right mind would feel the impact from the light on the trees would be ok. I can’t believe Clear Channel got away with this. I can’t believe the City isn’t protecting one of the most potentially valuable assets.
I strongly feel the City Council is betraying their responsibility to us, the citizens of San Jose. Please put a stop to this!
Sincerely,
Suzanne Morrone
D3
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Sincerely,
Name District
Judith zamborelli
Copy these email addresses to cc:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Tina Morrill
Vendome neighborhood, District 3
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
We need the money to clean up our city, get all the homeless off the streets, clean up all the trash, and clean up the waste that the homeless leave for us to clean up. We need to take care of our trees that need to be cleaned and cleared for fire issues. We need our roads fixed to help us maintain our vehicles. We need to lower gas, lower food, lower taxes, lower homes, and lower electricity. We need to make this state more affordable for everyone. You're either rich or poor. The middle class is gone. I don't care about big business. I care that I can live here and not have to worry about what is going to happen to myself and my kids when they can't live here and have to move somewhere else because they can't afford to live here or come back here. I have lived here all my life, and all the changes have not all been for the good. Most of it is for the bad, and a lot of the good people have left, and all the dumb people are moving in who don't know common sense if it was looking at them in the face. Save money, No Billboards, bring the middle class back to this state.
Sincerely, Maria Burrus - District 3 and Japantown member
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. living nearby. My neighbors and I work hard to do what we can to maintain a pleasant neighborhood.
We clean up school and park trash, maintain our part of the city forest, and get to know one another.
We didn't want the billboard in the first place; and we certainly don't want a last-minute switch to a larger and brighter billboard beyond what was approved last year.
Sincerely,
Janet Russell
District 3
5/4/26, 4:26 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 2/2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Because of these expanded structural dimensions, it is worth carefully evaluating how this project intersects with San José’s commitment to Vision Zero. Vision Zero prioritizes street design and infrastructure that actively reduce traffic injuries and fatalities.
In this context, it is helpful to note that numerous peer-reviewed transportation and human factors studies indicate that larger dynamic signage can involuntarily capture a motorist's focus. Because any glance away from the road for two seconds or longer significantly raises the risk of a collision, these modifications could inadvertently introduce new driver distraction variables that run counter to our Vision Zero objectives.
Attached to this email, please find a supplemental technical and administrative testimony that provides a more comprehensive, fact-based overview of the specific physical parameter changes, academic research citations, and potential legal risks.
In the interest of ensuring robust administrative due diligence and maintaining full public accountability, I respectfully encourage the Council to review these modifications closely before moving forward.
Thank you for your time, leadership, and dedicated service to our community.
Sincerely,
Brian Darby
5/4/26, 4:28 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 2/2
Consent Item 2.9
Brian Darby May 5 2026
Supplemental Technical & Administrative
Testimony to the San José City Council
To: Office of the City Clerk, City of San José ([email protected]) Subject: Technical Input on Item 2.9 (File No. 26-513) — May 5, 2026 Meeting Topic: Digital Signage Lease Amendments (Clear Channel Outdoor LLC) Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
Please include this technical testimony in the official administrative record for the May 5, 2026, Regular City Council meeting. This analysis is submitted as a constructive, fact-based evaluation of the requested amendments to the project parameters for large-format digital signage.
The goal of this submission is to help the City evaluate the proposed physical modifications to ensure they align with the Vision Zero traffic safety initiative, minimize potential legal risks, and maintain administrative accountability.
1. Direct Parameter Comparison: 2025 Approved vs. 2026 Proposed The administrative adjustments requested by the applicant alter the size, height, and visual orientation of the signs originally reviewed and approved in 2025:
Dimension /
Parameter
2025 Approved
Project Parameters
2026 Proposed
Project Parameters
Technical
Difference
1404 Mabury Road
Site (D3)
• Structure Height 45 feet 85 feet +40 feet (88.8%
increase)
• Sign Face Area 986 sq. ft. 1,003 sq. ft. +17 sq. ft.
Highway 87 &
West Mission St
(D3)
• Structure Height 45 feet 60 feet +15 feet (33.3%
increase)
• Primary
Orientation
South-Facing North-Facing 180° Directional
Shift
• Sign Face Area 672 sq. ft. (14' x 48') 1,003 sq. ft. (17' x 59')
+331 sq. ft. (49.2%
increase)
2. Technical Concerns & Alignment with Vision Zero
A. Driver Distraction & Involuntary Visual Capture
San José’s commitment to the Vision Zero framework relies on data-driven designs that simplify the roadside environment to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. However, dynamic digital displays intentionally capture the motorist's attention:
● Physiological Involuntary Attention: Peer-reviewed human factors research shows that dynamic lighting changes involuntarily capture a driver's attention through basic visual processes. High-intensity LEDs that change contrast and content every 6 to 8 seconds prevent a driver's focus from staying strictly on the road ahead. ● Visual Obstruction and Placement: The reversal of the West Mission Street sign from a south-facing to a north-facing orientation changes its visibility zone. Combined with a
49.2% expansion in size, this sign will command a much larger visual footprint for oncoming traffic.
B. The Two-Second Threat
● NHTSA Risk Thresholds: Extensive studies from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) confirm that glances away from the forward roadway lasting 2 seconds or longer significantly increase collision risks. ● Long-Duration Glances: Studies using eye-tracking technology have shown that drivers fixate on electronic variable message signs for substantially longer durations than standard static roadside advertisements.
● Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD): Raising the sign height at the Mabury Road site to 85 feet extends the line of sight for approaching drivers. This larger viewing range means drivers can see and read the sign from farther away, keeping their eyes off the road for a longer overall approach time.
C. Luminance, Glare, and At-Risk Driver Demographics
The increased size and elevated line of sight for these signs raise distinct concerns regarding nighttime safety:
● Nighttime Glare: The intense brightness of dynamic digital displays can cause temporary visual impairment through glare, which affects a driver's ability to spot obstacles or brake lights.
● Vulnerable Road Users: Older drivers are particularly sensitive to these effects. They take longer to recover their vision after encountering bright lights in low-contrast environments, and they find it more difficult to quickly shift their attention back to the road.
● Riparian Buffers: The 85-foot profile proposed for the Mabury Road site raises the display above the natural tree canopy, allowing high-intensity artificial light to spill directly into nearby residential areas and local river habitats.
3. Administrative Accountability & Mitigation of Legal
Risk
By approving an addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than requiring a supplemental environmental review, the City may expose itself to future administrative or legal challenges. The significant physical expansions outlined above alter the project's original baseline:
1. Bait-and-Switch Concerns: Residents have voiced frustration regarding these adjustments, noting that the new dimensions differ substantially from the project approved in 2025.
2. Vision Zero Integration: Approving dynamic billboards that distract drivers runs counter to the safety goals of the Vision Zero framework. This contradiction could be cited in future litigation if a driver distraction incident occurs near these signs.
To protect the City's long-term interests and maintain full administrative transparency, the City Council should consider pausing these approvals. This would allow for a more thorough evaluation of the requested changes and a full assessment of how they might impact public safety.
4. Academic & Technical References
The following peer-reviewed studies provide technical evidence regarding the driver distraction hazards associated with large-format electronic displays:
● Wachtel, J. (2019). Compendium of Recent Research Studies on Distraction from Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS). Prepared for Scenic America.
This comprehensive review analyzes dozens of international studies on how dynamic displays impact driver attention and traffic safety.
● Full Text URL:
https://www.scenic.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/billboard-safety-study-compendium- updated-february-2018.pdf
● Young, K. L., Stephens, A. N., Logan, D. B., & Lenné, M. G. (2017). Investigating the impact of static roadside advertising on drivers' situation awareness. Applied Ergonomics, 60, 136-145. This research explores how roadside advertisements pull attention away from primary driving tasks.
● Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.11.009
● Meuleners, L., Roberts, P., & Fraser, M. (2020). Identifying the distracting aspects of electronic advertising billboards: A driving simulation study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 145, 105710. This study measures eye-fixation metrics on electronic message signs, highlighting the frequency of extended driver distraction. ● Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105710
● Wachtel, J. (2009). Safety Impacts of Emerging Types of Roadside Advertising Signs.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Report 20-7. A foundational human factors study evaluating the safety risks of digital and dynamic billboards.
● Reference Link:
https://www.scenic.org/take-action/resources/billboard-resources/digital-billboard-studies /
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. addressed?
I am concerned about light pollution, energy consumption, distraction for drivers and aesthetics. I’m also concerned for residents who live in neighborhoods where they are installed (they are not being installed in my neighborhood, I am concerned for other neighborhoods). Would you vote for it if one was going to be installed in your neighborhood? I doubt it.
City Council has not sufficiently addressed any of these issues. I’m confident that if more citizens know of this plan and were asked their opinion they would object. If the Council is confident of their view I would challenge you to find out by asking your constituents in your newsletter. Shouldn’t you know what the people you represent think about this subject?
Sally Redfield
Rosegarden Resident
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
5/4/26, 4:29 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 3/3
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
These tricks prove that this is not for our benefit. It is easy for councilmembers from areas not directly impacted to vote purely for the money. We urge you to represent our voices by standing up for your constituents and our community by voting NO on these proposals. Protect our neighborhoods, not advertising interests.
Thank you,
Tod Williams
Vendome Neighborhood
5/4/26, 4:34 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 2/2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. capture attention, with heightened safety impacts in complex driving conditions or where bright digital signs are present.
Environmental degradation: The 2024 CEQA-mandated study behind the original 2025 bill permitting these billboards dismissed the light pollution from these LED signs as a “less than significant” impact, acknowledging an increase in ambient light near Cesar Chavez Park and the Guadalupe River. However, research has shown that even low levels of artificial light alt er
numerous species’ circadian rhythms and reduce their reproductive success, yet digital billboards operate at brightness levels significan
tly higher than those that have been proven to cause
ecological harm. LED displays contribute to light pollution that disrupts sleep, wildlife survival behaviors, and ecological systems.
Socioeconomic implications: Billboards can depress nearby property values, disproportionately affecting historically marginalized communities, while offering minimal direct economic benefi t to local businesses and the community at large. Instead, they impose ongoing regulatory and maintenance costs on cities.
Aesthetics and community character: Billboards diminish visual quality by dominating viewsheds and distracting from natural and built environments that define community identity .
At Scenic America, we have concluded — based on robust research — that additional billboards benefit only the advertising companies that own them, while undermining the well-being and character of the communities that permit them. We respectfully urge the San Jose City Council to reject the proposed amendment and uphold the city’s scenic character.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please do not hesitate to reach out to me directly at
Sincerely,
Mark Falzone
President, Scenic America
5/4/26, 4:37 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 3/3
Scenic America | | | scenic.org
May 4, 2026
San Jose City Council
200 E. Santa Clara St.
San Jose, CA 95113
To the Council Members of the City of San Jose:
I am writing to you as the president of Scenic America, the nation’s only 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated solely to the promotion, preservation, and protection of America’s scenic beauty. In our more than 40 years of operations, we have been at the forefront of advocacy and education for issues that directly affect the beauty and character of our communities.
A key focus of our work is establishing clear limits on the proliferation of outdoor billboard advertising. We take this mission seriously — in one instance pursuing a case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we prevailed. I am writing today to express our strong opposition to the May 5, 2026, City Council Agenda Item 2.9: Amendment to the Agreement with Clear Channel Outdoor LLC for Large Format Digital Signage on City-Owned Property. This amendment would worsen an already overly lenient 2025 agreement allowing the erection of two large LED billboards in San Jose locations near sensitive ecological areas that include the Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek watersheds. The amendment calls for significant expansion of the signs’ size and height without further study and documentation of environmental impacts.
This amendment represents a significant betrayal of public health and safety in favor of a large outdoor advertising company, and it completely disregards the detrimental environmental and aesthetic impacts these billboards would cause. Scientific research and decades of community experience further demonstrate the harms associated with billboard proliferation:
• Economic burden: Billboards impose ongoing regulatory and enforcement costs on states and municipalities while primarily benefiting large national advertisers, not local businesses. Communities that reduce billboard clutter often see stronger tourism and economic activity, as improved visual quality attracts visitors and investment. • Driver and pedestrian safety: Extensive geospatial and neuroscience research shows that billboards — especially digital displays — divert driver attention and increase crash risk. A 2020 peer‑reviewed analysis of 27 independent studies found that outdoor advertising is designed to capture attention, with heightened safety impacts in complex driving conditions or where bright digital signs are present.
• Environmental degradation: The 2024 CEQA-mandated study behind the original 2025 bill permitting these billboards dismissed the light pollution from these LED signs as a “less than significant” impact, acknowledging an increase in ambient light near Cesar Chavez Park and the Guadalupe River. However, research has shown that even low levels of artificial light alter numerous species’ circadian rhythms and reduce their reproductive success, yet digital billboards operate at brightness levels significantly higher than those that have been proven to cause ecological harm. LED displays contribute to light pollution that disrupts sleep, wildlife survival behaviors, and ecological systems.
regarding the public’s opposition to your apparent agenda to commercialize all of public space.
Furthermore, you do not argue in good faith. You have repeatedly implied that the city will make more money from allowing digital billboards than you know will be the case.
You have repeatedly stated that significant numbers of existing conventional billboards will be removed to allow digitals to go up when you know that is not true. You have repeated ad nauseam that digital billboards are artistic, creative, cutting edge and will magically transform downtown San Jose by generating something called urban vibrancy that no one in city government can define. And yet, while many in city government support the notion of reaching policy decisions based on data, your worshiping at the shrine of urban vibrancy is not an example of scientific evidence of any kind. Rather it is nothing more than articulating billboard industry talking points.
Furthermore, this entire process has been conducted off the public’s radar, without sufficient public outreach, and with increasingly limited transparency and accountability. But then that seems to be the case regarding how city government routinely operates. I would ask, why is it that residents of San Jose must attend a city council meeting to speak before you instead of being able to do so via Zoom or other online means of video conferencing? How can you say no to allowing residents to speak before you online and at the same time claim to be the heart of Silicon Valley? Really? But more fundamentally, how can you justify making it more (not less) difficult for residents to speak before the council? For all of these reasons and more, I find your collective and ongoing management of the billboard issue to be a classic example of bad governance.
Don’t go down in the record books as the council on whose watch the city of San Jose lost its architectural integrity, its historic character and its environmental value by selling out its unique identity to the billboard industry for a few lousy dollars. Surely you can do better than that. Can’t you? John Miller
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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 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.
Despite your constituents opposition to digital billboards you ignore us and move ahead using out taxpayer money to enrich Clear Channel.
I urge the City Council to deny approval of the resolution and EIR addendum for this project.
Patricia Blevins
District 9
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. trees are part of the riparian corridor and are habitat for many birds and animals.
Light pollution is called pollution for a reason!
Whoever is pushing these changes is for some reason indebted to Clear Channel.
Please show some moral integrity to your fellow citizens. Do not approve the resolution and EIR addendum for this project. The applicant must follow the sign size and height parameters contained in the original proposal and EIR that this Council approved in 2025.
Sincerely,
María Hennessy
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I'll remind you that the City Council's approval for these digital billboards came at a tumultuous time, when District 3 was without representation, an interim Councilmember, Carl Salas, not elected by the people, made the contrarian decision on their behalf. Salas was hand-picked by the Mayor, who can't even bother to commit to the City of San Jose for a full term, the allure of dollars from a doomed campaign-trail too great, who has left the same City at a worse financial deficit than his predecessor.
This is not how you revitalize San Jose.
Thank you,
Jessica Schwoob
only removes a single additional billboard. Thus, there is no reason for the City to approve this addendum.
The addendum claims to not introduce new / more severe impacts, including that "ambient light output would remain the same as the 2025 Project". The digital screens are larger than before, so they will necessarily emit more light. The basis for that conclusion seems to be that the additional take-downs will offset that increase. This conclusion seems flawed:
1. Gross ambient light AND localized light intensity both matter. Billboard take downs miles away won't offset the increases to localized light intensity.
2. Attachment A3: Photometric Analysis, Mabury Road Project Site makes no statements about impacts to the Coyote Creek riparian corridor, and takes no measurements from the creek or from the new Coyote Creek trail segment that passes directly in front of the north billboard face, within a bit under 350 feet perpendicular.
3. At a naive glance, there does seem to be substantial light intensity that will reach the riparian corridor.
The addendum proposes to take down billboards across 11 sites. Only one of those (location 2) is within a mile of a new billboard, and only 5 sites are in District 3 (a net gain of 1 site in District 3 compared to the original proposal). Given the huge increase in height and surface area of the modified billboards, the D3/D6 communities, and especially the communities within a short distance of these huge new billboards, should benefit from additional take downs beyond the current 11 sites.
Attached are 4 additional sites near the project sites with known Clear Channel billboards (based on data from OpenStreetMap and imagery from Google Streetview). There may be others as well.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Changing the Mission location to be north-facing is likely a welcome change for the residents at LifeMoves. I would like to see Clear Channel change the project (by making that billboard north-facing, or otherwise shielding LifeMoves from the light), without the substantial increases to the billboard size and height.
Finally, I'd like to note that the approved Council memorandum from June 17th 2025 (less than a year ago) stated (emphasis mine): "A key benefit of this project is the removal of existing non-electronic billboards from commercial and residential streets
near the three installation sites. [....] As a
demonstration of good faith, removal of these static billboards should be required before new digital billboard installations can proceed." Clear Channel has not demonstrated good faith:
They continue to suggest take downs that are far away from the project sites, when closer billboards are available for take down.
After multiple years of planning+study and approval by City Council, suddenly they want to substantially change the dimensions of the project, with no stated justification provided to the public.
I urge the Council not to give approvals to partners that are not operating in good faith, especially when the amendment does not offer the City and substantial new benefits in return.
Best,
Jordan Moldow (speaking on my own behalf)
Japantown, District 3, 95112
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Halt the lurid acceleration of light pollution, reclaim our environment, health and sense of place: The City should review, update and consolidate policies to proactively reduce — not mitigate — light pollution. A single policy (however deficient --- or precisely because it may be deficient) should not supersede all others.
Thank you for your attention and service to the community.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Paul D. Lynam FRAS
Astronomer
UCO/Lick Observatory
University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory 4 May 2026
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
2.9 Addendum to the Electronic Signs on City-owned Property Project — West Mission Street and Mabury Road Digital Billboards Sites
This communication comprises written public comment regarding the above-titled matter, scheduled to come before the Council on 5 May 2026 as agenda item 2.9. The University of California Observato- ries/Lick Observtory (UCO/Lick) does not endorse the proposal.
In previous contributions, multitudinous citations were provided, attesting:
• Light pollution is accelerating.
• Metropolitan light has been shown to impact astronomical sites up to 200–300 km away. • By its very nature, light trespass is a far-reaching, regional scourge, damaging to astronomical (and other) pursuits, the environment and human health.
What pro-billboard Council members and evangelized Staff misapprehend as a vehicle for the public good shall, in time, be considered a public nuisance — nay, menace.
We may regret [introducing LED and fluorescent light tubes] due to to health hazards as well as economic and social costs associated with it, and, therefore, it should be considered unsustainable
.
Discontent with the status quo — and contrary to majority public opinion — a privileged few com- mercial outdoor advertisers lobbied the City to overturn a decades-long ban on novel billboards via the (September 2018) revision of Council Policy 6-4. Ever since, it has been argued that the revision is denuded, deficient, incompatible and inconsistent with other City Policies, which strive to (in Council Policy 4-3) ‘preserve the night sky for astronomical research’, ‘minimize interference with astronomcal research at Lick Observatory’ and (in Council Policy 4-2) ‘meet the astronomical research needs of the University of California Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton’.
Light Pollution
At every phase since (before, during and after EIR, responses to MND reports) in written and spoken public comments relating to Electronic Message Centers (EMCs), astronomers have repeatedly empha- sized the harms and appealed for proper consideration of scattered light— the dominant cause of light pollution affecting astronomical sites — in lighting analyses.
It is worth reiterating: Regardless of the technology or originating fixture, any and all light sources which interact with the atmosphere contribute an additive effect to scattered light, elevating the intensity of the diffuse sky background. Every additional light source elevates the problem. Additional scattered light does not simply ‘blend in’ to the pre-existing level of diffuse sky background light.
Anyone perpetuating the fallacy that LED billboards contribute less to skyglow and light trespass is ignorant of the physics of the scattering of light — and therefore lacks credibility.
EMCs contribute disproportionately to scattered light:
• Practical electric lights prior to LEDs were effectively absent of a blue component. In contrast, LEDs produce a preponderance of blue light.
• Scattering does not simply contribute an additive or multiplicative factor, but a fourth-order power law dependence, such that bluer (shorter) wavelengths are vastly more strongly scattered than redder (longer) wavelengths.
The present addendum serves to illustrate the disproportionate effect. The addendum seeks an expansion in total billboard area from 2644 ft 2 (2025) to 3009 ft 2 (2026) — an additional 365 ft 2, (or 13.8%).
Conservative analysis indicates this proposal alone will add at least 68% to the scattered contribution of light pollution, when compared with the original (2025) dimensions.
Throughout, the City (and its contracted consultants, via studies and Mitigated Negative Declarations, MNDs) have consistently rebuffed and evaded appeals to include scattering — going so far as to admit their inadequacies in writing:
‘due to their complexity, such models are unavailable to professional lighting consultants unaffiliated with universities or research facilities’.
In consquence, wholly insensitive to the phenomenon of scattered light, MNDs associated with EMC proposals, and unqualified Staff, parrot absolute falsehoods , in what appears (to onlookers) to be classic
mandarinism. Ultimately, when unable to extricate themselves from the exposure of their inadequacies, reports seek refuge in a greater deficiency:
‘harm to dark skies is to the night sky is not considered [...] under CEQA’.
Far better it would be for the City to lean on this (CEQA) crutch from the outset, thus dispensing with demeaning, wasteful, charades which rely on unqualified personnel, lacking the requisite facility, to compile meritless studies which unnecessarily exercise and insult the intellects of the people of the City. 2 Public Health
Previous contirbutions cited the public health harms of light at night, blue light and circadian disruption.
Sleep disorders are now arguably the most prevalent health concern in the industrialized world. Every major disease — including heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic lower respiratory diseases (e.g. Asthma, COPD), dementia, endochine disorders (e.g. diabetes) — is associated to some extent with short sleep/long light.
Some argue, correctly, that ‘correlation is not causation’. However, hormonal cancers (at least) have multiple well-established causal pathways from exposure to light at night. Over 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, published by over 30,000 scientists, have cemented the conclusion that light at night is carcinogenic, as well as causing a host of other medical problems. The World Health Organization considers circadian disruption ‘a probable human carcinogen’. Electric light has been called ‘the tobacco of breast and prostate cancer’; the prevalence of light at night ‘Edison’s cancer epidemic’. We are now realizing that the blue light commonly emitted by LEDs is toxic for all life, directly damaging cellular mitochondria. Today, the pervasive distribution of LEDs is equated to DDT in the 1960s. LEDs are described as ‘the new asbestos’ and the growth of light pollution as ‘the 21st century scurvy’.
Depsite exhortations, there is no evidence that public health experts have ever been been consulted regarding exposure to light at night and the deployment of blue-rich LED billboards in San Jose.
Conclusion
Lobbying of the City of San Jose from outdoor advertising companies has a pedigree. The City has continued to direct resources to attend to the desires of those privileged few ‘valid’ commercial interests.
Coucil members have declared:
‘Behind-the-scenes [...] had several meetings with economic development staff, lighting experts, signage technical experts’
Reportedly, such contacts number in the hundreds. Yet, since September 2018, despite repeated invitations, to our knowledge, no member of City Staff has met with a representative of any observatory or any professional astronomer. Only once during that interval has any presently in-office Council member met with Lick Observatory in order ‘to ensure [they] understood the concerns, mitigating factors and benefits’.
Turn the page on the era of the close relationship between the City, its Staff, and commercial outdoor advertising lobbyists. Instead, strive for an open, fair process that works for the benefit of everybody in, and of, this City.
The time is coming when light pollution will be as strictly regulated as noise or air pollution. Already, a number of States ban billboards — of any vintage — outright. The City’s General Plan states that City policies should be ‘considered together when making planning decisions’ — that a single policy (however deficient — or precisely because it may be deficient) should not supersede all others. The Plan aspires to coherent, joined-up thinking, to deliver an ‘ongoing commitment to the development and implementation of environmental policies’ which ‘must comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of development policies’. The policies, throughout all elements are interrelated and should be examined comprehensively’.
3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. vistas. The proposed larger and taller digital billboards would distract drivers from roadway conditions, making the roadways less safe.
Sincerely,
Jason Bezis
Outlook
Fw: Letters from the Public - Item 2.9 (May 5, 2026 City Council Agenda) - Item 2.9 Should Be Tabled (No Action Taken) Until Apparent Fraud by Applicant Is Investigated From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 5/5/2026 3:14 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
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: Jason Bezis
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 3:13 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; CAO Main <[email protected]>; Cranford, Sandra <[email protected]>; Webmaster Manager <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Letters from the Public - Item 2.9 (May 5, 2026 City Council Agenda) - Item 2.9 Should Be Tabled (No Action Taken) Until Apparent Fraud by Applicant Is Investigated [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn wh',1 this is imP.ortant To Mayor Matt Mahan and San Jose City Council, San Jose City Manager Jennifer Maguire, and the San Jose City Attorney:
Again, I ask that Item 2.9 on today's City Council meeting agenda be "tabled" (no action taken) due to another example of apparent fraud by applicant Clear Channel, Inc. (See my 3:06 p.m. e-mail, below.
Removal." Table 1 includes the eleven "existing" billboards that would be removed as part of this purported "billboard relocation" contract. Location ID #8, sign face number "2954," was located at "Story Road and Senter Road (APN: 472-12-073)".
Google Street View shows the Location ID #8 billboard in existence in September 2022:
httP.s://maP.S.aP.J::l.gQQ,.gl/UDrx1PBiGKO>mSv.C6
But the Location ID #8 billboard had been demolished by the February 2023 Google Street View:
httP.s://maP.S.aP.J::l.gQQ,.g!L!:Q.Wk3ZV1tF6mGPfNA
The Location ID #8 billboard also is not seen in the August 2024 Google Street View:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/PyJUXJzc5dyfkrvD6
Location ID #8 was a billboard that was still in existence at the time of the EIR. The Google Street View evidence indicates that was an inaccurate statement.
Sign numbers 3039 and 3040 (Location ID #1, 3120 Moorpark Avenue) and sign number 2954 (Location ID #8, Story Road and Senter Road) were NOT in existence at the time of the EIR in February 2025. They were NOT in existence when the City Council considered this “billboard location” agreement in 2025.
The Mayor and City Council should “table” Agenda Item No. 2.9 and not take action on Item No. 2.9 until this apparent fraud is investigated.
Sincerely,
Jason Bezis
From: Jason Bezis
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 2:06 PM
To: '[email protected]
ov' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: Letters from the Public - Item 2.9 (May 5, 2026 City Council Agenda) - Item 2.9 Should Be Tabled (No Action Taken) Until Apparent Fraud by Applicant Is Investigated To the Mayor and City Council and the San Jose City Attorney:
Concerning the two new digital billboards (Item 2.9), I believe that there needs to be an immediate investigation into apparent fraud by the applicant. Council action on Item 2.9 should be suspended in light of this apparent fraud.
Removal.” Table 1 includes the eleven “existing” billboards that would be removed as part of this purported “billboard relocation” contract. Location ID #1, sign face numbers “3039” and “3040,” is located at “3120 Moorpark Avenue”.
Google Street View shows that Location ID #1 no longer is “existing.” That billboard apparently was demolished sometime between April 2021 and October 2022.
The February 2020 Google Street View shows a sign “3039”: https://maps.app.goo.gl/HNpFDteELy9593UA7 That sign is standing in April 2021: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZXVsUv8h9QHzR9Vu9 But by October 2022, Location ID #1 has been removed: https://maps.app.goo.gl/aUxVjRG72LygUSkz9 The October 2024 Google Street View also shows that Location ID #1 has been removed:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/BGF9kWHKpskjTs1QA
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Location ID #1 was a billboard that was still in existence at the time of the EIR. The Google Street View evidence indicates that was an inaccurate statement.
The Mayor and City Council should “table” Agenda Item No. 2.9 and not take action on Item No. 2.9 until this apparent fraud is investigated.
Sincerely,
Jason Bezis