards will cause light pollution, distract (and therefore endanger) drivers, and contribute nothing to the beauty and atmosphere of your city.

Sincerely,
Ronit Bryant
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 836 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 10:16 AM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Electronic Billboard
To members of the Gilroy Planning Commission and City of Gilroy:

We are puzzled by why the city of Gilroy would even consider installing an electronic billboard. What is this billboard supposed to accomplish? At present, drivers and their passengers on Hwy. 101 know of our automobile malls and outlets, as they can see them from the freeway. An electronic billboard is not needed to encourage people who live in Gilroy to go downtown or support local eateries. If the people who live in Gilroy are not already providing that support a huge, lit up billboard is not going to change their minds. In fact, for some of us, it might do the opposite because of our dislike for the added and unnecessary light pollution.

What type of advertisement is going to be allowed to light up our night skies? Will it just be for the city/businesses from Gilroy or will ads from other nearby towns, such as Morgan Hill and /or undesirable (think JUUL / Vaping) ads be displayed? Who will determine the billboards’ content, a for profit, non-local, multi media company?
There are many cities in the Bay Area that have recently considered and deemed undesirable these types of signs. They not only contribute to light pollution of our night skies, they distract drivers and confuse wildlife, especially birds that fly at night. At a time when many people are trying to get back in touch with nature and encourage wildlife conservation, how can we consider an unnecessary polluter of our natural environment? Gilroy has much to be proud of and showcase; our shared rural ambiance, our hiking/biking tails, our parks, our pride in and support of our local businesses, and much more. We would encourage you to consider not only how little an electronic billboard would do to improve on these areas but also how much it would harm them.

Georgia Stern
Joseph Stern
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 837 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 6:36 PM
To: Cindy McCormick; Sharon Goei
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS
Begin forwarded message:

From: Theresia Hypes <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 1, 2023 at 6:23 PM
To: All Planning Commissioners <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS
Dear Commissioners:

I am strongly opposed to allowing electronic billboards in Gilroy. They will ruin our country feel and be distracting to drivers on Hwy 101.

Additionally, all the environmental reasons against it.

Thank you,
Theresia Konrad-Hypes~resident since 1987
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 838 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: David Marancik <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 8:23 AM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Billboard
No giant digital billboards !! They are ugly and distracting.

Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 839 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: George L. Renz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 11:39 AM
To: Cindy McCormick
Cc: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Electric billboard project
Attachments: City of Gilroy Planning Dept. Letter.pdf
Hi Cindy,
See attached a support letter for the electric billboard project.

Please confirm receipt.

Thank you,
George
George L. Renz, CCIM, SIOR, ALC
DRE# 00854816: September 1983
Renz & Renz – Investment & Commercial Brokerage
7500 Arroyo Circle, Ste 170 Gilroy, CA 95020
O: (408)846-1031 F: (408)846-1042
E: [email protected] W: RenzRenz.com
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 840 of 947

10.1 p. 841 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 7:26 AM
To: Sharon Goei; Cindy McCormick
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - No Billboard changes to Zoning Code Begin forwarded message:

From: Giselle Verbera <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 2, 2023 at 7:23 AM
To: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Division (Public) <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - No Billboard changes to Zoning Code Hello,
I recently learned about the proposed changes to the City of Gilroy's zoning code that would allow a 75ft electronic billboard to be installed near 101. As a proud resident of Gilroy, I am voicing my opposition and concern for allowing this change to occur.

Many Gilroy residents commute daily and rely on 101 to do so. I myself am a commuter and frequently travel during the early hours of the morning. Allowing for a large electronic billboard that would be visible along 101 is concerning to me.

I have travelled other major highways with electronic billboards and they are jarring and quite frankly pose a hazard when driving during the evening or early mornings. These billboards are bright enough that they cause drivers to squint to avoid such jarring light. I am concerned an electronic billboard would create unnecessary light pollution and distract fellow commuters in Gilroy.

Gilroy is a wonderful city, one that I am proud to call home. One of the many appeals Gilroy has, and a large reason why I chose to move to this great city, is the minimal amount of billboards (especially electronic ones). Along 101 you are able to see stars at night. Not many places within the Bay Area/Santa Clara County can boast that. Please consider keeping the zoning code the way it is and maintaining the City's star-filled, electronic-billboard-free section of 101 and surrounding areas.

Thank you,
Giselle Agdeppa-Verbera
Proud Gilroy Resident
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 842 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 6:10 AM
To: Sharon Goei; Cindy McCormick
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Billboards along 101 in Gilroy Begin forwarded message:

From: Ines Deschamps <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 2, 2023 at 1:07 AM
To: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Division (Public) <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Billboards along 101 in Gilroy
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Planning Commission
Re: Feb 2 Planning Commission meeting at 6PM
I hereby would like to inform you that I am voting against the City of Gilroy zoning code change to allow digital billboards.

The installation of large billboards interferes with driving safety & causes environmental distractions.

Thank you for keeping our rural city’s uncluttered & safe! Kind regards,
Ines Deschamps
Sent from my iPhone

10.1 p. 843 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Division (Public)
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 9:35 AM
To: Cindy McCormick
Subject: FW: EXTERNAL - Please Deny Electronic Billboards Hi Cindy,
Please see email below.

Kind regards,
Ariana
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 9:17 AM
To: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal <[email protected]>; Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner <[email protected]>; Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle <[email protected]>; Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt <[email protected]>; Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis <[email protected]>; Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez <[email protected]>; Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Division (Public) <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Please Deny Electronic Billboards
Dear Council and Commission of Gilroy,
Please do not approve the electronic billboard applicaƟon before you. Our city of Belmont was bribed to accept one of these by what they thought to be an enormous windfall. In hindsight it was not worth it. Residents are horrified by it’s intrusion and offence to wildlife and commercial blight. The glare reflects all night to residents at the adjacent hotels and is visible even from the hilltop homes ½ mile away. Light polluƟon is an increasing problem and, despite claims, these fully illuminated billboards contribute a lot to the environmental problems caused by too much nighƫme light. Not to menƟon the offensive commercializaƟon of our roads.

The Gilroy area is blessed to have retained a lot of surrounding natural space where wildlife take sanctuary from our urban development. Don’t be bribed. Vote NO to highway blight and intrusive nighƟme light.

KrisƟn Mercer
Belmont
“It actually doesn’t take much to be considered a difficult woman. That’s why there are so many of us.” – Jane Goodall This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 844 of 947
2 10.1
p. 845 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Leslie Friedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 11:19 AM
To: Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner; Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle; Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt; Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis; Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez; Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez; Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Electronic Billboard
Hello,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the plan to place a double sided electronic billboard alongside of hwy.101.

This will be a serious danger to drivers and wildlife. Research shows that there are more accidents when billboards
are near highways. The electronic billboard will be large and bright. It is meant to distract drivers from driving and
watching a road. That's the whole purpose of this kind of advertising. Will the city of Gilroy accept responsibility for
the accidents?
Wildllife, animals and birds will be disoriented by the lights. Animals live by schedules even more so than humans. They
will fly into the billboard or into traffic. The bodies of dead animals on the highway will create more traffic hazards.

The lights will brighten the night sky. This will damage opportunities for astronomers and for all of us who can benefit from
their research. It will lessen opportunities for learning about our world.

If the city of Gilroy thinks this will give it a more modern identity, please do not buy that hogwash. The day when doing and
building things which are damaging to our environment are gone. The things that would make Gilroy more up to date would
be to deny this billboard and let it be know that Gilroy is a leader in protecting life.

I live in Mountain View and frequently drive into Gilroy to shop and for services available there.

Thank you for your attention.

Leslie Friedman
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 846 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 11:56 AM
To: Cindy McCormick; Sharon Goei
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Electric billboards
Begin forwarded message:

From: Yoga with Lupe <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 2, 2023 at 11:45 AM
To: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Electric billboards
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

The research is in and these distract drivers who are already distracted and it makes no sense for the environment either, pls say no!
Sent from my iPhone

10.1 p. 847 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 6:10 AM
To: Cindy McCormick; Sharon Goei
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Billboard opinion
Begin forwarded message:

From: Matthew Andres Calzetta <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 2, 2023 at 6:03 AM
To: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Division (Public) <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Billboard opinion
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Hello Planning Division,
I have lived in Gilroy since 2017.

I just want to voice my opinion against the electronic billboards. They do not fit the spirit of our small town. They are unsightly. I think it will convey ultimately the wrong sentiments to our people and visitors, which is not worth the potential benefits. Also, billboards whether electronic or otherwise, are not endearing or add positively to the environment. Often times they are a eyesore and annoyance.

Please do not amend the code to permit their placement. Let’s not be that south county city that has billboards.

Thanks for your attention and work.

Matt Calzetta, MD
Kaiser Permanente Gilroy
Sent from my iPhone

10.1 p. 848 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 8:44 AM
To: Cindy McCormick; Sharon Goei
Subject: Fwd: EXTERNAL - Electronic Billboard Ordinance Begin forwarded message:

From: scott macdonald <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 2, 2023 at 8:42 AM
To: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez <[email protected]>, Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Division (Public) <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Electronic Billboard Ordinance
Members of the Gilroy Planning Commission,
As someone who drives Highway 101 frequently, I urge you to oppose the proposed changes to the sign ordinance and not allow electronic billboards.

Electronic billboards are distracting, intrusive, despoil the rural nature of the Gilroy area, and generally contribute to a lower quality of life for those living with them. Please do not allow them in your city.

Sincerely.
-Scott MacDonald
San Jose, CA
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 849 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Cindy McCormick
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:23 AM
To: Shani Kleinhaus; Planning Division (Public)
Cc: James Eggers; Gladwyn D'Souza; Rani Fischer; Environmental Assistant Subject: RE: EXTERNAL - Comments on Electronic Billboards Good morning Ms. Kleinhaus,
Thank you for your comments. I will add them to the public record. We have not yet scheduled the public hearing for this item; however a newspaper notice will go out when we do schedule the public meeting.

Cindy
From: Shani Kleinhaus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 3:33 PM
To: Planning Division (Public) <[email protected]> Cc: James Eggers <[email protected]>; Gladwyn D'Souza <[email protected]>; Rani Fischer <[email protected]>; Environmental Assistant <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Comments on Electronic Billboards
Dear Ms. McCormick,
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter submit the attached comment letter and attachments on Gilroy's Initial Study/ Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - Electronic Billboard.

Our comments highlight the shortcomings of the Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project in the City of Gilroy. The comments with attached references provide unequivocal scientific evidence to establish the significant and unavoidable harm that Artificial Light At Night (ALAN) in general, and electronic billboards specifically, impose on human health and on ecosystems. The IS/DMND does not adequately address these issues.

Thank you,
Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D.

Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
22221 McClellan Rd.

Cupertino, CA 95014
650-868-2114
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 850 of 947
September 6, 2022
Cindy McCormick
[email protected]
Re: Initial Study/ Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - Electronic Billboard Dear Ms. McCormick,
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter submit the following comments and responses to highlight the shortcomings of the Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project in the City of Gilroy. The comments with attached references provide unequivocal scientific evidence to establish the significant and unavoidable harm that Artificial Light At Night (ALAN) in general, and electronic billboards specifically, impose on human health and on ecosystems. The IS/DMND does not adequately address these issues.

In March 2021, Sierra Club National adopted a new light pollution policy: “Sierra Club recognizes that while artificial light provides desirable benefits to society, such as extended hours of social space at night, its excessive, inappropriate and poorly controlled use also leads to significant harm. Sierra Club defines light pollution as artificial light that adversely affects ecosystems and any living organism. Sierra Club includes in this definition anthropogenic light that is wasteful, or misdirected; has negative ecological impacts; is used as a form of aggression; is harmful to health, safety, or other human rights; or disrupts our view of the natural night sky, disconnecting us from our cosmic environment, including the Milky Way Galaxy where we live. Therefore, light pollution imposes natural resources, economic, biological, political, psychological, and cultural burdens.” In addition, the Sierra Club retained a 60-year policy which “opposes billboard development along highways and supports measures to restrict these billboards.” The Sierra club policy is supported by a comprehensive compilation of resources pointing to the significant impacts of ALAN, please see “Attachment Resources-References-LightPollutionPolicy_20210307,” attached, and the recently published “Artificial Light at Night: State of the Science 2022”
1 . The information and scientific studies referenced in this 1 International Dark-Sky Association
1 10.1
p. 851 of 947
attachment point to the devastating impact of lighting on ecosystems and organisms that comprise our biological resources and our health. The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) is similarly concerned with the proliferation of ALAN and its pervasive harm to organisms, species, ecological food webs, and human health and safety. SCVAS is one of the largest National Audubon Society chapters in California, and its mission is to promote the enjoyment, understanding, and protection of birds and other wildlife by engaging people of all ages in birding, education, and conservation.

Our organizations and our thousands of members in the region are working to protect our common natural resources, and we are greatly concerned with detrimental impacts of electronic billboards and signs to biological resources, the night sky, the aesthetic character of our City of Gilroy and region, and the health and quality of life of our region’s residents. We are opposed to allowing electronic billboards and encourage the City of Gilroy to tighten regulation and reduce, rather than increase their prevalence and impacts. We believe that electronic billboards anywhere, including at the proposed location, will cause significant and irreversible harm to the biological and aesthetic environment resources. We encourage the City of Gilroy to amend its sign ordinance to prohibit highway-facing and major-road facing electronic billboards.

1. Aesthetic Resources
Electronic signs are, by design, intended to be viewed from a distance. By design, electronic billboards offend aesthetics and visual character, and produce day and nighttime illumination, light and glare. The public abhors them. A 2021 survey conducted by the City of San Jose revealed that over 95% of over 2200 respondents are strongly opposed to electronic billboards on freeways (presentation attached). The concerns over aesthetics were one of the primary reasons provided by the opposing respondents. Highway 101 in this area is not, by designation, a scenic highway. But the public and the drivers clearly consider electronic advertisement “a form of aggression” which assaults our senses and health, and imperils drivers as it diverts their attention and puts them at an increased risk of collision. ● The entire portion of US-101 that passes through the City of Gilroy is a County-designated scenic route, and is only approximately 660 feet east of the proposed billboard site. The Project clearly intends the advertisements to be highly visible from US-101 which traverses a relatively rural landscape in Gilroy and its vicinity, a rural landscape that travelers value. The Project will disrupt the visual character of the 101 corridor, despoil scenic elements, and offend landscape characteristics that contribute to the rural character of the Bay Area south of San Jose and to the well being of travelers. ● The finding that aesthetic impacts of Light and Glare are less than significant relies on Mitigation Measure MM AES-1 “The signs’ operational lighting parameters shall be provided to the City of Gilroy Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the regular operation of the light-emitting diode (LED) billboards, and https://www.darksky.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/IDA-State-of-the-Science-2022-EN.pdf 2 10.1
p. 852 of 947
shall be implemented by the project proponent to ensure a driver would not be adversely affected or impacted by trespass glare lighting.” ○ Since drivers overwhelmingly and unequivocally find that electronic billboards affect them, there is no feasible way to “ensure a driver would not be adversely affected or impacted by trespass glare lighting”.

There is no doubt that impact on Aesthetic Resources is significant and unavoidable, and should be recognized as such in an Environmental Impact Repost and a Statement of Overriding considerations.

2. Biological Resources:

The Biological Report underestimates the potential impact to ecosystems including those non-special status species that may make use of the adjacent Princevalle drainage that benefit from its water and relative cover and including those that may transit it between the larger habitats of Uvas Creek and Llagas Creek.

Recent scientific studies highlight the pervasive, cumulative, and harmful impacts of ALAN to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, species, and ecosystems. The impacts, including effects on circadian rhythms, metabolism and behavior in fish, birds, insects, and other taxa, have been summarized in several recent publications in major scientific journals. It seems that CEQA guidelines have not caught up and are inadequate to measure the impact to biological resources. Science shows that ALAN is harmful to all biological resources that see or otherwise perceive it - including both plants and animals. The many studies cited in this and the attached document show that biological impacts are not limited to the area illuminated but can extend to a large distance.

The mechanism by which light impacts organisms is explored in a November 2020 study titled, “Exposure to Artificial Light at Night and the Consequences for Flora, Fauna, and Ecosystems” 2 . This
study shows that dozens of behavioral activities in all biological taxa display daily and annual rhythms, and are thus impacted by ALAN. This includes locomotor activity and sleep, schooling behavior (fish), vertical (fish) and horizontal (all vertebrates) migration, behavioral thermoregulation (fish), vocalization (fish, birds), foraging and food intake, mating and reproduction.

Contemporary scientific evidence shows that attraction to light is having a devastating and direct impact on insect numbers and diversity, and indirect effects to entire ecosystems.

Impacts to biological resources can be lessened by limiting operation hours, and turning the billboards off between the hours of 11PM and 8AM.
2 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2020.602796/full 3 10.1
p. 853 of 947
Recent studies also implicate ALAN as one of the primary drivers of the global decline in insect numbers and diversity (the insect apocalypse)
3 . The loss of insects and the loss of ecological services they provide (for example, pollination, and as food for fish and birds) should be considered a significant, unavoidable impact for 24/7 light sources as proposed for this Project.

2.1 Migratory birds
The IS/DNMD acknowledges that “migrating birds can be affected by human-built structures because of their propensity to migrate at night, their low flight altitudes, and their tendency to be disoriented by artificial light, which makes them vulnerable to collision with obstructions that could potentially lead to injury or mortality. In addition, birds migrating at night can be strongly attracted to sources of artificial light, particularly during periods of inclement weather”. The IS/DMND provides two reasons why the ”proposed electronic billboard would not have a significant impact on the movement of migrating birds” (IS/DNMD p. 41). These reasons and the findings are not supported by evidence:
● Illuminations levels – The IS/DMND implies that the “proposed electronic billboard would not create a substantial change in illumination levels' ' from the baseline light sources in the area” (IS/DNMD p. 41). This is a subjective opinion. To substantiate this statement, a photometric study and a study of glare and light spillage must be provided, and light levels and the spectrum of the LED lights should be analyzed within a biological-impact context.
● Billboard sign face display – The IS/DMND states that the proposed billboard sign face would not be allowed to change “more than every 8 seconds, and messages would be static (i.e., not moving, or animated) resulting in changing color patters [sic] rather than a fixed unchanging light which may be more attractive to birds'' (IS/DNMD p. 41). There is no research to indicate what is an effective length of time a billboard image should be displayed to reduce the attraction to birds. The proposed 8 second interval is arbitrary.

Therefore, the IS/DNMD does not show that there is a less than significant impact on wildlife, and mitigation measures to safeguard migratory birds should be implemented.

2.2 Connectivity for wildlife
Open storm drains, irrigation channels and other flood management infrastructure features often connect habitat patches and provide pathways for animals to traverse an urban landscape
4 . This connectivity for wildlife is important to preserve biodiversity, and is easily 4 Ecological connectivity research in urban areas,
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2435.12489 3 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/can-scientists-help-insects-survive-their-fatal-attraction-lig ht-night, and
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/light-pollution-contributes-insect-apocalypse-18097364

2. 4

10.1 p. 854 of 947
disrupted by lighting
5 . The Project is adjacent to the Princevalle Channel, which is currently a wildlife connectivity corridor and allows permeability between Uvas and Llagas creeks (Figure 1).

The DMND provides no analysis of wildlife movement in the channel, dismissing impact to wildlife movement. ife
PDF p. 49 “The project site is bounded by a chain link fencing to the north, east, and south.

These factors along with existing urban developments within the general project vicinity limit wildlife movement through the project site. Additionally, the project site is not part of or within a wildlife movement corridor”
PDF p. 48 provides, “The Princevalle Channel is located approximately 50 feet north of the project site and is a tributary to Llagas Creek, which flows into the Pajaro River, which empties into Monterey Bay, a traditional navigable water of the United States. While the project site does not contain State or federally protected wetlands, construction of the proposed electronic billboards has the potential for indirect (temporary) adverse impacts to the aquatic habitat of the Channel. Potential temporary indirect impacts (during construction) include pollutant loading, increased erosion and sedimentation, and debris dispersal into the Channel.

Implementation of MM BIO-5 and MM BIO-6 would reduce potential indirect adverse impacts to the aquatic habitat of the Channel to less than significant levels through avoidance and minimization measures.”
● Please provide wetland delineation for the channel’s aquatic habitat, and discuss application of requirements by the State Water Board and the Habitat Agency ● MM BIO-5 and BIO-6 mitigate the impacts to Princevalle Channel during the construction phase. Without a study of terrestrial animal movement within the Princevalle Channel, the finding that the Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of native wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors cannot be made.
5 Effects of Artificial Night Lighting on Terrestrial Mammals.

Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Catherine Rich & Travis Longcore (eds). 2006. Island Press.

Covelo, California. Pages 15-42, “lighting can be very disorienting for animals that are trying to move at night. So wildlife corridors can be compromised by even a single light and so prevent animals from moving to crucial landscapes.”
5 10.1
p. 855 of 947
Figure 1: Figure 5-8 of the
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
denotes Uvas Creek and Llagas
Creeks as important wildlife
corridors.

2.3 Conflict with the Valley Habitat Plan
The finds that “Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan” is less than significant with mitigation. The proposed mitigation, MM BIO-7, provides, “The project applicant shall submit a Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP) Coverage Screening Form to the Planning Department for review and shall complete subsequent forms, reports, and/or studies as needed.”
● For Mitigated Negative Declarations, CEQA does not allow mitigation measures to depend on future disclosure of impacts and actual mitigation measures. Please specify any studies that will be needed and discuss the potential impacts and how these will be addressed.
6 10.1
p. 856 of 947

3. Driver Safety The IS/DMND acknowledges that the project undermines driver safety but the impact and of this hazard understated by the IS/DMND
6 . As expressed above, driver Safety was a
great concern to the responders to the San Jose survey. The risk to drivers is evident, and supported in a plethora of studies (See attachments)
● Please analyze current vehicle collision data for the target stretch of US-101 and consider the potential of additional collisions due to drivers’ attention being diverted.

4. Energy consumption, brightness, greenhouse gas emissions In his study of energy use and other environmental impacts of electronic billboards 7 (attached),
Mr. George Young discusses energy consumption for lighting and cooling of LED billboards, as well as brightness of the billboards, materiality and recyclability. Ceqa requires the analysis of all direct and indirect impacts on a project, and we believe that all these environmental burdens are significant. The possibilities of mitigation are limited and therefore, the environmental impacts are generally unavoidable. Mr. Young makes many technical recommendations which we incorporate into this letter by reference. We ask for an Environmental Impact report to consider these mitigation, and analyze the project compliance with them.

While the IS/DMND lists the estimated 52,400 kilowatts/year of electricity and 6.6 megatons of CO2/year expected to be released into the atmosphere with the energy required for the billboards, the IS/DMND only states that it meets standards and does not prescribe mitigation for the greenhouse gas emissions in our current climate emergency.

5. The City of San Jose has recently approved billboards at the airport, and included several feasible structural and operational requirements and mitigation measures that should be incorporated into the requirements for Gilroy’s ordinance and the billboards project. Table 1 highlights some of these requirements:
7 Illuminating the Issues: Digital Signage and Philadelphia’s Green Future by Gregory Young https://www.scenic.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Digital_Signage_Final_Dec_14_20101.pdf 6Appendix A - Lighting Analysis Report from City of San Jose US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Addendum https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/75593/637629018659330000, p.4 6 • Colored light from LED displays outdoors in urban zones affects traffic safety. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360132320308155 (January 2021)
• Luminance of roadside LED Billboards in Poland shows that advertising billboards often exceeded safe luminance levels for driving.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15502724.2020.1803752 (October 2020)
• April 2021 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published data from 2019 on distracted-driver accident stats (electronic billboards included "Distracted by Outside Person, Object, or Event") https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813111 7 10.1
p. 857 of 947
Table 1. Comparison of proposed Gilroy billboards with existing billboards near San Jose Airport SJ Airport Gilroy
Shielding the night sky “customizable horizontal light
shields, and a vertical alignment of
LED RGB modules to eliminate light
into specific zones”
Vertical light is controlled by LED
angles restricted to “65 degrees,
with limited intensity above 18
degrees and below 47 degrees.”
none
Brightness 0.3 candlefoot except on northface
of the South Site which has 0.1
candlelight and “backlighted” LED
display facing the riparian zone
because of creek and riparian zone.

Max is 0.3 candlefoot. Compare
with full moon which is max of 0.1
candlefoot.
6 Brightness changes with the
amount of ambient light picked up
by the sensors.

Max 0.3 candlefoot at 250ft from
billboard. Compare with full moon
which is max of 0.1 candlefoot.
6 Brightness changes with the
amount of ambient light picked up
by the sensors.

Studies on photometrics Study done by Ronald Zeiger,
President of Zeiger Engineers, Inc.
none
hours Off from midnight to 6 am No limits
Time to change screen change every 8 seconds, except the north face on South Side will be a
fixed image, totally static
Change every 8 seconds
On brightness, the EIR provides,
○ PDF p. 21: "The proposed project commits to a maximum ambient light output level of a

0.3 foot-candle at 250 feet from the billboard, which is a more conservative lighting intensity standard for electronic billboards of this proposed size when compared to State standards. For a frame of reference, 0.3 foot-candle is comparable in brightness to the light emanating from a computer monitor, and the light levels emitted from the proposed billboards would be programmed to adjust based upon ambient light conditions at any given time (i.e., nighttime versus daytime). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant"
○ PDF p. 27: "proposed Ordinance would require billboard projects to commit to a maximum ambient light output level of 0.3 foot-candle at 250 feet from the billboards, 8 10.1
p. 858 of 947
which is a more conservative lighting intensity standard for billboards of this proposed size when compared to State standards"
However, the standards seem to address visual and aesthetic impacts, and ignore the biological impacts of lighting that is 3 times the brightness of the moon, and the hazard this brightness imposes on migratory birds and on insects. The brightness, 0.3 foot-candle, remains a significant unmitigated environmental impact to species and the ecosystem.

We ask the City of Gilroy not to approve highway or road-facing electronic billboards. Instead, the city should develop an ordinance prohibiting such billboards city-wide. If the city persists in moving forward with this project, an EIR must be prepared.

Thank you
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Gladwyn D’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
9 10.1
p. 859 of 947
1 Resources and References that helped inform
Sierra Club’s Light Pollution Policy Update
(Last updated 3/7/2021)
Over 70 resources and references (including websites, articles, publications, and reports) were reviewed during Sierra Club’s March 2021 update to its light pollution national policy. The list is only provided to document resources used during policy development. Inclusion of any given resource in this list should not be construed as an endorsement by Sierra Club. The main resources consulted are listed below, organized by a relevant category. Several resources cover multiple issues, but each is only listed once.

Sierra Club Advocacy
Sierra Club AddUp Petition to City Mayors: Protect the Night Against Light Pollution (started in Feb 2018) https://addup.sierraclub.org/campaigns/protect-the-night Sierra Club Articles
On the Hunt for Stars: In Search of a Truly Dark Night Sky. Heather Smith, Feb 27, 2018. SIERRA magazine, March/April 2018 edition. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2018-2-march-april/feature/hunt-for-stars-dark-skies-preserves-and-parks Reclaiming the Night. SIERRA magazine. Katie O'Reilly. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/slideshow/reclaiming-night General Educational Resources
National Park Service Night Skies, www.nps.gov/subjects/nightskies Light pollution - a global discussion. Schulte-Römer, N., Dannemann, E., Meier, J. (2018): Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, 248 pp.
http://www.lightpollutiondiscussion.net
The Right to Dark Skies, 2016, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO Mexico) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246131
Our nights are getting brighter, and Earth is paying the price, by Nadia Drake, National Geographic, published April 3, 2019 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/nights-are-getting-brighter-earth-paying-the-price-light-pollution-darkskies/ Treat artificial light like other forms of pollution, say scientists. Jonathan Watts, The Guardian. Nov 2, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/02/treat-artificial-light-form-pollution-environment Excerpt: “What stands out is how pervasive the effects are. The effects were found everywhere – microbes, invertebrates, animals and plants,” said the lead author, Kevin Gaston, a professor at the university’s Environment and Sustainability Institute. “We need to start thinking about lighting in the way we think of other big systemic pressures like climate change.” Light pollution – extent, effects and approaches. TAB-Fokus no. 25, Jun 2020, Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag. Christoph Schröter-Schlaack, et al.
http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/en/news/20200828.html
Summary: In addition to the intended effects, the increasing use of artificial outdoor lighting also entails a number of undesirable side effects referred to as light pollution. Artificial lighting can disturb the circadian rhythms of humans and animals, which are controlled by the change of day and night, and is suspected of being involved in the development of various diseases. Moreover, the increasing illumination of the night influences the natural behaviour of animals. Besides habitat changes, the consequences are ranging from changes in hunting or reproductive behaviour to the deadly attraction effect of light sources, e. g. for insects.

However, the longterm consequences of these changes for entire populations, communities or landscapes are still poorly understood. Options for reducing light pollution exist both technologically and in terms of regulation and approval of lighting installations.

Light Pollution Is Taking Away Our Night Skies. Here’s Why That Matters. 11/13/2019. HuffPost. By Kyla Mandel https://www.huffpost.com/entry/city-light-pollution-night-sky-star-protection_n_5dc9d1fee4b00927b2381233 Some cities and states are trying to protect our night sky “for the health and wellbeing for all living things.”

10.1 p. 860 of 947
2 Light Pollution Trends
Artificially lit surface of Earth at night increasing in radiance and extent, by Christopher C. M. Kyba, Theres Kuester, Alejandro Sánchez de Miguel, Kimberly Baugh, Andreas Jechow, Franz Hölker, Jonathan Bennie, Christopher D. Elvidge, Kevin J. Gaston, and Luis Guanter. Science Advances 22 Nov 2017: Vol. 3, no. 11, e1701528, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1701528 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/11/e1701528
Abstract: A central aim of the “lighting revolution” (the transition to solid-state lighting technology) is decreased energy consumption. This could be undermined by a rebound effect of increased use in response to lowered cost of light. We use the first-ever calibrated satellite radiometer designed for night lights to show that from 2012 to 2016, Earth’s artificially lit outdoor area grew by 2.2% per year, with a total radiance growth of 1.8% per year. Continuously lit areas brightened at a rate of 2.2% per year. Large differences in national growth rates were observed, with lighting remaining stable or decreasing in only a few countries. These data are not consistent with global scale energy reductions but rather indicate increased light pollution, with corresponding negative consequences for flora, fauna, and human well-being.

The new world atlas of artificial night sky brightness. Falchi, F., Cinzano, P., Duriscoe, D., Kyba, C.C.M., Elvidge, C.D., Baugh, K., Portnow, B.A., Rybnikova, N.A., & Furgoni, R. (2016). Science Advances, 2:e1600377. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/6/e1600377
Abstract: Artificial lights raise night sky luminance, creating the most visible effect of light pollution—artificial skyglow. Despite the increasing interest among scientists in fields such as ecology, astronomy, health care, and land-use planning, light pollution lacks a current quantification of its magnitude on a global scale. To overcome this, we present the world atlas of artificial sky luminance, computed with our light pollution propagation software using new high-resolution satellite data and new precision sky brightness measurements. This atlas shows that more than 80% of the world and more than 99% of the U.S. and European populations live under light-polluted skies. The Milky Way is hidden from more than one-third of humanity, including 60% of Europeans and nearly 80% of North Americans. Moreover, 23% of the world’s land surfaces between 75°N and 60°S, 88% of Europe, and almost half of the United States experience light-polluted nights.

Light pollution in USA and Europe: The good, the bad and the ugly. F. Falchi, R. Furgoni, T.A. Gallaway, N.A. Rybnikova, B.A. Portnov, K. Baugh, P. Cinzano, C.D. Elvidge, Elsevier Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 248, 2019, 109227, 15 October 2019
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479719309296 Abstract: Light pollution is a worldwide problem that has a range of adverse effects on human health and natural ecosystems.

Using data from the New World Atlas of Artificial Night Sky Brightness, VIIRS-recorded radiance and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data, we compared light pollution levels, and the light flux to the population size and GDP at the State and County levels in the USA and at Regional (NUTS2) and Province (NUTS3) levels in Europe. We found 6800-fold differences between the most and least polluted regions in Europe, 120-fold differences in their light flux per capita, and 267-fold differences in flux per GDP unit. Yet, we found even greater differences between US counties: 200,000-fold differences in sky pollution, 16,000-fold differences in light flux per capita, and 40,000-fold differences in light flux per GDP unit. These findings may inform policymakers, helping to reduce energy waste and adverse environmental, cultural and health consequences associated with light pollution.

Global Trends in Exposure to Light Pollution in Natural Terrestrial Ecosystems. Bennie, J.; Duffy, J.P.; Davies, T.W.; CorreaCano, M.E.; Gaston, K.J. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 2715-2730. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/7/3/2715
Abstract: The rapid growth in electric light usage across the globe has led to increasing presence of artificial light in natural and semi-natural ecosystems at night. This occurs both due to direct illumination and skyglow - scattered light in the atmosphere.

There is increasing concern about the effects of artificial light on biological processes, biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems. We combine intercalibrated Defense Meteorological Satellite Program’s Operational Linescan System (DMSP/OLS) images of stable night-time lights for the period 1992 to 2012 with a remotely sensed landcover product (GLC2000) to assess recent changes in exposure to artificial light at night in 43 global ecosystem types. We find that Mediterranean-climate ecosystems have experienced the greatest increases in exposure, followed by temperate ecosystems. Boreal, Arctic and montane systems experienced the lowest increases. In tropical and subtropical regions, the greatest increases are in mangroves and subtropical needleleaf and mixed forests, and in arid regions increases are mainly in forest and agricultural areas. The global ecosystems experiencing the greatest increase in exposure to artificial light are already localized and fragmented, and often of particular conservation importance due to high levels of diversity, endemism and rarity. Night time remote sensing can play a key role in identifying the extent to which natural ecosystems are exposed to light pollution.

Direct measurement of the contribution of street lighting to satellite observations of nighttime light emissions from urban areas. Kyba, C, et al. Lighting Research & Technology. October 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153520958463
Abstract: Nighttime light emissions are increasing in most countries worldwide, but which types of lighting are responsible for the increase remains unknown. Also unknown is what fraction of outdoor light emissions and associated energy use are due to

10.1 p. 861 of 947
3 public light sources (i.e. streetlights) or various types of private light sources (e.g. advertising). Here we show that it is possible to measure the contribution of street lighting to nighttime satellite imagery using ‘smart city’ lighting infrastructure. The city of Tucson, USA, intentionally altered its streetlight output over 10 days, and we examined the change in emissions observed by satellite. We find that streetlights operated by the city are responsible for only 13% of the total radiance (in the 500–900 nm band) observed from Tucson from space after midnight (95% confidence interval 10–16%). If Tucson did not dim their streetlights after midnight, the contribution would be 18% (95% confidence interval 15–23%). When streetlights operated by other actors are included, the best estimates rise to 16% and 21%, respectively. Existing energy and lighting policy related to the sustainability of outdoor light use has mainly focused on street lighting. These results suggest an urgent need for consideration of other types of light sources in outdoor lighting policy.

Anthropogenic Light Disrupts Natural Light Cycles in Critical Conservation Areas, Seymoure, B, et al. (August 19, 2019). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3439670
Abstract: Anthropogenic lighting drastically alters nocturnal environments, threatening a wide range of species by disrupting light regimes that regulate fundamental biological processes such as reproduction, foraging, and predator defense. We translate satellite measures of anthropogenic light radiating from the earth to a biologically relevant measurement – the amount of light scattered back to the earth (horizontal illuminance). Anthropogenic light exceeding the natural level produced by stars, galactic light, and airglow on a clear moonless night (i.e., new moon conditions) affects 22.9% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface, as well as 51.0% of Key Biodiversity Area units, 77.1% of Global Protected Area units, and approximately 20% of the most biodiverse areas for mammals, birds, and amphibians. Thus, due to anthropogenic sources, these environments experience at least double the levels of natural illuminance during half of the night hours in a year. To facilitate biological interpretation of these levels of anthropogenic illuminance observed globally, we undertook a systematic literature review of animal responses to changing nocturnal light levels.

Known biological effects from the current anthropogenic illuminance levels range from behavioral and physiological alterations to increased mortality, which have been documented in 117 species from 23 orders and 8 classes. These findings provide a biological perspective on global light pollution, and they identify regions where reductions in anthropogenic illuminance would yield the greatest benefits for conserving biodiversity.

Effects of the COVID-19 Lockdown on Urban Light Emissions: Ground and Satellite Comparison. Bustamante-Calabria, M, Sánchez de Miguel, A, et al. Remote Sensing. Jan 2021, Vol 13, Issue 2, 258. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/2/258
Abstract Excerpt: ‘Lockdown’ periods in response to COVID-19 have provided a unique opportunity to study the impacts of economic activity on environmental pollution (e.g., NO2, aerosols, noise, light)... Here, to analyze the effect of lockdown on urban light emissions, we use ground and satellite data for Granada, Spain, during the COVID-19 induced confinement of the city’s population from 14 March until 31 May 2020. We find a clear decrease in light pollution due both to a decrease in light emissions from the city and to a decrease in anthropogenic aerosol content in the atmosphere which resulted in less light being scattered. A clear correlation between the abundance of PM10 particles and sky brightness is observed, such that the more polluted the atmosphere the brighter the urban night sky.

Environmental and Social Justice
Light pollution inequities in the continental United States: A distributive environmental justice analysis. Nadybal S.M., Collins T.W., Grineski S.E.. Environmental Research, Vol 189, 2020, 109959. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120308549 Abstract: Excessive exposure to ambient light at night is a well-documented hazard to human health, yet analysts have not examined it from an environmental justice (EJ) perspective. We conducted the first EJ study of exposure to light pollution by testing for socially disparate patterns across the continental United States (US)... We found evidence of disparities in exposures to light pollution based on racial/ethnic minority and low-to-mid socioeconomic statuses. Americans of Asian, Hispanic or Black race/ethnicity had population-weighted mean exposures to light pollution in their neighborhoods that were approximately two times that of White Americans... neighborhoods composed of higher proportions of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or renteroccupants experienced greater exposures to ambient light at night. Stratified analyses indicated that those patterns of inequity did not substantially vary based on urban-rural context. Findings have implications for understanding environmental influences on health disparities, raise concerns about the potential for a multiple environmental jeopardy situation, and highlight the need for policy actions to address light pollution.

An incandescent truth: Disparities in energy-efficient lighting availability and prices in an urban U.S. county. Reames, Tony G., Michael A. Reiner, and M. Ben Stacey. (2018) Applied Energy 218:95-103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918302769 Abstract Excerpt: In the U.S. lighting represents about 9% of the average household's primary energy consumption and 20% of the average household's energy bill. Lighting in U.S. homes is in a state of transition with steady growth in the adoption of more energy-efficient lighting technology, such as, compact florescent lamps (CFL) and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). However, the adoption of energy-efficient lighting is not equitably distributed across socioeconomic groups, with poorer households less likely to adopt than higher-income households... We found that (1) energy-efficient bulbs were less available in high-poverty areas and

10.1 p. 862 of 947
4 smaller stores; (2) energy-efficient bulbs were more expensive in high-poverty areas and smaller stores; (3) upgrade costs from incandescent and halogen lamps (IHLs) to CFLs or LEDs were higher in high poverty areas; and (4) both poverty and store type were significant predictors of LED availability, while store type was the most significant predictor of LED price variability. We suggest several ways that the development and implementation of energy efficiency policies and programs may consider these disparities that affect access and affordability, in order to achieve a more just energy-efficient transition.

Up in smoke: Characterizing the population exposed to flaring from unconventional oil and gas development in the contiguous US. Cushing Lara J, et al. Feb 2021. Environmental Research Letters. Vol. 16, No 3. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd3d4 Abstract Excerpt: The disposal of waste gas via intentional combustion (flaring) from unconventional oil and gas (UOG) development has also been on the rise, and may expose nearby residents to toxic air pollutants, light pollution and noise... We found that three basins accounted for over 83% of all UOG flaring activity in the contiguous US over the 8 year study period. We estimated that over half a million people in these basins reside within 5 km of a flare, and 39% of them lived near more than 100 nightly flares. Black, indigenous, and people of color were disproportionately exposed to flaring.

Light Pollution in San Antonio, TX: An Environmental Justice Issue. Alvarez, V, et al. May 2020. Environmental Studies Student Works. Trinity University.
https://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/env_studocs/2
Abstract Excerpt: the environmental justice movement often overlooks the issue of light pollution, even though light pollution is higher in urban low-income areas. There is a lack of studies examining how light pollution varies between communities on a regional, state, or municipal scale... The mid-income neighborhoods had the greatest median and maximum light pollution levels, while high-income neighborhoods had the lowest median illuminance. These results indicate that mid-income neighborhoods are subject to the greatest amount of light pollution by area and intensity.

Ecological, Wildlife and Human Impacts
Ecological light pollution. Longcore, T. and Rich, C. (2004), Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2: 191-198. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/1540-9295%282004%29002%5B0191%3AELP%5D2.0.CO%3B2 Abstract: Ecologists have long studied the critical role of natural light in regulating species interactions, but, with limited exceptions, have not investigated the consequences of artificial night lighting. In the past century, the extent and intensity of artificial night lighting has increased such that it has substantial effects on the biology and ecology of species in the wild. We distinguish “astronomical light pollution”, which obscures the view of the night sky, from “ecological light pollution”, which alters natural light regimes in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Some of the catastrophic consequences of light for certain taxonomic groups are well known, such as the deaths of migratory birds around tall lighted structures, and those of hatchling sea turtles disoriented by lights on their natal beaches. The more subtle influences of artificial night lighting on the behavior and community ecology of species are less well recognized, and constitute a new focus for research in ecology and a pressing conservation challenge.

Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Rich, C. and T. Longcore. (eds.). 2006. Island Press, Washington, D.C. https://www.urbanwildlands.org/ecanlbook.html
The first book to consider the environmental effects of the intentional illumination of the night. It brings together leading scientists from around the world to review the state of knowledge on the subject and to describe specific effects that have been observed across a full range of taxonomic groups, including mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, fishes, invertebrates, and plants… provides a scientific basis to begin addressing the challenge of conserving the nighttime environment. It cogently demonstrates the vital importance of this until-now neglected topic and is an essential new work for conservation planners, researchers, and anyone concerned with human impacts on the natural world.

Light Pollution Is a Driver of Insect Declines, by Owens, A, et al. (April 26, 2019) https://ssrn.com/abstract=3378835
Abstract: Insects around the world are rapidly declining. Concerns over what this loss means for food security and ecological communities have compelled a growing number of researchers to search for the key drivers behind the decline. Habitat loss, pesticide use, invasive species, and climate change all have likely played a role, but we posit here that artificial light at night (ALAN) is another important — but often overlooked — bringer of the insect apocalypse. We first discuss the history and extent of ALAN, and then present evidence that ALAN has led to insect declines through its interference with the development, movement, foraging, and reproductive success of diverse insect species, as well as its positive effect on insectivore predation. We conclude with a discussion of how artificial lights can be tuned to reduce their impacts on vulnerable populations. ALAN is unique among anthropogenic habitat disturbances in that it is fairly easy to ameliorate, and leaves behind no residual effects.

Greater recognition of the ways in which ALAN impacts insects can help conservationists reduce or eliminate one of the major drivers of insect declines.

10.1 p. 863 of 947
5 A meta-analysis of biological impacts of artificial light at night. Nature Ecology & Evolution (2020), Dirk Sanders, Enric Frago, Rachel Kehoe, Christophe Patterson & Kevin J. Gaston
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01322-x
https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.wpzgmsbjn Abstract: Natural light cycles are being eroded over large areas of the globe by the direct emissions and sky brightening that result from sources of artificial night-time light. This is predicted to affect wild organisms, particularly because of the central role that light regimes play in determining the timing of biological activity. Although many empirical studies have reported such effects, these have focused on particular species or local communities and have thus been unable to provide a general evaluation of the overall frequency and strength of these impacts. Using a new database of published studies, we show that exposure to artificial light at night induces strong responses for physiological measures, daily activity patterns and life history traits. We found particularly strong responses with regards to hormone levels, the onset of daily activity in diurnal species and life history traits, such as the number of offspring, predation, cognition and seafinding (in turtles). So far, few studies have focused on the impact of artificial light at night on ecosystem functions. The breadth and often strength of biological impacts we reveal highlight the need for outdoor artificial night-time lighting to be limited to the places and forms—such as timing, intensity and spectrum—where it is genuinely required by the people using it to minimize ecological impacts.

Longer photoperiods through range shifts and artificial light lead to a destabilizing increase in host–parasitoid interaction strength. Kehoe, R, Sanders, D, Cruse, D, et al. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2020; 89: 2508–2516. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13328
Excerpts: Many organisms are experiencing changing daily light regimes due to latitudinal range shifts driven by climate change and increased artificial light at night (ALAN). Activity patterns are often driven by light cycles, which will have important consequences for species interactions... Here we demonstrate that ALAN impact interacts with daylength and temperature by changing the interaction strength between a common day‐active consumer species and its host in a predictable way. Our results further suggest that range expansion or ALAN‐induced changes in light regimes experienced by insects and their natural enemies will result in unstable dynamics beyond key tipping points in daylength... Finally, the strong response of a diurnal host–parasitoid system reported here also emphasizes the importance of focussing on the impact of ALAN not just on nocturnal species but also on those that are chiefly diurnal, on which the effects of ALAN may be just as profound, if not as intuitive.

Artificial nightlight alters the predator–prey dynamics of an apex carnivore. Ditmer, MA, et al. (2020). Ecography https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05251
Abstract Excepts: Our results indicate that deer used the anthropogenic environments to access forage and were more active at night than their wildland conspecifics. Despite higher nightlight levels, cougars killed deer at the wildland–urban interface, but hunted them in the relatively darkest locations. Light had the greatest effect of all covariates on where cougars killed deer at the wildland–urban interface. Both species exhibited functional responses to light pollution at fine scales; individual cougars and deer with less light exposure increasingly avoided illuminated areas when exposed to greater radiance, whereas deer living in the wildland–urban interface selected elevated light levels. We conclude that integrating estimates of light pollution into ecological studies provides crucial insights into how the dynamic human footprint can alter animal behavior and ecosystem function across spatial scales.

Coral Gametogenesis Collapse under Artificial Light Pollution. Ayalon et al. Current Biology. Nov 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.10.039
Excerpts: Marine organisms, including coral reefs in particular, rely on the natural light cycles of sunlight and moonlight to regulate various physiological, biological, and behavioral processes. Here, we demonstrate that light pollution caused delayed gametogenesis and unsynchronized gamete release in two coral species, Acropora millepora and Acropora digitifera, from the Indo-Pacific Ocean… With the global transition toward LED lighting, which tends to have higher emissions in the blue spectrum, more coral reefs could be affected by artificial light, as blue light penetrates deeper into the water column. This spectral shift is expected to be amplified by the current rapid population growth in coastal regions... Our experimental results are corroborated by in situ observations, which have shown disruption of gametogenesis and loss of spawning synchrony in corals occurring at sites that are heavily polluted by artificial lights. These results demonstrate that artificial light must be considered in conservation plans for coral reefs near areas of human activity.

Sensory pollutants alter bird phenology and fitness across a continent. Senzaki, M., Barber, J.R., Phillips, J.N. et al. Nature 587, 605–609 (2020)
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2903-7
Abstract: Expansion of anthropogenic noise and night lighting across our planet is of increasing conservation concern. Despite growing knowledge of physiological and behavioural responses to these stimuli from single-species and local-scale studies, whether these pollutants affect fitness is less clear, as is how and why species vary in their sensitivity to these anthropic stressors.

Here we leverage a large citizen science dataset paired with high-resolution noise and light data from across the contiguous United States to assess how these stimuli affect reproductive success in 142 bird species. We find responses to both sensory pollutants linked to the functional traits and habitat affiliations of species. For example, overall nest success was negatively correlated with noise among birds in closed environments. Species-specific changes in reproductive timing and hatching success

10.1 p. 864 of 947
6 in response to noise exposure were explained by vocalization frequency, nesting location and diet. Additionally, increased lightgathering ability of species’ eyes was associated with stronger advancements in reproductive timing in response to light exposure, potentially creating phenological mismatches. Unexpectedly, better light-gathering ability was linked to reduced clutch failure and increased overall nest success in response to light exposure, raising important questions about how responses to sensory pollutants counteract or exacerbate responses to other aspects of global change, such as climate warming. These findings demonstrate that anthropogenic noise and light can substantially affect breeding bird phenology and fitness, and underscore the need to consider sensory pollutants alongside traditional dimensions of the environment that typically inform biodiversity conservation.

Bright lights in the big cities: migratory birds’exposure to artificial light. Horton, KG., Nilsson, C., et al, 2019. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, April 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1002/FEE.2029
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gXSN2GmI8M
Abstract: Many species of migratory birds have evolved the ability to migrate at night, and the recent and rapid expansion of artificial light at night has markedly altered the nighttime sky through which they travel. Migrating birds regularly pass through heavily illuminated landscapes, and bright lights affect avian orientation. But risks to migrating birds from artificial light are not spatially or temporally uniform, representing a challenge for mitigating potential hazards and developing action plans to catalog risks at continental scales. We leveraged over two decades of remote‐sensing data collected by weather surveillance radar and satellite‐based sensors to identify locations and times of year when the highest numbers of migrating birds are exposed to light pollution in the contiguous US. Our continental‐scale quantification of light exposure provides a novel opportunity for dynamic and targeted conservation strategies to address the hazards posed by light pollution to nocturnally migrating birds.

High-intensity urban light installation dramatically alters nocturnal bird migration. Van Doren BM, Horton KG, et al.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Oct 2017, 114 (42) 11175-11180 https://www.pnas.org/content/114/42/11175
Abstract Excerpt: Billions of nocturnally migrating birds move through increasingly photopolluted skies, relying on cues for navigation and orientation that artificial light at night (ALAN) can impair… We studied effects of ALAN on migrating birds by monitoring the beams of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum's “Tribute in Light” in New York, quantifying behavioral responses with radar and acoustic sensors and modeling disorientation and attraction with simulations… When the installation was illuminated, birds aggregated in high densities, decreased flight speeds, followed circular flight paths, and vocalized frequently… However, behavioral disruptions disappeared when lights were extinguished, suggesting that selective removal of light during nights with substantial bird migration is a viable strategy for minimizing potentially fatal interactions among ALAN, structmelures, and birds. Our results also highlight the value of additional studies describing behavioral patterns of nocturnally migrating birds in powerful lights in urban areas as well as conservation implications for such lighting installations.

The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Gaston, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T. W. and Hopkins, J., Biological Reviews, Vol 88, Issue 4, 2013, Cambridge Philosophical Society https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12036 Abstract: The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution have been a longstanding source of concern, accentuated by realized and projected growth in electrical lighting. As human communities and lighting technologies develop, artificial light increasingly modifies natural light regimes by encroaching on dark refuges in space, in time, and across wavelengths. A wide variety of ecological implications of artificial light have been identified. However, the primary research to date is largely focused on the disruptive influence of nighttime light on higher vertebrates, and while comprehensive reviews have been compiled along taxonomic lines and within specific research domains, the subject is in need of synthesis within a common mechanistic framework. Here we propose such a framework that focuses on the cross-factoring of the ways in which artificial lighting alters natural light regimes (spatially, temporally, and spectrally), and the ways in which light influences biological systems, particularly the distinction between light as a resource and light as an information source. We review the evidence for each of the combinations of this cross-factoring. As artificial lighting alters natural patterns of light in space, time and across wavelengths, natural patterns of resource use and information flows may be disrupted, with downstream effects to the structure and function of ecosystems. This review highlights: (i) the potential influence of nighttime lighting at all levels of biological organisation (from cell to ecosystem); (ii) the significant impact that even low levels of nighttime light pollution can have; and (iii) the existence of major research gaps, particularly in terms of the impacts of light at population and ecosystem levels, identification of intensity thresholds, and the spatial extent of impacts in the vicinity of artificial lights.

Light Pollution, Circadian Photoreception, and Melatonin in Vertebrates. Grubisic M, Haim A, Bhusal P, Dominoni DM, Gabriel KMA, Jechow A, Kupprat F, Lerner A, Marchant P, Riley W, Stebelova K, van Grunsven RHA, Zeman M, Zubidat AE, Hölker F. Sustainability. 2019; 11(22):6400.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6400
Abstract: Artificial light at night (ALAN) is increasing exponentially worldwide, accelerated by the transition to new efficient lighting technologies. However, ALAN and resulting light pollution can cause unintended physiological consequences. In vertebrates, production of melatonin—the “hormone of darkness” and a key player in circadian regulation—can be suppressed by

10.1 p. 865 of 947
7 ALAN. In this paper, we provide an overview of research on melatonin and ALAN in vertebrates. We discuss how ALAN disrupts natural photic environments, its effect on melatonin and circadian rhythms, and different photoreceptor systems across vertebrate taxa. We then present the results of a systematic review in which we identified studies on melatonin under typical lightpolluted conditions in fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, including humans. Melatonin is suppressed by extremely low light intensities in many vertebrates, ranging from 0.01–0.03 lx for fishes and rodents to 6 lx for sensitive humans. Even lower, wavelength-dependent intensities are implied by some studies and require rigorous testing in ecological contexts. In many studies, melatonin suppression occurs at the minimum light levels tested, and, in better-studied groups, melatonin suppression is reported to occur at lower light levels. We identify major research gaps and conclude that, for most groups, crucial information is lacking. No studies were identified for amphibians and reptiles and long-term impacts of low-level ALAN exposure are unknown.

Given the high sensitivity of vertebrate melatonin production to ALAN and the paucity of available information, it is crucial to research impacts of ALAN further in order to inform effective mitigation strategies for human health and the wellbeing and fitness of vertebrates in natural ecosystems.

Melatonin: a possible link between the presence of artificial light at night and reductions in biological fitness. Jones TM, Durrant J, Michaelides EB, Green MP. 2015, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370: 20140122. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2014.0122 Abstract: The mechanisms underpinning the ecological impacts of the presence of artificial night lighting remain elusive. One suspected underlying cause is that the presence of light at night (LAN) supresses nocturnal production of melatonin, a key driver of biological rhythm and a potent antioxidant with a proposed role in immune function. Here, we briefly review the evidence for melatonin as the link between LAN and changes in behaviour and physiology. We then present preliminary data supporting the potential for melatonin to act as a recovery agent mitigating the negative effects of LAN in an invertebrate. Adult crickets (Teleogryllus commodus), exposed to constant illumination, were provided with dietary melatonin (concentrations: 0, 10 or 100 µg ml−1) in their drinking water. We then compared survival, lifetime fecundity and, over a 4-week period, immune function (haemocyte concentration, lysozyme-like and phenoloxidase (PO) activity). Melatonin supplementation was able only partially to mitigate the detrimental effects of LAN: it did not improve survival or fecundity or PO activity, but it had a largely dosedependent positive effect on haemocyte concentration and lysozyme-like activity. We discuss the implications of these relationships, as well as the usefulness of invertebrates as model species for future studies that explore the effects of LAN.

Waters under Artificial Lights: Does Light Pollution Matter for Aquatic Primary Producers? Grubisic, M. (2018), Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin, 27: 76-81.
https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/lob.10254 Abstract: Bright night lights have become a symbol of development and prosperity in the modern world. But have you ever wondered how artificial light at night (ALAN) may be affecting living beings in our cities, and how it may be affecting us? As artificial illumination is transforming nocturnal environments around the world, light pollution associated with its use is becoming a topic of increasing interest in the scientific and public communities. Light pollution disrupts natural light regimes in many regions of the world, raising concerns about ecological and health impacts of this novel anthropogenic pressure. Most obviously, ALAN can influence night‐active animals in urban and suburban areas, and most research in this growing field focuses on terrestrial organisms such as bats, birds, and insects. Effects on aquatic ecosystems are much less known. In particular, aquatic primary producers, such as microalgae, cyanobacteria, and plants, have rarely been studied despite their critical positioning in the base of aquatic food webs and the fundamental role that light plays in their ecology. For primary producers, light is a key source of both energy and environmental information; it influences their growth, production, and community structure. ALAN has therefore a large potential to influence their communities and induce bottom‐up changes to aquatic ecosystems and ecosystem functions.

Global climate change and invariable photoperiods: A mismatch that jeopardizes animal fitness. Walker, WH, MeléndezFernández, OH, Nelson, RJ, Reiter, RJ. Ecol Evol. 2019; 9: 10044–10054. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.5537 Abstract: The Earth's surface temperature is rising, and precipitation patterns throughout the Earth are changing; the source of these shifts is likely anthropogenic in nature. Alterations in temperature and precipitation have obvious direct and indirect effects on both plants and animals. Notably, changes in temperature and precipitation alone can have both advantageous and detrimental consequences depending on the species. Typically, production of offspring is timed to coincide with optimal food availability; thus, individuals of many species display annual rhythms of reproductive function. Because it requires substantial time to establish or re-establish reproductive function, individuals cannot depend on the arrival of seasonal food availability to begin breeding; thus, mechanisms have evolved in many plants and animals to monitor and respond to day length in order to anticipate seasonal changes in the environment. Over evolutionary time, there has been precise fine-tuning of critical photoperiod and onset/offset of seasonal adaptations. Climate change has provoked changes in the availability of insects and plants which shifts the timing of optimal reproduction. However, adaptations to the stable photoperiod may be insufficiently plastic to allow a shift in the seasonal timing of bird and mammal breeding. Coupled with the effects of light pollution which prevents these species from determining day length, climate change presents extreme evolutionary pressure that can result in severe deleterious consequences for individual species reproduction and survival. This review describes the effects of climate change on plants and animals,

10.1 p. 866 of 947
8 defines photoperiod and the physiological events it regulates, and addresses the consequences of global climate change and a stable photoperiod.

Effects of street lighting technologies on the success and quality of pollination in a nocturnally pollinated plant. Macgregor, C.

J., M. J. O. Pocock, R. Fox, and D. M. Evans. 2019. Ecosphere 10(1):e02550 https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ecs2.2550 Abstract: Artificial light at night (ALAN) is an increasingly important driver of global change. Lighting directly affects plants, but few studies have investigated indirect effects mediated by interacting organisms. Nocturnal Lepidoptera are globally important pollinators, and pollen transport by moths is disrupted by lighting. Many street lighting systems are being replaced with novel, energy‐efficient lighting, with unknown ecological consequences. Using the wildflower Silene latifolia, we compared pollination success and quality at experimentally lit and unlit plots, testing two major changes to street lighting technology: in lamp type, from high‐pressure sodium lamps to light‐emitting diodes, and in lighting regime, from full‐night (FN) to part‐night (PN) lighting.

We predicted that lighting would reduce pollination. S. latifolia was pollinated both diurnally and nocturnally. Contrary to our predictions, flowers under FN lighting had higher pollination success than flowers under either PN lighting or unlit controls, which did not significantly differ from each other. Lamp type, lighting regime, and distance from the light all significantly affected aspects of pollination quality. These results confirm that street lighting could affect plant reproduction through indirect effects mediated by nocturnal insects, and further highlight the possibility for novel lighting technologies to mitigate the effects of ALAN on ecosystems.

Cascading effects of artificial light at night: resource-mediated control of herbivores in a grassland ecosystem. Bennie J, Davies TW, Cruse D, Inger R, Gaston KJ. 2015. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370: 20140131. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2014.0131 Abstract: Artificial light at night has a wide range of biological effects on both plants and animals. Here, we review mechanisms by which artificial light at night may restructure ecological communities by modifying the interactions between species. Such mechanisms may be top-down (predator, parasite or grazer controlled), bottom-up (resource-controlled) or involve non-trophic processes, such as pollination, seed dispersal or competition. We present results from an experiment investigating both top-down and bottom-up effects of artificial light at night on the population density of pea aphids Acyrthosiphon pisum in a diverse artificial grassland community in the presence and absence of predators and under low-level light of different spectral composition. We found no evidence for top-down control of A. pisum in this system, but did find evidence for bottom-up effects mediated through the impact of light on flower head density in a leguminous food plant. These results suggest that physiological effects of light on a plant species within a diverse plant community can have detectable demographic effects on a specialist herbivore.

Artificial night light alters ecosystem services provided by biotic components. Singhal, R.K., Chauhan, J., Jatav, H.S. et al.

Biologia Futura (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42977-020-00065-x
Abstract Excerpt: This review highlights the impact of ALAN on the ecosystem and its living and non-living components, emphasizing to the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem. Further, we summarize the means of minimizing strategies of ALAN in the environment, which are very crucial to reduce the further spread of night light contamination in the environment and can be useful to minimize the drastic impacts on the ecosystem.

City lights and urban air. Stark, H., Brown, S., Wong, K. et al. Nature Geoscience, Vol 4, Nov 2011. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1300
https://s3.amazonaws.com/wbez-assets/curiouscity/ngeo_1300_NOV11_auproof2.pdf https://cires.colorado.edu/news/bright-city-lights-affect-air-pollution Here we show that city lights can also alter the concentration of nitrate radicals, an important atmospheric oxidant. These alterations have potential — albeit small — consequences for pollution levels the following day… We converted satellite data on light intensity into nitrate radical loss, using our aircraft measurements, and show that the infuence of city lights on nitrate radical loss can be large in regions outside Los Angeles... We also fnd that satellite-derived estimates of light levels tend to correlate positively with independent satellite-derived estimates of nitrogen dioxide. We therefore suggest that city lights are likely to infuence nitrogen dynamics in other regions of the globe.

Nighttime photochemistry: nitrate radical destruction by anthropogenic light sources. Stark, H, etal. CIRES, NOAA. 2010. https://www.academia.edu/23527679/Nighttime_photochemistry_nitrate_radical_destruction_by_anthropogenic_light_sources Abstract extract: show airborne and ground measurements of absolute light intensities from anthropogenic and natural light sources (e.g. industrial and street lighting, full moon) as a newly discovered NO3 loss process. This loss process has implications for nighttime pollutant levels and next-day ozone production.

10.1 p. 867 of 947
9 Light Flicker from LED Lighting Systems-An Urgent Problem to Solve. GIES, T.H. (2016). https://www.led-professional.com/resources-1/articles/lighting-flicker-from-led-lighting-systems/LpR53_p50-p59.pdf Recent research has shown that fluctuations of short wavelength emissions are perceived to a higher extent and light flicker may have a huge influence on the well-being of end users.

Blue light excited retinal intercepts cellular signaling. Ratnayake, K., Payton, J.L., Lakmal, O.H. et al. Scientific Reports 8, 10207 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28254-8
Photoreceptor chromophore, 11-cis retinal (11CR) and the photoproduct, all-trans retinal (ATR), are present in the retina at higher concentrations and interact with the visual cells. Non-visual cells in the body are also exposed to retinal that enters the circulation. … we uncovered that blue light-excited ATR and 11CR irreversibly change/distort plasma membrane (PM) bound phospholipid; phosphatidylinositol 4,5 bisphosphate (PIP2) and disrupt its function. … The change in PIP2 was followed by an increase in the cytosolic calcium, excessive cell shape change, and cell death… These findings suggest that retinal exerts light sensitivity to both photoreceptor and non-photoreceptor cells, and intercepts crucial signaling events, altering the cellular fate.

Blue light from phone screens accelerates blindness, study finds. The Guardian. 8/9/2018 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/09/blue-light-from-phone-screens-accelerates-blindness-study-finds Research… has revealed that prolonged exposure to blue light triggers poisonous molecules to be generated in the eye’s lightsensitive cells that can cause macular degeneration – an incurable condition that affects the middle part of vision. Blue light, which has a shorter wavelength and more energy compared with other colours, can gradually cause damage to the eyes.

How the marvel of electric light became a global blight to health. Dr. Richard G ‘Bugs’ Stevens. Aeon. August 3, 2018. https://aeon.co/ideas/how-the-marvel-of-electric-light-became-a-global-blight-to-health Excerpts: Light at night constitutes a massive assault on the ecology of the planet, including us… The electric light bulb is touted as one of the most significant technological advancements of human beings… But as with any new and spectacular technology, there are invariably unintended consequences… The current ‘lightmare’ traces back to the 1950s, when a road-building frenzy, including construction of the Interstate Highway System, aimed to solve the problem of congestion in the United States. But the roads turned out to increase congestion and pollution, including light pollution, too… More efficient energy-production and use, without concerted public education on reduction of use, can make the pollution problem worse… The hyper-aggressive marketing of bright, white LED street lighting to cities and towns has advanced to a breathtaking level. The US Department of Energy (DoE) and a group of international partners have launched an effort called ‘Rise and Shine: Lighting the World with 10 Billion LED Bulbs’ in ‘a race to deploy 10 billion high-efficiency, high-quality and affordable lighting fixtures and bulbs (like LEDs) as quickly as possible’… In response to this relentless attack on night, the American Medical Association (AMA) stepped up and adopted an official policy statement in 2016... The reaction from the DoE and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) was swift and highly critical of the AMA’s audacity, asserting that the AMA was not qualified to make any statements on lighting. But this reaction was disingenuous because without the AMA statement, the nationwide retrofit would have continued unabated without regard to the environment or human health. Electric light can be a great benefit to people when used wisely. To get to the ‘used wisely’ part requires all the science happening now. But there must also be a desire for effective use of electric lighting on the part of government and the public… few people will leave the faucet running much longer than necessary. Yet some people think nothing of using more electricity than they actually need… In the life of the planet, destruction of night is as important an issue as the poisoning of water and air.

Artificial Light at Night (ALAN): A Potential Anthropogenic Component for the COVID-19 and HCoVs Outbreak. Khan ZA, Yumnamcha T, Mondal G, et al. Frontiers in endocrinology. 2020;11:622. Published 2020 Sep 10. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2020.00622/full Abstract Excerpt: In this article, we tried to focus on the possible influence of this anthropogenic factor in human coronavirus (HCoV) outbreak. The relationship between the occurrences of coronavirus and the ascending curve of the night-light has also been delivered. The ALAN influences the physiology and behavior of bat, a known nocturnal natural reservoir of many Coronaviridae. The “threatened” and “endangered” status of the majority of bat species is mainly because of the destruction of their proper habit and habitat predominantly through artificial illumination. The stress exerted by ALAN leads to the impaired body functions, especially endocrine, immune, genomic integration, and overall rhythm features of different physiological variables and behaviors in nocturnal animals. Night-light disturbs “virus–host” synchronization and may lead to mutation in the genomic part of the virus and excessive virus shedding. We also proposed some future strategies to mitigate the repercussions of ALAN and for the protection of the living system in the earth as well.

Light pollution linked to preterm birth increase. Jan 25, 2021. Lehigh University. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210125191821.htm Scientists conducted the first study to examine the fetal health impact of light pollution based on a direct measure of skyglow, an important aspect of light pollution. Using an empirical regularity discovered in physics, called Walker's Law, a team found evidence of reduced birth weight, shortened gestational length and preterm births.

10.1 p. 868 of 947
10 Association of Outdoor Artificial Light at Night With Mental Disorders and Sleep Patterns Among US Adolescents. Paksarian D, Rudolph KE, Stapp EK, et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020;77(12):1266–1275. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2767698 https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/08/health/night-light-pollution-disrupt-sleep-wellness/index.html In this study, area-level outdoor ALAN was associated with less favorable sleep patterns and mood and anxiety disorder in adolescents. Future studies should elucidate whether interventions to reduce exposure to ALAN may positively affect mental and sleep health.

Astronomy Impacts
Light Pollution In California And Arizona. Walker, Merle F. Publications of The Astronomical Society of The Pacific, Vol. 85, No. 507, 1973, pp. 508–519. Jstor
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40675430
The present and future effect of artificial illumination on ground-based optical astronomical observations in California and Arizona is discussed. It is concluded that the effectiveness of all major observatories in these states is presently or potentially limited by light pollution. Consequently, it is essential that immediate efforts be undertaken to: (1) Control outdoor illumination to lengthen the useful life of existing observatory sites, and (2) Identify and protect the best remaining sites both within and outside the United States. The characteristics and probable locations of the best sites for ground-based optical astronomical observations are discussed.

Light Pollution: Outdoor lighting is a growing threat to astronomy. Riegel, Kurt W. Science, Vol. 179, No. 4080, Mar 1973, pp. 1285–1291.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17835929/
Abstract Excerpt: The level of skylight caused by outdoor lighting systems is growing at a very high rate, about 20 percent per year nationwide. In addition, the spectral distribution of man-made light pollution may change in the next decade from one containing a few mercury lines to one containing dozens of lines and a significantly increased continuum level. Light pollution is presently damaging to some astronomical programs, and it is likely to become a major factor limiting progress in the next decade... Some is due to promotional campaigns, in which questionable arguments involving public safety are presented. There are protective measures which might be adopted by the government; these would significantly aid observational astronomy, without compromising the legitimate outdoor lighting needs of society.

Flagstaff's Battle for Dark Skies. Portree D.S.F. Oct 2002, Griffith Observer, Vol 66 No 10 http://www2.lowell.edu/users/wes/GriffithObserver1crop.pdf http://www.flagstaffdarkskies.org/international-dark-sky-city/flagstaffs-battle-for-dark-skies/ Public Safety
Blinded by the Lights: Levi's Stadium Lights May Be Airport Safety Hazard. By Stephen Stock, Michael Bott and Jeremy Carroll. NBC Bay Area. Sept 22, 2015
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/blinded-by-the-lights-levi-stadium-lights-may-be-airport-safety-hazard/102234/ Some pilots say powerful lights above and around the new Levi’s Stadium can cause safety hazards for flights in and out of San Jose Mineta International Airport.

Why Lighting Claims Might Well Be Wrong, Paul Marchant, International Journal of Sustainable Lighting: Vol. 19 No. 1 (2017) http://lightingjournal.org/index.php/path/article/view/71/79 This paper gives some background to claims of benefit from road lighting and why large beneficial claims may be suspect.

Feeling Safe in the Dark: Examining the Effect of Entrapment, Lighting Levels, and Gender on Feelings of Safety and Lighting Policy Acceptability. Boomsma C, et al. Environmental and Behavior, Vol 46 Issue 2, pp 193-212. Sept 2012. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916512453838 Importantly, as hypothesized, perceived safety mediated the effect of lighting on acceptability levels, suggesting that people can accept lower lighting levels when social safety is not threatened.

The effect of reduced street lighting on road casualties and crime in England and Wales: controlled interrupted time series analysis. Steinbach R, Perkins C, Tompson L, et al, J Epidemiol Community Health 2015;69:1118-1124. https://jech.bmj.com/content/69/11/1118
Conclusions: This study found little evidence of harmful effects of switch off, part-night lighting, dimming, or changes to white light/LEDs on road collisions or crime in England and Wales.

10.1 p. 869 of 947
11 Light Pollution Mitigation
National Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife Including Marine Turtles, Seabirds and Migratory Shorebirds, Commonwealth of Australia, Jan 2020
https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/national-light-pollution-guidelines-wildlife Audubon’s Lights Out program
https://www.audubon.org/conservation/project/lights-out LoNNe, Loss of the Night Network
http://www.cost-lonne.eu/recommendations/
Human and Environmental Effects of Light Emitting Diode (LED) Community Lighting, 2016, American Medical Association, CSAPH Report 2-A-16, Policy H-135.927
https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/H-135.927?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD-135.927.xml https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/ama-assn.org/files/corp/media-browser/public/about-ama/councils/Council%20Reports/councilon-science-public-health/a16-csaph2.pdf supports the proper conversion to community-based Light Emitting Diode (LED) lighting, which reduces energy consumption and decreases the use of fossil fuels.. encourages minimizing and controlling blue-rich environmental lighting by using the lowest emission of blue light possible to reduce glare... should be properly shielded to minimize glare and detrimental human and environmental effects, and... utilize the ability of LED lighting to be dimmed for off-peak time periods.

Advocating and Support for Light Pollution Control Efforts and Glare Reduction for Both Public Safety and Energy Savings, 2012, Policy H-135.937
https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/light%20pollution?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD.xml-0-308.xml Our AMA: (1) will advocate that all future outdoor lighting be of energy efficient designs to reduce waste of energy and production of greenhouse gasses that result from this wasted energy use; (2) supports light pollution reduction efforts and glare reduction efforts at both the national and state levels; and (3) supports efforts to ensure all future streetlights be of a fully shielded design or similar non-glare design to improve the safety of our roadways for all, but especially vision impaired and older drivers.

International Dark-Sky Association, https://darksky.org, https://darksky.org/light-pollution IDA Guidance for Electronic Message Centers (EMCs) – Digital billboards https://www.darksky.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/EMC-Guidelines-IDA2019-1.1.pdf IDA Criteria for Community-Friendly Outdoor Sports Lighting https://www.darksky.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/IDA-Criteria-for-Community-Friendly-Outdoor-Sports-Lighting.pdf Model Lighting Ordinances – Dark Sky Impacts, Flagstaff Dark Skies Coalition http://www.flagstaffdarkskies.org/model-lighting-ordinances-dark-sky-impacts/ Led Lighting And Dark Skies: Are LEDs good for dark skies? Flagstaff Dark Skies Coalition. http://www.flagstaffdarkskies.org/led-lighting-dark-skies/ Light Pollution and Lighting Codes: An Analysis of the Light Pollution Control Effectiveness of the IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance and the IDA Pattern Outdoor Lighting Code, Christian B. Luginbuhl, U.S. Naval Observatory Flagstaff Station, 15 January 2013
http://www.flagstaffdarkskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Lighting-Codes-and-LP-Luginbuhl-130115.pdf Excerpts: Under MLO standards, outside of MLO Lighting Zones 0 and 1, the total lumen allowances, direct uplight allowances, and amount of sky glow are notably greater than expected under POLC standards; in MLO Lighting Zones 3 and 4 they are dramatically greater. These lighting amounts and sky glow impacts are greater than what can be expected even when lighting is unregulated. The MLO Performance Method Option B provides notably poor control of direct uplight and therefore sky glow.

Under the MLO Performance Method Option B there are no effective limitations on glare. MLO does not address lamp spectrum, and thus leaves this crucial aspect of light pollution unaddressed. Finally, the analysis shows that the MLO Prescriptive Hardscape Area and Performance Methods do not provide similar results in terms of total lumen amounts, uplight amounts, glare, or “offsite” impacts, an undesirable characteristic of a model regulation purporting to control light pollution. The Performance Method particularly allows for the most egregious forms of polluting lighting fixtures and designs. We find no evidence that communities adopting MLO can expect reduction in light pollution over that produced by typical unregulated lighting, despite the claims of MLO to be a method to “drastically reduce” light pollution.

10.1 p. 870 of 947
12 Model Lighting Ordinance: Is the BUG rating method effective at limiting light trespass?, April/May 2012 issue of LEDs Magazine
https://www.ledsmagazine.com/architectural-lighting/outdoor-lighting/article/16698628/model-lighting-ordinance-is-the-bugrating-method-effective-at-limiting-light-trespass-magazine Excerpts: The MLO allows for the use of BUG ratings along with the performance method as long as there is no uplight used.

This scenario would not only allow for more lumens on the site as compared to the prescriptive method, but also would allow for a greater amount of light spilling from the site than would be seen from sites that restrict the spill by using the calculation method.

As proven from the studies done for this article, the BUG rating method cannot effectively control these extra lumens of spill light.

Hazard or Hope? LEDs and Wildlife. Longcore, Travis. (2018). LED Professional Review. 70. 52-57. https://www.led-professional.com/resources-1/articles/hazard-or-hope-leds-and-wildlife Conclusions: The efficiency benefits of LEDs and the resulting economic incentives will drive further conversion of outdoor and indoor lighting to the technology. If the tendency to light more when light is cheaper can be overcome, the other attributes of LEDs hold significant promise for reducing environmental effects. Realizing that promise requires designers and manufacturers to learn about and embrace the guidance that wildlife scientists can provide. In some instances it will be challenging - resisting the desire to up-light, using no more light than necessary, and educating clients on the benefits of spectral choices that do not look like daylight. In other contexts, environmental regulations are likely to dictate lighting choices and offer an opportunity if the industry is prepared to seize it. On each of the mitigation approaches - duration, direction, intensity, and spectrum - LEDs will inherently or can be designed to perform well. Whether they do in practice will be up to the LED professional.

Artificial Night Lighting and Protected Lands: Ecological Effects and Management Approaches (Revised August 2017).

Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/NSNS/NRR—2017/1493. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/582058
Artificial night lighting represents a growing challenge for managers of parks and protected lands. The disruption of natural patterns of light and dark, which have been more or less reliable for millions of years, has a range of adverse consequences for wildlife across taxonomic groups and landscape types. This document reviews effects of artificial night lighting by habitat type and discusses the approaches available to land managers to mitigate and avoid certain adverse effects of artificial night lighting.

Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night. Longcore, T., A. Rodríguez, B.

Witherington, J. F. Penniman, L. Herf, and M. Herf. 2018. Journal of Experimental Zoology A 329:511-521. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jez.2184 Abstract: For many decades, the spectral composition of lighting was determined by the type of lamp, which also influenced potential effects of outdoor lights on species and ecosystems. Light-emitting diode (LED) lamps have dramatically increased the range of spectral profiles of light that is economically viable for outdoor lighting. Because of the array of choices, it is necessary to develop methods to predict the effects of different spectral profiles without conducting field studies, especially because older lighting systems are being replaced rapidly. We describe an approach to predict responses of exemplar organisms and groups to lamps of different spectral output by calculating an index based on action spectra from behavioral or visual characteristics of organisms and lamp spectral irradiance. We calculate relative response indices for a range of lamp types and light sources and develop an index that identifies lamps that minimize predicted effects as measured by ecological, physiological, and astronomical indices. Using these assessment metrics, filtered yellow-green and amber LEDs are predicted to have lower effects on wildlife than high pressure sodium lamps, while blue-rich lighting (e.g., K ≥ 2200) would have greater effects. The approach can be updated with new information about behavioral or visual responses of organisms and used to test new lighting products based on spectrum. Together with control of intensity, direction, and duration, the approach can be used to predict and then minimize the adverse effects of lighting and can be tailored to individual species or taxonomic groups.

The LED Paradox: How Light Pollution Challenges Experts to Reconsider Sustainable Lighting. Schulte-Römer, N.; Meier, J.; Söding, M.; Dannemann, E.; Sustainability 2019, 11, 6160. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6160
Abstract: In the 21st century, the notion of “sustainable lighting” is closely associated with LED technology. In the past ten years, municipalities and private light users worldwide have installed light-emitting diodes in urban spaces and public streets to save energy. Yet an increasing body of interdisciplinary research suggests that supposedly sustainable LED installations are in fact unsustainable, because they increase light pollution. Paradoxically, blue-rich cool-white LED lighting, which is the most energyefficient, also appears to be the most ecologically unfriendly. Biologists, physicians and ecologists warn that blue-rich LED light disturbs the circadian day-and-night rhythm of living organisms, including humans, with potential negative health effects on individual species and whole ecosystems. Can the paradox be solved? This paper explores this question based on our transdisciplinary research project Light Pollution—A Global Discussion. It reveals how light pollution experts and lighting professionals see the challenges and potential of LED lighting from their different viewpoints. This expert feedback shows that “sustainable LED lighting” goes far beyond energy efficiency as it raises complex design issues that imply stakeholder negotiation. It also suggests that the LED paradox may be solved in context, but hardly in principle.

10.1 p. 871 of 947
13 Tuning the white light spectrum of light emitting diode lamps to reduce attraction of nocturnal arthropods. Longcore Travis, Aldern Hannah L., Eggers John F., Flores Steve, Franco Lesly, Hirshfield-Yamanishi Eric, Petrinec Laina N., Yan Wilson A. and Barroso André M. 2015, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B37020140125 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.2014.0125 Abstract: Artificial lighting allows humans to be active at night, but has many unintended consequences, including interference with ecological processes, disruption of circadian rhythms and increased exposure to insect vectors of diseases. Although ultraviolet and blue light are usually most attractive to arthropods, degree of attraction varies among orders. With a focus on future indoor lighting applications, we manipulated the spectrum of white lamps to investigate the influence of spectral composition on number of arthropods attracted. We compared numbers of arthropods captured at three customizable lightemitting diode (LED) lamps (3510, 2704 and 2728 K), two commercial LED lamps (2700 K), two commercial compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs; 2700 K) and a control. We configured the three custom LEDs to minimize invertebrate attraction based on published attraction curves for honeybees and moths. Lamps were placed with pan traps at an urban and two rural study sites in Los Angeles, California. For all invertebrate orders combined, our custom LED configurations were less attractive than the commercial LED lamps or CFLs of similar colour temperatures. Thus, adjusting spectral composition of white light to minimize attracting nocturnal arthropods is feasible; not all lights with the same colour temperature are equally attractive to arthropods.

Evaluating Potential Spectral Impacts of Various Artificial Lights on Melatonin Suppression, Photosynthesis, and Star Visibility. Aubé M, Roby J, Kocifaj M (2013). PLOS ONE 8(7): e67798. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067798
Abstract Excerpt: Artificial light at night can be harmful to the environment, and interferes with fauna and flora, star visibility, and human health. To estimate the relative impact of a lighting device, its radiant power, angular photometry and detailed spectral power distribution have to be considered. In this paper we focus on the spectral power distribution... In this paper we propose three new indices to characterize lamp spectra. These indices have been designed to allow a quick estimation of the potential impact of a lamp spectrum on melatonin suppression, photosynthesis, and star visibility. We used these new indices to compare various lighting technologies objectively. We also considered the transformation of such indices according to the propagation of light into the atmosphere as a function of distance to the observer. Among other results, we found that low pressure sodium, phosphor-converted amber light emitting diodes (LED) and LED 2700 K lamps filtered with the new Ledtech’s Equilib filter showed a lower or equivalent potential impact on melatonin suppression and star visibility in comparison to high pressure sodium lamps. Low pressure sodium, LED 5000 K-filtered and LED 2700 K-filtered lamps had a lower impact on photosynthesis than did high pressure sodium lamps. Finally, we propose these indices as new standards for the lighting industry to be used in characterizing their lighting technologies.

Solid-State Roadway Lighting Design Guide: Volume 1: Guidance. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. https://doi.org/10.17226/25678
Solid-State Roadwazy Lighting Design Guide: Volume 2: Research Overview. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. https://doi.org/10.17226/25679
Assessment of Citizens’ Actions against Light Pollution with Guidelines for Future Initiatives. Zielińska-Dabkowska, K.M.; Xavia, K.; Bobkowska, K. Sustainability. June 2020, 12, 4997. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124997
Abstract excerpt: This paper therefore investigates the various actions taken by citizens, as well as the challenges, methods, and tools involved, regarding good practices initiated by grass roots activism on how to reduce existing and potential light pollution.

The results of a comparative analysis of 262 international case studies (lawsuits and online petitions) reveal that, since the 1990s, there has been an increase in the number of legal cases related to light pollution due to the rise in public awareness, the availability of scientific knowledge via the Internet, and the ability to take accurate lighting measurements and perform lighting simulations. Also, in the last decade a new tool for digital participation in the form of online petitions has established a new movement of citizen action to mitigate the effects of light pollution. Based on this information, a seven-step framework involving recommendations for citizen action has been developed. It is expected that this new knowledge will benefit those citizens planning future efforts involving the development, implementation, and monitoring processes of outdoor lighting. Additionally, it might support the evolution of planning and policy approaches that are sustainable and necessary to improve the application and installation of ecologically/biologically responsible illumination for towns, cities, and natural habitats.

Nevada Senate passes bill to form ‘dark sky places’ program. Feb 22, 2021. By Sam Metz, AP News https://apnews.com/article/legislature-nevada-light-pollution-coronavirus-pandemic-kate-marshalleb0f69ee3c5895b1f7dd4d89b1ea3ebc Nevada’s state Senate took a step toward ensuring stargazers will continue to enjoy picture-perfect constellations on Monday, passing a bill to recognize “dark sky places” with unobstructed views of galaxies hundreds of thousands of light years away.

10.1 p. 872 of 947
14 Urban Lighting Research Transdisciplinary Framework—A Collaborative Process with Lighting Professionals. Pérez Vega, C.; Zielinska-Dabkowska, K.M.; Hölker, F. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021, 18, 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020624
Abstract Excerpt: Over the past decades, lighting professionals have influenced the experience of the night by brightly illuminating streets, buildings, skylines, and landscapes 24/7... a dual perspective on night-time was shaped and the visual enjoyment of visitors after dusk was prioritized over natural nightscapes (nocturnal landscapes). During this time, researchers of artificial light at night (ALAN) observed and reported a gradual increase in unnatural brightness and a shift in color of the nighttime environment. As a consequence, ALAN has been identified as a relevant pollutant of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and an environmental stressor, which may adversely affect a wide range of organisms, from micro-organisms to humans... This paper presents a framework to help reduce the existing gap of knowledge, because appropriate lighting applications depend upon it.

Access to less light polluted nightscapes in urban environments is just as important as access to unpolluted water, food, and air.

On-line Workshop “Dark and Quiet Skies for Science and Society", Report and Recommendations, Dec 2020, coordinated by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs
https://unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/psa/schedule/2020/2020_dark_skies.html to propose to COPUOS [United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space]... recommendations, to be acted upon either by local governments or agreed to at an international level... This report analyses all artificial interference that can have a negative impact on the visibility of the night sky. These interferences can be logically grouped into three categories... effect caused by the artificial emission of visible light during the night,... impact that the very large number of communication satellites in Low Earth Orbit... to the interference that radio broadcasting... have on observations by radio telescopes.

Grasping darkness: the dark ecological network as a social-ecological framework to limit the impacts of light pollution on biodiversity. Challéat, S., et al. 2021. Ecology and Society 26(1):15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12156-260115
Abstract excerpt: Artificial light at night (ALAN)... is increasingly recognized as a major threat to global biodiversity, which ultimately alters the amount, the quality, and the connectivity of available habitats for taxa... Here we present the concept of “dark ecological network.” We show this concept is able to grasp the effects of ALAN in terms of habitat disturbances and integrates temporal dimensions of ecological processes into biodiversity conservation planning... we propose a course of action that consists of building an interdisciplinary repertoire of contextualized knowledge (e.g., impacts on wildlife, human/lightscape relationship, existing legal tools, etc.), in order to deduce from it a number of practical supports for the governance of the dark ecological network in response to societal and ecological issues.

10.1 p. 873 of 947
Illuminating the Issues
Digital Signage and
Philadelphia’s Green Future
by Gregory Young
In the world of outdoor advertising, successive technological and stylistic advancements have prompted cities and states to rethink their signage regulation and policy. There has been much controversy regarding the potential safety hazard posed by digital signage.

Many studies show that such signage can lead to driver distraction and traffic delays (Wachtel, 2009). This research, and the resultant outcry from activists and concerned citizens, has led some policymakers to regulate distracting, electronic signage displays.

There has been relatively little research, however, regarding the environmental and energy-consumption issues raised by this new technology.

The Basics of Digital Signage and Energy Consumption
First, what exactly is digital signage? Digital signage packages consist of three key pieces: player, extender(s), and display. The player is essentially a computer, equipped with software to generate the displayed content. Players are typically mounted behind the screen, and must be kept cool (via internal or accessory fan) and must be easily accessible for repairs or rebooting. These player/fan arrangements typically consume between 200 and 300 Watts1
while running, slightly more than a home dishwasher. Depending on the relative location of the player to the screen, there may be a need for a video extender, essentially a cable which connects the player to the screen. This brings us to the most important component of any digital sign: the screen, or, in industry parlance, “the display.” There are three main categories of digital display: LCD, plasma, and LED.

1 Watt—a unit of power which measures the rate of energy conversion. It is defined as one joule per second. The kilowatt (kW) is equal to one thousand watts. For a sense of perspective, one kilowatt of power is approximately equal to 1.34 horsepower. A small electric heater with one heating element can use 1.0 kilowatt. If that heater is used for one hour, it will have used one kilowatt hour.

10.1 p. 874 of 947
LED is the name used for Light Emitting Diode
(aka LED) boards, commonly used in small to
medium sized on-premise electronic advertising2
.

They are the overwhelming preference for large
off-premise3
digital billboards; designed for longdistance impact, they are often up to 1200 sq. ft. in size (20’x60’). According to the U.S. Department
of Energy, LEDs produce more light (in lumens
per watt) than incandescent bulbs, and their
efficiency is not affected by shape and size, unlike
traditional fluorescent light bulbs or tubes.

Proponents of digital signage tout the “greenness”
of LEDs; lower wattage and greater luminance4
than the more traditional fluorescent,
incandescent, or halogen bulbs.

State Rd. & Academy Rd., Philadelphia
Off-premise LED sign
These claims overlook one key bit of common
sense: whereas traditional, static signage is
illuminated by two or three “inefficient” lamps at
nighttime, digital signs are comprised of
hundreds, if not thousands, of “green” LED bulbs,
each using between 2-10 watts, lit twenty-four
hours a day. For instance, a 14’x48’ LED
billboard can have between 900 and 10,000
diodes.

Considering this simple fact, intrinsic to digital
billboard design, it is no surprise that overall
energy consumption of digital signage exceeds
that of static signage, and makes bulb-to-bulb
comparisons irrelevant in this context.
3051 Front St., Philadelphia
Off-premise LED sign
Additionally, with all digital display types, the players which control the changeable images and the fans required to cool them must be taken into account, as they too increase energy consumption. Adding auxiliary equipment, such as extenders, further increases the power demand.

2 On-premise or accessory signage is defined as a business establishment’s on-site advertisements. 3 Off-premise or non-accessory billboards/signs are those which advertise a business or product not sold at the signs’ location. Roadside billboards are a popular form of off-premise advertising. 4 Luminance is a measure of the perceived brightness of a light-emitting surface, such as a digital sign. Its unit of measure is candela per square meter (c/m2
), informally referred to as “nits.”
2 10.1
p. 875 of 947
Determining the exact power consumption for a digital billboard is difficult; usage is dependent upon many variables, including size, resolution (how close pixels are spaced, aka diode density), how many LEDs are in each pixel, the color capabilities of the board (tri-color or full color), the image being displayed and time of day (daytime operation requires more power than nighttime operation, as the lit image must compete with the brightness of the sun). Despite these difficulties, we have compiled an objective chart of consumption rates. Our information was provided by a variety of sources, ranging from manufacturers, fellow researchers, advocacy groups, and independent meter readings.

Static
Billboard
(4)
Halide
Lamps -
calculat
ed
static
billboard
(L.A.

Reading
)
Static
billboard
(Johnso
n actual
reading)
Average
US
home
LED
Billboard
(L.A.

Reading
)
Barco
LED
Lighthou
se
LVP205
6 AGX
digital
14' x 48
'
billboard
14' x 48'
LED
Billboard
(Johnso
n actual
reading)
EraLED
Series
P20
Billboard
ThinkSig
n LED
Optec
Displays
LED
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Approxim a te Annual Energy Usage for B illboa rds
S ta tic vs. LED
K ilow a t t Hours
LED units generate heat, and cannot function well in heat which reduces the unit's life expectancy. As a result of the tremendous amount of heat generated in LEDs , and the additional impact of hot weather on the signs, an air conditioning unit is incorporated to cool the components. The energy drawn from the grid is highest during the summer months when the heat from the sun coupled with the heat generated by the higher brightness of the LED unit requires increased demand on the air conditioning system installed for cooling the LED unit. This energy use corresponds directly with maximum peak demands from businesses and residences. Utility companies now provide a discount for homeowners if they can disconnect their air conditioners from the grid during the peak load demands. There is no discussion or plan that we are aware of to disconnect LED air conditioners or darken signs during periods of high demand. If traditional billboards continue to be replaced by LED signs, the growing draw of energy during peak hours could negate the efforts of Utility companies to reduce demand during peak times. 3 10.1
p. 876 of 947
Rates of Energy Consumption
Product type
Annual Usage,
kWh*
Annual
cost**
Unillumintated Static Sign 0 $0
Noventri "green" player 35 $4.80
Noventri PC based player 1,752 $240
Corn Digital 42" LCD Display 2,103 $288
Hewlett‐Packard 47" LCD Display 2,737 $375
Salescaster Corp. 76"x12" LED sign  (8‐color) 4,380 $600 Static Billboard (4) Halide Lamps ‐ calculated 7,008 $960 LED Authority 36"x60" LED sign (full color) 8,760 $1,200 Average US home 11,040 $1,512
LED Billboard (L.A. Reading) 61,032 $8,361
Barco LED   73,584 $10,081
Lighthouse  LVP2056   92,715 $12,792
AGX digital 14' x 48 ' billboard 117,866 $16,148
14' x 48' LED Billboard (Florida actual reading) 162,902 $22,318 EraLED Series P20 Billboard 249,690 $34,208
ThinkSign  LED 248,993 $34,112
Optec Displays LED 323,773 $44,357
* Energy Usage (((24))((365))/1000
** Average costs per kWh=$.137 (Metro Area)
4 10.1
p. 877 of 947
In many applications---such as television/computer display, general lighting, and small electronics---LCD, plasma screen, and LED technological advancements have proven more energy efficient than their predecessors, but research indicates that out-of-home advertising is simply not an appropriate or responsible application for digital technology.

5 10.1
p. 878 of 947
Sign Brightness
Measuring Sign Brightness
Apart from energy consumption, there are the
important issues of light trespass and light
pollution, which cause distraction, obscure stars
in the night sky, and, like any other form
of pollution, disrupt ecosystems and cause
adverse health effects for humans and wildlife
alike. Light trespass5
is measured in two ways:
luminance or illuminance. Luminance
(measured in nits6) quantifies surface
brightness, or the amount of light an object
gives off. Illuminance (measured in
footcandles7) quantifies that amount of light
which falls onto an object.

This sign (above) gives off light.

Its Luminance is measured in nits.

By either measure, digital signage can create
significant problems. “During daylight, an unlit
static billboard will have a brightness which
“fits in” with its surroundings; it will not cause
excessive distraction because of excessive
luminance” (Carhart, 2010, p.4). But, to capture
drivers’ attention, digital signs must be set to
very high luminance levels, as they are
essentially competing with the sun, which has a
luminance level of 6,500 nits. If this extreme
brightness is not modulated to fit nighttime
conditions, we face issues including very high
energy consumption during the day, light
pollution in the evening, and potential driver
distraction at all times. The OAAA (Outdoor
Advertising Association of America) has
guidelines to address brightness limits, but they
are not mandated.

This sign (above) is being lit by a light source.

Its Illuminance is measured in footcandles.

5 Light trespass occurs when unwanted light enters one's property, for instance, by shining over a neighbor's fence. A common light trespass problem occurs when a strong light enters the window of one's home from the outside 6 Nit—term used to describe a metric unit of luminance. It it is defined as candela per square meter (cd/m2 ). The unit
is based on the candela, the modern metric unit of luminous intensity; and the square meter. 7 Footcandle – Unit of light density incident on a plane (assumed to be horizontal unless otherwise specified), and measurable with an illuminance meter, a.k.a. light meter. 6 10.1
p. 879 of 947
Limiting Sign Brightness
Proposed limits on sign brightness have caused much debate. Research provided by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) states that drivers should be subjected to points of brightness no greater than 40 times the average brightness level of their general surroundings; this proportion is known as the contrast ratio. “As roadway lighting and automobile headlights provide ambient nighttime lighting levels of about one nit, this implies signage should appear no brighter than about 40 nits” (Luginbuhl, 2010, p.1). Surprisingly, the IESNA’s own recommendations for signage luminance suggest limits between 250-1400 nits---greatly exceeding their stated maximum contrast ratio of 40:1.

The OAAA, has deemed 300-350 nits an acceptable level of night brightness. However, their guidance is based on the use of the IEEE standard for light trespass (IESNA-TM-11- 00), when, for reasons of traffic safety and glare in drivers’ eyes, it should have been based on IEEE’s standard for roadway sign lighting (IESNA RP-19-01).

Traditionally floodlit static billboards rarely exceed 100 nits; experts on both driver distraction and light pollution recommended that, as a means of compromise, the new technologies should not exceed this value. In many areas, including Philadelphia, brightness levels are currently unregulated, and many manufacturers publicize their signs’ capabilities to reach up to 11,000 nits.
7 10.1
p. 880 of 947
Digital signage advocates mention the horizontal louvers8 included in many billboards as
an effective measure to prevent light pollution. In reality, these louver systems were designed primarily to shade each diode from sunlight (thus increasing their prominence), not to limit nighttime glow.9 As Luginbuhl states in "Lighting and Astronomy," horizontal light (that which is emitted between 0° and roughly ±20°, and not restricted by horizontal louvers) contributes even more to skyglow than light emitted at higher angles.

The effects of lower-angle lighting----such as that used to captivate approaching drivers-- - are visible over a much broader area (Carhart, 2010).

A better option is to simply operate signs at less than maximum brightness. Not surprisingly, sign brightness and energy usage are directly related; beyond reducing light pollution and distraction, lowering luminance reduces total power consumption. One manufacturer experimented with running their digital displays at half-brightness; they were able to reduce power usage by nearly 40%, while maintaining full sign readability (Noventri, see in chart). Another option for reducing unnecessary brightness (and thus power usage) is to equip signs with sensors which automatically lower light output in accordance with atmospheric conditions. For example, sign brightness would mechanically be dimmed during dusk, early morning hours, or during cloudy or overcast weather. Again, OAAA does have guidelines for dimming, but they are not mandatory.

8 A louver is a slat that is angled to keep out rain, direct sunshine, etc. The angle of the slats may be adjustable or fixed.
9 Retrieved from http://www.optec.com
8 10.1
p. 881 of 947
Materiality and Recyclability
Life Span
Light Emitting Diodes have a lifespan of 100,000 hours. According to Bryant, this equates to roughly eleven years for LED billboards, compared to the fifteen years for traditional static billboards. At that point, the diodes will be operating at 50% of their prime brightness. Of course, considering the return on investment that the sign owner has received by that time, he or she will likely not hesitate to replace the sign quickly (Bryant, 2008). As these large digital displays and their associated digital players increase in popularity, will we soon face an abundance of difficult to recycle, discarded technology?
Techno-Waste
Obsolete technology is a valuable source for secondary raw materials, if treated properly; if not treated properly, it can be a source of toxins and carcinogens. Rapid industrial advancement, decreasing initial cost, and even planned obsolescence could result in a fast-growing surplus of “techno-waste” (Morgan, 2006). LED’s, plasma and LCD screens, and digital players and extenders are recyclable, but their de-manufacturing and reuse is not always mandated or monitored.

In the US, the main federal law governing solid waste is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976; as far as electronics are concerned, it covers only cathode ray tubes (televisions and computer monitors popular before LCDs, plasma and LEDs), though state regulations may differ, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Volumetrically, digital signage does generate more waste to be recycled than the paper, vinyl sheets, and plywood or canvas facing of static billboards, but lacks the potentially toxic adhesives.

Technological Graveyard: A massive collection of now-obsolete Cathode Ray Tube televisions. Could digital signage one day face a similar fate? 9 10.1
p. 882 of 947
Future Technological Innovation
Digital display types have become increasingly energy efficient since their inception, a trend that will likely continue. While early generations of LED lamps could produce only 20 lumens per watt (compared to about 15 lumens/watt for incandescent), current models can achieve over 100 lumens/watt (Klipstein, 2009). More energy efficient players are also in development, including a model that uses only 4 watts of electricity, the equivalent of a single small light bulb. As technology continues to progress, there is hope that digital signage may one day be a truly green option, but we are not there today.

Solar Power
Solar power is one promising advancement recently used in the installation of a 6,000 sq. ft. digital billboard in Times Square which is fully powered by solar panels and photovoltaic solar modules, and illuminated by floodlights. It consumes no additional electricity. According to Cooley’s Commercial Graphics, manufacturer of the solar sign, “These lightweight systems could be installed on some portion of the 450,000 billboards currently in the United States. Each of these billboards would generate clean renewable energy to either power the billboard lighting system or would be sold back to local utility companies through net metering or feed in tariffs programs” (Connor 2010).

A similar program has been implemented in San Francisco, and successfully generates up to 3.4 kilowatts of excess energy, distributed to local utility customers.10 Some are skeptical, however; an industry insider states, “illuminating signage via solar power poses a significant hurdle, because harvesting and processing solar energy is relatively inefficient,” and estimates that approximately only 20% of energy collected could be retransmitted as sign illumination (Aust, 2007). While these green advancements are laudable, they are climate-dependent, and their high initial costs make them unlikely for mainstream usage without government mandates or incentives.

Average 2008 Air Travel
(Total US Commercial air
travel for 2008 / Census
Estimate of total US
population)
Average 2008
travel by
passenger car:
calculated for
small car
Average 2008
travel by
passenger car:
calculated for
SUV Average Home
Digital
Billboard
(L.A.

Reading)
Optec
Displays
LED
Total annual emissions (tons) 0.93 2.48 6.59 8.28 45.77 242.82 No. of trees to offset per year 4.66 12.38 32.96 41.4 228.87 1,214.10 Carbon Footprint

10 (2007, December 3). Retrieved from http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/12/03/pges-green-campaign-getssolar-powered-billboard/ 10 10.1
p. 883 of 947
Economic Feasibility and
Return on Investment
Off-Premise, Non-Accessory Billboards
In addition to their environmental impacts, we looked into the profitability of digital billboards, and received mixed results. Although LEDs are expensive, manufacturers
frequently claim that cost is recouped over time and in reduced energy usage and maintenance costs. For off-premise advertising, the initial investment in a digital sign is large---$250,000-$500,000 (Goldstein, 2008)---but future overhead for the advertising company is low, as graphics can be remotely changed and replaced. Often, they are also able to rent out the advertising space for a higher premium than on static billboards.

Space on a digital billboard rents at the same rate, or higher, as a comparably sized static billboard, even though each ad will be featured only intermittently, sharing space with up to eight other advertisements in the rotating lineup. This means huge profit increases for the outdoor advertising companies, and a quick return on investment. Digital billboards provide operators with an average of $14,000 per month in rent (typically from multiple advertisers), compared with $1,000 to $2,000 per month for traditional billboards, which serve only one advertiser (Goldstein, 2008).11 Total revenue from the outdoor digital signage equipment market in the United States, including hardware, software, installation, and maintenance, grew by about 33% in 2009, a trend that is expected to continue. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that in 1996 there were over 400,000 billboards on federally controlled roads, which generated revenues in excess of $1.96 billion (Schueller, n.d.).

On-Premise, Accessory Signs
On-premise advertising appears to be less cost-effective. The initial cost of installing a digital signage network has not been recouped by many of the operators interviewed, to say nothing of the dramatic increase in energy expenditures when compared to static signage (Noventri, 2010). Additionally, the burden of providing frequently-changing content falls on the operator; many small businesses simply do not have the creative staff or technical knowledge to create changeable graphic displays.

Despite uncertain profitability for on-premise signs, market statistics and lay observation point to the growing popularity of digital signage, both off-premise and on-premise. In the absence of guaranteed profits, their chief selling point is their uniqueness---the fact that they “stand out.” However, as this type of advertising becomes more mainstream, and the market becomes saturated, how long can simple novelty justify its high financial and environmental costs?

11 Sales prices reflect market averages in Bangor, PA. Rates may vary with location. 11 10.1
p. 884 of 947
Current Trends
How big of a problem do unregulated energy consumption and luminance levels pose? Right now, only a small fraction of American outdoor advertising is digital. This number is growing, however, and the trend shows no sign of slowing. Rapidly-dropping prices for large LED screens have led to a growing increase in the number of digital signage installations. Today, there are nearly 800 of these digital billboards in the U.S. It's a small number compared with 450,000 traditional billboards across the country, but it's growing fast. The Outdoor Advertising Association of America, an industry trade group, projects that the number of digital billboards in the U.S. will expand at a rate of several hundred per year (Goldstein, 2008). Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, an industry powerhouse, says it is expanding its digital billboard business in markets such as Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia (Hau, 2007). Philadelphia is home to an estimated 1,800 billboards, including a handful of digital signs---the effects of widespread conversion from static to digital would raise significant safety and environmental issues.

Rapid Growth: The number of digital billboards is increasing at an increasing rate in the US, as evidenced by the above graph. On-premise digital signage has shown an even more dramatic increase in popularity (Urazbaev, 2009).
12 10.1
p. 885 of 947
How Does Philadelphia’s Current Zoning Code
Regulate Electronic Signage?
Simply put, it doesn’t address the
technology. Signage regulation within the
Philadelphia zoning code (Section 14-
1604) was passed in the early 1990s and
does not specifically address electronic
outdoor advertising. The code for onpremise signage (storefront signage) is equally devoid of controls on electronic
signage, opening an opportunity for these
kinds of signs in all commercial districts.

A leader in the outdoor advertising
industry, Clear Channel, has embraced the
digital trend. The company has revamped
several of its existing static billboards to
LED format along the I-95 corridor in
Philadelphia. In order to proceed with the
conversions, Clear Channel sought the
approval of Philadelphia’s Department of
Licenses and Inspections (L&I), which
granted permission for the conversions to
take place with few requirements. This
interpretation was made in spite of clear
language in the code prohibiting an outdoor
advertising sign from carrying more than
two messages at one location. Under
L&I’s current interpretation of the code,
any billboard that is 500 feet or more away
from residentially zoned property may be
converted to electronic as of right. If this
interpretation remains in place, this could
translate to hundreds of converted
electronic billboards – the only factor
moderating conversions right now is the
(continually decreasing) expense involved.

Pink dots denote Philadelphia’s current
inventory of digital billboards (10 total),
concentrated along I-95 and the
Schuykill Expressway
13 10.1
p. 886 of 947
Examples from Other Cities
To date, no known city has passed limits on sign energy usage, but about one quarter of states in the U.S. prohibits moving or animated signs, and roughly one third have specifications for dwell time ranging from four seconds to several minutes. Most states prohibit flashing red lights and anything that causes a glare or vision impairment.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
A proposed amendment to Pittsburgh’s zoning code states that no electronic sign may exceed .3 foot candles illumination above ambient light level to prevent distraction and interference with traffic signals. As discussed earlier in this paper, OAAA recommends foot candles in its guidelines but the usefulness of this measurement has been questioned and nits is the preferred measurement for detecting brightness and glare emitted from digital signs). Additionally, Pittsburgh’s amendment sets a dwell time of at least ten seconds, and prohibits animation of any kind.12
Concord, New Hampshire
Some cities and states have banned electronic message boards outright, including Concord, New Hampshire. There, the ban on electronic message centers was upheld on appeal to the First Circuit Court, on grounds that the ban promoted both traffic safety and community aesthetics (Carpentier, 2009). 13
Panama City Beach, Florida
In the absence of a cohesive state or federal policy, residents and policy makers in Panama City Beach, Florida decided they could not allow digital signage to continue to proliferate unfettered. They drafted a set of restrictions on sign size, placement and brightness which have been incorporated into the City Code. “The specifications make regulation seem like an exact science, when it's really just public and private actors negotiating acceptable limits,” voices one critic. While imperfect, it sets a valuable precedent for regulation because the proposed ordinance limits the amount of light digital signs can emit, their illumination must be measured and monitored by an instrument widely available and specially designed for this purpose.

Tulsa, Oklahoma
The study "Digital Billboard Recommendations and Comparisons to Conventional Billboards" recommends billboard brightness of 342 nits for an average sized (10’6” x 36’) billboard under average ambient lighting conditions (Lewin, 2008).14 In response to these recommendations, the Planning Commission of Tulsa, Oklahoma recommended a limit of 300 nits for all signage, but this was raised to 500 nits before becoming law, due to pressure from the outdoor advertising industry.

12 The Pittsburgh Code, Title Nine, Zoning Code, Article VI, Chapter 919, Signs. 13 Naser Jewelers, Inc. v. City of Concord, 2008. WL 162521 (C.A. 1 N.H. 1/18/2008) 14 n.b. This study was funded by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America. 14 10.1
p. 887 of 947
Municipalities that ban or limit digital billboards

STATE CITY/COUNTY ACTION TAKEN
Alaska (state) Ban
Arizona Gilbert Ban
Arizona Pima County Moratorium
California Los Angeles Moratorium
California San Francisco Ban
Colorado Denver Ban
Florida Largo Ban
Florida Pinellas County Moratorium
Florida St. Petersburg Ban
Georgia Atlanta Moratorium
Hawaii (state) Ban
Maine (state) Ban
Michigan (state) Considering Moratorium
Minnesota Minnetonka Moratorium
Minnesota Oakdale Moratorium
Minnesota (state) Considering Moratorium
Missouri Lake St. Louis Ban
Missouri St. Louis Moratorium
Montana (state) Ban
North Carolina Durham Ban
Rhode Island (state) Moratorium
Tennessee Knoxville Ban
Texas Amarillo Ban
Texas Austin Ban
Texas Dallas Ban
Texas El Paso Moratorium
Texas Ft. Worth Ban
Texas Galveston Ban
Texas Houston Ban
Texas San Antonio Moratorium
Vermont (state) Ban
15 10.1
p. 888 of 947
Policy Recommendations:

Electronic Signage and Philadelphia’s Future
Philadelphia is currently in the
process of a complete overhaul
of its zoning code and
comprehensive plan, bringing
the city into the present and
preparing for its future. A
recently released draft of the
updated code does aim to
control digital advertising, but
more (and better) regulation is
needed; the draft focuses on
off-premise advertising, and is
particularly relaxed regarding
on-premise electronic message
boards.

For the purposes of controlling light pollution and energy consumption, the distinction between on-premise and off-premise signage is of little relevance; as such, we offer similarly cautionary restrictions for both sign types, from a traffic safety perspective, on– premise signs may be worse. They can be bigger, closer to the roadway, have motion and animation (Wachtel, 2009).

Our first issue with the draft is one of semantics: currently, the draft specifically regulates any sign with action or motion, animation, rotation, scrolling, flashing or color changes, or upon which illumination is not maintained at a constant stationary intensity and/or color, as a means (we assume) of regulating digital signage in general. We anticipate that this language could create the opportunity for misinterpretation; electronic and digital message boards are not necessarily flashing/animated/intermittent, as they are capable of the display of static, yet still excessively bright, imagery. Advertising companies often specifically describe their digital signage as “static,” as a way to circumvent inexplicit regulation such as this.

We suggest revising the zoning language to include any and all digital signage, defined as any sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means,15 not just those that are animated, flashing, or intermittent, which can be subjective descriptions.

15 From Oklahoma City Municipal Code, 2007, Chapter 3, Article V, Section 3-82. 16 10.1
p. 889 of 947
The current draft states that off-premise digital
billboards are not to be located within 500 feet of
an entrance or exit ramp to any major highway, or
within 200 feet of any intersection of the street or
highway on which it is intended to advertise to.

For off-premise signage, the proposed code
prohibits flashing signs, signs with intermittent
illumination, or signs with mechanically or
electronically changing messages within 500 ft. of
any residential district. It also prohibits them from
facing any residential district within 1,000 ft. For
on-premise digital signage, these distances are
lowered to 150 ft. and 300 ft., respectively.

We recommend that this regulation be expanded
and increased; best practices from the Australian
states of Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales, South Africa and The Netherlands illustrate the rigor with which the situation of electronic advertising must be assessed before it can be deemed safe for motorists and other road users. Among the considerations these governments require in assessment of the placement of outdoor advertising are: traffic speed on the adjacent roadway, sign content, legend height, vicinity of official traffic control devices, type of street or interchange, sign brightness, hold time, sign content, the potential that an advertisement will be mistaken for a traffic control device, the amount of information communicated, the concision and legibility of the advertising message, and an advertising structure’s obstruction of key sightlines.

These best practices are detailed in the attached Appendix D, Excerpt from 2009 AASHTO Report. (Wachtel)
According to the present draft, signs may be illuminated, but the illumination shall be focused upon the sign itself, so as to prevent glare upon the surrounding areas, and digital billboards must have a luminance level appropriate to the ambient environment in keeping with the standards set forth by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). These regulations are too vague; we propose specific limits to prevent light trespass and light pollution. As such, the illumination projected from any use shall at no time exceed 0.1 footcandle onto a residential use, and 1.0 footcandle onto a non-residential use. This should apply to light emitted from any form of signage, onpremise or off-premise. We also propose specific luminance limits of 100 nits for nighttime conditions, applicable to all digital signage. (Lebenbuhl) 16th & Washington, Philadelphia
On-premise LED sign
17 10.1
p. 890 of 947
Additionally, there must be prescribed methods for determining compliance with the aforementioned illuminance and luminance limits. Again, illuminance measures the amount of light which falls onto an object; luminance measures the amount of light an object gives off. To gauge light trespass on neighboring properties, illumination shall be measured (in footcandles) at any time and from any point on the receiving property line using an illuminance light meter. While an illuminance meter is a practical device with which to measure light trespass, inherent sign brightness is best measured using a luminance meter, which is capable of directly measuring the surface brightness of signs.

Luminance meters are quite costly; sign owners should be financially responsible, by means of permit fees, for any and all equipment/operational costs needed to ensure that their luminance levels remain in compliance with aforementioned limits.

Luminance limits between the full sunlight limit and the nighttime limit may also be specified for overcast or foggy days. Regulations should require an automated control of sign luminance based on current ambient lighting conditions. To further control light pollution, off-premises digital signs shall be extinguished automatically no later than 11:00pm each evening until dawn. Signs for establishments that operate or remain open past 11:00 p.m. may remain on no later than one half hour past the close of the establishment.

Where new digital signage construction or digital conversions are permitted, there should be a “trade-off” policy, based on power consumption. For every square footage of digital signage an outdoor advertising company installs, via new construction or conversion, they must remove a specified amount of square footage of their existing static signage, in order to maintain or reduce their carbon footprint. Such a policy has been implemented in many cities and states. Finally, obsolete or otherwise discarded digital signage, and all accessory components, must be fully recycled at the expense of the manufacturer.

Conclusion
Our research and the resultant policy recommendations could not come at a better time, as digital signage figures prominently on several hot-button issues regarding Philadelphia urban development. For example, the Market East corridor of Philadelphia is in great need of renewal and rethinking; the look and feel of the “new” Market East is a very controversial topic. Councilman Frank DiCicco's Outdoor Advertising Bill 100013 takes away the city's ability to regulate signage and will allow massive outdoor advertising signs including LED digitals and rooftop billboards along Market Street between 7th and 13th Streets, transforming Market East into a garish thoroughfare reminiscent of the Las Vegas Strip.

Paul Levy, president and CEO of the Center City District and a key player in the revitalization of Market East, is amenable to the sorts of eye-catching wraps, digital and LED signs, though he says the city must make sure they stimulate development. 18 10.1
p. 891 of 947
“Building owners shouldn't get to throw up a giant ad on a tiny decrepit storefront. They should only be able to profit from these signs --- and thus generate tax revenue for the city --- if they renovate their properties in line with city standards and fill them with people” (Rubin 2010).

Over the past ten years, many studies of digital signage have focused on the issue of driver distraction and road safety. These studies have been conducted in many countries (e.g. U.S., U.K., Australia, South Africa, The Netherlands, Norway, and others) and they have used a variety of research methods, including simulator and laboratory investigations, opinion surveys and focus groups, on-road studies in instrumented vehicles, and longitudinal analysis of summaries of traffic collision reports. With only two exceptions, those recent studies performed by government agencies, universities, and non-profit traffic safety organizations, have found a detrimental effect on driver distraction (or other measures of traffic safety) in the presence of billboards. The only studies that have reported no adverse safety impact of digital billboards have been those sponsored by the outdoor advertising industry.

And we use the word "reported" advisedly. That is because, in one case, despite the study authors reporting no distraction from digital billboards, the actual data collected clearly showed such an adverse impact. And, in the other case, despite the study authors reporting that the presence of digital billboards had no effect on traffic crashes, the authors have been challenged by experts, both in peer review and in public forums, for using improper statistical methods - with the results that their reported conclusions are unjustified and should be retracted.

The Federal Highway Administration is nearing completion of its own on-road research study looking at levels of driver distraction as measured by eye movements in the presence and absence of digital billboards. This report is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2011.

Higher electricity consumption, increased light pollution, and recyclability issues should make us pause and question the growing popularity of digital signage. As America at last embraces sustainability and Philadelphia strives to become the “greenest city in America,” is a proliferation of digital signs along our highways and storefronts sending the right message?
19 10.1
p. 892 of 947
About the Author:

Gregory Young, LEED AP is an architectural designer and urban planner active in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A recent graduate of the University of Pennsylvania (School of Design), his research was generously supported by a grant from the Samuel F. Fels Fund. Policy recommendations were made in collaboration with SCRUB: Public Voice for Public Space. SCRUB is a Philadelphia-based non-profit, founded in 1990 with the mission to promote healthy, vibrant and beautiful public spaces throughout all of Philadelphia using advocacy, public awareness, community mobilization and legal action.

Visit http://www.publicvoiceforpublicspace.org/ for more information. 20 10.1
p. 893 of 947
References
ABI Research. (2009, March). U.S. digital signage market to grow by one third in 2009. Retrieved from http://www.abiresearch.com/press/
Aust, S. (2007, September 13). Earth signs -- light fare. Signweb.com. Retrieved from http://www.signweb.com/content/earth-signs-light-fare?page=0,1 Baumann, S . (2010, June 16). Caution: Flashing signs. News Herald.

Bryant, J. (2008, January 5). The digital signage insider. Message posted to wirespring.com Buchanan, M. (2008, April 30). Giz explains: Plasma TV basics. Gizmodo.com. Retrieved from http://gizmodo.com/385708/giz-explains-plasma-tv-basics Carhart, D. (2010, May). Digital billboards: New regulations for new technology. Illinois Coalition for Responsible Outdoor Lighting. Retrieved from http://www.illinoislighting.org/billboards.html Carpentier, J. (2009, October 29). A planner’s view of electronic message centers. Signweb.com.

Retrieved from http://www.signweb.com/content/a-planner’s-view-electronic-message-centers-1?page=0,0 Connor, S. (2010, June 2) Times Square billboard goes solar. Signweb.com. Retrieved from http://www.signweb.com/content/times-square-billboard-goes-solar Garvey, P.M. and Mace, D.M. (1996).Changeable message sign visibility. Publication No.FHWA-RD-94- 077. Federal Highway Administration, Federal Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Goldstein, S. (2008, March 1). Bright lights, big impact. Inc.com. Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/magazine/20080301/bright-lights-big-impact.html Hau, L. (2007, August 20). Billboards go digital. Forbes.com. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/20/clear-channel-digital-biz-media-cx_lh_0820bizclear.html Klipstein, D. (2009, December 21). Why LEDs can be 10 times as efficient as incandescents in some applications but not in general home lighting. Retrieved from http://members.misty.com/don/lede.html Lewin, I. (2008). Digital billboard recommendations and comparisons to conventional billboards.

Retrieved from http://www.polcouncil.org/polc2/DigitalBillboardsIanLewin.pdf.

Liquid crystal display. (2010, May 21). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:05, June 27, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org
Luginbuhl, C.B. (2009). Lighting and astronomy. Walker, C.E., and Wainscoat, R.J., Physics Today, 62:32.

Morris, M. (2008, April). Digital signs: Context matters. Zoning Practice, issue 4.

Morgan, R. (2006-08-21). Tips and tricks for recycling old computers. SmartBiz.com. Retrieved from http://www.smartbiz.com/article/articleprint/1525/-1/58. Retrieved 2009-03-17.

Noventri. (2010). Off-White paper. Retrieved from http://www.noventri.com/eco/pdf/OffWhite_Paper.pdf 21 10.1
p. 894 of 947
Nystedt, D. (2008, August 8). Wall Street beat: Time to put off buying LCD TVs and displays. New York Times.com. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_852573C40069388048257498001FBEC6.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Pennsylvania Outdoor Lighting Council. (2010, February). Model outdoor lighting ordinance for inclusion in zoning ordinances. Retrieved from http://www.polcouncil.org/polc2/MLOZoning_2010_FEB.PDF Rubin, D. (2010, February 18). Some illumination on lighted signs needed. The Philadelphia Inquirer. A5.

Schueller, R. (n.d.). How products are made: Volume 5: Billboard. Retrieved from http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Billboard.html
Urazbaev, N. (2009, Oct. 2). Is digital signage ready for media buyers? Message posted to broadsign.com.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2008, October 27). Comparing LEDs to traditional light sources.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/comparing.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Final rules on cathode ray tubes and discarded mercurycontaining equipment. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/electron/crt.htm.

Wachtel, J. (2009). Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs. Report No. 20-7 (256). Washington, DC: National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 22 10.1
p. 895 of 947
Phase II Digital Billboard Survey
March 17 2021
City of San Jose Survey: Digital Billboards
Phase 2: Sign Code Changes for Off-Site
Advertising, Electronic Billboards and signs
displaying off-site commercial speech on nonCity-owned sites March 2021
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San Jose Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Survey Link:
https://bit.ly/SignOrdinanceUpdate
Survey Start date: February 8, 2021
Survey End Date: March 12, 2021
Data retrieved: March 17, 2021
Current Responses: 2234 (English)
4 (Spanish)
0 (Vietnamese) 2

10.1 p. 896 of 947
Phase II Digital Billboard Survey
March 17 2021
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
I live in San José
I work in San José
I own or represent a business in
San José
I own or represent a commercial
or industrial property in San José
I represent a sign company in
San José
I am part of an environmental
advocacy group or other similar
organization
Other (please specify)
Responses: 2226
Skipped: 8 3
Item 1: Tell us about yourself (check all that apply): *Required www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Item 2: Let us know how close you live to a billboard (check all that apply):
*Required
I can see a billboard from
my home
I can see a billboard from
my block
There is a billboard in my
neighborhood
There are lots of billboards
in my neighborhood
There are no billboards in
my neighborhood
Responses: 2175
Skipped: 59 4

10.1 p. 897 of 947
Phase II Digital Billboard Survey
March 17 2021
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Item 3: In general, how do you feel about allowing new digital billboards to be built along freeways in San José?
Strongly
opposed
Somewhat
opposed
Neutral
Somewhat in
favor
Strongly in
favor
Responses: 2230
Skipped: 4 5
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Item 4: How do you feel about allowing new digital billboards to be built along freeways in San José in exchange for removing old billboards from elsewhere in the city?
Strongly
opposed
Somewhat
opposed
Neutral
Somewhat in
favor
Strongly in
favor
Responses: 2226
Skipped: 8 6

10.1 p. 898 of 947
Phase II Digital Billboard Survey
March 17 2021
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Item 5: In addition to removing old billboards, is there anything that you would like to see the City require in order for a property owner to be allowed to install a new digital billboard?
• Driving distraction related to light and motion • Brightness concerns and visual pollution • Not recommended near freeways
• Not recommended near residences
• No political advertising
• Community messaging allowed atleast 25% of the time
Responses: 1372
Skipped: 862 7
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Item 6: If new digital billboards are allowed in exchange for removing old billboards, how many old billboards do you think should have to be removed in exchange for one new digital billboard?
3 or fewer4
5 6
7 8
9 10
More than 10 Responses: 1935
Skipped: 299 8

10.1 p. 899 of 947
Phase II Digital Billboard Survey
March 17 2021
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Age of billboard
Condition/maintenance
of billboard
Visibility of billboard from
residences
Visibility of billboard from
a freeway
Visibility of the billboard
from a major (street or
business district
Size of the billboard
Other (please specify)
Item 7: In your opinion, what is the most important factor when evaluating which billboards should be removed in exchange for allowing new ones? Responses: 2058
Skipped: 176 9
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Item 8: The most common concerns we have heard about potentially allowing new digital billboards and signs are: 1) light pollution, 2) impacts to wildlife, 3) traffic and pedestrian safety, 4) aesthetics/visual clutter. Do you have other concerns you want us to know about?
• Distraction to motorists
• Brightness and other impacts to residents
• Quality of life and health concerns
• Commercialism over community image
Responses: 1235
Skipped: 999
10 10.1
p. 900 of 947
Phase II Digital Billboard Survey
March 17 2021
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Item 9: The proposal under consideration is to allow digital billboards on properties that front freeways. Are there any freeway segments where you think new digital billboards are MOST appropriate? Please be as descriptive as possible (for example, Highway 101 between McKee Road and Interstate 880): • Brightness and light pollution impacts • Safety hazard and driver distraction
• 80% of the comments opposed to freeway-facing billboards • Siting along industrial properties and storage facilities Responses: 1187
Skipped: 1047
11 www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Item 10: Are there any freeway segments where you think new digital billboards are LEAST appropriate? Please be as descriptive as possible: • Not appropriate or desired for any location • Not near freeway interchanges, ramps and junctions
• Not near traffic corridors or zones of high fatality
• No billboard closer than 20 miles from another billboard • No impacts to green spaces or residents
Responses: 1323
Skipped: 911 12

10.1 p. 901 of 947
Phase II Digital Billboard Survey
March 17 2021
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Item 11: In addition to free-standing digital billboards along freeways, the City is considering allowing both digital and static advertising signs attached to buildings within the Downtown. How do you feel such signs being attached to buildings in Downtown San José?
Strongly
opposed
Somewhat
opposed
Neutral
Somewhat in
favor
Strongly in
favor
Responses: 2203
Skipped: 31
13 www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Item 12: To help us evaluate this proposal, do you have any specific concerns about digital and static signs attached to buildings?
Aesthetics/visual
clutter
Light pollution/impacts
to wildlife
Traffic and pedestrian
safety
Compatibility with
historic
buildings/districts
Sign content
Other
Responses: 2184
Skipped: 50
14 10.1
p. 902 of 947
Phase II Digital Billboard Survey
March 17 2021
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
City of San José Survey: Digital Billboards
Images are for illustrative purposes only
Item 13: Is there anything else you'd like to tell us?
• 80% of the comments opposed to all forms of billboards • Traffic safety, wildlife impacts, aesthetics and brightness concerns
• New static or digital billboards not recommended
• Maintain San Jose’s clean and green character • Keep freeways free of digital distraction, reduce visual clutter and support Vision Zero
Responses: 1181
Skipped: 1053
15 10.1
p. 903 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Barbara Kelsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 1:14 PM
To: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal; Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner; Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle; Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis; Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt; Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez; Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez; Planning Division (Public)
Cc: shani kleinhaus; Gladwyn d'Souza; James Eggers; Mike Ferreira Subject: EXTERNAL - Joint Letter re: Gilroy Electronic Billboards Attachments: Gilroy Plannning Commission_ Joint Letter opposing billboards 1.18.23.pdf; Attachment Resources-References-LightPollutionPolicy_20210307.pdf; SC-SCVAS Comments- Gilroy Billboard Ordinance 09062022.pdf; Phase II Digital Billboard.pdf; Digital_Signage_Final_Dec_14_20101.pdf
January 18, 2023
Gilroy Planning Commission
7351 Rosanna St.

Gilroy, CA 95020
Re: Electronic Billboards
Dear Chair Bhandal and Gilroy Planning Commissioners,
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter expressed serious concerns about the electronic billboard project and provided comments on the environmental report. Our joint comment letter is a brief summary of the substantiated concerns. Please also see attached our joint letter of September 2022 and documents referencing the relevant studies.

Respectfully,
Gladwyn d’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
sent by:

Barbara Kelsey
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 904 of 947
2 she/her/hers
Chapter Coordinator
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
3921 E. Bayshore Rd, Suite 204
Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]

10.1 p. 905 of 947
January 18, 2023
Gilroy Planning Commission
7351 Rosanna St.

Gilroy, CA 95020
Via email to: [email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Electronic Billboards
Dear Chair Bhandal and Gilroy Planning Commissioners,
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter expressed serious concerns about the electronic billboard project and provided comments on the environmental report. Please see the attached letter and documents referencing the relevant studies. The following is only a brief summary of the substantiated concerns.
● Electronic signs are, by design, intended to be viewed from a distance. By design, electronic billboards disrupt aesthetics and visual character, and produce day and nighttime illumination, light and glare.
● The Biological Report underestimates the potential impact to ecosystems. Recent scientific studies highlight the pervasive, cumulative, and harmful impacts of Artificial Light At Night (ALAN) to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, species, and ecosystems. The impacts, including effects on circadian rhythms, metabolism and behavior in fish, birds, insects, and other taxa, have been summarized in several recent publications in major scientific journals. ● Recent studies also implicate ALAN as one of the primary drivers of the global decline in insect numbers and diversity (the insect apocalypse).
● The IS/DNMD acknowledges that “migrating birds can be affected by human-built structures because of their propensity to migrate at night, their low flight altitudes, and their tendency to be disoriented by artificial light, which makes them vulnerable to collision with obstructions that could potentially lead to injury or mortality. In addition, birds migrating at night can be strongly attracted to sources of artificial light, particularly during periods of inclement weather”. The IS/DMND provides two reasons why the “proposed electronic billboard would not have a significant impact on the movement of migrating birds” (IS/DNMD p. 41). These reasons and the findings are not supported by evidence.
● Open storm drains, irrigation channels and other flood management infrastructure features often connect habitat patches and provide pathways for animals to traverse an urban landscape.

10.1 p. 906 of 947
This connectivity for wildlife is important to preserve biodiversity, and is easily disrupted by lighting. The Project is adjacent to the Princevalle Channel, which is currently a wildlife connectivity corridor and allows permeability between Uvas and Llagas creeks. The DMND provides no analysis of wildlife movement in the channel, dismissing impact to wildlife movement.
● “Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan” (IS/DNMD) cannot be mitigated because CEQA does not allow mitigation measures to depend on future disclosure of impacts and actual mitigation measures for NMD. ● The IS/DMND acknowledges that the project undermines driver safety but the impact and of this hazard is understated by the IS/DMND.
● While the IS/DMND lists the estimated 52,400 kilowatts/year of electricity and 6.6 megatons of CO2/year expected to be released into the atmosphere with the energy required for the billboards, the IS/DMND only states that it meets standards and does not prescribe mitigation for the greenhouse gas emissions in our current climate emergency.

Respectfully,
Gladwyn d’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society

10.1 p. 907 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Dashiell Leeds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 12:47 PM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Cc: City Clerk; Shani Kleinhaus
Subject: EXTERNAL - Public Comment on item 7.2 of September 19th Planning Commission Meeting
Attachments: Gilroy Plannning Commission_ Joint Letter opposing billboards 1.18.23.pdf; SC-SCVAS Comments- Gilroy Billboard Ordinance 09062022.pdf
Dear Chair Bhandal and Gilroy Planning Commissioners,
My name is Dashiell Leeds and I’m the Conservation Organizer for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, representing both the Sierra Club and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society in this comment.

Both of our organizations expressed serious concerns about the electronic billboard project and provided comments on the initial draft study/MND. Our previous letters are attached.

Please do not increase light pollution in our community and ecosystems. We ask the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council should not adopt the MND. We also ask the Commission not to adopt the resolution outlined in the staff report.

We would like to highlight that the Biological Report underestimates the potential impact to ecosystems including those non-special status species that may make use of the adjacent Princevalle drainage that benefit from its water and relative cover and including those that may transit it between the larger habitats of Uvas Creek and Llagas Creek. Recent scientific studies highlight the pervasive, cumulative, and harmful impacts of artificial light at night to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, species, and ecosystems. The impacts, including effects on circadian rhythms, metabolism and behavior in fish, birds, insects, and other taxa, have been summarized in several recent publications in major scientific journals. Humans also suffer from hormone disruption and increased rates of cancer when their circadian rhythms are disrupted.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Dashiell Leeds
Conservation Organizer, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 908 of 947

10.1 p. 909 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Cindy McCormick
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 8:15 AM
To: plynam; Planning Division (Public)
Subject: ATTN: Cindy McCormick RE: Proposed Electronic Billboard (Project: Z 18-04, AS 18-09, SP 21-08)
Good morning Mr. Lynam,
Thank you for your comments. I will add them to the public record. We have not yet scheduled the public hearing for this item; however a newspaper notice will go out when we do schedule the public meeting.

Cindy
-----Original Message-----
From: plynam <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:08 PM
To: Planning Division (Public) <[email protected]> Cc: Plynam <[email protected]>
Subject: EXTERNAL - ATTN: Cindy McCormick RE: Proposed Electronic Billboard (Project: Z 18-04, AS 18-09, SP 21-08) CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Cindy McCormick,
Further to my (15 August 2022) spoken contribution to Gilroy City Council, please find attached a (5 September 2022) written comment regarding the proposed electronic billboard project. Since it is referred to in my most recent contributions, for completeness, please also find attached my written contribution to Council of 26 April 2021.

I look forward to your acknowledgement of receipt of these submissions.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Paul D. Lynam FRAS
Astronomer
University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory

10.1 p. 910 of 947
P.O. BOX 85, MT. HAMILTON, CA 95140
Phone: 408-238-9619 Fax: 408-238-0757

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OBSERVATORIES/LICK OBSERVATORY MT HAMILTON, CALIFORNIA 95140 DATE: 5 September 2022
Dear Cindy McCormick,

PROPOSED ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD(S)
The University of California Observatories’ Lick Observatory (UCO/Lick) - the world's first high altitude astronomical observatory - hosts 10 telescopes, plus multiple cutting-edge research instruments atop Mount Hamilton, 25 miles north of Gilroy. Named in classic literature and from Apollo 11’s Tranquility Base, the observatory routinely opens new vistas on the universe, discovers new worlds, develops new technology, educates science and “tech-savvy” students and inspires all comers.

Lick Observatory leads the world, setting standards on astronomical matters. Annually, the observatory serves hundreds of faculty (including Nobel laureates) and students of the University of California, in addition to 35,000 visitors. This cannot be achieved without a fruitful relationship between the observatory and neighboring settlements.

As outlined in written (26 April 2021) and spoken (15 August 2022) contributions to Gilroy City Council, I reiterate that the proposed Electronic Billboard Ordinance and Sign Permit proposal (described in the 4 August 2022 Initial Study) shall render a disproportionate and deleterious impact on astronomical pursuits, fauna, flora and public health. From an astronomical perspective, it would be ideal to have no illuminating sources at all. However, UCO/Lick has no wish to crusade in pursuit of this ideal. A higher aspiration is to sustain the rapport and understanding between neighboring communities and observatory that has endured since the 1870s. Responsibly installed billboards may confer benefits to the community. Distressingly, however, the Initial Study is unbalanced in its failure to consider negative effects of electronic billboards on astronomy. For example, the International Dark-Sky Association’s (2019) Guidance for Electonic Message Centers (repeatedly advocated for in previous contributions) continues to be neglected. As a result of such omissions, the Initial Study cannot be considered to be representative of best practice. Experience regarding proposed electronic billboards elsewhere in Santa Clara County shows that the needs of Lick Observatory align with public opinion: a (2021) survey conducted by the City of San Jose Planning Department revealed 93% opposition. Expert advisors (e.g. Norman Y. Mineta San Jose international Airport Commission) repeatedly recommended against billboards. The City of San Jose is now subject to litigation from competing outdoor advertising interests. Quite apart from astronomers’ niche concerns, the most commonly cited objection to billboards (electronic and conventional) is visual blight. Billboards are notorious for intrusive, poorly-maintained, malfunctioning, decrepit and unsightly structures – often imposed on under-served neighborhoods. The outdoor advertising industry is noted (even celebrated) for wasteful practices. Outdoor advertising typically constitutes a minor fraction of overall advertising budgets. As on-line media continues to grow, revenues derived from outdoor advertising are projected to decline.

Regardless of whether one favors or opposes electronic billboards, it must be acknowledged that the Initial Study has failed to allay concerns. Thus, a full-and-proper Environmental Impact Report should ultimately be undertaken. However, in order to avoid embarking on such a costly endeavor unnecessarily, the City of Gilroy is first urged to proactively canvass the community in an effort to gain insight into the public attitude and reception to electronic billboards.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Paul D. Lynam FRAS
Astronomer
University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory

BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO

SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

10.1 p. 911 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: plynam <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 8:09 PM
To: Planning Division (Public)
Subject: EXTERNAL - Special Planning Commission Meeting Th, Jan 19, 2023, 18:00 Attachments: Gilroy_Planning_Comm--PLynam_2023-01-18.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

To whom it may concern,
In advance of the Special Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, Jan 19, 2023, 18:00 at Gilroy City Hall, I respectfully submit the attached letter and accompanying pages (4 pages in total) and request that these documents be furnished to the Planning Commissioners for their consideration.

Yours faithfully,
Dr Paul D. Lynam FRAS
Astronomer
University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory

10.1 p. 912 of 947
P.O. BOX 85, MT. HAMILTON, CA 95140
Phone: 408-238-9619 Fax: 408-238-0757

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OBSERVATORIES/LICK OBSERVATORY MT HAMILTON, CALIFORNIA 95140 18 January 2023
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Agenda Item 7.2: Electronic Billboard Ordinance & Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (Z 18-04).

The University of California’s Lick Observatory is a scientific, technological and historical marvel. Since its first (1882) contribution to humankind’s understanding of the universe, Lick has continuously innovated novel technologies and techniques, training and serving generations of scientists, including Nobel laureates. Since before the 1970s, the accelerating growth of light pollution (alternatively referred to as Anthropogenic/Artificial Light At Night, ALAN) has increasingly negatively impacted the observatory’s operation, mission and probably (since the United Nations cites ALAN as a probable carcinogen) public health. In visible light, ALAN chiefly results from the physics of photon scattering by atmospheric aerosol particles – a process not accounted for in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Scattering is responsible for twilights, renders clear daytime skies as blue and cloudy skies as gray.

In responding to MND comments, the applicant team repeat statements of the form “the proposed project’s impact on Lick Observatory is not an environmental impact under CEQA” (the California Environmental Quality Act). Thus, the applicants implicitly concede that there is an impact on Lick Observatory, that the impact is indeed environmental, but is not required by CEQA. By not considering light pollution as an environmental phenomenon, dark sky advocates maintain that CEQA is deficient. Hence, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is preferred.

Does the City value a red sunset? Does the City consider dusk, dawn and blue skies to be environmental phenomena? If yes, then the phenomenon of light pollution (arising from identical physics) is also environmental and CEQA alone (and, by extrapolation, the MND) is inadequate. Hence, the proposal should be subject to an EIR.

If no, then the Commission should attend to misapprehensions (see accompanying pages) contained in the MND before acceptance. Further, if accepting the MND, the City should remain mindful of the conditions of approval outlined in the (25 October 2022) informational meeting; if billboard(s) are not in compliance, approval shall be void within one year. The October meeting (and the MND) asserted “the billboard light is only going to be able to be perceived [up to] 250 feet from the location of the billboard”. Therefore, if it is subsequently demonstrated (by any entity) that billboard light is perceptible from a distance greater than 250 feet, then the billboard(s) shall be deemed in violation and approval shall be void within one year.

Lick Observatory is in its 141st unbroken year of deploying ever more sensitive light-detecting apparatus, keeping an eye on the sky. On innumerable occasions, the eyes of the scientific world have focused on the astronomical discoveries made from Santa Clara County’s highest peak. Many Californians justifiably treasure the observatory, its legacy and ongoing mission. In the event of a precedent-setting decision, contravening the laudable existing moratorium on billboards, one hopes that the people of Gilroy may equivalently cherish the proliferation of electronic message centers – and concomitant incidence of cancer among its citizenry - 50 and 140 years hence.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Paul D. Lynam FRAS
Astronomer
University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory

BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO

SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

10.1 p. 913 of 947
P.O. BOX 85, MT. HAMILTON, CA 95140
Phone: 408-238-9619 Fax: 408-238-0757
Misapprehension 1: PROS for Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project (p 528 of packet)

“11. It will NOT contribute to light pollution as opponents claim.” Rationale:

Regrettably, this statement is incorrect. Regardless of the technology and originating fixture, any light source which interacts with the atmosphere contributes an additive effect to the phenomenon of light pollution/ALAN, elevating the intensity of the sky background. For an accessible summary, including public health implications, see Bogard (2013) and scholarly references therein.

ALAN is significantly correlated for all forms of cancer including lung, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer. Immediate measures should be taken to reduce artificial light at night in the main cities around the world (Al-Nagger & Anil 2016).

Misapprehension 2: Response to comments on MND: I2 (pp 501-502 of packet) and J2 (pp 503-504 of packet) "The proposed display is 25 miles away from the observatory, and there is no evidence the display will affect, individual or cumulatively observatory operations."
Rationale:

Applying the physics of aerosol scattering to model sky brightness arising from lighting use can be enormously complex. As far as can be determined, the assessments described in the MND are arrived at empirically, using light-meters viewing directly along lines-of-sight to billboard surfaces and take no account of atmospheric scattering. A physical model describing light pollution via interaction of artificial light with the atmosphere was developed by Garstang throughout the 1980s. Garstang (1989a) includes some simplifying assumptions and is the most widely-adopted description. Using Garstang's model, Duriscoe et al. (2018) quantify the effects of metropolitan light impacting astronomical sites up to 200-300 km away.

In 1989, of 17 major (exclusively US-based) observatories, Lick was ranked among the top 3 most heavily light polluted astronomical sites (Garstang 1989b) at visible wavelengths. Estimates suggest that light emissions are increasing at a faster rate than that of population growth (Gaston & Sanchez de Miguel 2022). In 2022, in a list of 23 major observatories worldwide, Lick was cited as the most affected astronomical site (Green et al. 2022) in the visible regime. Lamentably, this highlights Lick and surrounding communities (including Gilroy) as optimal sites for the deeper study of the established correlation between ALAN and public health. Every major disease is associated to some extent with short sleep/long light. Sleep disorders are now arguably the most prevalent health concern in the industrialized world.

10.1 p. 914 of 947
P.O. BOX 85, MT. HAMILTON, CA 95140
Phone: 408-238-9619 Fax: 408-238-0757
Misapprehension 3: Response to comments on MND: I2 (p 501 and p 525 of packet) On the applicant team’s contention that the following (6 April 2021) comment is incorrect:
"The efficiency of electronic illumination represents a manyfold increase in wasted light, compared with former illumination methods. Second, the nature of LED technology (i.e. combining emission from multiple intensity peaks) contaminates the entire visible spectrum, whereas incandescent or discharge (e.g. sodium) lighting consists of isolated spectral peaks, with adjacent spectral regions free from contamination."
Rationale:

The deployment of ever more (and more efficient) sources of artificial light, regardless of the technology (e.g. LED versus chemical discharge versus incandescent) and regardless of the originating fixture (electronic billboards versus luminaires) is concerning: all contribute - although some, like electronic billboards, disproportionately so, because direction matters (Luginbuhl et al. 2009) - to the phenomenon of ALAN. In large part, ALAN is a consequence of the physics of ever-present aerosols (e.g. water vapor, particles, etc.), which redirect or scatter light. Billboards intentionally project light laterally.

Additionally, the distance (or path length) the photons travel from the source plays a role, such that billboards mounted higher above the ground contaminate more. Furthermore, one of the more dominant scattering processes, Rayleigh scattering, exhibits not simply an additive or multiplicative dependence, but a power law dependence such that shorter (blue) wavelengths are more strongly scattered than longer (red) wavelengths. Compared with former incandescent illumination, LEDs of any vintage emit a preponderance of blue light, as illustrated in by the applicant team in attachment F. However, note that attachment F compares 2 types of LED only and excludes any illustration of incandescent lighting which would exhibit a vastly suppressed - or even non-existent blue component.

The transition to solid-state LED technology has increased emissions at visible wavelengths. Estimation of this component suggests that the true overall increase in radiance in the visible spectrum may be as high as 270% globally and 400% in some regions (Sanchez de Miguel et al. 2021) e,g. predominantly in conurbations of the industrialized world, such as the San Francisco Bay Area.

Misapprehension 4: Response to comments on MND: I2 (p 502 and p 491 of packet) “The project does comply with many of the bast management practices identified in [the International Dark Sky Association’s, IDA (2019) Guidance for Electronic Message Centers] document.” Rationale:

The full set of guidelines are designed to work in concert to mitigate the acceleration of light pollution. Omitting one recommendation hampers the efficacy of the others on a selective basis. For example, in the present case, the project omits the curfew guideline for turning off signs during low-traffic periods throughout the small hours of the morning. The applicant team offer no justification for the omission of this guideline. Elsewhere in their responses, the applicant team elect to dismiss the experience of opposition to billboards in the City of San Jose as “irrelevant”. However, this discounts a valuable informative, educative – and relevant - data set, since the City of San Jose experience remains the most comparable example to the present project (temporally, demographically and geographically). It would be foolhardy for any community in the hinterland of San Jose to ignore its lessons.

In revising the City’s of San Jose (2018) billboard ordinance the curfew guideline was adopted (and readily accepted by outdoor advertising industry representatives) without hesitation. Subsequent activity by both Clear Channel Outdoor and Out Front Media in response to the San Jose revision is evidence enough that the adoption of the full set of IDA guidelines has not deterred outdoor advertisers from competing for access to electronic billboards.

It is of great concern that the City of Gilroy and applicant team appear to be in accord on this issue. At the very least, it is suggestive of a lack of understanding and is suggestive of a laissez-faire - or even permissive – planning culture.

10.1 p. 915 of 947
P.O. BOX 85, MT. HAMILTON, CA 95140
Phone: 408-238-9619 Fax: 408-238-0757
References:

Al-Naggar, A., Anil, S. (2016)
“Artificial Light at Night and cancer: Global Study”
in Asian Paciic Journal of Cancer Prevention, 17 (10), 4661.

Bogard, P. (2013)
“The end of night: Searching for natural darkness in the age of artificial light” Back Bay Books / Little, Brown and Company
ISBN 978-0-316-18290-4 (hc) / 978-0-316-18291-1 (pb).

Duriscoe, D. M., Anderson, S. J., Luginbuhl, C. B., Baugh, K. E. (2018) “A simplified model of all-sky artificial sky glow derived from VIIRS Day/Night band data” In Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 214, 133-145, May 2018.

Garstang, R.H. (1989a)
“Night-sky brightness at observatories and sites”
in Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 101, 306-329, March 1989.

Garstang, R.H. (1989b)
“The status and prospects for ground-based observatory sites” in Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 27, 19-40.

Gaston, K. J., Sanchez de Miguel, A (2022)
“Environmental Impacts of Artificial Light at Night”
in Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 47, 373-398.

Green, R. F., Luginbuhl, C. B., Wainscoat, R. J. Duriscoe, D. (2022) “The growing threat of light pollution to ground-based observatories” in The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 30, 1.

Luginbuhl, C. B., Walker, C. E., Wainscoat, R. J. (2009) “Lighting and astronomy”
in Physics Today, 62, 12, 32.

Sanchez de Miguel, A., Bennie, J., Rosenfeld, E., Dzurjak, S., Gaston, K. J. (2021) “First estimation of global trends in nocturnal power emissions reveal acceleration of light pollution” in Remote Sensing, 13 (16), 3311.
ooo OOO ooo

10.1 p. 916 of 947
1 Cindy McCormick
From: Juan Estrada <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 11:50 AM
To: Planning Commissioner Manny Bhandal; Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner; Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle; Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt; Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis; Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez; Planning Commissioner Michelle Montez; Planning Division (Public) Cc: Alice Kaufman; Brian Schmidt; Lennie Roberts
Subject: EXTERNAL - Electronic billboards
Attachments: 20230202 Letter from Green Foothills regarding Digital Billboards.pdf Dear Chair Bhandal and Gilroy Planning Commissioners,
I have attached a letter noting our opposition to the electronic billboard project. I have copied and pasted the body of the letter below for easy reference.

Green Foothills would like to echo the summary of serious and substantiated concerns expressed by the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter about the electronic billboard project. A couple of highlights:
 Wildlife connectivity impact: Open storm drains, irrigation channels and other flood management infrastructure features often connect habitat patches and provide pathways for animals to traverse an urban landscape. This connectivity for wildlife is important to preserve biodiversity, and is easily disrupted by lighting. The Project is adjacent to the Princevalle Channel, which is currently a wildlife connectivity corridor and allows permeability between Uvas and Llagas creeks. The DMND provides no analysis of wildlife movement in the channel, dismissing impact to wildlife movement.  Impact to ecosystems: The Biological Report underestimates the potential impact to ecosystems. The IS/DMND acknowledges that “migrating birds can be affected by human-built structures because of their propensity to migrate at night, their low flight altitudes, and their tendency to be disoriented by artificial light, which makes them vulnerable to collision with obstructions that could potentially lead to injury or mortality. In addition, birds migrating at night can be strongly attracted to sources of artificial light, particularly during periods of inclement weather”. Recent scientific studies highlight the pervasive, cumulative, and harmful impacts of Artificial Light At Night (ALAN) to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, species, and ecosystems. The impacts, including effects on circadian rhythms, metabolism and behavior in fish, birds, insects, and other taxa, have been summarized in several recent publications in major scientific journals. Recent studies also implicate ALAN as one of the primary drivers of the global decline in insect numbers and diversity (the insect apocalypse).

The City of Cupertino has such an ordinance, and Gilroy residents deserve the same level of protection of their sky. If the City of Gilroy wishes to continue considering this project, it should develop and enact a Dark Sky ordinance first, and then consider whether the project complies with it. And if the city persists in moving forward with this project, an EIR must be prepared.

Sincerely,
Juan Estrada
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

10.1 p. 917 of 947
2 Advocacy Associate and Organizer
Juan Estrada
Advocacy Associate and Organizer
Green Foothills | (650) 968-7243 x351 | greenfoothills.org Join the movement for local nature. Sign up for alerts.

10.1 p. 918 of 947
February 2, 2023
Gilroy Planning Commission
7351 Rosanna St.

Gilroy, CA 95020
Via email to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Re: Electronic Billboards
Dear Chair Bhandal and Gilroy Planning Commissioners,
Green Foothills would like to echo the summary of serious and substantiated concerns expressed by the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter about the electronic billboard project. A couple of highlights:
● Wildlife connectivity impact: Open storm drains, irrigation channels and other flood management infrastructure features often connect habitat patches and provide pathways for animals to traverse an urban landscape. This connectivity for wildlife is important to preserve biodiversity, and is easily disrupted by lighting. The Project is adjacent to the Princevalle Channel, which is currently a wildlife connectivity corridor and allows permeability between Uvas and Llagas creeks. The DMND provides no analysis of wildlife movement in the channel, dismissing impact to wildlife movement. ● Impact to ecosystems: The Biological Report underestimates the potential impact to ecosystems.

The IS/DMND acknowledges that “migrating birds can be affected by human-built structures because of their propensity to migrate at night, their low flight altitudes, and their tendency to be disoriented by artificial light, which makes them vulnerable to collision with obstructions that could potentially lead to injury or mortality. In addition, birds migrating at night can be strongly attracted to sources of artificial light, particularly during periods of inclement weather”. Recent scientific studies highlight the pervasive, cumulative, and harmful impacts of Artificial Light At Night (ALAN) to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, species, and ecosystems. The impacts, including effects on circadian rhythms, metabolism and behavior in fish, birds, insects, and other taxa, have been summarized in several recent publications in major scientific journals. Recent studies also implicate ALAN as one of the primary drivers of the global decline in insect numbers and diversity (the insect apocalypse).

We ask the City of Gilroy not to approve highway or road-facing electronic billboards. Additionally, the city should develop a Dark Sky ordinance to guide future light pollution decisions. Approving this project without a Dark Sky ordinance fails to consider its overall impact and the proper management of light pollution in Gilroy. The City of Cupertino has such an ordinance, and Gilroy residents deserve the same level of protection of their sky. If the City of Gilroy wishes to continue considering this project, it should develop and enact a Dark Sky ordinance first, and then consider whether the project complies with it.

And if the city persists in moving forward with this project, an EIR must be prepared.

Sincerely,
Juan Estrada
Advocacy Associate and Organizer

10.1 p. 919 of 947

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments received on or before March 9, 2023, were included in the City Council agenda packet. Public comments received after March 9, 2023, are posted to the City’s public comment portal.

The public comment portal can be accessed through the City’s Public Records Portal page:
bit.ly/3lhcNSo
If you are unable to access the public comment portal, please contact the City Clerk at [email protected].

10.1 p. 920 of 947

Page 1 of 3 ends

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: 2022 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report
Meeting Date: March 20, 2023
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development
Submitted By: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director Prepared By: Cindy McCormick, Customer Service Manager
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Promote Safe Affordable Housing for All

RECOMMENDATION
Accept the report and direct staff to submit the 2022 Annual Progress Report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The General Plan Annual Report fulfills the requirements of Section 65400 of the California Government Code, which requires all jurisdictions to prepare an annual report addressing two primary topics: 1) a summary of calendar year activities that show progress towards implementation of a jurisdiction’s General Plan; and 2) progress in meeting the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing needs and efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. The Annual Report for the 2022 calendar year must be forwarded to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), by April 1, 2023 due date.

DISCUSSION
2040 General Plan Notable Activities 2022
The attached Annual Report describes notable activities in the 2022 calendar year that made progress toward implementing the 2040 General Plan. Each year the City will

12.1 p. 921 of 947
City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 3 March 20, 2023 9 0 report on subsequent activities that show additional progress. A complete list of implementation programs is included at the end of each General Plan Element chapter1.

The Annual Report summarizes the following General Plan activities in 2022, listed in the order presented in the various chapters of the General Plan.  Zoning Ordinance
 Vacant and Underutilized Sites
 Impact Fees
 Police Explorers
 Meetings with Educational Organizations
 Maximize Bicycle Separation
 Translation / Interpretation Services
 Community Engagement Program
 Maintain List of Meeting Facilities
2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT
2022 Annual Progress Report. The second section of the Annual Report includes a summary of Gilroy’s progress in 2022 toward implementing the 2015-2023 Housing Element and the corresponding Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

What is RHNA? Since 1969, the State of California has required that all local governments (cities, towns, and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in our communities. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process is used to determine how many new homes, and the affordability of those homes, each local government must plan for in its Housing Element. The current eight-year RHNA cycle runs from January 31, 2015 – January 31, 2023 (2015-2023).

In 2022, the Area Median Income (AMI) for a four-person household in Santa Clara County was $168,500, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Based on the County AMI, the income limits for a family of four (4) within each income category are represented below:

Extremely Low Income: $50,550 (30% AMI)
Very Low Income: $84,250 (50% AMI)
Low Income: $131,750 (80% AMI)
Moderate Income: $202,200 (120% AMI)
As illustrated in the following table, the City’s total RHNA during the 2015-2023 planning cycle is 1,088 units. The City has exceeded the RHNA for the low-income and abovemoderate (market rate) income categories. The remaining very-low income allocation is 1 http://www.cityofgilroy.org/274/2040-General-Plan

12.1 p. 922 of 947
City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 3 March 20, 2023 9 0 75 units and the remaining moderate-income allocation is 117 units. However, these remaining RHNA units shouldn’t detract from the fact that Gilroy permitted 785 lowincome units from 2015 through 2022. This equates to 625 more low-income units than the 160 units allocated by HCD and ABAG, nearly five times Gilroy’s allotment (491%).

Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress (2015 – 2022) Income Level RHNA Unit
Allocation
2015–2021
Units
2022
Units
Total Units
Permitted
RHNA Units
Remaining
*Very Low
(31 – 50% AMI) 236 156 5 161 75
Low
(51 – 80% AMI) 160 686 99 785 0
Moderate
(81 – 120% AMI) 217 90 10 100 117
Above Moderate
(Above 120% AMI) 475 1,435 124 1,559 0
Total Units: 1,088 2,367 238 2,605 Remaining
Units = 192
*The category “extremely low-income households” is a subset of “very low-income households,” and is defined as 30 percent or less (0 – 30%) of the area median income.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
No fiscal impact has been identified in conjunction with this project.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff posted a notice of this meeting on social media. The City Council meeting packet is also available through the City’s webpage.

NEXT STEPS
After acceptance of the report by the City Council, staff will transmit it to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Attachments:

1. 2022 General Plan & Housing Element Annual Report

2. 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Progress Table

12.1 p. 923 of 947
Gilroy 2040 General Plan
2022 Annual Report

12.1 p. 924 of 947
2 Purpose of the General Plan Annual Report
The General Plan Annual Report fulfills the requirements of Section 65400 of the California Government Code, which requires all jurisdictions to prepare an annual report addressing two primary topics:

I. General Plan Implementation Activities describes notable activities in 2022 that made progress towards implementing the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the City’s new 2040 General Plan (adopted November 2020). This section also includes a discussion of high-priority programs that can be adjusted as the list is implemented or reprioritized based on current challenges facing the City.

II. Housing Element Annual Progress Report provides a summary of the City’s progress towards meeting Gilroy’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing identified in the 2015-2023 Housing Element.

The General Plan Annual report is presented to the Gilroy City Council and then sent to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on or before April 1st of each year.

Background of the General Plan
Every city and county in California must have a General Plan, which is the local government’s long-term framework or “constitution” for future growth and development. The General Plan represents the community’s view of its future and expresses the community’s development goals. The General Plan consists of policy text which contains goals, polices and implementation programs, and a land use diagram which illustrates the planned future land uses and pattern of development. All land use decisions by City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council must be consistent with the adopted General Plan.

Typically, a General Plan is designed to address the issues facing a jurisdiction for the next 15-20 years. Under California law, the City is required to address eight (8) issue areas or “elements” in the General Plan: air quality, circulation, conservation, environmental justice1, housing, land use, noise, open space, and safety. The State allows considerable flexibility in how these elements are organized and encourages the inclusion of additional “elements” to ensure that plans are truly comprehensive and effective in addressing local issues.

The 2040 General Plan was adopted in November 2020, approximately 18 years after the City adopted the 2020 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan includes an Introduction chapter, an Implementation chapter, and nine (9) elements: Land Use; Mobility; Economic Prosperity; Housing; Public Facilities and Services; Parks and Recreation; Natural and Cultural Resources; Potential Hazards; and Environmental Justice. 1 Cities and counties that have identified disadvantaged communities must include an environmental justice element in their general plans.

12.1 p. 925 of 947
3 I. 2040 GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
For the City’s General Plan to serve its purpose effectively, it must be reviewed, maintained, modified as necessary, and implemented in a systematic and consistent manner. The General Plan contains a Vision Statement and Guiding Principles to ensure that the goals, policies, and implementation programs in the General Plan reflect the community’s shared vision for Gilroy. Gilroy implements the General Plan through the City’s ordinances and regulations, policy decisions, and actions and is responsible for tracking, reporting and evaluating its progress in implementing the General Plan. A complete list of implementation programs are listed at the end of each General Plan element and are available on the City’s website2.

Government Code Section 65400 requires the City to report annually on “the status of the plan and progress in its implementation”. This annual review helps to ensure the City is moving forward to achieve the General Plan’s vision.
2022 NOTABLE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM PROGRESS
The subsections below describe notable activities in 2022 that made progress towards implementing 2040 General Plan implementation programs. Additional implementation programs for the 2040 General Plan will be reported on in subsequent years. The list below does not generally include activities that are considered “on-going” or “annual” (e.g., increasing fees by 3% each year) unless the activity was notable or unique compared to a typical calendar year (e.g., updating the comprehensive fee schedule beyond the standard 3% increase).

LAND USE
The Land Use Element plans for future growth and change while preserving and enhancing the qualities that make Gilroy a great place to live and work. The goals, policies, and programs of the Land Use Element are designed to enhance Gilroy’s neighborhoods and districts with an attractive mix of uses and amenities that expand the local economy, protect environmental resources, and improve the overall quality of life of residents. The Land Use Element also contains a map of land uses within the City and a description of the land use designations.

Land Use Program LU-1 Zoning Ordinance: Review and update the Gilroy Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to be consistent with the Land Use Diagram and related policies of the General Plan. Consider rezoning areas inconsistent with the Land Use Diagram, as appropriate, and update the zoning district descriptions to reflect the updated land use designation descriptions.

LU-1 Status: In collaboration with the City Attorney, staff have worked on the update to the zoning ordinance throughout the 2022 calendar year. The City is on track to complete the update of the Zoning Ordinance by the end of 2023.
2 http://www.cityofgilroy.org/274/2040-General-Plan

12.1 p. 926 of 947
4 LU-4 Vacant and Underutilized Sites: Develop and maintain a citywide database of vacant and underutilized sites to monitor the city’s growth and change. Prepare an annual report to the Planning Commission and City Council on the number of vacant sites and underutilized sites that were developed during the previous year.

LU-4 Status: The most recent residential vacant land inventory was updated in October 2022 as part of the Wren/Hewell Urban Service Area amendment application to LAFCO.

The inventory is available on the City’s website3. In 2022 and 2023, the City also reviewed and inventoried underutilized sites as potential opportunity for affordable housing development, as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element update process.

Additional implementation programs for the 2040 General Plan will be reported on in subsequent annual progress reports.

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The City of Gilroy maintains a variety of public facilities and provides many public services (e.g., Police and Fire) to meet the needs of the community. Gilroy residents, businesses, workers, and visitors rely on public facilities and services to keep them safe; provide water, energy, and communication services; and remove wastewater, stormwater and solid waste.

The Public Facilities and Services Element establishes goals and policies to guide the overall provision of municipal and educational facilities and services in Gilroy.

PFS-2 Impact Fees. Review and update the water, wastewater, stormwater, traffic, and public facilities nexus studies and impact fee schedules when master plans are updated, to ensure that public facilities and services required by new development are paid for by those developments.

PFS-2 Status: In 2022, the Public Works Department participated in the City-wide comprehensive fee schedule update, which included a variety of impact fees including water, sewer, stormwater, traffic, and public facilities.

PFS-11 Police Explorers. Offer opportunities for youth ranging in age from 14 to 20 years to gain the information and experience necessary to determine if a career in law enforcement is right for them. Activities include ride-a-longs with officers and assistance in records, crime analysis, communications, and other areas of the department.

PFS-11 Status: In 2022, 35 youth participated in the youth police academy.

PF-12 Meetings with Educational Organizations: Facilitate an annual meeting with representatives from the Gilroy Unified School District, Gavilan College, Santa Clara County, and other educational organizations as necessary to achieve the goals and policies of the General Plan.

PFS-12 Status: In 2022, the City developed an MOU between GUSD and GPD to assign two officers to the School Resource Officer (SRO) program. 3 http://www.cityofgilroy.org/932/Vacant-and-Underutilized-Sites-Inventory

12.1 p. 927 of 947
5 Additional implementation programs for the 2040 General Plan will be reported on in subsequent annual progress reports.

NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Gilroy’s proximity to hills, streams, open space, and agriculture is one of the many reasons that residents love living here. Gilroy also has a proud, multi-cultural heritage that spans centuries and includes historic or other culturally significant resources. The Natural and Cultural Resources Element establishes goals, policies, and programs to preserve and enhance these natural areas and cultural resources.

Climate Action Plan CAP 15. Maximize Bicycle Separation. Review Complete Streets street cross sections and development specifications to encourage bicycling by maximizing bike lane widths or establishing physical separation between vehicle travel lanes and bicycle lanes on high-volume roadways, to the extent feasible.

CAP 15 Status: In 2022, the City upgraded the existing Class II bike lanes on Rancho Hills Dr between Valley Oaks Dr and Carriage Dr to two stripes instead of the existing one stripe.

While not completed during the 2022 calendar year, the FY22 Citywide Paving Project is installing the following bike improvements. These improvements are in various stages of either temporary striping or partially completed final striping, and will continue to make progress in 2023:
• Installing new buffered Class II bike lanes on Renz Lane west of Camino Arroyo and green bike lane striping at the Renz Ln/Camino Arroyo intersection. • Upgrading the existing Class II bike lanes on Rancho Hills Dr between Valley Oaks Dr and Carriage Dr to two stripes instead of the existing one stripe. • Upgrading the existing Class II bike lanes on Mantelli Dr between Zinnia St and Hirasaki Ave to two stripes instead of the existing one stripe. • Extending the existing Class II bike lane to the intersection and adding green bike lane striping on SB Wren Ave at the Wren Ave/Welburn Ave intersection. • Shifting the existing Class II bike lane to the left of the right-turn lane and adding green bike lane striping on WB Tenth St at the Tenth St/Princevalle St intersection. • Adding green bike lane striping to the existing Class II bike lane on WB Tenth St at the Tenth St/Rosanna St intersection.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Environmental justice is “…the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Environmental justice objectives and policies seek to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities through strategies such as: reducing pollution exposure, improving air quality, and promoting public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity; promoting civil

12.1 p. 928 of 947
6 engagement in the public decision-making process; and prioritizing improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities4.

EJ-1 Translation. Develop a program of phased implementation of Spanish translation of public meeting notices and translation provided at public meetings.

EJ-1 Status: In 2022, the City included translation and interpretation services at several inperson and virtual community meetings, including but not limited to meetings on the Housing Element update. The Police Department also held a Spanish language Community Police Academy.

EJ-2 Community Engagement Program. Provide opportunities for City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff and residents to communicate and engage throughout the year.

Examples of such events include “coffee with city leaders” and community forums and meetings.

EJ-2 Status: The Mayor provides a monthly “Spotlight with the Mayor” message in the City’s newsletter, which highlights a specific City department and some of the activities the department is working on. In 2022, the Mayor highlighted the Sharks Sports & Entertainment at the Gilroy Sports Park, City street maintenance, and the City’s Boards and Commissions.

The Mayor also provides a monthly “Conversation and Coffee” event on various topics of interest. In 2022, topics included wastewater treatment and water recycling, the Surplus Lands Act, Ballot Measure to amend the 1960 City Charter, and the Eigleberry & 7th Street parking lot. The City Administrator also provides regular town hall meetings, 2-to-4 times per year depending upon the needs of the community. In 2022 the City held virtual town hall meetings on fentanyl and the user fee study. In 2022, the Police Department hosted a variety of community events, including National Night Out, Party in the Park, Coffee with a Cop, and Shop with a Cop.

EJ-3 Maintain List of Meeting Facilities. Create and periodically update the City’s website to maintain a current list of meeting facilities located throughout Gilroy.

EJ-3 Status: Meeting facilities are regularly updated and listed on the City’s website at https://www.cityofgilroy.org/538/Park-Facility-Rentals.

Additional implementation programs for the 2040 General Plan will be reported on in subsequent annual progress reports.
4 “Disadvantaged communities” refers to the areas throughout California which most suffer from a combination of economic, health, and environmental burdens. These burdens include poverty, high unemployment, air and water pollution, presence of hazardous wastes as well as high incidence of asthma and heart disease.

12.1 p. 929 of 947
7 II. Housing Element Annual Progress Report
The Housing Element is part of Gilroy’s General Plan and identifies policies and programs to meet the housing needs of the city’s current and future residents. State law (Government Code Sections 65580-65589.8) requires that every city and county in California adopt a Housing Element, approximately every eight years. In addition, HCD reviews and certifies Housing Elements to ensure they meet all requirements of the law. In 2022, the City entered its eighth (8th) and final year of the 2015-2023 Housing Element’s eight (8) year planning cycle.

RHNA Progress Report
Since 1969, the state has mandated that all California jurisdictions must plan for our resident’s housing needs—regardless of income. This state mandate is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). As part of RHNA, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), determines the total number new homes and affordability level of those homes that the Bay Area needs to build. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) then distributes a share of the region's housing need to each jurisdiction in the region.

As illustrated in the following table, the City’s total RHNA during the 2015-2023 planning cycle is 1,088 units. The City has exceeded the RHNA for the low-income and abovemoderate (market rate) income categories. The remaining very-low income allocation is 75 units and the remaining moderate-income allocation is 117 units. However, these remaining RHNA units shouldn’t detract from the fact that Gilroy permitted 785 low-income units from 2015 through 2022. This equates to 625 more low-income units than the 160 units allocated by HCD and ABAG, nearly 5 times Gilroy’s allotment (491%).

12.1 p. 930 of 947
8 Activities to Remove Governmental Constraints
The second component of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report includes the city’s progress towards implementing Housing Element programs and other activities intended to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. Governmental constraints are policies, standards, requirements, and actions imposed by the local government that may have a negative impact on the development and provision of housing for a variety of income levels. These constraints may include building codes, land use controls, growth management measures, development fees, processing and permit procedures, and site improvement costs.

Efforts in 2022 to reduce governmental constraints included, but are certainly not limited to the following:

The City of Gilroy regularly communicates with residents, business owners, and development stakeholders via phone, email, and in-person meetings to hear concerns about potential development constraints including processing procedures, fees, development standards, and other City policies and requirements. Staff can then make informed decisions or recommendations to City officials (e.g., Planning Commission and City Council) on ways to reduce governmental constraints to development such as permit requirements, processing procedures, and land use controls.

In 2022, the City continued its comprehensive update of the City's Zoning Ordinance. City staff will be recommending changes to the zoning ordinance that help streamline the permit process, including but not limited to creating an administrative use permit process (currently all use permits require a public hearing before the Planning Commission). City staff is also recommending a more transparent and streamlined process for reviewing and approving applications involving a historic resource.

The attached housing program matrix summarizes the City’s progress towards achieving the programs in the City’s 2015 – 2023 Housing Element. Programs that were not completed in this planning period will be carried over to the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element.

In 2022, the City included programs in its Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element that are intended to remove governmental constraints related to processing planning entitlements.

Program A-9 (Monitor Permit Requirements, Processing Procedures and Land Use Controls). This program is intended to increase the percentage of permits that are processed online through the EnerGov permit system which will be more efficient and transparent than the current permitting system. The City will hold an outreach meeting to educate users on how to utilize the new permitting system. To assess the effectiveness of the new system, the City will survey users 6 months after its launch. The City will also create metrics that track time to process permits. These metrics can be compared year-to-year to determine if process and procedural changes are successful or need tweaking. As a part of the City’s annual developer’s roundtable meetings, the City shall consult builders and other parties engaged in housing development activities to identify potential constraints in the

12.1 p. 931 of 947
9 City’s permit requirements, processing procedures and land use controls, and analyze potential streamlining where feasible.

Program A-10 (Facilitate Missing Middle / Middle Income Housing). This program will create a streamlining process to approve duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes so long as the project complies with objective design standards. These types of units are generally more affordable by design due to their smaller unit size. Construction costs may also be less than a typical single-family home since these unit types are attached to each other.

Program B-2 (Zoning and General Plan Densities). This program directs the City to amend the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the city’s regulations do not impede development from achieving the allowable densities in the General Plan. This program implements the requirements of the California Housing Accountability Act (AB 3194).

Program B-4 (Public Fees, Standards, and Plans Online). Pursuant to AB 1483, the City will compile all development standards, plans, fees, and nexus studies in an easily accessible online location. The City will continue to provide a high-quality, parcel-specific zoning map and general plan map online.

Program B-8 (Entitlement Roadmap Webpage). To provide clear and simple information about the City’s permitting process, the City will create an Entitlement Roadmap webpage that clearly spells out the City’s permitting process for residential development.

Specifically, the webpage will include application forms, a flow chart outlining the development process, FAQs, and live links to other necessary pages and resources. The webpage will advertise the City’s streamlined process for most single-family homes and administrative approval process for many other types of residential development that meet objective development standards.

12.1 p. 932 of 947

Page 1 of 10 ends

Gilroy City CouncilMarch 20, 2023

Gilroy City Council
March 20, 2023