2023-01-19 - Public Correspondence - Item 7.2 - Attachments1
Cindy McCormick
From:
Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2023 6:13 PM
To:All Planning Commissioners
Cc:Cindy McCormick
Subject:EXTERNAL - Correction regarding Proposed Off Premise Billboards
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear Commissioners,
I am submitting a correction to my email of January 15 opposing the proposal to allow off premise billboards in Gilroy.
The General Plan does not specifically prohibit off premise advertising. But In the GP under Land Use 8.7 Signs &
Billboards, it says among other things, “enforce sign regulations.” I assume that is a reference to ARTICLE XXXVII. SIGN
REGULATIONS. In Section 30.37.30 number 16 prohibits: Any off-site advertising sign, including billboards, in any district
except as exempted in section 30.37.90.” Section 30.37.90 exempts temporary real estate and A frame sidewalk signs
from those signs prohibited under Section 30.37.3.
I think it is safe to say that the General Plan implies, that to achieve the Plan’s stated objectives, enforcement of the
existing Sign Regulations is necessary and proper.
Thank you.
John Miller
Los Gatos, CA
1
Cindy McCormick
From:
Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:46 AM
To:Planning Division (Public)
Subject:EXTERNAL - Do not modify Gilroy's sign ordinance
Good day,
I do not support any modifications to Gilroy's sign ordinance that would permit the proposed 80-foot high, 30-by-22.5-
foot LED billboard sign. This type of sign will have a significant effect on Gilroy. It will distract drivers and it will impact
the beautiful views of our surrounding hills.
Please vote no on any modifications of Gilroy's sign ordinance.
Thank you, Ed Merrell
Gilroy resident
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or
responding to this email.
January 18, 2023
Gilroy Planning Commission
7351 Rosanna St.
Gilroy, CA 95020
Via email to: Manny.bhandal@cityofgilroy.org
planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org
Re: Electronic Billboards
Dear Chair Bhandal and Gilroy Planning Commissioners,
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter expressed serious concerns
about the electronic billboard project and provided comments on the environmental report. Please see
the attached letter and documents referencing the relevant studies. The following is only a brief
summary of the substantiated concerns.
● Electronic signs are, by design, intended to be viewed from a distance. By design, electronic
billboards disrupt aesthetics and visual character, and produce day and nighttime illumination,
light and glare.
● The Biological Report underestimates the potential impact to ecosystems. Recent scientific
studies highlight the pervasive, cumulative, and harmful impacts of Artificial Light At Night
(ALAN) to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, species, and ecosystems. The impacts, including
effects on circadian rhythms, metabolism and behavior in fish, birds, insects, and other taxa,
have been summarized in several recent publications in major scientific journals.
● Recent studies also implicate ALAN as one of the primary drivers of the global decline in insect
numbers and diversity (the insect apocalypse).
● The IS/DNMD acknowledges that “migrating birds can be affected by human-built structures
because of their propensity to migrate at night, their low flight altitudes, and their tendency to
be disoriented by artificial light, which makes them vulnerable to collision with obstructions that
could potentially lead to injury or mortality. In addition, birds migrating at night can be strongly
attracted to sources of artificial light, particularly during periods of inclement weather”. The
IS/DMND provides two reasons why the “proposed electronic billboard would not have a
significant impact on the movement of migrating birds” (IS/DNMD p. 41). These reasons and the
findings are not supported by evidence.
● Open storm drains, irrigation channels and other flood management infrastructure features
often connect habitat patches and provide pathways for animals to traverse an urban landscape.
This connectivity for wildlife is important to preserve biodiversity, and is easily disrupted by
lighting. The Project is adjacent to the Princevalle Channel, which is currently a wildlife
connectivity corridor and allows permeability between Uvas and Llagas creeks. The DMND
provides no analysis of wildlife movement in the channel, dismissing impact to wildlife
movement.
● “Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan”
(IS/DNMD) cannot be mitigated because CEQA does not allow mitigation measures to depend
on future disclosure of impacts and actual mitigation measures for NMD.
● The IS/DMND acknowledges that the project undermines driver safety but the impact and of this
hazard is understated by the IS/DMND.
● While the IS/DMND lists the estimated 52,400 kilowatts/year of electricity and 6.6 megatons of
CO2/year expected to be released into the atmosphere with the energy required for the
billboards, the IS/DMND only states that it meets standards and does not prescribe mitigation
for the greenhouse gas emissions in our current climate emergency.
We ask the City of Gilroy not to approve highway or road-facing electronic billboards. Instead, the
city should develop an ordinance prohibiting such billboards city-wide. If the city persists in moving
forward with this project, an EIR must be prepared.
Respectfully,
Gladwyn d’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
1
Cindy McCormick
From:
Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2023 12:05 PM
To:Planning Division (Public)
Cc:Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion
Bracco; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member
Carol Marques; Council Member Fred Tovar; Cindy McCormick
Subject:EXTERNAL - HUGE Electronic Billboards are NOT a good look for Gilroy
Dear Members of the Gilroy Planning Commission,
I am heartily in favor of our car dealerships thriving. But not at the expense and assault on our eyeballs and view shed
that behemoth electronic billboards would bring: with faces as big as a small apartment, flashing and looming 7-stories
high in the sky, they would likely be the most prominent structures in all of south county, visible possibl y from across town,
in addition to northbound and southbound travelers on 101; AND, a terrible first impression of Gilroy.
One nice advantage to the more modern internet media for advertising, is the electronic glare is blissfully limited to the
pixel size of our smartphones and digital screens in our private homes. I would encourage businesses who would
advertise on the billboards to thoroughly explore internet options, as a favor to the residents and smaller businesses of
Gilroy, who they share an environment with.
Gilroy is also blossoming as an agritourism, cycling and family recreation destination. Car dealerships are not the only gig
here. Let’s not disturb that momentum by allowing digital billboards that will make many potential visitors say, ‘no thank
you’.
Blighting our major gateway at the highways, when we are working to beautify other gateways such as the Monterey /
Leavesley, makes absolutely no sense at all.
We want visitors to stay awhile, explore all we have to offer (which is improving continuously) fill up local lodging—collect
that 11.5% TOT—not just leave for home after buying a car.
Many of the people who live here enjoy the quiet small-town appeal, surrounded by a beautiful greenbelt of our natural
and agricultural lands.
Electronic billboards are not “on-brand” for Gilroy. They do not harmonize with our small town and pastoral charm. Gilroy
is not poised to become like Las Vegas. Adding digital billboards to our environment is glaringly worse than pairing wingtip
shoes with shorts, and will confuse the target audience of visitors we are trying to lure to stay a while.
Are digital billboards a first impression of Gilroy, we really want travelers to have of us?
Do we as a community really want to live in both the glare and shadow 24/7/365, subjected to the business dealings of a
massive NYC corporation who would build and own the billboard, and also book the ads?
Let’s stick with the sensible sign ordinance Gilroy currently has, and say “no thank you” to Outfront Media and their
proposal to mess with our town’s codes, General Plan and aesthetic.
Beautiful small towns that people flock to, like Monterey, Carmel, San Luis Obispo, do not have these monsters.
Thank you for your attention and consideration of this important planning decision. Your community is counting on you.
Sincerely,
Chrys Diskowski, 24-year Gilroy resident and voter
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or
responding to this email.
2
P.O. BOX 85, MT. HAMILTON, CA 95140
Phone: 408-238-9619 Fax: 408-238-0757
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OBSERVATORIES/LICK OBSERVATORY MT HAMILTON, CALIFORNIA 95140
18 January 2023
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Agenda Item 7.2: Electronic Billboard Ordinance & Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) (Z 18-04).
The University of California’s Lick Observatory is a scientific, technological and historical marvel. Since its first (1882)
contribution to humankind’s understanding of the universe, Lick has continuously innovated novel technologies and techniques,
training and serving generations of scientists, including Nobel laureates. Since be fore the 1970s, the accelerating growth of
light pollution (alternatively referred to as Anthropogenic/Artificial Light At Night, ALAN) has increasingly negatively
impacted the observatory’s operation, mission and probably (since the United Nations cites A LAN as a probable carcinogen)
public health. In visible light, ALAN chiefly results from the physics of photon scattering by atmospheric aerosol particles – a
process not accounted for in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Scattering is responsible for twilights, renders clear
daytime skies as blue and cloudy skies as gray.
In responding to MND comments, the applicant team repeat statements of the form “the proposed project’s impact on Lick
Observatory is not an environmental impact under CEQA” (the California Environmental Quality Act). Thus, the applicants
implicitly concede that there is an impact on Lick Observatory, that the impact is indeed environmental, but is not required by
CEQA. By not considering light pollution as an environmental pheno menon, dark sky advocates maintain that CEQA is
deficient. Hence, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is preferred.
Does the City value a red sunset? Does the City consider dusk, dawn and blue skies to be environmental phenomena?
If yes, then the phenomenon of light pollution (arising from identical physics) is also environmental and CEQA alone (and, by
extrapolation, the MND) is inadequate. Hence, the proposal should be subject to an EIR.
If no, then the Commission should attend to misapprehensions (see accompanying pages) contained in the MND before
acceptance. Further, if accepting the MND, the City should remain mindful of the conditions of approval outlined in the (25
October 2022) informational meeting; if billboard(s) are not in compliance, approval shall be void within one year. The October
meeting (and the MND) asserted “the billboard light is only going to be able to be perceived [up to] 250 feet from the locati on
of the billboard”. Therefore, if it is subsequently demonstrated (by any entity) that billboard light is perceptible from a distance
greater than 250 feet, then the billboard(s) shall be deemed in violation and approval shall be void within one year.
Lick Observatory is in its 141st unbroken year of deploying ever more sensitive light-detecting apparatus, keeping an eye on
the sky. On innumerable occasions, the eyes of the scientific world have focused on the astronomical discoveries made from
Santa Clara County’s highest peak. Many Californians justifiably treasure the observatory, i ts legacy and ongoing mission. In
the event of a precedent-setting decision, contravening the laudable existing moratorium on billboards, one hopes that the
people of Gilroy may equivalently cherish the proliferation of electronic message centers – and concomitant incidence of cancer
among its citizenry - 50 and 140 years hence.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Paul D. Lynam FRAS
Astronomer
University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory
BERKELEY • D AVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO
SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
P.O. BOX 85, MT. HAMILTON, CA 95140
Phone: 408-238-9619 Fax: 408-238-0757
Misapprehension 1: PROS for Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project (p 528 of packet)
“11. It will NOT contribute to light pollution as opponents claim.”
Rationale:
Regrettably, this statement is incorrect. Regardless of the technology and originating fixture, any light source which intera cts
with the atmosphere contributes an additive effect to the phenomenon of light pollution/ALAN, elevating the intensity of the
sky background. For an accessible summary, including public health implications, see Bogard (2013) and scholarly references
therein.
ALAN is significantly correlated for all forms of cancer including lung, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer. Immediate
measures should be taken to reduce artificial light at night in the main cities around the world (Al-Nagger & Anil 2016).
Misapprehension 2: Response to comments on MND: I2 (pp 501-502 of packet) and J2 (pp 503-504 of packet)
"The proposed display is 25 miles away from the observatory, and there is no evidence the display will affect, individual or
cumulatively observatory operations."
Rationale:
Applying the physics of aerosol scattering to model sky brightness arising from lighting use can be enorm ously complex. As
far as can be determined, the assessments described in the MND are arrived at empirically, using light -meters viewing directly
along lines-of-sight to billboard surfaces and take no account of atmospheric scattering. A physical model describing light
pollution via interaction of artificial light with the atmosphere was developed by Garstang throughout the 1980s. Garstang
(1989a) includes some simplifying assumptions and is the most widely-adopted description. Using Garstang's model, Duriscoe
et al. (2018) quantify the effects of metropolitan light impacting astronomical sites up to 200-300 km away.
In 1989, of 17 major (exclusively US-based) observatories, Lick was ranked among the top 3 most heavily light polluted
astronomical sites (Garstang 1989b) at visible wavelengths. Estimates suggest that light emissions are increasing at a faster rate
than that of population growth (Gaston & Sanchez de Miguel 2022). In 2022, in a list of 23 major observatories worldwide,
Lick was cited as the most affected astronomical site (Green et al. 2022) in the visible regime. Lamentably, this highlights Lick
and surrounding communities (including Gilroy) as optimal sites for the deeper study of the established correlation between
ALAN and public health. Every major disease is associated to some extent with short sleep/long light. Sleep disorders are now
arguably the most prevalent health concern in the industrialized world.
P.O. BOX 85, MT. HAMILTON, CA 95140
Phone: 408-238-9619 Fax: 408-238-0757
Misapprehension 3: Response to comments on MND: I2 (p 501 and p 525 of packet)
On the applicant team’s contention that the following (6 April 2021) comment is incorrect:
"The efficiency of electronic illumination represents a manyfold increase in wasted light, compared with former illumination
methods. Second, the nature of LED technology (i.e. combining emission from multiple intensity peaks) contaminates the
entire visible spectrum, whereas incandescent or discharge (e.g. sodium) lighting consists of isolated spectral peaks, with
adjacent spectral regions free from contamination."
Rationale:
The deployment of ever more (and more efficient) sources of artificial light, regardless of the technology (e.g. LED versus
chemical discharge versus incandescent) and regardless of the originating fixture (electronic billboa rds versus luminaires) is
concerning: all contribute - although some, like electronic billboards, disproportionately so, because direction matters
(Luginbuhl et al. 2009) - to the phenomenon of ALAN. In large part, ALAN is a consequence of the physics of e ver-present
aerosols (e.g. water vapor, particles, etc.), which redirect or scatter light. Billboards intentionally project light laterally.
Additionally, the distance (or path length) the photons travel from the source plays a role, such that billboards mounted higher
above the ground contaminate more. Furthermore, one of the more dominant scattering processes, Rayleigh scattering, exhibits
not simply an additive or multiplicative dependence, but a power law dependence such that shorter (blue) wavelengths are more
strongly scattered than longer (red) wavelengths. Compared with former incandescent illumination, LEDs of any vintage emit
a preponderance of blue light, as illustrated in by the applicant team in attachment F. However, note that attachment F compares
2 types of LED only and excludes any illustration of incandescent lighting which would exhibit a vastly suppressed - or even
non-existent blue component.
The transition to solid-state LED technology has increased emissions at visible wavelengths. Estimation of this component
suggests that the true overall increase in radiance in the visible spectrum may be as high as 270% globally and 400% in some
regions (Sanchez de Miguel et al. 2021) e,g. predominantly in conurbations of the industrialized world, such as the San
Francisco Bay Area.
Misapprehension 4: Response to comments on MND: I2 (p 502 and p 491 of packet)
“The project does comply with many of the bast management practices identified in [the International Dark Sky
Association’s, IDA (2019) Guidance for Electronic Message Centers] document.”
Rationale:
The full set of guidelines are designed to work in concert to mitigate the acceleration of light pollution. Omitting one
recommendation hampers the efficacy of the others on a selective basis. For example, in the present case, the project omits the
curfew guideline for turning off signs during low-traffic periods throughout the small hours of the morning. The applicant team
offer no justification for the omission of this guideline. Elsewhere in their responses, the applicant team elect to dismiss the
experience of opposition to billboards in the City of San Jose as “irrelevant”. However, this discounts a valuable informative,
educative – and relevant - data set, since the City of San Jose experience remains the most comparable example to the present
project (temporally, demographically and geographically). It would be foolhardy for any community in the hinterland of San
Jose to ignore its lessons.
In revising the City’s of San Jose (2018) billboard ordinance the curfew guideline was adopted (and readily accepted by outdo or
advertising industry representatives) without hesitation. Subsequent activity by both Clear Channel Outdoor and Out Front
Media in response to the San Jose revision is evidence enough that the adoption of the full set of IDA guidelines has not det erred
outdoor advertisers from competing for access to electronic billboards.
It is of great concern that the City of Gilroy and applicant team appear to be in accord on this issue. At the very least, it is
suggestive of a lack of understanding and is suggestive of a laissez -faire - or even permissive – planning culture.
P.O. BOX 85, MT. HAMILTON, CA 95140
Phone: 408-238-9619 Fax: 408-238-0757
References:
Al-Naggar, A., Anil, S. (2016)
“Artificial Light at Night and cancer: Global Study”
in Asian Paciic Journal of Cancer Prevention, 17 (10), 4661.
Bogard, P. (2013)
“The end of night: Searching for natural darkness in the age of artificial light”
Back Bay Books / Little, Brown and Company
ISBN 978-0-316-18290-4 (hc) / 978-0-316-18291-1 (pb).
Duriscoe, D. M., Anderson, S. J., Luginbuhl, C. B., Baugh, K. E. (2018)
“A simplified model of all-sky artificial sky glow derived from VIIRS Day/Night band data”
In Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 214, 133-145, May 2018.
Garstang, R.H. (1989a)
“Night-sky brightness at observatories and sites”
in Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 101, 306-329, March 1989.
Garstang, R.H. (1989b)
“The status and prospects for ground-based observatory sites”
in Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 27, 19-40.
Gaston, K. J., Sanchez de Miguel, A (2022)
“Environmental Impacts of Artificial Light at Night”
in Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 47, 373-398.
Green, R. F., Luginbuhl, C. B., Wainscoat, R. J. Duriscoe, D. (2022)
“The growing threat of light pollution to ground-based observatories”
in The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 30, 1.
Luginbuhl, C. B., Walker, C. E., Wainscoat, R. J. (2009)
“Lighting and astronomy”
in Physics Today, 62, 12, 32.
Sanchez de Miguel, A., Bennie, J., Rosenfeld, E., Dzurjak, S., Gaston, K. J. (2021)
“First estimation of global trends in nocturnal power emissions reveal acceleration of light pollution”
in Remote Sensing, 13 (16), 3311.
ooo OOO ooo
1
Cindy McCormick
From:
Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2023 8:09 PM
To:Planning Division (Public)
Subject:EXTERNAL - Special Planning Commission Meeting Th, Jan 19, 2023, 18:00
Attachments:Gilroy_Planning_Comm--PLynam_2023-01-18.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
To whom it may concern,
In advance of the Special Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, Jan 19, 2023, 18:00 at Gilroy City Hall, I
respectfully submit the attached letter and accompanying pages (4 pages in total) and request that these documents be
furnished to the Planning Commissioners for their consideration.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Paul D. Lynam FRAS
Astronomer
University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory
September 6, 2022
Cindy McCormick
planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org
Re:Initial Study/ Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - Electronic Billboard
Dear Ms. McCormick,
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter submit the following comments
and responses to highlight the shortcomings of the Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
and the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Electronic Billboard
Ordinance Project in the City of Gilroy.The comments with attached references provide unequivocal
scientific evidence to establish the significant and unavoidable harm that Artificial Light At Night (ALAN)
in general,and electronic billboards specifically,impose on human health and on ecosystems.The
IS/DMND does not adequately address these issues.
In March 2021,Sierra Club National adopted a new light pollution policy:“Sierra Club recognizes that
while artificial light provides desirable benefits to society,such as extended hours of social space at night,
its excessive,inappropriate and poorly controlled use also leads to significant harm.Sierra Club defines
light pollution as artificial light that adversely affects ecosystems and any living organism.Sierra Club
includes in this definition anthropogenic light that is wasteful,or misdirected;has negative ecological
impacts;is used as a form of aggression;is harmful to health,safety,or other human rights;or disrupts
our view of the natural night sky,disconnecting us from our cosmic environment,including the Milky Way
Galaxy where we live.Therefore,light pollution imposes natural resources,economic,biological,political,
psychological,and cultural burdens.”In addition,the Sierra Club retained a 60-year policy which
“opposes billboard development along highways and supports measures to restrict these billboards.”
The Sierra club policy is supported by a comprehensive compilation of resources
pointing to the significant impacts of ALAN,please see “Attachment
Resources-References-LightPollutionPolicy_20210307,”attached,and the recently published “Artificial
Light at Night:State of the Science 2022”1.The information and scientific studies referenced in this
1 International Dark-Sky Association
1
attachment point to the devastating impact of lighting on ecosystems and organisms that comprise our
biological resources and our health.The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS)is similarly
concerned with the proliferation of ALAN and its pervasive harm to organisms,species,ecological food
webs,and human health and safety.SCVAS is one of the largest National Audubon Society chapters in
California,and its mission is to promote the enjoyment,understanding,and protection of birds and
other wildlife by engaging people of all ages in birding, education, and conservation.
Our organizations and our thousands of members in the region are working to protect our common
natural resources,and we are greatly concerned with detrimental impacts of electronic billboards and
signs to biological resources,the night sky,the aesthetic character of our City of Gilroy and region,and
the health and quality of life of our region’s residents.We are opposed to allowing electronic billboards
and encourage the City of Gilroy to tighten regulation and reduce,rather than increase their prevalence
and impacts.We believe that electronic billboards anywhere,including at the proposed location,will
cause significant and irreversible harm to the biological and aesthetic environment resources.We
encourage the City of Gilroy to amend its sign ordinance to prohibit highway-facing and major-road
facing electronic billboards.
1.Aesthetic Resources
Electronic signs are,by design,intended to be viewed from a distance.By design,electronic
billboards offend aesthetics and visual character,and produce day and nighttime illumination,
light and glare.The public abhors them.A 2021 survey conducted by the City of San Jose
revealed that over 95%of over 2200 respondents are strongly opposed to electronic billboards
on freeways (presentation attached).The concerns over aesthetics were one of the primary
reasons provided by the opposing respondents.Highway 101 in this area is not,by designation,a
scenic highway.But the public and the drivers clearly consider electronic advertisement “a form
of aggression”which assaults our senses and health,and imperils drivers as it diverts their
attention and puts them at an increased risk of collision.
●The entire portion of US-101 that passes through the City of Gilroy is a
County-designated scenic route,and is only approximately 660 feet east of the proposed
billboard site.The Project clearly intends the advertisements to be highly visible from
US-101 which traverses a relatively rural landscape in Gilroy and its vicinity,a rural
landscape that travelers value.The Project will disrupt the visual character of the 101
corridor,despoil scenic elements,and offend landscape characteristics that contribute to
the rural character of the Bay Area south of San Jose and to the well being of travelers.
●The finding that aesthetic impacts of Light and Glare are less than significant relies on
Mitigation Measure MM AES-1 “The signs’operational lighting parameters shall be
provided to the City of Gilroy Community Development Department for review and
approval prior to the regular operation of the light-emitting diode (LED)billboards,and
https://www.darksky.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/IDA-State-of-the-Science-2022-EN.pdf
2
shall be implemented by the project proponent to ensure a driver would not be
adversely affected or impacted by trespass glare lighting.”
○Since drivers overwhelmingly and unequivocally find that electronic billboards
affect them,there is no feasible way to “ensure a driver would not be adversely
affected or impacted by trespass glare lighting ”.
There is no doubt that impact on Aesthetic Resources is significant and unavoidable,and should
be recognized as such in an Environmental Impact Repost and a Statement of Overriding
considerations.
2.Biological Resources:
The Biological Report underestimates the potential impact to ecosystems including those non-special
status species that may make use of the adjacent Princevalle drainage that benefit from its water and
relative cover and including those that may transit it between the larger habitats of Uvas Creek and
Llagas Creek.
Recent scientific studies highlight the pervasive,cumulative,and harmful impacts of ALAN to terrestrial
and aquatic organisms,species,and ecosystems.The impacts,including effects on circadian rhythms,
metabolism and behavior in fish,birds,insects,and other taxa,have been summarized in several recent
publications in major scientific journals.It seems that CEQA guidelines have not caught up and are
inadequate to measure the impact to biological resources.Science shows that ALAN is harmful to all
biological resources that see or otherwise perceive it -including both plants and animals.The many
studies cited in this and the attached document show that biological impacts are not limited to the area
illuminated but can extend to a large distance.
The mechanism by which light impacts organisms is explored in a November 2020 study titled,
“Exposure to Artificial Light at Night and the Consequences for Flora,Fauna,and Ecosystems”2 .This
study shows that dozens of behavioral activities in all biological taxa display daily and annual rhythms,
and are thus impacted by ALAN.This includes locomotor activity and sleep,schooling behavior (fish),
vertical (fish)and horizontal (all vertebrates)migration,behavioral thermoregulation (fish),vocalization
(fish, birds), foraging and food intake, mating and reproduction.
Contemporary scientific evidence shows that attraction to light is having a devastating and direct impact
on insect numbers and diversity, and indirect effects to entire ecosystems.
Impacts to biological resources can be lessened by limiting operation hours,and turning the billboards
off between the hours of 11PM and 8AM.
2 https://www.frontiersin.org /articles/10.3389/fnins.2020.602796/full
3
Recent studies also implicate ALAN as one of the primary drivers of the global decline in insect numbers
and diversity (the insect apocalypse)3.The loss of insects and the loss of ecological services they provide
(for example,pollination,and as food for fish and birds)should be considered a significant,unavoidable
impact for 24/7 light sources as proposed for this Project.
2.1 Migratory birds
The IS/DNMD acknowledges that “migrating birds can be affected by human-built structures
because of their propensity to migrate at night,their low flight altitudes,and their tendency to
be disoriented by artificial light,which makes them vulnerable to collision with obstructions that
could potentially lead to injury or mortality.In addition,birds migrating at night can be strongly
attracted to sources of artificial light,particularly during periods of inclement weather ”.The
IS/DMND provides two reasons why the ”proposed electronic billboard would not have a
significant impact on the movement of migrating birds”(IS/DNMD p.41).These reasons and the
findings are not supported by evidence:
●Illuminations levels –The IS/DMND implies that the “proposed electronic billboard
would not create a substantial change in illumination levels''from the baseline light
sources in the area”(IS/DNMD p.41).This is a subjective opinion.To substantiate this
statement,a photometric study and a study of glare and light spillage must be provided,
and light levels and the spectrum of the LED lights should be analyzed within a
biological-impact context.
●Billboard sign face display –The IS/DMND states that the proposed billboard sign face
would not be allowed to change “more than every 8 seconds,and messages would be
static (i.e.,not moving,or animated)resulting in changing color patters [sic]rather than
a fixed unchanging light which may be more attractive to birds''(IS/DNMD p.41).There
is no research to indicate what is an effective length of time a billboard image should be
displayed to reduce the attraction to birds.The proposed 8 second interval is arbitrary.
Therefore,the IS/DNMD does not show that there is a less than significant impact on
wildlife, and mitigation measures to safeguard migratory birds should be implemented.
2.2 Connectivity for wildlife
Open storm drains,irrigation channels and other flood management infrastructure features
often connect habitat patches and provide pathways for animals to traverse an urban
landscape4.This connectivity for wildlife is important to preserve biodiversity,and is easily
4 Ecological connectivity research in urban areas,
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2435.12489
3
https://www.sciencemag.org /news/2021/05/can-scientists-help-insects-survive-their-fatal-attraction-lig
ht-night, and
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/light-pollution-contributes-insect-apocalypse-18097364
2.
4
disrupted by lighting5.The Project is adjacent to the Princevalle Channel,which is currently a
wildlife connectivity corridor and allows permeability between Uvas and Llagas creeks (Figure 1).
The DMND provides no analysis of wildlife movement in the channel,dismissing impact to
wildlife movement. ife
PDF p.49 “The project site is bounded by a chain link fencing to the north,east,and south.
These factors along with existing urban developments within the general project vicinity limit
wildlife movement through the project site.Additionally,the project site is not part of or within
a wildlife movement corridor ”
PDF p.48 provides,“The Princevalle Channel is located approximately 50 feet north of the
project site and is a tributary to Llagas Creek,which flows into the Pajaro River,which empties
into Monterey Bay,a traditional navigable water of the United States.While the project site does
not contain State or federally protected wetlands,construction of the proposed electronic
billboards has the potential for indirect (temporary)adverse impacts to the aquatic habitat of
the Channel.Potential temporary indirect impacts (during construction)include pollutant
loading,increased erosion and sedimentation,and debris dispersal into the Channel.
Implementation of MM BIO-5 and MM BIO-6 would reduce potential indirect adverse impacts to
the aquatic habitat of the Channel to less than significant levels through avoidance and
minimization measures.”
●Please provide wetland delineation for the channel’s aquatic habitat,and discuss
application of requirements by the State Water Board and the Habitat Agency
●MM BIO-5 and BIO-6 mitigate the impacts to Princevalle Channel during the
construction phase.Without a study of terrestrial animal movement within the
Princevalle Channel,the finding that the Project will not interfere substantially with the
movement of native wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors cannot be made.
5 Effects of Artificial Night Lighting on Terrestrial Mammals.
Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Catherine Rich & Travis Longcore (eds). 2006. Island Press.
Covelo, California. Pages 15-42, “lighting can be very disorienting for animals that are trying to move at night. So
wildlife corridors can be compromised by even a single light and so prevent animals from moving to crucial
landscapes.”
5
Figure 1:Figure 5-8 of the
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
denotes Uvas Creek and Llagas
Creeks as important wildlife
corridors.
2.3 Conflict with the Valley Habitat Plan
The finds that “Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural
Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or State habitat conservation
plan”is less than significant with mitigation.The proposed mitigation,MM BIO-7,provides,“The
project applicant shall submit a Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP)Coverage Screening Form
to the Planning Department for review and shall complete subsequent forms,reports,and/or
studies as needed.”
●For Mitigated Negative Declarations,CEQA does not allow mitigation measures to
depend on future disclosure of impacts and actual mitigation measures.Please specify
any studies that will be needed and discuss the potential impacts and how these will be
addressed.
6
3.Driver Safety The IS/DMND acknowledges that the project undermines driver safety but the
impact and of this hazard understated by the IS/DMND6.As expressed above,driver Safety was a
great concern to the responders to the San Jose survey.The risk to drivers is evident,and
supported in a plethora of studies (See attachments)
●Please analyze current vehicle collision data for the target stretch of US-101 and consider
the potential of additional collisions due to drivers’ attention being diverted.
4.Energy consumption, brightness, greenhouse gas emissions
In his study of energy use and other environmental impacts of electronic billboards7 (attached),
Mr.George Young discusses energy consumption for lighting and cooling of LED billboards,as
well as brightness of the billboards,materiality and recyclability.Ceqa requires the analysis of all
direct and indirect impacts on a project,and we believe that all these environmental burdens are
significant.The possibilities of mitigation are limited and therefore,the environmental impacts
are generally unavoidable.Mr.Young makes many technical recommendations which we
incorporate into this letter by reference.We ask for an Environmental Impact report to consider
these mitigation, and analyze the project compliance with them.
While the IS/DMND lists the estimated 52,400 kilowatts/year of electricity and 6.6 megatons of
CO2/year expected to be released into the atmosphere with the energy required for the
billboards,the IS/DMND only states that it meets standards and does not prescribe mitigation
for the greenhouse gas emissions in our current climate emergency.
5.The City of San Jose has recently approved billboards at the airport,and included several feasible
structural and operational requirements and mitigation measures that should be incorporated
into the requirements for Gilroy’s ordinance and the billboards project.Table 1 highlights some
of these requirements:
7 Illuminating the Issues: Digital Signage and Philadelphia’s Green Future by Gregory Young
https://www.scenic.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Digital_Signage_Final_Dec_14_20101.pdf
6Appendix A - Lighting Analysis Report from City of San Jose US 101 Airport Electronic Signs Addendum
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/75593/637629018659330000,p.4
6
• Colored light from LED displays outdoors in urban zones affects traffic safety.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360132320308155
(January 2021)
• Luminance of roadside LED Billboards in Poland shows that advertising billboards
often exceeded safe luminance levels for driving.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15502724.2020.1803752
(October 2020)
•April 2021 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published data from 2019 on distracted-driver accident
stats (electronic billboards included "Distracted by Outside Person,Object,or Event")
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813111
7
Table 1. Comparison of proposed Gilroy billboards with existing billboards near San Jose Airport
SJ Airport Gilroy
Shielding the night sky “customizable horizontal light
shields, and a vertical alignment of
LED RGB modules to eliminate light
into specific zones”
Vertical light is controlled by LED
angles restricted to “65 degrees,
with limited intensity above 18
degrees and below 47 degrees.”
none
Brightness 0.3 candlefoot except on northface
of the South Site which has 0.1
candlelight and “backlighted” LED
display facing the riparian zone
because of creek and riparian zone.
Max is 0.3 candlefoot. Compare
with full moon which is max of 0.1
candlefoot.6
Brightness changes with the
amount of ambient light picked up
by the sensors.
Max 0.3 candlefoot at 250ft from
billboard. Compare with full moon
which is max of 0.1 candlefoot.6
Brightness changes with the
amount of ambient light picked up
by the sensors.
Studies on photometrics Study done by Ronald Zeiger,
President of Zeiger Engineers, Inc.
none
hours Off from midnight to 6 am No limits
Time to change screen change every 8 seconds, except the
north face on South Side will be a
fixed image, totally static
Change every 8 seconds
On brightness, the EIR provides,
○PDF p.21:"The proposed project commits to a maximum ambient light output level of a
0.3 foot-candle at 250 feet from the billboard,which is a more conservative lighting
intensity standard for electronic billboards of this proposed size when compared to State
standards.For a frame of reference,0.3 foot-candle is comparable in brightness to the
light emanating from a computer monitor,and the light levels emitted from the
proposed billboards would be programmed to adjust based upon ambient light
conditions at any given time (i.e.,nighttime versus daytime).Therefore,impacts would
be less than significant"
○PDF p.27:"proposed Ordinance would require billboard projects to commit to a
maximum ambient light output level of 0.3 foot-candle at 250 feet from the billboards,
8
which is a more conservative lighting intensity standard for billboards of this proposed
size when compared to State standards"
However,the standards seem to address visual and aesthetic impacts,and ignore the biological impacts
of lighting that is 3 times the brightness of the moon,and the hazard this brightness imposes on
migratory birds and on insects.The brightness,0.3 foot-candle,remains a significant unmitigated
environmental impact to species and the ecosystem.
We ask the City of Gilroy not to approve highway or road-facing electronic billboards.Instead,the city
should develop an ordinance prohibiting such billboards city-wide.If the city persists in moving forward
with this project, an EIR must be prepared.
Thank you
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Gladwyn D’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
9