Letters from the Public — San Jose City Council, February 25, 2025

San Jose Downtown Association
28 N. First Street, Suite 1000
San Jose, CA 95113

sjdowntown.com
408.279.1775

February 21, 2025

San Jose City Council
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113

Subject: Support for Orange Barrel Media’s Digital Display Installations

Dear Mayor Mahan and Honorable Members of the San Jose City Council,

On behalf of the San Jose Downtown Association, I am writing to express our strong support for Orange Barrel Media’s proposal to install dynamic and visually striking digital displays in Downtown San Jose. These installations are not just aesthetically captivating—they are a proven tool for economic growth, community engagement, and urban vibrancy, as seen in major cities across North America.

Downtown San Jose is at a pivotal moment. As we work toward revitalizing our core, we must embrace opportunities that enhance the pedestrian experience, attract visitors, and generate revenue for the City. Orange Barrel Media’s installations do exactly that.

These displays integrate seamlessly into our built environment, accentuating our existing architecture while providing an innovative platform for renowned local artists to showcase their work. Additionally, they offer a compelling way to promote downtown events, engage the public, and activate our spaces in ways that drive foot traffic and energy into our urban center.

Beyond their visual and cultural impact, these installations provide a significant financial benefit to the City of San Jose while also ensuring nonprofits have access to free screen time to share important community messages. This balance of commerce, creativity, and community support aligns perfectly with our shared vision for a thriving downtown.

We strongly urge the City Council to fast-track this initiative, ensuring these displays are in place in time to welcome the influx of visitors arriving for major events in 2026.

Downtown San Jose must be ready to showcase its best face to the world, and projects like this will help ensure we meet that moment.

We appreciate your leadership and commitment to downtown’s success, and we look forward to working together to bring this vision to life.

Sincerely,
Alex Stettinski
Chief Executive Officer

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
Fw: Feb 25 Item 8.2 - I oppose digital billboards downtown “Feb 25 Item 8.2 Billboards” From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 8:06 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: tony may <
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 8:51 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc:
< Katherine Funk <
Subject: Feb 25 Item 8.2 - I oppose digital billboards downtown “Feb 25 Item 8.2 Billboards”

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Please register my strong opposition to the electronic billboard proposal.

I may not be able to attend the council meeting in person.

I oppose them on a number of grounds:

The scale of the signs is gargantuan and all out of proportion to their locations The blatant commercialization of our public environment is in extremely bad taste and an embarrassment.

The extra distraction to drivers is a danger;
The wasteful use of such large amounts of energy goes against San Jose’s desire to be seen as a model of environmental sensitivity;
2/24/25, 3:50 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

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

The light pollution caused blasts the eyes of not only people in town but even interferes with the successful operations of Lick Observatory.

I have been a homeowner in downtown San Jose since 1972 and am an emeritus faculty member from the Department of Art at San Jose State University.

Please, let’s not make this I’ll considered move in the name of “adding life” to downtown ! Tony May

2/24/25, 3:50 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
Fw: Reject Digital Billboards - San Jose Public Comment for 2/25/2025 Council Agenda Item 8.1 25- 154
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 8:08 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Nancy DeMattei <
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 4:19 PM
To: < City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Reject Digital Billboards - San Jose Public Comment for 2/25/2025 Council Agenda Item 8.1 25-154

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important PLEASE
Reject Digital Billboards:

1. 2022 resident survey overwhelmingly opposed DBB

2. Insignificant revenue

3. No takedown requirement for D3 sites

4. Vibrancy through digitization is a myth

5. Precedent setting for future billboard era
Please vote no.

Know the way to San Jose but can’t see the Milky Way? — eBillboard blight 2/24/25, 3:52 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

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

NANCY DEMATTEI

2/24/25, 3:52 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
Fw: Support for Item 8.2: Digital Signage in Downtown San Jose From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 8:09 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Bill Lee <
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 6:26 PM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Item 8.2: Digital Signage in Downtown San Jose

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Mahan and Honorable Councilmembers,
Please support the recommendation from Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers Foley, Salas, Cohen, and Mulcahy regarding agenda item 8.2: Digital Signage on city-owned parcels in downtown San Jose. As a member of the San Jose Chamber of Commerce, I have been involved in this project for the last several years and we look forward to seeing the proposal come to fruition.

I urge you to support this proposal for the following reasons:

Economic Development Potential: Digital billboards can attract major brands and regional businesses looking to reach a large urban audience. This could increase exposure for downtown San Jose as a vibrant commercial hub and be part of a broader strategy to attract more foot traﬃc and visitors. 2/24/25, 3:52 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

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

Boost City Revenues: City revenues are lagging, and the City is expecting a deﬁcit of $60 million for ﬁscal year 2025-2026. Approving this project is one way to boost city revenues at an estimated $2 million per year.

Supports Downtown Vibrancy: San Jose, the capital of Silicon Valley, is known for innovation, and well- designed digital billboards reﬂect that. Adding digital signage brings modernity to the downtown core while also enhancing the area's aesthetic appeal.

Real-Time Emergency Information: The signage can display advertisements for local events and happenings, along with emergency information and PSAs, in real-time, which could have been helpful during the COVID pandemic.

Let's move this project forward now to be prepared for the major sporting events heading to our region in 2026 and beyond, ensuring we're poised to capitalize on the incredible opportunities ahead. Thank you to the Mayor, Councilmembers, staﬀ and community leaders who have worked on this eﬀort for nearly a decade.

Sincerely,
Bill Lee
- office | - cell

2/24/25, 3:52 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
Fw: Support Digital Billboards in DTSJ - IT'S ABOUT TIME From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 8:10 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Sean Cottle <
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 8:54 PM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Leah Toeniskoetter < Kat Angelov <
Subject: Support Digital Billboards in DTSJ - IT'S ABOUT TIME

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Mahan and Honorable Councilmembers,

IT IS ABOUT TIME THAT THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED!

I have been following this project since the Fall of 2015 (close to 10 years ago) after the idea came back from the San Jose Chamber of Commerce’s study mission to Denver, Colorado when then Councilmembers Chappie Jones and Raul Peralez submitted two memoranda to the City Council promoting the project.

2/24/25, 3:52 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

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

I look forward to seeing the proposal come to fruition since it is about time that the downtown core of the 13th largest city in the nation has digital billboards.

I urge you to support this proposal for the following reasons:

Boost City Revenues: City revenues are lagging, and the City is expecting a deﬁcit of $60 million for ﬁscal year 2025-2026. Approving this project will boost city revenues by an estimated $2 million per year.

Thank you in advance for approving digital billboards in the downtown core of San Jose.

Sean Cottle
Shareholder

D: +
O: +
|

email vcard bio

click here to send us files securely
click here to receive valuable legal information

A member of Mackrell International, a Global Network of Independent Law Firms

2/24/25, 3:52 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
Fw: Item 8.2 Large Format Digital Signage on City-Owned Property From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 8:10 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Brendan Rawson <
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 9:13 PM
To: District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; The Oﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Klein, Nanci <[email protected]>; Adams-Hapner, Kerry <[email protected]> Subject: Item 8.2 Large Format Digital Signage on City-Owned Property

Dear Honorable Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council, I am writing in support of the plans to develop digital signage on the four speciﬁc downtown city-owned properties detailed in the staﬀ memo. I am both a long-time resident of downtown and serve as the Director of San Jose Jazz, a nonproﬁt performing arts organization that draws more than 60,000 visitors annually to the downtown.

The program is expected to generate over $21 million in revenue over 20 years. These downtown generated revenues should be earmarked for re-investment into maintenance of downtown parks, parking garages, and city-owned cultural facilities.

I commend City staﬀ for requiring that each sign location have an accompanying artistic enhancement as part of its installation. In particular, the Woody De Othello ‘jumbled clock’ installation elements on the Second/San Carlos St. Garage digital sign are a compelling addition to our SoFA Arts District.

The City agreement speciﬁes that at least 15% of the signs’ advertising time will be made available for City’s use.

The agreement notes that the City may assign a signiﬁcant portion of its non-commercial messaging time “to Team San Jose to promote events and performances at Team San Jose-managed facilities.” I encourage the City 2/24/25, 3:53 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQAI… 1/2

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

Council to direct Team San Jose to develop a usage policy that will allow for other local cultural partners to access this screen time. Gaining advertising time that reaches such a highly desired target audience (currentdowntown visitors) is a signiﬁcant beneﬁt for nonproﬁt arts organizations who must attract audiences with limited marketing spend. In addition, a portion of the city controlled time should be reserved to showcase San Jose digital media artists. An established Team San Jose policy should create opportunities for local digital media artists tohave their works featured and properly acknowledged on the signs.

I respectfully encourage the City Council to move forward with approving this project with the above suggestedclariﬁcations.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Brendan Rawson, San Jose Jazz

The Oﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]> Subject: 2/25/25 Item 8.2 Billboards – D3 Resident Objects

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear San Jose Mayor and Councilmembers,
As a resident of District 3, I frequently spend time attending events and dining out in the downtown core.

These billboards will detract from the San Jose old-school vibe and will make my experience of downtown less enjoyable. I am not the only one, the residents of San Jose are overwhelmingly against this.

Opening the door to new billboards will lead to a proliferation of billboards throughout the city and down-grade the visual experience of San Jose.

I am also concerned about the other impacts from these and future billboards that have been identified by the experts, especially impacts due to increased light pollution on the health of humans and wildlife, and on the operations of Lick Observatory.

2/24/25, 3:53 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

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

The impacts and the complications that come with the outdoor advertising industry are not worth a few million dollars a year. There are reasons billboards were banned in San Jose many decades ago, a decision that has served the community well.

Please reject this proposal and save the character of San Jose.

Thank you for your consideration.

Katja Irvin
District 3 Resident

2/24/25, 3:53 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
Fw: Support for Item 8.2: Digital Signage in Downtown San Jose From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 8:21 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Narduzzi, Darcy <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 7:36 AM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Item 8.2: Digital Signage in Downtown San Jose

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Mahan and Honorable Councilmembers,

Please support the recommendation from Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers Foley, Salas, Cohen, and Mulcahy regarding agenda item 8.2: Digital Signage on city-owned parcels in downtown San Jose. As a member of the San Jose Chamber of Commerce, I have been involved in this project for the last several years and we look forward to seeing the proposal come to fruition.

I urge you to support this proposal for the following reasons:

2/24/25, 3:53 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

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

Sincerely,

DARCY NARDUZZI, Assoc. DBIA
Vice President / Construction Manager

Agent of
Plant Construction Company, L.P.
p d c
| plantconstruction.com

Celebrating over 75 Years in Business

[This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Plant Construction Company, L.P. Support ( immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.]

2/24/25, 3:53 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
Fw: Agenda item 8.2: Large Format Digital Signage on City-Owned Property (File No. ER23-034) From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 8:22 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
1 attachment (141 KB)
SJCC_Item_8.2--PLynam_2025-02-24.pdf;
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Paul Lynam <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 7:59 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda item 8.2: Large Format Digital Signage on City-Owned Property (File No. ER23-034)

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Honorable Mayor and City Council,
For your consideration, please find attached a (4 page, pdf format) written contribution addressing Council Meeting 25 February 2025, agenda item 8.2: Large Format Digital Signage on City-Owned Property (File No. ER23-034) In summary, Policy 6-4 is deficient. The IS/MND persists in its misunderstanding of skyglow; fails to appropriately account for physical processes in its analyses, thus invalidating its conclusions and assurances; is insensitive to, neglects, down-plays and minimizes public opinion and fails to address the body of public health research establishing causal connections between circadian rhythm disruption and negative impacts on human health (most notably hormonal cancers).
2/24/25, 3:54 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

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

Light pollution is considered "the biggest public health crisis going on right now", has been likened to the "process produced by Chernobyl radiation", "a slow death" and described as "21st century scurvy" and "the New Asbestos".

The project should be rejected.

Yours faithfully,
Dr Paul D. Lynam
Astronomer
UCO/Lick Observatory

2/24/25, 3:54 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory 24 February 2025
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Item 8.2 Large Format Digital Signage on City-Owned Property (File No. ER23-034) This communication challenges assertions contained in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) — and particularly the (14 February 2025) Response to Comments (RTC) — associated with the forenamed item. The IS/MND:
• Persists in its misunderstanding of the causes of skyglow (i.e. Rayleigh scattered light). • Absolves itself of responsibility to appropriately account for physical processes in its analyses, thus invalidating its conclusions and assurances.
• Circumvents inadequacies, inconsistencies and incompatibilities with Council policies and General Plan1.
• Neglects, is insensitive to, down-plays or minimizes public opinion. • Fails to address a body of public health research establishing causal connections between circadian rhythm disruption and negative impacts on human health (most notably, hormonal cancers).

Light Pollution: ‘The New Asbestos’
The prevalence of light pollution across the industrialized world is accelerating at a rate outpacing population growth. Over the past 25 years, growth rates of between 49% and 270% have been measured.

For rapidly developing conurbations in the industrialized world (like San Jose) this figure could be as high as 400%. Some estimates suggest rates of 7–10% annually.

Light pollution from artificial light is considered ‘the biggest public health crisis going on right now2’. Light at night originating from LEDs directly damages cellular mitochondria via ‘the same process produced by Chernobyl radiation [. . . ] a slow death 3’. Public health experts refer to the effect of growing light pollution as ‘21st century scurvy’ . LEDs are described as ‘the New Asbestos4’.
1Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan as amended on October 24, 2024. 2Clip: Prof. R. Fosbery: Interactions between light & life (21 October 2022) [00:04]. 3Clip: Prof. R. Fosbery: Interactions between light & life (21 October 2022) [01:15]. 4Clip: Prof. R. Fosbery: Interactions between light & life (21 October 2022) [00:12].

For anyone who has spent any time in-and-around San Jose over the past 5–10 years, the phenomenon of increasing light pollution is self-evident. Yet the IS/MND contrives to deny both the observations and the facts. Multiple, peer-reviewed, independent, scientific publications have demonstrated that light pollution is already harming the operation and mission of the University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory. In 1989, of 17 major observatories, Lick was ranked among the top 3 most heavily light- polluted astronomical sites. By 2022, in a list of 23 major observatories worldwide, Lick was cited as the most affected astronomical site in visible light. The MND responds (RTC, page 33) that the evidence provided is ‘not specific to the proposed project’. Further, the RTC declares ‘a project’s impact considers existing conditions as the baseline for analysis and the existing condition itself is not an impact’, thereby absolving the IS/MND from any responsibility to recognize trends and learn.

Scattered Light
Digital billboards (and the LEDs that they employ) contribute disproportionately to light pollution via several mechanisms, including (but not limited to): emission of multiple intensity peaks across many colors, thus contaminating the entire visible spectrum; emission of a preponderance of blue-rich light (absent from traditional incandescent lights) for which the phenomenon of Rayleigh scattering dominates, producing skyglow.

The City has consistently failed to account for the effects of Rayleigh scattering in any of its analyses, thereby invalidating those analyses and their conclusions. The IS/MND repeats that failure, claiming ‘due to their complexity, such models are unavailable to professional lighting consultants unaffiliated with universities or research facilities’. On the contrary, citations to freely-available publications describing the most widely-used model (e.g. Garstang et al. 1989 5 and references therein) were provided in (November 2024) written comment responding to the information and analysis presented in the MND. Having thus absolved itself of any substantiation, the IS/MND then proceeds: ‘given the existing substantial sources of light in the City and the lack of substantial evidence documenting that the project would result in a new significant impact based on a scattered light analysis, however, none of the impacts or conclusions in the IS/MND need to be revised’. With or without substantiation, the foregoing statement defies physics: as has been repeatedly stated in contributions since 2018 (and is quoted in the same section of the RTC). Regardless of the technology or originating fixture, any and all light sources which interact with the atmosphere contribute to an additive effect to scattered light, elevating the intensity of the diffuse sky background .

Elsewhere (page 25), the RTC reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of skyglow, stating: ‘Lighting can result in skyglow if it is pointed upwards (i.e. above the horizontal plane) or directed elsewhere and then reflected upwards’. While reflection does contribute to skyglow, the RTC description once again excludes the primary physical mechanism contributing to skyglow: scattered light. 5Garstang, R. (1989) Night-sky brightness at observatories and sites in Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 101, 306.
2 Inadequacies, Inconsistencies & Incompatibilities
Since the (September 2018) adoption of a revised Policy 6-4, Lick Observatory has consistently made written and spoken contributions to Council, Committees, Commissions and EIR reports attesting to the many harms of light pollution and highlighting the inadequacies of, and objections to, Policy 6-4 6.

These include a cherry-picked, incomplete and inadequate subset of recommendations to mitigate excess light by unjustifiably extrapolating out-of-context, out-of-date provisions.

Policy 6-4 is inconsistent with other City Policies. Policy 4-2 7 includes in its purpose ‘meet the astronomical research needs of the University of California Lick Observatory on Mt Hamilton’ and ‘protect the night sky from excessive glow’ as well as including a Dark Skies clause in the policy’s technical characteristics. Policy 4-3 8 ‘preserves the night sky for astronomical research’ [. . . ] ‘minimize interference with astronomical research at Lick Observatory and cites its purpose of ‘benefitting the continued enjoyment of the night sky and continued operation of the Lick Observatory by reducing light pollution and skyglow, in some cases requiring a photometric study and ‘referral to the Lick Observatory’ . Policy 6-4 contains no similar protections for dark skies and astronomical research.

As highlighted in (15 November 2024) written comment responding to the information and analysis presented in the MND/IS, Policy 6-4 is multiply inconsistent (too many to recount in this communica- tion) with the letter, and the spirit, of the General Plan. For brevity, these incompatibilities encompass the following major strategies of the General Plan: #1: Community-based Planning, #6: Streetscapes for People, #7: Measurable Sustainability/Environmental Stewardship, #10: Life Amidst Abundant Natural Resources, #11: Design for a Healthful Community.

Public Opinion
The 2018 revision of Policy 6-4 provoked ‘immense public outcry’. Over 92% public opposition to billboards was reported by a 2021 survey 9 conducted by City staff. The majority view of the aesthetics of electronic signs is unambiguous:

The public hates billboards [. . . ] there is overwhelming public opposition. — Mayor Liccardo (15 February 2022)
The General Plan contains CD-1.28: which seeks ‘to maintain and protect the integrity, character, and aesthetic environment of the streetscape in industrial, commercial, and residential neighborhoods, new billboards should be permitted only through a discretionary review process and only where they do not create visual clutter and blight. Public comments on the subject of billboards commonly describe them as clutter and blight. The RTC downplays the public concern, appealing to a restrictive definition of blight to extricate itself from common public perception. 6e.g. Letter to Mayor and City Council entitled Digital Billboards & Harm of Light Pollution (25 February 2024). 7Policy 4-2: Public Streetlights (15 February 2011).
8Policy 4-3: Outdoor Lighting on Private Developments (20 June 2000). 9City of San Jose Survey: Digital Billboards (17 March 2021). 3 The City Council responded forthrightly to concerns about Policy 6-4 provoking proliferation and inten- sification of new billboards:

The idea that if we approve these two billboards it is going to lead to other billboards is misinformation and misrepresentation.
— Council Member Foley (15 February 2022)
Two years on since this assertion, no less than four separate proposals for multiple new billboard installations (including the present proposal) are in progress.

Impacts on Human Health
The RTC focusses on discriminating between whether the project will adversely affect particular persons or whether it will affect the environment of persons in general. It declares ‘assertions of human health impacts also have been rejected by governmental agencies’, citing a single FDA-commissioned literature review (Miller et al. 2024 10) and some of its conclusions (e.g. ‘limited data’, ‘conflicting results’, ‘not a sufficient number of well-conducted epidemiological studies available to draw any conclusions’ and ‘methodological shortcomings’). This is to be expected from review studies of emerging phenomena.

However, the review does not reject, refute, invalidate or dismiss any of the studies it exam- ined. Rather, it recognizes concerns, highlights a pressing need for high quality studies and recommends analyses of data gaps and future studies. The RTC misrepresents the review and unjustifiably extrapo- lates selected conclusions exclusive to Short Wavelength Light to address 50+ years of mature science (highlighted in previous written and spoken comments) linking exposure to broad spectrum light at night and circadian rhythm disruption to numerous disorders — foremost among them, the established causal connections to cancers of the lung, breast, prostate, colon and rectum.

Because of the permissiveness, incompatibilities and consequences of a deficient Policy 6-4, the self- proclaimed ‘environmental leadership’ that San Jose repeatedly claims is undeserved. In addressing light pollution, the City is a laggard. The RTC states (page 39): ‘the night sky is not considered a cultural resource under CEQA’. Thus, dark sky advocates maintain that CEQA is deficient. Hence, it is responsibility of California’s Councils to ensure protection of the night sky.

Do you value a red sunset? Do you consider dusk, dawn and blue skies to be constituent parts of our environment?
If so, then the phenomenon of light pollution (arising from identical physics) is also environmental and CEQA alone (and, by extension, the IS/MND) is inadequate. The project should be rejected.

Yours faithfully,
Dr Paul D. Lynam FRAS
Astronomer
UCO/Lick Observatory
10Miller et al. 2024, Health Physics, 126(4),241: ICNIRP Statement on Short Wavelength Light Exposure from Indoor Artificial Sources and Human Health
4 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: City Council Agenda, Feb 25, Item 8.2 I oppose digital billboards in San Jose From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 10:01 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: Connelee Shaw <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 9:52 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Agenda, Feb 25, Item 8.2 I oppose digital billboards in San Jose

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Honorable Mayor Mahan and City Council Members,

I vehemently oppose digital billboards in San Jose. I am a fifty-three-year District 3 constituent.

Personally, I find the any billboards a sign of blight. Eletronic or digital billboards are simply billboards in steroids. I do not want our downtown (or any part of our city) to be like Las Vegas or Times Square. I find the excess of them a blatant waste with no long-term benefit to our city.

The company(ies) promoting their use represent national and international corporations who are only interested in promoting their clients through marketing, not the development or long-term betterment of San Jose. We are already bombarded enough with marketing. If you vote to allow this signage in, our city will be overrun. The people you are dealing with are media providers with armies of corporate lawyers. I am concerned that we will be signing a nebulous contract that will be manipulated to their advantage, our disadvantage. Might we spend excessive monies in litigation trying to rectify an error?

These billboards would not differentiate San Jose. Multiple cities have mistakenly bought into the electronic billboard hype. I would like San Jose to be branded differently. We used to be an Olympic development city, through San Jose State. Do you remember? Why can't we be the most sustainable city? The most environmentally friendly city? The healthiest city? The cleanest city? The city with the most trees per capita? We continue to do a pretty good job with our water treatment, to the benefit of our parks. Cinequest would not suffer. Our developmental opera would not suffer. Our various beautiful ethnic dance and musical groups would not suffer. Lick Observatory would be happier. We already draw birders from all over the world to our vibrant Pacific Flyway Wetland. Thank you Alviso and Don Edwards National 2/24/25, 3:54 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

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

Wildlife Refuge. We used to draw cyclists from the world over to train at the Hellyer Velodrome.

Our flatness makes us more suited to cycling and walking than either of our big city neighbors.

We have, so far, made great strides in protecting wildlife corridors with Coyote Valley and are doing a pretty damned good job in our participation of completing the Rim and Bay Trails. We have one of, if not THE, oldest municipal parks in the state, Alum Rock, and several that celebrate our ethnic diversity and our agricultural heritage. I would much rather support the uniqueness of our natural world and the wonderfully varied aspects of our own communities.

Why can't we be the most livable big city?

Being the loudest, brightest, rudest, in-your-face city is too short term, a dead end. Blight on steroids. Too many of other communities have already bought into that. I do not want ours to do the same.

Sincerely,
Conne Shaw

2/24/25, 3:54 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Council agenda, Feb 25, item 8.2. I oppose digital billboards in San Jose.

From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 11:20 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: Kathy Vita <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 10:59 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>
Subject: Council agenda, Feb 25, item 8.2. I oppose digital billboards in San Jose.

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important This is a very poor idea that will clutter our city.

Please respect the wishes of the people who live here.

Sincerely
Kathy Vita

2/24/25, 3:55 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/1

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: Opposition to Digital Billboard Proposals in San Jose: Prioritizing Community Well-being From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 11:24 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: Vicky Leung <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 11:02 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Opposition to Digital Billboard Proposals in San Jose: Prioritizing Community Well-being

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Toni,

I recently sent an email to our Mayor and City Council members to express my concerns and opposition to the Digital Billboard proposal. Could I request to have my letter documented in public records please?

Warn Regards,
(Vicky) Wai Leung

bcc: Vendome Neighborhood

Dear Mayor Mahan, Councilman Salas, and San Jose City Council Members,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to add digital billboards in San Jose. This initiative presents signi ﬁcant risks to public safety, environmental health, and the overall quality of life for our residents.
2/24/25, 3:55 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

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

Compromised Road Safety: The existing digital billboards on Highway 101 serve as a stark example of the inherent dangers they pose. The transitions between advertisements create substantial driver distractions. I, as a driver, ﬁnd them blinding during the day AND night. This heightened visual clutter directly contradicts the city’s Vision Zero policy, which aims to eliminate traﬃc fatalities. The increased glare and visual stimuli, compounded by existing issues with overly bright headlights, create a hazardous driving environment.

Detrimental Light Pollution & Environmental Impact: The proposed billboards will contribute signiﬁcantly to light pollution, negatively impacting Lick Observatory and disrupting the nocturnal environment. The intrusive illumination will spill into residential neighborhoods, disproportionately aﬀecting lower-income communities that rely on quality sleep for their well-being. Furthermore, the disruption of natural circadian rhythms will adversely aﬀect local wildlife, including avian populations. The potential decrease in property values for nearby homeowners is also a serious concern.

Disregard for Public Sentiment: The overwhelming public opposition to billboards, as evidenced by the city survey with over 2,000 respondents and a 90% disapproval rate, cannot be ignored. This initiative is clearly driven by the interests of lobbying groups and advertising companies, rather than the expressed needs of the San Jose community. The proﬁts generated from these billboards will not be reinvested in local infrastructure or community programs.

No Tangible Beneﬁt to Local Businesses or Community Identity: Digital billboards are primarily designed to promote national brands and consumer products. This does not support local small businesses, which are the backbone of San Jose’s economy. Instead, these billboards will contribute to the homogenization of our city, eroding our unique character and making San Jose less attractive to residents and visitors alike. We are already saturated with advertisements via digital platforms; adding intrusive visual displays to our public spaces oﬀers no genuine value to our community.

In conclusion, the proposed expansion of digital billboards poses a direct threat to the safety, well-being, and character of San Jose. I urge you to prioritize the concerns of your constituents and reject digital billboard proposals.

Regards,
Wai Leung
District 3
Vendome Neighborhood

2/24/25, 3:55 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: Support for Item 8.2: Support for Electronic Digital Signage in Downtown San Jose From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 11:35 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: Tony Mirenda <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 11:34 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Item 8.2: Support for Electronic Digital Signage in Downtown San Jose

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Mahan and Honorable Councilmembers,

As a longtime business executive and community leader, I fully support the recommendation from you and Councilmembers Foley, Salas, Cohen, and Mulcahy regarding agenda item 8.2: Digital Signage on city-owned parcels in downtown San Jose. As a member of the San Jose Chamber of Commerce, I have been involved in this project for the last several years and we look forward to seeing the proposal come to fruition. During our City Study Mission to Denver 10 years ago with then Mayor Sam Liccardo, we saw how such a program can be beneficial to a City around public areas of congregation and use as to way finding and upcoming events into the City. It is unfortunate it has taken so long to get this initiative even this far. The revenue stream the City would recognize with this venture is badly needed to a City that continually faces budget deficits.

I urge you to support this proposal for the following reasons:

Boost City Revenues: City revenues are lagging, and the City is expecting a deficit of $60 million for fiscal year 2025-2026. Approving this project is one way to boost city revenues at an estimated $2 million per year.

Supports Downtown Vibrancy: San Jose, the capital of Silicon Valley, is known for innovation, and well-designed digital billboards reflect that. Adding digital signage brings modernity to the downtown core while also enhancing the area's aesthetic appeal.

2/24/25, 3:56 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

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

Let's move this project forward now to be prepared for the major sporting events heading to our region in 2026 and beyond, ensuring we're poised to capitalize on the incredible opportunities ahead. Thank you to the Mayor, Councilmembers, staff and community leaders who have worked on this effort for nearly a decade.

Sincerely,

Tony Mirenda

Get Outlook for iOS

2/24/25, 3:56 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: opposing billboards
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 12:27 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: Susan Hartt <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 12:06 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: opposing billboards

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Taber

Please convey the following message to the city council and the mayor. Thanking you in advance

Today, the SJ Mercury reported that City Council was on the verge of voting for electronic billboard. The Mayor said this will make the downtown seem bustling and lively. No, people in the downtown will make it bustling and lively, not billboards

It amazes me that this is going forwards after San Jose citizens have opposed billboards for decades. There is such a thing as the will of the people and the will of the people is that we do not want billboards, especially electronic ones. This is San Jose, not Times Square.

It is not too late. Stop these billboards now.

Susan Hartt

2/24/25, 3:56 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/1

Outlook
FW: Item 8.2 Council Agenda Feb 25 2025: Large Format Digital signage on City Owned Property From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 12:28 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Tina M <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 12:11 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 8.2 Council Agenda Feb 25 2025: Large Format Digital signage on City Owned Property [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
To the Mayor and Council members,
I wish to go on record as being vehemently opposed to the Council selling out San Jose to erect these garish "Large format digital signage" (Digital billboards) monstrosities. Consider:

The community definitively does not want them, The billboards are opposed by groups such as Lick Observatory, the Audubon Society and Sierra Club, The almost certain negative impacts to our Guadalupe River Park. (A "curfew" between 12midnight and 6AM does not address the fact that it gets darker earlier than 12midnight and having these lights on until 12midnight will disrupt migratory patterns and routines of river/riparian corridor wildlife), There is a link between light pollution and cognitive decline (source:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10889016/#ABS2 ).

I get it. The City of SJ is facing a $60Million dollar budget shortfall this year. The Council has some hard cost cutting decisions to make and you are looking for income streams as well. I don't envy you this huge task. Perhaps cutting the red tape for small businesses to come to fruition (one example: the old Cielito on Taylor/5th STILL is not up and running). I think too that cost efficiencies need to be found and implemented, and the give-aways to developers must be stopped (parks maintenance is critical and we have seen little "vibrancy" as a result of the many high density housing that has already been built). 2/24/25, 3:56 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

Please rethink your stance on digital billboards and vote NO (resulting in a "yes vote" for your constituents).

Thank you for your time and attention.

Tina Morrill
Vendome neighborhood
District 3
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
2/24/25, 3:56 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: Feb 25 Item 8.2 Billboards
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 12:29 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
1 attachment (874 KB)
Souders letter to City Council re NO DIGITAL BILL BOARDS 2-24-25.docx;

From: Bill Souders <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 12:21 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; The O
ﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; No Digital Billboards In San Jose < Frimann, Nora <[email protected]>; Maguire, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Davis, Martina <[email protected]>; San Jose Spotlight < Ramona G - San Jose Spotlight < Sal Pizarro <
Subject: Feb 25 Item 8.2 Billboards
Importance: High

Mayor, City Council and City Manager:

I sincerely hope you will take the time to read my attached input on this issue. It’s one that I have been working on for the last several years.

Much appreciated,
Bill Souders

2/24/25, 4:33 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

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

Mobile:
https://www.pied-a-tire.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/bill-souders-546688/
Live as if you were to die tomorrow.

Learn as if you were to live forever.
--Mahatma Gandhi, 10/02/1869 - 01/30/1948

2/24/25, 4:33 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2

Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

I am requesting you to please consider these points when you make your decision about approving large format digital billboards on certain city properties. While I hope you might consider delaying this decision at least until after the D3 election, or reject it completely, I would implore you to please consider sparing the corner of Park Avenue & Almaden Blvd.

OUR Public Open Space
Given all of the blight that downtown SJ has suffered for decades, one bright spot has certainly been this corner, with a civically conscious corporate neighbor, Adobe, who has added to our downtown ambiance with interesting architecture, public art, and accessible walkways. There is a new building at 200 Park which is trying to achieve the same. And of course, there is the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation-designed Center for Performing Arts. A vital and very active resource in its own right.

But more importantly, there is the wonderful open plaza that we can all enjoy, at any time, which includes fountains and public art and is adjacent to the both the San José Veterans Memorial and one of the few beautiful stretches of downtown riparian walkway.

The thought of putting a large format digital billboard on that corner seems like a scar that we will regret for decades! Matt Mahan and Carl Salas are both receiving kudos for ﬁnally removing the “ranger station from hell” which had well-intentioned public beneﬁt but was poorly executed and maintained.

For the two of them to now turn around and recommend blighting this vibrant corner with commercial advertising, with no public beneﬁt, is truly discombobulating.

Advertising does NOT enhance downtown’s visual appeal!
But it DOES burden the taxpayers, residents, and visitors by diminishing this already vibrant and visually appealing open space in order to bombard us all with even more inescapable advertising!

• My life is not enhanced when I have to pull the perpetual wad of junk mail out of my mailbox and throw it away every day.
• I fast forward through ads on TV or streaming whenever I can. • I pay for Ad Blockers on my computer.
• I loathe the spam that we are all subject to everyday.

I suspect that most of you would reject having a Ten Commandments monument erected on any city-owned property, but yet you seem to be excited about building large, obnoxious, distracting, and potentially dangerous MONUMENTS to Excessive Global Consumerism. Really? [AI description: “Consumerism has many negative consequences, including environmental destruction, economic inequality, and mental health issues.” And by the way, your assertion that there is the potential of using the billboards for emergency messaging is a complete ruse.] Extremely dubious economic justiﬁcation
From what I understand, although the analysis from city staff is very opaque, the expected returns for signiﬁcantly damaging the ambiance and potential safety of this corner is a mere pittance. By my calculation, $1M per year (when fully implemented) is only 0.0476% of the current annual budget!!! How can you possibly believe that blighting our public open space is worth it? Why the rush to decide this now?
We D3 residents (the location for ALL of these billboards) are in the midst of vetting our new candidates. This is one of the topics. Several of the candidates have already expressed their opposition to this proposal. Carl Salas, the unelected interim councilperson, has already signed onto the letter supporting staff’s recommendation without any public discourse. We have suffered enough already given the horrors of our previous elected representative. Please don’t make us suffer with yet another bad decision, especially made by someone who does not represent the overwhelmingly strong opposition from D3 residents over the last many years.

AS A MINIMUM, PLEASE REMOVE THE CORNER OF PARK AVENUE & ALMADEN BLVD FROM THIS PLAN!

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: Feb 25 Agenda Item 8.2 Billboards
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 12:29 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: Pat Blevins <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 12:21 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc:

Subject: Feb 25 Agenda Item 8.2 Billboards

I am completely opposed to the City of San Jose installing digital billboards in public or private spaces anywhere in the City. My opposition is matched by the majority of the residents of San Jose, including members of each Council District. The reasons for the opposition to digital billboards are:
· Overwhelming public opposition - There are many contentious issues but billboards are clearly a public consensus issue and people from every Council district responded in opposition.
· Litigation threats - Billboard companies are already threatening to sue the City and each other over these billboards. This risk of endless litigation does not appear to be factored into the cost/benefit here.
· Insignificant revenue - Any proceeds from these billboards would be a tiny fraction of 1% of the City’s annual revenue; is it worth the tradeoff for more visual blight and an assault on our quality of life?
· Driver distraction - Digital billboards threaten driver safety and runs counter to the city’s Vision Zero policy to eliminate traffic fatalities.
· Energy hogs - Although LEDs by themselves may be energy efficient, these large energy intensive billboards require constant cooling and computer systems, and would 2/24/25, 4:35 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. be giant symbols of disregard for the City’s Climate Smart and Carbon Neutral 2030 policies.
· Wildlife disruption - Digital billboards are opposed by the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club.
· Light pollution - Lick Observatory would be negatively impacted due to light pollution, similar to the already intrusive Levi’s stadium Jumbotrons. · Local businesses do not benefit - Digital billboards typically advertise national consumer products and services.
· No takedown requirement - Several of the proposed downtown sites do not have a requirement to take down existing conventional billboards.

I am requesting the Mayor and the City Council members to vote NO on the installation of any digital billboards. Please remember, the office of the Mayor and each City Council member was elected to serve the needs and to respect the wishes of the residents of San Jose. The residents have made their opposition to digital billboards extremely clear over and over again, and yet the Council moves ahead with digital billboard installation, first at SJ international airport (In direct opposition of the Airport Commission) and now throughout the downtown area. What part of NO digital billboards do you not understand?

Patricia Blevins

2/24/25, 4:35 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 Outlook
FW: Council agenda, Feb. 25, Item 8.2
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 12:30 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen English <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 12:01 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Council agenda, Feb. 25, Item 8.2
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
We oppose digital billboards in San Jose. They cause visual clutter, motorist distraction, waste energy, and make our city look like a Vegas wannabe.

Karen English and John Engell
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
2/24/25, 4:52 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/1

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: 02/25/25 City Council Meeting: 8.2 Large Format Digital Signage on City-Owned Property (Billboards)
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 12:30 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
1 attachment (17 KB)
billboards 111924.docx;

From: Tod <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 12:13 PM
To: District3 <[email protected]>
Cc: The Oﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 02/25/25 City Council Meeting: 8.2 Large Format Digital Signage on City-Owned Property (Billboards)

Dear Councilmember Salas,

cc: Mayor and City Council

Myself and many in my community were disappointed to see your endorsement of downtown billboards with the recent memo posted on the City Council agenda. I would think that every council member would support the
will of the people with an overwhelming majority of residents in opposition to any billboards. This would seem to be particularly true for an interim city council appointee.

I have followed this issue since 2020 and have yet to see a convincing argument to reverse the longstanding 1985 billboard ban. There was a billboard discussion at the Community & Economic Development meeting (03/26/24) on the subject that was both disturbing and telling (see attached summary email previously sent on 11/19/24).

The said alignment with San Jose’s broader goals and with current technology, the significant civic value are quite an overstatement. I also do not view these billboards as any form of art. I noticed that the memorandum is clear that “This proposal is not a blanket endorsement of billboards citywide”. While this is appreciated, it only makes me further question the endorsement as to why this restriction would be 2/24/25, 4:52 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. included if they were so great. I ask that you reconsider your position as money isn’t everything and this decision will greatly impact San Jose and especially District 3 for generations to come. Maybe a grassroots boycott of billboard advertisers is our only recourse. Please represent the people.

Thank you,

Tod Williams
District 3 and (longtime) San Jose Resident

P.S. The attempt to rename the billboards as “large format digital signage” is not fooling anyone.

2/24/25, 4:52 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers (previously sent 11/19/24),

While I realize this policy pertains to billboards at the airport, downtown billboards were discussed at the 03/26/24 Community & Economic Development meeting and it raised questions about this entire process and motives. Approval of any billboards would imply acceptance of additional downtown billboards and the whole process is connected. The billboards are being sold as creating vibrancy downtown including increased lighting, emergency/disaster communications and art. A same day memorandum (blue memo regarding earmarks) was introduced by former Councilmember Torres at this meeting. (side note: these last minute memos should not be allowed).

On the dais, billboards and this memo were explored. Councilmember Batra brought up his concern about the earmarks for downtown in the memo saying that he wanted any funds generated to go to the general fund. In Torres’ reply he later stated that “I need to stand up to my district because my district is suffering the brunt of many of these digital billboards” (Councilmember Ortiz is seen shaking his head in support). Councilmember Batra countered that the electronic billboards have been presented as a positive for downtown so there should be no earmarks. Councilmember Ortiz interjected “I don’t accept that, I don’t accept that. This is going, the residents are upset about these billboards therefore there needs to be an offset to activate downtown. It’s impacting Omar’s district, the resources should go to Omar’s district”. In the discussion with Batra, Torres further commented “we make sure that my downtown is protected from these downtown billboards”.

Councilmember Foley did her best to curtail the discussion with these truths coming to light, but the Freudian statements “suffering the brunt”, “residents are upset about these billboards”, “It’s impacting Omar’s district” and that downtown needs to be “protected from these downtown billboards” is telling.

Vice-mayor Kamei also noted that the revenue generated was ambiguous and questioned the take down ratio of static billboards. It was also noted that the billboards on downtown building will be exempt from this condition.

Councilmember Foley also questioned the takedown ratio which was somewhat breezed over that it is not currently set and would only be required in conjunction with three freestanding electronic billboards.

We were also reminded of the halting of analysis of electronic billboards on private property which seems strange and raises further questions including potential legal issues.

We all have nostalgia for old school Coppertone signs or Coca-Cola advertisement (often used in renderings) but it is more certain that we will be bombarded with accident injury attorney pitches and the like on these new billboards. Furthermore, using billboards for downtown lighting is farfetched and it is questionable that they will be used for emergency alerts especially in the day of cell phone alerts (cell phones also make directional use ridiculous). While art is subjective, billboards as an art venue is a stretch.

It is easy to vote for money with no consequence to your district but this is unfair (Can you imagine the uproar if there was a plan to erect these billboards only on the East-Side or targeting another specific district?). We currently do not even have council representation for the most effected district (D3). These billboards will have impacts on San Jose long after we are gone. We call on you all to do the right thing for the greater good (as we often hear) and the best outcome of everyone in San Jose. Please follow the will of the residents by scrapping this plan and reinstating the wise decades old billboard ban.

Thank you for doing the right thing,

Tod Williams
Downtown San Jose Resident
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: Digital Billboards
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 2:09 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: Judith Lessow-Hurley <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 2:01 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Digital Billboards

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Hello Councilman Salas,

I understand that you have said you will support the installation of large-format digital signage (i.e. digital billboards) on downtown city owned property.

I live in the Vendome neighborhood. I recall that in the Mayor's remarks he said you would represent District 3 "from Roosevelt to Naglee Park." I couldn't help but notice but was not surprised by his failure to mention the Vendome, the Hensley Historic District, Japantown and Northside all of which are included in District 3.

Vendome residents join the Lick Observatory, the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club in their opposition to digital billboards. Digital billboards are ugly and garish and create light pollution, which affects people as well as wildlife.

Despite the fact that our neighborhood is the oldest residential area in San Jose, and that people who live here are committed to downtown San Jose, we are often ignored, our needs go unmet and our opinions and requests go unnoticed.

We had hoped for a City Council representative who would actually represent us and make our voices heard. Listen to us: We don't want digital billboards.

Judith Hurley
Vendome Resident

2/24/25, 4:53 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

Outlook
FW: 02/25/25 City Council Meeting: 8.2 Large Format Digital Signage on City-Owned Property (Billboards)
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 3:59 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 3:13 PM
To: District1 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 02/25/25 City Council Meeting: 8.2 Large Format Digital Signage on City-Owned Property (Billboards)
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Mayor and Council,
I find it very disturbing when constituents have spoke out in overwhelming numbers (80%) against billboards to find that a recently signed memo by you, our mayor, and four Council members stating you will support Staff’s recommendation to install large-format digital signage (this is the same as Digital Billboards) on downtown city owned property.

As a victim to divided attention on our roadways resulting in an accident where back surgery was needed to fix the injury as “best as it could be” I find your memo and a vote for billboards insulting when it blatantly goes against the will of the people.

What happed to the Vision Zero goal in which it’s designed to reduce and eventually eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on our roads? How does placing huge electronic billboards with messaging 2/24/25, 4:53 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

that is designed to draw a motorist’s attention off of the road and to the messaging advertised on these billboards going to make San Jose streets safer for walkers, rollers, bicyclists as well as other motorists? As a community leader in downtown I hope that you will reconsider this decision and put a stop to more blight in D3. It’s appearing that D3 is turning into a dumping ground and the small amount of revenue fails to outweigh the lost trust in our elected officials should this vote move forward.

Where is the “common sense” in going against the voice of the people! Best Regards,
Tim Clauson
President
Vendome Neighborhood Association
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
2/24/25, 4:53 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: SJ Chamber Support of Items 8.1 and 8.2
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/24/2025 4:20 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
2 attachments (581 KB)
SJ Chamber Support of Item 8.2 - Digital Signage in DTSJ.pdf; SJ Chamber Support Post St. Ped Mall.pdf;

From: Kat Angelov <
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 4:16 PM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Leah Toeniskoetter <
Subject: SJ Chamber Support of Items 8.1 and 8.2

Dear Mayor and Honorable Councilmembers,

Please find attached letters of support for two agenda items: 8.1 and 8.2. We are excited to see both of these proposals move forward to activate our downtown core.

Thank you for the consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,
Kat

Kat Angelov
2/24/25, 5:11 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

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

Policy Manager
San Jose Chamber of Commerce
IN OFFICE DAYS: TUESDAYS - THURSDAYS
Email
Oﬃce:

Mailing Address:

2/24/25, 5:11 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2

| sjchamber.com | |

February 22, 2025

City of San Jose City Council
200 E. Santa Clara St.

San José, CA 95113

Re: Support for Item 8.2 – Large Format Digital Signage on City-Owned Property

Dear Mayor Mahan and Honorable Councilmembers,

On behalf of the San Jose Chamber of Commerce, I am pleased to express our strong support for the proposed large format digital signage on four city-owned sites in downtown San Jose.

This project presents significant benefits that will enhance our city's economic growth, safety, and vibrancy.

The Chamber has consistently supported this initiative for the following reasons:

• Revenue Generation Potential: The staff report notes that the City of San Jose is expected to receive between 30-33% of advertising revenues from each sign, with a negotiated minimum payment of $21,058,104 over a 20-year period. Notably, this figure represents a floor, not a ceiling, with projections from Orange Barrel Media estimating total revenues at $37,511,793 over the 20-year lease term. With an expected annual contribution to the General Fund of approximately $2 million, this project offers a valuable and much-needed diversification of the city’s revenue streams, particularly in light of the current budget deficit.

• Vibrancy and Investment in Downtown Core: The Chamber supports projects that contribute to the energy and modernity of the downtown core. As cities worldwide embrace technology and innovation in their public spaces, incorporating digital signage into ours helps us stay competitive and appealing to both residents and visitors.

• Supporting Local Businesses and Public Safety: Large format digital signage provides a powerful marketing platform for local businesses and our arts community, promoting Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurs and community events. Additionally, these signs offer adaptable, cost-effective content management, enabling businesses to target specific audiences at optimal times.

Importantly, this signage also serves as a crucial public safety tool. In emergencies, the ability to instantly broadcast vital information ensures that critical messages reach the public quickly and effectively.

| sjchamber.com | |

The Chamber is also encouraged by the memo from Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, and Councilmembers Salas, Cohen, and Mulcahy to use 100% renewable energy to power the signage. This commitment reflects a responsible balance between economic development and environmental sustainability.

This proposal has been years in the making, and we are looking forward to seeing it come to fruition—especially as we prepare for the major events arriving to the region in 2026. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Leah Toeniskoetter
President & CEO, San Jose Chamber of Commerce

February 24, 2025

Honorable Mayor Mahan and Members of the San José City Council San José City Hall
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
Subject: Item 8.2: Support for Orange Barrel Media’s Downtown Digital Display Installations

Dear Mayor Mahan and Honorable Members of the City Council, As a business owner in San José and founding Board Member of the Urban Vibrancy Institute, I am writing to express my strong support for Orange Barrel Media’s proposal to install digital displays Downtown. These installations align directly with the City’s efforts to enhance San José’s vibrancy, safety, and economic vitality through collaborative, innovative, and community- driven initiatives.

Why This Initiative Matters for Downtown San José
San José stands at a critical moment in its revitalization journey. As our city emerges from the challenges of the past few years, we must embrace opportunities that activate public spaces, increase community engagement, and support local businesses and non-profits. The proposed Orange Barrel Media digital displays are a proven tool in major cities across North America, helping to:
✔ Boost Economic Growth – Increased foot traffic and dynamic advertising opportunities provide local businesses with greater visibility, leading to higher sales and stronger small business support.
✔ Enhance Safety & Public Awareness – Research indicates that well-lit urban spaces can reduce crime by up to 36%, and these installations will contribute to a safer, more welcoming Downtown environment.
✔ Provide Real-Time Public Messaging – These signs will serve as an essential communication platform for emergency notifications, city alerts, public safety messages, and cultural programming, ensuring that residents and visitors remain informed and engaged. ✔ Showcase San José’s Creative Identity – The integration of local artists and cultural content will reinforce San José as a hub of innovation and creativity, attracting both visitors and future investment.
✔ Generate Revenue Without Taxpayer Burden – The project is projected to guarantee over $21 million in revenue for the City of San José over 20 years, with potential earnings reaching $37.5 million, helping to fund essential city services and infrastructure improvements.

A Critical Step Toward a More Vibrant Downtown
By approving this transformative signage initiative, the City Council will be taking a bold step toward modernizing our Downtown and ensuring San José is ready to showcase its best to residents and visitors, as well as spectators of Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup in 2026.

I strongly urge the City Council to approve this initiative and fast-track its implementation, ensuring Downtown San José continues to grow as a premier destination for business, culture, and community engagement.

Thank you for your dedication to San José’s continued economic vibrancy and vitality.

Sincerely,
Tony Arreola
Terrascape Ventures, LLC
Founding Board Member, Urban Vibrancy Institute

San Jose City CouncilFebruary 25, 2025

San Jose City Council
February 25, 2025