US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Final Initial Study/Addendum - Response to Comments — San Jose City Council, February 15, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

OTAD-56265\2478369.1
I. Clear Channel’s Master Concession Agreement Does Not Authorize The Project.

The Addendum appears to contemplate allowing Clear Channel to proceed with the Project based on the Master Concession Agreement Clear Channel entered with the City in July of 2007. This Agreement and its amendments contemplate in-terminal and limited outdoor advertising on airport grounds but expressly excludes billboard advertising.

The City awarded Clear Channel the Master Concession Agreement after issuing a Request for Proposals for an Advertising Concession, with proposals due on March 20, 2007 (“2007 RFP”). Accordingly, on June 5, 2007, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute concession agreements with Clear Channel for Option 5 (including fixed display internal, outdoor advertising, and transit/bus shelter advertising, and promotional and marketing opportunities). The City Council also authorized a separate agreement with Clear Channel for Option 3, for transit/bus shelter advertising.1 The 2007 RFP included five separate proposal options that responding entities could respond to. Responding entities could provide separate proposals for each of Options One through Four (Fixed Display Internal, Outdoor, Transit/Bus Shelter, and Marketing Income). Responding entities could also respond with a proposal for Option Five, which included a comprehensive advertising program incorporating all of the elements from Options One through Four. (See 2007 RFP, at pp. 8-12.) Crucially, none of these Options requested proposals for electronic billboards or V- shaped freestanding freeway signs like those included in the Project. For example, in Option Two – Outdoor Display Package, the City sought proposals for the following: (a) Exterior wrap of the Terminal A Parking Garage, (b) One “Welcome to SJC” Monument sign located on the airport roadway system, and (c) Up to 23 light poles for two-sided banner displays. (2007 RFP, at 9.) The 2007 RFP’s Option III – Transit/Bus Shelter proposal category was the only other proposal package related to outdoor advertising, this sought proposals for displays related to 27 exterior bus shelters, and for the inside and exterior of the City’s shuttle buses. (2007 RFP, at

10.) The Master Concession Agreement executed by Clear Channel is consistent with the scope of the 2007 RFP.2
1 The agreement regarding Option 5 included a minimal concession fee guarantee to the City of $4,075,000. The separate agreement with Clear Channel for Option 3 included a minimal concession fee guarantee to the City of $75,000 per year.
2 This is consistent with the language of City Council Policy 6-4, and the Municipal Code at the time, which prohibited all new billboards on City-owned Property. (See Policy 6-4, p. 1; see also SJMC, § 23.02.1010.) City of San Jose
August 17, 2021

Page 3 ends

OTAD-56265\2478369.1
Specifically, and in alignment with the limited scope of the 2007 RFP, the Master Concession Agreement expressly excludes billboard advertising:

Because of the City’s substantial interest in protecting the health and welfare of its Citizens, Concessionaire agrees that it will not allow free-standing, outdoor billboards in the Concession Areas which:… are freestanding, outdoor billboards.
(2007 Master Concession Agreement, at Section 4.7 (emphasis added).) The City approved amendments to the Master Concession Agreement six times, however none of these altered Section 4.7 of the Agreement. For example, the most recent amendment, the “Sixth Amendment to the Master Agreement”, amends the definition of Advertising Sites and authorizes the Director of Aviation to approve, change, or modify concession areas with a new digital program. However, nothing in the Master Concession Agreement or its amendments authorize Clear Channel to construct, lease, license, or operate digital billboards like those contemplated as part of the Project.

The work contemplated in the Project was not part of the 2007 RFP, and the work proposed by the Project is fundamentally different than the advertising services in the 2007 RFP. If the City wishes to move forward with the Project, Policy 6-4 requires the City to solicit competitive bids to select the entity most advantageous to the City to complete the Project.

II. Policy 6-4 Requires The City To Solicit Proposals For the Project.

The City Council adopted the current language of Policy 6-4 on September 25, 2018, and it was effective on November 9, 2018. Prior to that date, Policy 6-4 and the Municipal Code banned all new billboards on City-owned property. (Policy 6-4, at 1.) For several years prior to 2018, the City Council expressed interest in a policy that would allow for some digital off-site advertising signs and billboards. Policies considered ranged from allowing new billboards on private and public land, and policies only allowing for billboards on City property. Policy 6-4 was intended as an incremental approach to allow for “off-site advertising on City-owned sites throughout the City . . .” while still maintaining a general prohibition against new billboards on private land. (Policy 6-4, at 1.)
In reversing the City’s blanket prohibition, Policy 6-4 established a uniform set of standards and procedures to allow for new billboards on City-owned land. The Policy makes clear that new signs authorized by the Policy will only be allowed “as and where expressly allowed pursuant this Council Policy 6-4.” (Policy 6-4, at 2 (emphasis added).)
Policy 6-4 then goes on to list six selection criteria the City must use to determine whether a city-owned site is eligible (or “potentially eligible”) for new signs under the City of San Jose
August 17, 2021

Page 4 ends

OTAD-56265\2478369.1
Policy. (Policy 6-4, at 4.)3 Using this criteria, the Policy identifies 17 eligible or potentially eligible City-owned sites, but notes that the City Council can add sites if such sites meet the site selection criteria.

Crucially, Policy 6-4 unambiguously lays out a specific procedure in its “Sign Approval Process” for all new billboards authorized by Policy 6-4. This procedure commences with the requirement that the City shall solicit proposals for new billboards, as follows:

1. The City will solicit proposals for [billboards] pursuant to this Policy. City Council direction will be obtained prior to the commencement of any solicitation process.
(Policy 6-4, at 7 (emphasis added).)4
Policy 6-4’s Sign Approval Process then provides that the City may approve placement of a sign pursuant to the Policy through “approval of a lease or other contractual agreement.” While development specific environmental clearance under CEQA with a building permit is required, “no other regulatory permit issued by the City will be required, such as a Site Development Permit.” (Policy 6-4, at 7.) Policy 6-4 then goes on to list the reasons why the City should solicit proposals for new signs, noting that the City may do so for “some or all” of “the following purposes pursuant to this policy”:
(a) To generate revenue for the City;
3 I.e., the site must have a General Plan land use designation other than Open Space; the site must be in a zoning district other than Open Space or Agricultural; the site must not violate the City’s riparian corridor and bird protection policies; the site must comply with the City’s historical preservation standards; the site must be “compatible with any existing use on the site or any potential use of the site”; and the City Finance Department must determine that the site can be used for a sign without violating bond covenants or other restrictions. (Policy 6-4 at 4, “Sign Location, Type, Size, Height and Number”.)
4 This requirement to solicit proposals is consistent with the Municipal Code’s regulation of commercial activity on airport property. For example, unless certain narrow findings can be made, the City must generally seek a minimum of three competitive proposals, if practicable, “for the lease of land, structures, or other premises on the airport.” (SJMC 25.08.1320 (A).) Such leases shall be awarded to the “responsible proposer” that submits the proposal determined by the City to be the most advantageous, considering but not limited to, such factors as “revenues to the airport, services to be provided by the proposer . . . , investment in facilities to be constructed on the land or other premises, etc. . . . .” (Id. at subpart (B).) City of San Jose
August 17, 2021

Page 5 ends

OTAD-56265\2478369.1
(b) To generate revenue to support City-owned facilities, programs, or services;
(c) To eliminate visual clutter and blight by reducing the overall number of existing Billboards City-wide or eliminating existing Billboards from locations where they are particularly unsightly or incompatible with surrounding land uses.
(Policy 6-4, at 8.)
Policy 6-4 provides a clear procedure that the City must adhere to approve new billboards like those proposed by the Project. If the City wants to approve new billboards on City-owned land, it must first solicit proposals, and can only approve billboards on sites that meet the selection criteria outlined in Policy 6-4. After a suitable proposal is selected, the City must then approve a lease or other contractual agreement for the proposed billboard. It is this solicitation process and City Council approval of a lease or other contractual agreement that Policy 6-4 envisions as the City’s discretionary approval process for new billboards on City- owned property. Policy 6-4 does not envision the City granting an entity an approval for new billboards on City-owned land with no competitive bidding process, and under an agreement that always excluded billboards from its scope.

III. Conclusion.

For the foregoing reasons, Outfront respectfully requests that the City suspend its environmental review and follow the procedural requirements as set forth in Policy 6-4. If the City wishes to proceed with the Project, the City must issue a Request for Proposals. The City would then select the responsible proposer who submits the proposal determined by the City to be the most advantageous to the City. To do otherwise would violate the clear standards and procedures adopted by the City Council.

Very truly yours,

MILLER STARR REGALIA
Anthony M. Leones
cc: Chris Burton, Planning Director, City of San Jose,
[email protected]
John Aitken, Aviation Director, Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport, [email protected]
Nora Frimann, City Attorney, City of San Jose, [email protected]

Comment #112
Comment #113
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Suzanne Morrone
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; Wednesday, August 4, 2021 2:37:34 PM
You don't often get email from . I earn why this is important I [External Email]
Dear City employees, who actually work on my tax dollars, I am vehemently opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on aiipo1i prope1iy, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any fmther at the Ai1po1i Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

I am so opposed that in this upcommg mayoral and city council election I Promise not to vote for anyone who suppo1is digital billboards. The people of San Jose are ove1whelmmgly opposed.

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. As well as the light pollution generated by them, damaging the wildlife along the Guadalupe River, a more valuable resource than most people seem to understand.

The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There's no significant money in it for the city, nor is it wo1ih sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They ce1iainly 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.

Thii·ty-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 cmTent leaders have been hell-bent to reverse. We should learn from our histo1y, lest we be prone to repeat our past mistakes.

I can't begin to express how strongly I feel on this subject.

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

Comment #114
From: Suzanne Murzello
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; Suzanne Murzello Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 10:57:55 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. 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 digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates to distracted drivers, accidents on the freeway not to mention to slow down in traffic, which is already bad.

I will be extremely disappointed in the City Council and Airport Commission if this is approved.

Regards,
Suzanne Murzello
District 4 member
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #115
Comment #116
From: Karina Nevarez
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 9:40:32 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.

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

Thank you for your consideration,
Karina
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #117
Comment #118
Comment #119
On Aug 24, 2021, at 1:22 PM, No Digital Billboards in San Jose < > wrote:

Hi Adam,
Please see attached a 29 page PDF document detailing our response as part of the circulation public comment period for the US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum (File No: ER21-015, Parcels 230-01-058 and 230-02-021). In addition to several concerns, we also highlight many process irregularities associated with this project and include these comments in the attached document, as there has been no prior public engagement forum to directly provide such input.

We would appreciate confirmation of receipt of our document at your earliest convenience. Let us know if you have any questions or problems accessing the document.
here
here
Email us:

Comment #120

From: christy noren
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 4:38:36 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.

Thank you for listening.

Christy Noren
San Jose resident
Sent from my iPhone.

Stay safe.

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

Comment #121
From: Mona Onstead
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 2:16:25 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.

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 #122
Comment #123
(408) 998-7337
Adam Petersen
Contract Environmental Team
City of San Jose Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement Department
200 East Santa Clara Street, Room 300
San Jose, CA 95113
408.535.1241
RE: US 101 AIRPORT ELECTRONIC SIGNS ADDENDUM, FILE NO: ER21-015 Dear Adam Petersen,
I am writing on behalf of Our City Forest, a leading nonprofit in Silicon Valley for urban forestry, in support of the message from the No Digital Billboards In San Jose Steering Committee.

We are deeply concerned about the proposed Airport Electronic Signs project due to the unnecessary loss of urban forest canopy in an urban heat island. We are also concerned about detrimental impacts to the riparian corridor, the light pollution and driver distraction, to name just a few additional impacts.

We hope that you will take the message of the steering committee into consideration and reexamine your intent to move forward with these electronic billboards.

Best,
Rhonda Berry
CEO/President
(408) 799-9502

Comment #124
Comment #125
Comment #126
From: P S
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 and support the enforcement of the billboard ban Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 3:13:37 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,
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.

As a 15+ year resident of San Jose, adding environmental pollution to 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 and in direct conflict to constituent feedback. 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 even as residents and voters remind them. We should learn from our history, lest we be prone to repeat our past mistakes.

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

Comment #127
Comment #128
Comment #129
From: Betty Prince
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 8:42:05 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.

Comment #130
From: Melanie Puntanilla
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 9:25:19 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. 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 #131
Comment #132
Comment #133
From: Sally Redfield [ ]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:35 AM
To: Petersen, Adam < >
Cc:

The so called "urban vibrancy" is a vague and unsubstantiated claim, how is it supposed to make out town more "vibrant"? Digital billboards are a blight on our lovely city. It's the open sky and trees that make life in San Jose approachable and livable for people who don't want to live in areas with constant noise and lights. We should be proud to be different than other highly populated urban areas and embrace the fact that we are surrounded by natural beauty.instead of trying to be something else.

Tearing down trees to install billboards is aesthetically and environmentally questionable.

I know that studies have mixed results but I personally find them very distracting when driving and I know others do as well. Do we want to chance even one accident? 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 want to reverse. We are a city of over 1,000,000 people and I don't think the City Council is representing us in this matter.

Regards,
Sally Redfield
Shasta Hanchett Neighborhood
Comment #134
Comment #135
Comment #136
From: Kathy Richmond
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 2:20:05 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. I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9, 2021.

Trashing the natural environment of San Jose cannot be allowed to happen. Chopping 43 healthy trees for digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. They provide no significant money for the city, and is it worth sacrificing our energy resources, natural environment, and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They will not generate “urban vibrancy” whatever that is.
allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City will open the floodgates for other garish drains of electricity and hideous blots on the scenic landscape of San Jose.

Kathy Richmond
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #137
From: Vickie R
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: In opposition to Electronic Billboards
Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 5:38:04 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 any property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project in it’s entirety at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

Impacting 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 not in the interest of the citizens or businesses of San Jose. It is not worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will degrade the local economy and certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy”. They will cheapen the view and further decrease San Jose’s own brilliance— what is left of it.

We are not Picadilly Circus.

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

Comment #138
From: Raymond Rogoway [ ]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 11:21 AM
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,
Raymond Rogoway
Comment #139
Comment #140
Comment #141
Comment #142
From: Kelsey Rothrock
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 3:01:28 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.

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

Comment #143
From: Cathy Rubin
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 6:14:11 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.

Comment #144
Comment #145
From: Russ
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 3:10:53 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, 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 #146
From: Janet Ryder
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 10:22:42 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.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates% NO! NO! NO!
THOSE BILLBOARDS DO NOT BELONG HERE.

This is not Las Vegas or Times Square and I never want it to be.

Keep San Jose a beautiful place remembered for rose gardens, clean highways and peaceful surroundings. The Valley of Heart’s Delight does not deserve such a fate and neither does its citizens. Do not destroy the beauty we have worked hard to create in our city.

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

Comment #147
Comment #148

sent by:

Barbara Kelsey
she/her/hers
Chapter Coordinator
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~

August 25, 2021

Adam Petersen
Environmental Project Manager
City of San José

Re: US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum

Dear Mr. Petersen,

In April 2020, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society submitted scoping comments for San Jose’s proposed for the City’s Phase II Sign Ordinance Update. The comments provided an unequivocal scientific evidence to establish the significant and unavoidable harm that ALAN in general, and electronic billboards specifically, impose on human health and on ecosystems. We submit our April 2020 scoping letter - please consider our April 2020 letter and the resources it refers to as comments on the US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum. (Attachment 1)

In March 2021, Sierra Club National adopted a new light pollution policy:
“Sierra Club recognizes that while artificial light provides desirable benefits to society, such as extended hours of social space at night, its excessive, inappropriate and poorly controlled use also leads to significant harm. Sierra Club defines light pollution as artificial light that adversely affects ecosystems and any living organism. Sierra Club includes in this definition anthropogenic light that is wasteful, or misdirected; has negative ecological impacts; is used as a form of aggression; is harmful to health, safety, or other human rights; or disrupts our view of the natural night sky, disconnecting us from our cosmic environment, including the Milky Way galaxy where we live.

Therefore, light pollution imposes natural resources, economic, biological, political, psychological, and cultural burdens.”

The Sierra Club retained a 60-years policy which “opposes billboard development along highways and supports measures to restrict these billboards.”

The Sierra club policy statement is supported by a comprehensive compilation of resources pointing to the significant impacts of Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) (Attachment 2), pointing to the devastating impact of lighting on ecosystems and organisms that comprise our biological resources. This evidence provides additional support to our assertion that electronic signs will cause significant and irreversible harm to the environment, especially

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~

when the light can be visible from the riparian and aquatic habitats along the Guadalupe River.

The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society is similarly concerned with the proliferation of ALAN and its pervasive harm to organisms, species, ecological food webs, and human health and safety.

Our organizations and our thousands of members in San Jose are all working to protect our common natural resources, and we are greatly concerned with detrimental impacts of programmable electronic billboards and signs to biological resources, the night sky, the aesthetic character of our region, and the health and quality of life of our region’s residents.

We consider electronic advertisement “a form of aggression” which assaults our senses and health, and imperils drivers as it diverts their attention and puts them at an increased risk of collision. We are opposed to allowing electronic billboards and encourage the City of San Jose to tighten regulation and reduce, rather than increase their prevalence and impacts.

We urge the City to adopt a No Project alternative.

We support the letter submitted by No Digital Billboards in San Jose In addition to our comments in the Scoping Letter of April 2020, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society submit the following comments on the US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum (File No: ER21-015).

1. The light pollution impacts of this project have not been adequately analyzed

For the North Sign, the Addendum does include “custom side-shielding of the LED modules to eliminate spill light toward the Airport’s air traffic control (ATC) tower located approximately 5,600 feet away.” However, there is no mitigation to reduce such impacts on the River, which is much closer to the sign than the ATC tower. It’s clear that both signs have light pollution and glare impacts for a great distance and both signs will have negative impacts on the riparian corridor and light pollution in general. Specifically, the impacts of the North Sign on the riparian corridor need to be analyzed and mitigated, preferably using an internally illuminated or ‘backlighted’ LED display facing toward the riparian zone as is proposed for the South Sign.

2. The Biological Report underestimates the potential impact to the aquatic and riparian ecosystems and the species that inhabit them

Recent scientific studies highlight the pervasive, cumulative, and harmful impacts of Artificial Light At Night (ALAN) to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, species, and ecosystems. The impacts, including effects on circadian rhythms, metabolism and behavior in fish, birds, insects, and other taxa, have been summarized in several recent publications in major scientific journals. It seems that CEQA guidelines have not caught up and are

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~

inadequate to measure the impact to biological resources. Science shows that ALAN is harmful to all biological resources that see or otherwise perceive it - including both plants and animals. The many studies cited in this and attached documents shows that biological impacts are not limited to the area illuminated but can extend to a large distance. The mechanism by which light impacts organisms is explored in a November 2020 study titled, “Exposure to Artificial Light at Night and the Consequences for Flora, Fauna, and Ecosystems” (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2020.602796/full). This study shows that dozens of behavioral activities in all biological taxa display daily and annual rhythms, and are thus impacted by ALAN. This includes locomotor activity and sleep, schooling behavior (fish), vertical (fish) and horizontal (all vertebrates) migration, behavioral thermoregulation (fish), vocalization (fish, birds), food intake, mating and reproduction.

Recent studies also implicate ALAN as one of the primary drivers of the global decline in insect numbers and diversity (the insect apocalypse, see https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/can-scientists-help-insects-survive-their- fatal-attraction-light-night and https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/light- pollution-contributes-insect-apocalypse-180973642). The loss of insects and the loss of ecological services they provide (for example, pollination, and as food for fish and birds) motivated Germany to adopt a law restricting ALAN and the use of pesticides (https://phys.org/news/2021-06-german-climate-insect-laws-finish.html).

The Biological report acknowledges the potential harmful impacts of ALAN on the riparian corridor and sensitive species that use the aquatic and the riparian habitats for subsistence and movement, yet finds no significant impacts because the area is already degraded and lit. The report does not include a photometric study, and thus its findings are subjective and unsubstantiated. Fish and wildlife in this area are dependent on the relatively dark and narrow riparian corridor for movement and migration. Incremental and cumulative increase in ambient light is likely to disrupt their migration, with the potential of limiting activity hours with detrimental and cumulative results.

While we agree that the area is not pristine, and that there are many stressors that impact Steelhead and other aquatic and riparian species in the Guadalupe River, we disagree with the finding of no significant impact after mitigation.

Migration is a crucial event in the Steelhead life cycle, which travels between the Bay and its breeding areas in the Guadalupe River system. Downstream migration brings young fry from their hatching area to the Bay, where they feed and mature. While water quality and quantity are indeed critical to this threatened species persistence in the river, the addition of ALAN impacts on rhythmic components such as migratory behavior, is likely to contribute a significant risk factor and adversely impact Steelhead in the Guadalupe River.

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~

Furthermore, Steelhead feed on insects (aquatic Macroinvertebrates, see https://fishbio.com/field-notes/population-dynamics/stuck-middle-insects-food-web).

As discussed above, contemporary scientific evidence shows that attraction to light is having a devastating and direct impact on insect numbers and diversity, and indirect effects to entire ecosystems. This science should also apply to the aquatic insects that are the basis of the food web in the Guadalupe River.

It is reasonable to expect that increased visibility of light from the riparian and aquatic ecosystem of the Guadalupe River will impact the migratory behavior of the threatened Steelhead and reduce their food source (insects). The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to fish (as reviewed in the attachments and references we provided) may contribute to the hazards that challenge steelhead survival in the river.

We believe that we have a fair argument, based on substantial evidence, that the project will have significant unavoidable impacts to the riparian and aquatic systems of the Guadalupe River and to the threatened. ALAN generated by billboards also have the potential to harm steelhead and impede wildlife migration in the river aquatic and riparian corridor. We maintain that the finding that the project will cause no significant unavoidable impacts to the environment cannot be made, and a full, independent EIR is needed.

3. The project undermines driver safety

In addition to resources submitted in Attachment 2 and by other commenters, please add the following evidence that shows that billboards, especially electronic billboards, are hazardous to drivers:
• Colored light from LED displays outdoors in urban zones affects traffic safety. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360132320308155 (January 2021)
• Luminance of roadside LED Billboards in Poland shows that advertising billboards often exceeded safe luminance levels for driving.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15502724.2020.1803752 (October 2020)
• April 2021 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published data from 2019 on distracted-driver accident stats (electronic billboards included "Distracted by Outside Person, Object, or Event")
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813111

4. Regulatory Framework should include City Council Policy 6-4

Please include the City Council Policy 6-4, Signs on City-Owned Land Including Billboards, Programmable Electronic Signs and Signs Displaying Off-Site Commercial Speech (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/city-clerk/council-policy-

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~

manual/section-6-planning-zoning) under Regulatory Framework and discuss how it applies to this project including the list of project locations for electronic signs included in the Policy.

5. Please describe and analyze the impacts of Energy Use and Heat Generation

Electronic signs generate a lot of heat and usually require air conditioning (https://www.scenic.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/EXCERPT The Basics of Digital Signage and Energy Consump tion1.pdf). Please update the Project Description to describe the type of air conditioning (or other cooling system) that will be installed and the operations plan for this air conditioning including use of water for these systems. Also, please include energy used for air conditioning in the analysis of impacts on Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The heat-producing signs will also contribute to the urban heat island effect. The American Planning Association’s Planning Advisory Service (PAS Quick Notes, Urban Heat Resilience) states “Heat kills more people in the United States than all other weather hazards combined.” The report also says planners “should work to help their communities equitably prepare for and adapt to both chronic and acute heat risk through heat mitigation and management” and recommends mitigation strategies including “waste heat reduction.”

Please describe in the project description how hot these signs are and under what conditions they would need to be cooled to continue operating. Also analyze the impact on temperatures in the vicinity of the sign during extreme heat emergencies and potential impact to the grid (temperatures above 90 degrees Fahrenheit). “Extreme heat is a period of high heat and humidity with temperatures above 90 degrees for at least two to three days.” (https://www.ready.gov/heat)

6. The project is part of a larger project and neglects to consider cumulative impacts

If these signs are installed it’s very likely at least 20 more similar signs will be installed on City property. This project fragments CEQA analysis as it fails to analyze the full impact of electronic signs on City owned properties.

Please estimate the cumulative impacts on ambient light in the city, energy use and extreme heat hazards that will result from adding 20 more electronic signs (mostly within a mile radius of Downtown).

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~

7. The EIR should consider alternatives

Alternatives to the proposed project must be studied. Please analyze both the “no project” alternative and an alternative with smaller 2-sided signs and with both signs using internally illuminated or ‘backlighted’ LED displays facing toward the riparian zone.

8. Mitigation Measures

We continue to ask for the project to be stopped. However, if the project is approved, the following mitigation measures should be added for this project to help reduce the above- described impacts:
• Signs should not be illuminated between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (as provided for in Zoning Ordinance section 23.02.905 - Limitations on programmable electronic signs).
• Tree planting should be required on-site where the signs are installed to mitigate the tree removal and the heat island impacts created by these blazing signs. • Billboards should include an ambient temperature sensor that automatically shuts down the display when temperatures exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit to protect the environment, alleviate the urban heat island effect and reduce energy use during hot weather emergencies.
• It’s clear the residents of San José strongly oppose these signs and the negative impact they will have on the visual character of the City. The aesthetic impact of these signs must be mitigated by removing blight elsewhere in the vicinity of Downtown. We recommend removing existing paper billboards to mitigate this negative impact. The mitigation should be based on sign area not on number of signs and should remove signage at a ratio of at least 4 sq. ft. removed per sq. ft. of new signage.
• Mitigation should include independent monitoring for compliance with ordinance requirements, conditions, and mitigation measures including times of operation and lighting levels/intensity. This independent monitoring should be at the expense of the billboard operators, who should not be monitoring their own compliance. If dozens more of these signs are allowed, a monitoring system needs to be in place.

8. An Addendum to the Airport Master Plan EIR is not an acceptable CEQA process for this project

An Addendum to the Airport Master Plan EIR is not an acceptable CEQA process for this project, which is of great concern to the community. This project is a substantial change to the Airport Master Plan and will have substantial impacts that were not analyzed in the Airport Master Plan EIR. Electronic signs were not part of the project discussed in the Master Plan EIR, so this is a whole new project and a substantial change to the Airport Master Plan. A Subsequent EIR is needed to analyze those impacts in more detail, to

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~

considers alternatives, and provide mitigation measures for the project-level impacts as well as cumulative impacts of all Programmable Electronic Signs allowed under Council Policy 6-4.

As discussed in this comment letter, the project will have significant impacts that were not discussed in the Airport Master Plan EIR and it may not be possible to mitigate the impacts on aesthetics, biological resources, energy and greenhouse gas emissions, and hazards such as heat and traffic collisions.

Respectfully,

Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society

Katja Irvin
Water Committee Co-chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

2 4. Describe and provide a map for required utility infrastructure improvements for each site

5. Include full-text of the proposed ordinance to the extent feasible

6. The NOP states the changes will apply to non-City owned sites as identified citywide and does not further describe specific applications within the Downtown Sign Zone and North San Jose Development Policy Area. Please elaborate and provide specific information so the public can understand how the ordinance will apply differently in these zones or in different parts of the City.

Alternatives

Our orgnizations are opposed to this project, and support the No Project Alternative. If the project does move forward, please study a Reduced-Scale Alternative that incorporates one or more of the following:

1. We urge the City of San Jose to shelve this project and avoid electronic billboards and signs. We support the No Project alternative.

2. If the City proceeds, we ask for an alternative that would reduce the number of permitted sites for billboards, increase the distance between sites, and disallow billboards on both sides of a road. Increase the replacement ratio (existing vs. new signs) to a minimum of 10:1.

3. Provide an alternative that uses a replacement ratio (existing vs. new signs) based on energy use instead of a replacement ratio. Per the International Dark-Sky Association guidance, “EMCs can be adjusted by time of day to changing traffic and ambient light conditions, and may require less electricity than legacy installations given the high efficiency of LEDs.” A programmable electronic sign should be required to use less energy than the energy per day currently used by the signs it will replace. This would mitigate the energy impacts of this ordinance update and contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

4. Require existing billboards replaced by a new electronic sign be within a certain radius (.5 or 1 mile) of the new sign.

5. A large number of sites appear to be identified along Highway 87 which runs parallel to the Guadalupe River and especially concentrated near the Arena Green (confluence point) and near Coleman Avenue. Currently there virtually no billboards along this highway. Another concentration of sites along Highway 237 also appear to be near the River. We ask for an alternative that removes any sites within a 300- foot riparian setback from the riparian corridor (as defined by Council Policy 6-34) – including near bridges, and minimizes the concentration of new signs near the edge of this setback.

6. Increase the non-operation hours for electronic signs. Require signs be switched off completely after 11p.m. and remain off until one hour before sunrise. International Dark-Sky Association lists this timing as a minimum requirement to provide greater protection of the nighttime environment and to meet the currently accepted standards of sustainability. To further mitigate biological impacts, wait until one hour after sunrise due to bird migration. Night-flying migratory songbirds land right before sunrise before continuing on their migration the next evening. 3 References

1. International Dark-Sky Association, “Guidance for Electronic Message Centers (EMCs),” International Dark-Sky Association, May 10, 2019. https://www.darksky.org/ida-announces-lighting-guidelines-for-electronic- messaging-centers/

Policies and Regulations

The following goals, policies and regulations may apply to this project. Please discuss how the Project complies with:

1. The California Air Resources Board targets under AB 398 to reduce GHG emission to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

2. Climate Smart San José.

3. San Jose Council Policy 4-3, Outdoor Lighting on Private Developments, which provides for adequate light for nighttime activities while protecting the continued enjoyment of the night sky and continuing operation of the Lick Observatory by reducing light pollution and sky glow.

4. San Jose Riparian Corridor Policy Study (1999), Council Policy 6-34 (Riparian Corridor Protection and Bird Safe Design) and Valley Water Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams.

5. The requirement to obtain a “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

References:

1. Climate Smart San Jose
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/environment/climate-smart-san-jos

2. The San Jose Riparian Corridor Study can be found here: http://calsj.org/

3. https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing-businesses-with-the-district/permits- for-working-on-district-land-or-easement/guidelines-and-standards-for-land-use-near- streams

Analysis and Mitigation Categories

1. Aesthetics
a. The NOP provides “the EIR will describe the existing visual character of the proposed signage sites and vicinity.” Please provide existing visual character both during the day and at night for the entire area that electronic billboards will be visible from.
b. Please provide specifications for allowed signage, including but not limited to height above ground level, sign shape, orientation regarding the freeway, massing and dimensions, brightness, density, permitted cadence (flashing, erratic displays) and sign density/spacing.
c. Based on these specifications, please provide a Photometric Analysis for each site. Please include a cumulative analysis if more than one sign will be visible, including cumulative light shed from potential signs on both city owned and non-city owned sites.
4 d. Elevated freeways such as 87 and 280 provide views of the mountains that are prized by residents. Please analyze the impact on the views of the mountains from freeways during the day and the night.
e. For every proposed site, analyze the effect on drivers' enjoyment of visual resources such as creeks, and open space.
f. For every proposed site, analyze the effect on users of public resources such as parks, trails and open space, inlcluding the Guadalupe Creek and other trails.
g. Include all aspects of the recommended and Best Management Practices described in the International Dark-Sky Association’s “Guidance for Electronic Message Centers (EMCs)” either in the proposed ordinance or as mitigation measures.
https://www.darksky.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/EMC-Guidelines-IDA2019-1.pdf

2. Human Helath
a. Digital billboards are extraordinarily bright, and can disrupt sleep by residents when they shine into windows. This is not a trivial impact, and one cannot expect residents near such billboards to have to purchase and install blackout shades. Sleep is necessary for restoring physiological and biological processes (Bennington and Heller 1995), in consolidating memory (Drosopoulos et al. 2007), and for maintaining a healthy metabolism (Taheri et al. 2004). Darkness in the sleeping environment is tied strongly to sleep duration and quality, including the production of key hormones such as the pineal neurohormone melatonin, which is produced at night under dark conditions (Arendt 2005). For the elderly and others in institutional care, lights (and noise) have been shown to be particularly disruptive (Schnelle et al. 1999). The evidence that outdoor lighting results in indoor exposure is found in epidemiological studies (Kloog et al. 2008; Kloog et al. 2009a; Kloog et al. 2009b; Kloog et al. 2011), and such exposure is implicated in an increased risk of breast cancer (Stevens 1987; Hansen 2001b; Hansen 2001a; Stevens and Rea 2001; Schernhammer et al. 2006; Kloog et al. 2009a; Kloog et al. 2011) and prostate cancer (Pukkala et al. 2006; Kloog et al. 2009b).

Light at night from digital billboards can also harm other groups of animals, such as birds (Kempenaers et al. 2010; Longcore 2010).

References:

1. Bennington, J. H., and H. C. Heller. 1995. Restoration of brain energy metabolism as the function of sleep. Progress in Neurobiology 45:347–360.

2. Drosopoulos, S., C. Schulze, S. M. Fischer, and J. Born. 2007. Sleep’s function in the spontaneous recovery and consolidation of memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136:169–183.

3. Taheri, S., L. Lin, D. Austin, T. Young, and E. Mignot. 2004. Short sleep duration is associated with reduced leptin, elevated ghrelin, and increased body mass index.

PLoS Medicine 1:e62.

4. Arendt, J. 2005. Melatonin: characteristics, concerns, and prospects. Journal of Biological Rhythms 20:291–303.
5 5. Schnelle, J. F., C. A. Alessi, N. R. Al-Samarrai, R. D. Fricker, Jr., and J. G. Ouslander. 1999. The nursing home at night: effects of an intervention on noise, light, and sleep. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 47:430–438.

6. Kloog, I., A. Haim, and B. A. Portnov. 2009a. Using kernel density function as an urban analysis tool: investigating the association between nightlight exposure and the incidence of breast cancer in Haifa, Israel. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 33:55–63.

7. Kloog, I., A. Haim, R. G. Stevens, M. Barchana, and B. A. Portnov. 2008. Light at night co- distributes with incident breast but not lung cancer in the female population of Israel. Chronobiology International 25:65-81.

8. Kloog, I., A. Haim, R. G. Stevens, and B. A. Portnov. 2009b. Global co-distribution of light at night (LAN) and cancers of prostate, colon, and lung in men.

Chronobiology International 26:108–125.

9. Kloog, I., B. A. Portnov, H. S. Rennert, and A. Haim. 2011. Does the modern urbanized sleeping habitat pose a breast cancer risk? Chronobiology International 28:76–80.

10. Stevens, R. G. 1987. Electric power use and breast cancer: a hypothesis.

American Journal of Epidemiology 125:556–561.

11. Stevens, R. G., and M. S. Rea. 2001. Light in the built environment: potential role of circadian disruption in endocrine disruption and breast cancer. Cancer Causes & Control 12:279– 287.

12. Hansen, J. 2001a. Increased breast cancer risk among women who work predominantly at night. Epidemiology 12:74–77.

13. Hansen, J. 2001b. Light at night, shiftwork, and breast cancer risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93:1513–1515.

14. Schernhammer, E. S., C. H. Kroenke, F. Laden, and S. E. Hankinson. 2006. Night work and risk of breast cancer. Epidemiology 17:108–111.

15. Pukkala, E., M. Ojamo, S. Rudanko, R. G. Stevens, and P. K. Verkasalo. 2006. Does incidence of breast cancer and prostate cancer decrease with increasing degree of visual impairment. Cancer Causes and Control 17:573–576.

16. Kempenaers, B., P. Borgström, P. Loës, E. Schlicht, and M. Valcu. 2010. Artificial night lighting affects dawn song, extra-pair siring success and lay date in songbirds. Current Biology 20:1735–1739.

17. Longcore, T. 2010. Sensory ecology: night lights alter reproductive behavior of blue tits. Current Biology 20:R893–R895.

3. Biological Resources
a. During the migratory season birds can confuse bright light with the sun, drawing them towards illuminated structures and often causing them to collide with the facade. Corridors along rivers, streams, and creeks provide habitat to many migratory and resident avian species and are especially sensitive to increases in light pollution. In San Jose, we must also consider the sensitivity of the burrowing owl population at the Water Pollution Control Plant.
b. For all wildlife, critical behaviors such as sleep, reproduction, communication, foraging for food, and hiding from predators are sensitive to 6 increased illumination even on a temporary basis. Artificial lighting generated by billboards and other advertisements eliminate a significant period of potential activity time for a species, posing long-term negative consequences. Illumination of billboards and other signs should be controlled to minimize cumulative effects of lighting on wildlife. c. Please note that the incremental and cumulative impacts of light pollution to biological resources are not disputable, and that scientific evidence shows that the effects of light pollution are incremental and cumulative (Rich and Longcore, 2006). The analysis of this impact cannot assume that, because light pollution already exists at or near any of the potential sites, additional disruption (incremental and cumulative impact) has no adverse effects on the environment.
d. Electronic signs can potentially have ecosystem-wide, pervasive and significant impact to biological resources because they affect every living thing throughout the entire food chain.
e. Please provide meaningful mitigation, including turning off electronic billboard at 11 p.m. and keeping it off until an hour after sunrise at the earliest. This should help mitigate impacts to ecosystem and human health, to migratory birds and to aquatic species.

References:

1. Catherine Rich and Travis Longcore (Editors). Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. 2006. http://www.urbanwildlands.org/ecanlbook.html

and http://urbanwildlands.org/Resources/LongcoreRich2004.pdf

2. Elizabeth Perkin et al. The influence of artificial light on stream and riparian ecosystems: questions, challenges, and perspectives. 2011. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/ES11-00241.1

3. Monika Henn, Effects of artificial light on the drift on macroinvertebrates in urban central Texas streams. 2013.
https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/4615

4. Zúñiga, D. et al. Abrupt switch to migratory night flight in a wild migratory songbird. Sci. Rep. 6, 34207; doi: 10.1038/srep34207 (2016). https://www.nature.com/articles/srep34207

5. Raap, T. et al. Light pollution disrupts sleep in free-living animals. Sci. Rep. 5, 13557; doi: 10.1038/srep13557 (2015).
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13557

6. Perry, Gad & Buchanan, Bryant & Fisher, R. & Salmon, Michael & Wise, Sharon. (2008). Effects of night lights on urban reptiles and amphibians.. Herpetological Conservation 3.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216453854 Effects of night lights on urban reptiles and amphibians

4. Cultural Resouces
a. Consider impacts on the cultural and recreational resource provided by the James Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton just outside of San Jose. The observatory and UC Berkeley should be notified of these ordinance changes and given the opportunity to provide comments.
7 b. Analyze the impacts of small digital billboards in the public right of way on public sidewalks and street furniture as well as any potential impacts on the aesthetics and character of historic and other landmark buildings.

5. Energy
a. Please provide an analysis of how electronic billboards and signs comply with the City climate-resilience and energy saving ordinances and policies, including Climate Smart San José.
b. Several articles have looked at energy use of electronic signs. Depending on how they are designed these signs have the potential to use substantial amounts of electricity. Please analyze the potential high-end of energy use for each alternative.
c. Please consider the following factors when analyzing energy use (from “Shedding Light on Digital Signs,” Heather LaVarnway and Emily Dozier):
i. The number of bulbs involved. Although one LED bulb is more efficient than one incandescent bulb, digital signs are made up of thousands of LED bulbs.
ii. The number of hours the sign is on. Digital signs are lit all the time, while lamps providing external sign illumination are only lit at night. iii. Keeping the LED display cool. Digital signs work best within a certain temperature range. When placed outside and exposed to the elements, they must include a cooling system to ensure the sign doesn’t overheat.
d. Please do not use studies funded by the outdoor advertising industry to estimate energy use. Look to more objective studies. Research by the Central Texas chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council found the energy consumption of one digital billboard 49 times that of a conventional billboard (see Edward T. McMahon, “Billboards: The Case for Control”). e. As a Best Management Practice, energy use and luminance should be measured at the time of installation to verify that any requirements to reduce energy use have been met.

References:

1. Heather LaVarnway and Emily Dozier, “Shedding Light on Digital Signs,” Plan On It, March/April 2019, Dutchess County Planning Federation. https://www.dutchessny.gov/Departments/Planning/Docs/MarchApril201 9-DCPFeNews-DigitalSigns-printerfriendly.pdf

2. “Do Digital Billboards Waste Energy?”, New York Times, December 20, 2010. https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/do-digital-billboards-waste- energy/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

3. Edward T. McMahon, “Billboards: The Case for Control,” Planning Commissioners Journal, Number 81, Winter, 2011, p. 1.
http://plannersweb.com/2011/01/billboards-the-case-for-control/

4. BanBillBoardBlight, Do Electronic Billboards Belong in a “Green” City?. http://banbillboardblight.org/do-electronic-billboards-belong-in-a-green- city/

8 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Please analyze greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated due to:
i. Operations of the signs
ii. Demolition of obsolete signs and construction of new signs iii. Traffic jams due to increase in the frequency of accidents (see Transortation below)

7. Transportation
a. Please analyze the impact of progammable electronic signs on traffic safety. A growing number of studies from around the world are showing that digital billboards negatively affect traffic safety:
i. A 2016 study by Berkeley Veridian Group's president Jerry Wachtel reviewed over 40 studies and research papers published by academic, industry and government entities. The study broadly summarizes that “the more recent studies have tended to find that outdoor advertising signs, particularly CEVMS, attract drivers’ attention, and that more dramatic and salient signs attract longer and more frequent glances.

This attention is often captured through a ‘bottom up’ physiological process, in which the driver attends to the sign unintentionally and unconsciously, with the eyes captured involuntarily by the sign’s changing imagery, brightness, conspicuity, and/or movement. Several of the reported studies suggested that the distraction caused by outdoor advertising signs could be tolerated by experienced drivers and when attentional or cognitive demands of the driving task were low, but that the risk increased when such signs competed for the driver’s visual attention with more demanding road, traffic, and weather conditions, when travel speeds were higher, or when an unanticipated event or action (such as a sudden lane change or hard braking by a lead vehicle) occurred to which the driver had to respond quickly and correctly. In addition, the more recent research continues to show that the drivers most susceptible to unsafe levels of distraction from roadside billboards are the young (who are more prone to distraction and less adept at emergency vehicle response) and the elderly (who have more difficulty with rapidly shifting attention, poorer night vision and glare susceptibility, and slower mental processing time). As will be seen in this Compendium, these concerns are heightened today, with our elderly driver population growing quickly, traffic increasingly dense, more roads under maintenance or repair (construction and work zones create added risks), and larger, brighter digital and video roadside advertising signs competing for the driver’s attention. Finally, the most recent epidemiological studies (dating from 2014 and 2015) have begun to demonstrate what has long been suspected but not proven – that roadside billboards are associated with increases in crash rates where such billboards are located”
9 ii. Research on driver behavior and performance shows that drivers are more distracted by digital billboards than by other signs on the same stretch of road (Dukic et al., 2013). This study was conducted on a heavily trafficked stretch of highway in Stockholm, Sweden, where the digital billboards were installed for the experiment. Drivers looked at the digital billboards longer and more often than they did at non- digital signs (Dukic et al. 2013); this has also been shown by other studies (Beijer et al. 2004; Smiley et al. 2005). The Swedish results confirmed previous simulator research showing that drivers took more time to react to road conditions when exposed to electronic billboards, especially among novice and elderly drivers (Edquist et al. 2011). Previous researchers have also found an increase in side-swipe and rear-end crashes attributable to electronic billboards (Wisconsin Department of Transportation 1994). Based on the results of the Swedish study described above, which demonstrated driver distraction from electronic billboards, the Swedish government discontinued the tests and removed the billboards (Dukic et al. 2013).

The City of San Jose should do the same to protect the health and safety of its residents, and to make the environment friendlier for other species as well, by removing all existing digital billboards and banning them permanently.
iii. The most recent systematic literature review of 90 unique documents is titled 'Impact of road advertising signs on driver behavior and implications for road safety: A critical systematic review' (Oviedo- Trespalacios et.al, 2019). This review concludes, "When comparing the effect of different types of roadside advertising signs on driver task demands, it has been demonstrated that changeable (i.e., digital with multiple advertising signs) roadside advertising signs represent a greater distraction to drivers than static (i.e., single advertising sign) roadside advertising signs".
iv. In contrast, a recent study demonstrated that static roadside advertising does not affect situation awareness of drivers ( Young et
al., 2017).
v. Vision Zero San Jose aims to provide “safe, comfortable, attractive and convenient access and travel.” While the focus of the plan is City Streets, its goals should extend to ALL roads in San Jose. Please analyze how electronic billboards will affect the achievement of Vision Zero's transportation safety in San Jose.

10 References:

1. Compendium of Recent Research Studies on Distraction from Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS). 2016 J. Wachtel, CPE President, The Veridian Group, Inc. Berkeley, California

2. Dukic, T., C. Ahlstrom, C. Patten, C. Kettwich, and K. Kircher. 2013. Effects of electronic billboards on driver distraction. Traffic Injury Prevention

3. Beijer, D., A. Smiley, and M. Eizenman. 2004. Observed driver glance behavior at roadside advertising signs. Transportation Research Record 1899:96–103.

4. Smiley, A., B. Persaud, G. Bahar, C. Mollett, C. Lyon, T. Smahel, and W. L. Kelman. 2005. Traffic safety evaluation of video advertising signs. Transportation Research Record 1937:104–112.

5. Edquist, J., T. Horberry, S. Hosking, and I. Johnston. 2011. Effects of advertising billboards during simulated driving. Applied Ergonomics 42:619–626.

6. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 1994. Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message Sign Study. Wisconsin Department of Transportation.

7. Oviedo-Trespalaciosa, O., V. Truelovea, B. WatsonaJane and A.Hintonb. 2019.

8. Impact of road advertising signs on driver behavior and implications for road safety: A critical systematic review. Transportation Research Part A 122 (2019) 85–9886

9. K.L. Young, A.N. Stephens, D.B. Logan, M.G. Lenné. 2017. Investigating the impact of static roadside advertising on drivers' situation awareness. Appl. Ergon., 60, pp. 136-14

10. Vision Zero San Jose
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=630650

8. Cumulative Impacts
a. Please include a map that shows both City owned and non-City-owned potential sites, please provide an estimate of how many electronic billboards can be placed on each of these sites.

1 Resources and References that helped inform
Sierra Club’s Light Pollution Policy Update
(Last updated 3/7/2021)

Over 70 resources and references (including websites, articles, publications, and reports) were reviewed during Sierra Club’s March 2021 update to its light pollution national policy. The list is only provided to document resources used during policy development. Inclusion of any given resource in this list should not be construed as an endorsement by Sierra Club. The main resources consulted are listed below, organized by a relevant category. Several resources cover multiple issues, but each is only listed once.

Sierra Club Advocacy

Sierra Club AddUp Petition to City Mayors: Protect the Night Against Light Pollution (started in Feb 2018) https://addup.sierraclub.org/campaigns/protect-the-night

Sierra Club Articles

On the Hunt for Stars: In Search of a Truly Dark Night Sky. Heather Smith, Feb 27, 2018. SIERRA magazine, March/April 2018 edition. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2018-2-march-april/feature/hunt-for-stars-dark-skies-preserves-and-parks

Reclaiming the Night. SIERRA magazine. Katie O'Reilly. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/slideshow/reclaiming-night

General Educational Resources

National Park Service Night Skies, www nps.gov/subjects/nightskies

Light pollution - a global discussion. Schulte-Römer, N., Dannemann, E., Meier, J. (2018): Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, 248 pp.
http://www.lightpollutiondiscussion.net

The Right to Dark Skies, 2016, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO Mexico) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246131

Our nights are getting brighter, and Earth is paying the price, by Nadia Drake, National Geographic, published April 3, 2019 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/nights-are-getting-brighter-earth-paying-the-price-light-pollution-dark- skies/

Treat artificial light like other forms of pollution, say scientists. Jonathan Watts, The Guardian. Nov 2, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/02/treat-artificial-light-form-pollution-environment Excerpt: “What stands out is how pervasive the effects are. The effects were found everywhere – microbes, invertebrates, animals and plants,” said the lead author, Kevin Gaston, a professor at the university’s Environment and Sustainability Insti tute. “We need to start thinking about lighting in the way we think of other big systemic pressures like climate change.”

Light pollution – extent, effects and approaches. TAB-Fokus no. 25, Jun 2020, Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag. Christoph Schröter-Schlaack, et al.
http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/en/news/20200828 html
Summary: In addition to the intended effects, the increasing use of artificial outdoor lighting also entails a number of unde sirable side effects referred to as light pollution. Artificial lighting can disturb the circadian rhythms of humans and animals, whi ch are controlled by the change of day and night, and is suspected of being involved in the development of various diseases. Moreo ver, the increasing illumination of the night influences the natural behaviour of animals. Besides habitat changes, the consequenc es are ranging from changes in hunting or reproductive behaviour to the deadly attraction effect of light sources, e. g. for i nsects.

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

Light Pollution Is Taking Away Our Night Skies. Here’s Why That Matters. 11/13/2019. HuffPost. By Kyla Mandel https://www.huffpost.com/entry/city-light-pollution-night-sky-star-protection n 5dc9d1fee4b00927b2381233 Some cities and states are trying to protect our night sky “for the health and wellbeing for all living things.”

2 Light Pollution Trends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct measurement of the contribution of street lighting to satellite observations of nighttime light emissions from urban areas. Kyba, C, et al. Lighting Research & Technology. October 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153520958463
Abstract: Nighttime light emissions are increasing in most countries worldwide, but which types of lighting are responsible for the increase remains unknown. Also unknown is what fraction of outdoor light emissions and associated energy use are due to 3 public light sources (i.e. streetlights) or various types of private light sources (e.g. advertising). Here we show that it is possible to measure the contribution of street lighting to nighttime satellite imagery using ‘smart city’ lighting infrastructure. The ci ty of Tucson, USA, intentionally altered its streetlight output over 10 days, and we examined the change in emissions observed by satellite. We find that streetlights operated by the city are responsible for only 13% of the total radiance (in the 500 –900 nm band) observed from Tucson from space after midnight (95% confidence interval 10–16%). If Tucson did not dim their streetlights after midnight, the contribution would be 18% (95% confidence interval 15–23%). When streetlights operated by other actors are included, the best estimates rise to 16% and 21%, respectively. Existing energy and lighting policy related to the sustainability of outdoor light use has mainly focused on street lighting. These results suggest an urgent need for consideration of other type s of light sources in outdoor lighting policy.

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

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

Effects of the COVID-19 Lockdown on Urban Light Emissions: Ground and Satellite Comparison. Bustamante-Calabria, M, Sánchez de Miguel, A, et al. Remote Sensing. Jan 2021, Vol 13, Issue 2, 258. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/2/258
Abstract Excerpt: ‘Lockdown’ periods in response to COVID-19 have provided a unique opportunity to study the impacts of economic activity on environmental pollution (e.g., NO2, aerosols, noise, light)... Here, to analyze the effect of lockdown on urban light emissions, we use ground and satellite data for Granada, Spain, during the COVID-19 induced confinement of the city’s population from 14 March until 31 May 2020. We find a clear decrease in light pollution due both to a decrease in ligh t emissions from the city and to a decrease in anthropogenic aerosol content in the atmosphere which resulted in less light being scattered. A clear correlation between the abundance of PM10 particles and sky brightness is observed, such that the more polluted the atmosphere the brighter the urban night sky.

Environmental and Social Justice

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

An incandescent truth: Disparities in energy-efficient lighting availability and prices in an urban U.S. county. Reames, Tony G., Michael A. Reiner, and M. Ben Stacey. (2018) Applied Energy 218:95 -103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918302769 Abstract Excerpt: In the U.S. lighting represents about 9% of the average household's primary e nergy consumption and 20% of the average household's energy bill. Lighting in U.S. homes is in a state of transition with steady growth in the adoption of more energy-efficient lighting technology, such as, compact florescent lamps (CFL) and light -emitting diodes (LEDs). However, the adoption of energy-efficient lighting is not equitably distributed across socioeconomic groups, with poorer households less likely to adopt than higher-income households... We found that (1) energy-efficient bulbs were less available in high-poverty areas and 4 smaller stores; (2) energy-efficient bulbs were more expensive in high-poverty areas and smaller stores; (3) upgrade costs from incandescent and halogen lamps (IHLs) to CFLs or LEDs were higher in high poverty areas; and (4 ) both poverty and store type were significant predictors of LED availability, while store type was the most significant predictor of LED price variability . We suggest several ways that the development and implementation of energy efficiency policies and p rograms may consider these disparities that affect access and affordability, in order to achieve a more just energy -efficient transition.

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

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

Ecological, Wildlife and Human Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we leverage a large citizen science dataset paired with high-resolution noise and light data from across the contiguous United States to assess how these stimuli affect reproductive success in 142 bird species. We find responses to both sensory pollutants linked to the functional traits and habitat affiliations of species. For example, overall nest success was negativ ely correlated with noise among birds in closed environments. Species-specific changes in reproductive timing and hatching success 6 in response to noise exposure were explained by vocalization frequency, nesting location and diet. Additionally, increased li ght- gathering ability of species’ eyes was associated with stronger advancements in reproductive timing in response to light exposure, potentially creating phenological mismatches. Unexpectedly, better light-gathering ability was linked to reduced clutch failure and increased overall nest success in response to light exposure, raising important questions about how responses to sensory pollutants counteract or exacerbate responses to other aspects of global change, such as climate warming. These findings demonstrate that anthropogenic noise and light can substantially affect breeding bird phenology and fitness, and underscore the need to consider sensory pollutants alongside traditional dimensions of the environment that typically inform biodiversity conservation.

Bright lights in the big cities: migratory birds’exposure to artificial light. Horton, KG., Nilsson, C., et al, 2019. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, April 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1002/FEE.2029
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= gXSN2GmI8M
Abstract: Many species of migratory birds have evolved the ability to migrate at night, and the recent and rapid expansion of artificial light at night has markedly altered the nighttime sky through which they travel. Migrating birds regularly pass through heavily illuminated landscapes, and bright lights affect avian orientation. But risks to migrating birds from artificial ligh t are not spatially or temporally uniform, representing a challenge for mitigating potential hazards and developing action plans to catalog risks at continental scales. We leveraged over two decades of remote‐sensing data collected by weather surveillance radar and satellite‐based sensors to identify locations and times of year when the highest numbers of migrating birds are exposed to light pollution in the contiguous US. Our continental‐scale quantification of light exposure provides a novel opportunity for dynam ic and targeted conservation strategies to address the hazards posed by light pollution to nocturnally migrating birds.

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

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

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

Light Pollution, Circadian Photoreception, and Melatonin in Vertebrates. Grubisic M, Haim A, Bhusal P, Dominoni DM, Gabriel KMA, Jechow A, Kupprat F, Lerner A, Marchant P, Riley W, Stebelova K, van Grunsven RHA, Zeman M, Zubidat AE, Hölker F. Sustainability. 2019; 11(22):6400.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6400
Abstract: Artificial light at night (ALAN) is increasing exponentially worldwide, accelerated by the transition to new effici ent lighting technologies. However, ALAN and resulting light pollution can cause unintended physiological consequences. In vertebrates, production of melatonin—the “hormone of darkness” and a key player in circadian regulation—can be suppressed by 7 ALAN. In this paper, we provide an overview of research on melatonin and ALAN in vertebrates. We discuss how ALAN disrupts natural photic environments, its effect on melatonin and circadian rhythms, and different photoreceptor systems acro ss vertebrate taxa. We then present the results of a systematic review in which we identified studies on melatonin under typical light- polluted conditions in fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, including humans. Melatonin is suppressed by extreme ly low light intensities in many vertebrates, ranging from 0.01–0.03 lx for fishes and rodents to 6 lx for sensitive humans. Even lower, wavelength-dependent intensities are implied by some studies and require rigorous testing in ecological contexts. In many studies, melatonin suppression occurs at the minimum light levels tested, and, in better-studied groups, melatonin suppression is reported to occur at lower light levels. We identify major research gaps and conclude that, for most groups, crucial informat ion is lacking. No studies were identified for amphibians and reptiles and long-term impacts of low-level ALAN exposure are unknown.

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

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

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

Global climate change and invariable photoperiods: A mismatch that jeopardizes animal fitness. Walker, WH, Meléndez- Fernández, OH, Nelson, RJ, Reiter, RJ. Ecol Evol. 2019; 9: 10044–10054. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.5537 Abstract: The Earth's surface temperature is rising, and precipitation patterns throughout the Earth are changing; the source of these shifts is likely anthropogenic in nature. Alterations in temperature and precipitation have obvious direct and indirect effects on both plants and animals. Notably, changes in temperature and precipitation alone can have both advantageous and detrimenta l consequences depending on the species. Typically, production of offspring is timed to coincide with optimal food availability; thus, individuals of many species display annual rhythms of reproductive function. Because it requires substantial time to establish or re-establish reproductive function, individuals cannot depend on the arrival of seasonal food availability to begin breeding; thus, mechanisms have evolved in many plants and animals to monitor and respond to day length in order to anticipat e seasonal changes in the environment. Over evolutionary time, there has been precise fine-tuning of critical photoperiod and onset/offset of seasonal adaptations. Climate change has provoked changes in the availability of insects and plants which shi fts the timing of optimal reproduction. However, adaptations to the stable photoperiod may be insufficiently plastic to allow a shift in the seasonal timing of bird and mammal breeding. Coupled with the effects of light pollution which prevents these species fro m determining day length, climate change presents extreme evolutionary pressure that can result in severe deleterious consequences for individual species reproduction and survival. This review describes the effects of climate change on plants and animals, 8 defines photoperiod and the physiological events it regulates, and addresses the consequences of global climate change and a stable photoperiod.

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

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

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

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

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

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

City lights and urban air. Stark, H., Brown, S., Wong, K. et al. Nature Geoscience, Vol 4, Nov 2011. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1300
https://s3.amazonaws.com/wbez-assets/curiouscity/ngeo 1300 NOV11 auproof2.pdf https://cires.colorado.edu/news/bright-city-lights-affect-air-pollution Here we show that city lights can also alter the concentration of nitrate radicals, an important atmospheric oxidant. These alterations have potential — albeit small — consequences for pollution levels the following day… We converted satellite data on light intensity into nitrate radical loss, using our aircraft measurements, and show that the infuence of city lights on nitrate radical loss can be large in regions outside Los Angeles... We also fnd that satellite-derived estimates of light levels tend to correlate positively with independent satellite-derived estimates of nitrogen dioxide. We therefore suggest that city lights are likely to infuence nitrogen dynamics in other regions of the globe.

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

9 Light Flicker from LED Lighting Systems-An Urgent Problem to Solve. GIES, T.H. (2016). https://www.led-professional.com/resources-1/articles/lighting-flicker-from-led-lighting-systems/LpR53 p50-p59.pdf Recent research has shown that fluctuations of short wavelength emissions are perceived to a higher extent and light flic ker may have a huge influence on the well-being of end users.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Astronomy Impacts

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

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

Flagstaff's Battle for Dark Skies. Portree D.S.F. Oct 2002, Griffith Observer, Vol 66 No 10 http://www2.lowell.edu/users/wes/GriffithObserver1crop.pdf http://www.flagstaffdarkskies.org/international-dark-sky-city/flagstaffs-battle-for-dark-skies/

Public Safety

Blinded by the Lights: Levi's Stadium Lights May Be Airport Safety Hazard. By Stephen Stock, Michael Bott and Jeremy Carroll. NBC Bay Area. Sept 22, 2015
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/blinded-by-the-lights-levi-stadium-lights-may-be-airport-safety-hazard/102234/ Some pilots say powerful lights above and around the new Levi’s Stadium can cause safety hazards for flights in and out of Sa n Jose Mineta International Airport.

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

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

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

11 Light Pollution Mitigation

National Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife Including Marine Turtles, Seabirds and Migratory Shorebirds , Commonwealth of Australia, Jan 2020
https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/national-light-pollution-guidelines-wildlife

Audubon’s Lights Out program
https://www.audubon.org/conservation/project/lights-out

LoNNe, Loss of the Night Network
http://www.cost-lonne.eu/recommendations/

Human and Environmental Effects of Light Emitting Diode (LED) Community Lighting , 2016, American Medical Association, CSAPH Report 2-A-16, Policy H-135.927
https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/H-135.927?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD-135.927.xml https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/ama-assn.org/files/corp/media-browser/public/about-ama/councils/Council%20Reports/council- on-science-public-health/a16-csaph2.pdf
supports the proper conversion to community-based Light Emitting Diode (LED) lighting, which reduces energy consumption and decreases the use of fossil fuels.. encourages minimizing and controlling blue-rich environmental lighting by using the lowest emission of blue light possible to reduce glare... should be properly shielded to minimize glare and detrimental human and environmental effects, and... utilize the ability of LED lighting to be dimmed for off-peak time periods.

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

International Dark-Sky Association, https://darksky.org, https://darksky.org/light-pollution IDA Guidance for Electronic Message Centers (EMCs) – Digital billboards https://www.darksky.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/EMC-Guidelines-IDA2019-1.1.pdf IDA Criteria for Community-Friendly Outdoor Sports Lighting https://www.darksky.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/IDA-Criteria-for-Community-Friendly-Outdoor-Sports-Lighting.pdf

Model Lighting Ordinances – Dark Sky Impacts, Flagstaff Dark Skies Coalition http://www.flagstaffdarkskies.org/model-lighting-ordinances-dark-sky-impacts/

Led Lighting And Dark Skies: Are LEDs good for dark skies? Flagstaff Dark Skies Coalition. http://www.flagstaffdarkskies.org/led-lighting-dark-skies/

Light Pollution and Lighting Codes: An Analysis of the Light Pollution Control Effectiveness of the IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance and the IDA Pattern Outdoor Lighting Code, Christian B. Luginbuhl, U.S. Naval Observatory Flagstaff Station, 15 January 2013
http://www.flagstaffdarkskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Lighting-Codes-and-LP-Luginbuhl-130115.pdf Excerpts: Under MLO standards, outside of MLO Lighting Zones 0 and 1, the total lumen allowances, direct uplight allowances, and amount of sky glow are notably greater than expected under POLC standards; in MLO Lighting Zones 3 and 4 they are dramatically greater. These lighting amounts and sky glow impacts are greater than what can be expected even when lighting is unregulated. The MLO Performance Method Option B provides notably poor control of direct upl ight and therefore sky glow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The LED Paradox: How Light Pollution Challenges Experts to Reconsider Sustainable Lighting. Schulte-Römer, N.; Meier, J.; Söding, M.; Dannemann, E.; Sustainability 2019, 11, 6160. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6160
Abstract: In the 21st century, the notion of “sustainable lighting” is closely associated with LED technology. In the past te n years, municipalities and private light users worldwide have installed light-emitting diodes in urban spaces and public streets to save energy. Yet an increasing body of interdisciplinary research suggests that supposedly sustainable LED installations are in fa ct unsustainable, because they increase light pollution. Paradoxically, blue-rich cool-white LED lighting, which is the most energy- efficient, also appears to be the most ecologically unfriendly. Biologists, physicians and ecologists warn that blue -rich LED light disturbs the circadian day-and-night rhythm of living organisms, including humans, with potential negative health effects on individual species and whole ecosystems. Can the paradox be solved? This paper explores this question based on our transdisciplinary research project Light Pollution—A Global Discussion. It reveals how light pollution experts and lighting professionals see the challenges and potential of LED lighting from their different viewpoints. This expert feedback shows th at “sustainable LED lighting” goes far beyond energy efficiency as it raises complex design issues that imply stakeholder negotiation. It also suggests that the LED paradox may be solved in context, but hardly in principle. 13 Tuning the white light spectrum of light emitting diode lamps to reduce attraction of noc turnal arthropods. Longcore Travis, Aldern Hannah L., Eggers John F., Flores Steve, Franco Lesly, Hirshfield -Yamanishi Eric, Petrinec Laina N., Yan Wilson A. and Barroso André M. 2015, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B37020140125 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.2014.012 5 Abstract: Artificial lighting allows humans to be active at night, but has many unintended consequences, including interferen ce with ecological processes, disruption of circadian rhythms and increased exposure to insect vectors of diseases. Although ultraviolet and blue light are usually most attractive to arthropods, degree of attraction varies among orders. With a focus on future indoor lighting applications, we manipulated the spectrum of white lamps to investigate the influence of spectral composition on number of arthropods attracted. We compared numbers of arthropods captured at three customizable light - emitting diode (LED) lamps (3510, 2704 and 2728 K), two commercial LED lamps (2700 K), two commercial compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs; 2700 K) and a control. We configured the three custom LEDs to minimize invertebrate attraction based on published attraction curves for honeybees and moths. Lamps were placed with pan traps at an urban and two rural study sites in Los Angeles, California. For all invertebrate orders combined, our custom LED configurations were less attractive than the commercial LED lamps or CFLs of similar colour temperatures. Thus, adjusting spectral composition of white light to minimize attracting nocturnal arthropods is feasible; not all lights with the same colour temperature are equally attractive to arthro pods.

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

Solid-State Roadway Lighting Design Guide: Volume 1: Guidance. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. https://doi.org/10.17226/25678

Solid-State Roadwazy Lighting Design Guide: Volume 2: Research Overview. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. https://doi.org/10.17226/25679

Assessment of Citizens’ Actions against Light Pollution with Guidelines for Future Initiatives. Zielińska-Dabkowska, K.M.; Xavia, K.; Bobkowska, K. Sustainability. June 2020, 12, 4997. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124997
Abstract excerpt: This paper therefore investigates the various actions taken by citizens, as well as the challenges, methods, and tools involved, regarding good practices initiated by grass roots activism on how to reduce existing and potential light pollution.

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

Nevada Senate passes bill to form ‘dark sky places’ program. Feb 22, 2021. By Sam Metz, AP News https://apnews.com/article/legislature-nevada-light-pollution-coronavirus-pandemic-kate-marshall- eb0f69ee3c5895b1f7dd4d89b1ea3ebc
Nevada’s state Senate took a step toward ensuring stargazers will continue to enjoy picture -perfect constellations on Monday, passing a bill to recognize “dark sky places” with unobstructed views of galaxies hundreds of thousands of light years away.

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

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

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

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

From: Ken Schneebeli
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 8:06:57 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, 
Please, please, please…….

No electronic billboards!!!!!
This is for many reasons, including more than the following:

1. By definition, they are unsafe. They are meant to be looked at to convey their message. This distracts from driving. This is compounded by being very bright to actually draw attention. These WILL cause an increase in accidents, by some amount. Tge city putting them up, is like the city endorsing looking at text messages while driving!!!!!!

2. They are electricity based. This is an unnecessary use of electricity, by the city! I recognize that this is a relatively small amount, but what message does this send to all of us?!!!! The brightness of these seem like a lot of electricity use - which conveys a message of “don’t worry about electrical usage”

3. Having billboards is an unnecessary visual blockage/eyesore. There is NO aesthetic benefit for these. They are actually a detriment. During this time where we are dealing with too many detriments that the city does nit effectively manage, this is just adding to reasons to NOT be in San Jose. (Discarded furniture and trash that lay in place for weeks downtown, and additionally the trash snd garbage surrounding pop up homeless sites, are two examples of under managed conditions.

I have loved and contributed to San Jose. I moved from a home in a nice quiet suburb in San Jose in 1989, and still live near SJSU. These under managed conditions are motivating me to consider moving. Having the City consider putting up electronic billboards makes me shake my head in wonderment, and actually disbelief. The city claims “COVID!!!” and other reasons for under-managing pressing issues - but if what the do accomplishment is actually electronic billboards, then I am truly angry.

This is a TERRIBLE idea. Please, please don’t do it.

Best regards,
Ken.

I agree will the following, but did not write it……5
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 Comment #149
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% Ken
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #150
Comment #151
Comment #152
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: Friday, August 6, 2021 6:07:04 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.

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

Thanks for reading,
Maren Sederquist
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #153
From: Shalini
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 6:38:30 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.

Comment #154
Comment #155
Comment #156
From: Ajith Singh
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 8:49:39 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.

Comment #157
From: Skhhunt
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 9:11:27 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.

Comment #158
From:

To:

Wendy Watkins-Smith
Petersen. Adam
Subject:

Date:

Please: No Digital Billboards on Airport Property
Friday, August 20, 2021 3:12:00 PM
You don't often get email from . I earn why this is important [External Email]
Dear Adam,
Let me add my voice to all the others expressing grave concerns over the plans to add digital billboards on airport property. As longtime homeowners in San Jose, we believe that this would negatively affect our city. We have enough image struggles as it is (trash, homelessness, etc.).

Please do NOT allow these billboards to add to the visual blight. thank you,
Mark and Wend
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #159
Comment #160
From: Sandra Soellner
To:

Cc:

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 !Q; Airport Commission CM: Kazmierczak, Matthew
Liccardo, Sam: Jones, Chappie: Cohen, David: Davis, Dev; Carrasco, Magdalena; Mahan, Matt: Esparza, Maya:

Subject:

Foley, Pam: Peralez, Raul: Jimenez, Sergio: Arenas, Sylvia: Petersen, Adam: City Clerk; NoSanJoseBillboards I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Wednesday, August 4, 202112:15:11 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from why this is important
[External Email]
Dear Airp o1 i Commissioners and City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airpo1i property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any fmiher at the Airp o1i 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 sign ificant money in it for the city, nor is it wo1ih sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity, and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They ce1iainly 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 and more. FLASHY DIGITAL BILLBOARDS ARE A VERY POOR TRADEOFF FOR THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

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

Comment #161
From: Sophia Soohoo
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 3:57:27 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.

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

Regards,
Sophia, San Jose resident
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #162
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

SHERRI SOTNICK
Airport Commission 1: Airport Commission 2: Airport Commission 3: Airport Commission 4: Airport Commission 5:

Foley, Pam: Peralez, Raul: Jimenez, Sergio: Arenas, Sylvia: Petersen, Adam: City Clerk; - ards proposal on airport property
Wednesday, August 4, 2021 12:00:00 PM
You don't often get email from I earp why this is important [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 #163
From: Gina Spada
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 2:03:42 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.

Comment #164
From: Connie F Springer
To:

Cc:

Airport Commission 1: Airport Commission 2: Airport Commission 3: Airport Commission 4: Airport Commission 5:

Foley, Pam: Peralez, Raul: Jimenez, Sergio: Arenas, Sylvia: Petersen, Adam: City Clerk; Subject: - ards proposal on airport property
Date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 9:42:38 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
[External Email]
Dear Airp o1 i Commissioners and City Council,
I am strongly opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airp o1 i prope1iy, and I
urge you to vote to oppose the project at the Aiipo1i Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.

The arguments for digital billboards are not suppo1ied by credible data. I'm concerned about the environmental impact of these signs. I find energy consuming and e-waste generating signs inconsistent with the cities stated interest in addressing climate change. The financial benefit to the city is limited and the aesthetic cost is huge. Please don't allow our city to be blighted and drivers dangerously distracted by these digital billboards.

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

Comment #165
From: Stephaniepntpya
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 12:04:00 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.

Thanks
Stephanie
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #166
From: Lynne Stephenson >
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 7:31 PM
>
Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property I
You don't often get email from
[External Email]
. Learn why this is important
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,
Lynne A. Stephenson
Comment #167
Comment #168
From: Jean Struthers
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 3:58:02 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.

By allowing these first digital billboards in San Jose, the City may be opening the floodgates% it will look like a
blighted city to newly arrived visitors
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #169
Comment #170
Comment #171
Comment #172

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

Mary Tucker
Downtown San Jose resident

From: Jamie Tung
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 1:00:34 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%
Jamie Tung
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #173
Comment #174
Comment #175
Comment #176
Comment #177
Comment #178
Comment #179
Comment #180
Comment #181
Comment #182
From: ANA VILLARREAL
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 8:07:36 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.

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 #183
From: Lydia Vitanza
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 3:37:22 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,
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.

Comment #184
From: Wanda
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 3:02:13 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.

Comment #185
From: Wanda
To: Petersen, Adam
Cc:

Subject: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Thursday, August 19, 2021 9:36:24 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, 
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #186
From: martin weidner
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 5:40:38 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. 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 iPad
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment #187
Comment #188
Comment #189
Comment #190

July 16, 2020 (resent August 5, 2021)

Dear Adam Peterson,

The Vendome (see map below) is a small historic neighborhood in downtown San Jose (2 blocks wide by 8 blocks long). It includes a small park (Ryland) and a current static billboard. Our residential homes (many over 100 years old) are directly bordered by the SR87 freeway. We are in a unique location along the freeway as the only neighborhood in this area on the west side of North 1st Street.

It appears that a large part of the billboard proposal is targeted to freeway areas especially along SR87 from Julian to the airport. This will directly impact our residential neighborhood in many ways including potential health concerns. All residential areas should be exempt from having these disruptive billboards in their neighborhoods. What guarantees are in place to assure residential neighborhoods will not be negatively affected by these signs?

Also, on the west side of the SR87 is the Guadalupe River Parkway. While the parkland currently has other issues including homeless encampments, it has great potential to be a feature of the expanded downtown and North 1st Street Transit Village. Our parks are invaluable. In actuality, all parks should be protected from billboard pollution. What processes will be in place to protect parks from the negative impacts of these signs?

While my neighborhood would be particularly affected by the two above issues, we generally consider billboards as a type of pollution and blight. The whole concept should be scrapped. Few might remember the 101 highway littered with billboards. The decade’s long ban has been in place for a reason (maybe the current bans verbiage/reasoning could also be posted?). “Money isn’t everything…….”

Thank you for your attention to our concerns.

Tod Williams

Comment #191
From: Jim Wissick
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 2:41:19 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.

Comment #192
Comment #193
Comment #194
From: Robert Wright
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: electronic billboards proposal on airport property Date: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 3:37:25 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 it, very, very much.

Strongly and passionately opposed to it.

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

Comment #195
Comment #196
Comment #197
Comment #198

San Jose City CouncilFebruary 15, 2022

San Jose City Council
February 15, 2022