REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Title
PUBLIC HEARING: Action on a Conditional Use Permit (PLN24-00424) to Construct a Single-Sided Digital LED Billboard as Part of a Billboard Relocation Agreement and a Minor Modification to Reduce the Required 1,500 Linear Feet Distance from Another Electronic Digital Display Message Sign, and Recommendation to the City Council to Approve Adoption of the Billboard Relocation Agreement, Located at 1700 Duane Avenue (Continued from June 11, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting).
Report
PROJECT IN BRIEF
File No.(s): PLN24-00514
Project: Action on a Conditional Use Permit (PLN24-00424) to construct a single-sided digital LED billboard as part of a Billboard Relocation Agreement, and a Minor Modification to reduce the required 1,500 linear foot distance from another electronic digital display message sign, and recommendation to the City Council to approve adoption of the Billboard Relocation Agreement, located at 1700 Duane Avenue.
Project Details:
Applicant: Chris Martin, Outfront Media
Property Owner: Bloom Investment Company LP
General Plan: Low Intensity-Office/Research & Development
Zoning: LO-RD - Low-Intensity Office/R&D
Site Area: 0.66 acres
Existing Site Conditions: The existing on-premises sign with two faces advertising the existing COCO Home business that currently operates on the project site will remain in place.
Surrounding Uses
• North: US Highway 101
• East: LO-RD - Low-Intensity Office/R&D, Business Office Building
• South: LO-RD - Low-Intensity Office/R&D, Data Center
• West: LO-RD - Low-Intensity Office/R&D, Landscape & Tree Services
Issues: Consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
Staff Recommendation: 1) Determine the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; 2) Adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit to construct a single-sided digital LED billboard as part of a Billboard Relocation Agreement, subject to findings and conditions of approval; 3) Adopt a resolution approving the Minor Modification to reduce the required 1,500 linear foot distance from another electronic digital display message sign, subject to findings and conditions of approval; and 4) Recommend to the City Council approval of the Billboard Relocation Agreement.
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Outfront Media, filed an application on August 19, 2024, to construct a new 672 square foot (14 feet tall by 48 feet wide) single-sided LED digital billboard (also known as “digital display” and used interchangeably in this report) at 1700 Duane Avenue (PLN24-00424). The display on the billboard would be mounted on a new 46-foot-tall supporting column (approximately four feet in diameter). The proposed billboard would be 60 feet in height overall from the grade to the top of the sign.
The project requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit, a Minor Modification, and approval of a Billboard Relocation Agreement. A Conditional Use Permit is required to erect an electronic billboard. A Minor Modification is proposed to reduce the required 1,500 linear foot separation distance from another electronic digital display message sign by up to 25% (375 feet). In compliance with the Billboard Relocation Agreement, the project would remove three billboard faces on El Camino Real.
The Planning Commission can act on the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification and make a recommendation to the City Council for action on the Billboard Relocation Agreement.
A publicly noticed Planning Commission Hearing was held on April 16, 2025, to consider the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification. Following staff and applicant presentations, Planning Commission expressed traffic and vehicle safety concerns in relation to the frequency of billboards/electronic message signs, message hold time, and illumination. The Planning Commission requested staff and the applicant to research safety and traffic studies from the Department of Transportation, Caltrans, and other Bay Area jurisdictions to understand how the frequency of billboards, message hold time, and illumination impacted vehicle and public safety.
The item was continued to the June 11, 2025, Planning Commission hearing. The staff report and supporting documents for the April 16, 2025, Planning Commission meeting is provided as Attachment 8.
A publicly noticed Planning Commission Hearing was scheduled for June 11, 2025, where staff requested a continuance of this item to the August 13, 2025, Planning Commission meeting to provide additional time to complete the request. Planning Commission reconvened the Public Hearing and then continued the item to the August 13, 2025, Planning Commission meeting.
Summary of the Application Processing Dates
|
|
Processing Dates |
|
Application filed on |
August 19, 2024 |
|
Application deemed complete |
February 4, 2025 |
|
Planning Commission hearing (after testimony, referred back to staff; continued to June 11) |
April 16, 2025 |
|
Planning Commission hearing (no further discussion; at request of staff, continued again to August 13) |
June 11, 2025 |
|
Planning Commission hearing |
August 13, 2025 |
DISCUSSION
The proposed sign would be installed within an existing paved area near the northern boundary of the subject property. The structure would include a single-sided west facing display that would be visible to vehicles traveling southbound on US Highway 101. The existing on-premises sign with two faces advertises the COCO Home business located on the site and will remain in place. See Attachment 9 for the development plans.
The proposed billboard display would cycle through a rotation of static images and would be used primarily for commercial advertisements. The sign would operate constantly, rotating advertisements every eight seconds. Other uses for the sign could include promoting community events, highlighting public awareness campaigns, and broadcasting emergency messages when necessary. The billboard would not show animated images, video, or other forms of motion, nor would it emit noise or audio. The project does not propose to change the existing land use of the project property.
The proposed billboard is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Standards. General Plan and Zoning Code Conformance findings, as well as Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification findings, are discussed in the April 16, 2025, Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report (Attachment 8). The remainder of this report responds specifically to Planning Commission’s request for more information on safety and traffic research in relation to the frequency of billboards/electronic message signs, message hold time, and illumination.
As requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant reviewed national and international safety studies, expert review, industry guidance, and studies recommended by Commissioner Eric Crutchlow to respond to concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Below is a summary of the research and response. Detailed answers are provided in the attached Cover Letter (Attachment 5), Frequently Asked Questions (Attachment 6), and Accident Review Letter (Attachment 7) documents.
Message Hold Time
The Planning Commission raised concerns regarding the frequency of message change for billboards (eight seconds versus 30 seconds) and its impact on traffic and driver safety. Based on the various federal, state, and international research, glances towards digital signs were occasionally longer than those towards static signs. However, average glance durations consistently remained under two seconds. Furthermore, studies that observed increased attention to digital signs did not establish a causal link between message frequency and crashes.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) field study tested changeable electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) with content that changed every eight or 10 seconds. The study recorded driver eye movement and dwell times across both electronic billboards and static billboards in Reading, PA and Richmond, VA. The study found that the average fixation to CEVMS was 379 milliseconds and to static billboards was 335 milliseconds.
The Swedish National and Transport Research Institute conducted a controlled driving study, find that while that while digital billboards elicited longer glance durations than static signs, most glances remained under two seconds.
A study conducted at University of Utah concludes that in-vehicle information systems pose significantly greater risks than CEVMS.
Based on the studies, using an eight-second dwell time does not indicate a tangible risk in traffic safety and driver distraction above what is recognized as still being safe.
Frequency of Billboards/Electronic Message Signs
While the research studied by the applicant did not correlate sign distance to any objective measure of safety, California Business and Professions Code sections 5404, 5405, and 5408 contain spacing and placement requirements for outdoor advertising that address safety concerns regarding frequency of signs through minimum spacing distances for static and message center displays also known as digital displays.
Section 5405 requires a minimum 1,000 feet distance of another message center display on the same side of the highway, creating a 10.49 second interval between two signs when traveling at 65 miles per hour. The proposed billboard is approximately 1,187 feet and 1,440 feet from other existing LED signs. Although the reviewed studies do not directly correlate sign distance to an objective measure of safety, the proposed sign meets all state requirements for distance to static signs and distance to digital displays.
Illumination
Available research did not measure a statistically significant relationship between billboard brightness and driver distraction. To best understand how brightness and illumination impacts driver visibility, it is necessary to understand how static billboards are illuminated compared to digital displays. A static billboard face is blasted with light at a level ranging from 31 to 321 times the brightness of an LED bulb (where brightness depends on color), and light reflects off the sign’s vinyl surface in all different directions. As such, the target audience is reached along with a host of others, and this is why receptors see, for instance, sky glow from static billboards. LED billboards’ illumination is focused and directed at a specific target audience, and receptors in the periphery are affected at a lesser level. The Graphic in the Frequently Asked Question illustrates this principle and the difference between LED and static billboards.
Outfront Media proposes operating the brightness level consistent with the Zoning Code standards and at a fraction of what State law permits.
Impact of Digital Billboards on Vehicle and Traffic Safety in Bay Area and City of Santa Clara
While no direct studies have been conducted on digital billboard safety along U.S. Highway 101, the FHWA study, and other studies, were conducted in conditions comparable to U.S. Highway 101. Specifically, the research tested CEVMS located on both arterials and freeways, making findings relevant to high-speed, high-traffic corridors like U.S. Highway 101. Such studies did not find a statistically significant safety risk associated with digital billboards. The 2012 FHWA study cited above concluded that "the presence of CEVMS did not appear to be related to a decrease in looking toward the road ahead."
The applicant hired Abrams Associates, a traffic engineering firm, to summarize the results of the accident history before and after installation of digital billboards along U.S. Highway 101 in the City of Santa Clara. There were three large commercial digital billboard installations identified along U.S. Highway 101 in the City of Santa Clara. However, as noted above, the only digital billboard location in Santa Clara that could be adequately analyzed with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) accident data was the one at 941 Laurelwood Road, which was installed in 2015. The results of the accident analysis for 941 Laurelwood Road were generally inconclusive. However, there was no evidence identified that would indicate the installation of the digital billboard at 941 Laurelwood Road resulted in decreased safety in the area. In fact, the accident analysis indicated there was a reduction in accidents after the digital billboard installation. During the five-year period before the installation, there were 66 reported accidents on the two 1,000-foot segments of U.S. Highway 101 approaching the sign at 941 Laurelwood Road (in both directions). In the five-year period after the installation there were 59 reported accidents in the same two segments (a 12% reduction). However, there are many variables that could be contributing to the decrease in accidents.
The FHWA concluded that there was no indication that digital displays presented a safety risk to drivers, and instead that crashes are rare, multicausal events which are difficult to measure (Attachment 5). Presenting an accident analysis of a digital billboard installation would be misleading without disclosing the other important variables/factors that could be affecting the accident rates reported in the CHP database. Taken all together, a logical conclusion is that there are too many factors that would need to be filtered out to make any conclusions about the safety effects of a digital billboard installation.
The applicant has also received preliminary approval from Caltrans (Attachment 6).
Conclusion
Based on the additional research conducted by the applicant including the national and international safety studies review, expert review, industry guidance, and review of the studies recommended by Commissioner Eric Crutchlow, the proposed billboard does not present a substantial vehicle and traffic safety risk. The proposed billboard is consistent with Zoning Code and the City Council Policy Statement for Billboard Relocation Agreements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3 -- New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), in that the proposed use consists of construction of new, small structures or where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of a structure.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative staff time and expense typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov <mailto:clerk@santaclaraca.gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
On March 27, 2025, a notice of public hearing on this item was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. The Planning Commission Hearing was held on April 16, 2025, to consider the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification. Following staff and applicant presentations, the Planning Commission continued the item to the June 11, 2025, Planning Commission hearing. A publicly noticed Planning Commission Hearing was scheduled for June 11, 2025, where staff requested a continuance of this item to the August 13, 2025. The Planning Commission reconvened the Public Hearing and then continued the item to the August 13, 2025, Planning Commission meeting.
On April 14, 2025, Planning Division received comments from San Jose Airport Planning and Development department. The detailed comments are available at the link in Attachment 8 as Post Meeting Material.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
1) Determine the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3 - “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”).
2) Adopt a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow for construction a single-sided digital LED billboard as part of a Billboard Relocation Agreement, located at 1700 Duane Avenue, subject to findings and conditions of approval.
3) Adopt a resolution approving a minor modification to reduce the required 1,500 linear feet distance from another electronic digital display message sign, located at 1700 Duane Avenue, subject to findings and conditions of approval.
4) Recommend to the City Council approval of the Billboard Relocation Agreement.
Staff
Prepared by: Meha Patel, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Lesley Xavier, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution to Adopt the Conditional Use Permit
2. Resolution to Adopt the Minor Modification
3. Draft Billboard Relocation Agreement
4. Conditions of Approval
5. Review of Studies on Digital Billboard Traffic and Safety Impacts Cover Letter
6. Digital Billboard Safety Impact FAQs and CalTrans Preliminary Approval
7. Digital Billboard Accident Review Letter
8. April 16, 2025, Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report Web Link
9. Development Plans
10. Vicinity Map