San Jose City Council
February 15, 2022

The location of the south sign has been moved 38 feet to the southeast.

The location of the south sign has been moved 38 feet to the southeast.

The signs would be constructed with custom side-shielding of the LED modules to eliminate spill light toward the Airport’s air traffic control (ATC) tower located approximately 5,600 5,500 feet away.

The location of the south sign has been moved 38 feet to the southeast.

The proposed signs would be located within 660 feet of U.S. 101 and, therefore, a permit from Caltrans is required. Following issuance of local entitlements, Clear Channel will apply for a permit with Caltrans.

The location of the south sign has been moved 38 feet to the southeast.

The south sign has been moved 38 feet to the southeast and is now approximately 5,500 feet away from the air traffic control tower, instead of 5,480 feet, as originally proposed.

Responses to Comments/Errata 186 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021

The south sign has been moved 38 feet to the southeast and is now approximately 5,500 feet away from the air traffic control tower, instead of 5,480 feet, as originally proposed.

The south sign has been moved 38 feet to the southeast and is now approximately 5,500 feet away from the air traffic control tower, instead of 5,480 feet, as originally proposed.

The discussion in this section is based in part on a Biological Technical Report prepared for the project site by H.T. Harvey, dated July September 2021.

The Guadalupe River, a portion of the levee slope immediately east of the Guadalupe River Trail, and an associated stormwater detention pond on the west side of the Guadalupe River support willow forest riparian habitat (See Figure 3.4-1).

The location of the south sign has been moved 38 feet to the southeast, and the boundaries of the willow riparian forest habitat and 100-foot riparian setback have been revised.

follows:

The proposed south sign location is located on the south side of U.S. Route 101 with the Airport’s Economy Parking Lot located directly east of the site, where a new parking garage is currently being constructed (Refer to Photo 3). The location of the sign footprint itself consists of a small patch of ruderal grassland at an elevation of approximately 35 feet above sea level. The footprint is surrounded by native shrubs and trees such as toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and non-native trees including Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), Brazilian pepper tree, and holly oak (Quercus ilex) (Refer to Photo 4). The project would remove two trees from this location to ensure sign visibility from U.S. Route 101 for motorists. The south project location is bound to the west by a Santa Clara

Responses to Comments/Errata 187 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Valley Water District (Valley Water) gravel service road that sits atop a concrete- paved slope levee wall that drops down approximately 19 feet to the Guadalupe River Trail (Refer to Photos 5 and 6).

The Guadalupe River itself is located approximately 175 230 feet west, below the south project location at an elevation of approximately 13 feet above sea level. The Guadalupe River is bordered on both sides by willow riparian habitat, with overstory vegetation consisting of native Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), red willow (Salix laevigata), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and non-native trees such as weeping willow (Salix babylonica). Understory vegetation along this riparian corridor is a mix of native species such as California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and cattails (Typha sp.) at the Guadalupe River’s edge, and non-native species such as curly dock (Rumex crispus), English ivy (Hedera helix), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), fennel, and bristly ox-tongue (refer to Photos 7 and 8). The southern portion of the levee slope, east of the Guadalupe River Trail, supports the same willow riparian habitat as found along the banks of the Guadalupe River, this vegetation extends upslope to the top of the bank (Photo 7). Immediately west of the Guadalupe River and west levee road is a stormwater pump station operated by the Airport (as shown in Photo 5 at the top of the west levee road) that connects with a culvert located on the upper west bank of the Guadalupe River.

The nearest riparian and aquatic habitats of the Guadalupe River, which are found approximately 117 feet and 230 feet west of in the south project area, respectively, are not only expected to provide suitable foraging, roosting, and nesting habitats for a variety of bird species, but may also be used as a migratory stop-over for other bird species flying along the Guadalupe River.

Photo looking east from the west levee road above the Guadalupe River towards the south project site, just past the concrete-paved levee slope and Valley Water gravel service road. Economy Lot 1 parking garage construction is visible in the distance.

Photo looking west towards Valley Water gravel service road from the south sign location, with the Guadalupe River Trail below the chain link fence. Photo of willow riparian habitat on the west side of the Guadalupe River Trail, approximately 175 feet west of and below the south sign location.

Responses to Comments/Errata 188 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021

No sensitive or regulated habitats (i.e., riparian, wetland or other waters of the U.S./State) occur on the project site footprint where they may be directly or indirectly impacted by sign construction activities or operation. The nearest sensitive habitat to the north sign is the detention pond, which is located approximately 605 feet east of the north sign. Therefore, under definition of Council Policy 6-34, the north sign location would not be considered a “Riparian Project.” However, sensitive aquatic and riparian habitats (i.e., the Guadalupe River and willow riparian forest edge on the levee slope east of the Guadalupe River Trail) are located approximately 175 and 123 230 and 117 feet, respectively, west of the south sign location (as shown in Figure

3.4-1) which would be considered a “Riparian Project”, and therefore, warrant consideration from the perspective of potential impacts from sign construction and lighting. In addition, sensitive aquatic and willow riparian forest habitats occur within the detention pond area, which is located approximately 50 feet south of the vegetated margin of U.S. Route 101 where tree removal would occur (as shown in Figure 3.4-1 and Figure 3.4-2).

The Guadalupe River aquatic and riparian habitats that abut the western side of the Guadalupe River trail are located approximately 175 230 and 175 feet west of the south sign location, respectively. The edge of willow riparian habitat found on the levee slope east of the Guadalupe River Trail is located approximately 117 feet west of the south sign location. The Guadalupe River would be considered waters of the U.S./State and thus would be regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

The riparian banks and the habitat they support west of the south sign location, along the Guadalupe River, and on the levee slope, would be considered jurisdictional by the CDFW and the RWQCB. Riparian habitat extends to the top of the levee slope on the west side of the Guadalupe River, and from the banks of the river up to the western edge of the Guadalupe River Trail or to the edge of the dripline of any trees rooted below the top of the levee and trail, and which extend further outboard than the top of the levee. The nearest edge of contiguous riparian habitat is found on the levee slope, located approximately 123 117 feet west of the south sign location;. The upper/landward edge of this riparian vegetation coincides with the top of bank along the east side of the river, south of U.S. 101. tTherefore, both the riparian habitat edge and the top of bank serve as the baseline for the 100-foot riparian setback; the south sign location is outside of the 100 foot riparian corridor setback limit as shown on Figure 3.4-1, and is therefore in compliance with Council Policy 6-34, as described above.

as follows:

Responses to Comments/Errata 189 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Although sensitive habitats, in the form of willow riparian forest and waters of the U.S./State (i.e., Guadalupe River and detention pond) are present west of the south sign location (Refer to Figure 3.4-1), those habitats would not be impacted directly or indirectly by project construction, which would stay entirely out of those habitats.

Ground disturbance associated with the construction of the south sign would take place over 175 230 feet east of the Guadalupe River’s aquatic habitat and 123 117 feet east of its associated riparian habitat, which would be in compliance with setback distances of 100 feet per Council Policy 6-34. The project would not impact these habitats given the distances (i.e., 175 230 feet and 123 117 feet) that separates separate the project site from the riparian habitat and river below. In addition, no direct or indirect effects from construction of the south sign would impact the Central California Coast steelhead and Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon in the Guadalupe River, given the lack of any aquatic habitat, the very small footprint of work, and the distance (175 230 feet) of ground disturbance activities from the Guadalupe River. Construction of the north sign would be even farther from the Guadalupe River and would not impact the habitat. Therefore, sign construction activities would not result in any adverse direct or indirect impacts to water quality, riparian habitats, and special-status fish species and would therefore be considered less than significant.

REVISED as follows:

The east-facing side of the south sign would have a maximum illuminance value of

0.219 fc over ambient light conditions when viewed from the center of the viewing angle at 350 feet (refer to Appendix A). No sensitive habitats are present east of the south sign, and therefore the east-facing surface of the sign would have no effect on any sensitive habitats (See Figure 3.1-1). However, the west-facing surface of the south sign would face the Guadalupe River and its sensitive habitats and species, which are located 175 feet from the south sign. These sensitive habitats include the riparian bank associated with the river, and the riparian habitat on the levee wall, whose furthest eastern edge is located approximately 123 117 feet from the south sign; the river itself is located approximately 175 230 feet from the south sign location.

REVISED as follows:

Therefore, the applicant incorporated into the project design that the west-facing surface of the south sign (which is directed towards the Guadalupe River) would use a static LED backlighted display with dimming controls to limit light spill-over towards the Guadalupe River and associated riparian habitat. The west-facing surface on the south project site would be operated so that the maximum increase in illuminance (vs. ambient conditions) at approximately 123 ft 117 feet (i.e., the distance between the south project site’s west-facing billboard and the furthest

Responses to Comments/Errata 190 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
nearest edge of the riparian habitat of the Guadalupe River) would not exceed 0.1 fc, given the dimming controls being used on the west-facing billboard, as described above (See Figure 3.1-1).

as follows:

However, the backlit design and dimming controls of the west face of the south sign would effectively limit light spill-over to 0.1 fc at the edge of the riparian habitat located on the levee slope, east of the Guadalupe River Trail. Further, the west face of the south sign would be covered by translucent vinyl to ensure that no illumination would occur above or below the face of the sign.

The riparian habitat along the reach of the Guadalupe River found west of the south sign location is of moderately high quality for birds. The mature trees and presence of dense understory vegetation in some areas contribute positively to the value of this habitat for birds. However, this riparian habitat is also somewhat fragmented due to the surrounding high-density urban development and the presence of bridges, road crossings, trails, and channelization along nearby portions of the Guadalupe River, and therefore lacks connectivity to higher-quality riparian habitats in the region. In addition, the proximity of this riparian habitat to existing roads and, bridges, and trails reduces its quality and the abundance of birds using it.

REVISED as follows:

The proposed north sign and the east-facing surface of the south sign could produce a peak value of approximately 256 candelas (cd)/ft
2 of luminance in the center of the
beam angle (using a maximum of 0.3 fc) at 350 feet, and a peak value of approximately 27 cd/ft2 of luminance in the center of the beam angle (using a maximum of 0.1 fc) at 175 117 feet from the static LED backlighted display of the west-facing surface of the south sign. However, the LED signs would utilize automatic dimming technology to adjust the brightness of the sign relative to ambient light, as described above. Therefore, the proposed signs could produce peak values of approximately 27 and 256 cd/ft2 at 175 117 and 350 feet, respectively. For comparison, a full moon at its brightest point produces approximately 232 cd/feet2.

The peak luminosity for an LED sign cited above assumes that the display on the sign is solid white. In practice, the display on the planned signs would contain a variety of colors, which would substantially reduce the amount of luminance produced and reduce the potential for the light to disorient birds, including special status species.

Responses to Comments/Errata 191 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021

REVISED as follows:

It is possible that some birds that find themselves near the center of a sign’s beam angle may be attracted to the sign. This includes birds that may be found in nearby riparian habitats at night, specifically the riparian corridor found associated with the Guadalupe River, approximately 123 117 feet west of the south sign location.

However, movement by birds during the night through the canopy and understory of this riparian habitat would be infrequent and limited, given that most local bird species (e.g., bushtit, lesser goldfinch, Bewick’s wren, and California scrub-jay) that use these habitats are primarily diurnal, and not frequently active at night. In addition, most of the riparian vegetation that is 123 feet located west of the south sign location is low in stature (five-ten feet tall), with a few trees no more than 15-20 feet tall.

REVISED as follows:

As described above, artificial lighting may indirectly affect fish species that are present in the Guadalupe River. However, the luminance of the west-facing face of the south sign, as viewed in the center of the beam angle at 123 230 feet (the distance from the sign to the edge of the riparian banks channel edge of the Guadalupe River), will be lower than approximately 27 cd/ft2 (using a maximum of 0.1 fc). This value is very low, and is therefore not expected to adversely affect the behavior of fish in the river. In addition, any steelhead or Chinook salmon using the limited segment of the river subjected to lighting from the sign are expected to be migrating, during which time they would be moving quickly through this reach. As a result, the potential impacts of luminosity from the west-facing face of the south sign on special-status fish species in the Guadalupe River would be less than significant.

The location of the south sign has been moved 38 feet to the southeast.

The south sign site is located approximately 150 230 feet from the east bank channel edge of the Guadalupe River, and is mapped within FEMA Flood Zone X, which is defined as an area protected by levees from the one percent annual chance flood.

The City’s Department of Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services is responsible for development, operation, and maintenance of all City park facilities.

Responses to Comments/Errata 192 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Nearby City park and recreational facilities include the Guadalupe River Trail (approximately 125 163 feet west of the south sign and approximately 950 feet east of the north sign), Rosemary Gardens Park (1.3 miles southeast of the site), Guadalupe River Park (2.7 miles southeast of the site), and Rotary PlayGarden (2.7 miles southeast of the site).

REVISED as follows:

As discussed in Section 3.15.1.2 Existing Settings, the Guadalupe River Trail is approximately 125 163 feet west of the proposed south sign and approximately 950 feet east of the proposed north sign. While the electronic signs would be visible from the Guadalupe River Trail, the signage would be placed adjacent to the U.S. Route 101 corridor where there is existing development. Further, programmable electronic signs would need to be at least 100 feet from riparian corridors, as required by San José Municipal Code 23.04.215. The project maintains this separation between the signage and the Guadalupe River Trail with this closest sign located 125 163 feet west of the River Trail. For these reasons, the project would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities.

Appendix A Appendix A (Lighting Analysis) of the Initial Study/Addendum shall be REVISED as shown in Appendix A of this document.

Appendix B Appendix B (Biological Resource Analysis) of the Initial Study/Addendum shall be REVISED as shown in Appendix B of this document.

0 1,200 2,400600 Feet
Ewert Road
Airport Boulevard
Terminal Drive
Airport Boulevard
Airport Parkway
De La Cruz Boulevard
West Trimble Road
Seaboard Avenue
Channing Avenue
De La Cruz Boulevard
Central Expressway
Walsh Avenue
Orchard Parkway
O
’Nel D
rive
Component Drive
Charcot Avenue
North 1st Street
Airport Parkway
Gateway Place
Gianni Street
87 87
101
101
North Sign
South Sign
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.1-2
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 300 900 1,800 Feet
Police Department
Parking Lot
Parking Lot
Fuel Storage Facility
Economy Parking Lot 1
Mineta San José
International Airport
Ewert Road
Airport Boulevard
G
uadalupe River
101
North Sign
South Sign
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.1-3 Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Jul. 21, 2020. Photo Date: Aug. 2018 0 50 200 400 Feet

NORTH SIGN

SOUTH SIGN
Source: AMZ Engineering, June 11, 2020; September 8, 2021. 101
101

RIVER TRAIL
AIRPORT BLVD.

EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT
x Approximately 163 Feet
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 2.2-1
101
AirportBlvd
GG
uuaaddaalluuppee
RRiivveerr
Airport Economy 1
Parking Lot
$LUSRUW6WRUPZDWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ
350'
350'
117'
117'
80°60°
40°
20°
0°
80°
60°
40°
20°
80°
60°
40°
20°
0°
80°
60°
40°
20°
350'
350'
117' 117'
80°
40°
20°
0°
80°
60°
40°
20°
80°
60°
40°
20°
0°
80°
60°
40°
20°
60°

0.219 fc

0.1 fc

0.219 fc

0.219 fc
G
uadalupe
RiverTrail
DetentionDetention
PondPond

0.0125 fc
Figure 3. Proposed Billboard Area of Illumination
September 2021
N:\Projects4400\4458-01\Reports\Bio Impact Assmnt\Fig 3 Area of Illumination.mxd San Jose Airport Clear Channel Billboards Project — Biological Impacts Assessment (4458-01) Legend
Proposed Billboard Locations
North Project Site
South Project Site
Habitats
Aquatic
Willow Riparian Forest
Willow Riparian/Aquatic
200 0 200100
Feet
Source: H.T. Harvey & Associates, September 2021.

SPILL LIGHT IN FOOTCANDLES FIGURE 3.1-1
Source: Clear Channel Outdoor, September 2021.

Approximately
5,500 Feet
Approximately
5,830 Feet
AIRPORT AREA ILLUMINATION FOR THE WEST FACE OF THE NORTH SITE FIGURE 3.1-2 Source: Clear Channel Outdoor, September 2021.

Approximately
5,500 Feet
Approximately
5,830 Feet
AIRPORT AREA ILLUMINATION FOR THE EAST FACE OF THE NORTH SITE FIGURE 3.1-3 Source: Clear Channel Outdoor, September 2021.

Approximately
5,500 Feet
Approximately
5,830 Feet
AIRPORT AREA ILLUMINATION FOR THE EAST FACE OF THE SOUTH SITE FIGURE 3.1-4 101
Airport Blvd
Ewart Rd
G
uadal
upe
River
Trail
GG
uuaaddaalluuppee
RRiivveerr
$LUSRUW(FRQRP\
3DUNLQJ/RW
1RUWK3URMHFW6LWH
6RXWK3URMHFW6LWH
DetentionDetention
PondPond
Figure 2. Location of Willow Riparian Forest and
Aquatic Habitats Near Proposed Project Sites
6HSWHPEHU
N:\Projects4400\4458-01\Reports\Bio Impact Assmnt\Fig 2 Location of Sensitive Regulated Habitats Near Proposed Project Sites.mxd 6DQ-RVH$LUSRUW&OHDU&KDQQHO%LOOERDUGV3URMHFW³%LRORJLFDO,PSDFWV$VVHVVPHQW 

Legend
IW5LSDULDQ6HWEDFN
Habitats
$TXDWLF
:LOORZ5LSDULDQ)RUHVW
:LOORZ5LSDULDQ$TXDWLF
Proposed Billboard Locations
1RUWK3URMHFW6LWH
6RXWK3URMHFW6LWH
150 0 15075
Feet
$LUSRUW6WRUPZDWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ
Source: H.T. Harvey & Associates, September 2021.

LOCATION OF SENSITIVE/REGULATED HABITATS FIGURE 3.4-1
101
Ewart Rd
G
uadal
upe
River
Trail
GG
uuaaddaalluuppee
RRiivveerr
Airport Economy 1
Parking Lot
Airport Blvd
North Project Site
South Project Site
DetentionDetention
PondPond
43 42
41 40
Figure A1. Location of Trees Proposed for Removal
September 2021
N:\Projects4400\4458-01\Reports\Bio Impact Assmnt\Fig A1 Location of Trees Proposed for Removal.mxd San Jose Airport Clear Channel Billboards Project — Biological Impacts Assessment (4458-01) Legend
# of Trees for Removal
1 2
3 10
Proposed Billboard Locations
North Project Site
South Project Site
150 0 15075
Feet
101
Airport Blvd
1 2
3 - 1314
15 16
17 - 19
20 21
22, 23
242526
27 28
29 30
31 323334
35 36
37 3839
0 7537.5
Feet
Inset
$LUSRUW6WRUPZDWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ
Source: H.T. Harvey & Associates, September 2021.

LOCATIONS OF TREES TO BE REMOVED FIGURE 3.4-2

Appendix A

Revised Appendix A
(Lighting Analysis)

July 21September 29, 2021
Desiree Dei Rossi
Assistant Project Manager
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 300,
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: CEQA Analysis of Spill/Glare Light Issues and Effects of Glare on Pilots Approaching from North or South Runways for Two Proposed Billboards along HW101 Adjacent to San Jose Airport, San Jose, California
NOTE: This impact assessment report and associated appendices were revised on September 29, 2021, due to the relocation of the south sign location eastward from its originally proposed location. This report includes strikethrough where original text has been removed and underlines where text has been added.

Dear Desiree,
This report will provide an evaluation of the two proposed billboard’s nighttime visual impact based on information provided by Clear Channel Outdoor, and their billboard manufacturer, Media Resources, Inc., Ontario, Canada
Executive Summary:

The north/south faces of the North Site, and the south face of the South Site, have brightness’s that conform to the maximum value of 0.3 footcandle over ambient conditions, reducing unwanted spill and trespass light toward the adjacent San Jose airport ground operations. Media Resources is constructing their sign with custom side-shielding of the LED modules in order to successfully eliminate spill light toward the airport control tower located approximately 5,600 5,500 feet away.

The north face of the South Site will use a backlighted fixed signage and will have dimming controls needed to limit spill light toward the adjacent creek and riparian zone to conform to the 0.10 footcandle over ambient conditions required by the California Fire Fish and Game Wildlife Department.

Project Design will also produce very little glare and potential for pilot distraction in the landing approach from the North (Runways 12L/12R) or South (Runways 30L/30R) due to the light control features on the billboards.

Z E I G E R
ENGINEERS, INC.
1521 Le Roy Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94708
(510) 452-9391
www.zeigerengineers.com
APPENDIX A: REVISED APPENDIX A (LIGHTING ANALYSIS)

I have reviewed the materials, control means, and photometric methods used by Media Resources for these two billboards and am confident of the quality of their product and predicted performance.

General Report

Billboard Description:

The two proposed billboard designs use V- angled displays, approximately 17-feet, four- inches high by 59-feet wide, mounted on an approximately 37-foot, eight-inch high pylon, measuring 60 feet from ground to top. Their faces are angled to align with the freeway’s traffic flow directions. The billboards on the North Site will have DIGITAL LED displays, and the billboards on the South Site will have a DIGITAL LED display facing south, and a STATIC BACKLIGHTED LED display facing north toward the riparian zone.

Topography: The topography of the billboard location can be described as generally flat.

The creek embankment and riparian zone is near to the South Site.

PROPOSED DIGITAL BILLBOARD DESIGN

Trespass or Spill Light Control from Billboard: The billboards will control unwanted light (trespass or spill light) toward nearby airport operations, airport control tower, and Guadalupe River and riparian habitat. In this regard, the optical design of proposed DIGITAL LED billboard has customizable horizontal light shields, and a vertical alignment of LED RGB modules, to eliminate light into specific zones.

The degree of this shielding is shown on the photometric studies prepared by the manufacturer and is included in the Appendix. It demonstrates that zero light will be directed toward airport ground operations and the airport control tower.

Vertical light control is also needed for control of unwanted upward light. This is provided in the optical design of proposed LED billboard as the LED emitter arrays output have a vertical beam spread of approximately 65 degrees, with limited intensity above 18 degrees and below 47 degrees. This is achieved by the use of narrow matt black horizontal shields over and under the arrays, as well as LED optics with asymmetrical downward bean, rather than conventional symmetrical vertical beam. Manufacturer’s information on vertical light control is included in the Appendix.

This control feature mitigates some unwanted upward light, though there is still upward light contribution to sky glow. The limits on upward light proposed by the project design is as effective as angling the signs 15 degrees downward.

Brightness Control: During daytime, the brightness of a LED billboard depends on the intensity of the sunlight directly on the sign face, but just as importantly, on the sky brightness behind the sign (for example, the situation with the sun at a low angle behind the

sign, creating a dark sign face, but a bright background, would result in a need for a bright sign face to overcome the glare).

Sign brightness for LED billboards in practice can achieve 9,000 nits under maximum daylight conditions, with a maximized “white light” (that is, where the red/blue/green LEDs are operating uniformly at maximum power). Maximum brightness is only achieved when a billboard is displaying 100 percent “white” color, as opposed to the thousands of other color combinations available from the red-green-blue LEDs. However, to operate at 100 percent white color, it would require turning off the ambient light sensor and disabling dimming control of the face as well.

Normal advertising images are of course not “white”, and the resulting “colored” brightness is greatly less than white as when the LEDs are operating much more efficiently.

Clear Channel guidelines call for signs to be capable of producing a minimum of 7,500 nits at the end of 10 years of operation. The purpose of this is to insure that displays never appear dim over the useful life of the LED modules due to output depreciation. Information received from Clear Channel is included in the Appendix.

The decrease in maximum brightness with advertising images may be as much as 40 percent from the “white” test condition. Considering this, a range of 3,600 - 5,000 nits may be considered as typical of daytime peak power levels.

The proposed LED billboards use multiple photoelectric sensors designed to measure ambient light forward and backward. The electronic sign controllers use the input signals from the photo sensors to modulate sign power and brightness to maintain legibility of sign content. The ambient light sensors are always on.

During nighttime, the proposed LED billboard’s brightness is expected to be automatically reduced to a level of 3 percent or lower from its maximum brightness output. This being required to achieve a maximum illumination of 0.3 footcandle (3 lux) over ambient conditions, thereby reducing unwanted spill and trespass light toward the adjacent San Jose airport ground operations.

At all times, the ambient light sensors will adjust the illumination to be in compliance with the City of San José Code to never exceed 0.3 footcandle (3 lux) over ambient conditions.

The light sensors are always on.

City of San Jose Code: The billboards do comply with the City of San Jose Code to never exceed 0.3 footcandle (3 lux) over ambient, day or night, and will display no images whatsoever between the hours of 12AM and 6AM.

Lighting Controls: The proposed billboards have built-in programmable controllers, allowing both time of day and intensity programming. Their operating schedule is from 6AM to 12AM per City of San Jose Code.

The proposed STATIC backlight sign will have controls to lower power to as much a one percent to achieve the 0.1 footcandle over ambient lighting in the Guadalupe River, and

riparian zone. This is a field adjusted value after installation of the signs. Final nighttime power dimming setting will be determined by Clear Channel technicians during nighttime testing. The dimming setting will meet all City requirements for lighting.

Potential for Pilot Distraction from Billboards: Analysis was completed of the nighttime visibility of billboard display by pilots during landing. Due to the upper shielding on the LED modules providing an 18 degree cutoff, planes within 1-mile of the billboards would need to be below 1,700 feet altitude to first observe the display, and at that distance the illumination would be less than 0.0012 footcandle (0.012 lux). At a closer distance of 2,000 feet from billboard, the illumination would be less than 0.0084 footcandle (0.084lux). At closer distances, the side-shielding and top shielding, on the LED modules would block nearly all light towards the runways and any planes present.

The above illuminations are much less than illumination of a full Moon, which typically provides only about 0.005 footcandle (0.05lux) –0.01 footcandle (0.1 lux) illumination.

The conclusion is that billboards will provide no more potential for pilot distraction as compared to other commonly found illumination sources, such as moon light, parking lot illumination, automobile headlights, freeway signage, building illumination, etc.

STANDARDS AND PRACTICES

Refer to Glossary of terms for definition of nits, lux, footcandles, etc.

Recommended Practices: The reference source for recommended lighting practices for billboards was the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) “Lighting Handbook 9th Edition (2000) Chapter 17 Lighting for Advertising and Table 17-37, together with their other technical memoranda.

Subsequently, the IES “Lighting Handbook 10th Edition (2011) (the “NA” was dropped) was published, in a completely rewritten format, but it lacks all mention of lighting of outdoor advertising.

The recommendations of this publication were based on a report commissioned by the American Outdoor Advertisers Association. It has become something of a national model code for installation of billboards.

Billboard Surveys: Nighttime surface brightness of conventional billboards have been surveyed in studies conducted in Arizona (2009), New York (2008) and other cities. Those surveys provided results that show a luminance range from <100nits to <150nits.

IESNA Handbook (9th edition) Table 17-37 recommends illuminances for advertising signs in bright nighttime surrounds at 1,000 lux (low average reflectance of advertising copy), and 500 lux (high average reflectance of advertising copy); and similarly, for dark nighttime surrounds, 500 lux and 200 lux.

The units “footcandles” and “lux” are measurements of illumination, i.e., visible light intensity or luminous flux per unit area, equal to the amount of light emitted per second in a

unit solid angle of one steradian from a uniform source of one candela. One Lux is equivalent to 0.0929 footcandle.

The unit “nit” is a measurement of the brightness of light or luminance of a surface. One nit is equal to one candela (one candlepower) per square meter. A nit is equal to 0.929 candela/square foot or one candela/square meter, also one lumen/square meter/steradian.

The unit “lumen” is a measurement of luminous flux, analogous to a unit of force, and measures how hard light is pushing off a light source. When light is spread out over a specified flat surface, you get lumens per square meter, analogous to pressure. One lumen per one square meter is exactly one lux. Similarly, a nit measures light “force” per steradian (the curved surface of an LED).

To understand what the IES recommendation equates to in nits, it is necessary to convert the lux units to nits. This conversion is necessary to determine the surface luminance of such signs with high reflectance copy in bright surroundings. Implicit to this conversion is the assumption of an 80% reflectance, which would indicate values of:

Bright Nighttime Surrounds: 128 nits
Dark Nighttime Surrounds: 58 nits

For low reflectance copy, the values would be:

Bright Nighttime Surrounds: 256 nits
Dark Nighttime Surrounds: 126 nits

Illuminance Measurements: To determine the illuminance produced by the source (billboard) for bright nighttime surrounds, the equation is:

E = LA/D2
Where:

A = Area of billboard, in square feet
E = illuminance measured as produced by source , in footcandles L = luminance of source , in nits
D = test distance from source to plane of the illuminance measurement

Letting the maximum value of the light beam be 256 nits, as shown for the maximum value for bright nighttime surroundings for low reflectance copy, at a test distance of 350 feet perpendicular from sign (not at ground level), the resulting vertical illumination for a 20 feet x 60 feet billboard (1,200ft2) would calculate as:

E = 256 nits x 0.092903 footcandle/nit x 1200ft2/350ft2 = 0.231 footcandle (vertical)

The industry has adopted a value of 0.3 footcandle (vertical) over ambient light as the standard for performance for the 17ft x 59ft digital, and 20ft x 60ft static, billboards. The proposal DIGITAL LED billboard conforms to this value as indicated in their photometric studies, see Appendix.

Field Testing:

The value of <0.3 footcandle is relatively low but can be measured with a handheld photometer. Readings are to be made with the light receptor pointing directly at the sign held in the vertical position. With conventional DIGITAL LED displays the readings are to be taken directly at the sign, with light receptor held about five feet above ground level.

For the proposal DIGITAL LED display using asymmetric output LED modules the readings can be made with photometer held 5 feet above ground at 350 feet distance.

For the STATIC LED BACKLIGHTED display readings are to be made with the photometer held approximately 3 feet above ground, at locations along embankment and at level of the creek.

Maximum brightness is only achieved when a billboard is displaying 100 percent “white” color, as opposed to the thousands of other color combinations available from the red-green- blue LEDs. Normal advertising images are of course not “white”, and the resulting “colored” brightness is greatly less than white as the LEDs are operating much more efficiently. The decrease in brightness may be as much as 40 percent from the “white” test condition.

The field test of sign brightness is done in practice not with a “white” color, but with the programmed advertising. This study will be taken upon completion of sign construction and prior to operation of the signs. Should brightness levels be found above a particular maximum such as 0.3 footcandle over ambient light, then technicians will be expected to make the necessary field adjustments in order to meet all required conditions for sign operation.

Clear Channel’s field-testing procedures and recording forms are attached in Appendix.

Additional Brightness Control Measures: The proposed DIGITAL LED billboards and Static billboards have external sensors monitoring the displays. Should measurement communications between the electronic brightness control software fail, the sign controller itself drops to 3 percent by default, called Brightness Safety Watchdog. This control feature safeguards against possible driver safety, or pilot and ground control safety issues at the San Jose airport.

Moving Display: Another common concern with DIGITAL LED billboards is potential distraction from moving displays. Issues associated with moving billboard displays have already been addressed by the Federal Highway Administration under the Highway Beautification Act (HBA) codified at Title 23 United States Code 131, particularly with reference to the Guidance on Off-Premises Changeable Message Signs”, FHA September 25, 2007. As such, displays containing movement are prohibited pursuant to this statue.

The State of California, USC 131 was also incorporated by reference into Caltrans “Outdoor Advertising Act and Regulations” 2011 Edition. The cited acts have been the primary control for the design of billboards for many years.

In brief, States that do allow off-premises changeable electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) adjacent to controlled routes shall incorporate standards pertaining to:

1. Duration of Message

2. Transition Time

3. Brightness

4. Spacing

5. Locations

Most importantly because of FHWA recommendations, outside of special entertainment districts, billboard manufacturers do not use moving displays. The industry commonly uses approximately an 8 second duration time between static messages. The proposed signs comply with the Standards, and in particular will not display movement, motion, or animation. They will contain still or static images only. They will use 8 second duration of time between static messages, rather than the minimum 4 second duration time of the Standards. The State of California does not have a set standard.

VITAE:

President of Zeiger Engineers Inc. for the past thirty-nine years, Mr. Zeiger has been actively engaged in electrical engineering since 1965. His wide ranging experience includes: extensive experience with lighting design, specifications, and photometric analysis for street, area, landscape and sports lighting; engineering for clinics and medical facilities, research and industrial manufacturing facilities, office buildings, court buildings, hospital and laboratory facilities, university buildings, performing arts facilities, museums, theaters, hotels, schools, housing projects, churches, libraries, restaurants, community centers, high voltage utilities, engine-generators UPS power supplies, and solar voltaic power systems.

EDUCATION University of California, Berkeley - B.S. in Electrical Engineering, 1965

REGISTRATION Professional Electrical Engineer, 1969, California E7218 Please call should you have any questions for require additional information.

Sincerely,

ZEIGER ENGINEERS, INC.

Ronald Zeiger, PE
President

Glossary:

Footcandle – a unit of illuminance equal to one lumen per square foot. 1 footcandle = 10.764 lux.

Illuminance – photopic irradiance. The unit is “lumens per square meter”, or, equivalently, “lux”.

Intensity – flux per solid angle. The radiometric unit is “watts per steradian”; the photopic unit is the “candela”.

Irradiance – flux per unit area impinging onto a surface. The radiometric unit is “watts per square meter; ” the photopic unit is “lumens per square meter” or, equivalently, “lux”.

Lumen – a quantitative measure of the human visual response to optical flux.

Luminance – photopic radiance. The unit is “lumens per square meter per steradian” or, equivalently, “candela per square meter”.

Luminous efficacy – the efficiency of a light source in producing visible light, expressed in lumens per watt.

Lux – a unit of illuminance equal to one lumen per square meter.

Nit – a unit of luminance equal to one candela per square meter (cd/m2)) or equivalently, one lumen per square meter per steradian (lm/m2/sr).

Photopic – pertaining to the human visual system and its response to light.

Projected area – the area of a surface as projected on a plane perpendicular to the viewing direction. The projected area is equal to the actual area times the cosine of the angle between the normal to the surface and the viewing direction.

Projected solid angle – used in calculating radiative transfer when the directions between all parts of the source and all parts of the receiver are not essentially the same. The projected solid angle does not lend itself to a simple short definition.

Radiance – the amount of flux radiated by a projected area of surface per steradian of solid angle. The radiometric unit is “watts per square meter per steradian”; Radiometric – pertaining to physical units of light measurement.

Solid angle – the two-dimensional space contained in a [symmetrical or irregularly shaped] cone radiating from a point. It is analogous to the one-dimensional space between two lines radiating from a point, which we call a plane angle. Solid angle is measured in steradians.

Spectra (n.) - Plural of spectrum

Spectral (adj.) – a description of light that separates it into its wavelength-by-wavelength (or frequency-by-frequency) components.

Spectrophotometer – an instrument for measuring the spectral transmitting or reflecting properties of materials. A spectrophotometer is not a device for measuring light, but rather for measuring the optical properties of materials.

Spectroradiometer (n.) – a device for measuring spectral flux, spectral radiance, or spectral irradiance.

Spectroradiometric (adj.) – a measurement of light that looks at its spectral components.

Spectrum (n.) – a description of light that separates it into its wavelength-by-wavelength (or frequency-by-frequency) components.

Steradian – (ab. sr) a measurement of solid angle. A solid angle of one steradian from a point is formed by a (symmetrical or irregularly shaped) cone radiating from the point that intersects an area equal to the square of the radius on a sphere centered at the point. There are  steradians in a sphere.

Watt – a physical unit of power or the flow of energy.

APPENDIX Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX
PAGE DESCRIPTION_________________ 1 Media Resources – Aerial Measurement North Site

2 Media Resources – Aerial Measurement South Site

3 Media Resources – North Site East Facing Model

4 Media Resources – North Site East Facing Model

5 Media Resources – North Site West Facing Model

6 Media Resources – South Site East Facing Model

7 Media Resources - Skyglow and Vertical Angles

8 Clear Channel Outdoor – Measuring Brightness Procedure

9 Clear Channel Outdoor – Measuring Brightness Checklist

Source: Clear Channel Outdoor, September 2021.

Approximately
5,500 Feet
Approximately
5,830 Feet
AIRPORT AREA ILLUMINATION FOR THE WEST FACE OF THE NORTH SITE Zeiger Appendix Source: Clear Channel Outdoor, September 2021.

Approximately
5,500 Feet
Approximately
5,830 Feet
AIRPORT AREA ILLUMINATION FOR THE EAST FACE OF THE SOUTH SITE Zeiger Appendix 101
AirportBlvd
GG
uuaaddaalluuppee
RRiivveerr
Airport Economy 1
Parking Lot
$LUSRUW6WRUPZDWHU3XPS6WDWLRQ
350'
350'
117'
117'
80°60°
40°
20°
0°
80°
60°
40°
20°
80°
60°
40°
20°
0°
80°
60°
40°
20°
350'
350'
117' 117'
80°
40°
20°
0°
80°
60°
40°
20°
80°
60°
40°
20°
0°
80°
60°
40°
20°
60°

0.219 fc

0.1 fc

0.219 fc

0.219 fc
G
uadalupe
RiverTrail
DetentionDetention
PondPond

0.0125 fc
Figure 3. Proposed Billboard Area of Illumination
September 2021
N:\Projects4400\4458-01\Reports\Bio Impact Assmnt\Fig 3 Area of Illumination.mxd San Jose Airport Clear Channel Billboards Project — Biological Impacts Assessment (4458-01) Legend
Proposed Billboard Locations
North Project Site
South Project Site
Habitats
Aquatic
Willow Riparian Forest
Willow Riparian/Aquatic
200 0 200100
Feet
Source: H.T. Harvey & Associates, September 2021.

SPILL LIGHT IN FOOTCANDLES Zeiger Appendix

1-800-667-4554
1387 Cornwall Rd.

Oakville, ON L6J 7T5
mediaresources.com
1 Oct 13, 2020
Skyglow and Vertical Light Emission Patterns

To whom it may concern,

Media Resources Inc. is a premiere manufacturer of LED digital displays for the Out-Of- Home Advertising industry. As a provider of technical and product solutions for decades, we have seen and participated in a greater sense of environmental awareness and sensitivity. Specifically, inadvertent lighting has become an increasing concern, one which we have sought to provide technological answers for.

Our outdoor digital displays are designed with many features to manage light output dynamically, dependably and directionally. This note describes some of the directional features deployed in our product to mitigate concerns around skyglow.

1. Media Resources Inc. invented a horizontal light mitigation technology called “SITELINE”.

The SITELINE product specifically to address the issues surrounding individual areas where light emission into nearby areas is undesirable. The SITELINE system employs a patent-pending mechanical baffle system similar to luminaire baffles to eliminate all projection of light from the Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) into a “protected region”. As a result, the protection is physical (See Figure 1 and 2) – reliable, permanent, and not the outcome of any programming or settings.

Figures 1 and 2. Close up photographs of SITELINE module face viewed from front (left) and from side (right). Note the red, green and blue diode lenses are directly visible from front direction but are obscured behind baffles viewed from the side.

1-800-667-4554
1387 Cornwall Rd.

Oakville, ON L6J 7T5
mediaresources.com
2 2. Our digital billboard products are all designed with horizontal shading louvers that protect the LEDs from sun, impact and limit upward angle. These louvers act to reduce the available upward view angle while maintaining good downward visibility. This design supersedes the need for any top mounted rimmed edge baffle on the cabinet; a secondary baffle would be ineffective and unnecessary. The following sectional view represents the upward and downward view angles of the LED diodes, as positioned in a SITELINE product.

Figure 3. Section close-up of view angles in a SITELINE module. Image loses brightness above 18 degrees and below 47 degrees

3. MRI Digital Billboards employ “down-angle” LEDs supplied by Nichia, the world’s top brand in LEDs. The development and selection of this type of LED is specifically tailored to outdoor advertising, where it provides better downward imaging while reducing upward light waste. In a comparison between standard and “down-angle” LED radiation patterns, the “down-angle” pattern outputs roughly 2/3
rds of its emission down below the
horizon line and leaving 1/3rd above, while the standard patterns symmetrically output half above and half below the horizon line.

1-800-667-4554
1387 Cornwall Rd.

Oakville, ON L6J 7T5
mediaresources.com
3 We are always committed to the responsible application of LED digital technology and are happy to engage with regulatory stakeholders at any time. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Cheng Qian
Chief Product Architect
Media Resources Inc.
(905) 586-1064
[email protected]
df
Measuring Digital
Billboard Brightness
With a Light Meter
December
18, 2020
2 When you will use the light meter
3 • Verify if a complaint that a sign is too bright
• Compare brightness of signs
• Demonstrating to a public official how to measure a digital sign brightness
• Use in the field to support a request to corporate to either replace the LED or increase sign output of a display that is nearing end of useful life, but not close enough for
replacement.
“Foot candles”
4 Evaluating the brightness of a display:

For regulatory compliance or in response to a complaint is typically measured using a light meter, measuring foot candles.

When considering cleaning, calibration or replacing the display with a new digital face, measuring should be done using a nit gun (or luminance meter) measuring nits.

Two methods to measure brightness
4 When explaining how
to measure sign
brightness, foundation
knowledge of the
basics of digital
lighting are required

Operational Features
Static messages
show once every
8 seconds
No Movement.

No Motion.

No Video.

A New Way to Change Faces
ONE Red LED
Light Emitting Diode

LED Pixels
LED: Contribute less to Sky Glow and Light Trespass
• LED diodes focus the emitted light in a beam
• Signs aimed at roadway
• Horizontal louvers help direct light downward
Photo of Daktronics module Angle graphic provided by Prism view

Dimming Capabilities
An ambient light sensor dimming the sign is not compatible with a nit standard Insure a digital sign is never too bright for conditions 11 There are 3 necessary components to insure a digital billboard will never be too bright for conditions.

1. Maximum brightness limits incorporating a footcandle standard

2. An ambient light sensor installed on the sign structure

3. Dimming software
Industry standards for maximum brightness: 0.3 foot candles 12 These
criteria are
not open to
negotiation

0.3 foot candles
The presence of a foot candle limit without a set distance from which to measure creates an inaccurate and ineffective limit. All signs will be simultaneously in compliance and out of compliance
Foot Candle Language
13 Why was 0.3 Footcandles chosen as the limit?
14 Carefully derived from a report completed by a former president of the IESNA. Based on accepted IESNA practice for “light trespass.” OAAA commissioned the late Dr. Ian Lewin, in 2008 to recommend criteria for brightness levels on digital billboards. The standards are designed to minimize the risk of glare or unreasonable driver distraction.

Footcandle measurements are common. Footcandle measurements are widely used in the lighting industry, photography, film, television, conservation lighting, and construction related engineering and building code regulations. In addition, footcandles are frequently cited in OSHA regulations.

TWO WAYS TO MEASURE
1 With the sign company’s knowledge
and assistance. Regulators may be
skeptical.
2 Without the sign company’s
knowledge. A few more steps are
required, we will detail.

How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 16 This procedure is extremely simple and requires a helper, a footcandle meter and a piece of cardboard cut to the proper size 12 inches by 40 inches.

Step 1 Regular cardboard can be used and painted flat black, or purchased foam board in black

How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 17 Step 2
Determine how far away from the face to stand to take the measurement

How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 18 Step 3 Advance work from your desk. Google earth
Find where to stand to take the measurement, distance from the face.

How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 19 Step 4
Position yourself at the pre determined distance to hold up black cardboard to block light from subject sign
HELPER
YOU
How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 20 Lamar 10.5 x 36 Digital in
Nashville. Measured for TNDOT
Step 5
Measure the ambient light of the area, without the light generated by the sign.

Your helper should stand 7- 10 feet away and hold up black cardboard to block light from subject sign
Before blocking sign Blocking the sign
How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 21 Lamar 10.5 x 36 Digital in
Nashville. Measured for TNDOT
Step 6
Point the light meter sensor at the display
at about 5 feet high, approximately eye level

How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 22 The Helper holds the cardboard so all light from the digital billboard is blocked and does not reach the sensor. Light from other sources will reach the sensor. This will establish the baseline reading.

How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 23 Step 7
Take the ambient light reading with no light from the digital billboard visible Write it down

How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 24 Step 7
Take a second reading with light from the digital billboard visible.

Remove the black painted cardboard from blocking the digital billboard.

Watch the footcandle meter for 3 to 5 minutes to see if the max brightness level is exceeded by any of the images on the digital billboard.

Write it down
How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 25 a. If the 2nd reading does not exceed the max brightness level, then the billboard illumination is in compliance.
b. If any of readings consistently exceed the max brightness level, the lighting level is not in compliance.

How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 26 Review:

Once the baseline level is established, add 0.3 fc to the baseline level to calculate the max brightness limit. (For example: Baseline reading is 2.35 fc. The Max brightness level is 2.65 fc.)
The math:

2.35 fc + 0.3 fc = maximum 2.65 fc to be in compliance
How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 27 For additional information, visit the Digital Regulatory Page & www.oaaa.org How to measure foot candles in the field.

How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 28 For additional information, visit the Digital Regulatory Page & www.oaaa.org OAAA Recommended Lighting Guidelines.

How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 29 Document your
results

How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 30 Document your
results
How do you measure with the Sign Company knowledge?
How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 31 Document your
results

How to Measure Footcandles in the Field– Without Sign Company Knowledge 32 Document your
results

THANK YOU!
Watch the OAAA instructional
video located here:
http://oaaa.org/AboutOOH/G
uidelinesStandards/DigitalLighti
ngGuidelines.aspx

BRIGHTNESS MEASUREMENT CHECKLIST
LOCATION DESCRIPTION:

DATE: CITY MARKET
TIME STARTED: SUNSET ADDRESS:

TIME ENDED: LOC NICKNAME:

Board # FACING:

INSTALL DATE:

OAAA MEMBER SIGN OPERATOR

LED MANUFACTURER
MODLE # OR GENERATION
FACE SIZE OF LED x RESOLUTION mm

HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE
HAS LED BEEN CLEANED PER MANUFACTURER SPECS?
HAS LED BEEN RECALIBRATED BY LED MAUNFACTURER?

DISTANCE MEASURED FROM
MEASURED PREPENDICULAR FROM FACE? IF NOT GIVE ANGLE
PERSONS TAKING PART IN MEASUREMENT:

BRAND AND NAME OF LIGHT METER USED:

LAST DATE OF LIGHT METER CALIBRATION (IF KNOWN)
TEST PERFORMED WITH ALL WHITE AND ALL BLACK COPY? Y OR N

1. AMBIENT LIGHT READINGS (WITH DISPLAY OFF OR WITH LIGHT BLOCKED) fc fc fc fc fc fc
AVERAGE:

2. FOOT CANDLE MEASUREMENTS OF

ACTIVE COPY FULL WHITE COPY
fc Copy name:
fc Copy name:
fc Copy name:
fc Copy name:
fc Copy name:
fc Copy name:
fc Copy name:
fc Copy name:
fc AVERAGE OF ACTIVE COPY OR FULL WHITE COPY
SUBTRACT AMBIENT LIGHT READING FROM 1 ABOVE
fc AVERAGE ABOVE AMBIENT LIGHT
Note- if value is 0.3 fc or less, sign is in compliance with industry standard

Appendix B

Revised Appendix B
(Biological Resource Analysis)

983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  408.458.3200  www.harveyecology.com July 20September 28, 2021
Desi
ree Dei Rossi | Associate Project Manager
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
Subje
ct: San José Airport Clear Channel Billboards Project – Biological Impacts Assessment (HTH #4458-01) NOTE: This impact assessment report and associated figures were revised on September 28, 2021, due to the relocation of the south project site billboard location eastward from its originally proposed location. This report includes strikethrough where original text has been removed and underlines where text has been added.

Dear Ms.

Dei Rossi:

Per your request, H. T. Harvey & Associates has performed a biological impacts assessment for the construction of four new Clear Channel light-emitting diode (LED) billboards located south of U.S. Highway (Hwy) 101 on the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport (San José Airport) property. The proposed billboards are located within the airport sign zone. The two north billboards will be located inside of the northwest corner chain-link fence line of the San José Police Department surface parking lot adjacent to the southeast corner of Airport B oulevard and Ewart Road . The two south billboards will be located northwest of the airport ’s Economy Lot 1 and approximately 105160 feet (ft) east of the Guadalupe River Trail (Figure 1). In addition, we surveyed 43 trees that are proposed to be removed as part of the billboard projec t; 40 trees were located between the north and south billboard project locations, along the southern edge of Hwy 101; one tree was located directly west of the north billboard location; and two trees were located directly east of the south billboard location (Figure 1). The Tree Survey Report is provided as Appendix A to this report.

The proposed east and west facing billboards at the north project site, and the proposed east facing billboard at the south project site, will be Media Resources Inc. (MRI) LED digital displays that feature a horizontal light mitigation technology called SITELINE
®. This technology limits light emission into nearby areas that are not intended to view, or receive light from, the billboards, employing a mechanical baffle system similar to luminaire baffles to eliminate all projection of light from the LEDs into protected regions . The proposed west facing billboard at the south project site will be a Formetco static back-lit display covered by translucent vinyl to ensure that no illumination occurs above or below the face of the billboard, thus minimizing light spill-over into nearby areas (Clear Channel 2021). All billboards will be V-shaped, freestanding, and oriented to be visible to vehicles traveling north and south on Hwy 101. The tops of both signs will be 55 ft above ground, which includes the additional height of the architectural element above the actual sign panel. The message displays on the north sign will be offset-mounted on a supporting column, and the south sign message displays will be center- APPENDIX B: REVISED APPENDIX B (BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS) 101
Airport Bl
vd
Ewart Rd
G
uadal
upe
RiverTrai
l
GG
uuaaddaalluuppee
RRiivveerr
A i r p o r t E c o n o my 1
P a r k i n g L o t
S a n J o se Wa te r C o mp a n y P u mp S ta ti o n N o r th P r o je c t S i te
S o u th P r o je c t S i te
DetentionDetention
PondPond
Figure 1. Vicinity Map, Proposed Billboards, and Tree Removal Locations S e p te mb e r 2 0 2 1
N:\Projects4400\4458-01\Reports\Bio Impact Assmnt\Fig 1 Vicinity Map, Proposed Billboards, and Tree Removal Locations.mxd S a n J o se A i r p o r t C l e a r C h a n n e l B i l l b o a r d s P r o je c t  B i o l o g i c a l I mp a c ts A sse ssme n t ( 4 4 5 8 - 0 1 ) Legend
T r e e R e mo v a l L o c a ti o n s Proposed Billboard Locations
N o r th P r o je c t S i te
S o u th P r o je c t S i te
150 0 15075
Feet
D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

3 H. T. Harvey & Associates

mounted on a supporting column. The above-ground, supporting columns will consist of aluminum composite and be approximately 33 ft tall and 9.5 ft in diameter. Both supporting columns will include a non-illuminated San José Airport logo. Each display will be approximately 60 ft wide by 20 ft high, resulting in a message surface of approximately 1,200 square ft. An internally lit, “Clear Channel Outd oor” nameplate approximately one ft tall and 8.5 ft wide will be affixed to the bottom right corner of each display. A metal concealing screen will be included at both the apex1 and antipex2 of the signs. The message displays will be internally lit with LED lights.

Methods
Prior to conducting a project site visit, we reviewed a number of resources providing information on biological resources in the study area. These resources included the San José Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (City of San José 2020), other planning documents for projects in the vicinity, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2020), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2020). We used these resources to determine whether there were known occurrences of special-status species in the vicinity of either project site, to help determine which species might be impacted by billboard construction and operation. I then conducted a site visit on November 4, 2020 to provide a basis for determining the potential direct and indirect effects of the billboard’s lighting on wildlife.

The site visit was conducted in the predawn hours to observe qualitatively the existing ambient lighting in the project vicinity. I remained on site until after sunrise, at which time I inspected habitat conditions in areas immediately surrounding both proposed project locations and in adjacent areas. Following the completion of the survey, we determined the potential for installation and operation of new billboard s to impact biological resources, such as special -status species and sensitive/regulated habit ats, based on the conditions at both proposed project locations. In addition, H. T. Harvey & Associates plant ecologist Jill Pastick, M.S., conducted a survey of all trees proposed for removal on November 4, 2020. Per your direction and as requested by the City of San José , Ms. Pastick identified the species of all 43 trees proposed for removal and measured each trees’ diameter at breast height, estimated their height, assessed the general condition and health, and took a photo of each tree. The tree survey summary report is provided as Appendix A.

Existing Site Conditions
Overall existing site conditions in the study area along Hwy 101 consist primarily of highly developed industrial, commercial, and airport facility land uses, where multiple street signs , roadway lighting fixtures, parking lots, and roadways are currently located. The Guadalupe River, a portion of the levee slope immediately east of the Guadalupe River Trail, and an associated detention pond on the west side of the river support willow forest riparian habitats. Below, we describe both proposed project locations individually, and address the probability of special-status species or sensitive/regulated habitats occurring on or near either proposed project location.

1 The apex is where the screen will be placed at the point of the V shape of the structure. 2 The antipex is where the screen will be placed at the widest part of the V shape of the structure.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

4 H. T. Harvey & Associates

North Project Site
The proposed north project site is located at
2341 Airport Boulevard, inside of the
northwest corner chain-link fence line of the
San José Police Department surface parking
lot adjacent to the southeast corner of
Airport Boulevard and Ewart Road (Photo
1). It is bordered to the north by Hwy 101,
and to the south and west by San José
Airport facilities, infrastructure and parking
lots (Photo 2). The proposed billboard base
would be constructed inside of the chain -
link fence line of the San José Airport
Security and Police Depar tment Complex
parking lot. The proposed north project site
footprint itself is completely devoid of
vegetation and is located on asphalt, where
two to three parking stalls would be
removed for the placement of the billboards’
base. The area immediately surrounding the
project footprint is characterized by
developed and landscaped habitat features,
hardscaped roads, sidewalks, parking lots,
street signs, numerous utility, security, police,
and airport facility structures, chain -link
fencing, and streetlight posts. Vegetation that
does occur in this developed/landsca ped
habitat consists of ornamental shrubs and
trees such as Brazilian pepper trees.

Another chain- link fence separates Ewart
Road from Hwy 101, where an
approximately 12-foot wide strip of ruderal (i.e., disturbance-associated) vegetation is located. This is the area where 40 of 43 trees scheduled for removal are located; nearly all these trees are non-native, ornamental species that are not associated with the willow riparian forest habitat that surrounds the detention pond, located south of this area. A ll trees scheduled to be removed are described in detail in Appendix A (Figure A1). Dominant vegetation within this ruderal habitat includes non native species such as fennel ( Foeniculum vulgare), bristly ox- tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), wild oat (Avena fatua), and Brazilian pepper trees (Schinus terebinthifolia). Native species include panicled willow herb (Epilobium brachycarpum) and Canada horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), both Photo 1. Looking south east towards the proposed north
project site. The project footprint is inside of the fence line just behind the sod area shown in the foreground.

Photo 2. Looking west from the proposed north project
site towards San José Airport facilities and parking lots.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

5 H. T. Harvey & Associates

of which are common in disturbed ruderal
habitats. The vast majority of wildlife species
occurring on or immediately adjacent to the
north project site are very common species
associated with urban, developed, and
ruderal conditions throughout the Bay Area ,
and are tolerant of high levels of human
disturbance. These species include the
nonnative European starling (Sturnus vulgaris),
house sparrow ( Passer domesticus), house
mouse ( Mus musculus ), and black rat ( Rattus
rattus), as well as the native western fence
lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), and a variety of birds, including the
Anna’s hummingbird ( Calypte anna), house
finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos ). The buildings in the project area may be attractive to certain nesting bird species in the area that nest on buildings, such as the black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) and house finch.

South Project Site
The proposed south project site is located on the south side of Hwy 101 with the airport’s Economy Parking Lot 1 located directly east of the project site, where a new parking garage structure is currently being constructed (Photo 3). The south project site ’s immediate footprint consists of a small patch of ruderal grassland at an elevation of approximately 35 ft above sea level (ASL; Google, Inc. 2020). The footprint is surrounded by native shrubs and trees such as toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and non-native trees including Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), Brazilian pepper tree, and holly oak (Quercus ilex) (Photo 4). Two trees that are scheduled for removal are located approximately 8445 and 164130 ft east, respectively, of the south project site and share the same habitat conditions as described above. The south project site is bounded to the west by a Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) gravel service road that sits atop a concrete - paved slopelevee wall that drops down approximately 19 ft to the Guadalupe River Trail (Photos 5 and 6). The Guadalupe River itself is located approximately 175230 ft west, below the south project site at an elevation of Photo 3. Looking east from the east- side of the south
project site towards the airport’s Economy Parking Lot 1 parking garage under construction.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

6 H. T. Harvey & Associates

approximately 13 ft ASL (Google, Inc. 2020),
and is bordered on both sides by willow
riparian habitat, with overstory vegetation
consisting of native Fremont cottonwood
(Populus fremontii), red willow ( Salix laevigata),
arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and non-native
trees such as weeping willow ( Salix
babylonica). Understory veget ation along this
riparian corridor is a mix of native species
such as California blackberry ( Rubus ursinus)
and cattails (Typha sp.) at the river’s edge, and
non-native species such as curly dock (Rumex
crispus), English ivy (Hedera helix), Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Italian ryegrass
(Festuca perennis), fennel, and bristly ox-tongue
(Photos 7 and 8). The southern portion of
the levee slope, east of the Guadalupe River
Trail, supports the same willow riparian
habitat as found along the banks of the
Guadalupe River ; this vegetation extends
upslope to the top of the bank (Photo 7).

Immediately west of the Guadalupe River and
west levee road is a San José Water Company
pump station (seen in Photo 5 at the top of
the west levee road) that connects with a
culvert located on the upper west bank of the
Guadalupe River.

This pump station is used to move water into
a small detention pond, west of the pump
station, from the river during high water and
flood events. The detention pond is
surrounded by rock riprap, a landscaped coast
redwood ( Sequoia sempervirens), Brazilian
pepper trees, some smaller cottonwood and willow saplings, as well as dense stands of cattails and curly dock at the pond’s edge (Photos 9 and 10). Common wildlife species expected to occur immediately on and adjacent to the south project site in ruderal and developed habitats, which provide relatively low-quality habitat for most species, include those species as described above under the north project site description. In addition, a few California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and their burrows occur along the edges of the Valley Water gravel service road, which is located immediately west of the south project site. The presence of year -round Photo 5. Looking west towards Valley Water gravel
service road from south project site, with the Guadalupe River Trail below the chain link fence.

Photo 6. Looking west down to the Guadalupe River
Trail at the bottom of a concrete-paved slope, from the Valley Water gravel service road, west of the south
project site. Hwy 101 is shown crossing over the
Guadalupe River.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

7 H. T. Harvey & Associates

water and abundant invertebrate fauna along
the Gu adalupe River and in the San José
Water Company detention pond provides
foraging opportunities for many bird species
that are expected to move through portions
of the south project site area, when flying
along the Guadalupe River.

The riparian habitats and dense vegetation
surrounding these aquatic habitats provide
attractive nesting and roosting areas for
many common native bird species, such as
the lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), Bewick’s
wren (Thryomanes bewickii), California scrub -
jay (Aphelocoma californica), California towhee
(Melozone crissalis ), and bushtit ( Psaltriparus
minimus), just to name a few. Raptors such as
the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and
great horned owl ( Bubo virginianus ) may
forage along the banks of the river. Small
numbers of waterbirds such as the great blue
heron ( Ardea herodias), snowy egret ( Egretta
thula), and great egret ( Ardea alba) forage
along the banks of the river and in the
detention pond. The heav ily vegetated
ground cover along the riparian habitat and
at the edges of the detention pond provides
suitable nesting cover for waterfowl species
such as the mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos ).

Other bird species such as the black phoebe,
barn swallow ( Hirundo rustica ), and cliff
swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) are expected
to forage across the south project site and
adjacent areas, and may use the underside of the Hwy 101 overpass as nesting locations. Other common wildlife species are expected to occur along the river and in the detention pond area, including the native raccoon, as well as the non-native Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), all of which may use the abundant cover and trees for roosting and breeding sites. Common amphibian and reptile species expected to occur in the riparian and aquatic habitats include the Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla), arboreal salamander ( Aneides lugubris), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer ), coast garter snake ( Thamnophis elegans terrestris), and western fence lizard.

Photo 7. Looking east from the west levee road above the Guadalupe River towards the south project site, just past the concrete-paved levee slope and Valley Water gravel
service road. Economy Lot 1 parking garage construction is seen in the distance.

South Project Site
Photo 8. Edge of willow Willow riparian habitat on the
west side of the Guadalupe River Trail, approximately
123175 ft west of and below the south project site.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

8 H. T. Harvey & Associates

The nearest riparian and aquatic habitats of
the Guadalupe River , which are found
approximately 123117 ft and 175 230 ft west
of the south project site, respectively, are not
only expected to provide suitable foraging,
roosting, and nesting habitat for a variety of
bird species, but may also be used as a
migratory stop- over for other bird species
flying along the Guadalupe River. The
numbers of these birds moving through the
site will vary by time of year and by species.

Many birds, such as waterfowl, often tend to
move in large groups, while other species,
such as migrating landbirds, will move
through individually. Local bird numbers also
vary by time of year, as many birds form small
to large flocks during winter and migration,
and occur in more widely spaced pairs during
the breeding season. Nevertheless,
disturbance and noise associated with Hwy
101 and the surrounding airport uses reduce
the abundance of birds and other wildlife
using the riparian habitat immediately
adjacent to the south project site to some
extent, as proximity to bridges and roads
reduces bird use of riparian habitats in the
South Bay (Rottenborn 1999).

Photo 9. Looking north towards the west-side of the San José Water Company pump station; detention pond is
located left of the building and inside the chain link
fence.

Photo 10. Looking west towards the detention pond
where a culvert can be seen on the right side, which
comes from within the San José Water Company pump
station.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

9 H. T. Harvey & Associates

Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats
We collected and reviewed information from several sources, including the CNDDB ( 2020) and the CNPS (2020), regarding known occurrences of special -status species in the vicinity of the north and south project sites. In addition, for plants, we reviewed all species currently ranked by the CNPS as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) rank 1A, 1B, 2, or 3 occurring in the San José West and Milpitas, California quadrangles and ten surrounding quadrangles ( Newark, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mountain View, Calaveras Reservoir, Cupertino, San José East, Castle Rock Ridge, Los Gatos, and Santa Teresa Hills, California). We also considered the CNPS plant list for Santa Clara County, as the CNPS does not maintain quadrangle-level records for CRPR 4 species. In addition, we queried the CNDDB (2020) for natural communities of special concern that occur within the airport region, and we perused records of birds reported in nearby areas, such as along the Guadalupe River, on eBird (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2020).

Special-Status Plant Species
The CNPS (2020) and CNDDB (2020) identify 78 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in at least one of the 11 USGS quadrangles containing or surrounding the area of the north and south project sites for CRPR 1 or 2 species, or in Santa Clara County for CRPR 3 and 4 species. Based on an analysis of the documented habitat requirements and occurrence records associated with these species, all were determined to be absent from the north and south project site areas due to at least one of the following reasons: (1) lack of suitable habitat types; (2) absence of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements; (3) the species is presumed extirpated or is not expected to occur in the project vicinity due to range; and/or (4) the project site and study area are too disturbed to be expected to support the species.

Special-Status Animal Species
A number of special -status animal species are known to occur in the vicinity of the north and south project sites (CNDDB 2020). The following special-status animal species that are present in less urbanized settings in the South Bay, or in specialized habitats in the South Bay, are absent from the study area due to a lack of suitable habitat and/or isolation of the site from populations by urbanization: the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens ), and American badger (Taxidea taxus).

A number of special -status bird species can occasionally occur in the vicinity of the north and south project sites as nonbreeding foragers (i.e., they do not nest in the study area vicinity). These are the Bryant’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus), a California species of special concern ; and two raptor species, the peregrine falcon ( Falcon peregrinus anatum ), and golden eagle ( Aquila chrysaetos), both of whi ch are state fully protected species. The pallid bat ( Antrozous pallidus), a California species of special concern, may also forage aerially over habitats in the vicinity of both project site areas. However, no high-quality habitat for any of these species is present within the project footprint itself, and these species are not expected to nest, roost, or breed D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

10 H. T. Harvey & Associates

in or immediately adjacent to the project sites. Therefore, we do not expect that these species will be affected by proposed billboard installation and operation activities.

Tricolored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor) have not been recorded nesting in the vicinity of the project site s, and although the detention pond may provide ostensibly suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbirds, given its small size and isolation from other suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the species, the tricolored blackbird is not expected to breed within or immediately adjacent to the project areas. At best it occurs as an uncommon and irregular forager on the sites during the nonbreeding period.

The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a California species of special concern, has been known to nest, roost, and forage within the grassland portions of the San José Airport’s airfield for decades (Albion Environmental, Inc. 1997), and the species continues to be present in these areas year -round (USDA 2018, City of San José 2020). Burrowing owls require short vegetation, wide -open spaces, and an abundance of burrows created by California ground squirrels, for nesting and roosting. Numerous sod areas on the airfield are currently managed and maintained for burrowing owls , and are located approximately 0.13 miles (mi) and 0.25 mi south of the north and south project sites, respectively. Additionally, an area located northwest of the airport, known as the very high frequency omni-directional range (VOR) site, which is located approximately 0.4 mi and 0.6 mi west of the north and south project sites, respectively, supports 23.6 acres of grassland habitat , and a total of 99 artificial burrows have been installed in the portion of the site currently considered a burrowing owl management area. However, burrowing owls are not known to occur at the site as of 2019, and vegetation management in that area is not optimal for burrowing owls (Campos 2019, USDA 2018). Further, no owls or burrows of California ground squirrels to provide suitable nesting and roosting habitat for owls were observed at the VOR site during a January 2019 site visit by H. T. Harvey & Associates wildlife ecologists in support of the preparation of the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport 2019 Master Plan Amendment Biological Resources Report (HTH 2019). Although a few isolated California ground squirrel burrows were detected along the Valley Water gravel service road, west of the south project site, n o burrows of ground squirrels were detected at the north project site during our site visit on November 4, 2020, and the small ruderal habitat areas, where the footprint of each billboard will be located, do not contain any burrows, are regularly disturbed, and are surrounded by trees, thus, not providing suitable nest ing, roosting, or foraging habitat.

Therefore, the burrowing owl is not expected to nest, roost, or breed on or immediately adjacent to the project sites. Because these sites also do not provide high -quality foraging habitat for the burrowing owl, we do not expect this species to be affected by proposed billboard installation and operation activities.

The yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) and San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), both California species of special concern, and the white -tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), a state fully protected species, can potentially nest in riparian habitats along the Guadalupe River, located west of the south project site.

No aquatic habitats to support special-status fish species are present on either project site; however, the south project site is located approximately 175 230 ft east of the Guadalupe River, which provides habitat for the federally threatened Central Calif ornia Coast steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) and the Central Valley Fall -run D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

11 H. T. Harvey & Associates

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), a California species of special concern. Further, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council has designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries Management Plan within the Guadalupe River due to the presence of the Chinook salmon.

In addition, the southwestern pond turtle (Emys pallida) occurs in the Guadalupe River, and may occur in the San José water company detention pond ; there is some potential for this species to disperse into the south project site.

These species are discussed in greater detail below.

Federally Listed Species
Central California Coast Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss ). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing Status: None. The Central California Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of steelhead consists of all runs from the Russian River in Sonoma County south to Aptos Creek in Santa Cruz County, including all steelhead spawning in streams that flow into the San Francisco Bay. In 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a final rule to list the Central California Coast DPS as threatened under FESA (NMFS 1997). Critical habitat for this DPS was designated on September 2, 2005 and includes a portion of the Guadalupe River from approximately the West Hedding Street, located at the south end of the airport, crossing downstream to the Bay (NMFS 2005).

The steelhead is an anadromous form of rainbow trout that migrates upstream from the ocean to spawn in late fall or early winter, when flows are sufficient to allow them to reach suitable habitat in far upstream areas . In the South Bay, adults typically migrate to spawning areas from late December through early April, and both adults and smolts migrate downstream from February through May . Steelhead typically spawn in gravel substrates located in clear, cool, perennial sections of relatively undisturbed streams, with dense canopy cover that provides shade, woody debris, and organic matter. Steelhead usually cannot survive long in pools or streams with water temperatures above 21 °C; however, they can use warmer habitats if adequate food is available .

Steelhead populations have declined due to degrad ation of spawning and rearing habitat, the introduction of barriers to upstream migration, over-harvesting by recreational fisheries, and reduction in winter flows due to damming and spring flows due to water diversion.

Steelhead are known to occur in the Guadalupe River (Leidy et al. 2005, NMFS 2005, Smith 2013). Although studies conducted by Valley Water and others have documented steelhead use of specific reaches of the Guadalupe River (e.g., for spawning or rearing), there is no comprehensive dataset indicating suitable spawning or rearing locations. Steelhead are expected to occur in any reach of the Guadalupe River offering suitable habitat and lacking d ownstream barriers to dispersal. They typically spawn and rear in the upstream -most reaches of thes e streams that offer suitable spawning conditions, and they occur in more downstream areas during migration to the ocean and upstream spawning and rearing areas. The quality of potential spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead in the lower portion of the Guadalupe River is poor.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

12 H. T. Harvey & Associates

Within the Guadalupe River system, steelhead have access to the mainstem of the Guadalupe River up to Guadalupe Dam, as well as Arroyo Calero and Alamitos Creek (tributaries of the Guadalupe River) upstream to Calero Dam and Almaden Dam, respectively. Steelhead spawning and rearing likely occurs farther upstream of the study area south of Blossom Hill Road, where more natural habitat is present (Smith 2013). High volumes of storm water flowing into the river during rain events likely result in the destruction of any redds present along the reach adjacent to the study area in winter. Further, homeless camps create high levels of disturbance within the bed and banks of the Guadalupe River, and result in increased pollution, obstru ctions to stream flow, and fish mortality caused by poaching (Smith 2013). These factors combine to create low-quality habitat for steelhead adjacent to the project study area in the Guadalupe River. Thus, although marginal spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead may be present in the segment of river near the south project site, there is a low probability that steelhead breed or rear in this reach of the Guadalupe River . Rather , this portion of the Guadalupe River functions as a migration corridor for individuals traveling between the San Francisco Bay and higher-quality spawning habitat farther upstream, and steelhead are therefore expected to occur near the project site only for brief periods during upstream and downstream migration.

California Species of Special Concern
Central Valley Fall-run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. Like the steelhead, the Chinook salmon is an anadromous salmonid. Populations of Pacific salmon have been categorized into Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) by the NMFS; an ESU represents a population of Pacific salmon that is reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations, and is recognized as a distinct evolutionary component of the species (Waples 1991).

The Central Valley Fall-run ESU represents a population of Chinook salmon that migrates from the ocean to spawning streams in late fall and begin spawning in beds of coarse river gravels between October and December. Populations of fall-run Chinook salmon have suffered the effects of over -fishing by commercial fisheries, degradation of spawning and rearing habitat, added barriers to upstream migration, and reductions in winter flows due to damming. Approximately 40 to 50% of the spawning and rearing habitats in Central Valley streams have been lost or degraded. Chinook salmon generally spawn in cool waters providing incubation temperatures no warmer than 55°F. Compared to steelhead, Chinook salmon are more likely to spawn in coarse gravels located lower in the watershed.

Chinook salmon did not historically spawn in streams flowing into the South San Francisco Bay. This species was first observed in South Bay streams in the mid-1980s, including in the Guadalupe River, coinciding with a large groundwater pumping operation that resulted in high flows in the Guadalupe River, even during summer and fall (SWRCB 1988, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005). These artificially high summer and fall flows apparently attracted Chinook salmon into South Bay streams. Genetic analysis, timing of spawning, and the detection of coded, wire -tagged hatchery fish in the South Bay suggest that these fish are derived from Central Valley fall -run stock (Garcia -Rossi and Hedgecock 2002), possibly hatchery releases. Nevertheless, Chinook salmon have been documented spawning within the Guadalupe River in and around the downtown San José area between October and December (City of San José 2002).

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

13 H. T. Harvey & Associates

Chinook salmon spawn in reaches with suitable gravels, and use downstream reaches for migration betwee n the ocean and spawning and rearing areas. Conditions for successful spawning in South Bay streams are poor because these fish spawn during fall when streamflow is at its lowest, making it difficult for up-migrating adults to access spawning areas. High -quality spawning habitat is not expected to be present in the reach of the Guadalupe River west of the south project site, but Chinook salmon may use this reach of the Guadalupe River during migration and may attempt spawning if they are unable to reach higher-quality habitat upstream due to seasonally low flows.

Southwestern Pond Turtle (Emys palida ). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The southwestern pond turtle occurs in ponds, streams, and other wetland habitats in the Pacific slope drainages of California and northern Baja California, Mexico (Bury and Germano 2008). The central California population was historically present in most drainages on the Pacific slope (Jennings and Hayes 1994), but streambed alter ations and other sources of habitat destruction, exacerbated by frequent drought events, have caused substantial population declines throughout most of the species’ range (Stebbins 2003).

Ponds or slack-water pools with suitable basking sites (such as logs ) are an important habitat component for this species, and southwestern pond turtles do not occur commonly along high- gradient streams. Females lay eggs in upland habitats, in clay or silty soils in unshaded (often south-facing) areas up to 0.25 mile from aquatic habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Juveniles feed and grow in shallow aquatic habitats (often creeks) with emergent vegetation and ample invertebrate prey. Nesting habitat is typically found within 600 ft of aquatic habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994), but if no suitable nesting habitat can be found close by, adults may travel overland considerable distances to nest. Threats to the south western pond turtle include impacts to nesting habitat from agricultural and grazing activities, human development of habitat, and increased predation pressure from native and non-native predators as a result of human-induced landscape changes.

Although breeding populations of southwestern pond turtles have been extirpated from most agricultural and urbanized areas in the region, individuals of this long-lived species still occur in urban streams and ponds in the Santa Clara Valley. Nevertheless, southwestern pond turtles may occur in aquatic habitat along the Guadalupe River and in the detention pond, west of the river. The likelihood that pond turtles would occur within upland portions of the project sites is as follows:

• Although the perimeter of the detention pond is completely fenced, there are gaps – most specifically at the northwest corner of the area, wher e pond turtles, if they were to occur in the detention pond, could move through. However, we would not expect pond turtles from the detention pond to disperse to the west, towards the north project site, due to the lack of suitable upland nesting habitat as well as the presence of high volumes of traffic on Airport Boulevard. We would also not expect pond turtles to disperse to the north, from the detention pond into tree removal locations, located in the vegetated margin of Hwy 101, because of the lack of suitable upland nesting habitat and the presence of high volumes of traffic on Hwy 101, which serves as a barrier to dispersal (Figure 1). Therefore, we do not expect southwestern pond turtles to occur within the north project site or within tree removal locations north of the detention pond.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

14 H. T. Harvey & Associates

• Small numbers of southwestern pond turtles are expected to occur in the Guadalupe River and could potentially disperse from the river to wards the south project site area. We would expect pond turtles to primarily move along the corridor of the river and nest along the banks of the river. Nonetheless, we cannot rule out the possibility that individual pond turtles could potentially disperse into the south project site area on occasion, although they are expected to do so in extremely small numbers, if at all.

Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia ). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern (Nesting) . The yellow warbler is a widespread neotropical migrant that inhabits wet deciduous forests throughout North America (Lowther et al. 1999). In California, yellow warblers occupy wooded riparian habitats along the coast, on both eastern and western slopes of the Sierra Nevada, and throughout the northern portion of the state (Heath 2008). Their range has remained relatively stable over time, but populations have declined substantially in many localities due to habitat loss (Cain et al. 2003, Heath 2008) and expansion of the brood -parasitic brown-headed cowbird. As a result, nesting yellow warblers have been largely extirpated from the Santa Clara Valley (Heath 2008). However, small numbers of yellow warblers still nest in riparian habitats within Santa Clara County (Bousman 2007a). Ideal nesting habitat for yellow warblers consists of riparian corridors with dense, shrubby understory and open canopy (Lowther et al. 1999, Cain et al. 2003, Heath 2008). Yellow warblers nest from early May through early August and construct open cup nests in upright forks of shrubs or trees in dense willow thickets or other dense vegetation (Lowther et al. 1999).

Suitable nesting habitat for yellow warblers occurs in the riparian corridor along the Guadalupe River west of the south project site, and within the detention pond area, west of the Guadalupe River. If this species is present, one or two pairs could potentially nest in this habitat adjacent to the study area. In addition, y ellow warblers are an abundant migrant throughout the project area region, and the species could forage throughout the project area during the spring and fall.

San Francisco Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa ). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The San Francisco common yellowthroat inhabits emergent vegetation and nests in fresh and brackish marshes and moist floodplain vegetation around the San Francisco Bay. Common yellowthroats will use small and isolated patches of habitat as long as groundwater is close enough to the surface to encourage the establishment of dense stands of rushes, cattails, willows, and other emergent vegetation (Nur et al. 1997, Gardali and Evens 2008). Ideal habitat, however, is composed of extensive, thick riparian, marsh, or herbaceous floodplain vegetation in perpe tually moist areas, where populations of brown- headed cowbirds are low (Menges 1998). San Francisco common yellowthroats nest primarily in fresh and brackish marshes, although they nest in salt marsh habitats that support tall vegetation (Guzy and Ritchison 1999). This subspecies builds open-cup nests low in the vegetation, and nests from mid- March through late July (Guzy and Ritchison 1999, Gardali and Evens 2008). The San Francisco common yellowthroat is one of approximately 12 subspecies of common yellowthroat recognized in North America, two of which occur in the South Bay region. Because subspecies cannot be reliably distinguished in the field, determination of the presence of San Francisco common yellowthroat can be achieved only by locating birds D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

15 H. T. Harvey & Associates

that are actively nesting within the nesting range known for the subspecies. Common yellowthroats nesting in the study area are of the special-status sinuosa subspecies (San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory 2012).

Within the study area region, the greatest proportion of nesting records of San Francisco common yellowthroat occur within brackish and freshwater marshes near the edge of the Bay, and in early-successional riparian habitat in broader floodplains (Bousman 2007b). Nests are typically located in extensive stands of bulrushes in brackish marshes and dense cattail beds in freshwater marshes, but the species also nests in forbs in riparian habitats.

The herbaceous riparian habitat along the Guadalupe River and around the detention pond west of the south project site provides potential nesting and foraging habitat for this species. One or two pairs of common yellowthroats could potentially nest in these areas, and this species forages in this habitat year-round.

State Fully Protected Species
White-tailed K ite ( Elanus leucurus ). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Fully Protected. In California, white-tailed kites can be found in the Central Valley and along the coast in grasslands, agricultural fields, cismontane woodlands, and other open habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990, Dunk 1995, Erichsen et al. 1996). White-tailed kites are year-round residents of the state, establishing nesting territories that encompass open areas with healthy prey populations and snags, shrubs, trees, or other substrates for nesting (Dunk 1995).

Nonbreeding birds typically remain in the same area over the winter, although some movements do occur (Polite 1990). The presence of white-tailed kites is closely tied to the presence of prey species, particularly voles, and prey base may be the most important factor in determining habitat quality for white-tailed kites (Dunk and Cooper 1994, Skonieczny and Dunk 1997). Although the species recovered after population declines during the early 20th century, its populations may be exhibiting new declines because of recent increases in habitat loss and disturbance (Dunk 1995, Erichsen et al. 1996).

White-tailed kites are common residents in less -developed portions of the project area region where open grassland, ruderal, or agricultural habitats are present. Both project sites do not support large open areas used for foraging by the species . However, large trees immediately adjacent to the south project site along the Guadalupe River provide suitable sites for nesting by up to one pair of white-tailed kites. The open habitats found south of both the north and south project sites (e.g., ruderal grasslands and developed areas) provide foraging opportunities for this species.

Sensitive/Regulated Habitats
Measures to protect riparian corridors are provided in the City of San José’s Riparian Corridor Policy Study (City of San José 1999), which was incorporated into the City’s Envision San José 2040 General Plan (City of San José 2011); the Zoning Code (Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code); and the City Council-adopted Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, specifically Condition 11. The term riparian corridor as defined by the City means any defined stream channel, including the area up to the bank full-flow line, as well as all characteristic streamside vegetation in contiguous adjacent uplands.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

16 H. T. Harvey & Associates

In 2016, the City of San José released Council Policy 6-34 to provide guidance on the implementation of riparian corridor protection consistent with all City policies and requirements that provide for riparian protection.

Council Policy 6-34 defines any development or activity that is located within 300 ft of a riparian corridor’s top of bank or vegetative edge, whichever is greater (in the case of the south project site, it is the vegetative edge of the willow riparian habitat adjacent to the river), as a “Riparian Project”, which requires approval of a Development Permit as defined in Chapter 20.200 of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code. Further, Council Policy 6-34 indicates that riparian setbacks should be measured from the outside edges of riparian habitat or the top of bank, whichever is greater, and that development of new buildings and roads generally should be set back 100 feet from the riparian corridor. However, Council Policy 6 -34 also indicates that a reduced setback may be considered under limited circumstances, including the existence of legal uses within the minimum setback, and utility or equipment installations or replacements that involve no significant disturbance to the riparian corridor during construction and operation and that generate only incidental human activity.

No sensitive or regulated habitats (i.e., riparian, wetland or other waters of the U.S./State) occur on either project site footprint where they may be directly or indirectly impacted by billboard construction activiti es or operation. The nearest sensitive habitat to the north project site is the detention pond, which is located approximately 605 ft east of the north billboard. Thus, under definition of Council Policy 6-34, the north project site would not be considered a “Riparian Project”. However, sensitive aquatic and riparian habitats (i.e., the Guadalupe River and willow riparian forest edge on the levee slope east of the Guadalupe River Trail) are located approximately 175230 and 123117 ft, respectively, west of the south project site (as shown in Figure 2), which would be considered a “Riparian Project”, and thus, warrant consideration from the pe rspective of potential impacts from billboard construction and lighting . In addition, sensitive aq uatic and willow rip arian forest habitats occur within the detention pond area, which is located approximately 50 ft south of the vegetated margin of Hwy 101 where tree removal would occur (Figures 2 and A1).

The Guadalupe River aquatic and the edge of riparian habitats that abut the western side of the Guadalupe River trail are located approximately 175230 and 123175 ft west of the south project site, respectively. The edge of willow riparian habitat found on the levee slope east of the Guadalupe River Trail is located approximately 117 ft west of the south project site. The Guadalupe River would be considered waters of the U.S./State and thus would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and by the San Francisco Bay Regi onal Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

The riparian banks and the habitat they support west of the south project site, along the Guadalupe River, and on the levee slope, would be considered jurisdictional by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the RWQCB. Riparian habitat extends to the top of the levee slope on the west side of the Guadalupe River, and from the banks of the river up to the wes tern edge of the Guadalupe River Trail or to the edge of the dripline of any trees rooted below the top of the levee or the trail, and which extend further outboard than the top of the levee and trail. The nearest edge of contiguous riparian habitat is found on the

101
Airport Blvd
Ewart Rd
G
uadal
upe
River
Trail
GG
uuaaddaalluuppee
RRiivveerr
A i r p o r t E c o n o my 1
P a r k i n g L o t
S a n J o s e Wa t e r C o mp a n y P u mp S t a t i o n N o r t h P r o j e c t S i t e
S o u t h P r o j e c t S i t e
DetentionDetention
PondPond
Figure 2. Location of Willow Riparian Forest and
Aquatic Habitats Near Proposed Project Sites
S e p t e mb e r 2 0 2 1
N:\Projects4400\4458-01\Reports\Bio Impact Assmnt\Fig 2 Location of Sensitive Regulated Habitats Near Proposed Project Sites.mxd S a n J o s e A i r p o r t C l e a r C h a n n e l B i l l b o a r d s P r o j e c t  B i o l o g i c a l I mp a c t s A s s e s s me n t ( 4 4 5 8 - 0 1 ) Legend
1 0 0 - f t R i p a r i a n S e t b a c k Habitats
A q u a t i c
Wi l l o w R i p a r i a n F o r e s t Wi l l o w R i p a r i a n / A q u a t i c Proposed Billboard Locations
N o r t h P r o j e c t S i t e
S o u t h P r o j e c t S i t e
150 0 15075
Feet
D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

18 H. T. Harvey & Associates

levee slope, located approximately 123117 ft west of the south project site. The upper/landward edge of this riparian vegetation coincides with the top of bank along the east side of the river, south of U.S. 101. ; tTherefore, both the riparian habitat edge and the top of bank serve as the baseline for the 100-ft riparian setback; the south project site is outside of the 100 ft riparian corridor setback limit as shown on Figure 2, and is thus in compliance with Council Policy 6-34, as described above.

The riparian habitat that is found west of the south project site is best descr ibed as a willow riparian forest (Populus fremontii –Salix [ laevigata, lasiolepis, lucida ssp. lasiandra]) Alliance. This alliance is ranked as G4/S3, meaning there are greater than 100 viable occurrences worldwide and/or more than 12,950 hectares, and there are 21 –100 viable occurrences statewide and/or more than 2,590 –12,950 hectares. As a G4 alliance, the vegetation is considered “secure, but factors and threats exist to cause some concern.” Thus the willow riparian forest adjacent to the south project site qualifies as a sensitive vegetation alliance (CDFW 2020).

Biological Impacts Assessment
Potential project impacts on biological resources were evaluated from three different perspectives:
• the direct and indirect effects of the installation of the LED billboards on biological resources (e.g., habitat impacts or disturbance during construction);
• the indirect effects of illuminance from the LED billboards (i.e., the amount of light from the billboard that lands on a certain area) on sensitive habitats and/or species in adjacent areas; and • the potential effects of the LED billboard’s luminance (i.e., the amount of light leaving the billboard’s surface in a particular direction, or brightness of the digital billboard’s surface as seen by the eye) on the behavior of fish in the Guadalupe River and birds flying in the site vicinity.

In each case, the standards against which we measured the significance of potential impacts were the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance criteria.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Billboard Construction
All activity associated with the construction of both new LED billboard locations at the proposed north and south project sites is to take place within the areas shown on Figure 1. The limits of ground disturbance at the north project site (2341 Airport Boulevard) will be 50.3 square ft of asphalt, and the limits of ground disturbance at the south project site (2200 Airport Boulevard) will be 28.3 square ft of ruderal grassland habitat. No sensitive or regulated habitats are present or would be impacted by the construction of billboards within the construction footprint (as described above) at either project site.

Impacts on Trees (Less than Significant)
The City of San José promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the city by regulating the planting, removal, and maintenance of trees in the city. The city provides tree protection under the Municipal Code Section 13.28 (street trees, hedges, and shrubs), 13.32 (tree removal controls), and 13.44.220 (damaging park property). The D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

19 H. T. Harvey & Associates

Municipal Code details permit requirements for tree related work, including removal, pruning, and planting.

Removal of trees within the street right-of-way are subject to tree removal permitting by the City of San José.

Street trees are located in the public right -of-way between the curb and the sidewalk. Pruning or removal of street trees is illegal without a permit issued by the City. Replacement trees are required for the removal of ordinance-size street trees. A single trunk tree qualifies as an ordinance- size tree if it measures 38 inches or more in circumference at 4.5 ft above ground. A multi- trunk tree qualifies as ordinance -size if the combined measurement of each trunk circumference (at 4.5 f t above ground) adds up to 38 inches or more. As part of the permit application it is required to contact the planning division with regard to the replacement of ordinance-size trees.

Removal of trees on private property, commercial, and industrial proper ties are also subject to tree removal permitting by the City of San José. A permit is required to remove a tree of “any size” from a commercial and industrial property. A separate “permit adjustment application” is required to be filed for non-ordinance-sized trees that will be removed from commercial and industrial property. As part of the permit application it is required to contact the City’s planning division with regard to the replacement of trees on private, commercial and industrial properties.

Forty-three trees (27 of which are of ordinance size) have been scheduled for removal, as part of the overall scope of the project. They are all located outside of the north and south project site footprints where billboards are to be constructed , and will be removed to open views of the billboards from traffic on Hwy 101 . As described in the attached Tree Survey Report in Appendix A, the tree survey areas occur primarily in the vegetated margins adjacent to Hwy 101, and consist primarily of highly developed/or namental woodland habitat types.

This area is densely vegetated with Brazilian pepper trees, including hundreds of smaller saplings with a circumference of 6 inches or less. Due to the high density of Brazilian pepper trees, the canopy is closed, shading out the understory. The understory is dominated by leaf litter, with occasional ruderal grass species.

The area of the tree to be removed approximately 116 ft west of the north project site, is entirely developed with the exception of a small, landscaped patch of grass, where the tree stands. There are no other plant species associated with this area. The area directly east of the south project site, where two trees to be removed are located, is dominated by holm oaks, Chinese pistache, and other nonnative, ornamental tree species. Similar to the vegetated margins adjacent to Hwy 101, the understory is relatively bare, containing primarily leaf litter, tree saplings and ruderal grass species. All trees to be removed, with the exception of one (a raywood ash [Fraxinus oxycarpa]), are non -native species, which provide little ecological value , and no important plant or wildlife habitat. The ecological value of these trees is further reduced by their very close proximity to the noise and vehicular activity associated with Hwy 101. For these reasons, ecological impacts of tree removal will be less than significant.

The project will comply with the City of San José tree removal requirements, as described above. As a result, impacts on ordinance-sized trees will also be less than significant from the perspective of compliance with local regulations.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

20 H. T. Harvey & Associates

Impacts on Special-Status Plant Species (No Impact)
As described above, no special-status plant species are expected to occur within or immediately adjacent to any portion of either project site or tree removal locations . Therefore, there will be no impacts on special-status species plants.

Impacts on Upland Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Wildlife Species ( Less than Significant)
The proposed billboard construction activities will alter and/or remove 28.3 square ft of existing ruderal vegetation within the south project site. It is expected that understory ruderal grass species and non-native tree saplings will be altered and/or removed in tree removal locations. Both the developed/landscaped and ruderal grassland habitats are relatively abundant and widespread regionally, and are not particularly sensitive or valuable, from the perspective of providing important plant or wildlife habitat. Therefore, impacts on these habitats would not be considered significant under CEQA.

As discussed previously, both project sites and tree removal locations support a number of common wildlife species, although due to their largely developed and/or ruderal nature, these specific locations provide relatively low-quality habitat for most species, as opposed to the nearby attractive riparian and aquatic habitats, and thus support relatively small numbers of individuals of any one species. The common wildlife species that occur in upland habitats found in the south project site area are regionally abundant, are present in widely available habitats in the region, and will continue to be present in some portions of the south project site following billboard construction. Additionally, tree removal and the billboard construction would impact only a small proportion of their regional populations, and the number of individuals likely to be displaced by habitat disturbance and loss would be quite small with respect to the amount of suitable habi tat available in the area.

Thus, impacts on common wildlife species, such as those described under the Existing Site Conditions section above, and their habitats resulting from the removal of trees and construction of billboards at both project sites would not meet the threshold of having a substantial adverse effect, and would not be considered significant under CEQA.

Impacts on Nesting Birds (Less than Significant)
All native bird species, including special-status species that occur within both project sites are protected from take by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code. The federal MBTA, 16 U.S.C. Section 703, prohibits killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA protects whole birds, parts of birds, and bird eggs and nests, and it prohibits the possession of all nests of protected bird species whether they are active or inactive. An active nest is defined as having eggs or young, as described by the USFWS in its June 14, 2018 memorandum “Destruction and Relocation of Migratory Bird Nest Contents”. Nest starts (nests that are under construction and do not yet contain eggs) and inactive nests are not protected from destruction. In its June 14, 2018 memorandum, the USFWS clarified that the destruction of an active nest “while conducting any activity where the intent of the action is not to kill migratory birds or destroy their nests or contents” is not D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

21 H. T. Harvey & Associates

prohibited by the MBTA. However, direct destruction of an active nest would violate the California Fish and Game Code, and abandonment of an active nest because of project construction activities could be considered take under the Fish and Game Code. A small number of regionally common, mostly urban-adapted bird species could potentially nest in tree removal locations, or close enough to billboard construction areas where they may be potentially disturbed by construction activities.. As a result, impacts to small numbers of these species’ nests would not result in regional declines in their populations. For this reason, impacts to nesting birds during tree removal and billboard installation activities would not meet the CEQA threshold of a substantial adverse effect, and we consider impacts to nesting birds less than significant. However, to comply with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, we recommend that tree removal and the construction of both billboards take place during the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January 31) if feasible. If construction and tree removal activities during the nonbreeding season is not feasible, preconstruction surveys should be conducted to determine whether nests of protected birds are present in areas where they may be disturbed, and a biologist should determine the buffer around each nest necessary to avoid nest abandonment during tree removal and billboard construction.

Impacts on Riparian/Aquatic Habitats, Water Quality and Special-Status Fish (Less than Significant) Although sensitive habitats, in the form of willow riparian forest and waters of the U.S./State (i.e., Guadalupe River and detention pond), are present west of the south project site (Figure 2), those habitats would not be impacted directly or indirectly by billboard construction, which would stay entirely out of those habitats .

Ground disturbance associated with the billboard construction at the south project site would take place over 175230 ft east of the Guadalupe River ’s aquatic habitat and 123117 ft east of its a ssociated riparian habitat, which would be in compliance with setback distances of 100 ft per Council Policy 6-34. The project would not impact these habitats, given the distancedistances (i.e., 175230 and 123117 ft) that separatesseparate the project site from the riparian habitat and river below. In addition, n o direct or indirect effects from billboard construction on the south project site would impact the Central California Coast steelhead and Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon in the Guadalupe River given the lack of any aquatic habitat, the very small footprint of work, and the distance (i.e., 175230 ft) of ground disturbance activities from the river. Therefore, billboard construction activities at either project site would not result in any adverse direct or indirect impacts to water quality, riparian habitats, and special-status fish species and would therefore be considered less than significant under CEQA.

Tree removal activities within the vegetated margin along Hwy 101 could pot entially affect aquatic habitats indirectly, through the degradation of water quality of the detention pond located approximately 50 ft south of the tree removal area, by unregulated discharge of contaminants, sediments, or debris during tree removal activities. However, implementation of the following proposed minimization measures (which are incorporated into the project) will reduce the potential for and magnitude of tree removal impacts on aquatic habitats of the detention pond and the special -status species (i.e., southwestern pond turtle) they could support . Therefore, impacts on riparian/aquatic habitats and the species they support will be less than significant under CEQA.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

22 H. T. Harvey & Associates

Applicant-Proposed Minimization Measures
Applicant-Proposed Measure 1A. Erosion and Sedimentation Control. During tree removal activities, contractors will employ standard construction best management practices (BMPs) to control and minimize runoff of all contaminants, sediments, or debris . Construction BMPs during work may include but are not limited to the following:
• No litter, debris, or sediment shall be dumped into storm drains. Daily trash and debris removal shall occur at the site.
• Vehicles and equipment may only be driven within established roads and crossings. Routes and boundaries will be clearly marked and will be located outside of driplines of willow riparian habitat that surrounds the detention pond.
• Equipment staging and parking of vehicles shall occur on established access roads and flat surfaces (i.e., shoulder of Hwy 101).
• No heavy equipment shall operate in any portion of the willow riparian habitat surrounding the detention pond.
• The integrity and effectiveness of construction fencing and erosion control measures shall be inspected on a daily basis. Corrective actions and repairs shall be carried out immediately for fence breaches and ineffective BMPs.
• Fueling and maintenance of all equipment will be conducted away from the willow riparian habitat and detention pond. Equipment shall be regularly maintained to avoid fluid leaks. Any leaks will be captured in containers until equipment is moved to a repair location. Hazardous materi als will be stored only within developed habitat areas. Containment and cleanup plans will be prepared and put in place for immediate cleanup of fluid or hazardous materials spills. • At no time shall sediment-laden water be allowed to enter the detention pond. • All litter and removed tree debris will be disposed of off -site in accordance with state and local regulations. All trash and debris within the work area will be placed in containers with secure lids before the end of work each day in order to reduce the likelihood of predators being attracted to the site by discarded food wrappers and other rubbish that may be left on-site. If containers meeting these criteria are not available, all rubbish will be removed from the project site at the end of each work day. • Absorbent materials designated for spill containment and clean-up activities shall be available on site for use in an accidental spill.

Impacts on the Southwestern Pond Turtle (Less than Significant) Southwestern pond turtles may occasionally disperse into the south project site area on occasion, although they are expected to do so in frequently. At most, we would not expect more than one individual to be present in the project area when construction occurs, and even that is highly unlikely given that this species spends most of its life in aquatic habitats. Neither the billboard project sites nor the tree removal locations provide important or extensive habitat that is used regularly or by large numbers of southwestern pond turtles, and is not relied upon by breeding individuals of this species. The tree removal locations east of the south project site and in the vegetated margin a long Hwy 101, north of the detention pond, are both heavily shaded by the abundant D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

23 H. T. Harvey & Associates

overstory of mature trees and saplings, and do not provide suitable terrestrial nesting habitat for the species.

We do not expect pond turtles to disperse from the aquatic h abitats of the detention pond, where they may occur, to the north and into the tree removal area, given that the area is unsuitable nesting habitat and Hwy 101 serves as a barrier to the dispersal of this species. If pond turtles were to disperse to the north, they are most likely to do so via the Guadalupe River underpass. However, southwestern pond turtles may occur within the aquatic habitats of the detention pond , and could be indirectly impacted, through the degradation of water quality from debris runoff from tree removal activities in the vegetated margin located approximately 50 ft north of the detention pond.

Although the construction of billboards on both project sites and tree removal activities would not result in impacts to any habitat that is useful to southwestern pond turtles as nesting, foraging, or dispersal habitat, project activities could potentially result in the injury or mortality of individual pond turtles due to worker foot traffic, equipment use, or vehicle traffic, in particular in the south project site vicinity. Petrochemicals, hydraulic fluids, and solvents that are spilled or leaked from construction vehicles or equipment may kill individuals.

Additionally, increases in human presence and activity in the vicinity of marginally suitable habitat in the south project site vicinity during construction may result in an increase in native and non-native predators that would be attracted to trash left at the work site. For example, raccoons, American crows ( Corvus brachyrhynchos), and common ravens ( Corvus corax) are attracted to trash and may prey opportunistically on southwestern pond turtles.

The above potential impacts notwithstanding, due to the small number of pond turtles that occur along the Guadalupe River, and the very low potential for any individuals to disperse into the south project site area or the nearby tree removal locations , we do not expect south western pond turtles to be impacted by billboard construction activities. Further, given that we do not expect pond turtles to disperse from aquatic habitat s found in the detention pond into tree removal locations, located approximately 50 ft north, we do not expect southwestern pond turtles to be directly impacted by tree removal activities; and by implementing the proposed minimization measures as described above in the Impacts on Riparian/Aquatic Habitats, Water Quality and Special- Status Fish section, indirect impacts from tree removal activities on the southwestern pond turtle would be considered less than significant.

Impacts on Breeding Special-Status Birds (Less than Significant) The yellow warbler and San Francisco common yellowthroat (California species of special concern) could potentially nest west of the south project site , as well as south and east of the tree removal location in the vegetated margin along Hwy 101, in the willow riparian habitat surrounding the detention pond. The yellow warbler may nest in riparian trees along the Guadalupe River, and the San Francisco common yellowthroat may nest in herbaceous riparian vegetation along the Guada lupe River or around the detention pond . The white- tailed kite (a state fully protected species) may nest in the taller trees found in the riparian area along the Guadalupe River, west of the south project site. These three species are assessed together because the potential impacts of the proposed billboard construction projects and the tree removal activities on these species would be similar.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

24 H. T. Harvey & Associates

Billboard construction and tree removal activities that occur during the nesting season could potentially cause an increase in noise or human activity near active nests . This could result in the abandonment of active nests (i.e., nests with eggs or young). In addition, heavy ground disturbance, noise, and vibrations caused by project activities could potentially disturb nesting and foraging individuals and cause them to move away from work areas.

No more than 1-2 pairs of both the yellow warbler and San Francisco common yellowthroat could potentially nest west of the south project site, as well as south and east of the tree removal location in the vegetated margin along Hwy 101. The billboard construction and tree removal would not result in the loss of suitable nesting or foraging habitat for either species , as no activities are proposed within the bed and banks of the Guadalupe River, or within the willow riparian habitat surrounding the detention pond . No more than one pair of the white-tailed kite could potentially nest in the taller trees found along the riparian corridor of the Guadalupe River, located west of the south project site. However, billboard construction and tree removal activities would not result in the loss of suitable nesting habitat for this species.

Because the number of nesting pairs that could be disturbed is very small (i.e., 1–2 pairs of each species), the impacts of billboard construction and tree removal activities would represent a very small fraction of the regional population of these species. Therefore, neither the potential loss of individual yellow warblers and common yellowthroats nor the disturbance of nesting and foraging habitat would rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and these impacts would thus not constitute a significant impact on these species or their habitat under CEQA.

However, in order to comply with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, we recommend that construction of both billboards and tree removal take place during the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January 31) if feasible. If construction or tree removal during the nonbreeding season is not feasible, preconstruction surveys should be conducted to determine whether nests of the yellow warbler, San Francisco common yellowthroat, and white-tailed kite are present in areas where they may be disturbed, and a biologist should determine the buffer around each nest necessary to avoid nest abandonment during project activities.

Indirect Effects of Illuminance of Adjacent Areas (Less than Significant) The intensity, spectral quality (i.e., the distribution of blue, green, red, and other portions of the light spectrum emitted by a light source), duration, and periodicity of exposure to light affect the biochemistry, physiology, and behavior of organisms (The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 2009). Many animals are extremely sensitive to light cues, having evolved behavioral and/or physiological responses to natural variations in light levels resulting from the day–night cycle, the cycle of the moon, and the seasonal light cycle. Responses can affect processes as diverse as growth, metabolism, patterns of movement (e.g. migration), feeding, breeding behavior, molting, and hibernation (Ringer 1972, de Molenaar et al. 2006). This holds true for birds (Longcore and Rich 2004, Miller 2006, de Molenaar et al. 2006, Da Silva et al. 2015), mammals (Beier 2006, De Molenaar et al. 2003 as cited in Longcore et al. 2016, Voigt et al. 2017), and other taxa as well, suggesting that increases D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

25 H. T. Harvey & Associates

in ambient light may interfere with these processes across a wide range of species, resulting in impacts on wildlife populations.

Artificial lighting may also indirectly affect birds and mammals. For example, artificial lighting has been shown to increase the nocturnal activity of predators like owls, hawks, and mammalian predators (Negro et al 2000, Longcore and Rich 2004, DeCandido and Allen 2006, Beier 2006). In addition, it has been found to affect the composition of the invertebrate community present in the area (Davies et al. 2012), and some bat species have been found to congregate around artificial light source s because of the high numbers of flying insects they attract (Frank 1988, Eisenbeis 2006). The presence of artificial light may also influence habitat use by rodents (Beier 2006), and by breeding birds (Rogers et al. 2006, de Molenaar et al. 2006), by causing avoidance of well- lit areas, resulting in a net loss of habitat availability and quality.

Artificial lighting may also indirectly affect fish species that are present in the Guadalupe River, in a variety of ways. For example, an increase in illuminance at night can alter the nighttime activities of predators and prey, such as disturbing the seasonal and diel light cycles of freshwater invertebrates that fish feed on in riverine systems, by disrupting their nocturnal drift periods, which is timed with lower predation risk periods (Flecker 1992, Miyasaka and Nakano 2001, Hernandez and Peckarsky 2014). This can reduce the nocturnal drift activity by freshwater invertebrates and potentially reduce the availability of prey for foraging fish species in the river.

In addition, an increase in nighttime illuminance can disrupt the temporal and spatial movement patterns of young (fry) fish that typically disperse and migrate at night to decrease their risk of predation (Scheuerell and Schindler 2003, Stich et al. 2015, Zapata et al 2019). Numerous studies have shown that an increase in nighttime illuminance on bodies of water can inhibit foraging activity, increase predation risk on fish, as well as significantly change the composition of fish communities that occur across a day-night period (Riley et al. 2013, Zapata et al. 2014).

Although the literature has shown how an increase in artificial lighting may indirectly affect birds, mammals, fish, and nesting sea turtles, little is known about potential effects of artificial lighting on many species of amphibians and reptiles, including freshwater turtles (Perry et al. 2008). Southwestern pond turtles most likely exhibit physiological and behavioral responses in the presence of novel artificial light sources. However, few studies have revealed any conclusive data on what the impacts may be from artificial lighting in urban environments on adjacent habitats where freshwater turtles may occur (Perry et al 2008). To our knowledge, no specific studies have been conducted that have attempted to elucidate pond turtle responses to an increase in artificial lighting conditions in their natural aquatic habitats. Southwestern pond turtles are primarily active during the day, spending the majority of their time basking on haul -out structures, such as patches of floating vegetation and logs near the edges or in the middle of their aquatic habitats, where they can quickly escape if threatened (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Some crepuscular and nocturnal movements have been observed by the species, but pond turtles typically take refuge at the bottom of aquatic habitats, burying themselves in muddy bottoms or dense vegetation during the night, and thus, in our opinion, would not be significantly affected by an increase in artificial light conditions.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

26 H. T. Harvey & Associates

Based upon observations from my project site visit on November 4, 2020, light from currently existing sources illuminates areas adjacent to both project sites to some extent. Thus, our assessment of the impact of illuminance of adjacent areas, most specifically the Guadalupe River, its associated riparian habitat, and the detention pond by the proposed LED billboards took into account the existing conditions as well as any expected changes in illuminance that would result from the construction of the LED billboards. Numerous down-facing street lights are located along Airport Boulevard, Ewarts Road, and Hwy 101. The airport’s Economy Parking Lot A, located east of the south project site also has numerous downward-facing parking lot lights. Surrounding the north project site to the south and west are downward-facing parking lot light fixtures, as well as smaller outdoor light s on buildings and other structures. All these lights currently illuminate the habitats around them.

North Project Site
Neither side of the north project site’s LED billboard will increase illuminance in any sensitive habitats (Figure 3). An evaluation of the proposed billboard’s illuminance was provided by lighting specialist Zeiger Engineers, Inc. (2020) based on information provided by Clear Channel Outdoor, and the billboard manufacturer, MRI.

Zeiger’s evaluation determined that illuminance from the north project site’s west and east -facing billboards will have a maximum illuminance value of 0. 219 foot candles (fc) over ambient light conditions when viewed from the center of the viewing angle at 350 ft, as illustrated in Figure 3 ; for reference, a 100 watt light bulb produces 137 fc at 1 ft away, approximately 0.05 fc at 50 ft and 0.01 fc at 100 ft (Watchfire Signs 2017) . This maximum illuminance is within the operational parameters as set forth by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the City of San José Municipal Code regulations, and Council Policy 6-4, that states in part, that signs shall utilize automatic dimming technology to adjust the brightness of the sign relative to ambient light so that at no time shall a sign exceed a brightness level of 0.3 fc above ambient light. The nearest sensitive habitat to the north project site is the detention pond, which is located approximately 605 ft. Because illuminance declines with increasing distance, that habitat is far enough away that the east-facing billboard from the north project site would have no substantive effect on this sensitive habitat or the species using it.

South Project Site
The east-facing side of the south project site’s LED billboard will have a maximum illuminance value of 0.219 fc over ambient light conditions when viewed from the center of the viewing angle at 350 ft (Zeiger Engineers, Inc. 2020). No sensitive habitats are present east of the south project site, and therefore the east-facing side of the billboard would have no effect on any sensitive habitats (Figure 3). However, the west -facing side of the south billboard will face the Guadalupe River and its sensitive habitats and species. These sensitive habitats include the riparian bank assoc iated with the river, and the riparian habitat on the levee wall, whose furthest eastern edge is located approximately 123117 ft from the south billboard; the river itself is located approximately 175230 ft from the south billboard project site. Due to the ecological importance of the riparian and aquatic habitats of the Guadalupe River and the fish and wildlife communities they support, substantial increases in illuminance of the Guadalupe River and its associated riparian, and aquatic habitats could result in a potentially significant impact under CEQA by disrupting the natural behaviors of the species using the aquatic and riparian habitats along the river. Although there is agreement throughout the literature that increases in illuminance can

101
AirportBlvd
GG
uuaaddaalluuppee
RRiivveerr
A i r p o r t E c o n o my 1
P a r k i n g L o t
S a n J o s e Wa t e r C o mp a n y P u mp S t a t i o n 350'
350'
117'
117'
80°60°
40°
20°
0°
80°
60°
40°
20°
80°
60°
40°
20°
0°
80°
60°
40°
20°
350'
350'
117' 117'
80°
40°
20°
0°
80°
60°
40°
20°
80°
60°
40°
20°
0°
80°
60°
40°
20°
60°

0.219 fc

0.1 fc

0.219 fc

0.219 fc
G
uadalupe
RiverTrail
DetentionDetention
PondPond

0.0125 fc
Figure 3. Proposed Billboard Area of Illumination
S e p t e mb e r 2 0 2 1
N:\Projects4400\4458-01\Reports\Bio Impact Assmnt\Fig 3 Area of Illumination.mxd S a n J o s e A i r p o r t C le a r C h a n n e l B i llb o a r d s P r o j e c t  B i o lo g i c a l I mp a c t s A s s e s s me n t ( 4 4 5 8 - 0 1 ) Legend
Proposed Billboard Locations
N o r t h P r o j e c t S i t e
S o u t h P r o j e c t S i t e
Habitats
Aquatic
Willow Riparian Forest
Willow Riparian/Aquatic
200 0 200100
Feet
D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

28 H. T. Harvey & Associates

affect wildlife behavior, as described above, there is no quantitative level of illuminance increase (above ambient light) that is agreed upon as a threshold for significant impacts to animals. Our assessment of the pote ntial indirect effects of an increase in illumination from the new billboards is based upon our observations of ambient light conditions during the pre-dawn hours in the project study area, and our own experience observing wildlife, specifically birds, under existing and increased levels of illuminance for a billboard project near the edge of McNabney Marsh in Martinez, California (HTH 2018). During that project, we monitored the response of birds using the marsh to an increase in ambient light conditions. Pre- and post-illumination readings were taken at two separate monitoring stations by turning the billboard lighting on and off as necessary . Pre-illumination readings were 0.0 fc, with the exception of one area where 0.04 fc was recorded , and was likely d ue to the presence of a California Department of Transportation message board located nearby to the marsh. Although an increase of 0.02 fc was recorded from the illumination of the billboard, spilling over the marsh, we observed no behavioral change by birds using the marsh. In addition, we have consulted with other applicants and lighting engineers on other billboard lighting assessments and have reached a conclusion that increases in illuminance up to 0.1 fc would not be harmful to wildlife . For reference, a 100 watt light bulb produces 0.01 fc at 100 ft (Watchfire Signs 2017).

Thus, it is our professional opinion that increases in illuminance up to 0.1 fc would not result in substantial adverse effects on the species inhabiting the sensitiv e habitats on the project site, as the species using these habitats (including small numbers of special- status birds) are already habituated to the existing artificial illuminance from a variety of urban and natural light sources that are found along Hwy 101, Airport Boulevard, Ewart Road, and the parking lot areas. However, in our professional opinion, increases in illuminance of these sensitive habitats of more than 0.1 fc are potentially significant , as such increases could be great enough to affect the behavior of animals using these habitats and/or their willingness to continue to use these habitats .

Therefore, the south project site is being specifically planned so that the west-facing billboard (which is directed towards the Guadalupe River) on the south project site will use a static LED backlighted display with dimming controls to limit light spill-over towards the Guadalupe River and associated riparian habitat. The west-facing billboard on the south project site will be operated so that the maximum increase in illuminance (vs. ambient conditions) at approximately 123117 ft (i.e., the distance between the south project site’s west-facing billboard and the furthestnearest edge of the riparian habitat of the Guadalupe River) will not exceed 0.1 fc as shown on Figure 3, given the dimming controls being used on the west-facing billboard, as described above.

Other sensitive aquatic and riparian habitats are present west of the Guadalupe River, around the detention pond, located approximately 50 ft south of the vegetated margin of Hwy 101. However, these habitats are located 350 ft west of the west-facing billboard on the south project site. Illuminance would dissipate with an increase in distance from the west-facing billboard, so that at 350 ft, we do not expect any measurable increase in illuminance above existing ambient light conditions from the west-facing billboard on the sensitive habitats found in the detention pond area.

All proposed billboards will have built -in programmable controllers, allowing both time of day and intensity programming. The digital LED display billboard illuminance at the north project site, and the east- facing D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

29 H. T. Harvey & Associates

billboard at the south project site, will be measured with a handheld photometer held 5 ft above ground level at a distance of 350 ft. Illuminance readings of the west -facing billboard (i.e., static LED backlighted display) at the south project site will be made with a handheld photometer held approximately 3 ft above ground level, at locations along the embankment of the Guadalupe River and at the elevation of the river’s surface. Although we expect illuminance levels to dissipate to negligible levels at 350 ft (0.0125fc), at the edge of the detention pond, illuminance readings of the west-facing billboard will be taken from this position as well. The field test of sign brightness (i.e., illuminance) is done in practice not with a “white” color, but with the programmed advertising. Should brightness levels be found above a particular maximum (i.e., 0.1 fc at the banks /edge of riparian habitat along the Guadalupe River, or 0.3 fc elsewhere) over ambient light levels, then technicians will make the necessary field adjustments.

All billboards will be angled in such a way as to maximize the amount of visibility from specific portions of Hwy 101, so the area of brightest night illuminance projected by the proposed billboard s will be directed at oncoming traffic (Figures 3 and 4). As the view angle from the north project site billboards and the east-facing billboard of the south project site moves in 20° increments to either side, the illuminance from the billboard decreases (the dark shaded radii segments in Figure 3 ), due to th e horizontal light mitigation technology, SITELINE®, that is employed in the LED digital display, according to the information provided by the billboard manufacturer, MRI. The west-facing billboard of the south project site does not incorporate the same light mitigation technology as the other three billboards. However, the backlit design and dimming controls of this billboard will effectively limit light spill-over to 0.1 fc at the edge of the riparian habitat located on the levee slope, east of the Guadalupe River Trail. Further, this billboard will be covered by translucent vinyl to ensure that no illumination occurs above or below the face of the billboard (Clear Channel 2021).

Thus, illuminance from both the west and east- facing billboards at the north project site, and the east -facing billboard at the south project site, will have no impacts on any sensitive habitats or the species they support, including any special-status bird species. In addition, by using a static LED backlighted display for the we st- facing billboard at the south project site, which will be held at a maximum illuminance value of no more than

0.1 fc above ambient light conditions, from sunset to sunrise, through the use of built -in programmable controllers and field-testing, the indirect impacts of illuminance on the Guadalupe River, the detention pond, their associated riparian habitats, and the sensitive species they support will be less than significant.

Potential Effects of LED Billboard’s Luminance on Avian Flight Behavior (Less than Significant)
Migrating Birds. The primary way in which the luminance of an LED billboard might affect the movements of birds in the project area is through the disorientation of nocturnally migrating birds. Hundreds of bird species migrate nocturnally in order to avoid diurnal predators and to minimize energy expenditures. Evidence that migrating birds are attracted to artificial light sources is abundant in the literature as early as the late 1800s (Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). Although the mechanism causing the attraction is unknown, the attraction is well documented (Longcore and Rich 2004, Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). Migrating birds may alter their orientation upon sighting an artificial light source, such as a billboard, and become drawn toward it . Once a D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

30 H. T. Harvey & Associates

bird is within a lighted zone at night (i.e., the hours between sunset and sunrise), it may become “trapped” and not leave the lighted area (Herbert 1970, Longcore and Rich 2004). The disorienting effects of artificial lights directly affect migratory birds by causing collisions with light structures, buildings, communication and power structures, or even the ground (Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). Indirect effects might include orientation mistakes and increased length of migration due to light- driven detours. Migrating birds are much more likely to be impacted by a billboard’s luminance during foggy or rainy weather, when visibility is poor (Longcore and Rich 2004, Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). Research also suggests that the color of the light may play a significant role in determining whether birds become disoriented. Birds are able to orient to the Earth’s magnetic field under monochromatic blue or green light, but apparently cannot do so under red or white light (van de Laar 2007, Poot et al. 2008, Longcore and DelBusso 2016).

Local Birds. We consider the riparian habitat along the reach of the Guadalupe River found west of the south project site to be of moderately high quality for birds. The mature trees and presence of dense understory vegetation in some areas contribute positively to the value of this habitat for birds. However, this riparian habitat is also somewhat fragmented due to the surrounding high-density urban development and the presence of bridges, road crossings, trails, and channelization along nearby portions of the river, and therefore lacks connectivity to higher-quality riparian habitats in the region. In addition, the proximity of this riparian habitat to existing roads and, bridges, and trails reduces its quality and the abundance of birds using it.

Songbirds that migrate along the Pacific Flyway and travel through the south project site vicinity are expected to be attracted to this reach of the Guadalupe River, but we would not expect a large number or diversity o f passerine birds. Nonetheless, some common, urban-adapted, local species are expected to occur in the project vicinity, as described above , and small numbers of special -status species, such as the yellow warbler, San Francisco common yellowthroat, and whi te-tailed kite, may occur here as well . Passerine birds have been documented responding to increased illumination in their habitats with nocturnal foraging and territorial defense behaviors (Longcore and Rich 2004, Miller 2006, de Molenaar et al 2006), but absent significant illumination, they typically do not forage at night, leaving them less susceptible to the attraction and disorientation caused by luminance when they are not migrating.

Effects of LED Billboards on Flight Behavior. The visibility of the proposed LED billboards to birds in flight, and thus the risk they pose to flying birds, including special-status species, depends primarily on the beam angles of the sign relative to the flight lines of birds and on the luminance (brightness) of the sign as perceived by the birds. The projected vertical viewing angle of the proposed LED billboards at the north project site and the east-facing billboard at the south project site loses luminance (and visibility) above 18°, which suggests that coupled with a horizontal viewing angle of ±40° the viewing angle of the sign will be narrow enough to preclude attracting migrating birds on clear nights, when they fly high enough to be outside the viewing angle of the sign.

The proposed LED billboards at the north p roject site and the east -facing billboard at the south project site are designed with horizontal shading louvers (i.e., narrow matt black horizontal shields over and under the arrays) that reduce the available upward view angle, shading the LED lights which assists in preventing light D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

31 H. T. Harvey & Associates

from projecting upward into the sky. As a result, birds flying more than 18° above the center of the sign’s beam angle (i.e., east and west) will not be able to see light from the sign at all.

The proposed billboards at the north project site and the east -facing billboard at the south project site could produce a peak value of approximately 2 56 candelas3 (cd)/ft2 of luminance in the center of the beam angle (using a maximum of 0.3 fc) at 350 ft, and a peak value of approximately 27 cd/ft2 of luminance in the center of the beam angle (using a maximum of 0.1 fc) at 123117 ft from the static LED backlighted display of the west-facing billboard at the south project site (LSI 2006 , Zeiger Engineers, Inc. 2020 ). However, the LED billboards will utilize automatic dimming technology to adjust the brightness of the sign relative to ambient light, as described in Indirect Effects of Illuminance of Adjacent Areas above. Thus, the proposed billboards could produce peak values of approximately 27 and 256 cd/ft2 at 123117 and 350 ft, respectively. For comparison, a full moon at its brightest point produces approximately 232 cd/ft 2 (LRC 2006). The peak luminosity for an LED billboard cited above assumes that the display on the billboard is solid white. In practice, the display on the planned LED billboards will contain a variety of colors, which will substantially reduce the amount of luminance produced and reduce the potential for the light to disorient birds, including special-status species.

Additionally, all proposed LED billboards will: 1) use LED optics with asymmetrical downward beams, rather than conventional symmetrical vertical beams, which will reduce unwanted upward light; 2) not display animated messages, including flashing, blinking, fading, rolling, shading, dissolving, or any other effect that gives the appearance of movement; 3 ) no sign message will be displayed for a period of time less than eight seconds; 4) transitions from one message to another message will appear instantaneous as p erceived by the human eye; and 5) the signs will contain a default mechanism that will cause the sign to revert immediately to a black screen if the s ign malfunctions. Colors and patterns of color on the billboards will thus be changing, and birds flying near the sign would not perceive it as a fixed, unchanging light, the type of light that appears to be most attractive to birds (Jones and Francis 2003, Gauthreaux and Belser 2006, Gehring et al. 2009).

Further, t he proposed west -facing billboard will be completely covered by translucent vinyl to ensure no unwanted light occurs above or below the face of the billboard . The backlit design avoids the use of conventional lighting, which is typically mounted below the sign face oriented upward. Therefore, the backlit design prevents any upward lighting (Clear Channel 2021).

As described above, the light beams from the proposed billboards will be angled in such a way as to maximize the amount of visibility from specific portions of Hwy 101. Because the area immediately surrounding the project sites are heavily developed, we do not expect lar ge numbers of birds to be flying through the project site areas in locations, and at altitudes, where they would be at risk of confusion by or attraction to the luminance of the billboards.

3 The ‘candela’ is a unit of luminous intensity in the International System of Units, defined as the luminous intensity in a given direction of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 × 1012 hertz and has a radiant intensity in that same direction of 1/683 watt per steradian (unit solid angle). The candela has replaced the standard candle as a unit of luminous intensity in calculations involving arti ficial light.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

32 H. T. Harvey & Associates

It is possible that some birds that find themselves near the center of a sign’s beam angle may be attracted to the sign. This includes birds that may be found in nearby riparian habitat s at night, specifically the riparian corridor found along the banks of the associated with the Guadalupe River, located approximately 123117 ft west of the south project site . However, movement by birds during the night through the canopy and understory of this riparian habitat would be infrequent and limited, given that most local bird species ( e.g., bushtit, lesser goldfinch, Bewick’s wren, and California scrub-jay) that use these habitats are primarily diurnal, and not frequently active at night. In addition, most of the riparian vegetation that is 123 ftlocated west of the south project site is low in stature (5-10 ft tall), with a few trees no more than 15 -20 ft tall. The flight path of local bird species , and thus, their line of sight, through this corridor at any time of the day or night would typically be at these lower elevations, and would infrequently rise to the height of the center of the west-facing sign’s central beam angle, which would be at approximately 80 ft ASL . As described above in the Existing Site Conditions section and billboard descriptions, the ground level of the south project site is at 35 ft ASL (Google, Inc. 2020); the top of the billboard w ould be at 55 ft above this point; and the billboard itself is 20 ft high .

Thus, the approximate center of the beam angle would be at 80 ft ASL (35 ft + 55 ft – 10 ft [half of the height of the billboard face] = 80 ft). The Guadalupe River is approximately 13 ft ASL (Google, Inc. 2020), with the edge of the riparian habitat, adjacent to the Guadalupe River Trail, a bit higher , at 17-20 ft ASL (Google, Inc. 2020). Therefore, even if birds were to be moving at night through the uppermost part of the riparian canopy, which would be at a maximum of 40 ft ASL, their flight paths and line of sight would not reach the central beam angle’s height of 80 ft ASL. Thus, we do not expect local or migrating birds, including special- status species, flying at night to occur near the centers of the sign’s beam frequently. We do not expect this effect to result in long -term consequences or exceed a threshold where local, regional, or migratory bird species populations are adversely affected due to bird-strike mortality or interference with movement patterns that the potential attractant of the sign’s beam may cause.

Further, we do not expect the operation of the LED billboards to have a significant impact on substantial numbers of roosting birds because the developed habitat on and immediately adjacent to the north and south project sites do not provide high quality roosting habitat. Given the configuration of bird habitats in the vicinity of both project sites (which does not lend itself to directed bird flights toward the sign), the changing images that will be displayed on three of the four LED billboards, the narrow viewing angle, and the use of overhead louvers and concealment screens to prevent light from projecting upward into the sky and out to the west and east, we expect the sign’s impacts on avian flight behavior and avian roosting behavior, including special-status species, to be less than significant under CEQA.

Potential Effects of LED Billboard’s Luminance on the Southwestern Pond Turtle (Less than Significant)
As described above in the Indirect Effects of Illuminance of Adjacent Areas section, we do not expect the increased illuminance of any of the billboards, and specifically the west-facing billboard of the south project site, to have an impact on individual southwestern pond turtles or their habitat, nor an increase in luminance levels of their habitat. It is our professional opinion that the luminance increase of 27 cd/ft2 (0.1 fc) from the operation of D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

33 H. T. Harvey & Associates

the west-facing billboard from the south project site onto the Guadalupe River – the most likely area that pond turtles may occur – would have a less than significant impact on the species, both because of the very low increase in luminance and because pond turtles would be taking cover in dense vegetation or mud at night and would therefore not be subjected to luminance from the billboard.

Potential Effects of LED Billboard’s Luminance on Special-Status Fish (Less than Significant)
As described above in Indirect Effects of Illuminance of Adjacent Areas , artificial lighting may indirectly affect fish species that are present i n the Guadalupe River . However, the luminance of the west -facing billboard at the south project site, as viewed in the center of the beam angle at 123230 ft (the distance from the billboard to the edge of the riparian banks channel edge of the Guadalupe River) , will be lower than approximately 27 cd/ft 2 (using a maximum of 0.1 fc) . This value is very low, and is therefore not expected to adversely affect the behavior of fish in the river. In addition, any steelhead or Chinook salmon using the limited segment of the river subjected to lighting from the billboard are expected to be migrating, during which time they would be moving quickly through this reach. As a result, the potential impacts of luminosity from the west -facing billboard at the south project site on special-status fish species in the Guadalupe River would be less than significant.

In summary, based on the information provided by Zeiger Engineers, Inc. (2020) and materials provided by the manufacturer MRI (Dei Rossi 2020) concerning the LED billboard, our review of literature concerning lighting effects on wildlife, our reconnaissance-level surveys of the project sites , and our knowledge of likely avian flight lines in the vicinity of the project sites, we do not expect the construction of new LED billboards to result in significant impacts on wildlife as a result of increased illuminance or luminance above ambient light conditions.

If the assumptions made in our analysis concerning the LED billboard’s characteristics (e.g., illuminance, luminance, or beam angle) differ from actual characteristics of the billboard, additional analysis may be necessary to determine whether impacts are significant.

Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or (408) 300-8690 if you have any questions
regarding our report. Thank you very much for contacting H. T. Harvey & Associates regarding this project.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. Peterson, M.S.

Project Manager, Senior Wildlife Ecologist

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

34 H. T. Harvey & Associates

References
Albion Environmental, Inc. 1997. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – San José International Airport. Final Report. July 1997.

Beier, P. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on mammals. Pages 19-42 in Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors.

Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Bousman, W. G. 2007a. Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia. Pages 376–377 in W. G. Bousman, editor. Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California.

Bousman, W. G. 2007b . Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Pages 386–387 in W. G. Bousman, editor.

Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California.

Bury, R. B. and D. J. Germano. 2008. Actinemys marmorata (Baird and Girard 1852) - western pond turtle, Pacific pond turtle in G. J. Rhodin, C. H. Pritchard, P. P. van Dijk, R. A. Saumure, K. A. Buhlmann, and J. B.

Iverson, editors. Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs.

Cain III, J.W., Morrison, M.L. and Bombay, H.L., 2003. Predator activity and nest success of willow flycatchers and yellow warblers. The Journal of Wildlife Management 67(3): 600–610.

Campos, Miranda. Wildlife Biologist. USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services, San José International Airport. January 23, 2019 —conversation with Steve Rottenborn and Robin Carle of H. T. Harvey & Associates regarding burrowing owls at the San José Airport as well as past and current management practices.

City of San José. 1999. Riparian Corridor Policy Study. Prepared with The Habitat Restoration Group and Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. Approved by the City Council.

City of San José. 2002. Guadalupe River Park Master Plan 2002.

City of San José. 2011. Envision San José 2040 General Plan. Accessed May 2021 from https://san Joséca.gov.

City of San José. 2020. Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. Amendment to Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Master Plan. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Clear Channel. 2021. April 23, 2021 —email exchange between Stephen L. Peterson of H. T. Harvey & Associates and Bruce Qualls, Vice President, Real Estate and Public Affairs, Clear Channel Outdoors regarding light spill-over of proposed backlit design billboard. [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2020. Rarefind Version 5. California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed November 20 20 from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data
D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

35 H. T. Harvey & Associates

[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (7.0 and 9.0 online editions). Accessed November 2020 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory.

Cornell Lab of Ornithol ogy 20 20. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed: November 2020).

Da Silva, A., M. Valcu, and B. Kempenaers. 2015. Light pollution alters the phenology of dawn and dusk singing in common European songbirds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370: 20140126.

Davies, T. W., J. Bennie, and K. J. Gaston. 2012. Street lighting changes the composition of invert ebrate communities. Biology Letters 8(5): 764-767.

DeCandido R., and D. Allen. 2006. Nocturnal hunting by peregrine falcons at the Empire State Building, New York City. Wilson Journal of Ornithology. 118(1): 53-58.

Dei Rossi, D . Assistant Project Manager , David J. Powers & Associates, Inc . November 16, 2020 —email exchange with Stephen Peterson of H. T. Harvey & Associates regarding foot candle illuminance on provided figures by Media Resources, Inc.

Dunk, J.R. 1995. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca:

Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/178.

Dunk, J.R., and R.J. Cooper. 1994. Territory-size regulation in black-shouldered kites. Auk 111:588-595. de Molenaar, J. G., R. J. H. G. Henkens, C. ter Braak, C. van Duyne, G. Hoefsloot, and D. A. Jonkers. 2003.

Road illumination and nature, IV. Effects of road lights on the spatial behaviour of mammals. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
de Molenaar, J. G., M. E. Sanders, and D. A. Jonkers. 2006. Road lighting and grassland birds: Local influence of road lighting on a black -tailed godwit population. Pages 114- 136 in Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Eisenbeis, G. 2006. Artificial night lighting and insects: Attraction of insects to streetlamps in a rural setting in Germany. Pages 67 -93 in Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Erichsen, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, A.M. Commandatore, B.W. Wilson, and M.D. Fry. 1996. White -tailed kite movement and ne sting patterns in an agricultural landscape in D. Bird, D. Varland, and J. Negro, editors. Raptors in Human Landscapes. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Fellers, G. M. 2005. Rana draytonii California red-legged frog. In M. Lannoo, ed. Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press. CA: Berkeley. Pp 552 - 554.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

36 H. T. Harvey & Associates

Flecker, A.S. 1992. Fish predation and the evolution of invertebrate drift periodicity-evidence from neotropical streams. Ecology 73(2): 438-448.

Frank, K. 1988. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: An Assessment. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 42(2): 63-93.

Garcia-Rossi and Hedgecock, D. 2002. Provenance analysis of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Santa Clara Valley Watershed.

Gardali, T. and J. G. Evens. 2008. San Francisco common yellowthroat ( Geothlypis trichas sinuosa ) in W. D.

Shuford and T. Gardali, editors. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Pop ulations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California. Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Game, Camarillo and Sacramento, California.

Gauthreaux, S. A., and C. G. Belser. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on migrating birds. Pages 67-93 in Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA:

Island Press.

Gehring, J., P. Kerlinger, and A. Manville II. 2009. Communication towers, lights, and birds: Successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecological Applications 19(2): 505-514.

Gerstenberg, R. H., and S. W. Harris. 1976. Trapping and marking of shorebirds at Humboldt Bay, California.

Bird Banding 47(1): 1-7.

Google Inc. 2020. Google Earth Pro (Version 7.3.3.7786 (64-bit)) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com.

Guzy, M. J. and G. Ritchison. 1999. Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors.

The Birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia.

Heath, S.K. 2008. Yellow warbler ( Dendroica petechia) in W.D. Shuford and T. Gardali, editors. California bird species of special concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Game, Camarillo and Sacramento, California.

Herbert, A. D. 1970. Spatial disorientation in birds. Wilson Bulletin 82(4): 400-419.

Hernandez, S.A., and B.L. Peckarsky. 2014. Do stream mayflies exhibit trade-offs between food acquisition and predator avoidance behaviors? Freshwater Science 33(1): 124–133. [HWE] Horizon Water and Environment. 2016. Colma Creek Flood Control Channel Maintenance Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. June 2016. (HWE 15.037) Oakland, CA. Prepared for County of San Mateo, Department of Public Works, Redwood City, CA.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

37 H. T. Harvey & Associates

[HTH] H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2018. Biological Monitoring Report for the 4080 Cabrilho Drive Mesa Outdoor Billboard Project . Prepared for Sean Tully, Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development.
[HTH] H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2019. Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport 2019 Master Plan Amendment Biological Resources Report. Prepared for John Hesler, David J. Powers & Associates, San José, CA.

Imber, M. J. 1975. Behavior of petrels in relation to the moon and artificial lights. Notornis 22: 302-306.

Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California.

California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California.

Jones, J., and C. M. Francis. 2003. The effects of light characteristics on avian mortality at lighthouses. Journal of Avian Biology 34(4): 328-333.

Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Coho Salmon (O. kisutch), and Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha) in Streams of the San Francisco Estu ary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, California.

Longcore, T., C. Rich, and L. DelBusso. 2016. Artificial Night Lighting and Protected Lands. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/NSNS/NRR-2016/1213.

Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(4):
191-198.

Lowther, P.E., C. Celada, N.K. Klein, C.C. Rimmer, and D.A. Spector. 1999. Yellow warbler. Pages 32 in A.

Poole, and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia.
[LRC] Lighting Research Center. 2006. Illumination fundamentals. Pasadena, CA: Optical Research Associates. 48 pp.
[LSI] Light Sciences Inc. 2006. Comparison of Digital and Conventional Billboards. Report pr epared for the Outdoor Advertising Association of America. November 29, 2006.

Menges, T. 1998. Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) in The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian-associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight.

Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. Condor 108(1):
130-139.

Miyasaka, H., and S. Nakano. 2001. Drift dispersal of mayfly nymphs in the presence of chemical and visu al cues from diurnal drift- and nocturnal benthic-foraging fishes. Freshwater Biology 46 (9): 1229–1237.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

38 H. T. Harvey & Associates

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997. Endangered and Threatened Species: Listing of several Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Steelhead. Federal Register 62:43937-43954. [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Endangered and threatened species: Designation of critical habitat for seven evolutionarily significant units of Pacific steelhead and salmon in California. Final rule. Federal Register 70:52488-52626.

Montevecchi, W. A. 2006. Influences of Artificial Light on Marine Birds in Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors.

Negro, J. J., J. Bustamante, C. Melguizo, J. L. Ruiz, and J. M. Grande. 2000. Nocturnal activity of lesser kestrels under artificial lighting conditions in Seville, Spain. Journal of Raptor Research 34(4): 327-329.

Nur, N., S. Zack, J. Evans, and T. Gardali. 1997. Tidal Marsh Birds of the San Francisco Bay Region: Status Distribution, and Conservation of Five Category 2 Taxa. PRBO Conservation Science final draft report to the United States Geological Survey.

Perry, G., B. W. Buchanan, R. N. Fisher, M. Salmon, and S. E. Wise. 2008. Chapter 16: Effects of Artificial Night Lighting on Amphibians and Reptil es In Urban Environments. In Mitchell, J. C., R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Batrholomew (Ed.). Urban Herpetology – Herpetological Conservation 3:239 -256.

Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

Poot, H., B. Ens, H. de Vries, M. Donners, M. Wernand, and J. Marquenie. 2008. Green light for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and Society 13(2): 47.

Potts, W. K. and T. A. Sordahl. 1979. The gong method for capturing shorebirds and other ground -roosting species. North American Bird Bander 4(3): 106-107.

Reed, J. R., J. L. Sincock, and J. P. Hailman. 1985. Light attraction in endangered Procellariform birds:

Reduction by shielding upward radiation. Auk 102(2): 377-383.

Riley, W.D., P.I. Davison, D.L. Maxwell, and B. Bendall. 2013. Street lighting delays and disrupts the dispersal of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fry. Biological Conservation 158: 140-146.

Ringer, R. K. 1972. Effect of light and behavior on nutrition. Journal of Animal Science 35(3): 642-647.

Rogers, D. I., T. Piersma, and C. J. Hassell. 2006. Roost availability may constrain shorebird distribution:

Exploring the energetic costs of roosting and disturbance around a tropical bay. Biol ogical Conservation 33(4): 225-235.

Rottenborn, S. C. 1999. Predicting the impacts of urbanization on riparian bird communities. Biological Conservation 88(3):289-299.

Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 2009. Artificial Light in the Environment.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

39 H. T. Harvey & Associates

San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory. 2012. Determining the Breeding Extent of the San Francisco Common Yellowthroat and the Alameda Song Sparrow in Santa Clara County, California. Final Report. 17 December 2012.

Scheuerell, M.D., and D.E. Schindler. 2003. Diel vertical migration by juvenile sockeye salmon: Empirical evidence for the antipredation window. Ecology 84(7): 1713–1720.

Smith, J. J. 2013. Northern Santa Clara County Fish Resources. 20 pp.

Stich, D.S., G.B. Zydlewski, J.F. Kocik, and J.D. Zydlewski. 2015. Linking behavior, physiology, and survival of Atlantic salmon smolts during estuary migration. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 7 (1): 68–86.

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Boston, Massachusetts. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 1988. Order Numbers 89-10 and 88-157. van de Laar , F. J. T. 2007. Green light to birds: investigation into the effect of bird -friendly lighting. NAM Locatie L15-FA-1, Assen, The Netherlands.

Voigt, C. C., M. Roeleke, L. Marggraf, G. Petersons, and S. Voigt -Heucke. 2017. Migratory bats respond to artificial green light with positive phototaxis. PLOS One 12(5): e0177748. [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2018. Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Burrowing Owl Monitoring and Management 2017 Annual Report.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . 2005. Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. (South San José) Superfund Cleanup Site. EPA #CAD097012298.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-legged Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register 75:12815- 12959.

Waples, R.S., Jones, R.P., Beckman, B.R. and Swan, G.A., 1991. Status review for Snake River fall C hinook salmon.

Watchfire Signs. 2017. Digital Upgrade Light Spillover Study. October 2, 2017.

Zapata, M.J., L.A. Yeager, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Day –night patterns in natural and artificial patch reef fish assemblages of the Bahamas. Caribbean Naturalist 18: 1–15.

Zapata, M.J., S. Mazeika, P. Sullivan, and S.M. Gray. 2019. Artificial Lighting at Night in Estuaries-Implications from Individuals to Ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts 42: 309-330.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, editors. 1990. California’s Wildlife. Volume II:

Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

40 H. T. Harvey & Associates

Zeiger Engineers, Inc. 2020. CEQA Analysis of Spill/Glare Light Issues for Two Proposed Billboards along HW880 Adjacent to San José Airport, San José, California. Prepared for Desiree Dei Rossi, David J.

Powers & Associates, Inc. December 23, 2020.

D. Dei Rossi
July 20September 28, 2021

41 H. T. Harvey & Associates

Appendix A: Tree Survey Report

983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  408.458.3200  www.harveyecology.com

December 3, 2020

Desiree Dei Rossi | Assistant Project Manager
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612

Subject: San José Airport Clear Channel Billboards Project – Tree Survey Report (HTH #4458-01)

Dear Ms. Dei Rossi:

As requested, H. T. Harvey & Associates has surveyed and described 43 trees that are proposed to be removed as part of the San José Airport Clear Channel Billboards project located in San José, California. Most trees were located between the north and south billboard project locations, along the southern edge of U.S. Highway 101 (Hwy 101), though one tree was located directly west of the north billboard location, and two trees were located directly east of the south billboard location (Figure 1). This report provides an inventory of all trees proposed for removal and includes the following information about each tree: 1) mapped location (Figure 1), 3) species, 3) circumference, 4) height, 5) a health assessment score, and 6) a photograph.

Methods
The tree survey was completed on November 4, 2020 by H. T. Harvey & Associates plant ecologist Jill Pastick, M.S. Each tree surveyed was photographed, mapped using a Trimble Geo 7X GPS , and identified to species (scientific and common name), and each tree’s height was estimated. The circumference of each tree was also measured; for trees with multiple trunks, the circumference of each stem was measured at 4.5 feet (ft) above ground, and the circumferences of all stems were summed to produce the circumference for the tree. A total of 28 ordinance-sized trees, with a circumference of 38 inches or more at 4.5 ft above ground, as defined by the City of San José tree removal permit guidelines, were surveyed and measured by Ms. Pastick. Ms. Pastick also surveyed and measured an additional 15 trees with a circumference of at least 18 inches that were located in close proximity to ordinance -sized trees within the dense patch of trees proposed for removal, along the south edge of Hwy 101, in order to completely assess the conditions of all trees proposed for removal. Tree saplings with a circumference less than 18 inches were excluded from the survey, as the collection of data on the additional 15 trees (circumference o f at least 18 inches) was adequate to assess the dense patch of trees located along the south side of Hwy 101, and also because the smaller saplings were growing in shrub form in the survey location (see Biotic Habitat section below). 101
Ewart Rd
G
uadal
upe
River
Trail
GG
uuaaddaalluuppee
RRiivveerr
A i r p o r t E c o n o my 1
P a r k i n g L o t
S a n J o s e Wa te r C o mp a n y P u mp S ta ti o n Airport Blvd
N o r th P r o j e c t S i te
S o u th P r o j e c t S i te
DetentionDetention
PondPond
43 42
41 40
Figure 1. Location of Trees Proposed for Removal
S e p te mb e r 2 0 2 1
N:\Projects4400\4458-01\Reports\Figure 1 Location of Trees Proposed for Removal.mxd S a n J o s e A i r p o r t C l e a r C h a n n e l B i l l b o a r d s P r o j e c t  B i o l o g i c a l I mp a c ts A s s e s s me n t ( 4 4 5 8 - 0 1 ) Legend
# of Trees for Removal
1
2
3
1 0
Proposed Billboard Locations
N o r th P r o j e c t S i te
S o u th P r o j e c t S i te
150 0 15075
Feet
101
Airport Blvd
1 2
3 - 1314
15 16
17 - 19
20 21
22, 23
242526
27 28
29 30
31 323334
35 36
37 3839
0 7537.5
Feet
I n s e t
D. Dei Rossi
December 3, 2020

H. T. Harvey & Associates
Tree health assessments were made using ground -level visual observations. Each tree’s health and structural conditions were given a score from 0 –5 based on the criteria shown in Table 1 on the following page . Tree condition ratings were based on the combined health and structural scores as follows:

• Dead if the summed scores were equal to 0
• Poor if the summed scores were equal to or between 1 and 4 • Fair if the summed scores were equal to or between 5 and 7 • Good if the summed scores were equal to or between 8 and 10

D. Dei Rossi
December 3, 2020

H. T. Harvey & Associates
Table 1. Tree Health and Structural Condition Evaluation Criteria Condition
Score Tree Health Tree Structure
5 A healthy, vigorous tree with a well-
balanced crown. Normal to exceeding
shoot length on new growth. Normal leaf
size and color. No apparent pest problems
or symptoms of disease. Exceptional life
expectancy for the species.

Root plate undisturbed and clear of any
obstructions. Root flare has normal shape.

Trunk is sound and solid. No visible trunk
defects or cavities. Balanced and even
branch spacing, structure, and attachments.
4 Tree with slight decline in health. May
have twig dieback in few parts of the tree.

May have less than normal growth rate
and minor deficiency in leaf
development. Few pest problems or
symptoms of disease. Typical life
expectancy for the species.

Root plate appears normal with only
superficial damage, if any. Possible signs of
root dysfunction in and around trunk flare.

May have minor trunk defects from previous
injury with good closure. Less than 10% of bark
missing. Good branch spacing, structure, and
attachments.
3 Tree with moderate health. Crown decline
and dieback up to 25% of the canopy.

Stunted shoot length on new growth. Leafs
may be small and somewhat chlorotic.

May have signs of pest problems and/or
disease. Some decay may be present in
main stem and branches. Below average
life expectancy.

Root plate may have previous damage or
disturbance and dysfunctional roots may be
visible around main stem. Evidence of trunk
damage or cavities with decay or defects
may be present. Less than 25% of bark
sections may be missing on trunk. Co-
dominant stems may be present. Moderate
branch spacing, structure, and attachments
that may indicate poor pruning or damage.
2 Tree in decline. May have epicormic
growth. Crown may have up to 50%
dieback that may affect larger branches.

May have little or no new growth on
young stems. Leaf size may be small and
color may indicate stress. Pest and/or
disease problems may be severe. Decay
may be present in main stem and
branches. May be overmature. Life
expectancy is low.

Root plate disturbance and defects may
indicate major damage and/or girdling roots
around the trunk flare. More than 25% of bark
section missing. May have multiple dominant
stems and/or included bark. May have poor
branch spacing, structure, and attachments,
and dead or broken branches. Canopy may
have signs of severe damage or topping.

May have extensive decay or be hollow.
1 Tree in severe decline. May have
epicormic growth. Crown may have
severe dieback affecting the majority of
the tree. May have little or no new growth
on young stems. Leaf size may be small
and color may indicate severe stress. Pest
and/or disease problems may be severe.

Decay may be present in main stem and
branches. May be overmature. Life
expectancy is extremely low.

Root plate may have major structural
problems that present an unacceptable risk.

Tree structure may be irregular, unbalanced,
and/or have multiple dominant stems. May
have irregular and poor branch spacing,
structure, and attachments. Dead or broken
main branches may be present.
0 Dead Dead

D. Dei Rossi
December 3, 2020

H. T. Harvey & Associates
Biotic Habitat
The tree survey areas occur primarily in the vegetated margins adjacent to Hwy 101, and consist primarily of highly developed/ornamental woodland habitat types. These habitat types primarily include paved roadways and sidewalks, landscaped ornamental tree and shrub species. Industrial, commercial, and airport facility land uses occur in the surrounding area.

The most heavily vegetated locations within the tree survey areas occur between the north and south billboard project locations, along the southern edge of Hwy 101, where tree numbers 1 through 40 are located (Figure 1). This portion of the project site was densely vegetated with Brazilian pepper trees ( Schinus terebinthifolius), including hundreds of smaller saplings with a circumference of 6 inches or less. Many of the surveyed trees consisted of multiple stems (i.e., trunks). Due t o the high density of Brazilian pepper trees, the canopy was closed, shading out the understory. The understory was dominated by leaf litter, with occasional ruderal grass species.

The tree survey area located directly west of the north billboard locatio n, where tre e number 41 is located (Figure 1), was entirely developed with the exception of a small, landscaped patch of grass. There were no other plant species associated with this survey location.

The area directly to the east of the south billboard location, where tree numbers 42 and 43 are located (Figure A1), was dominated by holm oaks (Quercus ilex), Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), and other ornamental tree species. Similar to the other billboard locations, the understory was relatively bare, containing primarily leaf litter, tree saplings and ruderal grass species.

Survey Results
Forty-three (43) trees of six species were surveyed on the site (Figure 1, Table 2). Of these species, Brazilian peppertree was the most abundant species observed, making up 38 of the 43 trees surveyed. Of the 43 trees surveyed, none were found to be dead. Forty (40) trees were located between the north and south billboard project locations, along the southern edge of Hwy 101; one tree was located directly west of the north billboard location; and two trees were located directly east of the south billboard location (Figure 1). No trees were tagged; however, each mapped tree was marked with pink flagging.

The majority of trees were in fair cond ition (see Table 1 above for evaluation criteria ). A description of each tree, including its scientific name, common name, number of stems, circumference, health score, estimated height, and designated photo number is presented in Table 2 below. Photos of each surveyed tree are shown below under the Tree Survey Photo Documentation section.

D. Dei Rossi
December 3, 2020

H. T. Harvey & Associates
Table 2. Tree Survey Data
Tree Number Scientific Name Common Name Stems
Circumference
(inches)*
Condition/
Health
Estimated
Height (ft) Photo Number
1 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 1 28.3 4 17 Photos 1 and 2 2 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 1 44 5 22 Photos 3 and 4 3 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 6 79 4 26 Photo 5 4 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 1 19 3 22 Photo 5 5 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 1 22 4 22 Photo 5 6 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 1 31.4 4 25 Photo 5 7 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 2 30 4 20 Photo 5 8 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 1 11 4 18 Photo 5 9 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 1 28.3 4 18 Photo 5 10 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 2 24 3 15 Photo 5 11 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 2 36.1 4 18 Photo 5 12 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 1 22 2 20 Photo 5 13 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 2 24 3 15 Photo 5 14 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 7 97.3 3 22 Photo 6 15 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 7 242 3 30 Photo 7 16 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 6 105.2 3 20 Photo 8 17 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 4 39.3 4 18 Photo 9 18 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 4 52 4 18 Photo 9 19 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 6 53.4 4 16 Photo 9 20 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 7 190 3 25 Photo 10 21 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 5 113 5 35 Photo 11 D. Dei Rossi
December 3, 2020

H. T. Harvey & Associates
Tree Number Scientific Name Common Name Stems
Circumference
(inches)*
Condition/
Health
Estimated
Height (ft) Photo Number
22 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 4 50.2 4 25 Photo 12 23 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 7 63 4 18 Photo 12 24 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 6 148 4 30 Photo 13 25 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 11 214 4 35 Photo 14 26 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 14 201 4 18 Photo 15 27 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 7 110 3 25 Photo 16 28 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 2 57 3 22 Photo 17 29 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 3 50 3 28 Photo 18 30 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 5 66 4 30 Photo 19 31 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 4 44 4 28 Photo 20 32 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 1 30 4 22 Photo 21 33 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 3 119.3 4 35 Photo 22 34 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 4 129 4 38 Photo 23 35 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 5 132 5 38 Photo 24 36 Fraxinus oxycarpa Raywood ash 1 42.4 5 30 Photo 25
37 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 2 66 4 30 Photo 26 38 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 9 323.4 5 32 Photo 27 39 Schinus
terebinthifolius Brazilian peppertree 1 35 5 28 Photo 28 40 Fraxinus uhdei Shamel ash 1 85 5 25 Photo 29
41 Jacaranda sp. Jacaranda sp. 1 44 5 28 Photo 30
42 Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache 1 19 4 20 Photo 31 43 Quercus ilex Holly oak 1 35 4 22 Photo 32
* For trees with multiple trunks, the circumference of each stem was measured at 4.5 ft above ground, and the circumferences of all stems were summed to produce the circumference for the tree.

D. Dei Rossi
December 3, 2020

H. T. Harvey & Associates
Tree Survey Photo Documentation

Photo 1. Tree 1

Photo 2. Tree 1

Photo 3. Tree 2

Photo 4. Tree 2

Photo 5. Trees 3 through 13

Photo 6. Tree 14

D. Dei Rossi
December 3, 2020

H. T. Harvey & Associates

Photo 7. Tree 15

Photo 8. Tree 16

Photo 9. Trees 17 through 19

Photo 10. Tree 20

Photo 11. Tree 21

Photo 12. Trees 22 and 23

D. Dei Rossi
December 3, 2020

H. T. Harvey & Associates

Photo 13. Tree 24

Photo 14. Tree 25

Photo 15. Tree 26

Photo 16. Tree 27

Photo 17. Tree 28

Photo 18. Tree 29

D. Dei Rossi
December 3, 2020

H. T. Harvey & Associates

Photo 19. Tree 30

Photo 20. Tree 31

Photo 21. Tree 32

Photo 22. Tree 33

Photo 23. Tree 34

Photo 24. Tree 35

D. Dei Rossi
December 3, 2020

H. T. Harvey & Associates

Photo 25. Tree 36

Photo 26. Tree 37

Photo 27. Tree 38

Photo 28. Tree 39

Photo 29. Tree 40

Photo 30. Tree 41

D. Dei Rossi
December 3, 2020

H. T. Harvey & Associates

Photo 31. Tree 42

Photo 32. Tree 43

Please feel free to contact me at s [email protected] or (408) 300-8690 if you have any questions regarding this survey.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. Peterson, M.S.

Project Manager, Senior Wildlife Ecologist

Appendix C

Initial Study/Addendum
Comment Letters

Comment #1
APPENDIX A: INITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM COMMENT LETTERS
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
August 24, 2021 REF #: ER21-015
GTS #: 04-SCL-2018-00928
GTS ID: 13800
Co/Rt/Pm: SCL/101/Var
Adam Petersen
Environmental Project Manager
City of San Jose
200 East Santa Clara
San Jose, CA 95113
Re: US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Draft Initial Study/Addendum (IS) Dear Ada
m Petersen:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Project. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the July 2021 Draft IS.

Project Understanding
The project proposes to construct two programmable electronic billboard freeways signs on San Jose Airport parcels adjacent to US-101.

Electronic Signs
The secti
on of US-101 within the project area is a Classified Landscape Freeway, which limits the placement of billboards and electronic advertising displays where there is existing continuous highway planting. Caltrans is involved in the control of off-premise displays which advertise offsite products and businesses. No off-site premise advertising displays are permitted within Classified Landscape Freeways. Outdoor advertising displays require a permit from Caltrans if they are within 660 feet from the edge of the State Right-of-Way (ROW) and viewed primarily by persons traveling on the main- traveled way of the freeway.

Please not
e that tree removal within the State ROW requires approval from the District Landscape Architect as well as an encroachment permit. Any trees within the State ROW damaged due to construction activities would require replacement per Caltrans Adam Petersen, Environmental Project Manager
August 24, 2021

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Replacement Highway Planting Policy. See the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 29.

Displays must be 500 feet from any other permitted display on the same side of the highway. Electronic changeable message center displays must meet the above spacing requirements and be 1000 feet from other electronic message center displays.

Displays must be outside of the State ROW of any highway, outside any stream or drainage channel, and within industrial or commercial zoning. Written permission to install the displays must be obtained from both the current property owner and jurisdictional local government. The location of displays may not be adjacent to a classified landscaped freeway.

Construction-Related Impacts
Potential impacts to the State ROW from project-related temporary access points should be analyzed. Mitigation for significant impacts due to construction and noise should be identified. Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, visit:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/transportation- permits. Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the STN.

Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Encroachment Permit
Pleas
e be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto the ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating the State ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement. Your application package may be emailed to .

Adam Petersen, Environmental Project Manager
August 24, 2021

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” To download the permit application and to obtain more information on all required documentation, visit https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep/applications.

Thank y
ou again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Llisel Ayon at . Additionally, for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email .

Sincerely
,
MARK L
EONG
District Branch Chief
Local Development - Intergovernmental Review
c: State Clearinghouse

From: plynam [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 9:40 PM
To: Petersen, Adam < >
Subject: US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Addendum - City of San Jose File No: ER21-015 [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Mr Petersen and colleagues,
I write to formally register the concerns of the University of California's Lick Observatory in response to the electronic billboard(s) project being pursued by San Jose International Airport (SJC) staff to install new structures supporting four electronic billboards on airport property, to be located steps away from the Guadalupe River and US freeway 101.

For almost 140 years, the people of the Valley of Heart's Delight and the University of California's Lick Observatory have enjoyed a fruitful relationship. The city fathers of the Bay Area have consistently supported the observatory's ability to stay at the forefront of astronomy and technological innovation.

Strategically located atop Mount Hamilton since the 1880s, the observatory's threshold is crossed by some
35,000 visitors annually. Thousands more enjoy its scenic approaches and hinterland for recreation. New worlds continue to be discovered from within sight of the City of San Jose. Lick Observatory maintains a global reputation as an authority on astronomical matters. Contrary to popular belief, Lick Observatory serves scientists from across all ten campuses on the University of California, their international collaborators, a number of national laboratories as well as industrial partners. Hundreds of scientists travel to-and-from Lick Observatory every year. For the vast majority of these people, the city of San Jose and its airport serve as the primary access point. For decades, the observatory has advised on lighting ordinances, including (in the 1960s and 1970s) the deployment of sodium lighting, subsequent upgrades to light emitting diode (LED) technologies and, most recently, the deployment of electronic billboards. Measures explicitly to protect Lick Observatory are encoded into lighting ordinances.

Naturally, from a purely astronomical perspective, it would be best to have no electronic billboards at all. However, guidelines to minimize damage to dark skies by electronic billboards, developed by the International Dark-Sky Association, inform Lick Observatory's recommendations to reduce negative impacts. They include: limits on brightness, a curfew for turning off signs at 11 p.m. or midnight, constraints on sign direction, size and density, use of lower-temperature (less blue light) LEDs, tilting electronic billboards downwards by 15 degrees and ensuring that mechanical shielding is installed to reduce light being scattered upwards. Artificial Light At Night (ALAN) is the major contributor to the phenomenon commonly referred to as light pollution. In large part, light pollution is a consequence of the physics of ever-present aerosols (e.g. water vapor, particles, etc.), which preferentially redirect light.

Hence, mechanical design of responsible lighting fixtures seeks to minimize wasted light.

In contrast, billboards intentionally project light laterally. Thus, billboards disproportionately compound already-vexatious light pollution via two mechanisms. First, billboards add intensity. The efficiency of electronic illumination represents a many-fold increase in wasted light, compared with former Comment #2
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. In sum, the introduction of electronic billboards along the freeway 101 corridor (including in-and-around the San Jose International Airport) would render a deleterious impact upon Lick Observatory. Of particular concern is the proposal for the faces of two of these extremely large electronic billboards to be oriented such that they project directly in the direction of Mount Hamilton and the Observatory at its summit.

Furthermore, it is feared that, should electronic billboards be re-introduced on San Jose International Airport property, it would set a precedent contravening the laudable, existing, decades-long moratorium on the introduction of new billboards in the San Jose area, which would subsequently lead to the proliferation of such fixtures, further threatening the operation of Lick Observatory, jeopardizing the University of California's educational, research and public outreach mission in the physical sciences and eroding Santa Clara's astronomical heritage and future.

Typically, local authorities engage public opinion when considering changes to ordinances. Experience shows that the overwhelming majority of contributors perceive the most compelling arguments against electronic billboards to be the well-established detrimental consequences on human health and safety, the similarly well-established impacts on wildlife habits and habitats, visual congestion, the often unwelcome and unsightly appearance and the eventual unkempt and untidy nature of both the structures themselves and their immediate vicinity.

For the most part, the needs of observatories are well-aligned with majority public opinion. The University of California's Lick Observatory encourages the City of San Jose to perform due diligence during deliberations regarding the proposed deployment of electronic billboards (e.g. by canvassing a fair, balanced representation of community/stakeholder opinion and undertaking a full and proper environmental impact assessment). The observatory remains available to advise on these matters, while continuing to foster the fruitful relationship that has persisted for well over a century.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Paul D. Lynam FRAS
Astronomer
University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory From: Airport Commission 1
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 2:56 PM
To: Petersen, Adam < >
Cc: Airport Commission 10 < >; Airport Commission 9
< >
Subject: Submission for File Number ER21-015
Mr. Petersen,
On behalf of Commissioners Hendrix and Connolly, please find the attached comments regarding the US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Addendum.

We previously submitted these comments as part the 8/9/21 Airport Commission meeting.

Thank you,
Ken Pyle (District 1, Airport Commissioner)
Comment #3
August 9, 2021
To: , Manager of Strategy and PolicyMatthew Kazmierczak From: (Commissioner 10), Catherine Hendrix (District 9 Commissioner), KenDan Connolly Pyle (Vice-Chair)
Subject: Concerns and Questions regarding 08/09/21 Airport Commission Meeting Agenda Item, VIIIA, Clear Channel Electronic Billboard Project After studying what we could find online, we have many questions with regards to Agenda Item, VIIIA, Clear Channel Electronic Billboard Project. The following represent questions and concerns and are categorized for convenience for the reader. The numbers are for reference only and do not represent priority. Please include this in the public record for tonight’s meeting.

Business Issues:

1. Is Clear Channel SJC’s partner on this project?

2. If so, was their bid part of the earlier RFP that Clear Channel won for the in-terminal marketing/sponsorship program?1

3. According to the August 2019 council direction, it looks like outdoor billboard advertising would be addressed after the in-terminal marketing/sponsorship program was decided.

This direction indicated an RFP would be created.2
a. When was that RFP issued?
b. May we see the RFP?

4. What is SJC’s net revenue for existing indoor advertising? Does net revenue figure include associated overhead costs? The 2019 gross revenue is $5.13M or $5.02M and increased to $6.96M out of $229.9M total revenue. This means current advertising provides approximately 3 cents for every dollar of total airport revenue.3 Neither of these reports provide associated expenses, so it is impossible to understand the net revenue and associated gross margin on these products.

5. Similarly what is the projected gross and net revenue (after associated overhead expenses) for outdoor billboard advertising? According to SJC’s September 2020 ACDBE submission, gross revenue for outdoor advertising is projected at $13,045,946 for 2021 to 2023.4

6. Is there a minimum guarantee for SJC?
4 See page 5, table 2
https://www.flysanjose.com/sites/default/files/strategy-and-policy/SJC%20ACDBE%20Goal%20Methodolo gy%20FFY%202021-2023.pdf
3 SJC’s ACDBE submission to the FAA, suggests $5.13M, while page 88 ofSJC’s 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report suggests $5.02M revenue for 2019 and $6.96M for 2020. 2 See page 4 of the memo found here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oMGfPGcZhGnPnpHj4iLKDDg6zgVDUlFQ/view?usp=sharing 1 See this Oct. 3, 2019 news release for the announcement https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nations-first-all-digital-airport-advertising-network-d ebuts-with-82-screens-at-norman-y-mineta-san-jose-international-airport-300930906.html Submission to the 08/09/21 SJC Airport Commission Meeting Page 1

7. Will the city receive 55% of gross revenues as per their current deal? 5

8. To what extent is San Jose and SJC indemnified by potential negative outcomes, such as inappropriate advertising, crashes caused by distracted drivers, or the need to remove the billboards prior to the end of the agreement?

9. If a billboard needs to be removed (e.g. road widening) prior to the end of the lease, will SJC have to pay cash compensation to the owner of the billboard? Economic Development and Quality of Life

1. With greater than 90% strongly or somewhat opposed to digital billboards, according to the City of San Jose’s own March 2021 survey, why is the city continuing to pursue a change in billboard policy?6

2. To what extent does implementation of phase 1 (billboards on city/public properties) put the City of San Jose in legal jeopardy if it decides not to move forward with phase 2? That is, can the city legally allow digital billboards on public properties, while not allowing billboards on private properties?7

3. Does the current proposal adhere to item 6 of the Sign Approval Process outline in policy document 6-4, that requires the removal of 4 existing billboards for each new sign?8 If not, why not?

4. How many advertising spots will SJC receive as part of the deal (e.g. % of ad space devoted to SJC associated ads)?

5. How much will this cost the city in terms of dealing with permits, enforcement, etc.? Where will those costs show up in terms of budgets (e.g. SJC, City of San Jose, etc.)?

6. How much is being invested by the city, and SJC to launch this project?

7. If the advertising was 100% SJC-related (i.e., on-premises), would the approval process be the same? That is, would it be considered a billboard, or would it be signage like any other business has? If it is signage, then what would be the limitations (e.g. size, frequency of ads, etc.)?

8. How do these billboards improve urban vibrancy?
8 See page https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/50829/637153744794670000 7 Outfront recommended that “From a CEQA perspective, it is preferable for the City to select proposals for RFP Phase 1 and RFP Phase 2 at the same time….vulnerable to a CEQA challenge on the basis that it is not adequately defining the ‘whole of the project’ or properly analyzing the cumulative effect of approving both Phase 1 and Phase 2.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IW8 uALZjnC FxxR1kAth8UkN8CbMZJm/view?usp=sharing 6 See page 8 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/70836/637527140641700000 5 As reported by the Mercury News on October 3rd, 2019
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/10/03/high-tech-ads-dazzle-travelers-san-jose-airport-travel-tech-goo gle/
Submission to the 08/09/21 SJC Airport Commission Meeting Page 2 Environmental

1. Can this project be sited where it is, given that it is at the intersection of 101 and 87? Per page 16 of the Initial Study/Addendum (ISA), “Further, this Act generally prohibits signs within 300 feet of the point of intersection of a highway or highway and railroad lines…”9

2. What is the discretionary review process for this project, as per CD-1.28 (referenced on page 18 of the ISA)?

3. Per VN-2.3 (page 18 of the ISA), how has the public been given “ the opportunity to provide input on the design of public and private development within their community”?

4. Because of the V-shaped nature of the billboards, does this project really consist of four billboards (one on the front/one on the rear for each proposed billboard)?10

5. Has any analysis been done of the potential carbon footprint for this project? Section 3.3 of the ISA doesn’t seem to have that analysis.

6. The ISA analysis suggests that 43 non-native, ornamental trees will be removed. Some of these trees are substantial - up to 38 feet tall and 323 inches in circumference (page 71).
a. What is the carbon impact of such a removal?
b. When were these trees planted, by what entity, and what was the purpose (e.g to block the view from the freeway)?
c. Explain this statement, ‘All trees to be removed, with the exception of one (a raywood ash [Fraxinus oxycarpa]), are nonnative species, which provide little ecological value…” Doesn’t this contradict San Jose’s Community Forest Goals of building our urban forest?11
d. Table 3.4-1 is confusing. It appears as if there are different replacement ratios for the size of the tree being removed. What is the bottom-line number of trees to be planted in exchange for the removal of these 43 trees?

7. Per Section 3.6.1.2 of the ISA
a. It seems like MS-16.2 (page 104) should apply, as there could be potential for solar on these sites.
b. According to data on page 88, 118 MegaWatts per year (323 kW/day or about 18 kWh total or 9kWh per sign location) will be needed to power these signs. Why isn’t onsite energy generation (e.g. solar on the billboards) being considered as a way to offset power needs?
c. Based on the average power consumption of 482 kWh per month per San Jose Clean Energy (5.8 MWh per year), these two signs would be the equivalent of adding approximately 20 houses.12 This seems like a significant impact, despite what it says on page 110.

8. Per page 54 of ISA, it appears that the South sign is the closest to the aquatic and riparian corridor. The wording is confusing. Is it outside the corridor? Is it part of the 12 From the San Jose Clean Energy website (8/9/21) https://sanjosecleanenergy.org/residential-rates/ 11 See https://sanjosecfmp.com/#why-trees
10 Comment: In today’s world of digital manipulation, it seems like much better renderings could have been made than what was presented in the EIR.
9 See https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/75599/637629018744800000 Submission to the 08/09/21 SJC Airport Commission Meeting Page 3

2. The proposed billboard locations were not referenced in the July 15th, 2019 staff memo.

The sites listed in that memo are 2400 Seaboard Avenue, 2200 Airport Boulevard, 1128 Coleman Avenue, and 2341 Airport Boulevard.15
a. What was the motivation for this change?
b. In what public forum was this change proposed?

3. It appears that the city is preventing political or religious advertising on the billboards.

Can it Constitutionally do so?16 Political or religious restrictions are not included in Policy 6-4, effective November 9th, 2018.17

4. The aforementioned November 9th 2018 policy suggested that the “FAA requires City receive fair market value for use of the property.” How has this been assured?

5. Attachment A, List 1 has a footnote referring to 2500 Seaboard Avenue and 2341 Airport Boulevard that states, ““State law restricts to on-site commercial speech and large arena sponsorship signage.” Does this mean that off-site commercial speech is not allowed at those sites? Does this mean the sites currently under consideration also can’t have site commercial speech (advertising)?
17 See page 7, Item 1 under Message Limitations
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/50829/637153744794670000 16 See page 4 under the “Commercial advertising policy” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oMGfPGcZhGnPnpHj4iLKDDg6zgVDUlFQ/view 15 See Table 3 on page 3 of the memo found here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oMGfPGcZhGnPnpHj4iLKDDg6zgVDUlFQ/view?usp=sharing What is odd about that memo is that it suggests that the 2500 Seaboard Avenue site, which is home to SJC’s fuel tanks, is managed by the “Sharks Sports and Entertainment as part as part of their Arena Management Agreement with the City of San Jose (SAP Center, Hwy 87 and West Hedding, and 2500 Seaboard Ave…”
Submission to the 08/09/21 SJC Airport Commission Meeting Page 5 Appendix A - Select Comments from the Public
With over 150 emails submitted on this topic (all in opposition), we have never seen so much public passion around an agenda item brought before the Airport Commission. Although we don’t necessarily endorse the following, we felt the comments below provide food for thought, particularly for City Council in its decision regarding digital billboards. ● “Other types of signs without these problems are available to be installed. NOT ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS...NONE!!!”
● “Billboards benefit only their owners and advertisers; every passerby pays the ‘attention tax’ price, making them a loss overall for society.”
● “The city's own survey shows that nearly 93% of the public strongly oppose this scheme as well.”
● “Whatever money this would raise for the city is not worth it – raise our taxes instead.” ● “I am very concerned about the direction the City is going in.” ● “Can I ENCOURAGE you to concentrate more on the existing issues that plague our ONCE wonderful city, homelessness, crime rate, trash, infrastructure, traffic, etc., etc., etc…”
● “The city putting them up, is like the city endorsing looking at text messages while driving!!!!!!”
● “I find it odd/suspicious that the many opposition letters to Phase 2 that apply to Phase 1 are omitted from the official record;...I'm requesting this email and my previous letter (re-attached) be added to the official record” (letter from July 2020). ● “The fact that running six-second [actually, it is 8-second duration] commercials on huge electronic billboards will create divided attention on our roadways is completely against San Jose's Vision Zero. Where is the common sense?”
Submission to the 08/09/21 SJC Airport Commission Meeting Page 6 Appendix B Suggested Road Signage at the Airport
Although somewhat off-topic, a simple improvement in SJC wayfinding would be the addition of road markings, such as what is depicted in the crude rendering, below. Simply, it is easy to get confused as to which lane one should be in when navigating the airport road system.

Submission to the 08/09/21 SJC Airport Commission Meeting Page 7

Comment #4
you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at , or by e-mail at . Please reference Valley Water File No. 22275 on future correspondence regarding this project.

Thank you,

LISA BRANCATELLI

ASSISTANT ENGINEER II (CIVIL)
Community Projects Review Unit
Santa Clara Valley Water District is now known as:

Clean Water • Healthy Environment • Flood Protection
www.valleywater.org

Comment #5
Comment #6
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

CalRE #01908304
Comment #7
From: chuck alderete
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 1:34:33 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates% Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #8
Comment #9
Comment #10
Comment #11
Comment #12

Comment #13
Comment #14
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: Cynthia Batchelder
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; NoSanJoseBillboards Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 8:59:28 PM
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates Comment #15
Comment #16
Comment #17
Comment #18
Comment #19
Comment #20
Comment #21
Comment #22
Comment #23
Comment #24
From:

To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 10:35:13 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Allan Calara
Resident of downtown
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #25
From: Sheelen, Ryan
To: Petersen, Adam
Cc: Keyon, David
Subject: Re: Public Review Draft Addendum: US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 8:12:57 AM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2012-05-13 at 10.16.01 AM.png
Outlook-0ronbbjv.png
Hi Adam,
Thanks for the questions,
"The US 101 Airport Electronic Signs project is an Airport tenant improvement project.

This
means that the Airport is not awarding the project and the tenant is solely responsible for construction."
Ryan
Ryan Sheelen, C.M. | Airport Planner IV (Acting)
Planning and Development Division
Mineta San José International Airport
flysanjose.com | facebook | twitter | linkedin
From: Petersen, Adam < >
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 5:27 PM
To: Sheelen, Ryan < >
Cc: Keyon, David < >
Subject: FW: Public Review Draft Addendum: US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Ryan,
The City has circulated the addendum for the US 101 Airport Electronic Signs. Can you email me a response to the inquiry below, please?
Thanks,
Adam Petersen
Contract Environmental Team
City of San Jose Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement Department
Comment #26

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project consists of the construction of two programmable electronic billboard freeway signs (a "north sign" and a "south sign") on San José Airport parcels. Each display would be approximately 59 feet in width by 17 feet in height, resulting in a message surface of approximately 1,003 square feet. It is the intent of the project applicant to enter into a lease agreement with San José Airport to construct and operate the signs. The purpose of the signs is to advertise to occupants of vehicles traveling on U.S. Route 101. The addendum is available at:

US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Addendum
LOCATION:

The applicant proposes to construct two freeway signs south of U.S. Route 101 on Airport property. The proposed signs are located within the Airport Sign Zone. The “north sign” is proposed to be located adjacent to the southeast corner of Airport Boulevard and Ewart Road, inside the chain link fence around the San José Police Department surface parking lot. The “south sign” would be located to the north of Economy Lot 1 and east of the Guadalupe River Trail.

Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead.

Change your eNotification preference.

Unsubscribe from all City of San Jose eNotifications.

From: Joseph Cellura
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 3:25:46 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates% Joe Cellura,
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #27
From: susanne cellura
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 3:29:40 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #28
Comment #29
From:

To: Petersen, Adam
Cc:

Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Friday, August 20, 2021 4:01:55 AM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
To: Adam Petersen, City of San Jose Planning Dept<BR><BR>Dear Mr. Petersen,<BR><BR> Electronic billboards are a dangerous distraction to drivers and I am surprised that isn’t enough to cancel these eyesores. I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property. Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.<BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates for dozens of additional billboards and litigation, like what has happened in Los Angeles. <BR><BR>Thirty-six years ago, the City Council enacted a ban on new billboards. The ban was established based on the belief that beautification was the best way to encourage economic development, a concept the city’s current leaders have been hell-bent to reverse. We should learn from our history, lest we be prone to repeat our past mistakes.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #30
From: Ana Clark < >
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 6:34 PM
To: Keyon, David < >
Subject: Fw: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Please read and support a fellow resident of San Jose.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ana Clark < >
To:

Cc:

Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021, 06:30:57 PM PDT
Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council, I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the Comment #31
riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates. Plus look at the survey results more than 80% of the respondents don't want these atrocities.

Ana Clark
Comment #32
From: Gloie
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 6:06:21 AM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural
environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable.

There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates.

Gloria Collins
District 4
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #33
Comment #34
Comment #35
From: Nancy DeMattei
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 8:13:37 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Sincerely,
Nancy DeMattei
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #36
From: Nancy DeMattei < >
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 8:35 PM
To: Keyon, David < >
Subject: No electronic billboards
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property.

Please don’t ruin San Jose with the blight of these electronic billboards.

Thank you,
Nancy DeMattei
Comment #37
Comment #38
From: Elise di Donato
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 10:36:59 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates% This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #39
Comment #40
Comment #41
Comment #42
Comment #43
From: alan Fanning
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 3:46:43 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Alan Fanning
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #44
From: alan Fanning
To: Petersen, Adam
Cc:

Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Thursday, August 19, 2021 4:16:11 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
To: Adam Petersen, City of San Jose Planning Dept
Dear Mr. Petersen,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property. Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates for dozens of additional billboards and litigation, like what has happened in Los Angeles.

Thirty-six years ago, the City Council enacted a ban on new billboards. The ban was established based on the belief that beautification was the best way to encourage economic development, a concept the city’s current leaders have been hell-bent to reverse. We should learn from our history, lest we be prone to repeat our past mistakes.

Regards,
Alan Fanning
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #45
Comment #46
From: Kris Franz
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 8:28:53 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Kirsten Franz
Sent from my iPad
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #47
Comment #48
From: Guadalupe Friaz < >
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2021 5:20 PM
To: Petersen, Adam < >
Cc: < >
Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
To: Adam Petersen, City of San Jose Planning Dept
Dear Mr. Petersen,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property. Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates for dozens of additional billboards and litigation, like what has happened in Los Angeles.

Thirty-six years ago, the City Council enacted a ban on new billboards. The ban was established based on the belief that beautification was the best way to encourage economic development, a concept the city’s current leaders have been hell-bent to reverse. We should learn from our history, lest we be prone to repeat our past mistakes.

Regards,
Lupe
Comment #49
From: Elizabeth Garcia
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Saturday, August 7, 2021 9:52:25 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates% Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #50
Comment #51
From: Joseph Gemignani
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 6:17:39 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Joseph (amateur weatherman)
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #52
From: VIcki Gersey
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 11:17:57 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates% Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #53
From: Janet Gillis
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 4:59:23 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates.

Thank you,
Janet Gillis
Sent from my iPad
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #54
Comment #55
Comment #56
From: Sharon Grennan
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 10:01:49 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Live, laugh, love...

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #57
Comment #58

August 25, 2021

City of San Jose
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
Attn: Adam Petersen, Environmental Project Manager
200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower
San Jose, CA 95113-1905

RE: GRPC Comments on the US-101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum

The Guadalupe River Park Conservancy (GRPC) submits the following comments on the Initial Study/Addendum (IS/A) for the US-101 Airport Electronic Signs project. The southern sign is located adjacent to the Guadalupe River. While technically outside of our area of influence, as stewards and advocates for the Guadalupe River, we submit the following comments related to the installation of a large electronic billboard near the River habitat. This billboard will also result in negative aesthetic impacts to human users of the Guadalupe River Trail.

Our main comments are as follows:

1. We are disappointed at the lack of outreach for the project. We are usually advised of such projects well in advance and were not recipients of the document in a timely manner.

2. In many locations in the IS/A, it is stated that few species are located in the area including raptors, steelhead, salmon, and southwestern pond turtles, yet this project allows additional detrimental effects to occur to these species. This is one of the more pristine stretches of the river in all of San Jose. To affect wildlife in any number is a significant impact in an area that has finally started to gain some traction in terms of habitat values.

3. While the billboard will be outside of the riparian corridor setback, its construction has the potential to affect natural habitats, including those utilized by the southwestern pond turtle.

We request that the project include pre-construction surveys for the turtle both at night and during the day to ensure that turtles will not be destroyed. This is a standard mitigation measure for special-status species, and we are surprised to not see it in this document, particularly because it seems to us that this is a new significant impact not previously identified in the Master Plan EIR. Similarly, nighttime impacts to special-status fish species should include habitat mitigation measures in terms of habitat restoration consistent with the requirements of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

4. The lighting emitted from the southern sign will impact sensitive riparian forest, aquatic, and willow riparian habitat in excess of what is already occurring in the area. We would like to see a more robust discussion of how this project contributes to these impacts, including how predators will gain an advance in the nighttime hours when the habitats are artificially lighted. To simply say that it already happening so impacts are not significant does not give the public or decision makers sufficient information on which to base an educated decision on the project.

5. We are concerned over significant project impacts to birds and support for bird safe designs.

6. We would like to see more discussion on how sensitive species will be affected by construction noise so close to the aquatic and riparian habitats, and we question if this impact was identified in the Master Plan EIR.

7. While construction impacts may be temporary, there is a potential for significant long-term impacts to the habitat and wildlife. We ask that the potential for habitat restoration along areas adjacent to the Guadalupe River be explored as a mitigation measure for these impacts. When given the opportunity, we have witnessed the river’s ability to restore its biological resources with mitigation and care.

8. We ask for an analysis on how the trail use experience will be affected by the southern billboard in light of the fact that this area of the River is pristine for an urban river.

We are fighting for every foot of trail wherein the user experiences a connection to nature; a place outside of Downtown where residents are welcomed by open space that is in harmony and is healthy; and a green landscape that reflects our best intentions. We question whether this billboard is consistent with our mission and that of San Jose.

Regards,

Erica Carr
Secretary of the Board & Master Plan Committee Chair

Comment #59
From: Gwen Hacker
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 2:40:35 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #60
From: Stuart Hastings
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 5:44:51 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

Billboards are a blight on the public landscape, and digital billboards are a significant distraction to drivers (they are always aimed at passing cars). Billboards benefit only their owners and advertisers; every passerby pays the "attention tax" price, making them a loss overall for society.

Please vote down these billboards, for the sake of the driving public and the Guadalupe River.

Thanks for your attention,
stuart hastings
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #61
From: Michael Hazelton
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 4:02:15 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #62
Comment #63
From: Nina Heldt
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Monday, August 9, 2021 12:22:30 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates% This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #64
From: Bill at Home
To: Bill at Home
Subject: How clear does it need to be? NO BILLBOARDS!
Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 4:15:43 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
As a multi-decade resident of San Jose, I'm asking that you avoid the blight other cities sign up for and can never stop.

DO NOT ALLOW BILLBOARDS ON OUR STREETS OR HIGHWAYS!
In spite of any promised revenue, I know of literally not a single resident that wants these.

Sincerely,
Bill Herndon
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #65
Comment #66
Comment #67
From: Tina Iaquinto
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 7:38:19 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates.

I am opposed to the digital billboards!
Christina Iaquinto
Sent from my iPad
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #68
Comment #69
Comment #70
Comment #71
From: Jenni
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 2:59:48 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #72
Comment #73
Comment #74
From: Vikki Jump
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Saturday, August 7, 2021 10:19:48 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates% This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #75
Comment #76
From: Henni Kaufman
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 10:37:26 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates% Henni Kaufman
Sent from my iPad
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #77
Comment #78
From: Timothy Kenny
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 8:07:58 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #79
Comment #80
Comment #81
Comment #82
From: Michael Kutilek
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 2:56:22 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
As a professional wildlife biologist and concerned citizen, I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates in the future.

Sincerely,
Michael Kutilek, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus, SJSU
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #83
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: RC Lavia
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; [email protected]
Subject: New Billboards
Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 7:38:55 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important The majority of the general public -including me - oppose the installation of new electronic billboards in San Jose.

This is due to a variety of reasons. Some of these are:
43 healthy trees will be removed to make way for the billboards.

They will distract drivers.

They will alter the visual aesthetic of our skyline and its historic character.

They would be visible from the Guadalupe River Trail, affecting trail users and wildlife along the riparian corridor – especially after dusk.

There is no need for this blight. These electronic signs are absolutely not necessary.

Further, it is appalling that San Jose plans to install these digital billboards despite overwhelming opposition by the general public!
Please vote NO at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Please stop this project from proceeding any further.

Thank you,
Roseanna Lavia
San Jose CA
Comment #84
Comment #85
From: Louise Leprohon
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 4:31:03 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #86
Comment #87
Comment #88
Comment #89
Comment #90
From: Thuy Luu
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 9:17:40 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.

Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #91
Comment #92
Comment #93
Comment #94
Comment #95
Comment #96
Comment #97
Comment #98
From: Catherine Martinez < >
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 7:03 PM
To: Airport Commission 1 < >; Airport Commission 2
< >; Airport Commission 3 < >; Airport
Commission 4 < >; Airport Commission 5 < >;
Airport Commission 6 < >; Airport Commission 7
< >; Airport Commission 8 < >; Airport
Commission 9 < >; Airport Commission 10 < >;
Airport Commission CW < >; Kazmierczak, Matthew
< >
Cc: Liccardo, Sam < >; Jones, Chappie < >;
Cohen, David < >; Davis, Dev < >; Carrasco,
Magdalena < >; Mahan, Matt < >;
Esparza, Maya < >; Foley, Pam < >; Peralez, Raul
< >; Jimenez, Sergio < >; Arenas, Sylvia
< >; Petersen, Adam < >; City Clerk
< >; < >
Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,<BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. <BR><BR>Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence. <BR><BR>By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Comment #99
From: Olga Martynenko
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 7:41:23 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates% This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #100
Comment #101
Comment #102
Comment #103
From: Hannelore McCrumb
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 4:13:04 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am strongly opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. With most of the citizens opposed to the e-billboards, why are you not listening? It’s SOO frustrating when sane arguments against the e-billboards as in the paragraph below are not only compelling, but make sense and should not only be considered, but adhered to.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates! Thank you for listening!
Respectfully,
Hannelore McCrumb
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #104
Comment #105
Comment #106
From: Elizabeth Menkin
To: Airport Commission 1; Airport Commission 2; Airport Commission 3; Airport Commission 4; Airport Commission 5; Airport Commission 6; Airport Commission 7; Airport Commission 8; Airport Commission 9; Airport Commission 10; Airport Commission CW; Kazmierczak, Matthew
Cc: Liccardo, Sam; Jones, Chappie; Cohen, David; Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt; Esparza, Maya; Foley, Pam; Peralez, Raul; Jimenez, Sergio; Arenas, Sylvia; Petersen, Adam; City Clerk; Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 11:31:18 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
Dear Airport Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates to more light pollution and distracting eyesores
Thanks,
Elizabeth (Betty) Menkin
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #107
Comment #108
Comment #109
Comment #110
From: Shari Santos
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 202112:22 PM
To: Petersen, Adam
Cc: Burton, Chris ; CAO Main
>; Travis Brooks
Subject: US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Addendum (File No. ER 21-015) [IWOV-iManage.FID1008914] You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important I [External Email]
This email is sent on behalf of Anthony M. Leones.

Replies may be directed to Mr. Leones at . Thank you.

Shari Santos I Miller Starr Regalia
Legal Assistant to Anthony M. Leones
I www.msrlegal.com
Comment #111

City of San Jose
August 17, 2021