TMAPC may soften rules for LED Billboards, signs.

[patric]

While I'm not worried about expressway lights being out, I do think that digital billboards negatively affect public safety.  Funny that everyone agrees that "texting while driving" is bad... But our city councillors are OK with fast-changing, highly distracting, overly bright digital billboards that continuously take drivers' attention off the road.

This is deserving of it's own thread, especially since the Sign Advisory Board now wants TMAPC to expand the use of LED signs in residential districts:

http://www.tmapc.org/tmapcworksession/signs.pdf

The proposal also exempts many signs from the permitting process, strikes language limiting sign brightness at night, reduces the dwell (static message) time to just one second, permits animated graphics (like explosions, strobing), and allows lengthy violation grace periods for non-conforming signs. 

This is scheduled to be discussed after the regular TMAPC meeting January 20, before the PLANiTULSA presentation.

[buckeye]

Good lord.  That's some awful stuff.  Would showing up at a meeting and raising a little hell actually do any good?

[patric]

Good lord.  That's some awful stuff.  Would showing up at a meeting and raising a little hell actually do any good?

I sincerely believe so.
One of the biggest complaints about bodies like TMAPC is that they sometimes make decisions with little public input, and the main reason is that few public offer timely input and the meetings end up dominated by whatever special interest has the item on the agenda.  I know my work schedule wont let me make this meeting, but there is nothing preventing anyone from sending an Email to the TMAPC to be read into the record.

[Bledsoe]

I think it may already be too late. 

Tuesday night going west on 6th I approached the new digital billboard on the pedestrian overpass on the south side of the convention center--by the DoubleTree.  I almost collided with the center median and hit a traffic sign.  The billboard was so bright in comparison with the surrounding street lights that I was blinded.  It was like looking into the Sun.

[sgrizzle]

What time is the TMAPC meeting at?

[patric]

What time is the TMAPC meeting at?

The item is to be discussed at the work session following the regular meeting Wednesday, January 20.
...somewhere around 1:45 p.m.

Location is 175 East 2nd Street, 2nd Level, (One Technology Center) Tulsa City Council Chambers

I dont believe there is a public comment period at worksessions, but sometimes just being there lets them know there is concern.

[buckeye]

Lousy time to have a meeting if you have any interest in public input.

[TheTed]

I think it may already be too late. 

Tuesday night going west on 6th I approached the new digital billboard on the pedestrian overpass on the south side of the convention center--by the DoubleTree.  I almost collided with the center median and hit a traffic sign.  The billboard was so bright in comparison with the surrounding street lights that I was blinded.  It was like looking into the Sun.

That thing is atrocious. Even walking two or three blocks away from that thing I can't look away. And it's in a fairly dark area, as many of the street lights in that area are not functioning.

[patric]

That thing is atrocious. Even walking two or three blocks away from that thing I can't look away. And it's in a fairly dark area, as many of the street lights in that area are not functioning.

It seems we are not alone, there is a similar push right now in OKC:


Digital sign rule opposition lighting up Oklahoma City neighborhoods

Neighborhood groups are rallying to oppose a proposed ordinance that would create new guidelines for digital signs in Oklahoma City.

The ordinance was drafted by a task force created by Mayor Mick Cornett and led by Ward 4 Councilman Pete White. And although the pair say they believe the ordinance covers residents' concerns, Georgie Rasco, director of Oklahoma City's Neighborhood Alliance, asks why her group was left out of the discussion.

"We would have liked to have seen some neighborhood leaders on that committee," Rasco said. "It's very important when the city is looking at how the community is going to look that they get residents opinions on that."

In an e-mail to various neighborhood groups in the city, Neighborhood Alliance says the proposed ordinance to be heard on Tuesday would allow electronic signs of up to 200 feet and also would allow signs in neighborhoods.

Ward 1 Councilman Gary Marrs, who also served on the task force, is questioning whether opponents are upset over electronic signs or instead are trying to use the issue as a way to combat commercial signs all together.

The proposed size and height restrictions are within current guidelines, Marrs said, and the only difference is that the ordinance would make it easier for businesses to erect electronic signs.

White said the task force was established in December 2007 as new technology created a surge in demand for the digital signs used by Sonic, Walgreens and other retailers.

Sign applicants, however, had to apply to the traffic commission and navigate through an old ordinance that was meant to address signs with flashing bulbs that were popular in the 1970s and 1980s.

"The idea is to bring the ordinance into the 21st century and get an ordinance that anybody could read and see if they're able to get a particular sign," White said. "We're trying to get rid of this administrative quagmire that was created."

Those seeking changes to the ordinance include attorney Leslie Batchelor, past president of the Heritage Hills neighborhood association.

Batchelor said concerns include the proximity of such signs to neighborhoods, lack of protection for areas that are governed by design review guidelines and the proposed maximum size.

She suggests starting with a test area before making the rule citywide.

"It's clear we need a new ordinance," Batchelor said. "The council has definitely done the right thing in recognizing we need to update our ordinances to recognize this new tech. But do the signs need to be so big? And do we really need them everywhere in the city?"

Batchelor said more time is needed to evaluate the ordinance, adding it "snuck up on us."

Bill Fair, an account executive with Metro Signs who served on the task force, said neighborhoods were represented by Planning Commissioner John Yoeckel.

"I don't know why they're coming in at the end," Fair said. "It's been very public. A lot of people have attended over the years. The planning commission is the 'anti-business association of OKC.' I was just flabbergasted that someone would come in at the last hour and say this is a bad ordinance."

Fair said the neighborhood signs provision is for schools and churches.

Fair told the city council the signs are a symbol of a community attaining "major league city" status.

"We are a big league city," responded Ward 2 Councilman Sam Bowman. "And people are looking at us. We set ourselves as a standard setter and we need to do it right, not just do it to be a big league city."

Read more: http://newsok.com/digital-sign-rule-opposition-lighting-up-neighborhoods/article/3432441

[patric]

...in Tulsa, however, we dont have a "task force" on LED (digital) signs, but rather a "sign advisory board" dominated by the billboard industry.




see also    
"Sign Industry: Tulsa's Billboards Too Bright"
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13198.0

[Bledsoe]

Remember how in It's A Wonderful Life that without George Bailey Bedford Falls had been transformed into the garish Pottersville with a honky-tonk lighted Main Street full of only bars and dance halls:

[Bledsoe]

We need to speak out on this issue.  I much prefer Bedford Falls to Pottersville:

[PonderInc]

OK, folks, you know how much I hate digital billboards.  Indeed, I think most signage in Tulsa is hideous.

However, let's get our facts straight, so you can make a rational argument...and not limit your effectiveness when communicating with the TMAPC and others on this issue.

This change is not about the digital billboards that you see from the expressways (aka: Digital Outdoor Advertising Signs).  It's also not about digital "business signs" which are the ones like Sonic has in commercial districts.  This change has to do with "accessory uses in residential areas."  Currently, churches, schools, community centers, etc have the right to have signs in residential areas.

Here's the current text from Title 42, Chapt 4, Section 402.4:

Signs.
a. One (1) bulletin board may be erected on each street frontage of any
educational, religious, institutional, Or similar use requiring announcement
of its activities. The bulletin board shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square
feet in surface area, nor twenty (20) feet in height, and illumination, if any,
shall be by constant light.

I imagine that many of those schools and churches would like to use digital signs to advertise events at their locations.  I'm guessing that a lot of these requests are filtering through the BOA.  So, instead of treating each one on a case-by-case basis, it might be wise to amend the zoning code to address this technology.

Back to the proposed language:
It looks like they are sticking to the existing size and height limitations for signs in neighborhoods. (I think this should be reviewed.  We have too many pole signs in Tulsa!)   

In regards to the digital stuff, it looks like they're borrowing from the "digital outdoor advertising sign" language (Chapt 12, Section 1221, G), but reducing the brightness a bit.  (It's confusing b/c the numbers in parentheses don't match the words.)  But I think they are trying to reduce the brightness, and keep the same "dwell time" and "transition time" as their offensive cousins on the freeways.

My questions/comments:
It's obvious that our current digital outdoor advertising signs (the ones you see from the expressways) are too bright.  Are they twice as bright as they should be?  Perhaps.

So, can we safely say that digital signs in residential areas should be 300 NITS during the daytime, (compared to the 500 allowed on freeway billboards), and 5,000 NITS at night (compared to 6,500 on the freeway billboards)?  I'm doubtful.  I think we should look at progressive cities with smart lighting codes to see what they require...both on freeways, and in neighborhoods.  (I would support reducing the brightness of "digital outdoor advertising signs" to these levels, though!  In a heartbeat!)

As for the dwell time, I can't imagine that any church or school needs to display multiple messages that change every 8 seconds.  COME ON!  The 8-second rule was determined BY THE BILLBOARD INDUSTRY so they could maximize profits on their digital billboards on freeways (where cars travel 65 MPH).  Our previous City Council bought off on it (thanks to a nice lobbying effort by Lamar, etc.)  But that's no reason to "copy/paste" that language into our neighborhood districts!

I can't think of a single reason why a church or a school needs an 8-second dwell time for their messages.  That's an arbitrary number that I would replace with another arbitrary number: once every 24 hours.  That should be the dwell time.

I would also recommend that any new sign be "monument" style, and not 20 feet in height!  (Which isn't even addressed in this proposed amendment.)  Again, let's see what progressive cities (even Albuquerque has better sign ordinances than we do!) are requiring when it comes to brightness, height and size of signs....throughout Tulsa!

[patric]

It's obvious that our current digital outdoor advertising signs (the ones you see from the expressways) are too bright.  Are they twice as bright as they should be?  Perhaps.

So, can we safely say that digital signs in residential areas should be 300 NITS during the daytime, (compared to the 500 allowed on freeway billboards), and 5,000 NITS at night (compared to 6,500 on the freeway billboards)?  I'm doubtful.  I think we should look at progressive cities with smart lighting codes to see what they require...both on freeways, and in neighborhoods.  (I would support reducing the brightness of "digital outdoor advertising signs" to these levels, though!  In a heartbeat!)

As for the dwell time, I can't imagine that any church or school needs to display multiple messages that change every 8 seconds.  COME ON!  The 8-second rule was determined BY THE BILLBOARD INDUSTRY so they could maximize profits on their digital billboards on freeways (where cars travel 65 MPH).  Our previous City Council bought off on it (thanks to a nice lobbying effort by Lamar, etc.)  But that's no reason to "copy/paste" that language into our neighborhood districts!

I can't think of a single reason why a church or a school needs an 8-second dwell time for their messages.  That's an arbitrary number that I would replace with another arbitrary number: once every 24 hours.  That should be the dwell time.

I would also recommend that any new sign be "monument" style, and not 20 feet in height!  (Which isn't even addressed in this proposed amendment.)  Again, let's see what progressive cities (even Albuquerque has better sign ordinances than we do!) are requiring when it comes to brightness, height and size of signs....throughout Tulsa!

The "highlights" of my letter I asked to have entered into the file:



Starting with the proposed new language for Title 42, Ch 4 Section 402:

402.4.a (2) There is no logical purpose for a "transition time" between messages.  LED technology does not require the transition that older motor-driven signs did.
The only purpose for an exemption for transition time would be to insert an unnecessary animation that might not have been otherwise permitted.
Animations such as strobing, explosions, etc, would be annoying to residents and a potential distraction hazard to a motorist.


402.4.a (3) The brightness of Tulsa's LED signs is far in excess of even that recommended by nationwide sign industry groups.
The Outdoor Advertising Association of America recommends LED sign brightness around 342 Candelas per-square meter, or "Nits," for an average 10.5 x 36 foot digital sign under average ambient lighting conditions.
("Digital Billboard Recommendations and Comparisons to Conventional Billboards" by Lighting Sciences Inc. of Scottsdale AZ, for the OAAA)
http://www.polcouncil.org/polc2/DigitalBillboardsIanLewin.pdf


Regarding proposed changes to Section 1221, Use Unit 21:

C.2  Language striking the section regulating illuminative brightness (e.) in favor of older, unenforcible language is of concern because the Sign Advisory Board has in the past acknowledged the fact that the old limitation on sign brightness...

     "d. No such sign shall exceed an illumination of seventy (70) footcandles measured at a two (2) foot distance."

...is unenforcible and excessive.
To present some idea of scale, the average illumination directly under a typical Tulsa residential streetlight is one (1) footcandle.
To allow 70 times this amount in a residential area is inappropriate, and possibly dangerously out of scale (given typical ambient light in residential zones) as to present a safety hazard to motorists and pedestrians.

Please consider keeping the manufacturer-verifiable limits on "nits" as opposed to the unverifiable and excessive "70 footcandle" rule.


1221.C.2.i  The proposed language specifying a static display time of only one second, and also allowing unlimited animations and "frame effects" between those 1-second messages would be unacceptable in a residential setting (or most street settings, for that matter).
Please consider discarding this language.


Section 1403   Allowing non-conforming illuminated signs to operate three months after a complaint is filed is excessive, and unreasonable.
In a residential district a two-week grace period would be more realistic.

[PonderInc]

The first time I looked at the proposed changes, I only saw the first two pages.  (There was a large "break" in the document, and I assumed that was it.  I didn't realize that it was 12 pages!)  The second time I looked at the pdf, I realized that it does indeed affect business signs and outdoor advertising signs, as well as non-conforming signs.

I'm going to try to be at the TMAPC work session to better understand the changes, and I'll post any findings.

Patric - Thanks so much for your input!  It's incredibly helpful to have this level of explanation about "NITS" and other technical jargon.  Most folks just know that the signs are "too bright!"