US 101 Airport Electronic Signs
Final
Initial Study/Addendum
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
In Consultation with
Octo
ber
2021
Response to Comments
Responses to Comments/Errata i San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Section 2.0 Responses to Comments ................................................................................................. 2 Section 3.0 Initial Study/Addendum Text Revisions .................................................................... 185
Appendix A: Revised Appendix A (Lighting Analysis)
Appendix B: Revised Appendix B (Biological Resource Analysis)
Appendix C: Initial Study/Addendum Comment Letters
Responses to Comments/Errata 1 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
On April 28, 2020, the City Council certified the Amendment to the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Airport Master Plan EIR) (File No. PP18-103) and approved the amended Master Plan, which provides a blueprint for the continued growth of the Airport through the year 2037.
The proposed San José Airport Electronic Signs Project (the “Project”) was not specifically included in the Airport Master Plan project. As a result, the City of San Jose, as CEQA Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study/Addendum for the Project. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the purpose of the Initial Study/Addendum was to determine on the basis of substantial evidence, if the Project would result in one or more of the following outcomes:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
• The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; or • Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; or
• Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or • Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from thos e analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The Initial Study/Addendum (July 2021) concluded that none of the above outcomes would occur if the Project were to be approved and, therefore, no subsequent EIR need be prepared.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c) states than an addendum does not need to be circulated for public review. However, given the substantial community interest in the Project and the desire of the City to be fully transparent, the Addendum was circulated to affected public agencies and interested parties for a 30-day review period from July 26, 2021 through August 25, 2021.
Responses to Comments/Errata 2 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
SECTION 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This section provides written responses to comments received by the City of San José on the Draft Initial Study/Addendum.
Comments are organized under headings containing the source of the letter and its date. The specific comments from each of the letters and/or emails are presented with each response to that specific comment directly following. Copies of the letters and emails received by the City of San José are included in their entirety in Appendix A of this document. Comments received on the Draft Initial Study/Addendum are listed below.
Comment Letter and Commenter Page of Response
Federal and State Agencies ................................................................................................................ 8
1. Caltrans (dated August 24, 2021) ....................................................................................... 8
2. University of California Lick Observatory (dated August 25, 2021) ............................... 10 Regional and Local Agencies........................................................................................................... 13
3. Airport Commissioners Connolly, Hendrix, and Pyle (dated August 25, 2021) .............. 13
4. Santa Clara Valley Water District (dated August 25, 2021) ............................................ 24 Organizations, Businesses, and Individuals ..................................................................................... 26
5. Erik Aguas (dated August 4, 2021) .................................................................................. 26
6. Annette Aguilar (dated August 4, 2021) .......................................................................... 26
7. Bruce Akizuki (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................. 27
8. Chuck Alderete (dated August 5, 2021) ........................................................................... 27
9. Pamela Alford (dated August 7, 2021) ............................................................................. 28
10. Annezk (dated August 5, 2021) ........................................................................................ 29
11. T Arana (dated August 5, 2021) ....................................................................................... 29
12. Mark Baker - Soft Lights (dated August 3, 2021) ............................................................ 30
13. AR Bancroft (dated August 9, 2021) ................................................................................ 32
14. Carrick Bartle (dated August 22, 2021) ........................................................................... 32
15. Cynthia Batchedler (dated August 5, 2021) ..................................................................... 33
16. Janet Berliner (dated August 5, 2021) .............................................................................. 33
17. Warner Bloomberg (dated August 4, 2021) ..................................................................... 34
18. Carolus Boekema (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................ 34
19. Lucile Boone (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................... 35
20. Richard Boyce (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................ 36
21. Richard Boyce (dated August 19, 2021) .......................................................................... 37
22. Ian Bruce (dated August 5, 2021) ..................................................................................... 37
23. Dr. Ralf Buengener (dated August 4, 2021) ..................................................................... 38
Responses to Comments/Errata 3 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
24. David Byam (dated August 9, 2021) ................................................................................ 39
25. Allan Calara (dated August 5, 2021) ................................................................................ 39
26. Pete Carrillo (dated July 26, 2021) ................................................................................... 40
27. Joe Cellura (dated August 4, 2021) .................................................................................. 40
28. Susanne Cellura (dated August 4, 2021) .......................................................................... 40
29. David Chai (dated August 4, 2021) .................................................................................. 41
30. Delaney Chonna (dated August 20, 2021) ....................................................................... 42
31. Ana Clark (dated August 5, 2021) .................................................................................... 42
32. Tim Clauson (dated August 5, 2021) ............................................................................... 43
33. Gloria Collins (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................. 44
34. Laura Comoletti (dated August 6, 2021) .......................................................................... 44
35. Donna Davies (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................. 45
36. Nancy DeMattei (dated August 5, 2021 8:13 PM) ........................................................... 45
37. Nancy DeMattei (dated August 5, 2021, 8:35 PM) .......................................................... 46
38. Bruce DeVisser (August 4, 2021, 3:17 PM) ..................................................................... 46
39. Elise di Donato (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................... 47
40. Sue Dileanis (dated August 19, 2021) .............................................................................. 47
41. Lynn Dobson (dated August 8, 2021) .............................................................................. 48
42. Donna Dring (dated August 6, 2021) ............................................................................... 49
43. Bob Elliston (dated August 4, 2021) ................................................................................ 49
44. Alan Fanning (dated August 4, 2021) .............................................................................. 50
45. Alan Fanning (dated August 19, 2021) ............................................................................ 50
46. Jan Fox (dated August 19, 2021) ...................................................................................... 51
47. Kirsten Franz (dated August 4, 2021) .............................................................................. 51
48. Guadalupe Friaz (dated August 30, 2021) ........................................................................ 52
49. Guadalupe Friaz (dated August 4, 2021) .......................................................................... 53
50. Elizabeth Garcia (dated August 7, 2021) ......................................................................... 53
51. Janis Gemignani (August 19, 2021) ................................................................................. 54
52. Joseph Gemignani (dated August 4, 2021) ....................................................................... 54
53. Vicki Gersey (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................... 55
54. Janet Gillis (dated August 4, 2021) .................................................................................. 55
55. Andy Goodman (dated July 27, 2021) ............................................................................. 56
56. Greer (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................................... 56
57. Sharon Grennan (dated August 4, 2021) .......................................................................... 57
58. Guadalupe River Park Conservancy (dated August 25, 2021) ......................................... 57
59. Brian Haberly (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................. 62
60. Gwen Hacker (dated August 4, 2021) .............................................................................. 63
Responses to Comments/Errata 4 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
61. Stuart Hastings (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................ 63
62. Michael Hazelton (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................ 64
63. Michael Hazelton (dated August 10, 2021) ...................................................................... 64
64. Nina Heldt (August 9, 2021) ............................................................................................ 65
65. Bill Herndon (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................... 66
66. Lisa Hettler-Smith (dated August 4, 2021) ...................................................................... 66
67. Judith Hurley (dated August 6, 2021) .............................................................................. 67
68. Christina Iaquinto (dated August 4, 2021) ....................................................................... 67
69. Jesse Jackson (dated August 4, 2021) .............................................................................. 68
70. JC (dated August 4, 2021) ................................................................................................ 69
71. Jeff (dated August 4, 2021) .............................................................................................. 69
72. Jenni (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................................ 70
73. Huang Jerrycans (dated August 4, 2021) ......................................................................... 70
74. Meline Joaris (dated August 5, 2021) ............................................................................... 71
75. Vikki Jump (dated August 7, 2021) ................................................................................. 71
76. Kim Karcher (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................... 72
77. Henni Kaufman (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................... 72
78. Deborah Kennedy (dated August 4, 2021) ....................................................................... 73
79. Timothy Kenny (August 4, 2021) .................................................................................... 74
80. Mele Kent (dated August 5, 2021) ................................................................................... 74
81. Randall Kirschman (dated August 4, 2021) ..................................................................... 75
82. Chris Kurose (August 4, 2021) ......................................................................................... 75
83. Michael Kutilek (dated August 4, 2021) .......................................................................... 76
84. Roseanna Lavia (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................... 76
85. Scott Lefaver (August 9, 2021) ........................................................................................ 77
86. Louise Leprohon (August 4, 2021) .................................................................................. 78
87. Peter Liesenfelt (August 5, 2021) ..................................................................................... 78
88. Kevin Lindsay (dated August 3, 2021) ............................................................................. 78
89. Joy-Ellen Lipsky (dated August 4, 2021) ......................................................................... 79
90. Daniel Llamas (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................. 80
91. Thuy Luu (dated August 4, 2021) .................................................................................... 80
92. Caroline Lynch (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................... 81
93. Josanna Lynn Marshalla (dated August 5, 2021) ............................................................. 81
94. Massimo Maniaci (dated August 4, 2021) ....................................................................... 82
95. Maria (dated August 3, 2021) ........................................................................................... 82
96. Maria (dated August 6, 2021) ........................................................................................... 83
97. David Martin (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................... 84
Responses to Comments/Errata 5 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
98. Jeanette Martin (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................... 84
99. Catherine Martinez (dated August 16, 2021) ................................................................... 85 100. Olga Martynenko (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................ 85 101. Jan Maulhardt (dated August 19, 2021) ........................................................................... 86 102. Teresa McCabe (dated August 5, 2021) ........................................................................... 86 103. Kim McCaslin (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................. 87 104. Hannelore McCrumb (dated August 4, 2021) .................................................................. 87 105. Ann McInnis (dated August 9, 2021) ............................................................................... 88 106. Jelena Medan (dated August 4, 2021) .............................................................................. 89 107. Elizabeth Menkin (August 5, 2021) ................................................................................. 89 108. Anne-Marie Meredith (dated August 4, 2021) ................................................................. 90 109. Mike (dated August 5, 2021) ............................................................................................ 90 110. Chris Mildebrandt (dated August 4, 2021) ....................................................................... 91 111. Miller Starr Regalia – Anthony M. Leones (dated August 17, 2021) .............................. 92 112. Karan Mody (dated August 4, 2021) ................................................................................ 96 113. Flora Moreno de Thompson (dated August 3, 2021) ....................................................... 97 114. Suzanne Morrone (dated August 4, 2021, 2:38 PM) ........................................................ 97 115. Suzanne Murzello (dated August 4, 2021) ....................................................................... 98 116. Bart Narter (dated August 5, 2021) .................................................................................. 99 117. Karina Nevarez (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................... 99 118. Viet-Hung Nguyen (dated August 4, 2021) ................................................................... 100 119. Ronald Noack (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................... 100 120. No Digital Billboards in San Jose (dated August 19, 2021) ........................................... 101 121. Christy Noren (dated August 5, 2021) ........................................................................... 127 122. Mona Onstead (August 5, 2021) .................................................................................... 128 123. Our City Forest (dated August 26, 2021) ....................................................................... 128 124. Judy Owens (dated August 19, 2021) ............................................................................. 129 125. Richard Patterson (August 9, 2021) ............................................................................... 129 126. Teresa Pedrizco (dated August 3, 2021) ......................................................................... 130 127. Pete (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................................... 130 128. Zoe Phillips Williams (dated August 20, 2021) ............................................................. 131 129. Farrell Podgorsek (August 19, 2021) ............................................................................. 132 130. Betty Prince (dated August 4, 2021) .............................................................................. 133 131. Melanie Puntanilla (August 4, 2021) .............................................................................. 133 132. Charlotte Quinn (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................ 134 133. Michelle R. (dated August 13, 2021) ............................................................................. 134 134. Sally Redfield (dated August 20, 2021) ......................................................................... 135
Responses to Comments/Errata 6 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
135. Linda Reis (dated August 4, 2021. 4:49 PM) ................................................................. 136 136. Linda Reis (dated August 4, 2021. 4:52 PM) ................................................................. 136 137. Kathy Richmond (dated August 4, 2021) ....................................................................... 137 138. Victoria Rivard (dated August 4, 2021) ......................................................................... 137 139. Raymond Rogoway (dated August 4, 2021) .................................................................. 138 140. Sharon Root (dated August 4, 2021) .............................................................................. 138 141. Peter Ross (dated August 4, 2021) ................................................................................. 139 142. Anthony Rossetti (dated August 5, 2021) ...................................................................... 139 143. Kelsey Rothrock (dated August 4, 2021) ....................................................................... 140 144. Cathy Rubin (dated August 4, 2021) .............................................................................. 140 145. Lisa Ruder (August 19, 2021) ........................................................................................ 141 146. Russ (dated August 4, 2021) .......................................................................................... 142 147. Janet Ryder (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................... 142 148. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society/Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (dated August 25, 2021) ............................................................................................................................... 143 149. Ken Schneebeli (dated August 5, 2021) ......................................................................... 154 150. Laura Schoennauer (dated August 8, 2021) ................................................................... 155 151. Jean Schwalenberg (dated August 5, 2021, 11:04 AM) ................................................. 156 152. Jean Schwalenberg (dated August 5, 2021, 11:20 AM) ................................................. 156 153. Maren Sederquist (dated August 6, 2021) ...................................................................... 157 154. Shalini (dated August 4, 2021) ....................................................................................... 158 155. Elena Shur (dated August 4, 2021) ................................................................................. 158 156. Yakov Shur (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................... 159 157. Ajith Singh (dated August 4, 2021) ................................................................................ 159 158. Skhhunt (dated August 4, 2021) ..................................................................................... 160 159. Mark and Wendy Smith (dated August 20, 2021) .......................................................... 160 160. Ryan Smith (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................... 161 161. Sandra Soellner (dated August 4, 2021) ......................................................................... 161 162. Sophia Soohoo (dated August 9, 2021) .......................................................................... 162 163. Sherri Sotnick (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................... 163 164. Gina Spada (dated August 4, 2021) ................................................................................ 163 165. Connie Springer (dated August 5, 2021) ........................................................................ 164 166. Stephanie (dated August 4, 2021) .................................................................................. 164 167. Lynne Stephenson (dated August 20, 2021) ................................................................... 165 168. Annamarie Stoddard (dated August 4, 2021) ................................................................. 165 169. Jean Struthers (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................ 166 170. Linda Takemori (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................ 167
Responses to Comments/Errata 7 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
171. Deborah Taylor (dated August 4, 2021) ......................................................................... 167 172. Mary Tucker (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................. 168 173. Jamie Tung (dated August 7, 2021) ............................................................................... 169 174. Kevin Ung (dated August 4, 2021) ................................................................................. 169 175. Vacarpio (dated August 4, 2021) .................................................................................... 170 176. Nicole Valenti (dated August 21, 2021) ......................................................................... 170 177. Amy Van Hook (dated August 4, 2021) ......................................................................... 171 178. Krista Van Laan (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................ 172 179. Ruth Van Sciver (dated August 9, 2021, 7:46 AM) ....................................................... 172 180. Ruth Van Sciver (dated August 9, 2021, 7:52 AM) ....................................................... 173 181. Ron Vickery (dated August 5, 2021) .............................................................................. 173 182. Ron Vickery (dated August 20, 2021) ............................................................................ 174 183. Ana Villarreal (dated August 4, 2021) ........................................................................... 174 184. Lydia Vitanza (dated August 5, 2021) ........................................................................... 175 185. Wanda (dated August 9, 2021, 3:01 PM) ....................................................................... 175 186. Wanda (dated August 19, 2021, 9:36 PM) ..................................................................... 176 187. Martin Weidner (dated August 4, 2021) ......................................................................... 177 188. Ashley Weiss (dated August 6, 2021) ............................................................................ 177 189. Judith Wells-Walberg (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................... 178 190. Tod Williams (dated August 5, 2021) ............................................................................ 178 191. Elizabeth Winslow (dated August 4, 2021) .................................................................... 180 192. Jim Wissick (dated August 4, 2021) ............................................................................... 180 193. Mike Wittig (dated August 9, 2021) ............................................................................... 181 194. Brittany Wolak (dated August 5, 2021) ......................................................................... 182 195. Robert Wright (dated August 3, 2021) ........................................................................... 182 196. Craig Yeutter (dated August 3, 2021) ............................................................................ 183 197. Nancie Yomtov (dated August 19, 2021) ....................................................................... 183 198. Keith Young (dated August 5, 2021) ............................................................................. 184
Responses to Comments/Errata 8 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES
1. Caltrans (dated August 24, 2021)
Comment 1.A: Thank you for including Caltrans in the review process for the U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Project. The following comments are based on our review of the Initial Study/Addendum. If you have any questions regarding these comments or require any additional information, please feel free to contact me at this email address or the phone number listed below.
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Project. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the July 2021 Draft IS.
Project Understanding: The project proposes to construct two programmable electronic billboard freeways signs on San José Airport parcels adjacent to US-101.
Electronic Signs: The section of US-101 within the project area is a Classified Landscape Freeway, which limits the placement of billboards and electronic advertising displays where there is existing continuous highway planting. Caltrans is involved in the control of off-premise displays which advertise offsite products and businesses. No off-site premise advertising displays are permitted within Classified Landscape Freeways. Outdoor advertising displays require a permit from Caltrans if they are within 660 feet from the edge of the State Right-of-Way (ROW) and viewed primarily by persons traveling on the main-traveled way of the freeway.
Please note that tree removal within the State ROW requires approval from the District Landscape Architect as well as an encroachment permit. Any trees within the State ROW damaged due to construction activities would require replacement per Caltrans Replacement Highway Planting Policy. See the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 29.
Displays must be 500 feet from any other permitted displays on the same side of the highway.
Electronic changeable message center displays must meet the above spacing requirements and be 1000 feet from other electronic message center displays. Displays must be outside of the State ROW of any highway, outside of any stream or drainage channel, and within industrial or commercial zoning. Written permission to install the displays must be obtained from both the current property owner and jurisdictional local government. The location of displays may not be adjacent to a classified landscaped freeway.
Response 1.A: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. As to Caltrans permit requirements, the City and applicant are aware that a permit from Caltrans will be required for the proposed project as it would be located within 660 feet of the Caltrans right-of-way for U.S. 101. As stated in the Initial Study/Addendum, the project will comply with both City and Caltrans standards and requirements. No tree removal from within the Caltrans right-of-way is anticipated.
Responses to Comments/Errata 9 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Comment 1.B: Construction-Related Impacts: Potential impacts to the State ROW from project- related temporary access points should be analyzed. Mitigation for significant impacts due to construction and noise should be identified. Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans.
To apply, visit http://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/transportation-permits. Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the STN.
Response 1.B: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. Further, as stated in Section
3.13.2 of the Initial Study/Addendum, there are no residential or other sensitive noise receptors located within one mile of the proposed project and, therefore, noise impacts during construction would not result in a significant impact. Construction will occur on City land and will not require lane closures on U.S. 101. Wide-load vehicles, if needed, will obtain the necessary permits from Caltrans.
Comment 1.C: Equitable Access: If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.
Response 1.C: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
The project will comply with all applicable ADA requirements. It should be noted that Caltrans facilities are not anticipated to be impacted during the construction or operational phases of the project.
Comment 1.D: Encroachment Permit: Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto the ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating the State ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement. Your application package may be emailed to
[email protected]. To download the
permit application and to obtain more information on all required documentation, visit http://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep/applications.
Response 1.D: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. If temporary or permanent
Responses to Comments/Errata 10 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
work encroaches into the Caltrans right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be obtained.
2. University of California Lick Observatory (dated August 25, 2021)
Comment 2.A: I write to formally register the concerns of the University of California's Lick Observatory in response to the electronic billboard(s) project being pursued by San José International Airport (SJC) staff to install new structures supporting four electronic billboards on airport property, to be located steps away from the Guadalupe River and US freeway 101.
For almost 140 years, the people of the Valley of Heart's Delight and the University of California's Lick Observatory have enjoyed a fruitful relationship. The city fathers of the Bay Area have consistently supported the observatory's ability to stay at the forefront of astronomy and technological innovation. Strategically located atop Mount Hamilton since the 1880s, the observatory's threshold is crossed by some 35,000 visitors annually. Thousands more enjoy its scenic approaches and hinterland for recreation. New worlds continue to be discovered from within sight of the City of San José. Lick Observatory maintains a global reputation as an authority on astronomical matters. Contrary to popular belief, Lick Observatory serves scientists from across all ten campuses on the University of California, their international collaborators, a number of national laboratories as well as industrial partners. Hundreds of scientists travel to-and-from Lick Observatory every year.
For the vast majority of these people, the city of San José and its airport serve as the primary access point. For decades, the observatory has advised on lighting ordinances, including (in the 1960s and 1970s) the deployment of sodium lighting, subsequent upgrades to light emitting diode (LED) technologies and, most recently, the deployment of electronic billboards. Measures explicitly to protect Lick Observatory are encoded into lighting ordinances.
Naturally, from a purely astronomical perspective, it would be best to have no electronic billboards at all. However, guidelines to minimize damage to dark skies by electronic billboards, developed by the International Dark-Sky Association, inform Lick Observatory's recommendations to reduce negative impacts. They include: limits on brightness, a curfew for turning off signs at 11 p.m. or midnight, constraints on sign direction, size and density, use of lower-temperature (less blue light) LEDs, tilting electronic billboards downwards by 15 degrees and ensuring that mechanical shielding is installed to reduce light being scattered upwards. Artificial Light At Night (ALAN) is the major contributor to the phenomenon commonly referred to as light pollution. In large part, light pollution is a consequence of the physics of ever-present aerosols (e.g. water vapor, particles, etc.), which preferentially redirect light. Hence, mechanical design of responsible lighting fixtures seeks to minimize wasted light.
In contrast, billboards intentionally project light laterally. Thus, billboards disproportionately compound already-vexatious light pollution via two mechanisms. First, billboards add intensity. The efficiency of electronic illumination represents a many-fold increase in wasted light, compared with former illumination methods. Second, the nature of LED technology (i.e. combining emission from multiple intensity peaks) contaminates the entire visible spectrum, whereas incandescent or discharge (e.g. sodium) lighting consists of isolated spectral peaks, with adjacent spectral regions free from contamination. In sum, the introduction of electronic billboards along the freeway 101 corridor (including in-and-around the San José International Airport) would render a deleterious impact upon
Responses to Comments/Errata 11 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Lick Observatory. Of particular concern is the proposal for the faces of two of these extremely large electronic billboards to be oriented such that they project directly in the direction of Mount Hamilton and the Observatory at its summit.
Response 2.A: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
As noted in this comment, the City has historically worked with Lick Observatory in an effort to minimize light pollution, known as Artificial Light At Night (ALAN).
The design of this proposed project continues that tradition by incorporating the International Dark-Sky Association’s guidelines referenced in this comment. These design and operational features are described on pages 6 through 13 of the Initial Study/Addendum, as well as in Appendix A (Lighting Analysis). As examples, the signs will be turned off daily between midnight and 6 AM, a level of three percent
or lower from the billboards’ maximum brightness output will be maintained.
Further, measures to minimize vertical and lateral light spillage are incorporated into the designs, as stated on pages 6 through 13 of the Initial Study/Addendum.
All of these measures will serve multiple objectives:
• Minimize light intrusion into the Guadalupe River Riparian Corridor • Avoid interfering with flight and ATC operations at the Airport • Minimize the effects of ALAN
• Comply with City and Caltrans policies to minimize the potential for distracted driving to occur.
Comment 2.B: Furthermore, it is feared that, should electronic billboards be re-introduced on San José International Airport property, it would set a precedent contravening the laudable, existing, decades-long moratorium on the introduction of new billboards in the San José area, which would subsequently lead to the proliferation of such fixtures, further threatening the operation of Lick Observatory, jeopardizing the University of California's educational, research and public outreach mission in the physical sciences and eroding Santa Clara's astronomical heritage and future.
Response 2.B: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
The subject of additional electronic billboards in San José is a policy decision that would be made by the City Council. At this time, there are no proposals or applications for additional billboards beyond the two proposed by the Airport and, therefore, the question is speculative, which is outside the realm of analysis under CEQA.
Comment 2.C: Typically, local authorities engage public opinion when considering changes to ordinances. Experience shows that the overwhelming majority of contributors perceive the most compelling arguments against electronic billboards to be the well-established detrimental
Responses to Comments/Errata 12 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
consequences on human health and safety, the similarly well-established impacts on wildlife habits and habitats, visual congestion, the often unwelcome and unsightly appearance and the eventual unkempt and untidy nature of both the structures themselves and their immediate vicinity.
For the most part, the needs of observatories are well-aligned with majority public opinion. The University of California's Lick Observatory encourages the City of San José to perform due diligence during deliberations regarding the proposed deployment of electronic billboards (e.g., by canvassing a fair, balanced representation of community/stakeholder opinion and undertaking a full and proper environmental impact assessment). The observatory remains available to advise on these matters, while continuing to foster the fruitful relationship that has persisted for well over a century.
Response 2.C: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
As evidenced by the detailed analyses undertaken for this proposed project in Section 3 of the Initial Study/Addendum, as well as the extensive debate that occurred in 2018 during the process of adopting Council Policy 6-4, the City is committed to carefully studying all of the issues prior to any decision, pro or con, being made by the City Council.
Responses to Comments/Errata 13 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES
3. Airport Commissioners Connolly, Hendrix, and Pyle (dated August 25, 2021)
Comment 3.A: On behalf of Commissioners Hendrix and Connolly, please find the attached comments regarding the U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Addendum. We previously submitted these comments as part the 8/9/21 Airport Commission meeting. After studying what we could find online, we have many questions with regards to Agenda Item, VIIIA, Clear Channel Electronic Billboard Project. The following represent questions and concerns and are categorized for convenience for the reader. The numbers are for reference only and do not represent priority. Please include this in the public record for tonight’s meeting.
Business Issues: Is Clear Channel SJC’s partner on this project? If so, was their bid part of the earlier RFP that Clear Channel won for the in-terminal marketing/sponsorship program? 1 Response 3.A: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
As to Clear Channel’s partnership with the City, the June 5, 2007 City Council Meeting Agenda included the original RFP for Clear Channel as agenda item 6.3, which included opportunities for outdoor advertising. Document available at:
http://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/060507/060507aa.pdf
Comment 3.B: According to the August 2019 council direction, it looks like outdoor billboard advertising would be addressed after the in-terminal marketing/sponsorship program was decided.
This direction indicated an RFP would be created.2 When was that RFP issued? May we see the RFP?
Response 3.B: The comment does not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
As for the RFP, there was no Council direction to prepare a separate RFP for billboards at the Airport. Clear Channel was selected as the advertisement concessionaire for the Airport following an extensive advertising RFP process in 2007 and the agreement allows for Clear Channel to propose additional revenue opportunities on Airport premises. The staff memo to the City Council for this item is available at: http://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/060507/060507_06.03.pdf
1 See this Oct. 3, 2019 news release for the announcement https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nations-first-all-digital-airport-advertising-network-d ebuts-with-82- screens-at-norman-y-mineta-san-jose-international-airport-300930906.html 2 See page 4 of the memo found here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oMGfPGcZhGnPnpHj4iLKDDg6zgVDUlFQ/view?usp=sharing
Responses to Comments/Errata 14 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Comment 3.C: What is SJC’s net revenue for existing indoor advertising? Does net revenue figure include associated overhead costs? The 2019 gross revenue is $5.13M or $5.02M and increased to $6.96M out of $229.9M total revenue. This means current advertising provides approximately 3 cents for every dollar of total airport revenue.3 Neither of these reports provide associated expenses, so it is impossible to understand the net revenue and associated gross margin on these products.
Similarly, what is the projected gross and net revenue (after associated overhead expenses) for outdoor billboard advertising? According to SJC’s September 2020 ACDBE submission, gross revenue for outdoor advertising is projected at $13,045,946 for 2021 to 2023. 4 Is there a minimum
guarantee for SJC? Will the city receive 55% of gross revenues as per their current deal?5
Response 3.C: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. As a courtesy and to provide additional information, the City does not get paid on the net revenue only the gross revenue. The City receives the greater of a minimum annual guarantee of $2,101,250 or 55% of Gross Revenue from Clear Channel for the digital program within the terminal. The Project Plan for the outdoor electronic signs includes the greater of 55% of Gross Revenue or a MAG of $300,000 on the Northern location and $190,000 for the Southern location on Airport Boulevard for additional guaranteed annual revenue of $490,000 for both signs.
Comment 3.D: To what extent is San José and SJC indemnified by potential negative outcomes, such as inappropriate advertising, crashes caused by distracted drivers, or the need to remove the billboards prior to the end of the agreement?
Response 3.D: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. As for indemnification, Clear Channel indemnifies the City as outlined in Section 9 of the Concession Agreement.
Document available at:
http://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/060507/060507aa.pdf
Comment 3.E: If a billboard needs to be removed (e.g. road widening) prior to the end of the lease, will SJC have to pay cash compensation to the owner of the billboard?
Response 3.E: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. See Section 4.4.1 of the
3 SJC’s ACDBE submission to the FAA, suggests $5.13M, while page 88 of SJC’s 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report suggests $5.02M revenue for 2019 and $6.96M for 2020. 4 See page 5, table 2 https://www.flysanjose.com/sites/default/files/strategy-and- policy/SJC%20ACDBE%20Goal%20Methodolo gy%20FFY%202021-2023.pdf 5 As reported by the Mercury News on October 3rd, 2019
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/10/03/high-tech-ads-dazzle-travelers-san-jose-airport-travel-tech-goo gle/
Responses to Comments/Errata 15 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Agreement. Document available at:
http://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/060507/060507aa.pdf
Comment 3.F: Economic Development and Quality of Life: With greater than 90% strongly or somewhat opposed to digital billboards, according to the City of San José’s own March 2021 survey, why is the city continuing to pursue a change in billboard policy?6
Response 3.F: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
As for a change in policy, this project aligns with City Council Policy 6-4, Signs on City-Owned Land, “to generate revenue for the City, including revenue to support City-owned facilities, programs, or services…”. The two signs are located on a portion of Airport land with limited uses while generating large sums of guaranteed revenue to the City in the amount of $490,000 per year, while providing new advertising opportunities to promote new destinations, services and other initiatives at no cost to the Airport. These advertising opportunities are needed to drive awareness and remain competitive against two neighboring airports that are less than a one-hour drive away from San Jose.
Comment 3.G: To what extent does implementation of phase 1 (billboards on city/public properties) put the City of San José in legal jeopardy if it decides not to move forward with phase 2? That is, can the city legally allow digital billboards on public properties, while not allowing billboards on private properties?
7 Response 3.G: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Council Policy 6-4 and Title 23 of the San Jose Municipal Code allow digital billboards on public property.
Comment 3.H: Does the current proposal adhere to item 6 of the Sign Approval Process outline in policy document 6-4, that requires the removal of 4 existing billboards for each new sign?8 If not, why not?
6 See page 8 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/70836/637527140641700000 7 Outfront recommended that “From a CEQA perspective, it is preferable for the City to select proposals for RFP Phase 1 and RFP Phase 2 at the same time….vulnerable to a CEQA challenge on the basis that it is not adequately defining the ‘whole of the project’ or properly analyzing the cumulative effect of approving both Phase 1 and Phase 2.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IW8_uALZjnC_FxxR1kAth8UkN8CbMZJm/view?usp=sharing
8 See page https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/50829/637153744794670000
Responses to Comments/Errata 16 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 3.H: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. As for rules regarding removal of signs, it can be found in Paragraph 6 of the Sign Approval Process in Council Policy 6-4, which stipulates, “If the City solicits proposals for reduction or elimination of existing Billboards...” The project would not fall under this mandate as no solicitation for billboard reduction or elimination is proposed.
Comment 3.I: How many advertising spots will SJC receive as part of the deal (e.g. % of ad space devoted to SJC associated ads)?
Response 3.I: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. With regard to advertising spots, ten percent of the advertising time is allocated to the Airport to promote new destinations, services and other Airport initiatives.
Comment 3.J: How much will this cost the city in terms of dealing with permits, enforcement, etc.? Where will those costs show up in terms of budgets (e.g. SJC, City of San José, etc.)?
Response 3.J: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. With regard to costs to the City, Clear Channel is responsible for all permits, and any fees associated with the project and day-to-day management of the program.
Comment 3.K: How much is being invested by the city, and SJC to launch this project?
Response 3.K: The comment does not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
The City has made no capital investment towards this project.
Comment 3.L: If the advertising was 100% SJC-related (i.e., on-premises), would the approval process be the same? That is, would it be considered a billboard, or would it be signage like any other business has? If it is signage, then what would be the limitations (e.g. size, frequency of ads, etc.)?
Response 3.L: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. With regard to sign parameters, the San Jose Municipal Code and Council Policy 6-4 provide the guidelines that City staff is required to follow.
Comment 3.M: How do these billboards improve urban vibrancy?
Responses to Comments/Errata 17 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 3.M: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. Nonetheless, and to provide information, “Urban Vibrancy” has different meanings but, in general, it is commonly associated with activity intensity, the diversity of land-use configurations, and the accessibility of a place. As an example, the mission of the non-profit Urban Vibrancy Institute of San Jose is stated as follows: “We are looking to revitalize and support Downtown San Jose through intentional community activity and development. We will use our resources to drive the booming local arts, food, and nightlife sectors that show tremendous opportunity for even more growth.” (Source:
www.urbanvibrancy.institute). In addition, “commercial vibrancy” is one of the goals of Council Policy 6-4, which states “to explore opportunities to enhance the commercial vibrancy of the City in selected locations, including the Downtown Sign Zone, while maintaining an aesthetically pleasing environment…”
Comment 3.N: Environmental: Can this project be sited where it is, given that it is at the intersection of 101 and 87? Per page 16 of the Initial Study/Addendum (ISA), “Further, this Act generally prohibits signs within 300 feet of the point of intersection of a highway or highway and railroad lines…”
9 Response 3.N: As stated on page 16 of the Initial Study/Addendum, the project complies with the provision in the Outdoor Advertising Act that prohibits signs within 300 feet of the point of intersection of a highway or highway and railroad lines. This statement is based on the fact that the southernmost sign for the project is approximately 750 feet from the intersection of U.S. 101 and State Route 87 and the northernmost sign is farther away.
Comment 3.O: What is the discretionary review process for this project, as per CD-1.28 (referenced on page 18 of the ISA)?
Response 3.O: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. Pertaining to the review process, the Initial Study/Addendum that was prepared pursuant to CEQA, followed by the consideration of the project by the City Council, constitutes the discretionary review process. The Airport Commission’s input to the City Council is part of that process. Public input is involved in each of these steps.
Comment 3.P: Per VN-2.3 (page 18 of the ISA), how has the public been given “the opportunity to provide input on the design of public and private development within their community”?
9 See https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/75599/637629018744800000
Responses to Comments/Errata 18 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 3.P: The comment does not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
The process described in the previous response provides the public with multiple opportunities to provide input. Further, although not required under CEQA, the City has exceeded the minimum legal requirements for receiving public comment on the environmental analysis by publicly circulated the Addendum from July 26, 2021 to August 25, 2021. The public has also been afforded the opportunity to provide input on the project at Airport Commission hearings and will have the opportunity at the aforementioned City Council hearing. Noticing of the meetings complies of Council Policy 6-30, Public Outreach Policy.
Comment 3.Q: Because of the V-shaped nature of the billboards, does this project really consist of four billboards (one on the front/one on the rear for each proposed billboard)?10
Response 3.Q: Per the City’s Sign Ordinance (Title 23 of the San Jose Municipal Code), an electronic sign that is visible from two sides is considered as one sign.
Comment 3.R: Has any analysis been done of the potential carbon footprint for this project? Section
3.3 of the ISA doesn’t seem to have that analysis.
Response 3.R: The carbon footprint of the project is addressed in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Initial Study/Addendum. The addendum concluded that construction of the project would result in only a temporary increase in emissions, and that the project’s consistency with the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, along with using carbon free electricity from San José Clean Energy would minimize the project’s carbon footprint.
Comment 3.S: The ISA analysis suggests that 43 non-native, ornamental trees will be removed.
Some of these trees are substantial - up to 38 feet tall and 323 inches in circumference (page 71).
What is the carbon impact of such a removal?
When were these trees planted, by what entity, and what was the purpose (e.g to block the view from the freeway)?
Explain this statement, ‘All trees to be removed, with the exception of one (a raywood ash [Fraxinus oxycarpa]), are nonnative species, which provide little ecological value…” Doesn’t this contradict San José’s Community Forest Goals of building our urban forest? 11 10 Comment: In today’s world of digital manipulation, it seems like much better renderings could have been made than what was presented in the EIR.
11 See https://sanjosecfmp.com/#why-trees
Responses to Comments/Errata 19 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Table 3.4-1 is confusing. It appears as if there are different replacement ratios for the size of the tree being removed. What is the bottom-line number of trees to be planted in exchange for the removal of these 43 trees?
Response 3.S: According to the Arbor Day Foundation, a typical mature tree is estimated to absorb approximately 48 pounds of CO2 each year. If all 43 trees to be removed were mature, which is a conservative overestimate, there would be an annual loss of CO2 sequestration of approximately 2,064 pounds. For context, there are approximately 1.6 million trees in San José’s entire urban forest.12
It is unknown what entity planted the trees or the purpose of their planting.
The statement that the non-native species provide little ecological value is meant to convey information to the reader about their relative value as compared to native trees. The statement is unrelated to the City’s urban forest goals.
In general, larger trees and native trees have greater ecological value than small, non- native trees, which is why there are different replacement ratios in Table 3.4-1 of the Initial Study/Addendum. If no off-site tree replacement fees were paid, the removal of the 43 trees would require 141 replacement trees to be planted using the ratios listed in Table 3.4-1. Based on this information, it is concluded that impacts associated with tree removal would be mitigated.
Comment 3.T: Per Section 3.6.1.2 of the ISA
It seems like MS-16.2 (page 104) should apply, as there could be potential for solar on these sites.
According to data on page 88,118 MegaWatts per year (323 kW/day or about 18 kWh total or 9kWh per sign location) will be needed to power these signs. Why isn’t onsite energy generation (e.g. solar on the billboards) being considered as a way to offset power needs?
Based on the average power consumption of 482 kWh per month per San José Clean Energy (5.8 MWh per year), these two signs would be the equivalent of adding approximately 20 houses. 13 This
seems like a significant impact, despite what it says on page 110.
Response 3.T: The proposed project does not include energy generation or transmission infrastructure and, therefore MS-16.2 does not apply.
As stated on page 88 of the Initial Study/Addendum, the billboards will comply with Title 24 energy conservation measures. Energy-efficient LED lights will also be used.
These facts support a conclusion that energy impacts would not be significant.
Therefore, mitigation such as solar is not warranted.
12 Source: UC Davis, San Jose Urban Tree Canopy Study, 2013. 13 From the San Jose Clean Energy website (8/9/21) https://sanjosecleanenergy.org/residential -rates/
Responses to Comments/Errata 20 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
The statement on page 110 pertains to greenhouse gases, not energy use.
Comment 3.U: Per page 54 of ISA, it appears that the South sign is the closest to the aquatic and riparian corridor. The wording is confusing. Is it outside the corridor? Is it part of the CDFW and RWQCB jurisdiction and, as such, does that mean it would need approval by the USACE?
Response 3.U: As described in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Initial Study/Addendum, both signs would be located outside of the riparian corridor.
Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) would not be needed.
Comment 3.V: Will there be any impact on Lick Observatory or will the horizontal shading louvers prevent upward light from leaking out? It appears that is the case, given the steps to eliminate light leaking towards the control tower, for instance.
Response 3.V: Please see the responses to Comment Letter #2 from the Lick Observatory.
Comment 3.W: Safety: There doesn’t seem to be an analysis of the potential for crashes due to driver inattention. Granted the studies are mixed as to what it could mean from a crash perspective.14 Still, where is the cost-benefit analysis of the potential safety risk versus revenue generation?
Response 3.W: Pages 21-22 of the Initial Study/Addendum provide an analysis of the billboards’ potential effect on safety for drivers on U.S. 101. For the reasons cited, the analysis concludes that the billboards will comply with both Caltrans and City of San José regulations pertaining to avoiding/minimizing the potential to distract drivers on U.S. 101. A cost-benefit analysis of safety versus revenue generation is not germane to the analysis of environmental impacts under CEQA.
Comment 3.X: How does this achieve San José’s Vision Zero policy?
Response 3.X: As described on pages 21-22 of the Initial Study/Addendum, the billboards would comply with current Caltrans and City standards that are designed to minimize driver distractions. Such standards are intended to reduce/avoid accidents, consistent with Vision Zero.
Comment 3.Y: If implemented, will there be provisions to change parameters if future research indicates things, such as ad dwell time, brightness, etc. need to be changed to ensure safety?
14 See this 2019 meta-study and how digital billboards impact different age groups and skill level drivers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856418310632. An earlier study suggests “they do cause greater distraction and longer eye glances than standard billboards.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Og69vQ_oJXLiUTw8nmvGRh8mNbAnGRhy/view?usp=sharing
Responses to Comments/Errata 21 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 3.Y: As described on pages 9-12 of the Initial Study/Addendum, the billboards will have the capability to adjust operating parameters.
Comment 3.Z: Figure 7 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Santa Clara County Norman Y.
Mineta San José International Airport Amended 11/16/16 outlines Airport Safety Zones for SJC. Are the two proposed electronic billboards outside the Runway Protection Zone?
Response 3.Z: As stated on page 128 of the Initial Study/Addendum, the billboards will not be located within a Runway Protection Zone.
Comment 3.AA: Operational: How many billboards are there in San José? Is there any inventory/map of these billboards? How many billboards will there be in San José if they are all converted to electronic? How many billboards would be removed if these four billboards go up? 8 or 16?
Response 3.AA: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
However, as a courtesy and to provide information, analysis by staff indicates that there are 318 billboards in the City of San José. The City does not have an inventory/map of these billboards. Further there is not current or proposed policy or regulations to allow existing billboards in San José to convert to digital billboards.
Removal of other billboards in place of the proposed billboards would be dictated by San José Airport staff in their agreement with Clear Channel.
Comment 3.BB: It is assumed that all personnel required to maintain and operate these billboards will be from SJC’s private partner. Is that cored, and, if so, what will be the impact on SJC personnel in terms of having to support this private partner?
Response 3.BB: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Clear Channel will have the responsibility to operate and maintain the billboards.
Comment 3.CC: Process: Why weren’t these proposed billboards included as part of the Airport Master Plan, approved in 2020? It is important to note that the Airport Commission was not part of the Airport Master Plan process. With that said several commissioners submitted comments at various stages of the Airport Master Plan process.
15 15 See pages 27-31 of the public comments.
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/61644/637304476558530000. Note, these comments submitted on January 13th 2020 by Commissioner Pyle do not appear in the public record.
Responses to Comments/Errata 22 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 3.CC: The Airport Master Plan provides the overall framework and major improvements. It does not identify every project. Further, none of the details regarding the proposed electronic signs had been determined at the time the Amendment to the Master Plan was developed, so no analysis in the EIR was possible. During the Airport Master Plan approval process, comments submitted by Airport Commissioners were included, and responded to, in the Airport Master Plan EIR.
Comment 3.DD: The proposed billboard locations were not referenced in the July 15th, 2019 staff memo. The sites listed in that memo are 2400 Seaboard Avenue, 2200 Airport Boulevard, 1128 Coleman Avenue, and 2341 Airport Boulevard.16 What was the motivation for this change? In what public forum was this change proposed?
Response 3.DD: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
The above statement notwithstanding, the following information is provided as a courtesy: Page 4 of the July 2019 memo states that the Airport was in an ongoing process with Clear Channel: “The Airport has an existing agreement with an advertising concessionaire who manages one cohesive facility-wide advertising program. This agreement expires in 2027. Airport staff is interested in leveraging their outdoor program to support in-terminal advertising. Airport staff and the advertising concessionaire are currently finalizing an in-terminal marketing/sponsorship program. The Airport intends to address other advertising opportunities, including outdoor billboard advertising, once the in-terminal program has been fully developed.”
Comment 3.EE: It appears that the city is preventing political or religious advertising on the billboards. Can it Constitutionally do so?17 Political or religious restrictions are not included in Policy 6-4, effective November 9th, 2018.18
Response 3.EE: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. With regard to
16 See Table 3 on page 3 of the memo found here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oMGfPGcZhGnPnpHj4iLKDDg6zgVDUlFQ/view?usp=sharing What is odd about that memo is that it suggests that the 2500 Seaboard Avenue site, which is home to SJC’s fuel tanks, is managed by the “Sharks Sports and Entertainment as part as part of their Arena Management Agreement with the City of San Jose (SAP Center, Hwy 87 and West Hedding, and 2500 Seaboard Ave…” 17 See page 4 under the “Commercial advertising policy” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oMGfPGcZhGnPnpHj4iLKDDg6zgVDUlFQ/view 18 See page 7, Item 1 under Message Limitations
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/50829/637153744794670000
Responses to Comments/Errata 23 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
content, the use of the billboards will be consistent with applicable City, state, and federal requirements.
Comment 3.FF: The aforementioned November 9th 2018 policy suggested that the “FAA requires City receive fair market value for use of the property.” How has this been assured?
Response 3.FF: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. With regard to the question pertaining to fair market value, the Airport issued an RFP for advertising under its concession program, and the contract was awarded by City Council to Clear Channel. This process is what determines fair market value. The structure of the contract incentivizes Clear Channel to maximizes revenue, thus maximizing revenue for the City.
Comment 3.GG: Attachment A, List 1 has a footnote referring to 2500 Seaboard Avenue and 2341 Airport Boulevard that states, “State law restricts to on-site commercial speech and large arena sponsorship signage.” Does this mean that off-site commercial speech is not allowed at those sites? Does this mean the sites currently under consideration also can’t have site commercial speech (advertising)?
Response 3.GG: The comments do not raise any specific issue with the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. Use of the billboards will be consistent with applicable City, state, and federal requirements.
Comment 3.HH: Appendix A – Select Comments from the Public
With over 150 emails submitted on this topic (all in opposition), we have never seen so much public passion around an agenda item brought before the Airport Commission. Although we don’t necessarily endorse the following, we felt the comments below provide food for thought, particularly for City Council in its decision regarding digital billboards.
“Other types of signs without these problems are available to be installed. NOT ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS...NONE!!!”
“Billboards benefit only their owners and advertisers; every passerby pays the ‘attention tax’ price, making them a loss overall for society.”
“The city's own survey shows that nearly 93% of the public strongly oppose this scheme as well.”
“Whatever money this would raise for the city is not worth it – raise our taxes instead.”
“I am very concerned about the direction the City is going in.”
“Can I ENCOURAGE you to concentrate more on the existing issues that plague our ONCE wonderful city, homelessness, crime rate, trash, infrastructure, traffic, etc., etc., etc…”
Responses to Comments/Errata 24 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
“The city putting them up, is like the city endorsing looking at text messages while driving!!!!!!”
“I find it odd/suspicious that the many opposition letters to Phase 2 that apply to Phase 1 are omitted from the official record;...I'm requesting this email and my previous letter (re-attached) be added to the official record” (letter from July 2020).
“The fact that running six-second [actually, it is 8-second duration] commercials on huge electronic billboards will create divided attention on our roadways is completely against San José's Vision Zero.
Where is the common sense?”
Response 3.HH: This comment summarizes some of the public comments regarding the proposed project. Each public comment submitted is responded to individually in this document.
Comment 3.II: Appendix B Suggested Road Signage at the Airport
Although somewhat off-topic, a simple improvement in SJC wayfinding would be the addition of road markings, such as what is depicted in the crude rendering, below. Simply, it is easy to get confused as to which lane one should be in when navigating the airport road system.
Response 3.II: This comment is unrelated to the proposed project.
4. Santa Clara Valley Water District (dated August 25, 2021)
Comment 4.A: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has received the Initial Study (IS)/Addendum to the proposed U.S. 101 Airport Electric Signs Project, received by Valley Water on July 26, 2021. The proposed locations of the north and south electric signs are on the east and west of Guadalupe River and Valley Water’s easement, respectively. Based on our review, we have the following comments:
Responses to Comments/Errata 25 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
The Initial Study/Addendum notes the City’s Riparian Corridor Policy will be used in the assessment to evaluate potential impacts to wildlife and birds, riparian corridors, and wetlands resulting from the installation of the signs. Valley Water strongly encourages the City to maximize the setbacks to the riparian corridor by imposing the minimum 100-foot setback and directing lighting away from the riparian corridor.
In addition, Valley Water encourages the City to also utilize the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams developed by the Water Resources Protection Collaborative. The Guidelines and Standards include additional guidance that complements the City’s Riparian Corridor Policy, of particular importance are setbacks and appropriate land uses near the riparian corridor.
Response 4.A: The proposed billboards will be located outside of the 100-foot buffer along the riparian corridor of the Guadalupe River. In addition, as described in Section 2.2.1 of the Initial Study/Addendum, the project design incorporates multiple features and controls that will limit light intrusion into the riparian corridor.
Comment 4.B: 2. To protect the genetic integrity of the riparian corridor and mitigation plants, Valley Water recommends replacement trees and landscaping within the riparian corridor be in accordance with Design Guide 3 from the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams.
Design Guide 3 will help ensure landscaping will be maintained in a manner consistent with the goals of protecting the local natives and replacement plants consistent with this guide are commercially available. This guide provides options for use of either non-invasive, drought-tolerant, non-native ornamental plants that will not have the potential to cross-pollinate with native riparian species or else choosing non-invasive, drought-tolerant, non-local California natives (ornamental natives) with no potential to cross-pollinate with the local native species.
Response 4.B: As stated on page 73 of the Initial Study/Addendum, on-site replacement of trees and/or the payment of off-site tree replacement fees will occur.
Under the tree replacement option, the species of replacement trees to be planted will be determined in consultation with the City Arborist and the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. The replacement trees will be water-efficient landscaping, which conforms to the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). The comment does not raise any additional concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum; therefore, recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is not required.
Responses to Comments/Errata 26 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
ORGANIZATIONS, BUSINESSES, AND INDIVIDUALS
5. Erik Aguas (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 5.A: 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 José 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.
Response 5.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
6. Annette Aguilar (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 6.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 6.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial
Responses to Comments/Errata 27 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
7. Bruce Akizuki (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 7.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 7.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
8. Chuck Alderete (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 8.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 8.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included
Responses to Comments/Errata 28 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
9. Pamela Alford (dated August 7, 2021)
Comment 9.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on the SJC airport property along the 101 Freeway. I urge you to vote in opposition to the project proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
Do not remove the natural environment of San José, as has happened elsewhere in this state. The removal of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable in our present climate change environment.
The arguments for digital billboards are indeed spurious. There is neither significant money in it for San José 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 José, YOU, as our City representatives, will be opening the floodgates for dozens of additional billboards and litigation, similar to that 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 hope to reverse. Please keep in mind that you represent the public rather than the commercial industries in San José and Santa Clara County.
I hope that you vote NO.
Response 9.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 29 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
10. Annezk (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 10.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 10.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
11. T Arana (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 11.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 11.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 30 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
12. Mark Baker - Soft Lights (dated August 3, 2021)
Comment 12.A: We have been alerted that, despite our repeated letters to the City of San José about the dangers and discriminatory nature of LED billboards, the city has decided to ignore our ADA requests to protect people with light sensitivity disabilities.
Specifically, the following persons hereby notify the City of San José that we are unable to tolerate LED billboards and that LED billboards pose life-threatening hazards.
Mark Baker - Autism - Due to his autism, Mr. Baker has an exceedingly strong ability to focus on detail. LED billboards capture his attention to such an extent he is unable to safely drive a vehicle in the vicinity of LED billboards because he is unable to disconnect his attention from the billboard. As the city and Clear Channel know, this ability of an LED billboard to grab attention is one of the major selling points of LED billboards.
John Moody - Migraines - Mr. Moody is extremely light sensitive and the directed-beam of LED lights may trigger a disabling migraine headache. These migraines last as long as 3 weeks, during which time Mr. Moody must remain in a dark room and take prescription medicine.
Heidi O'Leary - Epilepsy - Ms. O'Leary cannot tolerate the exceedingly high peak luminance of LEDs. These LEDs cause pre-seizure symptoms, and with enough exposure, grand mal seizures.
Response 12.A: As stated on page 9 of the Initial Study/Addendum, the proposed signs would maintain a level of three percent or lower from their maximum brightness output. Other operating parameters that are designed to minimize driver distraction are listed on page 12 of the Initial Study/Addendum. This would avoid any issues associated with high peak luminance. See also Appendix A, Lighting Analysis, for a discussion of the technical specifications of the signs.
The project will comply with applicable ADA requirements.
Comment 12.B: We see no indication that the City of San José or Clear Channel has addressed the needs of the protected class of citizens who are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. We therefore make the following public records request for information related to this project.
1) All communications between Clear Channel and the City of San José that discuss the safety, distraction and disability factors related to LED billboards.
2) All presentations, research, brochures, etc. from Clear Channel about the effects of LED billboards and the issues of attention capture, distraction, civil liberties and ADA compliance.
Responses to Comments/Errata 31 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
3) All specifications of the proposed billboards, including peak luminance values for day and night settings for full white, full blue, full red, full green and multi-colored images. Also, please provide the contrast ratios between the billboard and the ambient night.
We have legitimate reasons to believe that Clear Channel has not provided truthful information to the City of San José about these LED billboards and we wish to investigate whether the City of San José has performed due diligence.
Response 12.B: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
With regard to regulatory issues, the project will comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws, including the ADA.
With respect the request for copies of City-Clear Channel communications regarding billboard safety and distractibility, no such communications exist. This is based as a search of City files and e-mails. The City does not possess any presentations, research, brochures, etc. from Clear Channel about the effects of LED billboards and the issues of attention capture, distraction, civil liberties, and ADA compliance. Clear Channel, as the proposed owner and operator of the billboards, has the responsibility of designing the project to comply with applicable regulations.
The technical specifications of the electronic signs can be found in the lighting analysis that was prepared for the project by Zeiger Engineers, Inc, a firm specializing in lighting design and analysis. The lighting analysis is Appendix A of this document, key conclusions from which are as follows:
• The signs would meet or exceed Federal Highway Administration and State of California regulations that are designed to avoid driver distraction. • The north/south faces of the North Site, and the south face of the South Site, have brightness’s that conform to the maximum value of 0.3 footcandle over ambient conditions, reducing unwanted spill and trespass light toward the airport’s ground operations.
• The signs will be constructed with custom side-shielding of the LED modules in order to successfully eliminate spill light toward the airport control tower that is located approximately 5,500 feet away.
• The north face of the South Site will use a backlighted fixed signage and will have dimming controls needed to limit spill light toward the Guadalupe River riparian zone to conform to the 0.10 footcandle over ambient conditions required by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. • Project Design will produce very little glare and potential for pilot distraction in the landing approach from the North (Runways 12L/12R) or South (Runways 30L/30R) due to the light control features on the billboards.
Responses to Comments/Errata 32 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
13. AR Bancroft (dated August 9, 2021)
Comment 13.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 13.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
14. Carrick Bartle (dated August 22, 2021)
Comment 14.A: I understand that two billboards near the airport are up for approval. I'm a citizen of San José, and I am firmly opposed to these billboards. I don't think I need to explain why. Billboards are a horrific eyesore. Everyone thinks so. Representatives of billboard companies may claim that billboards add "color" and "excitement" to a city, but I'd hazard to guess that they themselves prefer to live in neighborhoods with no billboards.
San José is already a pretty disgusting city. Don't let it continue its slide into a dystopian hellhole even further by allowing these billboards to be erected.
Response 14.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved because “billboards are a horrific eyesore.” The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Responses to Comments/Errata 33 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
15. Cynthia Batchedler (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 15.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates
Response 15.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
16. Janet Berliner (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 16.A: 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 José 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 José, 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 34 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 16.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
17. Warner Bloomberg (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 17.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 17.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
18. Carolus Boekema (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 18.A: 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 José 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
Responses to Comments/Errata 35 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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 José, the City may be going downhill as in lacking a downtown hospital ...
Response 18.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Comment 18.B: To SJ City Council: even more urgent is to resolve the fact that downtown San José has no Hospital! With all the influx (think google village & high towers) people especially elderly can get stuck in traffic & die on their way to a far away hospital due to a heart attack. If you do your calculations right, the chance that one dies from covid-19 in SJ downtown is roughly the same as dying from a heart attack in downtown SJ!
To NoSJBillBoards: It would be much better to focus now on responsible candidates for SJ Council elections.
Response 18.B: This comment is unrelated to the proposed project.
19. Lucile Boone (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 19.A: 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 José 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 José, 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 36 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 19.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
20. Richard Boyce (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 20.A: 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 José 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 José, 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.
Response 20.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 37 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
21. Richard Boyce (dated August 19, 2021)
Comment 21.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, 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.
Response 21.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
22. Ian Bruce (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 22.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates
Responses to Comments/Errata 38 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 22.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
23. Dr. Ralf Buengener (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 23.A: 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.
San José once promised to reduce light pollution to support the Lick observatory on Mt. Hamilton.
This is the opposite as it will increase light pollution which also has a negative effect on many animals. In addition, the billboards will needlessly consume energy and thus promote the climate crisis.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, 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.
Response 23.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss, light pollution, and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 39 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
24. David Byam (dated August 9, 2021)
Comment 24.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 24.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
25. Allan Calara (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 25.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 25.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 40 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.
26. Pete Carrillo (dated July 26, 2021)
Comment 26.A: Has the SJ Airport awarded the installation of the "two programmable electronic billboard freeway signs”? I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks
Response 26.A: The U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs project is an Airport tenant improvement project. This means that the Airport is not awarding the project and the tenant is solely responsible for construction. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
27. Joe Cellura (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 27.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 27.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
28. Susanne Cellura (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 28.A: 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 41 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 28.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
29. David Chai (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 29.A: I am strongly opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
We see advertisements constantly online, on television, and in the media. We are surrounded by ads.
The last thing we need is to deface the city's natural beauty and purposely install billboards that serve no one else but the people who install them and the people who advertise on them.
Would you like a billboard installed in your neighborhood? If your answer is no, it's probably for many of the same reasons the majority of people who voiced their opinions about billboards in San José and I are opposed to having more installed in our city.
Let's spend resources on more public art, not more ads. Please vote against this terrible idea.
Response 29.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 42 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
30. Delaney Chonna (dated August 20, 2021)
Comment 30.A: Electronic billboards are a dangerous distraction to drivers and I am surprised that isn’t enough to cancel these eyesores.
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property. Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, 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.
Response 30.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss, driver distraction, and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
31. Ana Clark (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 31.A: 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 José 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 43 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
By allowing these first digital billboards in San José, the City may be opening the floodgates. Plus look at the survey results more than 80% of the respondents don't want these atrocities.
Response 31.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
32. Tim Clauson (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 32.A: 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. There was little, if any, public outreach for phase one, why?
Our Guadalupe River Parkway should be seen as a prize possession to the San José residents and those who come to visit. The blight that these huge electronic billboards will bring simply cheapens our skyline. The fact that running six second commercials on huge electronic billboards will create divided attention on our roadways is completely against San José's Vision Zero. Where is the common sense?
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=51859
Response 32.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to aesthetic and driver distraction impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Comment 32.B: In addition, I question the future management of the property around these signs as I believe it is Clear Channel who will be awarded these contracts. The recent article (https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-neighborhood-bus-stops-struggle-with-upkeep/) clearly indicates that Clear Channel was awarded contracts that involve our VTA bus stops and has failed at completing their end of the deal in regard to keeping them clean. What will the land around these two and/or other Electronic Billboards look like based on their track record? Will they need razor wire fencing around the bases? Again, potential blight.
Again, I, as well as the Vendome Neighborhood Association Board oppose ALL Electronic Billboards in San José. Thank you for your time.
Response 32.B: Clear Channel would be responsible for maintenance of the billboards. No fencing around the base of the billboards is proposed.
Responses to Comments/Errata 44 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
33. Gloria Collins (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 33.A: 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 José cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable.
There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.
By allowing these first digital billboards in San José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
Response 33.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
34. Laura Comoletti (dated August 6, 2021)
Comment 34.A: 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 José 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.
Response 34.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 45 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
35. Donna Davies (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 35.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 35.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
36. Nancy DeMattei (dated August 5, 2021 8:13 PM)
Comment 36.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 36.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 46 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
37. Nancy DeMattei (dated August 5, 2021, 8:35 PM)
Comment 37.A: I oppose the electronic billboards proposal on airport property. Please don’t ruin San José with the blight of these electronic billboards.
Response 37.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to the blight associated with electronic billboards. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
38. Bruce DeVisser (August 4, 2021, 3:17 PM)
Comment 38.A: 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 José 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 José, the City will be clearing the way 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. Please accept the results of the City's own survey clearly showing strong opposition to this project and stop this activity now.
We should learn from our history, lest we be prone to repeat our past mistakes.
Response 38.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the
Responses to Comments/Errata 47 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
39. Elise di Donato (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 39.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 39.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
40. Sue Dileanis (dated August 19, 2021)
Comment 40.A: 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 wildfire 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 48 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 40.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
41. Lynn Dobson (dated August 8, 2021)
Comment 41.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
The natural environment of San José would be adversely affected by these digital billboards and removing 43 healthy trees serves no supportable purpose. The natural environment, architectural integrity and, specifically, the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River should not be sacrificed for these large, exceedingly bright digital billboards. Further, any argument they will improve the local economy, contribute meaningfully to the City’s funding or result in “urban vibrancy” appears wholly unsupported.
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.
Allowing these first digital billboards in San José is not in keeping with the ban or the intent behind it’s enactment.
Response 41.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 49 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
42. Donna Dring (dated August 6, 2021)
Comment 42.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 42.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
43. Bob Elliston (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 43.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 43.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 50 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
44. Alan Fanning (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 44.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 44.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
45. Alan Fanning (dated August 19, 2021)
Comment 45.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 51 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 45.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
46. Jan Fox (dated August 19, 2021)
Comment 46.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 46.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
47. Kirsten Franz (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 47.A: 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 José 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
Responses to Comments/Errata 52 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 47.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
48. Guadalupe Friaz (dated August 30, 2021)
Comment 48.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, 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.
Response 48.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 53 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
49. Guadalupe Friaz (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 49.A: As a local resident I value the time you spend on these commissions. I request that you be honest about this issue. These digital billboards amount to a disrespect of the natural environment of San José and I protest vehemently. Razing 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. If you are honest, you will admit there are no valid arguments for digital billboards. 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.
Response 49.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
50. Elizabeth Garcia (dated August 7, 2021)
Comment 50.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 50.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 54 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
51. Janis Gemignani (August 19, 2021)
Comment 51.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, 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 reversing. We should learn from our history, lest we be prone to repeat our past mistakes.
Response 51.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
52. Joseph Gemignani (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 52.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 52.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included
Responses to Comments/Errata 55 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
53. Vicki Gersey (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 53.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 53.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
54. Janet Gillis (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 54.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
Responses to Comments/Errata 56 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 54.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
55. Andy Goodman (dated July 27, 2021)
Comment 55.A: My name is Andy Goodman and a client of mine has asked me to look into this project. It looks to me like this project and RFP have been completed and that Clear Channel is the outdoor company moving forward with the project. Am I correct?
My client seems to think this is a RFP Can you help me with understanding where the project is at?
Response 55.A: This is not an RFP. The applicant is Clear Channel. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum and no further response is required.
56. Greer (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 56.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 56.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 57 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
57. Sharon Grennan (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 57.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 57.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
58. Guadalupe River Park Conservancy (dated August 25, 2021)
Comment 58.A: I'm the Secretary of the Guadalupe River Park Conservancy and Chair of the Master Plan Committee, and GRPC would like to submit the attached letter regarding the Initial Study/Addendum for the US-101 Airport Electronic Signs project.
The Guadalupe River Park Conservancy (GRPC) submits the following comments on the Initial Study/Addendum (IS/A) for the US-101 Airport Electronic Signs project. The southern sign is located adjacent to the Guadalupe River. While technically outside of our area of influence, as stewards and advocates for the Guadalupe River, we submit the following comments related to the installation of a large electronic billboard near the River habitat. This billboard will also result in negative aesthetic impacts to human users of the Guadalupe River Trail.
Our main comments are as follows:
We are disappointed at the lack of outreach for the project. We are usually advised of such projects well in advance and were not recipients of the document in a timely manner.
Responses to Comments/Errata 58 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 58.A: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
With regard to public involvement, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an EIR Addendum does not get circulated for public review and comment. However, given the substantial interest in the project and the City’s desire to be transparent, the Addendum was circulated for 30 days for public review and comment.
Comment 58.B: In many locations in the IS/A, it is stated that few species are located in the area including raptors, steelhead, salmon, and southwestern pond turtles, yet this project allows additional detrimental effects to occur to these species. This is one of the more pristine stretches of the river in all of San José. To affect wildlife in any number is a significant impact in an area that has finally started to gain some traction in terms of habitat values.
Response 58.B: Section 3.4 and Appendix B, Biological Resources Report, of the Initial Study/Addendum discuss all the special-status species that could potentially occur in the project vicinity; how those potentially occurring species are (or are not) expected to be impacted by the project; whether those impacts are potentially significant; and why no mitigation measures are necessary to reduce impacts to less- than-significant levels. What is not discussed in the biological resources report or Initial Study/Addendum is that the project applicant worked with the City’s consultant team to design the electronic signs to avoid significant impacts on biological resources, and to incorporate measures into the project description (e.g., Applicant-Proposed Measure 1A for erosion and sedimentation control) to minimize impacts. As a result, the project will not result in significant impacts to biological resources.
Comment 58.C: While the billboard will be outside of the riparian corridor setback, its construction has the potential to affect natural habitats, including those utilized by the southwestern pond turtle.
We request that the project include pre-construction surveys for the turtle both at night and during the day to ensure that turtles will not be destroyed. This is a standard mitigation measure for special- status species, and we are surprised to not see it in this document, particularly because it seems to us that this is a new significant impact not previously identified in the Master Plan EIR. Similarly, nighttime impacts to special-status fish species should include habitat mitigation measures in terms of habitat restoration consistent with the requirements of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Response 58.C: As discussed on pages 58-59 in the Initial Study/Addendum, southwestern pond turtles are not expected to be impacted by billboard construction activities due to the low number of pond turtles that occur along the Guadalupe River, the very low potential for any individual pond turtles to disperse into construction or tree removal locations, and the limited footprint and short duration of construction activities. The Initial Study/Addendum made the very conservative determination that possibly one individual pond turtle could be impacted, but even that is highly unlikely, and it is the professional opinion of the project’s consulting biologist that project impacts on southwestern pond turtles will be less than significant.
Responses to Comments/Errata 59 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Although the proposed project would not be considered a covered project by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, it is worth noting (in response to this comment) that the Habitat Plan – which covers most development projects that occur in most of Santa Clara County – does not include preconstruction surveys for southwestern pond turtles. Therefore, the City disagrees with the comment that such surveys are a standard measure for this species.
With respect to the comment regarding impacts on special-status fish, please see the responses to Comments #148.D and #148.E.
Comment 58.D: The lighting emitted from the southern sign will impact sensitive riparian forest, aquatic, and willow riparian habitat in excess of what is already occurring in the area. We would like to see a more robust discussion of how this project contributes to these impacts, including how predators will gain an advance in the nighttime hours when the habitats are artificially lighted. To simply say that it already happening so impacts are not significant does not give the public or decision makers sufficient information on which to base an educated decision on the project.
Response 58.D: Please see the response to Comments #148.D and #148.E, which discuss why impacts of increased lighting on biological resources were determined to be less than significant and how baseline conditions (which include some level of existing anthropogenic lighting) are taken into consideration when assessing impacts.
Because the increase in illumination resulting from the project will be minimal, as discussed on pages 62-68 in the Initial Study/Addendum and the response to Comments #148.D and #148.E, this increase is not expected to be so great that it would substantially change any predator-prey interactions in the project vicinity.
Comment 58.E: We are concerned over significant project impacts to birds and support for bird safe designs.
Response 58.E: This comment states a conclusion without any supporting data or information and, therefore, no further response is required.
The Initial Study/Addendum includes extensive discussion of potential project impacts on birds, including impacts on common birds, nesting birds, and breeding special-status birds, as well as on the impacts of increased illuminance on birds and the impacts of increased luminance on avian flight behavior. Analysis in the Initial Study/Addendum found that impacts on birds were determined to be less than significant. In particular, with respect to the comment regarding bird safe design, impacts on birds in flight were determined to be less than significant because birds flying more than 18° above the center of the sign’s beam angle (i.e., east and west) will not be able to see light from the sign at all; billboards will use LED optics with asymmetrical downward beams, rather than conventional symmetrical vertical beams, which will reduce unwanted upward light; billboards will not display animated messages, including flashing, blinking, fading, rolling, shading, dissolving, or any other effect that gives the appearance of movement; no sign message will be displayed for a period of time less than eight seconds; transitions from one message
Responses to Comments/Errata 60 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
to another message will appear instantaneous as perceived by the human eye; and the signs will contain a default mechanism that will cause the sign to revert immediately to a black screen if the sign malfunctions. Colors and patterns of color on the billboards will thus be changing, and birds flying near the sign would not perceive it as a fixed, unchanging light, the type of light that appears to be most attractive to birds. Further, the proposed west-facing billboard will be completely covered by translucent vinyl to ensure no unwanted light occurs above or below the face of the billboard.
Comment 58.F: We would like to see more discussion on how sensitive species will be affected by construction noise so close to the aquatic and riparian habitats, and we question if this impact was identified in the Master Plan EIR.
Response 58.F: The biological resources section of the Master Plan EIR did include consideration of potential impacts of noise on sensitive species. For example, the EIR stated, with respect to potentially occurring, nonbreeding special-status species, “Construction activities might result in a temporary direct impact through the alteration of foraging patterns (e.g., avoidance of work sites because of increased noise and activity levels during maintenance activities)”. It also stated, with respect to potentially breeding special-status birds, “activities that occur during the nesting season and cause a substantial increase in noise or human activity near active nests may result in the abandonment of active nests (i.e., nests with eggs or young). In addition, heavy ground disturbance, noise, and vibrations caused by project activities could potentially disturb nesting and foraging individuals and cause them to move away from work areas.” With respect to burrowing owls, the EIR stated:
“The increase in air passenger aircraft operations under the Amendment is expected to increase the disturbance of owls that occupy the airfield by aircraft and airfield operations. However, the owls that occur on the airfield are acclimated to the existing high levels of disturbance, which currently fluctuates throughout the day, week, and year based on demand. Due to the owls’ resiliency for these high levels of disturbance, demonstrated by their continued persistence within grassland infields along runways at the airfield, we do not expect an increase in noise and visual disturbances to affect the owls’ continued presence at the airfield.”
Similarly, the Initial Study/Addendum for the U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Project stated, with respect to special-status birds, “Project construction and tree removal activities that occur during the nesting season could potentially cause an increase in noise or human activity near active nests. This could result in the abandonment of active nests (i.e., nests with eggs or young). In addition, heavy ground disturbance, noise, and vibrations caused by project activities could potentially disturb nesting and foraging individuals and cause them to move away from work areas.”
Responses to Comments/Errata 61 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
However, all construction areas for the electronic signs project are located in areas that are already heavily affected by noise from traffic on U.S. 101 (and, to a lesser extent, in the airport parking lots and internal roads) and aircraft associated with the airport. Any animals occurring in or near the areas where the new billboards will be constructed already have to be habituated to such intense noise, or they would not be using those areas. The increase in noise from construction of these billboards will represent a minimal incremental increase over ambient noise. Further, the construction areas are located far enough from habitat for sensitive species that impacts on such species from noise related to project construction would be less than significant.
Comment 58.G: While construction impacts may be temporary, there is a potential for significant long-term impacts to the habitat and wildlife. We ask that the potential for habitat restoration along areas adjacent to the Guadalupe River be explored as a mitigation measure for these impacts. When given the opportunity, we have witnessed the river’s ability to restore its biological resources with mitigation and care.
Response 58.G: As discussed in the Initial Study/Addendum, both direct and indirect impacts of the project on sensitive habitats and habitat for special-status species will be less than significant. The project’s direct habitat impacts include only 50 square feet of asphalt and 28 square feet of ruderal (disturbed) grassland. Indirect impacts from increased lighting will be minimized, as discussed in the Initial Study/Addendum and the response to Comment #148.D. Therefore, no compensatory habitat mitigation is necessary.
Comment 58.H: We ask for an analysis on how the trail use experience will be affected by the southern billboard in light of the fact that this area of the River is pristine for an urban river.
We are fighting for every foot of trail wherein the user experiences a connection to nature; a place outside of Downtown where residents are welcomed by open space that is in harmony and is healthy; and a green landscape that reflects our best intentions. We question whether this billboard is consistent with our mission and that of San José.
Response 58.H: Trail users’ view of the southern billboard would be transitory as they walk or bicycle past the sign. Light-related impacts would not occur during daylight hours when the trail is in use. At night, light from the sign would be held at a low illuminance value of no more than 0.1 fc above ambient light conditions in the riparian corridor; see page 65 of thew Initial Study/Addendum. Further, the trail is not frequently used at night.
With regard to noise impacts to trail users, as stated on page 142 of the Initial Study/Addendum, the sign will not create noticeable noise; any noise from cooling fans in the sign would be masked by the noise from vehicles on U.S. 101 and SR 87, as well as noise from aircraft operations.
Responses to Comments/Errata 62 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
The comment does not identify a new environmental impact or require additional mitigation and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
59. Brian Haberly (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 59.A: I am STRONGLY opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
Trashing the natural environment of San José cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable.
Response 59.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Initial Study/Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Comment 59.B: Nearly 60-foot wide electronic billboards will distract drivers and lead to less safe driving conditions. How is that in the Community's best interest?
Pages 6 to 13 of the Initial Study/Addendum describe the design and operational parameters of the billboards that will minimize any distraction to drivers These measures comply with both Caltrans and City of San José requirements. The comment does not identify a new environmental impact or require additional mitigation and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Comment 59.C: The arguments for digital billboards are false. 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
These billboards are OPPOSED by the majority of our area residents. Please vote NO on this proposal.
Response 59.C: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved because it is opposed by the majority of residents and does not generate significant revenue for the City. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum
Responses to Comments/Errata 63 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
60. Gwen Hacker (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 60.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 60.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
61. Stuart Hastings (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 61.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.
Billboards are a blight on the public landscape, and digital billboards are a significant distraction to drivers (they are always aimed at passing cars). Billboards benefit only their owners and advertisers; every passerby pays the "attention tax" price, making them a loss overall for society.
Please vote down these billboards, for the sake of the driving public and the Guadalupe River.
Responses to Comments/Errata 64 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 61.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved because of its biological, aesthetic, and driver distraction impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
62. Michael Hazelton (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 62.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 62.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
63. Michael Hazelton (dated August 10, 2021)
Comment 63.A: I was told you are the person to contact for public comment on the U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Addendum (File ER21-015).
I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you and the city council to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further.
Trashing the natural environment of San José cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy and they certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence, but will only take away from the character of the city.
Responses to Comments/Errata 65 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
By allowing these first digital billboards in San José, 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 and a high quality of life was the best way to encourage economic development, which can be seen when you look at all the finest places in the world; there are no billboards. Let’s avoid becoming Anytown, USA by rejecting this airport billboards proposal.
Response 63.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
64. Nina Heldt (August 9, 2021)
Comment 64.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 64.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 66 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
65. Bill Herndon (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 65.A: As a multi-decade resident of San José, I'm asking that you avoid the blight other cities sign up for and can never stop.
DO NOT ALLOW BILLBOARDS ON OUR STREETS OR HIGHWAYS!
In spite of any promised revenue, I know of literally not a single resident that wants these.
Response 65.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to the blight it will cause. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
66. Lisa Hettler-Smith (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 66.A: I am absolutely opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. The city's own survey shows that nearly 93% of the public strongly oppose this scheme as well.
Their detriment to the city of this project is potentially enormous. Forget about the sunk cost, and drop the digital billboard plan now.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, the City will be opening the floodgates for dozens of additional billboards. Litigation is likely to follow, 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.
Response 66.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does
Responses to Comments/Errata 67 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
67. Judith Hurley (dated August 6, 2021)
Comment 67.A: I am strongly opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project at the upcoming Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
The installation of electronic billboards will damage our natural environment, violate our architectural integrity, and do significant harm to the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.
Digital billboards will not generate significant revenue and will not improve the local economy. This is a bad deal that will not contribute to making San José a vital, vibrant and successful urban environment.
Furthermore, these first digital billboards in San José may open the doors to dozens of additional billboards and litigation, similar to 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.
Response 67.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
68. Christina Iaquinto (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 68.A: 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 José 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
Responses to Comments/Errata 68 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
I am opposed to the digital billboards!
Response 68.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
69. Jesse Jackson (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 69.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
These billboards also go against the community’s wishes which were expressed in an extensive poll.
If the airport is in need of such advertisement opportunities why not put them at the pick up and drop off crosswalk areas? This way the billboards are targeting all who use the airport and they are kept in the visual noise/clutter of the airport.
Response 69.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts, as well as the fact that a poll shows that they are opposed by the community. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 69 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
70. JC (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 70.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 70.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
71. Jeff (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 71.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 71.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 70 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
72. Jenni (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 72.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 72.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
73. Huang Jerrycans (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 73.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 73.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise
Responses to Comments/Errata 71 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
74. Meline Joaris (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 74.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates for more billboards. Please oppose the installation of these billboards.
Response 74.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
75. Vikki Jump (dated August 7, 2021)
Comment 75.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Responses to Comments/Errata 72 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 75.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
76. Kim Karcher (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 76.A: Like numerous other city residents, I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, despite knowing the projected revenue for the city.
Therefore, I ask you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
Billboards in any form are blight. Digital billboards pose known threats to safe driving and wildlife.
The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is completely unacceptable, particularly when there is no requirement that 43 trees be replanted in San José.
Digital billboards will neither improve the local economy or generate so-called urban vibrancy, for which there is no conclusive data or evidence. No tourist will seek out San José because of its digital billboards. No resident will boast about the city’s digital billboards. By allowing these first digital billboards in San José, the city will reverse decades of sound urban planning that specifically addressed this issue.
Response 76.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
77. Henni Kaufman (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 77.A: 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 73 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 77.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
78. Deborah Kennedy (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 78.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates to more.
Please stop eroding San José's environment and community.
Response 78.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 74 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
79. Timothy Kenny (August 4, 2021)
Comment 79.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 79.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
80. Mele Kent (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 80.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 80.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 75 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
81. Randall Kirschman (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 81.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 81.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
82. Chris Kurose (August 4, 2021)
Comment 82.A: I am vehemently opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, or anywhere in San José for that matter, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
Don't trash the valuable little natural environment of San José we have. For downtown residents the Guadalupe River trail is our only little slice of wilderness nearby. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable.
Whatever money this would raise for the city is not worth it – raise our taxes instead. It's not worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity, and the wildlife along the Guadalupe River.
I cannot express strongly enough how much I think digital billboards are a bad idea that will degrade the city and our quality of life.
Responses to Comments/Errata 76 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 82.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
83. Michael Kutilek (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 83.A: As a professional wildlife biologist and concerned citizen, I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates in the future.
Response 83.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
84. Roseanna Lavia (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 84.A: The majority of the general public -including me - oppose the installation of new electronic billboards in San José.
This is due to a variety of reasons. Some of these are: 43 healthy trees will be removed to make way for the billboards. They will distract drivers. They will alter the visual aesthetic of our skyline and its historic character.
They would be visible from the Guadalupe River Trail, affecting trail users and wildlife along the riparian corridor – especially after dusk. There is no need for this blight. These electronic signs are
Responses to Comments/Errata 77 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
absolutely not necessary. Further, it is appalling that San José plans to install these digital billboards despite overwhelming opposition by the general public!
Please vote NO at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. Please stop this project from proceeding any further.
Response 84.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to biological, aesthetic, and driver distraction impacts, as well as substantial community opposition. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
85. Scott Lefaver (August 9, 2021)
Comment 85.A: I’m opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
The City needs to set the example of what type of community it expects and wants. Adding visual and light pollution to this community should not be part of that example.
To trash an environment, that includes razing 43 healthy tress, must not happen. The economic arguments for digital billboards are not well grounded. There’s no significant money in these billboards for the city. For so little economic gain, it’s not worth sacrificing the natural environment, architectural integrity or riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River.
Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate “urban vibrancy” except to make a bad example of what that vibrancy should be. This city can do much better than what is proposed.
Response 85.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 78 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
86. Louise Leprohon (August 4, 2021)
Comment 86.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 86.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
87. Peter Liesenfelt (August 5, 2021)
Comment 87.A: 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. They will be distracting for driver and put a blight on the local area.
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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
Response 87.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved because they will cause blight and will distract drivers. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
88. Kevin Lindsay (dated August 3, 2021)
Comment 88.A: 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 79 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 88.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
89. Joy-Ellen Lipsky (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 89.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 89.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 80 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
90. Daniel Llamas (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 90.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 90.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
91. Thuy Luu (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 91.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 91.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the
Responses to Comments/Errata 81 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
92. Caroline Lynch (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 92.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 92.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
93. Josanna Lynn Marshalla (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 93.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates
Response 93.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included
Responses to Comments/Errata 82 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
94. Massimo Maniaci (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 94.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
Response 94.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
95. Maria (dated August 3, 2021)
Comment 95.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Responses to Comments/Errata 83 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Please do not waste money on this. Use the money to fix roads, clean up the city and take homeless people off the streets.
Response 95.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
96. Maria (dated August 6, 2021)
Comment 96.A: 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 José 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 José, 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.
Response 96.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 84 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
97. David Martin (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 97.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 97.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
98. Jeanette Martin (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 98.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 98.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 85 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
99. Catherine Martinez (dated August 16, 2021)
Comment 99.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 99.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
100. Olga Martynenko (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 100.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Responses to Comments/Errata 86 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 100.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
101. Jan Maulhardt (dated August 19, 2021)
Comment 101.A: 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 not 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.
Response 101.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
102. Teresa McCabe (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 102.A: 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 José 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
Responses to Comments/Errata 87 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates for many more. Can I ENCOURAGE you to concentrate more on the existing issues that plague our ONCE wonderful city, homelessness, crime rate, trash, infrastructure, traffic, etc., etc., etc...
Response 102.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
103. Kim McCaslin (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 103.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 103.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
104. Hannelore McCrumb (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 104.A: I am strongly opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021. With most of the citizens opposed to the e-billboards,
Responses to Comments/Errata 88 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
why are you not listening? It’s SOO frustrating when sane arguments against the e-billboards as in the paragraph below are not only compelling, but make sense and should not only be considered, but adhered to.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates! Thank you for listening!
Response 104.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
105. Ann McInnis (dated August 9, 2021)
Comment 105.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 105.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 89 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
106. Jelena Medan (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 106.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 106.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
107. Elizabeth Menkin (August 5, 2021)
Comment 107.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates to more light pollution and distracting eyesores
Response 107.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial
Responses to Comments/Errata 90 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
108. Anne-Marie Meredith (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 108.A: 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 José 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 José, 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.
Response 108.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
109. Mike (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 109.A: 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 José 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,
Responses to Comments/Errata 91 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 109.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
110. Chris Mildebrandt (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 110.A: 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 José 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 José, 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.
Response 110.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 92 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
111. Miller Starr Regalia – Anthony M. Leones (dated August 17, 2021)
Comment 111.A: This office represents Outfront Media LLC (“Outfront”) regarding the City of San José’s Initial Study (IS) / Addendum (the “Addendum”) for the proposed addition of two V-shaped electronic displays adjacent to Highway 101 on portions of the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport (the “Project”). Outfront submits this comment because the Addendum does not accurately describe the procedures required to complete the Project, which are clearly outlined in City Council Policy 6-4 (“Policy 6-4”). Policy 6-4 expressly requires that the City “seek proposals” for new billboards on City-owned land. When the City selects a proposal for a new billboard on City- owned land, Policy 6-4 then requires the City to enter into a “lease or other contractual agreement” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and with the issuance of a building permit. Policy 6-4 does not require approval of a site development permit or design review as the Addendum indicates.
Response 111.A: The Addendum accurately describes the procedures required to complete the project. Council Policy 6-4 provides that the City will "solicit proposals" for signs to be approved pursuant to Council Policy 6-4, but it does not require any particular solicitation process. The City solicited proposals for an Airport Advertising Concession in 2007 that resulted in a Concession Agreement that allows for the placement of billboards at the Airport consistent with Council Policy 6-4. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Comment 111.B: As described in the Addendum, the City’s apparent approach is to allow Clear Channel Outdoor to move forward with the Project based on a competitively bid 2007 airport advertising and concession agreement that expressly excludes billboard advertising (“Master Concession Agreement”) Neither the Master Concession Agreement, nor any of its six amendments authorize Clear Channel to complete the project. To allow the Project to move forward as contemplated in the Addendum would violate Policy 6-4 and deny the City the benefit of a competitive process meant to select the entity best suited to complete the Project in an advantageous manner for the City.
Response 111.B: The exclusion of billboard advertising in the Concession Agreement does not apply to the Billboard Project Plan submitted by Clear Channel pursuant to Section 3.3.4 of the Concession Agreement. The 2007 Airport Advertising RFP is consistent with the provision to “solicit proposals” in Council Policy 6-4. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Comment 111.C: Outfront respectfully requests that the City comply with its own governing policies and solicit proposals from qualified bidders before moving forward with the Project.
Clear Channel’s Master Concession Agreement Does Not Authorize the Project.
Responses to Comments/Errata 93 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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.
19 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. 20 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.
19 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.
20 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.)
Responses to Comments/Errata 94 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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.
Response 111.C: As noted in Response 111.B, the 2007 Airport Advertising RFP is consistent with the provision to “solicit proposals” in Council Policy 6-4. Section
3.3.4 of the Concession Agreement, as amended, allows Clear Channel to propose additional marketing opportunities at the Airport and does not preclude proposals for on-Airport billboards. The exclusion of billboards in Section 4.7 of the Agreement applies to designated Concession Areas at the Airport and does not apply to additional marketing opportunities as proposed under Section 3.3.4 of the Concession Agreement. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Comment 111.D: 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 Policy. (Policy 6-4, at 4.) 21 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.
21 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”.)
Responses to Comments/Errata 95 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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).) 22 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;
(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 eliminate 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.
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
22 Sign Location, Type, Size, Height and Number”.)
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 propos al 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).)
Responses to Comments/Errata 96 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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.
Response 111.D: As noted in Response 111.B, the 2007 Airport Advertising RFP is consistent with the provision to “solicit proposals” in Council Policy 6-4. The stated purpose of the 2007 Airport Advertising RFP was to generate revenue for the City, and that purpose is consistent with Council Policy 6-4. Contrary to the assertions above, Council Policy 6-4 does not require a “competitive bidding process.” Council Policy 6-4 does not require the City to issue a new Request for Proposals to proceed with the Project. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
112. Karan Mody (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 112.A: 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 José 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 José, 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.
Response 112.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 97 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
113. Flora Moreno de Thompson (dated August 3, 2021)
Comment 113.A: 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 José 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 José, 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.
Response 113.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
114. Suzanne Morrone (dated August 4, 2021, 2:38 PM)
Comment 114.A: I am vehemently 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.
I am so opposed that in this upcoming mayoral and city council election I Promise not to vote for anyone who supports digital billboards. The people of San José are overwhelmingly opposed.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 98 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
The arguments for digital billboards are bogus. There’s no significant money in it for the city, nor is it worth sacrificing our natural environment, architectural integrity and specifically the riparian wildlife along the Guadalupe River. Digital billboards will not improve the local economy. They certainly will not generate so-called “urban vibrancy” for which there is no data or evidence.
By allowing these first digital billboards in San José, 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.
I can’t begin to express how strongly I feel on this subject.
Response 114.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
115. Suzanne Murzello (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 115.A: 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 José 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 José, 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 99 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 115.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
116. Bart Narter (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 116.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates to all sorts of dangerous distractions on our freeways.
Response 116.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
117. Karina Nevarez (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 117.A: 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 José 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
Responses to Comments/Errata 100 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
Response 117.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
118. Viet-Hung Nguyen (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 118.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 118.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
119. Ronald Noack (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 119.A: 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 101 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 119.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
120. No Digital Billboards in San Jose (dated August 19, 2021)
Comment 120.A: INTRODUCTION: This document is submitted in response to U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Addendum City of San Jose File No: ER21-015 in accordance with the circulation comment period 7/26/2021 to 8/25/2021.
We also highlight many process irregularities associated with this project and include these comments here as there has been no prior public engagement forum to directly provide these inputs.
NOTE: References to Municipal Codes are based on the code dated August 11, 2021 (Current) found at this website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT23SI
References to Planning and Zoning City Policies are based on the Council Policy Manual found here:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/city-clerk/council-policy-manual/section- 6-planning-zoning
Definition: Off-premise digital billboards advertise products and services not available at that location, and are not to be confused with signs (digital or not) identifying retailers, offices or event venues.
• NDBSJ is a coalition of over 800 individuals plus neighborhood associations and environmental and historic preservation organizations, all of whom oppose allowing digital billboards to change the historic character, architectural integrity & natural environment of San José.
• 1972: San Jose banned new billboards on public property • 1985: Billboard ban expanded to private property citing economic and beautification benefits.
Responses to Comments/Errata 102 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
(1985) “At that time the planning commission did a three year study and determined that an abundance of billboards is "visual blight." City officials said, reducing this kind of conspicuous advertising will improve the overall appearance of the city, and this in turn will encourage economic development." – Mercury News article 1985
(1985) “Planning department officials say the ordinance is designed to encourage the revitalization of downtown and major thoroughfares.” – Mercury News article 1985
(1985) "The ban is an expression of a very strong commitment on the part of the city council to beautify the city" – Gary Schoennauer Director of Planning History
• 2018: City of San Jose repealed the billboard sign ban.
Over the past 5 years billboard industry has convinced the city that digital billboards mean money for the city & will improve the local economy. Not much money when measuring the cost & no improvement in the local economy. We can provide details.
Response 120.A: This is an introductory comment. Detailed comments and responses are provided below. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Comment 120.B: SIGN SIZE:
Municipal Code
Title 23 – Signs, Chapter 23.04- SIGN REGULATIONS
23.02.236 - Freeway sign: "Freeway sign" means a large freestanding sign oriented to and designed to be viewed from a freeway. (Ord. 28754.)
23.04.035 – Freeway Signs.
B. Size. No freeway sign shall have a total sign area in excess of five hundred square feet.
E. Other provisions: A freeway sign may include a programmable electronic sign that does not exceed seventy-five percent of the total sign area and is integrated with the total sign to form a cohesive design unit. In no case shall a programmable electronic sign exceed three hundred seventy- five square feet in area. (Ords. 28754, 29013, 29153, 29558.)
Comments: The Municipal Code defines freeway facing signs and makes clear that no freeway sign shall have a total sign area in excess of five hundred square feet and no programmable electronic sign shall exceed three hundred seventy-five square feet in area. There are no exceptions to these requirements. Therefore, the proposed 1000 sq. ft. digital billboards are ineligible to be constructed and would not be in compliance with the sign ordinance.
Responses to Comments/Errata 103 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 120.B: San José Municipal Code Section 23.02.1310-B states “that signs erected on City owned land pursuant to Council Policy 6-4, shall comply with Council Policy 6-4, in lieu of the requirements of this Title.” The proposed billboards for SJC/City property are designed to comply with Council Policy 6-4. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required
Comment 120.C: Landscaped Freeway Comments
The proposed Airport billboards are adjacent to a CalTrans designated freeway segment of HWY 101. Being so, State Code prohibits their construction in the locations proposed. 23 We know the status of that section of 101 because it is identified as such by Airport Director John Aitken in his Aug. 12, 2020 letter to Mr. George Anzo Jr. – ODA Permits (SSM1), Office of Encroachment & Outdoor Advertising Permits, Department of Transportation, Los Angeles, CA. 24 Mr. Aitken explains he is writing "to obtain certain undesignated relocation permits for use on “landscaped” freeway segments.”
25 Furthermore, though the 184 page Initial Study Addendum conveniently fails to mention the landscape designated status of this section of Hwy. 101, the Study does offer proof of such designation by characterizing the 43 trees proposed to be removed in the following manner: “Nearly all of these trees are non-native, ornamental species that are not associated with the willow riparian habitat that surrounds the detention pond located south of this area.”
26 Indeed all CalTrans landscaping within the boundaries of designated landscaped freeways is required to be ornamental in nature.
27 Such a designation is indisputable evidence that this segment of 101 is a designated landscaped highway to which all relevant requirements are applicable.
The ability of these relocation permits to exempt the proposed Airport billboards from their prohibition adjacent to a landscaped freeway is yet to be determined.
23 Business And Professions Code – BPC, Chapter 2. Advertisers [5200 - 5486], Article 8, Landscaped Freeways [5440 - 5443.5],
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&division=3.&title=&part=&chapte r=2.&article=8
24 Letter from John Aitken, San Jose International Airport Director, to Mr. George Anzo Jr. – ODA Permits (SSM1), Office of Encroachment & Outdoor Advertising Permits, Department of Transportation, Los Angeles, CA, August 12, 2020. Copy available upon request.
25 Ibid.
26 U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study Addendum, City of San Jose, July, 2021, p. 43, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/75599/637629018744 800000 27 2020 California Code, Business and Professions Code – BPC, DIVISION 3 - Professions And Vocations Generally, Chapter 2 – Advertisers, ARTICLE 1 - General Provisions, Section 5216, https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2020/code-bpc/division-3/chapter-2/article-1/section-5216/
Responses to Comments/Errata 104 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
What is clear is the regulation which states, “no advertising display may be placed or maintained on property adjacent to a 1,000-foot or greater section of a freeway that has been landscaped with at least an average width of 20 feet of landscaping or that includes trees, on department-owned property…of the main-traveled way if the advertising display is designed to be viewed primarily by persons traveling on the main-traveled way of the landscaped freeway.” 28 Below are some ground level photos showing the trees designated for removal in the project plan.
Landscaped Freeway Trees Designated for Removal Ground Level Photo Freeway is behind the trees
28 Business And Professions Code – BPC, Chapter 2. Advertisers [5200 - 5486], Article 8, Landscaped Freeways [5440 - 5443.5],
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&division=3.&title=&part=&chapte r=2.&article=8
Responses to Comments/Errata 105 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Landscaped Freeway Trees Designated for Removal Ground Level Photo Freeway is behind the trees
Landscaped Freeway Trees Designated for Removal Ground Level Photo Freeway is behind the trees
Responses to Comments/Errata 106 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 120.C: The use of the billboards will be consistent with what is allowed under state law, including state law requirements about on-site and off-site advertising. Clear Channel had two landscape permits issued by Caltrans that could be used on a Landscaped Freeway within California and these permits were transferred to other locations in the State of California in August 2021 to avoid the permits from expiring on August 2nd. These permits were not able to be used at the Airport prior to the expiration date due to delays to allow for public commentary on the EIR addendum. Had the permits been able to be used prior to their expiration date, Caltrans would have issued the permits for the two locations at the Airport upon receipt of local entitlements from the City. Following issuance of local entitlements, Clear Channel will apply for new permits with Caltrans.
The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required
Comment 120.D: Riparian Zone Incursion
Municipal Code, Title 20 – Zoning, Chapter 20.200 - DEFINITIONS
20.200.1052 – Riparian: "Riparian" means pertaining to the bank and other adjacent terrestrial (as opposed to aquatic) environs or freshwater bodies, watercourses, estuaries, and surface-emergent aquifers (springs, seeps, oases), whose transported freshwaters provide soil moisture sufficiently in excess of that otherwise available through local precipitation to potentially support growth of mesic vegetation. (Ord. 29785.)
20.200.1054 - Riparian corridor: "Riparian corridor" means any defined stream channel, including the area up to the bank full-flow line, as well as all characteristic streamside vegetation in contiguous adjacent uplands. Stream channels include perennial and intermittent streams shown as a solid or dashed blue line on USGS topographic maps. (Ord. 29785.)
Comments
The designated southern location of the proposed Airport billboards is acknowledged to be within 175 feet of the Guadalupe River and 123 feet of the willow riparian forest edge west of the south sign location.
29 What the proponents of this proposal failed to appreciate is just how inclusive is the city’s definition of what constitutes a riparian corridor as defined in Municipal Code 20.200.1052 and 20.200.1054.
29 U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study Addendum, City of San Jose, July, 2021, p. 54, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/75599/637629018744 800000
Responses to Comments/Errata 107 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Especially pertinent is the definition of "Riparian corridor" per Municipal Code 20.200.1054 defined as a stream channel, including the area up to the bank full-flow line, as well as all characteristic streamside vegetation in contiguous adjacent uplands.” (Italics added.)
Indeed the U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum acknowledges that “Although vegetation has been removed from the corridor for flood control, the levees and banks support low riparian vegetation along both sides of the Guadalupe River, punctuated by occasional stands of trees.”
30 Study Figure 3.1-1 clearly identifies a “Willow Riparian Forest” adjacent to the Guadalupe River trail itself and that the Guadalupe River and an associated storm water detention pond on the west side of the Guadalupe River support willow forest riparian habitat. 31 The Study goes on to indicate that these “sensitive aquatic and riparian habitats (i.e., the Guadalupe River and willow riparian forest edge) would be considered a “Riparian Project”, and therefore, warrant consideration from the perspective of potential impacts from sign construction and lighting.”
32 Response 120.D: As described in Section 3.4 of the Initial Study/Addendum, both of the proposed electronic signs will be located outside of the riparian corridor of the Guadalupe River. Further, both signs will be located outside of the 100-foot riparian corridor setback, in compliance with San José Municipal Code Section 23.04.215.
Please note that the southern sign has been moved 38 feet to the southwest for the reasons described below in Response #120.E. The comment does not identify a new environmental impact or require additional mitigation and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Comment 120.E: Such concerns resulted in the San Jose General Plan calling for “a 100 foot setback from riparian habitat as a standard to be achieved.”33 We contend that the designated 100 foot setback from the riparian zone in relation to the south project site may not be a setback at all.
That is because a willow riparian forest may exist within that designated setback. See the photograph below in which purple dashed lines indicate the setback.
30 U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study Addendum, City of San Jose, July, 2021, p. 19, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/75599/637629018744 800000 31 Ibid, p.43.
32 Ibid, p.54.
33 Ibid, p.42.
Responses to Comments/Errata 108 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
This indicates that there may be no 100 foot setback of the south billboard location from the actual riparian zone. If that is the case, the proposed location of the south project site violates San Jose Municipal Code “Riparian corridor” 20.200.1054 which clearly states that a riparian corridor includes all characteristic streamside vegetation in contiguous adjacent uplands.
Response 120.E: This comment correctly points out an error in the mapping used to identify the location of the 100-foot riparian setback. Figure 2 of the July 20, 2021 biological impacts assessment report prepared to support the Initial Study/Addendum, and therefore Figure 3.4-1 of the Initial Study/Addendum itself, inadvertently omitted a patch of riparian habitat on the east bank of the Guadalupe River and therefore incorrectly depicted the location of the 100-foot riparian setback. Although that figure showed the location of riparian habitat between the Guadalupe River Trail and the river’s channel, a patch of vegetation on the river’s east bank, between the trail and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) access road at the top of the bank, was not mapped as riparian habitat. That vegetation is dominated by riparian plant species and is within the banks of the river, and therefore should be considered riparian habitat.
This error was noted after the draft Initial Study/Addendum was circulated for public review. H. T. Harvey & Associates revised its mapping to include this patch of riparian habitat. H. T. Harvey then revised the location of the 100-foot setback. At this location, the upper/landward edge of the riparian habitat coincides with the top of bank along the Guadalupe River. Therefore, the correct 100-foot riparian setback was mapped as extending landward 100 feet from the landward/upper edge of the riparian vegetation and the top of bank.
Correction of the location of the riparian setback revealed that the originally proposed location of the south sign was within the setback. Therefore, the applicant modified the proposed location of the south sign, shifting it eastward so that it would be outside the corrected setback. Figure 2 of the revised (September 16, 2021) biological impacts assessment report depicts the correct mapping of riparian habitat and the 100-
Responses to Comments/Errata 109 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
foot setback, as well as the relocated site of the proposed south sign. This sign’s proposed location is now 117 feet from the nearest riparian vegetation and top of bank.
With these corrections, which are depicted in Section 3 and Appendix B of this document, the riparian setback is now correctly depicted. Vegetation east of the Valley Water access road is not riparian vegetation, as it does not include riparian species such as willows, cottonwoods, or other species that are “characteristic streamside vegetation” or that rely on “soil moisture sufficiently in excess of that otherwise available through local precipitation to potentially support growth of mesic vegetation” per the City’s riparian setback ordinance. Rather, vegetation east of the Valley Water access road, in the area where the south sign is now proposed, consists of upland ornamental trees, shrubs, and ruderal grasses and forbs.
Comment 120.F: Given this reality, we contend that it is necessary for a more thorough and comprehensive analysis of the uplands between the river and the south billboard location to determine without doubt whether this area is part of the riparian corridor as defined by the city of San Jose. This analysis should be conducted by genuinely independent analysts instead of David J.
Powers & Associates which was selected and paid for by Clear Channel Outdoor, a clear conflict of interest and sufficient cause to invalidate the entire Initial Study Addendum. 34 Response 120.F: The CEQA process includes the preparation of draft and final reports, the latter of which includes errata/revisions that reflect input from the public and governmental agencies as well as any errors in the draft. As noted in the previous response, a mapping error in the draft Biological Resources Report was discovered after the Initial Study/Addendum was released for public review. The error has been corrected in Section 3 and Appendix B of this document.
Comment 120.G: Also note that the area inside the purple dashed lines has been designated as a “Restoration Area” by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. A sign posted at the location noted in the photo below states “This site has been planted to provide future wildlife habitat. Please avoid these sensitive young plantings”. Photos below show the natural environment from ground level of the area around the proposed southern sign site which would clearly be compromised if the proposed sign is constructed in such close proximity.
34 Email from Cary Greene, SJC Planner to Hansen, Patrick <[email protected]>; Murillo, Carlos E (AIR) <[email protected]>; Sheelen, Ryan <[email protected]> Cc: Ruffo, Kirk <[email protected]>; Ushiro, Aaron <[email protected]>; Lu, May [email protected], June 26, 2020, copy available on request .
Responses to Comments/Errata 110 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Southern Sign Site Ground Level Photo
View to the North Guadalupe River Trail is on the left
Proposed sign site is to the upper right
Southern Sign Site Ground Level Photo
View to the East facing the Freeway
Responses to Comments/Errata 111 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Southern Sign Site Ground Level Photo
View to the East facing the Freeway
Southern Sign Site Ground Level Photo
View to South Freeway is on the left
Responses to Comments/Errata 112 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 120.G: As noted in the response to Comment 1A above, the location of the south sign has been modified so that it will be outside the 100-foot riparian setback from the edge of riparian vegetation and top of bank. Valley Water’s habitat restoration area will not be compromised by the presence of the south sign 117 feet away.
The third photo provided above in this comment misrepresents the location of the southern sign site, even as that location was originally proposed. It includes a label for the “Southern Sign Site” and an arrow pointing to riparian vegetation along the banks of the Guadalupe River, and its caption indicates “View to the East facing the Freeway”. However, this photo shows a view to the south/southeast, toward the Airport Economy Lot Parking Access Road, rather than toward U.S. 101. In the photo, riparian habitat and the river are on the right, and the area where the south sign is (and was originally) proposed is on the left.
Comment 120.H: Climate Smart San Jose Conflict
Comments
The Addendum to the U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum13 mentions the Climate Smart San Jose initiative 14 15 but fails to comprehensively consider the billboard project in the context of the Climate Smart San Jose plan.
According to the Initial Study/Addendum the proposed power hungry digital billboards will consume approximately 118 megawatt hours (MWHs) of electricity per year. 35 The Initial Study/Addendum is not sufficient information to explain why the City of San Jose, which purports to be a progressive national leader in support of a clean and green environment should approve the billboard project. We assert that it is necessary for the project proponents to supplement the project plan with documentation specifically addressing Climate Smart San Jose and what we consider would be a regressive step counter to this City policy if electronic billboards are approved.
Response 120.H: The carbon footprint of the project is addressed in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Initial Study/Addendum. The addendum concluded that construction of the project would result in only a temporary increase in emissions, and that the project’s consistency with the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, along with using carbon free electricity from San José Clean Energy, would minimize the project’s carbon footprint.
Comment 120.I: Traffic Hazard
Municipal Code, Title 23 – SIGNS, Part 2 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
35 U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study Addendum, City of San Jose, July, 2021, p. 88, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/75599/637629018744 800000
Responses to Comments/Errata 113 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
23.02.800 – Policy: Signs shall … not create traffic safety hazards. (Ords. 24201, 26273, 27375, 28569, 28754, 29013, 29097, 29223.)
23.02.860 – Special sign zones: The North San José signage area as defined in Section 23.04.010.I. It is the city's intent, in its regulations, to strike a fair balance between commercial needs, traffic safety, and community concerns about visual clutter and visual blight. (Ords. 24201, 26273, 27375, 28569, 28754, 29013, 29097, 29223.)
23.02.970 - Illuminated signs - Light source: Every part of the light source of any illuminated sign allowed by this title shall be concealed from view from vehicular traffic in the public right- of-way, and the light shall not travel from the light source directly to vehicular traffic in the public right-of-way but instead shall be visible only from a reflecting or diffusing surface. (Ord. 24201.)
Comments
A 2016 paper by Berkeley Veridian Group reviewed over 40 studies and research papers published by academic, industry and government entities. The executive summary declared “The more that commercial digital signs succeed in attracting the attention of motorists that render them a worthwhile investment for owners and advertisers, the more they represent a threat to safety along our busiest streets and highways, where these signs tend to be located.” 36 In fact, the Addendum to the U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum 37 in
defending the impact to the riparian corridor sacrifices driver safety and states that light from the proposed signs will be directed at drivers: “Both signs would be angled in such a way as to maximize the amount of visibility from specific portions of U.S. Route 101, so the area of brightest night illuminance projected by the proposed signs would be directed at oncoming traffic.”
There is a difference in impact on motorists between on-premise and off-premise signs. On- premise signs typically function to identify a specific local business and, as such, they may have little text or imagery other than that required for such identification. Therefore they do not present the same threat to traffic safety as do off premise digital billboards which are precisely the type proposed.
How can the City of San Jose advocate for digital billboards and at the same time continue its commitment to Vision Zero,
38, a broadly publicized city program that is described as “A traffic safety initiative to eliminate deaths and severe injuries on our roadways as soon as possible! The first sentence of the Vision Zero Action plan states: “One traffic death is one too many.” 39 36 Compendium of Recent Research Studies on Distraction from Commercial Electronic Variable Mes sage Signs (CEVMS), Jerry Wachtel, CPE President, The Veridian Group, Inc. Berkeley, California, Feb., 2016, p.4, https://qhi7a3oj76cn9awl3qcqrh3o-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/compendium-final-2- 223.pdf
37 U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study Addendum, City of San Jose, July, 2021, p. 64, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/75599/637629018744 800000 38 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/transportation/safety/vision-zero 39 City of San Jose Vision Zero Action Plan 2020, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=51859
Responses to Comments/Errata 114 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
The proposed billboards will negatively impact traffic safety. Installation of the billboards would be counter to (3) parts of Municipal Code Title 23.02 noted above and the City’s Vision Zero policy.
The proposed locations for the billboards are particularly troublesome as they are adjacent to a high speed freeway and near the airport terminal and runway.
Even without the new signs, the airport is a distraction as drivers are naturally interested in seeing what is happening with planes. Typically, visual barriers are placed between a roadway and an active airport runway or terminal to prevent distracted driving. And that is exactly what was done when a landscaped line of trees was installed years ago in San Jose.
Installation of new massive electronic billboards combined with the project plan to remove 43 trees that provide a visual barrier between airport activity and driver sightlines is a double whammy impacting distracted driving.
Furthermore, this stretch of Hwy 101 is particularly dangerous in the southbound direction during the afternoon commute. Traffic flowing at full or near full speed often grinds to a halt in the area adjacent to the proposed billboards. This is a bottleneck point caused by cars merging on to HWY 101 and others merging right to exit to HWY 87. Adding new distractions at this location will likely increase incidents of rear end collisions.
The traffic hazard impact of the proposed sign installation and removal of landscaped freeway tress has not been adequately addressed by the project proponents. We call for inclusion of a comprehensive traffic study in coordination with State resources to assess the existing freeway hazard level and how this could be affected by the proposed major changes which are incontrovertibly intended to distract drivers.
Response 120.I: Pages 21-22 of the Initial Study/Addendum describe the effects of the proposed electronic billboards pertaining to driver distraction and the potential for increased accidents on U.S. 101. The analysis describes the features and operational parameters of the billboards as pertains to minimizing driver distraction. The analysis notes that the signs will comply with the guidelines of both the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) and the City of San Jose, the latter of which are more stringent than the former. See also the technical lighting study completed for the project, which is Appendix A of the Initial Study/Addendum.
This comment quotes Municipal Code Section 23.02.970, which prohibits a light source (emphasis added) from being directly visible to vehicular traffic. The commentor implies that since the light from the billboards will be visible to drivers on U.S. 101, that this is a violation of the municipal code. This implication is inaccurate because there is an important distinction between a light source and the light emitted from a source through a diffusing surface. The project would not
This comment characterizes views of the Airport as an existing distraction to drivers on U.S. 101. The comment states that the removal of a row of trees by the project will compound driver distraction related to the Airport because the trees shield views of
Responses to Comments/Errata 115 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
the Airport from U.S. 101. This characterization is inaccurate because views of the Airport from U.S. 101 are largely shielded by large metallic jet blast fences that have been erected around much of the northwest end of the Airport. See photo below.
Existing View of San Jose International Airport from Southbound U.S. 101 [Views of the Airport are mostly blocked by existing jet blast fencing]
Comment 120.J: Billboard Take Down Requirement
Planning and Zoning Council Policy 6-4 Billboards on City Owned Land Sign Approval Process
If the City solicits proposals for reduction or elimination of existing Billboards, a minimum take down ratio of four (4) existing billboards shall be required for each new Sign, including Billboard, Programmable Electronic Sign or Sign displaying Off-Site Commercial Speech.
Comments
San Jose City Council Policy 6-4 adopted September 25th 2018, and effective November 9th 2018 specifies that (4) existing billboards (in San Jose) shall be taken down for each new billboard approved. In a memo
40 leading up to the adoption of Council Policy 6-4 Councilmembers Peralez, Rocha, and Arenas said “Billboard reduction is a critical component of the proposed changes” and in fact the takedown rule was a major talking point for those in favor of lifting the 35 year ban on new billboards and for adopting Policy 6-4.
The proposed Airport Billboard project has (4) billboards at (2) sites meaning each site has (2) opposite facing signs. Therefore, according to Policy 6-4, Clear Channel should be required to take down (4 x 4 =16) billboards in San Jose.
40 COUNCIL AGENDA: 12/9/17 Item 4 Memo: ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS DATE: December 15, 2017 UPDATE https://sjd3.com/memos-all/
Responses to Comments/Errata 116 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
According to a Mercury News article41 and email among Airport staff42, the terms of the SJC Clear Channel agreement calls for take down of (2) static billboards anywhere in the State of California for every new electronic billboard in San Jose.
The Airport Billboards project is therefore not compliant with the approved Council Policy framework. The agreement described by Airport staff seems to flout the most basic tenet that lead to the opportunity to even consider new billboards in San Jose.
As a side note we also would like to point out that Policy 6-4 was already exceptionally generous to the billboard industry in only using a number of billboards as the metric to consider in a swap. In other words, based on the oversimplified definition in Policy 6-4, small billboards from “don’t care” locations could be swapped for much larger electronic billboards in prime locations – in this case (4) X 1000 sq. ft. behemoths next to a high traffic freeway.
But again, based on Policy 6-4, we should have seen an agreement with (16) existing billboards in the City of San Jose designated for take down before this project should have even been considered.
Note as well that the agreement between SJC with Clear Channel was signed months after Policy 6-4 with the swap provision was enacted so this policy was well known.
Response 120.J: Rules regarding removal of signs can be found in Paragraph 6 of the Sign Approval Process in Council Policy 6-4, which stipulates, “If the City solicits proposals for reduction or elimination of existing Billboards...” The project would not fall under this mandate.
Comment 120.K: Airport Commission & Public Engagement
Municipal Code Title 25 - AIRPORT
Chapter 25.01 - GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS Part 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
25.02.200 - Advisory recommendation on the Airport Master Plan: During the formulation of the Airport Master Plan, maximum coordination and public input shall be encouraged and shall include consultation with public officials and agencies, airlines as well as other airport users and service providers, civic, professional, educational and other organizations, and citizens.
Comments
The first public knowledge of the existence of the Initial Study Addendum to the Airport Master Plan occurred on July 26, 2021. This was also the first time, other than a single sentence in a May 2021 Airport Commission agenda that the Airport Commission was informed of SJC staff’s billboard project that had been underway for more than a year and a half.
41 “Intent on Ignoring the Public, San Jose Intends to Add More Digital Billboards,” Maggie Angst, Mercury News, July 29, 2021, https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/29/new -digital-billboards-are-coming-to- san-jose-freeways-whether-residents-like-it-or-not
42 An email memo from Rebekah Bray, Acting Senior Property Manager with Subject: RE: CCA Digital Billboard Media Requests 7-27-21. Memo available upon request.
Responses to Comments/Errata 117 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
The July 2021 announcement was not seeking public input to scope for the creation of an environmental review that incorporated community input. Nor was it an announcement that an Initial Study Addendum was to get underway with an explanation why it was being conducted and an estimate when it might be completed.
No, it was an announcement that the Initial Study Addendum had been completed. Not only that, the same email sent by Adam Petersen of the San Jose Planning Department also announced the beginning of a 30 day comment period. However, it did not provide a specific address to which the public might send comments as is customary when such announcements are made.
We should add that the announcement was made at the end of July with a comment window primarily in the month of August when the least attention would be paid by a public otherwise in vacation mode.
We believe this was not done by accident but is another example of various city departments and particularly the SJC staff, acting upon their own authority to keep this entire process as secret and unknown to the public as it was possible to do.
The nature of the process in which the Initial Study Addendum was conducted and kept hidden from public knowledge ought to be enough to invalidate it and its conclusions. Given its obvious shortcomings, we request that all relevant commissions with oversight responsibility, and of course the City Council, make the necessary inquiries into why review of the proposed airport billboards was not made part of the initial EIR itself. Why instead was an Initial Study Addendum deemed necessary and why was that study conducted in a manner antithetical to transparency and accountability?
Response 120.K: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
With regard to public input and consistent with Council Policy 6-30, the community was afforded input on the proposed project and its environmental impacts at the August 2021 meeting of the Airport Commission. Public input is also occurring by virtue of the circulation of the Initial Study/Addendum for review and comment. [Note: Such circulation is not required by CEQA, but the City chose to do so in an effort to be fully transparent.] Finally, the public will have the ability to provide input when the City Council meets to consider the project.
Comment 120.L: Airport Master Plan Omission
Comments
It was well known in 2018, well before the Airport Master Plan update was initiated, that the two airport locations associated with this project had been identified and considered eligible for digital billboards. Memos and communications including SJC staff, the Office of Economic Development
Responses to Comments/Errata 118 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
and the Planning Department all show that airport sites had been identified and considered eligible for digital billboards.43
The initial EIR which began in 2020 and conducted to help provide background to the formation of the Airport Master Plan exceeded 300 pages and covered every conceivable topic relating to the expansion of the airport except one: the proposed digital billboards to which an Initial Study/Addendum is now devoted exclusively after the fact.
It was not made clear that the choice of an Initial Study as an addendum to an existing EIR under CEQA regulations presupposes the outcome of that study. "The purpose of an addendum is to make minor technical changes or additions to an adopted ND [Negative Declaration] or a certified EIR. An addendum can only be used if none of the conditions that would trigger a subsequent environmental impact report or negative declaration is present.”
44 To elaborate further, “When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, [as in this case] no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines…The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration…”
45 To reiterate, it appears the process of initiating an addendum to an approved EIR inherently presupposes that the proposal referenced in the addendum will have no greater environmental consequences than those identified for the entire project in the already approved EIR.
Specifically, Initial Studies as an addendum to an existing EIR always conclude whatever is being reviewed will have environmental impacts no greater than what have been identified and dismissed or mitigated in the existing EIR. And that seems to be the case here. Questions about the environmental impacts of the digital billboards at the Airport that might have been honestly dealt with in the initial EIR would, by definition, be rationalized in the Initial Study Addendum.
43 A letter from John Aitken, Director of San Jose International Airport to Mr. George Anzo Jr. – ODA Permits (SSM1), Office of Encroachment & Outdoor Advertising Permits, Department of Transportation, Los Angeles, CA, Aug. 6, 2020, which states “This project has been pursued for two years beginning with the City of San Jose conducting a CEQA analysis in 2018 to provide for the approval of digital signs, including these two specific locations for the benefit of the Airport.” Italics added.
Also a memo from Rosalynn Hughey to the Planning Commission, Aug. 22, 2018 in which she identifies the locations at the airport suitable for the construction of digital billboards two of which match perfectly to the locations of the proposed billboards being proposed., P. 9.
Also in a memo from Kim Walesh to the Mayor and City Council dated July 15, 2019, these locations were again discussed in detail., P. 3. Copies of all of these memo are available upon request. 44 Cal Recycle, CEQA Addendum,
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/permitting/ceqa/documentation/addendum 45 15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations,14 CA ADC § 15162BARCLAYS OFF ICIAL CALIFORNIA
CODE OF REGULATIONS,
https://web.archive.org/web/20171220204529/https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IC1DC88F0D48811DEB C02831C6D6C108E?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&c ontextData=(sc.Default)
Responses to Comments/Errata 119 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
The omission of the digital billboards was no accident but rather a deliberate ploy on the part of the proponents of this proposal to avoid the scrutiny that digital billboards would have been subjected to if included in the initial EIR.
Response 120.L: While the concept for electronic signs at the Airport was being considered in 2018, details regarding the design and locations of the proposed project had not been determined at the time the Amendment to the Master Plan was developed. In order for a project to be analyzed under CEQA, it is necessary to have information regarding location, size, function, operation, construction, etc.
It is misleading to state that Initial Study/EIR Addendum “inherently presupposes that the proposal referenced in the addendum will have no greater environmental consequences than those identified for the entire project in the already approved EIR.” Such a statement ignores the fact that Supplemental EIRs are routinely prepared by the City when a new or modified project component is analyzed that results in a new unmitigated significant impact and/or an impact substantially greater than disclosed in an original EIR. In this case, the proposed electronic signs would not trigger the need for a Supplemental EIR and the Initial Study/Addendum is the vehicle by which that conclusion is supported and documented.
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City has determined on the basis of substantial evidence that preparation of an Addendum to the Airport Master Plan Update EIR for the proposed project is appropriate because none of the following thresholds for preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR are met:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; or
Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; or
Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
Responses to Comments/Errata 120 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Comment 120.M: Master Plan Adoption Process – Commission Reviews Municipal Code, Title 25 – AIRPORT
Chapter 25.02 - AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Part 2 - ADOPTION PROCESS
25.02.200 - Advisory recommendation on the Airport Master Plan B. “The airport commission and the planning commission shall each have an opportunity to review the master plan and make advisory recommendations prior to the consideration of the plan by the city council. The city council may refer the Airport Master Plan to such other commissions or advisory committees for advisory recommendations as the council deems desirable.”
C. “No advisory recommendation on the master plan may be made unless a draft or final environmental clearance of the plan in accordance with Title 21 of the code is also reviewed and considered by the advisory body.” (Ord. 25529.)
Referral to Airport Land Use Commission: “Prior to submitting any proposed Airport Master Plan to the city council for adoption, the director shall refer the proposed Airport Master Plan to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for its review and consideration in accordance with applicable state law.” (Ord. 25529.)
Part 3 - AMENDMENT PROCESS
25.02.300 - Amendment of the Airport Master Plan.
A The Airport Master Plan may be amended whenever the city council determines that:
1) The goals, policies, principles or objectives of the Airport Master Plan should be updated, modified or revised; or
2) Revisions to the Airport Master Plan are necessary due to changed circumstances; or 3) Expansion of the Airport Master Plan is necessary to incorporate components consistent with, but not addressed in, the plan; or
4) Proposed capital improvement projects are not expressly or implicitly incorporated into, or consistent with, the Airport Master Plan.
B A major amendment to the Airport Master Plan is an amendment which, if adopted, would alter or revise the development goals, policies, principles or objectives applicable to the airport, or would potentially increase the design capacity of airport facilities to accommodate the total projected numbers of passengers, or the projected numbers of aircraft operations for any segment of aircraft activity, upon which projections the plan is based. A major amendment shall only be adopted after the conducting of public meetings and hearings as set forth in Sections 25.02.310 and25.02.320 below.
C A minor amendment to the Airport Master Plan is an amendment which, if adopted, would not, in any way, potentially increase the design capacity of airport facilities to accommodate the total projected numbers of passengers, or the projected numbers of aircraft operations for any segment of aircraft activity, upon which projections the plan is based, nor modify any noise impact boundaries beyond those noise impact boundaries projected in the environmental clearance for the plan, and would be consistent with the overall development goals and policies in such plan. A minor amendment may be adopted in accordance with Section 25.02.330 below.
Responses to Comments/Errata 121 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
D Amendments to the Airport Master Plan may be initiated by either the city council or the director (Ord. 25529.
25.02.310 - Consideration by commissions.
A The airport commission and the planning commission shall each have an opportunity to review the proposed major amendment and provide advisory recommendations to the city council prior to a hearing by the city council on the proposed major amendment to the Airport Master Plan.
B The airport commission and the planning commission shall each hold at least one duly noticed public meeting on a proposed major amendment prior to making their respective recommendations to the city council.
C The airport commission and the planning commission shall make recommendations, if any, within sixty days of the referral to the commissions. Failure of the airport commission or the planning commission to act within the time period specified shall not preclude the city council from adopting a proposed major amendment. (Ord. 25529.)
25.02.320 - Major amendment hearing - City council.
A The city council shall hold a public hearing to consider any proposed major amendment to the Airport Master Plan.
B The city clerk shall give notice of the time and place of the hearing by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least twenty days before the date set for hearing.
C The city council may, in its discretion, approve a proposed major amendment to the Airport Master Plan if it makes a finding that the proposed revisions or modifications to the Airport Master Plan are in the public interest.
D Any major amendment to the Airport Master Plan shall be adopted by resolution of the city council. (Ord. 25529.)
25.02.330 - Minor amendments.
A The city council may, in its discretion, approve minor amendments to the Airport Master Plan to address proposed capital improvement projects which are not expressly or implicitly incorporated into the Airport Master Plan, but which are otherwise consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Airport Master Plan.
B The city council shall consider a proposed minor amendment to the Airport Master Plan at a public meeting.
C The city council may, in its discretion, approve a minor amendment to the Airport Master Plan if it finds:
a. 1. The proposed minor amendment would not, in any way, potentially increase the design capacity of facilities to accommodate either the total projected numbers of passengers, or the projected numbers of aircraft operations for any segment of aircraft activity, in the Airport Master Plan, beyond the design capacity of the facilities contained in such plan, nor modify noise impact boundaries beyond those noise impact boundaries projected in the environmental clearance for the plan; and in addition
b. 2. The proposed minor amendment is otherwise consistent with the overall development goals and policies of the Airport Master Plan; or c. 3. The proposed minor amendment is necessary for the public health and safety, and is otherwise consistent with the Airport Master Plan.
Responses to Comments/Errata 122 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
D Any minor amendment to the Airport Master Plan shall be adopted by resolution of the city council. (Ord. 25529.)
Comments
Considering overwhelming public opposition, major negative environmental impact, and a seismic shift in City policy driven by a special interest business, this project and the inclusion of the Initial Addendum/Study into the Airport Master Plan constitutes a MAJOR change in the context of the Municipal Code. This is not a minor environmental review rubber stamp sign off.
As such, in both the spirit of the Municipal Code and the letter of the law, our position is that the Master Plan including the proposed addendum must be cycled for review to both the Planning Commission (Muni Code 25.02.200) and the Airport Land Use Commission (Muni Code 25.02.210) before bringing the proposal forward to the City Council.
Response 120.M: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
With regard to the Airport Master Plan amendment process, as explained below, the nature of the proposed electronic signs is such that it does not trigger the need for a minor or major amendment to the Airport Master Plan. Per Section 25.02.300 of the San Jose Municipal Code, an amendment to the Airport Master Plan occurs whenever the city council determines that:
1. The goals, policies, principles or objectives of the Airport Master Plan should be updated, modified or revised; or
2. Revisions to the Airport Master Plan are necessary due to changed circumstances; or
3. Expansion of the Airport Master Plan is necessary to incorporate components consistent with, but not addressed in, the plan; or
4. Proposed capital improvement projects are not expressly or implicitly incorporated into, or consistent with, the Airport Master Plan.
The Airport Master Plan provides the overall framework and major improvements. It does not identify every project. An amendment is only required if there is a significant or fundamental change Further, there are numerous minor improvement projects at the Airport that do not qualify as a capital improvement project that warrants evaluation as an amendment to the Airport Master Plan. A review of the projects included in the approved Airport Master Plan confirms this statement wherein only substantive improvements to key facilities (e.g., runways, taxiways, terminals, general aviation facilities, air cargo facilities, support buildings, fuel storage facilities, etc.) are shown. Absent from the list of Airport Master Plan projects are numerous supporting projects including lighting, signage, landscaping, bike/ped/traffic improvements, etc. Although such projects may be subject to CEQA, as are all discretionary projects throughout the City, they do not require an amendment to the Airport Master Plan.
Responses to Comments/Errata 123 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Comment 120.N: Authority to Execute
Municipal Code, Title 25 – AIRPORT
Chapter 25.08 - COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES
Part 13 - COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY - LEASE OR LICENSE AGREEMENTS
25.08.1320 - Procedure and factors for consideration.
A Proposals for the lease of land, structures, or other premises on the airport shall be solicited from all persons, firms, organizations, or other legal entities known by the director to be potentially interested in submitting a proposal. A minimum of three (3) competitive proposals shall be obtained, if practicable, for the lease of land, structures, or other premises on the airport.
B Land, structures, or other premises on the airport shall be leased to the responsible proposer who 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 to the public and other airport users, investment in facilities to be constructed on the land or other premises, consistency of the proposed use of airport land or premises with operation of the airport, and any such other factors as are relevant to the proposed activity and to the location of the proposed activity on the airport. (Ords. 25529, 28017.)
25.08.1340 - Authority to execute.
A In addition to such other authority as may be specifically provided elsewhere in this title, the director is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the city, any lease or license agreement of land, structures, or other premises on the airport if:
1) The total monetary value received by the city from such lease or license agreement does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00); or 2) The term of such lease or license agreement where the total monetary value received by the city exceeds two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) is for three (3) years or less, including the term of any extensions or renewals of such lease or license agreement for which either the city or the tenant or licensee has the option or right to renew under the terms of the lease or license agreement.
B Lease or license agreements shall be approved as to form by the office of the city attorney prior to execution by the director.
C The city council shall approve the execution of any lease or license agreement required pursuant to this section if the total monetary value received by the city exceeds two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) and the term of the lease or license agreement is greater than three (3) years.
D The city council shall also approve the execution of amendments to extend the term of any lease or license agreement required by this section on behalf of the city beyond three (3) years, if the total monetary value received by the City from such lease or license agreement from the original effective date through the extended term exceeds two hundred fifty thousand dollars (Ords. 25529, 28017.)
Comments
On February 21st 2020 SJC Airport Management sent a letter titled “Project Plan Approval for Outdoor Digital Billboards” to the president of Clear Channel Airport. Problems with this agreement are:
a) The agreement has revenue greater than the $250K per year threshold referenced in Municipal Code Part 25.08.1340. This should have triggered higher level review.
Responses to Comments/Errata 124 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
b) The agreement duration is greater than 3 years referenced in Municipal Code Part
25.08.1340. This should have triggered higher level review. c) There was no competitive bidding and no RPF process as called for in Municipal Code Part 25.08.1320. A Mercury News46 article and then subsequent presentation by Airport Staff at the Airport Commission August 9th meeting explains that SJC staff considered the agreement as part of a 2007 concessionaire agreement with Clear Channel.
The validity of the entire Airport Billboard project and the Initial Study Addendum which branched from the agreement between the Airport Director and Clear Channel must be examined before further steps or additional City resources are expended.
The notion that that SJC staff would attempt to use a 2007 agreement as the basis for awarding a no- compete high dollar and City-altering contract in 2020 to a vendor is glaringly wrong. The City plan for Phase 1 billboards was not even conceived in 2007 and was only adopted in 2018. There are serious issues here which warrant investigation and which should nullify the agreement between SJC and Clear Channel and which should force postponement of further consideration of the U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study Addendum.
Project Approval Letter to Clear Channel
(note – the sign on Coleman Avenue was subsequently dropped)
46 “Intent on Ignoring the Public, San Jose Intends to Add More Digital Billboards,” Maggie Angst, Mercury News, July 29, 2021, https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/29/new -digital-billboards-are-coming-to- san-jose-freeways-whether-residents-like-it-or-not
28Email from Cary Greene, SJC Planner to
Responses to Comments/Errata 125 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 120.N: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
With regard to consistency to Municipal Code Section 25.08, the Agreement between Clear Channel and the City, as approved by City Council, went through the City’s competitive bidding process. The Agreement approved by City Council allows Clear Channel to propose additional marketing income opportunities at other locations on Airport premises, and delegates authority to the Director of Aviation (“Director”) to approve and execute a Project Plan that outlines the scope and the proposed revenue to the City. The City exercised this provision for this project.
Comment 120.O: Conflict of Interest
City Policy
CONSOLIDATED OPEN GOVERNMENT AND ETHICS PROVISIONS, T-9535.002 I RES0_77135, Council Agenda: 8-26-14, Item No.: 3.3b
Section 7.1 applies to the City's procurement and contract processes.
Section 7.3.2, Respondents Code of Conduct (referring to those seeking a city contract.) It states, "In addition to adhering to the various sections of this Section 7 of this Consolidated Open Government and Ethics Resolution, respondents may not influence any City staff member or evaluation team member throughout the solicitation process, including the development of specifications; and submit incorrect information in the response to a Solicitation or misrepresent or fail to disclose material facts during the evaluation process.”
In Section 7.3.4, Conflict of Interest: “City elected officials, appointed officials, their staffs, and City employees are expected to avoid any conflicts of interest. Further, employees should avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest in order to ensure that City decisions are made in an independent and impartial manner.”
Comments
According to a June 26, 2020 email exchange between SJC planner Cary Greene and SJC staff members, “A CEQA “Initial Study” will be prepared for the City by a consultant hired by Clear Channel.”
47 This was reiterated to the Airport Commission at its Aug. 9, 2021 meeting by Rebekah Bray, SJC Acting Senior Property Manager.
48 47 Email from Cary Greene, SJC Planner to Hansen, Patrick <[email protected]>; Murillo, Carlos E (AIR) <[email protected]>; Sheelen, Ryan <[email protected]> Cc: Ruffo, Kirk <[email protected]>; Ushiro, Aaron <[email protected]>; Lu, May [email protected], June 26, 2020, copy available on request 48 Video of Aug. 9, 2021 meeting of the Airport Commission, https://youtu.be/POJqW7aQZeQ
Responses to Comments/Errata 126 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Consequently, we are to believe that David J. Powers & Associates which conducted the Initial Study Addendum to the Airport EIR was selected to do so and paid to do so by Clear Channel Outdoor, a billboard company seeking a contract with the city. What we have here is a vendor seeking a contract with the city paying for and selecting a consultant to author the Initial Study/Addendum to the existing airport EIR, the outcome of which could determine to whom that contract is awarded or whether it is awarded at all.
We believe this is a glaring conflict of interest and a violation of rules outlined in the City’s Procurement and Contract Processes Policy 7 and should be subject to further review in the context of the City’s Open Government and Ethics Provisions.
As background, we note a caution from former Deputy City Manager Kim Walesh, in a July 15, 2019 memo to the Mayor and City Council in which she wrote this about billboard companies who might propose additional locations to be considered for digital billboards: "Pursuant to the City’s Procurement and Contract Integrity and Conflict of Interest Policy (Resolution 77135, Section 7), potential proposers should not participate in the development of the specifications for the Request for Proposal.”
49 Unheeding, SJC staff has exhibited a surprising degree of autonomy, as expressed by Ms. Bray in an April 30, 2020 email to staff: “In August 2019, the City went out for 2 RFP’s for outdoor advertising and in the Informational Council Memo prior to the release of the RFP, we carved out the Airport stating that we intended to do our own program for outdoor advertising.” 50 Under whose authority was such a “carving out” authorized? Given this reality, we urge the relevant commissions with oversight responsibilities and the City Council immediately halt any further implementation of Phase 1 as it applies to proposed billboards at the Airport pending a thorough and comprehensive review of the City's procurement and contract processes as it relates to the cozy relationship between SJC Airport management and Clear Channel.
Response 120.O: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Regarding the first part of this comment pertaining to the CEQA consultant being contracted by Clear Channel, this is consistent with City policy wherein such consultants are required to enter into a contract with a project applicant. The City’s role, as CEQA Lead Agency, is to independently review the consultant’s work and certify that it reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15084)
49 A memo from Kim Walesh to the Mayor and City Council entitled “Council Policy Priority #4: Electronic Billboards - Approval of Scope And Timeline For Request For Proposals For Large Format Signage/Billboards On City-Owned Property” dated July 15, 2019, p. 5. Memo available on request. 50 An email memo from Rebekah Bray, Acting Senior Property Manager, subject heading RE: David Powers - CEQA consultant for SJ Airport, to staff dated April 30, 2020.
Responses to Comments/Errata 127 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Clear Channel was selected as the advertisement concessionaire for the Airport following an extensive advertising RFP process in 2007 and the agreement allows for Clear Channel to propose additional revenue opportunities on Airport premises.
Comment 120.P: Off Premise Messages
Municipal Code - Title 23 – SIGNS
Part 2 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
23.02.905 I - Limitations on programmable electronic signs: Programmable electronic signs may display only on-site commercial or non-commercial messages. (Ords. 28754, 29097, 29529.)
23.02.1010 - Prohibited signs; prohibited displays: Unless otherwise expressly allowed in this title, the following signs are prohibited: 5.Programmable electronic signs. (Ords. 24201, 26282, 27034, 28022, 28144, 28754, 29529.)
Comments
The Municipal code carves out exceptions to the general prohibition of programmable electronic signs including allowing these signs in the Airport Sign Zone. However, 23.02.905 limits programmable signs to display on-site or non-commercial messages. It appears that installation of two electronic billboards with commercial advertising (off premise messages) would violate the existing municipal code
Response 120.P: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
San José Municipal Code Section 23.02.1310-B states “that signs erected on City owned land pursuant to Council Policy 6-4, shall comply with Council Policy 6-4, in lieu of the requirements of this Title.” The proposed billboards for SJC/City property are designed to comply with Council Policy 6-4.
121. Christy Noren (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 121.A: 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.
Response 121.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Responses to Comments/Errata 128 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
122. Mona Onstead (August 5, 2021)
Comment 122.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 122.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
123. Our City Forest (dated August 26, 2021)
Comment 123.A: I hope that this email finds you well. Please see the attached letter regarding the U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs project.
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 José 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.
Response 123.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 129 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
124. Judy Owens (dated August 19, 2021)
Comment 124.A: Please DO NOT ALLOW Electronic Billboards. Here are some quick reasons why:
*Most vehicles in SJ have only 1 occupant. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking the signs are for the passengers’ entertainment. There are no passengers.
The drivers will read them and lose track of their driving, get lost, leave their lanes, get into accidents.
*I've been comfortably driving in Bay area traffic night and day for 35 years.
I'm not yet 60 but the glare from the E billboards on 101 near Palo Alto makes night driving stressful.
They are so intrusive, impossible to ignore. I usually end up raising a hand to shield my face from the sign so I can focus on the road. It's bad enough on 101 in E Palo Alto, but introducing this distraction in the middle of San José with the merging/ converging on and off ramps of 280, 101, 17/880, 680, old Bayshore, etc is a terrible idea.
* Imagine folks who aren't from here: tourists, business visitors, international drivers. They'll have to navigate the city while trying to read/not be distracted by these signs.
Yikes!
*Consider the effect these signs would have on the quality of life of people whose offices, businesses and apartments are impacted by the ever-changing, ever present nighttime glow. Gone are the twinkling lights of a city settling down for the night. Up come the blackout curtains, making inhabitants cringe at the thought of being assaulted by the nighttime barrage of lights. *They make the whole area look cheap and desperate. East Palo Alto multiplied by a used car lot.
Not the image San José wants to promote.
So please, PLEASE put away any thoughts of allowing electric billboards.
Response 124.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to lighting, driver distraction, and quality-of-life impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
125. Richard Patterson (August 9, 2021)
Comment 125.A: 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 José 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 130 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 125.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
126. Teresa Pedrizco (dated August 3, 2021)
Comment 126.A: 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 José cannot be allowed to happen any longer. 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%.
Vote to oppose the project.
Response 126.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
127. Pete (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 127.A: 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 131 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
As a 15+ year resident of San José, adding environmental pollution to the natural environment of San José 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 José, 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.
Response 127.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
128. Zoe Phillips Williams (dated August 20, 2021)
Comment 128.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 132 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 128.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
129. Farrell Podgorsek (August 19, 2021)
Comment 129.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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. As someone who works and lives downtown , the idea that these billboards would flash into the 2nd floor school library at Horace Mann Elementary on Santa Clara St, and also into the homes of anyone living in a high-rise building downtown is abhorrent.
By allowing these first digital billboards in San José, 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.
Response 129.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 133 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
130. Betty Prince (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 130.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 130.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
131. Melanie Puntanilla (August 4, 2021)
Comment 131.A: <BR><BR>I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 131.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 134 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
132. Charlotte Quinn (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 132.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards at all, including on airport property. I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards are weak. 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. They will increase light pollution, traffic collisions, and energy use. They are eyesores and unwanted. Please oppose all digital billboards.
Response 132.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
133. Michelle R. (dated August 13, 2021)
Comment 133.A: 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 José 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 José, 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
Responses to Comments/Errata 135 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
concept the city’s current leaders have been hell-bent to reverse. The city's own survey shows that nearly 93% of the public strongly oppose this scheme as well. Please listen to them.
Response 133.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
134. Sally Redfield (dated August 20, 2021)
Comment 134.A: I am opposed to the proposed installation of new electronic billboards on airport property or anywhere in San José.
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 José 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 José, 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.
Response 134.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss, as well as driver distraction and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed
Responses to Comments/Errata 136 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
135. Linda Reis (dated August 4, 2021. 4:49 PM)
Comment 135.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 135.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
136. Linda Reis (dated August 4, 2021. 4:52 PM)
Comment 136.A: I oppose ANY digital billboards in San José, especially if you are going to cut down trees to do it.
Response 136.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 137 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
137. Kathy Richmond (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 137.A: 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 José 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.
By allowing these first digital billboards in San José, the City will open the floodgates for other garish drains of electricity and hideous blots on the scenic landscape of San José.
Response 137.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
138. Victoria Rivard (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 138.A: 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 José 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 José. 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 José’s own brilliance—what is left of it. We are not Picadilly Circus.
Response 138.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 138 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
139. Raymond Rogoway (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 139.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
Response 139.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
140. Sharon Root (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 140.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
Response 140.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 139 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
141. Peter Ross (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 141.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates,
Response 141.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
142. Anthony Rossetti (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 142.A: 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 José 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 José, 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
Responses to Comments/Errata 140 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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.
Response 142.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
143. Kelsey Rothrock (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 143.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 143.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
144. Cathy Rubin (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 144.A: 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 141 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 144.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
145. Lisa Ruder (August 19, 2021)
Comment 145.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, 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.
I also vehemently oppose the way the City Council has tried to amend Title 23 of the municipal code and hid its relationship with Clear Channel. City council members are supposed to represent their constituents; there is staunch opposition to digital billboards by residents of San José.
Response 145.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the
Responses to Comments/Errata 142 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
The commentor’s opposition to the manner in which Title 23 was attempted to be amended is noted for the record.
146. Russ (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 146.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 146.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
147. Janet Ryder (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 147.A: 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 José 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 143 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
By allowing these first digital billboards in San José, 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 José 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.
Response 147.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss, aesthetic, and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
148. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society/Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (dated August 25, 2021)
Comment 148.A: In April 2020, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society submitted scoping comments for San José’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 U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum. (Attachment 1)
Response 148.A: This comment, which is part of a cover letter attached to the commentor’s full comment letter, requests that an April 2020 scoping letter submitted on a different project (namely, the City’s Phase II Sign Ordinance Update) be considered as comments on the proposed project. However, because the scoping letter addresses a different project than the currently proposed project and because the scoping letter was submitted to the City more than a year prior to preparation of the Initial Study/Addendum analyzing the impacts currently proposed project, it cannot be considered a comment letter on the currently proposed project. The April 2020 scoping letter does not address the currently proposed project or its specific environmental impacts and, therefore, does not require a direct response under CEQA. As a result, the text of the scoping letter is not reproduced in the text of this document but is instead included as an attachment to this comment letter in Appendix A: Initial Study/Addendum Comment Letters.
Responses to Comments/Errata 144 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Finally, based on the City’s preliminary review of the April 2020 scoping letter, it appears that the environmental issues raised (e.g., aesthetics, light and glare, biological resources, energy, GHG emissions, etc.) are similar to those raised in the comment letter on this project, all of which are responded to in the detailed responses below.
Comment 148.B: We also submit 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.
Please see our full comment letter attached.
Response 148.B: The Sierra Club policy statement referenced in the comment was included as an attachment to the comment letter. While the Sierra Club’s policy statement sets forth the organization’s goals and objectives with regard to ALAN, the policy does not include comments on the adequacy of the ALAN analysis in the Initial Study/Addendum for this specific project and, therefore, does not require a direct response under CEQA. This statement notwithstanding, the City notes that the design and operational characteristics of the proposed electronic signs are specifically intended to address the adverse effects of ALAN, consistent to the objectives of the Sierra Club’s policy. These features of the proposed signs and the lighting effects of the signs are described on pages 7-13 and 16-28 of the Initial Study/Addendum, respectively.
Comment 148.C: In April 2020, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society submitted scoping comments for San José’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 U.S. 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.”
Responses to Comments/Errata 145 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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 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 José 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 José to tighten regulation and reduce, rather than increase their prevalence and impacts. We urge the City to adopt a No Project alternative.
Response 148.C: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to ALAN, aesthetic, biological, and driver distraction impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment is introductory in nature; detailed comments and responses are provided below.
Comment 148.D: We support the letter submitted by No Digital Billboards in San José. 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 U.S. 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.
Response 148.D: As described in Section 3.4 of the Initial Study/Addendum, no sensitive habitats or species are present west of the north sign or east of the south sign in areas where they could be affected by increased lighting from the billboards, so
Responses to Comments/Errata 146 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
assessment of lighting impacts on biological resources focused on effects from the east face of the north sign and the west face of the south sign.
As described in the Initial Study/Addendum, the lighting evaluation performed for the north sign determined that maximum illuminance will be 0.219 foot candles (fc) over ambient light conditions when viewed from the center of the viewing angle at 350 feet (ft). The nearest sensitive habitats to the north project site are the detention pond, which is located approximately 605 ft to the east, riparian habitat along the Guadalupe River northeast of the sign (across U.S. 101) 750 feet from the sign, and riparian habitat along the Guadalupe River 810 feet to the east (south of U.S. 101).
Illuminance decreases exponentially with distance, so that the increase in illuminance produced by the north sign at the nearest sensitive habitat will be very low.
For reasons discussed in the Initial Study/Addendum, it is the professional opinion of HT Harvey & Associates, the project’s consulting biologists, that increases in illuminance up to 0.1 fc would not result in substantial adverse effects on the species inhabiting the sensitive habitats near the project site, as the species using these habitats (including small numbers of special-status birds) are already habituated to the existing artificial illuminance from a variety of urban and natural light sources that are found along U.S. 101, Airport Boulevard, Ewert Road, and the parking lot areas. Zeiger Engineers, Inc., the lighting consultant for the project’s Initial Study/Addendum, has confirmed that illuminance at those three sensitive habitat areas closest to the east-facing billboard on the north project site will be no greater than 0.1 fc. Therefore, sensitive habitats are far enough away that the east-facing billboard from the north project site would have no significant impact on sensitive habitats or the species using them.
In addition, all billboards will be angled in such a way as to maximize the amount of visibility from specific portions of U.S. 101, so the area of brightest night illuminance projected by the proposed billboards will be directed at oncoming traffic. As the view angle from the north project site billboards and the east-facing billboard of the south project site moves in 20° increments to either side, the illuminance from the billboard decreases due to the horizontal light mitigation technology, SITELINE®, that is employed in the digital display. This dimming will further reduce illumination and glare with respect to riparian habitat northeast of the north sign, across U.S. 101.
During evaluation of the project’s impacts, the City’s biological consultant and lighting consultant, and the applicant, coordinated to determine how the west facing billboard on the south sign could be designed and operated to ensure that illuminance would not increase by more than 0.1 fc in the nearest riparian habitat along the Guadalupe River. The applicant decided that the west-facing billboard (which is directed towards the Guadalupe River) on the south project site will use a static LED backlighted display with dimming controls to limit light spill-over towards the Guadalupe River and associated riparian habitat. The west-facing billboard on the south project site will be operated so that the maximum increase in illuminance (vs. ambient conditions) at approximately 117 ft (i.e., the distance between the south project site’s west-facing billboard and the nearest edge of the riparian habitat of the
Responses to Comments/Errata 147 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Guadalupe River) will not exceed 0.1 fc. Further, this billboard will be covered by translucent vinyl to ensure that no illumination occurs above or below the face of the billboard. As a result, lighting from the west-facing billboard on the south project site will not result in significant impacts on sensitive habitats or species.
As described in Section 2 of the Initial Study/Addendum, the billboards are also designed to minimize glare or luminance (i.e., how bright the signs are perceived by sensitive receptors, such as birds, looking at the signs). The projected vertical viewing angle of the proposed LED billboards at the north project site and the east- facing billboard at the south project site loses luminance (and visibility) above 18°, and the billboards at the north project site and the east-facing billboard at the south project site are designed with horizontal shading louvers (i.e., narrow matt black horizontal shields over and under the arrays) that reduce the available upward view angle. As a result, birds flying more than 18° above the center of the sign’s beam angle (i.e., east and west) will not be able to see light from the sign at all.
It is also important to note that, as stated on page 9 of the Initial Study/Addendum, the signs would not operate at all between midnight and 6:00 a.m., so for much of the night, there would be no light produced by the billboards.
Comment 148.E: 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 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 .
Responses to Comments/Errata 148 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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.
Response 148.E: As mentioned in this comment, the Initial Study/Addendum discussed the potential effects of increased lighting on biological resources in detail.
However, the statement that the Initial Study/Addendum “finds no significant impacts because the area is already degraded and lit” is incorrect. The Initial Study/Addendum contains considerable discussion of the reasons why impacts of increased lighting would not result in significant impacts on biological resources (and those reasons are discussed further in response to Comment #148.D above). The Initial Study/Addendum did determine that residual impacts of very low increases in lighting levels would be less than significant, and that determination was based in part on the existence of existing lighting, but that approach to impact assessment is required by CEQA; it is appropriate under CEQA to evaluate impacts relative to baseline conditions, not relative to a completely dark, undegraded condition that does not exist at the project site.
The City disagrees with the statement in the comment that “The report does not include a photometric study, and thus its findings are subjective and unsubstantiated.” The Initial Study/Addendum contains considerable information that was derived from the lighting study performed for this project (see Appendix A of the Initial Study/Addendum). Further, during evaluation of the project’s impacts, the City’s biological consultant and lighting consultant, and the applicant, coordinated to determine how the project could be designed and operated to ensure that lighting impacts would be less than significant. That was not discussed in the Initial Study/Addendum as it ultimately contributed to the project design, but considerable coordination and modification of the project to minimize impacts from increased lighting occurred during impact assessment.
Comment 148.F: 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.
Furthermore, Steelhead feed on insects (aquatic Macroinvertebrates, see https://fishbio.com/field-
notes/population-dynamics/stuck-middle-insects-food-web . As discussed above, contemporary
Responses to Comments/Errata 149 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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.
Response 148.F: Potential impacts on steelhead of increased lighting from the proposed project were assessed in the Initial Study/Addendum. As discussed in the addendum, and in the response to Comment #148.D, above, increases in luminance and illuminance in riparian habitat at the Guadalupe River will be minimal, and impacts within the river itself, where steelhead occur, will be further reduced by vegetation along the river’s banks. Further, as discussed in the Initial Study/Addendum, any steelhead using the limited segment of the river subjected to lighting from the proposed billboards are expected to be migrating, during which time they would be moving quickly through this reach, rather than foraging or spawning.
Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on steelhead or other fish.
Comment 148.G: 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.
Response 148.G: There is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Initial Study/Addendum as outlined herein. It is the judgment of the City that the design of this project (which underwent a number of modifications specifically to minimize impacts of lighting on biological resources), coupled with the distance between the proposed signs and sensitive habitats along the Guadalupe River, will avoid any significant impacts on biological resources (see response to Comment #148.D above).
Comment 148.H: 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)
Responses to Comments/Errata 150 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 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
Response 148.H: This comment cites certain studies that have determined that various electronic billboards have light and/or motion properties that have created hazards for drivers. These studies do not analyze the impacts of this specific project at this location and, therefore, they do not constitute substantial evidence that the project would result in a significant impact with regard to driver distraction.
A lighting expert was retained to evaluate the impacts of the proposed billboards at the Airport, based on their specific design and operational characteristics, taking into account the existing environmental setting and relevant regulations and policies. The lighting expert’s report is included in Appendix A of the Initial Study/Addendum. 51 The lighting study concluded that the project would not result in significant driver distraction impacts for traffic on U.S. 101; see the discussion on pages 21-22 of the Addendum.
Comment 148.I: 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-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.
Response 148.I: A summary of City Council Policy 6-4 is included in the Regulatory Framework discussions in Sections 3.1.1.1 (pages 17-18), 3.11.1.1 (page 131), and 3.17.1.1 (pages 153-154) of the Initial Study/Addendum. The project’s consistency with Policy 6-4 is discussed in Section 2.3.1 (page 13). Attachment A of Policy 6-4 includes a list of potential City-owned sites for proposed signage installation, including the Airport, which can be viewed at the link included in the comment.
Comment 148.J: 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-
51 A revision to the report was made based on comments received during the circulation of the Initial Study/Addendum. The revised report is attached to this document as Appendix A.
Responses to Comments/Errata 151 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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 )
Response 148.J: The comment provides a link pertaining to heat generated by electronic signs; however, clicking the link leads to a page displaying “page not found”, so the comment does not provide any detailed information on heat generated by electronic signs.
The comment that electronic signs generate a lot of heat and usually require air conditioning is not correct. LED’s do not generate “a lot of heat.” The LED started out decades ago as an extremely efficient light source when compared to all other types of lighting and has become more efficient with time. More than 90% of the electricity used in a LED is converted to light and only 10% is emitted as heat. This can be compared to an incandescent bulb where only 2% of the electricity is converted to light with much higher proportions converted to heat. Improvements in technology and efficiency have significantly lowered the amount of energy LED digital billboards consume. With current designs, the sign cabinets stay cool, so these signs do not use air conditioners. The proposed signs will use low power, near silent fans that pull outside air into the cabinet and flow the air past the components. The modules containing the LEDs are sealed from the outside air.
As described in Section 3.6.2 (page 88) of the Initial Study/Addendum, operation of the two signs would use approximately 118 megawatt hours (MWHs) of electricity per year. Some portion of that electricity use would be associated with cooling. It is not necessary to separate out energy used for cooling from the overall project energy use to determine the project’s impacts under CEQA. As described in Section 3.6.2, the project would not result in significant impacts associated with energy use.
Comment 148.K: 6. The project is part of a larger project and neglects to consider cumulative impacts.
Responses to Comments/Errata 152 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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).
Response 148.K: The cumulative impacts of the project, including those related to light and glare, are analyzed in Section 3.21 (page 169) of the Addendum.
In 2018, an Initial Study was prepared for a citywide project titled “Signs on City- owned Sites, including Billboards, Programmable Electronic Signs and Signs Displaying Off-site Commercial Speech - General Plan Text, Municipal Code and Council Policy Amendments” (File No. PP18-058). The Initial Study analyzed the impacts under CEQA of proposed revisions of City Council Policy 6-4 to allow up to 22 electronic signs on 17 City-owned sites, including the Airport. The 2018 Initial Study determined that the combined signs would not result in significant environmental impacts. This Initial Study/Addendum, therefore, does not fragment the CEQA analysis of the implementation of City Council Policy 6-4. Instead, the Initial Study/Addendum provides project-level environmental review of the specific electronic signs proposed by the project, as required under Policy 6-4.
Comment 148.L: 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.
Response 148.L: The CEQA document prepared for the proposed project is an Addendum to the 2020 Airport Master Plan EIR. The Airport Master Plan EIR included an evaluation of project alternatives in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study/Addendum prepared for the proposed electronic signs project at the Airport did not identify any new or more significant impacts than those identified in the Airport Master Plan EIR. As a result, no additional discussion of project alternatives is required or warranted.
Comment 148.M: 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).
Response 148.M: The comment refers to language in Municipal Code section
23.03.905 which prohibits the illumination of signs between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. This provision of the Municipal Code only applies to signs located in Open
Responses to Comments/Errata 153 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Space, Agricultural, and Residential zoning districts, and is therefore not applicable to this project. As described in the Initial Study/Addendum, the proposed signs would not be illuminated between the hours of 12:00 AM and 6:00 A.M, in accordance with City Council Policy 6-4. The Initial Study/Addendum concluded that operation of the signs would not result in significant environmental impacts. Additional mitigation that further limits the hours of operation is, therefore, unnecessary.
Comment 148.N: 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.
Response 148.N: The project’s impacts associated with tree removal are discussed in Section 3.4.2 (pages 68-74) of the Initial Study/Addendum. In accordance with City policy, the project will be required to either replace trees on-site or pay off-site tree replacement fees to the City to fund the planting of replacement trees off-site. Please refer to response to Comment #148.J for a discussion of heat generated by the signs.
The comment provides no evidence that planting trees on-site is needed to reduce heat island impacts, and it is unclear how planting trees in the vicinity of the sign would reduce the nominal heat generated by the signs.
Comment 148.O: 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.
Response 148.O: Please refer to response to Comment #148.J for a discussion of heat generated by the signs. The comment does not provide evidence supporting a requirement that the signs include ambient temperature sensors that would shut down the displays when temperatures exceed 90 degrees. Therefore, the mitigation suggested in the comment is not necessary.
Comment 148.P: 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.
Response 148.P: As described in Section 3.1 of the Initial Study/Addendum, the project would not result in significant aesthetics impacts. The comment does not provide evidence demonstrating a significant aesthetics impact under CEQA.
Therefore, the mitigation suggested in the comment is not necessary.
Comment 148.Q: 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 154 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 148.Q: As described in responses to Comment #’s 148.M through 148.P, the mitigation measures suggested by the commentor are unnecessary to reduce the impacts of the project and are not required under CEQA. As with all projects in the City, the project would be required to implement all identified mitigation measures and comply with all relevant policies and provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, while the City would be responsible for enforcing compliance with those requirements.
Comment 148.R: 9. 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 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.
Response 148.R: As discussed in Section 1.1.1 (page 1) of the Addendum, The Airport Master Plan EIR provides project-level clearance for impacts associated with the planned Airport facility improvements contained in the Airport Master Plan. The proposed San José Airport Electronic Signs project was not included in the Airport Master Plan project and, therefore, represents a change to the project analyzed in the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Addendum was prepared as part of the supplemental environmental review process needed to evaluate the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA, the Addendum tiers from the Airport Master Plan EIR. As described in the Addendum and throughout these responses to comments, the project would not result in any new or more significant impacts than those identified in the Airport Master Plan EIR. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a subsequent EIR is not required. As discussed throughout the responses to this specific comment letter, the commentor does not provide substantial evidence that the project would result in significant environmental impacts.
149. Ken Schneebeli (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 149.A: Please, please, please…No electronic billboards!!!!! This is for many reasons, including more than the following:
Responses to Comments/Errata 155 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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. The 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 seems 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 not effectively manage, this is just adding to reasons to NOT be in San José. (Discarded furniture and trash that lay in place for weeks downtown, and additionally the trash and garbage surrounding pop up homeless sites, are two examples of under managed conditions.
I have loved and contributed to San José. I moved from a home in a nice quiet suburb in San José 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 they do accomplishment is actually electronic billboards, then I am truly angry.
This is a TERRIBLE idea. Please, please don’t do it.
Response 149.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved because it causes distracted driving, consumes electricity, and constitutes a visual eyesore. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
150. Laura Schoennauer (dated August 8, 2021)
Comment 150.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Responses to Comments/Errata 156 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 150.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
151. Jean Schwalenberg (dated August 5, 2021, 11:04 AM)
Comment 151.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 151.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
152. Jean Schwalenberg (dated August 5, 2021, 11:20 AM)
Comment 152.A: 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 José 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
Responses to Comments/Errata 157 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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 José, 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.
Response 152.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
153. Maren Sederquist (dated August 6, 2021)
Comment 153.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
Response 153.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 158 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
154. Shalini (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 154.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 154.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
155. Elena Shur (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 155.A: 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.
Pre-pandemic I was driving to and from my workplace in San Mateo and every electronic billboard I saw was an irritating distraction, which was actually hazardous at night, as it was too bright. I even developed an antipathy to the brands I saw on these billboards.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates to mindless commercialization of visual space, where natural beauty of Silicon Valley is replaced by the billboard architecture like in a farcical cartoon.
Responses to Comments/Errata 159 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 155.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss, driver distraction, and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
156. Yakov Shur (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 156.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
Thank you for your consideration,
Response 156.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
157. Ajith Singh (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 157.A: 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 José 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
Responses to Comments/Errata 160 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 157.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
158. Skhhunt (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 158.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 158.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
159. Mark and Wendy Smith (dated August 20, 2021)
Comment 159.A: 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 José, 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 161 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 159.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved because it will result in visual blight. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
160. Ryan Smith (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 160.A: 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 José 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 José, 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.
Response 160.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
161. Sandra Soellner (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 161.A: 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 162 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates to more and more. FLASHY DIGITAL BILLBOARDS ARE A VERY POOR TRADEOFF FOR THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
Response 161.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
162. Sophia Soohoo (dated August 9, 2021)
Comment 162.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
Response 162.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 163 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
163. Sherri Sotnick (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 163.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 163.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
164. Gina Spada (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 164.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 164.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 164 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
165. Connie Springer (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 165.A: I am strongly opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
The arguments for digital billboards are not supported 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.
Response 165.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to aesthetic and energy impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
166. Stephanie (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 166.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
Response 166.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 165 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
167. Lynne Stephenson (dated August 20, 2021)
Comment 167.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, 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.
Response 167.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
168. Annamarie Stoddard (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 168.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates for dozens of additional billboards and litigation, like what has happened in Los Angeles.
Responses to Comments/Errata 166 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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.
Response 168.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
169. Jean Struthers (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 169.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates% it will look like a blighted city to newly arrived visitors
Response 169.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 167 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
170. Linda Takemori (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 170.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 170.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
171. Deborah Taylor (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 171.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 171.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 168 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
172. Mary Tucker (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 172.A: 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.
I recently had to drive down to the Los Angeles area and was appalled at the number of DISTRACTING electronic billboards all over the highways. If that is what you want to happen here in San José, it will be devastating to the wildlife, destroy what little dark night we have to see the stars, and a strong potential for increased accidents.
According to a study conducted by the Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation, their study (2012) determined that findings from the literature support the argument that while there is no definitive research showing increased crashes due to the presence of billboards or digital billboards, there is an increased crash risk based on research on the effects of billboards on driver attention and the effects of driver distraction on safety: •
Billboards can have a significant effect on driver speed, lateral control, mental workload, ability to follow road signs, and eye movements and fixations, with older drivers particularly affected. (The Effects of Visual Clutter on Driving Performance and Driven to Distraction, An Evaluation of the Influence of Roadside Advertising on Road Safety, and Review of Roadside Advertising Signs). And visual clutter generally can distract drivers (Driver Distraction by Advertising).
Distractions such as electronic billboards can heighten safety risks in heavy traffic and other complex driving conditions, a conclusion by Berkeley-based Jerry Wachtel, in his recent review of billboard distraction studies conducted everywhere from Denmark to South Dakota.
Other types of signs without these problems are available to be installed. NOT ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS...NONE!!!
Response 172.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to biological, aesthetic, and driver distraction impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [The issues cited in this comment pertaining to potential driver distraction will be addressed by the design and operational aspects of the billboards, in compliance with both City and Caltrans regulations. See pages 21- 22 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 169 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
173. Jamie Tung (dated August 7, 2021)
Comment 173.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 173.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
174. Kevin Ung (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 174.A: 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 José 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 José, 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 170 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 174.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
175. Vacarpio (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 175.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 175.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
176. Nicole Valenti (dated August 21, 2021)
Comment 176.A: I am strongly opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property. Trashing the natural environment of San José cannot be allowed to happen. The razing of 43 healthy trees for these new digital billboards is unacceptable. The arguments for digital billboards does not hold water. 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 171 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
By allowing these first digital billboards in San José, the City may be opening the floodgates for dozens of additional billboards and litigation, like what has happened in Los Angeles. And by the way, every single time I've driven through LA, I comment on how ugly, unwelcoming and ruined LA is due to no control of signage in that city. I truly believe the same will be said of this beautiful city if you support any billboards.
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.
Response 176.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss, visual/aesthetic, and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
177. Amy Van Hook (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 177.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 177.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 172 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
178. Krista Van Laan (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 178.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property or elsewhere in the city, and I urge you to vote to oppose the project from proceeding any further at the Airport Commissioner meeting on August 9th, 2021.
I moved to San José 22 years ago, attracted by the juxtaposition of a modern city with historic neighborhoods and interesting old architecture. I liked the mix of the old and the new and what I saw as its charm and although I could have gone anywhere, I chose to stay in San José. In recent years, it seems the focus is on a kind of frenzied building at all costs, and without any thought given to beauty or cohesiveness. I am very concerned about the direction the City is going in.
Digital billboards are ugly, distracting, and have a negative effect on their surroundings. Pushing for digital billboards when respondents have made it clear they are not welcome means that the powers- that-be don’t care what the people want. I feel that allowing these hideous digital billboards anywhere in the city is a slap in the face to the majority of people who said we don’t want them. The fact that trees will have to be destroyed to install them is just another insult. I urge you to consider the wishes of the people and vote against this project.
Response 178.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to visual and aesthetic impacts, as well as the fact that a majority of people oppose billboards. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
179. Ruth Van Sciver (dated August 9, 2021, 7:46 AM)
Comment 179.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates. Thank you for your consideration
Response 179.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included
Responses to Comments/Errata 173 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
180. Ruth Van Sciver (dated August 9, 2021, 7:52 AM)
Comment 180.A: 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.
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 José 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. Do your job!!! Do you really want this in your backyard?
Response 180.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
181. Ron Vickery (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 181.A: 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 José 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 174 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 181.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
182. Ron Vickery (dated August 20, 2021)
Comment 182.A: Do we not have enough distractions while driving already? I regularly drive by the constantly changing sign off Hwy 85 and Almaden and it's like driving by an accident. We do not need more of this anywhere.
Response 182.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to driver distraction impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
183. Ana Villarreal (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 183.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Responses to Comments/Errata 175 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 183.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
184. Lydia Vitanza (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 184.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 184.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
185. Wanda (dated August 9, 2021, 3:01 PM)
Comment 185.A: 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 José 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 176 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
By allowing these first digital billboards in San José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 185.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
186. Wanda (dated August 19, 2021, 9:36 PM)
Comment 186.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, 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.
Response 186.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 177 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
187. Martin Weidner (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 187.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 187.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
188. Ashley Weiss (dated August 6, 2021)
Comment 188.A: 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 José 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.
Please do not move forward with these billboards. Thank you,
Response 188.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project
Responses to Comments/Errata 178 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
189. Judith Wells-Walberg (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 189.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates for major problems. PLEASE OPPOSE!!!
Response 189.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
190. Tod Williams (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 190.A: I find it odd/suspicious that the many opposition letters to Phase 2 that apply to Phase 1 are omitted from the official record; especially as most average residents did not even hear about this issue until phase 2 was up for discussion?? Common sense asks: How could there be overwhelming opposition to Phase 2 but little to no public correspondence regarding Phase 1? (i.e. community/city outreach was lacking).
Please plan for the future of San José!!
I'm requesting this email and my previous letter (re-attached) be added to the official record. Thank you,
P.S. The ban has been in place since 1985.
Responses to Comments/Errata 179 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
From city website/staffs initial recommendation: “…any decision to allow new billboards is a weighty one with long-term implications; once billboards are in place, options for removing them are likely to be very expensive, regardless of changes in community expectations and public policy.”
The Vendome (see map below) is a small historic neighborhood in downtown San José (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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 180 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Response 190.A: The proposed project is not a phase of a larger project. It is a stand- alone proposal for two electronic billboards at the Airport and it is not linked to other past or future billboard considerations.
The opinion that the project should be scrapped is noted for the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
191. Elizabeth Winslow (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 191.A: My husband and I can't trust the San José City Council b/c they reversed a law set up 36 years ago without citizen's voting for the change. I am angered & 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates!!!!! What's the point in trusting laws enacted will be upheld and respected. You can be certain we will be voting differently in the future for elected officials who vote yes.
Response 191.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
192. Jim Wissick (dated August 4, 2021)
Comment 192.A: 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.
Responses to Comments/Errata 181 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 192.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
193. Mike Wittig (dated August 9, 2021)
Comment 193.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates for further projects like this.
Response 193.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 182 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
194. Brittany Wolak (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 194.A: 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 José 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 José, 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.
Response 194.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
195. Robert Wright (dated August 3, 2021)
Comment 195.A: I am opposed to it, very, very much.
Strongly and passionately opposed to it.
Response 195.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
Responses to Comments/Errata 183 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
196. Craig Yeutter (dated August 3, 2021)
Comment 196.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates.
Response 196.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
197. Nancie Yomtov (dated August 19, 2021)
Comment 197.A: I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property.
Trashing the natural environment of San José 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 José, 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.
Response 197.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. This comment also expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved as it reverses the beautification intended to occur with the 36-year billboard ban. The comment is
Responses to Comments/Errata 184 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required.
198. Keith Young (dated August 5, 2021)
Comment 198.A: 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 José 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 José, the City may be opening the floodgates%
Response 198.A: This comment expresses the opinion that the project should not be approved due to tree loss and other environmental impacts. The comment is included in the record and will be considered by the City Council. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the analyses in the Addendum and, therefore, no further response or recirculation of the Initial Study/Addendum is required. [For a detailed discussion of the impacts of the project on trees and other biological resources, please see the analysis on pages 55-75 of the Initial Study/Addendum.]
Responses to Comments/Errata 185 San José Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum October 2021
SECTION 3.0 INITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM TEXT REVISIONS
This section contains revisions to the text and figures of the U.S. 101 Airport Electronic Signs Initial Study/Addendum dated July 2021. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with a line through the text.