November 18, 2024
To: San Jose Environmental Project Manager
Cort Hitchens
Cort.Hitchens@sanjoseca.gov
Re: Comments on Draft subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Electronic Signs on City-Owned Property Project - Downtown Sites Project FILE NO: ER23-034
The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter are organizations united by our shared commitment to the protection of the environment, nature, and open space. We have been advocating for a reduction of light pollution in the region, and have advocated against electronic billboards and the proliferation of light pollution in San Jose and in other Bay Area cities for many years. We submit the following comments on the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the installation and operation of six programmable electronic signs on five City-owned parcels in the downtown San José area (Project).
We believe that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report should be required for this Project. As described in our comments below, the IS/MND provides insufficient information and analysis to support its claims that the proposed billboards will not have significant impacts on biological resources and aesthetics. In our opinion, the IS/MND fails the "fair argument" test (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. U.C. Regents (1993) 47 Cal.4th 376) in that its findings are not made on the basis of "substantial evidence" that the Project impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. In order to consider and analyze the information necessary to determine the significance of these impacts, an Environmental Impact Report should be conducted.
Comment 1: The IS/MND fails to adequately address the impacts of light pollution on residents who live close to the billboards. Furthermore, the IS/MND fails to incorporate the San José Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards into its analysis, rendering it incomplete.
San José Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards, Section 5.3.5-e (Signage) states: “Podium Level and Pedestrian Level: Minimize light impacts from signs on residential windows, particularly from flashing or otherwise changing lights.”
However, the IS/MND’s proposed programming only includes the following mitigation measures:
- “Signs shall not be visible to any dwelling unit located within 150 linear feet of the sign.”
- “Signs shall be greater than 150 linear feet from the nearest boundary of a residential zoning district.”
The IS/MND does not analyze the visibility of signs from residential windows within this 150-foot distance. Instead, the proposed measures only address impacts on windows beyond 150 feet, leaving closer residences unprotected from intrusive lighting impacts.
Electronic billboards and signs are typically designed to be visible from a mile or more, even in daylight.1 By their nature, these signs increase light pollution and include changing messaging, which exacerbates their intrusiveness. As a result, the proposed project is likely to have significant, unavoidable, and adverse impacts on many San José residents.
The EIR should thoroughly analyze the visibility and light pollution impacts of the signs, including those beyond the 150-foot range, to ensure compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines and to mitigate adverse effects on the community.
Comment 2: The IS/MND neglects to consider the contribution of the Project lighting (Project level or cumulatively) on sky glow. As a result, significant, unavoidable impacts on the aesthetics of the night sky, as well as on human culture are not disclosed or dismissed.
Sky glow is defined as the brightening of the night sky caused by cumulative artificial lighting. LED lighting, including electronic signs, is the driving force that causes the loss of visibility of stars and the degradation of the night sky, and the contribution of the Project to this impact could potentially be a significant, unavoidable impact that requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
Seeing stars twinkling in the night sky is fundamental to our culture, and has fundamental aesthetic value. Indeed, the song “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” is among the most popular nursery rhymes globally and in the United States. Yet the impacts of Electronic Signs on the visibility of stars in San Jose is not discussed as a valuable cultural or aesthetic value. We consider the incremental increase of sky glow to be a significant, unavoidable and environmentally devastating impact, yet the contribution of the Project to sky glow, on a Project basis and cumulatively, and the loss of visibility of the stars is not discussed in the IS/MND.
The visibility of the stars is also fundamental to the function of the Lick Observatory, a prominent scientific institution which is part of San Jose’s cultural heritage and learning experience. The proposed signs will interfere with the education of children and adults, and with scientific research. There are valued cultural elements which are not included in the analysis, and remain significant and unavoidable.
Comment 3: Impacts to migratory birds
The IS/MND incorrectly assumes that the risk posed by the proposed electronic signs to migrating birds depends primarily on whether the signs are directly visible to birds in flight. It concludes, without adequate analysis, that “migrating birds would be well above the viewing angles of the signs,” and therefore, “the proposed signs would result in less than significant lighting impacts on migrating birds.” This finding is flawed because the analysis fails to consider light pollution in the form of sky glow on migratory birds2, which can disorient migratory birds, alter their behavior, and attract them to urban areas where resources are scarce and hazards are common. This leads to disorientation and increased energy expenditure as birds deviate from their intended routes. Attraction to urban core areas intensifies where blue light wavelengths (common in electronic advertising) are used, and results in increased collisions with buildings3 and other structures. Collision with buildings is one of the primary drivers of bird death in the US. The effects of these signs on the overall illuminance of the City is not analyzed. Without this analysis of overall illuminance, and lacking any discussion of sky glow, the IS/MND is incomplete.
The IS/MND should incorporate a comprehensive analysis of light pollution, including the effects of sky glow and luminance levels, to accurately assess the potential impacts on migrating birds. Without such an analysis, the finding of "less than significant impacts" is unsupported. Migratory birds fly during the night. Close to dawn, they alight, and stop to rest and refuel. To avoid attracting migratory birds to stop over in urban areas, we suggest the following modification to programming.
- The IS/MND proposes that the electronic signs should be turned on at 6AM. Please correct this so that the electronic signs can be turned on at 6AM or an hour after Sunrise, whichever is later.
- Real time data from BirdCast4 should be used to trigger a turn-off of the billboards at sunset when migration is listed as “high” for Santa Clara County (see Figure 1 for an example). High migration volumes usually occur between March 1 and June 15 during spring migration and from August 1 to November 15 during fall migration. Most nights, however, do not experience “high” migration volumes and so the impact to advertising should not be substantial.
Absent these two mitigation measures, the finding that the Project's impacts on Wildlife Movement is less than significant cannot be made.
Figure 1. Example Data from BirdCast
Comment 4: The Biological Report underestimates the potential impact to the Guadalupe River and its aquatic and riparian 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.5
The Biological Resources report states without scientific grounding that an increase in lighting of 0.1 foot candle will not cause significant impacts on local species. With no scientific basis, the Biological Resources Report states, “...because the existing environment is relatively illuminated (including the presence of the unshielded lights along the Guadalupe River Trail that shine light directly onto the riparian trees) from other existing light sources, the wildlife using the riparian habitat along the Guadalupe River are adapted to the artificial light in the area. The increase in illumination from the Project (namely, Sign 4) would be less than a 0.1 foot candle increase, and would not substantially disturb wildlife currently using riparian habitats along the Guadalupe River.”
A 0.1 foot candle increase can exceed, and in some cases more than double, the brightness of the full moon, which typically produces between .05 and .1 foot candle.6 The report offers no analysis of the potential impacts a 0.1 foot candle could have on the behavior of insects, birds, bats and amphibians, and impede reproductive behaviors and migration.
Absurdly, the Report states “We have also consulted with other applicants and lighting engineers working on other electronic billboards and have reached a conclusion that increases in illuminance of up to 0.1 footcandle within an existing dark area would not be harmful to terrestrial wildlife.” This type of “consulting” does not pass the “fair argument” test as it provides no credible evidence, nor scientific expert opinion. Indeed, “Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15384 - Substantial Evidence” defines “substantial evidence” as follows: “(b) Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.”7
Given that no biological experts in the subject of artificial light at night were consulted, the Report’s conclusion that such an increase in lighting would not disturb wildlife behavior is speculative and without scientific basis, and it cannot constitute substantial evidence. To conduct this analysis, it is reasonable to require the completion of an Environmental Impact Report to allow for substantial evidence to be collected and analyzed.
Comment 5: The IS/MND does not adequately analyze the impacts of signs on physical and mental public health and the well being8. We believe that electronic signs and increased lighting of the environment contradict San Jose’s General Plan Major Strategy 11: Design for a Healthy Community. This broad strategy embodies a broad range of topics, and “Design for a Healthful Community” strategies are integrated throughout the General Plan to establish a policy framework to shape and grow a city that provides for the physical health of its residents.”9
The scientifically demonstrable impacts of artificial light at night (ALAN) are well-summarized in Dark Sky International’s 2024 State of the Science Report.10 Outdoor artificial light at night, specifically, has been associated with public health risks. A 2004 study found that exposure to outdoor artificial light at night was associated with increases in cardiovascular disease.11 A 2023 study found that exposure to outdoor artificial light at night was associated with the risk of pre-term birth.12 A 2020 study found that area-level outdoor ALAN was associated with less favorable sleep patterns and mood and anxiety disorder in adolescents.13
By failing to analyze the potential impacts of artificial light at night on the residents, pedestrians, and motorists, the IS/MND is in contradiction with the public health goals of San Jose’s General Plan, and falls short of CEQA requirements to analyze impacts of light pollution on public health. To consider these impacts, an Environmental Impact Report Should be conducted.
Sincerely,
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
Dashiell Leeds
Conservation Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
1 Dark Sky, Electronic Billboards and Light Pollution: Understanding the Impact (2021), https://darksky.org/resources/guides-and-how-tos/electronic-billboards/#:~:text=A%20full%2Dsize%20electronic%20billboard,of%20these%20more%20accurate%20tools.
3 Scientists find blue light makes buildings more deadly to migrating birds. 2024.
https://phys.org/news/2024-04-scientists-blue-deadly-migrating-birds.html see also, David J. X. Tan et al, Disentangling the biotic and abiotic drivers of bird–building collisions in a tropical Asian city with ecological niche modeling, Conservation Biology (2024). DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14255
5 Dark Sky, ALAN: State of the Science 2024 (June 2024), https://darksky.org/app/uploads/2024/06/ALAN-State-of-the-Science-2024-EN-1.pdf
6 C. B. Bowers, Astronomy and the Built Environment: How Artificial Light Affects Astronomy and Society, Astronomy & Geophysics, 58(1):1.31 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/58/1/1.31/2938119?redirectedFrom=fulltext
7 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15384, Definitions of Terms Used in CEQA, https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/14-CCR-15384
8 Mental Health & Quality, Adding to the Problem: Advertising and Mental Health, https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/adding-to-the-problem-advertising-and-mental-health/ and National Geographic, How Light Pollution Affects Health: Cancer, Insomnia, and More, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/light-pollution-health-cancer-insomnia
9 City of San José, San José Sign Ordinance (Title 23), https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/22359/637928744399330000
10 Dark Sky, ALAN: State of the Science 2024 (June 2024), https://darksky.org/app/uploads/2024/06/ALAN-State-of-the-Science-2024-EN-1.pdf
11 J. Smith et al., The Impact of Light Pollution on Urban Ecosystems, Science of the Total Environment, 877:163110 (2024), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724008246?via%3Dihub
12 A. Johnson et al., Light Pollution and Public Health: A Systematic Review of the Effects of Artificial Light at Night on Mental Health and Sleep, Frontiers in Public Health (2023), https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1280790/full
13 F. G. Marazzi et al., The Effects of Light Pollution on Sleep and Mental Health: A Systematic Review, Sleep Medicine Reviews, 55:101387 (2020), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32639562/