Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/05/2011 - Work Session - Minutes
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, April 5, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Stan Penfold, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love, JT Martin and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno' Council Deputy Director; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Casey Stewart, Planner; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner; Ana Valdemoros, Associate Planner; Nick Norris' Planning Manager; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; David Everitt, Chief of Staff; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Frank Gray, Director of Community and Economic Development David Salazar, Human Resources Compensation Program Administrator; Dr. Allen Miller, Citizen Compensation Advisory Committee; Shawnie Larrabee, Salt Lake County Animal Shelter Director; Linda Hamilton, and Jim Strong; Salt Lake County Animal Control; Gina Chamness, Budget Director; Jan Aramaki, Council Constituent Liaison/Research & Policy Analyst; and Chris Meeker, City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 3:06:33 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. No announcements given. #2. 3:06:46 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE CITIZEN COMPENSATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING COMPENSATION ISSUES FOR THE CITY'S ELECTED OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES. RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON A SALARY SURVEY, WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND COUNCIL AS THE FY 2012 BUDGET IS DEVELOPED. View Attachments David Salazar and Dr. Allen Miller briefed the Council with the attached handouts. Dr. Miller highlighted the compensation report. He said the Committee felt that based on current market data the City's actual average salary matched or exceeded the market. He asked that funds be appropriated for some market salary adjustments for employees significantly behind the market. He said the committee 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 recommended a budget for compensation package be set between 1.9% and 2.5%. #3. 3:25:39 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM SALT LAKE COUNTY TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES REGARDING A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THEIR OPERATING MODEL AND PHILOSOPHY WITH THE INTENT TO ENCOURAGE AND IMPROVE RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: • BUILD A MORE EFFECTIVE LICENSING PROGRAM MODELED AFTER CALGARY, CANADA - NO LIMIT ON PETS; INCREASE FEE FOR NON- COMPLIANCE ON LICENSING; IMPLEMENT CAT LICENSING; OFFER SIX MONTH FREE TEMPORARY LICENSE FOR ALL NEW PETS; AND A MICROCHIP AT NO COST WITH ANY LICENSE. • DEVELOP A STRONGER COMMUNITY THROUGH AN EDUCATION AND SAFETY PROGRAM TO ENHANCE RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP. • CHANGE THE WAY ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICERS INTERACT WITH THE COMMUNITY EMPHASIZING MEDIATION/IMPROVED COMMUNICATION WHILE MINIMIZING ENFORCEMENT. • REVISE ORDINANCES TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED OPERATING MODEL. • BUILD A NEW PET ADOPTION AND EDUCATION FACILITY TO BETTER MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND ANIMAL SERVICES. View Attachments Shawnie Larrabee, Linda Hamilton, Jim Strong, GIna Chamness and Jan Aramaki briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms. Larrabee said Salt Lake County Animal Services had a new approach and revisions to the ordinance would be required. She asked for feedback from the Council and Salt Lake City citizens. Councilmember Turner asked about the number of pets allowed in Calgary. Ms. Larrabee said she would get the information to the Council. Councilmember Simonsen said he was interested in changing Salt Lake City's registration fees. All Council Members were in favor of moving forward with the issue. #4. 4:17:24 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING RELATING TO THE PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING. REZONING A PORTION OF THE LAND GENERALLY BOUNDED BY 400 AND 500 SOUTH AND 300 AND 400 EAST, FROM TRANSIT CORRIDOR TC-75, RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE R-MU AND RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE RO TO TRANSIT CORRIDOR TC-75 AND PUBLIC LANDS PL-2. ALSO AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO COMMUNICATION TOWERS IN THE PUBLIC LANDS ZONING DISTRICTS. (ITEM D-1) View Attachments Frank Gray, David Hart, Helen Langan and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms. Bruno said the zoning change to public lands would allow the permit. Councilmember Love wanted to know all the options for placement of the towers. Mr. Hart said the building would need to function at 100% after a catastrophic 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 event . He said the building would need to be secure and house radios, microwaves and canopy antennas . He said the signal from these should be as direct as possible . Mr. Hart said there were four options . Option 1) placed the tower behind the garage to the north; option 2) placed the tower in the service yard behind a wall, Option 3) was to place it on the roof; and Option 4) was to look at placing dishes or antennas at various locations on the roof facing different ways . Mr. Hart said the recommendation was for Option 2, place the tower in the service yard behind a wall . Councilmember Garrott asked that the tower be a piece of art. #5. 5 : 06 : 20 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATION TO PROHIBIT NEW ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS AND REGULATE CHANGING EXISTING BILLBOARDS TO AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT. RELATED PROVISION OF TITLE 21A - ZONING MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. PETITION PLNPCM2010-000717 - MAYOR RALPH BECKER. (ITEM C5) . View Attachments Doug Dansie and Frank Gray briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Gray said electronic billboards endangered public health, safety and welfare . Councilmember Martin said he did not think research on electronic signs was conclusive. Councilmember Love said if the Council adopted the ordinance they could come back in six months for a review. Councilmember Martin said he was uncomfortable shutting down a business for six months . He said he wanted to delay voting for a week. All Council Members were in favor. #6. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO UPDATE AND PROVIDE CLARITY TO THE CITY' S ZONING REGULATIONS. RELATED PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21A -ZONING MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THEIS PETITION. THE PROPOSED CHANGES INCLUDE: • ALLOWING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE SIDE YARD BEHIND THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. • REMOVING THE PROPER NAMES "DELTA CENTER" AND "FRANKLIN QUEST BASEBALL STADIUM" FROM THE SIGN REGULATIONS AND ADDING THE TERMS "SPORTS STADIUM", "BALLPARK" AND THE ADDRESS OF THE FACILITIES. • CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF A FRATERNITY AND SORORITY TO READ "A BUILDING WHICH IS OCCUPIED ONLY BY A GROUP OF UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO RECEIVE LODGING AND /OR MEALS ON THE PREMISES IN EXCHANGE FOR COMPENSATION, AND ARE ASSOCIATED TOGETHER IN A FRATERNITY/SORORITY THAT IS OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE, AND THAT HAS A NATIONAL AFFILIATION." • PROVIDING A DEFINITION FOR A PITCHED ROOF. 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 • REMOVING THE OUTDATED SUMMARY OF YARD AREA AND SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICTS. PETITION PLNPCM2010-00064 - MAYOR RALPH BECKER (ZONING CODE MAINTENANCE) . (ITEM C6) This issue was not discussed. #7 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF APPLICATION WITH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) FOR THE DOWNTOWN STREETCAR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS. This issue was not discussed. #8. 6 : 27 : 33 PM INTERVIEW ALFONA PRICE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY. (ITEM H1) Councilmember Love said Ms . Price' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for approval . #9. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ONE-YEAR ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR 2011-2012 THAT INCLUDED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDING, EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) FUNDING, AND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS (HOPWA) FUNDING AND APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) . This issue was not discussed. #10. HOLD A POLICY DISCUSSION ON WHETHER TO APPOINT A MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BODY (COUNCIL MEMBER/MAYOR) TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE SALT LAKE CITY LIBRARY BOARD OF DIRECTOR. (IN KEEPING WITH STATE STATUTE (TITLE 6, CHAPTER 7-402) ALLOWING FOR A MEMBER OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNING BODY TO SERVE ON THE BOARD. ) This issue was not discussed. #11. 6 : 01 : 20 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: (a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §54-2-205 (1) (B) ; (b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (C) ; (c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; (d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION UNDER THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; (e) FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78b-1-137; AND (f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (F) . Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Martin seconded to go into Closed Session, a roll call vote was taken, which all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 6 : 32 p.m. _Vf2(2'L---)Q-je------- . ,...) (72Yn Chair � d � T� +��Xp .�;d� 1I Recorder ORAf .A This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held April 5, 2011 . cm 11 - 5 0 • Nt ,1 AN. A , $ , , it '-',n-r,'13,, , • . REPO, , .,, _ 1 ,_Fil -• ..\T ' .• ' I . ° l - ... 4 . 1 . iroy----;;; A ,.., 1 — -..— • I ...1 , irir'(11118'‘ -: i 1..irs;71 ---;'-ptuo , , 1.411.,:viz 4 _Lit.:_ • 3 ii 11411 _:_li ...,1 - ••••14:7°,:"."'"'"' ---, ___ ...„.„. ,,,,,, k - •111 ."-A 4 'At ...,• •: • I), , I IL scat LcacLitycotvIty 8. -, -, ___......_._ „nu. •ri-,, t n. ..: . . . Scqt-Lc ti c:_,City,,I.Utak- '' ,'"Ififr ,17....,t ),;,,, -.-:-.-:-.4, . 7' - -,.. 4,--. to- .• ; -: . OD __- :, , 46 i A V • February 2011 2011 CCAC Annual Report • Executive Summary The Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee(CCAC)was formed with the purpose of"...evaluating the compensation levels of the city's elected officials and employees and making recommendations to the mayor and the city council..."(City Code Title 2, Chapter 2.35.060). Each year the Committee is responsible for preparing and submitting a written report to the Mayor and City Council containing,among other things,recommendations of the "appropriate competitive position for the city relative to the compensation practices of comparable employers","wages and benefits of the city's elected officials and executive employees"and"general recommendations regarding the mix of compensation for the city's employees"(City Code Title 2,Chapter 2.35.060.7) Based upon a review of current economic trends,market data and other significant considerations,the Committee now recommends that the Mayor and City Council consider the following when deciding appropriate measures to be taken regarding the City's overall compensation plan: 1. Based upon current market data comparisons of actual average salary,the Committee feels confident with the City's overall pay position relative to other • employer salaries.For the majority of salary benchmarks surveyed Salt Lake City Corporation's actual average salary rates generally match or exceed the local market's actual average salary rates.However,data also indicates a total of twelve benchmarks which lag the market either slightly(at 5-10%less than market)or significantly(>10%less than market). As funds permit,the Committee strongly recommends that the Mayor and City Council appropriate financial resources necessary for market salary adjustments for employees in benchmark jobs identified in this report as being most significantly behind market(by ten percent or more).Amounts of individual salary increases may vary by employee depending upon their actual pay position relative to the most recently established market rates. 2. In consideration of the structure and salary budget predictions data available at the time of this report,we suggest a total compensation(or salary)package of between 1.9%and 2.5%.The total package may be comprised of any combination of increases deemed appropriate by the Mayor and City Council(e.g.market salary adjustments,merit increases,etc.).Lump sum payments in the form of cash bonuses may be considered for those at maximum of their respective salary range. • Page 11 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee 2011 CCAC Annual Report 3. The Committee repeats its suggestion that the City consider pay alternatives to cost-of-living adjustments(COLA). O 4. Also,as funds permit,the Committee recommends that the Administration consider the salary levels for its Department Directors&other key city leaders whose annual salaries fall between 5-10%less than their counterparts in the comparable U.S.cities surveyed. To be more competitive,the Committee strongly recommends that the Administration adjust the Chief of Staff's salary to an amount equal to between 90%-95%of the average salary calculated for counterparts found among the market cities surveyed,which is$114,000 to$120,351. 5. No salary adjustments are recommended for elected officials or any other appointed department directors&key city leaders,except that these individuals should receive the same general salary adjustment,if any,given to all other employees. 6. Dependent on the amount of increase associated with the cost of benefits provided by the City to its employees,the Committee cautions the Mayor and City Council that the potential net effect on employee pay may result in an actual decrease in take-home pay. We are hopeful that these recommendations and the detailed information that is contained within this report are both helpful and beneficial in the important decision- making process ahead. Respectfully, Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee D.Allen Miller,Chair Lourdes Cooke,Vice Chair John Campbell : : y:h/f Debbie Cragun W'••;.� Kerma Jones Cori Dawn Petersen • Page 12 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee 2011 CCAC Annual Report REPORT SUMMARY This report includes the following sections: 1) Current economic outlook 2) City compensation philosophy 3) SLC/Market comparison 4) Elected Officials' & Department Directors' salaries 5) Committee recommendations 6) Appendices Current Economic Outlook Looking ahead to how Utah's economic •/, picture may develop in 2011, the CCAC is 2cii# % firmly convinced that the state of the economy will remain in a continuing period of difficulty. This position is affirmed by Utah's Chief Economist Mark Knold,who predicts Utah's "... recovery will continue � being slow and methodical, with low job `i1 growth and high unemployment kee in gkeeping O the recession's impact fresh on people's minds." In 2011, local economists forecast Utah's employment growth will be 1.4% with unemployment remaining high around 7 percent (Source: "A Look at 2011", TrendLines Magazine,January/February 2011 issue, Utah Dept of Workforce Services). NATIONAL ECONOMIC INDICATORS - Respondents to a national salary budget survey conducted by WorldatWork are proving that the expectation of a slow economic recovery is resonating with employers nationwide. As a whole, employers are projecting an average 2.9% increase in their overall salary budgets; responses among participating public employers, however, forecast a much more conservative mean rate of 1.6%. In addition to these projections, a few significant facts and findings cited in WorldatWork's 2010-2011 Salary Budget Report give insight to what impact the downturned economy has had on employer's approach to employee compensation: - About half of budget survey participants reported freezing pay structures in 2010 ("Pay structure"refers to a system of salary ranges or pay grades). - Of those who froze pay during the 12-month period between April 2009-April 2010, 90 percent had or were considering resuming normal pay increase practices in 2010 or the next fiscal year ("Paid increase practices"refers to actual employee pay). a Page 13 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee 2011 CCAC Annual Report - Among organizations that cut pay,70 percent had already restored or planned to • restore pay to previous rates in full,while 20 percent indicated that those pay cuts will remain permanent. (Source: "WorldatWork 2010-2011 Budget Salary Survey Executive Report&Analysis- Executive Summary") While the ability to keep pace fiscally with private sector employers is typically more limited in the public sector, the Committee believes that the primary mix of indicators upon which the City should rely when making pay decisions should include published pay trends,consumer price indices and market salary comparisons. The following chart provides a summary of these most recent indicators, including the change in cost of living over the past year as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The Bureau indicates only a slight increase of 0.91% in the cost of goods over the last 12 months in the western states region. Table A: 2010-11 Projected Salary Adjustments & Cost of Living Index Structure& Salary Budget Increase Predictions CPI-U,West Region, Class B/C Cities* Non- Percent Category Exempt Exempt Executive Base Period: Index Difference • Structure ("COLA") 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% December 2009 133.1 Salary Budget 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% November 2010 133.9 0.6% Prey. 12 Months Avg 132.5 Last 12 Months Avg 133.7 0.91% Source: WorldatWork, 2010-11 Salary Budget Survey *Population of 50,000 to 1,500,000 "Salary structure"refers to a system of pay grades. When the pay structure consists of grades with steps,a salary structure increase is sometimes referred to as a Cost of Living Adjustment(COLA). The"salary budget"increase adds the cost of any expected merit increases to the planned cost of the structure increase. CPI-U represents the Consumer Price index,all urban consumers. City Compensation Philosophy This section is intended to provide a basis for City officials to consider when making important pay decisions, which ultimately drive the City's compensation philosophy. As a public employer, the City is expected to maintain a workforce that is both competent and capable of delivering the quality of services necessary to provide for the public safety and well-being of its residents, visitors and business community at large. Success in fulfilling this part of the City's mission is reliant upon the ability of elected officials and public administrators to make informed and fiscally-responsible decisions with regard to employee compensation. Unlike private employers, City leaders are • Page 14 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee • 2011 CCAC Annual Report under pressure to make pay decisions that support the tenuous balance between the fair and competitive compensation sought by employees and the fiscal accountability demanded by taxpayers. 4•11 Every organization, either public or private, must find ways to effectively attract, motivate and retain the human resources necessary to carry out mission-critical goals and objectives. The degree to which an employer succeeds in this task is tied directly in large part to its decision to match, lead or lag comparatively to the pay levels offered by other employers. This decision forms the basis for an employer's compensation philosophy. Even as a public employer, the Committee acknowledges that there may be specific situations or circumstances when the City wishes to attract top talent by offering higher than average wages, especially when compared to other public employers. Factors such as the scope, volume, magnitude and degree of difficulty associated with delivering public services in Utah's most populous city set Salt Lake City apart from the rest. Other considerations for acting as a market leader may be when a set of highly-specialized skills, training, education and/or experience is scarce and necessary to achieve a particular goal or task. In most other cases, however, when Q qualified resources are both abundant and readily available, the Committee agrees that matching or slightly lagging the market will usually be an adequate approach. As a standard, this Committee feels confident that the best possible outcomes can be achieved if the City continuously strives to maintain an actual average pay position of no less than 95% compared to the pay levels of other employers with whom the City competes. Likewise, pay ranges should be monitored and adjusted as needed to ensure that competitive salary placement for employees is attainable as much as possible. SLC/Market Comparison During 2010, the negative effects of the downturned economy resulted in little (although some) changes in - l employee salaries. With most employers averse to taking on more risk and looking for ways to cut costs, . most employees were required to subject to salary freezes or minimal pay increases. Despite a challenged economy, a comparative analysis of the City's overall compensation levels shows that Salt Lake City, as an employer, is still mostly competitive. On the flip side, however, the data also reveals that the pay levels of certain City jobs lag either slightly or significantly behind market. Page 15 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee 2011 CCAC Annual Report Overall,the City appears to be well-poised for maintaining itself as a local"employer of choice,"especially among other public sector employers.From the total of 57 salary • benchmarks surveyed,19 lead the market by 10%or more based upon actual average salary comparisons;another 25 benchmarks either match or slightly lead the market by up to 10%. Comparative data comes primarily from the 2010 Western Management Group's (WMG)Salt Lake Area Survey and the on-line TechNet survey system available from the Wasatch Compensation Group(WCG).The WMG survey group wholly consists of large private and public employers located along the tinii:11 Wasatch Front,including a number of notable national corporations with operations in Utah.The WCG survey is made up exclusively of other public employers,including other local municipalities,counties and special districts. In either case,the Committee relies primarily on these sources due to the fact that they provide comparative salary data which includes actual pay levels offered by employers with whom the City competes for human resources.When no local data is available from these sources,salary information was solicited and obtained from other municipalities and governmental agencies located in the western states region. A complete list of the employers used for comparative purposes • is included as an appendix to this report(see Appendix B). A complete summary of the 2010 SLC/Market survey results are shown in Appendix A of this report,including actual average salary information for each benchmark job.The results indicate a total of seven benchmarks which slightly lag(5-10%)behind the pay levels of competing private and/or other public employers.A total of five benchmarks are categorized as lagging significantly behind the market(>10%).The specific comparative statistics for these benchmarks are shown in Tables B-1&B-2. Table B-1:Benchmarks Significantly below Market(<10%) 111 Actual Actual Average Average Salary Total# Airport Operations Specialist 87.8% Salary Total# Only Employers Total# Only Employers Total# BENCHMARK SLC/WMG Matched Incumbents SLC/WCG Matched Incumbents 32 365 Evidence Technician II 86.4% 9 12 Paralegal 89.0% 12 25 98.2% 10 30 Software Engineer II 88.0% 12 58 - _ - _ - Water Meter Reader 89.6% 10 31 - Page 16 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee CIF 2011 CCAC Annual Report Table B-2:Benchmarks Slightly Lagging Market(<5-10%) Actual Actual Average Average Total# Salary Total# Salary Only Employers Total# Only Employers Total# BENCHMARK SLC/WMG Matched IncumbentsSLC/WCG Matched Incumbents 91.9% 90.7% Appointed Sr City Attorney 93.1% 8 30 120.2% 5 29 Business License Processor 14 17 GIS Specialist 9 15 10 103.7% 6 167 104.1% 10 - - - Lab Chemist 92.8% 4 28 Maintenance Electrician IV 94.6% 13 30 Technical Systems Analyst II 94.0% 5 10 Telecommunications Analyst 94.4% 12 67 97.9% 5 21 II In presenting this compensation survey data,we repeat our usual cautions: Due to many uncontrollable variables,salary survey results should be seen as indicators,even a snapshot in time,not absolutes. We also urge extra caution about drawing hard-fast conclusions when comparing • benefits practices. It is typically very difficult to ensure reporting accuracy and apples- to-apples comparisons in benefits surveys involving a substantial number of employers with varying benefits packages.The Committee recommends that the City survey or at least identify the best means available for making an"apples-to-apples"comparison of employee benefits to those offered by other employers. This comparison should at the very least include the cost of major employer-paid benefits such as health and retirement plans. Elected Officials&Department Directors Salary Survey In 2010,the Committee once again collected salary data comparing actual pay levels for the City's Elected Officials,Department Directors and other key city leaders with their counterparts from other U.S.cities. A total of thirteen cities were used for ' t � comparison based upon population size(i.e. 100,000 to<500,000)and form of government(i.e. • full-time mayor and part-time city council). Cities included in the survey are:Baton Rouge,LA;Boise, ID;Green Bay,WI;Lincoln,NE;Minneapolis,MN;New Orleans,LA;Omaha,NE; • Orlando,FL;Provo,UT;Sioux Falls,SD;Spokane,WA;St.Louis,MO;and,Tulsa,OK. Page 17 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee 2011 CCAC Annual Report Survey results indicate that the annual salaries for both the Mayor and City Council are well within range of salaries paid to other elected officials in the cities sampled(see • Appendix C).Likewise,annual salaries for the vast majority of City department directors and other key city leader positions surveyed also appear to be appropriately set. It should also be noted,however,that salary levels for certain director-level positions appear to lag slightly(between five to ten percent)behind their counterparts,including: Chief Information Officer,Fire Chief,Procurement Director,HR Director,Public Services Director and Emergency Services Director. Only one key leadership position seems to lag more significantly—the Mayor's Chief of Staff,whose current pay level is nearly 15%less than those in matching U.S.cities.Due to the vital role associated with this position,including overall management of the City's day-to-day operations,the Committee urges city officials to consider a salary adjustment which would raise the current incumbent's annual salary to at least 92%of the average salary calculated from those cities surveyed. Recommendations for 2010-2011 1. Based upon current market data comparisons of actual average salary,the Committee feels confident with the City's overall pay position relative to other employer salaries.For the majority of salary benchmarks surveyed Salt Lake City • Corporation's actual average salary rates generally match or exceed the local market's actual average salary rates.However,data also indicates a total of twelve benchmarks which lag the market either slightly(at 5-10%less than market)or significantly(>10%less than market). As funds permit,the Committee strongly recommends that the Mayor and City Council appropriate financial resources necessary for market salary adjustments for employees in benchmark jobs identified in this report as being most significantly behind market(by ten percent or more).Amounts of individual salary increases may vary by employee depending upon their actual pay position relative to the most recently established market rates. 2. In consideration of the structure and salary budget predictions data available at the time of this report,we suggest a total compensation(or salary)package of between 1.9%and 2.5%.The total package may be comprised of any combination of increases deemed appropriate by the Mayor and City Council(e.g.market salary adjustments,merit increases,etc.).Lump sum payments in the form of cash bonuses may be considered for those at maximum of their respective salary range. • Page l 8 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee 2011 CCAC Annual Report • al. 3. The Committee repeats its suggestion that the City consider pay alternatives to cost-of-living adjustments(COLA). 4. Also,as funds permit,the Committee recommends that the Administration consider the salary levels for its Department Directors&other key city leaders whose annual salaries fall between 5-10%less than their counterparts in the comparable U.S.cities surveyed. To be more competitive,the Committee strongly recommends that the Administration adjust the Chief of Staff's salary to an amount equal to between 90%-95%of the average salary calculated for counterparts found among the market cities surveyed,which is$114,000 to$120,351. 5. No salary adjustments are recommended for elected officials or any other appointed department directors&key city leaders,except that these individuals should receive the same general salary adjustment,if any,given to all other employees. 6. Dependent on the amount of increase associated with the cost of benefits provided by the City to its employees,the Committee cautions the Mayor and City Council that the potential net effect on employee pay may result in an actual • decrease in take-home pay. Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee D.Allen Miller,Chair Lourdes Cooke,Vice Chair John Campbell Debbie Cragun Kerma Jones Cori-Dawn Petersen Page 9 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee Appendix A-2010 Salt Lake City/Market Comparison R SIC SLC Job Title Incumbents SIC Actual Avg WCG H Incumbents ACCOUNTANT III(000874&001254) 7 $51,501 EJ4( AIRPORT OPERATIONS SPECIALIST(001514&001505) 34 $46,405 APPOINTED SR CITY ATTORNEY(000185) 10 $101,608 ARBORIST(001443) 3 $44,616 $44,887 8 ASPHALT EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II(000909) 15 $40,352 $40,604 114 BUILDING INSPECTOR III(000723) 8 $54,454 $56,837 30 BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSOR(001292) 2 $35,963 $39,135 17 CARPENTER II(001349) 6 $44,782 INSUFFICIENT DATA COLLECTIONS OFFICER(001376) 5 $37,440 INSUFFICIENT DATA CUSTODIAN II(006090) 2 $29,515 DEPT PERSONNEL/PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR(000410) 4 $45,260 $42,457 11 ENGINEER IV(000745) 3 $62,234 $57,266 54 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN IV(000829) 14 $48,922 ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTI1(000720) 1 $60,840 EVENTS COORDINATOR(00357) 1 $59,592 EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN II(001244) 4 $34,028 FIREFIGHTER II(001460) 5 $46,384 FLEET MECHANIC I(000757) 10 $43,326 $40,895 GENERAL MAINTENANCE WORKER IV(C06145) 3 $43,451 GIS SPECIALIST(000781) 6 $50,107 $55,252 15 GOLF PROFESSIONAL(000940) 5 $67,995 $67,350 13 HEARING OFFICER REFEREE COORD II(000421) 8 $45,905 INSUFFICIENT DATA HUMAN RESOURCES CONSULTANT(001069&001120) 7 $54,035 HVAC TECH.II-95(006050) 10 $48,068 INSUFFICIENT DATA JUSTICE COURT JUDGE(000640) 4 $104,478 $104,562 21 LAB CHEMIST(000427) 2 $49,504 $47,746 28 LEGAL SECRETARY II&III(003136&003137) 2 $35,277 $33,738 60 LICENSED ARCHITECT(000752) 2 $66,788 MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN IV(000168) 26 $49,628 $47,668 EIrrin_ NETWORK SYSTEMS ENGINEER II(001394) 6 $69,534 OFFICE TECHNICIAN II(001191) 28 $37,232 PAINTER II(001347) 7 $44,782 PARALEGAL(000572) S $47,283 $48,173 30 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER(000943) 14 $37,356 INSUFFICIENT DATA PLUMBER II(000854) 7 $46,612 INSUFFICIENT DATA POLICE INFO SPECIALIST(000063) 13 $33,072 $33,285 161 POLICE OFFICER II(001456) 68 $48,797 $47,057 1,049 PRINCIPAL PLANNER(000188) 11 $55,244 555,121 19 PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST I(000533) 2 $48,900 $48,461 32 PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER II(000161) 45 $38,667 REAL PROPERTY AGENT(000370) 2 $56,056 RESEARCH ANALYST/GRANT PRGM MGR(001276) 1 $50,669 $49,363 245 SAFETY PROGRAM COORDINATOR(001432,001435&001438: 3 $51,882 $53,603 11 SENIOR SECRETARY-96(003030) 14 $38,896 SOFTWARE ENGINEER II(000373) 9 $75,545 SR PARKS GROUNDSKEEPER(005088) 16 $36,608 $37,415 SR UTILITIES REP II-CUSTOMER SVC(000199) 5 $38,854 TECHNICAL SYSTEMS ANALYST II-UNION(001257) 3 $50,232 $53,457 10 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANALYST II(004201) 2 $53,705 $54,842 21 WAREHOUSE SUPPORT WORKER(002022) 3 $39,436 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR(000968) 8 $41,766 WATER METER READER II(006326) 8 $30,596 WATER METER TECHNICIAN(000997) 4 $40,955 $40,936 13 WATER PLANT OPERATOR I(001454) 1 $33,862 INSUFFICIENT DATA WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE OPERATOR II(000975) 14 $43,284 $42,984 I 24 WEB PRODUCER II(006423) 1 $60,299 INSUFFICIENT DATA YOUTH&FAMILY COORDINATOR(000456) 3 $43,014 $39,952 I 71 =Significantly Below Market(>-10%) CI 11111111.11 =Slightly Below Market(-4.9 to-9.9%) =Leads Market(>+10%) 11111.11111111=Insufficient data sources =NEW 2011 BENCHMARK #Respondents SLC/WCG WMG #Incumbents #Respondents SLC/WMG rOMMII 106.8% $48,010 248 29 107.3% $109,162 30 8 93.1% 5 99.4% 15 99.4% 13 95.8% 14 91.9% $43,282 129 11 103.5% z $39,182 28 10 95.6% 9 106.6% 14 108.7% INSUFFICIENT DATA INSUFFICIENT DATA MMINIAIIIMMIMiaikal \ 16 105.9% $42,846 51 5 101.1° $43,448 1 168 18 1 100.0 9 90.7% INSUFFICIENT DATA 6 101.0% $56,735 166 25 95.2% $45,430 57 9 105.8% 16 99.9% 6 103.7% $53,370 10 4 92.8% 15 104.6% $37,041 20 5 95.2% \\\OHO\\\\\\\\\\\\\�O\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\aka,, 1 0,\\. 0\\\ 1 O\\\\, \O\ 10 104.1% $52,466 167 13 94.6% ili $69,452 44 15 100.1% 10 98.2% , s. $48,054 100 10 97.0% 15 99.4% 17 103.7% 11 100.2% 14 100.9% $49,939 141 23 97.9% 10 102.6% 5 96.8% Ilk $35,888 445 108.4% 7 97.8% IIII $30,920 5 94.0% INSUFFICIENT DATA 5 97.9% 67 12 94.4% do $32,032 7 100.0% • 8 100.7% 557,913 21 7 104.1% C I 107.7% CCAC- 2011 Annual Report Appendix B-1 2010 Wasatch Compensation Group(WCG)Participant List • All participants are political subdivisions or special districts within the state of Utah(population size >40,000) BOUNTIFUL SALT LAKE COUNTY li CENTRAL DAVIS COUNTY SEWER SANDY CENTRAL UTAH WATER SANDY SUBURBAN SPECIAL DISTRICT CENTRAL VALLEY WATER SOUTH DAVIS SEWER DISTRICT CENTRAL WEBER SEWER SOUTH JORDAN COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS SOUTH VALLEY SEWER DISTRICT COTTONWOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SOUTH VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION DAVIS BEHAVIOR HEALTH STATE OF UTAH DAVIS COUNTY TAYLORSVILLE DRAPER TAYLORSVILLE-BENNION SPECIAL DISTRICT JORDAN VALLEY WATER TIMPANOGOS SPECIAL DISTRICT LAYTON TOOELE COUNTY LEHI UNIFIED FIRE AUTHORITY METROPOLITAN WATER,SALT LAKE&SANDY UTAH COUNTY MURRAY UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT VALLEY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER(VECC) NORTH DAVIS COUNTY SEWER VALLEY MENTAL HEALTH OGDEN WEBER BASIN WATER OGDEN SCHOOL DISTRICT WEBER COUNTY OREM WEBER FIRE DISTRICT PROVO WEBER HUMAN SERVICES PROVO SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST JORDAN SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST VALLEY SALT LAKE CITY SUBURBAN SANITATION DISTRICT N1 WESTERN STATES • STATE OF ARIZONA STATE OF COLORADO STATE OF IDAHO STATE OF MONTANA STATE OF NEVADA STATE OF NEW MEXICO STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WYOMING 55 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS • • 2011 CCAC Annual Report Appendix B-2 Q 2010 Western Management Group(WMG)Participant List Greater Salt Lake Area Compensation Survey AEROJET LOCKHEED MARTIN ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS LOCKHEED MARTIN INFORMATION SYSTEMS&GLOBAL SERVICES AMER SPORTS US HQ MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS APPLIED SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY MOOG AIRCRAFT SALT LAKE OPS ARINIC MOUNTAIN AMERICA CREDIT UNION ASSOCIATED FOOD STORES MWH GLOBAL ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS NORTHRUP GRUMMAN AVAYA GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS OTTO BOCK HEALTH CARE BACKCOUNTRY PARKER AEROSPACE BARD ACCESS SYSTEMS PARKER HANNIFAN/CONTROL SYSTEMS BATTELLE PITNEY BOWES BD MEDICAL SYSTEMS QUESTAR BMC SELECT RAYTHEON BOART LONGYEAR ROCKWELL COLLINS BOISE CASCADE SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS BOISE INC SAIC BOOZE ALLEN HAMILTON SALT LAKE COMMUNITY COLLEGE BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY SALT LAKE COUNTY BROWNING SINCLAIR SERVICES CACI INTERNATIONAL SPARTA/COBHAM ANALYTIC SOLUTIONS CH2M HILL SRA INTERNATIONAL O CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS STAMPIN UP COMCAST CABLE STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPUTER SCIENCES STATE OF UTAH CONAGRA FOODS TTM TECHNOLOGIES DIONEX UNIVERSITY OF UTAH DSM NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS URS/ENERGY&CONSTRUCTION EASTON TECHNICAL PRODUCTS URS/FEDERAL SERVICES EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES US MAGNESIUM EG&G/JT3 USANA HEALTH SCIENCES FLSMIDTH MINERALS USIS FLYING 1 UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS GENERAL DYNAMICS/C4 SYSTEMS UTAH STATE COURTS GENERAL DYNAMICS/INFO TECHNOLOGY UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION/SPACE DYNAMICS LAB H&R BLOCK UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY HEXCEL UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY IHS VANGENT IM FLASH TECHNOLOGIES VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE VERIZON BUSINESS ITT/ADVANCED ENGINEERING&SCIENCES WASTE MANAGEMENT J.R.SIMPLOT WATERS JOHNSON CONTROLS WEIR SPECIALTY PUMPS KEYCORP WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND KPMG XEROX L-3 COMMUNICATIONS ZIONS BANK © 90 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS 2011 CCAC Annual Report APPENDIX C - 2010 SLC Elected Officials, Department Head Other Key Leader Salary Survey Comparative Analysis of Similar U.S. Cities (based on Mayor/Council form of government and population from 100,000 - 500,000) JOB/CITY Population Operating Budget Mayor City Council Chief of Staff SALT LAKE CITY, UT 181,698 $747,527,596 $114,150 $22,838 $108,285 Baton Rouge, LA 429,073 $701,109,909 $123,953 $12,000 $121,796 Boise, ID 209,000 $345,000,000 $91,229 $19,375 $92,700 Green Bay, WI 103,750 $101,659,650 $82,535 Lincoln, NE 251,624 $140,188,072 $75,000 $24,000 $78,642 Minneapolis, MN 382,000 $159,100,000 $102,993 $150,774 New Orleans, LA 354,850 $466,728,000 $140,000 - 83,507 I %,' Omaha, NE 400,000 $564,062,946 $101,002 $33,210 $125, Orlando, FL 228,765 $932,728,191 $156,205 Jiii $143 Provo, UT 117,000 $148,000,000 $87,072 $12,485 $118,341 Sioux Falls, SD 159,200 $336,961,890 $109,325 $16,399 n/a Spokane, WA 240,000 $600,000,000 $100,015 $30,000 $132,442 St Louis, MO 356,587 $967,219,700 $131,820 $35,000 $156,338 Tulsa, OK 389,625 $518,532,000 $105,000 $18,000 $147,675 MKT AVG $108,165 $22,274 $126,685 SLC/MKT 105.5% 102.5% 85.5% # Matches 13 11 10 = Not included in calculation of MKT AVG • 0 Communications Chief Information Director Officer City Attorney Prosecutor Chief of Police Fire Chief $102,773 $106,600 $136,552 $118,248 $128,752 $118,789 n/a $94,450 $105,212 $86,558 $118,758 $113,824 $67,980 $108,252 $113,868 n/a $116,820 $109,272 n/a $73,896 $102,194 n/a $102,434 vacant $76,194 n/a $122,402 n/a $124,831 $119,205 _ $109,753 $142,867 $142,228 n/a _ $151,303 $129,067 _ - $80,987 $131,468 $150,718 n/a $164,494 $139,442 _ n/a n/a $162,000 $128,700 $130,658 $125,096 _\..s,38,566 $125,008 n/a $80,059 $143,166 $142,812 n/a $100,000 $110,693 n/a $112,133 $92,500 n/a $118,019 $113,318 n/a $122,179 $136,115 _ - $86,067 $109,307 $144,260 $98,888 $165,808 $169,358 n/a $137,670 $142,402 n/a $127,000 $127,000 n/a $133,136 $164,451 $101,809 ' $100,000 $151,158 $84,925 $115,825 $131,146 $99,203 $129,199 $129,571 121.0% 92.0% 104.1% 119.2% 99.7% 91.7% i 6 11 12 5 13 12 0 2011 CCAC Annual Report APPENDIX C - 2010 SLC Elected Officials, Department Head Other Key Leader Salary Survey Comparative Analysis of Similar U.S. Cities (based on Mayor/Council form of government and population from 100,000 - 500,000) JOB/CITY Population Operating Budget City Recorder Treasurer Courts Director SALT LAKE CITY, UT 181,698 $747,527,596 $81,744 $104,354 $81,994 Baton Rouge, LA 429,073 $701,109,909 $115,997 n/a $95,431 Boise, ID 209,000 $345,000,000 n/a $94,104 n/a Green Bay, WI 103,750 $101,659,650 n/a $94,651 $53,779 Lincoln, NE 251,624 $140,188,072 n/a $104,605 n/a Minneapolis, MN 382,000 $159,100,000 $104,625 $102,915 n/a New Orleans, LA 354,850 $466,728,000 n/a $102,546 n/a Omaha, NE 400,000 $564,062,946 $91,164 n/a n/a Orlando, FL 228,765 $932,728,191 $100,089 $103,001 n/c Provo, UT 117,000 $148,000,000 $57,731 n/a n/a Sioux Falls, SD 159,200 $336,961,890 $72,384 n/a n/a Spokane, WA 240,000 $600,000,000 $82,998 $109,307 $98,888 St Louis, MO 356,587 $967,219,700 n/a $110,838 $75,686 Tulsa, OK 389,625 $518,532,000 $50,418 $76,865 $105,195 MKT AVG $84,426 $99,870 $85,796 SLC/MKT 96.8% 104.5% 95.6% # Matches 8 9 5 = Not included in calculation of MKT AVG 1 0 Procurement Public Services Finance Director Director HR Director Airport Director City Engineer Director $119,018 $84,448 $102,544 $200,574 $112,070 $124,114 $105,212 $84,789 $100,202 _ $105,212 $105,212 $110,473 $110,004 n/a $108,432 $110,316 $111,156 n/a $94,651 n/a $102,073 n/a $86,545 $107,676 $108,141 $120,927 $102,644 n/a $127,668 n/a $135,049 $99,155 $128,212 n/a $116,589 $149,578 $131,468 n/a $107,770 $205,609 n/a $136,460 140,000 n/a $145,000 n/a vacant $148,624 _ 74,886 $115,003 $108,284 n/a $124,924 $138,777 $86,010 n/a $92,891 n/a $93,042 $100,228 $128,544 n/a $110,219 n/a $107,619 $148,574 $123,463 $66,127 $114,986 n/a $114,965 $146,724 $112,190 $76,570 $129,038 $189,046 $121,212 $142,402 $135,672 n/a n/a $135,672 $131,609 n/a $121,945 $93,762 $112,479 $149,171 $112,776 $132,952 97.6% 90.1% 91.2% 134.5% 99.4% 93.4% 13 6 12 5 11 10 0 2011 CCAC Annual Report APPENDIX C - 2010 SLC Elected Officials, Department Head Other Key Leader Salary Survey Comparative Analysis of Similar U.S.Cities(based on Mayor/Council form of government and population from 100,000-500,000) Transportation Emergency Service Public Utilities JOB/CITY Population Operating Budget Engineer Director Director SALT LAKE CITY,UT 181,698 $747,527,596 $104,125 $93,496 $129,958 Baton Rouge,LA 429,073 $701,109,909 $92,651 $86,435 n/a Boise,ID 209,000 $345,000,000 n/a n/a $111,900 Green Bay,WI 103,750 $101,659,650 $59,075 n/a $93,475 Lincoln,NE 251,624 $140,188,072 n/a n/a $115,192 Minneapolis,MN 382,000 $159,100,000 $114,889 $131,972 n/a New Orleans,LA 354,850 $466,728,000 n/a $143,412 n/a Omaha,NE 400,000 $564,062,946 $89,491 n/a n/a,...,,, _ Orlando,FL 228,765 $932,728,191 $100,568 $80,766 n/<„ Provo,UT 117,000 $148,000,000 n/a n/a $124,392 Sioux Falls,SD 159,200 $336,961,890 n/a n/a n/a Spokane,WA 240,000 $600,000,000 $114,965 $114,965 $146,724 St Louis,MO 356,587 $967,219,700 $103,368 $62,946 $102,726 Tulsa,OK 389,625 $518,532,000 $93,518 n/a n/a MKT AVG $96,066 $103,416 $115,735 SLC/MKT 108.4% 90.4% 112.3% B Matches 8 6 6 =Not included in calculation of MKT AVG 0 Community& Housing & Economic Neighborhood Development Development Redevelopment City Council Office, Director Director Director Director $138,466 $103,002 $112,590 $122,096 $72,491 $72,491 n/a n/a $112,704 $79,512 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $69,349 n/a _ n/a $138,809 n/a n/a n/a $120,519 n/a $150,718 c 85,000 n/a n/a $101,444 k J8,888 $37,488 n/a $179,233 $101,087 n/a $81,350 $61,740 $110,011 n/a n/a n/a $98,888 $98,888 n/a n/a $110,838 $111,748 n/a $84,162 $123,062 $96,165 n/a $109,402 $116,572 $88,026 $81,350 $114,450 118.8% 117.0% 138.4% 106.7% 11 6 6 CO 2011 CCAC Annual Report • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION man Management Services Department 451 South State Street, Room 115 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5464 (801) 535-7900 Debra Alexander, HR Director David Salazar, Compensation Program Administrator WWW.SICQOV.Com DEBRA ALEXANDER iegt =I R n /79/11/Ab ALPH BECKER ofw-- RECEIVED DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE RECEIVED v- 14 ZUiit MAR 1 1 2011CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL G GOU I OFFICt ,I��Ai Salt Lake City Mayor / Date Received: ;Z.:j David verlt,Chie of Staff Date sent to Council: 02 Ic( ( TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 10,2011 Jill Remington Love,Chair FROM: Debra Alexander,Director Human Resource Department SUBJECT: 2011 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee(CCAC) Annual Report C STAFF CONTACT:Debra Alexander,HR Director (801)535-6604 David Salazar,City Compensation Program Administrator (801)535-7906 Allen Miller,Committee Chair (801)444-9919 DOCUMENT TYPE: Annual Report RECOMMENDATION: This report is for informational purposes and consideration during the City's budget review process,as it relates to employee compensation.The City Council is tentatively scheduled to receive a formal presentation of the annual report by the Committee's Chair,Mr.D.Allen Miller,during the Council work session scheduled on Tuesday,April 5,2011. BUDGET IMPACT: The total annual cost(salary only)estimated to fund the recommended market salary adjustments is$68,572.Additional budget impact will be dependent on other compensation related decisions made during the budget review process. SCANNED TO: t L SCANNED BY: •bu,dzi DATE: o g/ii/Zor 1 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 1 I S,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 54114-5464 MAILING ADDRESS:P.O.SOX I .SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH S4114-5464 TELEPHONE:SO1.535.7900 FAX:SO1.535-6614 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This report includes information and recommendations pertaining to the compensation levels of the City's elected officials and employees,as provided by the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee(CCAC). The following recommendations are highlighted in the report:As funds permit,the Committee strongly recommends appropriations for market salary adjustments for employees in jobs which are determined to be most significantly below market(lagging by 10%or more);if additional pay increases are to be granted,consider total compensation increases between 1.6%and 2.5%;consider other pay alternatives in lieu of cost-of-living adjustments;consideration by the Administration of salary adjustments for it Department Directors&other key city leaders for whom pay levels as compared with their counterparts in similar U.S.cities are lower by 5-10% (or more).No salary adjustments for elected officials are recommended this year. PUBLIC PROCESS: Not applicable. CO O MEMORANDUM DATE: March 30,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jan Aramaki,Council staff member SUBJECT: Presentation proposal from Salt Lake County Animal Services on their new approach to services CC: David Everitt,Cindy Gust-Jenson,Gina Chamness,Randy Hillier,Linda Hamilton,Shawni Larrabee,Ed Rutan, Laura Kirwan,City Council Liaisons,Mayor Liaisons At the Council's January retreat,the Council indicated an interest in working with other entities in the valley to urge a County-wide animal control policy,particularly as it relates to the lack of dog off-leash open space,funding of dog off-leash areas,and the impacts for residents around the valley. The Council also discussed the topic of revisions to sections of Salt Lake City Code relating to Chapter 8.04 Animal Control as a potential Council 2011 priority,but there was insufficient support at the time. • However,Salt Lake County Animal Services and the Administration are requesting the opportunity to brief the Council on Animal Services'proposed new approach in providing services to the community which would result in revisions to Chapter 8.04. This new approach involves a change in their operating model and philosophy with the intent to encourage and improve responsible pet ownership. Their goal is to create a safer and more responsible community for pets and people. The five core elements of their proposal include: 1. Build a more effective licensing program modeled after Calgary,Canada that includes: no limit on pets;increase fee for non-compliance on licensing; implement cat licensing;offer six month free temporary license for all new pets; and include a microchip at no cost with any license. 2.Develop a stronger community through an education and safety program by utilizing education to enhance responsible pet ownership,such as providing courses on proper animal care,and how to better train one's pet. 3. Create a friendlier image approach by changing the way Animal Services officers interact with the community.The goal is to identify and achieve solutions to issues which would minimize enforcement through emphasis of education, mediation and improved communication when assisting community members. 4. Revise ordinances to support the proposed operating model. 5. Build a new pet adoption and education facility to better meet the needs of the community and Animal Services. Funding through a Municipal Building Authority(MBA)bond is proposed with an estimated completion date of 2013. Mir. 0. The County anticipates positive outcomes from their proposed new approach: • Increased: pet licensing compliance, rabies compliance, pet spay and neuter, pets reunited with owners, community participation in programs, compliance with less enforcement, improved relations with the community. • Decreased: dog bites, animal shelter intakes, and euthanasia rates. Salt Lake County Animal Services presented their new approach proposal to the Salt Lake County Council last month for their consideration. MATTERS AT ISSUE 1. The Council may wish to inquire if there were policy concerns raised by the Salt Lake County Council. 2. In order for Salt Lake County Animal Services to be successful in their new approach, the County's interest is to have Salt Lake City, in addition to other contracted cities, as a partner. At this time, the County anticipates revenue generated from their new approach should be sufficient to cover costs for • building a new adoption and education facility. The Council may wish to discuss potential future financial obligations that could be expected from the City and Salt Lake City taxpayers for the new facility. 3. The Administration intends to engage the public in this discussion prior to any revisions to ordinances that would be required from this proposal. This proposal would be placed on Open City Hall for public feedback. Is the Council comfortable in having the Administration solicit feedback from the community before proposing any necessary ordinance amendments to Salt Lake City Code? 4. Currently, Salt Lake City Code has a limit of two dogs. The Council may wish to inquire with the County about the success of Calgary's no limit on the number of pets and may wish to discuss whether the implementation of a no limit on pets could potentially increase nuisance complaints which in effect • could increase enforcement. 5. No limit on pets permits more dogs per household. This discussion gives the Council an opportunity to advance their expressed interest in encouraging a County-wide policy on how the significant public interest in off-leash dog area availability and off-leash dog regulations could be addressed. 2 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 1 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 Amount Remaining for Council to appropriate (10%cut scenario) $4,309,547 $ - $ 1 $ 623,244 $ 1,065,407 (25%cut scenario) $3,646,303 # (50%cut scenario) $2,540,897 Brainstorming-CC/VT # APPLICANT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREY.GRANTS RECOMMENDATIONS FUNDING IN TIERS PROJECT NAME YEAR I AMOUNT CDCIP I MAYOR 10%I MAYOR25% COUNCIL Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 REQUEST (50%.c ) I % ) (1 r%• ) (no cut) HOUSING 1 ASSIST Inc Salaries,operational support and rehab. funds 36th 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 $ 250,000 $ 300.000 5 300.000 S 300.000 for a program that provides emergency home 35th 350,000 Emergency Home Repair and repair and accessibility design to eligible low 34th 350,000 Accessibility&Community Design income residents.Repairs include plumbing, 33rd 350,000 heating&electrical,roof repair,accessibility 32nd 350,000 ramps,etc. Others 5,767,500 City-wide Total 7,517,500 - 2 Community Development Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 70,000 130,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 $ 50,000 $ 65,866 $ 65,866 $ 65,86E Corporation that provides affordable housing.Services 35th 70,000 Program support include downpayment assistance grants, 34th 70,000 purchase and rehabilitation of existing housing 33rd 70,000 units and property for new construction. 32nd 70,000 31st 70,000 Others 1,189,147 City-wide Total 1,609,147 - 3 Housing and Neighborhood Funds to be used by SLC as match money for 36th 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 $ $ $ $ Development Division acquisition,new construction,or rehabilitation of 35th transitional and permanent housing projects 34th proposed by housing agencies. 33rd Housing Match Funds Others 1,205,000 Total 1,205,000 4 Housing and Neighborhood Salaries,operational support&rehabilitation 36th 600,000 620,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 $ 313,538 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 Development Division activities to bring residential properties up to 35th 600,000 housing code standards,provide first time 34th 600,000 Housing Rehabilitation and First homebuyer acquisition and rehabilitation, 33rd 600,000 Time Homebuyer Programs manage a$48 million mortgage portfolio, 32nd 600,000 provide financial assistance and emergency 31st 600,000 repairs in eligible areas or for income-eligible residents. Others 13,052,995 Income eligible neighborhoods Total 16,652,995 5 NelghborWorks Salt Lake Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 '$ 50,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 that provides affordable housing.Services 35th 100,000 Revolving Loan Fund include:low-interest loans to people who may 34th 100,000 not qualify for a traditional bank mortgage, 33rd 100,000 acquisition,blended mortgages,and 32nd 100,000 rehabilitation projects. 31st 100,000 Others 1,330,000 Westside neighborhoods Total 1,930,000 I Housing Total I I I 1,300,0001 1,22(1,0001 1,220,0001 1,120,000j 0,$ 663,538 $ 890,866_$ 890,866 $ 890,866 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 2 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 STREET DESIGN 1 Glendale Street Reconstruction Design for reconstruction to include street 32.000 0 0 0 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 Design pavement,curb and gutter,sidewalk,park strip Glendale Drive from California landscaping,and storm drain improvements. Avenue to Navajo Street _Construction: 360,000 2 Kensington and Roosevelt Avenues Design for reconstruction to include street 50,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $Reconstruction Design pavement,curb and gutter,sidewalk,park strip landscaping,and storm drain improvements. Kensington from 400 to 500 East Roosevelt from 300 to 400 East Kensington Construction: 300,000 Roosevelt Construction: 300,000 _ Street Design Total 82,000 0 0 0 0 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 1. ., .po° $s . 32,000 TREET CONSTRUCTION ADA Accessibility Ramps Construct access ramps in eligible areas for 36th 270,000 400,000 179,673 96,300 63,825 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 individuals who use wheelchairs,strollers. 35th 32,435 walkers,canes,etc.for ADA compliance. 35th-R 252,000 City-wide in eligible neighborhoods 34th 408,942 33rd 300,000 32nd 345,450 31st 304,558 Construction: 343,100 Others 1,278,720 SLC Engineering Design&Engineering: 56,900 Total 3,192,105 2 Glendale Streets Reconstruction Reconstruction including pavement,curb and 35th 30,000 246,000 246,000 246,000 246,000 $ 246,000 $ 246,000 $ 246,000 $ 246,000 Navajo Street from Glendale Drive to gutter,sidewalk,park strip landscaping,and 1300 South storm drain improvements. Design funded in 2009-10: 30,000 20.100 SLC Engineering 225,900 Street Construction Total 646,000 425,673 342,300 309,825 0 $ 271,000 $ 271,000 $ 271,000 $ 271,000 SIDEWALKS 1 Sidewalk Replacement Program Replace deteriorated and defective sidewalk in 36th 81,000 400,000 200,000 150.000 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150.000 $ 150.000 $ 150,000 CDBG eligible areas to improve pedestrian 36th-R 189,000 access,safety and walkability. 35th 47,719 35th-R 243,281 City-wide in eligible areas 34th 308,941 Design&Administration-56,900 Others 5,237,802 SLC Engineering Construction:343,100 Total 6,107,743 Sidewalks Total 400,000 200,000 150,000 150,000 0 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 3 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 PARKS 1 I' 'tonwood Park Sprinkler Replace obsolete existing system including 36th 88,000 440,000 440,000 440,000 0 $ - _ 440,000 $ 440,000 $ 440,000 ation System valves,heads,controllers and central control connection and associated landscaping 300 North 1600 West upgrades. Design funded in 2010-11 for$88,000 Materials and construction: 440,000 2 Jordan River Parkway Trallhead at Develop trailhead,to include parking lot,curb, 36th 50,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $1000 North gutter,sidewalk,landscaping,irrigation system, security lighting,tables,benches and drinking fountain. Design funded in 2010-11 for$50,000 3 Rosewood Park Parking Lot Remove and replace parking lot with mom New 243,960 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $Replacement sustainable materials,utilizing permeable concrete pavement and underground water retention to minimize the amount of runoff needing to exit the site. Curb,gutter and driveway approach improvements will also be 1200 West 1300 North included. Design: 40,660 Materials and construction:203,300 4 Fifth Avenue and"C"Street Tennis Removal of existing tennis courts,retaining walls New 598,100 0 67,100 67,100 $ - S 67,100 $ 67,100 $ 67,100 Courts and trees in order to rebuild two tennis courts to meet current standards including new retaining walls,new fencing,and associated landscaping improvements. New benches,drinking fountain and equipment to support the new courts will also be provided. • Materials and construction:450,000 Design&Engineering Fees 67,100 Construction Inspection&Admin: 36,000 Contingency 45,000 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 4 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 5 Westpointe Park Playground Remove old playground and sand,improve New 623,750 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $Improvements existing curbs and sidewalks,install new bark mulch and play surfacing,install new ADA accessible play equipment,new water play equipment,relocate existing volley ball court, replace sod and irrigation equipment,and add benches&other furnishings. 1100 North 2000 West Playground improvements: 250,000 Splash pad improvements: 250,000 Engineering and Design: 43,750 Administration: 30,000 Contingency: 50,000 6 Fire Station Tennis Courts Replace two existing courts with two new post New 228,300 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - tension courts,replace fencing and net posts, .3 North 1000 West landscaping and irrigation adjustments,install conduits for future lighting and install benches. Materials and Labor: 190,300 Engineering,Design&Admin: 38,000 7 600 East Island Irrigation System Replace obsolete irrigation system that will New 204,900 204,900 40,000 40,000 $ - $ 20,700 $ 20,700 $ 20,700 Rebuild and Central Control connect to the City's central control system, including new water and power meters and associated landscaping improvements. 600 East between South Temple and b43 South Materials,labor and equipment: 155,000 Engineering and Design fees: 20,700 Construction Inspection/Admin: 13,700 Contingency: 15,500 8 Property acquisition for Jordan Funding to purchase a blighted property New 85,000 0 0 0 $ - $ 65,000 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 River Parkway Trailhead adjacent to the Jordan River Parkway and Cottonwood Park for future development of a trailhead for the Jordan River Parkway as well 356 North Redwood Road Application filed by Fairpark and Jordan Meadows Community 9 ADA Improvements and Riverside Funding for a study to provide river side ADA New 50,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - Access Study for Alzheimer access improvements at the Alzheimer's Memorial Park Memorial Park in Poplar Grove and to determine 265 South 1200 West amount of funding necessary to make those improvements. Application filed by Kyle LaMalfa • SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 5 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 10 Jordan Park Defined Activity Areas Create fenced,defined activity areas to improve New 12,000 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - safety and security in the Jordan River Park. flip South 900 West New,defined activity areas will separate different park uses to mitigate and prevent Application filed by Kyle LaMalfa conflicts. 11 Glendale Tennis Complex Construct restrooms for the Glendale Tennis New 350,000 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ Restroom Construction Complex to encourage new and continued use by the community.The closest existing 1700 South 1500 West restrooms are located one block away from this Application filed by Utah Tongan complex. Tennis Club/Glendale Community Council Parks Total 3,116,010 944,900 847,100 407,100 0 S - $ 592,800 $ 592,800 $ 592,80D j 1 n Salaries andoperanon&support for a program New 33,600 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ _ provides sett sufficiency and employment preparation through English literacy,computer, and life skill training,for refugees and immigrants. Salary for building supervisor for PSBI improvements. U.S.Workplace Communication 2 Bad Dog Rediscovers America Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 5,000 15,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ _ that provides after-school art outreach to 35th 10,000 Art Instruction Outreach students at Backman,Edison,Mountain View, 34th 10,000 Jackson,Whittier,and Glendale Elementary 33rd 5,000 schools. 32nd 5,000 Total 35,000 3 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 that provides a school-based mentonng program 35th 5,000 -ool-based Mentonng Program for low-income SLC youth in a site-based setting 34th 1,000 utilizing resources available at the school. 33rd 5,000 Schools include Bennion,Washington,Whittier, Rose Park and Lincoln elementaries. Total 16,000 4 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah Salaries and operational support for a program New 5,000 5.000 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ _ that provides community-based mentonng for Community-based Mentonng low-income SLC youth outside of the elementary Program school system.Activities may include homework support,sports,visits to museums, Total etc. SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 6 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 5 Boys&Girls Clubs of GSL Salaries for an after-school program that 36th 20,000 38,865 20,000 20,000 18,000 $ 5,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 provides core club activities in guidance oriented 35th 20,000 Capitol West Club character development to low income youth in 34111 20,000 Jackson/Guadalupe area. 33rd 30,000 32nd 30,000 31st 30,000 Others 548,000 567 West 300 North,SLC Total 698,000 6 Boys 8 Girls Clubs of GSL Salaries fora program that teaches life and 36th 15,000 31,169 15,000 15,000 13,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10.000 social skills,provides recreational opportunities 35th 15,000 Youth With a Voice and leadership skills for at-risk youth(ages 11- 34th 15,000 17)at the three Salt Lake City centers. 33rd 15,000 Lied-464 South Concord St. 32nd 15,000 Sugar House-968 E Sugarmont Dr 31st 20,000 pitol West-567 West 300 North Others 403,000 Total 498,000 _ ollc Community Services Salaries fora program that provides residential 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 substance abuse treatment for low-income 35th 10,000 St.Mary's Home for Men and/or chronically homeless men,including 34111 5,000 veterans. 33rd 5,000 32nd 5,000 745 East 300 South,SLC Total 35,000 8 Catholic Community Services Salaries for a program that provides day shelter 36th 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 services five days a week for homeless persons, 35th 15,000 Weigand Day Center including showers,lockers,hygiene items, 34th 15,000 health referrals,outreach services through the 33rd 20,000 Utah Dept.of Workforce Services and a support 32nd 20,000 235 South Rio Grande,SLC group for substance abuse. Others 275,000 Total 400,000 9 Children's Service Society Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 38,136 50,815 25,000 20,000 20,000 $ - $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 that trains and assists parents in helping their Parents as Teachers Program children prepare for kindergarten. 124 South 400 East,SLC 10 Community Action Program Salaries for a program that assists low/moderate 36th 30,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 income residents to obtain safe and affordable 35th 30,000 Housing Outreach Rental Program housing,by listing apartments for rent and 34th 20,000 providing renter training and referrals to other 33rd 30,000 764 South 200 West,SLC agencies for assistance. Others 714,000 Total 824,000 1110 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 7 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 11 Community Action Program Salaries and operating expenses for a program 36th 25,000 25,000 25,000 25.000 23,000 $ 20,000 $ 23.000 $ 23,000 $ 23,000 that provides emergency food supply to low- 35th 25,000 west Neighborhood Center income west side residents. 34th 25,000 Pantry 33rd 25,000 Others 546,000 1300 West 300 North,SLC Total 646,000 _ 12 Community Action Program Salaries for a program that provides home 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 maintenance training and money management 35th 10,000 Home Tenant Maintenance Project training,referrals and other assistance to low- 34th 10,000 income households who rent. 33rd 10,000 32nd 10,000 31st 11,000 Others 158,500 764 South 200 West,SLC Total 219,500 13 Community Health Centers Operational support for a program that provides 36th 75,000 75,000 75,000 65,000 63.000 $ 63,000 $ 63,000 $ 63,000 $ 63,000 medical and dental care to uninsured and low- 35th 75,000 Healthcare Program income persons at two community health 34th 75,000 centers in Salt Lake City. 33rd 89,283 31st 90,000 Central City:461 South 400 East Others 460,000 Total 864,283 14 Crossroads Urban Center Salaries for the food pantry program that 36th 16,500 16,500 16.500 16,500 14,500 $ 5,000 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 provides food,referrals and emergency services 35th 16,000 Emergency Food Pantry to low-income and homeless persons. 34th 16,000 33rd 16,000 32nd 16,000 31st 16,000 Others 297,000 347 South 400 East,SLC Total 393,500 Donated Dental Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 30,000 30.000 30,000 30,000 28,000 $ 20,000 $ 28,000 $ 28,000 $ 28,000 15 that provides preventive and restorative dental 35th 30,000 Community Dental Project treatment to homeless and low income families 34th 24,533 and individuals. 33rd 30,000 • 32nd 31st 35,000 30,000 Others 129,597 1383 South 900 West,SLC Total 309,130 16 English Skills Learning Center Salaries for a program that trains volunteers who 36th 7,000 28,000 10.000 7,000 7,000 $ - $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 in tum teach English language skills to non- 35th 7,000 English Language Instruction English speaking refugees and immigrants. 34th 7,000 33rd 10,000 32nd 7,500 Others 74,000 631 W North Temple&other sites Total 112,500 _ _ SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 8 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011.12 17 Family Support Center Salaries for a program that provides free short- 36th 10,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 8,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 term crisis nursery services to families with 35th 10,000 Crisis Nursery children who are at risk for abuse or neglect. 34th 10,000 1 33rd 10,000 2020 S.Lake St,SLC. 32nd 15,000 Others 70,000 Total 125,000 18 Housing Authority of Salt Lake City Funding for equipment to establish the Salt Lake New 10,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - City Resource Center to assist clients of the Housing Authority with skills necessary to promote self sufficiency through job searches, Salt Lake City Resource Center computer training,resume preparation.GED 1778 South West Temple completion and ESL classes. Equipment will include 12 computers,2 printers,a fax machine and a copier. illkdian Walk-In Center Salaries and operational support for a program New 29,900 5,000 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ Food Pantry that provides emergency food supplies to low 120 West 1300 South income families and individuals. 20 Indian:72tr'-In Center - Salaries and operational support for a program New 67,643 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ that provides mental,social and physical health care services%ieterrals to American Indians, Alaskan Natives,and other low-income individuals and families residing in Salt Lake City. Community Coordination Program 120 West 1300 South _ 21 Kostopulos Dream Foundation Salaries and operational expenses for a year- 36th 0 5,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ round program that includes a summer camp, 35th 5,000 Therapeutic Recreation Programs outdoor field trips,after-school and weekend 34th 5,000 programs for special needs children and adults. 33rd 5,000 2500 Emigration Canyon 32nd 5,000 Total 20,000 22 Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake Salaries for a program that provides legal 36th 10,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 8,000 S. 5.000 $ 8,000 $ 8.000 $ 8,000 representation to low-income persons who are 35th 10,000 Domestic Violence Victim Assistance victims of domestic violence with protective 34th 10,000 Program orders. 33rd 10,000 32nd 15,000 Others 50,394 205 North 400 West,SLC Total 105,394 _ - SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 9 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 23 Literacy Action Center Salaries for a program that provides literacy 33rd 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - services to functionally-illiterate English- 32nd 2,000 speaking adults to read and write English. 30th 5,000 Adult Literacy Program Total 12,000 24 Peer Court Salaries for a program that Provides an alternate 36th 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 form of juvenile justice where youth are 35th 5,000 mentored by peers to strengthen ties to families, schools,and communities. Total 25 Rape Recovery Center Salaries for a program that provides crisis 36th 35,000 40,000 35,000 35,000 33,000 $ 25,000 $ 39.500 $ 39,500 $ 39,500 counseling and services for victims of sexual 35th 35,000 Sexual Assault Crisis Intervention assault. 34th 35,000 Services 33rd 40,000 32nd 35,000 31st 35,000 Others 242,060 Total 457,060 26 The Road Home Salaries for a program that provides shelter and 36th 112,000 126,000 120,000 112,000 110,000 $ 63,622 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 supportive services to help homeless persons 35th 111,893 Community Shelter Services gain skills to become self-sufficient and move to 34th 110,000 permanent housing. 33rd 125,000 210 South Rio Grande,SLC 32nd 126,000 31st 126,000 Others 2,052,000 _ Total 2,762,893 27 Salt Lake County Community Funding for computer software licenses and New 12,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ Resources and Development leveled readers(based on reading skill level)to provide literacy skill improvements in low- CAT Computer Labs income youth and adults. 2001 South State Street 28 South Valley Sanctuary !Salaries for a program that provides shelter and 36th 0 10,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - supportive services to men,women and children 35th 0 j- jnestic Violence Crisis Shelter- who are residents of Salt Lake City that have 34th 0 �e Management been victimized by domestic violence. Located in West Jordan City 29 Splore Salaries for a program that promotes _ New 5,519 0 0 0. $ - $ - $ - $ empowering experiences in an active,friendly 774 East 3300 South#105 world through affordable,customized and inclusive recreation and education programs for low-income City residents with disabilities or special medical needs. SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 10 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 30 University Neighborhood Operational support for a program that develops 36th 5,000 8,320 5,000 5,000 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Partnerships partnerships and programming for low income 35th 5,000 Hartland Partnership Center immigrant youth in collaboration with University of Utah students and faculty. 1617 Secret Garden Lane,#172 Total 10,000 31 Utah Food Bank Salaries and operational support for a program New 6,500 6,500 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - that provides food boxes to low-income seniors Senior Food Box Program and persons with disabilities. 1025 South 700 West 32 UT Health&Human Rights Project Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 $ 5,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 that provides case management and social 35th 10,000 Case Management&Administrative services to increase self-sufficiency among 34th 10,000 Support vulnerable newcomer populations who are 33rd 10,000 survivors of torture and war-related trauma. 32nd 10,000 25 South 200 East Total 50,000 .,Wasatch Community Gardens Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 25,000 40,800 0 15,000 15,000 $ $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 that will create a network of sustainable Developing Sustainable Community community gardens in the City with a focus on Gardens low-income neighborhoods in partnership with schools,service,community and faith-based organizations. 34 Wasatch Community Gardens Salaries for a program that targets low income at 36th 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 risk youth ages 5-18 that teaches responsibility, 35th 5,000 Youth Gardening Program cooperation and ecological awareness through 34th 5,000 hands-on gardening experiences. 33rd 5,000 32nd 5,000 769 South 600 East,SLC Others 273,000 1037 West 300 North,SLC Total 298,000 35 Wasatch Homeless Health Care Salaries and operational support for a program - 36th 40,000 46,668 40,000 40,000 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 that provides outreach medical services two 35th 38,000 Fourth Street Clinic Outreach days a week to homeless persons in the 34th 29,360 downtown area and to identify the high users of emergency health care to get the care they need in a cost effective manner without resorting to EMS or ambulance services. Downtown area _ Total_ 107,360 36 YMCA Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 $ - $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 that provides after-school and summer programs 35th 10,000 After School and Summer for children at Rose Park Elementary School. 34th 10,000 Enrichment Program 32nd 10,000 Others 88,600 Total 128,600 • SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 11 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 37 YWCA Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 47,350 50,000 47,000 40,000 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 that provides crisis shelter and supportive 35th 35,000 *estic Violence Shelter& services to women and children who are victims 34th 35,000 portive Services of domestic violence. 33rd 40,000 32nd 40,000 31st 35,000 ' Others 571,300 322 East 300 South Total 803,650 Public Services Total 957,299 605,000 555,500 523,500 0 331 622 523 500 523,500 523,500 15%Cap on Public Services 663,244 663,244 627,319 523,500 523,500%7;. w.l04; „7, ";; '�; '+.^."'Virifrl. ' ;::' ( Difference •294,055 58.244 71,819 0 523,500 $ (0) $ - $ 103,819 $ 139,744 14.0% 15.8% PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING INIPROVEMOITS • 1 Alliance House Funding for building improvements to nine unit 36th 39.700 19.700 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - apartment building for a program that provides 351h 33,000 Apartment Rehabilitation services and housing for adults with serious and 34th 39,000 persistent mental illness. Improvements will include wall demolition and patching,granite wall caps,electrical wiring, paint,purchase and installation of front screen doors,porch lights and screens for exterior windows,install peephole in existing door,and contingency fees. 1805 South Main Others 95,500 Total 207,200 2 And Justice For All Funding for building improvements for a New 25,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ _ 205 North 400 West program that creates and sustains resources that support several nonprofit legal aid programs including Legal Aid Society,Utah Legal Services,and the Disability Law Center. I Improvements will consist of purchase and installation of new high efficiency HVAC system. SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 12 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 3 Asian Association of Utah Funding for building improvements for a 36th 22,000 93,000 93,000 93.000 93,000 S 93,000 $ 93,000 $ 93,000 $ 93,000 program that provides services to Asians,Pacific 35th 0 Energy Conservation and Service Islanders and other refugee and immigrant 23rd 38,000 Improvements populations with social,education and cultural programs. The applicant applied for a new HVAC system,restroom renovations,carpeting and wall relocations. However,the building has life safety issues that must be addressed prior to the items requested. Therefore,the request is now for addressing the life safety issues. Total 60,000 ("ye and Girls Clubs Funding for building improvements to Lied Club 36th 10,500 53,281 21,741 21,741 21,741 S 21,741 $ 21,741 $ 21,741 $ 21,741 building that provides after-school programs for 35th 3,500 Lied Club Improvements Glendale area youth. Install window coverings: 3,940 Reception area&new front desk: 27,600 464 South Concord Resurface front entry floor. 1,755 Replace bathroom stalls: 8,883 Refinish gym Boor 1,000 Interior paint: 10,103 Total 14,000 5 CAP Head Start Program Funding for the construction of a nature-based 36th 185,000 109,146 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $playground to help meet the developmental 34th 146,008 1240 North American Beauty Drive needs of low income children through 31st 107,400 recreational and educational activities. Landscape architect&Admin: 10,046 Sprinkler system installation: 9,000 Demolition work: 4,500 Boulders,fill dirt,top soil 8 sod: 11,600 Trees and shrubs: 17,500 Concrete sidewalk tricycle path: 12,000 Mount Gazebo/Alphabet Hill: 24,500 Construct.zone play area&labor: 20,000 Total 438,408 6 Catholic Community Services Funding for building improvements for a New 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15.000 program that provides meals to homeless St.Vincent de Paul persons to include the purchase and installation 437 West 200 South of commercial grade water heater for the kitchen. • SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 13 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 7'Community Foundation for the Funding for improvements to a facility that 36th 40,000 89,488 70,000 70,000 0 $ - $ - $ Disabled/Columbus Comm.Center provides employment&training programs to low- income persons with developmental&physical disabilities. Replace roof: 64,000 1850 South 3230 West Upgrade HVAC;install heaters&fans: 18,800 Engineering&administration: 6,688 8 Dual Immersion Academy Funding for building improvements for a charter New 6,350 6,350 6.350 0 $ 6,350 $ 6,350 $ 6,350 $ 6,350 1555 South Glendale Drive school program that provides education to youth from Kindergarten to Eighth Grade in the Glendale area. Improvements will include the purchase and installation of acoustical wall panels in the school gymnasium. 9 Emergency Repair Fund Funding for grants to nonprofit organizations 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10.000 when they experience unforeseen emergencies 35th 10,000 SLC Housing&Neighborhood to then facilities that need repair. 33rd 10,000 Development 31st 10,000 Others 27,000 Total 67,000 10 The Haven Funding for building improvements for a New 39,400 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - program that provides substance abuse treatment and transitional housing for low- income persons. Improvements will include electrical upgrades for two buildings. 653 East 300 South - 11 Kostopolus Dream Foundation Funding for building improvements for a New 5,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ 2500 Emigration Canyon program that provides summer camp,outdoor field trips,after school&weekend programs for special needs youth&adults. Building improvements will include the installation of an asphalt handicapped accessible parking area at ID their new equestrian facility. 12 Neighborhood House Funding for building improvements for a 36th 13,300 19.400 13,400 13,400 13,400 $ - $ 13,400 S 13.400 5 13,400 program that provides day care to low-income 34th 15,000 Children's Day Care Center children. Improvements will include roof-top 33rd 15,000 timer units for restroom ventilation,a new 32nd 15,000 telephone system and flood insurance required to participation in the CDBG program. Restroom ventilation:9,000 31st 17,300 Telephone system:6,000 Others 140,000 1050 West 500 South,84104 Flood Insurance:4,400 Total 215,600 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 14 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 13 Odyssey House Funding for kitchen improvements fora program New 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 $ - $ - $ 40,000 $ 40,000 that provides residential substance abuse Women and Children's Center treatment for women and children. 42 South 500 East Improvements will include: Sink,refrigerator,and range: 14,248 Cabinets: 9,828 Flooring: 4,825 Interior wall renovation: 9,500 Deck addition: 5,500 Permits&Fees: 1,100 14 Salt Lake School District Funding for construction of a community learning 36th 233,732 500.000 0 0 0 -$ - $ - $ - $ - center for students at the Mountain View Community Learning Center- Elementary&Glendale Middle schools. Programs offered will be specific to the needs of 1380 South Navajo Street the community,including language literacy, financial literacy,nutrition workshops,health clinics and career counseling. 15 Salvation Army Funding for construction of a new 4400 square 35th 112,130 200,000 0 0 0 S S $ $ foot building to house the Salt Lake Salvation 34th 0 Adult Rehabilitation Facility Remodel Army and their Salt Lake Family Services 33rd 35,000 Program that will offer emergency food,clothing, 32nd 42,415 438 South 900 West transportation,after-school programs/services, 31st 60,000 and training&case management for low-income individuals with multiple barriers to self- sufficiency. Total 249,545 16 University Neighborhood Partners Funding for building improvements of new New 175,000 175,000 75,000 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 property at 1578 West 1700 South to serve as A New Home for Hartland the new headquarters for the University Partners/Hartland Partnership Center. 1578 West 1700 South Elevator for ADA Access: 100,000 Fire sprinkling system: 45,000 Restroom renovations: 30,000 17 Wasatch Homeless Health Care Funding for landscape improvements to the New 25.500 0 0 0 S - $ - $ - $ parking strip to include purchase and installation of irrigation system,plants,soil and amendments,turf,gravel and project design. 404 South 400 West Irrigation System: 12,000 Plants: 9,800 Soil,turf and gravel: 3,100 Design: 600 Public Services Building Improvement Total 1,425,265 444,491 344,491, 228,141, 0 $ 221,0911$ • 234,491 j 274,491 $ 274,491 1111 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 15 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 1NING 1indale Park Improvements Funding to develop a community-based New 50,000 50,000 0 0 $ - $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 design/planning process for improvements to the existing uses and facilities In Glendale Park to determine the best upgrades needed to extend its uses and functions. Results will be used to determine future funding needs. Design/Planning 1200 West 1700 South 2 Centro Civico Mexicano Funding to develop a business plan for use to New 10,000 0 10,000 5,000 $ - $ - $obtain funding to build a new facility at the same location.The plan will include cost estimates, research,marketing plan,member's needs and potential building tenants. 155 South 600 West 3 Census Data Extraction Funding to hire a consultant to extract New 40,000 40,000 30,000 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 SLC Housing&Neighborhood information from the 2010 Census Data to help Development the City bridge information from the 2000 Census relative to SLC Council districts. Information will include populations by age,sex, race/ethnicity,household type and size, occupancy status,presence of children in the household and other information specific to Council districts rather than the City as a whole. Planning Total 100,000 90,000 40,000 30,000 0 . $. _:74.DC)• TAPB9.-$• _ t;,t PERCENT FOR ART 1 h'C Percent for Art Funding to provide enhancements to City 36th 25,000 3,000 5,000 30,000 30,000 $ - $ 30,000 $ 30.000 $ 30,000 properties through decorative pavements, 35th 10,000 railings,sculptures,fountains,and other works 34th 25,000 of art. 33rd 5,952 32nd 5,000 31st 6,000 Others 47,450 Total 124,402 Percent for Art Total 3,000 5,000 30,000 30,000 0 -' ..S•.'., -,__ SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 16 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 CITY ADMINISTRATION 1 City Attorney's Office Partial funding for staff salaries to provide 36th 55,432 23,182 23,182 23,182 23,182 $ 23,182 $ 23,182 $ 23,182 $ 23,182 contract administration function for federal 35th 55,432 grants. 34th 55,432 33rd 55,432 32nd 55,432 31st 55,432 30th 55,432 Others 903,960 Total 1,291,984 2 Finance Division Partial funding for staff salaries to provide 36th 82,776 82,776 82,776 82,776 82,776 $ 82,776 $ 82,776 $ 82,776 $ 82,776 financial administration and accounting services 35th 82,776 for federal grants. 34th 82,776 w 33rd 82,776 32nd 82,776 31st 91,967 30th 91,967 Others 945,217 Total 1,543,031 3 Housing&Neighborhood Funding for salaries and operational expenses of 36th 472,804 482,804 482,804 472,804 472,804 $ 472,804 $ 472,804 $ 472,804 $ 472,804 Development HAND to administer and monitor the federal 35th 472,804 grants and to conduct the community processes. 34th 405,616 In prior Years,the Planning Division was 33rd 405,616 the amount of$67,188 for the Environmental 32nd 405,616 In 35th Year,that position was transferred to 31st 405,616 CDBG admin budget was then discontinued for 30th 437,616 and moved to HAND's CDBG administrative Others 3,460,149 Total 6,465,837 4 Mayor's Office Partial funding for salaries and operational 36th 91,709 91,709 91,709 81,709 81,709 $ 81,709 $ 81,709 $ 81,709 $ 81,709 expenses of three positions to provide 35th 91,709 community relations support for federal grants. 34th 91,709 33rd 91,709 32nd 91,709 31st 91,709 30th 91,709 Others 1,517,962 Total 2,159,925 City Administration Total 680,471 680,471 660,471 660,471 0;6, KO WA,-' ' 4#`1 $ 6001511 $ 1 CONTINGENCY • Contingency Funding set aside to cover unanticipated cost 36th 60,000 50.000 51,091 $ 50,000 5 50,000 $ 50.000 $ 50,000 overruns on funded projects. 35th 46,776 34th 35,000 Contingency Total 0 0 50,000 51,091 0; .i0.00.$ .M,00p s 50;666 �CDBG-R REALLOCATION 1 Salt Lake City Engineering Funds available for reallocation for. 36th-R 189,000 136,175 136,175 136,175 136,175 $ 136.175 5 136.175 $ 136,175 $ 136,175 35th-R 243,281 Ramps 136,175 136,175 136,175 136,175 $ 136175, 6 136,175' $ 1,36.,175 $ 1W175 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 17 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 Ili Total Requested/Recommended 8,846,220 4,751,710 4,376,037 3,646,303 0 $ 2,540, $ 3, $ 3,686,303 $ 3,686,303 2011-12 Grant Amount 4,421,626 4,421,626 3,979,463 3,316,219 3,316,219 $ 2,210,813697 $ 3,316,220646,303 S 3,979,463 $ 4,421,626 CDBG Reallocated Funds 193,909 193,909 193,909 193,909 193,909 $ 193,909 $ 193,909 $ 193,909 $ 193,909 CDBG-R Reallocated Funds 136,175 136,175 136,175 136,175 136,175 $ 136,175 $ 136,175 $ 136,175 $ 136,175 4,751,710 4,751,710 4,309,547 3,646,303 3,646,303 $ 2,540,897 $ 3,646,304 $ 4,309,547 $ 4,751,710 Difference -4,094,510 0 -66,490 0 3,646,303 CDBG REALLOCATION from FY 2011 Funds 1 Concrete Study !Reallocate funds from Salt Lake City Council 90,000 90,000 Office-Administration line item,to the study of concrete replacement needs in the City. Ramps 0 o Salt County An 2010 Year in Review , . . 0, , . • ........ ,..,.... .... .... _______ ___ _ _ , . . I' 4k • i _ . v, 4 `4;' • _ ... Proudly serving the pets and citizens of Unincorporated Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, 0 Herriman City and Holladay City . i • Salt Lake County Animal Services 2010 Year in Review From the Director's Chair 1 ► ' y This new "Year in Review" report is an attempt to capture some of the achievements, activities and initiatives that occurred during the past year. I say it is an "attempt" be- cause the shear amount of work, activity and community involvement this past year is `N overwhelming and it would be impossible to capture every great thing that happened _ in a few short pages. '►, 2010 was another amazing year for our agency. Record breaking pet saved rates mean that more lost and abandoned pets in our community found new homes and our eutha- Shawn M.Larrabee, nasia rates are now less than half of the rate of the rest of the state. 2352 cats and 3549 Director dogs were saved through lifesaving programs and the dedication of our amazing staff and volunteers. We saw increased involvement from the community, from children raising funds for the Salt Lake County Pit - Crew and for emergency animal response programs to enthusiastic corporate employees donating their time. e The community interest in changing the fate of lost and abandoned pets is truly inspiring. The County Pit Crew had a great year as we focused on the message of responsible ownership and dispelling myths while providing training and education opportunities to the community. The work of staff and volun- teers have successfully changed the saved rates for pit bulls coming into the shelter from 58% to 71%. It's not about a breed or a profile, it's all about responsible ownership folks. The year was one of new grants and awards such as the "2010 Best of State" medal award, 2010 American Dog Rescue National Animal Welfare and Protection Award, establishment of the Boyce Pet Adoption En- dowment Fund and a `final five' placement in the national ASPCA Saving More Lives Challenge. Our dedicated field officers responded to 19,741 calls for service, including 1,124 cruelty and neglect cases. The June 2010 Red Butte Oil Spill brought the realities of the deadliness of oil and animals directly to our door. Emergency response plans were tested as employees became trained in the art of capturing affected wa- terfowl and removing oil. The Machine Gun Fire in Herriman tested another area of emergency response as we rallied to care for 93 evacuated horses and livestock while employees staffed small animal evacuation centers day and night so that citizens could sleep knowing their pets were close by. Utah FACES, our all volunteer, 501c3 affiliate has continued to grow and expand its' reach and fundraising in their mission to serve the lost and abandoned pets at the County shelter. This wonderful organization's mem- bership is open to anyone interested in getting involved with saving lost and abandoned pets locally. As we close the books on 2010 we look forward with great anticipation to 2011. New and exciting initiatives will be rolling out as we continue our endeavors to create a safe community for people and pets in our commu- nity. See you in 2011! C www.AdoptUtahPets.com Page 3 • "Salt Lake County Animal Services is dedicated to providing responsive,efficient and high quality animal care and enforcement services that promote a safe and humane community for people and animals." Statistics Field Calls for Service 19,741Ao Dogs and Cats Sheltered 9,578 Livestock and Exotics Sheltered 878 1 Pets Reunited with Owners 2,063 Adopted! Pets Adopted to New Homes 2,930 Pets Sent to Rescue 909 Pet lives saved through SLCoAS programs from Cats Trapped,Neutered and Retumed 165 July 1994 through E-Metric*for Cats 4.0 December 31,2010: • E-Metric*for Dogs 1.3 85,593 E-Metric is the number of pets euthanized per 1.000 population served.For comparison.Utah State averages for 2009 were 3.0 for dogs and 10.3 for cats.IStats provided by NMHPUBest Friends Society.). SLCoAS Answers the ASPCA Saving More Lives Challenge In the spring of 2010, the from August 1st through Octo- Increased the number of animals American Society for the Pre- ber 31st. The shelter that adopted by over 139%! The vention of Cruelty to Animals increased the number of pets Challenge was a tremendous announced the 2010 Saving saved as compared to the same amount of work and reflective of More Lives Challenge. 50 shel- period the previous year would an amazing commitment to the ters nationwide would have the win the grand prize. There was pets in our care. chance to compete for$100,000 also a$25,000 prize for commu- while doing what they do every nity engagement which meas- We finished the competition in 5n' day...saving pets! ured several factors including place for total animals saved and We were very excited when we the number of votes received 7th for community engagement! received word that our applica- from October 15th through This is a noteworthy accomplish- lion had been October 31st. ment particularly given the size and caliber of the shelters .n. ` accepted and Staff, volunteers and the corn- competing. However, more $100K; we would be munity rallied to push our importantly, we saved a record • =corr n,urr; competing numbers as high as possible and A7 number of pets that found new II against 49 the results were astounding. homes and a second chance at a other shelters During the challenge we happy life! www.AdoptUtahPets.com Page 4 ` Salt Lake County Pit Crew "It's about responsible ownership." The Salt Lake County Pit Crew and abandoned dogs to find ��AKE CO� was founded on the premise that new, loving, and stable homes. a good dog is reflection of a In order to change perceptions, ,fQ•� Q‘7 CREtL /\ good owner and that promoting increase responsible ownership, VOW responsible dog ownership is and help many more of these - the right path to a safe and wonderful family pets find boy- humane community. ing,permanent homes,this pro- Q gram was developed. vQ .s„ ))1 The mission of the SL County Oo ,•Pit Crew is to promote responsi- There are several key compo- T•ble ownership and provide a nents that make this programFpUfq�• proactive solution for the large unique and successful includ- population of Pit Bull type dogs ing: image of the Pit Bull type dogs in our community.Through hu- • free spay and neuter pro- in our community. Our Fosters mane education and low-cost gram for Pit Bull type dogs and Ambassador dogs will help resources, our program chal- in Salt Lake County Animal promote responsible ownership ® •lenges breed discrimination and Services'jurisdictions, and be a positive presence in the encourages responsible owner- • low-cost American Kennel community. ship for all breeds. Club Canine Good Citizen® (AKC CGC) classes at the The program was made possible HISTORY AND DETAILS shelter (free with adoption through generous donations OF THE PROGRAM or foster), from the community, American • a reliable and experienced Dog Rescue and a grant from In the Spring of 2009,Salt Lake foster parent network, Animal Farm Foundation.Addi- County Animal Services • special adoption and other tional funding was also pro- (SLCoAS)developed a program events, and of course, our vided through SLCoAS 501c3 6 to begin addressing the high dedicated volunteers. affiliate, Utah FACES whose numbers of pit bull type dogs "sponsor a kennel"program and entering and being euthanized in Through outreach programs, other fundraising events have the shelter. breed education, and positive been a significant source of sup- media coverage of sponsored port for all lost and abandoned Pit Bull type dogs are quite events,we hope to transform the pets at the shelter. popular in the community and it is no great surprise that they "Safe and humane This unique program earned the make up a significant number of communities are the attention of the staff of Best shelter residents. However,manymyths, Friends Society and the Saving these dogs face direct result of o America's Dog National Cam- p" misconceptions and stigma, responsible pet Cam- paign team. ownership." p making it harder for those lost P•' p I www.AdoptUtahPets.com Page 5 What followed was a great partnership with Best much work to be done.We expect 2011 to be Friends Society and supporting the program another extremely productive year as we con- through media and additional events and ulti- tinue to work with our partners and the commu- mately increasing the visibility and reach of the nity to ensure Salt Lake County is a safe and program. humane place to live for everyone. The program was officially launched in July of Dog Live Release Rates- Pit/Non Pit Breakdown 2009 and with the support and donations from Pit/Pit %Increase/ the community we have seen remarkable pro- Year Mix Non Pit Decrease Pit LiveDogs Release Rate from gress in a very short time. Dogs 2007 2007 57.5% 88J5£ N/A In the Fall of 2010 Best Friends Society(with a 2008 56.8% 88.9% -1.2% grant from PetSmart Charities)launched similar 2009 59.9 k ss.e, a. s, programs in five other cities across the nation. We are very excited to watch these cities and 2010 70.5% 91.4% 22.6;t hope they see the same success.For individuals working in shelters or cities that were not se- lected as one of the five to receive the program, Iwe are hoping to offer training at SLCoAS.Watch for more information on this in the late -- • ... ._.r _ winter of2011. "'T'-sv. . 'se"'�� While we are proud of our success,there is still ,triti. dl I OF EVERY DOG NEEDS: -- -- - �l'i V' YOU to LOVE them. YOU to TRAIN them. YOU to PROTECT them. Summer 2010 Adoption Event. YOU to SOCIALIZE them. YOU to UNDERSTAND them. The community just can't say no when dogs Be a responsible dog owner. It's all up to I.C1:• are involved—even our firefighters!. Bogart was formerly known as Remington at our s •' - - , shelter,and found his way into a wonderful home `'%0. s. -41''�ii, - ' • with a BOSSton terrier named Harlow,his love in �, '''4 " life.Bogart was either hit by a car or swung by his ` -___ tail as a puppy and came in with serious nerve — I ;.- damage and lower back problems.He is recovering I, well and loves his new home.He came back in late - December to visit Dr.Doub and say hello to every- i. one that had worked so hard to help him.Way to go Bogart! Adopted! ii Page 6 o Pr 0 YIKES! 16,000 Cats Time For Change! Each year in approximately thousands of cats will continue 16,000 cats enter shelters in the ;., �t,�a to die in our local shelters until r a,i �: Salt Lake Valley. 16,000! �' �° we can get the community to Sadly, only 3-4% of those lost focus on sterilizing their cats. cats will find their owners. - k_ ,, WE NEED YOUR HELP! All shelters in the state face the same problem. Many cats corn- shelter. Feral cats (or Every litter has an impact. So ing in, few adoptions, fewer re- `Community Cats' as they are please join us in promoting demptions and unless there was more appropriately called) are responsible cat ownership and a trap, neuter, return program in defined as lost, homeless, un- educating your friends and place, very few options. owned or feral cats living in the neighbors about the challenges SLCoAS takes in approximately community. The TNR program for lost and abandoned cats in is a lifesaving program where our community and the tremen- 4,500 cats each year. Before the g launch of new programs, the these cats are sterilized, vacci- dous burden place on local average live release rate for cats nated, `ear-tipped' and released shelters. in our shelter was very low. back to the area where they LICENSE ONLINE III 0 were found. The SLC TNR pro-New programs like the SL gram (in partnership with No TODAY! More Homeless Pets in Utah) gram which allows people to has resulted in a decrease in cat ,Pet licensing is required in all I adopt a sterilized, vaccinated intake from SLC of 18% in ' and microchipped cat at no cost, areas of the Salt Lake Valley. If 2010 compared to 2008. live in unincorporated SL have helped change the fate of you these deserving pets but there is Unincorporated Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City,, more work to be done. County now has two TNR op- Herriman City or Holladay City' tions. The first is the traditional you can purchase your pet Feral Cat Colony Permit which license online at: "TNR is the only allows any interested citizen to program proven to begin trapping and sterilizing www.AdoptUtahPets.com actually reduce the these cats in their neighborhood. number of cats entering The second is program allows ,Avoid late fees and penalties shelters." cats that come into the shelter to and ensure that your pet finds be sterilized and returned to the !its way home. area where they were found. Trap, Neuter and Release (`TNR') for community cats is These programs have already License today! the second program and our taken the live release rate for most promising long term solu- cats at SLCoAS to record highs tion since TNR is the only pro- that far exceed county and state - El • , gram proven to actually reduce averages. - lir the number of cats entering the g Even with our recent success, I Page 7 Salt Lake County Animal Services • Donations, Grants and Endowments We have several accounts for donations.The accounts are separated to ensure that we use the funds in the manner that the donor wishes.Each account has a different focus but all go to support lifesaving programs. Injured Animal and Clinic Fund.Funds donated to this account are used to provide emergency medical care for lost and abandoned pets that come into the shelter with treatable illnesses and injuries.The fund also supports community spay/neuter events. Animal Adoption and Rescue Fund.This fund is used to support adoptions,rescues and special focus programs like the SL County Pit Crew and Trap-Neuter-Release efforts. Education and Outreach Fund.This fund is used to support humane education and training programs for people and pets.We also provide education presentations to local schools and various community groups. Shelter Fund. Funds donated to the general shelter fund may be used for any program or for the purchasing of sli equipment.e Emergencypeciazed Respons Fund. Donations to the emergency response fund supports emergency response training and equipment. Grants We actively pursue grant funding both directly as well as through Utah F.A.C.E.S.to support our programs.The • following grants were awarded to SLCoAS in 2010: • $8,700 from PetSmart Charities grant to remodel our small cat display/playroom • $5,000 from American Dog Rescue grant to staff the Pit Crew Program(via Utah FACES) • $3,500 from American Humane Association for Kuranda dog beds used in the kennels • $3,640 from Utah F.A.C.E.S adopt a kennel program to be used for adoption and rescue efforts • $2,000 from Animal Farm Foundation for free pit bull sterilizations(via Utah FACES) Coral and Ronald Boyce Pet Adoption Endowment Fund We were thrilled this year to receive$1,575,000 from the Coral and Ronald Boyce Estate to establish a Pet Adop- tion Endowment Fund.This account will be used to save many pets in years to come. 2010 Best in State Medal Winner In the Spring of 2010 our agency was honored to receive a"2010 Utah's Best of State Medal Award"in the Community Development category. �7� According to the organization's website,the Best of State Awards were created to rec-WINNER ognize outstanding individuals, organizations and businesses in Utah. By recognizing BEST OF STATE excellence in our community and sharing examples of success and triumph in so many worthy endeavors,we hope we will all be inspired to reach a little higher,to try a little — '\ harder ad to work a little longer to reach our goals. __ QReceiving this award was welcome recognition of the work and achievements of every- one involved with Salt Lake County Animal Services. UTAH 2010 1 Salt Lake County © ` Animal Services We are all over the I 511 West 3900 South lllterltet! 1 Salt Lake City, Utah 84123 AcloptUtahPets.com t 801-559-1100 111 M -F 10:30 am-6:30 pm On our front page you will find Sat. 9:00 am 5:00 pm links to our Facebook, Flicks YouTube and BlogSpot Pages al www.AdoptUtahPets.com A Huge Thank You To Our Amazing Volunteers and Foster Families! _ . t Our volunteers have been critical to our success in so many ways. From 1 , . _ -- working in administration, cleaning, spending time with shelter pets or , • `.k :` serving as a foster family, volunteers make a significant impact on all of A V., 1 i our programs and our results. Our volunteers save lives! r.': , lh ;'y f ..Coco" "Gallic" v� +. • ;.rs ., r Or. 011 F.!Q Cyndi Tadehara is one of our dedicated �, volunteers. She has fostered several adult dogs and been instrumental in i -i.1 I Foster r ' _ Easter finding them homes. SLCoAS Named Recipient of American Dog Rescue 2010 National Animal Welfare and Protection Award We were thrilled to announce that Salt Lake County Animal Services was named the recipient of the American Dog Rescue 2010 National Animal Welfare and Protection Award. SLCoAS received the award for distinguishing itself amongst the dozens of animal service organizations that ADR works with by increasing adoptions and decreasing deaths by the hundreds;eliminating the practice of euthanizing pets simply because an animal was"out of time"; saving 92% more lives and reducing euthanasia rates to less than half the state average. "Our citizens have been clear that they want unnecessary euthanasia of lost pets to end at government shelters," says Salt Lake Mayor Peter Corroon. "Animal Services re- sponded and changed direction to provide services that reflect our community values. AMERICAN The achievements of Salt Lake County Animal Services are a great example of what an e w agency can accomplish with dedicated staff, volunteers and the support of the commu- i r • nity. " RESCUE NO HEALTHY DOG WITHOUT A HOME Ti SCANNED TO:Y1ro' SCANNED BY:VAcrt— RECEIVED RALPH BECKER s�1TrA 1i1(f��1lyrla� �(�II1 DATE: 31/oli°i/ MAYOR MAR 1Y�fC'71LJ`�,.'V'�l'lii�iSl lU ��`.'V' 1 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR D ., SLC COUNCIL OFFICE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL MAR 10 Z011 / By Date Received: A 3I I p WI David)2veritt,Clu of Staff Date sent to Council: 0 1,17,6(1 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:March 10,2011 Jill Remington-Love,Chair FROM: David Everitt,Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Salt Lake County's Proposed New Approach to Animal Services STAFF CONTACT:Randy Hillier Policy and Budget Analyst 535-6606 Gina Chamness Budget Director 535-7766 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Council be briefed by the Salt Lake County Animal Services Director and the Administration on changes Salt Lake County is proposing in a number of areas relating to Animal Services, including enforcement,licensing,and number of animals per household. BUDGET IMPACT: The Administration expects no budget impact as a result of changes being proposed by Salt Lake County. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Since 1991,Salt Lake City has contracted with Salt Lake County to provide Animal Services. In June of 2004,Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County signed the most recent 5-year contract. Following 2009,Salt Lake City has had the option of extending the contract for five additional 1-year periods. The City has currently extended the contract twice. Salt Lake County has provided Salt Lake City full animal control services through the contract period for a flat fee,negotiated annually. In addition,licensing,and other fees remain with Salt Lake County to offset the cost of our contract. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX 801-535-6331 www.sicgov.com The contract was recently amended to implement a new adoption fee program that eliminated designated animal adoption fees in favor of a fee structure that is based on demand for and adoptability of particular animals. This,along with other changes in the philosophy of Animal Services leadership,has altered the program considerably in the last three years. There has been more of a focus on increased adoption and reduced euthanasia. Salt Lake County Animal Services now wants to adopt a new operating model to improve pet licensing compliance,provide more pet ownership educational opportunities and further reduce euthanasia. This new model is largely based on an existing model currently being used in Calgary,Canada.. Some of the elements of this new model include cat licensing,removing limits on the number of pets and increasing the cost of licensing non-compliance. They are also proposing the construction of a new pet adoption and education facility,since the current facility does not currently meet their needs. The County currently plans to have the above-mentioned pet adoption and education facility completed by 2013. Funding for the construction would come through the issuance of MBA bonds. The County anticipates that revenue from increases in the number of licenses issued,as well as increases in non-compliance fees,will be sufficient to fund the debt service on these bonds. According to the County's current financial estimates,the licensure and penalty changes will provide approximately$223,000 in additional revenues by 2014,for the Salt Lake City area alone. Although it is early in the process,the County is currently projecting that total revenue increases will be sufficient to cover the debt service and increases in operating costs for the new facility,and will not result in increases in Salt Lake City's contract costs. They anticipate debt service to be approximately$500,000 annually,with an increase of approximately$250,000 in ongoing operating costs. If we recommend moving forward with the County to implement this plan through ordinance and contract changes,we may consider contractual assurance to minimize or eliminate any financial risk for the City. Salt Lake County Animal Services lists the core elements of their proposed new program and model as: 1. Building a more effective licensing program; 2. Developing a stronger community education and safety program; 3. Addressing officer interactions:mediation/communication vs. enforcement; 4. Addressing ordinance changes to support the new operating model;and 5. Building a new pet adoption and education facility The Administration is interested in soliciting ideas and receiving feedback from the Council,as well as the public,prior to proposing any ordinance changes such a model would require. PUBLIC PROCESS: Feedback from the public will be sought prior to any proposed .�r. ordinance changes. The information provided by the County will be placed on the Open ... City Hall section of the City's website where the public's input will be gathered. Salt Lake County Animal Services A New Approach rvbt \ \�,�\lV A, v v v w1 ,VA��� i x From the Fall of 2008 through the end of 2010 the programs within the shelter have gone through significant changes in philosophy and daily operations. mprove Community Resources Improved statistics an. ` uppo" Online licensing The number of pets leaving the county Low cost medical resources shelter has increased by 92%. Free spay and neuter events each year Euthanasia rates are now less than half of Free and low cost trainings made the state average available to citizens and their pets Local, regional and national recognition Shelter now open later in the evening for initiatives and programs Special community programs made New partnerships, grants and donations to available: support programs without additional tax SL County Pit Crew dollars. 2010 American Dog Rescue Animal Trap/Neuter/Release (`TNR') for Welfare and Protection Award Winner. community cats WINNER BEST OF STATE e'j.�Jl! .� I \j 1 UTAH 2010 1. Low licensing compliance (22%). • Impedes ability to ensure rabies compliance • A license and a microchip are critical for reuniting pets with owners 2. Few pets reunited with owners (24%). • Returning pets to owners is our first priority and in the best interest of the pet and the community. 3. A need to increase education and improve safety within the community. 4. Current facility does not meet the needs of Animal Services today. • Built as a traditional `pound' where animals come in and are held for a short time and then euthanized. • Average annual hold times have gone from as short as 4.3 days to 14.6 days Challenges: • I -,SE1._ •• Very low licensing compliance (22%). ter, ❖ Few lost pets reunited with owners (24%). ❖ A need to increase community education and improve safety within the community. Solution: Adopt a new operating model and philosophy for our animal control responsibilities that will help us reach our goals. 4'e A, m m .M i A • ,A A a ' f=i t � In addition to a unique philosophy and a compassionate approach to animal control, Calgary has achieved some astounding statistics. Licensing Compliance—Dogs 22% 90% Licensing Compliance—Cats (Not Required) 54%* Dogs Reunited with Owners 44% 87% Cats Reunited with Owners 4% 55% Dog Bites 658/381,000 residents** 58/ 1,100,000 residents *Cat licensing has been in effect in Calgary for only 3 years. Compliance is expected to increase over time. **263/160,000 for Townships,353/180,000 for SLC 4ks, t r.1au, ..1:...yrofr..s 'mh s LW 1 W ,gip` , i I V {+ o a & ,:. m ' Y'' • . 7 i� i •r�w f-7 'f '' m • YJ AN v ,. O ` � � { mma m" III a/ _ <eaGYn1Y ®� 'L + a■■ . 3®G® c ' E i, 1. We do not have a problem with pet overpopulation, stray animals, nuisance or vicious animals—we have a problem with responsible pet ownership. 2. Shift from traditional animal control to a focus on responsible pet ownership and safety. 3. Identify and directly address the issues or problematic behavior. For example: Pet Limits - is the issue the number of animals or is the issue related to noise, smell or care being given to the animals? Imposing limits on the number of pets does not directly address the problem but it does create a barrier to compliance. We have other ordinances to address the actual issues. N 1 . License and provide permanent identification for pets. 2. Unless your pet is part of a structured, ethical breeding program, spay or neuter pets. 3. Provide training, physical care, socialization and medical attention for companion pets. 4. Do not allow pets to become a threat or nuisance in the community. 5. Procure pets only from ethical and responsible sources. ! ! "Remove barriers to licensing and ensure compliance is easy. Zero tolerance for repeat noncompliance. 1. Eliminate animal limits* • Animal limits do not address the actual issues such'as noise, odor or mess Limits create a barrier to compliance 2. Raise noncompliance penalty from $25 to $250* 3. Require cat licensing* Cat licensing is critical for increasing the number of cats reunited with owners. 4. Offer 6 month free temporary licenses for all new pets. 5. Include a microchip at no cost with any license. * Require ordinance changes. "Education is critical in creating safe and humane communities. " Education corrects myths, removes misconceptions, transforms misunderstanding, changes behavior and is key to compliance. Animal Handling and Bite Prevention Responsible Pet Ownership Specialized Courses for Problem Dogs/Owners (similar to traffic school) ) "Educate, mediate and assist citizens in identifying solutions to issues. Enforcement used as a last resort. " Officers trained in mediation and communication to work with offenders to correct the problem. Focus on education and changing animal owner behavior Field Officer Goals: Increase the number of pets driven directly home Reduce the number of interactions that end in enforcement (ie citations or notices of violation) The current facility does not meet the needs of Animal Services today. f ) } The new facility will be a substantial improvement to the quality of our services and the resources provided to the community. Funding would be through the issuance of a bond with an estimated completion date of 2013. I . Ordet.. What we will achieve: • Safer and more humane community • Increased low cost services available to the public • A more humane environment for pets • Improved adoptability of the pets in our care • Increased adoptions and decreased euthanasia 000.0 Improved education and training programs • Meet and maintain no kill goals • fiPr etc 1;\: ,,\\ ti x: 9E ,,,,„,,ir�,., raw In summary, we have identified five components necessary for us to address our current challenges: • 1 1! ' ,:' 1 t ItY p yk• 7� 7t b � II f3 h 1 � A4^T ,i ti' 'OF i _... 11,1111111111110 \ ,,;::„,A t`F ,�1 a O New revenues from increased licensing will allow us to offer improved resources and programs to our citizens. We expect to create a safer; more humane and more responsible community for pets and people. Pet licensing compliance t Positive interactions and improved T Rabies compliance relationship with citizens I Pet spay and neuter Dog bites 't Pets reunited with owners Citizen participation in programs Animal intake "h. Cases ending with compliance Shelter euthanasia rather than enforcement. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: Apri15,2011 SUBJECT: Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424—Zoning Map and ordinan amendment related to the Public Safety building project STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 4 ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Community and Economic Development AND CONTACT PERSON: Casey Stewart,Senior Planner COUNCIL PROCESS: The Council held a work session briefing on this issue March 2011,and held a public hearing on March 22,2011. The Council has a follow-up discussion scheduled for April 5t,with an optional action item on their formal meeting to consider adoption. UPDATED INFORMATION: Since the Council's initial work session briefing,some Council Members have expressed concern over the proposed text amendment allowing for the emergency communications tower at this site. The Administration will come to the briefing on Tuesday prepared with a discussion of options and visual images relating to this issue. Council staff has requested the Attomey's Office prepare two separate ordinances in the event the Council would like to consider the request for rezoning separately from the request for a text amendment allowing the communications tower. Motions have also been prepared to reflect different options for Council consideration. It should be noted that the rezoning would be needed prior to any permits for construction being issued. Because of that,the project could be delayed if the Council does not approve the rezoning request on Tuesday,April 5th. If the Council decides to defer action on the emergency communications tower text amendment,that will not necessarily delay the project. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: (MOTION 1 CONSIDERS BOTH THE REZONING AND TEXT AMENDMENT IN ONE ORDINANCE) I. I"I move that the Council"! Adopt an ordinance rezoning a portion of the property bounded by 400 and 500 South,300 and 400 East,from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed Use), and RO(Residential Office),to TC-75(Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands),and amending the text of the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance to allow for communication towers exceeding maximum building height in the PL and PL-2 zoning districts,with certain qualifying provisions. la.Optional additional motion for Council consideration I further move that the Council amend the ordinance to specify that the communication towers exceeding maximum building height would only be permitted in the PL-2 zoning district. (current ordinance allows these towers in both the PL and PL-2 zoning districts) (MOTIONS 2-4 CONSIDER THE REZONING AND TEXT AMENDMENT IN SEPARATELY) 1 2. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance rezoning a portion of the property bounded by 400 and 500 South, 300 and 400 East, from TC-75 (Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed Use), and RO (Residential Office),to TC-75 (Transit Corridor) and PL-2 (Public Lands). 3 AND/OR 3. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending the text of the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance to allow for communication towers exceeding maximum building height in the PL and PL- 2 zoning districts,with certain qualifying provisions. 3a.Optional additional motion for Council consideration I further move that the Council amend the ordinance to specify that the communication towers contrast,would support other City policies,as noted previously in the zoning map amendment analysis. • The proposed text amendment is consistent with the overall purpose of the zoning ordinance. • The proposed text amendment does not conflict with any overlay districts. • The proposed text amendment implements common practices in urban planning and design,by introducing language that significantly limits the number of communication towers that would appear in the City. Council staff note:If the PL district were removed, this would bolster this finding further. D. Planning Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Central City Community Council on February 2,2011,with approximately 20 people in attendance. No vote was taken for or against the project. Comments from attendees included addressing the diminishing residential development around these civic blocks,concern that the height of the communication tower will affect the views to the east, and the overall design of the building. Detailed comments are included as an attachment in the Administration's transmittal. E. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this issue on February 23,2011. No comment was received at the hearing. The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to forward a positive recommendation,with the qualifier that the language be changed to clarify that in addition to the one-per property and government/public safety purposes requirement,only a "monopole" type communication tower be allowed. F. The proposed amendments were routed through City departments for comment. No departments had any objections to the amendments. G. The purpose of the Public Lands (PL-2) public lands district is to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses,lands and facilities in an urban context. Permitted uses include office,government offices,accessory retail, community centers,educational facilities, libraries,art galleries, museums,and parks. MATTERS AT ISSUE: A. Currently the proposal is to allow these communication towers in both the PL and PL-2 zoning districts. PL zoning districts are found throughout the City and in some areas where view corridors may be especially sensitive (for example, the Capitol) -see attached map of PL and PL-2 zoning districts. If the Council wanted to further restrict the proliferation of these types of communication towers,the Council may wish to suggest changing the ordinance to only allow these types of communication towers in the PL-2 zone. The PL-2 zone is found nowhere in the City except the Downtown Main Library and proposed for the south the building set in between the 450 South axis and 500 South(approximately 475 South). As such,it will not block the axial view corridor east from the City and County Building,but will be south of that view corridor. Despite the fact that the text amendment is not necessarily supported by statements in the master plan,the overall development of the Public Safety Building is supported by statements in the plan,and the building itself has been designed with a profile to support and enhance the view corridor to the East. The Administration indicates that this communication tower is critical to the functioning of the Emergency Operations Center,and that no other options are possible for this type of communication(the tower needs to be able to have a clear"line of sight"to a city-owned communications tower in City Creek). 1. The Council may wish to discuss this issue further. 2. It is staffs understanding that there is no alternative to placing the communication tower on this site. The Council may wish to confirm with the Administration and the project team if all other alternatives have been explored. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The block east of the Library along 300 South contains Transit Corridor(TC-75)and Residential Mixed Use(RMU)zoning designations,and Residential Office(RO).The Transit Corridor zoning designation fronts 400 South. a. The purpose of the TC-75 Transit Corridor District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive transit and pedestrian oriented commercial,residential and mixed use development along major transit corridors.The design guidelines are intended to create a pedestrian friendly environment and to emphasize that pedestrian and mass transit access is the primary focus of development. b. The purpose of the R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District is to reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail,service commercial,and small scale office uses.The design guidelines are intended to facilitate the creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access. Government uses and facilities are allowed in this zone as a conditional use. Pedestrian pathways and greenways are allowed as a permitted use. c. The purpose of the RO Residential/Office district is to provide a suitable environment for existing and future mixed use areas consisting of a combination of residential dwellings and office use.This district should encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of appropriate existing buildings and neighborhood scale. Government uses and facilities are allowed in this zone as a permitted use. Pedestrian pathways and greenways are allowed as a permitted use. B. The purpose of the Public Lands(PL)district is to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses,lands and facilities. C. The stated intent of the Central Community Master Plan(2005)is to create a future community based on four fundamental goals: 1. Livable communities and neighborhoods 2. Vital and sustainable commerce 3. Unique and active places 4. Increased pedestrian mobility and accessibility 5 D. The following are key points mentioned in the Master Plan that may be relevant to the Administration's proposal: • (Page 9,Future Residential land use changes) The 450 South Corridor can be supported and enhanced in the area immediately to the east of the City and County Building with mixed land uses such as Salt Lake City government administration,courts,public safety administration,ground level interactive uses(small retail,offices,public gatherings),cultural facilities,medium to high density residential,as well as open space enhancements. (Page 12,Government land Use) 'Concentration of local government administration and office facilities,particularly Salt Lake City administration,courts,public safely and cultural facilities near the City and County Building will help create efficiencies in services which are often interrelated,and help improve access to services for local residents and businesses.Applying sound urban design principles and appropriate architectural character to these uses will also provide a positive transition from the Central Business District to the Central City Neighborhood." (Page 13,Policies for Institutional Land Use) INSLU-4.4 Concentrate the development of Salt Lake City administration,courts and cultural facilities near the City and County Building to encourage efficient services,improve access for businesses and residents,facilitate improved work and communication among interrelated departments and divisions,provide opportunities for public gatherings and interaction,and support and enhance the development of a pedestrian corridor along 450 South established by the axis between the Matheson Courthouse,the City and County Building,the Library Square block,and possibly further east toward 400 East. E. The Central Community Mast Plan outlines design policies for protecting the East Downtown View corridor,which this site is in.The policies affecting the proposed text amendment are stated below: (Page 19,Urban Design policies) "Protect view corridors,vistas,and focal points.Refer to the urban design map on page 87." t F. For further relevant Master Plan and Policy Considerations,see list starting on Page 9. The following information was provided for the Council's formal meeting on November 16,2011. It is provided again for reference. FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION/OPTIONS: During the Council work session briefing,much of the Council's discussion focused on the 450 south axis,and what could be done to ensure that this axis is preserved as properties develop in the future. The Council may wish to consider the following options for addressing this issue: 1. Add a separate policy statement to the text of the Central Community Master Plan that contains stronger language about preserving an easement along 450 South. The following is a draft of potential language:"Any development between the City and County building and Gilgal Gardens should consider preserving the 450 South corridor as a priority." 2. Adopt a legislative intent requesting the Administration research the costs to acquire an easement stretching east from the City and County Building to Gilgal Gardens along the 450 South Corridor,and request a briefing so that these costs can be reviewed in context with other priorities for mid-block accesses around the City. 6 3. Adopt a legislative intent requesting the Administration return to the Council with options(easement,overlay,density credits),for ensuring that future developments between 400 and 500 South from the City and County Building to Gilgal Gardens preserve the 450 South axis. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: I"I move that the Council'] Adopt an ordinance amending the text and future land use map of the Central Community Master Plan to encourage future civic uses to concentrate near existing civic uses in the East Downtown Area,and change the designation of the land located within the bloc bounded by 300 East,400 South,400 East,and 500 South to Civic/Mixed Use,pursuant to No.PLNPCM2009-0142. And/Or 5. Consider adding any or all of the options for additional master plan statements or legislative intents listed above. 6. And/Or 7. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt the ordinance. The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on October 19, 2010. It is provided again for your reference. KEY ELEMENTS: H. An ordinance has been prepared at the Mayor's request for Council consideration to amend the Central Community Master Plan(2005)for the block bounded by 400 South,500 South, 300 East and 400 East,in the following general ways(detailed changes are listed in item C): 1. Designate the subject block as"Civic/Mixed Use"in the future land use map(note: this is a new land use designation-see Matters at Issue section). 2. Encourage future civic uses to concentrate near existing civic uses,particularly the City and County building,to encourage efficient services and improve access for businesses and residents,designed in such a way as to provide a transition from the Central Business District to the Central City neighborhood; 3. Create a corridor at approximately 450 South which should be supported and enhanced in the area immediately to the east of the City and County Building with a mix of land uses such as government,public safety,medium to high density residential,ground level interactive uses,cultural facilities,and open space enhancements; 4. Encourage incorporation of residential uses as a part of redeveloped land in the East Downtown area,specifically the Public Safety Building project. I. The ordinance was prepared to amend the master plan to reflect the voter-approved Public Safety Facility,as well as provide a context for the future development of the block. J. The following are the specific amendments to the Central Community Master Plan(noted in bold italic underlined text): 1. Amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land use Map for the block bordered by 400 South,500 South,300 East and 400 East to reflect"Civic/Mixed Use"designation. 2. (Lower Center Column-page 9)In the 400 South TOD zone,this plan recommends creating a new interior pedestrian corridor along 450 South between 200 and 700 East with a possible extension to Gilgal Garden between 700 and 800 East. �.. The light rail line along 400 South strongly supports this land use change,which will evolve gradually as the possibilities become apparent to residents and developers. The 450 South Corridor can be supported and enhanced in the area immediately to 7 the east of the City and County Building with mixed land uses such as Salt Lake City government administration, courts,public safety administration,ground level interactive uses (small retail, offices,public gatherings), cultural facilities, medium to high density residential, as well as open space enhancements. 3. (Lower Center Column -page 12) Government land use: This land use includes facilities operated by Federal, State, County, and City agencies, such as storage yards, recreation centers,jails and courts, fire stations, police stations, professional offices, and libraries. These facilities may be located generally throughout the central business district, with smaller neighborhood oriented service facilities located in neighborhoods. Concentration of local government administration and office facilities,particularly Salt Lake City administration, courts,public safety and cultural facilities near the City and County Building will help create efficiencies in services which are often interrelated, and help improve access to services for local residents and businesses.Applying sound urban design principles and appropriate architectural character to these uses will also provide a positive transition from the Central Business District to the Central City Neighborhood. 4. (Top of Center Column - page 13) Expansion of large-scale medical facilities and services within the Central Community will take place in the Gateway and Downtown areas of the community. Cultural and governmental land uses will also be encouraged to expand within the downtown area, with Salt Lake City administration, courts and cultural facilities concentrated in the vicinity of the City and County Building. 5. (Middle of Right Column - Table-page 13) Policy INSLU-4.0 Provide government facilities accessible to the public that meet the needs of the community. INSLU-1.1 Ensure that transportation and vehicle circulation impacts are mitigated when expansion or intensification of an institutional land use occurs. Encourage incorporation of residential uses as part of or near new or redeveloped Institutional use projects in the East Downtown area, e.g. the Public Safety Building project. INSLU-4.1 Encourage the concentration of federal, state, and local government -. office facilities, and courts, and cultural facilities in or near the Central Business District with convenient access to light rail in order to provide easy availability to the greatest number of people. INSLU-4.2 Encourage neighborhood participation in volunteer crime prevention and emergency response programs. INSLU-4.3 Ensure City and encourage Federal State and County entities that the architecture of new government or public buildings complements and enhances the urban design of the community and the landscaping achieves continuity among neighboring government building sites. INSLU-4.4 Concentrate the development of Salt Lake City administration, courts and cultural facilities near the City and County Building to encourage efficient services, improve access for businesses and residents, facilitate improved work and communication among interrelated departments and divisions,provide opportunities for public gatherings and interaction, and support and enhance the development of a pedestrian corridor along 450 South established by the axis between the Matheson Courthouse, the City and County Building, the Library Square block, and possibly further east toward 400 East. 8 K. The Administration's transmittal notes the following: 1. The current designations in the Central Community Master Plan future land use map for the subject block are High Density Transit Oriented Development,High Density Mixed Use,General Commercial,and Residential Mixed Use(see attached maP)• 2. The current zoning designations for the parcels within the subject block are Transit Corridor(TC-75)along 400 South,and Residential Office(RO)in the south east corner of the block,and Residential Mixed Use(RMU)in the remainder of the block. 3. Current uses on the block are limited to office and retail. 4. Originally the Administration proposed designating only the western half of the block as"Civic/Mixed Use." However,after the original proposal was presented to the Planning Commission and feedback was received,the Administration decided to pursue designating the entire block as"Civic/Mixed Use."This would allow for greater flexibility in developing the Public Safety building project as well as allow for a softening of edges between government uses,commercial uses,high density residential uses,and the lower density residential uses to the East. The Planning Commission comments and concerns from the first discussion informed the Administration's revised proposal. 5. Planning notes that the concept of concentrating civic uses has been discussed by past administrations as far back as 1943(see Master Plan and policy considerations item D). 6. Planning also notes that the location of the proposed Public Safety Building would maximize access to transit for those that use the building,as well as provide an opportunity to further delineate and enhance the axis along 450 South. 7. According to the Administration-the"Civic/Mixed Use"designation would allow for all current zoning and uses currently on the block,as well as government facilities,residential,office,retail and cultural uses. 8. Planning Staff notes that"cultural"uses were included in the potential uses for this block in order to allow flexibility in developing the public open space on the block (potential for concerts,markets or other large public gatherings). 9. The petition from the Administration notes that they will not necessarily pursue rezoning of the entire block,but rather will pursue rezoning of the Public Safety Building"quadrant"only,to a Public Lands(PL)designation(staff note:Government facilities are allowed in the RMU zone as a conditional use). L. Currently the City owns property along the western half of the block,generally from 300 East to Blair Street(with the exception of the Salt Lake Roasting Company). The Council will be receiving a detailed briefing from the Administration regarding the latest plans for the Public Safety Facility on November 9th.Generally speaking,the current plan for the City's property is as follows: 1. Develop the south west quadrant of the block into a Public Safety Administration Building. 2. Develop the axis along 450 South and orient the Public Safety Building towards this axis,creating public spaces complimentary to the public open spaces to the west. 3. Because the north west quadrant of the block is not longer required for development of the Public Safety Building,decide on the future use of the Barnes Bank building, and potentially issue an RFP for development of that quadrant. Previous presentations by the Administration have indicated that they intend to issue an RFP that would call for a transit-oriented mixed-use development,with a strong housing 9 component. The Council may wish to ask for an update on the status of the Barnes Bank Building,and any impact that may have on the bond proceeds used to purchase the building. 4. Because the City is the current property owner for the land in the north western "1 quadrant of the block,it can retain a certain amount of control in what is eventually built on the property. M. Public Comments-Planning staff held an open house for this project on January 14,2010. Eight people attended. Most questions related to the design of the Public Safety Building and surrounding site. Other comments came from surrounding businesses wondering how the extension of Blair Street would potentially impact their businesses. The owners of Freshman's Jewelers(353 East 500 South)also expressed concern that the project would move them from their location(staff note:the City has not expressed a desire to expand the Public Safety Building project farther to the east along 500 South,and would therefore the City's project will not require them to relocate). N. The Planning Commission held public hearings on this petition on March 24,2010,and June 23,2010. As stated earlier,the first time the Planning Commission discussed this issue,only half of the block was proposed to be designated as"Civic/Mixed Use."The Administration then revised their proposal to include the full block,and presented it to the Planning Commission again on June 23. 1. The discussion in March revolved around concerns for the development of housing, as well as concerns that the"edge"between the government facilities and development to the east was too harsh. The planning commission voted unanimously(8-0)to forward a positive recommendation for the master plan amendment. 2. The discussion in June also involved concerns for the development of housing on the block and how specific language in a master plan should be regarding use when a mix of uses is desired. •A constituent spoke at the public hearing and asked that language be more specific to include housing,since other uses in the block have failed to produce the amount of housing desired. •The owner of the Freshman property(350 East 500 South)stated that they worried that eventually they would need to be relocated,but that overall they thought the Public Safety Building at that location would make the area safer. •Commissioners stated that they appreciated the Administration's change in allowing for flexibility and a softening of the"edge"between government facilities and development to the north and east. •The planning commission agreed that language should be added to emphasize the importance of housing in the block and further emphasize the importance of the landscaping continuity between the Public Safety and Library blocks. With those additions,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Those additions have been made in the ordinance that is before the Council. MATTERS AT ISSUE: A. The Downtown neighborhood planning area is defined by the Central Community Master Plan as stretching from South Temple to 900 South,300 West to 200 East. Currently the plan recommends government uses locating in the Downtown Planning area. Planning has proposed amending the plan to encourage government uses to locate"in the vicinity of"the City and County Building,which could be interpreted to allow the Public Safety Building to be developed on 300 East,technically outside the Boundary. Because the Downtown Main 10 Library is already outside of the "Downtown Planning Area"the Council may wish to adjust the boundary of the downtown planning area between 400 and 500 South, to include the existing and proposed government uses. B. The land use designation of"Civic/Mixed Use" will be a new land use designation in the C Central Community Master Plan as well as the entire City. The Council may wish to ask the administration if it will be recommending a combination of existing zones to fall within this new future land use designation, or if a new zoning category will be created. C. The current zoning(Transit Corridor,Residential Office,Residential Mixed Use) does not guarantee that housing will be built as a part of any development,although in some cases housing is encouraged. There is no housing currently on the block,although in developing the Central Community Master Plan,the importance of housing in East Downtown was emphasized.The future land use designation also does not guarantee that housing will be built as a part of any future development. Planning Staff responded to this concern(which was raised by a constituent in the planning commission public hearing)by adding the amendment to INSLU-1.1 (item C.5 above),encouraging residential uses as part of redevelopment of the block. The Council may wish to consider a legislative intent specifying that housing should be a component of a development of land owned by the City on the corner of 400 South and 300 East. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The block east of the Library along 300 South contains Transit Corridor(TC-75) and Residential Mixed Use (RMU) zoning designations,and Residential Office (RO).The Transit Corridor zoning designation fronts 400 South. a. The purpose of the TC-75 Transit Corridor District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive transit and pedestrian oriented commercial,residential and mixed use development along major transit corridors.The design guidelines are intended to create a pedestrian friendly environment and to emphasize that pedestrian and mass transit access is the primary focus of development. b. The purpose of the R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District is to reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high giki • density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail,service commercial,and small scale office uses.The design guidelines are intended to facilitate the creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access. Government uses and facilities are allowed in this zone as a conditional use. Pedestrian pathways and greenways are allowed as a permitted use. c. The purpose of the RO Residential/Office district is to provide a suitable environment for existing and future mixed use areas consisting of a combination of residential dwellings and office use. This district should encourage the maintenanc and rehabilitation of appropriate existing buildings and neighborhood scale. Government uses and facilities are allowed in this zone as a permitted use. Pedestrian pathways and greenways are allowed as a permitted use. B. The stated intent of the Central Community Master Plan(2005)is to create a future community based on four fundamental goals: 5. Livable communities and neighborhoods 6. Vital and sustainable commerce 7. Unique and active places 8. Increased pedestrian mobility and accessibility 11 C. The following are key points mentioned in the Master Plan that may be relevant to the Administration's proposal: 1. The Master Plan states the following as a goal-encouraging unique and active places,including new places where people can gather,meet,socialize and recreate are created using design excellence and shared resources. FYisting destination centers and gathering places are enhanced through urban design recommendations. 2. The subject property is in the Central City small neighborhood planning area(a 40- block subsection stretching from 200 to 700 East,South Temple to 900 South). The following are relevant goals and issues identified specific to the Central City neighborhood planning area,that the Council may wish to consider: • Introduce reduced street width and street park elements in residential neighborhoods. • Target at-grade parking lots for mixed-use development projects. • Ensure that land-use policies reflect a respect for the eclectic architectural character so that this area does not remain as just an interim zone between Downtown and more desirable neighborhoods to the East and North; • Place special emphasis on buffers,transition zones,or insulation to minimize negative impacts from incompatible uses. • Create more open space and recreational areas in the East Downtown neighborhood; • Replace commercial strip development with more diverse and pedestrian oriented activities with a mixture of retail,entertainment and restaurants; 3. The Central Community Master Plan indicates that there is a neighborhood park deficiency in the Central City neighborhood planning area(4.5 existing park acres, 0111h Population 9,327,11.65 acres desired based on the neighborhood park standard of 1.25 acres per 1000 persons). 4. The following are stated goals of the Central Community Master Plan relating to institutional land uses: • Mitigate the impacts of institutional land uses on surrounding residential neighborhoods; • Promote the use of parks and plazas for cultural events and ensure that the size of the event does not exceed the facility's capacity; • Provide government facilities accessible to the public that meet the needs of the community; • Encourage the concentration of government office facilities and courts in the Central Business District with convenient access to light rail in order to provide easy availability to the greatest number of people; • Ensure City and encourage Federal,State and County entities that the architecture of new government or public buildings complements and enhances the urban design of the community. 5. The following are stated goals of the Central Community Master Plan relating to open space: • • Encourage the development of passive neighborhood parks,community gardens,dog parks,and open space areas; • Protect natural open space areas within the Central Community; • Expand open space and recreation areas with development of Library Square; • Pursue changing vacant lots to improved open space areas; 12 • Provide adequate,safe and accessible recreation opportunities by preserving existing parks,ensuring adequate maintenance and repair of parks and open space,promoting multiple use of park and recreation facilities and increasing the amount of parks and usable open space in order to achieve national standards for park space. 6. The following are stated goals of the Central Community Master Plan relating to transit oriented development: • At light rail stations in TOD districts,establish a centralized core of land uses iiii that support transit ridership.Anchor transit centers with land uses that act as destination points(TOD 2.2). • Encourage a variety of commercial uses that share the same clientele and patrons.For example,movie theaters provide a clientele to patronize restaurants,arcades,and retail businesses(TOD-2.3). • Based on the Future Land Use Map,establish transit oriented districts ' a range of land use densities; • Encourage the development of mixed-use projects near light rail stations to create a livable,walkable urban environment; D. Planning staff located a plan for a proposed Civic Campus dated 1943(see attached map), showing the block to the east of the library as a government/cultural facility. E. In January 2003,the Council adopted the following statements on Downtown(note:this is an excerpt from a larger policy document on Downtown. Council Staff can provide this on request): 7. City's Leadership Role i. The City can and should be a vigorous advocate of downtown,encouraging business investment,working to retain as well as attract businesses to downtown,and making it easy to do business in the City. The City's advocacy should include being proactive to make businesses feel welcome in and a part of Salt Lake City. ii. The City Council recognizes that many decisions affecting the fate of downtown must be made by the private sector.There is much City government can and should do to encourage a healthy downtown. And yet it must be remembered that the City,through the tools available to it,is a catalyst and coordinator,not a wealth-creator in and of itself. iii. City government should provide focus and leadership to encourage and support private efforts leading to downtown investment. It should make sure that its roles—including but not limited to infrastructure,business licensing,regulation,zoning and code enforcement and public safety—are done efficiently,effectively,and in a way that encourages rather than discourages private investment. iv. The City should encourage and facilitate communication and cooperation among the various private and public interests who have a stake in downtown,such as the Downtown Alliance,the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce,the Economic Development Corporation of Utah,the Downtown Merchants Association,the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau,and County,State and Federal governments. v. The City should leverage its resources as much as possible by encouraging, utilizing,and not duplicating,the services of private non-profit organizations including the Downtown Alliance,the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce,and 13 the Economic Development Corporation of Utah,in furthering the City's goals for downtown. 8. Build Upon Downtown's Strengths and Uniqueness vi. People will come downtown when it provides an experience or opportunity they can't find in their own neighborhoods. Salt Lake City must distinguish itself from the suburbs by building upon what is unique to downtown — things that cannot be experienced anywhere else. vii. The City Council supports a greater emphasis on leveraging historic preservation as an economic development tool by working more closely with the Utah Heritage Foundation to find opportunities to use Salt Lake City's historic buildings in new and exciting ways,for office,cultural,retail,and institutional uses. viii. Despite numerous efforts to promote downtown,for too long Salt Lake City too often has assumed that downtown will attract people just because it exists. The time is long past when people will come to downtown because it is the only place to shop,eat at a restaurant,or see a movie. The City Council encourages greater efforts to market downtown to people where downtown is geographically the closest retail shopping area.Marketing campaigns should target Salt Lake City residents,the daytime population,particularly office workers,University of Utah employees and students,visitors,and the suburban population,particularly residents of South Davis County. 1. The City Council supports encouraging the Downtown Alliance and Downtown Merchants associations to promote joint marketing opportunities,such as seeing the Utah Symphony and enjoying a dinner or staying the night in downtown hotels. The Council supports marketing campaigns targeting University of Utah employees and students to come downtown for restaurants, entertainment and shopping and to our own residents who shop in suburbs rather than coming downtown. 2. The City Council supports the development of other anchors to Main Street,in addition to retail,that will attract people to the City's core. Anchors could include museums,a Broadway-style theater,Olympic legacy or other similar attractions that would provide unique"draws" to downtown. 9. Take the long view rather than focusing on quick fixes ix. While there are some immediate steps that should be taken during the next one to three years,City policy-makers must resist the temptation to think short-term and instead take a long-range view of how decisions now will impact the City five,ten,even twenty years into the future. x. The City Council believes that the elements of sound development and marketing strategies for the downtown already exist in available plans and studies.The Council believes that the time for additional plans and studies have past,and the time for implementing a coherent,rational,and achievable program is now. xi. The City Council urges the Mayor and his administration to fashion an implementation program based on existing plans and strategies and carry out the implementation. xii. To keep the City Council and general public involved and informed of specific program steps taken and tied to long-term priorities with measurable benchmarks,the City Council supports having the Administration provide 14 updates to the Council and the public on the programs implementation. Regularly,the Administration should share,on a confidential basis as needed,its efforts with a subcommittee of the Council that will include representatives of Council and Redevelopment Agency leadership. 10.Support All facets of Downtown Development xiii. Too often the focus on downtown is on just one aspect of downtown-such as nightlife or retail-while failing to recognize that a successful downtown is made of several important elements. xiv. Each element is important in its own right,but,like an ecosystem,the success of each is intertwined and interdependent.These elements can be summarized as follows and measured by the criteria listed under each section: 1. Business center,providing the premier location for a variety of businesses,in particular,local,regional,and where possible national headquarters. a. Indicators of success indude: i. Square footage and type of office space in the downtown inventory ii. The vacancy rate iii. The number and size of"headquarters"located in the downtown. iv. New businesses relocating to the Central Business District. v. Existing businesses expanding at their present locations in the Central Business District. vi. Existing businesses renewing their leases. 2. Retail,supporting the retail needs of daytime population and drawing people to the downtown. a. Indicators of success include: i. Number of jobs generated ii. Square footage of retail iii. Total retail sales and retail sales per square foot at each of the major retail destinations. iv. Sales tax revenue generated. 3. Institutional Center a. Indicators of success include: i. Increased presence of county,state and federal offices ii. Presence of educational facilities available to the public 4. Local government and related public facilities a. Indicators of success include: i. Well-maintained public infrastructure ii. Continued development of efficient public transportation systems with easy access to homes and businesses and connected to a wider area 5. Arts,culture,entertainment and nightlife,providing unique entertainment and cultural opportunities for residents throughout the region and visitors a. Indicators of success include: i. Sales generated ii. Number of nights of entertainment offerings 15 iii. Location of new entertainment and cultural facilities induding theater for Broadway productions and museums 6. Tourism including convention visitors a. Indicators of success indude: i. Convention bookings ii. Hotel occupancy rate 7. Housing—available at all ranges of income levels—will further enhance the livability and vibrancy of downtown a. Indicators of success include: i. The number of housing units ii. Vacancy rates iii. Population iv. The mix of market rate,middle income,affordable and low income housing units F. Existing Council policy supports using zoning to maintain the residential population base within the City and to encourage population expansion. The Council policy notes that residential uses should have residential zoning classifications. G. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image,neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. H. While the proposed project is not located immediately adjacent to the Downtown Zoning districts,the Council may wish to consider the purpose statements outlined for the downtown zoning districts. a) The purpose of the D-1 zoning district is to foster an environment consistent with the area's function as the business,retail and cultural center of the community and the region. Inherent in this purpose is the need for careful review of proposed development in order to achieve established objectives for urban design,pedestrian amenities and land use control,particularly in relation to retail commercial uses. • In the D-1 Zoning district,when an entire block face is under one ownership (as would likely be the case for the Public Safety Building),no yard can exceed 25 feet,except by conditional use. • If the Public Safety Building does not take up an entire block face,no yard can exceed 5 feet except by conditional use,requiring design review by the Planning Commission. b) The purpose of the D-2 zoning district is to accommodate commercial uses and associated activities that relate to and support the Central Business District,but do not require a location within the Central Business District. Development within the D-2 Downtown Support District is also less intensive than that of the Central Business District. • No building may exceed 65 feet in height except by conditional use. With a conditional use,no building may exceed 120 feet in height. • There are no minimum or maximum yard requirements. CHRONOLOGY: 16 Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed text amendment. • November 3,2009 Voters approve Public Safety Facilities bond. N. • December 29,2009 Petition assigned • January 14,2010 Planning Open House • March 24,2010 Planning Commission Hearing • June 23,2010 Planning Commission Hearing of revised proposal • September 2,2010 Ordinance received from City Attorney • September 16,2010 Transmittal received in City Council Office cc: David Everitt,DJ Baxter,Rick Graham,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Paul Neilson,Frank Gray, Mary De La Mare-Schaffer,Wilf Sommerkom,Casey Stewart,Janice Jardine,Nick Tarbet File Location:Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Master Plan Amendment,Public Safety Building 17 • . . , ..... , - ;.•'1 '(1 ':..n.r., k J 'Lle- . . 'F. :.•;71‘titr ;;4.14-..-tt-f- , ..771 -:c . . .' kj::: '1': I. ''Ti.:• •<' I IE . e+-t„...... ------ if .., „2.!4,i '!;': .a.., 4.:,'...-• - < . , , ,.............. , . .. . ,:. ,, • , s ' .f ..",,,-. ,, .7.-.,,• - 1 . , :.,,,,..', -,..:.....,- - .1., -..1,•-.11:.,.:,.„:.:1€74,P,:.4 --.,,T.'- ..... "...""-' . -i<3..r. _ f __•••., _ . ..,1 _ :1 .• i• n - ..• .-_,...ffEr, 0 ..... . . , ., . 9, i.A Z • -; . , ' '._ •• —7-7F . ------- ,, . . L-- -- • -- '.i :1 ,.. • I .. 1. , •r: ..-.7.vi,......•:_ 1 , ' i• :6„21,-. : ;: ! .,,_._!_ip,.---4.,. • 1 , __ _ „ l' "111.. - - --, . . ,..,.. . —,,,-,..,,, . 11 , • ' .r'.1:. t'.., ' -:‘r•-'1 :-.- •:.r• riArff..--,;,....u.7..._ I . . , '-'":•. • . 1 l'-, I. ' •' ;. F ' -- --'',-.r .-• ;a.' ;.",..1:_lzaj,...,4 ! . . ., - -- — 3.eierk 1, • .. .— _ .. . — .--- : , .. ,-;<.-.,,..t, / ,_• K f, ' 't,..::- -----1,. , 1 ,..1..., ; . _ i , . __ r , . : ;_ .•.4 r -=.. , • .. , ,, L II 7 ii [ PL and PL-2 Zoning Districts within Salt Lake City - :IIillit sir L L 1 OF i' ' ���� I E- 4-,,-, . ZONING 11 IC1-, wI`� Ham 11 �■IIIII■.. , t*, N N II�C iumii `�IL►��\�— , .IIIII�■.■■■ A 1 WIN � ■■Ili• - �� imis � ��i■M■ii ERL 4 IIMEMIIMINIIIIINM llowf41% PL2 Ilimil• e� i•l=11 r■■■■i•■■■■ O •••••••••17■■■w■■■.Ii. 0 12,000 4,000 1 8,000 Feet ■iriui.ij . ci � EMI IIMO i am1111.10011.17 w MNi I �� 1 Public Safety Building . 4. LI Iii .... . fig �...„ i :;' 1) —ttiira• --L_ == :�I II iii Et5 -=�97fr ih, grim 11 - I. . goiLii:Jrnmitsiii Writ" �l -� ...., , III - ■...1 �!� � III ..■ r dimm ._,...fau � � F7 io IJ I ATTACHMENT C Example of a similar monopole communication tower Aurora,Illinois Public Safety Building IJ • 1 a II ._ — ` • S 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers) An ordinance amending the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearing on February 23,2011 on an application submitted by Mayor Ralph Becker ("Applicant")to amend the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and to amend the City's zoning map(Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424) in furtherance of the proposed Public Safety Building;and WHEREAS,at its February 23,2011 meeting,the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council("City Council")on said application;and WHEREAS,after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests. NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.32.140. That section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts),shall be,and hereby is amended to include"Communication towers, exceeding the maximum building height"as a permitted use for the PL and PL-2(Public Lands) zoning districts with an accompanying qualifying provision regarding the number,ownership and purpose of such communication towers exceeding the maximum allowed building height. Accordingly,the codifier is instructed to amend only the"Communications towers,exceeding .. the maximum building height"use category of the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for 0804, Special Purpose Districts and only add qualifying provision no. 13(leaving qualifying provisions 1-12 undisturbed)that such text affected by this amendment shall read as follows: Permitted And Conditional Uses RP BP FP AG AG-2 I AG-5 AG 20 'OS NOS i A PL PL-2 i I UI MH EI MU I Use Miscellaneous: ( I I I I .I-- Communication C i C P i P" P" !C c C towers,exceeding the 1 j maximum building i height i I I z• ,: .., ..:..: _..- .. •. � -- s.,:z.,,rxr<rzs::.�a..:��.,.....t..,-_._,.......,, c,.srcr:�::....., a.<....,....u."s� Qualifying provisions: 13.Maximum of one monopole per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date ....4, of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of , 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . 0+w Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: NB_ATTY-#I 7319-v2-Ordinance amendingtext_re_monopoles_PSB.DOC APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attomey's Office ,, Date: 7 By:P I C.i ._A 4C-- „rn Nielson, e or City Attorney RECEIVED n 1 2011 SCANNED TO .W- SANWPONCO.f I fir, I 0 I SCANNED BY:BY: • NICE DATE: % DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL U [ ( d [ MAR 1 2011 Date Recei • Davi Everitt,C ief of Staff Date sent to Council: O3 O/ Zp// TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 1,2011 Jill Remington Love . r FROM: Frank Gray,CED Di -ctor SUBJECT: Zoning Map and Ordinance a ;•1 t el - ated to the Public Safety Building project. STAFF CONTACT: Casey Stewart,Planning Division COMMISSION MOTION&FINDINGS: [Planning Commission] Commissioner Luke motioned as to PLNPCM2oo9-01424 the Public Safety Building Zoning Amendments:based on the findings in the staff report and the discussion at the hearing,that the Planning Commission find the proposed amendments adequately meet the standards for general zoning text and map amendments,and therefore transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the amendments as proposed. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. Commissioner Woodhead inquired as to whether the motion was intended to include language for restricting the communication tower type to a monopole,as previously discussed by Commissioner Drown. Commissioner Luke amended the motion to include language limiting the communication tower type to a single monopole in the PL and PL-2 districts. Commissioner Gallegos also accepted Commissioners Luke,Gallegos,Drown,and Woodhead voted"Aye";Commissioner Dean voted "Nay". Chairman Fife did not vote. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council holds a briefing and schedules a public hearing. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404 P.O.BOX 1454E6,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 94114.5496 TELEPHONE:BO1-535-'1105 FAX:B01-535-6005 Re PI-NPCM2009-01423 Master Plan Amendment for Publi,,,$Ak5 gbQ,5gproject BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Zoning Map Amendment Mayor Becker initiated a request to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance for properties associated with the Public Safety Building project. Last year,2010,the Central Community Master Plan was amended to designate the block east of the City Library as Civic/Mixed Use. This zoning amendment request is a follow-up to that process and the next step in the project. The subject properties, acquired by the City,are currently zoned: Transit Corridor(TC-75) Residential-Mixed Use(R-MU) Residential Office(RO) The proposal is to change the zoning of the properties involved in the project to: Transit Corridor(TC-75 Public Lands(PL-2) The proposed PL-2 zoning district allows for government offices along with other community type uses such as theater,retail,schools,amphitheater,offices,and art galleries. The City Library block is also zoned PL-2,thereby allowing similar uses and continuity between the blocks. Zoning Text Amendment The second part of this amendment relates to the communication tower needed to service the proposed building. The designed tower would consist of a single monopole structure,mounted on the ground,and be between 100 feet and 140 feet tall. Currently,the PL districts(PL and PL-2)do not allow communication towers that exceed allowed building height,which is 75 feet. This part of the amendment includes a request to modify the PL districts to allow for a communication tower to exceed building height only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. Proposal: Modify Table 21A.32.140 Table of Permitted Uses For Special Purpose Districts to include "communication towers,exceeding the maximum building height"as a permitted use(P)for the Public Lands zoning districts(PL,PL-2)with the qualifying provision of: "Maximum of one monopole per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes." Analysis: The purpose of the PL-2 district is"to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses,land and facilities in an urban context." The subject property is an urban site on the edge of the downtown area. This zoning district allows for the types of uses—government offices,public plaza,and community events-and development anticipated to occur with the Public Safety Building project. The City Library block is also zoned PL-2,allowing for better coordination of uses,site design,and property use among the informal civic campus consisting of the City Administration building,the City Library,and the future Public Safety Building. 2 Re:PLNPCM2009-01423 Master Plan Amendment for Public Safety Building project The portion of the amendment related to communication towers,while opening the door for communication towers in the PL zones,is worded to mitigate the number of towers by establishing strict and specific qualifying provisions for such towers. Furthermore,the PL zones are categorized as"special purpose districts"and are not found in large numbers throughout the city. Their purpose is limited in scope and therefore worries about the proliferation of communication towers in these districts would be unfounded. Retaining the TC-75 zone along 400 South will continue the City's intent for transit oriented development for the 400 South corridor. The Planning Division is currently working on a project to shift the zoning in this corridor to a form-based zoning similar to what was recently implemented for the North Temple Boulevard corridor. Master Plan Considerations The Public Safety Building site is within the Central Community Master Plan area. The master plan objectives and policies related to this site arc re-iterated below and demonstrate that the proposed map amendment is consistent with those objectives and policies. {Page 9,Future Residential land use changes} The 450 South Corridor can be supported and enhanced in the area immediately to the east of the City and County Building with mixed land uses such as Salt Lake City government administration,courts,public safety administration,ground level interactive uses(small retail,offices,public gatherings),cultural facilities,medium to high density residential, as well as open space enhancements. {Page 12,Government Land Use} "Concentration of local government administration and office facilities,particularly Salt Lake City administration, courts,public.safety and cultural facilities near the City and County Building will help create efficiencies in services which are often interrelated,and help improve access to services for local residents and businesses.Applying sound urban design principles and appropriate architectural character to these uses trill also provide a positive transition from the Central Business District to the Central City Neighborhood" {Page 13,Policies for Institutional Land Use} INSLU-4.4 Concentrate the development of Salt Lake City administration,cowls and cultural facilities near the City and County Building to encourage efficient services, improve access fire businesses and residents,facilitate improved work and communication among interrelated departments and divisions,provide opportunities nities for public gatherings and interaction,and support and enhance the development of a pedestrian corridor along 450 South established by the axis between the Matheson Courthouse, the City and County Building, the Library Square block,and possibly fit tier east toward 400 East. The Central Community Mast Plan outlines design policies for protecting the East Downtown View corridor,which this site is in. The policies affecting the proposed text amendment arc stated below: Re.Pi AI'CA13009-0I'33 Maser Plat..Amendment for Public Safety rlulldin_pmjca {Page 19,Urban Design policies} "Protect view corridors,vistas,and focal points. Refer to the urban design map on page 87." The proposed text amendment related to communication towers would allow them in the PL zones,which currently do not allow communication towers to exceed building height. This conflicts in part with the policy to protect the view corridor;however,with the strict qualifying provisions proposed,this would be the only communications tower that would exceed allowed building height on a PL property. The actual Public Safety Building has been designed to be lower in height and arranged to retain the established view corridor. In this case,the planning commission(and city council)must weigh the benefits of the project and potential impact on the view corridor of this single tower,with the policies of the master plan. The proposed text change conflicts with the urban design policies of the Central Community Master Plan,but in contrast,would support the other City policies as noted previously in the zoning map amendment analysis. PUBLIC PROCESS: The proposed amendments were presented to the Central City Community Council on February 2,2011. Comments from attendees of the meeting addressed diminishing residential development around these civic blocks,the communication tower height,and building design. The comments are included with the staff report for the Planning Commission as Attachment B. ^►. Staff sought comments from numerous City departments. No departments had any objections and one department raised a concern related to building encroachment into front and side yard setbacks. The actual site and building design will be reviewed through the planned development process by the Planning Commission at a future date. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 23,2011. No citizens attended the hearing to offer comment. The Planning Commission held a brief discussion and then recommended approval of the zoning map amendment as proposed,and approval of the text amendments with an additional design qualifier that the communication tower be a monopole. The Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. The vote was four in favor;one opposed. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Standards for General Amendments 21,4.50.050 A decision to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance or the Zoning Map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. Sc.PI_NPCtit2009-0 1 4 3 3 Master Plan r;ntenAn•,ent for Public Saute Building project Zoning Text,21A.50.050.A In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment,the City Council should consider the following: I. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current,professional practices of urban planning and design. Zoning Map,21A.50.050.B In making a decision to amend the zoning map,the City Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives; and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay rolling districts which may impose. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including,but not limited to,roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection,schools,storm water drainage systems;water supplies,and wastewater and refuse collection. (\'2'.l'Li'PC5l2PO5•O1423 Master Plan.amnclmcnf for Public Safely BtnItllc^_ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL HEARING NOTICES AND POSTMARK B) STAFF REPORT Attachment A:Map of proposed zoning Attachment B:Public Comments C) MINUTES February 23,2011—Planning Commission 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition PLNPCM2009-01424 December 29,2009 Petition initiated and assigned to Casey Stewart,principal planner for staff analysis and processing. Amendment is to be processed subsequent to the master plan amendment. February 2,2011 Applicant and Planning staff attended Central City Community Council to present project and gather public input. February 11,2011 Newspaper(Salt Lake Tribune)publication of Planning Commission public hearing notice for February 23,2011 hearing. February 23,2011 Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. February 24,2011 Ordinance requested and received from City Attorney's office. March 9,2011 Planning Commission ratified minutes of February 23,2011 meeting. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and amending the zoning map pertaining to a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO(Residential/Office)to TC-75(Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands) An ordinance amending the text of section 21 A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and amending the zoning map to re-zone a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets from TC-75 (Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO(Residential/Office)to TC-75 (Transit Corridor)and PI-2(Public bands)pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424,in furtherance of the proposed Public Safety Building. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearing on February 23,201 1 on an application submitted by Mayor Ralph Becker ("Applicant")to amend the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and to amend the City's zoning map(Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424) to re-zone a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO (Residential/Office)to TC-75(Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands);and WHEREAS,at its February 23,2011 meeting,the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council("City Council")on said application;and WI IEREAS,after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests. NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map,as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts,shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets(Tax ID.Nos. 16-06-331-006, 16-06-331-007,16-06- 331-013, 16-06-404-001, 16-06-404-010,16-06-405-008,and 16-06-405-020),and which is more particularly described on Exhibit"A"attached hereto,shall be and hereby is re-zoned from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO(Residential/Office)to TC- 75(Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands)as depicted on Exhibit"A". SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.32.140. That section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts),shall be,and hereby is amended to include"Communication towers, "► exceeding the maximum building height"as a permitted use for the PL and PL-2(Public Lands) zoning districts with an accompanying qualifying provision regarding the number,ownership and purpose of such communication towers exceeding the maximum allowed building height. Accordingly,the codifier is instructed to amend only the"Communications towers,exceeding the maximum building height"use category of the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts and only add qualifying provision no. 13(leaving qualifying provisions 1-12 undisturbed)that such text affected by this amendment shall read as follows: Permitted And Conditional Uses RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH • El MU • Use Miscellaneous: Communication C •C P CP" P❑ C C C towers,exceeding the maximum building height Qualifying provisions: 13.Maximum of one per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: HB\TIT--1679I-vI-Ordin,m..e_Re>onine_PSBj.roperI,es.DOC 3 Exhibit A Public Safety Building Zoning Map Amendment y - j ,,: ,,,,..:}." � s . i z j ,,ii,j7,-.--,::.- 77., > is b r a a rs 1 I � 4sr Yr9 , 1 s '..y ,t� 5 . rik€1 , a N _ ° •�� t , r� has ? :N. / /}1-i - - �•�.'*�, u ..ram . Scale 660-feet _ y , SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of2011 (Amending the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and amending the zoning map pertaining to a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO(Residential/Office)to TC-75(Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands) An ordinance amending the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and amending the zoning map to re-zone a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets from TC-75 (Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO(Residential/Office)to TC-75 (Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands)pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424,in furtherance of the proposed Public Safety Building. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearing on February 23,2011 on an application submitted by Mayor Ralph Becker ("Applicant")to amend the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and to amend the City's zoning map(Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424) to re-zone a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 Fast Streets from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO (Residential/Office)to TC-75(Transit Corridor)and PI,-2(Public Lands);and WHEREAS,at its February 23,2011 meeting,the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council("City Council")on said application;and WIII:REAS,alter a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests. NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map,as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts,shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets(Tax ID.Nos. 16-06-331-006,16-06-331-007, 16-06- 331-013,16-06-404-001,16-06-404-010, 16-06-405-008,and 16-06-405-020),and which is more particularly described on Exhibit"A"attached hereto,shall be and hereby is re-zoned from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO(Residential/Office)to TC- 75(Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands)as depicted on Exhibit"A". SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.32.140. That section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for '* Special Purpose Districts),shall be,and hereby is,amended to include"Communication towers, exceeding the maximum building height"as a permitted use for the PE and PL-2(Public Lands) zoning districts with an accompanying qualifying provision regarding the number,ownership and purpose of such communication towers exceeding the maximum allowed building height. Accordingly,the codifier is instructed to amend only the"Communications towers,exceeding the maximum building height"use category of the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts and only add qualifying provision no. 13(leaving qualifying provisions 1-12 undisturbed)that such text affected by this amendment shall read as follows: 2 Permitted And Conditional Uses RP UP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH LI MU Use Miscellaneous: Communication C C P Pr' P° C C C towers,exceeding the maximum building height Qualifying provisions: 13.Maximum of one per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FOR\I Salt I ake City Bill No. of2011. Published: A.CiSty �l I IIIS Al�1=�1(�-9 <)-I.�.��,�.i R,. i:i��PSIS I�o,�'ie,.IJnC �:�.... 3 Exhibit A Public Safety Building Zoning Map Amendment 1 {::f"' i _ LDS ., x 67 A. .� . . �''- . ' ' `.S :i". IMF. - . _ ! I N go Scale-660 keg g{- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing regarding Petition PLNPCM2009- 01424,a request by Mayor Becker to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance for properties associated with the Public Safety Building project. Zoning of the properties would be changed.from nm TC-75,R-MU.and RO to TC-75 and PL-2,in conjunction with an amendment to the text of the PL and PL-2 districts to allow for a communication tower to exceed building height only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. As part of its study,the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition.During this hearing,anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak.The hearing will be held: Date: Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Room 315(City Council Chambers) Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S.State Street Salt Lake City.UT "Please enter building from east side. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the petition on file,please contact Casey Stewart,Senior Planner,at 535-6260 between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday or via e-mail at casey.stewartdi slcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 4S hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing.Accommodations may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids.The City&County Building is an accessible facility. For questions,requests,or additional information,please contact the City Council Office at 535-7600,or TDD 535-6021. SLC Planning-Casey Stewart Cent Comm Council Chair-T.Mutter 16-06-405-010-0000 p.o.box 145480 228 E 500 5 unit#100 376 EAST 400 SOUTH HOLDINGS LLC Lake City,UT 84114-5480 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 500 LA GONDA WAY #STE 210 DANVILLE,CA 94526-1747 16-06-329-006-0000 16-06-451-013-0000 16-06-451-014-0000 ROTHMAN,NOEL FPA SLC ASSOCIATES,LLC FRODSHAM REAL ESTATE I,LC 311 S WACKER DR #STE 4190 433 LAS COLINAS E BLVD 8098 COTTAGE PINES CV CHICAGO,IL 60606-6621 IRVING,TX 75039-5581 COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS,UT 84121- 5984 16-06-451-002-0000 16-06-451-006-0000 16-06-328-026-0000 DKL PROPERTIES LLC FAIRBANKS,MICHAEL L CENTRAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH 5985 HOLLADAY BLVD 83 S 900 E 370 S 300 E HOLLADAY,UT 84121-1504 LINDON,UT 84042-2145 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2504 16-06-401-021-0000 16-06-406-018-0000 16-06-405-011-0000 CHILDREN'S CENTER WHITNEY INVESTMENT PROPERTIES AMERICAN INSURANCE&INVESTMENT 350 5 400E LLC CORP SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2908 435 S 400 E 448 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3353 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3357 16-06-405-012-0000 16-06-331-002-0000 16-06-405-004-0000 MAHONEY/AMENT PROPERTIES,LLC BOLTON,JOHN BOLTON,JOHN 4605400E #UPPR 320E400S 320E4005 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3319 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2902 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2902 16-06-401-012-0000 16-06-401-013-0000 16-06-405-008-0000 RB&K LLC RB&K LLC CELTIC BANK CORPORATION 333E 400 5 333E 400 5 340E 400 5 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2901 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2901 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2937 16-06-378-002-0000 16-06-379-010-0000 16-06-405-019-0000 BEEHIVE BAIL BONDS CASHMORE,JAY W&SUSAN P;TRS BLDG CAT,LLC 268E 500 5 312E 500 S 343E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3204 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3309 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3315 16-06-405-016-0000 16-06-405-014-0000 16-06-406-017-0000 FRESHMAN ENTERPRISES MANN,WILLARD C. WAGSTAFF,DAVID B 353 E 500 S 353 E 500 S 1061 CRESTVIEW CIR SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3315 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3315 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108-2077 16-06-379-009-0000 16-06-378-003-0000 16-06-401-016-0000 MUTUAL VENTURES CORPORATION EIGHTH CORP OF CH OF JC OF LDS CARMON BLACK MANAGEMENT CO;ET 2157 LINCOLN ST 50 E NORTHTEMPLE EFL 22 AL SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84106-2306 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84150-0001 1010 PEAKS CIR SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84117-7227 '"06-451-009-0000 16-06-451-008-0000 16-06-451-007-0000 -MAN,DEE ANDERSEN,DARVEL J;TR ANDERSON,DARVEL I;TR(WA TRUST) 1763 PO BOX 333 STANTON AVE 333 STANTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84110-1763 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3519 SALT LAKE CITY,U7 84111-3519 16-06-331-007-0000 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-451-006-0000 COMMUNICATIONS CREATIONS,INC SALT LAKE CITY LIBRARY FAIRBANKS MANAGEMENTSERVICE.i.k 435 5 300E 210E 400 S LLC SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3201 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 321 STANTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3519 16-06-331-007-0000 16-06-331-007-0000 16-06-379-009-0000 METROPOLIS INTEGRATED MEDIA LL JDB PICTURES INC STOWELL LAW PLLC 445 S 300 E 445 S 300 E 307 STANTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3201 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3201 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3519 16-06-329-006-0000 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-330-019-0000 AKASHA SPA AND SALON THE ENGLISH GARDEN NIGHT FLIGHT 331E4005 210E4005 210E4005 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2901 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-405-012-0000 SALT LAKE ROASTING CO. GREAT SALT LAKE BOOK FESTIVAL WINKEL GENERAL REMODELING 210E4005 210E4005 4605400E SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3319 16-06-331-007-0000 16-06-378-002-0000 16-06-329-006-0000 RP AUDIO,INC ROBIN KENT UUNGBERG ATTORNEY AT 7-ELEVEN STORE#29514A 445 5 300E LAW 309E 400 5 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3201 266 E 500 5 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2901 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3204 Jon., 16-06-379-009-0000 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-451-009-0000 MK FUNDING,LLC LIVE GREEN STANTON 307 STANTON AVE 210 E 400 S 341 STANTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3519 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3577 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-331-007-0000 16-06-330-019-0000 MIDNIGHT MUGGLE MADNESS TYLER MEASOM ART AT THE MAIN 210E400S 4455300E 210E400S SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3201 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 16-06-401-016-0000 16-06-378-002-0000 16-06-405-019-0000 SIZZLER#321 BEEHIVE LEGAL NA?UTAH COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 371 E 400 S 266E 500 S CORPORATE SERVICES SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2901 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3204 375 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3315 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-405-002-0000 16-06-401-013-0000 HEMINGWAY CAFE @ ATLANTIC WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK Residents 210E 400 S 376E 400 S 341E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2912 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2901 16-06-404-001-0000 16-06-406-018-0000 16-06-406-019-0000 ....... Residents Residents Residents 330E 400 5 437 S 400E 461 5 400 E SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2902 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3344 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3302 ,47:5 Salt Lake Planning Division 451 S Stale Street,Room 400.n0 Sox 145430,Sall take City,Utah 04114 5400 Planning Commission Wednesday,February 23,2011 Time:6:00 pm or immediately following the work session Place:Room 326 PLNSUB2009-01424 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment:a request by Salt Lake CityCorporation to amend the zoning of the properties associated with the new Public Safety Buildingproject. The zoning map would be amended to show zoning of Transit Corridor(TC-7S)along 400South and Public Lands(PL-2)for the southern portion of the property. Also,an amendment to the text of the Public Lands districts(PL,PL-2)would allow far a communication tower to exceedbuilding height only when it is government owned and operated for public safety pur- poses. Th'i srcquest applies to various properties within the block bounded by 400 South and 500 south,300East and 400 East,in Council District 4 represented by Luke Garrott. (Staff contact:Casey Stewart at 00!-535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.) Salt lake City Corporation complies with all ADA a iidelin .People path disabilities m make regnest for teas noble accommodations no Into than 48r hours I advance inorder to Mend Ibis meeting,. Accommodationscma include:alternative formats,interpreters.and other auxiliary aids. This is on shle facility.For questions requests, additional information,please contact the Planning Office at 535-t5?:TlE0 535-6220. For additional meeting guidelines please see smesv.sl52at_om or call 801-535-7757 f ;. Sa Sike C ly Planning Division I 4515.State Street Rogm 40G _ eZ -- — `—=saIctafii;�,+kv =tB§iYhsnB3 , ro 6 .:,."28 Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State Street,Room 406; PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-5480 titan legal Notices' http:/hcww.utahlegals.comtseaech.php?paper=all&&quen=TransitLCorrid..- l•-•,..1 ..:._ . , ,..,,,. . y-v-,x -: ,t:::. "Tr-, , -:jr.-.*iil,,7-i.Y4'30 -.-!--fe Home Browse Alerts Events Contact Search: All N_,:spapern for Transr Corridor Need help with your search? Click here to view our step by step guide. Show/Hide Newspaper View Results 1-s of 2 for'Transit Corridor' 02/;2/2utt-02 11 _o11 ir, y,. Salt Lake CityZoninc Map And Ordinance Amendmen(02111'2011-02,11/2011) - —�- Salt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment On February 23,2011,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council regarding the following petitions:PLNSUB2009-01424 Pubic Safety Building Zoning Amendment,a request by Salt Lake City Corporation to amend the zoning of the properties associated with the new Public Safety Building project.The zoning map would be amended to show zoning of Transit Corridor(TC-75)along 400 South and Public Lands(PL-2)for tire southern portion of the property....READ MORE coo,Fe.,,,]1.e0";r:»dr. .tali Lake,City Zoning Map And Ordinance Amendman(021112011-02'1112011) T Solt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment On February 23,2011,the Salt Lake City Rune op Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council regarding the following petitions:PLNSUB2009-0142 4 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment:a request by Salt Lake City Corporation to amend the zoning of the properties associated with the one,:Pubic Safety Building project.The zoning map would be amended to show zoning of Transit Corridor(TC-75)along 400 South and Public Lands(PL-2)for the southern portion of the property....READ MORE From: I/AC Leo To: Nis=n brre Anoei=;5towar'Cow Subject: RE:SLC Planning-Legal Notice for 2/11/11 Date: Tuesday,February 08,2011 1:54:08 PM Ad #662883 is scheduled to run February llth in Salt Lake Tribune and Online utahlepals.com . Total charge is $75.00. Please check the ad in the paper. Thank you, Lynn Valdez N.ed'_aOne of Utah, a Newspaper Agency Cos.pany 4770 South 5600 West West Valley City, Utah. 84118 Ph.: 801-204-6245 Snail: nacieaal m.ediacneutah.com. From:Stewart,Casey[mailto:Casey.Stewart@slcgov.com] Sent:Tuesday,February 08,2011 10:01 AM To:'nacleaal@mediaoneutah.com' Cc:Hasenberg,Angela Subject:SLC Plannina-Legal Notice for 2/11/11 /milt Attached is a Legal Notice,with billing info,for publishing on Friday 2/11/11. Thank you. —Casey Stewart 14ah Legal Notices! http:/sysaw.utahlegals.com'notice.php?id=89107 r 1 % Home Browse Alerts Events Contact Search: kill fl=crspapers for Show/Hide Newspaper View Salt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment On February 23,2011,the... Salt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment On February 23,2011,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council regarding the following petitions:PLNSUB2009-01424 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment:a request by Salt Lake City Corporation to amend the zoning of the properties associated with the new Public Safety Building project.The zoning map would be amended to show zoning of Transit Corridor(TC-75)along 400 South and Public Lands(PL-2)for the southern portion of the property.Also,an amendment to the text of the PI_and PL-2 districts to allow for e communication tower to exceed building height only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes.This request applies primarily to the western half of the block bounded by 400 South and 500 South,300 East and 400 East,in Council District 4 represented by Luke Garrott(Staff contact:Casey Stewart at 801-535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.corn)The public hearing will begin at 5:45 p.m.in room 326 of the City County Building,451 South State Street,Salt Lake City,UT.For more information or for special ADA accommodations,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids or additional information, please contact Casey Stewart at 535-6260 or call TDD 535-6220.662883 UPAXLP Ne:;s=cer A.j:�i„sealion Planning Commission Staff Report „ rigo,.. PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING ZONING AMENDMENT 'r PLNPCM2009-01424 =•,� T. .. Hearing date: February 23,2011 Planning Division Department of Community &Economic Development Applicant Request SLC Corporation(Mayor Ralph Mayor Ralph Becker has initiated a request to amend the Salt Lake City Becker) Zoning Map and Ordinance for properties associated with the Public Safety Staff Building project. Zoning of the properties would be changed from TC-75,R- Casey Stewart 535-6260 MU,and RO to TC-75 and PL-2,in conjunction with an amendment to the casey.stewart@slcgov.com text of the PL and PL-2 districts to allow for a communication tower to Current zone exceed building height only when it is government owned and operated for N/A public safety purposes. Current master plan designation Recommendation Civic-Mixed Use PLNPCM2009-01424-Public Safety Building Zoning Amendments Council District Based on the findings in the staff report,Planning Staff finds the proposed District 4-Luke Garrott amendments adequately meet the standards for general zoning text and map amendments and therefore recommends the Planning Commission transmits a O Community Council positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the amendments as Central City proposed. Chair:Thomas Mutter Affected Ordinance Sections • 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments • 21A.32.140 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts(PL and PL-2) Notification • Notice mailed Feb 11,2011 • Published in newspaper Feb 11, 2011 • Posted to Planning Dept and Utah State Public Meeting websites Feb 11,2011. Attachments A.Map of Proposed Zoning B. Public Comments 0 PLNPCM2009-01424 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment Published Date:2/172011 -1- Vicinity Map • IworasT t za � ;r �M. 1t. • G t • 111*111 Project Description Zoning Map Amendment The request is to amend the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance in preparation for the City Administration's Public Safety Building project. Last year,2010,the Central Community Master Plan was amended to designate the block east of the City Library as Civic/Mixed Use. This zoning amendment request is a follow-up to that process and the next step in the project. The subject properties,acquired by the City,are currently zoned: Transit Corridor(TC-75) Residential-Mixed Use(R-MU) Residential Office(RO) The proposal is to change the zoning of the properties involved in the project to: Transit Corridor(7'C-75 Public Lands(PL-2) The proposed PL-2 zoning district allows for government offices along with other community type uses such as theater,retail,schools,amphitheater,offices,and art galleries. The City Library block is also zoned PL-2, • thereby allowing similar uses and continuity between the blocks. PLNPCM2009-01424 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment Published Date:2/I7/2011 -2- Zoning Text Amendment The second part of this amendment relates to the communication tower needed to service the proposed building. The designed tower would consist of a single monopole structure,mounted on the ground,and be between 120 feet and 140 feet tall. Currently,the PL districts(PL and PL-2)do not allow communication towers that exceed allowed building height,which is 75 feet. This part of the amendment includes a request to modify the PL districts to allow for a communication tower to exceed building height only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. Proposal: Modify Table 21A.32.140 Table of Permitted Uses For Special Purpose Districts to include"communication towers,exceeding the maximum building height"as a permitted use(P)for the Public Lands zoning districts (PL,PL-2)with the qualifying provision of: "Maximum of one per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety put poses. Public Participation The proposed amendments were presented to the Central City Community Council on February 2,2011. Comments from attendees of the meeting addressed diminishing residential development around these civic blocks,the communication tower height,and building design. The comments are included in as Attoclmrent B. Staff sought comments from numerous City departments. No departments had any objections and one department raised a concern related to building encroachment into front and side yard setbacks. The actual site and building design will be reviewed through the planned development process by the Planning Commission at a future date. Analysis The purpose of the PL-2 district is"to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses,land and facilities in an urban context." The subject property is an urban site on the edge of the downtown area. This zoning district allows for the types of uses—government offices,public plaza,and community events-and development anticipated to occur with the Public Safety Building project. The City Library block is also zoned PL 2,allowing for better coordination of uses,site design,and property use among the informal civic campus consisting of the City Administration building,the Cite Library,and the future Public Safety Building. The portion of the amendment related to communication towers,while opening the door for communication towers in the PL zones,is worded to mitigate the number of towers by establishing strict and specific qualifying provisions for such towers. Futhenmore,the PL zones are categorized as"special purpose districts"and are not found in large numbers throughout the city. Their purpose is limited in scope and therefore worics about the proliferation of communication towers in these districts would be unfounded. Retaining the TC-75 zone along 400 South will continue the City's intent for transit oriented development for the 400 South corridor. The planning division is currently working on a project to shift the zoning in this corridor to a form-based zoning similar to what was recently implemented for the North Temple Boulevard corridor. I'1 5'PCd12009•01424 Pul lie Safety Building toning Amendment Published Date_2,17 2011 _ Options The Planning Commission can: - deny the proposed amendment,which would keep the current zoning districts,thereby not allowing government offices. - recommend the amendments be approved as proposed,which would allow for the Public Safety Building project to proceed and facilitate the redevelopment of the site for public uses and facilities in accordance with the Central Community Master Plan,and purpose of the PL-2 district. - recommend modifications to the proposed amendments. Standards for General Amendments 21A.50.050 A decision to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance or the Zoning Map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. Zoning Map,21A.50.050.B In making a decision to amend the zoning map,the City Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives,and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Analysis: The Public Safety Building site is within the Central Community Master Plan area. The master plan objectives and policies related to this site are re-iterated below and demonstrate that the proposed map amendment is consistent with those objectives and policies. {Page 9,Future Residential land use changes) The 450 South Corridor can be supported and enhanced in the area immediately to the east of the City and County Building with mixed land uses such as Salt Lake City government administration,courts,public safety administration,ground level interactive uses(small retail, offices,public gatherings),cultural facilities,medium to high density residential,as well as open space enhancements. {Page 12,Government Land Use} "Concentration of local government administration and office facilities,particularly Salt Lake City administration,courts,public safety and cultural facilities near the City and County Building will help create efficiencies in services which are often interrelated,and help improve access to services for local residents and businesses.Applying sound urban design principles and appropriate architectural character to these uses will also provide a positive transition from the Central Business District to the Central City Neighborhood.- (Page 13,Policies for Institutional Land Use} INSLU-4.4 Concentrate the development of Salt Lake City administration,courts and cultural facilities near the City and County Building to encourage efficient services,improve access for businesses and residents',facilitate improved work and conmunication among interrelated departments and divisions,provide opportunities for public gatherings and interaction,and support and enhance the development of a pedestrian corridor along 450 South established by the axis between the Matheson Courthouse,the Cite and County Building,the Lib'a_y Square block,and possibly further east toward 400 East. Finding: The proposed zoning map change is consistent with adopted policy documents. PLNPCi12009-01424 Pubic Sn@ny auila,ne Zoning Amendment Published Date:2:17.'2011 -a- 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Analysis: Chapter 21A.02.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states: "PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this title is to promote the health,safety,morals,convenience,order,prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City,to implement the adopted plans of the city,and to early out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act,title 10,chapter 9,of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor,and other relevant statutes.This title is,in addition,intended to: a. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; b. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; c. Provide adequate light and air; d. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; e. Protect the tax base; f Secure ecana»t,in governmental expenditues; g. Foster the city's industrial,business and residential development;and h. Protect the environment.(Ord.26-95§2(1-3). 1995)" The proposed map amendment is considered consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance by encouraging and promoting the intent of items"b,d,f,and g"above. The PL-2 zone would facilitate the Public Safety Building project and promote the efficient and functional development of the site as a public space,as the central command for police,fire,and emergency operations; allowing for efficient use of government and taxpayer expenditures;and,foster the city s residential development in the surrounding neighborhoods by revitalizing this site with enhanced public space and architecture. Finding:Staff finds that the proposed map amendment is consistent with the overall purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to implement adopted plans,as stated in Chapter 21 A.02.030. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties. Analysis: The proposed map amendment primarily relates to converting_the southwest portion of the block to Public Lands zoning district. This change would allow for a more public-focused and limited set of uses on the subject properties. It is anticipated that the uses allowed in the PL-2 district,identical to those on the Library block,will revitalize the immediate area with increased public participation and pedestrian access. This will provide more efficient public service and encourage adjacent development. Finding: The proposed map amendment will have a positive effect on adjacent properties. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Analysis: The Public Safety Building site and adjacent properties are not subject to any overlay zoning districts,and thus not contrary to ally overlay district provisions. Finding: The proposed map amendment does not conflict with any overlay districts PLN"pd'y: si.sIS 4 Pu'olic Suisdy tiuil,tn'Zmune/uncol,,n,, Published Dore 2.17'_'OI I -- 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems,water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Analysis: During the Public Safety Building site selection process and after, during the site design, the site has been analyzed and researched by all necessary services and city departments. The site was found to have adequate facilities and services for the anticipated project. Finding: The proposed map amendment applies to a property that has adequate public facilities and services. Zoning Text, 21A.50.050.A In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment. the City Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Analysis: The Public Safety Building site is within the Central Community Master Plan area. The master plan outlines design policies for protecting the East Downtown View corridor, which this site is in. The policies are stated below: {Page 19, Urban Design policies} "Protect view corrrdors, vistas, and focal points. Refer to the urban design map on page 87. " The proposed text amendment related to communication towers would allow them in the PL zones, which currently do not allow communication towers to exceed building height. This conflicts in part with the policy to protect the view corridor; however, with the strict qualifying provisions proposed, this would be the only communications tower that would exceed allowed building height on a PL property. The actual Public Safety Building has been designed to be lower in height and arranged to retain the established view corridor. In this case, the planning commission (and city council) must weigh the benefits of the project and potential impact on the view corridor of this single tower, with the policies of the master plan. Finding: The proposed text change conflicts with the urban design policies of the Central Community Master Plan, but in contrast, would support the other City policies as noted previously in the zoning map amendment analysis. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning • ordinance. Analysis: Chapter 21A.02.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states: "PURPOSE AND INTENT: The propose of this title is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order,prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and to cony out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant statutes. This title is, . , in addition, intended to: PLNPCM2009-01424 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment Published Date:2/17/2011 -6- a. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; b. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; c. Provide adequate light and air; d. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilisation; e. Protect the tax base; f. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; g. Foster the city's industrial,business and residential development;and h. Protect the environment.(Ord.26-95§2(1-3), 1995)" The proposed text amendment to the ordinance is considered consistent with the intent of the local the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment would further the intent of items"b and f'above by improving safety from fire and other dangers with improved and more reliable communications among public safety providers. It would also provide efficiency in public safety communications,thereby reducing costs and other expenditures associated with that function. Finding:Staff finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the overall purpose of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Chapter 21A.02.030. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Analysis: The Public Safety Building site and adjacent properties are not subject to any overlay zoning districts,and thus not contrary to any overlay district provisions. Finding: The proposed text amendment does not conflict with any overlay districts. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current,professional practices of urban planning and design. Analysis: The text portion of the amendment related to communication towers,while opening the door for communication towers in the PL zones,is worded to mitigate the number of towers by establishing strict and specific qualifying provisions for such towers. With this approach,the wording attempts to achieve best current practices of urban planning by limiting adverse impacts. Furthermore,the PL zones are categorized as`special purpose districts"and are not found in large numbers throughout the city,or the East Downtown View area. Their purpose is limited in scope and therefore worries about the proliferation of communication towers in the view area Would be unfounded. Finding:The proposed text amendment implements the common practices in urban planning and design. PI NPcn120o9-01424 Puhrc safely Buiich0g Zoniue A01011,11,01 Puh:Is,ed D.c 2'I7:201! r • i. t I _...J- - ' - - I ::-. '.! s ... - - - s _ _- __ 774= —_ _ ..... . ,, ! . . , ....., ,.. _ _ _ . .. . ... .. . - --_,, .,_. ,. . ,10-, -. ' . .:....,__ ./.:.; _ . . , .. it a , :. i . . . . - - i , _.. _ ____.__ __. . MO 4 . jt t II ✓ 4 a 1 ` ,fir ! _� ' +3 Y • loirg._!:•4 -- , .__. -2. . . .. --..- • . rt., 1 . tt 0 - ... . 4 . I.. , LI) s ( l _. - mil._ _`.- L: ' > ,-)9 S:trio . . ter,,,'*—\. ...1.., • _ :a _. - -- -t !. r,r .. . ,,.:i.. . e� s ' I t. .,. _ ____ _ _ ,...r: .. ... _ ; ".,. , ._.1... _ • .e...:._ am . ...„,• ., . .. ,_. , ., t �} t� , • CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL DATE: February 05,2011 TO:Casey Stewart-SLC Planning Department FROM:Central City Neighborhood Council REGARDING:Zoning map amendment for PSB block Central City Neighborhood Council(CCNC)heard this request at our February 2"d meeting.There were approx 20 people in attendance.There was not a yes or no vote taken and there was no overall support for or against the proposed zoning amendment. Comments were made on several aspects of the rezone and several more made on the proposed PSB design. It was understood that comment was to be on the proposed zoning map amendment but it was obvious that the design was pushing the Zoning Map Amendment so I have included the comments on the bldg design.Comments are below. 1.) Regarding the push for a new transit station classification along 400 S.: It is nice to see the Planning Dept acknowledge the short comings of the TC zoning along 400 S. 2.) There were enough comments on the applicability of the RO zone that it became a discussion item:The RO zone does not seem to be effective.A change to RMU may work better. 3.) Concern that housing opportunities in and around the Civic Campus are diminishing.A housing component is less of a priority in new developments along the civic campus. 4.) The tower proposed for the east side of the PSB was a big concern.More comments on the tower are to follow but one concern to repeat here has to do with the Administrations move to handle communication tower and cabinet requests through Administrative Hearings and not be presented to Community Councils.CCNC felt the move to handle these administratively was in reaction to the large number of requests for these potentially unsightly objects. This being the case then the City will not allow anything unsightly and will look out for the best interests of the residents in the area. 5.) A resident brought up the fact that a tower on this block,at either of the proposed heights.would have the potential of blocking view corridors set forth in the master plan and asked if the staff looked into this. 6.) Will this proposed tower become the precedent for some other project that suddenly needs to communicate with whatever towers this project is needing to communicate with? 7.) A hope that two way traffic would be possible through the mid block crossing. „, 8.) What is the size of the tower (diameter)? Is this a typical power pole size or10 to 12 feet? Comments directed more towards the PSB bldq 9.) The move towards the PL-2 is to accommodate the design of the bldg. We have a design team made up of professionals who competed for this project and now they cannot keep it in the envelope? 10.) An earlier comment at a workshop suggesting the bldg set as close to the street as possible since it is an urban environment. The design team was looking to push the bldg away from the street to protect from vehicle bombs. Is that not an issue any longer? 11 .) A frustration that this new bldg cannot respect the existing setbacks. 12.) This b►dg is in the city center, part of the civic campus and next to trax. If the amendment goes through perhaps a more aesthetic approach could be taken along the south and west keeping in mind the pedestrian nature of the site, for example, exterior decorative wall panels of old library along 500 S. 13.) This may have been the first time for many to see the monstrous shading device/solar panel array dwarfing the new bldg, soaring two or more stories. Will it even provide shading when needed? Why is it so big? Is this the real design? 14.) Tower should have been integrated into the design. A main element of the EOC is not something that is an afterthought. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to have this presented to our Council. Tom Mutter CCNC Chairperson Nick Rupp CCNC Vice Chairperson Remarks: Petition No: PLNPCM2009-01424 Also see PLNPCM2009-01423—Master j Plan Amendment By: Mayor Ralph Becker Zoning Amendment � III Date Filed: December 29,2009 Address: Block bound by 300 East,400 South,400 East and 500 South j ,,. .,{ Petition Initiation �. Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Files—PLNPCM2009-01423 and PLNPCM2009-01424 From: Casey Stewart,Senior Planner Date: December 29,2009 Re: Initiate petition to amend City master plans and zoning ordinance/map affected by the voter-approved Public Safety Building project An email(copy attached)from the Mayor's office,dated December 4,2009 outlines the steps for the Public Safety Buildings project. Two of the specific steps are:master plan amendments and zoning amendments. The email is considered to be the Mayor's request to initiate two petitions,one for the master plan amendments and one for the zoning amendments. o Page 1 Stewart,Casey rm: Harrison-Smith,Lisa .,znt: Friday,December 04,2009 3:54 PM Cc: Everitt,David;Hale,Karen;Langan,Helen Subject: Mayor Becker Details Next Steps in Public Safety Buildings Project Categories: Other p ;'''v.l\ q �� e rub,FE7 _ r7''': tr ntFw= c'jliliih;A — December 4,2009 Contact:Lisa Harrison Smith 801-913-9748 Mayor Becker Details Next Steps in Public Safety Buildings Project Community Involvement Will Continue Throughout Project SALT LAKE CITY—Mayor Ralph Becker announced today a preliminary schedule for how Salt Lake City's new Public Safety Building project will unfold in the months to come.This announcement follows the highly successful Public Safety bond campaign in which over 65%of Salt Lake City residents endorsed funding constriction of a new Public Safety Building and Emergency Operations Center in Salt Lake City. "While there are numerous details yet to be determined about the exact timing of the project,we want to give the public a sense of what we know so far.This will be the first of many communications about the project over the coming years as the conceptualization,design and construction of these buildings unfold,"said Mayor Becker. Becker continued,"For the past eight months,my office has been tracking public input and comments and feeding that information hack into the planning process.We will continue to incorporate public input as the project moves forward," Immediately following the election on November 3,the City issued a Request for Qualifications for a project manager to oversee the public safety building process.The City received eight responses;a selection committee is currently evaluating those responses before making a recommendation to the Mayor.Once the project manager is in place,that individual will help the City further detail the next steps in the planning process including the selection of the designer/architect,timing of the project and exact budget for the project. r During the past spring and summer the City hosted 11 open houses regarding the location of the proposed public safety complex. At those meetings 10 potential sites were presented to the public for review. Based on the information gathered and evaluated over the spring and summer, the preferred site was determined to be the Barnes Bank Bloch, (the block on the east side of 300 East between 400 and 500 South). Since that time,the City has continued to evaluate new site ideas as they've come forward from the public. There will be a Public Safety Buildings workshop this Monday, Dec. 7, 2009 from 6 to 8:30 p.m. at the Salt Lake City Library in Conference Rooms A, B, and C. The public is encouraged to attend. The workshop will include a presentation on site evaluations and analysis, as well as a discussion on how to make the civic campus one of the'great places in Salt Lake City. The workshop will be facilitated by the Salt Lake City Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. The City expects the Public Safety Buildings project to follow the preliminary schedule listed below: December 7 Public Safety Buildings Workshop December 8 Results of the workshop sent to the Mayor December 8-18 Additional input,public comment on the workshop and all aspects of the project is gathered by the Mayor's Office via e-mail, phone calls and the website www.slcgov.corn/psb December 18 Mayor makes final PSB/EOC site determination December 18 PSB/EOC Project Manager RFP Selection Committee makes recommendation to the Mayor January 5 Mayor announces PSB/EOC project manager January 10 RFP process for selection of designer/architect is posted on City website and advertised Note: Designer/Architect Selection Committee will include representatives from the Salt Lake City residential, business and architectural communities appointed by the Mayor January/February TBD City exercises options on PSB/EOC site properties Mid-March PSB/EOC Designer/Architect RFP Selection Committee makes recommendation to the Mayor Late March Mayor Announces PSB/EOC designer/architect Late Spring TBD RFP for selection of building contractor is posted on City website and advertised Date TBD Opportunities for public input throughout the process and will include public comment on: - Building Design - Public Spaces - Public Art 2 Note:The City will seek innovative ways to keep the public informed throughout the planning and development of the project. For instance,there will be webccans to watch the construction and an interactive project website to keep the community informed about progress and to help coordinate construction activity. Date TBD Mayor's Neighborhood Discussion Group to be established and will include: - Library Representative - Leonardo Representative - The Roasting Company Representative - Central City Neighborhood Representative - UDOT Representative - Library Board Representative - Area Merchants and Residents Note:The purpose of this group will be to gather input and feedback from those immediately affected by the project and share developments on the project as it unfolds. March TBD City closes on PSB/EOC site properties 1"Quarter 2010 Necessary Master Plan change - This will go through the normal public process and will include Planning Commission and City Council (2"�Quarter 2010 Zoning Amendments - Rezone property to public land Resolve use of Barnes Bank Building Note:Zoning amendments will go through the formal Planning Commission and City Council public process. 2010 TBD First round of bonds issued by City Council 2010 TBD City Council confirms the sale of the bonds k#z, 3 , • SLC PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 5th, 2011 ® MsOa GSBS a a CIVITAS PROGRAi�AATIC REQUIREMENTS • Programmatic Requirements • The building must have 100% functionality following a Major Seismic Event to serve: — Voice — Radio — Dispatch — Telecom/data • Must be secure from the public. • Must house the following line of sight equipment: — (2) Radio Frequency (RF) — (3) Microwave Systems — (1) Small Canopy Antenna • Must Have direct access to Valley Communication Systems — City Creek Peak — Farnsworth Peak ®M,0 15 GSBS•j J CIVITAS I • ANTANNt-REQUIREMENTS Antennae Requirements Component Qnty Description Function Requirements 800MHz RX antenna 1 9'stick trunked voice radio receive Mounted on top of tower 800MHz TX antenna 2 12'stick trunked voice radio transmit Mounted approx.17-20'below top RX antenna GPS antenana 1 Jar shaped 18" timing for voice radio Must have clear view to north Microwave connection for SLC voice Microwave dish 1 4'drum radio system Line of site to City Creek Peak Microwave dish(Possible Microwave connection for SLC voice future) 1 6'drum radio system Line of site to Farnsworth Peak Microwave dish 1 4'drum Telecom/data Line of site to SLCo EOC Microwave dish 1 6'drum Telecom/data Line of site to UCAN VECC Satellite Dish 1 4'dish Back up City Phone&911 Systems Line of site to SW sky Satellite Dish 2 4'dish WAVE/Halo Line of site to SW sky G2 Satelite antenna 4 6'x4"discs Satelite phones for Fire/Police/EM Line of site to sky Line of site to City Creek Peak/line of site to Canopy Data radio antenna 2 3'drum IMS Data system Plaza 349 roof HAM radio antenna 1 8'stick ARES(citizen)radio VHF antenna 1 8'stick Conventional voice radio UHF antenna 1 8'stick Conventional voice radio Individual user antenna for Back-up Can be located many places. Serve as single Control station radio antenna 20 Can be a bank of(20)12"or 2 combined dispatch radios. device antenna Individual user antenna for Back-up Can be located many places. Serve as single Audio recorder antenna 20 Can be a bank of(20)12"or 2 combined dispatch radios. device antenna Requires(1)VHF,(1)UHF,(2)800 MHz Individual user antenna for Back-up Can be located many places. Serve as single WAVE Platform antennae (6-20) and(20)12"or(2)combiner 800mz dispatch radios. device antenna ®M, s GSBS r; Z CIVITAS HEIGHT I„,UES Height Issues • Antenna requiring line of sight must be spaced out on the tower depending on required clearances for each to avoid interference • Lowest antenna requiring line of sight is estimated to be 25' from top TOD (Transit Oriented Development) ih 444 4 Current zoning allows 75' I. - Proposed zoning allows 120' ti tI I is. _ T Project Site 7. - - Proposed tower at 110' • IWO - Designed for future expansion to 160' . 1 aniyisosA GSBS, CIVITAS MONOPC.9c -PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS • Physical Constraints of a communications pole • 5'-0" at the base tapered to 2'-6" at the top • Communication cables have a 5'-0" turning radius • Cables must enter data room on east side of level 2 • Access required for repairs and maintenance • Large foundation requirements for seismic support • Line loss occurs with distance of travel 1 A GSBS'j kJ CIVITAS • LOCATIOk'JPTIONS Possible Options EAST 400SOUTH 725 TG ....- / .._---7-777 i F.. \\\\\\ i/( 1 WING t I 111 I, 1 J VV�� qy, PROPOSED Option 1 Tower Behind Ul!�' I ( EXISTING BUILDING ' PARKING SURFACE ea ea� Garage s a --.. ._._ . w ..i m - UNDERGROUND I . .. .Lk / GARAGE TI ELEVATION. .550 I alL- I ilf lig 71 -1 -.... .- --1.1111 11 ------ I°OI7" PLAZA .° AREA° j 20.500 SF '!' ,' • 4r. �' �'� 1$ ' Option 2 — Towiller in rvi«- 1 -41111 444 d Yard /j/, CY ` I pt i o n 3 IN owe r •of < PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING — --, kid FFE 700 SERVICE YARD I 0 6. '" — L VEL 2 GARAGE LEVEL 1 ._._ _ ._____—. + /./ I _ _* E 43 00 FFE 5500 FSa ol W I".-- '111 Optioef woof mounted' - �� — EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY wr antenna with bounced - - 1 - 12 EXISTING PARKING SPACES 9 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES 5 2 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES signal EAST 500 SOUTH 1 1 ''N I. I �I — Options M!crix Option 1—Tower Option 2—Tow t Option 3—Tower on roof Option 4—Roof .ounted Adjacent to Exterior in Service Yard antenna with bounced Vehicle Garage signal SECURITY Requires additional Secure Secure Unknown security on other fence or block wall buildings MAINTENANCE Easy Access Easy Access -Requires escort to roof -Requires escort to roof -Damage concerns to PV -Damage concerns to PV during repairs during repairs -Unknown access LINE LOSS Additional amplifier None None Unknown deflector& required repeater requirements COST $150,686 $130,810 $168,384 Cannot be determined VARIANCE PD variance required None required None required Permission required to place for proximity to equipment on other property line buildings CABLE SHAFTS -Trenching requires None required None required Requires vertical shaft minimum of(3)90 through levels 3&4. turns for 5' radius Unknown requirements on -Shaft required other buildings. through P1&level 1 Vertical Pole still required. DESIGN Directly adjacent to Bridge directly Requires 5' dia.Structural -Requires secondary CONSIDERATIONS mid-block axis into floor of level shaft extending through (possible tertiary) locations 2 could replace the entire building and -High risk of any shafts.The the parking garage to the communications loss after bridge would be mat foundation under an earthquake hidden by the the parking structure. Re- -Reduction of PV on roof service yard walls design would be required -Discouraged by Police& to accommodate Fire due to lack of reliability VIEWS LL ,KING EAST FROM LIBRARY ROOF Option 1 —Adjacent to Garage t -� - AIM.AiIrUr....++rlommmr --- ®M,.y ,A GSBSIII `J CIVITAS I . (44 *' ... 5 U 0 kw 1 0 Si, cn (.9 aftd aw () c:• 4 it 2. * u 13 liot: 4W r I , 1111 is : r I III li t .4 I O f - • ;4, )._;t7.2. < • I 1 ''' : I c. i • li .. 4. #• " it c-• ,„ E , i We 0 "0 Ce , P'.. , Ai..,. • LL. F-- 0 c0 - #41, ct .— W > O I- Z CU it, , 11 "2 v) I , ilp/ ) N . i 4 •" —I C (I) ...47, Or' 1 .• 1.1-1 0. 0 • VIEWS LL.JKING EAST FROM LIBRARY ROOF Option 3 - Roof 1 - .... I - - - . '411.- ...::A fl -01 „ : . - :.--„ d-----Z .-1-!-3..-.isirs.wino ,-----r , ` - - = • r • .440 if.0.01111*..AN .• — OtAt.,-- -...- ' .41,..Vall• -- •t . .. . _ ...44.1""" • ----, --,.. -----air-----, Gar,,,orail GsBs, m CIVITAS VIEW LO ...ING EAST FROM 4"FLOOR OF LIBRARY Option 1 —Adjacent to Garage • Ivo�+R i y �, - --. - _ .44: - ' ' -..:ems. {: .. ,,fir . • „I .�,s i , .'i • _ — I � �` E - s_ r_...1 • I i": S go, .., i• • e t -'''‘ I\\1 \ 1 V A 1 . .,,' ' ' . i 11 . .. . lc_ ; fib w ! A , '�* RI,• w 400. V < . ,,.,....... -...-__ il --_ UL CC O L J LL t- 0 I- "46111111111111W 4 ii*,;( -1.41 . I - -4-- - ,_-_,.. \- !t t F- • ..,.. f lbw.' _ 0 a) , ._.... ..... _........., . .........,! ........ ._ illi:211114.- , N ' au i * - lift i 4•' e tr ' 1 ''''S 4 'i 4111 W Q ' > 0 i - --,' •Pi t ' 1 , 'i \ - '' III 0 \Hi it" iiii il— _ a, tee. i . : • -- . NMI r El . v J t S L' cc r• O u_ x . . cc -,,,, . 4 idt, , ...._ „ N 4- , 111F i •• I minr - r. i . Q 1 alp M rFaj - Aif } i 0 • • 5 y a r"T' '•t fi7i #"RV VIEW LOL...ING NORTH FROM BLAIR STREET Option 1 —Adjacent to Garage iippr...., .. Nk K Aye. ,. II 4 u ,, AMIE s . r�I� m .j I `Mr`,Ai alit-Lamm ,,,Ads _ -� r► •Uil� - IIII ,, it 4 0 _ sii i • 1 W ix Zoi'I cc LiJ 0 m { n 4111117 4111.1 x v _ R co w N 0 C J 0 0 04 . i _ . t 411 * s • ilk ob.%i 4 _4, 1 / ilr dVi • fy. F W cc i• { • ar re 11,, , r . R. _I0 ,j Noma IIr_ cc ;4 a ; •�"� 1 Ai cc 0 �1 ::,'0, r• N 0 1.., a •t t • die— I AND i O ......i.F ..dimi . ekit IP ,i 0 < p— ., st > 7) I4 • , ...... . ..... 0 \\ T, 03 . .. V) , (9 . <0 , 0 0 .. . 411••• \ ••••• g )10- \ •k • . ' :1i 1 • • • 1 •••4'4 4 4 41 i, 0• . I : 1. E ,,.• . , :.• •,,.. \ C • -.,11' t 1 ,' i' f ii I! • 'Jn't II g I If ' 1. F— (i) It ' -• . • 4 W 0 13 o s- m (13 i 2 ›- • 'lir. - 0 W 4 Ct. U t U.. F-- > L U) CU '4 ii) ' I's'41 . 011010 W I C ..s -.., •— D -C / / --1. -- 0 4-0 11 ' - Cl) I , - -- ,446.- • (.9 -, ...... , z E ..., -; o 1.1 ••••.. d ,4 -.I C / u i 0 3/31/11 C.5—Public Hearing—Electronic Billboards Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00717-Ordinance changing the City's zoning regulations to prohibit new electronic billboards and regulate conversion of existing billboards to an electronic format. • A Council staff report was not prepared for this item. • The Council received a briefing on March 22,2011. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: The Council may wish to take action at the end of the public hearing. This item has been processed under the pending ordinance rules that allow 6 months for new zoning regulations to be adopted. The time limit will expire on April 19. The next available meeting for Council action would be April 26,2011. 1. ["I move that the Council") Refer this item to a future Council meeting. 2. ["I move that the Council") Adopt an ordinance changing the City's zoning regulations to prohibit new electronic billboards and regulate conversion of existing billboards to an electronic format. 3. ["I move that the Council") Not adopt an ordinance rezoning properties located at approximately 1370 and 1380 South West Temple Street from Residential Business RB to Residential Mixed Use R-MU. 7-1rO P'ED FRANK B.GRAY lUe ONAV I�NP J(J4dAINWEIS WO• DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SCANNEV7 ct. DcvuTr DR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR ,t DATE: 3/14 7 Y DE LA MARE-ARE-9CHAEFER ROBERT FARRINGTON,JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 11MTHITT-Th / MAR 15 2011 Date Received: D J David E ritt,Chie of Staff By Date Sent to City Council: 03/IS/7-0 I( TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 10,2010 Jill Remington-Love,Chair FROM: Frank Gray,Community&Ec omic Development Department Directo RE: PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. STAFF CONTACTS: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner,at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin:Mayor Ralph Becker has initiated a request to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to include regulations for electronic billboards. The petition requests that existing City ordinances are updated to reflect industry changes and to define and regulate the conversion of existing billboards to an electronic format. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404 P.O.BOX 145486,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH S4114-5486 TELEPHONE:801.535-6230 FAX:B01.535.6005 www.9LCGay.cOM/CED ��nccrcico Analysis: In October 2010,Mayor Becker initiated a petition for the purpose of amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to address the conversion of traditional billboards to an electronic format. There are two associated petitions: Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with State law.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. The Planning Commission has not yet taken action on either of these petitions. The petition regarding electronic billboards has been forward ahead of action regarding the other associated petitions because the issuance of building permits for electronic billboards have been withheld since October 21,2011,under the Pending Ordinance Doctrine. This doctrine allows the City to withhold the issuance of building permits for a period of 180 days as the City reviews and potentially adopts proposed regulations. At the end of 180 days(April 19,2011),the City can no longer withhold permits under this doctrine and if no new legislation has been passed, permits must be issued based on current Zoning Ordinance standards. Regulation of electronic billboards is the most pressing of the billboard issues being reviewed. For this reason,a recommendation to prohibit electronic billboards is being transmitted to the City Council by the Planning Commission,at this time,to provide specific regulation of electronic billboards prior to the end of the 180 Pending Ordinance Doctrine deadline. The proposed text amendment defines and prohibits electronic billboards,which are considered to be an intensification of existing billboards. The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance which prohibits electronic billboards in Salt Lake City at least until such time that the broader issues surrounding billboards in general are reviewed and potential amendments to the City's billboard regulations are forwarded to the Council for consideration. The Planning Commission has already scheduled further discussion on the broader issues of billboards. Because of the approaching deadline imposed by the Pending Ordinance Doctrine,this transmittal is being forwarded to the City Council without ratified minutes of the March 9,2011 Planning Commission meeting. The minutes will be forwarded to the City Council upon adoption(tentatively scheduled for March 23,2011). Master Plan Considerations:The following master plans have been reviewed: • Urban Design Element: This plan calls for the prohibition of billboards on gateway streets. Gateway streets are the major entrances into the City and include interstate highways I-15,1-80,I-215;300 West,Main Street,State Street,5600 West,Foothill Drive,600 North,North Temple,400 South,500 South and 600 South. • RE: Petition PLNPCM2010-00717-Electronic Billboards Page2of3 • North Temple Boulevard Plan: This plan calls for the prohibition of billboards on North Temple. • Downtown Master: This plan calls for the prohibition of billboards on entry streets to downtown and cleaning up their general appearance. PUBLIC PROCESS: • An Open House introducing these petitions and potential regulations was held on November 18,2010. • There was an initial briefing with the Planning Commission at the December 9,2010 meeting. • The Business Advisory Board was briefed on January 5.2011. • Several Planning Commissioners met with YESCO representatives on January 5,2011 to discuss technical aspects of electronic billboards. • The Planning Commission received a briefing and held a work session on January 12. 2011 and set up a subcommittee to review the proposals. • The Planning Commission held an"issues only"hearing on January 26,2011. • The Planning Commission held a hearing on February 23,2011 and voted to continue the item as other business. • The Planning Commission made a decision on March 9,2011 and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the text change to the billboard ordinance that would define electronic billboards,prohibit electronic billboards and provide criteria for any existing electronic billboards. The Planning Commission vote was four in favor;two opposed;one abstention. The discussion included statements that the prohibition was to prevent the mass construction of electronic billboard at the end of the pending legislation"period.No building permits have been issued within 180 days of initiating the petition.The Planning Commission also set a date for ongoing discussion of billboards.with the understanding that the discussion may include proposing new regulations fbr electronic billboards. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps arc authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance,as detailed in Section 21 A.50.050:"A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does,however,list five standards,which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property(Section 21 A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail in the Planning Commission Staff Report. RE: Petition P1.NPCM2010-00717-Electronic Billboards Page 3 of 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK January 15,2011 newspaper February 12,2011 newspaper 13) STAFF REPORT 1) February 23,2011 STAFF REPORT(Primary staff report) 2) December 2,2010 Briefing memo for December 9 meeting 3) January 12,2011 Briefing memo 4) January 20,2011 Briefing memo for January 26 hearing 5) Report of information provided to the subcommittee 6) Continuation of February 23,2011 public hearing to March 9,2011 C) AGENDA AND MINUTES January 26,2011 February 23,2011 March 9,2011 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01048 October 21,2010 Petition submitted to City for consideration and processing. October 21,2010 Petition assigned to Doug Dansie,Senior Planner,for staff analysis and processing. November 18,2010 Open House. November 24,2011 Routed petition for review to applicable Departments and Divisions of Salt Lake City. December 9,2010 Initial Briefing with the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. January 5,2011 The Business Advisory Board was briefed January 5,2011 Several Planning Commissioners met with YESCO representatives to discuss technical aspects of electronic billboards January 12,'2011 The Planning Commission received a briefing and held a work session and set up a subcommittee to review the proposals. January 13,2011 Mailed public hearing notice for the January 26,2011 Planning Commission meeting. January 15,2011 Published public hearing notice for the January 26,2011 Planning Commission meeting in the Salt Lake Tribune. January 26.2011 The Planning Commission held an'`issues only"hearing January 31,and February 7,2011 A Planning Commission subcommittee met with industry February 10,2011 Mailed public hearing notice for the February 23,2011 Planning Commission meeting. February 12,2011 Published public hearing notice for the February 23.2011 Planning Commission meeting in the Salt Lake Tribune. February 18,2011 Published Planning Commission Staff Report. February 23,2011 Planning Commission conducted public hearing and voted postpone action. March 9,2011 Planning voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the text change to the Billboard ordinance that would define electronic billboards,prohibit electronic billboards and provide criteria for ally electronic billboard that may be constructed for any external reason. March--.2010 Planning Commission ratified meeting minutes for March 9.2011. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to billboards) An ordinance amending section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00717 regarding the regulation of billboards. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearings on January 26,2011 and February 23,2011 to consider a request made by Mayor Ralph Becker("Applicant")(Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00717)to amend the text of section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Signs:Billboards)regarding the regulation of electronic billboards;and WHEREAS,at its March 9,2011 public meeting,the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the Salt Lake City Council("City Council")that the City Council amend section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code as specified herein;and WHEREAS,after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests. NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.46.160. That section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Signs:Billboards),shall be,and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A. Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's rs master plans. B. Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business, product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located. BILLBOARD BANK:An accounting system established by the city to keep track of the number and square footage of nonconforming billboards removed pursuant to this chapter. BILLBOARD CREDIT:An entry into a billboard owner's billboard bank account that shows the number and square footage of demolished nonconforming billboards. BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. DWELL TIME: The length of time that elapses between text,images,or graphics on an electronic sign. EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13, 1993. ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign,video display.projected image, or similar device with text,images.or graphics generated by solid state electronic components. Electronic signs include,but are not limited to,signs that use light emitting diodes(LED),plasma displays.fiber optics,or other technology that results in bright,high-resolution text,images,and graphics. FOOT CANDLE:the English unit of measurement for luminance,which is equal to one lumen,incident upon an area of one square foot. GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80: 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; ANlik 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from I-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31, 1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. ILLUMINENCE:The intensity of light falling on a subsurface at a defined distance from the source. MOTION: The depiction of movement or change of position of text,images,or graphics. Motion shall include.but not be limited to.visual effects such as dissolving and fading text and images,running sequential text,graphic bursts,lighting that resembles zooming,twinkling.or sparkling,changes in light or color.transitory bursts of light intensity,moving patterns or bands of light,expanding or contracting ^^� shapes,and similar actions. TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text,images,and graphics on an electronic sign to change to a different text,images,or graphics on a subsequent sign face. C. Limit On The Total Number Of Billboards:No greater number of billboards shall be allowed in Salt Lake City than the number of existing billboards. D. Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). E. Credits For Nonconforming Billboard Removal:After a nonconforming billboard is demolished pursuant to a permit issued under subsection D1 of this section,or its successor,the city shall create a billboard bank account for the billboard owner.The account shall show the date of the removal and the zoning district of the demolished nonconforming billboard.The account shall reflect billboard credits for the billboard and its square footage.Demolition of a conforming billboard shall not result in any billboard credit. F. Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or downtown D-1.D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or gateway G-MU,GGC or GH or on gateways shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last:and 4.A billboard owner may demolish nonconforming billboards of a lower priority before removing billboards in a higher priority;however,the billboard credits for removing the lower priority billboard shall not become effective for use in constructing a new billboard until two(2)billboards specified in subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,with a total square footage equal to or greater than the lower priority billboard,are credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account.If a billboard owner has no subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,nonconforming billboards,two(2)subsection F2 of this section,or its successor,priority billboards may be credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account to effectuate the billboard credits of a subsection F3 of this section,or its successor,billboard to allow the construction of a new billboard.For the purposes of this section,the two(2) higher priority billboards credited in the billboard bank account can be used only once to effectuate the billboard credits for a lower priority billboard. G. Life Of Billboard Credits:Any billboard credits not used within thirty six(36) months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use except that lower priority credits effectuated pursuant to subsection F4 of this section,or its successor,shall expire and be of no further value or use within sixty(60)months of their initial creation. H. Billboard Credits Transferable:A billboard owner may sell or otherwise transfer a billboard and/or billboard credits.Transferred billboard credits which are not effective because of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor,shall not become effective for their new owner until they would have become effective for the original owner.The transfer of any billboard credits do not extend their thirty six(36)month life provided in subsection G of this section,or its successor. I. Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive billboard credits for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. J. New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. K. Permitted Zoning Districts:New billboards may be constructed only in the area identified on the official billboard map. L. New Billboard Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building ..� code as adopted by the city;and b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. M. Use Of Billboard Credits: 1.A new billboard permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard credits of a sufficient number of square feet and billboards to allow construction of the new billboard. 2.When the permit for the construction of a new billboard is issued,the zoning administrator shall deduct from the billboard owner's billboard bank account: a.The square footage of the new billboard;and b.The number of billboards whose square footage was used to allow the new billboard construction. 3.If the new billboard uses less than the entire available billboard credits considering both the number of billboards and square footage,any remaining square footage shall remain in the billboard bank. ,.,,, N. New Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet (600')of the right of way of any gateway. O. Special Gateway Provisions: 1. If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to subsections P,Q, R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount of billboard credits in the special gateway billboard bank. 2.The demolition of a nonconforming billboard pursuant to this section shall not accrue billboard credits within the general billboard bank.Credits for a billboard demolished or constructed within a special gateway shall be tracked within a separate bank account for each special gateway.A permit for the construction of a new billboard pursuant to this section must be taken out within thirty six(36)months of the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. P. Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. Q. Temporary Embellishments: 1.Temporary embellishments shall not exceed ten percent(10%)of the advertising face of any billboard,and shall not exceed five feet(5')in height above the billboard structure. 2.No temporary embellishment shall be maintained on a billboard more than twelve(12)months. R. Height:The highest point of any new billboard,excluding temporary embellishments shall not be more than: 1.Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or 2.If a street within one hundred feet(100')of the billboard,measured from the street at the point at which the billboard is perpendicular to the street,is on a different grade than the new billboard,twenty five feet(25')above the pavement elevation of the street. 3.If the provisions of subsection R2 of this section,or its successor subsection, apply to more than one street,the new billboard may be the higher of the two(2)heights. S. Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line. This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. T. Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300)linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred(800) linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. 3.Electronic billboards shall not be located closer than sixteen hundred(1600) ..� linear feet from any other electronic billboard on the same or opposite side of the street U. Electronic Billboards: 1. New Electronic Billboards are prohibited:Electronic billboards constructed or reconstructed for any reason after the date of adoption of this ordinance are limited to the following: a. Motion Any motion of any kind is prohibited on an electronic sign face. Electronic billboards shall have only static text,images,and graphics. b. Dwell time The text,image,or display on an electronic sign may not change more than once every twenty four (24) hours. Twirl time between subsequent text,images,or display shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. c. Brightness The illumination of any Electronic Billboard shall not increase the ambient lighting level more than 0.3 foot candles when measured by a foot candle meter perpendicular to the electronic Billboard face at: �+a i. 150 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface are of not more than 242 square feet ii. 200 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface area greater than 242 square feet but not more than 378 square feet iii. 250 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface area greater than 378 square feet but not more than 672 square feet iv. 350 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface area greater than 672 square feet. d. Display period Electronic billboards may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight. and 6 a.m if they are located in,or within 600 Feet of,a residential, mixed-use, downtown, Sugar House Business District. gateway, Neighborhood Commercial, Community Business. or Community Shopping Center zoning district e. Controls i. All electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer control or other mechanism that automatically controls the sign's brightness and display period as provided above. ii. Prior to approval of any permit for to operate an electronic sign,the applicant shall certify that the sign has been tested and complies with the motion,dwell time,brightness,and other requirements herein. iii. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sign shall submit an annual report to the city certifying that the sign complies with the motion,dwell time.brightness,and other requirements herein. DV.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. VW.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection US of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. WX.Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property, the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. XI.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1, 1996. YZ.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake Cite tree stewardship ordinance. ZAA.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. AABB.Special Provisions: 1.Applicability:The provisions of this section shall apply to specified billboards located: a.Four(4)existing billboards between 1500 North and 1800 North adjacent to the west side of Interstate 15;and b.One existing billboard on the east side of Victory Road at approximately 1100 North. 2.General Applicability:Except as modified by this section,all other provisions of this chapter shall apply to the five(5)specified billboards. 3.Special Priority:The five(5)specified billboards shall be considered as gateway billboards for the purposes of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor subsection. 4.Landscaping:The five(5)specified billboards shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of subsection VW of this section,or its successor subsection. RBCC.State Mandated Relocation Of Billboards:Except as otherwise authorized herein, existing billboards may not be relocated except as mandated by the requirements of Utah state law. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of 2011. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to billboards) An ordinance amending section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00717 regarding the regulation of billboards. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearings on January 26,2011 and February 23,2011 to consider a request made by Mayor Ralph Becker("Applicant")(Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00717)to amend the text of section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Signs:Billboards)regarding the regulation of electronic billboards;and WHEREAS,at its March 9,2011 public meeting,the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the Salt Lake City Council("City Council")that the City Council amend section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code as specified herein;and WHEREAS,after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests. NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.46.160. That section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake C dt'Code(Zoning:Signs:Billboards),shall be,and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A. Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. B. Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business, product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located. BILLBOARD BANK:An accounting system established by the city to keep track of the number and square footage of nonconforming billboards removed pursuant to this chapter. BILLBOARD CREDIT:An entry into a billboard owner's billboard bank account that shows the number and square footage of demolished nonconforming billboards. BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. DWELL TIME: The length of time that elapses between text,images,or graphics on an electronic sign. EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use ommik or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13, 1993. ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign,video display,projected image, or similar device with text,images,or graphics generated by solid state electronic components. Electronic signs include,but are not limited to,signs that use light emitting diodes(LED),plasma displays,fiber optics,or other technology that results in bright,high-resolution text,images,and graphics. FOOT CANDLE:the English unit of measurement for luminance,which is equal to one lumen,incident upon an area of one square foot. GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; Amok 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from I-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31, 1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. ILLUMINENCE:The intensity of light falling on a subsurface at a defined distance from the source. MOTION: The depiction of movement or change of position of text,images,or graphics. Motion shall include,but not be limited to,visual effects such as dissolving and fading text and images,running sequential text,graphic bursts,lighting.that resembles zooming,twinkling,or sparkling,changes in light or color,transitory bursts of light intensity,moving patterns or bands of light,expanding or contracting shapes,and similar actions. TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text,images,and graphics on an electronic sign to change to a different text,images,or graphics on a subsequent sign face. C. Limit On The Total Number Of Billboards:No greater number of billboards shall be allowed in Salt Lake City than the number of existing billboards. D. Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). E. Credits For Nonconforming Billboard Removal:After a nonconforming billboard is demolished pursuant to a permit issued under subsection DI of this section,or its successor,the city shall create a billboard bank account for the billboard owner.The account shall show the date of the removal and the zoning district of the demolished nonconforming billboard.The account shall reflect billboard credits for the billboard and its square footage.Demolition of a conforming billboard shall not result in any billboard credit. F. Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: I.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or gateway G-MU,GGC or GH or on gateways shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall he removed last;and 4.A billboard owner may demolish nonconforming billboards of a lower priority before removing billboards in a higher priority;however,the billboard credits for removing the lower priority billboard shall not become effective for use in constructing a new billboard until two(2)billboards specified in subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,with a total square footage equal to or greater than the lower priority billboard,are credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account.If a billboard owner has no subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,nonconforming billboards,two(2)subsection F2 of this section,or its successor,priority billboards may be credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account to effectuate the billboard credits of a subsection F3 of this section,or its successor,billboard to allow the construction of a new billboard.For the purposes of this section,the two(2) higher priority billboards credited in the billboard bank account can be used only once to effectuate the billboard credits for a lower priority billboard. G. Life Of Billboard Credits:Any billboard credits not used within thirty six(36) months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use except that lower priority credits effectuated pursuant to subsection F4 of this section,or its successor,shall expire and be of no further value or use within sixty(60)months of their initial creation. H. Billboard Credits Transferable:A billboard owner may sell or otherwise transfer a billboard and/or billboard credits.Transferred billboard credits which are not effective because of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor,shall not become effective for their new owner until they would have become effective for the original owner.The transfer of any billboard credits do not extend their thirty six(36)month life provided in subsection G of this section,or its successor. I. Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive billboard credits for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. J. New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. K. Permitted Zoning Districts:New billboards may be constructed only in the area identified on the official billboard map. L. New Billboard Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building code as adopted by the city;and b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. M. Use Of Billboard Credits: 1.A new billboard permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard credits of a sufficient number of square feet and billboards to allow construction of the new billboard. 2.When the permit for the construction of a new billboard is issued,the zoning administrator shall deduct from the billboard owner's billboard bank account: a.The square footage of the new billboard;and b.The number of billboards whose square footage was used to allow the new billboard construction. 3.If the new billboard uses less than the entire available billboard credits considering both the number of billboards and square footage,any remaining square footage shall remain in the billboard bank. ANN. N. New Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet (600')of the right of way of any gateway. O. Special Gateway Provisions: 1. If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to subsections P,Q, R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount of billboard credits in the special gateway billboard bank. 2.The demolition of a nonconforming billboard pursuant to this section shall not accrue billboard credits within the general billboard bank.Credits for a billboard demolished or constructed within a special gateway shall be tracked within a separate bank account for each special gateway.A permit for the construction of a new billboard pursuant to this section must be taken out within thirty six(36)months of the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. ""► P. Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. Q. Temporary Embellishments: 1.Temporary embellishments shall not exceed ten percent(10%)of the advertising face of any billboard,and shall not exceed five feet(5')in height above the billboard structure. 2.No temporary embellishment shall be maintained on a billboard more than twelve(12)months. R. Height:The highest point of any new billboard,excluding temporary embellishments shall not be more than: 1.Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or 2.If a street within one hundred feet(100')of the billboard,measured from the street at the point at which the billboard is perpendicular to the street,is on a different grade than the new billboard,twenty five feet(25')above the pavement elevation of the street. 3.If the provisions of subsection R2 of this section,or its successor subsection, apply to more than one street,the new billboard may be the higher of the two(2)heights. S. Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or comer side lot line. This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. T. Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300)linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; 2. Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred(800) linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. 3.Electronic billboards shall not be located closer than sixteen hundred(1600) linear feet from any other electronic billboard on the same or opposite side of the street U. Electronic Billboards: 1. New Electronic Billboards are prohibited:Electronic billboards constructed or reconstructed for any reason after the date of adoption of this ordinance are limited to the following: a. Motion Any motion of any kind is prohibited on an electronic sign face. Electronic billboards shall have only static text,images,and graphics. h. Dwell time The text,image,or display on an electronic sign may not change more than once every twenty four (24) hours. Twirl time between subsequent text,images,or display shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. c. Brightness The illumination of any Electronic Billboard shall not increase the ambient lighting level more than 0.3 foot candles when measured by a foot candle meter perpendicular to the electronic Billboard fact at: i. 150 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface are of not more than 242 square feet ii. 200 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface area greater than 242 square feet but not more than 378 square feet iii. 250 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface area greater than 378 square feet but not more than 672 square feet iv. 350 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface area greater than 672 square feet. d. Display period Electronic billboards may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight. and 6 a.m if they are located in,or within 600 Feet of,a residential, mixed-use, downtown, Sugar House Business District, gateway, Neighborhood Commercial, Community Business, or Community Shopping Center zoning district, e. Controls i. All electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer control or other mechanism that automatically controls the sign's brightness and display period as provided above. ii. Prior to approval of any permit for to operate an electronic sign,the applicant shall certify that the sign has been tested and complies with the motion,dwell time,brightness,and other requirements herein. iii. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sign shall submit an annual report to the city certifying that the sign complies with the motion,dwell time,brightness,and other requirements herein. V. Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21 A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. W.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection S of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. X. Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property, the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. Y. Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1,1996. Z. Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance. AA.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve.make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. BB.Special Provisions: -� 1.Applicability:The provisions of this section shall apply to specified billboards located: a.Four(4)existing billboards between 1500 North and 1800 North adjacent to the west side of Interstate 15;and b.One existing billboard on the east side of Victory Road at approximately 1100 North. 2.General Applicability:Except as modified by this section,all other provisions of this chapter shall apply to the five(5)specified billboards. 3.Special Priority:The five(5)specified billboards shall be considered as gateway billboards for the purposes of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor subsection. 4.Landscaping:The five(5)specified billboards shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of subsection W of this section,or its successor subsection. CC.State Mandated Relocation Of Billboards:Except as otherwise authorized herein, existing billboards may not be relocated except as mandated by the requirements of Amok Utah state law. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM (SEAL) Sall Lake City Attorney's Office Date: ?A// Bill No. of2011. Hy: Published: r i c Niels , et„at ra Altanec HH A1TY-=17129-s2-Ordinance-Billboard amendments-electronic billboards.DO(' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing regarding Petition PLNPCM2010-00717: Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. As part of its study,the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition.During this hearing,anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak.The hearing will be held: Date: Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Room 315(City Council Chambers)* Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S.State Street Salt Lake City.UT *Please enter building from east side. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the petition on file,please call Doug Dansie. Senior Planner,at 535-6182 between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m..Monday through Friday or via e-mail at doug.dansieraislcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. For questions, requests. or additional information,please contact the ADA Coordinator at(801)535-7971;TDD 535-6021. Saunders Outdoor Advertising High Impact Billboards Alex Waller "33 Lincoln Avenue 808 N.Hwy 89 545 S 700E len,Utah 84401-3837 Ogden,Utah 84404 Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 Reagan Outdoor Advertising Fusion Imaging Inc. Jared Johnson 1775 Warm Springs Road 601 Boro St. 1065 S Gramercy Rd Salt Lake City,Utah 841 1 6-2 3 5 3 Kaysville,Utah 84037-3122 Salt Lake City,Utah 84109 Simmons Media Group Young Electric Sign Company Ryan Young 515 S.7th E.41C 2401 S.Foothill Drive 2401 Foothill Drive Salt Lake City,Utah 84102-2802 Salt Lake City,Utah 84109 Salt Lake City,Utah 845109 Card Sign Inc. COAMAX Sign Company Inc. Mike Helm 960 W.2100 S. 2180 N. 1089 W. 1505 S Gramercy Rd Salt Lake City,Utah 841 1 9-153 0 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Salt Lake City,Utah 64104 Utah Logos Inc. Millennium Sign Company Daniel(Dewey)Reagan 5278 Pinemont Dr.4A150 2150 S. 1300 E.Suite 500 1775 North Warm Springs S•'1t Lake City,Utah 84123-2711 Salt Lake City,Utah 84106 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Lamar Transit Advertising John Evans Co.Digital Imaging Randy Horiuchi 754 S.200 W. 3815 Parkway Boulevard 1785 Michigan Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 Salt Lake City,Utah 84120 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 CBS Outdoor Republic Outdoor Advertising Collin Simonson PO BOX 2455 1675 Beck Street 50 West 300 South#1200 Salt Lake City,Utah 84 1 1 0-24 55 Salt Lake City,Utah 841 1(i-1214 Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 JLC Signs Vision International Kim Spring 6605 Sunflower Dr. 3030 Directors Row 1011 S West Temple APT 305 Highland,Utah 84003-9483 Salt Lake City,Utah 84104-4551 Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 Lockridge Outdoor Advertising Mike Zulu 4460 Wallace Lane 1063 Douglas Street i-Iighland,Utah 84124 Salt Lake City,Utah84105 Outdoor Promotions Guy Larson 9500 S.500 W.#106 1775 North Warm Springs Sandy,Utah 84070-6654 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Terry Thomas Elke Phillips Cabot Nelson 1848 Stallion Lane 839 S Washington Street 984 Simpson Ave Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Brad Bartholomew Thomas Mutter 871 N.Poinsettia Dr. 228 EAST 500 SOUTH Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Angie Vorher Esther Hunter, 1988 SirJames Dr. East Central&Univ.CC Salt Lake City UT 84116 1049 Norris Place Salt Lake City UT 84152-1809 Gordon Storrs DeWitt Smith 223 North 800 West 328 E.Hollywood Ave. Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84115 Mike Harman pooke, DttAJ5 f(' 1044 West 300 South 527 N 41A/N Salt Lake City UT 84104 3 ANN Randy Sorenson George Kelner 1184 S.Redwood Dr. 1000 Military Drive Salt Lake City UT 84104-3325 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Katherine Gardner Mark Brinton 606 De Soto St 1869 Logan Ave Salt Lake City UT 84103 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Jim Jenkin Pete Taylor 212 5th Ave 933 S.2300 E. Salt Lake City UT 84103 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Gene Fitzgerald Ellen Reddick 1385 Butler Ave 2177 Roosevelt Ave Salt Lake City,UT 84102 Salt Lake City UT 84108 ie D.Christian Harrison R.Gene Moffitt Community Council Chat 336 W.Broadway,#308 1410 Chancellor Way Last update from CC website 12.1.1 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Tb-bT-t:TLOSO VT-TVC: S3 .. •...;,..... O WMN03 013180ND 03SS3a00n a*t!t}(Tt3ad OA m iutiNti WIWEITIVISOd Sn 318OOtAI130 IONG C=_3`:u7I_•Gahr Eves 2 ica >r\T"i's) 1.0H s 5M.^'n SS300otl1N3101ft000I❑ Ev ctN U OS NL+,ft.Lih! H38WHN HMS ON 133tl1S NnS ON❑ r T r r.� ram., T ..: isbCi _�%r.wra 035r133NO-ISHnsON❑ NMONN ION-031da331Cn❑ SS3tl00n ON 1131'MON 0 • 91 r tug �l og •j.1 ONIaVAl dO DOliON (Illl r to i 1`II)(, O 9-b6lteIn'A110A)IV111VS �14f 7°� Y 90b Ind 1d3�Jls d VIS HInOS 6Sb Lit f?_y'i� � OebSvH XOa Od 911b83C1,1Vr00 PJ-065ZhIv.9 `F G..'dti /3 L2j� NOISIAIOONINNVId oz burr sfoz5zb000 a f`• NOIIV2�Od2�O0 A113 d)IVI IIVS T n 4+_ _ __ _ _ L4SOdr�ti6 • GUIDELINES 1. Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. 2. After the staff and petitioner presentations,hearings will be opened for public comment.Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing. 3 In-order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting,public comments are limited to five(2)minutes per person,per item.A - spokesperson who has already been asked by a group to summarize their concerns v✓ill be allowed five(5)minutes to speak. Written comments are welcome and will be provided to staff and the Hearing Officer in advance of the meeting if they are submitted prior to noon the day before the meeting.Written comments should he sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street,Reese 406 Salt Lake City UT 84111 4. Speakers aid be called by the Chair. 5. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. S eakers should focus their comments on the agenda item.Extra •repetitive comments should be avoided. - - e -lies may make requests for reasonable accoihimbdatinm no titer pan - a . this meeting.Accommodations may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids. This ...1 accessi- lily. For questions,requests,en additional information,please contact the Planning Ofbce at 535-7757,TDD 535:6220, t SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street • Wednesday,January 26,2011 at 7:00 p.m.or immediately following the Work Session • The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. • Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00p.m.in Room 126. Work Session: 5:30 in Room 326. The Planning Commission will hold a work session from approximately 5:30-6:30. During the Work Session the Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on pending projects, discuss project updates and minor administrative matters. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. PLNPCM2011-00015: Yalecrest Local Historic District Designation—A request by the Historic Landmark Commission, pursuant to a request from the Yalecrest Yes Heritage Preservation Committee,to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map, in accordance with the standards of chapter 21A.34.020 and chapter 21A.50.050 of the City Ordinance, and establish an H Historic Preservation Overlay District for the Yalecrest neighborhood which is located generally between 800 South/Sunnyside Avenue and 1300 South,from 1300 East to 1900 East.The area is located in City Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington Love and District 6 represented by JT Martin.(Staff contact:Carl Leith at(801)535-7758 or carl.leith@slcgov.com.) PLNPCM2010-00665: Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay(VCI)and Historic Preservation Overlay(H)Amendment—A request by Jodi Howick in behalf of the Yalecrest Preservationists for Property Rights for amendment of the Salt Lake City Code to establish a voluntary development review process and modify certain provisions of the YCI District,and amend the procedure to establish an H District. The amendment will affect sections 21A.34.120 and 21A.34.020 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact:Michael Maloy at(801)535-7118 or michael.malovPslcgov.com). o Approval of Minutes o Report of the Chair and Vice Chair o Report of the Director o Public Hearings 7:00 or immediately following the work session Public Hearing(Administrative Petition) 1. PLNPCM2010-00760: Deseret First Credit Union Conditional Use—A request by Gary Gower for conditional use approval for zn expansion of the office building located at 147 North 200 West in the R-MU(Residential Mixed Use)and RMF-35(Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning districts and in Council District 3,represented by Stan Penfold.(Staff contact:Katie Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Issues Only(Legislative Petitions) 2. Petition 400-05-51: Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact:Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) 3. PLNPCM2010-00032: Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact:Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) 4. PLNPCM2010-00717: Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact:Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices,room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information,Visit the Planting Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports,and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17;past meetings are recorded and archived,and maybe viewed at wiviv.sletv.com 4770 S.5600 W. P.O.Box 704005 e�utt�iz�ke�ribune MEDIAE vte Deseret News WEST-VALLEY CI IA'.UTAH 84170 FIIU.TAX LDI 87-0217663 PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COPY 5 r: S0 USTOIvtERTIA'CvIE'AND's4DDRESS `` `-' !?`ACCOUNP:IJIJMBER '-'f PLANNING DIVISION, 9001394298 2/14/2011 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PLANNING DIVISION, 8015356184 0000662998 / '{' r� `_ " SORE LE " r� °,+- -" Ma a•'`. Start 02/12/2011 End 02/]2/2011 "; CUST;.RLF HO 5�%k ~ .` fi s:t: z:J Zoning Ordinance Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Amendment On Wednesday February 23,2011 at 7:00 pm iI °,,;eq o a'i° `M"retlmrm On Wednesday February 2I• 7:00 FT.'," mw a Ro°m J2E °r a S City/City/CoastCity/Coasts,mewleinq sl Soren Sf°fe,ne Salf late 31 Lines 1.00 COLUMN nelOP1poEl¢Aevni�ia-III �itlrr zcn:nq fe.t emcntlmcrnn TTMLS �.+�, - .RAIL - reaam,q v nr miner ae cntlti°bacrtl regblll- boards.Seal!Comonr Deog 3 Daiuia(801 15]5-E 1 E2 doug nsle cOJslcgov.com T p c ne°ring r II br n `..--MISC.C11Al2GHS : •,' ;.• CHARGES - am re Ste CIO eeonh • - - 'B dnq. e51 Sfc'e Sheet,Son take Clh.Uy.Fcr Imo inl°rmbtion or for spr- myi log ImM (TOTAL COST, 1 m°o'"piZe 0022 or call 1DD 535-6220. 6E2SSB I1PAx LP 43.75 AI l 1115571 OF PURI.ICAIION 1S ItIFWSPAPIIR AGENCY COAIPANS',I IC dbu LI.DIAONG OF IJTAII LEG11,13o0KEI:,I CERIIIY T1-IAT1I Ie AFTACIICD:ADA'11R1ISI-AILNI OF Salt Lake Citc Zoning Ordinance.-Amendment On N ednesda,Feb.earn 23.2011 at 7:00 pin in Room 326(tithe Salt Lake Cin:'Cnuaty ISuildin0.451 South State. the FOR PLANNING DIVISION.WAS PURLISIISD 13Y THI'NESVSPAPF.R AGENCY COLIPANY.LLC dba A9EDIAONL(1F II FAIL AGENT FOR THE SAI:r LAKE T 12113UNE AND DESERET NI55S,D:A1!_l'NIOS SP.APEIS P12IN I LD IN THE FOCI IS!!LANGUAGE 55T111 GENERAL L IRCUi.OilON IN U I AhI,AND P(13LISIICI)INS.ALI LANE Cffl'_SALT IAGII C0171JTY IN T 116 STATE OF UTAH NOIICF IS ALSO POSTED ON U'i.-V-II.FG91_S.COA1 ONTI IF.,SA\il D:SY 1S TIIB FINS I NEIFSPAPCI2I'11CLICATION DAlF AND LFAI:1NS ON UTAIILCGAI S.COA1 INDGI:INATELA. F(IGI_'SUED oN Stall 0 12i2011 End 0202/20]1 - ,IC,NAI UKI �A 1 ;,,( �l_I-fit. 1)11 E • 2/1412011 TIIlS 18 NOT,\STATEMENT BUT A"PROO5 OF PUBLICATION" ._ PI FAST'PAY 1.110\1 All I INI(7 SiATP\4FNT Remit lei P.O.Box 704005 7,1)e*nttgahc'c ribune MEDIAE ste Deseret News Vilest Valley City,UT 84170 Order Confirmation for Ad#0000655815-01 Client PLANNING DIViSI ON Payor Customer PLANNING DIVISION Ad Content Proof Actual Size Client Phone 601-535-7930 Pa Phone 801-535-7930 On 0 7.00d oy JciRoom Payor Ines oat In nuory 326 of the Sift Loh, SI/Soul Sro leie 51r Account-if 1001472101 Payor Account 1001472101 Lake Gry Nanning Corn- mission..ill bold a public Tr sedeon- Address P.O.Box 145480,451 South State Street,Km SCE Payor Address P.O.Box 145480 451 South State Stree Irng t-nr c�meonnclmenrrsz SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5480 USA SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5480 elve arding a shelters t se blllbo nid c�itcni an I elztt c is lsiilSocrds.SraN Con. Ordered By Acct.Exec a-r'DouLr11 Dmrre Fax rise 5c35 r:e(nlsiglo<c,a d EMail everett joyce@slcgov.com Angela jval Sez Total Amount $109.00 Payment Amt $0.00 Tear Sheets Proofs Affidavits Amount Due $109.00 0 0 0 Payment Method PO Number Confirmation Notes: Text: Ad Type Ad Size Color CLS Liner 1.0 X 16 Li <NONE> duct Placement Position it Lake Tribune:: General Classified 010-Special Notices 0010 Scheduled Date(s): 01/15/2011 Product Placement Position Deseret News:: General Classified 010Spocia!Notices 0010 Scheduled Date(s): 01/15/2011 Product Placement Position sltrib corn:: General Classified 010-Special Notices 0010 Scheduled Date(s): 01/15/2011 Product Placement Position deseretnews.com.: General Classified 010-Special Notices 0010 Scheduled Date(s): 01/15/2011 011112011 2,45 42PfM 1 5.B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS/MEMOS 1) February 23,2011 STAFF REPORT(Primary staff report) 2) December 2,2010 Briefing memo for December 9 meeting 3) January 12,2011 Briefing memo 4) January 20,2011 Briefing memo for January 26 hearing 5) Report of information provided to the subcommittee 6) February 18 memo 7) Continuation of February 23,2011 public hearing to March 9,2011 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Off-premise advertising v 54 `7 ;17 Petitions: 400-06-51, PLNPCM2010-00032, PLNPCM2010-00717 Zoning Text Amendment °� I,,, Citywide Planning and Zoning Division February 23, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant: Mayor Ralph Becker Request Staff There are three separate petitions regarding the regulation of off-premise Doug Dansie,535-6152 Doug.Dansie a nlcgoo.com advertising in Salt Lake City. Tax in: Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising- City,idc A request fora zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters. Current zone The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. Cin,ridc master clan Designation: PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by NA Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for Council District: cn ,,;r e outdoor billboards to make them consistent with State law.'Ihe text amendment would affect all zoning districts. Community Council: Cin„id`- PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards- Lot size, request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to cit>,,;de address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not Current use: address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning NA districts. :\y,licable Land Use Regulations: Staff Recommendation 21 A-50.Oda Standards for genera! amendments Based on the findings listed in the staff report.it is the Planning Staffs opinion 2In 46.160:Billboards that overall the proposal generally meets the applicable standards and therefore, Notification(hearino) recommends the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to • Notice:Jnaary22, the City Council to approve the requested zoning text amendments associated deb 12.2011 with petitions PI.NPCM2010-00032 and P1,NPCM2010-00717 as outlined in • AVol): January 2' Feb 11,2011 the summary and not take action on petition 400-06-51 and hold it for further review. Attachments: A. Dcpvnneat Comments ! B. Proposed ordinance C. A1ap of-affected neairapi iL i II I'eG,loi°s.1n0.5.51 PLNPc.17010-00H2 PI NPCr,12 0 1 0-00 7 1' rublIshcit D.:s rebi,ar IS.201I 17 Background The current billboard ordinance was adopted in 1993. It was based upon the premise of capping the overall number of billboards and allowing the remaining billboards to move to more acceptable locations away from residential and historical areas. Since then, State legislation has changed allowing billboard companies to relocate billboards to non-residential zoning districts adjacent to existing billboard locations. In many cases, billboard companies have purchased the land or easement on sites to insure the permanence of their board, therefore eliminating the incentive for movement. The industry has also expressed a desire to maintain its present coverage; therefore the billboard bank contained in the original ordinance has been rendered mute. The industry is now considering converting many billboards to billboards with electronic faces, which have a differing set of impacts (such as changing images) and effectively increase the non-conformity of many billboards. The current ordinance is silent regarding electronic billboards: Meaning there is no prohibition or rules regarding conversion. Project Description There are three separate petitions, all involving off-premise advertising. Off-premise advertising differs from on-premise advertising in that on-premise is generally necessary for an individual business to exist or survive, Off—premise advertising generally promotes activity not associated with the location of the sign, therefore th'" nexus between the business and the sign is not as critical. Court cases have generally allowed local communities to regulate off-premise advertising more stringently than on-premise advertising. The Supreme Court has ruled that billboards may be banned as long as other forms of advertising exist in the community. The petitions and issues are as follows: Petition 400-06-51: Zoning Text Amendment, Transit Shelter Advertising- A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters. Request: The present ordinance has banned bus bench advertising and most other advertising in the public right-of- way since the 1970's. This proposal is to allow limited advertising on bus shelters or other public furniture (as is done in numerous suburban communities)to allow advertising to pay for those public amenities. Issues: • Off-premise signage in the public right-of-way, including bus benches, was prohibited in the 1970's. • Previous use of signage in the right-of-way resulted in complaints of clutter. • Previous signage in the right-of-way resulted in complaints of businesses putting signage directly in front of competitors, etc. • Salt Lake City has liberalized some signage regulations since the 1970's: Specifically banners and A-frame directional signs • UTA (and Lamar Advertising) approached the City regarding the potential for advertising to pay for transit shelters. • Using advertising to pay for other potential public furniture and services has also been considered (restrooms, bike rental, etc.) PLNPCM201 0-00032: Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards -A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a Alliok zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards. The proposed amendment would update current regulations outdoor billboards to make them consistent with State law. Petitions:400-06-51,PLNPC\920I0-00032,PLNPCiM2010-00717 Published Date: February IS,2011 18 Request:The existing law regarding billboards was adopted in 1993. State law has changed considerably since that time leaving portions of current City law to be inneffective. The purpose of this petition is to update City law to be consistent with State law and to simplify City processes. Issues: • The current ordinance was adopted in 1993 and was intended to be a cap and reduce program,allowing billboards to relocate to more appropriate locations while prohibiting an increase in the overall number of billboards in the City and allowing for a decrease. • A billboard bank was set up to accommodate movement and to prioritize areas of acceptable relocation. • State law has changed considerably since 1993. • State law allows billboards to move to any non-residential property within a variable distance from the original location for multiple reasons,if the City does not allow the movement;the City is obligated to purchase the billboard.The City may negotiate alternative locations with the Billboard company. • State law requires the purchase of a billboard to include damages to the"package'. Billboards are often sold in groups to one advertiser;that group constitutes a package. • Changes in State law have left the SLC billboard bank largely irrelevant. • Many billboards in the City were erected before there were any sign regulations and they remain in areas where they have long been non-conforming. • Billboards are amortized for tax value and pay taxes on 3°/of their original value after 19 years. • By State law,billboards are the only non-conforming use that cannot be removed through the use of amortization. • There arc numerous scenarios in Salt Lake City where the presence of a billboard suppresses the redevelopment potential of the underlying land,as well as examples of redevelopment with billboards. PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards. Request: The petition is to update existing City law to reflect industry changes and to define and regulate the conversion of existing billboards to an electronic format. Issues: • The current ordinance is silent regarding electronic billboards. • Six electronic billboards exist in Salt lake City.Three are under dispute. • Numerous electronic on-premise signs exist. • State laws allows electronic billboards but does not require local government to allow the conversion of old billboards to an electronic format. • Electronic billboards are the emerging format for billboards. • Electronic billboards require a greater investment and offer an increased potential revenue source for the owner. therefore their removal costs are also higher. Comments Public Comments • An Open 1-louse introducing these petitions and potential regulations was held on November 1 S,201(1. • There was an initial briefing with the Planning Commission at the December 9.2010 meeting. • The Business Advisory Board was briefed on January 5,2011. • Several Planning Commissioners met with YESCO representatives on January 5.2011 to discuss technical aspects of electronic billboards. p.'.41ons.;00-0G-il.P;Ngcri:_010-OODJ3.p,xgcA4o10-ne717 PuSli:he d Dsse Fsbruus IS,_QI l 19 • The Planning Commission received a briefing and held a work session on January 12,'2011 and set up a subcommittee to review the proposals. • The Planning Commission held an"issues only"hearing on January 26,2011. City Department Comments Department comments are attached. There were generally no significant issues raised. Project Review A Planning Commission subcommittee met with industry members on January 31,and February 7,2011. The subcommittee discussion included the following issues: • Comparison of Salt Lake City's ordinance with Salt Lake County • Relocation potential of existing billboards • Geography of existing billboards and potential geography for allowing them • Power requirements and sustainability of electronic billboards • Impacts of electronic billboards vs.impacts of electronic on-premise signs • Lighting,timing and luminance of electronic billboards • Spacing and geographical concerns regarding electronic boards • Master plan policies regarding billboards;including the concept of Gateway streets. • The Administration's opinion on billboards Pali°s.400-05- ]PI NPC012OI 0-00032,PLNPCM2OIO-00717 Published Date Pebruar IS.20 I 20 Analysis and Findings iptions The City presently has a sign ordinance regulating off-premise advertising. Failure to grant zoning changes outlined by Petition 400-06-51 would keep the present prohibition of bus bench advertising. Failure to grant zoning changes suggested by petition PLNPCM2010-00032 would result in a situation where State law would still supersede City ordinance and allow movement into areas currently prohibited by City ordinance,regardless of the City billboard banking process. Failure to grant zoning changes requested by petition PLNPCM2010- 00717 would allow conversion of static billboards to electronic billboards by not providing any prohibition against their conversion or providing any standards to do so. Findings A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard.However,In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment,the city council should consider the following factors: A. I.Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives,and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Analysis: The Urban Design Element calls for the prohibition of billboards on gateway streets. The North Temple Master Plan calls for the prohibition of billboards on North Temple.The Downtown Master Plan and Downtown Rising Plan(not formally adopted by Salt Lake City)call for prohibiting billboards on entry streets to downtown and cleaning up their general appearance. The proposed amendment outlines general areas where billboards are allowed and defines gateway streets where they arc not allowed. The billboard ordinance is not the only ordinance affecting gateway streets. Other sections of City code require landscaping on street frontages,including freeways.full architecture on all sides of the building and regulation of on-premise signage. Sexually oriented businesses are also prohibited on gateway streets. Finding: The proposed zoning text amendments are supported by general policy of the City 2.Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance: Analysis: The proposed zoning amendments bring the City ordinance into conformity with State law while still allowing for local flexibility in relocation and discouraging new impacts:such as the lighting emanating from electronic billboards in residential areas.State law allows for billboards to move in the immediate vicinity of their existing location or as negotiated with the City.The proposed City ordinance would also allow the City to move billboards to Manufacturing and General Commercial areas of the City.away from existing residential and gateway areas. The proposed geography for relocation opens up much of the industrial area on the west side of 1-215. Finding: The proposed zoning text amendments are designed to be consistent with City master plan goals while also remaining consistent with State law. Pclitin,s.-100-06-Sl.PLRPCN12 0 1 0-000 2.PLRPCA12010-00717 Published Ihte Fcbtum 1 S.2011 71 3.Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards;and ..� Analysis: The current and newly proposed ordinance encourages the relocation of billboards onto locations outside of historical preservation overlay districts. The new ordinance would allow billboards within the approach area of the Airport(Airport Influence Overlay),but billboards would be no more impactful than allowable buildings or on-premise signs in that overlay district.One of the provisions of the proposed ordinance is to limit height of new billboards to the same height of on-premise signage. There is a provision to subject billboard lighting in Airport Influence Overlay Zones to Airport lighting restrictions. The ordinance has little or no effect on other overlay districts(transitional,groundwater,etc.). Finding: The proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with overlay districts. 4.The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current,professional practices of urban planning and design. Analysis: Changes in State law over the last fifteen years,along with the industry practice of acquiring permanent casement for billboards and the adoption of taxing billboards as personal property as tax policy,has created a situation where non-conforming billboards,which generate little tax revenue,arc suppressing development that is in conformity with master plan policies and which also generates housing,employment and tax revenue. Billboard laws vary from State to State and City to City. Fis states outlaw the construction of new billboards,conversely some cities,such as New York have use, off-premise signage to create lively and bright sections of their community(Times Square). The regulation of off-premise advertising can play an important role in defining the character of a city.For example:Las Vegas,a desert resort,allows for numerous electronic billboards to create a bright and lively atmosphere.Conversely Palm Springs,also a desert resort,prohibits billboards in the City to create more formal resort feel. The proposed ordinance is part of an overall effort to accentuate Salt Lake City's physical environment by protecting views of the mountains and the eliminating unnecessary visual clutter.The proposed ordinance codifies a Salt Lake City policy closer to that of Palm Springs. Locations that ban electronic billboards(as reported by USA Today)include; Hawaii,San Francisco, Montana,Denver,Gilbert AZ,Pima County AZ,Amarillo'IX,Ft. Worth,Dallas,Galveston,Houston, Austin,St Petersburg FL,Knoxville TN,Durham NC,Vermont,and Maine. Other cities in Utah that prohibit the construction of new billboards include Provo,Kaysville,Lehi and Park City,as well as newly incorporated cities such as Holladay and Cottonwood Heights. Finding: The proposed zoning text amendment is supported by general policy of increasing housing employment and tax revenue by discouraging the suppression of development on lots occupied by billboards. The proposed ordinance codifies a desire to eliminate visual clutter and to accentuate the physical characteristic of Salt Lake City's physical setting. Petiilons 400-06 01,I'L 6PCiNL0 1 0-00 03 2,PLx PCA12010-00717 Published Date Febr lard A.2011 Summary Staff is recommending the postponement of a decision regarding Petition 400-06-51,transit shelter advertising, in order to allow further analysis of the issues. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption of an ordinance that codifies petitions PLNPCM2010-00032 and PLNPCM2010-00717 and accomplishes the following: Eliminates the billboard bank: • State Law allows billboards to move within the general vicinity of their existing sites and billboard companies often own the land or easements on many of the sites that are conflicting with neighborhoods. • Billboard companies have expressed an interest in maintaining existing distribution throughout the City(which means maintaining them east of 1-215 where all residential areas are located), • Therefore the premise of encouraging the movement of billboards out of neighborhoods into manufacturing area has been undermined and the Billboard Bank is no longer effective for its original intended purpose of moving billboards out of residential areas into less conflicting areas of the City. The three year banking period has been eliminated • Billboards will be expected to be relocated to a new area when they are removed from an old area, with no time lapse,otherwise they arc deemed removed. Still allows for relocation. • The ordinance allows for relocation to Manufacturing and select General Commercial zoning districts(but not on gateways streets or within 600 feet of residential zoning)for those instances where billboards may wish to move. • The proposed ordinance actually increases the geography of where billboards may move by opening the entire west side Manufacturing areas(west of 1-215)to billboard relocation(excluding gateway streets). Adds several new gateway streets: • 5600 West,7200 West and the proposed Mountain View Corridor freeway were added as gateways because the general area was opened for billboards. Billboards have not been allowed on these streets in the past. They are now classified as Gateway Streets because the new ordinance would allow billboards in adjacent Manufacturing zoning districts. • The 900 South off-ramp was added for clarification(1-15 is already a gateway) Eliminates special gateways: • Special Gateways previously allowed for limited billboard movement on several select streets. • Policy changes,such as prohibiting billboards as part of the North Temple Plan.have altered the concept of special gateways. Defines electronic billboards; c The ordinance includes a definition and detailed requirements for electronic billboards in the event that existing boards are relocated or new ones arc authorized for external reasons. Pc',ICur,i: 100-06-t!.PWPC5•I2010-0D032,PI_APCA12010-00717 Piiblish:d Dag Peiruxv1 S.7(i1I 23 Prohibits electronic billboards: • The proposed ordinance prohibits the construction of new electronic billboards(the City presently..., has 6 electronic billboards—three of which are in dispute) Options for the Planning Commission to consider: Recommending adoption of the ordinance with a statement to the City Council that the Planning Commission will continue with further review of the issue. Recommend expanding or reducing the zoning districts where billboards arc allowed to move. Recommend that billboards be allowed to convert to electronic billboards in those zoning districts where billboards are allowed to relocate. Recommend that static billboards may be converted to electronic billboards with the removal of equal or greater square footage of the static billboard being converted(or provide cash in lieu of removal in the event that there are no static billboards available for removal). Pen:ms 400-06-51,P1 x'PCALOI0-50032 PLNPCn^2010-007 I? Published Date: rebmar IS,2011 24 Public Utilities Justin Stoker We have no comment on the proposed text amendments. Justin D.Stoker,PE,LEEDE AP,CFM Building review Larry Butcher Engineering Randy Drummond Doug,after reviewing the proposed text amendments listed above,we find no concerns with the proposed amendments. Randy Transportation Barry Walsh .The division of transportation review comments are as follows: The text addresses transportation safety issues with references to sec 21 A.46.060 sign prohibited-"E" portable(locations)"G"Unsafe,hazardous.&"H"confuse traffic.and does not change compliance with remaining section of 21 A.46 with primary attention to sec 21A.46.070"D"Traffic hazards,which are reviewed on a case by case basis. Sincerely. Barry Walsh Proposed Ordinance Proposal which eliminates billboard bank,eliminates Special Gatev.ray Streets and modifies Gateway Streets,establishes lighting policies, expands the relocation area for billboards to all Manufacturing zones, defines electronic billboards and prohibits electronic billboards. 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A.Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lace City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasor.able processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancernont of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's menial plans. B.Definitions: i011N BIL.LEOARD:A trcesluding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property ittire vice is designed or intended to direct silention to a business,product cr service that is net sold,offered or existing on the property whore the sign is locc'scl. cf E3ILLE:OARD O'NNL fi:The e:':ner ei a biliht,erd in Se!t Lekc , ;DWELL LIVE rn:.�le .nath of t'tta l a,eP.o.-ics between te..i m:c,,,s.ClCI cr..: r fir- c .r--c-r:. r anelecti-onic O. EXISTING BILLBOARD:A bii;'coa«I wih rh e,ias construcecl,ma:niainecl and in use or ter which a permitter cons:ruciicn was issued as of July'13,1993. •wt., ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign.video display,projected image,or similar device with text Images.or graphics generated by solid state electronic components. Electronic signs include,but are not limited to.signs that use light emitting diodes(LED),plasma displays,fiber optics,or other technology that results in bright,high-resolution text.images,and graphics. FOOT CANDLE:the English unit of measurement for Err nence.which is equal to I7 r ttea:mdeor.Fa,uee. one lumen.incident upon an area of one square foot. GATEWAY:The following streets cr highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80: fF TInted:Ind,nt,iet:es,- 2.Interstate 215, 3.Interstate 15; 4,4000 West; 5.5600 West; 6.2100 South SireetPerleys Wan from Interstate 15 to8?==.;Foothill Ens lava rd 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive1J00 South from O- -swr—`4ay1000 East to Interstate 80; 9.400 South frorn lr ter-==� - reccl Road to°__.-_.xt'1000 East 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; i 2 300 West from 900 North to 9G0 South; _ - 13.North Temple from Male Street to Interstate 80: 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Sir:et. 15.State Street horn South Temple to 2100 South;and 10.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. 17,72g0 Wool 18. Mountain View/5600 West Highway corridor(as identified and to be constructed according to UDOT Plans) 19.900 South I-15 off-rams to West Temple NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued alter December 31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. LUMIL!ENCE.The intensity of light faliinc on a subsurface at a defined distance Prow ,mok the source. N1OTIOLI The depiction of movement or chance of Position of text imaq cr - roan n a r st.r c s,rscre graphics. Motion shall Include,but not be limited to.visual effects such as dissolving sr(Fo.r r a roe.,.not and fadino text and images.running_s_vven5al text.Graphic bursts.lighting that - - _ -- _ - ---- resembles zoomino,twinklino.or soarldino.changes in light or color.transitory bursts of Gehl intensify.moving patterns or bands of light.expanding or contracline snares.end similar actions., ,_—{Formatted:Font:e.7 TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:I:An extension of the billboard resulting in ,For,.trsdi Norma,, .cm increased square footage as part of 2n artistic design to comiey a specific me SSE ge °lab stops: oradverlisement.. Lo.zs r>.,_o WI I TIVE the time it la:gasfor statictead images.a'tiner-cs on an elnctionio Form r d r„nt;m .._,12 cc S n to chant,.,to a different text.images.or nraohics on a_uosenueni nn ace, 'roan t d Tab src ors.,List,, i Prohibited:New Billboards nro!;ibited in Bolt Lake City. D. Relocation of Billboards: Existing billboards may be relocated as required and - (Formatted:Indent:Left: 0",Hanging: 0.25 ) authorized by the requirements of Utah state law. Relocation shall follow the general priority outlined in subsection 21A.46.160.F and only be allowed in areas (Formatted:Font:Not Fold outlined in subsection 21A.46.160.1 of this ordinance,unless otherwise negotiated with the Mayor or designee. OE. Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1. Permit: Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner - (Formatted:Indent Left: 0.71' only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3. Fee:•I he fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). L Or rl'f For N nfn Billboard Remove!: bi I o:=s^.• ..,;:;��;, B, rdAftor a ncn:rrc:� �liboaLd 4s,,.ci',:he l r :ant to 2-nit,.cued undo, be coon D1 of this coot o a,�fs.NS �I,v city shall cro te--a-h>Ifboard tank= cc ^ter i! S ti II C o .' The n- sue,.,+shell chc: the dots of the;^;-: I and the zoning district of a�ri SI T nnc g she!! iillboord.The-account she!! ref! ct bi!Ihcard crimditc for tho ter! ' - f„ ,n41e=4t f a tiilll,C. dI ci-1 !n,t rcsi4.t in shy F. Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1. Billboards in districts zoned residential, historic, residential R-MU or Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.71",Tab stops: ) downtown D-1, D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; o.ss",Le' • 2. Billboards in'districts zoned commercial CN or CB, or any gateway zoning district c`'.�-rOS-c=C,1-!or on gateway streets shall be removed second; 3. Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;a^d IIL I=m:rom opriority; h-ilrvc=rd r7'+ ,_r re ovir.g' .0 ICs. SL ) =1 `Jv, d ,a ,.,Ctt::., .,,.. offoc`.:'.e fe in (2) -,illk,,rd.' s ,.rIfi-o-d_ si.ihosoion ANN% O of this cooti.ap,bt-ts---eeeeeiry....itti tetalco,ear.e fcctago-ssts.-se. deiee.ater than-tete-ie.:war priority-Lt4boared,am o cisectiteed in the.bi!itisord.per:seer': btilleaard bar.tya-oedeiot.If a billboard ce.ner--ha--nG-aiditisection siectioR,or its so-seeeccer,nor-conforming LAE-cards,eko(2)cutzeratj...sa;-if t4es-se-stio ,cr its e,toocessr,priority billboards may to oroditsd-ire bdthoa-d Ca-nore.s-Nlibox-d bend,acee4at to offec-ttrato th-e-bi4aear4ecrea41ts-e4 aestilearsotion F3 of thie scction,Cr its tiecoesse.. ...a.itito.ard to alioiv-thre Geire---etnei.-ottop.-stLc4-reeeet-heilibe:.saret -ote4tee- irpc co ie-eee-oes.4-iorte-Bieeteeee+-24 higloiebititesareets-Gres-istie.sit-ia-itic billboard be-oh accoo essel e.......a4y-orroe-to-e4restsisle#,e-teboea.-rd-eradite far priority tifinsar-ied: Credite .n.,tei!ibrsaicroditte-neg-t-te-e.esii4etenett4elt,t-st-t -neeer4aes. oere,-ar."^:sue- it-to Ni-Eti.boatit-Credis Iteasfsraidoe,t`,tiiieeard may mei!ereo,theerei'..i.ee teoeisf-er credit.:tigeineit-ars-ieete-efee'.i.es • the. ae.rity revisises of soboeise-tien-F-eiteis itection, siaeltnee▪ effeeti...s-ferethair hey:raw4:ereehtittieieye..eoold-hav-e-becoitto etfeetitie for the ori;ihol co.in of.Theetese.sfor is-f-areaktern÷ar-d-orodttis-cf.. their atiiereor4d.en-C of stieziesser: 1..i(5 Double Pencil Billboards:tiaexelit-lort-Rolccation of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2)advertising faces shall ispo.es-hilibed-o7cd.-Siz forthe..-os,paere footas.e • cei; ces bithoe:-eba.allowed to relocate as a coo faced billhoarci cr combined as a sinale face btjlipoercl.crov!ded that the relocated advertisind swore_ footaCe iS no areater thz,n the souare footage of tne bilireoeFd -ride not exceed the size reoulremmts outlined in 21A.46.1CO.L. eiH.New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a sea billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. I41.Permitted Zoning Districts:Gs.,-Relocated billboards may be constructed only in the cc the c:"-icl b;'Ibocrdia- _Manufacturing and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that then are not oriented towards.or located within 600 feet of a gateway street or residential zoning district.Billboards are not to be relocated to the CG General Commercial zoning district that is massed and located between Interstate-15,300 West.200 South and the 900 South I-15 o5- rams. L1.Gem-Billboard relocation or remodeling Permits: I.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file en r mauae:IL.e=_.t:Le3_0.71" application one form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees fora new billboard construction permit shall be' a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building - roornaitee:mean yea o,no,rz5 sops:' 1 - code as adopted by the city;and I,1.1P,_ft b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. = _. .':_ al!_ e -oe-ed:Fh_�r. h r Formatted:Ire,,,L^_..0.,." eefi.,....£ tl, ,...... �, i. ., !corm r o. Lc msimm i 1.75",Lee ' ?. For 1 c r ,:1: 071' --r roar:t 1 F. ...__� Pti_.F;--:Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 D of this section,or its successor,no+csw-billboard may be constructed or relocated within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway street. 9.=�_�vi-051 .*F t d:Intl L R.0",Hans 9:0.25' � r rnuy-sash:uct n new bill=o=-r s.�-t e-speciel tegkay��.=sn --- sc e!sq-t-.a+to-ar'nun rcctria- '? .r. ^x-,nam--whini.-4ho nnc wafer-: ;�ili ae4 i,, {ec�:adti-aids.e:t to sebsewhnov off?, eed-G-of-th;c ccctions- =rzd that ..g ciao of tho.-nexy open efex y-O O-arT-he =--i r ed.t.,.c_ Left,071-,-rat sc,: _.,u bn:b__-v_rx_t_r4fiei r-3n-gen-erai-b n.r-bio.+IX,CregLits--fg, OF L R___ =L.Maximum Size:Tire maximum size of the advertising area of any esz.-billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15)in height and fifty feet(50')in width. .Temporary Embcl!ishments: 071,era -, 5S',_c;._ _.• I em0oran!Emne list ei nts are croirbited Fe:_me,a25' it.Height:l Ire highest point of any new Ir',_.< b li oierd .,...,-:._..:,,.. :..:;shall not I:e more than. • '.—Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or the maximum height for a Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.63",Hanging: pole sign in the'aoplicable zoning district.whicheveris less, unless 0.25" otherwise authorized by State law. 2. If a street within one hu eet(100'')-of thee hil� 1boord ma-oured from the- (Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.71" +ree+ t+hopoint which hill r e o+r t is s., .,,a ...., at .tic the „b2a d io perNcndnc.:l� on nt n odo than.+ho i h'll� rd t� t. + 7G�1 hnnn ha a-d+�oro ., .. ca,.., .•rcr,.! i�-;�-.��-�:z.-r„ paye„Tn-`Sty^f�4hh -st e€L 3. if the provisions—of subscctl^ncr. of+-i-rrhi-ems'^ -action,or its ounce—ssar subseadon,apply to more than ono street,tho new billbcrc may he the hr or of thy,two M\ he4 h+_ SO. Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located. In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard, not just the sign support structure. TP. Spacing: 1.Small Signs: Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square. Formatted:In err,:Left: 0.71,Tab stops: 1 feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred (300) Lesa°,Left linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; 2. Large Signs:-Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800) linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. 3. Electronic billboards shall not be located closer than sixteen hundred(1600) linear feet from any other electronic billboard on the same or opposite side of the street • Q Lighting: Nighttime illumination o'i billboards may not glare directly onto the roadway or sidewalk or across property lines. Billboards located within Residential, Mixed-Use, CN or CB zoning districts may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight and 6 am. Billboards located in an Airport Influence Overlay Zone are subject to Airport restrictions regarding lighting. • R:Electronic Billboards. 1. New Electronic Billboards are prohibited:Electronic billboards constructed cr - Fo:aa+.ea:List ca.ag,apb,a;n_-red+Lem reconstructed for any reason afiar the date of adoption of this ordinance are 1+Numbering style:1,2,3, +Start et:1+ Alignment.Left+Al:gr,ed at:0.25"+Indent limited to the following' F rm LS a Ind Left:05 HobuF o. Motion (vnv motion of any land is nrohibitedon an electronic sicn ece Formatted:Font:(D )Helvettco,12 p1 Electronic billboards,snall have on>y static text images ass- and a ao ) Formatted:Indent:Left:1 N :Fd L 5 Nl be 9 C, b +Start b Dwell tll?=� t:l 21g r < d :225 2 ; \ �d t t 25 The text. m ue or diulay on an electronic sign may not chance nicer F r a r r lzp n Ejd than once every twenty four (24) hours Twirl time between\l --- r ntttlF t(o'a )H ca12p suoseauenf ext.imao_s.or display shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. '1 \ Formatted.r e :.L Lit 2 C Brightness _ 1 Vl F p a F (De,,,,)H 12 r The illumination of any Elecionic Billboard shall rot increase ih \�lt ambient II h ina level more than 0.3 foot candles when measured by n I L e s u b gs L foot card) In tar perpendicular to the electronic Billboard face I 2 z - 1 F m tt d F II_I 12 pt net Geld i. 150 feet for an e r renic b i-_,oaid L a som a.as. ro c"net. 1 I — -- more ton 242 c i; f _ 1 1 Formatted:1 e Left: 200`eel for an e)..r.rroi,„c billboard vri.3 a surface are aren cr=atxr than 242 sanare foot hut not more than 373 square feet 1p �:'rg5 b cy •5' Ili_ 250 feet for 2F1 D ..Yonlc b.'I__Litt a surface _-I c de I I z_ than 378 sou:re feet but not more thrxn 872 square feet 'Formatted:roi,.:ne 2 F :Lit r> 1 Formatted:I,[=,t L S iv. 350 set for an electronic billboard w'x.h a surface area than 6,7 sct�a rr.facet. --- ----- ---- ---- Fo 1-a b'_nit r, c F ., f d D'.pl'i l::rod N r Electronic billboards may not he illuminated or lit between the hour o Lice t Font,fieke:AD,.2pt midnight,and 6 a m if they are located within 600 Feet of a residarlat. F e d 1 1 nil ed use downtown Super HouseBusiness District a a It 1 L z I c 3 n -- _ -- ---- NelahborhnoJ Commercial. Comm.Imbf &u I_ss, or Community. Shonoin Center zoniru distr ctL,_ _ t h tl 1 qt7 I \ )Form o.•Fen,.(CA e• ,a 1_,_ ‘ Formatted:FCn:,De I'.e:e e,12^i 'IF d F ..i 12 c • • e. Controls - Formatted:indent:Lett r',rmmre,ea+ Level:5+rlurnbering Style:a,b,c,... i. All electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer a::1+Alignment:Left Aligned at:2.2 `l + 5'+ control or other mechanism that automatically controls the sign's e"tat:zs-,nab scups: 1.22,Len pl, brightness and display period as provided above. Formai-LLed:Foot:Halvahca,12 No:Bold �Formal'nzd:Fong(pefeolt)F.e:ve'I_l2 p fl Prior to approval of any permit for to operate an electronic sign. ——---- - - the applicant shall certify that the sign has been tested and complies with the motion.dwell time.brightness,and other requirements herein. i'.i. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sign shall submit an annual reoort.to the city certifying that the sign complies with the motion.dwell time.brightness.and other requirements herein. • I Formafi_d:Para:,:!, JI -S.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 or this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property strati be hard or gravel surfaced. V. .Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection 0-S of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along tire street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. Xeriscape Alternative:If all tire properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are net developed or,if a water line for ringntion slues not exist rn.the prepertvcor in the street adjacent lo such property,the zoning ndminisirnter may usthcrice Xer:uceprey no on alternetive for the required landscaping -V.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions cffigs section on or betoro January 1,1906. -`W.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance and the Tree Protection ordinance,, ZX.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. V.a+.r �-t,..i ror4e-of-Idr!.orr-rst.; --Fr-Rd -r,a. ^? '_'-e:, r d-- "dam- — - . —==a=:•=(Orel.72-08§2,2003:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord.13-04§§25,26, 27,2004:Ord 25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord.83-93§§12-14,1993:Ord.88-95§1(Exh. .._.. -199 .----.. _.. - - - Billboards Permitted within the CG. M-1 and M-2 Zones (with exclusions) in Salt Lake City , i .. 1- a• 4, f IC L i _ .„. _ . Ir.., k N. ..-------) I .y ! I .---. ,. . , 11 1, I: .1-1-1 L— _,..,_ — ,-;;':,':-;.-,,\,jjj. 'II -b----z—.-.\_..__-:---.1--=--?—;) --: I 7 I i I -71-r 4_ ._. __, .1-11,1 ! : 1,.,._-\5.--,,... 1- _4 ._..., i___ . tI I I I• NORTH TEMPLE _i rt ;11 t:f !z - I -L;r11-__ I ,`__ I _' 506� } U T� 600 s �I,Tr C,• F r i I t I �'� f1 I''� l �t t�iJT Ir' !1. _ I j_ 1.1 I I 1 k^.- '- Z i! �-�C 1-!- 14 y1 t` I�'I I,rt f.. +fi ,, 1_ ~ i T l'',..i/''''.:, 1 r —_ ' Legend �-1 1 2100 -, , a III .- --a��,� F a �. �� 1 ,_ ZONING , III CG _ �..�► 11_i -M1 `r i � i1111 +IIj T III M-2 [ i ri! L I �-f_Lf �_. Gateway I J-Map created by S1;C Planning Division 2011 NORTH :°ve L9 Briefing for sK1"� Planning Commission Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Date: December 2,2010 Re: Billboard Ordinance: December 9`i briefing on proposed code amendments regarding billboards and public transit(public amenity)advertising. Petitions:400-06-51, PLNPCM2010-00032, PLNPCM201 0-00717 Background There are presently three separate petitions regarding the regulation of off-premise advertising in Salt Lake City. Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state late.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. An Open I louse introducing these petitions and potential regulations was held on November 18,2010. There will be a briefing at the December 9,2010 meeting in preparation for a more formal staff report and public hearing not vet scheduled. Because of the complicated nature of these petitions,the Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission hold an extensive working session prior to a public hearing. A working session has been tentatively scheduled for January 12,2011. A working subcommittee may also be advantageous. Attached are two working drafts illustrating potential changes.These drafts are provided to begin the discussion only. No comments from other departments or the industry have yet been integrated into the discussion drafts. The Planning Commission will be expected to address major policy issues prior to finalizing a draft. Young Electric Sign Company has offered to provide a seminar regarding the technical details of electronic signage. They have invited staff and Planning Commission members to view their presentation;as early as December,in order to provide background for the proposed January working session.. Any Planning Commissioner who is interested in attending should let staff know. Issues Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on I3us Shelters. Issues: • This is a potential method of paying for public amenities. • Other communities along the Wasatch Front are presently using advertising as a method of paying for transit shelters. Advertising has been used to pay for other public amenities such as public toilettes or kiosks for news racks etc. Questions: • How much advertising in the public way is appropriate?How much advertising creates clutter? • Should it be limited to transit shelter advertising or are other forms acceptable? • Is this unfair competition? PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-.A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law. Issues: • The original billboard bank was instigated in 1993. Changes in State Law have made the Salt Lake billboard bank ineffective. • Billboards impact City revenues and have a negative effect on development(they are taxed as personal property,providing minimal tax generation after 16 years—yet they often occupy high-profile locations, effectively preventing higher tax generating development). Questions: • What relocation is acceptable? • Are there methods of decreasing billboard impacts? • Are there methods of reducing the negative tax impact on the community? • Are there methods of reducing visual or physical impacts on the city? • Are there more appropriate methods of spacing billboards(i.e.concentration-similar to Time Square vs. dispersal-spaced every 500 feet). PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City - Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards. Issues: • The Federal Government has not completed studies regarding highway safety. • Electronic billboards are undefined by City Ordinances. Questions • Are electronic billboards appropriate in the city? If so,where? • Can conversion be used to reduce overall numbers of billboards? • Can billboards effectively be integrated into building architecture(rather than free standing signs)? • What are the traffic impacts? • What are the impacts on adjacent landowners? • What are appropriate levels of illumination and timing? ▪ !t9 Briefing for `� «11-17:n21 Planning Commission • I an; , . Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Date: December 2,2010 Re: Billboard Ordinance: December 9"briefing on proposed code amendments regarding billboards and public transit(public amenity)advertising. Petitions:400-06-51, PLNPCM201 0-00032, PLNPCM201 0-00717 Background There are presently three separate petitions regarding the regulation of off-premise advertising in Salt Lake City. Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Test Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The test amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently..the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. An Open I-louse introducing these petitions and potential regulations was held on November 18,2010. There will be a briefing at the December 9,2010 meeting in preparation for a more formal staff report and public hearing not yet scheduled. Because of the complicated nature of these petitions,the Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission hold an extensive working session prior to a public hearing. A working session has been tentatively scheduled for January 12,201 1. A working subcommittee may also be advantageous. Attached-are two working drafts iflustratingpotentiatclranges.These-drafts are provided to begin the discussion only. No comments from other departments or the industry have yet been integrated into the discussion drafts. The Planning Commission will be expected to address major policy issues prior to finalizing a draft. Young Electric Sign Company has offered to provide a seminar regarding the technical details of electronic signage. They have invited staff and Planning Commission members to view their presentation;as early as December,in order to provide background for the proposed January working session.. Any Planning Commissioner who is interested in attending should let staff know. Issues Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Test Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters. Issues: • This is a potential method of paying for public amenities. • Other communities along the Wasatch Front are presently using advertising as a method of paying for transit shelters. Advertising has been used to pay for other public amenities such as public toilettes or kiosks for news racks etc. Ouesliou.s: ^` • How much advertising in the public way is appropriate?How much advertising creates clutter? • Should it be limited to transit shelter advertising or arc other forms acceptable? • Is this unfair competition? I'LNI'CM20I0-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law. Issues: • The original billboard bank:was instigated in 1993. Changes in State Law have made the Salt Lake billboard bank ineffective. • Billboards impact City revenues and have a negative effect on development(they are taxed as personal property,providing minimal tax generation after 16 years—yet they often occupy high-profile locations, effectively preventing higher tax generating development). Oues lions: • What relocation is acceptable? • Are there methods of decreasing billboard impacts? • Are there methods of reducing the negative tax impact on the community? • Are there methods of reducing visual or physical impacts on the city? • Are there more appropriate methods of spacing billboards(i.e.concentration-similar to"lime Square vs. dispersal-spaced every 500 feet). PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake Cite �► Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards. Issues: • The Federal Government has not completed studies regarding highway safety. • Electronic billboards are undefined by City Ordinances. Questions: • Are electronic billboards appropriate in the city? If so,where? • Can conversion be used to reduce overall numbers of billboards? • Can billboards effectively be integrated into building architecture(rather than free standing signs)? • What are the traffic impacts? • What are the impacts on adjacent landowners? • What are appropriate levels of illumination and timing? Utah State Tax Commission 2011 Recommended Personal Property Valuation Schedule for Class 16 Long Life Property 1 • Examples of Property Include: Buried Cable Bulk Storage Tanks,Underground&Surface Billboards Oil and Gas Gathering Systems Pipelines Sign Towers • Grain Elevators,Non Farm Ski Lift&Tram Towers !I Broadcast and Cell Towers Storage and Shipping Containers Truck Scales The following schedule is recommended for valuing Class 16 property for the 2011 assessment year: Iil Percent Good Year of Acquisition of Acquisition Cost 2010- 1st Year 92% l l l 2009-2nd Year 86% 2008- 3rd Year 85% • 2007- 4th Year 84% 2006- 5th Year 83% 2005- 6th Year 82% • 2004- 7th Year 81% 2003- 8th Year 76% 2002- 9th Year 71% 2001-10th Year 64% 2000-11th Year 59% 1999-12th Year 53% 1998-13th Year 46% 1997-14th Year 40% 1996-15th Year 34% 1995-16th Year 28% 1994-17th Year 22% • 1993-18th Year 15% E1 1992-19th Year 8°% and prior Class 16,Long Life Property Is Defined as: Property having a long physical life,subject to little obsolescence. fll j '1.1 I 16. ,I °� L= Briefing for ST " tgPlanning Commission mn_ ra cry,. Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Date: January 12,2011 Re: Billboard Ordinance: January 12°i briefing on proposed code amendments regarding billboards and public transit(public amenity)advertising. Petitions:400-06-51, PLNPCM201 0-00032, PLNPCM201 0-00717 Background There are presently three separate petitions regarding the regulation of off-premise advertising in Salt Lake City. An Open I louse introducing these petitions and potential regulations was held on November 18, 2010. There was an initial briefing in December 9,2010 meeting in preparation for a work session on January 12,2012. Some Planning Commissioners met with YESCO representatives on January 5 to discuss technical aspects of electronic billboards. Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning test amendment to address advertising on 13us Shelters. Issues: • Off-premise signage in the public right-of-way,including bus benches,was prohibited in the 1970's. o Previous use of signage in the right-of way resulted in complaints of clutter. • Previous signage in the right-of-way resulted in complaints of businesses putting signage directly in front of competitors,etc. o Salt Lake City has liberalized sonic signage since the 1970's:Specifically banners and A-frame directional signs e UTA(and Lamar Advertising)approached the City regarding the potential for advertising to pay for transit shelters. ti Using advertising to pay for other potential public furniture and services has also been considered (restrooms,bike rental,etc.) Questions: • Are the original concerns that led to SLC prohibiting signage in the right-or-way still valid? • Is this a legitimate method of paying for public amenities? • How much advertising in the public way is appropriate?How much advertising creates clutter? • Should it be limited to transit shelter advertising or are other forms acceptable? • Is this unfair competition? • Is there any need to change at all?Is the status quo acceptable? PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law. Issues: • The current ordinance was adopted in 1993 and was intended to be a cap and reduce program,allowing billboards to relocate to more appropriate locations while prohibiting an increase in the overall number of billboards in the City and allowing for a decrease. • A billboard bank was set up to accommodate movement and to prioritize areas of acceptable relocation. • State law has changed considerably since 1993. • State lass allows billboards to move to any non-residential property within a variable distance from the original location for multiple reasons,if the City does not allow the movement;the City is obligated to purchase the billboard. • State lass requires the purchase of a billboard to include damages to the"package". Billboards are often sold in groups to one advertiser;that group constitutes a package. • Changes in State law have left the SLC billboard bank largely irrelevant. • Many billboards in the City were erected before there were any sign regulations and they remain in areas where they have long been non-conforming. • Billboards are amortized for tax value and pay taxes on S%of their original value after 19 years. Agik • By State law,billboards are the only non-conforming use that cannot be removed through the use of amortization. • There are numerous scenarios in Salt Lake City where the presence of a billboard suppresses the redevelopment potential of the underlying land,as well as examples of redevelopment with billboards. Questions: • Should the billboard bank be eliminated? • What relocation is acceptable? • Are there methods of decreasing billboard impacts? • Are there methods of reducing the negative tax impact on the community? • Are there methods of reducing visual or physical impacts on the city? • Are there more appropriate methods of spacing billboards(i.e.concentration-similar to Time Square vs. dispersal-spaced every 500 feet). PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards. Issues: • The current ordinance is silent regarding electronic billboards. • Three electronic billboards exist in Salt Lake City.Numerous electronic on-premise sings exist. • State law allows electronic billboards but does not require local government to allow the conversion of old billboards to an electronic format. • Electronic billboards arc the emerging format for billboards. —.. • Electronic billboards require a greater investment and offer an increased potential revenue source for the owner,therefore their removal costs are also higher. Ouestirsis • How should the City define and regulate electronic billboards? • Are electronic billboards appropriate in the city? If so,where? • • Can conversion be used to reduce overall numbers of billboards? • Can billboards effectively be integrated into building architecture(rather than free standing signs)? • Are there safety concerns • What are the traffic impacts? • What are the impacts on adjacent landowners? • What are appropriate levels of illumination and timing? • Should spacing rules for electronic billboards be modified to allow for a Time Square type area? Draft ordinances The draft ordinances provided to the Planning Commission are to begin a dialogue and contain the following assumptions: Both drafts allows the Administration to determine the level of off-premise advertising allowed on transit shelters or other public furniture:THIS IS NOT A RECCOMENDATION,but merely a starting point for discussion. The Planning Commission may choose to maintain current conditions or define a multitude of options. Both drafts eliminate the billboard bank and allow relocation only according to State Law or as negotiated on a case-by-case basis with the City(the draft provides guidance for relocation negotiation). One draft prohibits the allowance of electronic billboards. The other draft allows the conversion of static billboards to electronic billboards only if multiple signs are removed. This draft also allows the Planning OCommission to waive spacing requirements in order to consolidate electronic billboards(rather than disperse), in order to create a"Time Square"type district. There are numerous other alternatives:including simply defining where billboards would be allowed to be converted to electronic. Next steps It is suggested that the Planning Commission discuss whether a subcommittee is necessary to research the issue. It is suggested that an"issues only"hearing be held on January 26,2010 so that the full scope of issues may be considered in advance of making a decision. Because the conversion of static billboards to electronic is being held for 180 days following the initiation of the petition(October 21,2010),it is suggested that any changes regarding electronic billboards be made by the Planning Commission AND City Council prior to the mid-April 2011. All three petitions are interconnected,but the electronic billboard petition has a time frame associated with it and may need to be expedited if necessary. Discussion Draft Proposal which allows transit advertising,eliminates billboard bank, defines electronic billboards and allows limited conversion to electronic billboards when accompanied by a reduction in overall number of billboards. 21A.46.058 TRANSIT SHELTER AND PUBLIC AMENITY ADVERTISING Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shall be allowed only as part of a shelter at a bus stop or public transit stop or station,or a public amenity,pursuant to an approved and executed agreement between the City and a provider of transit shelters or public amenities,which sets forth the regulation of size.content.placement,design and materials used in the construction of said advertising and shelters and public amentity. For purposes of this section."public amenity'means an item generally located in the • public way to provide a public service,which may include,but is not limited to,a kiosk displaying way finding signage or accommodating news racks or other public • information.public restrooms,public furniture such as benches or trash receptacles or public services such as bike sharing. The common element is that they are offered for public consumption and provided as contract services to the City. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shall in no case be larger than 48"by 72" and shall be limited to no more than three panels per shelter or kiosk.unless otherwise restricted further by contract. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising is only authorized when located adiacent to non-residential,RB.RMU,or RO zoning districts. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising display may not contain nudity. pornography.or indecent or vulgar pictures.graphics or language or advertising of illegal products. 21A.46.060:SIGNS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS: The following exterior signs,in addition to all other signs not expressly permitted by this chapter,are prohibited in all zoning districts and shall not be erected: A.Animated signs excluding public service signs; B.Any snipe sign; C.Balloons; D.Bench signs-except transit shelter and public amenity advertising specifically :'horized by section 21A.46.58 E.Portable signs,except where specifically permitted by district sign regulations; F.Signs overhanging the property line other than signs that are permitted under the sign regulations applicable to each zoning district; G.Signs which are structurally unsafe,hazardous or violate the uniform building code or the uniform fire code; H.Signs located near streets which imitate or are easily confused with official traffic signs and use words such as"stop","look","danger","go slow","caution"or"warning", except where such words are part of the name of a business or are accessory to © parking lots;and I.Painted signs which do not meet the definition of wall signs.(Ord.53-00§3,2000: Ord.88-95§1(Exh.A),1995) 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A.Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. O B.Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located.A billboard does not include transit shelter and public amenity advertising specifically authorized by Section 21A.46.058 ' f • the-cumber-and-squar e400tage-of-noneonfermiegbiliboard s-removed-pursuant-io th.tr ,ckapter, BILL-BOARB-ERE a ncr's billboard-bank-aeeount4hat showsthe-rumbe rds- BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. DWELL TIME The length of time that elapses between text.images,or graphics on• (Formatted;rat eotedd an electronic sign. (^ronsm,a:Indent First Me:o• FPonnettd:rat am __ED EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use • or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13,1993. ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign.video display,projected image.or similar device with text,images,or graphics generated by solid state electronic components. Electronic signs include.but are not limited to,signs that use light emitting diodes(LED).plasma displays,fiber optics.or other technology that results in bright,high-resolution text.images,and araohics. (Fannetted:cadet cast Me:0- GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; • IFaenetted:Indent Left oer 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; • 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. • NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; —H Formatted:went.Left 0.96 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. LUMINANCE The photometric quantity most closely associated with the perception --><—•Formatted:Font:tot Bold of brightness. Luminance is measured in candelas per square meters or"nits"for Formatted:Tab stops:0.25',Ust tab H purposes of this ordinance. Formatted:Font:Bold MOTION The depiction of movement or chance of position of text.images.or Formatted:Font Not Bold graphics. Motion shall include.but not be limited to,visual effects such as dissolving and fading text and images.running sequential text.graphic bursts.lighting that 0 • resembles zooming.twinkling,or sparkling.chances in light or color.transitory bursts of light intensity.moving patterns or bands of liaht.expanding or contracting shapes.and similar actions. [Formatted:Fore odd NITS A unit of measure of brightness or luminance. One nit is equal to one • —Formatted:Normal,meat Left:0.25, candela/square meter. space Before:auto,Meg:tine,Tab stops: 0.25',List tab TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text.images.and graphics on an electronic r eettod:Fort Helvetw,ua j sign to change to a different text.images.or araohics on a subsequent sign face. remelted:Tab stops:o.24,List tab C.Limit On The Taal Number Of Billboard..:No-greate atlew_ r of cxicting-biliboar4sBillboards Prohibited:New Billboards are prohibited in Salt Lake City. D Relocation of Billboards:Existing billboards may be relocated as mandated by the • Cron names:ice:art:o;t+a,quy:o.is. J requirements of Utah state law. Additionally.billboards may be relocated from any CIOzoning district to Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards,or located within 600 feet of a gateway or special gateway street or residential zoning district. Voluntary relocation shall follow the priority outlined in subsection 21A.46.160.F of [Formatted:Fort lot Bald this ordinance,unless otherwise negotiated with the City. DE.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner • I Formatted:went:Leis 0.7r only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). E.Crzdlts-For-Noncorvorming-Billboard-Removal=Afars.nonconformingbillboardis demolished-pursuant-to-a-permit4s t' . its rwt_ssor-the yshalt createabillboard-bankaeceunt-for-the-bitlboard-ewaer-T e account shall chow tha daleof t;e-removal-and the—zoning.district ofihademotished • • i • F - at shall n,,..,b' andilssquare footage.Dcrnoli1ion-ofac at,csutin-any billboard-credit: F.Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or —Foxtrotted:Iola*Left o.wr,Tsbstops: downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; O' • Left 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or anv_gateway zoning district G-:":U,-GGC or-GH-or on gateway streets shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;and 4--A-hiilboardewncr may-de ng-hillboarde-ota-lewec cierily be r-priority however thebillboard-credits for-removing-he-lower-priorty-billboard-shalleot-become eBective-fowse-in © cons! rd until two(2)bill ' F4-of4his-seU;on,eti's successor,with a totalsquaru footage-equal-to-er rd,a rses billboard-bank account-lfa-billboard-owner-has-no-subseetionfa-otthis section,cr itssueoessor;noneenferming-billboard F2 cf this scc'cn,cr it rds may-be-or-edited-in-the • billboacdewne4s-billboard-bankaeeounFto-effecluateahebilboard-esedits at rat Ilewthe son H ehe,purposes highzr-prierilytbil. boar -inthebillbeardbar.b account can-be-used only-oroe-toeftectuatethebillboarderedi>4ora lower-priocitybillboacd: G-6ife.Of-Billboard-Gredis•Any-billboard-credils-nct-used-withinthirtysix-(2B)-nwnths e€the'r creetie shall.expirad-be-of-no-fufihec-vatue or use except that loser priority credifc effectuated pursuant to subsets ssor shall-expire-andbeofeo further-valuaa-usewithinsixty-(60)-months of-their initial creation- {•i'c+c-r co.nvwroiliboa..r kt.BillboardEradits Tran.`er2 cwoer-r:,sTsell-er erwisetranstcr� billboard-and:etbillboardcredits-Transferredbillboan4creditc which are not effective because of the Priority€rovisioos-ofsubcacion£ef4h s sac?io,• lie se eesser, O ^^"- ` nr new c::r.:r until they c•cutd-pave-beeeane effective for the origincl cwner.The trans'c,ct il tboe- tend their-hirty-six-(6)-month-ife-prcvid:d in3ubsestion—G-cf this section,or its succ=s<ser- • t,G Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive t'S s: credit,for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. I.New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. NI.Permitted Zoning Districts:New-Relocated billboards may be constructed only in tile area-identified-on theof vial-billboard-nap,Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not • oriented towards,or located within 600 feet of a gateway or special gateway street or residential zoning district. U.Nev:-Billboard relocation or remodeling Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an - (Fon...a.a:Inden Lek o.m application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building • I N:matted:w n:Left o.sc,rwscops: ll code as adopted by the city;and t.'rs','— b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. fadIse—Of BiabourdGee4 ts. 1-A 1-bitibeard-permit-shall-onty-be-issued-if-the-appGeanthas-bi4lboard utt:on• sredits-of-a-suffiGient number-o€se,-aara;aefand-billboards-to-allow constraction-of-the-new-biliboard- 4110 • zoning adrsinistoa' - - - _ a-The3quare-footage-cfahe row-billboard;and • Formatted:Indent Left eor,Tab slops: 125',im . .ware footage.was_use..;oallcw the new-billboardconstruction: 3,1f-the-new-billboard-ueexlcse-han-thecnt,reavailabte-billboard-oredits (rarrosd:Indent Left o.lr ) ilboards and nquare-footoge,aay remaining ivaretooboga cha'1 roe,ai illboardbank, (Fontatltl:Indent First We:o.is Nb.New-Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection O-D of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway_. CL.Special Gateway Provisions: • 1.If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,theFenn/dad:extent tat o.m,rmga s Left billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special ° — J gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to other subsections P,Q,R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the emou nt-c-ll-bLihoar'credits-in-ll pedal-gateway billboard-banksize of the billboard being relocated.Billboards may not be relocated from other areas onto a special gateway 2 The dcraoktien-ef a-ne-necn`orr ing-billboard-pursuant-to-this-section-shall not-aoewe-billboard{reditswithin-the-yeneral-bilboard-bank.Cradifs-fora billboard demollshedococ-nalarctad-withina-specialgateway-shallbo traokedivithina-separa:ebankaceount-far-each-spesial-gatewayA-final for-the-Genstsuction ofa-te:vbilboard-pursuant-te-this-seetionimustba-taken outivithinthigy-six-(36)months-of-thebemolitionof-they oneonforming billboard_, PM.Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. 0 • • G:I.Temporary Embellishments: -1.Tcmperoryc^b,.�.> llts,'^�n'cn„sha't not exceed-tea-px6C-nt(1O)of-the • Ramsdell:Indent:Left o.71,Tab mus: advertising faceot-any-billboard;and-ehalla©fexceedfi artlt ve-feet-(5) eight o.er,teft J above-the-billboard-et ue4ure- 2-No4emporar n ellishment chill-be-maintained-onaabillboard4nore-than we've(12)mon'hs: • Temporary Embellishments are prohibited • (Fonnetba:Indent Festline:0.25' RO.Height:The highest point of any newbiUboard,billboard excluding-temporary embellishments-shall not be more than: 4—Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade:or the maximum height for a ►«matter:tmetc bet ov,Merging: pole sign in the applicable zoning district.whichever is less. Unless o.zs otherwise authorized by State law. 2.If a street a:`x:n cc,hundred fact(100')of thebillboard,meacurd from-he• Lrmm.ttea:went:Lek o.n• street at the point-at-wh' F-te- e-streets-en a-different-grada than4he-new.billboard,iwenty-five-feet{25')above-the pavement clzvat!-z,,,-ofthe^'Fleet. 3,4f-the-ptovieions-of-subseetien R2 ef-hts • ha • d r may be-the higher-of ;ghtw SP.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. TO.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square• I Formatted:Indent tort o.n•,Tat,sooty: feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300) 0. •L t —_- linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800)from a large billboard on the same side of the street; • 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. 3.Spacing for electronic billboards fully integrated into the architecture of a building and not free standing.may be modified by the Planning Commission as a Conditional Building and Site Design Review as outlined in section 21A.59.as Iona as such modifications are consistent with State Law R Lighting:Nighttime illumination of billboards may not glare directly onto the roadway or sidewalk nor across property lines. Billboards located within Residential,Mixed-Use Formatted:meant:First line o• _ _ CN or CB zoning districts may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight Formatted:For:(Defat)Helve<a,12 Ftul - and 6 am. Fonnattea; aPam 'Went tort:Wintered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a, b, S:Electronic Billboards: a...+start at:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned at O.25"+Indent at:0S 1. Electronic Billboard are prohibited except when converting an existing billboard to i mew:.trot-- electronic as follows: o.7s,First lee:o' ma' Formatted:list Paragraph,inlet:Left:a.s•, • a)A Billboard may be converted to an electronic billboard in Manufacturing,. • Numbered+Level:1+Numbering style:a,IA Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the wart at 1+a gnment eft«duo rd restriction that they are not orkelted towards,or located within 600 feet of a at:ozs-+Dent at as Heimgateway or special gateway stltet or residential zoning district. Provided that Forma F0°`(Deb�� - 12 a four times the non-electronic square footage of the new electronic billboard is Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,Ia a removed elsewhere in the City. Formatted:Font:(Default)Netvabcz,1i rrt • Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetlta,12 pt. b) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards on Gateway streets Foettd:Font:(Detaull)Hetefra,12 pt provided that five times the non-electronic square footage of the new Fo enrmat9ed:rodent en:0 2s,Fi l feet o electronic billboard is removed along the same Gateway.or removed from Formatted:List Paragraph,IMnt`lef:05', another gateway only if sufficient square footage is not available on the host Numbered+Level'1+Numbering style:a,b gateway. u...+start al:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned at 0.25+Indent at:0.5•• ,,((Formatted:Font(Default)Helrebm,12 tot c) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards in Special Gateways -Formaltd:Fom:(Default)Helvello.22a provided that four times the non-electronic square footage of the new -- - - - - ---- electronic billboard is removed on the same Special Gateway or removed Formatted:Font:(Default)Heend '12 a from another special gateway only if sufficient square footage is not available FO1ia�d'Font.(Default)eielvWp,a It on the host special gateway and the new electronic billboard is fully integrated Faemorm+ttd:list Paragraph,Indent Left O First tenet 0" into the architecture of a building and is not free standing_ - ----Formatted:list Paragraph,Indent Left:OS, Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b d) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards in Downtown or Sugar c_+start at:1+Alignment:Left+Mind House Business District zoning districts Provided that five times the non- it 0.25'+Indent at:0.s• electronic square footage of the new electronic billboard is removed in any \1 Formatted:font:(Default)Helvetica,Iz a Downtown.Sugar House Business District,residential,neighborhood Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetca,l2pt commercial.Community Business.Community Shopping Center,gateway.or \l Formatted:Font:(Default)He vebm,12 pt Formatted:Font:(Default)Helveena,12 J • mixed-use zoning district and the new electronic billboard is fully intearated (Formattd:Font:(Defort)Mettle&12 pt into the architecture of a building and is not free standing. • Formatted:Font(Default)HeNetka,12 pt Formatted:indent:Left 0.5•,Space alter. 2. Motion 10 pt,tine sworn:Multiple 1.15II,No Hulett nu Any motion of any kind is prohibited cn an electronic sign face. Electronic ' nbenrg - billboards shall have only static text.images.and araohics. FFFormatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold (Formatted:Font(Default)Fehepo,12 pt 3. Dwell time • Fo m ratted:Font(Defalt)Henenm,12 ut The text.image.or display on en electronic sian may not change more than once Formatted:Font netetka,12 pt,rut Bold every sixty(60)seconds. Twirl time between subseouent text.images.or display •CF,rmatted:Font:(Dera,k)Heneoa,i2 of shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. 4. Brightness Formatted:Font:ttelvetca,12 Pt,Not Bold During daylight hours between sunrise and sunset,luminance shall be no greater Formatted:Font(Default)Hehetca 12 pt than 2.500 nits. At all other times.luminance shall be no treater than 500 nits. 5. Size �Farmatted:Font.Hetvetlq,12 pt,Not Bold The maximum size of an electronic sign shall be no larger than the billboard it (Formatted:Font(Detadpflelve0Fa,12pt_ replaced or shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in heicht and fifty feet(50')in width _ whichever is less. Formatted:Fart:Helvetca,12 pt 6. Display period Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 Pt,Not Bold Electronic billboards may not be illuminated cr lit between the hours of midnight. Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetca,12 pt and 6 am if they are located within 600 Feet of a residential, mixed-use. t Formatted:Font(Default)Hehedca,12 pt downtown.Sugar House Business District.gateway,Neighborhood Commercial (Formatted;Font.(Default)Helvetlra,12 pt Community Business.or Community Shopping Center zoning district Formatted:Font tiered.,izy - 7. Controls (}Formatted:Font:HeNedm,12 pt„Not Bold • a. All electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer control or [Formatted:Font`(°era"n�xeneno•12pe other mechanism that automatically controls the sign's brightness and display period as provided above. h. Prior to approval of any permit for to operate an electronic sign,the applicant shall certify that the sign has been tested and complies with the motion,dwell time.brightness.and other requirements herein. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sign shall submit an annual report to the city certifying that the sign complies with the motion.dwell time brightness,and other requirements herein. • LFaer rued:Ust Paragraph _---� Fi .Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. • • VU.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as • specified in subsection U of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. V.Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. XVI.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the © landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1,1996. YX.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance and the Tree Protection ordinance.. Zr'.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. \1.Spaniel Praviaens; a .A.pp;icabild':Tha-prcvis'.».,gs-of•hi,ccc'inn-shallappty4o-spes4edkiilboards located: -Peu cbc.`.veen4500-Nerth}and-1F-CO-Nodhh-adaeenfo-th.esvest sideof-iaterstatea5 nd .Ane-existing-billeast-si4aef-W3tory-Rsad-a'.-appreximatc,y 11CO NmAtr • • ral AppCcabittty:Except as rrodied by. b th s sccts on,etl c'Fr_r-provisiers of this eha t r shall a ! a boera pesiaP--riority ikz we-(5)spesi4edbiliboardsshail-be-considered-as-gateway biFboarils-ter-theporposescftkapricrity$wvisionsofsubseotion--af•-(bisection,or its r,s_ andscap og:The five(5)sp_shied-§inboard.ehait b a lan�'.seaped-pursuenfto-he prowisiens-ofsubseEtl©n- 6f1�;,T-.�-=�..•-'•••• •••'•+F�Tsu-` ='esoor-sebsection, 88-State Mandotcd Petocat ca Of Siiibcards:-E-xsep;as otherwise aatheri<ed-,emir} existirgbillboards-maynot be{etocated exceptas{nanda edby4he-requirerrents-of Utah-state-law,(Ord.72-08§2,2008:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord.13-04§§25,26, 27,2004:Ord.25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord.83-98§§12-14,1998:Ord.88-95§1(Exh. A),1995) r Discussion Draft Proposal which allows transit advertising,eliminates billboard bank, defines electronic billboards and prohibits electronic billboards. 21A.46.058 TRANSIT SHELTER AND PUBLIC AMENITY ADVERTISING Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shall be allowed only as part of a shelter eta bus stop or public transit stop or station,or a public amenity.pursuant to an approved and executed agreement between the City and a provider of transit shelters or public amenities.which sets forth the regulation of size.content.placement.design and materials used in the construction of said advertising and shelters and public amentity. For purposes of this section."public amenity"means an item generally located in the public way to provide a public service,which may include.but is not limited to.a kiosk O displaying way finding signage or accommodating news racks or other public information,public restrooms,public furniture such as benches or trash receptacles or public services such as bike sharing. The common element is that they are offered for public consumption and provided as contract services to the City. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shall in no case be larger than 48'by 72' and shall be limited to no more than three panels per shelter or kiosk.unless otherwise restricted further by contract. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising is only authorized when located adjacent, to non-residential.RB,RMU.or RO zoning districts. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising display may not contain nudity pornography.or indecent or vulgar pictures.graphics or language or advertising of illegal products. 21A.46.060:SIGNS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS: The following exterior signs,in addition to all other signs not expressly permitted by this chapter,are prohibited in all zoning districts and shall not be erected: A.Animated signs excluding public service signs; C B.Any snipe sign; C.Balloons; D.Bench signs;except transit shelter and amenity advertising specifically authorized by sedicn 21 A 46.58 E.Portable signs,except where specifically permitted by district sign regulations; F.Signs overhanging the property line other than signs that are permitted under the sign regulations applicable to each zoning district; G.Signs which are structurally unsafe,hazardous or violate the uniform building code or the uniform fire code; H.Signs located near streets which imitate or are easily confused with official traffic signs and use words such as"stop","look","danger","go slow","caution"or"warning", except where such words are part of the name of a business or are accessory to parking lots;and I.Painted signs which do not meet the definition of wall signs.(Ord.53-00§3,2000: (11:11 Ord.88-95§1(Exh.A),1995)- 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A.Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. 0 B.Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located.A billboard does not include transit shelter and public amenity ad."_: :cif-catty authorized by Section 21A.46.058 B' sam-e' the-wumberar.0 squ?re-footaeuevf-;onconforming-billboards-rerruoved-pursuam-to this chapt_c BIh6BOARO-CREDf- An-eetr;ranfo-abigboard-owners-billboardbank-ate-Faint-hat shows-the-cumberapdrGuara:ceta-ge-of-dery c!ishzdncncon`crming-billboards- BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. • DWELL TIME The length of time that elapses between text.images,or graphics on• (Formatted:Font Not and an electronic sign. (Formatted:Indent nest lire:V • rrorammd:Font:odd EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13,1993. ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign.video display.projected image,or similar device with text.images.or graphics generated by solid state electronic components. Electronic signs include.but are not limited to,signs that use light emitting diodes(LED).plasma displays.fiber optics,or other technology that results in bright.hiah-resolution text.images.and graphics. • Formatted:Indent First line:0• GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; • (smr.mnted:Indent:Lef:osr 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; C 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after • December 31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; Cr«.Yu.e=Indent ref:osc 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. LUMINANCE The chctemelric quantity most closely associated c;i;ir tire uerceotion Formatted:Font Not Bole of brightness. Luminance is measured in candelas per sauare meters or"nits"for Formatted:orb stops:o.2r,i.ne MO 1 purposes of this ordinance, "{Formatted:Font:Bold MOTION The depiction of movement or change of position of text,images.or Formatted:Font:Not Bole graphics. Motion shall include but not be limited to,visual effects such as dissolvi� and fading text and images.running sequential text.craohic bursts,lighting that 3 • resembles zoomina.twinkling.Cr sparkling.changes in light or color,transitory bursts of light intensity,moving patterns or bands of light.expanding or contracting shapes.and similar actions. �r r.ra.e:rat told NITS A unit of measure of brightness or luminance. One nit is etc ual to one • Fe. :Normal,Indent tat o.xs, candela/square meter. Space Bef :Auto,M r Auto,Tab stops:02s,Ust tab TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text.images.and graphics on an electronic • ,For.ue.d:rat uncap,12 pt Sian to change to a different text.images.or Graphics on a subsequent sign face. rra.tettad:Tab slops:OW,List tab C.Limit On The Total Number Of Giilboards-No gra tcc-nemb cr of-illtuerds.shell-be altowe"G o roc "' ke-City-the, It' nambecofexisang-billboacde,Billboards Prohibited:New Billboards are prohibited in Salt Lake City.. D.Relocation of Billboards:Existing billboards may be relocated as mandated by the • (raw.tt asWentnt Left tr,wnpac cur ) • requirements of Utah state law. Additionally,billboards may be relocated from any zoning district to Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards,or located within 600 feet of a gateway or special gateway street or residential zoning district. Voluntary relocation shall follow the priority outlined in subsection 21A.46.160.F of [:rat Not Bold this ordinance.unless otherwise negotiated with the City.. DE.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner i Fonne ed:Indent:left:0.71• j only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). EGreditsFGr-Nensonf erm;r g-Billboard-Removal:-Afte r-aroncentorming.billboardas demolished-pursuant to permit issued-under-subsestion-91-of-this-seetiersor-its suesesser,fhc city shall{.reateab+Abgardbank-aooeunt-forit billboardowner,The acoountehatl shewzho dole-of the;emovatee4the_o•;ing district of thadernotished • • Ord.Tha acccuct she a far the billboard and-its cquace foetage.-Den'soti£ion-ofu>n£c-rm ag bi11board-shallfetfesu3 in eny billboard-credit, F.Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or • ror«m.m Indent:ak:Left 0.71•,Tab saoc.: Uft downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; d8W• 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or any gateway r.pin district G-MU GC-or-GH or on gateway streets shall be removed second; • 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;and 4 A-toil board cv•ner-laa•,,dersolish-nonc-entvmsing bitlbeards-ofaaewer$erity befora-ramcving billboards in a higherpvierity owevm'R^b�b^^rdaredits fouemoving4Ne-lower-priority bitlboard-shalhotbecome-effeetivetor-usein rd-ntil-Avo{2)-hdlboards spccitied-in-subsestien • F1 of this secticn,cr i•c successor,with a total square footage eq.ral-toer greater-ha board:are c�-.e4itedan-the-bilibeardewnels billboard-bank-account-ifa-billboardawner haeeo ubsestion-F-4-of4his section,or itscuccesscr-neneen enwng-biUboardsfi this-reel rds maybe creditedin-the billboard-owne4sbdtboardbanl unHoetfectuatethebitlboarderedits-of constructien-ef a new billboard--€cnthe-purpeccs c£this secion he-twe{2) higher-prieritybiNboards Credited-in-the-billboard ba only-once-toefiectuate-thebilUwar4credits-fora-lower-prioritybilboard- -Life Of-Billboard-6redits-Anybillboardareditsnot rrsed-wit in-thhiRy-eix{36)-aronths of-thei:creation shaltunher-vataeer-use-excepNhataewer prieritycredit successor; shallexpireand-eefeo-further-valueer-use-wi;binsixty{60)-meaths-ofiheir-initial creation, k4.-Billboard Cvediie Tier ar-othcnrilso transfera t�tlbeard-an re-net-effeollve besause-of-the-prisri:ypFo isionsasubser'ian€-eithissection,oriiesuc:acsor, • • sea e« e • their--thirty-six-3&i&).month-life{rovir',ed-in-subsestion-G-ofthic scction-0c-its sueoessor- I C Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive L:. -c credits:for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. Kl.Permitted Zoning Districts:New-Relocated billboards may be constructed only in thg area-identified-on-the-official-billboard-map,Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and ® CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards.or located within 600 feet of a gateway or soecial gateway street or residential zoning district. I.:': Billboard relocation or remodeling Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an • frs..rt.a:lease:telt o.n• application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and planoceyiew,fa W es re r 6 rraittMNd Indent i w O•W Tab •slops: code as adopted by the are*e* �"'•�`'- sar,iert b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successbr. M.Use Cf Pillbeardd-Gredi•iw t 1-r sir b;beard p`rrr she.fondyt3e-issuedif heapplicanthas-bi hoar•. (Formatted:mast:Lett oar credits,of a ou``:cicat-ndrabet-sfssfuara feetated-bilibeards-to-adal eenstruotionof the-new-billboard: • 0 2. a oeing administrator shall dcd . a-The-square-footage-,f-.'e—no -billboard and -Formatted:meetleft i.oe•,Tab stops: t.24,Left b.TThe.umb^•of..,.,R-of bbittboei'• _rdo sntrcce eg,aat^ ha new-billboard-cons{rucficn- 3-1f-the-oew-bitlboardtrsesaess-thartihe.entire-availablekillbaardcredits Form.wm:Indent telt rrn• y rcmeiniag-squaw w:ag n;emak.in t e-b4ltoerd bank, • [Formatted:Indent:nrst Line:0.2 7 N:-C.Novi-Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection O-O of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway street. ©L.Special Gateway Provisions: 1.If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the • �F.ramttad:I dee Let On•,Tab smps:. billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special OM,ldt gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to other subsections P and-S-of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount-ofbi l-gateway billboard-banksize of the billboard being relocated.Billboards mat,not ba relocated from other areas onto a special gateway 2.-The-demelitionofa-rwnoonferreing-bilboard-pursuant to this section-shall not-accrue bitlboard-creditsitithin^th ga oral-billboardbank.Credit fora billboard demolishedttr constructed-vathin-a--special-gateway-shall-be tcked wk18n-a-peparate-ban' t. ateway {3errnit far-the-soastruct suantto this-seeded-grast-a-taken out-within-thirty-eiu-(36)-months-of-the-demoli;ionef ihe-rwnconfornsing billboard- I I.t.Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. 0 • ON.Temporary Embellishments: ' W Indent Fcem. d:Ind left oir,Tab stops: advertising-face-ofanybitlboard and-shaJfrlot-exeedfiveSae'(5')in-i.ght OW,Left above-thebillboard slruolure: 2 otemporany embefishrr.ent-shalFbe maintainedonabillboard-cruse-than twailve-(t2)-months- i emnorary Embellishments ore prohibited • *monad:Indent Histie:0.25. RO.Height:The highest point of any new bilf'soard billboard exotud:ng-tcmperazy ewbe:;ils hmees-shall not be more than: a--Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or the maximum height for a • Fmm .v,nt.d:moot tec o otrp: pole sign in the applicable zoning district,whichever is less. Unless 02s otherwise authorized by State law. 2�`-o ctr cfwi1b n-e'c hundr^a r'_ (4-f ')�,r,F.e-bi .,.�rd,mneacured from Ore. (FmmetW:Indent left 0.7r atrenta14he-peixEal.whiehthebillboecdaspeFpendisulartothe-strcct,is on a-different-grada-thanthe-newbillbeard;twenfy-tive-teet-(25}abovethe pavcmcnt elcvetion cf the stroc'.© 3,-I'the prcvis;ens-of-subseolio Rig ea�o is eee';on-0r+s-sacoevs subsect;er,afpy'-f"-^• h'rwna care^,thenew-bitlbeard-maybe-the higher-ofthe-t•^-(2; :ghty SP.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. TO.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square• f ion.a.d:Indent Left 0.71•,Tab stops: feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300) l OW,Left linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; • • III • 1 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. Formatted:list Paragraph,Numbered+Level: 1+Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+St it at 1+ Moment:rent:left+eigned at 0.25+Indent 3.Spacing for billboards fully integrated into the architecture of a building and at:o r' not free standing.may be modified by the Planning Commission as a Formatted:tenet left 0.5'.No Wleli or Conditional Building and Site Design Review as outlined in section 21A.59 numbering as long as such modifications are consistent with State Law Formatted Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 p� i Formatted:Indent:left:1',Numbered+ Level:5+Numbering Style:a,b,c,...+Start at It Moment et.left+Aligned at:2.25•+ R Lighting:Nighttime illumination of billboards may not(Aare directly onto the roadway Indent at:2.5- or sidewalk nor across property lines. Billboards located within Residential,Mixed-Use Formatted:Font:PeNeta,12 pt,Not can CN or CB zoning districts may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight Formatted:Font:(Default)(D Helvetica,12 pt ) and6am. - — - Formatted:Indent:Lee ft:1.25 S:Ele_ctronic Billboards: Formatted:Font:(Default)*elsebra,12 a_-) 1. New Electronic Billboard are prohibited.Electronic billboard existing as of the • Fo.•a:5+ :lyderi Left:1•,Nuntead+ lr.•1:5+Nment:Left a,b,C,...+Sbrt date of adootion of this ordinance are limited to the following: at:1+Alignment en+Aligned at:22.5.+ Indent at:2.5• a. feloti0 Formatted:Font:Helvetia,12 pt,Not Bold ) Any motion of any kind is prohibited on an electronic sign face Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12pt Electronic billboards shall have only static text.images,and graphics. Formatted:Indent Left:1.25' Formatted:Indent:Left:1',Numbered+ b. Dwell time level:5+Numbering Style:a,b,t....+Start The text,image.or display on an electronic sign may not chance mof at:1+Alignment:left Migr d at:2.25•+ Indent at:2.5• than once every sixty(60)seconds. Twirl time between subsequent Formatted:Font Helvetica,ti pt,Not Bold text.images.or display shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. Formatted:Font:(Default)H.helia,12 pt c. Bri htness Formatted:Indent:Left:1.25' Durin da i ht hours between sunrise and sunset.luminance shall b Formatted:Indent Left:r,Numbered+ no greater than 2.500 nits. At all other times,luminance shall be no :s+Nment:Left a,b,c,._+Start at 1+Alignment:Left+Aligned at:2.25.+ greater than 500 nits. indent at zs• ' Formatted:Font Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold j d. Size Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt The maximum size of an electronic sin shall be no law er than th Formatted:Indent:i.ert:1.2s- billboard as it exists as of the date of the adoption of this ordinance, Formatted:Font:Helveta,12 pt e. Display period( l-Formatted:Indent:left:1•,Numbered+ Electronic billboards may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of level.Mlonne nt Le t a Al a,b,igned a._+5brt Ltd:5+ umbed:1d Al at 2.25'+ midnight.and 6 a.to if they are located within G00 Feet of a residential, Iedent at:2.5• mixed-use. downtoym, Sugar House Business District. gateway Formatted:Font Helvetica, pt,Not Bold - Neighborhood Commercial, Community Business. or Community Formatted:Fort(Default)Helvetia,12 pt Shopping Center zoning district, FomratteC:iMnt:"Lert:-�Is Famatted:Font:(Default)Helve5a,12 pt Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt Formatted:Font:Whet.,12 pt~�. Is . • f. Controls • r«m.e.d:Indent Left:1•,Numbered+ • level:5+N.nterVc Sgei a,b.c...+Start i. All electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer at:1+Wm/art Left+Aligned at 2.25.+ control or other mechanism that automatically controls the sian's [Went ae 2S,Tab sew 1.25",left brightness and display period as provided above. Paematled:ran:Macao,tz pt,Net Bold pt ii. Prior to approval of any permit for to operate an electronic sign. � �Pont(Default)Whelks,12 the applicant shall certify that the sion has been tested and complies with the motion.dwell time.brightness.and other reauirements herein. iii. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sign shall submit an annual report to the city certifying that the sign complies with the motion.dwell time.brightness.and other reauirements herein. • Formatted.List Paragraph UT.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. ® I =;U.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection U of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. • Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. ;C_//.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1,1996. 0 • YX.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or • maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance and the Tree Protection ordinance.. ZY.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for 1 the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. A. Spee P;cvisio ns: . pppEcabitriy y-pcoviiiOnx cf th:c section-chat _ id d:a 1ocaie .Four(1)avi ev nd 1800 t' h adjacent to the west eida cf Interstata 15;and I. na cxistiagbill boa:d-en.he eel-side of-Virtoq,teadat-apprexiraataty 1100 Ncrth- . eneral-Applicability:-Exceptas-nedihed-by this sectiea;ell-either rcviciors cf this • chapter-shallapply-to the five-(5)specified-billboards- Spec alPriosity helve-(5)specifiedbillboards-shallbe-oon;idercdas-gateway billboards-for-the-purposesv;-the-priority-provisiens-0€subsection F of this-section;-0its successor-subsection,.Lardacap!rg:The fve-(5)cpeci%d billboardsshell be landscaped-pursuant-to-the provisons-cf cub_ection V of this setion-er-its-successor-sNbsectic,r . 65Siate Mandated Relocation-0€8iltbeards xoept-asatherwise-autherized-herein; existing-billboards-e aynetbe-relocated exceptassnandatedby-the-requirements-of Utah-slat,,lax,.(Ord.72-08§2,2008:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord.13-04§§25,26, 27,2004:Ord.25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord.83-98§§12-14,1998:Ord.88-95§1(Exh. A),1995) • .g,s t/. "-' - Briefing for fitrg ,IT Planning Commission Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansic,Senior Planner Date: January 20,201 I Re: Billboard Ordinance: January 2611i`issue only hearing'on proposed code amendments regarding billboards and public transit(public amenity)advertising. Petitions:400-06-51, PLNPCM2010-00032, PLNPCM2010-00717 Background There are presently three separate petitions regarding the regulation of off-premise advertising in Salt Lake Cite. An Open Mouse introducing these petitions and potential regulations was held on November l b, 2010. There was an initial briefing in December 9,2010 meeting in preparation for a work session on January 12,2012. Some Planning Commissioners met with YESCO representatives on January 5 to discuss technical aspects of electronic billboards. The Planning Commission received a brisling on January 12°i 2011 and set up a subcommittee to review the proposals. Hearing: This January 26''hearing is'issues only'. No decision is recommended or expected. The hearing provides an opportunity to hear Iron the community and industry representatives in order to provide information to guide the creation of a final product. After the hearing,the Planning Commission should discuss the next steps with staff. Previous statfinemns sins be re-read at:hup://www.slcuov.com/boardsiplancom!_plancom.hun • :` Yu? Briefing for Planning Commission Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Date: January 24,2011 Rc Billboard Ordinance: Policy discussion. Petitions:400-06-51,PLNPCM2010-00032,PLNPCM2010-00717 In considering the three petitions,the Planning Commission should focus on general policy issues and allow the Attorneys to develop specific language. The following is a bullet point outline of the general policies codified by the existing ordinance,the policies included in the two draft ordinances provided and potential alternative policies. Policy reversals and/or significant changes offered in AN% the draft ordinances are highlighted with an asterisk*. Transit shelters Existing policy • Adverting in the public way is prohibited with exceptions for A-frame signs and logos on banners. Draft ordinance policy • Allows advertising in the public way when associated with a contract for street furniture.* • Allows the Administration to determine all details. Alternative policies • Allow transit shelter advertising only associated with City contract. • Allow transit shelter advertising and logos on other furniture only associated with City contract. • Place ordinance limits on the size of advertising. • Place ordinance limits on the size of logos. • Limit the number of shelters and/or furniture allowed to be negotiated by the administration. Billboard ordinance Existing policy • Cap and reduce program. • Allows banking of billboards for three years. • Encourages movement away from residential, historic,downtown,gateway districts. • Allows relocation to general commercial and industrial(non-gateway)districts generally located west of 300 West. Draft ordinance policy • Eliminates bank. • Allows movement according to state law. • Allow negotiated movement with the City and provides policy guidance directing negotiated movement. Alternative policies • No change(State law still supersedes). • Increase the number of boards allowed. Electronic Billboards Existing policy • Silent:does not prohibit or define. Draft ordinance policy • First draft prohibits electronic billboard conversion. • Second draft • Creates definitions. • Sets lighting and brightness definitions for electronic billboards. • Allows for conversions to freestanding boards on gateway streets*. • Allows conversion to electronic on special gateways as part of the architecture*. • Allows electronic billboards in downtown districts as part of the architecture. • Requires general reduction in boards when converting*. • Allows Planning Commission to modify spacing requirements'. Alternative policies • Allow conversion only on particular streets or in specific zoning districts. • Increase or decrease the numbers of billboards required for conversion(from the second draft). • Define standards and allow all conversions. 4. ,.L Briefing for s � Planning Commission Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Date: February 3,2011 Re: Billboard Ordinance: Subcommittee. Petitions:400-06-51,PLNPCM2010-00032,PLNPCM2010-00717 Attached is the information provided to the Subcommittee for their January 31,2011 meeting: Agenda Policy Discussion Salt Lake County ordinance Salt Lake City Ordinance Excerpts from the Urban Design Element Excerpts from the Downtown Plan Excerpts horn Dossntoyn Rising YPSCO suggestions Discussion draft prohibiting electronic billboards Discussion draft allowing some movement of electronic billboards Information being provided for the February 7.2011 subcommittee meeting: Initial inventory of neighborhood billboards(not field checked) USA today article List of cities and states indicated in the USA today graphics Comparison of land values adjacent to residentially zone billboards(spread sheet done in 2002) Map of Salt Dike County \slap of Salt Lake County Townships(Salt Lake County ordinance applies to unincorporated County and Millcreek,Emigration,hearns,Copperton,White City and Magna townships) Official Billboard and Gateway map Salt Lake City zoning maps Information bring acquired,but not vet available for February 7.2011 meeting_ Salt Lake County zoning maps Consolidated map of billboard locations in Salt Lake City Briefing for -1)=- Planning Commission • r ,r Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Date: January 24,2011 Re: Billboard Ordinance: Policy discussion. Petitions:400-06-51,PLNPCM2010-00032,PLNPCM2010-00717 In considering the three petitions,the Planning Commission should focus on general policy issues and allow the Attorneys to develop specific language. The following is a bullet point outline of the general policies codified by the existing ordinance,the policies included in the two draft ordinances provided and potential alternative policies. Policy reversals and/or significant changes offered in the draft ordinances are highlighted with an asterisk'. Transit shelters Existing policy • Adverting in the public way is prohibited with exceptions for A-frame signs and logos on banners. Draft ordinance policy • Allows advertising in the public way when associated with a contract for street furniture.' • Allows the Administration to determine all details. Alternative policies • Allow transit shelter advertising only associated with City contract. • Allow transit shelter advertising and logos on other furniture only associated with City contract. • Place ordinance limits on the size of advertising. • Place ordinance limits on the size of logos. • Limit the number of shelters and/or furniture allowed to be negotiated by the administration. Billboard ordinance Existing policy • Cap and reduce program. • Allows banking of billboards for three years. • Encourages movement away from residential,historic,downtown,gateway districts. • Allows relocation to general commercial and industrial(non-gateway)districts generally located west of 300 West. Draft ordinance policy • Eliminates bank. • Allows movement according to state law. • Allow negotiated movement with the City and provides policy guidance directing negotiated movement. Alternative policies • No change(State law still supersedes). • Increase the number of boards allowed. Electronic Billboards Existing policy • Silent:does not prohibit or define. Draft ordinance policy • First draft prohibits electronic billboard conversion. • Second draft • Creates definitions. • Sets lighting and brightness definitions for electronic billboards. • Allows for conversions to freestanding boards on gateway streets`. • Allows conversion to electronic on special gateways as part of the architecture*. • Allows electronic billboards in downtown districts as part of the architecture`. • Requires general reduction in boards when converting`. • Allows Planning Commission to modify spacing requirements`. Alternative policies • Allow conversion only on particular streets or in specific zoning districts. • Increase or decrease the numbers of billboards required for conversion(from the second draft). • Define standards and allow all conversions. Municode Page 1 of 2 • /11 1 - 19.82.185-Off-premises signs—Billboards. A. Purpose.This section provides for the reasonable regulation of off-premises signs with the intent of enhancing the aesthetics of existing and future billboards,mitigating negative impacts,promoting safety and protecting property values that further the goals and planning policies of Salt Lake County. B. Capon Number of Off-Premises Signs.The number of off-premises signs allowed in unincorporated Salt Lake County and established or future townships shall be limited to the number of off-premises signs that are existing as defined herein as of May 18,2004.This cap shall automatically decrease as off-premises signs are annexed into a municipal jurisdiction or removed and not relocated. C. Location.Off-premises signs shall be allowed in the C-1 zone as a conditional use.Off-premises signs shall be allowed in the C-2,C-3,M-1 and M-2 zones as a permitted use. D. Size.Off-premises signs shall not exceed six hundred seventy-two square feet in the C-2,C-3,M-1 and M-2 zones.Off-premises signs located in a C-1 zone shall not exceed three hundred square feet in size. E. Height.The maximum height of an off-premises sign shall be thirty-five feet in a C-1 zone.The maximum height of an off-premises sign shall be forty-five feet above the grade level of the road in the C-2,C-3,M-1 and M-2 zones or,when oriented for freeway viewing only and located within three hundred feet of the nearest freeway lane,twenty-five feet above freeway grade level or fifty feet overall,whichever is greater. F. Separation.The minimum distance between off-premises signs larger than three hundred square feet shall be five hundred lineal feet as measured along the same side of the street including intersections.The minimum distance between off-premises signs three hundred square feet or less in size shall be three hundred lineal feet as measured along the same side of the street including intersections.All off-premises signs must be at least one hundred fifty radial feet tram any other off-premises sign. G. Setbacks.The minimum setback shall be eighteen inches for off-premises signs.The sign's front-yard setback shall be measured from tire future right-of-way line(see Transportation Improvement Plan).The closest edge of an off-premises sign shall not project into any required setback area.The minimum setback between an off- premises sign and any residential zone boundary shall be one hundred fifty feet. H. Lighting.Lighting shall be confined to the sign face,and the lighting source shall not be directly visible. I. Design.Off-premises signs shall utilize either the"mono-pole"or the"bi-pole"design and shall be continually maintained structurally and on the copy face.The back of the sign and the structure behind the sign shall be painted a dark color.Tri-vision sign faces shall be permitted and,if illuminated,must be externally illuminated. Internally illuminated off-premises signs,electronic display(outdoor video advertising)and electronic message centers are only alloyed adjacent to the interstate freeway system and limited to no more than one change to the copy face in a twenty-four hour period.Two-decked off-premises signs are prohibited in all zones. J. Credits for Removal.Prior to the removal of any off-premises sign,the owner shall obtain a permit for the demolition of tire off-premises sign.Permits may be provided following application to the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division.The Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall by letter inform the affected community council chairman and affected planning commission chairman that a permit for demolition of an off-premises sign has been issued.After any off-premises sign is demolished,the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall create a"billboard bank account"for the sign Oviner.The account shall reflect credits for the off-premises sign square footage as well as the date of removal.Any off-premises sign credits not used within thirty-six months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use.An off-premises sign owner may sell or otherwise transfer off- premises signs and/or billboard bank account credits.The transfer of any billboard bank account credits does not extend their thirty-six-month life as provided in this section.Demolition of an off-premises sign that has two advertising faces shall receive billboard bank account credits for the square footage of each sign face. K. Relocation.The owner of an erisling off-premises sign may remove an existing off-premises sign from any site to an approved location only after a permit for relocation is obtained upon substantiation of coinpl'.nce with this chapter.Prior to approval of a permit for relocation,the sign owner(applicant)shall submit to the county a notarized affidavit signed by the property owner,a copy of the lease agreement or other document to be signed by the property owner,indicating ate minimum the duration of the lease and renewal provisions. Additionally,prior to approval of a permit for relocation,Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall by letter inform the affected community council chairman and affected planning commission chairman that application for an of`-premises sign permit has been received.Off-premises signs moved to approved locations shall conform to all off-premises sign requirements of the new location.Off-premises signs moved from one location to another must be installed in the new approved location within the period allotted by the International Building Code(IBC).A new off-premises sign permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard bank account credits of a sufficient number of square feet.When the permit for construction of a new off-premises sign is issued,the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall deduct from the sign owner's billboard bank account the square footage of the new off-premises sign.If the new off- premises sign uses less than the entire available square footage credits,any remaining square footage credits shall remain in the sign owner's billboard bank account. L. County Council Review and Monitoring.The county council shall,on a regular six-month schedule be updated Municodc Page 2 of 2 at a regular public meeting to changes in status and effectiveness of the provisions related to off-premises signs in unincorporated Salt Lake County. ,+,^ M. Severability and Conflict.This section and its various parts are hereby declared to be severable if a court of competent jurisdiction declares any subsection,clause,provision or portion of this section invalid or unconstitutional.No court decision will affect the validity of either this section as a whole or any parts not declared invalid or unconstitutional by that decision.If any part of this section is found to be in conflict with any other provision of the county,the most restrictive or highest standard will apply,prevail and govern. (Ord.1532§4,2004) ,or' �,� o.�mi�n i' oI]r111 Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Page 1 of 6 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A.Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. B.Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located. BILLBOARD BANK:An accounting system established by the city to keep track of the number and square footage of nonconforming billboards removed pursuant to this chapter. BILLBOARD CREDIT:An entry into a billboard owner's billboard bank account that shows the number and square footage of demolished nonconforming billboards. BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13, 1993. GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 0.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Page 2 of 6 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. C.Limit On The Total Number Of Billboards:No greater number of billboards shall be allowed in Salt Lake City than the number of existing billboards. D.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars ($111.00). E.Credits For Nonconforming Billboard Removal:After a nonconforming billboard is demolished pursuant to a permit issued under subsection D1 of this section,or its successor,the city shall create a billboard bank account for the billboard owner.The account shall show the date of the removal and the zoning district of the demolished nonconforming billboard.The account shall reflect billboard credits for the billboard and its square footage.Demolition of a conforming billboard shall not result in any billboard credit. F.Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or gateway G-MU,GGC or GH or on gateways ."..` shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;and 1/,11/2011 Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Paso 3 of 6 4.A billboard owner may demolish nonconforming billboards of a lower priority before removing billboards in a higher priority;however,the billboard credits for removing the lower priority billboard shall not become effective for use in constructing a new billboard until two(2)billboards specified in subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,with a total square footage equal to or greater than the lower priority billboard,are credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account.If a billboard owner has no subsection F1 of this section,or its successor,nonconforming billboards,two(2)subsection F2 of this section,or its successor,priority billboards may be credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account to effectuate the billboard credits of a subsection F3 of this section,or its successor, billboard to allow the construction of a new billboard.For the purposes of this section,the two(2) higher priority billboards credited in the billboard bank account can be used only once to effectuate the billboard credits fora lower priority billboard. G.Life Of Billboard Credits:Any billboard credits not used within thirty six(36)months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use except that lower priority credits effectuated pursuant to subsection F4 of this section,or its successor,shall expire and be of no further value or use within sixty (60)months of their initial creation. H.Billboard Credits Transferable:A billboard owner may sell or otherwise transfer a billboard and/or billboard credits.Transferred billboard credits which are not effective because of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor,shall not become effective for their new owner until they would have become effective for the original owner.The transfer of any billboard credits do not extend their thirty six(36)month life provided in subsection G of this section,or its successor. I.Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has tv,'o(2)advertising faces shall receive billboard credits for the square footage on each face,but only as one billboard. J.New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. K.Permitted Zoning Districts:New billboards may be constructed only in the area identified on the official billboard map. L.New Billboard Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an application one form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building code as adopted by the city; and b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. M.Use Of Billboard Credits: 1.A new billboard permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard credits of a sufficient number Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Page 4 of 6 of square feet and billboards to allow construction of the new billboard. 2.When the permit for the construction of a new billboard is issued,the zoning administrator shall deduct from the billboard owner's billboard bank account: a.The square footage of the new billboard;and b.The number of billboards whose square footage was used to allow the new billboard construction. 3.If the new billboard uses less than the entire available billboard credits considering both the number of billboards and square footage,any remaining square footage shall remain in the billboard bank. N.New Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway. O.Special Gateway Provisions: 1.If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to subsections P,O,R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount of billboard credits in the special gateway billboard bank. 2.The demolition of a nonconforming billboard pursuant to this section shall not accrue billboard credits ""4". within the general billboard bank.Credits for a billboard demolished or constructed within a special gateway shall be tracked within a separate bank account for each special gateway.A permit for the construction of a new billboard pursuant to this section must be taken out within thirty six(36)months of the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. P.Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. O.Temporary Embellishments: '1.Temporary embellishments shall not exceed ten percent(10%)of the advertising face of any billboard, and shall not exceed five feet(5')in height above the billboard structure. 2.No temporary embellishment shall be maintained on a billboard more than twelve(12)months. R.Height:The highest point of any new billboard,excluding temporary embellishments shall not be more than: 1.Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or 2.If a street within one hundred feet(100')of the billboard,measured from the street at the point at which the billboard is perpendicular to the street,is on a different grade than the new billboard,twenty five feet(25')above the pavement elevation of the street. 3.If the provisions of subsection R2 of this section,or its successor subsection,apply to more than one ._. __.._., :.—K[17e4 1/1/2011 Sterling Certifiers,Inc. Page 5 of 6 street,the new billboard may be the higher of the two(2)heights. S.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. T.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(30D)square feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300)linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred(300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred(800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large, on the same side of the street. U.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts:Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. V.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection U of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. `,V.Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection, arc not developed or,it a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such properly,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for rho required landscaping. X.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1,1996. Y.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance. Z.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to, and record as necessary,such subdivision. AA.Special Provisions: 1.Applicability:Tile provisions of this section shall apply to specified billboards located: Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Page 6 of 6 a.Four(4)existing billboards between 1500 North and 1800 North adjacent to the west side of Interstate 15;and ..� b.One existing billboard on the east side of Victory Road at approximately 1100 North. 2.General Applicability:Except as modified by this section,all other provisions of this chapter shall apply to the five(5)specified billboards. 3.Special Priority:The five(5)specified billboards shall be considered as gateway billboards for the purposes of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor subsection. 4.Landscaping:The five(5)specified billboards shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection. BB.State Mandated Relocation Of Billboards:Except as otherwise authorized herein,existing billboards may not be relocated except as mandated by the requirements of Utah state law.(Ord.72- 08§2,2008:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord.13-04§§25,26,27,2004:Ord.25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord. 83-98§§12-14, 1998:Ord.88-95§1 (Exh.A),1995) Ark . . v;1I7nn • • VIEW CORRIDORS AND VISTAS A view is a visual image having aesthetic beauty worth preserving. A"view corridor"frames a view of a building or natural feature from either a short or a long distance. View corridors are most often associated with streets or pedestrian walkways. The buildings adjacent to the street often frame a view of a prominent feature of the city. A vista,on the other hand, suggests a wider perspective or panoramic view. It may encompass an entire city,a sunset over the Great Salt Lake,or the Wasatch Mountain backdrop. While views are an important part of a city's urban form,their value is often overlooked. They can easily be destroyed before the loss is realized leaving an environment of monoto- nous development and further damaging the city's identity. Salt Lake City has many view corridors w.vhich influence both the urban form of the city and the development character of its districts and communities. The:most prominent include the following(see Vista Protection Mapl. Figure B) - State Street corridor of the State Capitol Building and surrounding foothills - Exchange Place terminating at the Post Office Building - Main Street to The Daughters of Utah Pioneers Museum - 200 South east to the University of Utah Park Building - 300 South Street terminating at the D&RGVJ Railroad depot - South Temple,from Union Pacific Depot to Federal Heights Foothills �• - First Avenue terminating at the LDS Temple Square • - Ensign Peak :. A s, � ° r - Oquirrh Vista k s -- `tJasatch foothills • f +,' 'I• • f 2G .... .. a-'{.[ 0o°o88g:woo�g oo°oo°o°ooSe 088 0�'�888 °°gs g, . Agog seooa° s ss3E° EAS _ oho oo os° a g°° °s°s�s..o�°°� °°n SS -� :sego s 88g03 8'°_°°off::§°so° 0008o° 0 00000 08 a 000 °°O° 08:. .8.r�. ....8g.o5°0°0°8 8d J"�/// o88tog °41.88 o O°e°•oa 'g88k°°o°°O°o°��xx "�'�=` � % �%8°.':or:8°o° o°o 88088°°��;;�''°88°�° as, M e ' nassg 82:3,§ g�aa gg osa°°° a apron °°g° °geaao°aQ ob��R°° �. ����1�aoa:: •.° °a°°g8' °° a 4:1 sa°:aaa a3°a°°g 000a.°°°° r/ 4' 'g°g6O:81asa °s°°° s:: 0 Co °o o�� a a5' , I / $ /�i / /�, a°a. °° °a ° �°... :oas ofi °�o woo°°o8 00 88°aBgP rY r� /�y% �� �{C4': 8': �� 0�88°o o• 88880 a°t°o°°a°oo o .I/ . o°° k °0000 _.,8K oaesao°e �s °ate � �9��, �..//%;:�� � �o ��°as°seoao°° °,,a°°°° s� °g�goo°°g°oo°,o°o %P to.44. r e aa° gEr a.°g_ao oaroo°soaa§,r q • //, 4 � N. t .j'.. °'R..°s33 ° , oo Tb:IJs%n E�6 i.rrVr Z%•llf .. sa PI - � °4 � � v Y �a_�°�°°tea°°° ,/,0 ✓ 3' �+5.• °Aaa o§sae gagssu _e GATEWAYS VISTAS -,_ //j �11,,• 'y �w�marrommeo .388,,°°° o j F .,,rr./.ice E 1111BWA,,' °s° °o GATEWAYS k „.. /iJeiiir 8 gog -804 VISTAS I /r a _.0 8I9$ /ife:%/% 4 4 A A' • . ..... // ��"°���/.ice •- _ V..: MAJOR VISTA TERMINUS % r ize,6�/� �% f'—s °osor-F. .77 STREET VIEW CORRIDOR /, / / /'aoo°8800°-°° 0 V6EW OR VISTA OBSERVATION POINTS i MOUNTAIN BACKDROP mg! LAKE/DESERT VISTA figure. 8 ..i.i.. MAJOR STREETS • 21 Gateways Gateways refer to the entrances in and out of a city,but may also refer to the entrances into districts cr neighborhoods. They are an important part of an area's image because they provide visitors and residents with their first visual impression of the city. A gateway often frames a principal view,providing a point of identity from which the viewer begins to evalu- ate the form and scale of an area. A gateway may occur as an au>dliary function to an area's main purpose. For example, airport and railroad terminals,bus depots,or freeway off-ramps may function as gateways since they are the point at which a visitor gets his first impression of a city. Changes in transportation modes,speed of travel,street pattern,or topography are often gateways because they signal"the entrance"into a district of the city. YY I s-. ,, ice- .� �•'z-aar a am DELTA N tops toP n do `` r , 4� fps s. Gateways into the City can be a road,or transit terminal. POLICY CONCEPTS o Develop Salt Lake City's gateways to provide a good first impression of the city. o Develop gateways in a fashion which strengthens the identity of the city. Gateway streets should be visually uncluttered,their views unobstructed. o Preserve the City's major gateways. They are as follows: - Beck Street entrance - Parleys'Way(Parley's Canyon entrance) - South State Street entrance (2100 South at State Street) - Interstate 15(north and south entrances) - Union Pacific Railroad Depot - Denver and Rio Grand Railroad Depot - Salt Lake City International Airport - Western city entrances(I-BO West and 2100 South) - Foothill Drive - 7th East - Al I-15 and 1-80 Interchanges Strategies - Improve gateway vistas and the immediate environment of the major gateway roads. - Rehabilitate the areas immediately around gateways by providing landscaping, special streetscapes or district improvements. Rehabilitation may require modifying the zoning and allowed land use activities. Street improvements must go beyond 25 simple replacement of hazardous or worn out equipment,sidewalks,or street furni ture. If thoughtfully installed,such improvements announce to visitors that they have arrived. One such technique is the use of pylons or community identification markers to denote entrance into a neighborhood or district. - Prohibit by ordinance,sky-bridges and skyways over streets identified as significant view corridors on the Vista Protection Map. - Remove overhead power transmission lines along streets in gateway and vista areas. - Unify street light fixtures and equipment into a consistent design theme. - Encourage development which takes advantage of natural features such as topo- graphy,vegetation,water elements,etc - Amend Salt Lake City's sign ordinance to prohibit billboards along roadways that • serve as gateways into the city and along view and vista corridors.(Figure 9) In addition,the following ordinances should be initiated for gateway districts.(For additional recommendations on sign regulations see"Signs"below.) / Beck Street vista/Gateway 26 - Establish legislation allowing the city to amortize the useful life of existing bill boards as a method to remove signs in areas identified as city and community gate ways,principle city streets,and view corridors. - Reduce the allowable billboard sign height in vista areas zoned C-3,M-1,M-2 and M-3 from the present 65 feet to 40 feet. (Figure 9) - Require a minimum distance of 400 feet from freeway"no access lines"or right- of-way lines in sign free corridor. (Figure 9) - Require a minimum 1,200 foot spacing between billboards located in areas outside of sign free corridors. - Establish sign-free zones beyond the minimum distances proposed. The ac- companying map illustrates the areas where this is important. - Survey existing billboards to determine whether they were constructed legally. Those erected without permits should be removed. If legally constructed,signs need to be moved. - Require that signs located within a vista be low profile and preferably mounted parallel to building surfaces. - Require yard areas of properties adjacent to gateways or principle streets be treated as front yard space with landscaped setbacks and screening of unsightly uses.In conjunction with this,rooftop equipment such as air conditioning equip ment,satellite dishes,etc.,should be well organized and painted a neutral color or screened to minimize the visual distraction they often create. - Re-analyze allowed land uses adjacent to principle gateways. Prohibit open stor age,auto wrecking,junk yards,and open air refuse recycling processes within view corridors. ONOMMOMMil 23 Signs Signs are an integral and expected part of the city landscape. Signs contribute to the char • - acter of different areas of downtown and are often a major identifying feature.Most signs in O Salt Lake City are oriented to the street level environment as a result of the city's sign ordi- nance. This has helped to make buildings and land features the landmarks instead of signs. This not only helps to maintain the individuality and quality of buildings,it enhances views of �_ 1 the mountain setting. Unfortunately,however,signs are still a dominate feature of the n,cm landscape along our city's major boulevards and gateways. Signs sponsored by city,county,and state governments often set a poor example.Too often, r1 4-01L':' ! i II little attention is paid to the impact directional and informational signs,such as street name �J "7 signs have on the city's image. Our present lad:of clear policy helps to create haphazardly -'"'I-1- t Iti;". located,confusing,and often poorly designed signs. OS• 61111 i POLICY CONCEPTS „ DIES L FUEL L_ "41a :2 . 51: o Provide ample opportunities for business to advertise products and service with � Q""`.- "" out having a detrimental effect on the community. o Consider sign design and location as an integral part of all development,not as an after thought. o Ensure that government sponsored signage sets a positive example. o Regulate the size and location of billboards so they do not detract from the city's positive environment. Strategies - Initiate the following billboard sign ordinance amendments and legislation: MINNINIMMINE 36' • - Establish State enabling legislation allowing the city to amortize the useful life of existing billboard signs. • - Reduce allowable billboard sign height in vista areas. (Presently the C-3,M-1, M-2,and M-3 zones allow 65 feet of height.) - Require a minimum distance of 400 feet from freeway"no access lines"or right-of-way lines in sign free corridors. In some cases protecting prominent views may require establishing sign-free zones beyond the minimum distances proposed. - Initiate a minimum 1,200 foot spacing between billboard signs located in areas outside of sign free corridors. (Figure 9) - Survey existing billboards to determine whether existing off-premise signs were constructed legally. Those which have been erected without building permits should be removed. If illegally constructed,signs need to be removed. - Require the review and approval of all signs in conservation districts,view corri- dors and vistas as part of the construction permit process. The following guidelines should be considered in granting sign approval: Require signs located within a view corridor to be low profile and preferably mounted parallel to the building surface. Encourage sign design as an integral part of the design of buildings and developments. Increase enforcement of the sign ordinance. • ; 37 U CC Q mac' bt i o J 0 4.•.T1aoo-11 t W I. Wm o _ l'i - `'L. -1,9" 0 °° ‘.,- 1. il r �_I a, _ ii ! nip : �atiuueui Itieailuai� ■ c � � :jai . --r Q n Lie mil„ isizotnte •Qv et I'guppy ,}u I IIIItt' .-. - „ rY 1�'m nt ten �t iVul�}ua�tna� pp ❑ .I l:lr ' gpia�t{ll tlitlesII G •• � r CC —taa, Is 7 tiiti( . Th O 1A1.8allli eels .Vnup , •"� I. �� J e} Tr..alpthu�e t..itmi, Ge�tIn F u nn lann n' `itrh e i qe1 iut5nletllp °ram +o si �I/lt jltlale fell";A�� t 1114t^ •` fir •�t��Itglneeim ea EIn.„A!.„t6utctnI C UL$ IN 1 �rli UIIYll91Y111i 111t nt file I It lttll tlsell I 7(lnllntl lfg 1 pTi `Mixed-use zoning should he applied to the area adjacent to Pioneer Park. Previous plans have called for the enhancement of existing residen- tial and the introduction of new residential populations into this underutilized area. This zoning does not need to require residential as �.: the host use,but it should retain a residential component. J � moso,n-....•. . -. sur- rLIounding IIr Warehouse l _ �. historical �•the a_ ,u - L e House Historic District: The lus.e r_ i survey for n�area.. r >: <�'�" •___ rounding the Pro Grande Depot and Pierpont areas has been done and [ indicates a potential for an important Historic District. Such designation ew swm il would enhance the existing character of the area,providing architectural 1 ow ( t�[ protection and insuring compatibility of new development. Importantly, I r� II r historical designation provides a"theme"for the area,inviting reinvest- VaREHouse ment capital and providing an"Avant-Garde"area for the arts to thrive. HISTORIC DISTRICT *Temple Square/City-County Building/Cathedral of the Madeleine/ State Capitol View Corridors: These buildings represent the most archi- tecturally and historically significant buildings in the City. They provide an immediately recognizable image to residents and tourists. A view �. corridor would"red flag"new construction that interferes with si . y' w . cant views and subject it to design review. This will insure the continued .' ' view amenity of these important buildings. R.` 5 ;- -- a ram, *View Corridors:Views from Downtown to the mountains and major , ? i landmarks should also be preserved. Skywalks or other obstructions �- ,7 "\ that would block view corridors are prohibited on Main Street,State Street,South Temple,200 South and 300 South and are discouraged on c---- __-_—__z_-° other streets except in extenuating circumstances. Historic Social Hall *Gateways:Changes in zoning should be made to enhance the entry into Downtown on major streets. These changes include landscaped setbacks, land use controls and prohibition of billboards. 30 S ; ) • n 'j°tt�''Uvol(1 i\1. ,•• ) (_ Ager-4vI foal!Ce titP"'; . Downtown Rising supports Street character ■ Plant more shade trees, install more wayfinding the designation of streets Each of downtown's streets serves a slightly different role signs,repurpose turning lanes to create pedestrian as either"boulevards," -some are key walking routes,others are vital regional refuges, public art or landscaping, and explore traffic arteries and some serve an important rote for public reconfiguring on-street parking t0 provide more "transit corridors,"or transportation. Despite their role for moving traffic, all parking opportunities. "promenades."Here's downtown streets, regardless of their primary function, the distinction: must be beautiful and convenient for pedestrians. GRAND BOULEVARDS SOUTH AND SOUTH). These two streets are thhee p principal auto gateways into •• • BOULEVARD. The following streets are recommended for priority and out of the city. Both streets should be grand i . Quality design action to improve their beauty and walkabitity. expressions of a capital city;they should provide a more on these key dignified entrance and exit. More-stately and urban .�A 200 EAST has the potential to be the focus of a revived traffic arteries boulevards can be accomplished by adding monumental • urban neighborhood. White automobile traffic would ' 'imbues all of trees and distinctive lighting to form a canopy over the 'l downtown with the feeling of still be a primary use of the street,200 East could spur streets,reducing the number of large signs that visually development by providing active open space in a"Park conflict with the conce vibrancy.These are the main entry pt of a grand gateway,building and exit points for people traveling Avenue"concept similar to the center park blocks on multi-story structures to the edge of the sidewalk,and by automobile.A pedestrian would 500 West or 600 East.Turning 200 East into a dynamic preventing visible surface parking lots. ^� feel comfortable on these decidedly urban street is a signature project of Downtown Rising. 100 SOUTH east of the Salt Palace Convention Center urban,landscaped streets. WEST TEMPLE plays a key role in moving automobiles is a prime opportunity to create a new gathering space. through i downtown. Nonetheless, West Temple has a IT1 TRANSIT Traffic demands on this section are low.A pedestr an- il! , CORRIDOR. tremendous opportunity to be transformed into a oriented street could showcase the Salt Palace tower Downtown pedestrian-friendly boulevard, linking together major and a growing restaurant scene.First South could thus ��''•r'�A•= relies on hotels on the south to the Salt Palace,Symphony Hall, become a linear park filled with people,but stilt open ?( City Creek Center and Temple Square complex to the to auto movement and on-street parking not unlike Rio transit.These north. Modifications suggested through the Downtown p 9. corridors put priority on the Grande Street in the center of The Gateway. convenient movement of buses and Rising process include: trainsyet cars continue to be ■ Retail uses that 200 SOUTH provides a major link for bus and greet the street and feature automobile traffic travelling east to west through the welcome. All trips start and prominent entrances for pedestrians. city.It also serves as a critical corridor linking the core end with walking,so these streets must be walkable. ■ Changes to the Salt Palace facade to provide downtown area with Salt Lake Central Station. purposeful pedestrian destinations along the west ,a.7+ PROMENADE. side of West Temple. These could include a "City ' ,.'r' . ; : - While cars are History"walk,a linear sculpture garden,kiosks and :- still welcome, food carts,and outdoor dining. ' 'til .'Y the pedestrian d'u�.. q gets priority on these beautiful walking routes. l • • In S` ce µ A 1 7,,, n .14 `'‘.' ,,St. r•L _ a tt i. ` :1? ;< VR ,.r t , r f4 rwt. .._ ..,.Bwt �. Yj ... 1... d'i0..:' R 1:.,,. /.. p4 IIWStation:hut Brown+ - Grand Boulevards District The Grand Boulevards welcome the world to downtown Salt Lake. leading to the doorstep of the Grand America Hotel. Buildings This district includes the foremost entry corridor from the Salt Lake here clearly have the strongest presence on the street-creating an International Airport and is also home to many of Downtown's urban ambience-while stately landscaping hints at the beauty hotels. With many hotels,it is truly a hospitality neighborhood. As further within downtown. The urban design is monumental, such,the Grand Boulevards offer an outstanding first impression, befitting the width and character of these Grand Boulevards. The dominant features of this district are 500 South and 600 South • • 0 vdMI -� ' ; tt FI :CIS '; ':- •at1 : , .1 of i,i• g E WEEMS a. I il . f ��• ! ■1�1 I 41:. •- c U.s • W C... ■ e 111:11237011 cc) a; ti7 J E1 I. ill fkg o .� F 4 - rnM OOZ g I .isaM OOC. i - E_ V 6 • M ■ • ,.... a-•• p a ` cd‘ E. - v 2 v i T o f0 ' III ; • U ++ ♦ • y ti. C L X N N C y I—r y V City of Salt Lake Digital Billboard Presentation • YESCO Electronics We recognize the importance of establishing effective sign codes. We appreciate the good and hard work done on the ordinance to date. We suggest the following revisions to the proposed digital ordinance: Use the following provisions for brightness: Illuminance:The intensity of light falling on a surface at a defined distance from the light source. Foot Candle: The English unit of measurement for Illuminance,which is equal to one lumen,incident upon an area of one square foot. The illumination of an Electronic Billboard shall not increase the ambient lighting level by more than 0.3 foot candles when measured by a foot candle meter perpendicular to the Electronic Billboard face at: (A) 150 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface area of not more than 242 square • (B)200 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface area greater than 242 square feet but not more than 378 square feet; (C)250 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface area greater than 378 square feet but not more than 672 square feet;and (D)350 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface area greater than 672 square feet. [Keep the provision relating to"controls"] Change Dwell Time to Eight Seconds This is standard recommended by the Federal Highway Administration and is consistent with state law. Eliminate Electronic Billboard Curfew The signs are needed by business owners,stakeholders,and public service organizations 24/hrs/day. Eliminate trade-for-upgrade provisions This is a legal concern. 411 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East, 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and • r 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West, • --(ForrnaltedIndent:tee:0.96 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. 'ose.17 F.seated-":ith,-the-perEectien- •. _.•(Formatted:rat:Na Boit St6enwugn s.of-bricht es —_uminareeic mcasyredln-candelas-per-setiare-meters-er`nits'-foF •l?Formatted:so-ikethrough puFpeae=ef-this-ecdwenee, I Formatted:Tao stops:0.25",List tab illuminance:The intensity of light falling on a surface at a defined distance from the --(Formatted:Not Strikethrough light source O • • 1.Formatted:Font Bold MOTION The depiction of movement or change of position of text,images.or Formatted:Font:Not Bold graphics. Motion shall include,but not be limited to,visual effects such as dissolving and fading text and images,running sequential text,graphic bursts,lighting that resembles zooming.twinkling,or sparkling.changes in light or color,transitory bursts of light intensity.moving patterns or bands of light,expanding or contracting shapes,and similar actions. Formatted:Font Bold pllTS:A-unit-of.measure-ofbrightness-or-luminance.--Onenit-is-equal-to-one .-{Famattee:suaewou°n ccndclaFseearc motor. '\ Formatted:Normal,Indent:yen:0.m", Space Before:Auto,After:Auto,Tab stops: Foot Candle:The English unit of measurement for illuminance.which is equal to one-. `.: 0.25,List tab lumen,incident upon an area of one square foot.. Formatted:Foot Bold,Strkethrough formatted:Smkethragh TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in Formatted:Normal,Indent:Left:0.25", increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message B�2s•,1f me Auto,After:Auto,Tab steps: or advertisement. .• Formatted;Font:Bold TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text,images,and graphics on an electronic Formatted: Auto,o,,After:et,Left: b vo Spare Before: Auto,Tab stops: son to change to a different text,images.or graphics on a subsequent sign face. .0:25",List tab Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt Formatted:Tab stops:0.25",List C.LimilGn-The-Teta-Nur,ber Of eaFds-No greeterrdumber-ef biltbeards-shall-be eilowed-in-Sait-Lak Cit ,an the-cumber-ofexisting-bilibeards:Billboards Prohibited:New Billboards are prohibited in Salt Lake City. D.Relocation of Billboards:Existing billboards may be relocated as mandated by the • -(Formatted:mde t:Leff 0•,Hanging:0.25"j requirements of Utah state law. Additionally,billboards may be relocated from any zoning district to Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards,or located within 600 feet of a gateway or soecial gateway street or residential zoning district.Voluntary relocation shall follow the priority outlined in subsection g1A.46.160.F of ...•( amlateed:Font:Not Ba __d _1 this ordinance,unless otherwise negotiated with the City. DE.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: -- - -.� • 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner � I Fomratted:lMent:Left:o.n• only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. • • • ig.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square• Formatted:Indent:Left 071",Tab snips: feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300) 0.e8",Left linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; Formatted:Strlkethaugh 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred Formatted:Indent Festline:b• (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred • (800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of Formatted:Font:(Default)Hehrec a,12 pt Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left 0.5", the street. Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, c, +Start at:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned 3.Soecing for electronic billboards fully integrated into the architecture of a at:0.25"+Indent at:0.5" building and not free standing,may be modified by the Planning Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetic,12 pt Commission as a Conditional Building and Site Design Review as outlined I Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt, in section 21A.59,as long as such modifications are consistent with State I Sbikethrough • Law Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt • Formatted:Lot Paragraph,Indent:Left: 0.75",First line:0" • R LIQM)no-{liehttirreiltumination-ef-biltboerdsmay-not-e!are-dircctly-ente-thei-0aolway Formatted:Lis[Paragraph,Indent,Left:os", ' lumbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, or-sieleiva!!e-nececress-preeerty-lnes„ BillboardslocatedwithinResidential,Mixed-Use, r, .+start at:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned CN or CB zoning districts may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight at:0.25"+Indent at:0.5" • and 6 am. Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt ' (Formatted:Stdkettaough S:Electronic Billboards: I Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12pt, 1. Electronic Billboard are prohibited except when converting an existing billboard to 1-St__kethrough electronic as follows: Formatted:Stri h • Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt, a) A Billboard may be converted to an electronic billboard in Manufacturing, Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts,teit-the Fwmatted:9rikeducugh restrietien-that-hey orenot-eciented-towardsror tot ted-within-600-feet-of-a Formatted:Font.(Default)Helvetic,12 pt, gateway-er-special-gateway-street r-residential-zoning-distrietAafevided-{hat ' s`r`°d fouw-times-the-non-eleotren a seuare foolage-of-the-new-e!eetrenm biltboard-♦s removed-elsewhere-♦n-the-City: Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt • '.:t.(Formatted:Indent:Left:0.75•,First line:0" bL) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards on Gateway streets ' Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left:0.5", pFevtdedi.-cd thac�'• ve-timcs th"-nen-eleetreats-sguace-footage-ef-the-new---- Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, ----. +Start at 1+Alignment:Left+Aligned clectroniebillboardictemevcdalenctthe-same-Gateway.er-r-emevcd*from • at:o.zs•+Indentat:0.5" anelheF-tateway-enly-if-sufficient-square-footaaeas-tetavailabie-en-the-host t Formatted:Snkeh ough gateway- � Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetic,12 pt, • Stnketivough o) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards in Special Gateways • Formatted:Stekethroogh previded-that-eeetimes-the-nen-electronic-seuare-feofage ef-the-aew ,r' -. Formatted:Font.(Default)Helvetia,12 pt, elestrenic-billboardis-removedorl-the-sameSpecial-Gateway:or-removed • wikethmugh • Formatted:StrikeMrgph- O from geraiheF-sccci:l gateway-only-ifsun!cient-square-featage-is-net-availabie Formatted:Font:(Default)tkNeNo,12 pt, en-the-host-speeial-gateway-and4henew-eieetronic billboard—i`ullyinteorated sattetnroogh into-the-arehiteeture-ofa-building-and-is-not-free-standing, ...fFor atted:5tnkntnro h Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt 1 d) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards in Downtown or Sugar • Formatted:Lot Paragraph,Indent:Left: House Business District zoning Aistriets-provided-thatawe-times-tho non 0.75",First line:0" electronic-square-footage-o the-newelectronie-billboards removed-in eny Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left 0.5", Dewntown ar-Heuse-BusinessDistnict-residential-neighberhood s-B ,� Numbered 4-U Lend:1+Numb ering Style:a,b, eemmereishowmunFty-Busiresorn nity-hgppl"gGenter--oaleway-or at:..g+.2sm+rt at'l+aAigmnt Lei'+Algned mfed-use-zening-district-and-he-new-elecirenie-billboard-is-fullwnleareted �:sy yvn into-the-arebiteelure-ofa-building-and is-not fcco ctandinti Formatted:Font:(Default)Henetira,12 pt, 5uirednugh 2._Motion • ~t,v.'.'. Formatted:smkeuvaoh Any motion of any kind is prohibited on en electronic sign face. Electronic':'::+E'i:''•, ,y am""' °OyhF°nt`(°d°un)HeNeKa,l2pt billboards shall have only static text.images.and graphics. ;,'.Formatted:so-tedn°ugh '::Formatted 3. Drell tires - The text.image,or display on en electronic sign may not change more than once '' .•' Farm'Bed:strrenrwgh every`ixty-(60)eight($),seconds. Twirl time between subsequent text.images. :"F°rnattea or display shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. Formatted:StrIet Yotoh Formatted .3 4. Brightness Formatted:Font(Default)Hehet 'During-daylight-hour:Ebctween-sunriseand sunset-luminance-shall-be no-greater': Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica, pt than-25500•nit=,—Atxll-other-times,tuminance-shall-be-no-gcealerthan-60O-nits: F°rmaffea wU The illumination of and Electronic Billboard shall not increase the ambient lighting : Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold level more than 0.3 foot candles when measured by a foot candle meter '. Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt perpendicular to the Electronic Billboard face at: Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold (A)150 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface area of not more than 242-.•:,'':,,''.I Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetica,12 Pt square feet :?'r�Formatted (Ja (B)200 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface area greater than 242 Formatted:Font:(Default)HeNetira,12 pt square feet but not more than 378 square feet F°`matted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 a Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold (C)250 feet for an electronic Billboard with a surface area greater than 378 Formatted (...f6 square feet but not more than 672 square feet ,. Formatted:Not 5B* fragh (0)350 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface are greater than 672 square • rrnattea: � feet Formatted:Not strike hrough Size Formatted:Not strkedno gh The maximum size of an electronic sign shall be no larger than the billboard it Formatted:Font Helvetica,12 pt replaced or shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in :I I Formatted:Font(Default)Hen'etira,12 pt whichever is less, Formatted:Font:Hdvdira,12 pt,Not Bold Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt :Formatted:Font:HeNetiea,12 pt • 0 • • 6,-4OPlay-peppoci. •• Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 pt, SIestroni lbeards;-R-.av-ref be illuminated-or-tit-ben-the hoens ofinidnieht • sfr"h"'gh and-6-aunt-if-they arm ted-within-60O-€eet of o rosidentiat,-mixed-use; • Formatted:Rot ttenena,12 pt,No Bold, st ietlra ph dewnEEswra,SugaNdeuse Business 8isirisf satewav-Ne ghberheed 6err+rneroia! Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetia,12 pt, Comnwritty-Busineoc,cr Communitytiheppin9-Geeter-zenia§hiistrfet ' sof:rmmugh 'Formatted:SDikethough 7. COnlfol5 'Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetia,12 pt, a. full electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer control or Strikethrough other mechanism that automatically controls the skins brightness and display Formatted:Strdredaotgh I .period as provided above. Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 p5 Strikethrough b. Prior to approval of any permit for to operate an electronic sign.the applicant •- ----� shall certify that the sign has been tested and complies with the motion,dwell Formatted:Strike nm gn time.brightness.and other requirements herein. .,'Formatted:Font Helve a,12 pt (Formatted:Fent:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold c. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sian shall submit an annual report Ir e;Font:(Default)HeNetno,12 pc to the city certifying that the sign complies with the motion,dwell time - brightness,and other requirements herein. Formatted:List Paragraph .Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: e Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections • 21A.26.020 and 21A26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. • Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection U of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. Discussion Draft Proposal which allows transit advertising,eliminates billboard bank, defines electronic billboards and prohibits electronic billboards. 21A.46.058 TRANSIT SHELTER AND PUBLIC AMENITY ADVERTISING Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shell be allowed only as part of a shelter eta bus stop or public transit stop or steitcr,or a public amenity,pursuant to en approved and executed agreement between the City and a provider of transit shelters or public amenities.which sets forth the reaulatcn of size,content,placement.design and materials used in the cn,rrstrection of said advertising and shelters and public amentity. For purposes of this section."public amenity"means an item Generally located in the public way to provide a public service,which may include.but is not limited to.a kiosk displaying way finding signaae or accommodatina news racks or other public • information,public restrooms.public furniture such as benches cr trash receotacles or public services such as bike sharing. The common element is that they are offered for public consumption and provided as contract services to the City. Transit shelter and public amenity advettisina shall in no case be larger than 43'by 72- and shall be limited to no more than three panels per shelter or kiosk,unless otherwise restricted further by contract. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising is only authorized when located adjacent to non-residential.RES.RMU.or RO zoning districts. Transit shelter and public serenity advertising display may not contain nudity rarnoaraohy.or indecent or vulgar cictures,arachics or lanquaoa or advertising of _pal products. 21A.46.060:SIGNS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS: The following exterior signs,in addition to all other signs not expressly permitted by this chapter,are prohibited in all zoning districts and shall not be erected: A.Animated signs excluding public service signs; V • B.Any snipe sign; C.Balloons; D.Bench signs;except transit shelter and amenity advertising specifically authcri<d by c t 21 A.t6.58 E.Portable signs,except where specifically permitted by district sign regulations; F.Signs overhanging the property line other than signs that are permitted under the sign regulations applicable to each zoning district; G.Signs which are structurally unsafe,hazardous or violate the uniform building code or the uniform fire code; H.Signs located near streets which imitate or are easily confused with official traffic signs and use words such as"stop","look","danger","go slow","caution"or"warning", except where such words are part of the name of a business or are accessory to parking lots;and O I.Painted signs which do not meet the definition of wall signs.(Ord.53-00§3,2000: Ord.88-95§1(Exh.A),1995) 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A.Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. • B.Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or 4e`n'fial property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located.A billboard does not include transit shelter and oeb`_c ,nits advertising specifically authorized by Section 21A.46.058 STIL-BOAR-D-RANK:A s=scout-tag syetcta cstablichcd by the city to kecp track cf sec number-e 3-square-feetageef-rerscafer g-billbezt-d-re ve4-pa p t`ic civets. BILL3CARC-CRE-LAri-On.ty in:o a b:fi .cr1-ewrsvnra billboard bank ac,t.2.urt that ehcwa-Ilse t. aeraadsyaare ee ag,cf c4e tshe4-anecetcrnrrng-i'Ibearde BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. DWELL TIME The length of time that etvcues between text,images.or graphics on • 1 FormattM:Fo t:Not eoe • an electronic sian. (Formatted:edsnt:Fat line:0•__— _. Fomtatted:Font:Bold EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use • or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13,1993. ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign.video display,proiected image.or similar device with text.images.or graphics generated by solid state electronic components. Electronic signs include.but are not limited to.signs that use light emitting diodes(LED).plasma displays.fiber optics.or other technology that results in brieht.hieh-resolution text.imaces.and eraohics. Formatted:Indent Flat One:0'-- GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: -- `t-- - --- --- - --1 1.Interstate 80; • (Form.erm:Indent:ten:0.83• 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; • 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8. Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10. 500 South.horn Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12. 300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13. North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14. Main Street frcm North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15. State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31, 1993. NONCONFORMING BiLLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY: The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1. North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; (Formatted:Indent Left: 0.96" 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3. State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4. Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. LUMINANCE The photometric uuentity most closely associated with the perception ti�Formatted:Font:Not Bold of brightness. Luminance is measured in candelas per square meters or"nits"for l)Formatted:Tab stops: 0_25,List tab purposes of this ordinance._ Formatted:Font:Bold MOTION The depiction of movement cr change of position of text. images, or /-1Formatted:Font:Not Bold craphics. Moticn shall include.but not be limited to.visual effects such as dissolving and fading text and imaces.running seouentiel text. nraohic bursts, lighting that • • • resembles zooming.twinkling.or scar-Mina.changes in light or color,transitory bursts of light intensity,moving eailerns or bands of tight.expanding or contractir;; shapes.and similar actions. Formatted:Foot: NITS A unit of measure of brightness or luminance. One nit is equal to one • Formatted:Normal,Indent Left:o.2r, Space Before:Auto,After:Auto,Tab stops: Candel'c/;g Uafe meter. 025',list tab TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text.images,and grechics on an electronic • Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt sign to change to a different text.images,or nraohics on a subsequent sign face. Formatted:Tab stops:0.25^,List tab -5) C.Limit-Oa-T;eT-stat44u bcr Of 8i'Ibcmde:41-a g-aztcr number of billboards ctio'.t-be aiewetri„o-€att-tcice-City thaa4ho nurr.`_c-cf enisting bi!!teardc.Billboards Prohibited:New Biltboarra are prohibited in Salt Lake City. D.Relocation of Billboards:Existing billboards may be relocated es mandated by the • CFoorrne e,Indent Ler“o•,wrymy:o.zr ) requirements of Utah state law.Additionally.billboards may be relocated from any • zoning district to'Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards.or located within 600 feet of a gateway or special gateway street or residential zoning district. Voluntary relocation shall follow the priority outlined in subsection 21A.46.160.F of (! .aBoa:Fan:Not Bald this ordinance.unless otherwise negotiated with the City. • BE.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner • (Formatted:Went: on- only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). €,Ctedi-ts-s:-Nosccionfefi-rng-Billbesrol-Rcwm at-Aitaca-f nnwsfarsaiag-bi:ibcnrd is de•sc!ishad pursuant c a perm3 iq�der-s�Esaety 01 c`epic acetiaa,or ita eueeesso=1iie-nsy-eha:create a-NI ilbe 4-;sok-acccjst for- e-billbogn,aca.ne T� e__aui-.-s'ha=.l-sha;-yre-da:o of the removal-anid e.zenin g-dtsast-a'tha define-fished • • • • • 41111 :ha!!r2^C_t b!!!boord c :dit:for th., an'i sy',.._:2 oot:go. D:T-c:' '.r=3;-$f-i'.f.:r:`:;::�bi 5c-ard�!'.C!I not,-re '=-ii-aPrf Cr_44- F. Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1. Billboards in districts zoned residential, historic,residential R-MU or • (Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.71",Tab stops: downtown D-1, D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 0.88",Left 2. Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or gateway.-- district G-MU,G Gr-F- or on gateway ' s shall be removed second; 3. Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;a4=:4 1.,^.bi!ltead ^'�1S f•r-=.y.4e ?:_":"_-:r z�C�r_,,.�:'"-F~;!!�G dC t to it b;fore:c?3-wing bi!I~2ir�s in a hisherpFior'ty howevcr,`.f;C 1;illbcnr4-Gre. - f*r-r2 avin-g- -f9 :e r yrity boar -s al:-hot bcse-rne ectiva-fsr-use-in ® co.V tract g a-,4e i!:bc:r-d-'c.'c - vo. (2)t)'!I'J^_'_r�s- i ed 1, C1i-SeG F1 c $A f this-as i sue:�;=J r: `.mot=��=„c foc=a -e uc 4a-or than 1.149-kwiE-:p:=rity-i...:�tr_...rd,:co_cr:s ad la-the.billboard Cw+€cs o•:.,er tras-n subseetier-F-1 of this Sec.._ i... c cif :rcFcifC:r:iing t':!l5car..'&#i.o-(2-)-s?ts'ection F2-of racy Fa-raditod in the b:!lbea;-d-srr.ers bitibaard bcn.r-a r t-taencctuata-tae-bil;bcord-credits-of a-s5r?ct:C..F3 ac.hi:suction,or its- _cam rC billboard t3 C.l!ow the C:' �`.•�£t:Cn r-7,-.^:w !t= -n—For the p,:;-F.ese.cf thio scS`.;on,the two(2) r.riorit,t.tli•`_ear'rc cr-e t d in the bill .. .^rVc c3 zci Rt fxf� @ ys'3 CSnty-onse-t?eff ctuate tii •'hlbt}ar!-6reditt.-fir 2 tow prority-billbcerd- r� 1. n t.'n• t.• O.-Lite-Of-Billboard C:3�siis �ii .-i-r8'?crc'f�fli��St-EJS$ �i1'ii!'.fi7-tiriFiy-SiX-(36-)fi'•16Flt{?8 et thoir_:eet;_n c~,a?l expi o and t,crf �rt:ho. :atue-or-use exsep-t 2tt-;owes pcec -rr-dit: Fdt Cf-t~rs-.ec`.:cn,cr its ,r,'.'CCc: 'er, silo!!expire 3 b e-af-r ru der-vatue--or-t;se-yArhia-si- y(64)manthsof-their-initial creation. H..bcerd Croft:Tram f- w:-�_2!: A billboard e 1=j::l!cr ct rerr e t:ansfec-a lr:tl afcr•r.1fif ti!l'eoerd cry :.T:.•, sf`rred Sit-oar d cca its '-t4oh-aco not cf:zcvo ti f-t it f i F cis .:C. o its S'.�corr cc-�r'�?E-:r.�:T=/. ....�.-.^.c's-S1�2c �-flr='r-r:-f-s..sc;. s-ac_ 0 • • chzil r:^.L€c C"C F th n-r^€W C^X;er:. ."'they w::.:td have b:..cros. ff€c.I`ic fcr the`•':':r.el c—€ .Mn trusser af:r.y F.i cid Credit:.0..ci C;:`.c.^,d t eir thirty cix(36)r cnth life prcv4ss.'-ia cubs ti-3.^.G of th-i -fikn,or-its I-G Double Faced Billboards: Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive==il4bo-= credit= for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. JH. New Billboard Construction: It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter. In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. •.�I.Permitted Zoning Districts:NeN-elocated billboards may be constructed only in t=:e arca id:nt; ed-e-n-the-rJf*:e-iai-b Ilbear -2_Manufacturina, Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards.or located within 600 feet of a gateway or soecial oatevwav street 11111 cr residenhzl zoning district. ;. Billboard relocation or remodelinc Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an • L Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.71" application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2. Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a. Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building - Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.96",Tabstops: code as adopted by the city; and 1.13',Left b. Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. ?-A= .4:ifiloe i-' .arm it a•`ka�I rSry-c-r-iccL.'?a-•j-'r'4e- i..licui,t h'\:c Mile c:� • LFormatted:Indent:Left: 0.71" cr-e.1.=s of a-zuf:c:e .1 ?I ei-es -L?:2-f-ae`c,r t?i beards to avow co s`l oboe'- f4he-r sw—biitl_•c-.:4 III • • • 2—--iier • the j C- icrcr-�rc4z^n tci 4:cn of a r:w-tigbgacd i s.:d the-z-a-g;r9 a s.. f^ c' arda4 ctf:cm C :P,crcb!!,brrd~ateac. _u t; a.The se'4-aF2-fiFti 6f-ihe--r•a -b-i'44fra' ,-and 1 Formatted:Indent:Left 1.08",Tab stops: 1.25",Left syu:re4e.ctZg�wo:ucet to o14cv/the FcYr-�I£c1=fd-r:;t'iFF.�ti9i?: avoiloble billaoo;d cro4its •-7 Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.71" —) conside-geg- -::T.h thc-eE'..:,__'x-of b'.Ilba'_;de and s"ucce-feet,ge,any b'!!' card bank. (Formatted:Indent:First line: 0.25" _J NK.New Billboards Prohibited On Gateways: Except as provided in subsection 0-D of this section, or its successor, no ne:'/billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600') of the right of way of any gateway '_. Special Gateway Provisions: --- 1. If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.71",Tab stops: billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special 0.88",Left gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming biilboard was removed and subject to other subsections P Ra- '.,-S--of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the billvoar -ca---Asize of the billboard beina relocated.Billboards may not be relocated from other areas ont0 a special aate`.vav 2.The d:rncl:ton pu;sl:-a,nt to this se:tcn thou of., ti'un ra 7 t tF. I i!!b 1 t c r:., ,..^`�-��-c—i:rvc-a.-r�:rrV�:Sir?ifir.'�-�j'-6:rcr�: -+?a{(#�.'i.:i`.C,Cc�i:.S billboard do rc!i_ d cr ccrrs-t.;=3t-`. d-:4In -sp= ai--gateway-s,hati-be tradcesf-wit!-1!:i,. p r: -zo' ec-eoch cp cial t'ataw,y.A pent for tha cc.^.ct..;:c.._r-of a „z1iF'�:e : p'. Jc.nt to this s-ection-riust be tat en Get-Lifftrs''vR-tr'=r'Ri'Y'XZ :ikiS�'ri�f=?�''.`iif-lEi:Bt;of tha ncnSvf1fcrrtth g g;llbe-aft - ".I. Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50') in width. C • 4N.Temporary Embellishments: 1.Tz--crcryc^._cllieh—:cs challed cxece2-tenperr_C)iOt)c•t`e • ror,nateed:nay:Lert:0.n•,Tab eoc: 2dyerfcie;-_cec`anyt`Rts-azd—z-.- „z-_- ha'4eo-eeeevd-ve-teek S in nght o.ee`,urt the billloosY4-stA4clu. re, 24Ng-te aperary-=_s beiSshmer.-ehe!l b_iaainteined on 3 btlbeerdeeo•e that tvch2(12)mxn4he Temc;rr:_F^:�,'_'>b�:"` 'fS�lj_t_d • (rar.rttr:Wog:First line:0.2r RO.Height:The highest point of any new'I4bgenG,biilboard cxcludiag-tempc:arf embe!4 sh.mer.tx-shall not be more than: • 4—Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or the maximum height for a • ►er.ntw:index:Let 0.6r,Hanging: pole sign in the applicable zoning district.whichever Is less. Unless 0.2r othereise authorized by State!aw. _—If ..ct-wii# .re' t-(tC0')cf the billboard,moacured from he• (ro eamea:rarer.Lek 0.71 eive<'�'�: et vt wk eR tkc bilibaa ^a:^.t_ a-iffwent-gve4ethan4he oew-bi4bard-iwenty five feet{25')-abcvc pa f-the atmet- • 3-1`the provisions cf sutseGtion R2 of this ccction,or its-sueeesser eslecccticn,apply to more then en:stoat,the new bilbeard may be the k 're of tie tre(2)heighte. P.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. • TO.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square• p.mtattedr went:Let:0.7r,Tab stops: feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300) 08r,telt linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; • •• 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. Formatted:List Paragraph,Numbered+Lae: 1+Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at 1+ 3.Scacino for billboards fullyintecra:ed into the archive ,Alignment:Lert+algreeat:o.zs•+bleep :lure of a buildr.a and 1 1.as not free stendinamay be modified by the Planning Commission as a Formatted:Indent:Left:o.s•,No wleear Conditional Building and Site Desion Review as outlined in section 21A.59 numbering as long as such modifications are consistent with State LawFormatted:Font(Default)HeNetka,12 pt Formatted:Indent:Left:1',Numbered+ level:5+Numbering Style:a,b,c,...+Start at:1+Alignment:Left a Aligned at:2.25+ R Liohtinq:Nighttime illumination of billboards may not glare directly onto the roadway I Indent at 2.5' or sidewalk nor across property linen. Billboards located within Residential.Mixed-Use. Formatted:Font:Helvetic,12 ph Not Bold CN or CB zonlna districts may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight Formatted:Font,(Default)Helvetica,12 pt • and 6 am. Formatted:Indent:Left:1.25" Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetic,12 pt j S:Electronic Billboards: 1. New Electronic Billboard are prohibited.Electronic billboard existing es of the Formatted:Indent:Oft:1•,Numbered+ Level:s♦Numbering Le style:gn d :..+Start date of adoption of this ordinance.are limited to the follolvino: I at:1+Alignment Lert+Rligned at:2.25•+ Indent all 2.5" a. Motion •Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold O Any motion of any kind is prohibited en an electronic sion facer Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,I2 pt Electronic billboards shall have only static text.images,and areohics. Formatted:Indent::Left:1.25' Formatted:Indent:Left:1',Numbered+ b. Dwell time level:5♦Numbering Style:a,b,c,...+Start The text,imaoe.or display on an electronic sion may not chenae more: Lit:1 nt+az:alg2snmene Left+Aligned at:2.25'+ e than once every sixty(60)seconds. Twirl time between subsequent -d Formatted:Foul:HeNeaa,lz pt,Not Bold t=xt.images.cr display shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. - - -------- Formatted:Font:(Default)Helveao,li pt c. Brightness Formatted:Indent:Left:1.25' During dav'ioht hours between sunrise and sunset.luminance shall be• ,,!!Formatted:Indent:Left:1•,Nulnberet no grealrr than 2,500 nits. At all other times.luminance shall be no /,Level:S+Numbering St le:a,b,o,...+Start. greater than 500 nits_ I Indent at:2.5" Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold d. Size, Formatted:Font:(Defeat)Helvetlo,12 pt The maximum size of an electronic sign shall be no lamer than the_ • - billboard as it exists as of the date of the adoption of this ordinance .Formatted:Indent:tort:l.zs• Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt e. Display period Formatted:Indent:Left:I',Numbered+ Electronic billboards may not ba illuminated or lit between the hour of ah 1 5 t Numbering Le See:a, a:_+Start Alb 1 a Alignment:Left t•Aligneds.2.25+ midnight.and 6 am if they are located within 600 Feet of a residential. Bldemat 2.s• mixed-use, downtown, Sugar House Easiness District, gateway Formatted:Font:Helvetia,12 ptut Bold�... Neiahboncood-Commercial, Community Business, or Community Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt Sh000ina Center zoning district. Formatted:Indent:Left:125• Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 pt Formatted:Font:(Defeob)Helvetica,12 pt Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt -- O 0 raill f. Cansols, • Formatted:Indent:Left: 1",Numbered+ Level:5+Numbering Style:a,b,c,...+Start I. All electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer at:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 2.25"+ i Indent at: 2.5",Tab stops: 1.25",Left - • control or other mechanism that automatically controls the sion's briohtness and display period as provided above. Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold j Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt ii. Prior to approval of any permit for to ocerate an electronic sin. -the applicant shall certify that the Sian has been tested and complies with the motion.dwell time.brightness, and other requirements herein. 'ri. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sion shall submit an annual report to the city certifying that the sicn complies with the motion.dwell time. brightness.and other requirements herein. • ( Formatted:List Paragraph 1 . Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A 26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title, or its successor chapter. No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. VU. Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts: Property in all districts other than as III specified in subsection U of this section, or its successor subsection, upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall he landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50) linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. VA'.Xeriscape Alternative: If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section, or its successor subsection,are not developed or, if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property, the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. /. Existing Billboard Landscaping: Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1, 1996. . _ `.=X. Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance: Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance and the Tree Protection ordinance.. Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve, rr,ake minor subsequent amendments to, and record as necessary, such subdivision. AA. Sccc-Frei =.-.. T'r.^r.ro'i;?'J.^.s of:5:s:s-c-t4o.F`rSheTh2rpl}'to cr:e.g:i2d-bi{7^.:-a81'{;. -.�_ oxi:t r.; e - --gt . '4 ° Ne-rt,n-ceff:Ge t to the west sid^.:f!GI-^_ce:t^_ 15;and 'a on the a-rsido of Viste. Re_od c.t-approximato y 11C0 North. E- -sr' d::ied by-this-se c",a!!c4.or pro 5=io,= f th4 e!-;We,=4 a1!aptly to-the-,~<.'e(5):p ;ife biI ocrd-s: Z TGI P,� ry:The�`-ve(5)-rpea;:ied bill acd -share-ssnsideed-as-gateway • b libearsss-fac-The p'urposcs-e;-the-pciety- coicions of slu5sesticn F of this ccc"cn,or it:, • . L an—Laa-r;:".g:T;c-4iv.o. (5) s::nt to the • of this ce iirsin,or its v'J/e:SCr s'.:°=se hcn. 82. cat--l',4andatea-Re':o `:io:i-c+-giWaoards--E':Gett-es-ritl-ri4se-author-ized—har ex+s`:i?g--litte ircis?4ay-not-be-reiosated-except-as-rnanziet;ed-br-th2feq'u'f^ern7 Utch etc=e'er--:(Ord.72-08§2, 2008:Ord.42-08§ 12,2008: Ord. 13-04§§25,26, 27,2004:Ord.25-00§§ 1-3,2000: Ord.83-98§§ 12-14, 1998: Ord. 88-95§ 1 (Exh. A), 1995) S MIN 41) Discussion Draft Proposal which allows transit advertising,eliminates billboard bank, defines electronic billboards and allows limited conversion to electronic billboards when accompanied by a reduction in overall number of billboards. 21A.46.058 TRANSIT SHELTER AND PUBLIC AMENITY ADVERTISING Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shall be allowed only as part of a shelter at a bus stop or public transit stop or station.or a public amenity.pursuant to an approved and executed agreement between the City and a provider of transit shelters or public amenities,which sets forth the regulation of size.content.placement.design and materials used in the construction of said advertising and shelters and public amentity. For purposes of this section,"public amenity"means an item generally located in the • cublic way to provide a public service,which may include.but is not limited to.a kiosk disctavinq way finding sionage or accommodating news racks or other public information.public restrooms.public furniture such as benches or trash receptacles or public services such as bike sharing. The common element is that they are offered for public consumption and provided as contract services to the City. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shall in no case be larger than 48'by 72" and shall be limited to no more than three panels per shelter or kiosk,unless otherwise restricted further by contract. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising is only authorized when located adjacent to non-residential.RB.RMU,or RO zoning districts. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising display may not contain nudity pornography,or indecent or vulgeLpictures,oraphics or language or advertising of illegal products. 21A.46.060:SIGNS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS: The following exterior signs,in addition to all other signs not expressly permitted by this chapter,are prohibited in all zoning districts and shall not be erected: 0 • • A.Animated signs excluding public service signs; B.Any snipe sign; C. Balloons; D. Bench signs;except transit shelter and public amenity advertising specifically authorized by section 21A.48.58 E. Portable signs,except where specifically permitted by district sign regulations; F. Signs overhanging the property line other than signs that are permitted under the sign regulations applicable to each zoning district; G. Signs which are structurally unsafe, hazardous or violate the uniform building code or the uniform fire code; H. Signs located near streets which imitate or are easily confused with official traffic signs and use words such as"stop","look","danger", "go slow", "caution"or"warning", except where such words are part of the name of a business or are accessory to parking lots; and I. Painted signs which do not meet the definition of wall signs. (Ord.53-00§3,2000: Ord.88-95§ 1 (Exh.A), 1995) 21A.46.160: BILLBOARDS: A. Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number. This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. C B.Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located.A billboard does not include transit shelter and cubilc amenity advertising scecifcally authorized by Section 21A.46.058 aniBOARD-BAN . ,,-;".a accou:r'ioi-si`;'���'is = _y-thp city to kccp track of the numbecan4-s;uer_footage-of e9r.e forhm kiliboards-removed-pwsuant-to thic chcg'o. BILLBOARD CR 1T=Ar-2atq-xttow-bdlbc-ord owoeAfifii9Searol-✓3anYaaeeuxt-tile= they o-t;-—:-: r-ar--s:, -g font o r'r :•�^"_ ?�.��-_,r.`oroc�r;billf pda, BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. DWELL TIME The tenath of time that elapses between text,images,or graohics on• (hrmatted:ran:Not Odd an electronic Sian lFammtted:Went wst line:d' -1 Formatted:Font:BON EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use • or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13,1993. • ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign,video display,proiected image.or similar device with text.images.or graphics generated by solid state electronic comoonents. Electronic signs include,but are not limited to.signs that use light emitting diodes(LED).Plasma displays,fiber optics,cr other technology that results in bright.high-resolution text,images.and graohics. Formatted:Indent:Rot One:a GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; • EF.rn.we:indent:Lett:oar 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; • 0 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8. Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10. 500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12. 300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13. North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14. Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15. State Street from South Temple to 2100 South; and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31, 1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1. North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; - (Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.96" 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3. State Street between 600 South and 2100 South; and 4. Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. LUMINANCE The L''Gt jrhl?iri cu:ntity most closely associated with the oercection Formatted:Font:Not Bold of brightness. Luminance is measured in candelas per square meters or"nits"for - Formatted:Tab stops: 0.25",List tab purposes of this ordinance. Formatted:rm _-Font Bold MOTION_ The depiction of movement or chance of position of text.images.or Formatted:Font:Not Bold graphics. Motion sha!I include.but not be limited to.visual effects such as dissc vine and fading text and'maces.running seau ntial text• 0raohic bursts. Tiehting that • • resembles zooming.twinkling,or sparkling.chances in light or color.transitory bursts of light intensity.moving patterns or bands of tight,expanding or contracting shapes,and similar actions, I Formatted:ran:Bold NITS A unit of measure of brightness or luminance. One nit is aural to one • Formatted:Normal,Indent:Left 0.25% candela/square meter. Formatted: Space Before:Auto,After:Auto,Tab stops: 1 0.2r,list tab TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting In increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text.images,and graohics on an electronic • r.r,n.tted:Font:Helvetica,12pt skin to chance toe different text,images,or graohics on a subsequent sion face. Formatted:Tab stops:0.2s,List tab_ C.Unlit On :bra--__ ,.e-.�.b:llkca, _ cn the cutrb_r c`,cxicting billboad:.Billboards r Prohibited:New Billboards are prohibited in Salt Lake City. D.Relocation of Billboards:Existing billboards may be relocated as mandated by the • (Formatted:Indent:Left:0•,wrgbq:0.zs requirements of Utah state law. Additionally.billboards may be relocated front any zoning district to Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial • zoning districts with the restiction that hies are not oriented towards,or located within 600 feet of a gateway or soecial gateway street or residential zoning district. Voluntary relocation shall foliow the prierit,outlined in subsection 21A.46.160.F of' (Fomr.eed:Font:Not BaldLi this ordinance,unless otherwise negotiated with the City. GE.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner • rFormatted:Indent_:Left 0.7r only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars(S111.00). E—Gradita-For-No onfarrri:.g-!f liboard emeea{-A.a•a rcnoewfoeming;:I:b card-is dorrokehod pure-uont to a po'rrit iscu:;4-u4t::c::b:octie..^r cf t la to city:hall cr stn o a bit!boo"d toga-a .tat for c billboard-o•s:cr.T:a _so 'a=."-show ihe-dateef4ie+e nee'.:r.t1 tha caning diat':t of der..c!ishad • 0 • • noncor orriag-taiga^or''.Tho as-dint shall r_ :b'in: c d oreslits4or t ^billboard c cgu _ omega• R—:on-cf a conforming bfilhcard:hull nct ro.u't in-em} billboard credit. F.Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or ror..te.a:Laent Lett.0.7s•,Tab stops: ' downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall he removed first; a.ea•,t.rt � 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or env gateway zrninn district G-MU-GGC-c or on gateway steels shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;and ''.A billboord—ww nnrsy-dwwel=chii:hvc c:aiewc rr.a before rasnariing bilibcorde in c higher-parity;FswVr_r,tho bi.'bcsr s fer-removing-the lower-priority billboard:hall-no'bacome e"eci;ve-f use-in constructing a new 5:'Ibccr d until two(2)til:tccrdc^pee' ad i out:cation O Ft of this section,or it ussessar, ol to Cr gro-tort on thow c :,e''billboard,ore c c?Itod in tho ti9Scord cwr.:r, billboard band-aor..ourt.If r.i tboacd-owoer-has-no-eubsect'cn Fl of this seotiea erito sresocssr nconfernoi g b,''bearm•to(2)cub_0C:^n F^si this costior.,or , ry rc orily !:cards-raay-be-mcdi:a"_in Pro billboard-owne4skilbrnrd-bank account-to-effectuate-tho bitlbeaa credits-cf aeubseetan-14-o€his-seethon,Cr i'c successor,billboard to alloy-the eensfsuctien-of-o nee billbeard-Fo ri=aec of tho cec- two•h all e Pr o(2) hiohor priority biltbscrds credited in tho billhoar d bank a^coont cal bo uccd only onaa to aticoteate-the bi,'lbeardchd:s-far-v-1cwcr prioriti b:'lbeord, G r+a8f3 fard-Cadiis-Any t'i ardsredi' nclace-d-wi hin thirty-six(36)months cf air araabort ch:Rexpiraan-d-boof- =_r fe'uc Cr COO exec pt'hat lower priority crcd°.se v-a4 d-yu.aoart to csbceCdoc F4-e'this cect.'on,sr its sussesyr; shaitex re-and be-of-no`.:o ie'v at_asr-usrvda;a-sysiy(6D)nenths oftheir*-ir?.-;'ct H—Srlboard--Credits 7caasfc•cbta bi'lNeard-ew„er—r,aye!!crc:h:r ita-tcwr ofcr a bitiboorland/o-billbccdcrcdito.T-orfcrrod-bitthocrd^^edit;.•"?- oe- _ .. -c -c4h/pro./I:a. of bves e F-e-'.h'c ccct:o^,c ills-s'wne� O . • shalt-set-bocome o ..4 ,ve vwew crur_i hcy•fro. havo fie�r-sger-efaey billtoard crcdit_da rat extzfid their 5:irty-sir(36)month lie-prev;ael-s,..�e.+c of oa-G-G€;his 'ton,ee-he l:G Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive b•i+,5..rd credite for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. JH.New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 141.Permitted Zoning Districts:New-Relocated billboards may be constructed only in the Ed-ea-identified-an t o.e 9eialbiliboard mop_Manufacturing,Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards,or located within 600 feet of a oateway or special gateway street • cr residential zoning district. 6J.:!-_,:Billboard ie'ocaticn or remodeling Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an • 1Form.naa:Indent:Lett on• application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building • Fannettedt rat Left:O.96•,Tab stops:—1 code as adopted by the city;and 1.17•,Lett • b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. • M Jee-Gf-3i' Credits: a,-Aga::billboard pa:ra..-shall-ony� a3;t-heapp;+,ant-has-Ntthne 3 Lr.rm.rua:rmenru:k 0.71. 1 • credits of a euf:iclort-numberof-equrra fec'and bi"or; sT2—aliew seastrustien-ef tiro sow-bii;beard- • C . m 2.I'.e.,the perra.t fer the cf e:ew-t-i l4__ iro• orr the_ ..i.,.. a4rataistra`.r staikteductt-from the►,;lit and ma:r's °•cer1 t:'f a.T'r. $q afe f octa c cf the r eti'!biltbc:r c hi Formatted:Indent:Left: 1.08",Tab stops: _ 1.25",Left . b. Ther-rira?ter of t s-w.cse -fastcs•-e. cr sti,3F,.. .--thi.:-iew brkcard-ases less than the-entire ic Ia e bit o L fced-its (Formatted:Indent:Left: O. 1" ccr drar-ip -t th-th{e-n•l"b ei-Gt-Nttvetas. , 'nofm -ing-sware-feeu'gehall-r- hpan'irt44e V!:tLearu :Frf bank..' • (Formatted:Indent:First line: 0.25" Billboards Prohibited On Gateways: Except as provided in subsection OD of this section,or its successor, no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway street. • • Special Gateway Provisions: 1. If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the `Formatted:Indent:Left: a.7r,Tab stops: billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special L0.88•,' J gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to c subsections it Q, R as i S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the talboard-bar,ksize of the billboard being relocated.Billboards may not be relocated from other areas onto a special gateway 2.T r a iia�-:` .'i-F.r� -fsa na$ci,.."`:.G?-c�'.-1=-�v:r n,1=i�::�_.i;to t .: net 4 ,roe-biitbc:.L fired tt?�s c ,e�bit!bcerr1 bitbo,~£Ρd6rnalish d-er ccgatrustsd`Nithhin-a-sreoi2l--giatew'ay shall`ba w!th.'n sep oca c bank acco" nt`er_aci- pec:a!get:v.ay.A perf:'.'.t far the e'.:ett,nef a ro v-brt;`na `i pu.suar't t3-t`r:5 S3 -,..,...et t ta:4$r4 cut within tht7I- !x( -nne ti- cf the.-de elitien-cf-i.``a-ner. cnf3lming . Maximum Size: The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50') in width. • Q_i.Temporary Embellishments: 1.Tccperaryacbci sar;aeetcsho'tr-e ese ae;es-p ttsny) the • wm.ro.e:indent:Left sir,Tab stops: adverising-Sass cf an/kit;beard;and-stsell-Fet-e;_:md;;ve;aerf }ia hcight per,ran above the-bi,,�.nw.n.r.strutsye, 2:Ne-t wperarg salae:liehrae4tsl>a:l be r.aiateinedc-rra-bii:b_ard-more-hen beaive(12j nths- Temocrary Embellishment;are crohibded (Formatted:Went:Mal line o.zs• R0.Height:The highest point of any new:,":ec-r=.billboard cxciadic,tcrrprarj errbattiahrnents-shall not be more than: 4-Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or the maximum height for a Formatm:Indent Left o.ba•,Hanging: pole sign in the applicable zoning district,whichever is less. Unless o.zr otherwise authorized by State law. 2-If C st."_t. i•ttir,.,T„' ,.—,4.. . rei t ir0)c`the billhccry, r:'!`:ccl the• 1 Fmmrtt.d:IMerc Left:0.71" c§cct at the-point zt which the billbocrd-ieferpeadiselar to the stror t,is cn a-differentrrade-than the f_et(25')above-the pavcr:xnelev^_tlonsf-thekeet- • ;rhf e prow err of-ubcectio-r P2 of thf suction,cr its cuccceaec eke .c=.---Facet-the-Fi.-.,e.:-omoowtnr.,.s:3iriayi 44-e higho.cf Ste too(2)heights. • sP.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. TO.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square. Fenmatted:went:Left 0.7t•,Tab stow feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300) oss_teft linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; • 2. Large Signs: Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300) square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800) linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. 3.Soacinq for electronic billboards fully integrated into the architecture of a building and not free standing,may be modified by the Plannina Commission as a Conditional Building and Site Design Review as outlined in section 21A.59,as Iona as such modifications are consistent with State La VI R Lighting: Nighttime illumination of billboards may not glare directly onto the roadway or sidewalk nor across property lines. Billboards located within Residential. Mixed-Use, Formatted:Indent:First line: 0" CN or CB zoning districts may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt and 6 am. Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left 0.5", Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, c,...+Start at: 1+Alignment:Left+Aligned S: Electronic Billboards: j at: 0.25"+Indent at: 0.5" 1. Electronic Billboard are prohibited exceot when converting an existing billboard to = electronic as follows: Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left: 0.75",First line: 0" • Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left: 0.5", a) A Billboard may be converted to an electronic billboard in Manufacturing. � Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, c,at: 0.25"+Indent at: 0.5"+Startat 1+Alignment:Left+Aligned Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the ... restriction that they are not oriented towards.or located within 600 feet of a Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt gateway or soecial gateway street or residential zoning district. Provided that four times the non-electronic square footage of the new electronic billboard is Formatted:Font:(De Helvetica,12 pt removed elsewhere in the City. Formatted:Font:(Deffault)ault)Helvetica,12 pt • Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt b) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards on Gateway-streets, j Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt provided that five times the non-electronic square footage of the new Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.75",First line: 0" ) electronic billboard is removed along,the same Gateway.or removed from Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left: 0.5", another gateway only if sufficient square footage is not available on the host Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, + c,...+Start at: 1+Alignment:Left+Aligned gateway. I at: 0.25'+Indent at: 0.5' Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt 1 c) Billboards may be cc;r:erted to electronic billboards in Special Gateways Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt provided that fair times the non-electronic seuare footage of the new Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt I electronic billboard is removed on the same Special Gateway or removed from another soecial catevvav only if suf icient sauare footage is not available Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt on the host special gateway and the new electronic billboard is fully integrated Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left: 0.75",First line: 0" into the architecture of a building and is not free standing.. _ Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left: 0.5", Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, d) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards in Downtown or Sugar c,...+Start at:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned House Business District zoning districts provided that five,times the non- I at: 0.25"+Indent at: 0.5" r Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt I electronic sauare footage of the roeur�tearonic billboard is removed in env Downtown.Suaar House Business District,residential,neichborhood Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt commercial.Community Business,Community Shopping Center.gateway.or Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt 0 • mixed-use zoning district and the new electronic billboard is fully integrated Formatted:Fort.(Default)ilelveoa,12 pt into the architecture of a building and is not free standing. • Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 Pt Formatted:Indent:left:0.5",Space After: 2. Motion 10 Pt,Line spaeng:MUtiple 1.151i,No bullets Any motion of any kind is prohibited on an electronic sign face. Electronic croambe11g billboards shall have only static text,imaces.and graphics. Formatted:Font:Helvetia,a pt,Not Bold Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 pt 3. Dwell time Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 pt The text.image.of display on an electronic sian may not change more than once Formatted:Font:Helvetia,12 pt,Not Bold every sixty(60)seconds. Twirl time between subseeuent text,images.or display Formatted:Fat:(Default)Helve e 12 pt shall not exceed 0.25 seconn,. _ - 4. Brightness Formatted:Font:Helvetia,12 Pt,Not ec'd During daylight hours between sunrise and sunset.luminance shall be no greater `com itior Font:(Detour)Helvetia,12 pt than 2.500 nits. At all other times,juminance shall be no greater than 500 nits. 5. Size Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold The maximum size of en electronic sian shall be no larger than the billboard it Formatted:Font:(oeraon)Helvetia,12 pt replaced or shall rot exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. whichever is less, Formatted:Font:HtlMIa,12 et 6. Display period Formatted Font Helvetia,12 pt,Na Bold Electronic billboards mu not be iih:minated or lit between the hours of midnight. Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 ptpt and 6 a.m if thee are located within 600 Feet of a residential, mixed-use Formatted:Font:(Default)HelM1o,12 pt downtown,Sugar House Business District,aatewav,Neighborhood Commercial Formatted:Fora:(Dradt)HeNelo,1z pi Community Business.or Community Shopping Center zoning district. Formatted:Font:naFeuo,izpt 7. Controls Formatted:Font:Helvetia,12 pt,Not Bold a. All electronic pion shall be equiooed with an automatic dimmer control or Formatted:Fo::lcox�)Ho'oeu�a,t2 p: ether mechanisln that automatically controls the sicn's brightness and display period as provided above. b. Prior to eooroval of any permit for to excrete an electronic nice.the applicant shall certify that the sign has been tested and complies with the rnot on.dwell time,brightness.and other reuuiremente herein. c. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sign shall submit an annual recoil to the city certifying that the Sian complies with the motion,dwell time. brightness.and other requirements herein. [Formatted:list Paragraph INT.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. • C VU.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts: Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection U of this section,or its successor subsection, upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50) linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible, evenly on each side of the billboard. ','V.Xeriscape Alternative: If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or, if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the properly or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may L:uthorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. X .Existing Billboard Landscaping: Existing billboards shall comply with the 0 landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1, 1996. YX.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance and the Tree Protection crdl;:ar: ;7Y.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve, make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary, such subdivision. tA.Gpcc ctp_r, =s: '�r0P 4.�Ct..• ti mac:=.is•. ra - ,s'k-n 4.a.r.....L.�Zs�:r,c It .-:'c::+._G rr�Fia�.. :?-f:r ,r.^_;r� .r�r�:.c��.�-.. _�_-n., Il...£�-ci-.. - _.,::.. �3:.r{1)C�'atlag iil!t:oats t e-t:•: 1 En^_ T;:,rt i a::44E00".art a tha .;s :-Q- �::ia',:ac!,'lt:3::". —s- -ct..ife.cf-NAet:3��-ro ,(�. ,:..,a•_!7 I.TO Ncrth. S • '0 (�.. •-t_L 1�t'•,' nl _-..J- 't^ _ct! !! al... _ cf at. 1.Z�,1{.,�1,L�•I�IT,.?f=r:,l. It:�yt: c � :iG"��rYi�l-� 7-�:.1�!t�.G�.+•�n�iG^L�.�.�•s.'' .•.•^:.way I� �.�����...�.r�:�.. F cf.F.i.^.:: in,or.;s cf 48 tat. .. . _ tee. _ t!sn Of Ei:l2c:f Ex_:rt 2s,t`c�:vi3-2 1.:`.`:,r:2z`:72... Utah s".:4.2law. (Ord. 72-08§2,2008: Ord.42-08§ 12,2008:Ord. 13-04§§25,26, 27,2004:Ord.25-00§§ 1-3,2000: Ord.83-98 §§ 12-14, 1998:Ord. 88-95§ 1 (Exh. A), 1995) e111111k C Information being provided for the February 7, 2011 subcommittee meeting: February 7. 2011 Planning Commission Subcommittee agenda Review of Administration position — Frank Gray Comparison of Salt Lake City to Salt Lake County — zoning maps Review of Gateway concept. Discussion • Initial inventory of neighborhood billboards 2/3/11—not field checked—not all inclusive Type Board owner. Land owner Residentially zoned billboards 1290 East 700 South Reagan Reagan 760 South 1300 East Reagan Joseph Shore �-' 2708 south 900 East Reagan Reagan 300 North 900 West Reagan Reagan 1040 West 200 South (freeway) Reagan Reagan RB Residential Business billboards 380 E 900 South Reagan Three Eighty LLC CN Neighborhood Commercial billboards 432 S 900 East Reagan Janda 1314 S 500E Reagan Hogle O314E 1300 South Reagan Reagan 1706 s 900 East Reagan Robinson CB Community Business billboards 2348 E Parleys Reagan Neerings 2320 E Parleys Reagan Cochrane 252 S 1300 E (University HD) Reagan Penelope 227 E 2100 S Reagan 21 and Roberta Ilc 2219 South 700 East Reagan North Building Ilc 2191 S 700 East Reagan Miller 2208 S 900 East Reagan McDonald 912 North 900 West (freeway) Reagan Shree Historic District 276 W 700.North (Capitol Hill) Reagan NTS investments More cities ban digital billboards - USATODAY.com Page 1 of 2 •Cars•Auto Financing•Event Tickets•Jobs•Real Estate Online Degrees•Business Opportunities•Shopping Search How do I find it? Subscnbe to paper .*D1 USA MOW Home News Travel Money Sports Life Tech Weather News D Nation Census Troops at Risk Lotteries More cities ban digital billboards Videos you may be interested in Updated 3/24/2010 5:22 PM I Comment I Recommend E-mail I Save I Print I Reprints&Permissions IEMI . . By Larry Copeland,USA TODAY Share As the USA cracks down on texting while Yahoo!Buzz driving,more than a dozen cities around the nation have banned what some consider a • Add to Mixx r V`not V'tt v vvI` growing external driving distraction:digital ' billboards. Facebock preparations in... _ ry ;wow rill -t gf Digital billboards change images every four to Twitter More v dv s . - 10 seconds,flashing multiple messages from - one or more advertisers on the same sign. More Opponents such as John Regenbogen of • Subscribe Most Popular E-mail Newsletter Scenic Missour deride them as"television on i / a stick." myYahco Sign up to get: 4. 1111Ege Several communities have banned digital iGoogle By Tim A Parker,for USA TODAY 9 Top viewed SLvi1t5,pr:Ot.' A billboards outright,the most recent being More gallerir> r'tn:and OOuntty UMW St Louis is amonga growingnumber of&ties Denver earlier this month.Other places have posts of the day instituting a moratorium on digital and other electronica put a moratorium on them pending a federal billboards,at least until if sees an extensive review by study on whether they distract drivers.At least two other cities MOST the Federal Highway Administration. and two states are studying moratoriums. POPULA ——----------- •�i<S t sign all 1:w USA TODAY E-mail nevrstette s MAP:Digital billboard laws across the USA DIGITAL BILLBOARDS HIT DISTRACTIONS:States go after texting drivers ROADBLOCK LAHOOD:FocusDriven combats distracted driving • PDigital billboards along public roadwa •face "The digital billboards are a distraction,"says Fred Wessels,an Chargedhace Chores PremiumSetmeCont Ads by Gooa!a -Y 9 for Content on Your increasing regulations.Among the state and alderman in St.Louis,which just approved a one-year Landline Bill?File a Claim Today! • local governments limiting them: moratorium on new such signs in that city. •.,-wait-n-C'-'CIassActicr coin "It they weren't distracting,they wouldn't be doing their job,"says Max Ashburn,spokesman for Scenic America,a national non- CLICK HERE for a larger map. profit group that seeks to limit billboards. Research on the issue is mixed.A Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study in 2007,financed by the billboard industry,found that they aren't distracting.A review of studies completed last year for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,however,concluded that they"attract drivers'eyes away from the road for extended, demonstrably unsafe periods of time." "There's no doubt in my mind that they are not a driving distraction,"says Bryan Parker,an executive vice president for Clear Channel Ci..' which owns about 400 digital billboards.He cites industry-sponsored studies of collisions before and after digital billboards were installed in Albuquerque,Cleveland,and Rochester,Minn.,that found no correlation. "We've looked at that very carefully,"says Bill Ripp,vice president of Lamar Advertising,which owns 159,000 billboards,1,150 of them digital."We don't want to cause any unsafe conditions for drivers." Digital billboards area fast-growing segment of the outdoor advertising market.Since a federal rule against them was eased in 2007,the number of digital billboards has more than doubled to about 1,800 of 450,000 total billboards.At least 39 states allow them.They cost an average$200,000 to$300,000 apiece,according to the industry group G'_._ .s.i')As,,cial:cn cf America. In 2007,the Federal Highway Administration relaxed a rule against digital billboards,saying they don't violate the 1965 Highway Beautification Act's ban on"intermittent,""flashing"or"moving"lights.FHWA is researching the signs,using eye-trackers inside volunteers'vehicles to determine whether drivers look at the billboards and for how long.The study is to be completed this summer. There is little current data on whether greater distractions for drivers come from in-vehicle or external factors.The Department of Transportation,which is leading the national push against texting while driving,says that 5,870 people were killed in distracted driving crashes in 2008.But the agency has not determined how many of those deaths involved an electronic device,another distraction such as eating or tuning the radio,or something outside the vehicle. You might also be interested in: O Are.cholesterol drugs OK for healthy people? (USATODAY.com in News) Lake Superior's great mystery (USArDAY.com in News) Is focus on distracted driving going down the wrong road? (USATODAY.com in Money) Car navigation,radio touch-screens can distract drivers (USATODAYcom in Money) OCities and States that restrict electronic billboards(as reported by USA today 3/24/10) Ban Hawaii ' San Francisco Montana Denver Gilbert AZ Pima County AZ Amarillo TX Ft.Worth Dallas • Galveston Houston Austin St Petersburg FL Knoxville TN ® Durham NC • Vermont Maine Moratorium Los Angeles El Paso San Antonio St Louis Minnetonka MN Considering Atlanta Minnesota Michigan O Residentially Zoned Billboards Billboard Adjacent Sidwell Zone Lot size Lot Improve- Tax on land Tax on Bill- Tax on Total tax Owner- Notes location property number in acres value8 meet value,/ and land,/ board billboard', on land ship (sq B) (total) improve- (billboard value,/ and mentsll sites) billboard. 1290 East - 16-8-231- R-2 0.07 $3,900 - - $56.' $105 SI." $57.m Reagan, Substandard lot*. 700 South 014 (3,049.2) .William+ Potential park. 1280 East 16-8-231- R-2 0.05 and $26,400 - $208.' - - - - Bastow, Multi-family 700 South 013 and 0.16 $62,200 $89,400 $1,199.59 Jeffery and 704 015 (9,147.6) ($178,000) ($I,408.") South 1300 East 760 South - 16-8-231- RMF- 0.14 $51,800 - - $745' S35 $0.50 $745." Shore, Lot capable of 1300 East 032 30 (6098) Joseph accommodating one housing unit. - 766/776/ 16-8-231- RMF- 0.10/ 554,000 - $776.00 - - - - Shore, 7-11/ 780 South 025/026 30 0.14/0.16 $72,600 - $1,044.° Joseph commercially 1300 East /027 (17,424) $124,500 $36,100 S2,310." used residential (5287,200) ($4,131.") land. - 756 South 16-8-231- RMF- 0.14 $55,700 $215,100 $2,142" - - - - Fettled, Multi-family/ 1300 East 023 30 (6093.4) ($270,800) Raymond non-conforming units. 2708 South - 16-20- R-1- 0.11 $35,700 - - $282." S315 $4." $287." Reagan, Substandard lot• 900 East 381-007 7000 (4791.6) William+ 2712 South 16-20- R-1- 0.21 $40,300 $215,500. $2,024." - - - - Abassi, Duplex to the 900 East 381-017 7000 (9147.6) ($255,800) Masoud south/non- conforming unit 300 North - 8-35-404- R-1- 0.17 $25,500 - $366." $224 $3." $370." Reagan, Lot capable of 900 West 001 7000 (7405.2) William+ accommodating one housing unit - 868 West 8-35-404- R-I- 0.09 SI8,100 $91,000. 5863.i' - - - - Zovkovic, Home to cast/ 300 North 002 7000 (3920.4) ($109,100) Ginna substandard lot' - 334 North 8-35-258- R-I- 0.09 S20,100 $58,800 $624." - - - - Mendez, Home to north/ 900 West 001 7000 (3920.4) ($78,900) Sapai substandard lot* 1040 West - 15-02- RMF- 0.25 $19,200 - - $250" No No tax $250." Price,Edith Lot capable of 200 South 178-021 35 (10,390) value listed accommodating a listed triplex - 1044 West 15-02- RMF-' 0.19 S40,000 $19,300 S0.' - - - - LD Church Church 200 South 178-020 35 (8276.4) (tax exempt)• of Christ - 1030 West 15-02- RMF- 0.12 $16,200 $41,500 $0.' - - - - Kohart, 200 South 178-022 35 (5227.2) ($57,700) Francine N •A single housing unit may be built on substandard lots if they were legally subdivided. . +Owner of both billboard and land • ,/Values provided by Salt Lakc County Assessor and Treasurer • 0 Billboards Go Interactive With Help of WiFi-WSJ.com#printMode Page 1 of 2 ilE._-:usts•Csryessr,- mTuuseSffmntt THE FUTURE OF BUSINESS Request an ECO■I1omicS Invitation MARCH 2 4,2011 ECOnomics.wsj.com ••CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL CAPITAL 6acara Reso71 Sara 6E t a'a.Ci. Dow Jones Reprints This copy is for your persons,non-commerdal use only.To Greer pr esenlelion-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues.clients or customers,use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit wow.djrep,its.con See.sample.print in POF for ret. Other a reprint of this anic:e ry ee 'IHE WAIL SINE JOURNAL ws+aa. TECHNOLOGY I FEBRUARY 4,2011• Billboards Join Wired Age Wi-Fi Lets Once-Static Posters Interact With Smartphones and Their Owners BySPENCER E.ANTE Billboards and posters are one of world's oldest forms of advertising.Now,some marketers and start-ups say wireless technology could revamp outdoor advertising by bringing interactivity and pay-for-performance models. ' Over the last few months,Google Inc.,Nokia Corp.and France :.unr-rr-r� Telecom SA's Orange have run pilot advertising campaigns that let a 0 t wlr iar \ person interact with posters in bus stops,phone booths,train stations , ro.v }'•i ; N ,,. _ and airports in cites including New York and London. 0 �b.,•• C:,F-; .f . So far,companies are using the posters as a way to distribute wireless _ '- applications or ringtones for smarphones.But outdoor advertisers t` and marketers say the ads could also be used to distribute games, video ads,coupons and even as a way to sell physical or digital goods Mabeeand services. An Interactive ad for Nokia in a London phone booth 'You have to wait here.You don't have to be bored,"read the poster urges passers-by to download an app on the spot. for a Google campaign,which ran in Boston-area bus stops.The poster let a person download Google's mobile app through a free Wi-Fi router installed in the location. "It's an old-school media that has been around for hundreds of years but we've dressed it up and made it fresh,"said Zohar Levkovitz,chief executive and co-founder of Amobee,Inc.,a start-up based in Redwood City,Calif.,that has developed the technology and begun selling it to advertisers. The billboard also gives users free Internet access at the bus stop.People can download the advertised app through their cellular connection as well,but Amobee says using the Wi-Fi connection allows people to avoid any data charges. Interactive outdoor advertising is still unproven on a large scale and the business model is in an early stage of development,but Amobee says it is in discussions with other large multinational companies to roll out new campaigns. EXPERIENCE WSJ PROFESSIONAL Starting March 1,European wireless operator Orange will spend several hundred thousand dollars to run an advertising campaign Editors'Deep Dive:New Tech,Analytics Yield across 300 sites in London and New York City for its ON wireless • Targeted Ads application that runs on Google's Android wireless operating system. MEDIAPOST.COM • A consumer waiting at a bus stop can hold his or her smartphone near How Media Multitasking Fuels'Brand Response'Advertising the poster and download the app over Wi-Fi technology or by sending ADVERTISING AGE a text message to the company. Marketers Suit Up With Twitter and Facebook for Billboards Go Interactive With Help of WiFi-WSJ.com#printMode Page 2 of 2 The interactive ads have allowed the company"to more accurately co measure the effectiveness of our marketing spend"and made the "campaign experience more personal and engaging for our customers,"said Jean Donadieu de Lavit,chief marketing officer of an 'Social Bowl' Orange subsidiary that develops wireless hardware and software. STRATEGY New Analytics Tools Help Businesses Nigel Emery,director of marketing and business development for Understand Foursquare Cemusa North America,a large outdoor advertising company that has worked with Amobee to place ads in New York City bus stops,said Access thousands of business sources not available on the free web.Learn More traditionally outdoor ads are sold for a lump sum covering a certain time frame.In New York City,Mr.Emery said the company charges $5,000 to$8,00o per bus shelter for a month. The interactive ads,however,are built around a performance-based model.Advertisers pay only when a customer interacts with the ad,much like Internet search advertising works.The cost per download can range from$1 to$3 depending on the client,the budget,the offer and the location of the posters,said Harry Dewhirst,an advertising executive at Amobee.The ads run until a set number of downloads are reached. Cemusa has yet to fully embrace the model,however.Instead it sold the outdoor ad spaces to Amobee,which is reselling them in a performance-based model to advertisers.But Mr.Emery said the idea holds a lot of promise."If advertisers have positive results they will do more of it,"said Mr.Emery."I love the idea and think it will attract more money into the outdoor medium." Over the last few months,Nokia said it got a good return on its$i million interactive poster campaign that ran in the U.S.,U.K,South Africa and Australia promoting the app for its Ovi app store. • "Get apps and much more for your Nolda,turn on your Bluetooth now,"read the poster,which displayed a Nokia smartphone and icons of apps for Facebook,Foursquare,Angry Birds and other programs. A consumer could download the app through Bluetooth technology or by sending a text message.During the so weeks that the campaign ran,Craig Hepburn,global director of digital for Nokia,said 1.5 million people interacted with the poster and tens of millions of people saw it. Mr.Hepburn said the campaign helped drive registrations for the Nokia Ovi app store and was relatively cheap compared with the cost of display and search ads on the Internet.And in an age when advertisers are facing tight ad budgets,the campaign was welcomed because it helped him show that Nokia was getting results for its money. "We've been really impressed with the kind of performance and the engagement,"said Mr.Hepburn.As a result,he is already mulling new campaigns and plans to move more of his ad budget into this area. • Copyright 2011 Dow Jones&Company,Inc.All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal,non-commerdal use only.Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law.For non-personal use or to order multiple copies,please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit wwsedjreprints corn O 123VI R 2 1N R1 W R 1 E R 2 E ROE • ..,77 Z . Salt Lake County Legend Jordan River .-- °N.d. Freeways ... , * , -, '---, 410D NORTH ..-.---/ Townships A "\l‘Z.-.., - 3500 NORTH -,,, 1. I ;,..S. -:]. :IP Lt '-..- -,..)._I 2700 NORTH • -..... -,"s; , *IOC, -.../ 1._, A, I ' . . i I r r-----1. ,..: \ 2100 NORTH $7- r...___... I . c„4,.. :,_ -7:1 . . f. • 1300 NORTH I----' .., , r t ./Emigration zi '..) 700 NORTF1 ... Salt Lake City I /* Canyon .• (." , ..r. • ( ....-•/ . BASE UNE N ,'I - --, 700 SOUTH '\, . . , L12 /,i I 1300 SOUTH I ) I . , ,,, 2100 SOUTH IL. \ •*"I .'',Y ) 2700SOUTH Magna . 1—••/ . \ , West \ Valley So h SaltrtY-t' ) 3500 SOUTH eN. / City L. e City I 4100 SOUTH ( 1----t— 'IP ..1.... \ 1 Millcreek 0 - I L___, . r-- , mcl.:,....._1 , mu, ,..;\Holladay „--,........„,.."\_,.../-/.. --.\"-----...-C1'\ l Y City 4700 SOUTH 5400 SOUTH r, k ri. KearrfraY-icj°i t 6200 SOUTH . 7000SOUTH Cottonwood — . West ,'Mcidvale Heights I .., ‘.. 7800 SOUTFI City 1--. ?.?---1.1‘ tr Jordan ( ) Copperton if City -2:1 i••--.. •"r1-.. A - e„ ....t •Sandy 'if cv Ma 1--- SOUTH 9400 SOUTH i' .K _......—_,1 ___ _, city.p t7i, .rce: k.,Tenien($-.• 10200 SOUTH \ South Jordan City _ .\e.4,.. 511:Trr-",--1 2 Mite City. 4‘'r".--. .:,': • 11000 SOUTH F- 1 --- -- 'of/ --. 1 . hrioo sousru C7,----------------- T"----r—r-LI r. 12600 SOUTH i - IL Riverton City i ,i\., (III ----I Draper 13400 SOUTH City (.. 1 f C-1 \-, Bluffdajle-it ri) '—'j,.. '',2/--' 14200 SOUTH \ _ ,.... Herriman City t\..0 15000 SOUTH / l -1 / .., , , .... , --., 15800 SOUTH .,_ \ 16600 SOUTH N / •, I % • \., 17400 SOUTH 1 i........ i '%- •' 18200 SOUTH w --. — E t III ,'i3 - rg i g 'g g 'g '‘A 'A 'A. '‘A . S Fe" S 1 a 1 a a a 1 1 I 6 W: 1 1 1 1 Pi I 1 I I i I ri '' ri t; REID J.DENMAN P.L.S. May 2010 • il -11P , FIf. - - f I�11I11 / E'TGon Canyon !g • ilt A �Wd Township 1111 n Sall Leke City �� r���11 n11■1 �■�cei■w■1�1k L.lIIIIII11 111■11■1■■111►1 �1�■1�m sow,sarc . `f _ : � `� West.Valley City �l: Lafce'City �, Y i E101 uniu WAIINIIIMIlikillileis L • • 1 T.aylorsyille _atoms ollada a 6 l '4,1 , CityI ...11 U r ila 1 i' g kw Fit Cottonwood { �' IIII IdRa_'Aii tielghts City' _ � "' T�� {-. w`' u 1 i West Jordan City �� bG - �+r :.- -■■■u■�/•n Sandy City ` .'{ .I+�'� rk'''/ )1 _ �'"'j Nta. cevv rto„ �I 11111 fit'. y -- '_ -__, .'.r. Town sew,.rvo South Jordan City 714, . allEri it * - ; = , Riverton II >' \ City sac�w«e ' conr:,...y i.-. ! � Draper Legend \‘.7_,,,,,,,_____..er.} � City —nop.r�, ���' TOWNSHIPS COLNCIIS Herriman Bhgfdale CM ca'v`n'" Q nmc....o.16,,,, City I Cilyl 0 r:gn,an CI., ®cm. .` / Q at.mot in,,,,,„a © ram.-wr QWT Calm hh shin, n O ttuimepoeed.Nee IE:3uneCoy 'F" SALT LAKE COUNTY 4.v,II Townships and Community Councils s lT t..r • ... i ? SALT LAKE CITY i 1 2 -i 31 i II OFFICIAL BILLBOARD 100 MORTII ..'.\ t:, AND GATEWAY MAP i ,.....„,„,,, , _ inuniu:tolt miliiimmir — • ,.= . .:?..4, , -. ..7,......•,,,,,.. li -A,. 4 . MA • • ....\ , 111•1111.1111111:11:1 M . : ' \1111111111111.WA i .4. \\A. 2 , 4.-i ,,..,,,,1111111 liN 't 1 Jr ,FIZ 1,:lir.,1 _IL xt, ,,,,N, a;,.....0.4, 1 . till 7 111111111M101 i\kl‘-.sliP,., , 144.1f , ..._.. .N, ,, ,...... --,..=_-.,--,-..__, 1 .11111.-A t i.....itiVill...---I ilL31.01! ''.., 1/4,,•; -... ..R.,,.....)r `111111111r 1 -Itldm V., 1 •05kflill 4%iiiti 'IN.-, .4 :4-yt-'fif4'• t tt . g E:13 - Illii..,.0.7111111/. • ... lillilli ,._...7.7,•,..:• ' 1 I V IIIIII NIEL- ---i . 1 WINE 21kv.v-it Nik.-,•;1!.:,".-.-.1 iiii :466:11111RarEEBni a.--- ,_,....B.;;L.:,,1:::4x,.•= . _:k % _ . , k:Ea, -1.1r.IT191HIN III- II N Ir.rwl., ava:.:.;441,:. 7. • 51E12 Kr' 111N10-' g:1+:1:21,%:-..::117:-....,...,*s.T4...,.., . RSTATESO j.Mille11711111( ... 4 , "iirall'ill iZill' ,,,N,,, I-in -." ---__ - I ' ,, t r", ..!.:issimrrar 1.LE'II II U .• • • , Aiy;'.0g1". - --- -+11-4%iiikallayli 0 ... , , a wimp-4001,w_.,Aimet:.2.7-,,_ Ell/d0111 • tit ,. CILUEICHEIIELEM.D0,5! 4 A '' M1.7"-,.,,,e' . -, - I' - ,„..-_,--10111111 . ..Sii iCIDDIF ig " I;DIEIDEMEIttuommun. ---'''Vc- l' -01'....'''llitniiiiiimi-....-ymElpt :13 ,TDElian2EIREBEEID ..1 , /.. MI . f miliLlir- AC/0X*, wir•e•sin In it IL.W1 IF1 '11111.- ,TiNiF1 rirTi9e20511, lik .. .••• ,/, . . 0" l_r ,i' ,. .M1-__Wr,!`„ N., ., iitwatiritrwfr:;...541111P1.11laM111.11111N _WrEpa $ . —Rii.ii•Rovile: 011 Viilatia. vii=: irr"73,777,-rilL4Emm _ of., 4 IIPIIMIVit-.24t:ts - _G e -i" ‹C ,-- killiillik:4, 17-1,7_41'_.=:=17t:741!1,..4 II g OM k rill[ III• !! ., AllIDORIDATIQELEIREIEifik_ sim- i lig -• TINW11.14-1 is'---:,-*:4*, :i.T.----F ;;Igy"..4-7E.mq111 ,!!„fig I ritEENIIIIIMEI„„im-erii.ba- r.7, --:::_,:".• . .- i - .lor !gown iam-AN• g.p El iiiidocilh-r-,____ =g,.,.., pultipildkfil6ww.s=;=t Afar tr...1 • ._ _ * , mo; insiumi 1, i • , , ,.11ird,,, ,,,... 4.‘,----4-,vgill .i. =r4orii dilliim.,:.- rpol: -...,•-4:--trp,-, =NU) ' - — . '!rg-II4.: 1-4 t‘'-vartlin- t! ri-'4V-Inf. ( -.2$17i1R HilioA.T1,=„----":41.ASsErir.4\- , . _. CUIFORNIAAVE ' , 1 CALIFORNIAAV ___, I -lizitIl...,1 ki k- -1'.11-1 P-1.116:141 :I ! tRitC1-Vil i: tz...-e,.-whInt--11-011f.-z_--_,t,.-zr.f.iii-lproar.11.,--r-oh —' -I - '"- -6' 1 -I.'Pi, A NM-it 4-fittiigi. 121 .1,,r.41„ni 1 III m . 'TLI"1...0 frill: '°151110;q01-0 I i'''-,'.1-7iii,!:.•!.',"miiilitztripii,_777;!--a7lEtEittorixt-i,r1,4,1*7 ;Iii- , • tra_i_r— _ ,...100.= _ 1, ,_.: 7,:ii,.,,, ,, „ ii. • •-,- -.II.J_!_ _ . ... •=11.0111.3.1 • 1 121.=: .liir 11111111:=1. 1-.12::,..M;....rnm , '' . .10A,Nir — wiia 11- . ,..Lo=i01E.,,,,QT. ,,-,..... .._,...1 .,-k ,r nari. ID s' ----) MO SOUTH ._, 11111. I 1111111100,0 ii.11j , - tirtaw .: F4-4=111.i ni1=1:12.. I-.:= INV= Legend )1 ,,----- 7 74--ziltrilt_Mi .... _. -,..“"--,--- N kir"--11111r911114ffiritr-tmi- 1 ‘i loin., . ,,,.,.......... „p.u..... A6*100 — Gateway 1 w-.50-- E m winviospqmingim • ----- Special Gateway g -*147-1,17iSio 1 - .June 2001 Billboards Permitted S oP iiiii,ni MAP LEGEND=I Historic Preservation 11111 CN,Neighborhood Commercial ICS,Cornmunity Shopping FP,FootNils Protection FR-2,FR-2/21,780 Foothils Residential fAirll FR-3,FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential IIIII I,Institutional IIIII OS,Open Space =PL,Public Lands 1 1 OS R-1-12000,Single Family Residential I 1 R-1-5000,Single Family Residential I I R-1-7000,Single Family Residential !1!1R-MU,Residential/Mixed Use --, ..•. .„. , ,_ 0 *•' . , i I I I I 1 I I Mil RMF-35,Moderate Density Multifamily Residential 4 • =RMF-45,Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential j ,-; ** 1 1 MI RMF-75,High Density Multifamily Residential ri _...„1111rill 191111010411 .4 tsrt, 4110,11 I I=I REEEEEE I - 'I RO,Residential/Office / 'r, c Al PS% ir 1 . , Oa SR-1,Special Development Pattern Residential .14 IM Ul,Urban Institufional '-r, 0, ;. . WWII.liklINARN, . Aft•r. 4-gital -- Q'tk. % (./ ' "a ° .-1 148/F4 404t 71,v ''44-0-e 3 `s„ gm 41*. ** •...4P 1111111.111110I glit '..4-i4, \ ,' HS ••• *4.. ... 4012N1111* st,,, ial..4 _ '''.. okvenues ) . :-.-v.liCOIKPOoNT OR : • .4.V.1101110 ...it. ., dik 91.11 %VO 104 -ia ,,.. zs in I, . IT i fr w•41 i 41,,N Hill •-..- simmi• er Alb - ‘,. ""''''''''' N* Ala *int" - g itt• NOM _ .....14-41. r , 1 1 !II 1 lig 1 - * j - MIMI 11 inn man al F,9 , IvAllegnin- IIM Mil r.ki 1 On nu r ,.., ).-7. rom _II. AIIII nip! ILI _i_i, inn lion Iik. sitej —P' 1,1 i7 .3 kt ' —4 41141/11k --iv,-;..„6,... os..: -,.- - „ 811* ,L a,,..,--'—,--L.• in_ 4.4-, f-‘--:.'-'• 1 PA* read4,„__41111ftini 4, : A iti ,,,k,4 N t' gm* •• --''RV/• ii4 Zoning , , , , EA TIT 114-T- oil 'fii 1 -r''T RIB iIIM . . -- ' / • s!' / EZ 11 WW1 -Ill HMI aim 1.1 1-, i i WI 1.1. 1 ri Hp .. .7 4/14•:4 '4 ,Wit:,,,' gialWatit *Apr.4 . i soinies .,11—meietik A n MEIIIMiritaik frA Aim in 1F 1 gliii _L__.ii ilitifi HIM TII-r TEM Trlif ii ii' Trfp Ell 4t-r;. / ....= ionsonunti 4411e=srell II ,-.... EIE! -I-14,1y ---- ,..,-,,: i!HE --dig HUH s...21a. mg, i i "'-_. oirmarArmitrisim=tilkUp I H!F Imo ' 1,;:;,:l ri. ail Egini if ffirG al ram iiiii •11,,,,.., ._.. -1,..nommorilik arm, 71,,,,,....,__.---,-„, Map ff"i111117 slim .:FI,,, Elm .4-w: ELI= mi:n..1.-i mg: Elit qg FEuu .04c_____ ,,,..„, ITia lid. lila -1It1 ifigi Mien TM fil r -1":5 FM,' Mlls -IH a= al=12,alq Im citY°s ,,,,,,...„, Illitiri,„,4111115 M wen Bill 1min 1F., m Eft q TIT1. -F-r-ro 91 1I1 , iii nit I I flliiii t LIN!EL Atft--- u'' OH M NM A.:_ilt - .,-a.-0_ • 22 IIE NM& =I " _Is ,,==-I lila 1 II fr irl IL Inla I= III311 T-fr 1_11 HIM illiii Far tiling Ili 7 CEMETERY oo I ii, 111-1 - - • 01111.14.4 R- I •01110h4_Is Llin.J.!!a 7,11 E --, -:.=42 Eli FIE 1:1 Luit2 Ku ,EiLat! .11` '--I--. RI sfs 1=1111104A0 ANV,i,‘ * Ai litniiil lilitV • ig -... gignilEillIN :Ili d Irr RUB Milll Mill Ella ilia illi MN lv-hr Ett mill ... IIIIIII,im lin 4/ 44 •ir. •• va at MBE)Y__=7.- im;;-4. E 2 nili. 1:114 '7 WE: Ui--= gig ,... I of- Equ Ego mr2 Tils - lui)-11641111P4o 441444.0,... AMP III It-jr- Niti 111111.ii :Ill' Mlii In h ril ft' MI' MI NH 1 '6 Tril 4.s.-Cf" ri- ci- Fin 1 riTr Mr rid img Filiii ilirri0:5; bitIti . Will ---'- a--,''- Ma T. wm! -..= wil avki miii ..-no Tp9 JR, I'M 2 E rif !Ill 1111 VG 1046 Ell: Lulu'IllikVIM:'4v ''. ,... • 111 T-1----7' Dm ,_ ,,..1 giffi mi min Wm Faim ditiii q,.:1 I 1, atm fliii a Eh, ifilil Milli itibi Eli Dmirdl, ."'" /2111'it- iiv igr sw _Aii f.p , . „A 4,1-1M, jk. 111- fil : EN- = alp L-..K., =',..,- EWE. FM .J1-1 -AR . __, am CAW. DR - '.— ' r _ .nu.r-t-d M iiiiiii Ell 4 IiiM ilii iiiiR -rtrri I I I i' X. nu TETI. bill 131: Itidi 771 TM IMI ffidi.•rzw, .r ILVF Salt Lake City Planning Division Geographic Information System 11 1C-i 11— PlYjilL- % LIT-- r'- 113 Min .3111g MIIIIPii" 1.1-1 IIIHU 11,14._ 1111 ir =-Juo •Um" am . „-44. NOT TO SCALE r., ,,,,,.,_, ...._ 11110.'„LY .”'' April 2003 R- all1111111111 alli 'Li_ EMI F ER L_ LI Ha HMI IIII 1111.• : L I Ilia MI 71 IIIIII zio Nil mg N Am. - Capitol Hill Community Zoning Map . . .... ,, _ -,....•••-• • • . • - -- , 1:.,;.:.,;::.i. ..., ,•: . . .r. . . ,..Z.st;'W' •'.r., 'pi,- ,.... ,.,. . . er. .,,, ,:t•';,' ., . . •• .. ////.//:// 'd // •,,,,:i.'?"r,,."?':(11'-4,•,',.,;'5.',". ,,.ri,...,.7,4,r.:,,,..,-,,,,,I.r.t • /law i P. r•g m 1 1.- ; ,r''l \\ 1 2. \\ . IP ii * c_jos 04 , , -\\\_ j 4 111111b1:\ —TU; .11 1111k 'C/ IIIIIIIkVAO * \ J NI 1 \ ' r4,1111iLivr, i - , • I 40 New Tarago Ay ii "irsoriar __I , . 7.--- 1.440 , ilk , . .., ;Silt.4v 'IA lair i MIL i A 4Thb*-#.44....71111 MAP LEGEND -i,w.-.41 4).•.4.461111 eh.00 VI/IPA.* / r.:3 Histocc PreSer.1011 • I =Capitol Hill Protection Area ... I A; ' 11 44.11.• ..'1 •'•' / \.4: A ii. L.,...,j co,CommunIty Business ' . A.., Eli CC,Commercial Corridor ':,, .1.. m . '.•1 di 11 \N\' . al .11t Eli ,..1 MICG,General Commercal k\,• ; ''-ql l .CS.Commumly Shopping • ' 'Pi I 111 Insiness District 1(\7\,1 1.R,.himn,I .Kr1. I1 \1DCaDud '10IM1= ▪FP,FoohillsProtecton 11NiiIbli 2-41 m! r -.•Z. iI„ idia INIIIIMIL44:1 gg gg 11111 Ez3FR-1.FR-1/43,560 Foollells Estates Residential v_.miliwailm am Ri v i mils tiling I vi:v —os sim FR-2.FR-221.700 Foothills ResKlential a I 1 FR-3,FR-3/12,000 Footn•lis...dermal -...lagil ;Ida wi;iliM I . i I,InslAut•onal ,.. .• . 4,,I.. L 11.1111111111.4. MIMI M '•i11111 'T'''!-;] :` 7::..:::-.7 i [ I M-1.Light Manufacturing / I, 0 glidM-2,Heavy Manufacturing . 111 i ME MU,Mixed Use .. -" OS,Opel Space .111 111111 PL.Public Lands • R, nig. \-— i in i, i g r . /1 1 I R-1-7000,Single Famly Residential I . 74111111 I: • '- 1 1 R-2,Single and Two-Family Residenhal / -.1111 '' ,•. 4 ':Vgi ,41;;Ilan LJa-MU,Residential/A.0d Use 1 ....wee ..... we I pli Salt Lake City Planning Division ME RMF-45.Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential D-1 Mall Geographic Information Systems 111111MI Egi rA INRMF-75,High Density Multifamily Residential L.....j 5R-1,Speoal Development Pattern Residential =SR-3.Spenpal Development Pattern Residential II.Ul.UrbaCanal 0 0 Central Community /,/ -I .Nrny ( U --- - - n[1 } : �f Kill? �0!1 BURY An; sf T. mlnlr '= ❑ .. I . v1nR "Ztzf nZ ® nin Ma A G IF -y IP 'minim nll - ...t Mg.iii2 a7rTrnl m �II 1 ill .s . 1.' I !■"1 ry ■1 r 1`■��� �1111. :GM MN ri121'. \1(i _ itti; 6E- [.-:1 11i--E7 i-r '1,: `'- �I T:iv IRiJl• �IIII�!�. .11U11 _ 1~ tint H I IIIiri 1 Uu •• .uui, _A j�f ■1 nix c j-ID Er ill 1 tilt Map Legend 1 _ Ir w - i n, 4i0r 1 U I I URN IU 1 lug eel 111�1� �• � ming •, '' rl,ae II II UILi �® Historic Preservation Overlay District 1,Institutional \ IIII --- ►� �Im -=;�;;_• gr, Tf. T` =A�iii III moat ` 1 ~ :: Transitional Overlay District LEI OS,Open SpaceI. 1-t += - I�South State Street Corridor Overlay District I-EL,Public Lands II `g- =.lf� o-z �,■'IB'_ ■tit m I- iiiiiiiil n F.Q.Field Sign Overlay District PL-2,Public Lands IN A Fag e-Z 1 l, -�;� him NI I Delta Center Sign Overlay District I I R-1-5000,Single Family Residential I - 1 ll• ■II°hlr, IL1 I-BP,Business Park I - I R-2,Single and Two-Family Residentialmil it ,=j y 1 l f r {. 11111 n IIITne '1■ flaCB,Community Business .,-A R-MU,Residential/Mixed Use ' l! `1 _� -� 1 4i 'r: "- .unri 3_ CC,Commercial Corridor I I RB,Residential/Business ,_ -®_ �j 1ytyl:'� r�'ja' i?] � ", J ..as i a-; (III.CG,General Commercial RMF-30,Low Density Multifamily Residential ' im 1 -+�- P a,.rrlc;an . - ®®® � � i11 g. __ Min itj ®CN,Neighborhood Commercial ®RMF-35,Moderate Density Multifamily Residential 1 ■ _ a 7 Lm�qI v t = 1 a IIIIIIIII,CS,Community Shopping IIIIIIIIIIII 1 RMF-45,Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential a 111 O P S I �� Ph=. �� 0 I I D-1,Central Business District _6 RMF-75,High Density Multifamily Residential 1 -- ILA D-2,Downtown Support District t- 1 RO,Residential/Office '_ ®VP 1444114 S , T. Th • v � ' ®D-3,Downtown Warehouse/Residential a� SR-1,Special Development Pattern Residential A ' HMO F Ih , z-i- 1 tltt1��N�'l!lmIri'IIl�177��16�1!11lm���nnJttt�L��LLIIr�LV�177 _it I- . .. a ..o,ql e IIIIIIIIIII,D-4,Secondary Central Business District eZr`�'�l SR-3,Special Development Pattern Residential IIIII ❑I _ ��� yr�.3 to ailV?I.a�l �'� I f...mftsa n 1B1JPm. .W�� • II _ • w11I3ATt� �i,,1ilil-F[F���: lir m t*1 ti 1 ��. IIIIIIIIL GMU,Gateway Mixed Use IIIIIIIIII,UI,Urban Institutional p I _, t I _ -�1 C[7cu^..¢±E3 �'`.1 � 1� !.`. (4(i - N. —ca cam*r III . 1 = E# ,. atlr ti Tc n _ a c'i+ v + a a _MEE =lid_ Ali I_ j^'In 1i� r t Lt e\yl�M ®Rs.elLlst��r1 ��1�....���'1,t1 _ L. •I i. tl_-it,,,,,= I i{.it lie lln...�t�7�l�]".�¢�'l g 1}�)71�ll�{R Iq����7�9v�t71�v1 ,,! F _ 'e re' 1/1 s'IV Ali "Tr 111!: . Xic„Wu4 Ct1L7EE Q'ai.:_T41,E HMG .I,6 ! •�' ,y 1 a 1 1�IIfIN6 1 � I 1 1 -_ rTr `t py�Ln7�LI�t-�24��'� .,t ' f d-gt- c� lE�sp ,,,, I` I �uulilt. ninn._ €Al uhlaP£�.^{fia E'LIS-�}effEsm ^'� + `, 15 nl Y 1 EN 111 NEE EL WO 0:61 M 11wn11�� L (i) :4 , '-,' r w u --1 F _ Ivpu el E.(�[�,I L LL III4 i u w_n nnl mrn difil % NE - Jig 11 cr u au IIIIIi n1111iS XLI�WIII. Sall Lake City Planning Uirision �- d./�_ - ill'vt® �iCtiii IIIN�1116F11■ '1114rIL.IIIrIIUII It I. Geographic Information Systems LIB II'IIIII Milli It etinit111!!111111111111!�11�YII//M gIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!tlllllllllllllr,�1111111p r 1 w 1 I L) _ [Po NII=■IIIIIIIIIs_I'twagim n•• 1-11 IIITimid- h-_ 1; —���psa n ll!! , � f1111111: �� I a—r_ arm:5t1111111111111 icl1��'�--' �/ -■nTl =1,-=111nunn-ISIRi3'P.I Y)111. _ .._1111!_11 Mill 1t....-n►�ammmul�""IIII I _lalp11111i= 1 :III I u =j1m!„.■®elllyunnl 1111111111111N slfsll g golfIO Milt 1 immunl-11m ffig11111` ■inn um nl • �11�!!lfllllllllllli ���: ■'IIII IF 11141+511 IIIIIII 1 Human= :Iim1® WE: • vote•�•1� =uumuu, IIIIIIIIIII _II RE —rtmf uj � IMO*_ =�f I+ ..�iiitiiiiiii��f I I F=11111111111_ ti))11�{�4� �1H / rr 1� r„_ Emu, .nnullW■t1i summit Bimini m lmnmmml mum um=111111MM ES minor nmumn P h: ill 11 ■13I1. . ia =1111111= .T.E 1111111 ufirm! Sugar House '�-1= 11■ymn,1=ot411 111 Orli ' 'III wog O•I-30 _n1m11111= I ,1 1111■11111 1 11111C=11I --. =F min= I 1[:3[1m I n s"1PPU:111�Elm�`?=�- AI;1 N In - T .immn_ 'mum _* I �-'i _mnluwe un1i1 a :[.morn B S�� n,'gym I ITilil olio■lon■ _�_uauuuu, _II1i!iIIi..I r. �n-nilnun g_ _ „ZI �L minim ME IIB!!'!f1111= n 1=_ 1iLNE:1� �till 5 I 1 nun err all 1 Y/1m1., 11 11111111 t4;i.IMIlle�unm11 g , _ :=r laum frf t��lil�� 1�.. �rc muumuu �ma�1���� I ■muffin l Communit Zoning Full.film UIIIIIII, `1r--�■ IIII 11 Yit16 ;�" �EI,�1 11111 11111:Y11SYI 1" [11 1 — E muumuu'11111111111111 �IIIIII 11 e=nn uul_=1 II AlIBld.11111111I1 _ + _u�tn,[d:a a.1 u I �nf[Is.faw_nnnnun unu�nun =�.a[�eiin J wl__-=miff 11 m marl I,_ .1=_� imimmem -}{1#i Ilmm�um 7uumuu miming os H 1unnn _ __1't�L .-w i Roo Illry = _ d 11:.�1111,mzscanm�n2e1 ' �1r n■--",411 _ �tltl �f1� a mm 11 _ p - 111111111111114 M111 1111n' ill[33.-11111 1. • I 1 t 11 I i rtl=,. f _� .Roo C�im 14414410 a_.1n1n1n� :1■nliu11111111, Illlll��m: _ i , a A EI IIIII I1111 NH ■1m li a . -I- lannllml M111IG1: .R �—' '".m L1 nor rt+t+ ® 1�1� f �It Ian I_m j, r L I Mg:'_n9:In a I —1_ =4� I I_ tazza�_ SUGARHOUSE _ — ,� �� w3v i a in — 1[r III le— P� PARK smg TC E.■ ,m min .. ul r -aIrnlma nit, iyn L� ?EV �R r y. _p-1 _ ■■.■ !1►ter _� d!!1I[lll!! w �� hr . �t:a is:".IIII a .✓ �� !�Ic ?- —'7�.Nr�Ion.� S�. t!a eWlIIIII• —� ■�L■ q '��Ili II -----.�... zE fit ■'li aL1711!lL ;wiiim� Os _. - I ... _�■ 1 III,!!lfnlllm , t MI s 1 E.it ■1n�' =1\'"a E_ T- °0 1=mornm nun i ::.a- -- —--• [_z:zl■ Bulk _ _ =!'. FAIRMO T OS a7, •�� -.�" ■■■ ''I I - ::_ —= PARK T�� 0 �'�,� r.:r�■\i�i3a iu i ��i 1 6�k Ititi El Ei ... ENE%1>� �1��� ���A�1i1/M��[lii�� ��■■■� 1 L're��llll�l -" T•MP . EM — ss_nre-so `t 11 2C•1 �IQ� ■.��i!�IIIIaIIIIIIP■III oltl 1...61 MP _— c 111 ■■ ■■ ■■ermzsun.. 111► ® --=- - 19!111= ca �� `=����iiiiiiil „� OS e�411,4 II •■•1 MEM b ILIEII�fM '- 11111=MIME. FOREST DALE II _111111 = \ •���:/���filial _� — �� GOLF COURSES\� ,��a���11I��I OS • - = I I H III E � 11■■ _� Ion - _- _III[+• O 1=1E 21 t !!ll Illln='ll>li� OS .. _111! _ -_ -1� =�Q:Iltlu'p11I.I1I11 -' _2.,�IA.1=_ €r€' I°' — _ n.\_ I COUNTRY CLUB 'IIA�IIII a=1I=s w.i I WI III f €.4"i t�S11 IL �w Mg III NI 111I MI Ilk \ .- I1AIAe> A 1 AIM' 1 �= 11ltllll f1_ -IIII �a.r?�� \ GOLF COURSE �`'''�® = —I1=�sus��_= � �.. ,..„,a -�,;,r1I111�� 1�. 11��`�I1OI��s� � Y 'IN iLi`-_': ■=.._x an • •—_pN _ =f11111 _ _I 11[1111in n1111111!l1111►1 --�— l=--- g-=—al -, !C_ , . E■■R I' TftGIIII Y1 1 IIIIfF711 7?�lilnn..* �� mil(rum Irv• ,1 IIM 7X itiw IRE 111'6 zed?:IIII r I Inn `IIr Ir''a all i . � // NIBLEY Luni-1 1;4411Infa, Itl ;;tip 11= — �In[ =L �1= = 11 n11 nnlim NE ET III1nun1nIlIII l \ PARK —~ 11111111= �= _ =i GOLF OS c[:.:.f.➢]_EIpllllim —.— `�. . 'i1 asd F3►\:� a 1Il!Ii!II'ILInu - �. COURSE "'=a.g:EI —__,i .IIII um um�_ .._— ` W% v 1 1,r I� '� e a i111111111•=Et, :a = s i/� ;`. �7 ij oP 4:0 111111 �I!1 a EN : a= - I L I I�PI= 4►\- ='I 1 1 111111!II l i1111 o , °o - y 1��1,1aI=,,. f r . `I 1111111--'.% L uS �C 'l ���� IIIL. �� t 1■_ ti111111111Tt Clllllln ,II— ��%... Ounn 1f= t�.irEll b 1;�• 1mn11 Va =Emu 1 IIem111�1_a i y> �e IIII IIII:+1! En IIII Intl■e ■ 0 Gclal1111B A.•11 i= >G c1+J111Ti .■ IUIDh t■■ ammo 11 ■ gm m:��i�1lAIl111 11 f11` C �: . ■ ...... ■PIIIIII■�1i� Pcal111111=RIa ni ® iiim -..�.Oig nnuulul■un■►� r `°�'IIa Map Legend Elm ■r �m.� C-SHBD,Sugar House Business OS,Open Space • �".... T ® CB,Community Business _PL,Public Lands 41 '` RMF-30,Low Density Multifamily Residential �� ®CC,Commercial Corridor I I R-1-12000,Single Family Residential ®RMF-35,Moderate Density Multifamily Residential � CN,Neighborhood Commercial I I R-1-5000,Single Family Residential -RMF-45,Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential -CS,Community Shopping I I R-1-7000,Single Family Residential RO,Residential/Office Salt Lake City Planning Division N_A -1t11Ilka I,Institutional I I RB,Residential/Business SR-1,Special Development Pattern Residential Geographic Information Systems Map Legend west S a l t Lake Zoning Map Transitional Overlay District i( ise BP,Business Park • c -- < hjy��l� - _ I -�'• ri i// CB,Community Business / I 11 �I. ■ ®CC,Commercial Corridor �' a ~I �����; � ,/// M.CG,General Commercial um +..�� ill �� .� -_-=- �-- . r T _-_: L ;". i..�_ _r I i 4 Institutional hood Commercial �a �� / Q„■ I ri Ir• ' wr.rza I 1 M-t,Light Manufacturing S a1 /-' / B®�\r M / ,� it s_-- /� ®Man HeavyManufacturing District _ _:..�� �,� �. ... A- 11 -n=71F1 t s' t�n yE - 11 � MH,Mobile Home Park %%% '�00� �M .11111111111111111IIIII11111, ;-fl^ 91�a MI PP aF ��e�111� _ /�a !MINE nnr s `\ / r - I OS,Open Space --� \\ 1' �\,/ %'' i a IOW 11111 - ®illia -y_II (\ - 1 OPL,S Public Lands ,<� ���� -_ I�r� • �I'. , ,yj�,' ,-Ell „'! 1 t ,,,� 1 1 R-1-5000,Single Family Residential 1 � - __ - — - 1"iIur '�a� 111III11 ' —� �q 11 I��1 ® i R-1-7o00,Single Family Residential / I ` �:+4 Il�� \\� �1 R-2,Single and Two-Family Residential `� -" `— !!!t_ • Ili.G�� / I I RMF-30,Low Density Multifamily Residential Millvi, 'I - 1'' -�� \ _-_- RMF-35,Moderate Density Multifamily Residential .11 ---- ~` I -IN - _- ' ,,aI� ICIF 11y 1 - , RMF-45,Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential -�� --- -J 'I; :;r1.11. I--- gaai x�i ,;j ® \� SR-3,Special Development Pattern Residential 04)1 !,___ ■,III -i' .:, 1a - ,, .® FE�r:� lllltl'l I f Cql. iF Es _ ,11 uttu kn I tlmAnt PoTl® AL ■� ®mtr I I ILu -1 sip °nn to � i �� .gala`. E "- 24%®IAA �' L JI Btin�=: //).....,,,,,.....,,.........,;II i NI ?MN— ,tltttli► I, rt�9y�tw'v<> - 3 a� tit au nmm a I .,_. f 1 ♦� i "♦ E�ki1k�� l �Sa=Ss T711.- IIO 1� i(1\ a a ;�;���� "�'��o �fEl ��;-�s�> 1LC 4Ci�11.�a=;"�'i�i� _!'�'_ l \ r ,rm 3 d 1 L 1 � �', N• 6 ' NI-I �• � xl <.,.a.....,- �r I I I� �►\ -1g 11nllm i -5{� Dlr. .'(6 4 r ` 51'n.•�;11�111.11rurni •QLS �, ,,L i i L1t" i 1! mil _ iwrux,n..n .m.1..a. Lm�. ��� / Ili • � � ■� � __ �.�� II,IT111ti.i �i,t�44tIG I ''',...1 r. j..1.431 2!!!ilki inillifiE mg ILA, —1 Ili. 'lh MLR 1'95 tir '1"117 .---i_. ' . ,___._.. iTii...,, I ,..-,,-„,_,_TRIM%'A,:i !:M. I 11111 li IIIII : 1 (� �; anumi guy s (-I) 11 i1111111Milithtielr A 11111 I : 1111.1/.1 1111.1E1111111Ni , ,.41 ,4,1 COMM—,;:s2 \\tin .i:I. 'EL 111111=1-61. i IMIIIMSII l'"7" '4 k \\I. imuniiii — IIIIIIIIIIr4P) i - `1' °s \ialle '- ,_:4fr Al: I 01 • �� --.„„,„ I 11,77 i .' y' ---- b 17------`----f ----------.-----11\_�---�— It,\`l 11 i Geosr.phic,Nmnetlon Systems Billboards Permitted within C-2, C-3, M-1 , M-2 & Conditional Uses within C-i LJ ri Salt Lake City , Mil!creek Township - Salt Lake County r .v ' -mir 1_ ___ E if A_ 1 L r ' _ — — 1 !mil .. ► u �a eT ' �� � 111111 ANol m - , 1 —� ; South Salt Lake �. =7 L/ - ^ i i • TT—, .�� — - fi_ 3900 S _(iir,irrr�d .>�='T _ L A L �i rja a �ra a -a - - - L_1r-- -`y_ . I TI , . . . i- ,-T. , ,.. ;---- ____ - �_�T tea ` w _ - - � i �\ t ..--p t =if ii ,6 ___L.4,,..___„ „7_... _ _ v�u,ra _.c-,-..-: , ; . mippp.. _ _.„ it -- ---: . . --111,111_. E _; ! T j � �' 4500 S I �N ii 6, Ai" ' . �� / ,t Legend ` q _ - fJ EN FA-5 F-1 FR-20 IN R-1-3 R-2-10 I- l� ' SLCO_zoning2011 �__;1 #. wii A_1 L_ i FM-10 L`' t FR-5 1111R-1-4 Lz.jR-2-10/zc ♦ - �1 ®A-1/zc FM-10/zc.M-1;M-1/zc®R-1-43 R-2 6.5 �T+ l ryl A-2 FM-20 -M-2 a R-1-5 R-2-8 ��\`: �� ,_ \.,..... i A-20 f I FM-20/zc MD-3/zc ®R 1-5/zc ;; R-4-6.5 / 1 ✓J - A-5 a FR-0.5 'F R-1-10 R-1-6 ��R-M !I"! *{ l C-1;C-1/zc11 FR-1 Ea R-1-10/zc R-1-6/zc[,. R-M/zc C-2;C-2/zc a FR-1/zc 'R-1-15 R-1-7 RMH ' 1 C-3;C-3/zc FR-10 R-1-15/zc R-1-7/zc Li S-1-G C-V FR-10/zc i:- 1 R-1-21 ` R-1-8 Holladay En FA-2.5 FR-2.5 R-1-21/zc R-1-8/zc hj- A! 'P-created by SLC Planning Division 2011 NORTH Billboards Permitted within C-2, C-3, M-1 , M-2 & Conditional Uses within C-i Salt Lake City orthwest - Salt Lake County j. . AIRPORT I-80 .,, V z N O O (iv ..r:.f. _ ,�/ - , I CALIFORNIA AVE y z m z — .r v.,. m z 1 SR-201 West Valley City n 111 ;. ',; ,f _. III - Legend tt !! H - t I� 1 ' SLCO_zoning2011 h— FA-5 C1 FR-20 R-1-3 R-2-10 iw 11 L .�. Al121 - rT]FM-10 f—1 FR-5 741 R-1-4 I ]R-2-10/zc -r,Y' ,Li F r , Mr Fri A-1/zc ua FM-10/zc-M-1;M 1/zc R• -1-43 v R-2-6.5 r, huh s LJ A-2 [---1 r FM-20 .M-2 '1 R-1-5 I R-2-8 I�1-F 11� 11II1EI ! j A-20 Li FM-20/zc l MD-3/zc R-1-5/zc I�j R-4-8.5 ` }Lkr' =A-5 FR-0.5 R-1-10 rE R-1-6 J1 R-M IS; 1111-iF r- 1 FR-1 R 1 10/zc �7 R-1-6/zc +I R-M/zc , 1'", -_ C-1;C-1/zc3 r_ J _ - C-2;C-2/zc El FR-1/zc ! I R-1-15 _J R-1-7 lill RMH , FR-10 R-1-15/zc R• -1-7/zc 7 S-1-G -'ti i.4 -� } s,. • }III C-V 1 FR-10/zc R-1-21 )R-1-8 c' as. 7-t: x t sx Ell - FA-2.5 r-_1 FR-2.5 T0+ R-1-21hc R• -1-8/zc x Map created by SLC Planning Division 2011 NORTH C o East Bench o$ Community Zoning I v Map Tr-7' \ ,.-„, • c iiuQv A irposw p Nam _ % os UNIVERSITY I OF UTAH d„' 7 i / ' L • Paliii, B ••_••. . . . os 44 qh, ......, lratiL, T : ,,wun-- ...:Muml.`�1�ii �y�.9111IIIDl: It- x_r. I`5 s+■ .. .+`. I14gt��iul-uln unucr ► _ .... (TII l .� :I!'1!111'n dl= -- �j��i�iyo�i ea«�ne �— ✓ ,,,a. • Mgt: ■�V, wj+a �ag�O,�,C7`�r IIIIIh 1111111�'_9:aL.d ■■No-- --§ 10 :" �,, -'p IA"NOVTAN�4',twti �J'lial RIM- .7431 ncicE:ImII I .O'-C--7[r■IJ=. *NA? o � I Y _ ' . ..1 ..r'-J�.iIltWuallo `. a-I iII tunN:mime iiII'! 1Wll.' it] 1 mi�d *N i.. L. .i. ..„,„�.ullll/aru1 ���,��`F mod,„,,, !hill 1111111111 n11!rrain F1i ', �I IIII N— I.11►:. nl:•r•It1uuN!-nlllllllt IM ` gglPnnw . _ •••fi r, 3' Uri .. u,. wluul.,-j111uu11{_ � Idlr'I 1$11111 Ulf :1. .Pica■■�i`�'PIA - /1111NIN1:mow"- ` T� nlll^IIII 1111111111111� !]17■�w 's IM M O, %: /1 ®Rrrrrr^rrtml�[[i.:an a t �i� ►�� .:. I nIuInunn rpm-�•i, p� -+��re- rG�WUWwluwu�n mom jIp,`{`t`�IIll ll III ^0111 'F� I lIIEt.- ulurm11111rru1:1.3111nm 1ST II p�-• ► p.b'iliiii�u M TM.i nal nin tout -1%_=/ _.c� MU �1::!7! Ale,�.j:,.,.. -¢ Wrrlwu�n:a r-'—TTrT^�"T_r���ul�lptl I i�� , ■[s �.■.-... IIOri'..fi Y�=un0�IN.IwnuMI 1 n RI{Ii.I I-1LMfIRFJ" lu i"" :II,�*a _ - N ,1 III- 34,.Ii[^^.:Gu,1u.�eVIIIV.► EIV 1nn:W11111111 ILL`mith111f11imi..401..rIU.•• •• I.7 �.. B ' • P a_s-'.G31n. .%R-r-7, -1111nuuuunruunn- ial,l.x Ei.K.[�- c...-r11�• ly; ■uu■Allf■Inmm�SW,41._ C111:RII11111I11III113!i:I111E- ■ .1 t—■11❑ill r i 1►E rf..ij 1 it!l Mille, �1 ■C2 W r■[GT7,_avo .rO.r'w.:.T3lrunik/'®�'e l�■�� BMW�1 1 +a!ununl- °y•,l -_ ?®®�.; . ;..inilllll 1- _ I.o�:■-_ a WO �W _mm�n� rucc� "lc M. _ „r skg• l.. i ,I■■. ::n■:��1i�■r4.,. rP:I'.'o kki ...0 a whim 1. �y •-=N, �-_=Eiln+�i.sIfV.Q1."..N-;-:--.io,, r 1--.-\ILm i3'1!,.•r.1 a•....err x1 _ter .•....._ant_ h.,nx�n,1, 11m011--lulpllllll :: mr 1u11_uI�1•,.i'::'g1111 re.sr,.�1,.r r ;';L'MI 1 .'.1 .c.'Ilii�: RIM ft _ .iwi ruwwuu IUlwup p1p. t16�` •Imi ■ ►5(3J,1 4113V dl E= ..•..: •a'ma }:. I iw�..1�.1. Ir1t ►�5�,lS211�• c�^'•r ter•.,.:. . o,Z -1 niii ID-14Nrni?EIa.l l OP,..,..,,,Im..�' latt•iii ul- :,Ilia z•414. r:o 'Au*o... , .n ���=r. .,�,1 .9i 1CJ� IIL:BL:IJ111 I llIl r�lr�.� �y.�n=Fl p�1�/.'iLCf111T II�� MIN�IIIIIwL=_JUINIW—• /01 a f_ca..nll4 Jr■1ft►,rS lPl NI In11.141::.Z ;,.., l ` . •• II III II I71lil ttFt]Its!! l Ot�I nIy��1'T�.'�,I���I13':?AL7^Jr MEN I Hi IiI.: _ - uc. J►\'r^_'_17P'iJll�® t v.��f1—■■■� / ■, Illnllllllll�_n 1111111= -111111111: 111 \N11r1 •' .t'llMll•pmll Ij,lCll;cifpl 1 ` �I�if�•■�;^ �t'e..ir^xli. or L�: liln rl -' N►�i��'�1'+41ti',, , - Wue�7R��ua4u . :;«Ρ..ti ra:c^MI■_�1 i1i ,11 aV►.�.1► ■r.."V•1 a aril•71• :Jllmlll:, eny ,o' h s.I'. i♦,1'• • �rl•IF-:;:,.ZwWu Q3' ' :lull: ':=o ��i�xinl ��'�t't,a 1. ►IAj'��r�fir• Q� ��� 1 re '` �n__il��g ANN. Iiln11141: Twin' -�.,ry Nil .A'�'Y!?.l i•�•�Shla.m-"'II"ry=III II_ d � ........-:- uup�-C�: r i i� I�►�1 r L li�� ,-1iZ I I IjI 1r11 G^ii Euutat1:•-7--•I I4, Y'7`�y �t.,,�`}ia03.0� j••` 711t�Tf�IIf 1111� 1 Ati u7.r■i n-xxnx u� i lull L. `1 1.L.. _���.•�►.i�y� wrI■:auar iiii2 Map Legend 111:1: ..*1=..,.f7.1 v4 Zoning Districts :,_ al '_- ® . OS jj f. r.. (1TM41 co,Community easiness = • ��+- � �, '�, � Ir�`yy a}1r� ® CN.Neighborhood Commercial L"•• -• I{,�' T.PR,I.. / / \""k... CS,Community Shopping FA la le 1111 FP,Foothills Protection 7• 11 va ■■■. ■j �1Imo FR-1,FR-1!<3,500 Foothills Estates Rosidenlial �r ; .41Y.a 1���F i WwiiyiU,S�Ji��Q. - FR-2,FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential !l r 4s+ ��y,C��;y7�`.�1:. FR-0,FR-3/12.000 Foothills Residential r � � ����l T. iy fiil OS.Open Space '�, .,t.`.gloy►, 11111 FL,Public Lands ,k••.' laR-1-12000,Single Family Residential �` IS 16 R-1-5000,Single Family Residential 04 R-1-7000,Single Family Residential 4 `d$ L; ;I RMF-30,Low Density Multifamily Residential `vl RMF-35,Moderato Density Multifamily Residential IN - RMF-45,Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential RO,ResidenliaVORica Cvll L:Ac city 1'la: i::y I>::�iui: RP,Research Park Grosrorl:i.Info:nn:ion�ysi:n:. MESR-1,Special Development Pattern Residential Northwest Os O3 1- `, • 1Quadrant i 14 . rt , ,,;,? y s 7`,,,.� . 1 Community �a I ,�,,au �, � ,lytf �'IN it P t1 iJ 9I5r rt fil><,x ��(� l�0 \� ZoningMap t 4 ..-:) , .',.14k,:"t 1' '' I u , p os ,../...z......... ---) ,J / M-I ��,,..a� L._ pl L [— -k_ ,j , , kl , i:::' , , r - _,...,. 4j OS !iill‘N\,,,,,,. M-1 ]11-1 \. ,PI I- IiJ ._9,, OS !` 1f I E , � I I d` ¶EE !P : , t „ ,. E 11 .31 rill Map Legend Lowland Conservancy Overlay District Transitional Overlay District Landfill Overlay District0 ® AG,Agriculture - CG,General Commercial M-1,Light Manufacturing Salt Lake City Planning Division OS, Open Space Geographic Information Systems IIINorthwest Community Zoning Map /1( Map Legend _ A AG-2,Agriculture-2 Acre Minimum \ �i I _,.._r]_ 1 rl :/� -BP,Business Park _� I L _ �- l�� �/ ®CB,Community Business — J I- /' ' -CC,Commercial Corridor •f ���� CG,General Commercial t-- 1.-�=` �CN,Neighborhood Commercial lEhiltral I 1 \ ,II„ _CS,Community Shopping I �tl,, NIE Nuocr •uron I �� t, \, Il LJ� I,Institutional - [��.'r'6g�lg -: �, M-1,Light Manufacturing O �{ 0 �1 BB� i -M-2,Heavy Manufacturing �' _MH,Mobile Home Park dII�1I�IIIITLE Esc .�l� r J — r i � t 3 E J + .. t=G — r —g OS,Open Space E143 { [F - ' PL,Public Lands ]II ITIT=�IIE ®®©�� 1/T rn T z�- !-- P „ f 1 W I11__ID .l I t F...r- '���®®o t� L�i R-1-5000,Single Family Residential LL ' a � �� R-1-7000,Single Family Residential lIIE _ 1__� g g Y Y I INIERMATON AIRPORT i � - t_i €�1 R-2,Single and Two-Family Residential P. r ,� larti (� NA RMF-30,Low Density Multifamily Residential { I 151 : � t^ la F\ mg RMF-35,Moderate DensityMultifamilyResidential F---1I I� Oy l,L '.*:,%� �\ _RMF-45,Moderate/High sdy Residential Residential FBI JI—iF ;i i ®` � ® � SR-1,Special Development Pattern Residential ry fi. z.'_ Pic 3 • �ilme .. T' SR-3,Special Development Pattern Residential AIRPORT ik "�F a � m ml t ttisi r� �� � �Ir.�j II 111911111.1.Al 11 0 > J ,: .' - -ly, ---1-V___N,;7_ im !ell"-, 14.-2fir 111 �� 0 \ w, I.^ \ ;. ®® F✓""= - 1S� sau Lake c-ly F� '90 Isun yd F, - r ' , ,• 1= ,t r { y''r ',,,it,• ', ..may • i 4 '` .4 6. /i W, ei 1••- • ' Kir --" ,..• ., " a r :te• aif . A fgl s r ,d• �. 4 ' .��t • ! r ;'w t t # ...S -•'"7.:' i . II • • I. mow._.A '. Sr mk. n LB% lr J't, -j l ! +.-y.. 1..' \ f 'r' ,•-tn m r i -� �•�„ qw' ti Ait 1 r�T 1. inm m ix 1 kIt. • 1ft ,_4 Yf ,..., „ _ , I -.6 n'11,,.. . ,. '-i._ •,. * r a vb..; E'' [� 14 :�q a , 141i44 t",t,...„, ,,....... , .., :cop fr T._. ..-1 gl'iin' ,^ 1 2 ' `il! ./ '' , ti ��t�*�., ., 1 i Imo. •=---I t. •,! ',••5' w �F t' 1 it 10` et I., l eta. s " .r! p 1 1F 1 y. Ca •I• ., r' ,`t 11 tCa'1 — I It191 r.glII' of,, '^ ,,;,,` ; •; :fir IP ., D ..wives .,_..... _s•+- ti•m1 [, , F:� �.wm•i t1�romr�p Im, + Sf ..-'1 •• , 1.; •' epee isx pap , m. t.. ttl Pori.i "1' i;,.„I+ , • . llIJJJ � mi yJJJ {jjj " i ©' m m uy Lt5. I: 1,, ,, W* AP 4'. r[�'.thwmr. _+�S �,r• a ' y A r+ ,; • 19 CI ❑n •, e '. pi: .. . n12 mQom, m ... - .� y❑ti, ❑ A-C) Ql 6r in d1w.. r *'. - Q mm {' " ,nzty T-I u rJ ai ��,a d q n ►ci ein F r rr ►A"t4f1 :. T�., I�§GJt,trert t Q ID ._� (Ito m ,, 1 1� �> »dMitlt © m o aea � iii r : I ; ,4. .frrlt mom m CI r1. *•t 'f��.rj,,m4i— 1alpira ,e.;I,ts @gym Its rt; i i .11Ilit+tt1' 44 m m m 1' 7 mi • �,.}1 'r Ili,.�ry-{gig �.11v iil�yjr ••a �r m ❑ Q :1 ,;":14 filo li1-..":7;-'1' 1,t1I 40,1 map - • yriku m' ,: '12 to ■ Briefing for rl r ` ;m�-cE� Planning Commission Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansic,Senior Planner Date: February 18,2011 Re: Billboard Ordinance: Comparison of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County ordinances The Planning Commission subcommittee asked for a comparison of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County ordinances regarding billboards. Please find attached the following: Salt Lake City ordinance Salt Lake County ordinance Outline of comparable zoning districts between Salt Lake City and County Map of zoning districts where billboards are allowed in Salt Lake County(Millcreek Township and west of Salt Lake City) Map of comparable zoning districts in Salt Lake City Map of area where the current Salt Lake City ordinance allows billboards Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Page 1 of 6 21A.46.160: BILLBOARDS: A. Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. B. Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located. BILLBOARD BANK:An accounting system established by the city to keep track of the number and square footage of nonconforming billboards removed pursuant to this chapter. BILLBOARD CREDIT:An entry into a billboard owner's billboard hank account that shows the number and square footage of demolished nonconforming billboards. BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13,1993. GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: Amok 1. Interstate 80; 2. Interstate 215; 3. Interstate 15; 4.4000 West 5.5600 West; 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from I-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate'15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street. Sterling Codifiers, Inc. Page 2 of 6 15. State Street from South Temple to 2100 South; and 16. 600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD: A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31, 1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD: An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY: The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1. North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; 2. 400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3. State Street between 600 South and 2100 South; and 4. Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT: An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as pad of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. C. Limit On The Total Number Of Billboards: No greater number of billboards shall be allowed in Salt Lake City than the number of existing billboards. D. Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1. Permit: Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2. Application: Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3. Fee: The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars ($111.00). E. Credits For Nonconforming Billboard Removal: After a nonconforming billboard is demolished pursuant to a permit issued under subsection D1 of this section, or its successor, the city shall create a billboard bank account for the billboard owner. The account shall show the date of the removal and the zoning district of the demolished nonconforming billboard. The account shall reflect billboard credits for the billboard and its square footage. Demolition of a conforming billboard shall not result in any billboard credit. F. Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1. Billboards in districts zoned residential, historic, residential R-MU or downtown D-1, D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 2. Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB, or gateway G-MU, GGC or GH or on gateways shall be removed second; 3. Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last; and Sterling Codifers,Inc. Page 3 of 6 4.A billboard owner may demolish nonconforming billboards of a lower priority before removing billboards in a higher priority;however,the billboard credits for removing the lower priority billboard ^+. shall not become effective for use in constructing a new billboard until two(2)billboards specified in subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,with a total square footage equal to or greater than the lower priority billboard,are credited in the billboard owners billboard bank account.If a billboard owner has no subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,nonconforming billboards,two(2)subsection F2 of this section,or its successor,priority billboards may be credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account to effectuate the billboard credits of a subsection F3 of this section,or its successor, billboard to allow the construction of a new billboard.For the purposes of this section,the two(2) higher priority billboards credited in the billboard bank account can be used only once to effectuate the billboard credits for a lower priority billboard. G.Life Of Billboard Credits:Any billboard credits not used within thirty six(36)months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use except that lower priority credits effectuated pursuant to subsection F4 of this section,or its successor,shall expire and be of no further value or use within sixty (60)months of their initial creation. H.Billboard Credits Transferable:A billboard owner may sell or otherwise transfer a billboard and/or billboard credits.Transferred billboard credits which are not effective because of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor,shall not become effective for their new owner until they would have become effective for the original owner.The transfer of any billboard credits do not extend their thirty six(36)month life provided in subsection G of this section,or its successor. I. Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of e nonconforming billboard that has two(2)advertising faces shall receive billboard credits for the square footage on each face,but only as one billboard. J.New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. IC Permitted Zoning Districts:New billboards may be constructed only in the arca identified on the official billboard map. L.New Billboard Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees fora new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building code as adopted by the city; and b.Inspection tag fees according to the tee schedule or its successor. iv'l.Use Of Billboard Credits: 1.A new billboard permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard credits of a sufficient number Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Page 4 of 6 of square feet and billboards to allow construction of the new billboard. 2.When the permit for the construction of a new billboard is issued,the zoning administrator shall deduct from the billboard owner's billboard bank account: a.The square footage of the new billboard;and b.The number of billboards whose square footage was used to allow the new billboard construction. 3.If the new billboard uses less than the entire available billboard credits considering both the number of billboards and square footage,any remaining square footage shall remain in the billboard bank. N.Ness Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway. O.Special Gateway Provisions: 1. If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within e special gateway,the billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to subsections P,0,R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount of billboard credits in the special gateway billboard hank. 2.The demolition of a nonconforming billboard pursuant to this section shall not accrue billboard credits within the general billboard bank.Credits for a billboard demolished or constructed within a special gateway shall be tracked within a separate bank account for each special gateway.A permit for the construction of a new billboard pursuant to this section must be taken out within thirty six(36)months of the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. P.Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. O.Temporary Embellishments. 1.Temporary embellishments shall not exceed ten percent(tOG)of the advertising face of any billboard, and shall not exceed five feet(5')in height above the billboard structure. 2.No temporary embellishment shall be maintained on a billboard more than b;✓elve(12)months. R.Height:The highest point of any new billboard,excluding temporary embellishments shall not be more than. 1.Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or 2.If a street within one hundred feet(100')of the billboard,measured from the street at the point at which the billboard is perpendicular to the street,is on a different grade than the new billboard,twenty five feel(25')above the pavement elevation of the street. 3. If the provisions of subsection R2 of this section,or its successor subsection,apply to more than one Sterling Codifiers,inc. Page 5 of 6 street,the new billboard may he the higher of the two(2)heights. S.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a parkculer district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. T.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300)linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred(300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred(800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large, on the same side of the street. U.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts:Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. Auk V.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other Than as specified in subsection U of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest inferior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. W.Xeriscape Alternative:It all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection, are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. ... X.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1, 1996. Y.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance. Z.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to, and record as necessary,such subdivision. AA.Special Provisions: 1.Applicability:The provisions of this section shall apply to specified billboards located: Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Pane 6 of 6 a. Four(4)existing billboards between 1500 North and 1800 North adjacent to the west side of Interstate 15;and b.One existing billboard on the east side of Victory Road at approximately 1100 North. 2.General Applicability:Except as modified by this section,all other provisions of this chapter shall apply to the five(5)specified billboards. 3.Special Priority:The five(5)specified billboards shall be considered as gateway billboards for the purposes of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor subsection. 4.Landscaping:The five(5)specified billboards shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection. BB.State Mandated Relocation Of Billboards:Except as otherwise authorized herein,existing billboards may not be relocated except as mandated by the requirements of Utah state law.(Ord.72- 08§2,2008:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord.13-04§§25,26,27,2004:Ord.25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord. 83-98§§12-14,1998:Ord.88-95§1 (Exit.A),1995) Muuicode Page 1 of 2 • • 10.82.185-Ofi-prernisea signs—Billboards. A. Purpose.This section provides for the reasonable regulation of off-premises signs viith the intent of enhancing the aesthetics of existing and future billboards,mitigating negative impacts,promoting safety and protecting property values that further the goals and planning policies of Salt Lake County. B. Cap on Number of Off-Premises Signs.The number of off-premises signs alloyed in unincorporated Salt Lake County and established or future townships shall be limited to the number of off-premises signs that are existing as defined herein as of May 18,2004.This cap shall automatically decrease as off-premises signs are annexed into a municipal jurisdiction or removed and not relocated. C. Location.Off-premises signs shall be allowed in the C-1 zone as a conditional use.Off-premises signs shall be allowed in the C-2,C-3,M-1 and M-2 zones as a permitted use. D. Size.Off-premises signs shall not exceed six hundred seventy-two square feet in the C-2,C-3,M-1 and M-2 zones.Off-premises signs located in a C-1 zone shall not exceed three hundred square feet in size. E. Height.The maximum height of an off-premises sign shall be thirty-five feet in a C-1 zone.The maximum height of an off-premises sign shall be forty-five feet above the grade level of the road in the C-2,C-3,M-1 and M-2 zones or,when oriented for freeway viewing only and located within three hundred feet of the nearest freeway lane,twenty-five feet above freeway grade level or fifty feet overall,whichever is greater. F. Separation.The minimum distance between off-premises signs larger than three hundred square feet shall be five hundred lineal feet as measured along the same side of the street including intersections.The minimum distance between off-premises signs three hundred square feet or less in size shall be three hundred lineal feet as measured along the same side of the street including intersections.All off-premises signs must be at least one hundred fifty radial feet from any other off-premises sign. G. Setbacks.The minimum setback shall be eighteen inches for off-premises signs.The sign's front-yard setback shall be measured from the future right-of-way line(see Transportation Improvement Plan),The closest edge of an oft-premises sign shall not project into any required setback area.The minimum setback between an off- premises sign and any residential zone boundary shall be one hundred fifty feet. Lighting.Lighting shall be confined to the sign face,and the lighting source shall not be directly visible. �^ I. Design.Off-premises signs shall utilize either the"mono-pole"or the"hi-pole"design and shall be continually maintained structurally and on the copy face.The back of the sign and the structure behind the sign shall be painted a dark color.Tri-vision sign faces shall be permitted and,if illuminated,must be externally illuminated. inter illuminated off-premises signs,electronic display(outdoor video advertising)and electronic message centers are only allowed adjacent to the interstate freeway system and limited to no more than one change to the copy face in a twenty-four hour period-Taro-decked off-premises signs are prohibited in all zones. J. Credits for Removal.Prior to the removal of any off-premises sign,the owner shall obtain a permit for tile demolition of tile off-premises sign.Permits may be provided following application to the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division.The Salt I ake County Planning and Development Services Division shall by letter inform the affected community council chairman and affected planning commission chairman that a permit for demolition of an off-premises sign has been issued.After any off-premises sign is demolished,the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall create a"billboard bank account"for the sign owner.The account shall reflect credits for the off-premises sign square footage as well as the date of removal.Any off-premises sign credits not usedTvithin thirty-six months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use.An off-premises sign owner may sell or others+rise transfer off- premises signs and/or billboard bank account credits.The transfer of any billboard bank account credits does not extend their thirty-six-month life as provided in this section.Demolition of an off-premises sign that has two advertising faces shall receive billboard bank account credits for the square footage of each sign face. K. Relocation.The oerner of an existing off-premises sign may remove an existing off-premises sign from any slIe to an approved location only after a permit for relocation is obtained upon substantiation of compliance sr lh this chapter.Prior to approval of a permit for relocation,the sign owner(applicant)shall submit to the county a notarized affidavit signed by the property owner,a copy of the lease agreement or other document to he signed by the property owner,indicating at a minimum the duration of the lease and renewal provisions. Additionally,prior to approval of a permit for relocation,Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall by letter inform the affected community council chairman and affected planning commission chairman that application for en off-premises sign permit has been received Off-premises signs moved to approved locations shall conform to all off-premises sign requirements of the new location.Off-premises signs moved from one location to another must be installed in the new approved location within Ire period allotted by the International Budding Code(IBC).A new off-premises sign permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard bank account credits of a sufficient number of square feet.When the permit for construction of a nevi off-premises sign is issued,the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall deduct from the sign owner's billboard bank account the square footage of the new off-premises sign.If the new off- premises sign uses less than the entire available square footage credits,any remaining square footage credits shall remain in the sign owner's billboard bank account. L. County Council Review and Monitoring.The county council shall,on a regular six-month schedule by updated Municode Page 2 of 2 at a regular public meeting to changes in status and effectiveness of the provisions related to off-promises signs in unincorporated Salt Lake County. _ St. Severability and Conflict.This section and its various parts are hereby declared to be severable if a court of competent jurisdiction declares any subsection,clause,provision or portion of this section invalid or unconstitutional.No court decision will affect the validity of either this section as a whole or any parts not declared invalid or unconstitutional by that decision.If any part of this section is found to be in conflict with any other provision of the county,the most restrictive or highest standard will apply,prevail and govern. (Ora.t532§4,2004) Dansie,Doug From: Norris,Nick Sent: Monday,February 07,2011 4:49 PM To: Dansie,Doug Subject: Bookl.xlsx Attachments: Bookl.xlsx Categories: Other Doug, I quickly put together a summary of the counties C-1,C-2 and C-3 zones and which zones they are the most similar to in SLC. Both C-1 and C-2 are most similar to the City's CC zoning district. The CB district listed in the table is primarily used for those areas that are adjacent to residential uses. The main difference is SLC has a max building size of 20,000 square feet,while the C-1 zone in the county allows buildings larger than 20,000 square feet with a conditional use. Based on that,C-1 is kind of between our CB and CC. C-2 and C-3 are more similar to CC and CG,respectively. Ask Purpose Front yard side yard rear yard min lot size Max height Uses Uses max height min lot size rear yard side yard front yard Purpose District District provide areas in the 20 0;except 0;except 35 feet general commercial, general 30 none, 10 feet None None; provide for the CB The C-1 zone is most county for 10 10 required typically. commerci over 4 maximum close integration similar to the CB zone in neighborhood required when next Development over al and acres commercial when next to setback of of moderately SLC. The key difference is 20,000 square feet is a office,size requires a development to residential conditional use. q 15 for at sized the CB zone is intended to residential limted by conditiona least 75% commercial be closely integrated into building I use. of building areas with adjacent neighborhoods. size. Building facade. adjacent Examples of where the CB size reisdnetil zone is include the limited neighborhoods. Univeristy business 20,000 district,most stand along square grocery stores,and feet corners of City collector streets C-1 Provide areas in the 20 feet for 0;except 0;except none 6 stories or general commercial. general 30 feet; 10,000 10 none 15 provide an CC The C-2 and CC zones are county for commercial 10 10 required 75 feet Uses over one acre commerci up to an square enviornment for fairly similar,with the community uses required when next require conditional al, additional feet commercial when next to efficient and City's CC zone being more use. 15 feet development to esidential attractive auto restrictive in terms of residential may be oriented building intensity. approved commercial as a development conditiona along arterial I use and major c-2 collector streets Provide areas in the none 0;except 0;except none 75 feet general commercial, Most 60 feet, 10,000 10 none 10 Provide an CG The CG and C-3 are the county for 10 10 required fairly land intensive. intense upto 90 squarefee commercial uses, required when next q environment for most intensive commercial q Uses over one acre commerci with a t a variety of zones in SLC as well as SL warehouding and when next to require conditional wholesale -- to esideniial al zone, conditiona commercial CO. They allow similar -. - - use.. _.. - - businesses residential includes I use uses,some of uses and similar big box, which involve intensities. warehous the outdoor e stores as display of permitted merchandise or uses materials. c-3 Conditional in C- Billboard size: limited Separation: over 300 1;permitted in C- to 300 sq.ft in C-1; sq ft requires 500 ft Billboard r 2,C-3,M-1 and M-672 in C-2,C-3,M-1 separation;less than Billboards Permitted within C-2, C-3, M-1 , M-2 & Conditional Uses within C-1 Salt 1.uke-Cit • • 7, - • 9 Mil!creek Township - Salt Lake County , s i 0 /, ' ...r.- % . -..,.....`::-,...--_: - „-- ---- ..,:.,------ __!•_ C -..! !".17".-'? • Nut _I, li r -'- . ._ __ __--- , ,,- . 7-- -,-, '7-7 lia -.7'' 1 -. - - ------'-' 73 ' I '---- - _ ligD 1.' - = tr' ... ---„i ,,._ ,_, ii •,-- - I 411110 lalsientii r-lli- Nu if ,__ TO" 3300S 7 _ , 1(---1---..-r'._ ''_ -t r ,rE: . ,.• _ -_,.,..j .., _ ._, - •, ... ..t„.. ... •_ 1-, 1---i-aw7 Irir a cn :_ i . ,, [,_ _17--.-1:-. 7-'_. ' . , ..7____,, _ 1 r-.11R. ia ) - --jjI 11- 11111 INJ r TT., __--I 0 -LI_ . ___- 4 s._ -r 1-±--i— —-i 4_,, --I M fsi, rIMII — - ,.<----- ----, ' -1 , r---.T it-1-I -A\ i I ,--• - .1 J._ ,. , , ,,, -- 'Al --I , --- - .J1J1_,--, . :------ --: cf -, r -,. „' I ' 71-• ---: -\ 1 ' ' ,(12 . 11 .3 + South Salt Lake LIN S j - --. —, , 1 L 1 t 3900S 1-11.1-'(—ir We--F-,..:'"'•-I Ilirliti B:,7--I' - , --"--"', -LLI,,,i.iii.I';A j 1,..:2,..i:II. L. - -' - - '-/--- -- 'at _ -/ .• ii[_'L,....0_,. , ,A__, .,,., ,_J I!, ! 1. , r Legend ,y I •,itc--,q4-- _ . .H .-,-,4- -,, Jr:a 1- _;_k--., ,, 1.-7,----1, i.-iti ,...„:- :,-;._ . --,-,.-, 7- -11t, 4500 S \--- -----77 ,-'71---1-, -•71 - ,_,. ! -- 1_,-; •r SLCO_zoning2011 LI FA-5 I! I FR-20 es R-1-3 I-M-4 R-2-10 _ic,,, • 1-----7 ro,,... .' -7. ----- ._..„,,,, ..., :, IME A-1 L]FM-10 t:IT I FR-5 11111 R-1-4 LH R-2-10/ic 4-,), ! — .t....-_- L - - 'II, \!! - c•t:s 1,-,...: ,, , I r__ , , El A-1/zc .!1,4Lt FM-10/zc El M-1;M-1/ze RE R-1-43 mi R-2-6.5 • 1 :21, ---N- - _.. ,--....-- pi A-2 I I FM-20 IIII M-2 IBE R-1-5 [--]R-2-8 I _.It II li__( "-- 'k. ,I. , ,----, : 1 A-20 pi FM-20/ze in MD-3/zc NE R-1-5/zc I:. :I R-4-8.5 , !-:::,•;:: F .y. - -;,-,!_j A-5 1111 FR-0.5 Jiii R-1-10 In R-1-6 [—I R-M 1(--,) - I 1 C-1;C-1/ze lei FR-1 Ei R-1-10/zc a R-1-6/zc 171 R-M/zc 1I , L,.1 C-2;C-2/zc 1111 FR-1/zc ELIj!. R-1-15 MI R-1-7 LA: RMH li i k En C-3;C-3/zc 1111 NE FA-2.5 mil FR-10 ,2,::.4! R-1-15/zc IIIN R-1-7/zc I I S-1-G IIIII c-v •_*t. FR-10/zc LL.17 R-1-21 1111 R-1-8 Mi FR-2.5 IIIII R-1-21/zc t !i R-1-8/zc Holladay 4p created,by SLC Planning Division 2011 A& NORTH _____ Billboards Permitted within C-2, C-3, M-1 , M-2 & Conditional Uses within C-1 ()Northwest - Salt Lake County Salt Lake City r° AIRPORT 4+` { I-80 N o o to * c e 'f j CALIFORNIA AVE D sl Z '� \ 1JL 0 0 �~ m XI n� SR-201 West Valley City 1 I It-1 Legend • r� -,� � SLCO_zoning2011 L FA-5 []FR-20 R-1-3 * R-2-10 _,_i;r i li i 1 , .---1 E ':,A-1 r,"::I FM-10 U FR-5 'l R-1-4 I I R-2-10/zc ,i °Mg Ili' I i� l ,.� LA A-1/zc ®FM-10/zc l♦M-1;M the R-1-43 i R-2-6.5 i L,�� �f �' -� �1 E-I A-2 .' .I FM-20 .M-2 F;;i1 R-1-5 I R-2-8 �\ d I I �ii�fi C �,'� EN � J A-20 6 I FM-20/zc MD-3/zc R-1-5/zc I I R-4-8.5 ��I�j r i Lr__i A-5 ®FR-0.5 r i R-1-10 8a: 1 R-1-6 I R-M r '11II 1,t t-. � C-1;C-1/zc ®FR-1 R-1-10/zc R-1-6/zc;_i R-M/zc F J„ g tom_.- x < Li C-2;C-2/zc . ;�FR-1/zc I 1 R-1-15 l R-1-7 1---1 RMH El C-3;C-3/zc 7 up C-V _ FA-2.5 ®FR-10 _ I R 1 15/zc a.I R-1-7/zc S-1-G ra FM FR-10/zc I }R-1-21 a R-1-8 1 ;§ �}a, ' • — �1x. ; _ Map created by SLC Planning Division 2011 NORTH Salt Lake City CB, CC, CG, M-1 and M-2 Zones CI i 1- • a I rirJ• =I 1 M I'n.‘ ••=•0\ I _',. „ 7" 0 41.11 • ' i ;:t ..,,, __ _r___ t.3-k MI In 11 -- bilk 4 ' ,Ier i _- II NE, III 2., . iiimin 7 1-1--- i 1 2_-_, 77 1211111iii 10511%. 111: 11.4_ -,••-,- , Lnib.._MIIIIIIIII •---1.1---L-1 ,, TT Nnili . 1---- — —,-, - ..,_IELIPrii:111111WItle so ip-- t---it-v----- , 11- -- i N.ItT4TEMPLE- rail gain.i i -: ____1,4 ierlil • Malitil 1. - -471-1‘._. .:,. _./L el_-..,---1, __mIllViiIII 111 , ,_ _......4L, ...- ___.....,..----„-_ ._,.. _ , ....,,,...: . 1-----1- # • '...---N. •----- ------_-. wr.,- -1,11.47/7,1Viablivo-t.--zfi NIP —._ E tii___„_± 41, (- r 1 r---- / iiimuni ‘ .,-....11- illi ., al:: -111.;;\ `i.4 1111,1111111 ..E IC03 .. . ,..... / Is , , l ---. , - ono --1• :.-I . ''' ..,.h -4-.• 1 . . . • _ .,,„_ „..__„,_,, _ t, ,. ow Milli- In rj-1 - I n -- "1,.,- - _Antri - _ i -.:1 _ _ Ma ,:, , - g , i- 1 I- elm -• gai ] Low • w" ar, 1--' -- .--.L:r.:,---_-:- -,---,---,•., . / 0,i‘r.r. I t_. , .I. ' - , us - ', 24._, -.. . , • .. L: • :_____:„.._-___E_I-.12-1--ii,--f-,-,,.-rif__ ,.-:_...,,,1„_ ci., 1 III , N. .., _ I Ii ., .a i \ I. ow.. i - fill-) __ \ I '1111' : r , : A , lop ,t i 1 ---- - ! I ME r. •-•° --• m, _H-2-- r- •Th--1-7.---i3:---.7.- .._---:.----"---r----=- -0-- 7.'"-- tc)i .. 1 I —I .' ; I ( ii 1 _ 1w ,f ri - ,, =.1 LI = :-..-.:, ---4 ._ - Legend _ -- _ ..,,,:::: '--1"" I X: ,.. 1 a. -:.-2.i.--,;:s:.__ ___, - -1_ El __.! ir ZONING "I ft i.,,,,, ....;,..._ 1.11.111111,e••••••-:.,,,:i!0 ' F-1 CB Pi :, - :r.,_-._.,-___,...,,,,,,....„.. 1—'7 -- ----- ) min cG 1,,- ‘ _ _ - I 11111 M-1 _.,:,-,0, .....-A; 1, ' rt LI_ 114 .1111 M-2 - 47., ,1 ful'ap Cr ci by SIC Planning Division 2011 NORTH II, o i 1 i ; SALT LAKE CITY irlo7.1 — . Il Itm Iwo -,oe OFFICIAL BILLBOARD , llama .. - 1111111111111111 ..Iii ::- i, 1:4j1,4, AND GATEWAY MAP N. , gclfi, 1:;-.) ...., \-4.; .., im. 111111=M, ,....-•._. , ra.4,-,Z,4.%,„ allW1111111111AMEM.1.1 t2-154 , , III:, 13-!i•-; I ___,_ Mill1.1111,111111111t -.--';' i EkiliM yliMitrri '11 + -,. mitituminpuit t---7:,7;, 1 _ w.ii lir ion A\ •?- • , ' _II 11111111111151.-- IlL4._ 1 -.. 4.1. 11..iviliiiiirl ,41 zi II 11-1111-1!--"1 IIIIIII ' 'la; .112110i"jrliVI; ' \ __ c , . -,cs, ?. •-v-.- n' .. -• =ram"-:----,---,..-T- r IIIIIIMAI l'•• 1[7.S11.z.1 ;Ti a. a' -.. : 1 ` r _, E:,:jalk"IIIIVILFird ,, Nkt; lir. .,\•••,.....,, 1 1AL Mil IMOIT/ 111 I I z 111111 "1116111"2. 1 \1\411 le BA FAI1111111111kkgri 80 11 ,u.,.,11 .112LRE98-88T "1:'..- . , n Di Ifiguileampfil IMF:21 iiIii/ ;Iiir.V,?,:gi I1E7 - "1 t .IIIRIIISE,11=111N JIWArit 1.swi,__'00;.;:P. _ •••" JIL:' MEW1 p -"',...„.,...,,,_.,,,e.„-mF_e1l EM..,,:3i,n.r,_..E Ap aAiIomsIi.1v--•M, D1,1•.fl-mT11.1!._0,-.ig.14;-e11,;-17a.2•■6.013E1191.S31.U.0IsO.0O_O.m•48mEIL*.euN.tAI."NE.•es,...snE,:J-..;•, Ic:Wi1glla1mII1O:-.,:A•N:+171..1,:C5-c, . Oi 0 2M0a I 3, , , 4 0111104-111.01N ,==irliiall th 1 ] iri M.r.r IVIRIDIT1PIEDEfil 1 sc„,,, • 4 W , li_t,,i,,,LI. \ IMF1-7;112....111M17:z-ti111,1111;ffilliallIMIIIIMIE MM.Mli-ri. I'E8@C] I ' •. 0$ I il, —1,11-1111-iCit-ii----17-; urx 10,11.ug:,a,EVIIIIIVvetommu MEM MI M111311E21 1/1CDDIEln z\ ,... • litim..r.47u` "b=- -P-•9".11-141OHNVE111 pen i ;_,-Iv va v AMID COME . '-'f NC _ . Ti r - ' imgr:,,mi,. .-:-:_=.--- -- ', imisor, istg gwv-------- ,=.111,-Ifigim ang11 RP; ilIWCIURIITIEIJIMEIFIME10 r , -...,....=:=:;,4,,,,..,.m,..._ , __ Aiwniloi -biz..F..9.,w,F.ar-Nr._,IZ M P.:,1110 M EMIL -Ii.,.,,,...„ti . v, affinompe6,1-161 itm .5.1s Hi.0,..1.11,- 7 1 .7',:-.7lzaror RI ,111, ..:51.11 ii1.11.11.11.q.,J01e.S!,04.2-:=\1,* ' 'I - . drzi =11.1111..11 mmHg ki.iir A(IN I-t i.n.I I ,'\L----f.f..1,11;41 ' ••.:41:1;11 ithinkll:altrdrOi=:=1-•', mg 1 wgq,gi j 1 = .*,,' zd,.-11,Lo A s.Iks-1:.1---f,,, . ki. .1. Mit w.-.-_-=..i.f. pit -..g-1=1..64 • AI) i -,,,t• ''-,... vii A k,.Ile,.r.-=-*, .:, *sty au .,==_=..m.jo . ......=-,...., , C.FORNIA AVE 11 ,,....7 ---- a 1 ii 1.1 . 001 I KX$.1AN I'll F2.0( Oaf IL: t:A..71, Ill IT 'El."1 rXi . I ti I Ith'ATOM'MI efAMWT1171.=raLlAit‘..,,,, ' ' . CALIFORARA AVE ,„__,....... J , ? .iiim a 111...•;*; ..,-.iii.ii liii iirzid.Ii-i Ni miw m ; mi i i* *' * iii...i...--i' —i- ' ''''i=*ii ii-ii ii.. iiii=gi 90 _ I . Illingfilli i iligr'-jjV N\iiii LVIIIIIT Mil- 111 1 IX-411,4i iii i iiiiiirldirilliiiwilliniLCIIIIiiallirlililitii7=i-Tg1113 0161—--\ liiii Atli •*- 111 " . . r".7.En- bIdlli b•' I• - 11.0111' ..81 U iiii 1,...,41..1:L101 f-' 12,410111-='=__Mt4=. 2.:611=1 ... 11 =nit-. Vbir -00,11 , 9. ' I, 1 •e - .., • .. IM.=.1=1'..a..:IMZ.7 MI Lm 6m ......r=rri,m•-, , , , I 11.1.""Irre, • ARNIE:I Mill.•::.;.... ,,, •..:••,!:•::.51... 1 _.e 411411A -..,.•,::::,;_im..,*.'=,,,,, Irk=,1.111.116LIL.s. Rill )_ Ism souni A umeg. IREN Irtivi. 1 Ira win :::.:-..._...iplalm.u.,:-Emria.,v-:•=n2.ir-Trwril ur H , . _____.,.0 j1.1111111111_ iRkivar tam , tt-,@•- - ii,t...,--4-v.pi=11E1 ,7_417..:=1 M==ii.if...:11 .iii.,. ri- v011. Aiallillelli i NEM ,. ,---1. 1-... . ......, ' iliELR ' 1-71.7.1:Er- 'quircaispil l'u'm=tt--•:---.=Frlal,, wirms'•!..,t-__,_ .. ,. L Legend )// .,,- - I ...4. riMEM-.'5.11111111MainT"Il 111/1111,1111:11111:14t7-740k1‘."71:-; INTFA STATE 80 P.•...,-. ..... ..-------Z,_ - ' ,..__.:•AAVAS MAW '. --- N AS1000 ""•—•-"" Gateway 4 11,11:111....1-,4,7k4 IIIIIIIIIIII, rrt .ZA-,“. W-••••01, r •1 0 -------- Special Gateway E P AI iPRA11111MI , =. •'• I- 1 .00.4Ur.V„Zi.I11 .". June 2001 11 ra I Billboards Permitted S 3300 SOUTI NM 'Ly`= Briefing for tir,`' Planning Commission Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Dote: March 9,2011 Re: Billboard Ordinance: Continuation of February 23.201 1 discussion At the February 23,2011 meeting.the Planning Commission asked that the two petitions regarding rewritmg the billboard ordinance PLNPCM2010-00032, and electronic billboards PLNPCM2010-00717 be separated; with expected action regarding electronic billboard to take place at the March 9.2011 meeting and the other items be continued for discussion. Please find attached the following: c A proposed ordinance defining and banning electronic billboards e A proposed ordinance defining electronic billboards,banning them and then providing criteria for them in the event that they are moved,rebuilt or otherwise constructed for external reasons. The Planning Commission should discuss and choose which route(either those provided or another alternative)they wish to pursue. The proposed ordinances are Planning Stall drafts reflecting policy and may be modified by the Attorneys office to insure legality and compatibility with existing code. 'Ilia Planning Commission raised questions regarding outstanding balances in the billboard bank. The only company with an outstanding balance is Salt Lake Community College. Reagan has 604 square feet in the general account but is overdrawn by 660 square feet in the North Temple account. Therefore Reagan is presently in a negative overall scenario with the bank. Salt Lake Community College has 840 square feet worth of credit that expires in December 2013. Proposed Ordinance Proposal which defines and prohibits electronic billboards. 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A.Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. B.Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located. BILLBOARD BANK:An accounting system established by the city to keep track of the number and square footage of nonconforming billboards removed pursuant to this chapter. BILLBOARD CREDIT:An entry into a billboard owner's billboard bank account that shows the number and square footage of demolished nonconforming billboards. BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. D'WEL.L TIME The,i nct:'�ot,n that I asesbetween te ,in .q= C gr:oneseC ro��,ared:Font:No:Bcd_ an electronic Sian, Formatted:ind, r t o .Forn,aued:Font: EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13,1993. ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:_Any-cfi_yremise sign.video disolay.oroiected imone.cr r�_r device with t_:t_images.or or onion generated by sgl d sate electronic, cemoo❑ents. Electronic.=.ions include but are not limited to.lions that use faht emitting diodes(LED),plasma displays,fiber optics,or other technology that results in bright,high-resolution text,images and graphics. FOOT CANDLE:the English unit of measurement for luminance,which is equal to Formatted:r,eenr First Ire:o 7 one lumen.incident upon an area of one square foot. GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; ^-----{Formatted:Indent:Left:0.93" 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East, 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; ^k 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 60; --' 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East, 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80, 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City. 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; - 1mattea:Indent:rerr.0s8 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East, 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. ILLUMINENCE:The intensi)of light failing on a subsurface ate defined distance from the source. MOTION The depiction of movement or change or position of text.images,or Formatted:Font:Not Bola graphics. Motion shall include.but not be limited to,visual effects such as dissolving I Formatted:T, st u o s,i;v.e and fading text and images,running sequential text.graphic bursts.IiphUng that resembles zooming,twinkling,or sparkling,changes in light or color,transitory bursts of light intensity.moving patterns or bands of light.expanding or contracting shapes and similar neLsns- F tted:rooc_o.d_ • TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in ' - Formatted: IC, increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific messageLC or advertisement -- --- - ---- - -- TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text.images.and graphics on an electronic F attea:a, sign to change to a different text.im=_ces.or graphics on a subsequent sign face. {Formatted:—aL st5r.f, 0.25",List e., C.Limit On The Total Number Of Billboards:No greater number of billboards shall be allowed in Salt Lake City than the number of existing billboards. D.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner Formatted: �,d,i Let ss only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3 Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). E.Credits For Nonconforming Billboard Removal:After a nonconforming billboard is demolished pursuant to a permit issued under subsection D1 of this section,or its successor,the city shall create a billboard bank account for the billboard owner.The account shall show the date of the removal and the zoning district of the demolished nonconforming billboard.The account shall reflect billboard credits for the billboard and its square footage.Demolition of a conforming billboard shall not result in any billboard credit. • F.Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule, 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or gateway G-MU,GGC or GH or on gateways shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed iesak, last;and 4.A billboard owner may demolish nonconforming billboards of a lower priority before removing billboards in a higher priority;however,the billboard credits for removing the lower priority billboard shall not become effective for use in constructing a new billboard until two(2)billboards specified in subsection F1 of this section,or its successor,with a total square footage equal to or greater than the lower priority billboard,are credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account.If a billboard owner has no subsection F1 of this section,or its successor,nonconforming billboards,two(2)subsection F2 of this section,or its successor,priority billboards may be credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account to effectuate the billboard credits of a subsection F3 of this section,or its successor,billboard to allow the construction of a new billboard.For the purposes of this section,the two(2)higher priority billboards credited in the billboard bank account can be used only once to effectuate the billboard credits for a lower priority billboard. G.Life Of Billboard Credits:Any billboard credits not used within thirty six(36)months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use except that lower priority credits effectuated pursuant to subsection F4 of this section,or its successor, shall expire and be of no further value or use within sixty(60)months of their initial creation. aw • H. Billboard Credits Transferable: A billboard owner may sell or otherwise transfer a billboard and/or billboard credits. Transferred billboard credits which are not effective because of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section, or its successor, shall not become effective for their new owner until they would have become effective for the original owner. The transfer of any billboard credits do not extend their thirty six(36) month life provided in subsection G of this section, or its successor. I. Double Faced Billboards: Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two (2) advertising faces shall receive billboard credits for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. J. New Billboard Construction: It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter. In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. K. Permitted Zoning Districts: New billboards may be constructed only in the area identified on the official billboard map. L. New Billboard Permits: 1. Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2. Fees: The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a. Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building code as adopted by the city; and b. Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. M. Use Of Billboard Credits: 1.A new billboard permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard credits of a sufficient number of square feet and billboards to allow construction of the new billboard. 2.When the permit for the construction of a new billboard is issued,the zoning administrator shall deduct from the billboard owner's billboard bank account. a.The square footage of the new billboard;and b.The number of billboards whose square footage was used to allow the new billboard construction. 3.If the new billboard uses less than the entire available billboard credits considering both the number of billboards and square footage,any remaining square footage shall remain in the billboard bank. N.New Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway. Auk O.Special Gateway Provisions: 1.If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to subsections P,Q. R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount of billboard credits in the special gateway billboard bank. 2.The demolition of a nonconforming billboard pursuant to this section shall not accrue billboard credits within the general billboard bank.Credits for a billboard demolished or constructed within a special gateway shall be tracked within a separate bank account for each special gateway.A permit for the construction of a new billboard pursuant to this section must be taken out within thirty six(36)months of the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. P.Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. Q.Temporary Embellishments: 1.Temporary embellishments shall not exceed ten percent(10%)of the advertising face of any billboard,and shall not exceed five feet(5')in height above the billboard structure. 2.No temporary embellishment shall be maintained on a billboard more than twelve(12)months. R.Height:The highest point of any new billboard,excluding temporary embellishments shall not be more than: 1.Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or 2.If a street within one hundred feet(100')of the billboard,measured from the street at the point at which the billboard is perpendicular to the street,is on a different grade than the new billboard,twenty five feet(25')above the pavement elevation of the street. 3.If the provisions of subsection R2 of this section,or its successor subsection,apply to more than cnc street,the ne:v billboard may be the higher of the two(2)heights. S.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all pans of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. T.Spacing. 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300) linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. U:Electronic Billboards: 1. Electronic Billboards are prohibited:, rForn,atted:Let Paragraph,Numbered+ Level:1+Numbering Style:1,2,3, +Start at:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned Cr'0.25"+ UV.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Indent at:0 s' Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a (Formatted:Franc:(Default)Helvetica,12 p' billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. VW.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection 1-S of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street �w frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. =..^.'X.Xeriscape Alternative:It all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1,1996, `.rZ.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance.-, -.w ZAA.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. AABB.Special Provisions: 1.Applicability:The provisions of this section shall apply to specified billboards located: a.Four(4)existing billboards between 1500 North and 1800 North adjacent to the west side of Interstate 15;and b.One existing billboard on the east side of Victory Road at approximately 1100 North. 2.General Applicability:Except as modified by this section,all other provisions of this chapter shall apply to the five(5)specified billboards. 3.Special Priority:The five(5)specified billboards shall be considered as oateway billboards for the purposes of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor subsection. 4.Landscaping:The five(5)specified billboards shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of subsection`—.Ml of this section,or its successor subsection. CBCC State Mandated Relocation Of Billboards:Except as otherwise authorized herein,existing billboards may not be relocated except as mandated by the requirements of Utah state law.(Ord.72-08§2,2008:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord. 13-04§§25,26,27,2004:Ord.25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord.83-98§§12-14,1998: Ord.88-95§1(Exh.A),1995) Proposed Ordinance Proposal which defines and prohibits electronic billboards and provides criteria if they are built for external reasons. 21A.46.160: BILLBOARDS: A. Purpose Statement: This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number. This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways, views, vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. B. Definitions: BILLBOARD: A freestanding ground sign located on industrial, commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business, product or service that is not sold, offered or existing on the property where the sign is located. BILLBOARD BANK:An accounting system established by the city to keep track of the number and square footage of nonconforming billboards removed pursuant to this chapter. BILLBOARD CREDIT: An entry into a billboard owner's billboard bank account that shows the number and square footage of demolished nonconforming billboards. BILLBOARD OWNER: The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. IFormatted:Font:Not Bold .. SH5 I Formatted:Indent:First line: 0" • Formatted:Fort:Eo'd EXISTING BILLBOARD: A billboard which was constructed, maintained and in use or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13, 1993. - !•• l'��'•/ •, ccntecnar-,t,., .iro .:s irc,uae, but are rct limited to.zinns triet r._e emittinn ainnas(LED).c ama disclays.fncer cct'cs.or char tachnc'ccv that res,,a ch hich-reacluticin text imaces and cinches- O;-) C''J ihs3 Er.T.Hih un c _-- ' m_i:,fcrlu _rcn i;' ,e • Formaaed:Indent:Frsti e o'' cner.=;:i.incidant'unonvscre ct cne.scuerefoc` - ---------- - GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; Formattedandent: at.093• 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; Ask 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; • Formatted:Indent Let:058 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. 1,•_ i,n t - _ f. .f'n rc_ �ro'1 c. t ..In C ':r' }.C - 'Formatted:Fort Not Sold ii' _I i" Si£ - 1 23 3 r' _- Formatted:Tab steps:0.25",Ust tab ntentt f - t;. 1 imz.:SS ft 3,223231 . L ntial t c,rvr, -b r_t,.II. t OS.; _ r. o _ lr3.ch_r in 1.c:ht cr cc!cr.transitors .I„ -( ^.t.Ci'_ 'Formatted:Font:Sold TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in - Formatted:Normal,Indent:Le's 0.25', increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message Space Before:Auto,Ater:Auto,Tab stops. or advertisement. a2s,List tab _ - C 1 ,n 'Formatted:Fort:Helve:'.ca,12 p: t creh cn(:r I.l _I l f_�`' Formatted:Tab tors:0.25•,List tab C.Limit On The Total Number Of Billboards:No greater number of billboards shall be allowed in Salt Lake City than the number of existing billboards. D.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner • 'Formatted:Indent.Left.asp• only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). E.Credits For Nonconforming Billboard Removal:After a nonconforming billboard is demolished pursuant to a permit issued under subsection D1 of this section,or its successor,the city shall create a billboard bank account for the billboard owner.The account shall show the date of the removal and the zoning district of the demolished nonconforming billboard.The account shall reflect billboard credits for the billboard and its square footage.Demolition of a conforming billboard shall not result in any billboard credit. F.Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or gateway G-MU,GGC /e. or GH or on gateways shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;and 4.A billboard owner may demolish nonconforming billboards of a lower priority before removing billboards in a higher priority,however,the billboard credits for removing the lower priority billboard shall not become effective for use in constructing a new billboard until two(2)billboards specified in subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,with a total square footage equal to or greater than the lower priority billboard,are credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account.If a billboard owner has no subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,nonconforming billboards,two(2)subsection F2 of this section,or its successor,priority billboards may be credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account to effectuate the billboard credits of a subsection F3 of this section,or its successor,billboard to allow the construction of a new billboard.For the purposes of this section,the two(2)higher priority billboards credited in the billboard bank account can be used only once to effectuate the billboard credits for a lower priority billboard. G.Life Of Billboard Credits:Any billboard credits not used within thirty six(36)months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use except that lower priority credits effectuated pursuant to subsection F4 of this section,or its successor, shall expire and be of no further value or use within sixty(60)months of their initial creation. H.Billboard Credits Transferable:A billboard owner may sell or otherwise transfer a billboard and/or billboard credits.Transferred billboard credits which are not effective because of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor, shall not become effective for their new owner until they would have become effective for the original owner.The transfer of any billboard credits do not extend their thirty six(36)month life provided in subsection G of this section,or its successor. I.Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive billboard credits for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. J.New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. K.Permitted Zoning Districts:New billboards may be constructed only in the area identified on the official billboard map. L.New Billboard Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees fora new billboard construction permit shall he: a.Building permit and plan review tees required by the uniform building code as adopted by the city;and b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. M.Use Of Billboard Credits: 1.A new billboard permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard credits of a sufficient number of square feet and billboards to allow construction of the new billboard. 2.When the permit for the construction of a new billboard is issued,the zoning administrator shall deduct from the billboard owners billboard bank account: a.The square footage of the new billboard;and b.The number of billboards whose square footage was used to allow the new billboard construction. 3.If the new billboard uses less than the entire available billboard credits considering both the number of billboards and square footage,any remaining square footage shall remain in the billboard bank. N.New Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred Ask feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway. O.Special Gateway Provisions: 1.If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within e special gateway,the billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to subsections P,Q, R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount of billboard credits in the special gateway billboard hank. 2 The demolition of a nonconforming billboard pursuant to this section shall not accrue billboard credits within the general billboard bank.Credits for a billboard demolished or constructed within a special gateway shall be tracked within a separate bank account for each special gateway.A permit for the construction of a new billboard pursuant to this section must be taken out within thirty six(36)months of the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. P.Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. Q.Temporary Embellishments: 1.Temporary embellishments shall not exceed ten percent(10%)of the advertising face of any billboard,and shall not exceed five feet(5')in height above the billboard structure. 2.No temporary embellishment shall be maintained on a billboard more than twelve(12)months. R.Height:The highest point of any new billboard,excluding temporary embellishments shall not be more than: 1.Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or 2.If a street within one hundred feet(100')of the billboard,measured from the street at the point at which the billboard is perpendicular to the street,is on a different grade than the new billboard,twenty five feet(25')above the pavement elevation of the street. 3.If the provisions of subsection R2 of this section,or its successor subsection,apply to more than one street,the new billboard may be the higher of the two(2)heights. S.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.in the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. T.Spacing. 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square feet or less in size shall not he located closer than three hundred(300) linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street, 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. r 9 t Le o z e r l r - ac i t .I(_rid(1•=:',' ci• Formatted:Space Before:A:tfo,After:Auto 1 _;/-= E'I t --i t C _ - Formatted:I t Paragraph,Numbered+ '.;n>'L,.:_J for _ 1,( t- '' ( CD'ir'1 , tl SG" r Levebl+t.un g Style.l2,a +Strt r "' at,1 P anm t:Lft+Aligned,025 :'!:dt .. C':. Itrt z_:OS' Formatted:1-,dent Left:0.5',No bullets or r11 • numberng C- - CrC t,ted Cl L4,1 - _ • Formatted:For',(Cerao„)Hehet co,12 rt .`rc_^1 c , h ,e en!,s t I cr __ Formatted: Left,r',N�mor�n Lever 5+Nomtet,ng style a,b,c a'.I t�,•e. at 1 frhgnment Le;+A'.gnedat: + Indee:e..2' '--= --' -Formtted:Fc r'.1 zli_t ca,12 pt,rlct 6a,0 (? ) I1C r Formatted:Font'(Default)Helvetica,12 pl i=1 I i rIl Dot , 0 25 Formatted:I den;'Left:1.25" -- - Formatted:For,;'.(Default)Helvetica,12 pt r I' li I c.' l r :t. F. Formatted:Indent left:l",Fumbe-ad+ o'-t ;:re r r t'-.aI I eot c >, '._t r ,.-� level s.rem g scy� a,b SSA r` - t 1 A.'g2r Let+Algrd,1 2 25'+ Formatted:Font Helveico,12 ph root Eck! 1:;1 I;r 1 .ler •l"J 1 - L-: Form _ - atted:F _e(Dcfaul;)Ire et�ca,12 p: Formatted:Indent:l eft:1.25" �-,_..I F._ ,- Formatted:F :t.(Default)lie vets/,12 p: 1_ ht. _ 1 r __ Formatted:Font:He,vetica,12 pt,Not Road --- - -- - Formatted:Inds"at'Left:1",Numbered+ :i1 _ - _ Level.5+Numbering Style:a,b c .Start 1 — - -I+AI9lmc.tLft+A,gne7 at:2.2L'+ I:d-rt at:2.5" Formatted:I n;:Left.1.25" -- --_ - -- - Formatted:Indeed:Hanooth:0 19', -- -- Nun hexed+Level:1+Numbering Styie:i, +Star at.I+ •:Right r A' ..t tigntre:t• ..t 1.5"+Indent e;:1.75' Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 Ft rt D ISC i,'f G=l i C ri • Formatted:Font Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold E tro c(:. C '" l f i? l'. ='l( [ C;"_'S(;:• Formatted:Indent:Left 1",Numbered+ rf..n,,,t d - th.:v cry -'-J in er . e Lever.5+Numbering Style:a,b,c,_«Staid c ' 't at: «AI'gnment.Left+Aligned a::2.25"+ - Indent at:2,5' • C a•/. Ccrci. r, "_ _ Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetica,12 pt C m J / lCB,hhr VhCfllr'Q r' _ Formatted:Indent:Left: 1.25" Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt Formatted:Fort(D f It)Helvetica,12 pt I. G' - 5 Ir f` 1 - Formatted:Font Helvetica,12pt Formatted:Indent:Left 1 Numbered+ �r'I C S0'31 cerCJ I r . - Level'S+Numbering Style:a,b,c, +Start at.1+Alignment:Left+Aligned at 2 25"+ r_1_t /_l Garr,CEritl :J r, r - _ _ Indent at:25,Tab slops. 125,Left til t tr _ali,7rst - '_I Formatted:Font Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold pIi1L _1 mot:en:❑ CI _ -- - Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetca,12 pt I.is ._��--_... r .., • Formatted:List Paragraph I.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21=-2 0=)and 21 2-030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced "'!.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection I!: of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from tire property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as en alternative for the required landscaping. Y.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1,1996. %_.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance-_ '__=r\.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land • for the gite.of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. .Special Provisions: 1.Applicability:The provisions of this section shall apply to specified billboards located: Amok a.Four(4)existing billboards between 1500 North and 1800 North adjacent to the west side of Interstate 15;and b.One existing billboard on the east side of Victory Road at approximately 1100 North. 2.General Applicability:Except as modified by this section,all other provisions of this chapter shall apply to the five(5)specified billboards. 3.Special Priority:The five(5)specified billboards shall be considered as gateway billboards for the purposes of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor subsection. 4.Landscaping:The five(5)specified billboards shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of subsection-'.'1:of this section,or its successor subsection. State Mandated Relocation Of Billboards:Except as otherwise authorized herein,existing billboards may not be relocated except as mandated by the requirements of Utah state law.(Ord.72-08§2,2008:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord. 13-04§§25,26,27,2004:Ord.25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord.83-98§§12-14,1998: Ord,88-95§1(Exh.A),1995) \Inch;._01 I Salt Lake City Planning('onunission Michelle Noland Dear members or the Salt Luke Cits Planning Commission. Enclosed you will find a first draft of the Industrc's proposal for a net)Orr-Premises Sign (lydinanue. 1 Itis drab gill be a starting point for discussions on this cur complicated issue. the Inducer would like to discuss this drab and a(iinsale Garth interactive utai that the Industr_ has created to stud)this issue with the I'lanning Conmtiitee cn,u +ther Off-Premises Sign Subcommittee meeting. .. he Indu.s:n feels than another Subnurminec (tenting auuld be the hest platform to do this aic en the contplecities o1 the issue and the amount or lima it will take!o revicu.the neap. I It 1Ve not enclosed the map herein due to the filet it is iutpo,ssih!e to explain his.it o.nrs iu sviun and.instead.netds to he reviewed in person. !he Industry will brine this drab and the map to the Planning[guilt iaou meehra ir,, Vs efinesi.).larch,t"'-and if the 1'lannin_Cummissio❑desires.the Industry can proem both item,at that Bite as art dternatise. I Iosecser.it will take approsim::tetc one(tour of a minion:m tii do In elosirr_.:it you ref ie.,the prof isions of this Ilr:t drab regartbn Placement.I lei_ht and spicing.Meuse he conscious or the;:+a Ih:u n is only a tint draft antl it is probable the lndu>tr btu f.+ilcd to cnnsidcr all or the issues related to the elements described above. Consequently.the Industry w,tiernrands the iced for:ulditinn:d ilisansion>and,in all likelihood,ch:mee<to Ihi> document. Vert:cols soots. lim es.\.Itea_can DAlt l ie I nclos,:re Amok OfLprcrniscsarigns--Billboards. INDUSTRY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. A. Purpose Thrs section provides for the reasonable regulation of off-premises signs wen the orient of enhancing the aesthetics of existing and future billboards B. Cap on the amount of Off•Prermses Sign square footage I he amount of off-premises sign square footage allowed in Salt Lake City shall be l:.mrted to the amount of off-premises sign squae footage existing on Salt Lake City streets anti or any square footage deMasacd en the Sall Lake Crty • Off•Premises Sign Bank as defined I1ere:n as of March 2 2011 C. Location OlLprenuses signs shall be allowed In the CS,CC CG.GMU.Mgt and M.2 zones as a permitted use irrespective of overlay zoning,and the CS zone as a conditional use D. Size Ofhprermses signs shall not exceed sin hundred seventy-two square lee;in the CS,CC.CC. GMIJ M-1 and Id-2 zones Off-prenvses signs located in a CB zone shag not exceed three hureffed square feet in size. E. Hecht The maximum height of an off-premises sign shall be fortylive lost above the grade of the street in a CB.CS CC.CG,GMU M-1 and M•2 zone.unless oriented for freeway viewing only and located within three hundred feel d11he nearest freeway lane of 1,15 I.215 1.80 west of 1-15 or the 21st Soutt,Expressway west of 1.1S When oriented to the afore mentioned renter Ii!!maximal n height of an oil-premises sign shall be twenty-five feel above freeway grade level of wary-tic feed °serail wh,chevzr is greater Wlichh height shall be extended by the everatl height measured at Inv b,phest point of any sound wall traffic or rndestnan safely barrier erected by a m.n.Lrulrty.county o'agency CI the stale F. Separation The ihaten•em distance between 011i prorniSes Signs larger than three itundten Sgirr?r_ feet shalt be tiwe kindred lineal feet as measured along the same Side of the street innl,rein0 inierrections 1 he minimum distance bMreen lipremrscs signs three hundred sq=se fret or less ice, -ce shall be Ihiee hundred lineal feet as measured a:oho the saute side of hie street including :nlersect•ons All elf•premiscs signs must be ai lea51 one hundred fitly radial feet lrern any other of _ G. Buttocks T ne minimum sctheck,shall be eighteen inches for oil-premises signs The s:grl s haul- yarn and side yard setback shall be measured from the righbot-way line Tire closest edge of an o:f•prernses sign shall not protect ego any requited setback viva 1 he nunvnuni setback Le:wec•n ...n cd-;dr:,,scs sign and any yes:den•i_.zone boundary shell be one nuiutrvd f.fiy lire. P.. Lighting I„hang shall he teemed to this:sign lane a-r.',inn I gir nn source Sr;rti not visible .tr saijn Ott premises signs hat trh%de ortner the Crno--p rig the Ih i . e`design and she,Lc continueny nmmiamed sructuratly and Sr the copy fact Inn back of ine ri, and lure;.,u_.u•e bet'.ir.d the 5,g n shall be painted a nags color J. Credds fur iRi .dal Pr I>I1e removal ot any o"1ipn..ises sign tits Cih Stinii critainspry t, . the demolition tinn of the oft pre'in Ses Sign Peirnits may Lcbrodnded :'.o n at t. d o n to the Salt Lake City Planning Division Ahe,any c11 remises sign wlished the Salt Lake Cvy Division shall Creme a`biftboard bank account'for the sign owner the account Shia!!reelect ereC-ns for the off-premises situ square footage as well as the dale of removai Any vitt-pie1uuises sign et edits'C'.used scaler,forty-eight months of then creche',shad eop-re and be of no fuc ilh'va'u-a ci e An oft promises sign owner may'sell or other-ease transfer off.pre:rnscs signs dnd.er Onboard bank account credits The transfer of any billboard hank account ued.ls does not ex.;erai then thirty-silk-.pion;h 1de as provided in his sun-on Demolition of an o'i•premiseS sign that liar Mr adverlismg faces shall receive bitlboar[t bank,account[rerb's far the square footage of each sir face Amu, • L L, y.--�;1 IL SALT LAKE CITY if._ OFFICIAL BILLBOARD n AN \ -\ j1,,,,,.,),.. _li ‘ ' 1!ma' ' -, AND GATEWAY MAP lift IIIIII. r_ 1 \ •-= ;? Ill Illllllll lfllll■� ■ ` 11;„1 _,,,\ riiIIIIIIIInllllll u unililonnflfll j ; 0 [ii .DI;IIIIII� *, I !.IIIII le, Y,1. --� III ji ':i ` IIII(k�� \7411..Zti II iii; ' Wiz\. II 111111,111H�9®[ER8atiil@J■, i, H ..r _■ B®MEIEI i�lll 1►�w\. ft. y!_• Ian .+s�c:.. .u",_'._1■ " NnEsTATE UO� .. a ■®''®1`�_�® ����r1 ■■i 1!�■�!■.■,iC ,�1 0 r t—ifi■.fi■■t}i■■iL■■■■CY:_1;14LEI. �- .,_.. _J - —I �In,�,IL ,,,R ilr�, ■ ■■■'iil•.C:...L u t�Y -``- i I \_� SIC = r.�ruTill■Y�d■�■f■r� .' O •-^ �� -` �11 ,n - _m ©■ ■iiva--Hil coot ,I.,.. kftiI4!?.- 3...iY1■_.Y1, ;., ... I� � r� /IL91111ffIInn �]�_ Li uI ll.lrIllmlYarilc:IIIIIIY a �'�fAv;, ies�= t15lifq.(1 ■IF'I 'Jl ag Na■Aiiilf,l: s 1 # = `W11.1III /IIII■■aanu■I*1alco�1!!:9it�1!� lid- '" .iinml.r Ih II 1� ��'. ` .�f 11 -- . , _1z I Hlnulniai-� � F� L uuuiiillll� a�tJlilClllCl■Ie�'1W■Ill ..iilltlflrl 1'g ■�� �� . r�J� t■!�■IML"■��I 3' 15"iia''11y�1,1t1111i� = r gg ilU►(�j, f ,Il y[ilim,■11®a1E1�IMIIII liiMl��ill:MI1'�YNMI! I !-Eir _ � �,,� ;.■� ! k' IIII; " '+ 1_, fh wli ig nlrlll-■ ii„IIII .r kt�1CFOFNUAOE CF . .. L9. • 7 1 ►=�i �.���� (I�el—, I ■I�1� } r-+ IIIII I- INr �t1n 1'�,`3 �'wA� ���II� C 5 LIII ■ r '' 1 11 '1�1111 Yni' ■ 11.flll ��"19i9 _,� `�,.........T 1 a.i ■. 9�. � II �I � /I/III , uuplr_ 1 b — '�_� iIIII, �f �! I f �Y'1!�`li inllll _ ��IY II � � [ �fI IIII ..e e..=1�.ia �l yluu IIi..1_=�.dr I■ i. IVI 1 �ill1) ..u�. Pl ! n r �7�I112��_ 1ES� t'■lI'rEEgl; r P. • ISM SOUTH ".. • ■ I !/•ei, 'ui t r ll ' Li ,00—.11.ir d:, : .' ■r•r � 1 IF „. ' ���..,� 1 A'�i;�.m ,'� '` .If111 `lii nn—.e.l�y ( A�-7 = '�� --- , li i.- r-iu...Em-u lL� agcrri � ICE. 1FRT1a■� i i I;1 e!J !.I !'Ul �t� t�uClul�i,� �,� , Legend �/ Eil iullulr� `1 1 ItIn�IL� ''. -wTEasuFEco Ih I 1i =1 II 4 N :IIII 'i1 nIIIlllyllllla'','r �.:�.; �_`1 Gateway 111t f _ �_I .11.11 IILIIIIIII n 0 w-.`9' E T! 111IIM!."111�U1ria= Special Gateway rk . u�I a June 2001 �-.-_ICI Billboards Permitted S 1 �$ J]&socN 0 0 0 111-II: 1 z f11► IF oIllti,'c. v v io o • � r -J 1 • me =fi Til ..__ ARMIN N - �, c -v III == . '7:3 0 i III N ' • 1-215 .. - ...ti - l/ k.,"- -L,c `_ _ ._t��'^-ram , k, ,.i Ca i .� PLTll li i I rrr Cl q ..,1 , E91 i.;_.. Ili!!_" I .,-� r �=-. ---i--.1'i O .. ' .i� Gr'. Y_ T. Q ID., livarir i ' -ice--` a.rN O 3t- I 1 1•1- -e- -., 1 11,, _L 1 t;,`II I ' t -" 'i s 3. . 1 v ; _ +,y_, .........._,„A.,,,„- t I 1r.j I -cif I (ir 1 -. -- - _ 'p ,A - f . � SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,January 26,2011 at 7:00 p.m.or immediately following the Work Session The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00p.m.in Room 126. Work Session: 5:30 in Room 326. The Planning Commission will hold a work session from approximately 5:30- 6:30. During the Work Session the Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on pending projects,discuss project updates and minor administrative matters.This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. PLNPCM2011-00015: Yalecrest Local Historic District Designation—A request by the Historic Landmark Commission,pursuant to a request from the Yalecrest Yes Heritage Preservation Committee,to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map,in accordance with the standards of chapter 21A.34.020 and chapter 21A.50.050 of the City Ordinance,and establish an H Historic Preservation Overlay District for the Yalecrest neighborhood which is located generally between 800 South/Sunnyside Avenue and 1300 South,from 1300 East to 1900 East.The area is located in City Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington Love and District 6 represented by JT Martin.(Staff contact:Carl Leith at(801)535-7758 or earl.leith@slcgov.com.) PLNPCM2010-00665: Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay(YCI)and Historic Preservation Overlay(H)Amendment •A request by Jodi Howick in behalf of the Yalecrest Preservationists for Property Rights for amendment of the Salt Lake City Code to establish a voluntary development review process and modify certain provisions of the YCI District,and amend the procedure to establish an H District. The amendment will affect sections 21A.34.120 and 214.34,020 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact:Michael Maloy at(801)535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com). • Approval of Minutes • Report of the Chair and Vice Chair • Report of the Director • Public Hearings 7:00 or immediately following the work session Public Hearing(Administrative Petition) 1. PLNPCM2010-00760: Deseret First Credit Union Conditional Use—A request by Gary Gower for conditional use approval for an expansion of the office building located at 147 North 200 West in the R-MU(Residential Mixed Use)and RMF-35(Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)zoning districts and in Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold.(Staff contact:Katia Pace at 801-535-635 4 or kativ I:ure.(y.s!cgov.com) Issues Only(Legislative Petitions) 2. Petition 400-06-51: Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact:Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) 3. PLNPCM2010-00032: Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. (Staff contact:Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) 4. PLNPCM2010-00717: Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact.Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie@slegov.com) The files for the above items ore available in the Planning Division offices,room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information,Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports,and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17;past meetings are recorded and archived,and may be viewed at www.slctv.com A rt. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City &County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, February 23, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. or immediately following the Work Session The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00p.m.in Room 126. Work Session: 5:30 in Room 326. The Planning Commission will hold a work session from approximately 5:30-6:00. During the Work Session the Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on pending projects,discuss project updates and minor administrative matters.This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. Briefing • PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Unit-A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow accessory dwelling units within single-family and multi-family residential districts.This request is part of the Sustainability Code Amendment Project. (Staff contact: Michael Maloy at 801-535-7118 or michael.malov(g�slcgov.com.) • Approval of Minutes • Report of the Chair and Vice Chair • Report of the Director • Public Hearings 6:00 or immediately following the work session Public Hearing Legislative Petitions 1. PLNSUB2009-01424 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment:a request by Salt Lake City Corporation to amend the zoning of the properties associated with the new Public Safety Building project. The zoning map would be amended to show zoning of Transit Corridor(TC-7S)along 400 South and Public Lands(PL-2)for the southern portion of the property. Also,an amendment to the text of the Public Lands districts(PL,PL-2)v,:ould allow for a communication tower to exceed building height only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. This request applies to various properties within the block bounded by 400 South and 500 south,300 East and 400 East,in Council District 4 represented by Luke Garrott.(Staff contact:Casey Stewart at 801-535-6260 or - ce o) 2. Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact: Doug Dansie al 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie Pslcgov.com) 3. PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie Cslcgov.com) 4. PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment mould affect all zoning districts. (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie Baslcgov.com) The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices,room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information,Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports,and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SICTVChonnel17;past meetings are recorded and archived,and may be viewed at www.slctv.com .wo Remarks: Petition No: PLNPCM2010-00717 Ili By: Salt Lake City Planning it Zoning Text Amendment for Electronic Billboards jl ilk Date Filed: October 21,2010 Address: Citywide 0LN PC Zte -w 717 Petition Initiation jt Request Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Mayor Becker From: Wilf Sommerkorn,Planning Director 1/1 . Date: October 21,2010 CC: Frank Gray,Community and Economic Development Director;Mary De La Mare-Schaefer,Community&Economic Development Department Deputy Director; Cheri Coffey,Assistant Planning Director;file Re: Initiate Petition to amend the Sign Ordinance relating to Electronic Billboards This memo is to request that you initiate a petition requesting the Planning Division to analyze the appropriateness of amending various sections of the City's Sign Ordinance,Chapter 21A.46,relating to Electronic Billboards. The purpose of the request is to the revise the ordinance to address electronic billboards,which the ordinance is currently silent on and to analyze issue and impacts relating to electronic billboards,which may include a prohibition of electronic billboards in the City. As part of the process,the Planning Division will follow the City adoption process for zoning text amendments which includes citizen input and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. If you have any questions,please contact me. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. / Z91/4-) Ralph Becker,Mayor Date o Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building 451 South State Street,Salt Lake City,Utah Wednesday,January 26,2011 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Chair Michael Fife, Vice Chair, Angela Dean, Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs De Lay, Michael Gallegos, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh,Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead.Commissioner Kathleen Hill and was excused. The scheduled field trip was cancelled. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting.The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m.Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Wilf Sommerkorn,Planning Director;Joel Patterson,Planning Manager; Doug Dansie,Senior Planner;Carl Leith, Senior Planner; Michael Maloy, Principal Planner; and Paul Nielson, Land Use Attorney; and Angela Hasenbcrg,Senior Secretary. 5:34:46 PM Work Session PLNPCM2o11-00015: Yalecrest Local Historic District Designation—A request by the Historic Landmark Commission,pursuant to a request from the Yalecrest Yes Heritage Preservation Committee,to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map,in accordance with the standards of chapter 21A.34.020 and chapter 21A.50.050 of the City Ordinance,and establish an H Historic Preservation Overlay District for the Yalecrest neighborhood which is located generally between Soo South/Sunnyside Avenue and 130o South,from 130o East to i9oo East.The area is located in City Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington Love and District 6 represented by JT Martin.(Staff contact:Carl Leith at(Sot)535-7758 or carl.leith(slcgov.com.) Chairperson recognized Joel Paterson,Carl Leith,and Michael Maloy as staff representatives. Mr.Paterson gave a background on the Yalecrest Land Fill Overlay Zoning District. • Planning Commission recommended approval in 2005. • Zoning Standards allow people to get building permits by right or special exception process,and nothing had required Planning Commission approval • 1999,the city worked with the Yalecrest neighborhood to establish neighborhood zoning. • In response to new construction that did not comply with the size and scale of other homes in the area,the City worked with a subcommittee of the Yalecrest Community Council • Over 5 years,the 1'Cl standards were created and adopted in 2005. • December 2005,in response to demolitions and incompatible development in the Avenues, Capitol Hill,and other areas,the City Council adopted a City wide compatible infill zoning standards that were a series of zoning text amendments that were placed within the different residential zoning districts for single family/two family zoning districts. • Example of the difference in Standards between the YCI and the City-wide compatible infill standards: Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2011 Page 1 • 2005 o Maximum building height in R-i and R-2 zoning districts were 30'measured to the midpoint of the roof. • Adoption of YCI Standards o Maximum building height in R-r and R-2 zoning districts were 27.5'measured to the midpoint of the roof. • Compatible Infill Standards o Maximum building height standards dropped to 27'to the ridge of the roof. o Compatible Infill District Zoning Standards had other modifications that were allowed to the maximum building height,if one could show that the average height of the other homes along the same side of your block face was higher than the base zoning district,you could by right,obtain a permit up to that average height. o If one could show that what was being proposed met the development patterns along the block face that had the same or greater height of what was proposed it could be approved through a special exception process. o Other standards like exterior wall height and front yard standards were discussed. Chairperson Fife asked if the Compatible Infill Overlay Ordinance superseded and the Yalecrest Compatible Infill. Mr.Paterson answered that when there was a Base Zoning District and an Overlay Zoning District,like the YCI,if there was a conflict between the two,the Overlay trumps the base zoning district standard. Mr.Paterson stated that there was a growing sentiment that the Yalecrest Compatible Infill should be eliminated;make it its own Base Zoning District in order to eliminate confusion. Mr.Paterson noted that demolition in the Yalecrest area began to increase,and far outnumbered the demolition that was being seen in other areas of the City.There was no regulation on demolition,the only demolition review was within historic areas,and the Historic Landmark Commission had the ability to deny demolition.There were checks and balances in place to protect the reasonable use of a property. Because of the number of demolitions,the City will create additional tools for better regulation. Previously,the Planning Commission reviewed the draft Preservation Plan that was created for Citywide Preservation Policy. It was still pending for Council approval;the document recommended that the City develop new tools to help with Preservation Programs,developing conservation districts. The document also recommended that the City look for other areas that were worthy of local historic designation. In the past year,the Historic Landmark Commission had gone through the process of identifying the various neighborhoods in the City and prioritized which ones should be considered for local historic designation. Westmoreland Place area,Yalecrest,and the extension of the University Historic District were the three the Historic Landmark Commission chose. Westmoreland Place neighborhood,consisting of approximately 52 homes,has gone through the ..w process and the City Council has designated it as a local historic district. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 2 The Historic Landmark Commission created a petition to consider local historic district designation of the Yalecrest neighborhood,located from 80o South to 1300 South,and between 1300 East and 190o East. The Historic Landmark Commission made a recommendation to create a local historic district for the entire area.Mr.Paterson stated that there had been competing petitions recommending modifications to the Yalecrest Overlay Infill,either for the entire neighborhood,or one petition for the Yalecrest Heights subdivision. Mr.Paterson stated that the Historic Landmark Commission had made a recommendation for designation of local historic districts and zoning map amendments would also come to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Mr.Paterson stated that these petitions compete with each other,and take different approaches; therefore,it was important to brief the Planning Commission on what was coming forward. Commissioner Woodhead asked if staff felt both petitions would be presented together. Planning Director Sommerkorn responded saying that if you look at the petitions,they were quite complex and there is a variety. There was potential for substantial public commentary on each petition,would the Planning Commission like to have all information at once,or to spread them over a few meetings. Commissioner Woodhead stated she would like to have them together. Commissioner De Lay agreed. 5:57:08 PM Chairperson Fife recognized Carl Leith as staff representative. Mr.Leith stated that memorandum was an attempt to brief the Planning Commission on the background regarding the proposal for the Yalecrest Historic District. Mr.Leith said that the application lvould appear within the upcoming months,and had been before the Historic Landmark Commission,for a zoning map amendment to establish a historic preservation overlay district for the Yalecrest National Register Historic District. Commissioner De Lay asked if the map presented was the final map. Mr.Paterson stated that the map was accurate. Mr.Leith stated that the application came from the Yalecrest Yes Heritage Preservation Committee and was received on September 1,2010. The recent consideration of Historic Designation in the Yalecrest actually dated to 2009,and the discussions have been ongoing. Mr.Leith added that a public forum seas held on September 28,2010 and was attended by over one hundred people,and received extensive public commentary. This item had also been part of the public hearing process for the Historic Landmark Commission in October and November of 2010. This discussion had also been part of Open City Hall online forum. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 3 Mr.Leith said that at the meeting on October 20,2010,the Historic Landmark Commission determined the documentation was sufficient to support an application for designation and continue the public hearing to November 3,2oio and sought additional information relative to boundaries. The Historic Landmark Commission determined that the boundaries were well documented,and included a high proportion of contributing buildings across the district,and the district and the boundaries met the national and hence the local ordinance criteria for historic district. City policy is that maintaining distinctive neighborhoods and maintaining their character is universally recognized in City plans and policy documents,the Yalecrest area in particular,is mentioned by name in several documents,including Master Plan of the East Bench. Mr.Leith discussed architectural significance,stated the a reconnaissance level survey was completed in 2007. Mr.Leith stated that the application would be coming before the Planning Commission for review within the following few weeks. 6:07:27 PM Questions from the Commissioners mot, Commissioner Woodhead asked when the issue of Yalecrest had come before them in the past,the notion of a lot of the houses in Yalecrest arc historic,but some of them are not had been presented. She was curious what the Historic Landmark Commission's opinion was. Mr.Leith answered that the detailed list of all buildings,photographs and the nomination report was included in the staff report of October,but stated that the percentage of contributing buildings was something like 91%,which is extremely high. He stated that the Historic Landmark Commission agreed with the information in the Survey. Commissioner Fife asked about the contention that historic designation can devalue property.He asked if there were studies that prove or are contrary to that idea. Mr.Leith answered that there were a number of national studies that conclude without fail,that either historic designation has no appreciable effect on property values,but in a majority of cases, it tends to accentuate property values when compared to other areas nearby. He offered the National Trust website as a reference. 6:14:21 PM PLNPCM2oio-oo665: Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay(YCI)and Historic Preservation Overlay(H)Amendment—A request by Jodi Howick in behalf of the Yalecrest Preservationists for Property Rights for amendment of the Salt Lake City Code to establish a voluntary development review process and modify certain provisions of the YCI District,and amend the procedure to establish an H District. The amendment will affect sections 21.4.34.12o "".4. and 2IA.34.o20 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 4 amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact:Michael Maloy at(801)535-7118 or michael.maloyt2 slcgov.com). Chairperson Fife recognized Mike Maloy as staff representative. Mr.Maloy stated that there was another petition relative to the Yalecrest neighborhood,and it had three main parts that had been summarized in the memorandum 1. Amendment to the Yalecrest Infill Overlay(YCI)overlay,relative to design standards 2. Creation of a voluntary review committee. 3. Amendment to the process of designating a local historic district. • Relies on a 7o%approval from property owners of the proposed district.This would be applicable citywide. • At least 5o%of the homes within the proposed district would need to be original structures. Mr.Maloy stated that staff had discussed with Yalecrest Preservationists for Property Rights,that the petition could be split into two parts. An example would be the parts relative to the Landmarks designation process could be taken separately to the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr.Maloy asked for the Commission's opinion of separating the petition. Mr.Maloy addressed a third petition that bad been submitted within the week that would be an amendment to the Yalecrest Overlay that would impact approximately 42 homes within the neighborhood of Yalecrest Heights. Mr.Maloy stated that the third proposal included more extensive in the amendments to the YCI and included changes to the maximum lot coverage,from 35%to 40%to minimize the development footprint on a lot. Mr.Sommerkorn addressed the options of approving the different petitions. Commissioner Woodhcad asked Land Use Attorney Paul Nielson if it would he possible to extend the process suggestions in the Petition for Yalecrest Heights to the entire section. Mr.Neilson stated that it would be difficult to amend a petition that was presented to another person. He stated that the Planning Commission could propose an amendment that could piggyback on the original petition.He added that the Planning Commission amend another person's petition,the answer is no. Mr.Sommerkorn stated that the Planning Commission has the ability to approve,to approve with modifications,or to recommend denial. With regard to expanding the scope,it would seem that the Planning Commission would want to initiate a new petition. Mr.Paterson added that early in 2010,the Planning Commission voted on some staff initiated changes to the Zoning Ordinance that clarifies that the Historic Landmark Commission could initiate petitions that relate to historic preservation review standards or to create a new district,he noted that it had not been acted on by the City Council yet.Mr.Paterson stated that any Zoning Ordinance text amendment proposed for 21A.34.o2o dealing with the historic preservation process Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 5 would go through the Historic Landmark Commission for a public hearing first and a recommendation,then the Planning Commission would make a recommendation,and then the City Council would be the final decision maker. Mr.Paterson stated that the petitions proposing Zoning Ordinance text amendments to standards that did not relate to the Historic Landmark Commission would only be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr.Sommerkorn stated that the proponents of the petition have said that their preference was not to have the petition for the designation of the historic districts go through and that if the Planning Commission chose not to go forward with the petition,they would be satisfied,they would hope for a negative recommendation on the third petition. Mr.Nielson pointed out a conflict in section 3. Mr.Maloy stated that the applicant would be open to any changes. Commissioner Dean referenced page 8 and damaged buildings,giving people a year to replace damaged elements of a building,she stated that it seemed that the time frame seemed unfeasible. Commissioner McHugh was concerned about the issue of 70%of home owners agreeing within 30 days seems unrealistic. Mr.Paterson stated that provision was noted in Yalecrest Preservation for Property Rights petition in the section amending the Historic Landmark Commission provisions for designating new local '""w historic districts. If an applicant cannot prove within a specified that time frame that they have 70%consent of property owners,the application would become null and void and the applicant could not apply again for designation for a period of three years. Commissioner McHugh stated that is seemed unfeasible. Mr.Paterson said that the input from the attorney's office indicated that those provisions would be unconstitutional. Mr.Sommerkorn stated that each of the petitions presented was entitled to a public hearing;the question would be would it he better to hold all hearing on the same evening,or would the Commission prefer that they would be broken up into several meetings. 6:51:46 PM PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Fife opened the formal meeting of the Salt Lake Planning Commission. 6:51:53 PM Approval of Minutes Motion:Commissioner De Lay moved to approve the minutes. ""k Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 6 Second:Michael Gallegos seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Drown,Dean,De Lay,Gallegos,Luke,McHugh and Woodhead all voted"aye",Commissioner Wirthlin abstained. The motion passed. 6:52:37 PM Report of the Chair Chairperson Fife stated he had nothing to report. Report of the Vice Chair Vice Chairperson Dean had nothing to report. Report of the Director Mr.Sommerkorn stated that the City Council approved by resolution the fact that a development agreement had been initiated with regard to the Marmalade Project,and both sides of 30o West have been rezone. The City Council had also approved the vacation of a portion of 570o West and 200 South in the industrial area. The City Council was briefed by the Planning Division on the Purpose Statements,and the City Council approved the process for getting additional public input with regard to the Northwest Quadrant Plan. 6:54:46 PM PLNPCM2o>o-00760: Deseret First Credit Union Conditional Use—A request by Gary Gower for conditional use approval for an expansion of the office building located at 147 North zoo West in the R-MU(Residential Mixed Use)and RMF-35(Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)zoning districts and in Council District 3,represented by Stan Penfold. Chairperson Fife recognized Joel Paterson as staff representative. Mr.Paterson stated the application was a conditional use application for 147 North 200 West,it was proposed to be converted from a bank to an office building. Mr.Paterson stated that it was in an R-MU zone,and office buildings are conditional uses in that zone. The proposal was that the drive thru would be removed,and additional parking would be added, and underground parking would be replaced with additional office space. An addition would also be added to the rear of the building,adding a foot print of 467 sq ft and would be three stories high,adding a total of i3oo sq ft of floor area. The proposed use requires 34 parking stalls,the existing plan has 46 stalls,with the reconfiguration would include a total of 47 stalls,thereby fulfilling the requirement. The addition to the rear has not been finalized,but staff recommends that it meets all of the requirements for a conditional use approval. Staff is recommending approval subject to combining all the lots into one legal description,in compliance with all departmental requirements. 6:58:19 PM Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 7 Questions from the Commissioners None. Mr.Paterson stated that this item was presented to the Capital Hill Community Council and they voted unanimously to support the application. 6:58:57 PM Comments from the applicant The applicant noted that a site plan that included covered parking had been submitted. 7:00:39 PM Open Public Hearing No one chose to speak. 7:00:39 PM Close of Public Hearing A"" 7:00:41 PM Motion: Commissioner De Lay made the motion in regard to PLNPCM2oto-oo760: Deseret First Credit Union Conditional Use based on the findings of the staff report and the public hearing,I move that the Planning Commission approve the petition with the following conditions: Number i and 2 from the front page of the staff report. Second:Matthew Wirthlin seconded the motion Vote: Commissioners Drown,Dean,De Lay,Gallegos,Luke,McHugh,Wirthlin and Woodhead all voted"aye". The motion passed unanimously. 7:02:02 PM Petition 400-o6-51: Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2oto-00032: Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City .., Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 8 amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2o10-00717: Zoning Text Amendment, Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards. Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. Chairperson Fife recognized Doug Dansie as staff representative Commissioner Luke stated that he had been retained by Reagan Signs to lobby for them. He stated that he had worked with them in the past, and need to recues himself. Mr. Dansie stated that it was an issues only hearing and that no vote was expected at the end of the discussion. He asked for direction on a configuration of a subcommittee. Commissioner Gallegos stated that his son in law worked for a sign company, and he believed that it did not inhibit his judgment. It was determined that due to the nature of the job; he did not need to recues himself. Commissioner De Lay noted that she was asked for documentation for comments she had made in a prior meeting. 7:07:38 PM Public Hearing Randy Horiuchi, 1785 Michigan Avenue,He spoke in OPPOSITION to the petitions. He stated he had three perspectives,he stated that outdoor advertising provides candidates with an opportunity to get messages in an affordable way. He noted that he does Small Business Association financing, and that billboards add to his clients'success. He added that he supports flexibility in their use rather than an across the board ban. Jared Johnson, the Director of Real Estate for YESCO Outdoor Media, 1605 Gramercy Road,he stated that billboards are his primary area of concern. He spoke in OPPOSITION to the petitions. He stated that specific to the petitions he is opposed to the ban on digital billboards. Mr.Johnson stated that the ordinance was confusing,and difficult to work with, and said that it was unfair and that he was not in favor of removing any billboards. Ryan Young,Young Electric Sign Company, a fourth generation family member. He stated he is a Regional Sales Manager for YESCO electronics. He stated that there are 1500 digital signs in the nation. He spoke in OPPOSITION to the petitions. His concerns are the hold time, brightness, and the five for one trade. He stated that digital billboards allow his company to grow without increasing the number of signs. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, January 26, 2011 Page 9 Jeff Young,1605 Gramercy,Young Electric Signs. He stated that they employ approx 300 employees in Salt Lake City. He noted that the permit fees that they had paid of the past years were in excess of 300,000.0o and they feel they are a vested partner with the City of Salt Lake. He spoke in OPPOSITION to the petitions. He stated that the electric bill for his home was less in a month than an electric sign for the time frame. He also noted the Community Service they provide by donating space on their billboards. Dewy Reagan,Reagan Signs,spoke in OPPOSITION to the petitions.He stated that it was thirteen years ago that the City passed the current ordinance;he stated that Reagan Outdoor Advertising owns the property under their signs. He stated that he felt that it would be a good compromise for the City to allow locations for more signs in industrial parts of the City in order to replace their existing signs. Commissioner Gallegos asked who would be the beneficiary of sales of advertising on transit shelters. Mr.Dansic stated that it would be the Utah Transit Authority. Commissioner McHugh asked for clarification of where the billboards would be moved. Mr.Reagan stated that presently there was a cap on the number of signs. Mr.Reagan added that Reagan signs had erected several electronic signs,but felt that the 3-1 exchange was a bad idea because they would lose their distribution. Commissioner Woodhead stated that she could not pre-visualize what the impact of electronic signs would he. Greg Simonsen,an attorney for Reagan Signs,spoke in OPPOSITION to the petitions. Mr. Simonsen emphasized the concept of distribution,and asked for a willingness to consider the reach and distribution of the billboards. 8:01:35 PM Close of Public Hearing A Subcommittee was formed including Commissioners Babs De Lay,Emily Drown, Matthew Wirthlin and Angela Dean. 8:05:39 PM Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 10 Meeting adjourned This document, along with the digital recording, constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held on January 26,2011. Angela Hasenberg Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 11 i SCANNED T )14411:(1:- FRANK B. GRAY SAT' ^\a� v�i��� ., t�IrI,R1'`'i'.�I�.c��! C SCANNED B TE DA ALPH BECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY St ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT jj � VisoOFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR .RY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL t MAR 3 0 2011 IJ Date Received!), Davi veritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: loc 6/20/l TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 28, 2011 Jill Remington-Love FROM: Frank Gray, CED Direc or SUBJECT: Electronic Billboard Ordin STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Senior Planner 801-535-6182, doug.dansie@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing - Information only RECOMMENDATION: No action necessary BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: At their work session on Tuesday, March 22, 2011,the City Council requested further background information regarding the electronic billboards issue. The attached information is presented in response to that request. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4114-5486 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED nccrc�co rnvca u 4. -I. as ...' --- - 0 .:* -- -- -'''''''---... - pi• `--�—_ - tc:: Y _a_ ,..... .,-- . ___„_ ,._ .... . . • ,_ _ , __________,__,,, ,.„.,.., ,_____,....... _....,, '1±i .,7 . r' if , . _ ____= ____ �' 1 BILLBOARDS •ii, the . .. OW it DIGITAL AGE .1.._..„:,....---_,eiriver-_,mmawnte.7,rit_ _ _ UNSAFE (AND UNSIGHTLY) AT ANY SPEED IMAGINE DRIVING along a twisting,two-lane "h..r in-your-race results that won't end Alabama road at night.As you slow for a curve,suddenly an enormous television screen pops into your field of vision, in a restraining order, out-of-home ome is temporarily blinding you before flashing an ad for an insur- the only way to go.' Cance company. www.hmuoutdoorcom The glaring lights of this particular sign,slapped up in subur- Digital signs are far more of a threat than their predecessors, ban Vestavia Hills,blindsided city zoning officials as well.They said Kevin Fry,president of Scenic America.They're brighter, had unknowingly given entree to digital billboard technology which makes them visible from far greater distances; they're when they approved what appeared to be a routine application much more distracting,because of their brightness and because to add lighting to a sign grandfathered in years ago.The appli- the messages are constantly changing;they're often taller than cation made no mention of changeable messages and gave no regular boards,giving the appearance of large,plasma-screen indication it would transform an old,static board into a giant TVs;and they're substantially more expensive to remove,so vehicle for digital TV-like images. localities without amortization laws could find themselves unable to afford taking them down.This would be especially Police officers immediately complained the board posed a major safety hazard.Neighbors complained about the glaring lights. true for signs along federal aid highways where the use of Lamar Advertising Company,which owns the board,claimed amortization is prohibited by the Highway Beautification Act. they'd made the changes in"good faith." Despite higher installation costs,the profitability of digital Anyone who has been following the digital-billboard movement boards provides a powerful incentive for companies to put up may recognize that argument as a popular tactic employed by as many as possible.Clear Channel Outdoor spent$3.5 million an industry that finds it easier to ask localities for forgiveness converting seven static boards to digital in Cleveland,but watched than permission.It's one of many strategies being used to bring revenue jump from $300,000 to $3 million in the network's digital technology to as many cities and towns as possible, first year,according to Mark P.Mays,Clear Channel's CEO. before localities have a chance to explore the implications That's because digital boards allow companies to sell ad space of the new technology,update their sign ordinances,or ban to 10 times as many clients as static ones;most signs change digital signs outright. messages every six seconds.They also allow advertisers to change "There's a full-court press going on at the national,state,and content several times a day or week,and unlike the static local level,being waged by Lamar,Clear Channel,and CBS boards,which require contractors to change messages manually, Outdoor,"said Bill Brinson,an attorney specializing in sign digital boards allow operators to change content from remote law and a member of the board of Scenic America.Lobbyists locations in a matter of seconds,with just a click of a mouse. are pushing state legislators to pass bills that clear the way for Lamar Advertising boasts that it has digital billboards in as 2 LED(light-emitting diode) signs on state and federal roads, many as 44 states.Clear Channel,the world's largest outdoor • and the industry is pressuring state departments of transpor- advertising company, is similarly upfront about its goals tation to rewrite regulations to allow them to transform static for spreading digital technology.In a November 2006 press signs into digital boards.And in cities and counties across release announcing the launch of multi-sign digital networks ELECTRONIC America,they are pressing for looser sign ordinances or simply in Milwaukee and Tampa,Clear Channel Outdoor Global SIGNS installing the new technology without permission to do so. President Paul Meyer put it bluntly: I DIGITAL AGE continued O "New digital technologies provide us with the capability to prohibits such signs,"the FHWA wrote to Texas transportation execute both general market and targeted advertising campaigns officials in a letter dated March 15,2006. that consumers can't mute,fast forward or erase,"he said. Nonetheless,LED signs have gone up in several cities around [Emphasis added.] the state.And in a recent media interview,Clear Channel When digital comes to town,local governments are often caught Communications CEO Mark Mays made it dear his company off guard.As was the case in Vestavia Hills,billboard owners had big plans for Texas,particularly San Antonio. arc not always upfront about what they are doing,and the "The question becomes how big an opportunity it will be over technology maybe installed without notice. the neat 10 years,"he said."Is it going to be half the signs in But in a rare victory for billboard opponents,the Vestavia Hills San Antonio,is it going to be a quarter of the signs in San Board of Zoning Adjustment(BZA)ordered Lamar to rum off Antonio or is it going to be 10 percent?" the lights and shut its board down—at least until they could "If Texas is going to allow this,the public should be involved," hold a hearing for a zoning variance.The board ruled that the switch had been made under"false pretenses."Had Lamar asked said Margaret Lloyd,policy director for Scenic Texas."In my for permission to add digital animation,the board likely would Judgment,we need at least three things:first,a safety study have said no,particularly for that location,zoning officials said. funded by a neutral,objective party;second,a cost study to In fad,Veatavia Hills'new sign ordinance,which was under con- determine the taxpayer burden if these signs have to be con- sideration at the time,would outlaw this kind o entirely.77se con- demned for highway widenings;and finally,a public opinion of re y surveyto determine if citizens want these signs to be erected BZA later denied the variance request,and the billboard co pang filed g a lauuuit which idnow in the county court system.In the meantime, along their publicly funded highways." the digital board has been covered with a traditional sign.Apermit request to install a digital fact on the other side of the sign was denied City officials in several Minnesota communities were likewise surprised last year when digital billboards began to appear on Clear Channel and Lamar sign structures.In most cases,the f . companies that leased the signs had sought building permits � r - only to upgrade them,omitting from their applications any indi- arm cation they planned to hang digital displays on those structures after the upgrades.Their chosen locations included communities with some of the strongest billboard prohibitions. Clear Channel's strategy backfired,especially in Minnetonka, which for more than 41 years has carried a prohibition on illu- minated signs that change in color or intensity.The city pulled One state where the industry hasn't been successful in getting the plug on the signs,issued stop-work orders,and then defeated what it wants is Kentucky,where state transportation regulations an effort by Clear Channel to obtain an injunction.As Judge prohibit both Tri-Vision and LED signs. Lloyd Zimmerman later found,"there is substantial evidence Tom Fitzgerald,director of the Kentucky Resources Council, to support Minnetonka's claim that Clear Channel avoided said the outdoor advertisingindustry has tried on several occa- disclosing its plans to deploy LED billboards in the City of to try Minnetonka,and operated'under the radar'in order to get the sions to push through legislation that would allow them to add billboards u and runnier the new technology,but lawmakers in the House have stood p g,in order to meet its expansion and firmly against it.They came closest in 2004,when the industry profit goals for 2006." had someone insert language allowing Tri-Vision signs into Meanwhile,one Minnesota community after another has adop- a bill that focused on tree-cutting around billboards. ted a moratorium on digital display devices to temporarily "-mat bill got through the Senate and into the House before protect themselves against a repeat of the companies'subterfuge. people realized the provision was even in there,"Fitzgerald It's not unusual for billboard operators to erect digital signs said.But the House leadership killed the bill,as it has done to even when State-Federal agreements or local ordinances pro- tree-cutting bills consistently over the years.This year,a bill hibit them,knowing that local enforcement can be difficult due that would have allowed electronic billboards and Tri-Vision to lax or inefficient enforcement or the prospect of the lengthy signs was introduced but died in committee. and costly litigation that inevitably follows. "We've not really had a toe-to-tor fight on electronic bill- The Texas Department of Transportations State-Federal agree- boards yet,"Fitzgerald said."I believe them are strong public ment clearly prohibits digital billboards.In fact,when state safety issues at stake." transportation officials requested clarification from the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)to see if they could allow the For many outraged cozens,traditional concerns about litter boards,they were told in no uncertain terms they could not. on a stick,"have now been supplanted by the prospect of con-O fronting"PowerPoint on a stick"along their communities'road- "While the technology for LED displays did not exist at the ways.The advent of digital technology has opened a new front time of the agreement,the wording in the agreement clearly in the battle against blight—with more at stake than ever before. f I. The billboard industry often trier to win support for its signs by offering ARE THEY SAFE? to display public service messages.But no amount of these inducements can compensate for the potential public safety consequences of these devices. . . 6A BTT.T BOARDS".%RI' 11)\ I ItTISI:MII \ I S. They are designed to grab our attention,and hold it,just like a television or radio commercial or an ad in a magazine.The latest in billboard technology— "No empirical studies are necessary for reasonable the digital or electronic sign—tries to hold our attention even longer people to conclude that billboards pose a traffic by changing messages and pictures every few seconds using a series of extremely bright, colorful images produced mainly via LED (light- hazard,since by their very nature they are emitting diode)technologies. designed to distract drivers and their passengers Common sense tells us that if we are looking at a billboard and not at from maintaining their view of the road." the road when we are driving,that's a dangerous thing.Brightly lit signs —Major Media?fax Southeast c.(in 1 Ratrig.k621 BSupp.1446,1450(E.11.V.C. that change messages every few seconds compel us to notice them,much 19s5),eV,792 F2d 1269(4th Cir.1986).art denied.479 U.S.1102(1987). the same way our eyes move to the television screen when it's on.They lure our attention away from what's happening on the road and onto the sign.It's just human nature.And it works.That's why these signs are so incredibly lucrative for the billboard industry. Proponents of digital billboards say nobody has ever proven that they increase traffic accidents.This statement is only partially true.Some studies have shown a link between digital billboards(as well as static boards)and ii:/..,e„ NA NBA traffic safety problems,while others remained inconclusive.Importantly, �. no objective studies have shown them to be safe, nor have studies beenEtlakiWIIP"Iii- 'li conducted since these signs have started to proliferate. ru immol Ed...r ifsmsa'° ..m"` `""" What does the research currently say? - _ 2. A Wisconsin Department of Transportation study conducted in the 1980s examined crash rates on I-94 East and West adjacent to the • Milwaukee County stadium,after a variable message sign that showed sports scores and ads had been installed.The study found that sideswipe and rear-end collisions were up as much as 35 percent where the sign was most visible. THE TWO SECOND RULE: What factors make drivers likely to look at an electronic sign for more than two seconds at a Will people stare at a changing sign What Every Community time,and therefore put themselves and others to see what's next? Should Know at risk' "The reason[electronic]advertisingworks is They are extremely bright and are designed because it is impactful.Ifyou see people parked An analysis of the I00-CarNaturalistic Driving to be visible in bright sunlight and at night. at the stoplight watching it,you see their eyes Study, conducted by the National Highway The eye is drawn to them far more strongly waiting for it to change." than to traditional illuminated billboards.They Traffic Safety Administration,released in 2006, Source:Clear Channel Outdoor lies Moines division president are designed to be eye-catching,and they are. Tim Jameson,quoted in the Ds,Moire,Blaine.Record,Feb.4,2007 showed that taking one's eyes off the road for more than two seconds for any reason not directly They can be seen from great distances,even related to driving(such as checking the rearview as far away as six-tenths of a mile,making mirror)"significantly increased individual near- them distracting even before they begin to Because the messages change daily or even crash/crash risk." communicate their messages. hourly, even commuters who pass by the signs every day will look to see what's new. The images rotate every 6-10 seconds and Traditional signs become visual background electronic signs especially drivers will naturally look at the sign long Are noise for local drivers,and thus have less safety attention-getting? enough to see what comes up next.There may impact;but electronic signs never blend into be as many as 10 messages in the rotation. the background. 'Nothings as eye-catching as an electronic LED display.The brightly-lit text and graphics can be The Florida Department of Transportation's Younger drivers may be more easily distracted •ttention een from hundreds affect away,drawing the official position is that it takes a minimum by electronic media,and older drivers may of six seconds to comprehend the message on require longer viewing times to comprehend of everyone within view." 4g p an electronic billboard,which is already three Source:Voiceover narration ofTtans-Luz promotional video often confusing,elaborate,and colorful images. pr times the safe period for driver distraction. (www.impactmosic.com/tram-lux) See Additional Resources on the back page for links to the studies referenced above. ■A 1998 FHWA memo noted that digital signs raise"significant high- way salty questions because of the potential to be extremely bright, Court Rules Virginia Tech Billboard rapidly changing,and distracting to motorists." •A 2001 FI-IWA eeview of billboard safety studies found that"the safety Safety Study Lacks Credibility consequences of distraction from the driving task can be profound." To overcome the argument that billboards are a distraction to drivers, •A 2003 report titled External-To-Vehicle Driver Distraction,by the the outdoor advertising industry often points to a study it says"defini- Development Department Research Programme in Scotland,found lively"shows the signs create no safety risks whatsoever.This study, that"there is overwhelming evidence that advertisements and signs conducted by Dr.Suzanne Lee of the Virginia Tech Transportation placed near junctions can function as distracters,and that this con- Institute,often pops up in outdoor advertising litigation,or may be stitutes a major threat to road safety."It further noted that,"Young given to lawmakers in hopes of persuading them of the supposed (aged 17-21)drivers are particularly prone to external-to-vehicle safety of highway signs. driver distraction." This study is not only inherently flawed and biased;its uselessness If other studies have remained inconclusive,there is good reason, was noted by a federal district court judgein New York.In Nichols researchers say.First,many of the studies have been funded,and directed, Media Group v.The Towns of Babylon and Islip,the court held that by the billboard industry(see sidebar).Second,there are inherent diffi- the Lee Study is so infected by industry bias as to lack credibility and cultic in conducting traffic safety research. reliability."It based its opinion on several factors: Jerry Wachtel,an engineering psychologist with 25 years of experience in the field of driver behavior,said too many variables contribute to traffic "The study was funded by the Foundation for Outdoor Advertising accidents to make it possible to prove causality from a single source."Most Research and Education,a close affiliate of the Outdoor Adver- accidents are not caused by one thing,but multiple things happening at tiring Association of America." once,"he said. "Trial testimony revealed that representatives of the OAAA were According to Wachtel,digital billboards undoubtedly contribute to the intimately involved in the design and conduct of the Lee Study." growing number of distractions that vie for a driver's attention today. Cell phones,navigational systems,and DVD players constitute in-car "The Lee Study has been neither widely disseminated nor subject distractions,while billboards,especially those that change messages, to peer review.Nor have the conclusions of the Lee Study been constitute external distractions.Both,he said,contribute to traffic safety replicated in any other study." hazards that he believes are growing increasingly worse. Don't let industry lobbyists use this discredited study as"proof"that "The outdoor advertising industry in my opinion is one part of the billboards arc safe.The only thing it proves is how much money the problem,but a significant part,"he said. billboard industry is willing to spend making bogus arguments. Wachtel co-authored a report for the Federal Highway Administration back in the 1980s,updated in 2001,which concluded that"some studies showed a clear relationship between the presence of outdoor signs and driver error or accidents and other studies hadn't shown anything." It recommended government-funded research into the issue,but the research was never funded. The Federal Highway Administration in January 2007,however,announced that it will initiate a study to examine the safety issues related to elec- Digital signs are fen the brightest objects in the landscape. ironic signs.Details on the scope and timing of the research have not been especially at night.They dominate the field of view and offer released,but results are not expected until 2009. dangerous distractions for the tranolingpublic. • • • 25%Off Sale Going on Now `�i•: - eh • ARE THEY LEGAL? THE FIRST STEP in fighting a digital billboard Additionally,nonconforming signs on state or local roads not that has been erected or proposed in your locality is to find covered by the Highway Beautification Act are often governed out whether your state's agreement with the Federal Highway by local ordinances that do not allow them to be substantially Administration(FHWA)already prohibits them.Many do. altered or expanded either.Local jurisdictions have denied While that hasn't stopped the billboard industry from erecting permits for conversion to digital technology,although some the signs anyway,it can give you some powerful ammunition of those denials have been challenged. with which to challenge them and argue for their removal. Local cities,towns or counties may Flashing,Intermittent,or Moving Lights usually impose stricter regulations On July 17,1996,the FHWA issued a memorandum clarifying on outdoor advertising than the state the status of''changeable message signs."It noted that many State-Federal agreements would allow for changeable mes- or federal government does. sages such as the Tri-Vision signs that use rotating panels or slats.However,it also noted that,even if Tri-Vision signs Can Local Governments Prohibit Signs were allowed,the agreement probably wouldn't allow LED signs."In nearly all States,these signs may still not contain Allowed in State-Federal Agreements? flashing,intermittent,or moving lights,"the memo states. Yes,in almost all states.Local cities,towns or counties may A 2006 letter to Texas Department of Transportation officials usually impose stricter regulations on outdoor advertising than goes even further.If the state agreement prohibits signs the state or federal government dots.The State-Federal agree- 'illuminated by any flashing,intermittent or moving light or meets govern signs on interstate and federal-aid highways.J.ral- lights...including any type of screen using animated or scroll- iOes may also create stricter standards for state and local muds. ing displays,such as LED(light-emitting diode)screen or any other type of video display,even if the message is stationary," The First Amendment then"the wording in the agreement clearly prohibits such Often,billboard industry representatives try to convince local •signs,"it states. governments that if they ban billboards,they will be violating the First Amendment right to free speech.This is not true. Nonconforming Signs In almost all states,localities may ban billboards outright,or Another industry trick is to convert a static,nonconforming may restrict the size and types of billboards that are allowed. sign to an LED sign and claim that the change is not an The only thing they cannot restrict is what they say. "improvement,"and therefore not prohibited.The 1996 'It's only when you get into banning content that you get into FHWA memo clearly states that this is not permitted,as trouble,"said Eric Kelly,an attorney and professor of urban "applying updated technology to nonconforming signs would be considered a substantial change and inconsistent"with planning at Ball State University,who often helps local cities federal regulations. and towns draft or revise their sign ordinances. KellA July 1998 FHWA memo offers further guidance.It declares recommends that local governments also make any rules that signs with animation or scrolling messages should be regarding sign technology consistent between on-premise and off-premise signs to avoid potential litigation that might charge considered nonconforming signs and notes that they raise "significant highway safety questions because of the potential they are giving preferential treatment to one type of business to be extremely bright,rapidly changing,and distracting over another.But that doesn't mean that you have to allow to motorists." digital billboards if you allow banks to show the time and temperature,or gas stations to regularly change the prices posted on their signs,he said. Allowing signs to change messages no more than once per minute,or restricting the size of the sign to no more than 30 square feet,allows for time and temperature signs,gas stations and church message boards but essentially bans Tri-Vision Watch Me Change • billboards and digital message boards that show new ads every six or eight seconds. •- _ .__ It also helps,said Kelly,to include language in the ordinance explaining why the restrictions are there.If the ordinance states that its mission is to promote safety and aesthetics,and ties this goal back to goals in the local comprehensive plan,it strength 2 - - ens the ordinance and helps protect it from legal challenges. ELECTRONIC xr p- Follow this signi instructions and you may regret it.By taking extra seconds to watch the sign change(and change and change), SINS •— _ _ drivers place thernselss and others in potential danger i • the digital boards are so much more profitable,and because they would WARNING SIGNS: otherwise be unable to erect them,since many localities have limitations Industry Tactics to Watch Out For on erecting new boards.And once the digital signs go up,they become J cost-prohibitive to remove should the government later need to buy Billboard owners often lament on industry websites that current rcg- them out due to mad improvements,commercial development,or if the signs are proven to be hazardous. ulations and public sentiment present their biggest hurdles to mass deployment of digital signs.But in addition to the industry's normal pol- Governments should not fall for offers to take down old signs in itical influence,it frequently employs some common strategies with local exchange for permitting new digital ones.Whatever perceived benefits officials for overcoming those roadblocks.Here is what your community accrue from such deals don't outweigh the introduction of devices that can expect to encounter if permission is sought for electronic signs: will potentially lead to traffic deaths and injuries and degrade the visual character of the community.Further,in the absence of a complete mon- Amber Alerts and Other torium on new signs,the old signs will inevitably be replaced somewhere Public Service Announcements within thcjurisdiction. When Clear Channel installed a network of 10 digital billboards in When an Improvement is Not an Improvement Albuquerque,part of its deal with the state was that it would run Amber Alerts and other emergency messages for free.It made the same deal in Those days,governments should be wary of seemingly innocuous appG- Cleveland."Strategic relationships with the community arc important," cations to"improve old signs or"add or upgrade lighting,which may a company representative told the Albuquerque Tribune. hide a plan by a sign company to replace a static billboard with a digital sign.Installing digital technology over a regular board is not an update But many cities and states don't need digital billboards to run Amber or"improvement,"but should be treated as construction of an entirely Alerts.Existing government-operated digital highway signs,which have new sign. been in place for many years,as well as television and radio,already 'a provide a system for emergency communication. Some sign companies,in their eagerness to convert their signs,simply :5 ignore rules and regulations and make changes without permission,hoping Nonprofits and police departments should not allow themselves to be to intimidate local governments with the prospect of long and expensive used as justification for the visual degradation of their community.No legal battles or counting on a lack of political will to enforce the law amount of donated ad space or Amber Alerts can compensate for the aesthetic and safety damage done by these signs. Let's Trade What Does the Public Think? To erect seven digital billboards on highways entering Cleveland,Clear Billboard companies often claim that digital signs are very popular 110 Channel took down several hundred billboards elsewhere in the city with the public,but never cite data to back up the claim.Perhaps that's because research shows the opposite. This might look like a good deal,but the truth is mast of the boards taken down in these swaps arc nonconforming or unprofitable signs A 2005 survey conducted in Arizona found that by a margin of anyway.Billboard companies are willing to make the swap because73 percent to 21 percent,citizens opposed laws that would alloy electronic billboards on the state's highways.When the 21 percent . favoring digital signs were then asked if they would still support the signs if they"might distract drivers,"the opposition to electronic 8 DON'T TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT... Thesurewtog survey of 6 percent. The 682 adults had a statistical precision of plus or minus 3.8 percent. How Big is the Issue? Electronics industry analyst,iSuppli,"predicts that by 2010,75,000,or as one kilometer from either side....But then you couldn't miss a 34 ft. 15 percent of total billboards in the U.S.,will be digital displays,up from x 19 ft.Hi Definition TV on the side of the road that stands almost 40 a mere 500 digital billboards,or 0.1 percent,of all billboards in 2006." feet above the ground,could you?And that's exactly what SiliconView's Sours:`Channel Viewpoint Consumer el monks-just the sideshow u the advertising at CES,' LED billboard looks like,a giant TV." eCMnnrILint Daly Nrou,January 9,2007 Source Outdoor Today,January 2005 What's Bad for You is Good for Them If You Build It,They Will Stare... "Nobody likes being stuck in a traffic jam,but Clear Channel executives for More Than Two Seconds are coming to love them.'Hey,traffic is a good thing,'quips Clear Channel Communications Inc.CEO Mark Mays.'People listen to more radio,and "[Electronic]Billboard scheduling is based on a'repeating loop'of adver- they have more time to look at billboards.'Now that's a captive audience." tising messages.The SihconView loop contains six different messages, each displayed for five seconds with a one-second pause between each Source:asoeru wrra Onfinr,June 20,ZOOS message.Thus,one message loop lasts approximately 36 seconds.The loop continuously repeats on a 24-hour basis,which gives each advertiser at And You Thought You'd Never Get that Big-Screen TV least 2,880 viewing exposures per day....A factor that determines dwell "As one drives along Hwy'.101 between San Jose and San Francisco, time,or the amount of time a commuter sees a billboard,is the vehicle's O there are many billboards that vie for your attention.But just as you near speed approaching the board.At 65 ph,a Highway 101 driver sees one San Carlos,it is tough if not impossible to miss one particular two-sided full rotation of the Silicon View billboard.During peak hours,when traffic billboard....Its excellent positioning allows it to be seen by traffic as far slows,a driver could see three to five loafs."[emphasis added] Source,'Pixels and Prints:Outdoor's Future Fusco Sign,of the Tones,August 2003 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES C• r A definitive study on the safety of electronic billboards has yet to be done,but the following documents contain information that is important to the current debate. The research papers referenced below are available as PDF files at the Scenic America website at www.scenic.orq/billboards/electronic. You41 1: ■ will need to have the Adobe Acrobat Reader on your computer to read them. BMX - t . The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/ 1 Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic _�`?� • - Driving Study Data a __ April2006,National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, -- U.S.Department of Transportation ~ A major study of driver inattention,primarily involving distractions inside the car,but finding that any distraction of more than two seconds is a poten- tial cause of crashes and near crashes. Traffic Safety Evaluation of Video Advertising Signs ScenicAmerica 1634 I Street, N.W. Transportation Research Record:Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Suite 510 No.1937,2005 Washington, DC 20006 A study of electronic signs in Toronto,which finds that"On the basis of 202.638.0550 the eye fixation study and the pubic survey data, it is apparent that video 202.638.3171 (fax) advertising can distract drivers inappropriately and lead to individual crashes,"but calls for additional research duc to other conflicting data. For additional information about this and other issues, visit www.scenic.org. Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction Kevin E.Fry,President,Scenic America Laura Williamson McCafferty, Writer September 11,2001,Federal Highway Administration, Kristen Argenio,Ideal Design Co.,Designer U.S.Department of Transportation This publication was funded in part by the A summary of existing research (as of 2001),on the subject of the safety Richard King Mellon Foundation. of electronic signs and a call for additional studies. Scenic America is the only national nonprofit organization Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message dedicated solely to preserving and enhancing the scenic character of America's communities and countryside.Through Sign Study: Impacts of an Advertising Variable national advocacy efforts and technical assistance services. Message Sign on Freeway Traffic local and national projects, and the support of its n state affiliates,Scenic America fights to reduce billboard blight and December 1994, Wisconsin Department of Transportation other forms of visual pollution;preserve the scenic character Study of the dangers posed by an electronic sign in Milwaukee along I-94, of the nation's highways and byways;promote context-sensitive that concluded that"It is obvious that the variable message sign has had an highway solutions;ensure the mitigation of the visual impact effect on traffic,most notably in the increase of the side swipe crash rate." of cell phone towers and other intrusions in the landscape;and promote scenic easements and other strategies to protect open space and preserve irreplaceable scenic resources. Change is inevitable. Ugliness is not. BE SURE TO VISIT THE SCENIC AMERICA WEBSITE AT W W W.SCEN IC.O RG ©Copyright 2007 Scenic America FOR ADDITIONAL AND UPDATED INFORMATION ABOUT THIS AND OTHER SIGN CONTROL ISSUES. United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-2098 NASER JEWELERS, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CITY OF CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge] Before Lynch, Lipez, and Howard, Circuit Judges. John F. Winston with whom Stephen H. Roberts, McNeill, Taylor & Gallo, and Winston & Bragg were on brief for appellant. Lisa M. Lee with whom Charles P. Bauer, John T. Alexander, and Ransmeier & Spellman were on brief for appellee. John M. Baker, Robin M. Wolpert, Kathryn M.N. Hibbard, and Green Espel, P.L.L.P. were on brief for American Planning Association, Northern New England Chapter of the American Planning Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, New Hampshire Municipal Lawyers Association, and New Hampshire Planners Association, amici curiae. William D. Brinton and Rogers Towers were on brief for Scenic America, Inc., amicus curiae. January 18, 2008 LYNCH, Circuit Judge. The city of Concord, New Hampshire, enacted an ordinance prohibiting all Electronic Messaging Centers ("EMCs"), which the city found were detrimental to traffic safety and community aesthetics. EMCs are signs which display electronically changeable messages (as opposed to signs with static or manually changeable messages) and so display illuminated text that can change frequently, for instance by scrolling or flashing. Naser Jewelers, Inc. ("NJI") , a Concord business, sought and was denied a preliminary :injunction against the enforcement of the ordinance on grounds of facial unconstitutionality under the First Amendment. Concord's ban on all EMCs is content-neutral. Globe Newspaper. Co. v. Beacon Hill Architectural Comm'n, 100 F.3d 175, 183 (1st Cir. 1996) . As a result, the ordinance is permissible if it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and leaves open alternative channels of communication. An ordinance is narrowly tailored if it does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further the government's legitimate interests. Ward v. Rock hgainst Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989) . The ordinance need not be the least restrictive means to serve those interests. Id. at 798; Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 726 (2000) ; Globe Newspaper, 100 F.3d at 188. Concord's ordinance meets these criteria and we affirm. Concord has enacted sign ordinances as part of its municipal code. The stated purposes of these ordinances are, among other things, to "[m]aintain and enhance the appearance and aesthetic environment of the City" and to "(i]mprove pedestrian and traffic safety." Concord, N.H., Code of Ordinances § 28-6-1(b) & (d) (2007) . Before 2006, Concord's sign ordinances contained prohibitions on ENCe, but provided exceptions for ENCs which displayed solely time, date, and temperature indicators. In 2005, a New Hampshire Superior Court judge ruled that the regulations violated the First Amendment because they favored signs that displayed time, date, or temperature. That erroneous ruling has since been overruled by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Carlson_s Chrysler v, City of Concord, 2007 WL 3306945, at *1 (N.H. Nov. 8, 2007) . In light of the interim Superior Court ruling, Concord amended its ordinances in August 2006 to prohibit ail ENCe, including ones indicating only time, date, or temperature. The city's current �- ordinance, challenged here, prohibits all signs that "appear animated or projected" or "are intermittently or intensely illuminated or of a traveling, tracing, scrolling, or sequential light type" or "contain or are illuminated by animated or flashing light." Concord, N.H., Code of Ordinances § 28-6-7(h) (2007) . On October 3, 2006, NJI sought permission to construct and operate an EMC on the premises of its retail store in Concord. The sign would be located on Loudon Road, a high-traffic corridor that includes a mix of retail and residential development and a large public park and fire station. The location is in close proximity to an elementary school and more residential neighborhoods. The store's current sign is a freestanding sign six feet off the ground that features a model of a large gold ring with a polished diamond and text reading "Joseph Michaels Diamonds." (Joseph Michaels Diamonds is a trade name used by NJI.) The proposed EMC would be located directly underneath the current sign and would measure 2.7 feet by 5.3 feet. NJI is eager to install an EMC at its store in Concord because of its experience with an ENO at another retail location in Dover, New Hampshire. NJI had earlier installed an RHO at its Dover store. Originally, NJI changed the copy on its EMC only once every ten minutes. Early in 2006, NJI began changing the text once every �' four to five seconds. NJI claims to have experienced a sizable increase in sales, some eighteen percent, as a result of these more frequent copy changes. On October 13, Concord's code administrator denied NJI's application because the proposed EMC would violate Concord's regulations. On October 25, NJI sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages in federal district court, claiming that Concord's regulations impermissibly infringed its First Amendment rights. NJI also sought a preliminary injunction to allow it to install an EMC in time for the holiday shopping season. A magistrate judge denied NJI's request for a preliminary injunction on November 22, 2006. The district court denied the injunction on different analytical grounds on June 25, 2007. The district court held inapplicable the commercial speech test in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 O.S. 557 (1980), on which the magistrate judge had relied, because the EMC ban is content-neutral and does not apply merely to commercial entities. CD Rather, the district court upheld the ordinance under the rule that content-neutral regulations are constitutional provided that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and allow for reasonable alternative channels of communication. See, e.g., Gun Owners' Action League, Inc. v. Swift, 284 F.3d 198, 212 (1st Cir. 2002) . The district court concluded that NJI had not shown that it was likely to succeed on the merits and therefore was not entitled to a preliminary injunction. This timely appeal followed. II. Appellate review of the denial of a preliminary injunction -+ is for abuse of discretion. Rio Grande Cmty. Health Ctr., Inc. v. Rullan, 397 F.3d 56, 68 (let Cir. 2005) . The district court correctly noted the four factors considered in determining whether a preliminary injunction ought to issue: "1) a likelihood of success on the merits, 2) irreparable harm to the plaintiff should preliminary relief not be granted, 3) whether the harm to the defendant from granting the preliminary relief exceeds the harm to the plaintiff from denying it, and 4) the effect of the preliminary injunction on the public interest." Id. at 75. We consider whether NJI has demonstrated a probability of success on the merits. When considering First Amendment claims, we engage in de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law and mixed questions of law and fact. Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 567 (1995); Sullivan v. Town of Augusta, F.3d , 2007 ML 4357565, at *5 (1st Cir. Dec. 14, 2007) . Billboards and other signs are protected by the First Amendment, but courts have long approved subjecting them to the police powers of local government. Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, 398 F.3d 814, 818 (6th Cir. 2005) . As the Supreme Court has noted, "signs take up space and may obstruct views, distract."' motorists, displace alternative uses for land, and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation. It is common ground that governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs . . . ." City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 48 (1994) . A threshold question in cases involving challenges to government restrictions on speech is whether the restriction at issue is content-neutral or, to the contrary, is content-based. Seel erg., Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 642 (1994) ; Nat'l Amusements, Inc. v. Town of Dedham, 43 F.3d 731, 736 (1st Cir. 1995) ; see also K. Sullivan & G. Gunther, First Amendment Law 193 (1999) . In Globe Newspaper, this court held that the "principal incuiry _n determining content neutrality . . . is whether the goverment has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys." 100 F.3d at 183 (quoting Nat'l Amusements, 43 F.3d at 737) (internal quotation marks omitted) . Furthermore, "[a) regulation that serves purposes unrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others." Id. (quoting Ward, 491 U.S. at 791) (internal quotation marks omitted) . As the district court correctly noted, Concord's prohibit.'.on on EMCs does not discriminate based on content. EMCs might. communicate any number of messages -- from a business advertising a sale to a high school congratulating its victorious teams -- and all ., EMCs are similarly prohibited. NJI insists that Concord' s regulation is content-based because city officials gave preference to time, date, and temperature messages in its prior ordinance. They assert Concord is using the current regulation as a stopgap measure, with plans to reinstate the original prohibition -- with exceptions for time, date, and temperature displays -- following the state Supreme Court ' s decision. This argument goes nowhere . The regulation currently in place, which is the only one before us, contains no exceptions . Concord' s regulation is properly analyzed as a content-neutral restriction on speech. NJI argues that the city bears the burden of proof on all issues . The district court accepted this argument, at least on the ultimate question of the statute ' s constitutionality, citing to Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U. S . 656, 666 (2004 ) . Ashcroft , however, involved a challenge to a content-based speech restriction. See id. at 665 . Content-based regulations are presumed to be unconstitutional and the government bears a heavy burden of justification. R.A.V. v. City of St . Paul, 505 U . S. 377 , 382 (1992) ; McGuire v. Reilly, 260 F. 3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 2001) . Here, plaintiff has brought a facial attack on a content- neutral ordinance. In a facial attack case, it is plaintiff's burden to show that the law has no constitutional application. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Carhart, U.S. , 127 S. Ct. 1610, 1639 (2007); N.Y. State Club Ass'n v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 11 (1988) ; McGuire, 260 F.3d at 47. The Supreme Court has said that when the government "seeks to restrict speech based on its content" that "the usual presumption of constitutionality afforded [legislative] enactments is reversed." United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, 529 U.S. 803, 817 (2000) . The implication is that content-neutral statutes continue to enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. The Supreme Court's most recent case on content-neutral regulations is Hill v. Colorado. Neither Hill nor Ward v. Rock Against Racism explicitly speaks to burdens of proof on the different portions of the test used to assess content-neutral regulations. But there is other law saying, in content-neutral regulation cases, but often citing to content-based cases, that the government must show that it has met the element, within the larger • test, that the regulation is narrowly tailored. See, e.a_, Turner Broad., 512 U.S. at 665; Casey v. City ofNewgort, 308 F.3d 106, 111 (1st Cir. 2002) . Na need not resolve here the intricacies of burdens of proof and production. For our purposes, and indeed in many First Amendment cases of content-neutral regulations, the issue of who has the burden -� of proof will not be important. After all, the government's purpose for the regulation is often expressly stated, as are the reasons for that choice and not others, thus removing those issues from having to be proven. In this case, no matter who has the burden as to which elements of the test, plaintiff's claim fails. NJI also argues that it is does not matter whether Concord's regulations are content-neutral or content-based because "the targeted speech is primarily commercial" and Central Hudson applies to all restrictions involving commercial speech. This is simply incorrect. Central Hudson serves as an alternative to the more exacting standards applied to content-based restrictions on non- commercial speech. See Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 562-63; Sullivan & Gunther, supra, at 163, 177-78. The standards for content-neutral restrictions do not vary by whether the plaintiff is exercising commercial speech. The uniform case law on restrictions on signs is clear on this point. See, e._g_, Prime Media, 398 F.3d at 819-22 (evaluating content-neutral restrictions on billboards using narrow tailoring analysis); Messer v. City of Douolasville, 975 F.2d 150S, 1569-11 (11th Cir. 1992) (same) . Content--neutral regulations are permissible so long as they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest ^' and allow for reasonable alternative channels of communication. The narrow tailoring test is a form of intermediate scrutiny. "[R] egulations that are unrelated to the content of speech are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny . . . ." Turner Broad., 512 U.S. at 642; see also Sullivan, 2007 WL 4357565, at *12 (same) ; Sullivan & Gunther, supra, at 199 (same) . Concord's ordinance satisfies the requirements for constitutionality. The ordinance is a content-neutral regulation, it serves substantial governmental interests, it is narrowly tailored, and it leaves open reasonable alternative channels of communication. A. Governmental Interests From the face of Concord's sign regulations, the city's stated goals include promoting both traffic safety and community aesthetics. If a regulation is content-neutral on its face and states its purposes, we look to the legislative body's statement of intent. "we will not look behind th[e] express statement of intent as to a law neutral on its face." Torres Rivera v. Calderon Serra, 412 F.3d 205, 211 (1st Cir. 2005) . It is problematic to permit a plaintiff, in a content-neutral case, to attempt to prove that there is an intent apart from this express statement because "the legislature's subjective intent is both unknown and unknowable." McGuire, 260 F.3d at 47. Because Concord's regulations are content-neutral on their face, it was an empty exercise for plaintiff to have conducted . M ... examinations of Concord' s mayor or code enforcement officer in an effort to show the stated reasons for the ordinance were not the real reasons . Legislative history is permissible for other purposes, but not this . See, e .q. , McGuire, 260 F. 3d at 48 (considering legislative history in determining whether a statute was narrowly tailored) . Both traffic safety and community aesthetics have long been recognized to constitute significant governmental interests . Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U. S . 490, 507-08 (1981) (plurality opinion) (collecting cases and concluding that there can be no "substantial doubt that the twin goals that the ordinance seeks Amok to further -- traffic safety and the appearance of the city -- are substantial governmental goals") ; see also, e. q. , City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc. , 507 U. S. 410, 425 (1993) (acknowledging city ' s legitimate interest in the aesthetics of its sidewalks) ; Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 807 ( 1984 ) (" [T] he visual assault on the citizens of Los Angeles . . . constitutes a significant substantive evil within the City' s power to prohibit . ") . Concord' s stated justifications plainly constitute significant governmental interests . B. Narrow Tailoring, but Not Least Restrictive Means NJI argues that the ordinance is not narrowly tailored. In determining whether a provision is narrowly tailored, courts apply the test articulated in Ward v. Rock Against Racism and reiterated by the Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado. Under Ward, "the requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied 'so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation. '" 491 U.S. at 799 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689 (1985)) . "[T)his standard does not mean that a . . . regulation may burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests." Id. Concord, however, is not required to choose the least restrictive means possible: "[T]he regulation will not be invalid simply because a court concludes that the government's interest could be adequately served by some less- speech-restrictive alternative." Id.. at 800. Concord's interests in traffic safety and community aesthetics would he achieved less effectively without the ordinance'.. prohibition on EMCs. We give some respect to "the accumulated, common-sense judgments of local lawmakers and of the many reviewing courts that billboards are real and substantial hazards to traffic safety." Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 509 (plurality opinion) . It is given that a billboard can constitute a traffic hazard. It follows that EMCs, which provide more visual stimuli than traditional signs, logically will be more distracting and more hazardous. See Chapin Furniture Outlet, Inc. v. Town of Chapin, 2006 WL 2711851, at *4 (D.S.C. Sept. 20, 2006), vacated on other grounds y Chapin Furniture Outlet, Inc. v. Town of Chapin, 2007 WL 3193854 (4th Cir. Oct. 30, 2007) (holding, in the context of EMC regulations, that "the Town's judgment that flashing or scrolling signs constitute a traffic hazard . . . is not unreasonable") . Indeed, plaintiff's own witness stated that bypassers focus more on rapidly blinking electronic signs than static signs. This constitutes a greater hazard. Further, for drivers a flashing light is often a signal of hazard on the roadway, a signal which itself slows and disrupts the traffic flow. .ems. NJI argues that Concord must perform studies to prove that the ban on ERCs in fact supports its stated interests. Concord was under no obligation to do such studies or put them into evidence. Justice Brennan suggested the need for such evidence in his concurring opinion in Metromedia, but seven justices rejected his position. Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 521, 528 (Brennan, J., concurring); sec also Outdoor Sys. Inc. v. City of Lexana, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1238 (D. Kan. 1999) ("Relying on Justice Brennan's concurring opinion in Metromedia, plaintiff claims that the City has the burden to come forward with evidence which demonstrates that billboards actually impair traffic safety and the beauty of the environment. Plaintiff ignores the fact that seven Justices rejected Justice Brennan's analysis in this regard.") . As noted in Ackerly Communications of the Northwest Inc. v. Krochalis, 108 F.3d 1095, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 1997), "[a]s a matter of law Seattle's ordinance, enacted to further the city's interests in esthetics and safety, is a constitutional restriction on commercial speech without detailed proof that the billboard regulation will in fact advance the city's interests." Similarly, the Sixth Circuit observed in rejecting the argument that a city needed to produce evidence to justify its regulation on billboard size: "To ask the City to justify a size restriction of 120 square feet over, say, 200 square feet or 300 square feet would impose great costs on local governments . . . ." Prime Media, 398 F.3d at 823-24. Courts have "repeatedly deferred to the aesthetic judgments of municipalities and other government bodies when evaluating restrictions on protected expression. Globe News_p er, 100 _.3d at 190 (quoting Gold Coast Pub'ns, Inc. v. Corrigan, 42 F.3d 1336, 134E (11th Cir. 1994) ) (internal. quotation mark omitted) . Although courts do not wholly defer to legislative judgments, see id., there is no basis to doubt that Concord's aesthetic concern -- "not rendering [its] visual image and community character to be that of a potential Times Square" -- would be achieved far less effectively absent a ban on EMCs. Concord's ordinance also does not burden substantially more speech than necessary. NJI argues that because Concord's City Council considered but rejected alternatives to a complete ban on EMCs, the ban necessarily burdens too much speech because there are alternatives. However, the government is not required to choose the least restrictive approach in content-neutral regulation. In Globe Newspaper, this court held that a regulation banning newspaper distribution boxes from the public streets of boston's historic Beacon Hill district passed constitutional muster. 100 F.3d at 195. The opinion noted that although less restrictive alternatives existed, the regulating commission was not required to adopt them if they would serve its interests less effectively. Id. at 189-90. NJI, to its credit, concedes this is the rule of Globe Newspaper, but asks us to overrule the case. Not only do we, as a panel, lack the power to do so, Irving v. United States, 162 F.3d 154, 160 (1st. Cir. 1998), but we would not, even if we could, for the rule is correct. Here, the city argues that NJI's proposed less restrictive alternatives were problematic and it was not required to accept them. Ironically, NJI argues less than a total ban would be a less restrictive alternative. The city had tried such an ordinance -- an EMC ban allowing only time, date, and temperature displays -- before and was met with a lawsuit. The alternative of allowing EMCs but imposing certain conditions on them, such as limiting the number of times per day a message could change, would have created steep monitoring costs and other complications for the city. There is evidence in the record, permissible on this issue, that the city explicitly considered and rejected alternatives, and the reasons for its choice. See McGuire, 260 F.3d at 49. Concord's concerns about the proposed alternatives to its present EMC ordinance are legitimate. NJI makes a separate argument that Concord's ordinance is forbidden because it is a ban of an entire medium of communication. Factually the argument raises the issue of how one defines "medium." Legally, the principle is untenable here. P Billboards and signs are not banned, nor is the use of signs with manually changeable type. Even if EMCs are considered to be a particular "medium," the fact that a regulation bans a particular medium does not mean that the ordinance is not narrowly tailored. Globe Newspaper, 100 F.3d at 191- 92. When the medium itself is the "evil the city [seeks] to address," then a ban of that entire medium is narrowly tailored. Id. at 192 (citing Vincent, 466 U.S. at 810) . As the Supreme Court observed in Metromedia, "If the city has a sufficient basis for believing that billboards are traff c hazards and are unattractive, then obviously the most direct and perhaps the only effective approach to solving the problems they create is to prohibit them." 453 U.S. at 508 (plurality opinion) . C. Alternative Channels Concord has not foreclosed NJI from using other means of communication. As the district court pointed out, NJI can still use static and manually changeable signs. It can also place advertisements in newspapers and magazines and on television and the Internet, distribute flyers, circulate direct mailings, and engage in cross-promotions with other retailers. Seel e.g., Sullivan, 2007 WL 4357565, at *22 (holding that the use of sidewalks, gatherings on state land, hand-held banners, leafleting, vehicular processions, and smaller-scale outdoor gatherings constituted sufficient alternatives for people unable to afford a city's parade permit) ; La Tour v. City of Fayetteville, 442 F.3d 1094, 1097 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding that an ordinance prohibiting flashing or blinking electronic signs left open sufficient alternative channels of communication, including using non-electronic signs); Globe Newspaper, 100 F.3d at 193 (concluding that street vendors were an adequate alternative to on- street newspaper boxes); Chapin Furniture Outlet, 2006 WL 2711851, at *4 (holding that an ordinance banning EMCs "does not prevent [p] laintiff from displaying any message . . . on a sign not prohibited" and noting that plaintiff could use banners, flags, sandwich boards, and inflatable signs as alternatives to EMCs) . NJI argues that it is losing potential customers, and therefore profit, because of its inability to place an FMC at its Concord location. The maximizing of profit is not the animating concern of the First Amendment. The fact that restrictions prohibit a form of speech attractive to plaintiff does not mean that no reasonable alternative channels of communication are available. "The First Amendment does not guarantee a right to the most cost-effective means of [speech] . . . ." Globe Newspaper, 100 F.3d at 193. Indeed, we have "upheld . . . alternative means of communication despite diminution in the quantity of speech, a ban on a preferred method of communication, and a reduction in the potential audience." Sullivan, 2007 WL 4357565, at *22. Concord's prohibition of GMCs is a constitutionally permissible content-neutral regulation. Since NJI has no probability of success on the merits of its claim, we need not address the other factors in the preliminary injunction determination. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Costs are awarded to defendants. FINAL REPORT A CRITICAL, COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF TWO STUDIES RECENTLY RELEASED BY THE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Prepared for: Maryland State Highway Administration Under Project AX137A51 Through and with full concurrence of: Positive Guidance Applications,Inc. Gerson J.Alexander,President By:Jerry Wachtel,CPE,President The Veridian Group,Inc. Berkeley,California Consultant October 18,2007 A.BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION. Outdoor advertising has been a fixture on America's roadways since there were roadways. From the"Burma Shave"signs and"Mail Pouch Tobacco"signs of the 1920s,to the jumbo neon spectaculars and computer controlled images on skyscraper curtain walls that grace Times Square,Hollywood and Las Vegas today, outdoor advertising has always been present in our built environment.Although the pros and cons of billboards have been debated for more than 50 years,it is perhaps their influence on traffic flow and safety that has been most controversial. Now,a"perfect storm"is brewing that is bringing this issue to the forefront once again. Regulators and traffic safety experts are increasingly focused on driver distraction as a major factor in crash causation. Private roadway managers, together with traditional turnpike and toll road operators seeking new sources of revenue to support needed maintenance and safety improvements,are turning to advertisers to provide some of that revenue.And new technologies have brought large-scale,extremely bright,high resolution signs to the roadside—signs that can display a frequently changing series of images and are capable of presenting full motion video. Even more advanced technologies enable the advertiser to target roadside advertisements to the specific demographics of drivers passing these signs and to create signs that actually interact with drivers by presenting personalized messages on the billboard or contacting the driver's mobile phone. Legal battles between advertisers and government agencies over the safety impacts of roadside billboards have taken place for more than two decades,and have reached the U.S.Supreme Court.After a hiatus of some years,these battles are looming again,but the stakes are now much higher because of the costs and revenues involved and the heightened concern about driver distraction. B.THE PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW. In July 2007,the Outdoor Advertising Association of America(OAAA)announced on its website the issuance of two"ground-breaking studies"that addressed the human factors and driver performance issues associated with real-world digital(or electronic)billboards(EBBS),and the impact of such billboards on traffic accidents (Outdoor Advertising Association of America,2007). The OAAA website stated, in part,that this research"offers conclusive evidence that traffic accidents are no more likely to happen in the presence of digital billboards than in their absence." Since neither of these two studies had received public peer review at the time of their issuance,it was premature,at best,for the OAAA to make any claims of the validity of the findings.Also,since the accident study did not compare accidents in the presence of EBBs to accidents in their absence,the study presented no evidence,no less conclusive evidence,to justify the OAAA's claim. In addition,since even a cursory inspection of the human factors study showed that driver performance and behavior did, in fact,deteriorate when 2 EBBs were present vs.when they were absent,the OAAA claims seem difficult to support.Finally,the OAAA's claim that its Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education(FOARE)commissioned these studies to specifically examine whether there exists"a cause and effect link between outdoor digital billboards and driver behavior"demands scrutiny since the research methods and statistical analyses employed in these two studies were incapable of determining causality. Nonetheless,news media throughout the country picked up on the OAAA web posting,and the debate over the pros and cons of these new billboards took center stage in many State and local government offices. In several cases, Government agencies at all levels came under immediate pressure to promulgate new regulations or amend existing codes and to permit the construction of new electronic billboards along their roads. As a result of the issuance of these two studies and the claims made for them,and because of the need to address this technology by Government agencies nationwide,the Maryland State Highway Administration(MDSHA)asked this reviewer to perform an independent peer review of each of the two studies.This report represents the results of that review.The two studies are: "A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County,Ohio,"by:Albert Martin Tantala,Sr.,and Michael Walter Tantala,Tantala Associates,Submitted to:The Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education,July 7,2007",and "Driving Performance and Digital Billboards: Final Report,"by:Suzanne E. Lee,Melinda J. McElheny and Ronald Gibbons,Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Center for Automotive Safety Research, Prepared for:Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, March 22,2007." C.HOW THIS REVIEW WAS CONDUCTED. Each of the two reviews that follows was conducted by thoroughly reading the report,performing independent verification,where possible,of the accuracy of statements made and data provided, reviewing the statistical analyses that were performed and the conclusions drawn from them,checking cited references and identifying important references omitted,and looking for signs of possible bias that might have influenced the decisions made or the conclusions reached. For both documents,our review,followed the same sequence:(1)Decisions and Assumptions Made in Support of the Research; (2)Methodology; (3)Review and Application of Cited Literature; (4)Statistical Methods,Controls,and Analyses; (5) Misleading and Inconsistent Reporting,and Evidence of Bias. Because the strength of any research project rests heavily on the decisions and assumptions made in advance(a priori)by the researchers about what to study and 3 what to exclude,and on the research methodology that rests,in large part,on those decisions and assumptions,we have given the greatest weight in our review to subsections(1)and(2)as listed above. D.REVIEW OF THE TANTALA REPORT. 1.Decisions and Assumptions that Guided the Research This study is based upon an after-the-fact(post-hoc)review of police traffic collision reports.The weakness of trying to understand issues of driver inattention or distraction(which is the real focus of this research)through a post-hoc review of summary crash data is discussed in detail in Subsection 2,below. In this Subsection,we address the decisions and assumptions made by the researchers that led to their determination of which crashes to include in the study,and which to exclude. The decision of which crashes to study and which to ignore depends on two critical assumptions made by the researchers.The first assumption is based on their justifiable focus on those crashes that occurred in the vicinity of EBBs,i.e. within those roadway sections when an approaching driver could first see,and subsequently read the message on such billboards, In other words,the crashes of interest would be those that were initiated during the interval that an EBB was within the visible or legibility range of an approaching driver;and we would want to compare such crashes to those that occurred on comparable roadway sections where no EBBs were present.(As will be discussed below, however,such comparisons are not possible because of another assumption made by the researchers).Thus,the critical assumption underlying this decision is how to determine which crashes were,and which were not,within the visibility and legibility ranges of the seven(7)EBBs evaluated in this study.The second critical decision by the researchers that leads to the scope of included vs.excluded crashes for study is whether to include all crashes reported in these study and control sections of roadway,or whether to exclude some of the crashes for certain reasons.The researchers made the decision that certain types of crashes should be excluded from study because they were subject to certain types of biases. Below,we address each of these decisions,and the assumptions on which they were based. a.Assumptions about the visual range and legibility range of EBBs Let us first address the researchers'assumptions about the visibility and legibility distances of the seven(7)EBBs addressed in this study,which,in turn, led to their decisions about roadway sections for which to include and exclude crash data. The authors use several different terms in their report to identify those roadway sections where approaching drivers might be able to initially see an EBB ahead and later read a message displayed on that EBB.Their terms include: 4 "visible range from route,""viewer reaction zone,"viewer reaction distance(VRD)," "viewer reaction distance zone",and"viewer reaction time(VRT)." Unfortunately,the authors neither define these terms nor describe how the measures based on them were developed.The closest they come to providing this information is in their discussion of VRD,which they describe as follows:"...Viewer Reaction Distance(is)how far from a billboard that the driver is potentially within the "influence"of the billboard"(p.45,and similarly on p.79). In other words,viewer reaction distance is the distance in which the viewer can react.The authors further state that"reasonable values for VRD were previously determined in previous studies,and are a function of the driver's speed."This statement is incorrect.Viewer reaction distance is not affected by the driver's speed—the distance at which a driver can first see,and then read,any sign is independent of speed;it is only viewer reaction time that would be affected by speed.Further,the authors provide no citations for the previous studies mentioned,and offer no other basis for their development of their VRD formula.They report that,at 65 MPH,the VRD is approximately 0.2 miles with a VRT(Viewer Reaction Time)of 10 seconds(p.79). A simple calculation demonstrates that,at 65 mph(95 feet-per-second or fps),0.2 miles is traversed in 11 seconds,not 10. It is possible,therefore,that although this formula would yield an error approaching 10%(an assumed VRD of 10 seconds vs. a calculated VRD of 11 seconds at an assumed 65 mph speed),this may be the source of their assumption that VRD is 10 seconds.The merit of the researchers' values assigned to these critical measurements is further eroded by their failure to account for the fact that billboards on the opposite side of a multi-lane highway from an approaching driver provide a longer viewing time than those on the near side, and by their commingling of VRD with their measurement of"distance to the nearest billboard"(pp.45-46)-a term which they do not define. Surprisingly,the researchers'assumptions about VRD discussed above are directly contradicted by Table 2-3 on p. 15 of the report.This table is titled:"Visible Range of Billboards Along Interstate Routes;"it is never referred to in their report. The table shows the"visible range,"in miles and feet,for each of the seven EBBs in the study.Although visible range is never defined,it would appear that these distances(which range from a low of 0.28 to a high of 2.15 miles)represent the maximum distance from which each of the EBBs can be seen by an approaching driver.Translating these distances to time,it can be seen that the billboard with the shortest visible range(#4)would be within an approaching driver's visual range for 15.6 seconds,whereas the billboard with the longest visible range(#5)would be visible to an approaching driver for 118.9 seconds,or nearly two minutes.(Note that both of these calculations are based on the researchers'claim that the Speed Limit was 65 mph).These data suggest that the researchers'decision to review only those crashes within 10 seconds upstream of any billboard is insufficient even to assess the potential influence of billboard#4, no less any of the other six,all of which were visible for greater distances. 5 The consequences for the validity of the data of this study are significant because the reviewers'assumptions led them to exclude all(an unknown number) crashes that were likely initiated in roadway segments further upstream from each of the billboards that they chose to study.For example,if the researchers determined that a particular EBB's zone of visual influence extends for 850 feet, they would exclude from their consideration any reported crash that took place outside this boundary.And the effect of these assumptions on the data considered by the researchers is substantial. It should be obvious that every EBB visible along the route will have a different VRD and VRT depending upon numerous factors—sign size, height,and location,sight distance,size of characters in the display,roadway geometry,etc. Nonetheless the authors chose to assign each EBB the same VRD of 0.2 miles and the same VRT of 10 seconds.We believe that this is indefensible,especially given their data,in Table 2-3,showing the dramatically variable distances from which each of the seven EBBs can be seen.To take one example,if we assume(based on accepted industry practice)that 1"of letter height supports a legibility distance of 40',and a 14'tall billboard(all digital billboards in this study were 14'high x 48' long)with a character height of 75%of the available height or 10 feet 6 inches(a reasonable assumption based on the EBB images captured in Figures 2-4 and 2-8 of their report),then the legibility distance of such a sign would be 5040 feet,or 0.95 miles, nearly five times the VRD assumed by these authors.More significantly,the visibility distance is far greater than the legibility distance, and given the size, brightness,and frequently changing imagery on EBBs,it is reasonable to assume that crashes initiated within a given sign's visibility distance must also be considered.We have measured the visibility distance(day and night)to a recently erected EBB as greater than five(5)miles,and even though typical roadway sight distances would not permit such a lengthy visibility distance, it is reasonable to assume that the gaze of an approaching driver might be attracted to,and that such a driver might be capable of reading,an EBB at far greater distances,and for a far longer period of time,than the authors chose to evaluate in this study.We conclude, therefore,that the crash data accepted for inclusion in this study,based on the researchers'artificially constrained assumptions of VRD,has resulted in a substantial understatement of the true number of crashes that have occurred within the visibility and legibility range of the EBBs studied. Because Viewer Reaction Zone is never satisfactorily defined,all of the results reported in Tables 4-1 to 4-4 must be considered suspect. Similarly, because the Visible Range is never satisfactorily defined,all of the results reported in Figures 4-2 to 4-9 must also be questioned. b. Assumptions about bias in crash causes The researchers made the assumption that certain classes or types of crashes should be excluded from study because they represent"bias".They use the terms "data-bias"and"interchange-bias."Data bias is discussed here;interchange bias is ^� 6 discussed below.Unfortunately, in 90 pages,there are no clear statements that identify exactly which types of biases were excluded,or why.Throughout the report, "examples"of such biases are mentioned in various contexts,but the list of excluded crash types changes from page to page,and a complete list is not provided.Thus,the reader is left to question whether other categories of crashes were also excluded from the data set. Excerpting from the examples given,the following crash types were excluded from the database: -Deer hits(also called animal related) ' -Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol' -Adverse weather2 -Speeding3 -Senior related3 It is puzzling that the researchers chose to exclude crashes that occurred in adverse weather,and crashes that were"senior related." Since adverse weather is a known contributor to increased driver task demands,it represents the very kind of traffic/environmental condition for which one would want to study the potential distracting effect of such signs.Similarly,it has long been known that novice drivers and older drivers may have difficulties in highly demanding driving situations. For this reason,the decision to eliminate"senior related"crashes(no mention is made of crashes involving young drivers),raises additional concerns about the validity of the authors'approach. c. Assumptions about interchange bias The decision to eliminate crashes in the vicinity of interchanges(discussed by the authors on pages 49 and 77)is particularly troubling for several reasons.In their own words,they excluded interchange-related crashes because interchanges are "where drivers may undertake additional tasks,such as changing lanes, accelerating/decelerating,and negotiating directions."Since these demanding tasks associated with intersections are the very situations that are of concern to the traffic safety community,and since they are among the prime locations for high visibility billboards(because such locations may allow the billboards to be seen by traffic on multiple roadways),their a prior removal from this study is a cause for concern. It should be noted that the most recent billboard study published by FHWA(Farbry et al,2001)and cited by these authors,specifically noted that intersections and interchanges were highly demanding road locations,and that such locations should be included in any study of electronic billboards. Discussed in Tables 4-5,4-6.pp 45,49.77 2 Discussed in Table 4-5,pp.49,77("snowfall"and"icy roads"on pp.49,77) 'Discussed in Table 4-6(age 65 and above) 7 Decades of research into driver distraction demonstrates that alert experienced drivers can tolerate some distraction when their task demands are not high,but that all drivers have different cognitive capacities,and that there are certain road,traffic,and environmental conditions that may increase cognitive demands to the extent that additional sources of distraction should be avoided. Thus,the exclusion of some of the very types of crashes that might be expected to occur in the vicinity of EBBs is troubling,and,as with the decision to severely limit the distance upstream of EBBs in which crash data was collected,results in a likely substantial understatement of the actual crash statistics that took place in these roadway sections.Taken together,the choice of crash types to exclude is a serious weakness of this study,given that the very kinds of crashes excluded are those that would be of direct relevance to the potential for distraction caused by billboards. Although the decision to exclude crashes in the vicinity of interchanges is problematic for the"temporal"study,it is far more harmful in that section of the report that deals with"spatial"factors.In Section 4.4,the researchers describe the "spatial analysis as having been performed to study"whether traffic accidents occur more frequently at or near digital billboards on specific routes."The same crash factor exclusions apply as elsewhere in the report,but here the reader is further misled because the researchers define the"exclusion zone"related to interchanges in two conflicting ways within the same sentence.They state that they excluded "those accidents and billboards on interchanges(entrances/exits)within one mile (1/4 mile on each side of an interchange)"(p.78).Regardless of which distance was actually used,it is clear that any resulting findings are confounded by the fact that at least three of the billboards chosen for study(#3, Figure 2-8;#4,Figure 2-10; #7,Figure 2-16)are in close proximity to interchanges.Thus, if some percentage of accidents in the vicinity of these billboards was excluded due to the signs'proximity to the nearby interchanges,this artificially lowers the true number of crashes that may have been contributed by driver distraction due to these EBBs.As a result,the data for"bias adjusted"crashes in Tables 4-7 through 4-10,and in Figures 4-11 through 4-17 must also be considered suspect if not clearly insufficient. Figure 1,(taken from the ClearChannel Outdoor website)shows the researchers'Billboard Number 3 and its proximity to an 1-90 interchange.As can be seen,this sign is within%mile of the interchange.So,regardless of what distance from an interchange was actually excluded in the data collection,this sign,and most likely,Billboards 4 and 7 as well,would have been excluded.Unfortunately, because the authors do not provide the reader with any information regarding the distance from the nearest interchange to any of their studied EBBs,there is no way to measure their proximity objectively. 8 c r •. DIGITAL • � ��1� • —V. • .i• C '.ate_. Figure 1. Proximity of EBB#3 to an 1-90 interchange.This image shows the same EBB depicted in Figure 2-8,p. 16,of the Tantala study. It is also Site#22 from the Lee study.(Source: http://www.clearchanneloutdoor.com/products/digital/don/cleveland/index.htm) In summary,the researchers'decision to exclude from study crashes that may have been affected by certain"biases"is essentially and critically flawed because it overlooks the most basic understanding of traffic crashes—that they are frequently multi-causal—and it is precisely when such multiple factors are at play— adverse weather,older drivers,complex interchanges,speeding)that the likelihood grows that the cognitive demands on the driver are increased and that irrelevant distraction cannot be tolerated. In other words,one should not exclude such factors because they cause"bias"—these are exactly the factors that interact to increase the likelihood of a crash when other factors such as inattention or distraction are present,and they must be investigated. d.Assumptions about crash baseline data Finally,one key assumption that colors the entire research paradigm is explained in two successive questions posed by the authors on p.4 of the report.The first question asks."...what is the statistical relationship between digital billboards and traffic safety?"This is a logical question to ask,and the one that should have guided this research. However,the next sentence,also posed in the form of a question, 9 asks:"Are accidents more,less,or equally likely to occur near digital billboards compared to conventional billboards?"Unfortunately,it was this second question that guided the research,not the first. In other words,this study was not designed to investigate the safety of digital billboards compared to the absence of billboards; rather,it made the baseless assumption that conventional billboards were the acceptable baseline for comparison with EBBs.As a result of this assumption,the research methods failed to include true comparison sites where billboards were absent,and made any assessment of the contribution to crashes from EBBs against a true baseline impossible. Further,the announcement on the website of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America(OAAA)that accompanied the introduction of this report erroneously stated that this study"offers conclusive evidence that traffic accidents are no more likely to happen in the presence of digital billboards than in their absence."Clearly,since no comparisons were made between crashes in the presence and absence of EBBs were made,this claim is false, 2.Methodology. This is a post-hoc accident study,meaning that the researchers reviewed summary reports of accidents that had been prepared by investigating police officers.Any such investigation is limited by the detail and accuracy of the reports reviewed,and by certain significant limitations in the accident reporting system itself,which the authors should have,but did not,acknowledge. For example,the majority of traffic collisions are never reported to,nor investigated by,the police,and thus any effort to determine a crash rate in the roadside areas studied will result in under-reporting. Second,and of critical importance for this study,unless a particular crash involves major property damage,serious injuries,or fatalities,the police investigation will most likely be rather cursory. In most States,a serious crash,and only a serious one,will require a specialized investigative team to examine the precursors to the accident(by reviewing evidence such as skid marks,debris fields,etc.,and preparing a supplemental accident report);but for the vast majority of police investigated accidents,no in-depth investigation is performed.The result is that information on the traffic collision report form regarding the actual crash location is often incorrect,and leads to a serious weakness in the conduct of post-hoc accident investigations such as the present one.Specifically,police reports will almost always identify the location as the position where the involved vehicles came to rest after impact,since the costly and time-consuming in-depth investigations necessary to identify the originating location of the crash are simply not performed for the vast majority of crashes.Although the researchers are silent on this issue,it is almost certain that the crashes studied for this report are based on post-crash,at-rest vehicle positions rather than the upstream locations where the driver or drivers initially lost control or failed to pay attention. If our interest is in the"cause"of the crash,as it must be in a study such as this,the point of rest after collision is essentially meaningless—in other words,what we are concerned with when we study issues of distraction or inattention is not where the vehicles came to rest but where the crash sequence first began.As stated above,with the rare exception of ^+ 10 serious crashes where supplemental investigations are performed in an effort to "reconstruct"the event,the researcher simply cannot know this information—and thus every identified crash location used for data analysis is suspect. In short,it is most likely that the traffic collisions evaluated in this study do not relate the triggers or precursors to billboard or EBB locations—they relate only the end result of such crashes to EBBs or billboards and thus they tell us nothing about the possible distraction effect of such roadside objects.This is enough to render these findings suspect. The methodology included a"temporal analysis"which examined the incidence of crashes at locations where billboards had undergone conversion from traditional to digital display. Data was collected for 18 months prior to,and after,the conversion.Although this before and after analysis is necessary,it is not sufficient. Missing is any analysis of comparable sites in which there were either no billboards present,or billboards that were present but not converted.As has been shown in previous research in this field(e.g.Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Board, 1976),it is possible that crash rates remained essentially the same in road sections featuring converted billboards,but actually decreased in sections that included non- converted billboards,or for non-billboard locations,during the same before-and- after study period. Another key methodological weakness concerns the lack of definition and description of the assessment of"accident density"and the commingling of digital and conventional billboards in such an assessment. 3.Review and Application of Cited Literature. The authors'include a list of 17 references,but none of these are actually cited in the text.Accordingly,the"References"section of the report is better identified as a bibliography. In addition,references made within the report of prior research are not accompanied by any citations,and thus it is not possible for the reader to know the source of the authors'claims. 4.Statistical Methods and Analyses Used The researchers'discussion of crash statistics,including counts and rates,is misleading and erroneous.They rely on a review of police traffic collision reports but,as discussed above,fail to note that most accidents are not reported. On page 33 they define annual average daily traffic(AADT)as"the total volume of traffic in both directions of a highway or a road for one year divided by 365 days."Then on Page 47, in their discussion of Table 4-5,the authors discuss the number of collisions per year in the"digital-billboard locations"(which they do not define),and calculate the accident rate. However,because the EBBs studied for this report were single-sided(i.e.facing only one direction of travel),the authors have overstated the actual AADT by a factor of two,and the actual accident rate is therefore twice as high as reported. 11 In a section titled "Accident Density and Billboard Density," the researchers violate the basic tenet of their research objective by commingling digital with conventional billboards along the route. By including all billboards in their metric for billboard density, they invalidate any opportunity to compare, as their research objective says they will, digital billboards with conventional billboards, as well as any opportunity to compare digital billboards with the absence of billboards (which we believe to have been the proper comparison to have been made). Further, the authors' statement: "If a noticeable correlation between billboards and accidents exists, then one would expect a significantly larger number of accidents in areas with relatively high billboards densities" (p. 78). Aside from their misuse of the words "noticeable" and "significantly" in this context, this statement is incorrect because of the researchers' failure to control for the roadside environment (geometry, location of interchanges, presence of other roadside objects that might attract a driver's attention, etc.) in which billboards were present from areas where they were not, as well as their failure to separate digital from conventional billboards which might present quite different attention-getting characteristics. • The researchers misinterpret their own data. An examination of their Figure 3-5, for example, does not corroborate the authors' conclusions that "the median age of drivers involved in an accident are 23" (sic) or that "the winter months of 2005 had the most accidents on Interstates" (p. 33). Similarly, Figure 3-7 does not show that "the majority (of crashes) occurs during dawn and daylight hours" as 011111* stated on p. 34. The authors misuse terms relating to their statistical analysis in an apparent effort to bolster their arguments. For example, they discuss a "noticeable correlation" — a term with no meaning. And, despite the fact that the authors know that correlation cannot imply causation, they nonetheless inappropriately suggest otherwise in several statements throughout the report (see, for example, pp. 2, 98). Indeed, the researchers' entire discussion of correlation is apparently intended to suggest that no correlation less than 1.00 is indicative of any relationship. On page 81, for example, they state: "Statistically, a correlation coefficient of 0.7 or smaller is considered to indicate 'weak' correlations, at best, and does not indicate much difference from correlation coefficients of zero." On the contrary, any researcher who has studied traffic safety in a real world environment would be grateful to achieve results where correlation coefficients of 0.7 were found. Because of their faulty assumptions discussed above, one of their major conclusions is simply unsupportable. They state: "if a noticeable correlation exists between billboards and accidents, then one would expect significant changes in the number of accidents between the 0 and 0.2 mile range and between the 0.2 and 0.4 mile range; the correlation coefficient would be large (close to +/- 1.00)." We take issue with this statement for two reasons. First, as discussed elsewhere in this review, because large, bright, colorful, changing EBBs can be seen, especially at 12 night,at far greater distances than these researchers examined,and because it is likely to be these very sign characteristics that capture the attention of drivers long before a sign's message can be read,their potential to distract may occur far earlier (upstream)than the 0.2 mile cutoff used in this study.Second,it is generally understood that,in real world traffic safety studies,"strong"correlation coefficients rarely reach 0.6,no less approach 1.0. The analysis performed in this study is based on what the authors call "commonly accepted scenarios relating accident density to billboard density,to 'viewer reaction distance,'and to billboard proximity(how far the accident is from the nearest billboard)." But none of these terms is defined,no references to prior research are provided,and the conceptual drawing used to explain these assumptions in Figure 4-1 (p.46)provides nothing more than a visual illustration of this vague narrative.Thus,the reader simply cannot form an independent opinion of what was actually done,what assumptions were made,and how the data was collected. 5.Misleading and Inconsistent Reporting,and Evidence of Bias. There are internal errors and inconsistencies throughout the report.Repesentative examples include: -The key for Figure 2-1 is incorrect. -Table 2-1 misstates the direction of the face of Billboard No.3 -The description of Figure 2-2(p.8)is completely wrong -The caption for Figure 2-2 does not depict what is in the Figure -Figure 2-2 is identical to Figure 2-1 with key information missing -All Latitude and Longitude data presented in the report is reversed -The numbering system for the billboards studied is described as"arbitrary" (p. 10).This is not true.The numbering system(and all other descriptive information)is taken directly from the Clear Channel website. -Data presented in the text disagrees with data in Figures and Tables. -There are two tables each labeled Table 2-3(pp. 11 and 15). The authors base some of their calculations(e.g."viewer reaction distance" and"viewer reaction time")on their statement that the posted Speed Limit was 65 MPH(p.79).This is false.As clearly shown in their own Figure 2-10(p. 17),the posted Speed Limit for at least one of their sites was 60 MPH.Although the authors provide no information about the posted speed limits at the other six sites,there is no reason for the reader to believe that they are other than 60 MPH.Of course,at 60 MPH,a driver approaching an EBB will be able to see and read the billboard for a longer period of time than would be the case at 65 MPH,thus further challenging the researchers'choice of an upstream cut-off point for crash statistics.Figure 2, taken from the ClearChannel Outdoor website,depicts the same EBB(No.4) shown in the Figure 2-10 of the study.In addition to showing the posted speed limit, 13 this figure clearly shows another billboard within the approaching driver's field of view,and the proximity of this EBB to the 1-77 interchange ahead. DIGITAL • s Figure 2. Image showing EBB#4 adjacent to posted Speed Limit signs.This image shows the same EBB depicted in Figure 2-10,p. 17 of the Tantala study.I-77 interchange signs can clearly be seen,as can an additional billboard in the driver's view.This is the same sign represented as Site No.42 in the Lee report.(Source: http://www.clearchanneloutdoor.com/products/digital/don/cleveland/index.htm) The authors present considerable data that are completely irrelevant to the study,while ignoring data of central importance.They take five pages(23-27)to provide superfluous information about the Interstate Highway System,provide data in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 that has no relevance for the study,and,on pages 29-31, repeat,verbatim,information previously provided on pp 10-11.The irony of this presentation is that the report is completely lacking in vital information about these EBBs and the studied road sections.For example,the authors provide no information about horizontal and vertical curvature,merges or lane drops,presence of official signage,or intersection characteristics such as entrances,exits,gores, etc.They don't even tell us how close any of the studied billboards are to the nearest interchange,despite the fact that their figures clearly show such proximity in at least three of the seven studied locations. A number of the Figures and Tables in the report are taken directly from the website of ClearChannel Outdoor,the owner of the seven billboards studied.As indicated above,despite certain statements made by the authors,such as:"The 'N'` 14 numbering of the digital billboards in this study are(sic)arbitrary"(p. 10)this numbering system and other information relevant to each billboard is actually that provided by the billboards'owner,ClearChannel Outdoor, LLC.Further,in an article reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer(Slobodzian,2007),a ClearChannel Outdoor executive stated that his company"hired"the researchers to perform this study in Cleveland. E.REVIEW OF VTTI REPORT. 1.Decisions and Assumptions that Guided the Research a. The decision to collect data for an 8-second interval prior to passing a site. The researchers chose a time period of 8-seconds in advance(upstream)of a billboard,and,indeed,all sites,to record driver performance and eye glances.This interval was chosen,according to the authors,because this was the message- change cycle for the digital(electronic)billboards studied at these sites.The assumption that 8 seconds was a reasonable data capture interval raises several concerns,discussed below under Methodology. b. The choice of"control"sites The researchers selected four types of"events"or"sites"at which to collect data. For the main(daytime)portion of this study,there were 5 digital(electronic) billboard locations,which we have called"study sites,"and three other types of locations,which we have called"control sites."These included conventional billboards(N=15),baseline sites(N=12),and comparison sites(N=12).The study authors provide no images or schematics of any of the 44 locations,and their descriptions and definitions of the site characteristics,particularly for the baseline and comparison sites,are vague and inconsistent,making it difficult for the reader to determine just how these site types compared. Baseline sites,according to a statement in the study Abstract,contained"no signs"(p.6).But we later learn that this was not the case.Some baseline sites(the authors never state how many)in fact,contained signs.But the most serious problem is with the assumptions made for the comparison sites.On page 8 we are told that comparison sites are"similar to items you might encounter in everyday driving."On page 21,they are described as "areas with visual elements other than billboards."Later on the same page we are told that some of these sites included on-premise signs,variable message signs, and"digital components."Then,in Table 2(p.22)the reader can see that one comparison site is described as a"tri-vision billboard"and three others as an"on premise LED billboard."In reality,then,the comparison sites may have been just as visually compelling,if not more so,than the EBB sites that were the principle focus of this study.This intentional confounding of study and control sites seems designed to further the researchers'purpose of diminishing any adverse findings from EBBs by showing them to be no worse than existing sources of distraction. 15 As expected,the report's findings tend to bear out this concern in that,for many measures, EBB and comparison sites elicited similar results,and these results differed,often significantly,from those obtained at conventional or baseline sites.The problem for the researchers is how to treat these findings given their a priori site selection decisions;the problem for the reader is how to interpret them.In our opinion the approach adopted by the researchers is seriously flawed. It takes the clear evidence found in this study that digital billboards are associated with adverse driver performance,and twists these conclusions in such a way to suggest that there is no problem with digital billboards because drivers are already distracted by other"comparison"sites.The net effect of this is to avoid directly addressing the research objective,which was:"to assess the effects,if any,of digital billboards on driver behavior and performance"(p.8),and instead answer a question that was not asked—how does driver behavior and performance compare for digital billboards vs.similarly distracting on-premise signs?In short,the authors' assumption that their carefully chosen comparison sites were appropriate control locations against which to compare the effects of EBBs enables them to slant their findings to suggest that,because driver performance in the presence of digital billboards is similar to their performance in the presence of these equally distracting "comparison"sites,there is no cause for concern regarding the safety of EBBs. Looking at the data,this seems to be a serious error. c. The decision to minimize nighttime data collection. Digital billboards are of particular concern to traffic safety experts at night,due to their ability to achieve high brightness and contrast levels,their high resolution imagery,and their visually compelling message changes,all of which can act to capture the attention of the driver at the expense of other targets in the scene(such as official signs and signals,pavement markings,and other vehicles).Thus,we question why the researchers chose to perform only a limited night-time study,one which included,by design,too few participants to enable them to analyze the data statistically.This decision is particularly troubling because,as might have been hypothesized,the researchers found indications of greater distraction by digital billboards vs.control sites at night with all of their measures,and,they suggest,at least some of these findings"would show statistical significance"in a larger study (p.64).They state:"The overall conclusion(of the nighttime data),supported by both the eyeglance results and the questionnaire results, is that the digital billboards seem to attract more attention than the conventional billboards and baseline sites (as shown by a greater number of spontaneous comments regarding the digital billboard and by longer glances in the direction of these billboards)"(p.10).They also report that both performance measures,speed maintenance and lane keeping, were poorer at night for digital billboards(and conventional billboards)than for comparison or baseline sites. 2.Methodology a. Lack of control locations. ^� 16 The researchers selected some study sites on the right side of the road and some on the left,then recorded and analyzed whether drivers glanced in the direction of these sites as they approached and passed them. In some cases they found examples of participants looking in the direction opposite to the site being studied. When such behavior occurred in the presence of billboard sites,they interpreted this to mean that the billboard was not attention-getting. But there is no evidence to suggest that they sought to identify or control for the possible presence of billboards or other visually attention-getting targets that may have existed along the roadside opposite their study sites.In other words,when they selected a study site on the right,they provide no information to suggest that they made sure that there was nothing on the left that might capture the driver's attention.If, in fact,they did not identify and control for such opposing sites, ,then the eye glance data that they captured are suspect..Since they do not report any efforts to evaluate and control for such conditions,one must assume that they did not do so. In short, it is entirely possible that glances to the left when a billboard was on the right(or conversely) were made because there was a competing,perhaps compelling,site across the road from the study site that was neither controlled nor evaluated..A similar concern exists for uncontrolled sites that might exist on the same side of the road as a site of interest,and within a driver's field of view as he or she approached that site.Given the coarseness of the eye gaze data,there was likely no way for the researchers to know whether a particular participant was looking at the study site or an unidentified site for which they did not control.As one example,a review of Figure 1 shows the EBB of interest on the right side of the road,but the figure also shows a large billboard on the left side of the road that appears in the center of the image. If the researchers captured eye glances straight ahead or to the left at this location,they might have been due to the participant looking at this uncontrolled billboard. b. Lack of controls within and across study sites. Although the five EBBs studied each measured 14'high by 48'wide,we are given little information about other important characteristics of these signs;characteristics that could have had a direct impact on their attention-getting qualities,such as their height,angle to the drivers'line of sight,and proximity to the road.Further the reader is told little about roadway geometry,prevailing traffic speeds and volume, etc.Any of these factors may have affected the comparability of sites. Even though all five EBBs were 14'high and 48'wide(although mounted at very different heights relative to the road surface elevation)there was no consistency of sizing of conventional billboards or signs on the comparison sites. Indeed,we are told on page 21 that conventional billboards included a"few"that were of other sizes, including"standard poster,junior paint,and 10'6"x 36'bulletins."Since the size of a billboard or other sign likely has a direct relationship to the distance from which it can be seen and the size of lettering that it can accommodate,this failure to control for sign size and other characteristics relative to a sign's visible and legibility range is an important oversight. In our opinion,without any effort to control these basic 17 site and sign characteristics,it is difficult for the researchers to defend any interpretations they may have made from their data. c. The implications of the 8-second data recording period. As discussed above,the authors describe four different types of"events"to which they studied driver response. Driver response to each event was recorded for a period of 8 seconds,ending at the time that the instrumented vehicle passed the event,and beginning 8 seconds upstream of that location.However,there are several methodological problems both with their choice of an 8-second interval,and with their ability to define and measure it. At 65 MPH,the presumed speed on the freeways studied,a vehicle travels approximately 95 feet per second.Thus,during an 8-seoncd interval,a vehicle will travel 760 feet.The accepted practice for highway signs is that 1"of letter height can be read from approximately 40 feet away.So,for a billboard with 24"letters,the sign can be read from approximately 960 feet. In other words,a billboard can be read by the average driver at distances greater than those covered by the 8-second interval.When we recognize that letters on such signs may be considerably larger than this,and that such signs may display images of products or services dramatically larger than the size of letters(the signs studies are typically 14 feet tall),it should be obvious that these messages can be read at distances far greater than the authors'8-second interval could accommodate.(Applying a scale to the word"Digital"in the signs shown in Figures 1 and 2 shows that these letters are 48" in height,indicating a legibility distance of 1920 feet. It takes more than 20 seconds to traverse this distance at 65 mph).In addition,because of the brightness,contrast, and image quality of digital billboards,and the fact that(in Cleveland)their message changes every 8-seocnds,it should be obvious that driver attention to the billboard may be initially attracted at far greater distances than those at which the message can actually be read.As a result,the choice of an 8-second data recording interval is likely to result in a substantial underestimation of the distracting effects of digital billboards compared to other roadside sites including more traditional billboards and on-premise signs. The authors state that they chose an 8-second data collection period because the"digital billboards were programmed to change messages instantaneously once every 8 seconds;an event length of 8 seconds thus made it highly likely that a message change would be captured during the event"(p.21). This argument is flawed for several reasons.First,as described immediately above, the sight distance and legibility distance,coupled with the size of the signs studied and their letter height,strongly suggests that digital billboards can be seen and read far earlier than 8 seconds upstream of the sign,thus strongly suggesting that the data recording interval should have been much longer.Second, it is obvious that had the researchers selected any data recording interval longer than 8 seconds, it, too,would have permitted them to capture a message change during each driver's approach to the event.Finally,despite their implicit recognition of the possible �^ I8 significance of a driver actually observing a message change during his or her approach to the EBB,the researchers apparently never actually recorded any data on message change,and therefore had no way to evaluate any possible driver response to it. The seeming precision of the 8-second recording interval is also belied by the imprecision of the site characteristics, If a site contains a single billboard,one can measure the point in time when a driver passes that billboard.But how does one identify and measure the point of passage for the other types of sites studied? Since many of the comparison sites contained multiple objects,including multiple signs,there is no obvious end point.Similarly,for baseline sites which were devoid of any signs,one must question how an end point was defined. Because of what is often called the driver's cone of forward vision,signs on the left(billboards or otherwise)can generally be seen for a longer time and distance than can signs on the right.Given that the same 8-second interval was applied to signs on both sides,this raises questions for the viability of the start time for data collection at each site,given that this start time was defined as 8-seconds prior to the end point. Some signs are located perpendicular to the driver's direction of travel. Others,such as some two-sided billboards and many on-premise signs,may be located at other angles, including parallel to the driver's direction of travel(such as when mounted on a building facade).In addition,the lateral distance of each sign from the driver's line of sight varies greatly as a result of factors such as:lateral distance from the road edge,and the number and width of lanes,medians,and shoulders. If the same 8-second point for passing a sign was applied regardless of sign angle to and lateral distance from the road,then some signs would be visible to drivers for less time than others,thus rendering the 8-second recording interval inconsistent across the studied sites. In summary,the researchers'choice of an 8-second data recording interval was inappropriate for many reasons,and resulted in unequal exposure to signs of interest across sites.A more appropriate way to determine the data collection interval would have been to identify the point at which a billboard or other sign of interest fell outside a predetermined angle of view from the driver's line of sight along the road axis,and defined the recording interval upstream from that point. This would have assured a more equitable,and comparable,identification of sight distance and would not have had the effect of artificially reducing the available glance times and control measurements made for the signs of interest in this study. Of course, it also would have made data actual collection more challenging. d. Measurement of nighttime luminance levels The authors measured the luminance levels of different sites at night.They took these measurements from the participant-driver's eye position,a decision which 19 masked and minimized the actual brightness differences between the EBBs and the other sites.A more appropriate comparison would have been directly in front of each of the signs of interest so that the authors could be sure that they were comparing sign to sign without the contribution of the general ambient environment. Further,the authors do not state whether some of the(non-EBB)sites measured at night were those on surface streets,and whether there were fixed luminaires within the range of the luminance meter at such sites.The presence of fixed lighting would also have reduced the actual luminance differences between EBBs and other sign sites.Despite these limitations in measurement strategy,and despite the fact that the digital billboards were automatically dimmed at night,the authors recorded nighttime luminance levels at the driver's eye position that were,on average, 10 times greater for digital billboards than for baseline sites,approximately 3 times brighter than sites with conventional billboards,and approximately 2.5 times brighter than comparison sites.The authors'state:"this probably explains some of the driver performance findings in the presence of the digital billboards"(p.68). e. Different route types and control of variables The authors conducted their on-road studies on"interstate,downtown,and residential road segments"(p..27)Given that all five(5)digital billboards(study sites)were on interstate highways,the decision to include some of the control sites (baseline,conventional billboards,comparison sites)on roads other than interstates confounded the data collection and made meaningful comparisons across sites �*+� impossible.When conducting field research,the goal must be to reduce,wherever possible,extraneous sources of variability.In this study,the decision to include study sites(EBBs)on interstates and some(we are not told which or how many) control sites on surface streets leads to additional uncontrolled sources of variability.Some of the significant differences between these two classes of roadways,any or all of which may have affected the data,are:traffic speeds and flow;lighting levels;sight distances;access control;at grade vs.grade separated intersections; traffic control devices;and divided vs.undivided traffic. Even for the five EBBs that were the principal focus of this research,the authors seem to have made no attempt to identify,no less control,extraneous variables such as traffic speeds and volume,horizontal and vertical curvature,or other roadway and traffic characteristics that might have interacted with the variables of interest.Further,the distance between adjacent study sites was often very short. For example,using the Haversine formula,we calculated the distance between Site 37,an EBB,and Site 36,a baseline site,as less than 1.2km.Other studied sites might have been even closer to one another.Thus it is likely that the visibility ranges for adjacent sites overlapped,confounding eye gaze and vehicle performance comparisons. f. Precision of eye gaze recording 20 The equipment and methodology used for recording eye gaze of the participant drivers was apparently chosen because it is more"naturalistic"(i.e.less intrusive for the participant).The downside of this choice is that this approach yields data that are less reliable and less accurate than would have been attained using more sophisticated equipment.As a result of the speed of vehicle movement,the distances of the vehicle from the EBBs and other sites of interest,the lack of careful calibration of the equipment prior to each run,and,especially,the vague definition of site boundaries,it is highly unlikely that the eye gaze data yields results with sufficient precision that enables the researchers to know whether any given glance was made to a site of interest,another vehicle,or another site that was not specified for data collection.Eye glance location of one degree of accuracy or better is probably necessary for a study where accuracy is critical;but the equipment and method used by these researchers most likely has accuracy of 10 degrees or worse. g. Other methodological issues The authors describe this project as a"naturalistic"driving study,modeled after a much larger and broader-based study conducted at the same institution— generally known as the"!00 car study"(Dingus,et al,2006).Although they used an instrumented vehicle with on-board cameras,and although their test subjects drove the route without a researcher present in the vehicle,the present study differs significantly from the 100 car study in several key ways. First,the four on-board cameras used to record views of the road and of the drivers'glances were not hidden as they were in the 100 car study.Rather,they were prominently located on the driver's side A-pillar and on and adjacent to the rear view mirror.These camera locations are shown in Figures 8-10 of the report(pp.32-33).Second,the duration of the present study was typically less than two(2)hours,whereas,in the 100 car study,participants kept their instrumented vehicles in their possession and used them daily for months.Third, participants in the present study had to follow a prescribed route,with instructions taped to the dashboard,whereas in the 100 car study,participants were free to drive when and where they chose in the course of performing their activities of daily living. In short,whereas the participants in the 100 car study may well have become acclimated to their test vehicles over time and ignored the fact that they were participating in a research study,the participants in the current study were fully aware that their performance and behavior was being monitored and recorded—thus their behavior could not reasonably be described as "naturalistic." The authors report that,for each participant,they calibrated the eyeglance equipment in a hotel parking lot after the participant had driven the route.Given that eyeglance recording equipment can"drift"over time,that vibration could have changed the mounting position of one or more cameras,or that the driver could have adjusted the seat or otherwise changed position,this calibration should have been performed,for each participant,both before and after their drive.Without this 21 comparison, the researchers had no way of knowing whether any recording parameters may have changed during the run. 3. Review and Application of Cited Literature There is a long history of published literature examining the relationship of roadside billboards to crashes and to driver behavior. Relevant studies dating as far back as 1934 have been identified and reviewed by others. And research continues to be conducted and reported to the present day. The authors chose to discuss only a small, non-representative subset of studies. As will be seen below, it is clear that the studies reported, particularly of the early work in this field, were selected because they were supportive of the authors' position. When they cite studies that reported findings at odds with their position, these authors dismiss them as poorly done or irrelevant; conversely, studies that report findings consonant with those of these authors are praised with inappropriate descriptors such as "rigorous." The authors report at length about their own previous research study conducted with conventional billboards in North Carolina. That project used the same basic methodology as the current effort, with the same inherent flaws, and its findings are equally suspect. Their reporting about two early epidemiological studies is illustrative of their approach to the literature. The authors cite an article by Rykken (1951), a two-page interim progress report on a roadside study conducted in Minnesota. They quote from Rykken: "...no apparent relationship was found between accident occurrence and advertising sign type or location" (p. 12). What they do not say, however, is that Rykken called this result "a very preliminary study of approximately 170 mi. of the 500 mi. study segment (p. 42). Significantly, they fail to cite the final report of the subject study (Minnesota Department of Highways, 1951) which concluded, in part: "An increase in the number of advertising signs per mile will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in accident rate" (p. 31), and "intersections at which four or more (advertising) signs were located had an average accident rate of approximately three times that for intersections having no such signs." This final report has been extensively cited and reviewed by previous researchers. Wachtel and Netherton (1980), in particular, discussed it at length. It is puzzling, therefore, why these authors cited the interim progress report and ignored the final document. The researchers followed the same approach in their review of a parallel study conducted in Michigan. They cite an interim study report by McMonagle (1951) that looked at only partial findings (p. 12), and ignored the study's final report (Michigan State Highway Department, 1952) which found that illuminated advertising signs showed "an appreciable association with accident locations" (p. 6). In a confusing examination of a study by Rusch (1951) which analyzed crash reports on Federal and State highways in Iowa, the authors fail to report on Rusch's 22 published results,and offer no evaluation of his study. Instead,they cite a brief review by Andreassen(1985)[ignoring other independent review of the Rusch work] which stated,in part:'the greatest number of inattention accidents occurred on the sections where business and advertising predominated as the roadside property usage,but this does not prove anything about the effect of advertising signs on accident occurrence"(p.13).Given that Rusch's findings,despite methodological weaknesses that often affected these early field studies,demonstrated that the number of accidents was more than double in the study section(where 90 percent of the businesses and roadside advertising signs were located)than in either of the two control sections,given that"inattention"accidents predominated over both "business"and"other"accident categories in this study section,and given that the results held when corrected for mileage per segment,the researchers'treatment of this study is puzzling. Indeed,there were numerous examples of bias present in the authors' literature review.The four cited here are merely illustrative. 4.Statistical Methods And Analyses Used a. Long duration eye glances A major weakness of this study is the authors'failure to follow the very guidance that they recommend in their review of the work by Wierwille(1993),Horrey and Wickens(2006),and the"100 car study,"(Dingus,et al.,2006),and their resultant misinterpretation of their own data.This failure is exacerbated by their decision not to present certain key data. Because this issue is central to their findings as well as to their apparent bias, it is discussed more fully in the paragraphs below. As early as the Abstract the authors state:"Various researchers have proposed that glance lengths of 1.6 seconds,2.0 seconds,and longer may pose a safety hazard.An examination of longer individual glances showed no differences in distribution of longer glances between the four event types"(p.6).They restate this conclusion on page 9:"An analysis of glances lasting longer than 1.6 seconds showed no obvious differences in the distribution of these longer glances across event types."As will be seen below,this is simply not true. In their introductory description of eyeglance results(p.52)the authors list the seven(7)questions that they sought to answer.The seventh was:"Are longer glances(longer than 1.6 s)associated more with any of the event types?"This is followed by a summary and analysis of the findings relative to these seven questions. In all cases except one,the researchers performed an analysis of variance(ANOVA)to analyze the data,and reported their tests of statistical significance in both graphical and narrative form.The one exception was with regard to Question 7, longer glance durations. Despite restating Wierwille's recommendation that 1.6s be used as a criterion representing a long glance away from the roadway,and despite explaining that their approach in analyzing this data 23 follows that provided by Horrey and Wickens, "who suggest analyzing the tails of the distributions whenever eyeglance analysis is performed" (p. 59), these authors failed to do any such analysis. Instead, they apparently performed only a visual inspection of the data contained in their Figure 23 (p. 59) which depicts the distribution of glance durations for the four different event types. As a result of this visual inspection, they state: "As shown in Figure 23, the distributions of glance duration were similar across all event types, and there was no obvious pattern of longer glances being associated with any of the event types" (p. 59). Figure 3, below, reproduces the authors' Figure 23 together with its original caption. Saselne Comparison 306 a N 30'o u a 25% C 25% `p 15% 0 15% 13% `c 1°% m a $, 5"s4, 2 5'it. liii 1ar, r�rr. r r r. . . t : '� JJiJu 11101,1rorrr. M1fi M1' 'y. 4 a Glance Length(s) Glance Length(s) Cor enrcnal B,IIbotrd Digital Billbcaro , 30% e 30% _ 25?ii u 25% Amok 20% 2•J?5 'o 15% c 15% q. y 1356 10% r� „�_�a�'� �������. . rrt, ter, r, aJ%?£ r ��11111111raar. r. 1. . . . , .� .. e Ct .. ♦ ♦ .,W ry-. tit, M1µ M11 ,tig tw. �, .i v '.l� ♦ , .,+, .M1 .`) � ,t`• Y •j., L, Glance Length(s) Glance Length(s) Figure 23. Tails analysis for the distribution of glance duration,(method described in Horsey and Wickens,2007). Figure 3. A reproduction, in original size, of the authors' Figure 23, together with its original caption. Because the authors do not provide data on the actual glance durations that were used to prepare these four bar charts, the reviewer cannot perform an independent review of their conclusions. However, enlarging the four charts enables at least a rudimentary independent review of their findings, with the following results. Using only the tails analysis as suggested by the authors (following Horrey and Wickens), and using both 1.6 seconds (the Wierwille criterion) and 2.0 seconds (based on findings from the 100 car study), we find the following: For glances of 1.6 seconds or longer, approximately 5.5% of baseline sites and 7.5% of conventional billboard sites captured glances of such long duration, whereas 13% of digital billboards and 16% of comparison sites met or exceeded this criterion. "* 24 For glances of 2.0 seconds or longer,approximately 2%of baseline sites and 4.5%of conventional billboard sites captured glances of such long duration, whereas 7%of digital billboards and 8%of comparison sites met or exceeded this criterion. Indeed,both EBBs and comparison sites captured glances longer than 3 seconds,behaviors not experienced with either baseline or conventional sites. Given that this visual inspection of the researchers'data suggests that long glances seem to occur two-three times more often with EBBs and comparison sites than they do with baseline or conventional sites,such results suggest important differences for the longest glances,the ones that highway safety experts are most concerned with.One must ask why the authors chose not to perform a statistical analysis of this data,particularly when they did so for every other set of eyeglance data,why their visual inspection of these data did not identify the dramatic differences reported here b. Findings of the nighttime study In the authors'abbreviated nighttime data collection effort,a shorter route with fewer signs and fewer participants,they examined four different eyeglance measures—eyes-on-road percent,overall glance frequency,mean glance duration in the direction of an event,and mean number of glances in the direction of an event.In all four cases they found that EBB and comparison sites showed differences from conventional billboard and baseline sites—always in the direction to suggest that the EBBs and comparison sites were more attention-getting and more distracting(pp.64-66).Surprisingly,especially given their emphasis on longer glance durations based on the"100 car study"and the work by Wierwille,they apparently made no attempt to capture data for long glance durations,no less report it. c. Obfuscation of correlation with causation Throughout the report,the authors confuse the terms correlation and causation. Although it is clear that they well understand the important differences between these two types of statistical analysis,they often slip into the erroneous mode of citing a study whose sole purpose was to measure correlation,and criticize that study because it failed to prove causation.These fallacious comments are in line with a long tradition in the outdoor advertising industry of suggesting that there can be no relationship between billboards and traffic safety because billboards have never been shown to cause accidents. 5.Misleading and Inconsistent Reporting,and Evidence of Bias 25 Beginning with the first sentence of the Abstract,and continuing throughout the report,the authors construct their language in such a way as to intentionally mislead the reader. This was not a"naturalistic"study as stated in the Abstract(see our discussion of Methods)and it should not be reported as such. The stated purpose of this study was to"assess the effects,if any,of digital billboards on driver behavior and performance"(p.8),not,as implied in the Abstract,to ascertain whether driving performance in the presence of digital billboards was on a par with driving performance in the presence of on-premise signs that were also bright,electronic,and changing.The researchers clearly found that EBBs did have an adverse impact on driving performance,and the fact that this adverse impact was similar to the adverse impact from other distracting signs does not diminish this finding nor make it acceptable,The authors admit that"there are measurable changes in driver performance in the presence of digital billboards"(p. 6),and,as demonstrated in the body of the report,these changes are adverse,but such adverse impacts cannot be deemed acceptable merely because they"are on a par"with the adverse effects of other digital,flashing,and changing signage located on the premises of roadside businesses. Baseline sites should have been,as stated in the abstract,"sites with no signs."But,as described elsewhere in the report,an unidentified number of them A+ did contain signs,thus diminishing their potential to serve as intended control sites. In direct conflict with a statement in the Abstract,longer individual glance patterns(greater than 1.6 and 2.0 seconds)did show differences(actually,rather dramatic differences)between the event types. In fact,per the authors'own statements elsewhere in the report,these differences at the tails of the distributions for glance duration may be critically important in assessing the true impact of digital billboards on driver performance and behavior. Similar misstatements are made throughout the Executive Summary,and will not be repeated here.However,the expressed"finding"that:"An analysis of glances lasting longer than 1.6 seconds indicated that these longer glances were distributed evenly across the digital billboards,conventional billboards,comparison events,and baseline events during the daytime"(p.7)is plainly false,as is discussed at length in our section dealing with Statistics.Significantly,the data discussed in this"finding"was not analyzed by the researchers in accordance with their own data analysis recommendations, nor was such data even collected for the abbreviated nighttime study,when we would have expected such findings to be even more dramatic than they were in the daytime study. The authors identified five(5)EBBs for study.These are identified by latitude,longitude, route number,and side of road in Table 2,and shown graphically on a map in Figure 2.With this information,that reader can view images of these -w 26 EBBs from either the Tantala report or from the website of Clear Channel Outdoor, at http://www.clearchanneloutdoor.com/products/digital/don/cleveland/index.htm. Examination of Figures 1 and 2 in our report,must lead the reader to question the accuracy of the authors'statement on p. 19:"The Cleveland digital billboards...were located off to the side of the roadway in straight-away sections of interstate with no interference from hills,curves,or intersections." The authors provide voluminous data for irrelevant issues(e.g. 124,740 video frames analyzed,96,228 data points collected,8,678 eye glances identified, etc.)but offer no information useful to readers who might want to know what was actually studied(for example,there are no images of any of the billboards or other sites studied,there is no indication of the precision with which eye gaze was captured,etc.). It appears as if the researchers intended to overwhelm the reader with useless information in an attempt to avoid questions about the real issues. There are numerous statements throughout the report that,on the one hand, are irrelevant to the study,and,on the other,demonstrate a clear pro-billboard attitude.Some examples: "The lead author of this report recently participated on an expert panel charged with providing recommendations for a minimal data set to be included on police accident reports;billboard were never raised as a possible distraction..."(p. 11). "After a long gap in research,there were a few additional studies in the 1960's through the 1980's, none of which demonstrated that billboards were unsafe."(p. 11) "The national crash databases do not mention billboards in their list of driver distractions."(p. 14) The authors have coined the term safety neutral(p. 10).They state: "Although there are measurable changes in driver performance in the presence of digital billboards,in many cases these differences are on a par with those associated with everyday driving,such as the on-premise signs located at businesses"(p.6). In other words,the authors seem to be saying,because other roadside distractions such as their"comparison sites"(which,the authors note elsewhere,may contain multiple signs,changeable message signs,and digital signs)may also attract drivers'attention and are associated with speed and lateral placement difficulties as well as long glances away from the forward roadway,EBBs should be considered safety neutral because their adverse effects are little different than these other sources of distraction.. The authors continually obfuscate the difference between correlation and causation. In reporting on a study by Garvey,et al.(1995),they state:"the common problem with these studies is attributing accident causation..."(p. 13).Given that 27 the studies quoted generally made no attempt to establish causation,this is not a problem with these studies,but rather an accusation by these authors that such studies claimed to be something other than they actually addressed. Similarly,in their review of work by Andreassen(1985),they state:"almost all studies have relied on correlations and/or subjectively assigned'inattention'factors,which can only produce very tenuous evidence for a causal link between advertising and accident frequency"(p. 13). As discussed earlier in this report,there was a serious confounding in the visual and attention-getting characteristics of the EBBs which were the subject of this study,and the"comparison sites"which were used as one of the three types of control sites.This confounding was due directly to the researchers'choice of such comparison sites which,in their own language,often included digital signs, changeable message signs,and flashing signs.That the researchers'often found quite similar driver performance and behavior in these two types of sites,and that these performance and behavior variables typically differed from the two other types of sites studied(conventional billboards and baseline sites)should have sent a clear signal that sites containing digital imagery with changing messages were more demanding and more distracting than sites devoid of such sign characteristics.Yet, the authors took this obvious conclusion and twisted it in favor of their biases by simply assuming that the"comparison sites"formed part of the normal driving environment and,therefore,that the presence of EBBs was no worse than this normal environment and therefore was no problem.This conclusion demonstrates Aft. obvious bias,and flies in the face of efforts to promote highway safety by reducing, not increasing,the number of irrelevant,distracting,roadside stimuli. (By way of analogy,if we know from prior research that the use of mobile telephones in vehicles contributes to driver inattention,and we find that the use of some newer technology leads to a similar degree of inattentiveness,we would be hard pressed to find this newer technology acceptable merely because it is no worse than the distraction from telephone use). F.IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY. To the best of our knowledge,this is the first independent peer review of these two reports to have been prepared.There may be others underway or planned,and the authors of the two reports may well wish to respond to any such peer review. Because of the public relations campaign with which the OAAA released and publicized these two studies,they have received wide press coverage in print, online,and in the broadcast media.Without exception,this coverage has presented uncritical acceptance of these two reports as presented,with no scrutiny of their scientific or technical soundness.As a result,numerous States and local government agencies have begun to modify their codes and ordinances that address the use of digital billboards along the roadside.Having completed this peer review,it is our opinion that acceptance of these reports as valid is inappropriate and unsupported by scientific data,and that ordinance or code changes based on their findings is ill advised. Even the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)has 28 issued a recent policy memorandum in which DBBs are given tacit acceptance under certain conditions,possibly based in part on the release of these two studies. Because FHWA remains concerned about the safety implications of EBBs on highways,and because of its stated intention to conduct or sponsor its own research into this issue, it seems to this writer logical that any such policy change await further developments from research. This reviewer,after careful review of different research methodologies that have been undertaken or suggested to answer these questions, recognizes that the design and conduct of such research is challenging,and that no research yet published can fully answer the question of whether EBBs create a sufficient distraction of drivers'attention that they should be banned or strictly regulated under certain roadway,environmental,and traffic conditions.Such research is needed to guide future policy and regulation. At the forthcoming 87`h Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,to be held in Washington, DC starting on January 13,2008,this reviewer will conduct a day-long workshop titled:"Digital Billboards on the Highway:A Bright Future?"This workshop will provide a forum for a discussion of the complex issues involved in this field of inquiry. In addition,this reviewer will hold the first meeting of a new TRB Subcommittee on this topic during the TRB meetings,and interested parties are invited to attend. Finally,it is suggested,given the interest in this subject expressed by many State and local government agencies,that interested States seek funding to support the conduct of an objective,independent research project at the earliest possible time. G.REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO) (2007).Proposed Policy Resolution—Outdoor Advertising. Highways Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering. Andreasen, D.C.(1985).Technical Note No. 1:Traffic Accidents and advertising signs.Australian Road Research Board, 15(2), 103-105. Dingus,T.A..,Klauer,S.G.,Neale,V.L.,Petersen,Al,Lee,S.E.,Sudweeks,J., Perez,M.A., Hankey,J.,Rasey, D.,Gupta,S.,Bucher,C., Doerzaph,Z.R., Jermeland,J.,&Knipling,R.R.(2006). The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study: Phase Il—Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment. Report No.DOT HS 810 593. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Farbry,J.,Wochinger, K.,Shafer,T.,Owens,N.,&Nedzesky,A. (2001). Research review of potential safety effects of electronic billboards on driver attention and 29 distraction—Final Report. Washington,DC:U.S.Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Horrey,W.J.&Wickens,C.D.(2007). In-vehicle glance duration: Distributions,tails and a model of crash risk.Proceedings of the 2007 Transportation Research Board Meeting.Washington,DC:TRB. Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Board(1976).Decision in the matter of John Donnelly&Sons, Permittee, Telespot of New England, Inc., Intervener, and Department of Public Works, Intervener, with Respect to Permit Numbered 19260, As Amended. Boston,Massachusetts. McMonagle,J.C.(1951).Accident analysis—Telegraph road 1947-1948.Highway Research Board Bulletin,30,29-41. Michigan State Highway Department(1952).Accident Experience in Relation to Road and Roadside Features. Minnesota Department of Highways(1951).Minnesota Rural Trunk Highway Accident,Access Point and Advertising Sign Study. Outdoor Advertising Association of America(2007). Ground-breaking Studies Determine Accidents Not More Likely To Occur Because of Digital Billboards. http://www.oaaa.orq/(July 11,2007). Rykken, K.B.(1951).Minnesota roadside survey:progress report on accident, access point and advertising sign study in Minnesota.Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30,42-43. Rusch,W.A.(1951). Highway accident rates as related to roadside business and advertising.Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30m 46-50. Shepherd,G.M.(2007).Memorandum—Guidance on Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs.Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration. Slobodzian,J.A.(2007)."Video billboards coming this way—Police praise them. Conservationists and driver-safety groups oppose them."Phily.com(Obtained from the internet at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/9278261.html) Wachtel,J.,&Netherton, R.(1980). Safety and Environmental Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage(Final Report). Report No.FHWA/RD-80-051.Washington,DC: U.S.Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 30 Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs FINAL REPORT Submitted Under NCHRP Project 20-7(256) Prepared by Jerry Wachtel,CPE President,The Veridian Group,Inc. Berkeley,California April,2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND NOTES The author is grateful to the members of the peer review committee.Their thorough review of this paper,during its initial draft stage and again when the draft final report was submitted to them,pointed out numerous errors,weaknesses,and statements in need of clarification or documentation. We have tried to make all the suggested corrections,and to incorporate all of the changes recommended by the reviewers.Several commenters offered suggestions that were excellent and appropriate,but could not be accommodated in the body of the actual paper.They are mentioned here,with our thanks and concurrence. It was proposed that FHWA offer a short course for traffic engineers to understand the human factors issues associated with outdoor advertising signage,to assess the existing roadway environment for safety issues,and how to work with local businesses to improve signage and safety at the same time.We agree that this is an excellent and timely suggestion. It was recommended that roadway signing and human factors(Ml1TCD)experts should he collaborating with the advertising industry to promote signs and their placement with appropriate lettering and symbol guidelines or standards that will increase readability while minimizing distraction.In a similar vein,future research should address DBB o, design criteria that will provide travelers with needed information while at the same time minimizing driver distraction.We note that such collaboration has existed between human factors experts and the on-premise sign industry,but we are not aware of any such relationships in the billboard(off-premise)field. Another reviewer proposed that TRB conduct a Wcbinar on this topic in the future.This, too,would provide an excellent forum for the dissemination of this,sometimes arcane. information,in a manner that has practical applications. Reviewer#5 proposed an interesting thought experiment that addressed the difference between the question:"What is the statistical relationship between digital billboards and traffic safety?"and the question:"Are accidents more,less,or equally likely to occur near digital billboards compared to conventional billboards?"The reviewer suggests that these two questions are not necessarily incongruent,as we stated in the report,and that the second question is both technically correct(as is the first),and more useful because it addresses the safety issue in a manner closer to real-world driving;i.e.with the recognition that conventional billboards area given part of the landscape.While we do not disagree with the reviewer's position,we question the underlying assumption that the presence of conventional billboards is the accepted and acceptable norm.Most of the research reviewed for this report studied driver distraction and other safety-related measures with real-world or simulated conventional billboards,and many of these studies (as have studies going back decades)identified safety concerns;the fact that control and enforcement may be lax should not de facto make the presence of these billboards the accepted baseline.As well,there arc several States and local jurisdictions that ban all 2 billboards,so this baseline is not universal,even in the US.But our greatest concern is with the industry's efforts to raise the bar that research must be meet before,in their view,digital billboards could be found to have adverse traffic safety impacts.The study by Lee,et al.,discussed at length in our report,compared digital billboards,not only to conventional billboards,but to"comparison"sites.When the research demonstrated that driver eye movements and vehicle control issues were similar between the DBBs and these comparison sites,the authors proclaimed the digital signs"safety neutral"because, as they defined them,the comparison sites contained"items you might encounter in everyday driving."But a careful reading of the report shows that these sites included digital on-premise signs,tri-vision signs and video boards.In other words,they were rather the same as DBBs,except that they included on-premise signs.In our opinion,this subtle"criterion creep"is unprofessional and inappropriate. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July 2007,the Highways Subcommittee on Traffic Operations(SCOTE)of the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO)issued a proposed policy resolution on outdoor advertising.This document recognized that inattentive driving was a major contributor to highway crashes,and that new technologies were enabling the outdoor advertising industry to display more attention-getting messages that were likely to cause drivers to be less attentive to the driving task.The document further noted that national interest and concern about the safety implications of these advanced outdoor advertising displays had been expressed by FHWA and TRB as well as by State and local government agencies.Because the subcommittee recognized the potential safety implications of such signs and the lack of"substantiating evidence"for determining appropriate guidelines for their control,SCOTE resolved to support the undertaking of research as quickly as possible into the safety and operational effects of these technologies and to forward its resolution to the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways to be considered a high priority project for consideration by the Standing Committee on Research of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP).The SCOTE resolution became a Research Problem Statement[(NCHRP 20-7 (256)],which led to the undertaking of this work in February 2008. The specific objective of the study was to develop guidance for State Departments of Transportation and other highway operating agencies with respect to the safety implications of digital display technologybeing increasingly used for outdoor advertising signs.The objective was to be achieved through the conduct of a critical literature review of existing guidelines and research results,including,separately,research undertaken and published by the outdoor advertising industry;an identification of the human factors elements related to the operational characteristics of such signs;a review of the experiences of other countries with this outdoor advertising sign technology;and the preparation of a final,peer reviewed,report documenting the work conducted and including recommended guidance related to the safety aspects of digital display technology for outdoor advertising signs. Earlier reports published by FHWA in 1980 and 2001 had extensively reviewed the research literature in the field of outdoor advertising,and an FHWA study that ran concurrently with this project also included a review of the more recent research literature.The goals of the FHWA study,however,were quite different than those of the project reported here.Whereas this study had as its objective the development of guidelines that State and local government agencies could adopt immediately,the FHWA study sought to identify unmet research needs with regard to the potential impact of these signs on driver attention and distraction,and to propose a research strategy to fill these knowledge gaps.Thus,the two studies,conducted concurrently,were complementary- this one seeking to develop readily useable guidelines that could be implemented at the State and local level based on our existing knowledge base,and the other seeking a more comprehensive understanding of the safety implications of these signs that might lead to guidance and/or regulation at the Federal level. .w. 4 Because the technologies used in the signs of interest in this report are relatively recent, and because these technologies have advanced quickly in key performance characteristics (e.g. brightness, resolution, off-axis viewing) and have become much more affordable in recent years, research, too, has increased dramatically since the 2001 FHWA report. Indeed, of the 150 references cited in this report, more than 20 represent original, empirical research, conducted roughly within the past decade,that directly or indirectly address the potential for driver distraction from outdoor advertising signs. Ironically, and consistent with the research studies cited in the prior FHWA reports, the technology continues to lead both policy and research, and only a small number of these studies actually dealt with these advanced digital display technologies. Such research was, however, sponsored by government agencies as well as industry, in the laboratory and in the field, using controlled experimental techniques as well as statistical analysis of crash summaries. In addition to research conducted in the US, the report reviews studies performed in England, Scotland, Finland, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Brazil and The Netherlands. Because of the complexity of the issue, the number of variables present in every real-world situation, and the difficulties of statistical and methodological control in the conduct of such research, we have attempted to make our review of the literature critical as well as comprehensive. Several conclusions can be drawn from the extensive literature on this topic. First, there are strong theoretical underpinnings in the psychology of cognition, perception, psychophysics, and human factors, to suggest why stimuli such as roadside digital billboards can capture and hold a person's attention, even at the expense of primary task performance. Second, it is difficult to perform a study in this domain that does not suffer, at some level, from weaknesses that may affect the strength or generalizability of its findings. Third, the research sponsored by the outdoor advertising industry generally concludes that there are no adverse impacts from roadside digital billboards, even when, in one case, the actual findings of such research indicate otherwise. Conversely, the conclusions reached in research sponsored by government agencies, insurance companies, and auto safety organizations, especially in those studies performed in the past decade, regularly demonstrate that the presence of roadside advertising signs such as digital billboards, contributes to driver distraction at levels that adversely affect safe driving performance. Fourth, the recommendations from research, and the existence of guidelines or regulations that stem from that research, are quite consistent, although not fully so, both in the areas in which digital billboards are suggested for control (e.g. brightness, message duration and message change interval, and billboard location with regard to official traffic control devices, roadway geometry, and vehicle maneuver requirements at interchanges, lane drops, merges and diverges), and with regard to the specific constraints that should be placed on such signs' placement and operation. Several countries have developed comprehensive, thoughtful policies for control of roadside advertising, and their efforts can serve as models for State and local governments within the US. A number of US counties and cities, too, have developed policies and regulations for the control of digital outdoor advertising that comport with the research. In some cases, such local regulations are forward looking, in that they address technologies, or applications of technology, that are not yet in widespread use. 5 During the course of this project, we identified several recent extensions of digital advertising technologies that may add further to the distraction potential of these displays. The growing use of LED technology for advertising in on-premise applications is of concern because such signs may be larger than traditional billboards, closer to the right-of-way and to roadway sections with high task demands, and may include animation and full motion video. At least one State is considering the use of its official changeable message sign network for the display of digital advertising. And an unknown number of private or toll-road operators are also contemplating the sale of advertising within their rights-of-way. In addition, we are seeing the deployment of LED displays, often featuring video, on vehicles moving in the traffic stream. Vehicles as diverse as small trucks and vans, public transit buses, and large, over-the-road trailers, are now being outfitted with LED advertising, and the potential for driver distraction grows with each such installation. Our review suggests that, with few exceptions, government agencies have no regulations or guidelines in place to address these new uses. The newest digital billboards are also increasingly capable of"interacting"with approaching drivers. In some cases, the Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) embedded in a vehicle's key or on-board computer system, can trigger a personalized message on a digital billboard; in other cases, the billboard can display a message tailored to the radio frequency of passing vehicles. Still other billboards encourage drivers to interact with the sign by texting a message or calling a number displayed on the billboard. A patent that incorporates cameras mounted to billboards,together with eye-movement recording devices, claims to be able to capture images of drivers, and their eye movements, as they approach the billboard. Our review has not identified any government agencies, in the US or abroad, that have addressed these new technologies or their applications. The report consists of ten parts. After an introduction and background presentation in Section 1, the literature in the field is comprehensively and critically reviewed. General research is discussed in Section 2, and research sponsored by the outdoor advertising industry is presented in Section 3. The key human factors issues that inform the potential response of drivers to digital roadside billboards are summarized in Section 4. Section 5 of the report reviews a representative sample of guidelines and regulations that currently exist in a number of foreign countries as well as in several jurisdictions within the US. This is followed by a series of recommendations for potential regulations and guidance in Section 6. These recommendations are those that(a) have worked elsewhere, and (b) are based on sound research or science, and therefore might have practical applications for those jurisdictions seeking guidance to inform their own decision-making. Section 7 addresses issues of digital advertising on-premise and on right-of-way. Section 8 discusses some of the newest roadway-related applications of computer-controlled LED advertising that have begun to appear on and adjacent to public roads in the US and abroad, and for which little policy has yet been considered. Section 9 summarizes the report's conclusions, and Section 10 presents the list of references cited in the body of the report. 6 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Nearly 30 years ago,the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)published the first comprehensive review of the literature on the safety impacts of electronic billboards. FHWA,through the Highway Beautification Act,had,and still has,the authority to regulate off-premise advertising signs(billboards)adjacent to Federal Aid Highways, and these regulations prohibited,in part,any signs that utilized"flashing,intermittent,or moving lights"(Wachtel and Netherton, 1980,p. 16-17).In the late 1970s,the sign display technology in common use permitted little more than digitally displayed time and temperature information,although some signs could display several lines of text and crude,cartoon-like graphic images.Even then it was possible to change the displayed sign messages simply and quickly in real time,and it was possible for these signs to display a number of different visual effects,such as fade,dissolve,flash,and others.The billboard industry took the position that signs using this technology did not present any of the visual characteristics prohibited in the FF1 WA regulations,and,therefore,should he permitted under the existing regulations.Because the manufacturers of such signs and their potential users saw a bright future for this technology,and because of FHWA's concern about their potential to distract drivers,the industry presented its case to the U.S. Congress.As a result,the FHWA Office of Research was asked by the agency's Office of Right-of-Way to investigate what was known about such signage when used for roadside advertising,in anticipation of a possible update to the agency's regulations.The product of this effort was a comprehensive and critical review of all available literature in the field,some dating back 30 years or more.Wachtel and Netherton termed these new signs "commercial electronic variable message signs."or"CEVMS."Because this technology was so new,the authors found little research that had been done with such signs,and therefore had to rely on research that had been conducted with traditional,fixed, billboards.As a result,although they were able to identify specific safety issues and concerns raised by CEVMS.especially when combined with their review of accepted psychological principles of attention,the authors suggested that additional research was needed,and recommended a specific program to accomplish this.Unfortunately,the proposed research was not pursued. In 2001,with outdoor advertising signs using newer,more powerful technologies,and capable of much higher fidelity displays with higher luminance levels and immediate wireless display and message updates transmitted remotely,FHWA undertook a follow- on project to bring its understanding of the state-of-the-art and—practice up to date,and to again propose a direction for research.Although this study did not undertake a critical review of the literature,it brought to bear recent research and psychological constructs on inattention and distraction.The product of that work(Farbry,et al.,2001),in conjunction with the earlier document.became the basis for a preliminary,scoping,research study by Fl-1\V'A(Molino,ct al.,2009),and a follow-on research study that was recently initiated. 7 The 1980 project reported that several of the identified research studies had identified a relationship(correlation)between the presence of billboards and crashes,whereas several other cited studies found no such relationship.Wachtel and Netherton,with the assistance of an Fl-tW'A statistician who reanalyzed the data reported in a number of these early research studies(Weiner,1979)concluded that those research studies that had been more rigorously designed,controlled,conducted,and analyzed,seemed to suggest that a relationship between roadside billboards and traffic safety was present,and that safety was adversely affected by such billboards.The findings pointed to an adverse effect when billboards were bright,close to the roadway,and visible to approaching drivers for considerable distances;and when they were located near intersections,interchanges,or horizontal curves.Further,when the driver's task demands were elevated,as might be the case in heavy traffic,adverse weather,or with challenging traffic movements(lane drops, merges,etc.),the more robust research seemed to show the potential for adverse safety impacts from roadside billboards. During the 20 year gap between the publication of the first two FHWA studies,as well as more recently,a number of other researchers have reviewed the same early studies(along with more recent studies that have since become available),and reached essentially the same conclusions.(See,for example,Bergeron[I 996a],Wallace[2003]).In fact,only one researcher(Andreassen, 1984)is known to have reviewed this literature and reached the conclusion that there is no linkage between roadside billboards and traffic safety,and his colleagues at the Australian Road Research Board(now ARRB Transport Research) (Cairney and Gunatillake,2000)have expressed strong disagreements with his conclusions. The latest LED technology enables roadside billboards(and on-premise signs using the same technology),to(a)present images,symbols and characters that are extremely bright (such that they can be easily viewed in full sunlight),(b)with visual fidelity on a par with broadcast video,(c)on displays that can be changed instantly and kept on the screen for as long(or short)as desired,and(d)on signs that can be much larger than traditional 14 ft.by 48 ft.billboards.'As a result,the question has again arisen as to whether and how these signs should be regulated in the US.Presently,the States are asking FHWA for guidance.While it proceeds with its current research project FHWA has issued interim guidance that addresses characteristics of CEVMS including:message duration,transition time,brightness,spacing.and allowable locations(Shepherd.2007).Unfortunately,these guidelines are based on little sound empirical data,and,in several cases,are so subjective as to be open to multiple interpretations. As suggested above,the potential impact from these latest technologies goes far beyond a simple replacement of traditional,static billboards.On-premise advertising signs, traditionally given much more freedom by FHWA and local authorities,are increasingly using the same LED technology now appearing on billboards.Shopping centers,auto malls,and many other local businesses are finding that such signs are affordable,and that the display capabilities they offer are unprecedented in their attention-getting power.In One on-premise sign in New York City.measures 90 ft.by 65 ft.and is mounted 165 feet above grade where it is visible for two miles from the adjacent Interstate highway(Business Wire,2002). 8 addition,these technologies are now beginning to appear on moving vehicles,and some I,ED billboards can tailor a"personalized"message to approaching traffic by'`reading" the digital signal produced by in-vehicle entertainment systems,RFID keys,and other devices.Our research suggests that such alternative,increasingly powerful and compelling uses of the newest technologies for outdoor advertising to the traveling public will continue to evolve at a rapid pace,and that regulators must he prepared to deal with these developments.This paper,however,is limited to a discussion of traditional billboards along the roadside,albeit those with the latest technological capabilities. Although some such signs use scrolling characters across a screen,and others use rotating panels(called Tri-Vision or Roller-Bar signs),it is the LED technology that has the greatest potential for capturing attention,and therefore,distracting the driver.Whether such signs are called digital billboards(DBBs),electronic billboards(EBBs)or CEVMS, they refer to the same types of signs. Because of the pressures being put on State and local Governments to issue permits for DBBs,and because of the threat of litigation should such permits be denied or revoked. the States have asked for an update about the state of knowledge that results from the latest research.In addition,the States would like to know what guidelines and/or regulations exist in other jurisdictions with regard to DBI3s,and have asked for recommendations for appropriate,realistic,data driven guidelines that they might consider adopting for their own streets and highways,and pending updated guidance from FHWA. The present report.therefore,represents a comprehensive,critical review of the most recent research literature in this field.To a large extent,the research discussed herein has been conducted since the most recent(2001)FHWA report was published.Several earlier studies are discussed,however,either because they were not captured in the two FHWA reports,or because their methods and findings are directly relevant to the questions now being asked.A number of these studies have not been widely reported or are controlled, internal documents.We arc grateful to their authors for making them available to us. After the critical literature review in Section 2,subsequent sections of this report address: research performed on behalf of the outdoor advertising industry,human factors considerations relevant to driver response to these technologies,guidelines and regulations in place or under consideration in other jurisdictions,recommendations for guidance that States and local governments might adopt in the near term,and new technologies and applications for outdoor advertising.After a brief summary,the final report section identifies the references cited in this study. 9 SECTION 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. • The review and critique of the studies below are presented in chronological order. As requested in the Research Problem Statement that led to this study, research undertaken and published by the outdoor advertising industry is treated separately. These studies are discussed in Section 3, Industry Sponsored Research. Perception Research Services, 1983. This paper is discussed in Section 3, "Industry Sponsored Research." Cole and Hughes, 1984 The authors conducted a series of experiments in which 50 participants drove a vehicle along a predetermined route in Melbourne, Australia. Prior to the data collection, the authors placed a series of 35 disc targets along the route. These discs were of three different sizes and three different reflectances. They were positioned where typical traffic signs would be likely to occur. The participants were divided into two different groups at random; each group was given slightly different instructions. Group A received instructions oriented toward attention conspicuity, whereas Group B received instructions oriented toward search conspicuity.2 Results showed that the hit rate, the frequency with which the disc targets were reported, was three times higher in Group B than in Group A, demonstrating the benefits of directed search. It was also found, however, that directed search produced its greatest benefits when the targets had low attention conspicuity, and showed the least gains for targets with high attention conspicuity. Although early efforts to define conspicuity tended to consider it to be strictly a quality of the object, more recent work, such as this study, have demonstrated that conspicuity cannot be measured independently of the observer's state of attention. Several other findings from this study are relevant to our present project. The first is that the angle of eccentricity of the object to the viewer's line of sight is an important factor in its conspicuity; more so than the object's size or reflectivity. Second, the authors found that the visual environment in which the target was located was an important contributor to its conspicuity. They suggest a thought experiment to demonstrate that the predominant location factor that affects conspicuity is visual clutter. In the case of attention conspicuity, for an object in the periphery of the visual field to command attention, it will first provide a stimulus to the eye that is strong enough to arouse the viewer's attention and generate an eye movement toward the object to move the object into central (or foveal) vision, where it is fixated. This action, which the authors describe 2Cole and Hughes define attention conspicuity as the capacity of an object to attract attention when the object is unexpected;and search conspicuity as the property of an object that enables it to be quickly and reliably located by search. 10 as a quasi-reflex(ive)response,is known as an optically elicited eye movement.The authors argue that visual clutter adversely affects both search and attention conspicuity equally,because the clutter causes a loss of prominence of the target object,thereby reducing both the attention-getting quality of the object and its accessibility to visual search. What is the relevance of these findings to our present concern with DBBs? First,since billboards are most likely identified through the process of attentional rather than search conspicuity,it suggests that it is this semi-reflexive behavior of the optically elicited eye movement that first brings a billboard into a driver's visual attention,and that the owner of a billboard would prefer to locate it in an area that is otherwise low in visual clutter. Second,it suggests that billboard designers are likely to design their messages in such a way as to make them as conspicuous as possible,both to stand out from their competitors and to successfully trigger this reflexive eye movement to move the image or message on the billboard into a driver's foveal vision.Third,it is understood that billboards are,by definition,contributors to visual clutter in the driving environment,and,as such,they are likely to contribute to a degradation of search conspicuity of official traffic signs,signals and markings,as well as other traffic,obstacles,and hazards,which become conspicuous to drivers as a result of such directed search.Finally,the reported finding that the degree of eccentricity of an object to the driver's line of sight is an important contributor to its conspicuity lead Cole and Hughes to suggest that:"in order to achieve conspicuity,the designer is better advised to locate the target where it will have a small eccentricity to the observer's line of sight...."Small angles of eccentricity are afforded by minimizing lateral offset and by ensuring a long observation distance"(p.310).An understanding of this concept may contribute,along with other factors,to the desire of the billboard owner to locate such signs as close to the road edge as possible,and along horizontal curves and tangent sections that afford potentially longer sight distances for approaching drivers. Young, E. 1984. This paper is reviewed in Section 3,"Industry Sponsored Research.' Pottier, A. 1988. The impetus for this research study was a series of findings from three prior studies that demonstrated that the conspicuity of road signs depends on the visual environment in which they are located.Pottier notes that road signs arc frequently located in settings that make them less conspicuous due to extraneous elements that she calls "static visual noise." She defines visual noise as"constant background noise derived from a multitude of cues,interfering with or preventing the driver from processing the information from the cue significant to him"(p.581).She considers"billboard advertisements"to he a type of visual noise. Pottier evaluated the abilities of twelve participants to detect the shape and location of a number of official traffic signs,as quickly as possible,under four different test conditions.These conditions included:(a)a simple or complex visual environment;(b) 11 different shapes(three)and sizes(three)of the signs;(c)different degrees(three)of eccentricity from the central point of fixation;and(d)different time periods(three)in which the signs were visible.Eye movements were recorded as well.Some of the findings of this study were as expected—specifically,that longer observation time improves detection performance,larger signs are more easily detected than smaller ones, and certain shapes(circle and triangle)are more easily detected than others(rectangle). For our present purposes,the most relevant findings were related to the visual angle from which road signs were most easily detected.Pottier found that,when there was no visual noise in the(simulated)environment,the optimal detection zone was located between zero and ten degrees(0°- 10°)from the participant's central point of fixation;however,in the presence of visual noise,this optimal detection zone shrunk to zero to four degrees(0° -4°)from the fixation point,regardless of the time available for observation.A related finding was that,when a road sign is"superimposed"on a component of visual noise, "the latter prevents the former from being detected"(p.582),and the greater the distance between the visual noise and the highway sign,the greater the conspicuity of the sign. The author's conclusion is that"visual noise reduces the functional field inducing a kind of'tunnel vision'for the driver"(p.582).Pottier's work foreshadows more recent research in visual clutter(see,for example,Edquist,2009)which demonstrates that relevant targets(such as official traffic control devices)take longer to find,and that responses to such signs are more error-prone,when visual clutter is high. Transportation Environment Consultants(TEC), 1989 This"Review of Roadside Advertising Signs"was prepared for the Roads and Traffic Authority(RTA)of New South Wales,Australia.At the time this project was begun.the RTA did not"encourage"advertising signs within the"road reserve"of "classified roads."The Authority had been repeatedly approached by the advertising industry.which submitted proposals for"well designed modern technology advertising sign displays"on road reserve locations and buildings on property owned by the Authority.Because of the potential for such signs to generate revenue for RTA programs, 'ITC was engaged to investigate the appropriateness of the RTA allowing or supporting such signs in the future.A multi-part study was undertaken,which addressed many aspects of outdoor advertising,including environmental design,aesthetics,town planning,tourism,revenue potential,marketing of road safety promotions,and others. This review will address only the safety and human factors aspects of the project. The authors briefly reviewed nine studies that dealt with the safety aspects of outdoor advertising signs,and quoted extensively from the early FHWA report on this subject (Wachtel and Netherton, 1980).In addition,they conducted interviews with members of the outdoor advertising industry and experts from the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB). Their conclusions from these activities include the following: - Research confirms the limited processor capacity of a driver. 12 - It is important that management of stimuli to the driver,both inherent to the primary task of driving and external to it(distraction)must clearly aim not to exceed the optimum rate for safe and efficient driver performance. - When these external stimuli fall significantly below optimum,driver performance may decrease(boredom),and additional external stimuli could benefit driver response. - Additional attentional loading by advertising signs may impair driving performance when high levels of attention and decision making are required. - Advertisements not associated with navigational and services information needs can,subject to relevant safety controls,be permitted at roadside locations where the driving task does not heavily load the attentional capacity of the driver. Interestingly,they reported from their interview with a Dr.S.Jenkins of the ARRB,his recommendation that"changeable message signs could be used in roadside advertisements providing each message is'static for about 5 minutes'(i.e.the message on-time)and the changeover period between messages'does not exceed about 2 seconds (p.39). In a later chapter of the report,the authors provide a series of"definitions and technology"(p.49)to describe the different types of advertising signs that might be considered,and how they might be used.In a section on`internally illuminated signs"the authors provide a table showing what they consider to be the maximum luminance levels of advertising signs of different sizes which may be located in different driving environments.These data are based on recommendations from the Public Lighting Engineers in the U.K.With regard to"electronic variable-message signs"the authors devote several pages to defining terminology and identifying"factors"that should be taken into account when considering their impact(pp.56-60).This discussion is taken directly from the Wachtel and Netherton(1980)report(pp.68-74),and need not be repeated here. Brown, 1989 After a brief but useful review of the relevant literature,Brown describes the purpose of his study as:"to assess the momentary distractive effects of electronic billboards on driving performance"(p.3).Ile used a laboratory setting in which the driving task was represented by a tracking task in which the participant had to move a joystick to track a target spot which moved in pseudorandom fashion within a constrained area on the screen.This task was superimposed on a continuous video image of a moving road scene.The distracters were a series of white on black"advertising signs"presented in the lower left area of the screen,overlapping the road and shoulder,and directly adjacent to the screen area used for the tracking task.Sixty different signs were each displayed for two seconds,at a rate of one sign every six seconds.Three different experiments were conducted under the same basic conditions,in which a secondary task (response to a red signal)was present or absent,and in which the advertising signs appeared in a fixed position or were"scrolled"onto the screen.The author found no 13 effect of the presence of the advertising sign alone on tracking performance,but did observe a negative effect on performance when a secondary task was required. In discussing possible reasons why the advertising signs alone did not distract the drivers and impair their performance,Brown suggests that,as demonstrated in prior research (Gasson and Peters,1965),concentration on a central task can lead to an effective reduction in the size of the visual field.In other words,because the principal tracking task in this study required a higher level of concentration than that of a normal driving situation,it might have led to a reduction in the participants'awareness of the images presented in their peripheral vision(i.e.the simulated digital billboard),leading to a failure to notice them.This postulation is similar to the recent findings of Chan et al. (2008),where the authors reported that objects that are not fixated or attended to receive little cognitive processing,and that reduced attention to such objects impairs the speed of identification. Although this argument can be used to explain why,when a driver concentrates on the driving task by attending to the forward roadway view,he or she may not be distracted by a billboard,the reverse may also be true.That is,a highly attention getting billboard,or one conveying a message of high salience to a driver,may assume a degree of primacy for that driver such that the billboard,and not the road and traffic ahead,becomes the central focus.With a driver now attending to a visual object in the periphery,the forward view may temporarily assume the periphery position,and attention to it may he delayed. There were a number of limitations to this study,several of which are identified by the author.One stated weakness was that the motion in the video scene and sign presentation was not linked to the tracking task,and thus could be ignored by participants. Additionally,we have concerns that the appearance of the"electronic billboards"which were represented in the simulation by simple white on black text presentations is quite different than the bright,dynamic properties inherent in real-world DBBs.Also,the distracter signs were located in the participants'field of view directly adjacent to the target tracking task and at the road edge,thus not requiring the driver to look away in order to observe these signs.The fact that the study participants could visually observe the billboards and the forward view simultaneously could account for the negative findings. Rahimi, Briggs, and Thom, 1990 These authors were concerned primarily with the over involvement of motorcycles in fatal crashes with automobiles,and with the results of prior research showing that the predominant cause of such crashes was the car driver's violation of the motorcycle's right-of-way.Further,one driving situation accounts for the majority of such crashes;that is,where the car driver executes a left turn directly across the path of an oncoming motorcyclist.In many of these cases,the car driver claims not to have seen the motorcycle.The authors wanted to investigate the hypothesis that left turns at"busy" intersections would heighten the likelihood of such crashes compared to left turns at "quiet'intersections.In addition,they wanted to test the viability of a new eye/head 14 movement data collection system that they had developed.A full explanation of this data recording and analysis system is beyond the scope of the present paper.In brief,however, their approach involves the simultaneous recording and time synchronization of drivers' head and eye movements with the visual scene presented to the driver,which is recorded with a separate camera.In the laboratory,the eye/head movement recordings are embedded into the scene video,enabling the researchers to know with precision the driver's head and eye position throughout the drive.Because this was a pilot study,only one test subject was used,and this male,33 year old driver with 20/20 vision drove a vehicle through a sequence of 40 left turns,alternating between previously selected quiet and busy intersections.The principal differences between the two intersections were in the number of dynamic and static distracters.The pattern of head and eye movements differed significantly at the two intersections.At all 20 trials at the busy intersection, head movements were identified as"straight ahead toward left(SATL)"and at 17 of the 20 quiet intersections,head movements were categorized as"left-right-left(LRL)." Although the driver's head position remained consistent across intersection types,eye movement frequency at the busy intersection was nearly twice as high(significant at the .004 level)as at the quiet intersection.The authors conclude that the two different types of intersections place different constraints on driver behavior.At the quiet intersection. the environment is searched systematically with a combination of head and eye movements.At the busy intersection,however,a stationary head position occurs with frequent and rapid eye movement activity to identify targets and distracters.Their analysis indicated that"the busy intersection contains potential for information overload" (p.273),and they imply,although do not state,that"busy"intersections,such as those with environmental targets and distracters, may contribute to a greater percentage of automobile-motorcycle intersection crashes due to driver distraction than"quiet" intersections.Although we can't fault the study methods used since this was a pilot study to test a new data recording system,the findings,based as they are on only one participant,should not he generalized beyond the immediate circumstances of this study. Nonetheless.conclusions that demonstrate a correlation between numerous distracters at intersections and poorer driver performance have been shown in several other studies (see,for example,I lolahan,et al., 1979). Wisconsin Department of Transportation District 2, Freeway Operations Unit(1994). This study tabulated and analyzed crash rates for eastbound and westbound segments of 1-94 in the vicinity of County Stadium(since demolished)near Milwaukee, Wisconsin.An electronic billboard began operation on April 13, 1984.Crash rate data was collected for approximately three years prior to sign operation(from 1/1/81)until three years after operation began(12/31/87).Effects were broken down by type of crash (side-swipe,rear-end).Data were analyzed for the one year after the sign became operational,to analyze any novelty effect,as well as for the three year periods before and after the sign became operational.Crash rate was calculated as number of crashes per million vehicle miles of travel(VMT). 15 The sign is described as a variable message sign that changed images on average 12 frames per minute.This suggests that each image was displayed on the sign for five seconds.No information is provided as to the sign's display technology,brightness,or method of change.It is not known,for example,whether message changes occurred instantly,or whether some visual special effects,such as wipe,dissolve,etc.,were employed.Neither the size of the sign nor its height above grade is specified.The sign is obviously two-sided since it is visible to both eastbound and westbound traffic.It is located adjacent to the westbound traffic lanes. The study used the crash rate in the three years prior to the sign's operational date as the baseline.Findings showed that for eastbound traffic,total crashes increased by 43%in the first year,and 36%over the three year post-operational period when compared to the baseline condition.In the same periods,side-swipe crashes increased 80%and 8%,and rear-end crashes increased 60%and 21%.For westbound traffic,total crashes decreased by 12%in the first year,but increased by 21%over the three year post-operational period.Sideswipe crashes increased 123%in the first year,and 35%over the three year interval,whereas rear-end crashes decreased 29%in the first year,and then increased by 35%over three years. The author posits two reasons why westbound crashes were generally lower than those for eastbound motorists.First he describes a merge area for westbound drivers caused by northbound and southbound traffic on US-4l merging onto westbound 1-94,and states that the roadway configuration causes this traffic to slow as it enters the area,thus reducing congestion through what he describes as"metering."Second.the author indicates that the sign was more readable to eastbound than to westbound traffic. The author concludes that"it is obvious that the variable message sign has had an effect on traffic,most notably in the increase of the side-swipe rate,"and suggests that"it may he beneficial to introduce traffic responsible variable message signs into the area.Signs could function at rates proportional to traffic flow and density in the viewing area." This study has the strengths of a typical crash rate analysis. Although it cannot address questions of crash causation,the study can be used to determine that there were correlations between the operation of the advertising sign and the increase in crash rates in areas where the sign was visible. Apparently five types of crashes were coded from the accident reports:rear-end, sideswipe,fixed object,other,and unknown.The report reviews only the data for the first two crash types,and this is appropriate.Both side-swipe and rear-end crashes are indicative of driver inattention or distraction,although this roadway section includes a complex interchange where merges and lane changes are likely.Poor signage and markings,difficult geometry,lane drops and other roadway characteristics could have been present(these roadway and traffic characteristics are not described)which might suggest elevated crash rates of these types. 16 When the goal is to determine whether a particular object or feature (in this case an electronic changeable message sign) caused crashes to occur, or caused the overall crash rate to increase, a study that is limited to an analysis of crash rates cannot answer this question. This is because the study is limited to post-hoc statistical tabulations. The study does not address, and clearly did not control for, the possibility that other changes took place in the roadway section studied in addition to the operation of the billboard. For example, changes to speed limits, police enforcement activities, reporting methods, use patterns, construction, development adjacent to the roadway, and many other factors, might have been present, and might have contributed to changes in crash rates. There was apparently no attempt made to identify whether any such factors may have occurred during the study period. In addition, the study apparently did not utilize a control section of roadway that might have overcome some of these potential weaknesses. Had the authors chosen a similar section of I-94 in the same general vicinity as the study section, but in which no advertising sign was introduced, they might have been able to compare before-and-after crash rates for the same period, but without the presence of the sign. This would have strengthened their ability to demonstrate that it was the presence of the sign, rather than some other factor, that related to the elevated crash rates. The author states that the study areas included "all places where the variable message sign can be viewed by a motorist...." Since the precise billboard location is not identified on the site maps included with the report, it is not possible to determine whether all crashes occurred at locations where drivers would have had a clear view of the billboard prior to the crash. Although the study evaluated crash rates before and after the introduction of an electronic variable message billboard with a message change interval of approximately every five seconds, no additional information is provided to enable the reviewer to determine the type of sign, the display technology, or the operational characteristics. As stated above, although crash rate data can supply valuable information relative to overall traffic safety in an area, it is not possible to identify a cause and effect relationship without far greater control of other, possibly relevant, variables—something that is quite difficult to do in a real world environment and with a post-hoc analysis of police accident reports. Akagi, Seo, Motoda, 1996 These authors believe that, because of a combination of limited land, intense land use, and weak regulations, billboards are more prevalent along roadsides in Japan than they are in Europe and the U.S. They set out to study whether official road signs are more difficult to recognize when they are "hidden" among commercial signs and other roadside clutter such as buildings, utility poles, etc. To perform their analysis, they developed a visual noise ratio, defined as the ratio of the area of noise in a visual environment to a driver's field of view. They determined field of view from prevailing driving speed, e.g. 75° at 65 km/h, the speed limit on the road they studied. Their target sign was a typical national highway route marker, and they instructed their nine subjects (5 male, 4 female, and age range 21-66) merely to report as soon as they were able to confirm the route number. Eye movements were recorded from a point 400 meters upstream of each of six 17 signs that appeared along the route,within predefined sections.The visual noise ratio was measured at intervals of 20 m throughout each section.The authors found a statistically significant decrease in the detection distance of the sign as the visual noise level increased along the 400m approach to that sign.They further found that older drivers were significantly more adversely affected by the visual noise,and that males were more adversely affected than females.The authors conclude that visual noise along highways can be dangerous because it reduces the detection distance of important roadside information.While this study provides a unique approach to assessing the impact on driver performance of roadside distracters,and visual clutter,it suffers from several limitations.First,the number of subjects was quite small,and the distinction between older drivers and others is not defined.(There were only two subjects above the age of 60,for example).The definition of visual noise was somewhat vague,and the methodology used for measuring eye glances was unclear.Nonetheless,this is a novel, real-world approach to measuring the impact of roadside visual clutter,with a dependent measure(identifying the route number as early as possible)that is natural and reasonable. Bergeron, J. 1996a Bergeron undertook this study at the request of the Government of Quebec,which was considering whether to grant a permit for an electronic advertising sign adjacent to an expressway in Montreal.This project was not a research study:rather it reviewed the published literature in the field and applied the author's understanding of accepted theories and principles of psychology to address issues of driver visual perception and attention,and their role in traffic safety. The majority of the studies reported on were those previously reviewed by Wachtel and Netherton(1980),and many of Bergeron's statements and conclusions parallel those of the earlier study.However,Bergeron(reporting 16 years after the Wachtel and Netherton study was published)also cites a small number of newer studies,and includes reviews of one study published in France that was not included in the earlier report.Further, Bergeron discusses some of the published literature in the field of driver performance in general,and with regard to official highway signs and other traffic control devices,and he applies the understanding gleaned from these studies to his interpretations about the role of advertising signs.The author reexamines the applicability to this issue of some of the key theories of attention and perception as previously discussed by Wachtel and Netherton,and expands upon this discussion.In addition,he cites the work of Wickens and others,and explains clearly the applicability of these theoretical constructs to issues of driver attention and distraction. Although the report title suggests that the focus is on advertising signs in general.the principal interest is electronic signs,which Bergeron calls variable message signs,or VMS. Bergeron's findings largely reflect those of other psychologists,cognitive scientists and traffic engineers who have addressed these issues.His primary conclusions are: 18 -Attentional resources needed for the driving task are diverted by the irrelevant information presented on advertising signs.This is an impact attributable to the "nature of the information"that is conveyed on such signs.This distraction leads to degradation in oculomotor performance that adversely affects reaction time and vehicle control capability. -When the driving task imposes substantial attentional demands such as might occur on a heavily traveled,high speed urban freeway,billboards can create an attentional overload that can have an impact on micro-and macro-performance requirements of the driving task.In other words,the impact of the distraction varies according to the complexity of the driving task.The greater the driving task demands,the more obvious are the adverse effects of the distraction on driving performance. -The difficulty of the driving task can vary in several ways.Those that relate to the physical environment(e.g.weather,roadway geometry,road conditions)are unavoidable,and drivers must adjust to them(unless they take an alternate route or wait for better conditions).Necessary sensory information adds to the workload of the driving task,but is,of course,needed to perform safely.In addition,road signs and signals that communicate complex but necessary information contribute to the overall workload of driving.In this case,however,years of study have been directed toward making this information as clear and as easily accessible as possible. -To some extent,the level of mental workload that impacts driving occurs at a pre-processing level.Bergeron cites,as an example.a complex or cluttered visual environment.In this case,the attentional effort that drivers expend in searching for target objects(e.g.signs and signals)will be more laborious.demand more resources.and lead to declines in performance levels. -The presence of a billboard increases the confusion of the visual(hack)ground and may lead to conflict with road signs and signals. -Situational factors that are likely to create a heavy mental workload include: complex geometry,heavy traffic,high speeds,areas of merging and diverging traffic,areas with road signs where drivers must make decisions,roadways in poor repair,areas of reduced visibility,and adverse weather conditions. -The very characteristics of billboards that their designers employ to enable them to draw attention are those that have the greatest impact on what Bergeron calls attentional diversion. -Drivers must constantly carry out the work of recognizing stimuli that may not be immediately meaningful to them.This task requires time and mental resources. both of which are in limited supply. 19 -Attention directs perception,and vice versa.In other words,when we are looking for something,our sensory system places itself at the service of our attention.But it is also possible for a sensation to attract the attention of drivers because it may represent something that is of potential importance.For example, authorities put flashing lights on emergency vehicles because they want drivers to attend to them. At some levels,this paper seems simply to restate many of the points already raised in other review articles on this topic.But Bergeron goes to greater lengths than several other authors to apply the theoretical underpinnings of attention,sensation,perception,and distraction,to the conclusions,however flawed,of many of the statistical.on-road,or laboratory studies undertaken over the past 50 years on the impacts on traffic safety of roadside advertising.These analyses are useful and appropriate,and provide a fuller picture of the concerns with traffic safety from the roadside use of DBBs than other studies.On the other hand,his writing suggests a clear bias against roadside advertising, and it appears that his dismissal of certain studies and his complementary reviews of others are affected by this bias.One minor concern is that he sometimes shifts his focus from billboards to official VMSs without affording the reader a clear understanding of this shift,thus leading to some confusion in interpretation.Bergeron provides no photographs or detailed descriptions of the types of DBBs that he studied.Thus,we do not know how similar the signs that he addresses arc to those that are of principal interest in the present report.At one point,he describes VMSs as:"attractive,colourful,dynamic, sequential,and(able)to meet the needs of several merchants at the same time"(p.19). Clearly,these sign characteristics seem to fit those of digital billboards,hut further comparisons are not possible.Despite these shortcomings,this thought paper is a useful contribution to our knowledge in this field. Bergeron, 1996b Whereas the Bergeron paper discussed above(1996a)is a thought paper that applies relevant psychological theories and concepts to the findings of research about the relationship of outdoor advertising to road safety,this paper reports on the author's analysis of two DBBs proposed for a specific location in Montreal,Quebec,Canada. After a first-hand review of the site,the adjacent expressway,and architectural and engineering drawings for the proposed signs,Bergeron recommends that permits not be issued.He describes the site as possessing many of the characteristics that he,and others, have suggested would be inadvisable for the placement of billboard: ...complex geometry of the road environment,heavy traffic,high speed of traffic, merging and diverging traffic,areas with road signs and signals where vehicle operators are required to make decisions.Given these situational factors,we must avoid creating confusion in the visual field.In these conditions,road signs and signals must be clear and the nature of the information communicated must only serve to assist drivers in their task of driving.In like conditions,outdoor advertising signs can represent a threat to the safety of road users. 20 Bergeron suggests that billboards at this location can have adverse impacts on driving safety from several standpoints. -At a perceptual level,they can make the response to official traffic control devices more difficult by adding to visual complexity. -At an attentional level,they can lead to driver distraction;in a road situation such as that present at this site,the level of mental loading is already substantial, and the billboards would generate an unnecessary demand on a driver's limited attentional resources. -The billboards could add to the drivers'mental workload,which,in turn,can lead to declines in selective,shared,and sustained attention,decision-making,and motor activities. -Drivers who are unfamiliar with this location may have the added burden of time sensitive decisions that may be necessary to move into the appropriate lane for exiting or merging. -Because this expressway section is elevated,the demands on the driver are further increased because there is little or no space to pull over in the event of mechanical or other failure,and because bridge structures are known to contribute to feelings of insecurity among drivers. Schieber and Goodspeed IV, 1997 This study addressed the nighttime conspicuity(i.e.detection)of official highway signs under two different conditions of sign brightness.Although concerned only with official,not commercial,signage,there are valuable points made by these authors that are relevant to the discussion of DBBs.Using a specialized,in-house apparatus that was capable of reproducing most of the dynamic range of roadside environment visual stimulus luminance values,the authors compared"bright"and"ultrabright"signs under three different conditions of environmental(background)complexity: low (representative of a 2-lane rural highway);moderate(depicting a typical commercial street in a small city);and high(simulating a downtown street in an urban area with many businesses and illuminated commercial signs).The principal hypotheses were confirmed. That is,although enhanced sign brightness offered no advantage either for response time or accuracy in the low complexity background,it was significantly better than the lower brightness sign in both categories under moderate or high complexity environments.The results also confirmed that older drivers may be more susceptible to the interfering effects of higher levels of background complexity when they are looking for information on highway signs.The results suggest two concerns about DBBs.First,these signs tend to he located in complex visual environments,and public complaints have suggested they are often too bright.Second,in an effort to stand out from this complex background,i.e. make them more conspicuous;DBB operators often believe that,the brighter the sign,the 21 better.Our concern is that an excessively bright DBB in a visually complex,typically urban environment will succeed in drawing attention to itself and away from other signs in the environment,including official signs.Third,as this study,andothers,have demonstrated,older drivers have a particularly difficult time detecting official highway signs in complex environments.Unfortunately,the trend in the U.S.is to increasingly more complex environments,which does not augur well for our aging society. Theeuwes, et al., 1998, 1999 In a series of related laboratory studies,Theeuwes and his colleagues have demonstrated behaviors that may help to explain why the human eye may be drawn to a DBB at the expense of the driving task even when a driver has no intention,or desire to look at the billboard,and how this unintentional response can delay one's reaction time to time-critical on-road events.Their experiments also shed light on the finding that their participants were unaware that their eyes had been drawn to the distracter at the expense of the object that was their task. In summarizing the relevant literature,the researchers describe findings that show that the human visual system is sensitive to events that exhibit sudden change;that a visual object presented with a transient luminance change captures attention automatically and reflexively.Even when observers have no intention to look for what Theeuwes call an onset,such an abrupt onset,when visible among other visual elements in the scene is processed first.Thus,it has been argued,sudden luminance changes(and this characterizes all DBBs at the point of message change)capture attention in what is known as a"stimulus-driven"manner,as opposed to being attentionally driven. The studies reported here were conducted to determine whether such an abrupt-onset object that was irrelevant to the task being performed.would also capture the eye movement of the participant. The experiment required participants to view a display containing six gray circles.After a set time,five of the circles changed to red(one remained gray),and all six simultaneously displayed a letter in their center.Participants were instructed that,as soon as the colors of the circles changed,they were to direct their gaze as quickly and accurately as they could toward the one circle whose color did not change,and push a button to identify the letter that appeared in that circle.(fhe five other circles displayed randomly chosen distracter letters which were never the same as the letter in the`'target" circle).Eight participants performed 64 practice and 256 experimental trials.In half of the trials,a new red circle was added to the display at the same moment that the others changed and the letters were revealed.This new circle could appear at one of four possible locations within the display.This new circle was the"onset"or distracter. The results showed that.when no new object was added to the display(the control condition),the participants were able to move their eyes directly to the target;however, in those trials where the new object was introduced(the experimental condition), participants'eyes often went toward the new object.stopped briefly,and then went on to 22 the target. In other words, with the new target present, two different eye movements were made, the first to the new, irrelevant target, and the second to the target that was the object of the task. Reaction time to the task(the identification of the letter inside the gray circle) was significantly slowed when the new, irrelevant target was present. The authors note that the task irrelevant stimulus attracted this initial eye glance even when it appeared in the direction opposite the target. At the end of the experiment, the researchers explicitly asked the participants whether they were aware that the new object affected their eye movements. The answers were that they were sure that their eye movements were not affected by the onset object. Their conclusion from this first experiment was: "Both the goal directed allocation of attention and the movement of the eyes to a clearly defined target can be disrupted by the appearance of a new but task-irrelevant object in the visual field, even when this object appears quite distant from the target" (Theeuwes, et al., 1998, p. 381). In a second study using a similar paradigm, the researchers found that the attentional capture effects by the appearance of the task-irrelevant onset could be overcome when observers had sufficient time in advance to attend and program an eye movement to the location of a subsequent target stimulus. In other words, the distracting effect of the novel, task-irrelevant object can be offset when a person can, in advance of that distraction, focus on and attend to the principal target. Cairney and Gunatillake, 2000 On behalf of the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV -the approximate equivalent of the AAA in the U.S.), Cairney and Gunatillake of ARRB Transport Research (formerly the Australian Road Research Board) undertook a review of the literature with the goal of generating recommendations for guidelines for the control of outdoor advertising in the Australian state of Victoria and its local jurisdictions. The authors cited two prior, comprehensive reviews, one by Wachtel and Netherton (1980) in the U.S. and one in Australia on behalf of the ARRB by Andreassen (1984). Their search of three databases (INROADS in Australia, IRRD in Europe, and TRIS in the U.S.) uncovered no new studies in this field. What had changed since the two cited reviews, however, was the technology used for the display of roadside advertising. as well as the presence of more potential distracters within the vehicle itself. In addition, the authors report that some jurisdictions have made progress in the development of regulations "which are acceptable to advertisers while avoiding obvious distraction problems for drivers..." (p.2). They explain that, although these guidelines are not generally based on empirical evidence, they are based on solid human factors data and practical experience. The authors identify, and briefly describe, six different types of signs, and suggest that different guidance or regulation is needed for each. Only two of the sign-types, the variable message and tri-vision signs, are relevant to our current study. They further discuss illuminated signs, and the types of motion or apparent motion that can be achieved by such signs, including: flashing, chasing, scintillating, etc., and they discuss 23 the appropriateness of restrictions on dazzling or glare impacts on motorists,and on maximum luminance(brightness)levels that should be appropriate for the ambient roadside environment.Finally,they suggest that the lighting color displayed on such signs should never mimic that of official traffic control devices,although they say nothing about the shape of images displayed. For all signs,Cairney and Gunatillake concluded that the common concern is the effect that a sign may have on a driver's visibility of other road users,the roadway,and traffic control devices,and that appropriate regulations generally prohibit signage in areas near where the demand for driver concentration is high,"such as intersections,interchanges,and level crossings" (P.3). Although this report is not primarily concerned with recommendations of research methodology that might be used to study the effect of roadside advertising signs on traffic flow and safety,they mention three different types of investigative approaches that might be followed,and point out certain difficulties and disadvantages of each. The case-study approach involves the review and analysis of accident investigation reports.The lack of results from such studies does not,they believe. demonstrate that distraction from roadside advertising is not an issue,because drivers may be reluctant to admit that they were distracted or may not have been aware of being distracted.Further,distraction has not traditionally been an issue that accident investigators have drawn attention to,and thus it is likely that it is underreported. "* The site investigation approach involves the examination of crash rates; particularly crash rates of the types of crashes that might be expected to be related to distraction such as rear-end crashes,along different road sections distinguished by advertising sign presence or density.The authors point out that the major difficulty with this approach is that high advertising density tends to be correlated with other factors that might contribute to a high accident rate—i.e.a more demanding driving environment.Not stated is that such studies are typically unable to identify or control for variables that are outside the scope of the actual study,such as police enforcement,road construction,or weather conditions. The laboratory simulation approach enjoys the benefits of complete control over the experimental design,but presents the difficulty of generalizing from the simulated,artificial task in the laboratory to performance in the real world.In addition,although not discussed in this report,there is the difficulty of recreating the legibility,brightness and contrast of today's sophisticated advertising signs in simulation. Other research approaches,such as naturalistic studies,controlled-course studies, and unobtrusive observation,among others,are not mentioned. The authors state that the majority of their review of the literature is based heavily on the Wachtel and Netherton(1980)study.Indeed,of the 14 studies reviewed by Cairney and 24 Gunatillake,all had been previously analyzed by Wachtel and Netherton.Accordingly, these re-reviews will not be discussed here.The conclusions of Cairney and Gunatillakc, having re-reviewed these studies with the benefit of 20 years of hindsight,is that the conclusions reached by Wachtel and Netherton were appropriate,and still relevant to the development of guidelines in Australia in 2000. Among their specific conclusions are these: The best of the studies reviewed to date(Weiner,1979)demonstrates that,when all confounding variables are controlled statistically,sites with advertising signs have higher crash rates than sites without.Indeed,the number of billboards did have a significant effect,and the number of crashes increased in proportion to the number of billboards.The effect size,however,is modest. Because the effect size is small,this suggests that large,well-controlled studies will be required to detect significant effects."There is a risk that small studies will not produce sufficient effects and be misinterpreted as showing that there is no significant effect when the proper conclusion is that there is insufficient data to reach a conclusion"(p.9). Changeable message signs may have a more direct bearing on crash rate than static signs. The outcome of the laboratory studies complements those of the(on-road) correlational studies.Although drivers are resistant to distraction,simulated advertising has a small but consistent,and adverse,effect on performance, particularly where task demands are high,and on peripheral tasks,Further, advertising material that is similar in appearance to traffic control devices,or that is proximal to such TCDs in the driver's visual field,may be particularly troubling. In summary Cairney and Gunatillake believe that the cited findings suggest that unregulated roadside advertising has the capacity to create a significant safety problem. Interestingly,they state that their results"run directly counter to Andreassen's(1984) conclusion that'There is no current evidence to say that advertising signs,in general,are causing accidents'"(p.9). The remainder of this study addresses the existence of guidelines and regulations,and puts forward recommendations for future controls.This will be addressed in Section 5 of the present report. Farbry, et al., 2001 This report,by the Federal I lighway Administration's(FHWA's)human Centered Systems Team,reviewed the literature related to the safety implications of electronic billboards(EBBs),presented findings,and recommended a research plan to address knowledge gaps.It was a follow-up to an earlier FH\V'A report(Wachtel and 25 Netherton, 1980), and it complemented contemporaneous driver distraction studies that addressed in-vehicle displays. The project included tri-vision signs within the broader category of EBBs. The literature review included: an assessment of state billboard regulations and policies relevant to EBBs and tri-vision signs; billboard-related crash analyses and potential safety factors such as distraction, conspicuity, and legibility; and driver and roadway characteristics. Because there was a limited amount of available research on external (to the vehicle) distraction, the review included an assessment of studies of in-vehicle distracters as a surrogate to understand how potential distraction may affect the driver. The knowledge gaps were categorized into three areas: roadway geometry, sign characteristics, and driver characteristics. Each of these areas was reviewed and preliminary research plans were proposed, including goals and research questions. The roadway characteristics identified for future research included horizontal and vertical curves, intersections, work zones, and EBB and tri-vision sign spacing. Sign characteristics for needed study included content and comprehensibility, exposure time, motion, and sign maintenance. Driver characteristics related to age and route familiarity. The authors describe the capabilities of EBBs, both complex and simple, and state that the simpler technologies used in some EBBs are similar to those employed in changeable message signs (CMS) used by roadway authorities in both permanent and portable installations to communicate official traffic information to motorists. The report notes Auk that such signs may also be called variable message signs (VMS) or dynamic message signs (DMS). Tri-vision signs are described as more limited in capability, but of interest because of: (a) the rotation (movement) of their cylinders to present three different messages, (b) the presentation of two partial messages simultaneously (during the change interval), and (c) potential variations in light reflected back to the driver as the panels rotate. A review of State practices concerning regulation of EBBs demonstrates that, unlike with static (fixed) billboards, there is little consistency from one jurisdiction to the next. The literature review, while updating that in FHWA's 1980 study, differed from the earlier study in three ways. First, the newer study did not review the literature critically as did the previous study; and second, the newer study reviewed a subset of the literature whereas the earlier study attempted a comprehensive review of the extant literature. On the other hand, the newer study synthesized the prior research in a manner that the analytical and chronological approach of the earlier study did not. The 2001 study grouped the reviewed work into common topics areas, permitting the reader to more easily grasp the multifaceted nature of DBB issues,and to better appreciate the existing knowledge gaps with regard to the safety implications of these devices. The authors identified relevant research in other aspects of road safety that might not, at first, seem to relate to the possible safety implications of roadside electronic billboards. Areas of research interest such as older and younger drivers, distraction due to in-vehicle 26 technology,and display and lighting characteristics of changeable message signs used for official purposes,are all discussed.Clearly,these areas of research are relevant to DBBs, as will be discussed below. Specific attention is given to other technologies(such as in-vehicle distracters)as they may be relevant to the potential threat of distraction from electronic billboards.For example,the study summarizes work by Wierwille and Tijerina(1998)that calculated the total number and average duration of eye glances required to operate specific in-vehicle devices(such as climate controls,1-IVAC,mirrors,and others)."Exposure"was defined as the number of glances multiplied by the time per glance,and the researchers found that there was a linear relationship between exposure and number of crashes.The FH WA authors suggest that a similar approach might be undertaken to assess the maximum amount of time that a driver could attend to a distraction source outside the vehicle. Similarly,the authors review several studies that examined the relationship between cellular telephone use and crashes,and they divide such phone-related distraction into three categories:manual manipulation of the phone;glancing at the phone(which requires looking away from the roadway),and engaging in conversation(which may disrupt concentration on the driving task).They conclude that the latter two contributors to distraction due to the use of cell phones may have parallels with distraction from roadside electronic billboards. They also identify research methodologies used in other applications that may be applicable to studying the impacts of EBBs.For example Olsson and Burns(2000) developed a"peripheral detection task"designed to measure visual distraction and mental workload;with appropriate modifications this approach might be useful for the study of distraction and workload effects of roadside electronic billboards,along with classical driver performance measures of lane deviation and speed maintenance. A number of the conclusions reached,while highly relevant,might be seen even more strongly in light of the observations made by other researchers.For example.the authors appropriately suggest that there may be lessons from studies into the legibility and conspicuity of official changeable message signs that could be applied to DBBs.They further discuss the fact that low levels of illumination on official signs could lead to reduced conspicuity and,hence,reduced legibility.This difficulty might be exacerbated because DBBs typically have very high luminance levels,often leading to complaints by the traveling public as well as regulators.These high luminance levels may increase the conspicuity of the DBBs at the expense of official signs.Similarly,the authors discuss differences in response to signs by familiar vs.unfamiliar drivers,since it is understood that motorists who pass the same signs regularly become acclimated to their presence and may ignore them.Of course,one of the defining characteristics of DBBs is their ability,to display a new message every few seconds.thus,in effect,presenting displays that are always new and therefore unfamiliar to all drivers. One of the principal purposes of this project was to identify needed research and propose approaches to conduct such studies.The authors describe the goal of such research as determining whether there are conditions under which EBBs arc a safety concern as 27 demonstrated by crashes or other types of degraded driver performance.They identify research findings,information that is available in an area that may be relevant to studies of EBB safety,and research questions,goals of research still needed.They appropriately note that,because findings from some otherwise relevant prior research studies did not directly address EBBs,it may still be necessary to replicate some of the earlier work with these newer billboards.The authors identify relevant characteristics of the roadway environment,sign design and operation,and driver-related issues,and identify the research needs in each area.This section of the report ends with a brief overview of four research methods that the authors suggest might be appropriate for future research.These include:documentation analysis(accident analyses of EBB locations with controls);field studies(data collection by observers in the field);test track studies;and simulation. Because this was intended only as an overview of the four methods,they are not described in sufficient detail for the reader to understand the advantages and limitations of each method for studies of this complex real-world issue. Beijer, 2002 Beijer undertook a comprehensive,on-road investigation with 25 participants who had their eye movements recorded while driving along a heavily traveled expressway in Toronto,Ontario,Canada.Advertising signs visible to drivers were evaluated for the number and duration of eye glances made to each.The signs varied in size,distance from road,and side of road.Signs using four different display technologies were included: conventional billboard,stroller,roller-bar,and video.There were apparently no signs studied featuring the technology of most interest to the present report,DBBs or CEVMMS. Because much has been written about the likelihood of different driver response to outdoor advertisements based on temporal driving demands,Beijer operationally defined demand in a simple,effective,and naturalistic,although somewhat limited,manner. Specifically.he identified the distance between a participant's car and the vehicle immediately ahead of it in its lane.If that distance covered one skip line and space,he considered the task demand on the participant to be high;two skip lines and spaces was called medium;three skip lines and spaces was deemed low;and anything beyond three skip lines and spaces was defined as no demand.Although Beijer recorded this data for all three lanes of traffic moving in the same direction as the participant,he analyzed only the same-lane data.As stated above,while this operational definition is somewhat crude and doesn't account,for example,for the demands imposed by traffic immediately behind and/or adjacent to the participant's car,or for demands created by changing traffic speeds or roadway geometry,it has the advantage of being easily measured and naturalistic. As background for his study,the author reviewed earlier eye-movement research that addressed visual demand on drivers.He cites work by Rockwell(1988)and Wikman et al.(1998)each of whom suggested that,when drivers have spare visual capacity,one second was about the maximum for safe non-driving related glances.Separately,he cites work by Zwahlen(1988)and the same paper by Rockwell that suggest that two seconds is a practical maximum,because glances longer than this are associated with lane- keeping errors.Since the presence of other vehicles in the traffic stream increases 28 demand,Beijer suggests that,in heavy traffic,"glances at(advertising)signs may be inappropriate(p.3),and the measurement of such glances was one of the key objectives of this project. One concern with Beijer's adoption of the"two-second rule"(p. 14)is his reliance on the Rockwell study that suggested that drivers'visual glances are affected by four factors, one of which is the sampling of in-car electronic devices.Beijer's assumption that glances at roadside advertising is similar,and therefore should produce quite comparable results to,the in-car displays studied by Rockwell,is overly simplistic,given that the eye and head movements required may be quite different,that in-vehicle displays can be viewed at any time,whereas a compelling roadside advertising sign can be viewed only while the sign is being approached,and given the understanding,as expressed by Chan et al.(2008)that drivers looking down at in-vehicle displays know that they cannot see the road ahead and thus may be motivated to return their gaze to the forward roadway view as quickly as possible,whereas drivers looking at roadside advertising signs,particularly signs close to their line of sight,are likely to still have the forward roadway view in their peripheral vision,and thus may feel less need to return their gaze quickly to the foveal view. Again citing Rockwell(1988)Beijer distinguishes between two measures of eye gaze. The mean number of glances(MNG)is sensitive to demand,and increases with the complexity of the task,whereas the average glance duration(AGD),in Rockwell's work, was relatively insensitive to changes in demand.Rockwell reported that,as traffic conditions become more demanding.drivers increase the MNG\\bile shortening the AGO,although the total off-road viewing time remains nearly the same.'this suggests that drivers are able to modulate their glances as task demands build,so as to better "time-share"these off-road glances with attention to the forward visual field as necessary.Conversely,one might expect that drivers who engage in long AGO behavior even when confronted with high task demands are less willing or able to devote the appropriate visual resources to the driving task. Beijer tested two basic hypotheses: I.The most distracting signs will be those that are larger,active rather than passive.closer to central vision.and on the right side of the roadway. 2.Signs located in an area with a low density of other signs.and with less demanding traffic,would receive more attention.(He states:"Signs that receive attention despite a heavy traffic density or a demanding route are referred to as receiving'inappropriate attention'[p.28]). The 25 participants in this study drove a 6 km section of the Gardiner Expressway,and passed a total of 61 commercial signs.These included 24 small and 18 large billboards (sizes were not specified),5 video, 12 scrolling text,and 2 roller bar signs.The signs were equally divided(30 left and 31 right)on both sides of the highway. 29 Based upon the related work of Smiley and her colleagues(Smiley,Smahel&Eizenman, 2004;Beijer,Smiley&Eizenman,2004)Beijer defined"long glances"as any glances of duration greater than 0.75 second.Overall,he found that 22(88%)of his participants made long glances at one or more signs;and five(20%)made glances of longer than two seconds to one or more of the advertising signs.The longest recorded glance was 2.07 seconds.As expected,the"active"signs commanded more,and longer glances per sign than did the"passive"signs(large and small conventional billboards).Scrolling text signs amounted to 20%of the total,but commanded 42%of all glances,and 40%of all long glances.Roller-bar signs represented only 3%of the total,but captured 6%of all glances and 6%of long glances.Video signs represented 8%of the total,and captured 19%of all glances,and 31%of long glances.Small and large(static)billboards combined represented 69%of the total,but captured only 32%of all glances and 23%of long glances.In essence,these findings demonstrate that static signs captured a percentage of glances and of long glances amounting to about half of their representation on the road,whereas all three types of active signs attracted a percentage of glances and of long glances approximately equal to at least twice their representation on the road. In terms of statistical significance,the roller-bar and video signs received significantly more long glances per sign than did the billboard or scrolling text signs.Beijer expresses some surprise that the roller-bar signs would capture as many glances(and long glances) as the video signs because,"unless a subject actually catches the Roller Bar sign during a change,it could very well he mistaken for a Billboard"(p.71).He suggests.however, that"anecdotal evidence points to some people(saying)they anticipate and watch(the Roller-Bar sign)for the change to a new message/advertisement"(p.71). When task demands increased,the author found that the number of glances made per sign decreased significantly;average and maximum glance durations appeared to decrease. but not significantly. Beijcr finds that his results differ from earlier studies,particularly those of Andreassen (1984)and Hughes and Cole(1986).and attributes this to the differences in sign technology.He states:"Certain signs are much more distracting than those studied in previous experiments"(p.68). One of Beijer's main hypotheses—that signs on the right side of the road would receive more glances than those on the left—was not confirmed.In fact,the two signs(of 61 in the study)that were the most frequently viewed were both on the left side of the road. The author believes that this may have been attributable to sign placement—both of these signs were positioned close to the drivers'line of sight.Conversely.the signs on the right side of the road,particularly the active signs,were not typically placed as close to the road as those on the left,and were farther from the drivers'central line of sight.This finding of more views for signs on the left is not only counter to what the author expected at the start of the study,it is contrary to data found in previous studies(e.g.Mourant and Rockwell. 1970),that found that drivers tend to concentrate their glances on the right portion of the road.Beijer suggests that this somewhat surprising finding may be because modern day drivers are more used to looking at official signs that are mounted overhead 30 above the travel lanes vs.older signs that were typically mounted on the right.Of course, it is also possible that the signs on the left were simply more distracting,and more capable of attracting the drivers'attention than those on the right. A finding of safety concern is that,although higher levels of task demand were associated with a reduction in the number of glances made to the signs,the average and maximum duration of these glances was not reduced as task demands increased.As the author states:"This would seem to indicate that drivers are comfortable turning their attention away from the road for a set period of time,regardless of the demands of the driving task (i.e,traffic conditions)"(p.76). Of the 926 total glances made by the 25 participants in this study, 198 of them(21.4%) were 0.75 seconds or longer,and 10 were longer than two seconds.Since these very long glances were made by five different participants,and the long glances were made by 22 out of 25 of the participants,the author concludes:"...distraction(from advertising signs)is not just an isolated incidence by one or two participants"(p.77). When only long glances were considered,the differences between sign types became highly significant.The video signs received more than five times as many long glances as the large static billboards.In fact,one of the five video signs received the majority of the long glances.This sign was positioned close to the drivers'field of view,where it could be seen for a considerable distance,and where there was very little visual clutter, enabling the sign to dominate the visual space.The author concludes that sign placement within an approaching driver's field of view may be more important than the sign's lateral distance from the road edge.Signs in the center of the field of view tend to receive more glances,regardless of distance,than those farther in the periphery.Beijer notes that current policies regarding the distance of commercial signage from the road does not distinguish between straight sections and curves and does not account for the sign's location within the line of sight.F{c suggests using line of sight,or angle from the center of the lane. Young and Regan, 2003 Although this paper is concerned only with in-vehicle distraction,it is addressed briefly here because of its clear explanation of driver distraction and inattention,and its potential consequences.The authors cite Stuns et al.(2001)who define distraction as occurring"when a driver is delayed in the recognition of information needed to safely accomplish the driving task because some event,activity,object or person within or outside the vehicle compelled or tended to induce the driver's.shifting attention away from the driving task.-It is the required presence of this triggering event or activity that distinguishes distraction from the broader category of driver inattention.There are generally four types of driver distraction that are considered:visual,auditory, biomechanical,and cognitive.When considering the potential distraction due to roadside billboards,we are talking about visual distraction.The authors summarize their short paper by recognizing that converging evidence suggests that driver distraction contributes to crashes,and that the prevalence of distraction as a risk factor is likely to increase as 31 new technologies are brought to market.Although they are addressing in-vehicle distractions,their statements can apply to external distraction,including DBBs,as well. Wallace, B., 2003a, b Wallace describes this paper as a literature review and meta-analysis,based on research that he carried out for the Scottish Executive's Central Research Unit.The goal of this study was to answer the question:Is there a serious risk to safe driving caused by features in the external environment(focusing on billboards)and,if so,what can be done about it? The author states that this subject has been under-researched,but that there is evidence that,in certain cases,"over complex visual fields can distract drivers"and that it is unlikely that current guidelines or regulations are adequate to deal with this concern. Wallace cites a number of the early U.S.accident analyses,most performed in the 1950s and 1960s,which generally showed that higher road complexity,especially that related to intersections,curves,and roadside development,was associated(correlated)with higher accident rates.He interprets and groups the conclusions of several of these studies to suggest that the presence of billboards adjacent to such roads,especially when the billboards were located at or near curves or intersections,contributed to these higher accident rates. After reviewing seven on-road and statistical studies and two laboratory studies,the author concludes that,despite certain weaknesses in each study,they"start to tell a story,"which is,as Wallace puts it,that when drivers are looking for something(i.e.a traffic sign or signal)their reaction times will be slowed by the presence of distracting advertisements."This conclusion is supported by the more recent work of Crundall and his colleagues(2006),discussed later in the present report. After summarizing his conclusions from these studies and experiments,Wallace turns to theories that might help explain these findings.His interpretation is that theories of attention and perception suggest that drivers may be susceptible to distraction from their driving task at any time,but that this is most likely to occur when such drivers are searching for something,and especially when they do not know what they are searching for and when there is a great deal of clutter in their visual field.He interprets the I-iolahan (1978)and Johnston and Cole(1976)laboratory studies as demonstrating this effect,and the field studies as further supporting these predictions by finding higher correlations between billboards and accidents at intersections.Further,he cites the Ady(1967)study for actually demonstrating that an advertising sign with bright lights,positioned at a curve in the road,was shown to have caused accidents.He believes that this finding supports Berlyne's theories of the orientation reaction,where the human brain functions in a manner to modulate arousal levels. In the case of the one billboard(out of three) found by Ady to have caused accidents,Wallace describes the situation as being a stretch of road where drivers were operating in conditions of low arousal,where they might have succumbed to"highway hypnosis."The sign,according to Wallace's interpretation, 32 might have caused these drivers to experience phototaxis(also called the"fascination phenomenon")in which the large,bright billboard captured their attention to such an extent after a long,monotonous stretch of road,that drivers became"absorbed"in the sign,and simply failed to notice or respond to the curve in the road where the sign was located. Wallace's review of early accident studies is open to challenge for several reasons.He finds fault with the fact that these studies demonstrated only correlations between advertising and accidents,rather than proving a cause-and-effect relationship.While it is true that correlation cannot prove causation,it is wrong to think of this as a weakness in the research.The flaw,if any,is in the misinterpretation or misuse of this data.Further, Wallace seems to attribute certain methodological weaknesses in some of these studies (e.g.not controlling for traffic flow or roadside development)to the fact that these studies were correlational by design.In truth,because a study undertakes a correlational rather than causation analysis is independent of whether its methodology is flawed.The types of statistical oversights that Wallace attributes to these studies are real,but they are not a result of the researchers'choice to undertake correlational analyses only. It is of further concern that Wallace's review of these earlier studies,and his critique of previous reviews of them,seems intent on demonstrating his main point,which is that outdoor advertising signs at intersections are a problem that warrants attention.If a study, or a critique of a study,did not support this argument,then Wallace tends to be dismissive of it.This is not to say that his point is wrong;it is simply to suggest that his reviews seem colored by an effort to reinforce his conclusion,and his critiques are selective as a result. Wallace dismisses correlational studies.apparently because he believes that only studies that can prove causation have merit.By extension,he dismisses on-road studies because it is difficult,if not impossible,to undertake such a study with the degree of experimental control that might support findings of causation.In this same vein,he praises "experiments"(i.e.controlled laboratory studies)for their ability to demonstrate causation.He does,however,recognize that,with their abstraction from reality,it may be difficult to generalize findings from such experiments to the real world.As Wallace states it,such experiments lack ecological validity,i.c.the degree to which they reflect real world driver behavior. Despite these criticisms,Wallace does a reasonable job of bringing together the predictions that come from theory,and the findings of laboratory studies and accident analyses to support his major thesis;that roadside billboards can be a major threat to road safety under certain.situationally specific,conditions. In summary.his major conclusions arc: a.The adverse effect of billboards is real.but situation specific. 33 b.Too much visual clutter at or near intersections can interfere with drivers' visual search and lead to accidents. c.It is"probable"that isolated,illuminated billboards in an otherwise boring section of highway can create distraction through phototaxis. The principal points made by Wallace,both in his summaries of past research and in his interpretation of psychological theories of attention and distraction,are that outdoor advertising signs are likely to create dangerous levels of distraction for drivers when they are placed at complex or challenging road locations such as intersections or curves,or when they exist in the midst of otherwise understimulating sections of roadway. While there has been little research into the possible role of phototaxis on driver performance,there is broad agreement by researchers that billboards,in general,can create inappropriate levels of distraction when placed in areas of high driver task demands.Wallace identifies two such areas—intersections and curves.Other conditions and circumstances,such as merges,lane drops,and decision points,have been cited by others. Although this study was silent on billboard technologies,the text suggests that Wallace was principally concerned with traditional fixed billboards(with the exception of his citations of prior research).And,while digital billboards are not explicitly discussed,it is reasonable to assume that the situation specific conditions addressed in this study would ...w apply equally,if not more strongly,to these newer technologies. CTC&Associates, 2003 Prepared at the request of the Wisconsin Department of"transportation (WisDOT),Transportation Synthesis Reports(TSRs)serve as brief summaries of currently available information on topics of interest to the WisDOT technical staff.The reports are compiled from sources such as NCI-IRP,TRB,AASHTO,other state DOTS, and related academic and industry,research.The impetus for this particular report was a concern raised about the predicted safety impacts of outdoor electronic advertising signs, called electronic billboards(EBBs)in this report,as well as tri-vision signs. The report summarizes a highly selective set of studies in several areas.These are identified as:Overview.State and Local Studies,Driver Distraction,and Avenues for Research.In addition,a brief summary is provided of pertinent Wisconsin regulations that address two types of electronic outdoor advertising,"multiple message signs"(tri- vision)and"variable message signs"(electronic billboards or EBBs). In the Overview section,the report references the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)Office of Real Estate Services(ORES)website for a detailed history of the federal outdoor advertising control program,and the ORES 1996 and 1998 policy statements on changeable message signs. iw. 34 Summaries are also provided of the FHWA 2001 report titled"Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction" (Farbry et al.,2001).Among the key findings of this report were that:(a)determining the effect of roadside billboards on safety is difficult due to both theoretical and methodological reasons;(b)there does not seem to be an effective method appropriate for evaluating the safety effects of EBBs on driver attention or distraction;(c)the legibility requirements used for official changeable message signs may be relevant to the design of EBBs;(d)there is potential in the use of methods to assess distraction from in-vehicle information systems for EBBs;(e)although the 42 states surveyed have generally consistent regulations for traditional(static)billboards,there are no common guidelines governing EBBs and tri-vision signs across states;and(f)few states even define the term "electronic billboard." Based on the FHWA survey of states,the report identifies issues that may pertain to EBBs.These include:red,flashing,intermittent or moving lights;glare;use of traffic control device symbols or words;illumination or sign placement that might interfere with a traffic control device;spacing and timing. The report summarizes a study performed for the South African National Roads Agency limited(SANRAL)(Coetzee,Undated)that looked at the content of outdoor advertising "based on driver characteristics,"and it discusses a number of the articles previously reviewed in the El I WA report of 1980.In addition,the report discusses a 1999 survey conducted by the National Alliance of Highway Beautification Agencies(NAHBA), which reviewed state regulations regarding tri-vision signs,and which included a discussion of the Minimum Exposure Dwell Time and the Maximum Transition Twirl Time boundaries contained within the policies of several of these states. In the section on Driver Distraction,the authors quote from the 2001 El IWA study and the website of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America(OAAA),both of which describe the intention of outdoor advertising to catch the eye and draw attention.The quotations from OAAA go further,and describe newer technologies that permit such signs to"talk to you,"and include other interactive features. The report then reviews several studies of driver distraction,some of which employed accident analyses from Federal databases and others which employed actual on-road research using a variety of methods to measure distraction.The American Association of Automotive Medicine(AAAM,2001)analyzed crash data from the national Crashworthiness Data System(CDS)from 1995-99,and determined that 12.9 percent of drivers were distracted at the time of their crash,and that 29.4 percent of those drivers cited"persons,objects or events outside the vehicle"as the source.Other studies are cited,with differing results reported. Other studies were reviewed that analyzed driver eye and head movements,and showed that greater visual complexity'associated with a high volume intersection required drivers to search the environment more than at lower volume intersections.The authors,citing the 2001 EH WA study,state:"it can be conjectured that additional visual stimuli such as 35 EXCERPT FROM 2009 AASHTO REPORT J. Wachtel International Guidelines and Regulations Queensland, Australia Of all of the policy documents reviewed for this report, the most comprehensive was that prepared by the Traffic Engineering and Road Safety section of the Queensland (Australia) Government's Department of Main Roads. The purpose of this "Guide to the Management of Roadside Advertising" (TERS, 2002) is to assist the Department of Main Roads and local government agencies in their evaluation of proposals for roadside advertising, to assist in the development of roadside advertising management plans, and to provide information to advertisers to enable them to achieve their goals with a minimal adverse effect on traffic safety and movement. Unique to the TERS document are a number of operational definitions that serve as a basis for the analysis which resulted in the guidelines and regulations promulgated. For example, four categories of roadside advertising are defined in the report. Given our focus on DBBs, we are concerned only with category 1, which includes "large free- standing devices" such as billboards and trivision signs. Other key definitions include: Advertisements are considered to directly distract drivers if they convey information that is contrary to or in competition with information conveyed by important official traffic control devices. Important official traffic control devices are major regulatory, warning, or guide signs. For example, an initial regulatory speed sign is considered important, whereas repeater signs are not. The decision as to whether specific TCDs are or are not important is to be made by Main Roads district officers. Advertisements should not distract drivers in the proximity of designated traffic situations,such as"areas in which merging,diverging and weaving traffic maneuvers take place,'open'railway level crossings,road intersection driver decision-making points in the vicinity of important official traffic signs,and reading and interpreting official traffic signs"(p.C-2). Appendix C to the document,titled"Driver Distraction Potential,"provides a specific and comprehensive series of flow charts(decision trees)and tables that enable an inspector to determine exactly what types and operational characteristics of advertising signs are permissible under different road and speed conditions.The identification of driver distraction potential and the resultant regulations is based on extensive human factors research,experience,and engineering judgment.The stated goal of these regulations is"to ensure that a high level of safety for the road user is maintained by managing competition for drivers'attention in locations where driving demands are great or where the road authority needs to convey important information to motorists on official traffic signs"(p.C-2). Different categories of roads are described,with correspondingly different restrictions on advertising signage.For advertising devices beyond the right-of-way but visible from "1 "motorways,freeways,or roads of similar standard,"only non-illuminated signs or non- rotating static illuminated signs are permitted(p.6-4).Where an advertising device is permitted on State-controlled roads,the same restrictions apply.Further,"variable message signs and trivision signs are not permitted on State-controlled roads"(p.6-5). For those advertising devices that are permitted,a clear chart is provided(labeled Figure C6)that provides graphic depictions of the"device restriction area"(p.C-12). In Australia,official signs are placed in accordance with a specific methodology described in the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering(AUSTROADS, 1988)which takes into account travel speed,sign content,and legend height.Accordingly,the TERS report identifies"longitudinal exclusion zones,"roadside areas in the vicinity of official TCDs in which advertising devices are not permitted.The length of these exclusion zones is typically 1.2v on local streets,and 2.5v on multi-lane freeways(where v=speed),and increases to 5.0v in advance of on-ramps and 7.5v in advance of exit ramps.The report provides specific justification for each recommendation,and that given for ramps is typical: Estimating the speed of entering traffic on a high speed road is a complex task which requires a fair amount of preview free from extraneous information.The 5V requirement rawk 2 will provide a motorist travelling at 100 km/h with 18 seconds preview time in which to identify an on-ramp and change lanes if necessary.The downstream 2.5V separation distance allows for traffic to stabilize following the merge(p.C-3). Although not every description is quite so comprehensive,the reader can,nonetheless, understand both the guidelines proposed and the rationale for them. Sign brightness is discussed in detail in Appendix D,and the rationale for the development of guidelines is based,in part,on the work of Johnson and Cole(1976)who reported that"brightness from illuminated Advertising Devices directed at road traffic should be minimized under all conditions"(p.20,reported in TERS,2002). The authors provide a clear distinction between two often confused key terms- luminance and brightness.Luminance is described as a characteristic of the advertising device itself that is independent of the environment in the vicinity of the sign.Luminance levels may vary across the face of the sign and the direction from which the sign is viewed.It is at a maximum when viewed from a direct frontal position,and falls off (diminishes)as the viewing angle becomes more oblique.Brightness,on the other hand, is a visual sensation experienced by the observer,which is affected by the sign's luminance(and the uniformity of that luminance across the sign face),as well as by its size,contrast,the viewing position of the observer,and characteristics of the observer him/herself(such as the effect of phototropism[the involuntary movement of the eye toward the brightest points in the field of view]).Since brightness is a subjective value,it cannot serve as a basis for regulation. The report identifies three different"Lighting Environment Zones,"and Table DI identifies the maximum average sign luminance permitted in each zone for advertising signs visible from State-controlled roads.The authors state that the maximum levels were established following field investigations in two different areas of the State. These maximum permitted luminance levels are In Lighting Environment Zone 1,500 cd/m2 3 In Lighting Environment Zone 2,350 cd/m2 In Lighting Environment Zone 3,300 cd/m2 for advertising signs of all sizes.Zone 1 is defined as an area with generally very high off-street ambient lighting such as central city locations.Zone 2 means an area with generally medium-high off-street ambient lighting such as major suburban business centers,entertainment districts,and industrial and/or community centers(which may include,for example,large gasoline service stations,parking lots or garages,etc.).Zone 3 is defined as an area with generally low levels of off-street ambient lighting,such as rural and residential areas. TERS provides a specific methodology for the measurement of luminance against this standard.This methodology is summarized in Section 6 of the present report. In addressing the characteristics of billboards that may be permitted,the report considers three different location categories: 1.Advertising outside the boundaries of,but visible from,State-controlled roads(except motorways), 2.Advertising visible from motorways,and 3.Advertising within the boundaries of State-controlled roads. In Category 1,TERS provides an extensive discussion of DBBs,which it refers to as "electronic displays."It states:"Because electronic displays are conspicuous by design and have the greatest potential to distract motorists,the objective is to limit this potential" (p.6-3).To achieve this objective,TERS requires that such signs may be installed only where: -There is adequate advanced visibility to read the sign: 4 -The environment is free from driver distraction points and there is no competition with official signs -The speed limit is 80km/h or less -The device is not a moving sign(defined elsewhere in the document) TERS further describes acceptable characteristics for signs that display predominantly graphics,with or without text: -Long duration display periods are preferred in order to minimize driver distraction and reduce the amount of perceived movement.Each screen should have a minimum display period of 8 seconds. -The time taken for consecutive displays to change should be within 0.1 seconds -The complete screen display should change instantly -Sequential message sets are not permitted -The time limits will be reviewed periodically Finally,TERS addresses DBBs that contain only text,as follows: -The number of sequential messages..,may range from one to a maximum of three;in locations with high traffic volume or a high demand on driver concentration,the number of sequential messages should be limited to two. -Where a display is part of a sequential message set,the display'duration should he between 2.5 to 3.5 seconds for a corresponding message length of three to six familiar words. -The number and complexity of words used...should be consistent with the display duration. -The time taken for consecutive displays to change should be within 0.1 seconds. -The complete screen display should change instantaneously. 5 -In a text-only display,the background color should be uniform and non-conspicuous. Advertising Devices beyond the boundaries of,but visible from motorways"are limited to non-rotating static illuminated and non-rotating non-illuminated formats"(p.6-4).In other words,TERS does not permit changeable message signs,flashing signs,or DBBs of any type if such devices would be visible by motorists traveling on motorways.In addition,no advertising signs of any type(including those that are static,whether illuminated or not)are permitted within the restriction distances discussed above.TERS states:"In addition to the restriction areas...further restrictions may apply where Main Roads demonstrates that the traffic conditions require additional driver attention and decision making"(p.6-4). Finally,where advertising devices are permitted within the boundaries of State- controlled roads,such signs must be non-rotating static illuminated and non-rotating non- illuminated signs.Neither variable-message signs nor trivision signs are permitted on State-controlled roads. It is with regard to the flash rate permitted for advertising signs that the TERs report differs most significantly from the prevailing guidance and regulations in the US.The authors explain that flashing illuminated advertising signs have the potential to distract drivers,and that the effects of such flashing signs are described by the Broca Stelzer Effect and the Bartley Effect.The former states that,at high luminance levels,the momentary luminosity shortly after the onset of a flash appears higher than the luminosity of a steady light of the same luminance.The latter states that,if a light is repetitively flashed,for example between four and ten times per second,the apparent brilliance of the light increases by as much as four to five times the actual luminance. As a result of their understanding of these two phenomena,the TERS report permits a maximum flash rate of two flashes per second for devices visible from State-controlled roads in Lighting Environment Zones I and 2,but prohibits any flashing lights on advertising devices visible to motorists on State-controlled roads in Lighting Environment Zone 3.Flashing signs,or signs with flashing lights,are not permitted within the boundaries of State-controlled roads,nor within or outside the boundaries of motorways,freeways,or roads of similar character if they would be visible to motorists traveling on such roads. 6 In light of recent proposals from the States of California(Kempton,2008)and Nevada (Martinovich,2008)to consider public-private partnerships that might result in advertising on State-controlled roads,the TERS report provides useful guidance for "advertising devices provided as part of sponsorship arrangements"(Appendix A).The report describes a program in which"the Department may permit the erection of Advertising Devices for a defined period in exchange for...private sector sponsorship of road infrastructure and/or works(p.A-2).Examples of such projects include construction of a pedestrian footbridge over the roadway,roadside landscaping and tree planting,and rubbish removal including removal of illegal Advertising Devices.Project sponsorship must be based on full and open competition,and the project must be warranted in its own right.For sponsorship of"major infrastructure such as pedestrian overpasses,"the Department may permit:"third party advertising on the sponsored structure,on free standing advertising devices,or on existing overhead transport structures within the vicinity of the sponsored infrastructure;"in the case of roadside cleaning and/or landscaping,the Department may permit:"the erection of signs,which contain the sponsor's corporate logo,designating the start and end of the sponsored section of road" (p.A-3).Graphic examples are provided which depict a fixed sign displaying a corporate name on a pedestrian overpass,and four examples of signs depicting sponsorship of cleaning or landscaping projects,which are quite similar to FHWA's"acknowledgement signs"(D-14-1,2 and 3)proposed for the next edition of the MUTCD(Capka,2005). The TERS document has also anticipated the growing use of vehicle-based advertising. Traffic Regulation 1962 s. 126 states,in part:"A person shall not,in respect of a vehicle on which or alongside of which an advertisement is being displayed—drive,or permit to be driven,that vehicle on a road or cause or permit that vehicle to stop on a road in such circumstances that the primary purpose for which the vehicle is being driven or stopped at the material time is business advertising,unless the person is the holder of a permit issued by(the Government)"(p.3-4,3-5). In an effort to minimize driver distraction from billboards which contain lengthy or difficult to read messages.TERS suggests that designers of Advertising Devices consider the relationship between legend height,sign content(i.e.number of words)and speed environment that are used in the design of worded traffic signs and that are contained in the AUSTROADS document.TERS states that the applicant's use of such design guidance"may,in certain circumstances,be considered by the Department in the assessment process"(p.5-7). 7 South Africa. Of the guidelines and regulations identified for the control of outdoor advertising for this report,we found those in South Africa to be quite comprehensive,specific,and,perhaps, the most unusual.Based on a review of practice elsewhere,and reliant to a considerable extent on the work of du Toit and Coetzee(2001)and Coetzee(Undated),the South African National Roads Agency Limited(SANRAL)first issued its"Regulations on Advertising On or Visible From National Roads,2000"(SANRAL,2000)to deal with on-premise as well as billboard advertising,and included specific components that address DBBs.The regulations were first issued in July 2000,and were updated and re- promulgated in December of the same year. SANRAL's terminology is somewhat different than that in the US,and it is important to understand these differences to ensure that the regulations are not misinterpreted.A "billboard,"for example,may include"variable messages,"and an"electronic billboard" has an"electronically controlled,illuminated display surface which allows all or a portion of the advertisement to be changed,animated or illuminated in different ways" (p.4).The term"animated"is used to mean that"the visibility or message of an advertisement is enhanced by means of moving units,flashing lights or similar devices, or that an advertisement contains a variable message"(p.3)The regulations also distinguish"small"from"large"billboards.For both fixed and electronic displays,any billboard that exceeds 18 square meters in area is considered large.Thus,the majority of roadside billboards in the US would meet SANRAL's criterion for large(a typical US roadside billboard measures 14 ft x 48 ft.or 672 sq.ft,approximately 62.4 sq.meters. South Africa uses the term"road reserve"to mean essentially the same as"right-of-way" in the US. Part B of the regulations contains provisions that are applicable to all advertisements. Section 6,Subsection 1 of this Part(excerpted below)identifies outright prohibitions on the grounds of"road safety and traffic considerations"by stating that no advertisement may: -Be so placed as to distract,or contain an element that distracts,the attention of drivers of vehicles in a manner likely to lead to unsafe driving conditions -Be illuminated to the extent that it causes discomfort to or inhibits the vision of approaching pedestrians or drivers of vehicles 8 -Be attached to traffic signs,combined with traffic signs,...obscure traffic signs,create confusion with traffic signs,interfere with the functioning of traffic signs,or create road safety hazards -Obscure the view of pedestrians or drivers,or obscure road or rail vehicles and road, railway or sidewalk features such as junctions,bends,and changes in width -Be erected in the vicinity of signalized intersections which display the colours red, yellow or green if such colours will constitute a road safety hazard -Have light sources that are visible to vehicles traveling in either direction(p. 12). Subsection 2 provides guidance for the reviewing agency to use when reviewing applications for advertisements that will face a national road.The Agency must consider each of the following 13 points to determine whether: -The size of the advertisement,together with other advertisements in the area,if any,will affect the conspicuousness of road traffic signs by virtue of potential visual clutter -the size of the advertisement,or any portion thereof by way of its colours,letter size. symbol,logo,graphics or illumination,will result in the advertisement having a distracting effect on the attention of drivers of vehicles to the task of driving and lead to unsafe driving conditions -the number of road traffic signs and advertisements in any area constitute a driving hazard,due to the attention of drivers of vehicles being deviated from the task of driving and leading to unsafe driving conditions -the colour,or combination of colours,contained in the advertisement correspond with the colours or combinations of colours specified for road traffic signs in the regulations promulgated under the National Road Traffic Act -the speed limit,and the measure of the traffic's adherence thereto,the traffic volume.the average following headway and accident history of the road demand more stringent control of outdoor advertising -the amount of information contained in the advertisement,measured in bits,is within prescribed limits -the advertisement is suitably positioned and orientated 9 -the position of the advertisement will negatively affect the visibility of,sight distance to or efficiency of any road traffic sign,or series of such signs -the advertisement could be mistaken to represent a road traffic sign -the illumination of advertisements is likely to distract drivers'attention from road traffic signs which are not illuminated -the position of an advertisement would disrupt the flow of information from road traffic signs to drivers who encounter a series of road traffic signs intended for traffic regulation, warning or guidance,in cases where the applicable speed limit on the road exceeds 60 km per hour -the position of any advertisement would potentially distract drivers'attention at places where traffic turns,negotiates curves,merges or diverges,or in the area of intersections or interchanges,or where drivers'uninterrupted attention to the driving task is important for road safety -The distance of any advertisement before any road traffic sign,an advertisement's position in between road traffic signs or an advertisement's distance behind any road traffic sign is of such a nature as to distract a driver's attention from any road traffic sign (p. 12-13). Many of these requirements and review criteria in the two categories discussed above are also used in other jurisdictions.In our opinion,some,including some of those in broad use,are somewhat vague and might be subject to differing interpretations.A third group category of SANRAL regulations,however,provides a unique and potentially useful approach to DBB guidance or regulation in the US.Specifically,those requirements that address the"flow of information from road traffic signs to drivers"and the`amount of information...measured in bits"contained within an advertisement have direct relevance to traffic safety and are firmly grounded in human factors research. The Agency is given additional authority to"increase the minimum spacing between advertisements or place further restriction on the position,size and content of any advertisement it considers necessary,in the interest of road safety"(p. 13). Where SANRAL's safety review criteria break new ground,however.is in two key areas that focus on the driver's information processing demands and limitations.Specifically, two of the review criteria above address the placement and content of the advertisement 10 in terms of the amount(bits) of information contained on the sign, and the potential for the sign to cause disruption of the flow of information to the driver. From a regulatory perspective these two evaluation criteria are unique. They are explained below. Part B, Section 6, Subsection (f) requires that"the amount of information contained in the advertisement, measured in bits, is within prescribed limits" (p. 13). These limits are defined in Section 8, "Advertisement to be concise,"which states, on page 14, that an advertisement visible from a national road must be concise and legible and comply with the following requirements: (a)No advertisement displaying a single message may exceed six bits of information in a visual zone and 10 bits on a road other than a freeway; (b) No combination sign, or any other advertisement displaying more than one advertisement or message, may contain more than six bits of information per enterprise, service or property, or per individual advertisement or message displayed on a combination sign; (c)Numbers longer than eight digits are not allowed; (d) A street number indicating specific premises must have a minimum size of 150 millimeters and a maximum size of 350 millimeters; (e) No message may be spread across more than one advertisement. With the exception of item (d), which refers only to address numbers, and item (e), which relates to what we have called message sequencing and is discussed elsewhere in the present report, each of the requirements above impose an upper limit on the number and length of words, numbers, symbols, etc., that can be displayed on a roadside advertisement. A "bit" of information is defined in Part A, Section 1 of the regulations as "the basic unit for measuring the length of advertising messages and may consist of letters, digits, 11 symbols,logos,graphics,or abbreviations"(p.4).Bits are operationally defined in accordance with the following table: Information on Billboard Number of bits Words of up to 8 letters 1.0 Words of more than 8 letters 2.0 Numbers of up to 4 digits 0.5 Numbers of 5 to 8 digits 1.0 Symbol or abbreviation 0.5 Large logo and graphics 2.0 The term"bit,"a contraction of the words binary digit,was first used in the 1930s in a paper describing information storage for early computers.In the decades since,it has also been widely used in the science of information processing and human cognition.A further discussion of the term"bit"is beyond the scope of this paper. In addition to its regulatory control on the amount of information that can be displayed on —w billboards,SANRAL also controls the placement of billboards with regard to official signs.in a manner that goes beyond other Government agencies.Specifically,Regulation 6(2)(k)states: In considering applications for approval...the Agency must evaluate whether...the position of an advertisement would disrupt the flow of information from road traffic signs to drivers who encounter a series of road traffic signs intended for traffic regulation, warning,or guidance...(p. 13). In essence,this regulation recognizes that there are categories of official signs in which the information on two sequential signs was linked,and that this information link must not be disrupted.An example given by du Toit and Coetzee is the link between an advance warning sign at an interchange and the actual off ramp.Other examples might include advanced signs for changes in speed limit or for the presence of a Stop sign or traffic signal. Although the South African Road Traffic Signs Manual(SARTSM) recognizes that a 200 in spacing is between two sequential road signs for 120 km/h roads in general,it requires 360m as a minimum distance on such a road for a motorist to react to a warning or information sign in advance of an interchange where lane changes and weaving may be necessary.SANRAL determined that the presence of a billboard between the advanced(1 km)interchange signs and the off ramp would reduce this »+w 12 r� U S.Deportment ht dol ov of Uansportahon 9 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration peop a saving people DOT HS 810 594 April 2006 The Impact of Driver Inattention On Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service,Springfield,Virginia 22161 This publication is distributed by the U.S.Department of Transportation,National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,in the interest of information exchange. The opinions,findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. If trade or manufacturer's names or products are mentioned,it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. 011111, • iii Technical Report Documentation Page 1.Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient's Catalog No. DOT HS 810 594 4.Title and Subtitle 5.Report Date The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An April 2006 Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data 6.Performing Organization Code 7.Authors 8.Performing Organization Report No. Klauer,S.G.,Dingus,T.A.,Neale,V.L.,Sudweeks,J.D.,and Ramsey,D.J. 9.Performing Organization Name and Address 10.Work Unit No.(TRAIS) Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 3500 Transportation Research Plaza(0536) I l.Contractor Grant No. Blacksburg,Virginia 24061 DTNH22-00-C-07007 Task Order 23 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.Type of Report and Period Covered National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Technical Report NVS-331,Room 6220 August 2004 to August 2005 Office of Human-Vehicle Performance Research 14.Sponsoring Agency Code 400 Seventh Street SW.,Room 6220 NHTSA NVS-331 Washington,DC 20590 I5.Supplementary Notes Michael Perel,Julie Barker,and Michael Goodman served as contraction officer's technical representatives for this work. 16.Abstract The purpose of this report was to conduct in-depth analyses of driver inattention using the driving data collected in the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study. An additional database of baseline epochs was reduced from the raw data and used in conjunction with the crash and near-crash data identified as part of the original 100-Car Study to account for exposure and establish near-crash/crash risk. The analyses presented in this report are able to establish direct relationships between driving behavior and crash and near-crash involvement. Risk was calculated(odds ratios)using both crash and near-crash data as well as normal baseline driving data for various sources of inattention. The corresponding population attributable risk percentages were also calculated to estimate the percentage of crashes and near-crashes occurring in the population resulting from inattention. Additional analyses involved' driver willingness to engage in distracting tasks or driving while drowsy;analyses with survey'and test battery responses;and the impact of driver's eyes being off of the forward roadway. The results indicated that driving while drowsy results in a four-to six-times higher near-crash/crash risk relative to alert drivers. Drivers engaging in visually and/or manually complex tasks have a three-times higher near-crash/crash risk than drivers who are attentive. There are specific environmental conditions in which engaging in secondary tasks or driving while drowsy is more dangerous,including intersections.wet roadways, and areas of high traffic density. Shoe,brief glances away from the forward roadway for the purpose of scanning the driving environment arc safe and actually decrease near-crashicrash risk. Even in the cases of secondary task engagement,it thy task is simple and requires a single short glance the risk is elevated only slightly,if at all. I losses en,glances totaling more than 2 seconds for any purpose increase near-crashicrash risk bs at least two times that of normal,baseline driving. 17.Key Words 18.Distribution Statement 100-Car,Naturalistic,Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, 'This document is available to the public through the Driver Behavior,Human Factors,Inattention, National Technical Information Service,Springfield,VA Distraction,Eyes Off Forward Roadway,Driver 22161 Drowsiness 19.Security Classif. 20.Security Classif. 21.No.of Pages 22.Price (of this report) (of this page) 226 Unclassified Unclassified Form DOT F 1700.7(8-72) v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report was to conduct in-depth analyses of driver inattention using the driving data collected in the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study. These data provide unique opportunities for transportation researchers as data were collected over an 18-month period and represent normal,daily driving with all the stress and pressures that occur in a metropolitan environment. This analysis also demonstrates one of the primary strengths of large-scale naturalistic driving data in that analytical methods from epidemiology,empirical research,and qualitative research can all be employed to answer research questions. Figure ES.1 shows the relationship of naturalistic data to empirical and epidemiological data. Naturalistic data can help complete gaps in the transportation research between epidemiology and empirical methods by collecting enough data to conduct epidemiological analyses while still collecting detailed driver behavior and driving performance data. • Precise • Proactive knowledge about • Provides crash risk important Large-Scale • Information about ordinal crash Naturalistic important risk info Data Collection circumstances and scenarios that lead to crashes • 'Natural"driver behavior • Detailed pre-crash/crash Empirical info Epidemiological •Data Distraction Data 1 • Drowsiness Collection • Aggressive driving Collection (test tracks& • Driver errors (crash databases) simulators) • vehicle dynamics • Potential validation of surrogate measures • Imprecise,relies on unproven • Reactive safety surrogate • Vert.limited • Experimental pre-crash situations modify driver behavior Figure ES.1. The relationship between empirical,naturalistic,and epidemiological methods in driving safety research. The following analyses are able to establish direct relationships between driving inattention and crash and near-crash involvement because of the extensive real-world observations of drivers' vii behavior. Relative near-crash/crash risk was calculated(odds ratios)using both crash and near- crash data compared to normal,baseline driving data for various sources of inattention. Crashes and near-crashes were used because it was found that the kinematic signatures of both are similar and using both increased statistical power. The corresponding population attributable risk percentage calculations were used to determine what percentage of crashes and near-crashes occurring in the population are attributable to inattention. The relative near-crash/crash risk and population attributable risk percentage calculations provide useful counterpoint assessments of the crash-risk problem. The odds ratio provides the increased risk of each source of inattention per individual whereas the population attributable risk percentage provides an assessment of how this individual risk translates to a percentage of crashes and near-crashes in the population at- large. METHOD For these analyses,two reduced databases were used:the 100-Car Study event database that consists of the reduced crashes,near-crashes,and incidents;and the baseline database. The baseline database was created specifically for this analysis by stratifying the entire dataset based upon the number of crashes,near-crashes,and incidents each vehicle was involved in and then randomly selecting 20,000 6-second segments from the 6.3 terabytes of driving data. For example,a vehicle involved in over 3 percent of all the total crashes,near-crashes,and incidents would also represent 3 percent of the baselines. Vehicles that were not involved in any crashes, near-crashes,or incidents were not represented in the baseline database. This stratification of the baseline epochs was performed to create a case-control data set where there arc multiple baseline epochs per each crash or near-crash event to allow for more accurate calculation of odds ratios. The variables that were recorded for the 20,000 baseline epochs included the vehicle, environmental,and most drivers'state variables. In addition,eyeglance analyses were performed for 5,000 of these baseline epochs. The event variables were not recorded for the baseline epochs as these variables(e.g.,precipitating factor,evasive maneuver)were not present when an incident,near-crash,or crash did not occur. Table ES.I shows the breakdown of the type of data that currently exists as part of the original 100-Car Study event database and the baseline database. Table ES.1. Description of the Databases Created for the Distraction Analysis _ 100-Car Study Event Database Baseline Database(epochs) 1. Vehicle variables Vehicle variables 2. Event variables N/A 3. Environmental Variables Environmental Variables _4. Driver's State Variables Driver's State Variables Eyeglance data(crashes,near- Eyeglance data on 5,000 randomly crashes,and incidents) selected baseline distraction events. Observer Rating of Drowsiness Drowsiness was marked yes/no with (ORD)for crashes and near- "yes"=ORD of 60 or above. crashes 5. Driver/Vehicle 2 N/A 10. Narrative N/A VIII The questionnaire data collected during the 100-Car Study was also used in these analyses. Table ES.2 presents a list of all the surveys and test batteries that were administered to the primary drivers. Table ES.2. Description of questionnaire and computer-based tests used for the 100-Car Study. Name of Testing Type of Test Time test was Brief description Procedure administered 1. Driver demographic Paper/pencil In-processing General information on driver information age,gender,etc. 2. Driving History Paper/pencil In-processing General information on recent traffic violations and recent collisions. 3. Health assessment Paper/pencil In-processing List of variety of questionnaire illnesses/medical conditions/or any prescriptions that may affect driving performance. 4. Dula Dangerous Paper/pencil In-processing One score that describes driver's Driving Index tendencies toward aggressive driving. 5. Sleep Hygiene Paper/pencil In-processing List of questions that provide information about driver's general sleep habits/substance use/sleep disorders. 6. Driver Stress Inventory Paper/Pencil In-processing One score that describes the perceived stress levels drivers experience during their daily commutes. 7. Life Stress Inventory Paper/pencil In-processing/Out- One score that describes drivers processing stress levels based upon the occurrence of major life events. 8. Useful Field-of-View Computer- In-processing Assessment of driver's central based test vision and processing speed, divided and selective attention. 9. Waypoint , Computer- In-processing Assessment of the speed of based test information processing and vigilance. _10. NEO-FFI Paper'pencil In-processing Personality test. _ 11. General debrief Paper/pencil Out-processing List of questions ranging from questionnaire seatbelt use,driving under the influence,and administration of experiment. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS The analyses reported in this document are derived from direct measurements of driver inattention immediately prior to a crash or near-crash. The analytical methods that were used in this report were borrowed from epidemiology,empirical research,and qualitative research. The application of these analytical methods demonstrates the power of naturalistic driving data and its importance in relating driving behavior to crash and near-crash involvement. Driver inattention was defined for this report as one of the following: ix I) Driver engagement in secondary tasks(those tasks not necessary to the primary task of driving) 2) Driver drowsiness 3) Driving-related inattention to the forward roadway 4) Non-specific eyeglance away from the forward roadway These four types of inattention,singly or in combination,were used to answer the research questions addressed in this report. Some of the important findings are presented below: • This study allowed for the calculation of relative near-crash/crash risk of engaging in various types of inattention-related activities. Some of the primary results were that driving while drowsy increases an individual's near-crash/crash risk by four to six times, engaging in complex secondary tasks increases risk by three times,and engaging in moderate secondary tasks increases risk by two times that of normal,baseline driving. Driving-related inattention to the forward roadway was actually shown to be safer than normal,baseline driving(odds ratio of 0.45). This was not surprising as drivers who are checking their rear-view mirrors are generally alert and engaging in environmental scanning behavior. • This study also allowed for the calculation of population attributable risk percentages. This calculation produces an estimate of the percentage of crashes and near-crashes in the population where the specific inattention-related activity was a contributing factor. The results of this analysis indicated that driving while drowsy was a contributing factor for 22 to 24 percent of the crashes and near-crashes and secondary-task distraction contributed to over 22 percent of all crashes and near-crashes. This is a useful metric since odds ratios estimate risk on a per-task(or drowsiness episode)basis while the population attributable risk percentage accounts for the frequency of occurrence. Thus, some inattention-related activities that indicated high relative near-crash/crash risk had corresponding population attributable risk percentages indicating low total percentages. This was due to lower frequency of occurrence. Conversely,other more frequently performed inattention activities,while obtaining lower relative near-crash/crash risks, obtained higher population attributable risk percentages. • The prevalence of driving inattention was analyzed by using normal,baseline driving (i.e.,no event crash,near-crash,or incident present)as established by the baseline distraction database. The four types of inattention were recorded alone and in combination with the other types of inattention. The percent of the total baseline epochs in which drivers were engaged in each type of inattention is as follows: secondary tasks—54 percent of baseline epochs driving-related inattention—44 percent of baseline epochs drowsiness—4 percent of baseline epochs non-specific eyeglance—2 percent of baseline epochs Note that the total is higher than 100 percent since drivers engaged in multiple types of inattention activities at one time. Non-.specific eyeglance was most frequently recorded as associated with the other types of inattention but accounts for only 2 percent of the '~ x baseline epochs,singularly.Given that the baseline epochs most closely represent "normal,baseline driving,"these results suggest that drivers frequently engage in inattention-related tasks. • The analysis of eyeglance behavior indicates that total eyes-off-road durations of greater than 2 seconds significantly increased individual near-crash/crash risk whereas eyeglance durations less than 2 seconds did not significantly increase risk relative to normal, baseline driving. The purpose behind an eyeglance away from the roadway is important to consider. An eyeglance directed at a rear-view mirror is a safety-enhancing activity in the larger context of driving while eyeglances at objects inside the vehicle are not safety- enhancing. It is important to remember that scanning the driving environment is an activity that enhances safety as long as it is systematic and the drivers'eyes return to the forward view in under 2 seconds. • The results for the analysis investigating the impact of driver drowsiness on environmental conditions resulted in many interesting results. First,driver drowsiness may vary depending on time of day or ambient lighting conditions. Drowsiness was also seen to slightly increase in the absence of high roadway or traffic demand. A higher percentage of drowsiness-related baseline epochs were found during free-flow traffic densities on divided roadways and areas free of roadway junctions. • The results of the analysis investigating the impact of complex or moderate secondary task engagement on various environmental conditions were more varied. Each of the eight environmental conditions resulted in odds ratios greater than 1.0 when engaging in complex secondary tasks. Engaging in moderate secondary tasks rarely resulted in odds ratios significantly greater than 1.0 which indicates that these behaviors are not as risky as driving while engaging in complex secondary tasks. • The most frequent type of secondary task engagement,hand-held device use,also obtained odds ratios greater than 1.0 for both dialing hand-held device(OR=2.8:CI,— 1.6—4.9)and talking/listening to a hand-held device(OR=1.3;CL=0.9—1.8). Talking/listening to a hand-held device was not significantly different than 1.0,indicating that this task was not as risky as dialing a hand-held device. Despite the differences in these odds ratios,the hand-held-device-related secondary tasks had nearly identical population attributable risk percentages(each contributing to 3.6 percent of crashes and near-crashes). This is because drivers were talking/listening to hand-held devices a much larger percentage of time than they were dialing hand-held devices. Thus,the percentage of crashes and near-crashes that were attributable to these two actions was similar due to the fact that dialing was more dangerous but was performed less frequently whereas talking/listening was less dangerous but performed more frequently. • The results from the survey and test battery response analyses indicated that drivers with high involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes were significantly younger and possessed less driving experience than the drivers who were involved in fewer inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. The high-involvement drivers also self-reported significantly more traffic violations and being involved in more accidents xi prior to the beginning of the study. Other test scores demonstrated that the high- involvement drivers were more often drowsy and scored significantly lower on selected personality inventories than did the drivers that were involved in fewer inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. • A clear relationship between involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes and engaging in inattention-related activities during baseline driving was observed. A correlation of 0.72 was obtained suggesting that those drivers who are frequently involved in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes are not simply getting"caught' at inopportune moments. These drivers engage in inattention-related activities frequently. Those drivers who arc not frequently engaging in inattention-related tasks are therefore not involved in as many inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. .41 xii GLOSSARY OF TERMS ANOVA—Analysis of variance. Additional driver—Family or friends of the primary driver who drove the subject's vehicle and were not involved with the in-processing. Associative Factors—Any environmental or vehicular factor where direct causation to crashes, near-crashes,or incidents is not possible to attain but correlation may be determined. Backing crash—A crash that occurs while the driver's vehicle is in reverse gear. Chase vehicle—Vehicle designated for locating(through GPS or other means)and downloading data from subject vehicles. Contributing factors—Any circumstance that leads up to or has an impact on the outcome of the event.This term encompasses driver proficiency,willful behavior,roadway infrastructure, distraction,vehicle contributing factors and visual obstructions. Crash—Any contact with an object,either moving or fixed,at any speed in which kinetic energy is measurably transferred or dissipated. Includes other vehicles,roadside barriers,objects on or off the roadway,pedestrians,cyclists,or animals. Crash-Relevant Event—A subjective judgment of any circumstance that requires,but is not limited to,a crash avoidance response on the part of the subject-vehicle driver,any other vehicle, pedestrian,cyclist,or animal that is less severe than a rapid evasive maneuver(as defined in near-crash event),but greater in severity than a"normal maneuver"to avoid a crash. A crash avoidance response can include braking,steering,accelerating,or any combination of control inputs. A"normal maneuver"for the subject vehicle is defined as a control input that falls outside of the 95 percent confidence limit for control input as measured for the same subject. Conflict Type—All crashes,near-crashes,crash-relevant conflicts and proximity conflicts were categorized based on the initial conflict that lead to the crash that occurred or would have occurred in the case of near-crashes and incidents. There were 20 types of conflicts used which are as follows:conflict with lead vehicle,following vehicle,oncoming traffic,vehicle in adjacent lane,merging vehicle,vehicle turning across subject-vehicle path(same direction),vehicle turning across subject-vehicle path(opposite direction),vehicle turning into subject vehicle path (same direction),vehicle turning into subject-vehicle path(opposite direction),vehicle moving across subject-vehicle path(through intersection),parked vehicle,pedestrian,cyclist,animal, obstacle/object in roadway,single-vehicle conflict,other,no known conflict,unknown conflict. This list was primarily from National Automotive Sampling System(NASS)General Estimates System(GES)Accident Types. DAS—Data Acquisition System. xiii Data Reduction—Process by which trained Virginia Tech Transportation Institute(VTT1) employees reviewed segments of driving video and recorded a taxonomy of variables that provide information regarding the sequence of events leading up to the crash,near-crash, incident,as well as environmental variables,roadway variables,and driver-behavior variables. Driver distraction-When a driver has chosen to engage in a secondary task that is not necessary to perform the primary driving task. Driver Impairment—The driver's behavior,judgment,or driving ability is altered or hindered. This includes drowsiness,use of drugs or alcohol,illness,lack of or incorrect use of medication, or disability. Driver Proficiency—Whether the individual's driving skills,abilities,or knowledge are inadequate. This specifically refers to whether the driver appeared to be aware of specific traffic laws(i.e.,no U-turn),whether the driver was incompetent to safely perform a driving maneuver (i.e.,check for traffic before pulling out on a roadway),unaware of the vehicle's turning radius, or performs driving maneuvers under the incorrect assumption that it is safe,(i.e.,drives over a concrete median). Driver-Related Inattention to the Forward Roadway—Inattention due to a necessary and acceptable driving task where the subject is required to shift attention away from the forward roadway.(e.g.,checking blind spots,center mirror,instrument panel). Driver Reaction—The evasive maneuver performed in response to the precipitating event. Driver Seat Belt Use—Variable indicating if the subject is wearing a seat belt during an event. Drowsiness—Refers to a driver who is either moderately to severely drowsy,as defined by Wierwille and Ellsworth(1994). A driver who is moderately drowsy will exhibit slack musculature in the facial muscles and limited overall body movement as well as a noticeable reduction in eye scanning behaviors. A severely drowsy driver will exhibit all the above behaviors as well as extended eye lid closures and will have difficulties keeping his/her head in a lifted position. EDR—Electronic data recorder. Epoch—Typically,a 6-second period of time that was selected randomly to allow for the observation of normal,baseline driving. Event—A term referring to all crashes,near-crashes,and incidents. The"event"begins at the onset of the precipitating factor and ends after the evasive maneuver. Event Nature—Classification of the type of conflict occurring in the event(e.g.,conflict with lead vehicle,conflict with vehicle in adjacent lane). xiv Event Severity—Classification of the level of harm or damage resulting from an event. The five levels were crash,near-crash,crash-relevant,proximity,and non-conflict. FARS—Fatality Analysis Reporting System. FOV—Field of view. FV—Following vehicle. GPS—Global Positioning System—used by data reductionists to locate participant vehicle for information on an event. Inattention—Any event or epoch where drowsiness,driver-related inattention to the forward roadway,driver secondary tasks,or non-specific eyeglance away from the forward roadway were identified as a contributing factors to the event. Incident—Encompasses the event severities of crash-relevant conflicts and proximity conflicts. IVI—Intelligent Vehicle Initiative. IR LEDs—Infrared light-emitting diode. Invalid Trigger—Any instance where a prespecified signature in the driving performance data stream is observed but no safety-relevant event is present. See Appendix C for a more complete definition of triggers. LV—Lead vehicle. MVMT—Million vehicle miles traveled. NHTSA—National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Naturalistic—Unobtrusive observation. Observation of behavior taking place in its natural setting. Near-crash—A subjective judgment of any circumstance that requires,but is not limited to,a rapid,evasive maneuver by the subject vehicle,or any other vehicle,pedestrian,cyclist,or animal to avoid a crash. A rapid,evasive maneuver is defined as a steering,braking, accelerating,or any combination of control inputs that approaches the limits of the vehicle capabilities. Non-Conflict—Any incident that increases the level of risk associated with driving,but does not result in a crash,near-crash,or incident as defined. Examples include driver-control error without proximal hazards being present,driver-judgment error such as unsafe tailgating or excessive speed,or cases in which drivers are visually distracted to an unsafe level. xv Non-Subject Conflict—Any incident,crash-relevant conflict,near-crash,or crash that is captured on video but does not involve the subject driver. Labeled as a non-subject conflict but data reduction was not completed. Onset of Conflict-Sync number designated to identify the beginning of a conflict;also known as the beginning of the precipitating factor. ORD-Observer Rating of Drowsiness;measured on a scale from 0 to 100 in increasing severity of drowsiness. Based on Wierwille and Ellsworth(1994),who developed this procedure where observable behaviors were identified to allow data reductionists to reliably and consistently rate the drowsiness of drivers using post-hoc video data reduction. Precipitating factor—The driver behavior or state of the environment that initiates the crash, near-crash,or incident,and the subsequent sequence of actions that result in an incident,near- crash,or crash. Primary Driver—The recruited participant designated as the main driver of his or her own vehicle or a leased vehicle Proximity Event—Any circumstance resulting in extraordinarily close proximity of the subject vehicle to any other vehicle,pedestrian,cyclist,animal,or fixed object where,due to apparent unawareness on the part of the driver(s),pedestrians,cyclists,or animals,there is no avoidance maneuver or response attempted. Extraordinarily close proximity is defined as a clear case ^� where the absence of an avoidance maneuver or response is inappropriate for the driving circumstances(including speed,sight distance,etc.). Pre-Incident Maneuver—The maneuver that the driver was performing immediately prior to the event. The importance of this is to record what the driver was doing before the precipitating event occurred. Precipitating Factor—The action of a driver that begins the chain of events leading up to the crash,near-crash,or incident. For example,for a rear-end striking collision,the precipitating factor most likely would be lead vehicle begins braking(or lead vehicle brake lights illuminate). Secondary Task—Task,unrelated to driving,which requires subjects to divert attention resources from the driving task,e.g.,talking on the hand-held device,talking to passenger, eating,etc. Rear-end striking—Refers to the subject vehicle striking a lead vehicle. Rear-end struck-Refers to the subject vehicle being struck by a following vehicle. Sideswipe—Refers to either a vehicle in the adjacent lane changing lanes into the subject vehicle lane or the subject vehicle changing lanes into an already occupied adjacent lane. SV—Subject vehicle. xvi Time-to-Collision(TTC)—A calculation that estimates the moment of impact. This calculation uses radar data(either forward or rear)to obtain measures of range and range-rate. Trigger/Trigger Criteria—A signature in the data stream that,when exceeded,90 seconds of video data(60 seconds prior and 30 seconds after the data excedence)and the corresponding driving performance data are copied and saved to a database. Trained data reductionists assessed these segments of video and driving performance data to determine whether this segment of data contained a safety-relevant conflict(i.e.,crash,near-crash,or incident)or not. Examples of triggers include a driver braking at 0.76 g longitudinal deceleration or swerving around an obstacle,obtaining a 0.8 g lateral acceleration. For a more complete description of triggers,see Appendix C. US DOT—United States Department of Transportation. Valid Event or Valid Trigger—Those events where a specific signature in the data stream was identified and viewed by a data reductionist and deemed to contain a safety-relevant scenario. Data reductionists recorded all relevant variables and stored this data in the 100-Car Study database. Vehicle Run-Off-Road—Describes a situation when the subject vehicle departed the roadway. VDOT—Virginia Department of Transportation. Virginia Tech Motor Pool—An extension of the Virginia Tech Office of Transportation. VTTI—Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. Visual Obstruction—This variable refers to glare,weather,or an object obstructing the view of the driver that impacts the event in any way. Willful Behavior—The driver knowingly and purposefully drives in an unsafe or inappropriate mariner. Includes aggressive driving,purposeful violation of traffic laws,use of vehicle for improper purposes(i.e.,intimidation). xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VII INTRODUCTION VS METHOD VIE MAJOR CONCLUSIONS IX GLOSSARY OF TERMS • XIII TABLE OF FIGURES XXV TABLE OF TABLES XXVII CHAPTER I:INTRODUCTION AND METHOD 1 BACKGROUND I METHOD 3 Instrumentation ..3 Subjects.. ..... .. Pehiclec 8 PROCEDURE FOR DATA REDUCTION: 100-CAR STUDY EVENT DATABASE 8 Sensitivity Analysis 9 Recruiting and Training Data Reductionists 12 Event Database Reduction Software Framework 12 Baseline Database Framework 14 Data Reduction Inter-and Intra-Rater Reliability for the 100-Car Study Event Database 16 SURVEYS,QUESTIONNAIRES AND PERFORMANCE-BASED TESTS 18 CHAPTER 2: OBJECTIVE 1,WHAT IS THE PREVALENCE AS WELL AS THE TYPES OF DRIVER INATTENTION IN WHICH DRIVERS ENGAGE DURING THEIR DAILY DRIVING? WHAT IS THE RELATIVE NEAR-CRASH/CRASH RISK OF DRIVING WHILE ENGAGING IN AN INATTENTIVE TASK? IS THE RELATIVE NEAR-CRASH/CRASH RISK DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF SECONDARY TASKS' ' Driver Data Included in the Analysis 2/ QUESTION I. WHAT IS TIIE RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF A DRIVER BEING LABELED INAT FEN FIVE VERSUS A'FENTTVE.' QUESTION 2. WHAT IS THE RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF EACH TYPE OF DRIVER INATTENTION BEING I.ABELLD AS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR FOR CRASHES,NEAR-CRASHES,AND/OR PRESENT IN BASELINE EPOCHS' QUESTION 3.DETERMINE THE Eli ATIVU NEAR-CRASH/CRASH RISK AND THE POPULATION ATTRIBUTABLE RISK PERCENTAGE FOR EACH TYPE OF INATTENTION.NTION.WHAT IS'HIE RELATIVE RISK FOR DIFFERENT TIDES OP SECONDARY TASKS? CONCLUSIONS 33 CHAPTER 3:OBJECTIVE 2,WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DRIVER CHOICE OF ENGAGEMENT IN SECONDARY TASKS OR DRIVING WHILE DROWSY? WHAT ARE TIIE RELATIVE RISKS OF A CRASH OR NEAR-CRASH WHEN ENGAGING IN DRIVING INATTENTION WHILE ENCOUNTERING THESE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS?37 DATA INCI.I:DFD IN THESE ANALYSES 39 AMBIENT LIGHT/AVLA T TIER CONDITIONS 40 Lighting Level - JO It eather 47 ROADWAY AND SURFACE CONDITIONS 45 Road 7jpc 45 ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE 57 Traffic Control 57 Relation to Junction 60 SUMMARY 64 XIX CHAPTER 4: OBJECTIVE 3,DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCES IN DEMOGRAPHIC DATA,TEST BATTERY RESULTS,AND PERFORMANCE-BASED MEASURES BETWEEN INATTENTIVE AND ATTENTIVE DRIVERS. HOW MIGHT THIS KNOWLEDGE BE USED TO MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF INATTENTIVE DRIVING BEHAVIORS? COULD THIS INFORMATION BE USED TO IMPROVE DRIVER EDUCATION COURSES OR TRAFFIC SCHOOLS? 66 DATA INCLUDED IN THESE ANALYSES 67 ASSIGNMENT OF INVOLVEMENT LEVEL FOR DRIVERS 68 ANALYSIS ONE:T-TEST ANALYSIS FOR THE"LOW AND HIGH INVOLVEMENT IN INATTENTION-RELATED CRASHES AND NEAR-CRASHES" 69 Demographic Data Analyses• 69 Driving History 74 Test Battery Analyses 74 Performance-based test analyses 82 ANALYSIS ONE:CORRELATION ANALYSIS FOR THE HIGH-AND LOW-INVOLVEMENT GROUPS 84 ANALYSIS TWO: F-TEST ANALYSIS FOR THE LOW-,MODERATE-,AND HIGH-INVOLVEMENT GROUPS 84 Results 86 ANALYSIS TWO:CORRELATION ANALYSIS FOR THOSE DRIVERS WITH LOW,MODERATE,AND HIGH INVOLVMENT IN INATTENTION-RELATED CRASHES AND NEAR-CRASHES. 87 ANALYSIS THREE. ARE DRIVERS' RESPONSES TO THE DEMOGRAPHIC,TEST BATTERY,AND PERFORMANCE-BASED TESTS PREDICTIVE OF INVOLVEMENT IN INATTENTION-RELATED CRASHES AND NEAR-CRASHES? 88 DISCUSSION. HOW MIGHT THESE RESULTS BE USED TO MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF INATTENTIVE DRIVING BEHAVIORS AND COULD THIS INFORMATION BE USED TO IMPROVE DRIVER EDUCATION COURSES OR TRAFFIC SCHOOLS? 89 SUMMARY 91 CHAPTER 5: OBJECTIVE 4,WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEASURES OBTAINED Aimook FROM PRE-TEST BATTERIES(E.G.,A LIFE STRESS TEST)AND THE FREQUENCY OF ENGAGEMENT IN DISTRACTING BEHAVIORS WHILE DRIVING? DOES THERE APPEAR TO BE ANY CORRELATION BETWEEN WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE IN DISTRACTING BEHAVIORS AND MEASURES OBTAINED FROM PRE-TEST BATTERIES? 93 DATA USED IN THIS ANALYSIS 94 DESCRIPTION OF DATA 95 CONCLUSIONS 97 CHAPTER 6: OBJECTIVE 5,WHAT IS THE RELATIVE NEAR-CRASH/CRASH RISK OF EYES OFF THE FORWARD ROADWAY? DO EYES OFF THE FORWARD ROADWAY SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT SAFETY AND/OR DRIVING PERFORMANCE? 99 Data Used in these Analyses 100 QUESTION 1. WHAT IS THE RELATIVE NEAR-CRASH/CRASH RISK OF EYES OFF THE FORWARD ROADWAY? 100 QUESTION 2.DO EYES OFF THE FORWARD ROADWAY SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT SAFETY AND/OR DRIVING PERFORMANCE? 104 Eye-Glance Location Analysis 107 CONCLUSIONS 109 CHAPTER 7: OBJECTIVE 6,ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN DRIVING PERFORMANCE FOR DRIVERS WHO ARE ENGAGING IN A DISTRACTION TASK VERSUS THOSE DRIVERS WHO ARE ATTENDING TO DRIVING? ARE SOME OF THE SAFETY SURROGATE MEASURES MORE SENSITIVE TO DRIVING PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES WHEN DRIVING DISTRACTED VERSUS OTHER SAFETY SURROGATE MEASURES? 111 DATA USED IN THIS ANALYSIS 1 1 1 STEPWISE SELECTION PROCEDURE AND CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS 112 DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS 113 DISCUSSION 114 CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS 117 xx GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 117 RELATIVE RISK OF A CRASH OR NEAR-CRASH:CONCLUSIONS 119 POPULATION ATTRIBUTABLE RISK PERCENTAGE CONCLUSIONS 24 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 126 APPLICATION OF RESULTS 127 REFERENCES 129 APPENDIX A:SECONDARY TASKS 131 Passenger-Related Secondary Task 131 Passenger in adjacent seat 131 Driver is talking to a passenger sitting in adjacent seat that can be identified by their person encroaching into the camera view or the driver is clearly looking and talking to the passenger 13/ Passenger in rear seal 131 Driver is talking to a passenger sitting in rear seat that can be identified by their person encroaching into the camera view or the driver is clearly looking and talking to the passenger seated in the rear 131 Child in adjacent seat 131 Driver is talking to a child sitting in the adjacent seat who can be identified by the child encroaching into the camera view or the driver is clearly looking and talking to the child 131 Child in rear seat 131 Driver is talking to a child sitting in the rear seat who can be identified by the child or child related paraphernalia encroaching into the camera view or the driver is clearly looking and talking to the passenger seated In the rear 131 Talking/Singing: No Passenger Apparent 131 Talking Singing,Dancing,. 131 Driver appears to be vocalizing either to an unknown passenger,to self,or singing to the radio. Also,in this category are instances where the driver exhibits dancing behavior 131 Internal Distraction:Nol vehicle or passenger related -. 131 Reading 13/ Driver is reading papers,a magazine,a book,or a map 131 Moving object in vehicle 131 Driver is distracted by stationary objects suddenly in motion due to hard braking,accelerating,or turning corner 131 Object dropped by driver 131 Driver dropped an object and is now looking for it or reaching for it _.13/ Reaching for object in vehicle(not cell phone) 131 Driver is attempting to locale an object while driving 131 Insect in vehicle - 131 Driver is distracted by a flying insect that is in the cabin of the vehicle 131 Par in vehicle 132 Driver is distracted by a pet dun is in the cabin of the vehicle 132 !fireless Device 132 Talking listening - 132 Driver is clearly conversing on the cell phone 132 Head-set on conversation unknown 132 Driver has a hands free head-set on but the conversation is unknown 132 Dialing hand-held cell phone 132 Driver is attempting to dial a hand-held cell phone while the vehicle is in gear__.__ . ___....... . . .. . . ......... 132 Dialing hand-held cell phone using quick keys 132 Driver is attempting to use quick keys to dial a hand-held cell phone while the vehicle is in gear 132 Dialing hands-free cell phone using voice activated software 132 Driver is attempting to dial a hands-free cell phone using voice activation while the vehicle is in gear..._._132 Locating-i eaching/answering cell phone 132 Driver is attempting to locale the cell phone by reaching for it in order to use it or answer it while the vehicle is in gear. _._... _._.. _.._. _._.____137 Cell Phone Other 132 xxi Any other activity associated with a cell phone i.e.,looking at a cell phone for time,or screening calls but not dialing,or talking while the vehicle is in gear. 132 LocatingiReaching for PDA • 132 Driver is attempting to locate a PDA by reaching for it in order to use it or to answer it while the vehicle is in gear 132 Operating FDA 132 Driver is using(looking at,using stylus,or pressing buttons)while the vehicle is in gear. 132 Viewing PD.4 132 Driver is only looking at a PDA,no.stylus or button presses,while the vehicle is in gear 132 Vehicle-Related Secondary Task 132 Adjusting Climate Control 132 Driver is looking at andor reaching to adjust the 11 bAC system while the vehicle is in gear. 132 Adjusting the radio 132 Driver is looking at and/or reaching to adjust the radio'stereo system while the vehicle is in gear. 132 inserting-Retrieving cassette 132 Driver is inserting or retrieving a cassette while the vehicle is in gear 132 Inserting'Retrieving CD 132 Driver is inserting or retrieving a compact disc while the vehicle is in gear 132 Adjusting other devices integral to vehicle 133 Driver is looking at andor reaching to adjust another in-dash system while the vehicle i.s in gear. 133 Adjusting other known in-vehicle devices 133 Driver is looking at andor reaching to adjust/another in-vehicle system(ie.,X.1/Radio)while the vehicle is in gear. 133 • Dining 133 Eating with a utensil - 133 Driver i.s eating food with ca utensil while the vehicle is in gear. 133 Eating without a utensil 133 Driver is eating food without utensil while the vehicle is in gear 133 Drinking with a covered strait 133 Driver is drinking oil ofa covered cunutiner(travel mug)or covered container with a straw while the vehicle is in gear 133 Drinking out of open cup container 133 Driver is drinking out(than open cup or container that can be easily spilled while the vehicle is in gear.. 133 Smoking. 133 Reaching for cigar cigarette 133 Driver is reaching for cigacrigarette=pipe while the vehicle is in gear. 133 Lighting cigarrigarette .. _ 133 Driver is lighting the cigar,cigarenepipe while the vehicle is in gear _...... __..... _ .133 Smoking cigar"cigarette 133 Driver is smoking the cigar/cigarette-pipe while the vehicle is utgear__ _. _ _..__. _.._____ 133 Extinguishing cigar cigarette _ 133 Driver is putting the cigadcigarette out in an ashtray while the vehicle is in gear. __.133 Daydreaming 133 Lost in thought 133 Driver is haphazardly looking around but not at any single distraction. - 133 Looked but did not see 133 Driver is looking in the direction of a conflict but does not react in a timely manner. Driver may also exhibit a surprised look at the moment of realization 133 External Distraction 133 Looking at previous crash or highway incident 134 Driver is looking out of the vehicle at a collision or a highway incident that has happened recently 134 Pedestrian located outside the vehicle 134 Driver is looking out of the vehicle at a pedestrian who may or may not pose a safety hazard(generally not in the fov'ard roadway) 134 Animal located outside the vehicle 134 .r<.. xxii Driver is looking out of the vehicle at an animal that may or may not pose a safety hazard(generally not in the forward roadway). 134 Object located outside the vehicle 134 Driver is looking out of the vehicle at an object of interest that may or may not pose a safety hazard Objects may or may not be in the forward roadway. 134 Construction zone 134 Driver is looking out of the vehicle at construction equipment that may or may not pose a safety hazard_-134 Personal Hygiene 134 Combing/brushing/fixing hair 134 Driver is grooming or styling hair while the vehicle is in gear. Driver may or may not he looking in a mirror. 134 Applying make-up /34 Driver is applying makeup while the vehicle is in gear. Driver may or may not be looking in a mirror 134 Shaving 134 Driver is shaving facia(hair while the vehicle is in gear. Driver may or may not be looking in a mirror.._134 Brushingflossing teeth 134 Driver is brushing or flossing teeth while the vehicle is in gear. Driver may or may not be looking in a mirror 134 Biting nails/cuticles 134 Driver is biting nails and`or cuticles. Driver may-or may not be looking at nails and or cuticles 134 Removing:adjustingjewely -. .. . 134 Driver is removing'adjusting/putting on jewelry while the vehicle is in gear 134 Removing inserting contact lenses 134 Driver is attempting to remove or insert contact lenses while the vehicle is in gear. 134 Other 134 Driver is cleaning/adjusting/altering something at their person while the vehicle is in gear 134 Driving-related Inattention to hanvord Roadway 134 Checking center rear-view mirror 134 Driver is observing traffic in rear-view mirror while moving forward or stopped,but the vehicle is in gear (i.e.,stopped at an intersection) 134 Looking ow left side of windshield(not in direction in motion) 135 Driver is looking sot the left side oldie windshield while the vehicle is either moving font ard or stopped,but is in gear. This is not marked if the driver is making a left rern. 135 Looking out right side of windshield(not in direction in motion). 135 Driver is looking out the right side of the windshield while the vehicle is either roaring fbrwavd or stopped,bur is in gear. ibis is not marked if the driver is making a right turn - 135 Checking lefi rear-view Horror 135 Driver is observing traffic in left rear-view mirror while moving forward or stopped.but the vehicle is in gear (i e.,stopped at an intersection) _ -..... 135 Looking out left wine/ow. 135 Driver is observing traffic in left window while moving forward or stopped,but the vehicle is in gear(i.e., stopped at an intersection) -. 135 Checking right rear-view mirror. ............. ..... ... ... 135 Driver is observing traffic in right rear-view mirror while moving font ad or stopped,but the vehicle is in gear(i.e-.stopped at an intersection) _. 135 Looking ow right window-. 135 Driver is observing Irnffic in right window while moving fb ward or.stopped,but the vehicle is in gear stopped at an intersection)...._.. - __._.._ 135 Looking at instrument panel 135 Driver is checking vehicle speed temperature.RP.11s while vehicle is moving or stopped,but is in gear__ 135 APPENDIX 13: COP\'OF QUESTIONNAIRES 137 DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE 137 DRIVING HISTORY—SUBJECT INTERVIEW 138 I IEALTII ASSESSMENT 139 Din A DANGEROUS DRIVING INDEX 140 xxiit TABLE OF FIGURES Figure ES.I. 'Ihe relationship between empirical,naturalistic,and epidemiological methods in driving safety research. vii Figure I.I. A compressed video image from 100-Car Study data. The driver's face(upper left quadrant)is distorted to protect the driver's identity. The lower right quadrant is split with the left-side(top)and the rear(bottom) views. 4 Figure 1.2. The main DAS unit mounted under the"package shelf'of the trunk. 5 Figure 1.3. Doppler radar antenna mounted on the front of a vehicle,covered by a mock-up of one of the plastic license plates used for the study S Figure 1.4. The incident pushbutton box mounted above the rear-view mirror. The portion on the right contains the driver-face/left-vehicle side camera hidden by a smoked plexiglass cover 6 Figure 1.5. Flow chart of the data reduction process. 9 Figure 1.6. Graphical depiction of trigger criteria settings for Phase 11 and Phase IV using the distribution of valid events. Note that this distribution and criterion placement is unique for each trigger type. 10 Figure 1.7. The frequency of each vehicle's involvement in crash,near-crash,and incident events versus the number of baseline epochs selected for each vehicle. 15 Figure 2.1. The percentage of the total number of crashes and near-crashes identified in the 100-Car Study Study and the percentage of the total number of baseline epochs in which these four types of inattention were identified as a contributing factor(N=69 crashes,761 near-crashes,and 4,977 baseline epochs) �3 Figure 2.2.The percentage of crashes and near-crashes in which three types of inattention were identified as a contributing factor(N=69 crashes,761 near-crashes,and 19,827 baseline epochs) 74 Figure 3.1. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total baseline epochs for the different lighting levels observed 41 Figure 3.2. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total baseline epochs for each type of weather 44 Figure 3.3. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total baseline epochs by type of roadway. 47 Figure 3.4. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total baseline epochs by type of roadway alignment cg Figure 3.5. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total baseline epochs by type of traffic density 53 Figure 3.6. Percentage of secondary-task-,drowsiness-related and total baseline epochs for all surface conditions.56 Figure 3.7. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total number of baseline epochs for each type of traffic control device 59 Figure 3.8. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total number of baseline epochs for each relation to junction. 62 Figure 4.1. The frequency of inattention-related crashes and near-crashes by driver in order front low frequency to high frequency 68 Figure 4.2. Average age of the high-and low-involvement drivers in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes 70 Figure 4.3. The frequency of inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for each age group by involvement group. 71 Figure 4.4. Gender breakdown of high-involvement drivers 72 Figure 4.5. Average years of driving experience for drivers with high-and low-involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. 73 Figure 4.6. Self-reported involvement in traffic violations and collisions for 5 years prior to the onset of the 100-Car Study. 74 Figure 4.7. Personality scores for the extraversion scale demonstrating significant differences between drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes 79 Figure 4.8. Personality scores for the openness to experience scale demonstrating significant differences between drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. 80 Figure 4.9. Personality scores for the agreeableness scale demonstrating significant differences between drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. 81 Figure 4.10. Personality scores for the conscientiousness scale demonstrating significant differences between drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. 82 xxv Figure 4.1]. The frequency of inattention-related crashes and near-crashes by driver in order for Low,Moderate, and High frequency. 85 Figure 5.1. The frequency distribution of the number of inattention-related baseline epochs that each driver was involved(N=101). Note: Subjects were sorted by frequency of involvement to allow the reader to see the range of values. 95 Figure 6.1. The total mean time drivers'eyes were off the forward roadway during the 6-second segment of time prior to the onset of the conflict. 105 Figure 6.2. Mean number of glances away from the forward roadway occurring during 5 seconds prior and I seconds after the onset of the conflict or during a 6-second baseline driving epoch. 106 Figure 6.3.Mean length of longest glance initiated during the 5 seconds prior and I seconds after the onset of the conflict. 107 Figure 6.4. Depiction of degrees of visual angle from center forward that objects in the cockpit of an automobile are generally located. 108 Figure 6.5. The percentage of the location of the longest glance away from the forward roadway by severity 109 Figure C-1. The observer rating of drowsiness scale where not drowsy is equal to 0 and extremely drowsy is equal to 100. 171 Amok xxvi TABLE OF TABLES Table ES.I. Description of the Databases Created for the Distraction Analysis viii Table ES.2. Description of questionnaire and computer-based tests used for the 100-Car Study. ix Table I.I. Driver age and gender distributions 7 Table 1.2. Actual miles driven during the study 8 Table 1.3. Dependent variables used as event triggers. 11 Table 1.4. The total number of events reduced for each severity level 11 Table 1.5. Operational Definitions for All Event Severity Levels 13 Table 1.6. Areas of data reduction,definition of the area,and examples 14 Table 1.7. Description of the databases created for the inattention analysis. 16 Table I.S.Percentage agreement with expert reductionists 17 Table 1.9. Description of questionnaire and computer-based tests used for the 100-Car Study 19 Table 2.1. Assignment of secondary tasks into three levels of manual/visual complexity. �5 Table 2.2. An example of a 2x2 contingency table that would be used to calculate inattention-related odds ratios.26 Table 2.3. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence limit intervals to assess likelihood of at-fault-crash (N 49)or near-crash(N=439)involvement in driving-related inattention to the forward roadway 28 Table 2.4. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals to assess likelihood of at-fault crash(N= 49)or near-crash(N=439)involvement when engaging in driving inattention. �9 Table 2.5. Odds ratios point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals to assess the likelihood of crash(N=49) or near-crash(N=439)involvement when engaging in secondary tasks 30 Table 2.6. Odds ratio calculations and 95 percent confidence intervals for"Passenger Present"for drivers who are younger and older than 20 years of age 31 Table 2.7.Population attributable risk percentage point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for types of inattention and the specific secondary tasks 33 Table 3.1. A detailed list of the environmental variable names,levels of each,and operational definition 38 Table 3.2 The frequency of drowsiness-and secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded for each type of lighting level. 40 Table 3.3.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness by type of lighting, 42 Table 3.4.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks by type of lighting. 42 Table 3.5.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks by type of lightino 42 Table 3.6. The frequency of drowsiness-related and secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded for each type of weather. 43 Table 3.7. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness by type of weather 44 Table 3.8. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks by type of weather 45 Table 3.9. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence limits for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks by type of weather 45 Table 3.10. The frequency of secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded for each road type 46 Table 3.11. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness by road type 48 Table 3.12. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks by road type 48 Table 3.13. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks by road type 48 Table 3.14. The frequency of drowsiness and secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded for each type of roadway alignment 49 Table 3.15. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness and roadway alignment 51 Table 3.16.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks and roadway alignment. 51 xxvii Table 3.17.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks and roadway alignment. 51 Table 3.18. The frequency of secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded at each level of traffic density 52 Table 3.19. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness and traffic density. 54 Table 3.20. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks and traffic density 54 Table 3.21. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary task and traffic density. 55 Table 3.22. The frequency of drowsiness-and secondary-task-related epochs that occurred at each roadway surface condition level . 55 Table 3.23.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness and surface condition. 57 Table 3.24.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks and surface condition. 57 'Fable 3.25.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary. tasks and surface condition. 57 Table 3.26. The frequency of secondary-task-related crash and near-crash events and baseline epochs that were recorded for each type of traffic-control device 58 Table 3.27. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness and each type of traffic-control device. 60 Table 3.28. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary. tasks and each type of traffic-control device GO Table 3.29. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks and each type of traffic-control device GO Table 3.30. The frequency of drowsiness-and secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded for each type of relation to junction. 61 .�.. Table 3.31. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness and each type of relation to junction 63 Table 3.32. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary' tasks and each type of relation to junction 63 Table 3.33. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks and each type of relation to junction. 63 Table 4.1. Description of questionnaire and computer-based tests used for 100-Car Study 67 Table 4.2. Descriptive statistics on drivers labeled"high involvement"and`low involvement'in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. 69 Table 4.3.Driver self-reported demographic data summary. 70 Table 4.4.Test battery names and scores. 75 Table 4.5.Life Stress Inventory descriptive statistics. 75 Table 4.6. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the driver stress factor scale of aggression 76 Table 4.7. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the driver stress factor scale of dislike of driving 76 Table 4.8. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with hieh and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the driver stress factor scale of ha_ard monitoring 76 Table 4.9. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the driver stress factor scale of fatigue proneness. 77 Table 4.10. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the driver stress factor scale of thrill-seeking. 77 Table 4.11. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the Dula Dangerous Driving Scale for Dula Dangerous Driving Index 77 Table 4.12. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the Dula Dangerous Driving Scale.Negative Emotional Driving Miley 77 Table 4.13. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and ..r near-crashes for the Dula Dangerous Driving Scale Aggressive Driving 78 XXVItt Table 4.14. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the Dula Dangerous Driving Scale Risky Driving 78 Table 4.15. Descriptive statistics for the drivers with low and high involvement in inattention—related crashes and near-crashes for the Channel Capacity Score. 83 Table 4.16. Descriptive statistics for the drivers with low and high involvement in inattention—related crashes and near-crashes for the Preventable Crash Risk. 83 Table 4.17. Descriptive statistics for the drivers with low and high involvement in inattention—related crashes and near-crashes for the Expected Number of Moving Violations 83 Table 4.18. Descriptive statistics for the drivers with low and high involvement in inattention—related crashes and near-crashes for the Expected Seat bell Use 83 Table 4.19. Descriptive statistics for the drivers with low and high involvement in inattention—related crashes and near-crashes for the UFOV. 84 Table 4.20.Correlation coefficients and probability values for the test batteries that obtained statistical significance. 84 Table 4.21. Descriptive statistics on drivers labeled"low involvement,""moderate involvement,"and"high involvement"in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. 86 Table 4.22. Results from the univariate analyses of driver involvement in inattention-related crashes and near- crashes 87 Table 4.23.Correlation coefficients for all test battery questionnaires. 88 Table 4.24. Results from the logistic regression analysis. 89 "fable 5.1. Description of questionnaire and computer-based tests used for 100-Car Study 94 Table 5.2. The significant correlations between test battery,survey,and performance-based test scores to the frequency of inattention-related baseline epochs(N=101) 96 Table 5.3.The significant correlations between test battery,survey,and performance-based test scores to the frequency of inattention-related crash and near-crash events(N_l01) 97 Table 6.1. Eyes off the forward roadway metrics 100 Table 6.2. Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for eyes off the forward roadway. 102 Table 6.3. Population attributable risk percentage ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for eyes off the forward roadway 102 Table 6.4. Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for eyes off forward roadway excluding eyeglances to center,right,and left rear-view mirrors. 103 Table 6.5. Population attributable risk percentage ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for eyes off the forward roadway excluding eyeglances to center,right,and left rear-view mirrors 104 Table G.G.T-test results for total time eyes off the forward roadway. 105 Table 6.7. Results from the Tukey post hoc T-Tests 107 Table 7.1.Driving Performance Data Used in the Discrimnant Analysis. 112 Table 7.2 The safety surrogate measures that best discriminate between attentive and inattentive drivers 113 Table 7.3. The percent of baseline epochs that the linear discriminant analysis model was successfully able to distinguish 113 Table 8.1. Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for all types of driving inattention where odds ratios were greater than 1.0 121 Table 8.2. Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness by environmental conditions where odds ratios were greater than 1.0. 121 Table 8.3.Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interactions of complex secondary task engagement and environmental variables where odds ratios were greater than 1.0 123 Table 8.4. Odds Ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for Eyes Off Forward Roadway Excluding Eye Glances to Center,Right,and Left Rear-View Mirrors. 124 Table 8.5. The population attributable risk percentage ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for the types of driver inattention 125 Table 8.6. Population attributable risk percentage ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for eyes off forward roadway excluding eyeglances to center,right,and left rear-view mirrors 126 Table A-I. Secondary tasks recorded during data reduction. 131 Table D-I. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Driver Age). 179 Table D-2. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Male Driver's Age) 179 Table D-3. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Female Driver's Age). 179 Table D-4. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Years of Driving Experience). 179 xxix Table D-5. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Number of Traffic Violations) 179 -Table D-6. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Number of Accidents) 180 Table D-7. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Number of Ilnesses). I80 Table D-8. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Daytime Sleepiness Rating) 180 Table D-9. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Number of Hours of Sleep) 180 Table D-10. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Life Stress Score) I80 Table D-I1. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire 181 Table D-12. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness Driver Behavior Questionnaire. 181 Table D-l3. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness Driver Behavior Questionnaire. 181 Table D-14. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire 181 Table D-l5. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire 181 Table D-16. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness and the Dula Dangerous Driving Questionnaire. 182 Table D-17. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness the Dula Dangerous Driving Questionnaire 182 Table D-18. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness the Dula Dangerous Driving Questionnaire 182 Table D-19. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness the Dula Dangerous Driving Questionnaire. 182 Table D-20. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory. 183 Table D-2I. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory. 183 Table D-22. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory. 183 Table D-23. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory. 183 Table D-24. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory. 184 Table D-25. T--test summary table for Driver Attentiveness 184 Table D-26. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the Waypoint Performance-Based Test. 184 Table D-27. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the Waypoint Performance-Based Test 184 Table D-28. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the Waypoint Performance-Bascd Test. 185 -Table D-29. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the Useful Field of View Performance-Based'test.185 Table D-30. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Driver Age) 185 Table D-31. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Years of Driving Experience) 185 _y Table D-32. .ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Number of Traffic Violations) 186 Table D-33. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Number of Accidents) 186 Table D-34. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Daytime Sleepiness Rating) 186 Table D-35. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Hours of Sleep). 186 Table D-36. ANOVA summary'table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire(Aegression) 186 Table D-37. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire(Dislike) 187 Table D-38. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire(Hazard) 187 Table D-39. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire(Thrill-seeking). 187 Table D-40. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness Driver Behavior Questionnaire(Drowsiness). 187 Table D-41. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the Dula Dangerous Driving Inventory(DDDI). 188 Table D-42. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the Dula Dangerous Driving Inventory(NE) 188 Table D-43. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the Dula Dangerous Driving Inventory(AD) 188 Table D-44. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the Dula Dangerous Driving Inventory(RD) 188 Table D-45. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the Useful Field of View. 189 Table D-46. ANOVA summary'table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory'(N). 189 Table D-47, ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory(E). 189 Table D-48. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory(0). 189 Table D-49. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality'Inventory(A). 190 Table D-50. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory(C). 190 Table D-51. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the waypoint performance-based test(channel 1). 190 ANN Table D-52. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the waypoint performance-based test(per) 190 xxx Table D-53. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the waypoint performance-based test(mvr). 191 Table D-54. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the waypoint performance-based test(seatbelt)191 Table D-55. ANOVA summary table for eyeglance for total time eyes off the forward roadway 191 Table D-56. ANOVA summary table for eyeglance for number of eyeglances 191 Table D-57. ANOVA summary table for eyeglance for length of longest glance 192 • xxxi CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION AND METHOD BACKGROUND Transportation researchers have long been aware of the negative effects of driver distraction and inattention on driving performance. Researchers have devised clever experimental designs on test tracks and simulators to gain greater understanding of the effects of various sources of driver inattention on reaction time,lateral deviations,time-to-collision(TTC),etc.,in both normal and unexpected driving environments. While this research is important and useful to understanding whether these behaviors impact driving performance,it is largely unknown whether driver inattention actually decreases safety and relative crash risk on roadways(Hancock,Lesch,and Simmons,2003;Dingus,1995). Crash database research has found that driver inattention is a contributing factor in approximately 25 to 30 percent of all actual crashes on roadways(Wang,Knipling,and Goodman, 1996). Unfortunately,this statistic is based upon police accident reports that were completed at the scene of crashes. The investigating police officer would only mark distraction or inattention if the driver admitted guilt or an eyewitness observed that the driver was inattentive. Given the source of this information and the potential for inaccurate information to be recorded,most transportation researchers believe that the actual percentage is much higher. Regardless of beliefs,the true effects of driving inattention on crash rates are unknown. While both empirical and epidemiological research are useful to understanding aspects of the problem of driving inattention,there are significant questions that still need to be addressed. The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study(Dingus et al.,2005)provides the type of pre-crash driver behavior data that is necessary to take initial steps at calculating measures such as: • The increased relative near-crash/crash risk for various types of driver inattention • The frequency and prevalence of driver inattention in a normal roadway environment • The types of environmental conditions in which drivers choose to engage in driving inattention • The impact of cyeglance behavior on near-crash/crash risk Also,using questionnaire data from the participating drivers,initial attempts to characterize those drivers who are involved in inattention-related crashes versus those drivers who are not involved in inattention-related crashes can also be performed. The purpose of this report was to conduct in-depth analyses of driver inattention using the driving data collected in the 100-Car Study.These data provide unique opportunities for transportation researchers,as data were collected in 109 cars for a period of 12 to 13 months per car. The data represent normal,baseline driving with all the natural stress and pressures that occur in an urban environment. For the analyses conducted in this report,two reduced databases were used:the 100-Car Study event database and the baseline database. For the original 100-Car Study analyses,the event database consisted of crashes,near-crashes, and incidents,which were defined as follows: • Crash:Any physical contact between the subject vehicle and another vehicle,fixed object,pedestrian,cyclist,animal,etc.,as assessed by either the lateral or longitudinal accelerometers. • Near-crash:A conflict situation requiring a rapid,severe,evasive maneuver to avoid a crash. • Incident:A conflict requiring an evasive maneuver,but of lesser magnitude than a near- crash. The baseline database was created specifically for this analysis by randomly selecting a stratified sample of 20,000 6-second segments,referred to as baseline epochs. The method used to randomly stratify this sample will be discussed in detail below. This report will use the event database,the baseline database,and the questionnaire data to answer the following six research objectives: Objective I.What are the prevalence as well as the types of driver inattention in which drivers engage during their daily driving? What is the relative risk of a crash or near-crash while engaging in an inattentive task? Does the relative risk differ for.different types of secondary tasks? Objective 2.What are the environmental conditions associated with a drivers'choice of engaging in secondary tasks or driving while drowsy? What are the relative risks of a crash or near-crash while engaging in driving inattention while encountering these environmental conditions(e.g.. time of day,road typo,weather conditions,passengers in the vehicle,etc.)? Objective 3. Determine the differences in demographic data,test battery results,and performance-based measures between inattentive and attentive drivers? How might that knowledge be used to mitigate the potential negative consequences of inattentive driving behaviors? Could this information be used to improve driver education courses or traffic schools? Objective 4. What is the relationship between measures obtained from pretest batteries(e.g.,a life stress test)and the frequency of engagement in distracting behaviors while driving? Does there appear to be any correlation between willingness to engage in distracting behaviors and life stress scores,personality characteristics,or ability to focus attention? Objective 5. Are there differences in driving performance for drivers who are engaging in an inattentive task versus those drivers who are attending solely to the forward roadway? Objective 6.Are there differences in driving performance for drivers who are engaging in a distraction task versus those drivers who are attending to driving?Are some of the safety surrogate measures more sensitive to driving performance differences when driving while distracted versus other safety surrogate measures? 2 Each of these six research objectives will be presented in a separate chapter with results from the data analysis and conclusions. The last chapter of the report will summarize all key results and conclusions from this analysis and outline future directions for this research, For a complete description of the 100-Car Study method,instrumentation,and data collection procedure,refer to Dingus et al.(2005). In order to provide an abbreviated description,the following description is provided from the Neale,Klauer,Dingus,and Goodman(2005)report. METHOD Instrumentation The 100-Car Study instrumentation package was engineered by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute(VTIl)to be rugged,durable,expandable,and unobtrusive. It constituted the seventh generation of hardware and software developed over a 15-year period that has been deployed for a variety of purposes. The system consisted of a Pentium-based computer that receives and stores data from a network of sensors distributed around the vehicle. Data storage was achieved via the system's hard drive,which was large enough to store data for several weeks of driving before requiring data downloading. Each of the sensing subsystems in the car was independent so any failures that occurred were constrained to a single sensor type. Sensors included:a vehicle network box that interacted with the vehicle network,an accelerometer box that obtained longitudinal and lateral kinematic information.a headway detection system to provide information on leading or following vehicles,side obstacle detection to detect lateral conflicts,an incident box to allow drivers to flag incidents for the research team,a video-based lane-tracking system to measure lane-keeping behavior,and video to validate any sensor-based findings. The video subsystem was particularly important as it provided a continuous window into the happenings in and around the vehicle. This subsystem included five camera views monitoring the driver's face and driver side of the vehicle,the forward view,the rear view,the passenger side of the vehicle,and an over-the- shoulder view for the driver's hands and surrounding areas. An important feature of the video system is that it was digital with software-controllable video compression capability. This allowed synchronization,simultaneous display,and efficient archiving and retrieval of 100-Car Study data. A frame of compressed 100-Car Study video data is shown in Figure 1.1. The modular aspect of the data collection system allowed for integration of instrumentation that was not essential for data collection,but provided the research team with additional and important information. These subsystems included:automatic collision notification that informed the research team of the possibility of a collision;cellular communications that were used by the research team to communicate with vehicles on the road to determine system status and position;system initialization equipment that automatically controlled system status;and a Global Positioning System(GPS)subsystem that collected information on vehicle position. The GPS subsystem and the cellular communications were often used in concert to allow for vehicle localization and tracking. 3 1,4 t #2. Figure 1.1. A compressed video image from the 100-Car Study data. The driver's face (upper left quadrant)is distorted to protect the driver's identity. The lower right quadrant is split with the left-side(top)and the rear(bottom)views. The system included several major components and subsystems that were installed on each vehicle. These included the main data acquisition system(DAS)unit that was mounted under the package shelf for the sedans(Figure 1.2)and behind the rear seat in the SUVs. Doppler radar antennas were mounted behind special plastic license plates on the front and rear of the vehicle(Figure 1.3). The location behind the plates allowed the vehicle instrumentation to remain inconspicuous to other drivers. 4 Figure 1.2. The main DAS unit mounted under the"package shelf'of the trunk. r • • . • • Figure 1.3. Doppler radar antenna mounted on the front of a vehicle,covered by a mock- up of one of the plastic license plates used for the study. 'File final major components in the 100-Car Study hardware installation were mounted above and in front of the center rear-view mirror. These components included an"incident"pushbutton box which housed a momentary pushbutton that the subject could press whenever an unusual event happened in the driving environment. Pressing the incident button would open an audio channel which recorded the driver's voice explaining the nature of the incident. Also contained 5 in the housing was an unobtrusive miniature camera that provided the driver face view. The camera was invisible to the driver since it was mounted behind a"smoked"Plexiglas cover. Mounted behind the center mirror were the forward-view camera and the glare sensor(Figure 1.4). This location was selected to be as unobtrusive as possible and did not occlude the driver's normal field of view. k — — • Figure 1.4. The incident pushbutton box mounted above the rear-view mirror. The portion on the right contains the driver-face/left-vehicle side camera hidden by a smoked plexiglass cover. Subjects One-hundred drivers who commuted into or out of the Northern Virginia/Washington,DC, metropolitan area were initially recruited as primary drivers to have their vehicles instrumented or to receive a leased vehicle for this study. Drivers were recruited by placing flyers on vehicles as well as by placing announcements in the classified section of local newspapers. Drivers who had their private vehicles instrumented(78)received$125 per month and a bonus at the end of the study for completing necessary paperwork. Drivers who received a leased vehicle(22) received free use of the vehicle,including standard maintenance,and the same bonus at the end of the study for completing necessary paperwork. Drivers of leased vehicles were insured under the Commonwealth of Virginia policy. As some drivers had to be replaced for various reasons(for example,a move from the study area or repeated crashes in leased vehicles), 109 primary drivers were included in the study. Since other family members and friends would occasionally drive the instrumented vehicles.data were collected on 132 additional drivers. ...„ 6 A goal of this study was to maximize the potential to record crash and near-crash events through the selection of subjects with higher than average crash or near-crash risk exposure. Exposure was manipulated through the selection of a larger sample of drivers below the age of 25,and by the selection of a sample of drivers who drove more than the average number of miles. The age by gender distribution of the primary drivers is shown in Table 1.1. The distribution of miles driven by the subjects during the study appears as Table 1.2. As presented,the data are somewhat biased compared to the national averages in each case,based on TransStats,2001. Nevertheless,the distribution was generally representative of national averages when viewed across the distribution of mileages within the TransStats data. One demographic issue with the 100-Car Study data sample that needs to be understood is that the data were collected in only one region(i.e.,Northern Virginia/Washington.DC,metropolitan area). This area represents primarily urban and suburban driving conditions,often in moderate to heavy traffic. Thus,rural driving,as well as differing demographics within the United States,arc not well represented. Table 1.1. Driver age and gender distributions. Gender Female Male Age )\ N Grand Percent Percent Total 18-20 9 7 16 i 8.3% 6.4% 14.7% 21-24 11 I0 21 10.1% 9.2% 19.3% 25-34 7 12 19 6.4% 11.0% 17.4% 35-44 4 16 20 3.7% 14.7% 18.3% 45-54 7 13 20 6.4% 11.9% 18.3% 55+ 5 8 13 4.6% 7.3% 11.9% Total N 43 66 109 Total% 39.4% 60.6% 100.0% 7 Table 1.2. Actual miles driven during the study. Actual Number Percent miles of of driven Drivers Drivers 0-9,000 29 26.6% 9,001- 22 20.2% 12,000 12,001- 26 23.9% 15,000 I5,001- 11 10.1% 18,000 18,001- 8 7.3% 21,000 More than 13 11.9% 21,000 A goal of the recruitment process was to attempt to avoid extreme drivers in either direction(i.e., very safe or very unsafe). Self-reported historical data indicate that a reasonably diverse distribution of drivers was obtained. Vehicles .w, Since over 100 vehicles had to be instrumented with a number of sensors and data collection hardware and the complexity of the hardware required a number of custom mounting brackets to be manufactured,the number of vehicle types had to be limited for this study. Six vehicle models were selected based upon their prevalence in the Northern Virginia area. These included five sedan models(Chevrolet Malibu and Cavalier,Toyota Camry and Corolla,and Ford Taurus) and one SUV model(Ford Explorer). The model years were limited to those with common body types and accessible vehicle networks(generally 1995 to 2003). The distribution of these vehicle types was: • Toyota Camry—17 percent • Toyota Corolla—18 percent • Chevy Cavalier—17 percent • Chevy Malibu—21 percent • Ford Taurus—12 percent • Ford Explorer—15 percent PROCEDURE FOR DATA REDUCTION: 100-CAR STUDY EVENT DATABASE Data reduction for the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study as well as for these current analyses refers to a process of recording specific variables based upon review of the video. This data reduction process will be discussed in detail in the following sections. 8 Sensitivity Analysis As stated in Dingus et al. (2005), data were collected continuously on board the instrumented vehicles. As project resources did not allow for the review of all the data, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to establish post-hoc "triggers." A post-hoc trigger uses either a single signature (e.g., any lateral acceleration value greater than±0.6 g) or multiple signatures (e.g., forward TTC value> 3 seconds plus a longitudinal deceleration value> -0.5 g) in the driving performance data stream to identify those points in time when it was likely that a driver was involved in an incident, near-crash, or crash. Figure 1.5 shows the data reduction plan in a flow chart format. Raw data from each vehicle was saved on the network attached storage (NAS) unit at VTTI until approximately 10 percent of the data was collected. At that time, a sensitivity analysis was performed to establish post-hoc trigger criteria. Collect 10%of data ► Collect Data H �--► Sensitivity Analysis •Data Pre-filter + + Determine a priori Perform Data Trigger Criteria for Reduction Phase IV Perform Preliminary Data Reduction V Sensitivity Analysis 90%of Data N� Collected? Set Post-hoc Trigger Criteria ► Yes for Phase II Analysis • Figure 1.5. Flow chart of the data reduction process. The sensitivity analysis was performed by setting the trigger criteria to a very liberal level, ensuring that the chance of a missed valid event was minimal while allowing a high number of invalid events (false alarms) to be identified (see Figure 1.6). Data reductionists then viewed all of the events produced from the liberal trigger criteria and classified each event as valid or invalid. The numbers of valid events and invalid events that resulted from this baseline setting were recorded. 9 "Optimized"Phase IV Trigger Liberal Phase II Trigger Goal: Minimize False Alarms Goal: Minimize misses istribution of Distribution of Valid Critical Invalid Critical Incidents Incidents Figure 1.6. Graphical depiction of trigger criteria settings for Phase II and Phase IV using the distribution of valid events. Note that this distribution and criterion placement is unique for each trigger type. The trigger criteria for each dependent variable was then set to a slightly more conservative level and the resulting number of valid and invalid events was counted and compared to the first frequency count. The trigger criteria were made more and more conservative and the number of valid and invalid triggers counted and compared until an optimum trigger criteria value was determined(a level which resulted in a minimal amount of valid events lost and a reasonable amount of invalid events identified). The goal in this sensitivity analysis was to obtain a miss rate of less than 10 percent and a false-alarm rate of less than 30 percent. Therefore,the data reductionists would be presented with nearly all valid events but would have to reject less than 30 percent of the events that they reviewed. The list of dependent variables ultimately used as triggers used to identify crashes,near-crashes,and incidents is presented in Table 1.3. 10 Table 1.3. Dependent variables used as event triggers. TRIGGER DESCRIPTION TYPE I.Lateral • Lateral motion equal to or greater than 0.7 g. acceleration 2.Longitudinal • Acceleration or deceleration equal to or greater than 0.6 g. acceleration • Acceleration or deceleration equal to or greater than 0.5 g coupled with a forward TIC of 4 seconds or less. • All longitudinal decelerations between 0.4 g and 0.5 g coupled with a forward TTC value of<4 seconds and that the corresponding forward range value at the minimum TTC is not greater than 100 ft. 3.Event button • Activated by the driver by pressing a button located on the dashboard when an event occurred that he/she deemed critical. 4.Forward time- • Acceleration or deceleration equal to or greater than 0.5 g coupled with a forward TTC of to-collision 4 seconds or less. • All longitudinal decelerations between 0.4 g and 0.5 g coupled with a forward TTC value of<4 seconds and that the corresponding forward range value at the minimum TTC is not greater than 100 ft. 5.Rear time-to- • Any rear TTC trigger value of 2 seconds or less that also has a corresponding rear range collision distance of<50 feet and any rear TTC trigger value in which the absolute acceleration of the following vehicle is greater than 0.3 g 6.Yaw rate • Any value greater than or equal to a plus and minus 4-degree change in heading(i.e., vehicle must return to the same general direction of travel)within a 3-second window of time. Based on data front past A'TTI studies,it was originally hypothesized that as many as 26 crashes, 520 near-crashes,and over 25,000 incidents(crash-relevant conflicts and proximity conflicts) would be collected. However many of these early estimates were based on long-haul-truck- driving data. It was soon discovered,after the sensitivity analysis process began that the variability in light-vehicle drivers'braking,acceleration,and steering behavior is much larger than with truck drivers. These differences in variability are primarily due to the differences in vehicle dynamics and the more uniform driving skill of commercial truck drivers. While greater variability was expected for light-vehicle drivers,the high degree of variability that was observed was a very interesting result. Given the variability in light-vehicle driving performance,the sensitivity analysis proved to be challenging. VTTI researchers determined that the best option was to accept a very low miss rate while accepting a fairly high false alarm rate to ensure that few valid events were missed. This resulted in viewing over 110,000 triggers in order to validate 9,125 events. The distribution of the total number of reduced events by severity is shown in Table 1.4. Table 1.4. The total number of events reduced for each severity level. Event Severity Total Number Crash 69 (plus 13 without complete data) Near-crash 761 Incidents(Crash-relevant Conflicts and Proximity 8,295 Conflicts) II Once the trigger criteria were set,data reductionists watched 90-second epochs for each event (60 seconds prior to and 30 seconds after),reduced and recorded information concerning the nature of the event,driving behavior prior to the event,the state of the driver,the surrounding environment,etc. The specific variables recorded in the data reduction process are described in detail in the data reduction software framework section of this chapter. Recruiting and Training Data Reductionists Based upon past experience,it was estimated that reductionists would be able to complete an average of four events per hour. Fourteen data reductionists were recruited by posting flyers and sending notices to various graduate student listservs on the Virginia Tech campus. The data reduction manager interviewed,hired,and trained the data reductionists on how to access the data from the server and operate the data reduction software.Training was also provided on all relevant operational and administrative procedures(approximately 4 hours). The manager gave each data reductionist a data reduction manual to guide him or her in learning the software and reduction procedures. All analyst trainees practiced data reduction procedures with another trained analyst prior to reducing data independently. After each trainee felt comfortable with the process,the trainee worked alone under the supervision of the data reduction manager. Once the trainee and manager felt confident of the analyst's abilities,the analyst began working independently with"spot check"monitoring from the project leader and other reductionists. The data reductionists were responsible for analyzing a minimum number of events per week and were required to attend weekly data reduction meetings to discuss issues that arose during the data reduction process. The data reductionists performed two general tasks while creating the event database. On the first 10 to 15 percent of the data,they performed a preliminary data-reduction task in which they viewed events to determine whether the event was valid or invalid. If invalid,they then determined the severity of the event. After the trigger criteria was set using the results from the sensitivity analysis,the data reductionists validated the data,determined severity,and performed a full data reduction. For the full data-reduction process,they recorded all of the required variables(discussed below)for the event type. Event Database Reduction Software Framework The data reduction framework for the event database was developed to identify various driving behavior and environmental characteristics for four levels of event severity:crashes,near- crashes,crash-relevant conflicts,and proximity conflicts. The operational definitions for these severity levels are presented in Table 1.5. The variables recorded were selected based upon past instrumented-vehicle studies(Hanowski et al.,2000;Dingus et al.,2002),national crash databases(General Estimates System[GES]and Fatality Analysis Reporting System[FARS]), and questions on Virginia State Police accident reports. Using this technique,the reduced database can be used to directly compare crash data from GES and FARS to those crashes,near- crashes.and incidents(crash-relevant conflicts and proximity conflicts)identified in this dataset. 12 Table 1.5. Operational Definitions for All Event Severity Levels Severity Level Operational Definition Crash Any contact with an object,either moving or fixed,at any speed in which kinetic energy is measurably transferred or dissipated. Includes other vehicles,roadside barriers,objects on or off of the roadway,pedestrians,cyclists,animals,etc. Near-Crash Any circumstance that requires a rapid,evasive maneuver by the subject vehicle,or any other vehicle,pedestrian,cyclist,or animal to avoid a crash. A rapid,evasive maneuver is defined as a steering,braking,accelerating,or any combination of control inputs that approaches the limits of the vehicle capabilities. Crash-Relevant Any circumstance that requires a crash-avoidance response on the Conflict part of the subject vehicle,any other vehicle,pedestrian,cyclist, or animal that is less severe than a rapid evasive maneuver(as defined above),but greater in severity than a"normal maneuver" to avoid a crash. A crash avoidance response can include braking,steering,accelerating,or any combination of control inputs. A"normal maneuver"for the subject vehicle is defined as a control input that falls outside of the 95 percent confidence limit for control input as measured for the same subject. Proximity Conflict Any circumstance resulting in extraordinarily close proximity of the subject vehicle to any other vehicle,pedestrian,cyclist, animal,or fixed object where,due to apparent unawareness on the part of the driver,pedestrians,cyclists,or animals,there is no avoidance maneuver or response. Extraordinarily close proximity is defined as a clear case where the absence of an avoidance maneuver or response is inappropriate for the driving circumstances(including speed,sight distance,etc.). The general method for data reduction was to have trained data reductionists view the video data and record the battery of variables for all valid events. The data reduction manager and project manager performed all data reduction on the near-crashes and crashes.Varying levels of detail were recorded for each type of event. Crash-relevant conflicts and proximity conflicts have the least amount of information recorded and near-crashes and crashes have the most information recorded. A total of four areas of data reduction were recorded for each event type. These four areas include:vehicle variables,event variables,environmental variables,and driver state variables. Table 1.6 defines each area of data reduction,provides examples,and describes additional features of the data reduction. The complete list of all variables reduced during data reduction is shown in Appendix C. 13 Table 1.6. Areas of data reduction, definition of the area, and examples. Area of Data Definition Example Reduction Vehicle All of the descriptive variables including the vehicle Vehicle ID,Vehicle type,Driver type Variables identification number,vehicle type,ownership,and those (leased or private),and VMT. variables collected specifically for that vehicle,such as vehicle miles traveled(VMT). Event Description of the sequence of actions involved in each Nature of Event/Crash type,Pre-event Variables event, list of contributing factors,and safety or legality of maneuver,Precipitating Factors, these actions. Corrective action/Evasive maneuver, Contributing Factors,Types of Inattention,Driver impairment,etc. Environmental General description of the immediate environment, Weather,ambient lighting,road type, Variables roadway,and any other vehicle at the moment of the traffic density,relation to junction, incident, near-crash,or crash. Any of these variables may surface condition,traffic flow,etc. or may not have contributed to the event,near-crash or crash. Driver's State Description of the instrumented-vehicle driver's physical Hands on wheel,seat belt usage,fault state. assignment,eyeglance,PERCLOS, etc. Driver/Vehicle Description of the vehicle(s) in the general vicinity of the Vehicle 2 body style,maneuver, 2 instrumented vehicle and the vehicle's action. corrective action attempted,etc. Narrative Written description of the entire event. Dynamic Creation of an animated depiction of the event. reconstruction Baseline Database Framework The baseline database was comprised of approximately 20,000 6-second segments where the vehicle maintained a velocity greater than 5 mph (referred to as an epoch). Kinematic triggers on driving performance data were not used to select these baseline epochs. The epochs were selected at random throughout the 12-to 13-month data collection period per vehicle. A 6- second segment of time was used as this was the time frame used by data reductionists to ascertain whether a particular secondary task was a contributing factor for each crash, near-crash, and incident. For example, a driver had to take a bite of a sandwich 5 seconds prior to or 1 second after the onset of the conflict for the activity to be considered a contributing factor to the crash, near-crash, or incident. Each baseline epoch was randomly selected from the 12-13 months of data collected on each vehicle. However,the number of baseline epochs selected per vehicle was stratified as a proportional sample based upon vehicle involvement in crashes, near-crashes, and incidents. This stratification, based on frequency of crash, near-crash, and incident involvement was conducted to create a case-control dataset in which multiple baseline epochs are present to compare to each crash and near-crash. Case-control designs are optimal for calculating odds ratios (also referred to as relative near-crash/crash risk) due to the increased power that a case-control data set possesses. Greenberg et al. (2001) argue that using a case-control design allows for an efficient means to study rare events, such as automobile crashes, even though smaller sample sizes are used. Given that relative near-crash/crash risk calculations were an objective of the following analyses, the creation of a case-control data set was deemed important. 14 Considering that the number of baseline epochs was dependent upon the number of crashes, near-crashes,and incidents of vehicle involvement,not driver involvement,an analysis was conducted to determine the percentage of events and baseline epochs that were attributable to the primary driver and secondary driver. The results indicated that 89.6 percent of all events and 88.2 percent of all baseline epochs were primary drivers. Therefore,even though the baselines were selected based upon vehicle involvement,the vast majority of crashes and near-crashes as well as baseline epochs were primary drivers. Four vehicles did not have any crashes,near-crashes,or incidents and were therefore eliminated from the baseline database. The reasons that these four vehicles did not contain a single crash. near-crash,or incident included very low mileage due to driver attrition(2 vehicles),frequent mechanical malfunctions(1 vehicle),and excellent driver performance(1 vehicle). Figure 1.7 shows the number of events that each vehicle was involved(y-axis)and the corresponding number of baseline epochs that were identified for that vehicle(x-axis).Note that the vehicles that were involved in multiple crashes,near-crashes,and incidents also had a larger number of baseline epochs. There are two data points on the far right side of the figure. These two data points represent two female drivers, 18 and 41 years of age,respectively. The 18-year-old female was involved in 3 crashes,53 near-crashes,and 401 incidents. The 41-year-old female was involved in 4 crashes, 56 near-crashes,and 449 incidents. Both drivers were over-represented in their crash.near-crash and incident involvement. 600 C 'a c 500- • ♦ A I 400 `> 300.. -_•---------- -- --. -� Z ul ♦ • N ♦ U 200 - .♦ . --♦ -_._- O ♦ ♦i♦ a F., • 100 •♦ ----jam♦i« ?. ♦ ♦♦�♦ e ♦ ♦ v • Aip 14.♦♦ • . u_ �'w 0-♦•AJi 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Frequency of Baseline Epochs Figure 1.7. The frequency of each vehicle's involvement in crash,near-crash,and incident events versus the number of baseline epochs selected for each vehicle. 15 The baseline database will be used in the assessment of the prevalence of various types of inattentive driving. This will determine the relative near-crash/crash risk for each of these types of inattention as well as the percentage of crashes and near-crashes in the population that are attributable to these types of inattention. While the reader should keep in mind that the baseline epochs were stratified,this does not reduce the generalizability of the data analysis for the following reasons: 1) 99 of 103 vehicles are represented in the 20,000 baseline epochs; 2) 101 out of 109 primary drivers are represented in the baseline epochs: 3) multiple drivers drove each vehicle;and 4) no environmental or driver behavior data was used in the stratification. The variables that were recorded for the 20,000 baseline epochs included vehicle,environmental, and most driver-state variables. In addition,eyeglance analyses were performed for 5,000 randomly selected baseline epochs from the 20,000 baseline epochs. These 5,000 baseline epochs also represent data from all 99 vehicles and 101 primary drivers. The event variables(number 2 in Table 1.7)were not recorded for the baseline epochs as these variables(e.g.,precipitating factor,evasive maneuver)were not present when an incident,near- crash,or crash did not occur. Table 1.7 shows the breakdown of the type of data that currently exists as part of the original 100-Car Study event database and the baseline database. Table 1.7. Description of the databases created for the inattention analysis. 100-Car Study Event Database Baseline Database(epochs) I. Vehicle variables Vehicle variables 2. Event variables N/A 3. Environmental Variables Environmental Variables 4. Driver-state Variables Driver-state Variables Eyeglance data(crashes,near- Eyeglance data on 5,000 randomly crashes,and incidents) selected baseline inattention events. Observer Rating of Drowsiness Drowsiness was marked yes/no with (ORD)for Crashes and Near- 'yes"=ORD of 60 or above. crashes 5. Driver/Vehicle 2 N/A 10. Narrative N/A Data Reduction Inter-and Intra-Rater Reliability for the 100-Car Study Event Database Training procedures were implemented to improve both inter-and intra-rater reliability given that data reductionists were asked to perform subjective judgments on the video and driving data. Reliability testing was then conducted to measure the resulting inter-and intra-rater reliability. First,data-reductionist managers performed spot checks of the reductionists'work,monitoring both event validity judgments as well as recording all database variables. Reductionists also performed 30 min of spot-checks of their own or other reductionists'work every week. This was done to ensure accuracy but also to allow reductionists the opportunity to view other reductionists'work. It was anticipated that this would encourage each reductionist to modify his or her own work and to improve consistency in decision-making techniques across all ors 16 reductionists. Mandatory weekly meetings were held to discuss issues concerning data reduction techniques. Issues were usually identified by the spot-checking activities of the reductionist managers and the reductionists,or specific difficult events that the reductionists had encountered. These meetings provided iterative and ongoing reduction training throughout the entire data reduction process. To determine how successful these techniques were,an inter-and intra-rater reliability test was conducted during the last 3 months of data reduction. Three reliability tests were developed (each containing 20 events)for which the reductionist was required to make validity judgments. Three of the 20 events were also completely reduced in that the reductionist recorded information for all reduction variables(i.e.,event variables,driver-state variables,and environmental variables as opposed to simply marking severity of event). Three of the test events on Test 1 were repeated on Test 2 and three other events were duplicated between Tests 2 and 3 to obtain a measure of intra-rater reliability. Using the expert reductionists'evaluations of each epoch as a"gold"standard,the percent correct was calculated for each rater's test. The measures for each rater for each testing period, along with a composite measure,can be found in Table 1.8. Table 1.8.Percentage agreement with expert reductionists. Rater Test 1 Percent Test 2 Percent Test 3 Percent 1 78.3 87.5 91.3 2 65.2 70.8 78.3 3 100 91.7 95.7 4 100 91.7 I 87.0 5 100 83.3 87.0 6 95.7 87.5 91.3 7 91.3 87.5 91.3 8 91.3 91.7 91.3 9 95.7 70.8 91.3 10 95.7 91.7 87.0 11 95.7 87.5 _ 100 12 78.3 87.5 87.0 13 87.0 83.3 96.0 14 78.3 83.3 91.3 Average (across all tests) 88.4 I The Kappa statistic was also used to calculate inter-rater reliability. Although there is controversy surrounding the usefulness of the Kappa statistic,it is viewed by many researchers as the standard for rater assessment(e.g.,Cicchetti and Feinstein, 1990). The Kappa coefficient (K=0.65,p<0.0001)indicated that the association among raters is significant. While the coefficient value is somewhat low,given the highly subjective nature of the task,the number of raters involved,and the conservative nature of this statistic,the Kappa calculation probably errs on the low side. 17 A tetrachoric correlation coefficient is a statistical calculation of inter-rater reliability based on the assumption that the latent trait underlying the rating scale is continuous and normally distributed. Based on this assumption,the tetrachoric correlation coefficient can be interpreted in the same manner as a correlation coefficient calculated on a continuous scale. The average of the pair-wise correlation coefficients for the inter-rater analysis is 0.86. The coefficients for the intra-rater analysis were extremely high with nine raters achieving a correlation of 1.0 among the three reliability tests and five raters achieving a correlation of 0.99. Given these three methods of calculating inter-rater reliability,it appears that the data reduction training coupled with spot-checking and weekly meetings proved to be an effective method for achieving high inter-and intra-rater reliability. Baseline Database Inter-rater reliability tests were also conducted for the baseline events. All trained data reductionists were given a random sample of 25 baseline epochs to view and record the secondary tasks,driving-related inattention behaviors,and moderate to severe drowsiness. The reductionists'responses were then compared to an expert data reductionist's responses. The results indicated an average of 88 percent accuracy among all the data reductionists. Given that the Kappa coefficient and the tetrachoric correlation coefficient did not provide additional information,these tests were not conducted on the baseline inter-rater reliability test. SURVEYS,QUESTIONNAIRES AND PERFORMANCE-BASED TESTS As part of the 100-Car Study,the primary drivers were administered questionnaires and performance-based tests either prior to data collection or post data collection(dependent upon the type of test). Table 1.9 provides a list and description of each type of questionnaire and performance-based test that was completed. A copy of all questionnaires and surveys is located in Appendix B. 18 Table 1.9. Description of questionnaire and computer-based tests used for the 100-Car Study. Name of Testing Type of Test Time test was Brief description Procedure administered I. Driver demographic Paper/pencil In-processing General information on drivers information age,gender,etc. 2. Driving History Paper/pencil In-processing General information on recent traffic violations and recent collisions. 3. Health assessment Paper/pencil In-processing List of variety of questionnaire illnesses/medical conditions/or any prescriptions that may affect _ driving performance. 4. Dula Dangerous Paper/pencil In-processing One score that describes driver's Driving Index tendencies toward aggressive driving. 5. Sleep Hygiene Paper/pencil In-processing List of questions that provide information about driver's general sleep habits'substance use/sleep disorders. 6. Driver Stress Inventory Paper/Pencil In-processing One score that describes the perceived stress levels drivers experience during their daily commutes. 7. I.ife Stress Inventory Paper/pencil In-processing/Out- One score that describes drivers processing stress levels based upon the occurrence of major life events_. 8. Useful Field-of-View Computer- In-processing Assessment of driver's central ~ based test vision and processing speed, divided and selective attention. 9. Waypoint Computer- In-processing Assessment of the speed of based test information processing and vigilance. 10. NEO-FFI Paper/pencil In-processing Personality test. 11. General debrief Paper/pencil Out-processing List of questions ranging from questionnaire seatbelt use,driving under the influence,and administration of experiment. 19 CHAPTER 2: OBJECTIVE I,WHAT IS THE PREVALENCE AS WELL AS THE TYPES OF DRIVER INATTENTION IN WHICH DRIVERS ENGAGE DURING THEIR DAILY DRIVING? WHAT IS THE RELATIVE NEAR-CRASH/CRASH RISK OF DRIVING WHILE ENGAGING IN AN INATTENTIVE TASK? IS THE RELATIVE NEAR-CRASH/CRASH RISK DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF SECONDARY TASKS? During data reduction it became apparent that there were many rear-end and run-off-road collisions that occurred primarily because the driver looked away from the forward roadway at a critical point. In order to conduct defined analyses on these events,separate categories of driver inattention were developed. Throughout this document,driver inattention is broadly defined as any point in time that a driver engages in a secondary task,exhibits symptoms of moderate to severe drowsiness,or looks away from the forward roadway.These categories of driver inattention are operationally defined as follows. • Secondary task distraction—driver behavior that diverts the driver's attention away from the driving task. This may include talking/listening to hand-held device,eating. talking to a passenger,etc. A complete list of all secondary task distractions is provided in Appendix A. • Driving-related inattention to the forward roadway—driver behavior that is directly related to the driving task but diverts driver's attention away from the forward field of view. This includes reductionists observing drivers checking the speedometer, checking blind spots,observing adjacent traffic prior to or during a lane change. looking for a parking spot,and checking mirrors. • Drowsiness—driver behavior that includes eye closures,minimal body/eye movement,repeated yawning.and/or other behaviors based upon those defined by Wierwille and Ellsworth(1994). • Non-specific eyeglance away from the for yard roadway—driver behavior that includes moments when the driver glances,usually momentarily,away from the roadway,but at no discernable object,person,or unknown location. Eyeglance reduction and analysis of these events was done for crashes,near-crashes,incidents. and 5,000 of the baseline events. The terms driver inattention and driver distraction have been used throughout the transportation literature separately at times and interchangeably at other times,referring to different types of driver inattention. In this report,the term driver inattention will refer to a broader scope of behaviors as defined above. The term driver distraction,when used,will refer only to secondary-task engagement. "fhe frequency of occurrence,the relative near-crash/crash risk,and population attributable risk percentage for each of these associated types of inattention will be determined in this chapter. Driver Data Included in the Analysis For the analyses in this chapter,crashes and near-crashes only will be used(incidents will be excluded from the analyses). In Chapter 6,Objective 2 of the 100-Car Study Final Report,the 21 analyses indicated that the kinematic signatures of both crashes and near-crashes were nearly identical;whereas the kinematic signature of incidents was more variable. Given this result and the need to increase statistical power,the data from both crashes and near-crashes will be used in the calculation of relative risk. Please note that secondary tasks,driving-related inattention to the forward roadway,and drowsiness were all recorded for crash and near-crash events as well as baseline epochs. Eyeglance data,on the other hand,was recorded for all events and 5,000 of the baseline epochs (25 percent of the baseline epochs). Therefore,all analyses that are conducted requiring eyeglance data will use only the 5,000 baseline epochs. All other analyses utilize the entire baseline database. Please note that the 5,000 baseline epochs that contain eyeglance data also represent 99 vehicles and 101 primary drivers which is identical to the number of vehicles and primary drivers represented in all 20,000 baseline epochs. Recall from Chapter 1 that the baseline database consisted of a stratified random sample of epochs. This stratification was performed to provide a case-control data set which possesses greater statistical power for the calculation of relative near-crash/crash risk. QUESTION 1. WHAT IS THE RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF A DRIVER BEING LABELED INATTENTIVE VERSUS ATTENTIVE? To determine the relative frequency of inattention,the baseline epochs were analyzed to assess the frequency in which drivers were engaging in inattention-related tasks during normal,baseline driving. While task duration was not recorded,the fact that 73 percent of all 6-second segments ^'• contained at least one form of driving inattention indicates that drivers are engaging in secondary tasks,driving while drowsy,or looking away from the forward roadway very frequently. QUESTION 2. WHAT IS THE RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF EACH TYPE OF DRIVER INATTENTION BEING LABELED AS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR FOR CRASHES,NEAR-CRASHES,AND/OR PRESENT IN BASELINE EPOCHS? Two comparisons were performed on different subsets of data. First,a comparison was conducted of the four types of inattention for the crashes and near-crashes versus the 5,000 baseline epochs. Second,a separate comparison of three types of inattention.secondary task, drowsiness,and driving-related inattention to the forward roadway,for all 20,000 baseline epochs and crashes and near-crashes was conducted to assess the frequency analysis for the entire dataset. Figure 2.1 shows the percentage of the total number of crashes,near-crashes,and baseline epochs that were inattention-related. Please note that 78 percent of all crashes,65 percent of all near-crashes,and 73 percent of all 20,000 baseline epochs contained at least one of the four types of inattention. Therefore,the sum of all of the bars representing crashes is equal to 78. Each event and epoch is presented in the figure by type of inattention and/or combination of inattention because many of the events and epochs contained multiple types of driving inattention. Please note that secondary task,driving-related inattention,and driver drowsiness were the most frequent contributing factors for the crashes and near-crashes. Also note that secondary task and combinations thereof were the most frequent types of inattention observed ^% 22 for baseline epochs. Drowsiness occurred far less frequently for the baseline epochs than for the crashes and near-crashes. The non-specific eyeglance category occurred most frequently in conjunction with secondary tasks and driving-related inattention,and only accounted for an additional 2 percent of the baseline epochs by itself. Figure 2.1 shows that non-specific eyeglance most commonly occurred in conjunction with other sources of driver inattention for the baseline epochs. For crashes and near-crashes,there were higher percentages of events where non-specific eyeglance,by itself.was a contributing factor. This result will be more fully analyzed later in this chapter. 25 3 0 15 .—_..__ _.. __— _. ___ _-_-___ to Crash ■Near Crash Y D — _ ❑Baseline LI• T 7 z gg • o N o _ d o z 2 v • - o y `- ¢ n e w • in z 5 oc7 0-0o c oN cc <n 5 o + s of ¢O N LLj N d>. z, o c H r w Z s �z N o r 0 o N N p Type of Inattention Figure 2.1. The percentage of the total number of crashes and near-crashes identified in the 100-Car Study and the percentage of the total number of baseline epochs in which these four types of inattention were identified as a contributing factor(N=69 crashes,761 near- crashes,and 4,977 baseline epochs). Comparisons were then conducted without the non-specific eyeglance inattention category for crashes,near-crashes,and baseline epochs to obtain a complete picture of the frequency of inattention categories for all 20,000 baseline epochs. Without non-specific eyeglance,the combinations of inattention-type are fewer. For example,the secondary task plus non-specific eyeglance category in Figure 2.1 is now included with the secondary task category in Figure 2.2. Secondary tasks are still the most frequent type of inattention for crashes and near-crashes. followed by driving-related inattention to the forward roadway and drowsiness. Note that the baseline epochs are similar to crashes and near-crashes in that secondary tasks are again the most frequent;followed by driving-related inattention to the forward roadway and 23 combinations of these two types of inattention. Drowsiness, however, was observed in less than 2.2 percent of all baseline epochs. This is a very interesting finding when comparing drowsiness's low baseline-epoch percentage to the much higher percentage in crashes and near- crashes. This may indicate that driver drowsiness may significantly increase near-crash/crash risk. Also of interest is the high frequency of driving-related inattention to the forward roadway for the baseline epochs. This category is present in 27 percent (summed across categories) of the baseline epochs but only 14 percent of the crashes and near-crashes. In this case, relative near- crash/crash risk due to driving-related inattention to the forward roadway may be very low. Odds ratios will be presented for all types of inattention in the next section. as o in ao CO 35 H30 a 25 1 — 113 Crash Z• ° ■Near Crash o. H w 20 ❑Baseline v , V. 15 F' — 3 O 10 a.5 5 Y6"; d 0 1 ' Rim €� I Secondary Driving- Drowsiness Secondary Secondary Driving- Secondary Task Related Task+ Task+ Related Task, D-R Inattention Drowsiness Driving- Inattention+ Inattention, Related Drowsiness + Inattention Drowsiness Type of Inattention Figure 2.2. The percentage of crashes and near-crashes in which three types of inattention were identified as a contributing factor (N=69 crashes, 761 near-crashes, and 19,827 baseline epochs). QUESTION 3. DETERMINE THE RELATIVE NEAR-CRASH/CRASH RISK AND THE POPULATION ATTRIBUTABLE RISK PERCENTAGE FOR EACH TYPE OF INATTENTION. WHAT IS THE RELATIVE RISK FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF SECONDARY TASKS? Using the baseline data as a measure of non-event exposure, odds ratios were calculated to obtain an estimate of relative near-crash/crash risk for each of the four types of inattention. In addition, population attributable risk percentages were calculated to determine the percentage of crashes and near-crashes that occur in the general driving population when inattention was a contributing factor. 24 Both statistics are used because of the complementary information that both provide. While the odds ratio,or relative risk calculation for a crash or near-crash,provides information regarding individual near-crash/crash risk when engaging in a particular behavior,the population attributable risk percentage calculation provides an estimate of the percentage of crashes and near-crashes in the study population that can be attributed to each type of behavior. Therefore, while an individual's near-crash/crash risk may increase while performing a particular task, drivers may not engage in this behavior very often or the behavior requires a brief duration therefore very few crashes in the population are in fact caused by this behavior. On the other hand,if a specific type of behavior does not increase individual near-crash/crash risk greatly in isolation,this behavior may in fact occur frequently and/or for long durations while driving and therefore does account for many crashes in the population. The following odds ratios are calculated for three levels of secondary tasks,two levels of driving-related inattention,two levels of non-speci/ic eyeglances,and only one level of drowsiness. The three levels of secondary tasks are complex secondary tasks,moderate secondary tasks,and simple secondary tasks. The complex secondary tasks are defined as a task that requires either multiple steps,multiple eyeglances away from the forward roadway,and/or multiple button presses(Dingus,Antin,Hulse,and Wierwille, 1989). Moderate secondary tasks are those that require,at most,two glances away from the roadway and/or at most two button presses.Simple secondary tasks are those that require none or one button press and/or one glance away from the forward roadway. Table 2.1 presents the task types that were assigned to each level of complexity. For operational definitions and examples for each of these tasks,please refer to Appendix C. Table 2.1. Assignment of secondary tasks into three levels of manual/visual complexity. Simple Secondary Tasks Moderate Secondary Complex Secondary Tasks Tasks I.Adjusting radio 1.Talking/listening to 1.Dialing a hand-held device hand-held device 2.Adjusting other devices 2.Hand-held device-other 2.Locating/reaching/ integral to the vehicle answering hand-held device 3.Talking to passenger in 3.Inserting/retrieving CD 3.Operating a PDA adjacent seat 4.Talking/Singing:No 4.Inserting/retrieving 4.Viewing a PDA passenger present cassette _ 5.Drinking 5.Reaching for object(not 5.Reading hand-held device) 6.Smoking 6.Combing or fixing hair 6.Animal/object in vehicle 7.Lost in Thought 7.Other personal hygiene 7.Reaching for a moving object 8.Other 8.Eating 8.Insect in vehicle 9.Looking at external 9.Applying makeup object There is considerable automotive research indicating that drivers generally do not look away from the forward roadway greater than 1.0 to 1.5 seconds per glance(Wierwille, 1993). Tasks 25 that require longer and more frequent glances decrease safe driving performance. Therefore, the driving-related inattention to the forward roadway category, which is operationally defined as eyeglances to one of the rear-view mirrors or windows, was separated into two categories: total time eyes off the forward roadway: greater than 2 seconds and less than 2 seconds. The same distinction was used for non-specific eyeglances away from the forward roadway. These two inattention categories were separated in this manner to differentiate those short, quick glances that are characteristic of an alert driver scanning his or her environment compared to those drivers who are looking away from the forward roadway longer than a short-duration glance. This separation of the general categories of inattention was performed since there are many factors present within these categories and an odds-ratio calculation for the entire category of secondary task, all durations of driving-related inattention to the forward roadway, or all durations of non-specific eyeglance would provide misleading information and would not be as useful. The baseline data was categorized in the same manner, using three levels of secondary task, two levels of driving-related inattention, and two levels of non-specific eyeglance data. Due to the importance of glance length, eyeglance data was required for the separation of driving-related inattention to the forward roadway and non-specific eyeglance. Therefore, only the 5,000 baseline epochs that contained eyeglance data were used to calculate these odds ratios. When the frequency counts were conducted for the baseline data, 76 combinations emerged from these eight levels of inattention. These combinations emerged because drivers were eating chips ."' 044, (moderate secondary task) and would check their left rear-view mirrors for 0.5 seconds (driving- related inattention less than 2 seconds), for example. Very few combinations emerged for the crash and near-crash events. Odds ratios were not calculated for each combination of inattention type as the frequency counts were very low in most instances (resulting in wide confidence limits). Odds ratios were calculated for drowsiness as well as drowsiness combined with other types of inattention as the correlations between drowsiness and other types of inattentive behavior are less compelling than the correlations between secondary task engagement, driving- related inattention to the forward roadway, and non-specific eyeglance. Definition of an Odds Ratio Calculation. A commonly used measure of the likelihood of event occurrence is termed as the odds. The odds measure the frequency of event occurrence (i.e., presence of inattention type) to the frequency of event non-occurrence (i.e., absence of inattention type). That is, the odds of event occurrence are defined as the probability of event occurrence divided by the probability of non-occurrence. The 2x2 contingency table in Table 2.2 will be used to illustrate this and related measures. Table 2.2. An example of a 2x2 contingency table that would be used to calculate inattention-related odds ratios. Inattention No Inattention Present Present Reduced Event nil nit ni Baseline Event n21 n22 n2 n n2 n , 26 If the probability of success(inattention present)for the first row of the table is denoted by ni= nil/ill and the probability of failure(no inattention present)is defined as(1—n1)=ni2/ni,then the odds of success is defined as ni/(l-ni)=ni i/n12. The odds of success for the second row are defined similarly with the corresponding success probability,7I2. The ratio of the odds is a commonly employed measure of association between the presence of cases(crash and near-crash events)and the controls(baseline driving epochs). Odds ratios are used as an approximation of relative near-crash/crash risk in case control designs. This approximation is necessary due to the separate sampling employed for the events and baselines and is valid for evaluations of rare events.(Greenberg et al.,2001). Referring to Table 2.2,the odds ratio would be defined as: ni n„ _ (1—,r ) n1z =niin z Equation2.1 7r, / nn ni2n2i /(I—n,) nzz and is a comparison of the odds of success in row 1 versus the odds of success in row 2 of the table. Algebraically,this equation can be rewritten as shown below. Basic odds ratios are calculated as shown in Equation 2.2. Odds Ratio=(A x D)/(B x C) Equation 2.2 Where: A=the number of at-fault*events where<inattention type>was present without any other type of inattention B=the number of at-fault*events where drivers were attentive C=the number of baseline epochs where<inattention type>was present without any other type of inattention D=the number of baseline epochs where drivers were attentive ''At-fault was assessed by the data reductionists to indicate whether the driver's actions were primarily the cause of the crash or near-crash or whether the driver was simply reacting to another vehicles poor driving performance. Only those crashes and near-crashes that the reductionists deemed to be the fault of the driver of the instrumented vehicle were included in these analyses. To interpret odds ratios,a value of 1.0 indicates no significant danger above normal,baseline driving. An odds ratio less than 1.0 indicates that this activity is safer than normal,baseline driving or creates a protective effect. An odds ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that this activity increases one's relative risk of a crash or near-crash by the value of the odds ratio. For example, if reading while driving obtained an odds ratio of 3.0,then this indicates that a driver is three times more likely to be involved in a crash or near-crash while reading and driving than if he or she was just driving normally. 27 Results of Odds Ratio Calculations. The odds ratio calculations were initially conducted for driving-related inattention to determine whether this behavior increases near-crash/crash risk or is a typical behavior of an alert driver(i.e., does not impact near-crash/crash risk). The odds ratios for driving-related inattention to the forward roadway less than 2 seconds and greater than 2 seconds are presented in Table 2.3. Note that both odds ratios are significantly less than 1.0 suggesting that this behavior is actually protective in that drivers who are engaging in this behavior are safer than those drivers who are simply driving (i.e., not engaging in any extra type of behavior). Given this result, driving-related inattention to the forward roadway will no longer be included in the operational definition of driving inattention for the remainder of this report. Table 2.3. Odds ratio point estimates and 95-percent confidence limit intervals to assess likelihood of at-fault-crash (N= 49) or near-crash (N= 439) involvement in driving-related inattention to the forward roadway. Type of Inattention Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Driving-Related Inattention to the 0.45 0.24 0.83 Forward Roadway —Greater than 2 seconds Driving-Related Inattention to the 0.23 0.15 0.34 Forward Roadway —Less than 2 seconds Table 2.4 shows the odds ratio calculations as well as the upper and lower confidence levels for the remaining three types of inattention: drowsiness,secondary task, and non-specific eyeglance. Drowsiness, drowsiness (all combinations), moderate secondary tasks, and complex secondary tasks obtained odds ratios of 6.2, 4.2, 2.1, and 3.1 respectively. This result suggests that drivers who drive while severely drowsy are between 4.5 and 8.5 times as likely to be involved in a crash or near-crash as alert drivers. Drivers who are engaging in moderate secondary tasks are between 1.6 and 2.7 times as likely to be involved in a crash or near-crash, and drivers engaging in complex secondary tasks are between 1.7 and 5.5 times as likely. The odds ratio for simple secondary tasks was also greater than 1.0, however, the lower confidence limit was less than 1.0, indicating these tasks do not significantly alter the likelihood of crash or near-crash involvement over that of normal, baseline driving. The odds ratios for non-specific eyeglance -greater than 2 seconds and less than 2 seconds obtained an odds ratios less than 1 (OR = 0.9 and 0.4) but were also not significantly different than 1.0 (as indicated by the upper and lower confidence limit containing 1.0). This result indicates that these types of eyeglance behaviors are probably just as safe as normal, baseline driving. While they may be just as safe, these eyeglance behaviors do not reduce the likelihood of being involved in a crash or near-crash as do eyeglances to mirrors or checking traffic through windows. Note that all odds ratios that are significantly different than 1.0 are in bold font. 28 Table 2.4. Odds ratio point estimates and 95%confidence intervals to assess likelihood of at-fault crash(N=49)or near-crash(N=439)involvement when engaging in driving inattention. Type of Inattention Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Complex Secondary Task 3.10 1.72 5.47 Moderate Secondary Task 2.10 1.62 2.72 Simple Secondary Task 1.18 0.88 1.57 Moderate to Severe 6.23 4.59 8.46 Drowsiness(in isolation from other types of inattention) Moderate to Severe 4.24 3.27 5.50 Drowsiness(all occurrences) Non-specific Eye Glance 0.85 0.20 3.65 Away from the Forward Roadway-Greater than 2 seconds Non-specific Eye Glance 0.43 0.17 1.06 Away from the Forward Roadway-Less than 2 seconds Note:These calculations included frequency of events/epochs that included the type of inattention by itself and not in combination with other types of inattention. Only moderate to severe drowsiness(combination)took into account all events in which drowsiness was a contributing factor regardless of whether another type of inattention was present. Five thousand baseline epochs were used along with all crashes and near-crashes where the driver was at fault. Table 2.5 provides the odds ratios for each type of secondary task separately. Given that these odds ratios arc not dependent upon glance length,all 20,000 baseline epochs were used for these calculations. Also,frequencies were counted when each type of secondary task was present, either alone or in combination with other types of inattention. This modification was conducted due to low statistical power associated with breaking data into smaller subsets. While there were over 40 secondary tasks that were identified by the data reductionists,only those secondary tasks that were observed for crashes and near-crashes as well as baseline epochs will be presented in the table. In other words,some secondary tasks were not observed for either the events or baseline epochs,therefore it was not possible to calculate an odds ratio. Those odds ratios that are significantly different than 1.0 are shown in bold font. As can be viewed from this table,half of the secondary tasks have odds ratios greater than 1.0. Reaching for a moving object was shown to have the highest odds ratio followed by external distraction,reading,applying makeup,and dialing a hand-held device. Please note that handling a CD,talking or listening to a hand-held device,an insect in the vehicle,and reaching Jim an object(not moving)also had odds ratios greater than 1.0 but their lower confidence limits went below 1.0,indicating that these secondary tasks may not actually increase the likelihood of crash or near-crash involvement. The odds ratio for passenger in adjacent seat was also significantly different from 1.0;however, it was significantly lower than 1.0 indicating that it is actually safer to have a passenger in the 29 vehicle than to drive alone. This may be because passengers are often also scanning the environment for hazards and may alert the driver to a hazard that he or she may have missed. Table 2.5. Odds ratios point estimates and 95 percent conflict confidence intervals to assess the likelihood of crash (N= 49) or near-crash (N=439) involvement when engaging in secondary tasks. Type of Secondary Task Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL _ Reaching for a moving 8.82 2.50 31.16 object Insect in Vehicle 6.37 0.76 53.13 Looking at external object 3.70 1.13 12.18 Reading 3.38 1.74 6.54 Applying makeup 3.13 1.25 7.87 Dialing hand-held device 2.79 1.60 4.87 Inserting/retrieving CD 2.25 0.30 16.97 Eating 1.57 0.92 2.67 Reaching for non-moving 1.38 0.75 2.56 object Talking/listening to a hand- 1.29 0.93 1.80 held device Drinking from open 1.03 0.33 3.28 container Other personal hygiene 0.70 0.33 1.50 Adjusting radio 0.55 0.13 2.22 Passenger in adjacent seat 0.50 0.35 0.70 Passenger in rear seat 0.39 0.10 1.60 Combing hair 0.37 0.05 2.65 Child in rear seat 0.33 0.04 2.40 Note:Calculation included frequency of events/epochs that included the type of inattention by itself or in combination with other types of inattention. Twenty thousand baseline epochs were used along with all crashes and near-crashes where the driver was at fault. All drivers in the present study were over the age of 18; however, there were 16 drivers between 18 and 20 years old. A second odds ratio was calculated to assess whether the presence of passengers were not protective for this younger age group. These odds ratios are presented in Table 2.6. The results suggest that the odds ratios for the 18- to 20-year-olds is nearly the same as it is for the drivers who are 20 years of age and older. This result is consistent with research findings by Williams (2003)where 16- to 17-year-old drivers' near-crash/crash risk increased with the number of passengers in the vehicle up to six times that of normal, baseline driving, 18- to 19-year-old drivers showed a very slight increase in near-crash/crash risk, and older drivers demonstrated a protective effect for the presence of passengers. 30 Table 2.6. Odds ratio calculations and 95 percent confidence intervals for"Passenger Present"for drivers who are younger and older than 20 years of age. Age Group Odds Ratio for Lower CL Upper CL Passenger Present 18 to 20 Years of 0.53 0.33 0.83 Age Older than 20 Years 0.58 0.39 0.87 Definition of Population Attributable Risk. For those types of inattention with an odds ratio greater than 1.0,population attributable risk percentages(PAR%)were also calculated. This calculation provides an assessment of the percentage of crashes and near-crashes that are occurring in the population at-large that are directly attributable to the specific behavior measured. This is an excellent counterpart to the odds ratio calculation in that the odds ratio is measured at the individual level whereas the population attributable risk percentage is measured at the population level or for all drivers in the population. Please note that data was collected in only a metropolitan area,thus,some degree of caution should be exercised in the interpretation of these results to the population at large. Population attributable risk percentage is calculated as follows: PAR% _[(Pr(OR—1))/(1 +P,(OR—I))]* 100 Equation 2.3 Where Pe =population exposure estimate OR=odds ratio or relative risk estimate for a crash or near-crash For example,to assess a population attributable risk percentage for complex secondary tasks,the population exposure estimate was calculated by counting the number of baseline epochs where a complex secondary task was present and counting the total number of baseline epochs in equation(#of baseline epochs with complex secondary tasks present+#of baseline epochs where no type of inattention was present).for example: Pc. =49 baseline epochs with complex secondary tasks/2,273 total baseline epochs =0.02 The relative risk or odds ratio of a crash or near-crash,as shown in Table 2.4,indicated that the relative risk for complex secondary tasks was 3.10. Thus,the PAR percent was calculated as follows: PAR%=[(0.02)(3.10—1.00)/1.00+(0.02)(3.10—1.00))]*100=4.3 For a more complete discussion of the population attributable risk percentage calculations.see Sahai and Khurshid(1996),Statistics in Epidetniolopy. Results of Population Attributable Risk Percentage Calculations. The population attributable risk percentage calculations arc presented in Table 2.7 for all of those types of inattention and secondary tasks with an odds ratio greater than 1.0. A population attributable 31 risk percentage calculation is not applicable to those sources of inattention with an odds ratio of less than 1.0. The results indicate that moderate to severe drowsiness accounts for between 22 and 24 percent of all crashes and near-crashes, and complex, moderate, and simple secondary tasks account for 23 percent of all crashes and near-crashes. Dialing a hand-held device, talking on a hand-held device, and reading all contributed to 3.6 percent, 3.6 percent, and 2.9 percent to all crashes and near-crashes, respectively. Interestingly, dialing a hand-held device had an odds ratio of 2.8 whereas talking/listening to hand-held device had an odds ratio of 1.3 and was not significantly different than 1.0. These two secondary tasks had nearly the identical population attributable risk percentages. One hypothesis for this is that drivers were talking/listening to hand-held devices a much larger percentage of time than they were dialing hand-held devices. Thus, the percent of crashes and near-crashes that were attributable to these two actions was similar due to the fact that dialing was more dangerous but was performed less frequently whereas talking/listening was less dangerous but done more frequently. The rest of the secondary tasks each accounted for less than 3 percent of all crashes and near-crashes. In total, drowsiness and secondary task engagement are contributing factors in over 45 percent of all crashes and near- crashes. 32 Table 2.7.Population attributable risk percentage point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for types of inattention and the specific secondary tasks. Type of Inattention Population Lower CL Upper CL Attributable Risk Percentage (PAR%) Complex Secondary Task 4.26 3.95 4.57 Moderate Secondary Task 15.23 14.63 15.83 Simple Secondary Task 3.32 2.72 3.92 Moderate to Severe 22.16 21.65 22.68 Drowsiness(in isolation from other types of inattention) Moderate to Severe 24.67 21.12 25.23 Drowsiness(all occurrences) Reaching for moving object 1.11 0.97 1.25 in vehicle Insect in vehicle 0.35 0.27 0.44 Reading 2.85 2.60 3.10 Dialing hand-held device 3.58 3.29 3.87 Applying Makeup 1.41 1.23 1.59 Looking at external object 0.91 0.77 1.05 Inserting/retrieving CD 0.23 0.15 0.32 Eating 2.15 1.85 2.46 Reaching for non-moving 1.23 0.96 1.50 object Talking/listening to hand- 3.56 3.10 4.10 held Device Drinking from open 0.04 -0.10 0.18 container Please note that the population attributable risk percentages of the individual secondary tasks do not sum to the higher level secondary-task categories. Recall that there are other types of secondary tasks that are being calculated for each general level of secondary task. For example. the sum of the population attributable risk percentages for the individual types of secondary tasks will not add up to the population attributable risk percentage for the complex secondary task type. CONCLUSIONS The results from these analyses demonstrate the power of large-scale naturalistic driving studies in that the prevalence of driving inattention,the frequency of occurrence,as well as the relative near-crash/crash risk for various types of driver inattention can finally be assessed using pre- crash driving behavior data. While relative risk calculations for a crash or near-crash have been obtained using survey data and/or police accident reports,this study directly observed drivers 33 prior to crashes and near-crashes and compare this behavior to their driving behaviors during normal,routine driving. To calculate the prevalence and frequency of driver inattention,the baseline driving database was used. This analysis indicated that drivers engaged in one of four types of inattention in over 70 percent of the 20,000 baseline epochs. Interestingly,secondary task engagement accounted for 54 percent,driving-related inattention to the forward roadway accounted for 27 percent,and drowsiness only accounted for 4 percent of the baseline epochs. The results of the relative near-crash/crash risk calculations indicated that urban drivers are between four and six times as likely to be involved in a crash or near-crash when driving while severely drowsy than if they were attentive. The odds ratios for complex and moderate secondary task type also indicated that drivers were at increased risk when engaging in these types of tasks while driving. Drivers are two times as likely to he involved in a crash or near- crash when engaging in a moderate secondary task and three times as likely when engaging in a highly complex secondary task. The results of these analyses indicated that all odds ratios for each of the secondary task types indicated that reaching for a moving object,looking at an external object(i.e.,long glance), reading,applying makeup,dialing a hand-held device,and eating all had odds ratios greater than 1.0. This suggests a higher individual near-crash/crash risk when a driver engages in these activities. Interestingly,driving with a passenger,singing to the radio,and even some engagement with the radio and the heating/air conditioner unit all resulted in odds ratios less than 1.0. These results most likely suggest that these activities are indicative of a relatively alert driver. For drivers over the age of 18,having a passenger in the vehicle is associated with less likelihood of crash or near-crash involvement than if there was no passenger in the vehicle. A possible interpretation of this result is that the passenger is also scanning the environment and can warn a driver of an impending dangerous situation. Please note that there is a substantial body of research on drivers under the age of 18 indicating that passengers in the vehicle actually increase near-crash/crash risk. The results from this study should not be interpreted as conflicting with results from the teen-driving research. There were no 16-or I7-year-old drivers in this study and therefore,the data can not be applied to the teenage driving population. Even though the odds ratios for reaching for a moving object,external distraction,reading, applying makeup,and eating presented greater individual near-crash/crash risk,these factors did not account for a large percentage of actual crashes and near-crashes in an urban population as shown by the population attributable risk percentage calculations. Drowsiness,on the other hand,attributed to between 22 and 24 percent of the crashes and near-crashes in the population, which is much higher than most crash database research has shown(Campbell,Smith,and Najm, 2003). All complexity levels of secondary tasks attributed to 22 percent of the crashes and near- crashes in an urban environment. In total,inattention contributes to over 45 percent of all crashes and near-crashes that occur in an urban environment. Also of interest was that dialing a hand-held device had an odds ratio of approximately 3.0 whereas talking/listening to hand-held device had an odds ratio of slightly over 1.0 and was not significantly different than 1.0. These two secondary tasks had nearly the identical population 34 attributable risk percentages (each attributing to 3.6 percent of crashes and near-crashes). One hypothesis for this is that drivers were talking/listening to hand-held devices a much larger percentage of time than they were dialing hand-held devices. Thus, the percent of crashes and near-crashes that were attributable to these two actions was similar due to the fact that dialing was more dangerous but was performed less frequently whereas talking/listening was less dangerous but performed more frequently. 35 CHAPTER 3: OBJECTIVE 2, WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DRIVER CHOICE OF ENGAGEMENT IN SECONDARY TASKS OR DRIVING WHILE DROWSY? WHAT ARE THE RELATIVE RISKS OF A CRASH OR NEAR-CRASH WHEN ENGAGING IN DRIVING INATTENTION WHILE ENCOUNTERING THESE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS? This research objective used large-scale naturalistic driving data to determine the environmental conditions in which drivers choose to engage in secondary tasks or to drive while drowsy. The associated relative near-crash/crash risks of either engaging in complex or moderate secondary tasks or driving drowsy during poor environmental conditions was also assessed. Several types of environmental variables were recorded during the data reduction process for both the 100-Car Study event database and the baseline database. A list of these variables, the respective levels of each, and a definition of each variable is presented in Table 3.1. Please note that all of these variables were recorded based solely upon the video observed at the time of the event or epoch. For lighting levels, the corresponding time stamp was also used to distinguish between dawn and dusk. 37 Table 3.1. A detailed list of the environmental variable names, levels of each, and operational definition. Variable Name Levels of Variable Definition of Variable Lighting Daylight Ambient lighting levels Darkness, lighted to denote the time of Darkness,non lighted day. Dawn Dusk Weather Clear Description of the Raining presence of ambient Sleeting precipitation and type of Snowing precipitation occurring. Foggy Misty Other Road Type Divided Description of the type Not divided of roadway and how One-way Traffic traffic is separated. No lanes Road Alignment/Road Straight, level Description of the road Profile Straight,grade profile at the onset of the Curve,level conflict. Curve,grade Traffic Density Free flow Level of service Stable flow,speed restricted definitions(NHTSA)to Unstable flow,temporary restrictions define six levels of Unstable flow,temporary stoppages traffic density ranging Restricted Flow from free flow to stop- Forced flow with low speeds and traffic volumes and-go traffic. Surface Condition Dry Description of the Wet resulting condition of Snowy the roadway in the Icy presence of Other precipitation. Traffic Control Device Traffic signal Denotes the presence of Stop sign a traffic signal near the Yield sign onset of the conflict. Slow,warning sign Traffic lanes marked Officer/watchman Other Unknown None Relation to Junction Intersection Description of the road Intersection-related and whether a junction Interchange area was present. Entrance/exit ramp Driveway/alley access Parking lot Non-junction Other 38 DATA INCLUDED IN THESE ANALYSES Two databases were used for this analysis. The first was the event database,which consisted of all the crashes,near-crashes,and incidents identified and reduced as part of the 100-Car Study. Only the crashes and near-crashes were used in these analyses(for a discussion of the reasons for this,please refer to Chapter 2,Objective 1). Recall that this data is referred to as event data for this report. The second was the baseline database,which consisted of 20,000 randomly selected 6-second segments of video that were viewed by trained data reductionists. The random sample was stratified to produce a case-control data set which increased power for odds ratio calculations. For a complete description of the variables that were recorded for the baseline database,please refer to Chapter 1:Introduction and Method. For the following analyses,the term inattention-related event refers only to complex-and moderate-secondary-task engagement. Simple secondary task engagement and driving-related inattention to the forward roadway were not used in these analysis;as shown in the previous chapter,these two types of inattention were either not significantly different than normal, baseline driving or provided a protective effect. Also,non-specific eyeglance was not considered,since its inclusion would have reduced the number of baseline epochs available for analysis,and because it was found to be a relatively redundant source of inattention for the baseline epochs(as shown in the previous chapter). As the effect of risk factors were to be compared across levels of environmental variables,a different analysis method was used. The odds ratio estimates in the chapter were obtained using maximum likelihood estimates obtained from logistic regression models. The stratified analysis or logistic regression allows for comparable evaluation of risk factors across the levels or strata of an environmental variable of interest. To ascertain whether it is more risky to engage in complex tasks on a dark roadway or to drive while alert on a dark roadway,the interaction of both complex-secondary-task engagement(inattentive or attentive driver)and ambient light levels(daylight,dusk,dawn,darkness-lighted,darkness-not-lighted)must be assessed. Logistic regression models provide a point estimate for the odds of a crash or near-crash based upon the driver engaging in a secondary task(or driving attentively)and driving environment. Three independent odds ratio calculations were conducted to assess the relative near-crash/crash risk in various weather,roadway,and traffic environments. These three odds ratio calculations assess the following: I) Is driving drowsy during<environmental variable level>riskier than driving alert in <environmental level>? 2) Is engaging in complex secondary tasks during<environmental variable level> riskier than driving alert in<environment level>? 3) Is engaging in moderate secondary tasks during<environmental variable level> riskier than driving alert in<environment level>? Only drowsiness,complex,and moderate secondary tasks were used in the following odds ratio calculations. Recall from the previous chapter that complex and moderate secondary task engagements were operationally defined based upon the frequency of eyeglances away from the forward roadway and/or button presses that were necessary to complete the task. Complex secondary tasks required more than three button presses and/or eyeglances away from the forward roadway to complete the task,while moderate secondary tasks required two eyeglances 39 or button presses. It was also demonstrated in the previous chapter that these two types of secondary tasks,as well as drowsiness,had higher relative near-crash/crash risks than normal, baseline driving,whereas simple secondary tasks were found to not be significantly riskier than normal,baseline driving. Therefore,only drowsiness,complex,and moderate secondary tasks were used in these calculations. AMBIENT LIGHT/WEATHER CONDITIONS Lighting Level To record light levels for this analysis,data reductionists used the video footage and the time stamp corresponding to the epochs or events to make determinations of the ambient lighting levels. Table 3.2 presents the number of drowsiness-and secondary-task-related crashes,near- crashes,and baseline epochs observed for each of these lighting levels. Table 3.2 The frequency of drowsiness-and secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded for each type of lighting level. Lighting Level Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Drowsiness- Secondary- Drowsiness- Secondary- Related Crash and Task-Related Related Baseline Task-Related Near-Crash Events Crash and Epochs Baseline Near-Crash Epochs Events Darkness- 27 42 2 13 Lighted Darkness-Not 18 17 279 3021 Lighted Dawn 2 5 51 205 Daylight 52 143 240 571 Dusk 13 20 183 305 Total 308 277 755 4115 Using only the baseline data,the percent of inattention-related epochs and the percent of the total number of baseline epochs were used to determine:(I)the percentage of baseline epochs that drivers engaged in secondary tasks or drove while drowsy during each of these lighting conditions,and(2)whether these percentages differed from the total number of baseline epochs that drivers encountered or were exposed to for each of these lighting conditions. These percentages were calculated by dividing the number of baseline epochs where drivers were engaging in a secondary task at a particular lighting level by the total number of epochs where the drivers engaged in a secondary task. For example,the number of baseline epochs where the driver was engaging in a complex or moderate secondary task during day light was divided by the total number of baseline epochs where the driver was engaging in a complex or moderate secondary task. Figure 3.1 presents the baseline data percentages for secondary-task-related epochs(N=4,115). drowsiness-related epochs(N=755),and total number of epochs(N= 19,467)for each level of lighting. The majority of complex-and moderate-secondary-task-related events and total baseline epochs occurred during daylight hours;this replicates findings from many previous 40 instrumented-vehicle studies(e.g.,Lee,Olsen,and Wierwille,2003;Dingus et al.,2001). The percentages are very similar for the secondary-task-related epochs and the total number of epochs,suggesting that drivers are not selecting to engage in secondary tasks differently based on ambient lighting conditions. Drivers are experiencing drowsiness differently across the ambient lighting conditions,which is to be expected as ambient lighting levels are associated with time of day and daily wake/sleep cycles. Lower percentages of drowsiness were observed during the day,whereas higher percentages of drowsiness were observed at night compared to the total baseline epochs. 80 H 70 � s o Secondary Task-Related c 50. Epochs u°', 40 -- - - -. _ •Drowsiness-Related Epochs m 0 30 d ❑Total Epochs t20 - -- -- - -- '------- —. _ _ T` a 10 _ . • 1 ® I ' Dawn Daylight Dusk Darkness- Darkness- Lighted Not Lighted Lighting Levels • Figure 3.1. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total baseline epochs for the different lighting levels observed. As shown in Table 3.3,driving drowsy in any of the ambient lighting levels is riskier than driving while alert during similar lighting levels. However,it appears that driving drowsy during the daylight may be slightly riskier than driving drowsy in the dark. While it is commonly thought that most drowsiness-related crashes occur at night,a majority of the drowsiness-related crashes in this study occurred during the daytime in heavy traffic(during morning and evening commutes). Thus,the risks of driving drowsy during the day may be slightly higher than at night due to higher traffic density. 41 Table 3.3.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness by type of lighting. Type of Lighting Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Dawn 2.43 0.96 6.17 Daylight 5.27 3.55 7.82 Dusk 6.99 3.82 12.80 Darkness-Lighted 3.24 1.92 5.47 Darkness-Not Lighted 3.26 1.82 5.86 Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Relative near-crash/crash risks for the complex-and moderate-secondary-task engagement showed that engaging in complex tasks for all levels of ambient lighting were significantly more risky than driving alert at the same lighting levels(Tables 3.4 and 3.5). This was especially true for engaging in complex tasks at night,as these relative near-crash/crash risks were higher than during dawn,dusk,or daylight. The relative near-crash/crash risks for engaging in moderate secondary tasks were all near 1.0,but not significantly different than 1.0,which suggests that engaging in these tasks is not nearly as risky as engaging in complex tasks or driving while drowsy. Table 3.4.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks by type of lighting. Type of Lighting Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Dawn N/A N/A N/A Daylight 3.06 1.84 5.06 Dusk 8.91 4.41 18.03 Darkness-Lighted 4.58 2.46 8.52 Darkness-Not Lighted 24.43 12.40 48.10 Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Table 3.5.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks by type of lighting. Type of Lighting Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Dawn 0.71 0.21 2.39 Daylight 0.80 0.59 1.08 Dusk 1.55 0.87 2.76 Darkness-Lighted 0.98 0.61 1.56 Darkness-Not Lighted 0.98 0.61 1.56 Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Weather Reductionists used the video to assess the weather conditions outside the vehicle. Table 3.6 presents the frequency counts of the number of drowsiness-and secondary-task-related events 42 and baseline epochs that occurred during the different weather conditions. A majority of events and epochs occurred during clear weather. Table 3.6. The frequency of drowsiness-related and secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded for each type of weather. Type of Frequency of Frequency Frequency of Frequency of Weather Drowsiness-Related of Drowsiness- Secondary- Crash and Near- Secondary- Related Baseline Task-Related Crash Events Task- Epochs Baseline Related Epochs Crash and Near-Crash Events I. Clear 92 181 669 3,624 3. Rain 20 45 79 462 4, Sleet 0 0 1 4 5. Snow 0 0 3 12 6. Fog 0 0 2 6 7. Mist 0 0 1 5 8. Other 0 0 0 2 Total 112 226 755 4,115 Figure 3.2 presents the percent of drowsiness-related.secondary-task-related,and total baseline epochs for each weather type. Nearly all of the epochs occurred during clear weather,with 11 percent occurring during rainy weather. The percentages are nearly identical for secondary-task- related,drowsiness-related,and total baseline epochs for all weather conditions,indicating that drivers were not engaging in secondary tasks or driving drowsy substantially more often during any particular type of weather. The total number of events and epochs that occurred during sleet, snow,fog,mist,and other weather conditions was very small(the sample size was perhaps not large enough to adequately address the issue of secondary-task engagement during these types of weather). 43 100 v, 90 80 w 70 1 o Secondary Task-Related c 60 Epochs vi 50 ®Drowsiness-Related Epochs,! m : 40 I ❑Total Epochs 4. 30 20 Weather Figure 3.2. Percentage of secondary-task-related, drowsiness-related, and total baseline epochs for each type of weather. Table 3.7 presents the odds ratio calculations for the different types of weather. Driving while drowsy during both rainy and clear weather is significantly more risky than driving alert during the same conditions. Interestingly, the elevated near-crash/crash risk is the same for both, suggesting that driving drowsy is very dangerous, regardless of roadway conditions. Unfortunately, the other weather conditions could not be assessed due to low statistical power. Table 3.7. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness by type of weather. Type of Weather Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Clear 4.34 3.22 5.86 Rain 4.41 2.41 8.08 Note: numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). The relative risk calculations for a crash or near-crash for complex secondary tasks also suggest that engaging in complex secondary tasks is significantly more risky than driving alert in similar conditions (Table 3.8). The relative near-crash/crash risk estimate is higher for rain, suggesting that it may be riskier to engage in complex secondary tasks during the rain than in clear weather. Some caution is urged in this interpretation because the confidence limit surrounding the odds ratio for engaging in a complex task during the rain is also larger than it is for clear weather. 44 Table 3.8. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks by type of weather. Type of Weather Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Clear 3.68 2.29 5.92 Rain 5.11 1.86 14.07 Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). The odds ratio for engaging in moderate secondary tasks indicates that it may be safer to engage in moderate secondary tasks than complex secondary tasks(Table 3.9). Most of the odds ratios for moderate secondary tasks were not significantly different than 1.0 suggesting that engaging in moderate secondary tasks are not protective but rather are simply not riskier than driving while drowsy or engaging in complex secondary tasks. Table 3.9. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence limits for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks by type of weather. Type of Weather Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Clear 0.86 0.65 1.13 Rain 0.65 0.37 1.15 Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). ROADWAY ANt)SURFACE CONDITIONS Road Type Road Type(called"Traffic Flow"in the GES Database)primarily refers to whether there is a physical barrier between traffic. The No Lanes category was added for parking lots and should be interpreted as"no barrier." One-way streets possess a barrier since all traffic is flowing in one direction. Table 3.10 shows the distribution of drowsiness-and secondary-task-related events and epochs that occurred on each type of traffic-flow roadway. Most secondary-task-related events and epochs occurred on divided roadways. 45 Table 3.10. The frequency of secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded for each road type. Road Type Frequency of Frequency Frequency of Frequency of Drowsiness-Related of Drowsiness- Secondary- Crash and Near- Secondary Related Baseline Task-Related Crash Events Task- Epochs Baseline Related Epochs Crash and Near-Crash Events _ Divided 64 118 530 2,612 Undivided 43 95 199 1248 One-way 4 11 17 114 No Lanes 1 2 9 141 Total 112 226 755 4,115 Figure 3.3 presents the percent of total drowsiness-related epochs,secondary-task-related epochs,and total baseline epochs for the various road types. While divided roadways were most frequent for all categories,a substantial number of epochs also occurred on undivided roadways as well. One-way roadways and/or parking lots were represented in a smaller percentage of epochs. There were no practical differences between the percent of secondary task or drowsiness epochs as compared to total baseline epochs,which suggests that drivers are engaging in ��•+ secondary tasks regardless of type of roadway that they happen to he navigating at the time. "there was a slightly higher percent of occurrence for drowsiness-related epochs on divided roadways than on undivided roadways. One possible hypothesis for this result is that drivers are more relaxed and less active on divided roadways(i.e.,interstates)because they do not have to monitor cross traffic as frequently as on undivided roadways. This feeling of relaxation may result in higher occurrence of drowsiness. 46 80 — 70 VI .c O 60...._—..- - w o Secondary Task-Related w 50 Epochs c y40 ■ ness-Related Epochs m `0 30 --- o TDrows otal Epochs c am ow • 10 . -- 0 Not Divided Divided One Way No Lanes Road Type Figure 3.3. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total baseline epochs by type of roadway. Even though drivers appear to be engaging in secondary tasks or driving drowsy on these types of roadways equally,that does not necessarily mean that it is equally safe to do so. Odds ratios for drowsiness,complex-secondary-task and moderate-secondary-task engagement were calculated for each road type and are presented in Tables 3.11 through 3.13. All of the odds ratios for the interaction of drowsiness and road type were greater than 3.0,suggesting that driving while drowsy on any of these road types increases near-crash/crash risk by at least three times that of driving alert on the same types of roadways with the highest risk associated with undivided roadways. Engaging in complex secondary tasks while driving on undivided roadways was slightly less dangerous than engaging in complex secondary tasks while driving on a divided roadway. While this may not make intuitive sense,this result may be an artifact of the higher percentage of driving on divided roadways and the higher traffic densities occurring on these roadways given the metropolitan environment where these data were collected. The odds ratios for engaging in moderate secondary tasks were not significantly different from 1.0 indicating that engaging in moderate secondary tasks is less risky than engaging in complex secondary tasks or driving drowsy. 47 Table 3.11. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness by road type. Road Type Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Divided 3.73 2.61 5.34 Undivided 5.54 3.47 8.84 One-Way 3.40 1.76 6.59 Parking Lots N/A N/A N/A Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Table 3.12. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks by road type. Road Type Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Divided 4.20 2.40 7.33 Undivided 3.60 1.89 6.79 One-Way 3.66 1.63 8.18 Parking Lots N/A N/A E N/A Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 10). Table 3.13. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks by road type. Road Type Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Divided 0.79 0.57 1.10 • Undivided 0.85 0.54 1.35 One-Way 0.94 0.48 1.84 Parking Lots 0.68 0.25 1.85 Note:numbers in hold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Roadway Alignment Roadway alignment is a GES Crash Database variable that refers to both the curvature and percent grade of the roadway. Both curvature and percent grade can dramatically shorten the driver's sight distance of the roadway and traffic patterns in front of them. Coupled with driver inattention or drowsiness,specific types of roadway alignment may increase near-crash/crash risk. Given reduced sight distance,do drivers tend not to engage in secondary tasks or attempt to become more alert,if even for a brief time? Table 3.14 presents the frequency of secondary-task-related events and baseline epochs that were observed for each type of roadway alignment. Most events and epochs occurred on straight and level roadways. This is most likely an artifact of the geographic location where the data were collected(Northern Virginia/Washington,DC,metro area). Amok 48 Table 3.14. The frequency of drowsiness and secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded for each type of roadway alignment. Type of Frequency of Frequency Frequency of Frequency of Roadway Drowsiness-Related of Drowsiness- Secondary- Alignment Crash and Near- Secondary- Related Baseline Task-Related Crash Events Task- Epochs Baseline Related Epochs Crash and Near-Crash Events Curve Grade 0 6 7 41 Curve Level 20 31 73 387 Straight Grade 1 4 15 95 Straight Level 90 184 659 3,587 Straight Hill 0 0 0 1 Crest Curve Hill Crest 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 1 Total 111 225 754 4,112 Figure 3.4 compares the percentage of drowsiness-related, secondary-task-related, and total baseline epochs for different levels of roadway alignment. While 90 percent of drowsiness-, secondary-task-related, and total baseline epochs occur on straight and level roadways, other roadway alignments did occur in the dataset. The percentages for each type of alignment were nearly identical for all three groups. This suggests that drivers are not selecting to engage in secondary-task-related activities based upon the alignment of the roadway, nor are there differences in driver drowsiness on these different roadway alignments. 49 100 — —90 U w 70 o Secondary Task-Related �I c 60 t _. _ - _. Epochs a 50 50 Epochs a ■Drowsiness-Related E m 30 - I❑Total Epochs m 20 _ - a , 10 ' — o - ,e� •4`z e G�ae sae 60 ,60 °`eye O`rep J� OG J�e r\, e a G o 04 40 GJ Roadway Alignment Figure 3.4. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total baseline epochs by type of roadway alignment. To determine whether there is increased individual near-crash/crash risk for driving drowsy or engaging in secondary-task-related activities for particular types of roadway alignment,odds ratios were calculated and are presented in Tables 3.15 through 3.17. The odds ratio calculation for straight,grade had the highest near-crash/crash risk,suggesting that drowsy drivers are over six times as likely to be involved in a crash or near-crash as an alert driver on a straight,grade roadway(Table 3.15). The odds ratio for the straight,grade was not significantly higher than for curve,level or straight,level(since the confidence limits of all three roadway alignments overlap). Engaging in complex secondary tasks on these four roadway alignments was also shown to be riskier than driving alert on the same roadway types(Table 3.16). The odds ratio for curve,level was nearly the same as the odds ratio for straight,level,suggesting that these two are equally riskier than driving while alert. The odds ratios for straight,grade was significantly higher than the other road alignments(except for straight,grade),suggesting that this road alignment is a riskier road environment for engaging in complex secondary tasks. The odds ratio for curve, grade was not significantly different than curve,level and straight,level. Driving while performing complex secondary tasks was at least three times riskier than driving while alert for all of these road alignments. The odds ratios for moderate secondary tasks indicate that these types of tasks are not as risky as engaging in complex secondary tasks or driving drowsy on these road alignments. 50 Table 3.15. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness and roadway alignment. Type of Roadway Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Alignment Straight,Level 3.96 2.93 5.34 Curve,Level 5.81 3.66 9.21 Straight,Grade 6.29 2.20 17.96 Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Table 3.16.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks and roadway alignment. Type of Roadway Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Alignment Straight,Level 3.59 2.20 5.84 Curve,Level 3.58 1.95 6.60 Straight,Grade 26.00 7.31 92.53 Curve,Grade 6.75 2.08 21.89 Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Table 3.17.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks and roadway alignment. Type of Roadway Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Alignment Straight,Level 0.79 0.60 1.03 Curve,Grade 1.69 0.56 5.09 Curve,Level 0.88 0.56 1.39 Straight,Grade 1.86 0.56 6.19 Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Traffic Density Traffic density was recorded by the data reductionists using the Transportation Research Board's (TRB)Level of Service(LOS)Definitions(Highway Capacity Manual,2000). The LOS is a scale from 1 to 6 of increasing traffic density with 1 being free-flow traffic and 6 being stop-and- go traffic with extended stoppages. The six levels of traffic density are listed in Table 3.18 along with the frequency of drowsiness-and secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded at each level of traffic density. 51 Table 3.18. The frequency of secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded at each level of traffic density. Traffic Density Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Drowsiness- Secondary Drowsiness- Secondary- Related Crash Task-Related Related Baseline Task-Related and Near-Crash Crash and Epochs Baseline Events Near-Crash Epochs Events LOS A:Free Flow 44 84 430 2,013 LOS B:Flow with 31 73 Some Restrictions 237 1,529 LOS C:Stable 20 43 Flow— Maneuverability and Speed are more Restricted 56 391 LOS D:Flow is 10 19 Unstable—Vehicles are unable to pass with temporary stoppages. 14 84 LOS E:Unstable 5 7 .-... Flow-Temporary restrictions, substantially slow drivers 10 55 LOS F:Forced 2 0 Traffic Flow Conditions with Low Speeds and Traffic Volumes Below Capacity 8 43 Total 112 226 755 4,115 Note:inattention is defined as only those events where drivers were involved in secondary tasks or were severely drowsy. Figure 3.5 presents the percentage of drowsiness-related,secondary-task-related,and total baseline epochs that occurred at each level of traffic density. As traffic density increased,the frequency of drowsiness-and secondary-task-related epochs decreased. The percentage for secondary-task-related epochs and total epochs did not differ,indicating that drivers are not choosing to engage in complex or moderate secondary tasks differently for these traffic densities. The drowsiness-related epochs were slightly different,with more drowsiness-related events occurring during free-flow and fewer occurring during flow with restrictions and stable traffic flow. One hypothesis for this result is that driving in free-flow traffic is less interesting and requires less activity by the driver. Therefore,these types of traffic flow may help induce Amik drowsiness because the driver is under-stimulated. 52 80 L 0 50 o. 1 1-0 Secondary Task-Related o 40 ( Epochs w 30 Drowsiness-Related Epochs m 20 JI ''iI 0 Total Epochs jio l� 4 --� _---_- _ _ _— -- - -------- - 5 s �e •,2-e5 5, e .„ e� �r J' P �\o Traffic Density Figure 3.5. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total baseline epochs by type of traffic density. Odds ratios were calculated to determine if any of these traffic densities present greater individual near-crash/crash risk. Tables 3.19 through 3.21 present the odds ratio calculations for each level of density for drowsiness. The odds ratio calculations for driving drowsy at each level of traffic density suggest that driving drowsy is at least three times riskier than driving while alert during the same level of traffic density. None of the traffic densities were significantly riskier than any another level of traffic density. Similar results were found for engaging in complex secondary tasks where this activity was found to increase near-crash/crash risk by at least three times that of alert driving during the same traffic density. Again,engaging in complex secondary tasks was equally risky at all levels of traffic density,except for LOS D. The odds ratios for moderate secondary tasks did not demonstrate similar risk levels and thus engaging in moderate secondary tasks during these traffic levels is not as risky and does not elevate near-crash/crash risk to the extent as driving drowsy or engaging in complex secondary tasks. This result was found to be true across all levels of traffic density for moderate- secondary-task engagement. 53 Table 3.19. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness and traffic density. Type of Traffic Density Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL LOS A:Free Flow 4.67 3.02 7.21 LOS B:Flow with Some 4.81 2.70 8.58 Restrictions LOS C:Stable Flow— 3.63 2.01 6.54 Maneuverability and Speed are more Restricted LOS D:Flow is Unstable— 4.29 1.88 9.80 Vehicles are unable to pass with temporary stoppages LOS E:Unstable Flow- 3.71 1.93 7.13 Temporary restrictions, substantially slow drivers Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Table 3.20. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks and traffic density. Type of Traffic Density Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL LOS A:Free Flow 4.67 2.32 9.38 LOS B:Flow with Some 3.67 1.65 8.19 Restrictions LOS C:Stable Flow— 3.80 1.68 8.58 Maneuverability and Speed are more Restricted LOS D:Flow is Unstable— 1.75 0.61 5.01 Vehicles are unable to pass with temporary stoppages LOS E:Unstable Flow- 2.45 1.01 5.93 Temporary restrictions, substantially slow drivers Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). 54 Table 3.21. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary task and traffic density. Type of Traffic Density Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL LOS A:Free Flow 0.95 0.63 1.45 LOS B:Flow with Some 0.69 0.39 1.23 Restrictions i LOS C:Stable Flow— 0.69 0.38 1.26 Maneuverability and Speed are more Restricted LOS D:Flow is Unstable— 0.31 0.13 0.76 Vehicles are unable to pass with temporary stoppages LOS F:Unstable Flow- 1.18 0.59 2.34 Temporary restrictions, substantially slow drivers Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Surface Condition The surface condition of roadways has been identified as a frequent contributing factor for crashes and near-crashes. Reductionists used the video and driving performance sensors to assess the status of the roadway surfaces. This analysis was conducted to determine whether drivers engaged in inattentive driving on roads with poor surface conditions. Table 3.22 shows the frequency of the drowsiness and secondary-task-related events and baseline epochs for all six surface condition types. Nearly all of the events and epochs occurred on dry pavement. Table 3.22. The frequency of drowsiness-and secondary-task-related epochs that occurred at each roadway surface condition level. Surface Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Condition Drowsiness- Secondary- Drowsiness- Secondary- Related Crash Task-Related Related Baseline Task-Related and Near-Crash Crash and Near- Epochs Baseline Events Crash Events Epochs Dry 98 197 666 3681 Wet 13 29 83 395 Icy 1 1 0 3 Snowy 0 0 6 35 Muddy 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 1 Total 112 227 755 4115 Figure 3.6 shows the percentages of drowsiness-related,secondary-task-related,and total baseline epochs that occurred for each type of surface condition. Nearly 90 percent of all drowsiness-related,secondary-task-related,and total baseline epochs occurred on dry pavement, while very low percentages occurred on icy,snowy,and muddy roads. Nearly identical patterns 55 were observed for percent of drowsiness-related and total number of baseline epochs,as well as for secondary-task-related and total number of baseline epochs. This indicates that drivers did not choose to engage in secondary tasks or drive drowsy as a function of the surface condition of the roadway. 100 90 .mac 80 U w 70 _ - 0 Secondary Task-Related w 60 --.. _ _ -- ..--- ---..- -_ Epochs c H 50 •Drowsiness-Related Epochs 1, m xr 40 ' -- a - D Total Epochs , PO —10 0 II Dry Wet Snowy Icy Muddy Road Surface Conditions .elek Figure 3.6. Percentage of secondary-task-,drowsiness-related and total baseline epochs for all surface conditions. Odds ratio calculations were conducted to determine whether the near-crash/crash risks associated with driving drowsy or while engaging in complex or moderate secondary tasks were different as a function of poor surface conditions. 'Table 3.23 presents the odds ratios calculated for driving drowsy on dry,wet,and icy surface conditions. (Odds ratios were not calculated for the other surface conditions because there were either no baseline epochs or no crash or near- crash events observed for these conditions.) Driving while drowsy on either dry or wet roadways increased near-crash/crash risk by at least three times over that of driving alert on a dry or wet roadway. The odds ratios for engaging in complex secondary tasks on dry roadways increased near- crash/crash risk by four times over that of driving alert on dry roadways(Table 3.24). The relative near-crash/crash risk of engaging in complex secondary tasks on wet roadways was neither significantly different from 1.0 nor significantly different than driving alert on a wet roadway. This result is also not intuitive,but may he due in part to slower speeds and increased headway distances commonly occurring on rainy roadways. A similar pattern was found for engaging in moderate secondary tasks,which was found to not he as risky as driving drowsy or while engaging in complex secondary tasks(Table 3.25). Dry and wet roadways were also not significantly riskier than one another,suggesting that the interaction found for the complex secondary task and surface condition is unique to complex- secondary-task .r engagement. 56 Table 3.23.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness and surface condition. Type of Surface Condition Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Dry 4.52 3.39 6.03 Wet 3.17 2.03 4.95 Icy N/A N/A N/A Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of I.0). Table 3.24.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks and surface condition. Type of Surface Condition Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Dry 4.44 2.88 6.84 Wet 1.03 0.58 1.80 Icy N/A N/A N/A Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Table 3.25.Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks and surface condition. Type of Surface Condition Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Dry 0.85 0.65 1.12 Wet 0.73 0.47 1.15 Icy N/A N/A N/A Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE Traffic Control The type of traffic control device that a driver needed to heed either 5 seconds prior to or during the course of the crash or near-crash was recorded by trained data reductionists for the events. If a driver needed to heed a traffic control device during the 6-second baseline segment,the reductionist also marked it accordingly. Otherwise,the reductionists recorded No Traffic Control. Table 3.26 presents the frequency of drowsiness-and secondary-task-related events and baseline epochs where the driver was heeding a particular traffic-control device. Most of the events and epochs were marked as No Traffic Control. 57 Table 3.26. The frequency of secondary-task-related crash and near-crash events and baseline epochs that were recorded for each type of traffic-control device. Type of Traffic Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Control Device Drowsiness- Secondary Task- Drowsiness- Secondary- Related Crash Related Crash Related Baseline Task-Related and Near-Crash and Near-Crash Epochs Baseline Events Events Epochs Traffic Signal 13 42 40 614 Stop Sign 2 5 3 73 Traffic Lanes 2 4 28 273 Marked Yield Sign 0 0 2 18 Slow or 0 0 2 7 Warning Sign No Passing Sign 0 0 0 1 One-way road 0 0 0 8 Officer or 0 0 0 3 Watchman No Traffic 91 169 676 3,609 Control Other 3 3 4 15 Total 108 223 755 4.114 Note:inattention is defined as only those events where drivers were involved in secondary tasks or were severely drowsy. The comparisons between the percent of drowsiness-related,secondary-task-related,and total number of baseline epochs for each type of traffic-control device arc shown in Figure 3.7. The percentages are very similar across the board,which indicates that drivers are not choosing to engage in secondary tasks or drive while drowsy differently when encountering any of these traffic control devices. This is not to say that drivers were not engaging in secondary tasks while safely sitting at a stop sign or traffic light. This type of analysis could not be performed because the vehicle needed to be moving during the 6 seconds of the epoch for that segment to qualify as a baseline epoch(as discussed in Chapter l:Introduction and Method). 58 • 100 90 o 80 ❑Secondary Task-Related • c• 70 Epochs 50 _ •Drowsiness-Related Epochs m 40 0 30 I ❑Total Epochs 20 - 10 — • 0 11 .. oe`soccacyo 5�c socAateg°�c�°cQdzr° S4 re �o c oQ y a tS \b e a 2 o Ohce�o` �` 5��a o �y 0 �o Traffic Control Device Figure 3.7. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total number of baseline epochs for each type of traffic control device. Odds ratios were calculated to determine whether engaging in complex or moderate secondary tasks or driving while drowsy while encountering any of these traffic control devices increased an individual's near-crash/crash risk("fables 3.27 through 3.29). The odds ratio calculations for drowsiness suggest that drowsiness,by itself,increases an individual's risk of being involved in a crash or near-crash by at least 2.7 times over that of an alert driver encountering the same traffic-control device(Table 3.27). None of the traffic-control devices were significantly more risky in the presence of drowsiness than any other traffic-control device. The odds ratios for complex-secondary-task engagement were similar. Engaging in complex secondary tasks in the presence of a traffic signal,stop sign,or no traffic-control device increased near-crash/crash risk by at least three times over that of an alert driver at a similar traffic-control device(Table 3.28). Stop signs or traffic signals were not significantly riskier than no traffic-control devices. Odds ratios for other traffic-control devices were not available due to low statistical power. The odds ratios for moderate secondary task engagement were not significantly different from 1.0 except for traffic signal(Table 3.29). The odds ratio for traffic signals actually showed a protective effect,suggesting either that the traffic signal was perhaps able to redirect drivers' attention to the forward roadway or that the presence of a traffic signal was highly correlated with increased traffic,which redirected drivers'attention to the forward roadway. Overall, engaging in moderate secondary tasks is not as risky as driving drowsy or engaging in complex secondary tasks in the presence of any of these traffic-control devices. 59 Table 3.27. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness and each type of traffic-control device. Type of Traffic- Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Control Device Traffic Signal 2.71 1.90 3.85 Stop Sign 5.55 2.71 11.36 Traffic Lanes 5.57 2.43 12.78 Marked No Traffic 4.83 3.60 6.48 Control Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Table 3.28. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks and each type of traffic-control device. Type of Traffic- Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Control Device Traffic Signal 3.14 2.15 4.58 Stop Sign 3.27 1.38 7.75 No Traffic 4.02 2.47 6.54 Control Amok Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Table 3.29. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks and each type of traffic-control device. Type of Traffic- Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Control Device Traffic Signal 0.41 0.28 0.59 Stop Sign 0.73 0.34 1.56 Traffic Lanes 2.29 0.98 5.31 Marked No Traffic 0.92 0.70 1.22 Control Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Relation to Junction The relation to junction variable was also adapted from the GES Crash Database to refer to whether the driver was in close proximity to a roadway junction. If the onset of a crash or near- crash occurred in or near an intersection,merge ramp,or interchange,the event was recorded as such;otherwise it was recorded as a non-junction. Likewise,if the vehicle passed through an intersection,interchange,or entered a merge ramp during the 6-second segment of the baseline epochs,then the appropriate relation to junction variable was recorded. Otherwise,non-junction 60 was recorded for that baseline epoch.The different types of junctions used by data reductionists are presented in Table 3.30 along with the frequency of secondary-task-and drowsiness-related events and baseline epochs. Note that most events and epochs were not near roadway junctions (i.e.,they were"non-junction"). Table 3.30. The frequency of drowsiness-and secondary-task-related events and epochs that were recorded for each type of relation to junction. Type of Relation Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of to Junction Drowsiness- Secondary- Drowsiness- Secondary- Related Crash Task-Related Related Baseline Task-Related and Near-Crash Crash and Epochs Baseline Events Near-Crash Epochs Events Intersection 17 42 30 257 Intersection- Il 22 232 Related 28 Entrance/Exit 7 11 65 Ramp 15 Parking Lot 0 5 4 112 Driveway/Alley 0 3 15 Access 2 Interchange 1 2 I 10 Rail Grade 0 0 0 Crossing 0 Other 0 0 1 12 Non-Junction 75 140 674 3,412 Total III 226 755 4,115 Note:inattention is defined as only those events where drivers were involved in secondary tasks or were severely drowsy. Figure 3.8 presents the percentages of drowsiness-related,inattention-related,and total number of baseline epochs occurring at each of the junction types. Note that non-junction accounted for 84 percent of the secondary-task-related baseline epochs as well as of the total baseline epochs. There were very small differences between the percentages of secondary-task-related and total number of baseline epochs,suggesting that there are only small differences between the percentages of time spent engaging in secondary tasks whereas encountering these junctions and how often drivers encounter these types of junctions. There were slight differences in the percentage of drowsiness-related epochs and total epochs,suggesting that a higher percentage of drowsiness-related epochs occurred at non-junctions than at or near intersections. This may suggest that drivers may be more relaxed(under-stimulated)and may succumb to drowsiness effects more often while navigating through less-demanding environments. 61 100 — - c gp . u a 80 ' - - - --- - -. .. - w• 70 ❑Secondary Task-Related 60 �` Epochs 50 --- _ -_. - ___ _ •Drowsiness-Related Epochs'. . m 40 I` 3 30 ❑Total Epochs '1 o 20 I toy` - 0 J i ■ Is• - - c • o a e - o c )a °asSaG\°ea\a`aNracA a�. �a�Ov°yc P�° 0 °c x�� �oc \cam `�e� � aae Qa ye p ac° Gv \S O Relation to Junction Figure 3.8. Percentage of secondary-task-related,drowsiness-related,and total number of baseline epochs for each relation to junction. To determine whether any of these types of junctions present higher near-crash crash risks for . - inattentive drivers,the odds ratios for each were calculated(Tables 3.31 through 3.33). The results for the drowsiness-related odds ratios indicate that near-crash/crash risk increased by at least three times for drivers who were navigating intersections,entrance ramps,and interchanges than for those drivers who were alert at similar junctions(Table 3.31). Also,driving while drowsy in general(i.e.,non-junction)increases a driver's near-crash/crash risk by as much as five times over that of an alert driver encountering similar roadway junctions. Engaging in complex secondary tasks while in a parking lot or near an intersection increased near-crash/crash risk over that of an alert driver at the junction type(Table 3.32). Somewhat surprisingly,the odds ratio for an intersection did not demonstrate an increased near-crash/crash risk. Drivers may be more careful or even avoid engaging in complex tasks during intersections as these are visually and cognitively demanding environments. The odds ratio for engaging in complex secondary tasks in a parking lot was very high,with an increased near-crash/crash risk of nine times over that of an alert driver in a parking lot. This is somewhat higher than was expected,however,there is a wide confidence interval surrounding this point estimate. The odds ratios for engaging in moderate secondary tasks showed a similar pattern to complex secondary tasks,in that the odds ratio for intersection was lower than for intersection-related or parking lot(Table 333). While the pattern is similar,generally the odds ratios for moderate secondary tasks are not significantly different from 1.0,with the exception of intersection. This suggests that engaging in moderate secondary tasks is not as risky as engaging in complex secondary tasks or driving while drowsy in the presence of these types of roadway junctions. 62 Table 3.31. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness and each type of relation to junction. Type of Relation Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL to Junction Intersection 3.48 2.17 5.59 Intersection- 6.82 4.10 11.35 Related Entrance/Exit 3.21 1.81 5.71 Ramp Interchange 5.86 2.39 14.35 _ Non-Junction 5.02 3.65 6.90 Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Table 3.32. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary tasks and each type of relation to junction. Type of Relation Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL to Junction Intersection 1.59 0.86 2.97 Intersection- 3.32 1.73 6.38 Related Parking Lot 9.11 3.76 22.07 Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). Table 3.33. Odds ratio point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of moderate secondary tasks and each type of relation to junction. Type of Relation Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL to Junction ------------- ----------- Intersection 0.50 0.31 0.81 Intersection- 0.63 0.37 1.44 Related Entrance/Exit 1.12 0.61 2.05 Ramp Parking Lot 0.65 0.29 1.44 Driveway/Alley 2.00 0.64 6.28 Access Interchange _ 2.57 0.89 7.46 Non-Junction 0.95 0.70 1.30 Note:numbers in bold font indicate that the point estimate is significantly different than normal,baseline driving(or an odds ratio of 1.0). 63 SUMMARY Two primary research questions were addressed in this chapter: • Do drivers choose to engage in secondary tasks or drive drowsy during more dangerous or adverse environmental conditions? • Are any of these environmental conditions riskier than others for inattentive drivers? Both of these questions were addressed for eight different environmental conditions:ambient lighting,weather,road type,roadway alignment,traffic density,surface condition,traffic-control device,and relation to junction. The results for the first question indicate that far fewer drowsiness-related baseline epochs were observed during the daylight hours than drowsiness- related crashes and near-crashes. Secondly,a greater percentage of drowsiness-related baseline epochs were identified during darkness than drowsiness-related crashes and near-crashes. Drowsiness was also seen to slightly increase in the absence of high roadway or traffic demand. A higher percentage of drowsiness-related baseline epochs were found during free-flow traffic densities,on divided roadways,and areas free of roadway junctions. The results for the second question were more varied. Each of the eight environmental conditions resulted in odds ratios greater than 1.0 for both drowsiness and engaging in complex secondary tasks. Engaging in moderate secondary tasks rarely resulted in odds ratios significantly greater than 1.0,indicating that these behaviors may not be as risky as driving drowsy or driving while engaging in complex secondary tasks, Mk, In Chapter 2,Objective I,the odds ratio for risk of driving while drowsy was four to six times that of normal,baseline driving,engaging in complex secondary task was three times,and engaging in moderate secondary tasks was two times that of an alert driver. In this chapter,these total odds ratios decreased when comparing across environmental conditions. While a decrease is to be expected when narrowing the focus of the analysis,it should also be noted all three types of tasks arc still riskier than attentive driving. The baseline dataset also provided some interesting results. For example,drivers are operating their vehicles during the daytime,on dry pavement,and on straight.non-junction roadways a majority of the time. While nighttime driving,adverse weather conditions,intersections,and other difficult roadway geometries increase individual near-crash/crash risk,it is important to note that many crashes and near-crashes occur in the absence of these adverse conditions. While many of these results are of interest to human factors researchers,roadway designers,and urban planners,it is important to remember that these data were collected only in a metropolitan, urban driving environment(Northern Virginia/Washington,DC,metropolitan area).The results are only generalizable to other urban/metropolitan driving environments and not to the United States driving population in general. It is important to note that the 20,000 baseline epochs used in these analyses and calculations of relative near-crash/crash risk were not selected based upon any of the above environmental variables. These epochs were selected at random and these environmental conditions were not used in the sampling procedure. Some degree of caution is suggested in the interpretation of these relative near-crash/crash risks given that the baseline epochs were not selected to specifically assess environmental variables. 64 While population attributable risk percentages were calculated in Chapter 2 when assessing the general effects of the four types of driver inattention,population attributable risk percentages were not calculated for the environmental conditions discussed in the current chapter. Because the environmental conditions were not considered when selecting the baseline sample,a population attributable risk percentage calculation would only be a gross estimate. Even after collecting data for 12 months on 100 vehicles,there were still many environmental variables with insufficient statistical power to accurately calculate odds ratios. A larger scale naturalistic driving study is needed to not only obtain accurate and valid measures for many of the variables presented in this chapter,but also for more generalizable results to the United States driving population. 65 CHAPTER 4: OBJECTIVE3,DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCES IN DEMOGRAPHIC DATA,TEST BATTERY RESULTS,AND PERFORMANCE-BASED MEASURES BETWEEN INATTENTIVE AND ATTENTIVE DRIVERS. HOW MIGHT THIS KNOWLEDGE BE USED TO MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF INATTENTIVE DRIVING BEHAVIORS? COULD THIS INFORMATION BE USED TO IMPROVE DRIVER EDUCATION COURSES OR TRAFFIC SCHOOLS? For this research objective,statistical analyses were conducted using the frequency of drivers' involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes compared to each driver's composite test battery score or relevant survey response(Table 4.1). The debrief form and the health assessment questionnaires were not included as they are not personality assessment tests. A discussion of how these results could be used to mitigate potential negative consequences of inattentive driving and/or used in traffic schools and drivers education courses will also be addressed in this chapter. wok 66 Table 4.1. Description of questionnaire and computer-based tests used for 100-Car Study. Name of Testing Type of Test Time test was thief description Procedure administered 1. Driver demographic Paper/pencil In-processing General information on drivers information age,gender,etc. 2. Driving History Paper/pencil In-processing General information on recent traffic violations and recent collisions. 3. Health assessment Paper/pencil In-processing List of variety of questionnaire illnesses/medical conditions/or any prescriptions that may affect driving performance. 4. Dula Dangerous Paper/pencil In-processing One score that describes driver's Driving Index tendencies toward aggressive driving. 5. Sleep Hygiene Paper/pencil In-processing List of questions that provide information about driver's general sleep habits/substance use/sleep disorders. 6. Driver Stress Inventory Paper/Pencil In-processing One score that describes the perceived stress levels drivers experience during their daily commutes. 7. Life Stress Inventory Paper/pencil In-processing/Out- One score that describes drivers processing stress levels based upon the occurrence of major life events. 8. Useful Field-of-View Computer- In-processing Assessment of driver's central based test vision and processing speed, divided and selective attention. 9. Waypoint Computer- In-processing Assessment of the speed of based test information processing and vigilance. 10. NLO-FFI Paper/pencil In-processing Personality test. 11. General debrief Paper/pencil Out-processing List of questions ranging from questionnaire seatbelt use,driving under the influence,and administration of experiment. DATA INCLUDED IN THESE ANALYSES For the analyses in this chapter,crashes and near-crashes only will be used(incidents will be excluded from the analyses). In Dingus et al.,(2005)the analyses indicated that the kinematic signatures of both crashes and near-crashes were nearly identical;whereas the kinematic signature of incidents were more variable. Given this result and to increase statistical power,the data from both crashes and near-crashes will be used in the comparison of questionnaire data to the frequency of driver involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Note that inattention-related crashes and near-crashes are defined as those events that involve the driver engaging in complex,moderate,or simple secondary tasks or driving while drowsy. Please note that in Chapter 2,driving-related inattention to the forward roadway was determined to possess a protective effect and therefore was removed from the definition of driving inattention. Non-specific eyeglance away from the forward roadway was also shown to not be 67 • significantly different from normal,baseline driving;therefore,these events were also removed from the analysis. ASSIGNMENT OF INVOLVEMENT LEVEL FOR DRIVERS The first step to conduct the analyses for this research objective is to logically split the subjects into groups of involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of all of the primary drivers and the frequency of involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for this study. The median and mean levels are marked on the figure. Note that there are 36 primary drivers who were not involved in any inattention-related crashes or near-crashes. The rest of the primary drivers were involved in 1 to 15 inattention-related crashes and/or near-crashes. The mean frequency value was used to separate the drivers into two groups:those drivers who had"high involvement"in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes and those drivers who had"low involvement"in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Therefore,any driver who was involved in four or more inattention-related crashes and/or near-crashes was labeled as "high involvement"and drivers who were involved in fewer than four inattention-related crashes and/or near-crashes were labeled as having`low ins olvement." A separate secondary analysis where the drivers were separated into three levels of involvement will be discussed at the end of this chapter. 16 - — N• 'ww. -c 14 — — — • a 10 •— — — — — — — — - c A • 4 8 • 0 N x Z m c o c o � •MMM ,, 4 -____ IvItan2-3.6)- u c ~wow m o- » LL 0 1. _ - 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Subject Figure 4.1. The frequency of inattention-related crashes and near-crashes by driver in order from low frequency to high frequency. While it is apparent that there are several ways to define"high"and"low"levels of involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes,using the mean as a dividing point has been used �►. by many other researchers,and given the exploratory nature of these analyses,it provides a fairly 68 conservative measure upon which to divide the drivers,yet still preserves any differences that may exist between those drivers who have tendencies to be involved in frequent inattention- related crashes and near-crashes and those who exhibit fewer tendencies. Table 4.2 provides the descriptive statistics for the drivers'respective group divisions. This chapter will first present results using[-tests and correlations to describe any demographic or test battery score differences that exist between drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. A separate analysis using analysis of variance and correlations will then be conducted to describe any demographic or test battery differences among high,moderate,and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Given that these analyses are exploratory in nature,two analyses were conducted to provide a thorough investigation of the demographic and test battery scores for these drivers. Finally,a logistic regression analysis will be presented to assess the predictability of any of these demographic data or test battery scores. After these analyses,a discussion on the usefulness of these test batteries for mitigating distracted driving as well as suggestions for improving driver education programs will be presented. Table 4.2. Descriptive statistics on drivers labeled"high involvement"and"low involvement"in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement Number of drivers 27 78 Mean(#of Inattention-Related 7.6 0.95 Crashes and Near-crashes) Median 6 1 Mode 5 0 Standard deviation 3.9 1.1 Minimum 4 0 Maximum number of events 15 3 Number of crashes 25 14 Number of near-crashes 179 61 ANALYSIS ONE:T-TEST ANALYSIS FOR THE"LOW AND HIGH INVOLVEMENT IN INATTENTION-RELATED CRASHES AND NEAR-CRASHES" Demographic Data Analyses The list of driver self-reported demographic data and survey data is shown in Table 4.3. 69 Table 4.3. Driver self-reported demographic data summary. Demographic/Survey Data Information Presented 1. Driver Demographic Information Age Gender Years of driving experience 2. Driving History Number of traffic violations in past 5 years Number of accidents in past 5 years 3. Health Assessment Frequency of health conditions Frequency of type of health condition 4. Sleep Hygiene Daytime sleepiness scale Number of hours of sleep per night Drivers reported their respective demographic data, driving history (e.g., number of citations received in the past 5 years), health status, and sleep hygiene using four separate surveys. T-tests were conducted to determine if any statistical differences existed between the inattentive and attentive drivers. A complete listing of all t-tests and ANOVA tables is in Appendix D. Driver Age. Figure 4.2 shows the average age of the high- and low- involvement drivers. A t- test was conducted to determine whether there were significant differences in age between groups. The results suggest that the high-involvement drivers were significantly younger than the low-involvement drivers, t(102) = 7.07, p = 0.009. 50 i 45 40 35 — "$ m 30 a`) 25 " �W, y 20 v 15 � o � �- 10 ,ter'^ k 5 tanti=� h0 High Involvement Low Involvement Involvement in Inattention-Related Crashes and Near Crashes Figure 4.2. Average age of the high- and low-involvement drivers in inattention-related Amok crashes and near-crashes. 70 "fo determine whether particular age groups were more likely to drive while inattentive,the drivers were split up into six age groups and the number of events for each group was calculated and plotted in Figure 4.3. Results from a chi-square statistical test indicated that the 18-to 20- year-old drivers had significantly more inattentive events than did any of the other age groups:X (5)=39.93,p>0.01. 120 100 eyV;. 80 �� W tlUg. I > 60 ❑High Involvement' c # •Low Involvement 40 'f: - LL 20 g 0 18-20 21-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Age Groups Figure 4.3. The frequency of inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for each age group by involvement group. Gender. An analysis of the gender make-up of both the high-and low-involvement drivers was also conducted. Note that 60.6 percent of all primary drivers were male and 39.4 percent were female. The breakdown for high-and low-involvement drivers is shown in Figure 4.4. Males were involved in more crashes and near-crashes than were the female drivers.However,it appears that the female drivers were involved in a higher percentage of inattention events than were the male drivers. This suggests that when females are involved in crashes and near-crashes, they are more likely to be inattention-related. Males,on the other hand,have a higher rate of crash and near-crash involvement but a slightly lower likelihood of inattention serving as a contributing factor. 71 60 50 — — — i a 40 30 ❑High Involvement ■Low Involvement ai c 20 P. 10 47.4.j 0 Male Female Gender Figure 4.4. Gender breakdown of high-involvement drivers. Years of Driving Experience. An analysis of the number of years of driving experience was also conducted. Figure 4.5 shows that high-involvement drivers had fewer years of driving experience than did the low-involvement drivers. Again,a t-test was conducted and the results suggest that the high-involvement drivers had significantly fewer years of experience than did the low-involvement drivers:t(99)7.6.p=0.007. Given that drivers in the United States generally receive their driver's licenses at age 16,this result is most likely correlated with age. 72 35 ii 30 --_---- -- - - - -- - _ _ u m I 2LLI O 0 15 6 10 — i 5 High Involvement Low Involvement Involvement in Inattention-Related Crashes and Near Crashes Figure 4.5. Average years of driving experience for drivers with high-and low- involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Drowsiness. Drivers were administered an abbreviated version of the Walter Reed Sleep Hygiene Questionnaire to assess their sleep habits. An abbreviated version was used to reduce the amount of time required of drivers during in-processing. There were 31 questions on this abbreviated questionnaire. This questionnaire was not designed to provide one composite score or rank driver drowsiness on several scales. Therefore,to explore the relevance of this questionnaire to inattention-related events,two of the questions have been identified as the most representative of the entire questionnaire. These two questions are: 1.Rank<on a scale of 1 to 10>the extent to which you currently experience daytime sleepiness? 2.I low many hours do you sleep<per night? Daytime Sleepiness. The average scores that the high-and low-involvement drivers provided when rating their daytime sleepiness levels on a scale from Ito 10 indicated that high- involvement drivers rated themselves slightly higher(i.e.,more sleepy)than the low- involvement drivers(inattentive=4.8,attentive drivers=3.9). While this result was not significant,the t-value approached significance:t(99)=3.6,p=0.06. Hours of Sleep. An analysis of the average number of hours of sleep experienced by high-and low-involvement drivers was also conducted. Both high-and low-involvement drivers'average hours of sleep reported were 7.0 hours,which was not significant. Given that no significant results were obtained for these two questions,no further analyses using this questionnaire were conducted. 73 Driving History Number of Traffic Violations. All drivers were asked to report the number of traffic-violation citations that they had received during the 5 years prior to the start of the 100-Car Study. This self-reported value was analyzed by comparing the number of high-involvement driver violations to low-involvement driver violations. Figure 4.6 shows that high-involvement drivers had a higher average number of violations than did the low-involvement drivers. A t-test was conducted which resulted in a significant finding,t(101)4.9, p=0.03. Number of Collisions. All drivers were also asked to report the number of collisions that they had been involved during the 5 years prior to the start of the study. Figure 4.6 also shows that high-involvement drivers reported involvement in only slightly more collisions than the low- involvement drivers. This result was not significant at a 0.05 probability level. 2.5 — --- 2 m m 1.5 A p ®Low Inwkement ° = 0 High Involvement c m Li 0.5 0 ;. Violations Collisions Figure 4.6. Self-reported involvement in traffic violations and collisions for 5 years prior to the onset of the 100-Car Study. Test Battery Analyses Table 4.4 provides a list of the test batteries that were administered to the drivers either prior to the onset of the study or at the completion of the study. Analyses of each of these test batteries will follow. Aliorkt 74 Table 4.4.Test battery names and scores. Test Battery Name Test Battery Score Life Stress Inventory • Life Stress Score Driver Stress Inventory • Aggression • Dislike of Driving • Hazard Monitoring • Thrill-Seeking • Drowsiness- Proneness Dula Dangerous Driving Inventory • DDDI Dangerous Driving Total Score • Negative Emotional Driving Subscore • Aggressive Driving Subscore • Risky Driving Subscore NEO Five Factor Inventory • Neuroticism • Extroversion • Openness to Experience • Agreeableness • Conscientiousness Life Stress Inventory.The Life Stress Inventory was administered to the drivers after data collection as the entire questionnaire instructed the drivers to record life stressors experienced during the past 12 months,which corresponded to the duration of data collection. A composite score was then calculated based upon the type of stressors that each driver experienced and an overall life stress score ranged from 0 to 300. Unfortunately,only 65 primary drivers returned after data collection to complete this questionnaire. T-tests were conducted to determine whether the overall Life Stress Inventory scores were significantly different between the high-and low-involvement drivers. No significant differences were observed as both groups scored in the low stress level category(high- involvement= 154.6 and low-involvement=125.4). Other descriptive statistics of the Life Stress Inventory are provided in Table 4.5. Note that the highest Life Stress Score was for a low- involvement driver. Table 4.5.Life Stress Inventory descriptive statistics. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 15 50 Mean 154.6 125.4 Standard Deviation 104.1 113.0 75 Driver Stress Inventory.The Driver Stress Inventory was developed by Matthews,Desmond, Joyner,Carcary,and Gilliland(1996)to assess an individual driver's vulnerability to commonplace stress reactions while driving,such as frustration,anxiety,and boredom. The five driver stress factors that the Driver Stress Inventory assesses are(1)aggression,(2)dislike of driving,(3)hazard-monitoring,(4)thrill-seeking,and(5)fatigue proneness. Composite scores for each driver stress factor are provided. The Driver Stress Inventory was originally validated by correlating responses with driver's self-report of violations and collisions,other driver behavior scales(Driver Coping Questionnaire)and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. The Driver Stress Inventory has been used widely in transportation research. T-tests were conducted to see whether any significant differences occurred for the high-and low- involvement drivers for each of the five driving stress factor scores. None of the t-tests indicated significant differences between driver groups. One possibility for this result is that these drivers are all urban and may all be fairly uniform on scales such as hazard monitoring and aggressive driving;therefore,no differences existed in this population for these driver assessment scales. Descriptive statistics for each of the five driver stress factors is provided in Tables 4.6 through 4.10 below. These results suggest that the Driver Stress Inventory scores for any of the five driver stress factors show no association with the occurrence of inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Table 4.6. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the driver stress factor scale of aggression. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement i"► N 27 76 • Mean 48.5 46.4 Standard Deviation 12.1 15.5 Table 4.7. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the driver stress factor scale of dislike of driving. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 26 76 Mean 33.0 31.9 Standard Deviation 10.1 10.3 Table 4.8. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the driver stress factor scale of hazard monitoring. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 27 76 Mean 64.9 68.9 _ Standard Deviation 11.2 11.8 Auk 76 Table 4.9. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the driver stress factor scale of fatigue proneness. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 26 76 Mean 39.7 36.7 Standard Deviation 13.6 13.1 Table 4.10. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the driver stress factor scale of thrill- seeking. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 27 75 Mean 28.5 25.1 Standard Deviation 16.6 16.3 Dula Dangerous Driving Inventory.The Dula Dangerous Driving Inventory provides a measure of a driver's likelihood to engage in dangerous behaviors. While the scale maintained strong internal reliability,it was validated using a driving simulator and not any actual driving on a test track or on actual roadways(Dula and Ballard,2003). The current analysis is one of the first analyses of this inventory using driving data on real roadways and in real traffic conditions. There are four scales that the Dula Dangerous Driving Index measures,these are(1)Overall Dula Dangerous Driving Index,(2)Negative Emotional Driving Subscale,(3)Aggressive Driving Subscale,and(4)Risky Driving Subscale. T-tests were conducted on each of the four scales to determine whether high-involvement drivers had a significantly different likelihood of engaging in dangerous behavior than did the low- involvement drivers. No significant differences on any of the four scales were observed. The descriptive statistics for each of the four scales arc presented in Tables 4.11 through 4.14. Table 4.11. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the Dula Dangerous Driving Scale for Dula Dangerous Driving Index. Statistic —I—High Involvement Low Involvement N 27 77 Mean 54.04 51.61 Standard Deviation 10.46 11.42 Table 4.12. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the Dula Dangerous Driving Scale Negative Emotional Driving Index. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 27 77 Mean 22.11 21.23 Standard Deviation 4.59 4.9 77 Table 4.13. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the Dula Dangerous Driving Scale Aggressive Driving. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 27 77 Mean 11.89 11.51 Standard Deviation 4.15 3.78 Table 4.14. Descriptive statistics on the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes for the Dula Dangerous Driving Scale Risky Driving. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 27 77 Mean 20.04 18.94 Standard Deviation 3.88 4.48 NEO Personality Inventory--Revised.The NEO Five-Factor Inventory is a five-factor personality inventory that obtains individual's ranking on the following five scales: neuroticism, extraversion,openness to experience,agreeableness,and conscientiousness. Extensive research has been conducted correlating the personality scales of neuroticism, extraversion,agreeableness,and conscientiousness to crash involvement(Arthur and Graziano, Auk Fine, 1963;Loo, 1979;and Shaw and Sichel, 1971). While the hypothesis that drivers with certain personalities would more likely be involved in accidents seems reasonable,the results of this research are mixed. Some of the issues involved with these mixed results arc that self-reported driving histories and driving behavior questionnaires have been correlated with personality scales but very little actual driving data has been used. Neuroticism. The neuroticism scale is primarily a scale contrasting emotional stability with severe emotional maladjustment(depression,borderline hostility). I ligh scorers may be at risk for some kinds of psychiatric problems(Costa and McCrae, 1992). T-tests were conducted comparing the high-and low-involvement drivers. These results indicated that there were no significant differences with the low-involvement drivers obtaining mean scores of 26.7 and the high-involvement drivers obtaining a mean score of 20.6. The low- involvement drivers'average score of 26.7 places them in the"high"neuroticism category on a scale from Very High(67-75)to Very Low(25-34). The high-involvement drivers average score placed them in the category of"Average"which ranged in scores from 14 to 21. Extraversion.The extraversion scale is a scale that measures not only sociability but also assertiveness,general optimism and cheerfulness. People who score lower on this scale are not pessimists but rather prefer solitude,are generally more subdued in expressing emotion and demonstrate higher levels of cynicism(Costa and McCrae, 1992). T-tests conducted on the extraversion scale showed that low-involvement drivers rated significantly higher than did the high-involvement drivers,t(103)=7.03,p=0.01. Figure 4.7 78 shows the two groups scores with high-involvement drivers ranking as"Average"and the low- involvement drivers ranking"High." 45 40 o ttrlt in af* k • # a , rrk c 35 �'. Y ��e•�;. Average .` c Low Very Low 20 # si gym" High Involvement Low Involvement Level of Involvement in Inattention-Related Crashes and Near Crashes Figure 4.7. Personality scores for the extraversion scale demonstrating significant differences between drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Openness to Experience.The openness to experience scale is a measure of one's willingness to explore,entertain novel ideas.and accept unconventional values. Those who score lower on this scale uphold more conventional values and are more conservative in action and beliefs. While some intelligence measures are correlated with scoring high on the"openness to experience" scale,this is not a measure of intelligence on its own(Costa and McCrae, 1992). Results from a[-test on the Openness to Experience scale also revealed statistically significant differences between the high-and low-involvement drivers,t(103)=4.03,p=0.05. Figure 4.8 shows mean scores for both groups. These mean scores suggest that the high-involvement drivers scored in the"Average Openness to Experience Range"but that the low-involvement drivers scored in the high range. 79 45 rn 40 Average a r . d 30 k c Low o. 25 — } ----- �dy{, - a Very Low 7,.Lt a 20 High Involvement Low Involvement Level of Involvement in Inattention-Related Crashes and Near Crashes Figure 4.8. Personality scores for the openness to experience scale demonstrating Amok significant differences between drivers with high and low involvement in inattention- related crashes and near-crashes. Agreeableness.The agreeableness scale is a measure of altruistic and sympathetic tendencies versus egocentric and competitive tendencies. Those drivers who score higher on this scale may be more concerned about the drivers in their vicinity while those who score lower may view driving more as a competition(Costa and McCrae, 1992). The mean scores on the agreeableness scale for both high-and low-involvement drivers indicated that the low-involvement drivers scored significantly higher on the agreeableness scale than did the high-involvement drivers,t(102)=826,p=0.005. High-involvement drivers scored solidly in the middle of the"Average"range while the low-involvement drivers scored near the top of the"High"range(Figure 4.9). 80 45 40 i rn ' 1 - gi 35 Average t30Low 25f } ¢ k b very Low C High Involvement Low Inwlvement Level of Involvement in Inattention-Related Crashes and Near Crashes Figure 4.9. Personality scores for the agreeableness scale demonstrating significant differences between drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Conscientiousness. The conscientiousness scale is not as much a measure of self-control but of individual differences in the tendencies and abilities to plan,organize,and perform tasks. Highly conscientious individuals are purposeful,strong-willed,and highly determined individuals who generally fall into categories of highly skilled musicians or athletes. Individuals who score lower on this scale are not as driven to achievement of goals and while they may possess goals.are less likely to maintain schedules and practices that will result in the achievement of these goals (Costa and McCrae, 1992). The mean conscientiousness scores for both high-and low-involvement drivers also resulted in significant differences,t(103)=6.62,p=0.01. The mean score for the high-involvement group indicated that they scored near the top of"Average"and the low-involvement group scored in the middle of"High"(Figure 4.10). 81 45 40. u a 35rr o f ar s' Average N 30 0• Low g 26w'a' � �.. Very Low , � 20 High Invo ement Low Inwhement Level of Involvement in Inattention-Related Crashes and Near Crashes Figure 4.10. Personality scores for the conscientiousness scale demonstrating significant Aso, differences between drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. The results of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory suggest that some differences exist between the high-and low-involvement drivers. The low-involvement drivers scored in the"high"or"very high"levels of extroversion,openness to experience,agreeableness,and conscientiousness. The high-involvement drivers scored either"High"or"Average"on all of these scales indicating more moderate tendencies in each of these areas of personality. Performance-based test analyses Waypoint.The WayPoint computer-based test provides a composite score on four driver characteristics.as follows: I. Channel capacity: Speed of information processing. 2. Preventable near-crash/crash risk: Ranks a driver on a scale of 1 to 4 from significantly lower than average(odds ratio of 0.4)to greatly above average(odds ratio of 6.2 or higher). 3. The expected number of moving violations in the next 5 years. 4. Expected seat belt use. Previous testing by NHTSA indicated that this test could identify high-risk drivers 62.2 percent of the time with a false alarm rate of 19.9 percent;however,these results were based on older drivers.T-tests were conducted to determine whether the high-involvement drivers scored ANN significantly different on any of these four scales than did the low-involvement drivers. None of the t-tests showed significant differences between the high-and low-involvement drivers. This is 82 an interesting result given that drivers'self-reported moving violations were significantly different for these two groups. The descriptive statistics for each of these scales are presented in Tables 4.15 through 4.18. Table 4.15. Descriptive statistics for the drivers with low and high involvement in inattention—related crashes and near-crashes for the Channel Capacity Score. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 23 69 Mean 5.48 5.31 Standard Deviation 1.86 2.17 Table 4.16. Descriptive statistics for the drivers with low and high involvement in inattention—related crashes and near-crashes for the Preventable Crash Risk. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 23 69 Mean 0.30 1.55 Standard Deviation 1.55 0.76 Table 4.17. Descriptive statistics for the drivers with low and high involvement in inattention—related crashes and near-crashes for the Expected Number of Moving Violations. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 23 69 Mean 1.30 1.31 Standard Deviation 0.63 0.70 Table 4.18. Descriptive statistics for the drivers with low and high involvement in inattention—related crashes and near-crashes for the Expected Seatbelt Use. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 23 67 Mean 1.10 1.15 Standard Deviation 029 0.36 Useful Field of View(UFOV).The Useful Field of View test is also a computer-based performance test that measures an individual's central visual processing speed,divided attention, and selective attention. The participant is required to select rapidly presented target objects that are flashed on a computer monitor while simultaneously attending to other stimuli. Using this test,near-crash/crash risks are assigned to each individual. T-tests were conducted for the composite UFOV score to determine whether significant differences in the high-versus low-involvement drivers existed in their central visual processing speed,divided attention,and selective attention abilities. No significant differences between the high-and low-involvement drivers were observed for the UFOV test. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 4.19. 83 Table 4.19. Descriptive statistics for the drivers with low and high involvement in inattention—related crashes and near-crashes for the UFOV. Statistic High Involvement Low Involvement N 27 81 Mean 1.78 2.32 Standard Deviation 1.80 2.15 ANALYSIS ONE:CORRELATION ANALYSIS FOR THE HIGH-AND LOW- INVOLVEMENT GROUPS Spearman correlations were conducted to determine whether there were any linear relationships between the frequency of involvement in inattention-related events and survey responses/test scores for both the high-and low-involvement groups. Table 4.20 presents only those test scores/survey responses that were significant. Note that none of the low-involvement group's correlations were significant with only accident involvement approaching significance at a 0.06 probability level. The rest of the significant correlation coefficients were for the high-involvement group. Those scores or responses that demonstrated a linear relationship with inattention-related crash and near-crash involvement were Driver Age,Driving Experience,and Neuroticism Scale. Driver age has been found in the past to be highly inversely related to crash involvement. Given that most of the drivers probably received their driver's license in the United States at approximately age 16,these two responses are probably highly correlated with each other. The neuroticism scale has been found in Am% previous research to correspond to drivers self-reported crash involvement;this is an interesting finding in that this demonstrates high correlation to actual crash and near-crash involvement. Table 4.20.Correlation coefficients and probability values for the test batteries that obtained statistical significance. Attentive Inattentive Test Correlation Probability Correlation Probability Score/Survey Coefficient Value Coefficient Value Response Driver Age -0.13 0.24 -0.37 0.05 Driver History -0.14 0.24 -0.49 0.01 Accidents 0.21 0.06 0.18 0.36 Neuroticism 0.07 0.52 0.45 0.02 Note: Numbers in bold font indicate statistical significant using a 0.05 probability value. ANALYSIS TWO: F-TEST ANALYSIS FOR THE LOW-,MODERATE-,AND HIGH- INVOLVEMENT GROUPS As part of the exploratory nature of these analyses,a second analysis using three groups was also conducted. With three groups,some separation between the two tails of the distribution is present so that any differences in those drivers who are the most and least involved in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes may be more easily distinguished. The drivers were grouped into three levels of involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes:low, moderate,and high involvement. These groups were based upon the number of inattention- related crashes and near-crashes that each driver was involved(Figure 4.11). "Low 84 involvement"refers to those drivers who were not involved in any or were involved in one inattention-related crash and/or near-crash. The"moderate involvement"group was involved in two to four inattention-related crashes or near-crashes. The"high involvement'group was involved in five or more inattention-related crashes or near-crashes. Therefore,"high involvement"refers to those drivers with high numbers of inattention-related crashes and/or near-crashes and"low involvement'refers to those drivers with none or only one inattention- related crash and/or near-crash. 16 A m .c N i N 1Q ._ Low Involvement Moderate High� Hi 75 .c Drivers Involvement Involvement e vi 8 Drivers • Drivers O U • I.c m z z n Caw I`O 4 - •••"' UMOWN* C 0 o- I U. Q 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Subject Figure 4.11. The frequency of inattention-related crashes and near-crashes by driver in order for Low,Moderate,and High frequency. Univariate analyses of variance(ANOVA)tests were conducted using the three levels of inattention-related event involvement. All survey responses and test scores that were appropriate were used as dependent variables. Only those ANOVA tests that were significant will be reported in the following section. Table 4.21 provides the descriptive statistics for the drivers assigned to low-,medium-,and high-involvement groups. 85 Table 4.21. Descriptive statistics on drivers labeled "low involvement," "moderate involvement," and "high involvement" in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Statistic Low Involvement Moderate High Involvement Involvement Number of Drivers 58 24 20 Mean (# of Inattention-Related 0.42 2.84 8.57 Crashes and Near-crashes) Median 0 3 6 Mode 0 3 5 Standard Deviation 0.56 0.78 3.88 Minimum 0 2 5 Maximum number of events 2 4 15 Number of crashes 8 9 4 Number of near-crashes 51 18 17 Results The results of the univariate ANOVA tests using three involvement groups indicated that five of the test scores that were significantly different for the two-group analysis also proved to be significantly different for the three-group analysis. These five test scores/demographic data were mean driver age, years of driving experience, self-reported traffic violations, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Two other test scores were found to be significantly different using three groups that were not significantly different using two groups: these two test scores were daytime sleepiness score and self-reported accident involvement. The three-group scores on extraversion and openness to experience were not significantly different even though these tests were significantly different with only two groups. These results indicate that the extremely low- and extremely high-involvement groups were significantly different from each other for daytime sleepiness scores. For self-reported accident involvement, the two extreme groups were actually not significantly different from each other rather the moderate-involvement group actually reported significantly more accidents than did the high-involvement or the low-involvement groups. It could be hypothesized that this was an artifact of age in that the high-involvement drivers were, on average, 25 years old whereas the low- and moderate-involvement driver groups had an average age of 39 and 38, respectively. Separating the drivers into three groups failed to find significant differences for the two personality inventory scales of extraversion and openness to experience. This result may be explained statistically in that by separating the drivers into three groups reduces the statistical power of the sample due to the decreased numbers of drivers in each group. Most of the statistical tests that were significant with only two groups were also significant with three groups. All univariate analysis results are presented in Table 4.22. Given the exploratory nature of these analyses, conducting two analyses (a two-group and a three-group)was an important step in understanding these data. Both analyses have benefits. The two-group analysis, with a larger number of drivers per group, has better statistical power whereas the """ three-group analysis provides more separation between the extreme drivers. The significant 86 results demonstrated that very few differences existed between the two-and three-group analyses;therefore,the results that were observed are stable and reliable for the driving population. Table 4.22. Results from the univariate analyses of driver involvement in inattention- related crashes and near-crashes. Two-Group t-Value Probability Three-Group F-Value Probability Analysis of Mean Value Analysis of Mean Value Demographic Demographic Data/Test Score Data/Test Score Driver Age 7.07 0.009 Driver Age 6.77 0.002 Years of Driving 7.6 0.007 Years of Driving 7.69 0.0008 Experience Experience N/A Daytime 3.80 0.03 Sleepiness Score Self-reported traffic 4.9 0.03 Self-reported 5.54 0.005 violations traffic violations N/A Self-reported 4.88 0.009 accident involvement Extroversion(Five- 7.03 0.01 N/A Factor Personality Inventory) Openness to 4.03 0.05 N/A Experience(Five- Factor Personality Inventory) Agreeableness(Five- 8.26 0.005 Agreeableness 3.77 0.03 Factor Personality (Five-Factor Inventory) Personality Inventory) Conscientiousness 6.62 0.01 Conscientiousness 3.05 0.05 (Five-Factor (Five-Factor Personality Personality Inventory) Inventory) ANALYSIS TWO:CORRELATION ANALYSIS FOR THOSE DRIVERS WITH LOW, MODERATE,AND HIGH INVOLVMENT IN INATTENTION-RELATED CRASHES AND NEAR-CRASHES. Correlations were also conducted for each group of involvement. Correlations were performed using the frequency of involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes versus driver survey responses or test battery scores. The significant results are shown in Table 4.23. Several more tests obtained or approached significant results with three groups. The Dula Dangerous Driving:Aggressive Driving Index,the Dula Dangerous Driving Overall Index,Neuroticism, 87 Agreeableness,and Conscientiousness all demonstrated significant correlations for the high- involvement group only. The neuroticism scale also obtained significance for the moderate- involvement group. The Driving Stress Inventory: Thrill-Seeking Scale reached significance for the low-involvement group but no other group. These results demonstrate that separating the mean values for the high-and low-involvement drivers are more easily differentiable with three groups then with only two groups as seven of the test scores/survey responses demonstrated significant correlation coefficients whereas only four test scores demonstrated significant correlation coefficients with two groups. Many of these correlation coefficients are over 0.4 or above,which are considered to be moderate correlations (Keppel and Wickens,2004). Table 4.23.Correlation coefficients for all test battery questionnaires. Low Involvement Moderate High Involvement Involvement Test Corr Prob Corr Prob Corr Coef Prob Score/Survey Coef Value Coef Value Value Response Aggressive 0.04 0.75 -0.13 0.52 0.48 0.02 Driving-Dula Dangerous wok, Driving Dula 0.13 0.34 -0.21 0.29 0.46 0.03 Dangerous Driving Index Thrill-Seeking 0.26 0.5 -0.03 0.89 -0.23 0.32 Neuroticism 0.01 0.94 -0.40 0.04 0.62 0.003 Agreeableness -0.01 0.92 -0.25 0.20 -0.42 0.06 Conscientious- -0.15 0.27 -0.9 0.63 -0.42 0.06 ness Note: Numbers in bold font indicate statistical significant using a 0.05 probability value ANALYSIS THREE. ARE DRIVERS'RESPONSES TO THE DEMOGRAPHIC,TEST BATTERY,AND PERFORMANCE-BASED TESTS PREDICTIVE OF INVOLVEMENT IN INATTENTION-RELATED CRASHES AND NEAR-CRASHES? A logistic regression was conducted to determine whether multiple data sources,all obtained from demographic data,test battery results,and performance-based tests,could be used to predict whether a driver was either highly involved in inattention-related crashes and near- crashes or not. Only the seven variables that demonstrated significant differences in involvement level for the above tested t-tests or ANOVAs were used in the analysis. These variables were: 1.Driver Age 2.Driving Experience 3.Number of moving violations in the past 5 years 4.Extraversion score from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory 88 5.Openness to Experience from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory 6.Agreeableness from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory 7.Conscientiousness from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory None of the correlation coefficients for any of the above variables or test battery results was greater than+0.4,which is considered to be a small to moderate effect size in the behavioral sciences. Nevertheless,these variables were used in the logistic regression analysis. A backward selection technique was used to first identify those variables that make significant partial contributions to predicting whether a driver involvement was low or high. This procedure produced a logistic regression equation with two variables:Driver Age and Agreeableness. The resulting significant regression coefficients and relevant statistics are shown in Table 4.24. Table 4.24. Results from the logistic regression analysis. Parameter DF Estimate Standard Wald Chi- Probability Error Square Intercept 1 2.61 LIO 5.67 0.02 Driver Age I -0.04 0.02 4.77 0.03 Agreeableness I -0.06 0.03 5.35 0.02 A forward selection technique was then used to ensure that both of these variables were making significant partial contributions to the prediction equation. The results of this test resulted in the same regression equation,indicating that both Driver Age and Agreeableness are both predictive of a driver's level of involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. The correlation coefficients for both Driver Age and Agreeableness were both negative, indicating that as Age or Agreeableness increases,involvement in inattention-related crashes and/or near-crashes will decrease. The odds ratio estimates,as calculated as part of the logistic regression,for Driver Age was 0.96(Lower Confidence Limit=0.92 and Upper Confidence Limit=1.0),which was not significantly different from 1.0. The odds ratio estimate for Agreeableness was similar at 0.94(Lower Confidence Limit=0.89 and Upper Confidence Limit =0.99).These results indicate a slight protective effect in that as an Age or Agreeableness score increases,there will be a decrease in involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. DISCUSSION. HOW MIGHT THESE RESULTS BE USED TO MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF INATTENTIVE DRIVING BEHAVIORS AND COULD THIS INFORMATION BE USED TO IMPROVE DRIVER EDUCATION COURSES OR TRAFFIC SCHOOLS? As part of this analysis.the health screening,questionnaires,and driving performance-based tests were all analyzed to determine if the scores obtained on any of these measures correlated or could determine differences in high-or low-involvement in inattention-related crashes and near- crashes. There were seven variables that produced significant t-tests: Driver Age,Driving Experience,number of moving violations in the past 5 years,and four of the personality scales from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory:Extroversion,Openness to Experience,Agreeableness.and Conscientiousness. When three groups were used,Daytime Sleepiness Rating and Accident Involvement also identified significant differences between groups. For the correlation analysis, 89 several test batteries were significant with three groups that were not significant when using two groups of drivers. A logistic regression was conducted to determine if any of these seven variables were predictive of driver inattention. The results of this analysis indicate that Driver Age and Agreeableness both demonstrated some predictive nature to driver involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. The results of the logistic regression indicate that none of the demographic data or test scores, except for Driver Age and the Agreeableness score from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory, demonstrate predictive abilities to pre-determine which drivers may be at greater risk of inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Predictive qualities aside,obtaining significant differences and significant correlations using highly variable human performance data demonstrates that many of these surveys and test batteries do provide useful information about the driving population. The significant results of Driver Age,for both the logistic regression and the t-tests,indicate that drivers'education of the dangers of distraction and drowsiness while driving is critical. Note that the younger drivers were over-represented in inattention-related crash and near-crash involvement(Figure 4.2).The significant results in Driving Experience are not surprising as this variable is highly correlated with Driver Age. The significant t-tests and ANOVAs detecting that the high-involvement drivers were significantly younger than the other groups suggests that younger drivers are over-involved in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. These results lend some support to those states who ' ' have already implemented graduated driver's licensure programs to restrict specific types of driver distraction. The results from this analysis also lend support to those studies that have already shown that these actions may in fact reduce younger drivers'involvement in crashes and near-crashes(Hedlund and Compton,2005). As part of graduated licensure programs,some states have restricted the number of passengers in the vehicle and other states have banned hand- held-device use for teenage drivers. Conducting a naturalistic driving study with teen drivers would be the next research step to determine frequency of engagement in inattention-related tasks and the impact of inattention on driving. It is very interesting that the self-reported variable,number of traffic violations received in the past 5 years,indicated that high-involvement drivers also had a higher frequency of traffic violations than the low-involvement drivers. This result suggests that those drivers who are attending traffic schools due to multiple traffic violations may indeed be those drivers who are more highly involved in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. This also suggests that driver inattention is a topic that needs to be addressed in traffic school training. Based on results from other chapters in this report,one item of training may be to assist drivers in their decisions of when to engage in a secondary task,for example. Near-crash/crash risks are much higher in intersections,wet,snowy,or icy roadways,and in moderate traffic density that is moving faster than 25 miles per hour,etc. These are not times in which to engage in a secondary task if it is not necessary that a driver do so. Results from other chapters in this report suggest that eyeglances greater than 2 seconds away from the forward roadway increase near-crash/crash risk. Teaching drivers how to scan the roadway environment but returning to the forward roadway at least once every 2 seconds may also be useful information to incorporate into traffic school and driver's education programs. More research is required to determine how to best 90 present this information and how to optimally incorporate this information into a driver training program. SUMMARY The results of this analysis indicated that Driver Age,Driving Experience,self-reported traffic violations and crashes,daytime sleepiness ratings,and personality inventory scores indicated significant differences between the high-and low-involvement drivers for both two and three groups of involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Given the exploratory nature of these analyses,two separate analyses were conducted using two groups of involvement and three groups of involvement. The main results from these analyses are as follows: • The high-involvement drivers were significantly younger than the low-involvement drivers with average ages of 30 and 38,respectively. With three groups of drivers,the average ages for the three groups were still significant and the average ages of the groups were 39(low involvement),38(moderate involvement),and 26(high involvement)years old. • The high-involvement drivers had significantly less driving experience than the low- involvement drivers with an average of 13 versus 25 years for the two groups. For the three-group analysis,the high-involvement group's average years of driving experience was 9.6 years while the moderate-and low-involvement group's averages were 22 and 23 years,respectively. • High-involvement drivers(Mean=2.2)reported receiving significantly more moving violations in the past 5 years than the low-involvement drivers(Mean= 1.4). For the three-group analysis,the high-involvement drivers had received an average of 2.6 violations.while the moderate-involvement and the low-involvement groups received an average of 1.8 and 1 violation(s),respectively. • An interesting result occurred with the number of accidents in the past 5 years. When the drivers were separated into three groups,the average number of reported accidents was significantly different between the low-involvement and the moderate-involvement groups. The low-involvement group reported an average of 0.9 accidents in the past 5 years while the moderate-involvement group reported 1.9 crashes in the past 5 years. The high-involvement group only reported being involved in 1.4 accidents in the past 5 years. It may be that the high-involvement drivers were not truthful with their responses or were trying to impress the researchers. • I ligh-involvement drivers scored significantly lower on the personality factors of extraversion,openness to experience,agreeableness,and conscientiousness. The same was found when the drivers were separated into three groups,except that the extraversion and the openness to experiences scores were no longer significant. These results partially corroborate Arthur and Graziano(1996)results,in that conscientiousness scores were significantly different between the high-involvement and low-involvement groups; however their results did not include agreeableness,which was found in these analyses to be predictive of inattention-related crash and near-crash involvement. • For the correlation analysis,only one scale maintained a significant correlation between the two analyses:the Neuroticism Scale from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Driver Age or Driving Experience yielded significant correlations when the drivers were separated into two groups,but not for three groups. While many of the significant 91 correlation coefficients were greater than 0.4 with three groups,these linear relationships do not appear to be stable, • The only questionnaire data or test battery scores that were predictive of driver involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes were driver age and scores on the agreeableness scale from the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory. Interestingly, agreeableness scores for the high-and low-involvement drivers(both two and three groups)were also found to be significantly different from one another. • No differences were found between the high-and low-involvement drivers using the Driver Stress Inventory,Life Stress Inventory,the Dula Dangerous Driving Index, Waypoint,or the Useful Field of View. While none of these tests were written specifically to assess driver's likelihood of being involved in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes,it was hypothesized that these tests may measure some of the same traits that would increase a driver's willingness to engage in inattention-related tasks while driving. 92 CHAPTER 5: OBJECTIVE 4,WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEASURES OBTAINED FROM PRE-TEST BATTERIES(E.G.,A LIFE STRESS TEST)AND THE FREQUENCY OF ENGAGEMENT IN DISTRACTING BEHAVIORS WHILE DRIVING? DOES THERE APPEAR TO BE ANY CORRELATION BETWEEN WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE IN DISTRACTING BEHAVIORS AND MEASURES OBTAINED FROM PRE-TEST BATTERIES? For this analysis,correlations were conducted using the frequency of involvement in inattention- related baseline epochs and each driver's composite score or relevant response for 9 of the 11 questionnaires and performance-based tests that were administered to the drivers(Table 5.1). A baseline epoch was deemed to be"inattention-related"if the driver engaged in a secondary task or was marked as drowsy at any point during the 6-second segment. The debrief form and the health assessment questionnaires were not included as they were not designed for this type of analysis. 93 Table 5.1. Description of questionnaire and computer-based tests used for 100-Car Study. Name of Testing Type of Test Time test was Brief description Procedure administered 1. Driver demographic Paper/pencil In-processing General information on information drivers age,gender,etc. 2. Driving History Paper/pencil In-processing General information on recent traffic violations and recent collisions 3. Health assessment Paper/pencil In-processing List of variety of questionnaire illnesses/medical conditions/or any prescriptions that may affect driving performance. 4. Dula Dangerous Paper/pencil In-processing One score that describes Driving Index driver's tendencies toward aggressive driving. 5. Sleep Hygiene Paper/pencil In-processing List of questions that provide information about driver's general sleep habits/substance use/sleep disorders 6. Driver Stress Paper/Pencil In-processing One score that describes the Inventory perceived stress levels drivers experience during their daily commutes 7. Life Stress Inventory Paper/pencil In-processing/Out- One score that describes processing drivers stress levels based upon the occurrence of major Amok life events 8. Useful Field-of-View Computer- In-processing Assessment of driver's central based test vision and processing speed, divided and selective attention. 9. WayPoint Computer- In-processing Assessment of the speed of based test information processing and vigilance. 10. NEO-FFI Paper/pencil In-processing Personality test 11. General debrief Paper/pencil Out-processing List of questions ranging from questionnaire seatbelt use,driving under the influence,and administration of experiment. DATA USED IN THIS ANALYSIS For the analyses in this chapter, crashes and near-crashes only will be used (incidents will be excluded from the analyses). In Chapter 6, Objective 2 of the 100-Car Study Final Report, the analyses indicated that the kinematic signatures of both crashes and near-crashes were nearly identical; whereas the kinematic signatures of incidents were more variable. Given this result and to increase statistical power, the data from both crashes and near-crashes will be used in the comparison of questionnaire data to the frequency of involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Note that inattention-related crashes and near-crashes or inattention-related baseline epochs are defined as those events that involve the driver engaging in complex, moderate, or simple ,.o, secondary tasks or driving while drowsy. Please note that in Chapter 2, driving-related 94 inattention to the forward roadway was determined to possess a protective effect and therefore was removed from the definition of driving inattention. Non-specific eyeglance away from the forward roadway was also shown to not be significantly different from normal, baseline driving; therefore, these events were also removed from the analysis. DESCRIPTION OF DATA Figure 5.1 shows the distribution of the number of inattention-related baseline epochs that each driver was involved. Note that seven primary drivers were not involved in any inattention- related baseline epochs. The mean frequency of inattention-related baseline involvement is 87.2, the median frequency is 62, and the range of frequency counts is 0 to 322 baseline inattention epochs. a, • C I 300 • • co • • 250 � • .c• 200 •►•► o 4/0 C a. M g W 150 co Nd► � M S 100 — • d • 50 u_ 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Subject ID Figure 5.1. The frequency distribution of the number of inattention-related baseline epochs that each driver was involved (N= 101). Note: Subjects were sorted by frequency of involvement to allow the reader to see the range of values. A Spearman correlation between the frequency of involvement in inattention-related crash and near-crash events and baseline epochs was performed. The results indicated a strong correlation with an R-value of 0.72, p = 0.0001. This suggests that drivers who are frequently engaging in inattention-related tasks, as shown by the baseline data, are also those that are more frequently involved in crashes and near-crashes. This also suggests that the better, safer drivers engage in secondary tasks and/or drive drowsy less often than do those drivers who were involved in multiple crashes and near-crashes. Correlations were conducted using representative survey questions, composite scores from the test batteries, and scores from the computer-based tests and frequency of involvement in 95 inattention-related baseline epochs. Table 5.2 presents the corresponding correlation coefficients and probability values for those test scores that were statistically significant. Note that Driver Age and Driving Experience obtained the highest correlation coefficient at-0.4 while the rest of the coefficients were very weak with R values under 0.3. Table 5.2. The significant correlations between test battery,survey,and performance- based test scores to the frequency of inattention-related baseline epochs(N=101). Name of Testing Question/Score Correlation Probability Value Procedure Coefficient Driver Driver Age -0.41 <0.0001 demographic Years of driving -0.44 <0.0001 information experience Dula Dangerous DDDI 0.29 0.004 Driving Index Risky Driving 0.26 0.01 Sleep Hygiene Daytime 0.22 0.03 Sleepiness Driver Stress Aggression 0.23 0.02 Inventory Thrill-Seeking 0.26 0.01 NEO-FFI Extroversion -0.21 0.03 Agreeableness -0.27 0.007 Conscientiousness -0.22 0.03 Waypoint Channel 0.34 I 0.0014 ^" Correlations were also conducted using the frequency of driver involvement in inattention- related crashes and near-crashes to the relevant responses from the surveys,test batteries,and performance-based tests. This analysis is different from the one conducted in Chapter 4, Objective 3 in that the drivers are no longer separated into"high involvement"and"low involvement'drivers. Table 5.3 presents only those correlations that were statistically significant. Note that some of the correlations no longer were significant,i.e.,Dula Dangerous Driving,Driver Stress Inventory,and Waypoint. Also note that some of the correlations,while still significant,were slightly weaker for the crashes and near-crashes.i.e.,Driver Age and Driving Experience. Airik 96 Table 5.3.The significant correlations between test battery,survey,and performance-based test scores to the frequency of inattention-related crash and near-crash events(N=101). Name of Testing Question/Score Correlation Probability Value Procedure Coefficient Driver Driver Age -0.29 <0.004 Demographic Years of driving -0.31 <0.001 Information experience Sleep Hygiene Daytime 0.20 0.05 Sleepiness NEO-FFI Extroversion -0.23 0.02 Agreeableness -0.26 0.007 Conscientiousness -0.20 0.03 CONCLUSIONS These results suggest a clear relationship between engagement in secondary tasks or driving while drowsy to selected survey responses and test battery scores. According to Keppel and Wickens(2004),correlation coefficients of 0.4 to 0.2 represent small effect sizes as they account for 4 to 16 percent of the variance among these values. While these relationships or associations are small,the fact that these relationships are obtaining statistical significance given the high variability among drivers is a result that should not be overlooked. These results,taken with the results from Chapter 4,Objective 3 indicate that driver demographic data,driving history data, sleep hygiene data and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory all demonstrate linear relationships to driving performance. Apart from age and driving experience,it is unfortunately unknown how this information could be used to predict which drivers will he high-risk drivers(i.e.,those who demonstrate tendencies to drive while they are engaging in secondary tasks or drowsy). 1 he high correlation of 0.72 between the frequency of driver's involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes and baseline epochs suggests that those drivers who frequently engage in inattention-related activities are also frequently involved in crashes and near-crashes. 'those drivers who are not engaging in inattention-related tasks frequently are not frequently involved in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Therefore,if an inattention mitigation device was developed,the highly inattentive drivers could possibly benefit from such a device. 97 CHAPTER 6: OBJECTIVES,WHAT IS THE RELATIVE NEAR-CRASH/CRASH RISK OF EYES OFF THE FORWARD ROADWAY? DO EYES OFF THE FORWARD ROADWAY SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT SAFETY AND/OR DRIVING PERFORMANCE? While eyeglance analyses have been used in transportation research for a variety of purposes and goals,this analysis is the first to establish a direct link between a driver's eyeglance behavior and crash and near-crash causation. Odds ratios were calculated to estimate the relative near- crash/crash risk of eyes off the forward roadway. Odds ratios were also calculated to estimate the relative risk for a crash or near-crash of different durations of eyes off the forward roadway as well. ANOVAs were conducted to determine if significant differences exist for several measures of eyeglance behavior. These measures include total time eyes offforward roadway, number of glances away from forward roadway,glance length,and length of longest glance away from the forward roadway. Please note that there are some important and significant differences in the method used to conduct the analyses in this chapter and the method used in the previous chapters. First,in Chapters 3,4,and 5,driving inattention was primarily defined as secondary task engagement or the presence of moderate to severe drowsiness. In Chapter 2,inattention also included driving- related inattention to the forward roadway and non-specific eyeglance. In this chapter,only eyeglance data will be considered. Therefore,any time a driver is not looking forward, regardless of the reason,is considered eyes off the forward roadway. Conducting the analysis in this manner completes the analysis of driver inattention in that Chapter 2,Objective I included all four types of inattention. Chapter 3,Objective 2,Chapter 4,Objective 3,and Chapter 5, Objective 4 all considered driver inattention primarily as secondary task engagement and drowsiness. Finally,this chapter will include any time the driver's eyes are off the forward roadway,which incorporates part of secondary task and drowsiness but will also encompass driving-related inattention to the forward roadway and non-specific eyeglance. To first begin this analysis,an operational definition of"eyes off forward roadway"was determined. This metric is time dependent and a relevant time frame surrounding the crash or near-crash was also operationally defined. While some epidemiological studies have used time segments of 5 to 10 minutes prior to a crash(McEvoy et al,2005;Riedelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997),the 100-Car Study examines within 5 seconds of the onset of the precipitating factor. Recall from the method section that the precipitating factor is the action that initiated the driving event(e.g.,lead-vehicle braking)and circumstances that comprise the crash,near-crash,or incident. Therefore,all eyes ojffoni.ard roadwaycalculations will be based upon a total time of 5 seconds prior and I second after the onset of the precipitating factor or onset of the conflict. Please note that this is not the instant the crash occurred. The data in which we are primarily interested is the pre-crash data or the seconds leading up to the crash.Therefore the onset of the conflict is used. Table 6.1 presents the metric calculations for the dependent variables that are used in the following analyses. 99 Table 6.1. Eyes off the forward roadway metrics. Eyes Off Forward Operational Definition Roadway Metric 1. Total Time Eyes Off The number of seconds that the driver's eyes were Forward Roadway off the forward roadway during the 5 seconds prior and 1 second after the onset of the precipitating factor. 2. Number of Glances Away The number of glances away from the forward From the Forward Roadway roadway during the 5 seconds prior and 1 second after the precipitating factor. 3. Length of Longest Glance The length of the longest glance that was initiated Away from the Forward during the 5 seconds prior and 1 second after the Roadway onset of the precipitating factor. 4. Location of Longest Glance The location of the longest glance (as defined by Away from the Forward Length of Longest Glance). Location will be based Roadway upon distance (in degrees) from center forward and will be in one of three categories: less than 15°, greater than 15° but less than 30°, greater than 30°. Data Used in These Analyses Eyeglance analysis was conducted on all crashes, near-crashes, and incidents as well as 5,000 (as opposed to the entire set of 20,000) baseline epochs. Project resources restricted the number of baseline epochs for which eyeglance data reduction could be performed. To determine the relative near-crash/crash risk of eyes offforward roadway, the data was parsed to exclude those events in which the driver of the instrumented vehicle was 1. not at fault and/or 2. was involved in a rear-end-struck crash or near-crash with a following vehicle. For the rear- end-struck crashes, eyeglance data was not available on the following driver, which prevented their inclusion in the analyses. For the relative risk analyses in this chapter, crashes and near-crashes only will be used (incidents will be excluded from the analyses). In Chapter 6, Objective 2 of the 100-Car Study Final Report, the analyses indicated that the kinematic signatures of both crashes and near- crashes were nearly identical; whereas the kinematic signatures of incidents were more variable. Given this result and to increase statistical power, the data from both crashes and near-crashes will be used in the calculation of relative near-crash/crash risk and population attributable risk percentage. QUESTION 1. WHAT IS THE RELATIVE NEAR-CRASH/CRASH RISK OF EYES OFF THE FORWARD ROADWAY? To answer this question, the odds ratios associated with eyes off the forward roadway were calculated since odds ratios are appropriate approximations of relative near-crash/crash risk for rare events (Greenberg et al., 2001). The odds ratios were calculated for all instances of eyes off the forward roadway as well as for five ranges of time that the drivers' eyes were off the forward roadway. These five time segments are as follows: 100 • Less than or equal to 0.5 seconds • Greater than 0.5 seconds but less than or equal to 1.0 second • Greater than 1.0 second but less than or equal to 1.5 seconds • Greater than 1.5 seconds but less than or equal to 2.0 seconds • Greater than 2.0 seconds The odds ratios were calculated by using the following equation: Odds Ratio=(A x D)/(B x C) Equation 6.1 Where: A=the number of events where driver's eyes were off the forward roadway<x total time> B=the number of events where driver's eyes were not off the forward roadway C=the number of baseline epochs where driver's eyes were off the forward roadway<x total time> D=the number of baseline epochs where driver's eyes were not off the forward roadway Table 6.2 presents the odds ratios for the five segments of time as well as an overall odds ratio for eyes off the forward roadway. Note that the odds ratios for eyeglances equal to or less than 2 seconds were less than or not significantly different than 1.0. This may indicate that drivers who are scanning their environment are potentially safer drivers. However,eyeglances away from the forward roadway greater than 2 seconds,regardless of location of eyeglance,are clearly not safe glances as the relative near-crash/crash risk sharply increases to over two times the risk of normal,baseline driving. It is important to note that the confidence limits surrounding the point estimate odds ratio values are fairly large,indicating the odds ratio may in fact be somewhat higher or lower. However,the trend does appear to indicate that shorter glances are safer than longer eyeglances away from the forward roadway. The population attributable risk percentage calculations suggest that 23 percent of the crashes and near-crashes that occur in a metropolitan environment are attributable to eyes of the forward roadway greater than 2 seconds(Table 6.3). 101 Table 6.2. Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for eyes off the forward roadway. Total Time of Eyes Off the Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Forward Roadway I. Less than or equal to 0.5 1.31 0.91 1.89 seconds 2. Greater than 0.5 seconds but 0.82 0.60 1.13 less than or equal to 1.0 second 3. Greater than 1.0 second but 0.92 0.65 1.31 less than or equal to 1.5 s 4. Greater than 1.5 seconds but 1.26 0.89 1.79 less than or equal to 2.0 seconds 5. Greater than 2.0 seconds 2.19 1.72 2.78 6. OR for Eye Glance(all 1.32 1.09 1.60 durations) Note:only the crashes and near-crashes where the subject driver is at fault are included in these data. Those numbers in bold font are significantly different from normal,baseline driving or 1.0. Table 6.3. Population attributable risk percentage ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for eyes off the forward roadway. Total Time of Eyes Off the Population Lower CL Upper CL Ask Forward Roadway Attributable Risk Percentage I. Less than or equal to 0.5 4.27 3.66 4.88 seconds 2. Greater than 0.5 seconds but N/A N/A N/A less than or equal to I.0 second 3. Greater than 1.0 second but N/A N/A N/A less than or equal to 2.0 s 4. Greater than 1.5 seconds but 3.93 3.29 4.56 less than or equal to 2.0 seconds 5. Greater than 2.0 seconds 23.26 22.50 24.01 PAR%for Eye Glance(all 15.47 14.45 16.49 durations) Note:only the crashes and near-crashes where the subject driver is at fault are included in these data. Those numbers in bold font are significantly different from normal,baseline driving or 1.0. While the above results are indicative of any time that a driver's eyes were averted from the forward roadway.regardless of the reason,near-crash/crash risk increases when the eyeglance is over 2 seconds. However eyeglances away from the forward roadway,specifically those to check rear-view mirrors,are important to safe driving. A driver who is glancing at one of the 102 rear-view mirrors,for example,is exhibiting attentive and safe driving. Therefore,odds ratio calculations were also conducted to account for these behaviors. The following odds ratios were calculated for eyes off the forward roadway except when the driver was looking at the center, right,or left rear-view mirrors or checking traffic out the right or left windows. Please note that these glances were shown previously to possess a protective effect on driving safety(Chapter 2. Objective I). The resulting odds ratios(Table 6.4)demonstrate more effectively that as length of eyeglance from the forward roadway increases,the odds of being in a crash or near-crash also increases. Also note that the eyeglances away from the forward roadway greater than 2 seconds increase an individual's relative near-crash/crash risk by two times that of normal,baseline driving. An overall odds ratio associated with eyeglance away from the forward roadway was also over 1.5 indicating that,eyes off the forward roadway greater than 2 seconds was a strong enough effect to boost the overall odds ratio significantly over 1.0. The population attributable risk percentages,as shown in Table 6.5,indicated that over 18 percent of all at-fault crashes and near-crashes occurring in an urban environment are attributable to eyes off the forward roadway. Eighteen percent of these crashes and near-crashes were attributable to eyeglances away from the forward roadway greater than 2 seconds. This finding demonstrates that eyes off the forward roadway,especially eyeglances greater than 2 seconds,is a key issue in crash causation. Recall that this estimate does not include those crashes where the driver was not at fault and rear-end struck crashes since eyeglance data were not available. Therefore,it is possible that this estimate could be higher than is currently estimated. Table 6.4. Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for eyes off forward roadway excluding eyeglances to center,right,and left rear-view mirrors. Total Time of Eyes Off Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Forward Roadway I. Less than or equal to 0.5 1.13 0.67 1.92 seconds 2. Greater than 0.5 seconds but 1.12 0.79 1.59 less than or equal to 1.0 second 3. Greater than 1.0 second but 1.14 0.79 1.65 less than or equal to 1.5 seconds 4. Greater than I.5 but less than 1.41 0.98 2.04 or equal to 2.0 5. Greater than 2.0 seconds 2.27 1.79 2.86 6. OR for Eye Glance Away 1.56 1.29 1.88 From the Forward Roadway Note:only the crashes and near-crashes where the subject driver is at fault and the driver is not looking at a rear- view mirror are included in this table. Those numbers in bold font are significantly different from normal,baseline driving or 1.0. 103 Table 6.5. Population attributable risk percentage ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for eyes off the forward roadway excluding eyeglances to center,right,and left rear-view mirrors. Total Time of Eyes Off Population Lower CL Upper CL Forward Roadway Attributable Risk Percentage I. Less than or equal to 0.5 0.74 0.41 1.06 seconds 2. Greater than 0.5 seconds but 1.53 1.04 2.02 less than or equal to 1.0 second 3. Greater than 1.0 second but less 1.56 1.10 2.03 than or equal to 2.0 seconds 4. Greater than 1.5 seconds but 3.81 3.35 4.26 less than or equal to 2.0 seconds 5. Greater than 2.0 seconds 18.88 18.27 19.49 6. PAR%for Eye Glance 18.25 17.49 19.01 Note:only the crashes and near-crashes where the subject driver is at fault and the driver is not looking at a rear- view mirror arc included in this table. Those numbers in bold font are significantly different from normal,baseline driving or 1.0. QUESTION 2.DO EYES OFF THE FORWARD ROADWAY SIGNIFICANTLY amok AFFECT SAFETY AND/OR DRIVING PERFORMANCE? To answer this research question,four metrics of eyes off the forward roadway were calculated and ANOVAs were conducted to determine if significant differences exist between the crashes, near-crashes,and incidents plus baseline driving epochs. "fhe first ANOVA was conducted using total time eyes ofifo-ward roadway. The ANOVA indicated significant differences among the four levels of severity as shown in Figure 6.1 (F(3,11,174)=33.36,p<0.0001). Tukey post-hoc t-tests indicate that significant differences were present between all pairs as shown in Table 6.6. These results indicate that drivers involved in crashes had their eyes off the forward roadway a significantly longer portion of the 6 seconds prior to the conflict than did those drivers involved in near-crashes or incidents. Interestingly,drivers'eyes were off the roadway a significantly smaller portion of the 6-second segment than those drivers involved in safety- relevant conflicts. 104 >. 2 A 9 R 2 E 1.4 r" _ A a 1.2—__ -- __'"` - - - -- d u) 0.8 '.'1,r1 tier: =....:.:A; ter. w 0.6 a l — _ _ .,C '4s A 0.2 —i ,y 0 , Crash Near-Crash Incident Baseline Event Severity Figure 6.1. The total mean time drivers'eyes were off the forward roadway during the 6- second segment of time prior to the onset of the conflict. Table 6.6.T-test results for total time eyes off the forward roadway. Severity dF t-value p-value 1. Crash and Near-crash 11,174 2.74 0.03 2. Crash and Incident 11,174 3.79 0.009 3. Crash and Baseline 11,174 4.87 <0.0001 4. Near-crash and Incident 11,174 2.57 0.05 5. Near-crash and Baseline 11,174 5.60 <0.0001 6. Baseline and Incident 11,174 8.10 <0.0001 The second metric involved the number of glances away from the forward roadway that occurred during the 5 seconds prior and I second after the onset of the conflict. Figure 6.2 shows the mean number of glances made by drivers just prior to involvement in crashes,near-crashes, incidents,and baseline events. An ANOVA indicated statistical significance among these four levels of event severity,F(3, 11,174)=22.02,p<0.0001. Post hoc Tukey t-tests were conducted on all pair combinations which indicated that near-crashes were significantly different from the baseline epochs,(t(11,174)=2.83 p<0.05)and incidents were significantly different from baseline epochs(t(1 1,174)=7.93,p<0.0001). 105 E 1.6 — 4 N 9 � U to 4i lS ce i ° 0.6 o J E z 2 0 Crash Near Crash Incident Baseline Severity Figure 6.2. Mean number of glances away from the forward roadway occurring during 5 seconds prior and 1 second after the onset of the conflict or during a 6-second baseline driving epoch. The mean length of longest glance away from the forward roadway is the only metric not confined to the 5 seconds prior and 1 second after the onset of the conflict. Rather,the longest �+ glance away simply has to be initiated within the 5 seconds prior and 1 second after but may extend into the actual conflict. This metric was calculated since there were many crashes that occurred in which the driver was looking away from the forward roadway up to the moment of the crash. This eyeglance behavior would be missed if restricted to the 6-second period of time surrounding the onset of the conflict. Figure 6.3 shows the results of the ANOVA which indicates that drivers'mean length of longest glance was over 0.5 seconds longer for crashes than for near-crashes(F(3, 11,177)=34.94,p< 0.0001). Post hoc Tukey t-tests indicated that all four groups were significantly different from each other. The results from the post hoc Tukey[-tests are shown in Table 6.7.Note that these results are similar to those found by Dingus,Antin,Hulse and Wierwille,(1989)that stated that drivers do not tend to look away from the forward roadway greater than I or 1.5 seconds for any given glance. Figure 6.3 supports this earlier result in that the mean length of any one glance was between 1.6 and 0.7 seconds. ANNik 106 44-0 0 rnE 0.6 - v - cI Crash Near Crash Incident Baseline Severity Figure 6.3.Mean length of longest glance initiated during the 5 seconds prior and 1 second after the onset of the conflict. Table 6.7. Results from the Tukey post hoc T-Tests. Severity dF t-value p-value 1. Crash and Near-crash 11,177 3.16 0.0087 2. Crash and Incident 11,177 4.52 <0.0001 3. Crash and Baseline 11,177 5.53 <0.0001 4. Near-crash and Incident 11,177 3.38 0.0040 5. Near-crash and Baseline 11,177 6.22 <0.0001 6. Baseline and Incident 11,177 7.60 <0.0001 Eye-Glance Location Analysis The eyeglance location analysis was an analysis of the location of the longest glance away from the forward roadway that was initiated during the 5 seconds prior and 1 second after the onset of the conflict. Eyeglance data reduction was conducted using the following locations of eyeglance: • Left window • Left mirror • Left Forward • Center Forward • Center Mirror • Right Forward • Right mirror • Right Window • Instrument Panel • Radio/HVAC • Passenger in right-hand seat 107 • Hand-held device • Object/Other • Eyes closed These locations were split into three general locations based upon degrees of visual angle away from center forward (illustrated in Figure 6.4). The first group, called Ellipse 1, included all locations that were 20° or less away from center forward. Ellipse 2 included all locations that were up to 40° but greater than 20°. The last Ellipse includes all locations greater than 40° as well as hand-held device, object, and eyes closed. The eyeglance categories that were assigned to each ellipse are as follows: Ellipse 1: Left Forward, Right Forward, and Instrument Panel Ellipse 2: Center Mirror, Radio/HVAC, and Left Mirror Ellipse 3: Left Window, Right Mirror, Right Window, Passenger in Right-Hand Seat, Hand-Held Device, Object/Other, and Eyes Closed. While there is some overlap in these ellipse selections, the eyeglance location was placed in the ellipse closer to the central field of view than further away. by Brian Maros 20UPJOH 20UP(55H r 20UP/30H OD/OH 9C H 70 H 125H ✓�/ 20D(OH Al= 1 30D/30H i 40D/30H o<:,>-)cy 'oo, 1 33Dr26H \Q( 30D/80H 75Dl30H 90DfOH 1 90Dl55H 90 D130H Figure 6.4. Depiction of degrees of visual angle from center forward that objects in the cockpit of an automobile are generally located. Figure 6.5 presents the percent of crashes, near-crashes, incidents, and baseline epochs in which the longest glance away from the forward roadway was within each ellipse. A chi-square 4_w 108 analysis was conducted to determine if there were significant differences in the frequency of events or epochs at these locations, and the results indicated that there are significant differences (X (9) = 208.42, p > 0.0001). Note that for incidents, the driver's longest glances away from the forward roadway are spread fairly evenly across all three ellipse locations, however for crashes and near-crashes, drivers' longest glances were most frequently between 20° and 40° away from center forward. Baseline epochs had the most glances in Ellipse 3; however it is unknown whether the differences among the three ellipse locations for baseline epochs are significantly different. These results may indicate that many crashes and near-crashes could potentially be avoided if the driver's gaze could be re-directed when gaze direction resides between 20 and 40° away from center forward. 50 45 d 40 o_ I- 1111. 35 30 0 Ellipse 1 °' 25 � II Ellipse 2 w ,❑ Ellipse 3 .° 20 _ ❑ No Glance' 15 a, a 10 _ 5 _ 0 Crash Near Crash Incident Baseline Location of Longest Glance Figure 6.5. The percentage of the location of the longest glance away from the forward roadway by severity. CONCLUSIONS The use of eyeglance behavior in driving research is a complicated construct. Why the driver was looking away from the forward roadway can not be ignored from the analysis if one is interested in driving inattention. In driving research it is commonly written that a driver looking away from the forward roadway is an inattentive driver. It is also commonly written that a driver who is systematically scanning his/her environment (i.e., looking away from the forward roadway) is an attentive driver. The total time eyes are away from the forward roadway may or may not be a source of potential inattention, depending upon the purpose for looking away. The results, using the metric total time eyes are away from the forward roadway, indicate that viewing the rear-view mirror or windows to check traffic were safe actions that resulted in a relative near-crash/crash risk of less than 1.0. When the total time eyes were off the forward roadway was greater than 2seconds, 109 regardless of where the driver was looking,an increased risk of crash or near-crash involvement (OR=2.3)was observed. Statistically significant differences were identified using the four eyeglance behavior metrics for crashes,near-crashes,incidents,and baseline epochs. These results indicated that the longer eyeglances and longer periods of time that the drivers'eyes were away from the forward roadway significantly impacted driving performance. Drivers who were involved in crashes had an average total time eyes away from the forward roadway of nearly 2 seconds with 1.5 seconds mean length of longest glances.Drivers involved in near-crashes had an average total time away from the forward roadway closer to 1 second and the same for mean longest glance length. While statistically significant differences were observed for number of glances,caution may be required as the practical differences between 1.4 glances and 1.2 glances away from the forward roadway. Interesting results were also obtained when analyzing the location of the longest glance away from the forward roadway. Note that for crashes and near-crashes,drivers were more far more frequently looking in Ellipse 2 than other locations. The frequency of longest-glance location for incidents and baseline epochs appeared to be somewhat more evenly spread across the three ellipses. One issue with this analysis was that if the driver was looking at a hand-held device or at another object,the distance away from center forward is unknown and may not be located within Ellipse 3. It was decided to put these two categories in Ellipse 3 as it appeared that drivers usually were looking at objects in their lap or the seat next to them,and dialed their hand- held device near their lap. It is doubtful that this discrepancy in the operational definition had a ^► very large impact as the frequencies for the category was fairly low for the crashes and near- crashes,especially. These results demonstrate that eyeglances away from the forward roadway,especially those that do not involve checking rear-view mirrors,may be contributing factors to a high percentage of crashes. Please note that for 40 percent of the crashes,near-crashes,and incidents,the driver did not look away from the forward roadway for the 5 seconds prior and 1 second after the onset of the conflict. This result leaves 60 percent,a majority of the crashes,near-crashes,and incidents, where glances away from the forward roadway were a contributing factor. This result has implications for collision-avoidance-warning designers in that if they could incorporate where the driver is looking in their warning algorithms,their systems could be vastly improved by reducing false alarms and also reducing crash involvement and/or injuries. 110 CHAPTER 7: OBJECTIVE 6,ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN DRIVING PERFORMANCE FOR DRIVERS WHO ARE ENGAGING IN A DISTRACTION TASK VERSUS THOSE DRIVERS WHO ARE ATTENDING TO DRIVING? ARE SOME OF THE SAFETY SURROGATE MEASURES MORE SENSITIVE TO DRIVING PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES WHEN DRIVING DISTRACTED VERSUS OTHER SAFETY SURROGATE MEASURES? To determine whether there were any differences in driving performance between inattentive and attentive drivers,the baseline database was evaluated. A discriminant analysis was conducted to determine if any statistically significant differences were present between the baseline epochs that involved drivers engaging in secondary tasks and/or driving while drowsy and those baseline epochs where the driver was attentive. Prior to conducting the discriminant analysis,a stepwise selection procedure was conducted to determine which driving performance measures were accounting for the highest percentage of variance. This provided insight into which driving performance measures(surrogate safety measures)are most sensitive to inattentive driving. DATA USED IN THIS ANALYSIS Table 7.1 presents all the driving performance data that were used in the discriminant analysis. Please recall from Chapter l:Introduction and Method that the vehicle speed could not be 0 mph for the duration of the epoch. The vehicle was in motion for at least a portion of the 6-second segment for all 20,000 epochs. Ill Table 7.1.Driving Performance Data Used in the Discrimnant Analysis. Driving Performance Measure Description I. Average percent throttle Percent that throttle pedal was depressed by driver over the duration of 6-second epoch. 2. Maximum percent throttle Maximum percent that throttle pedal was depressed by driver over the duration of the 6- second epoch. 3. Minimum lateral acceleration Minimum absolute value of lateral acceleration over the 6-second epoch. 4. Average lateral acceleration Average absolute value of lateral acceleration over the 6-second epoch. 5. Maximum lateral acceleration Maximum absolute value of lateral acceleration over the 6-second epoch. 6. Maximum longitudinal Maximum longitudinal positive acceleration acceleration across the 6-second epoch. 7. Average longitudinal Average longitudinal acceleration/deceleration acceleration/deceleration value across 6-second epoch. 8. Maximum longitudinal Maximum longitudinal negative deceleration deceleration across the 6-second epoch. 9. Yaw time differential Duration of the maximum peak-to-peak across the 6-second epoch(i.e.,jerk). 10. Average speed Average vehicle speed across the 6-second ...�. epoch. 11. Maximum speed Maximum vehicle speed across the 6-second epoch. There were some driving-performance measures that were not included in the analyses. Some of these measures include forward range,range-rate,and TTC. These dependent measures,while useful in identifying crashes,near-crashes,and incidents when used in conjunction with longitudinal deceleration,were too variable to use with the baseline data. There were many epochs with no lead vehicle present as well as difficulties in filtering spurious radar data when using only 6-second segments. Radar data is notoriously noisy and effectively filtering for this task proved to be too time consuming given the resources available. Even with effective filtering,we hypothesize that this data would not have yielded different results than the results that will be presented with the data that were used. STEPWISE SELECTION PROCEDURE AND CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS A stepwise selection procedure was conducted to determine if all of the above variables are necessary to distinguish between a driver who is engaging in a secondary task or is driving while drowsy to a driver who is attentive to the forward roadway. The stepwise selection procedure initially uses a forward selection procedure but after each selection,the procedure checks to ensure that all the variables previously selected remain significant(Johnson, 1998). In this manner,the stepwise selection procedure will select those driving performance variables or 112 surrogate safety measures that can best discriminate between an attentive and an inattentive driver. Table 7.2 presents those surrogate safety measures that the stepwise selection procedure selected. The standardized canonical coefficient can be used to interpret the relative contribution that each variable is making to the model. The magnitude and the sign of the value are both used in this interpretation;therefore,the average percent throttle is contributing the most to the model whereas yaw time differential is contributing the least. Table 7.2 The safety surrogate measures that best discriminate between attentive and inattentive drivers. Variable Standardized Canonical Coefficient Average Percent Throttle 0.81 Yaw time differential 0.29 Average Lateral -0.51 Acceleration Maximum Longitudinal -0.44 Deceleration The stepwise selection procedure also indicated that these four safety surrogate measures together achieved a multivariate measure analogous to an R-squared value of 0.004 indicating that these four variables account for less than 1 percent of the variance associated with inattentive and attentive driving. While differences are present between attentive and inattentive drivers,these surrogate safety measures are not adequately explaining these differences. DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS The discriminant analysis was conducted to determine whether these surrogate safety measures were predictive of inattentive driving. Table 7.3 shows that 51.4 percent of the attentive epochs were correctly classified and 54.5 percent of the inattentive epochs were correctly classified. 'these results suggest that the predictive linear model using these surrogate safety measures is not able to accurately predict whether the driver is attentive or inattentive as these percentage values are too close to 50 percent accuracy or chance. Table 7.3. The percent of baseline epochs that the linear discriminant analysis model was successfully able to distinguish. Attentive Baseline Inattentive Baseline Total(percent) Epochs(percent) Epochs(percent) Attentive Baseline 51.4 48.6 100 Epochs Inattentive Baseline 45.8 54.2 100 Epochs Total 48.5 51.5 100 113 DISCUSSION The stepwise selection procedure indicated that the average percent throttle,yaw time differential,average lateral acceleration,and maximum longitudinal deceleration were the safety surrogate measures most sensitive to inattentive driving. While these safety surrogate measures were most sensitive to inattentive driving,they were only able to account for less than 1 percent of the variance. The subsequent discriminant analysis indicated that the predictive abilities of these four safety surrogate measures to distinguish between attentive and inattentive driving was not better than chance or 50 percent accuracy. Other discriminant analyses using the variance of the above safety surrogate measures were also attempted. These results were similar to the above results in that the surrogate safety measures selected in the stepwise selection procedure accounted for less than 1 percent of the variance. The discriminant analysis also indicated poor predictability that was not significantly different from chance(i.e.,50 percent were correctly identified and 50 percent were incorrectly identified). There are several hypotheses as to why the surrogate safety measures did not adequately explain the differences in attentive versus inattentive driving. One hypothesis is that the results from these analyses are accurate and that inattentive driving does not in fact differ significantly from attentive driving. Rather it is only in the presence of multiple other contributing factors and extreme circumstances that differences exist in the inattentive driver's ability to effectively respond versus an attentive driver's ability to effectively respond to an emergency situation. Testing this hypothesis is possible with the 100-Car Study data but would require specific 'dlek, baseline events to be identified and reduced that match on a variety of environmental and situational variables per individual driver. This reduction and analysis effort is beyond the scope of this project but could be conducted in the future. A second hypothesis is that there are differences that exist for these safety surrogate measures but these differences are not being captured adequately by using point estimates. A point estimate may not be accurately capturing the differences between inattentive and attentive drivers. A different statistical analysis or what is known as functional data analysis may produce different results. Functional data analysis would use overall rates of change for each baseline epoch rather than a point estimate to summarize the data for that epoch. While this technique could be used,it would require additional data reduction and time spent researching these relatively new data analysis methods. These techniques are generally not attempted unless the point estimate analysis produced some promising results;therefore,this hypothesis should only he tested as a last resort. A third explanation for these findings is that the 6-second duration for the baseline epochs is too short to accurately assess driving performance. Recall that the baseline epochs were 6 seconds in duration to compare to the time frame used by trained data reductionists to assess whether a particular behavior or action by the driver contributed to the occurrence of the crash,near-crash, or incident. It is unknown whether a point estimate for a longer duration of time would be any better than the analysis already conducted. Also note that lengthening the time duration would require additional data reduction. 114 After conducting multiple discriminant analyses using a variety of surrogate safety measures,it is clear that the databases that currently exist are not adequate to test the above hypotheses that are listed here.More data reduction that is specifically designed to adequately assess driving performance for individual drivers during specific environmental conditions is required to further assess this research objective. 115 CHAPTER 8:CONCLUSIONS GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The analyses reported in this document are the first to evaluate driver inattention immediately prior to a crash and near-crash. These analyses used data collected as part of a large-scale naturalistic driving study. The analytical methods used were applied from epidemiology, empirical research,and qualitative research. The application of these analytical methods demonstrates the power of naturalistic driving data and its importance in relating driving behavior to crash and near-crash involvement. Driver inattention was operationally defined at the beginning of this report as one of the following: • Driver engagement in secondary task(s) • Driver drowsiness • Driving-related inattention to the forward roadway • Non-specific eyeglance away from the forward roadway These four types of inattention,either in isolation or in combination,were used to answer the research questions addressed in this letter report. Some of the important findings addressed as part of these questions are presented below: • Due to the detailed pre-crash/near-crash data reduction,this study allowed for the calculation of relative near-crash/crash risk of engaging in various types of inattention- related activities. Some of the primary results were that driving while drowsy increases an individual's near-crash/crash risk by between four and six times that of normal, baseline driving,engaging in complex secondary tasks increases risk by three times and engaging in moderate secondary tasks increases risk by two times.Driving-related inattention to the forward roadway was actually shown to be safer than normal,baseline driving(odds ratio of 0.45). This was not surprising as drivers who are checking their rear-view mirrors arc generally alert and engaging in environmental scanning behavior. • This study also allowed for the calculation of population attributable risk percentages. This calculation produces an estimate of the percentage of crashes and near-crashes occurring in the population at-large that arc attributable to the inattention-related activity. The results of this analysis indicated that driving while drowsy was a contributing factor for between 22 and 24 percent of the crashes and near-crashes.and secondary-task distraction contributed to over 22 percent of all crashes and near-crashes. This is a useful metric since odds ratios estimate risk on a per-task(or drowsiness episode)basis while the population attributable risk percentage accounts for the frequency of occurrence. Thus,some inattention-related activities that indicated high relative near-crash/crash risk had corresponding population attributable risk percentages indicating low total percentages. This was due to lower frequency of occurrence. Conversely,other more frequently performed inattention tasks,while obtaining lower relative near-crash/crash risks,obtained higher population attributable risk percentages. 117 • The prevalence of driving inattention was analyzed by using"normal baseline driving" (i.e.,no crashes,near-crashes,or incidents present)as established by the baseline database. The four types of inattention were recorded alone and in combination with the other types of inattention. The percent of the total baseline epochs in which drivers were engaged in each type of inattention is as follows: secondary tasks —54 percent of baseline epochs driving-related inattention—44 percent of baseline epochs drowsiness—4 percent of baseline epochs non-specific eyeglance—2 percent of baseline epochs Note that the total is higher than 100 percent since drivers engaged in multiple types of inattention at one time. Also note that non-specific eyeglance was most frequently recorded as associated with the other types of inattention,but accounts for only 2 percent of the baseline epochs,singularly.Given that the baseline epochs most closely represent "normal baseline driving,"these results suggest that drivers are engaging in inattention- related tasks a majority of the time. • The analysis of eyeglance behavior indicates that total eyes-off-road durations of greater than 2 seconds significantly increased individual near-crash/crash risk;whereas eyeglance durations less than 2 seconds did not significantly increase risk relative to normal baseline driving. The purpose behind an eyeglance away from the roadway is important to consider,an eyeglance directed at a rear-view mirror is a safety-enhancing activity in the larger context of driving,while eyeglances at objects inside the vehicle are not safety-enhancing. It is important to remember that scanning the driving environment • is an activity that enhances safety as long as it is systematic and the drivers'eyes return to the forward view in under 2 seconds. • The results for the analysis investigating the impact of driver drowsiness on environmental conditions yielded many interesting findings. First,the relative near- crash/crash risks of driver drowsiness may vary depending on time of day or ambient lighting conditions. When compared to total baseline epochs,far fewer drowsiness- related baseline epochs were observed during the daylight hours while a greater number were identified during darkness. Drowsiness was also seen to slightly increase in the absence of high roadway or traffic demand. A higher percentage of drowsiness-related baseline epochs were found during free-flow traffic densities,on divided roadways,and areas free of roadway junctions. • The results of the analysis investigating the impact of complex-or moderate-secondary- task engagement on various environmental conditions were more varied. Each of the eight environmental conditions resulted in odds ratios greater than 1.0 for engaging in complex secondary tasks. Engaging in moderate secondary tasks rarely resulted in odds ratios significantly greater than 1.0,indicating that these behaviors may not be as risky as driving drowsy or engaging in complex secondary tasks. 118 • The most frequent type of secondary task engagement,hand-held device use,also obtained odds ratios greater than 1.0 for both dialing hand-held device(CL=1.6—4.9) and talking/listening to a hand-held device(CL=0.9—1.8). Talking/listening to a hand- held device was not significantly different than 1.0,indicating that this task was not as risky as dialing a hand-held device. Regardless of the slightly different odds ratios,these two secondary tasks had nearly the identical population attributable risk percentages (each attributing to 3.6 percent of crashes and near-crashes). One hypothesis for this is that drivers were talking/listening to hand-held devices a much larger percentage of time than they were dialing hand-held devices. Thus,the percent of crashes and near-crashes that were attributable to these two actions was similar due to the fact that dialing was more dangerous but was performed less frequently whereas talking/listening was less dangerous but performed more frequently. • The results from the survey and test battery response analyses indicate that driver age, driving experience,self-reported traffic violations,self-reported accidents,daytime sleepiness ratings,and personality inventory scores indicate significant differences between the drivers with high and low involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. • A clear relationship between involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes and engaging in inattention-related activities during baseline driving was observed. A correlation of 0.72 was obtained between the frequency of driver's involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes and the frequency of involvement in inattention-related baseline epochs. This result,according to Keppel and Wickens (2004).is a large effect in the behavioral sciences. This suggests that those drivers who frequently engage in inattention-related activities are also more likely to be involved in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. Those drivers who arc not frequently engaging in inattention-related tasks frequently are less likely to be involved in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes. RELATIVE RISK OF A CRASH OR NEAR-CRASH:CONCLUSIONS Odds ratio calculations,or relative-risk calculations for a crash or near-crash,were conducted in three separate chapters. First,Chapter 2,Objective I,odds ratios were calculated for three levels of secondary task complexity,two durations of time that eyes were off the forward roadway for driving-related inattention to the forward roadway,two durations of time for non-specific eyeglance away firom the forward view,and driver drowsiness(moderate to severe). Odds ratio calculations were calculated in Chapter 3,Objective 2 to determine whether driving while engaging in secondary tasks or drowsy through various types of driving environments produced higher near-crash/crash risks. Finally,odds ratios were also calculated for total length of time eyes were off the forward roadway by increments of 0.5 seconds in Chapter 6,Objective 3. Data used to calculate the odds ratios included a subset of the 69 crashes and 761 near-crashes where the driver was at-fault that were collected as part of the 100-Car Study and 20,000 baseline epochs(5,000 baseline epochs for any odds ratios requiring eyeglance data only). Please note that the 20,000 baseline driving epochs were first selected based upon the number of crashes,near-crashes,and incidents that each vehicle(not driver)was involved and then 119 randomly selected across the entire 12 months of data collection. Each baseline epoch was a 6- second segment when the vehicle was in motion. This stratification technique created a case- control data set as those vehicles who were more involved in crashes,near-crashes,and incidents also had more baseline events to compare. Case-control designs are optimal for calculating odds ratios due to the increased power that a case-control data set possesses. Greenberg et al.(2001) argue that using a case-control design allows for an efficient means to study rare events,such as automobile crashes. Thus,the causal relationships that exist for these events can be evaluated by using relatively smaller sample sizes than are used in typical crash database analyses where thousands of crashes may be used. Table 8.1 presents the odds ratios for the different types of inattention that increase individual near-crash/crash risk. Please note that driving-related inattention to the.forward roadway is not in this table as this type of inattention was found to be safer than normal,baseline driving. Tables 8.2 and 8.3 present the odds ratios for the interaction of drowsiness with various environment and road-type conditions and the interaction of complex secondary tasks with environmental conditions,respectively. The odds ratios for the interaction of moderate- secondary-task engagement and environmental variables will not be presented as a majority of these odds ratios were not significantly different from 1.0. Table 8.4 presents the odds ratios for the lengths of total time eyes were off the forward roadway. All tables present only those odds ratios that were greater than 1.0. In all tables,those that were significantly different from 1.0 are in bold font. A. AIN 120 Table 8.1. Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for all types of driving inattention where odds ratios were greater than 1.0. Type of Inattention Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Complex Secondary Task 3.10 1.72 5.47 Moderate Secondary Task 2.10 1.62 2.72 Simple Secondary Task 1.18 0.88 1.57 Moderate to Severe 6.23 4.59 8.46 Drowsiness(in isolation from other types of inattention) Moderate to Severe 4.24 3.27 5.50 Drowsiness(all occurrences) Reaching for a Moving 8.25 2.50 31.16 Object Insect in Vehicle 6.37 0.76 53.13 Looking at External 3.70 1.13 12.18 Object Reading 3.38 1.74 6.54 Applying Makeup 3.13 1.25 7.87 Dialing Hand-Held Device 2.79 1.60 4.87 Handling CD 2.25 0.30 16.97 _ Eating 1.57 0.92 2.67 __ Reaching for Object(not 1.38 0.75 2.56 moving) Talking/Listening to a 1.29 0.93 1.80 Hand-Held Device Drinking from Open 1.03 0.33 3.28 Container Table 8.2. Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of drowsiness by environmental conditions where odds ratios were greater than 1.0. Type of Roadway/ Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Environment Lighting Levels Dawn 2.43 0.96 6.17 Daylight 5.27 3.55 7.82 Dusk 6.99 3.82 12.80 Darkness-Lighted 3.24 1.92 5.47 Darkness-Not 3.26 1.82 5.86 Lighted Weather Clear 4.34 I 3.22 I 5.86 121 Rain 4.41 I 2.41 I 8.08 Road Type Divided 3.73 2.61 5.34 Undivided 5.54 3.47 8.84 One-Way 3.40 1.76 6.59 Roadway Alignment Straight Level 3.96 2.93 5.34 Curve Level 5.81 3.66 9.21 Straight Grade 6.29 2.20 17.96 Traffic Density LOS A:Free Flow 4.67 3.02 7.21 LOS B:Flow with 4.81 2.70 8.58 Some Restrictions LOS C:Stable Flow 3.63 2.01 6.54 -Maneuverability and speed are more restricted LOS D:Flow is 4.29 1.88 9.80 Unstable-Vehicles are unable to pass with temporary stoppages .^ LOS F:Unstable 3.71 1.93 7.13 Flow-Temporary restrictions, substantially slow drivers Roadway Surface Conditions Dry 4.52 3.39 6.03 Wet 3.17 2.03 4.95 Traffic Control Device Traffic Signal 2.71 1.90 3.85 Stop Sign 5.55 2.71 11.36 Traffic Lanes 5.57 2.43 12.78 Marked _ No Traffic Control 4.83 3.60 6.48 Relation to Junction Intersection 3.48 2.17 5.59 Intersection-Related 6.82 4.10 11.35 Entrance/Exit 3.21 1.81 5.71 Ramp Interchange 5.86 2.39 14.35 Non-Junction 5.02 3.65 6.90 122 Table 8.3. Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for the interaction of complex secondary task engagement and environmental variables where odds ratios were greater than 1.0. Type of Roadway/ Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Environment Lighting Levels Daylight 3.06 1.84 5.06 Dusk 8.91 4.41 18.03 Darkness-Lighted 4.58 2.46 8.52 Darkness-Not 24.43 12.40 48.10 Lighted Weather Clear 3.68 2.29 5.92 Rain 5.11 1.86 14.07 Road Type Divided 4.20 2.40 7.33 Undivided 3.60 1.89 6.79 One-Way 3.66 1.63 8.18 Roadway Alignment Straight Level 3.59 2.20 5.84 Curve Level 3.58 1.95 6.60 Straight Grade 26.00 7.31 92.53 Curve Grade 6.75 2.08 21.89 Traffic Density LOS A: Free Flow 4.67 2.32 9.38 LOS B: Flow with 3.67 1.65 8.19 Some Restrictions LOS C: Stable Flow 3.80 1.68 8.58 -Maneuverability and speed are more restricted LOS D: Flow is 1.75 0.61 5.01 Unstable-Vehicles are unable to pass with temporary stoppages LOS F: Unstable 2.45 1.01 5.93 Flow-Temporary restrictions, substantially slow drivers Roadway Surface Conditions Dry 4.44 2.88 6.84 Wet 1.03 0.58 1.80 123 Traffic Control Device Traffic Signal 3.14 2.15 4.58 Stop Sign 3.27 1.38 7.75 Traffic Lanes 4.02 2.47 6.54 Marked No Traffic Control 4.83 3.60 6.48 Relation to Junction Intersection 1.59 0.86 2.97 Intersection-Related 3.32 1.73 6.38 Parking Lot 9.11 3.76 22.07 The odds ratios presented for the time eyes were off the forward roadway suggests that any time driver's eyes were off the forward roadway greater than 2 seconds increases near-crash/crash risk by two times(Table 8.4). None of the eycglances away from the forward roadway that were less than 1.5 seconds were significantly different from 1.0. Table 8.4. Odds Ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for Eyes Off Forward Roadway Excluding Eye Glances to Center,Right,and Left Rear-View Mirrors. Total Time of Eyes Off the Odds Ratio Lower CL Upper CL Forward Roadway Less than or equal to 0.5 s 1.13 0.67 1.92 Greater than 0.5 seconds but 1.12 0.79 1.59 ..^ less than or equal to 1.0 s Greater than 1.0 seconds but 1.14 0.79 1.65 less than 1.5 seconds. Greater than 1.5 seconds but 1.41 0.98 2.04 less than or equal to 2.0 s _ Greater than 2.0 s 2.27 1.79 2.86 OR for Eye Glance Away 1.56 1.29 1.88 From the Forward Roadway POPULATION ATTRIBUTABLE RISK PERCENTAGE CONCLUSIONS A population attributable risk percentage calculation is a measure of the percentage of crashes and near-crashes that could be attributed to the variable being measured. Population attributable risk percentages are useful when interpreting odds ratios,or relative risk calculations for a crash or near-crash. Some odds ratios may have a very high individual risk;however that behavior/situation does not occur frequently in nature and therefore attributes to very few crashes in the population. An example of high odds ratios leading to low population attributable risk percentage includes the secondary tasks of reaching for a moving object,external distraction, reading,applying makeup,and eating. Even though each of these tasks obtained very high individual near-crash/crash risk,these factors did not account for a large percentage of actual crashes and near-crashes as shown by the population attributable risk percentage calculations in Table 8.5. Drowsiness,in contrast,resulted in a high relative near-crash/crash risk value and attributed to between 22 and 24 percent of the crashes and near-crashes in the population. This 124 finding is important since these values are much higher than most crash database research has shown (Campbell, Smith, and Najm, 2003). Also note that while the odds ratio for talking/listening to a hand-held device was only slightly above 1.0 and much lower than dialing a hand-held device, the population attributable risk percentage was similar for both actions. This result may be due primarily to the relative frequency of occurrence of both actions. Dialing a hand-held device may be more dangerous but it requires less time whereas talking/listening to a hand-held device occurred frequently and perhaps, for long periods of time. Talking/listening to a hand-held device was the most frequent type of secondary task distraction observed. Table 8.5. The population attributable risk percentage ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for the types of driver inattention. Type of Inattention Population Lower CL Upper CL Attributable Risk Percentage Complex Secondary Task 4.26 3.95 4.57 Moderate Secondary Task 15.23 14.63 15.83 Simple Secondary Task 3.32 2.72 3.92 Moderate to Severe 22.16 21.65 22.68 Drowsiness (in isolation from other types of inattention) Moderate to Severe 24.67 21.12 26.23 Drowsiness (all occurrences) Complex Secondary Tasks Dialing Hand-Held Device 3.58 3.29 3.87 Reading 2.85 2.60 3.10 Applying Makeup 1.41 1.23 1.59 Reaching for a Moving 1.11 0.97 1.25 Object Insect in Vehicle 0.35 0.27 0.44 Moderate Secondary Tasks Talking/Listening to a 3.56 3.10 4.10 Hand-Held Device Eating 2.15 1.85 2.46 Reaching for Object (not 1.23 0.96 1.50 moving) Looking at External Object 0.91 0.77 1.05 Handling CD 0.23 0.15 0.32 An important result from these analyses is that eyeglances greater than 2 seconds contributed to 18 percent of all crashes and near-crashes and eyeglances in general attributed to 18 percent of all crashes and near-crashes that occur in a metropolitan driving environment (Table 8.6). While the purpose or location of eyeglance does matter, the longer the time away from the forward 125 roadway,the more dangerous the activity becomes. It is apparent that many crashes are attributable to long glances away from the forward roadway. Table 8.6. Population attributable risk percentage ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for eyes off forward roadway excluding eyeglances to center,right,and left rear- view mirrors. Total Time of Eyes Off the Population Lower CL Upper CL Forward Roadway Attributable Risk Percentage Less than or equal to 0.5 0.74 0.41 1.06 seconds Greater than 0.5 seconds but 1.53 1.04 2.02 less than or equal to 1.0 second Greater than 1.0 second but 1.56 1.10 2.03 less than 1.5 seconds. Greater than 1.5 seconds but 3.81 3.35 4.26 less than or equal to 2.0 seconds Greater than 2.0 seconds 18.88 18.27 19.49 OR for Eye Glance Away 18.25 17.49 19.01 From the Forward Roadway Oak LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Please note that there are some limitations of the given data set that must be considered when interpreting these results. First,the 100-Car Study was conducted in one geographical area of the country and that location was a metropolitan area;therefore,the odds ratios and the population attributable risk percentages are generalizable to a metropolitan environment and probably less so to the United States driving population at-large. Further analyses need to be conducted to determine how all of these individual odds ratio and population attributable risk percentage calculations interact with each other. Please note that many of these odds ratios were individually calculated and do not account for any correlations that probably exist between many of these variables,i.e.,weather conditions and roadway surface conditions. A logistic regression could be performed to assess the odds ratios and population attributable risk percentages accounting for these naturally occurring correlations. Please note that measures were taken to reduce the amount of correlation by using only those events where one type of inattention was present. For example,the odds ratios that were calculated on drowsiness or one of the levels of secondary task,driving-related inattention,or non-specific eyeglance used only those events that contained a single type of inattention. Therefore,the correlations between these odds ratios are somewhat controlled. The odds ratios that were calculated on each secondary task type(i.e.,dialing hand-held device)are not as controlled and correlations probably do exist among some of these. While this should not detract from the odds ratio calculation itself,these odds ratio calculations and subsequent population 126 attributable risk percentage calculations should not be summed to assess an overall impact of secondary task engagement, for example. While eyeglance duration was used in two chapters of this report, secondary task duration analysis was not presented. Project resources limited this reduction task primarily because of the difficulties involved in operationally defining"task duration." While others have operationally defined secondary task duration (Stutts, et al., 2003),there were many issues in the data collection and reduction procedures that created obstacles for this type of reduction. For example, there were only cameras pointing at the driver which made a length of conversation with passenger difficult to assess. Also no continuous audio channel was present which also hindered a calculation of duration of conversation with passenger, radio usage, and hands free devices. The use of 90-second segments of crash and near-crash events and 6-second baseline epochs also precluded the determination of length of hand-held device conversations, and sometimes eating, drinking, or more lengthy secondary-task types. While some of these issues could be alleviated with more time (i.e., reducing the entire trip file rather than a 90-second segment), the issues of no audio or view of the passenger seating in the vehicle will be difficult to overcome. Future research may attempt to overcome these issues with either a snapshot of the passenger compartment to determine number of passengers in the vehicle or brief but frequent bursts of an audio channel to help determine conversation length, whether the stereo is in use, etc. APPLICATION OF RESULTS As was repeatedly found throughout these analyses, drivers are inattentive and/or looking away from the forward roadway during a significant portion of the events and baseline epochs. While some of this inattention may be due to systematic scanning of the driving environment or engagement in secondary tasks or drowsiness, any eyeglance away from the forward roadway greater than 2 seconds greatly increases near-crash/crash risk. Developers of collision avoidance warning systems should incorporate these findings into newer generations of warning systems. If the system can incorporate driver eyeglance location prior to a crash, the false alarm rate of these warning systems could be greatly reduced thus increasing their effectiveness. It is apparent from the results of the analyses in Chapter 3, Objective 2, that there are roadway and traffic environments that are better suited to engage in secondary tasks (Tables 8.3 and 8.5). Generally, it appears that engaging in secondary tasks during more visually cluttered, lower sight-distance, or demanding traffic environments (intersections, entrance/exit ramps, curved roadways), poor weather or roadway conditions (rainy weather, icy or wet road surfaces) are not the optimal locations and/or moments to engage in secondary tasks. This information could be used to better educate young drivers or those drivers who are attending traffic schools about the dangers of distracted driving and how to avoid crashes and near-crashes due to distraction. It was also found that near-crash/crash risk due to drowsiness increased when drivers were on straight/level roadways and less visually demanding environments (i.e., low traffic densities). Drivers should be aware that it may be harder to fight the effects of drowsiness and that near- crash/crash risk does increase despite the less-demanding driving environment. The strong correlation obtained between involvement in inattention-related crashes and near- crashes and involvement in inattention-related baseline epochs has several implications on 127 driving behavior. First,this strong correlation implies that those drivers who are getting caught, per se,by involvement in inattention-related crashes and near-crashes,are also those who frequently engage in secondary tasks or drive drowsy on a regular basis. This may also indicate that there are not very many drivers who do engage in secondary tasks and/or drive drowsy frequently while driving that are never or rarely involved in inattention-related crashes and near- crashes. This relationship will be further explored in Task 5 of this research contract. 128 REFERENCES Campbell, B.N., Smith, J.D., and Najm, W.G. (2003). Examination of Crash Contributing Factors Using National Crash Databases. (Technical Report No. DOT HS 809 664). Washington DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Cicchetti,D.V.,and Feinstein,A.R. (1990) "High agreement but low kappa: The problems of two paradoxes." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 543-549. Costa, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five Factor Inventory: Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. Lutz, Florida. Dingus, T. A., Klauer, S. G.,Neale, V. L., Petersen, A., Lee, S. E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M. A., Hankey, J., Ramsey, D., Gupta, S., Bucher, C., Doerzaph, Z. R., Jermeland, J., and Knipling, R.R. (under review). The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study: Phase 11— Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment. (Interim Project Report for DTNH22-00-C- 07007, Task Order 6; Report No. TBD). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Dingus, T. A., Neale, V. L., Garness, S. A., Hanowski, R.J., Kiesler, A. S., Lee, S.E., Perez, M. A., Robinson, G.S., Belz, S.M., Casali, J.G., Pace-Schott, E.F., Stickgold, R.A., and Hobson, J.A. (2001). Impact of sleeper berth usage on driver fatigue. (Technical Contract Report No DTFH61-96-00068). Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration. Dingus, T.A. (1995). Moving from measures of performance to measures of effectiveness in the safety evaluation of Intelligent Transpiration System products and demonstrations. Proceedings of the ITS Safety Evaluation Workshop. ITS America and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Dingus, T. A., Antin, J. F., Hulse, M.C., and Wierwille, W. W. (1989). Attentional demand requirements of an automobile moving map navigation system. Transportation Research, A23 (4), p. 301-315. Dula, C. S., and Ballard, M. E. (2003). Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous, aggressive, negative emotional, and risky driving. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, (2), pp. 263-282. Greenberg, R.S., Daniels, S. R., Flanders, W. D., Eley, J. W., and Boring, J. R. (2001). Medical Epidemiology, 3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York City,New York. Hancock, P.A., Lesch, M., and Simmons, L. (2003). The distraction effects of phone use during a crucial driving maneuver. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35, 501-514. 129 Hedlund,J.,and Compton,R.(2005).Graduated driver licensing research in 2004 and 2005. Journal of Safety Research,36,pp. 109-119. Keppel,G.,and Wickens,T.D.(2004).Design&Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook..!". Edition. Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River,New Jersey. Lee,S.E.,Olsen,E.C.B.,and Wierwille,W.W.(2003).A comprehensive examination of naturalistic lane-changes.(Technical Contract Report No DTNH22-00-C-07007). Washington,DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Matthews,G.,Desmond,P.A.,Joyner,L.,Carcary,B.,and Gilliland,K.(1996).Validation of the driver stress inventory and driver coping questionnaire. Paper presented at the International Conference on Traffic and Transport Psychology,Valencia,Spain. McCarlcy,J.S.,Vais,M.J.,Pringle,Fl.,Kramer,A.F.,Irwin,D.E.,and Strayer,D.L.(2004). Conversation disrupts change detection in complex traffic scenes. Human Factors,46, (3),pp.424—436. Sahai,H.and Khurshid,A.(1996).Statistics in Epidemiology: Methods, Techniques,and Applications. CRC Press,Boca Raton,Florida. Strayer,D.L.and Drews,F.A.(2004).Profiles in driver distraction: Effects of cell phone conversations in younger and older drivers. Human Factors,46, (4),pp.640-649. Amok Stutts,J.,Feaganes,J.,Rodgman,E.,Hamlett,C.,Meadows,T.,Reinfurt,D.,Gish,K., Mercadante,M.,Staplin,L(2003). Distractions in Everyday Driving. Washington,DC: AAA Foundation for"Traffic Safety. Transportation Research Board(2000). Highway Capacity Manual. Washington,DC:United States Department of Transportation Wang,J.S.,Knipling,R.R.,and Goodman,M.J.(1996).The role of driver inattention in crashes: New statistics from the 1995 crashworthiness data system. In 40th Annual Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine,Vancouver, British Columbia. Wierwille,W.(1993).Visual and manual demands of in-car controls and displays. In Eds. Peacock and Karkowski's Automotive Ergonomics.Taylor&Francis: London,England. Wierwille,W.W.,and Ellsworth,L.A.(1994). Evaluation of driver drowsiness by trained raters. Accident Analysis and Prevention,26(4),571-578. 130 APPENDIX A:SECONDARY TASKS Table A-1. Secondary tasks recorded during data reduction. Passenger-Related Secondary Task Passenger in adjacent seat Driver is talking to a passenger sitting in adjacent seat that can be identified by the person encroaching into the camera view or the driver is clearly looking and talking to the passenger. Passenger in rear seat Driver is talking to a passenger sitting in rear seat that can be identified by the person encroaching into the camera view or the driver is clearly looking and talking to the passenger seated in the rear. Child in adjacent.seat Driver is talking to a child sitting in the adjacent seat who can be identified by the child encroaching into the camera view or the driver is clearly looking and talking to the child. Child in rear seat Driver is talking to a child sitting in the rear seat who can be identified by the child or child related paraphernalia encroaching into the camera view or the driver is clearly looking and talking to the passenger seated in the rear. Talking/Singing No Passenger Apparent Talking/singing/dancing Driver appears to be vocalizing either to an unknown passenger,to self,or singing to the radio. Also,in this category are instances where the driver exhibits dancing behavior. Internal Distraction Not vehicle or passenger related Reading Driver is reading papers,a magazine,a hook,or a map Moving object in vehicle Driver is distracted by stationary objects suddenly in motion due to hard braking,accelerating,or turning corner. Object dropped by driver Driver dropped an abject and is now looking for it or reaching for it. Reaching for object in vehicle Driver is attempting to locate an object while driving. (not cell phone) Insect in vehicle Driver is distracted by a flying insect that is in the cabin of the vehicle. 131 Pet in vehicle Driver is distracted by a pet that is in the cabin of the vehicle. Wireless Device Talking/listening Driver is clearly conversing on the cell phone. Head-set on/conversation Driver has a hands free head-set on but the conversation is unknown unknown Dialing hand-held cell phone Driver is attempting to dial a hand-held cell phone while the vehicle is in gear. Dialing hand-held cell phone Driver is attempting to use quick keys to dial a hand-held using quick keys cell phone while the vehicle is in gear. Dialing hands free cell phone Driver is attempting to dial a hands free cell phone using using voice activated software voice activation while the vehicle is in gear. Locating/reaching/answering cell Driver is attempting to locate the cell phone by reaching for phone it in order to use it or answer it while the vehicle is in gear. 011111 , Cell phone:other Any other activity associated with a cell phone i.e.,looking ' at a cell phone for time,or screening calls but not dialing, or talking while the vehicle is in gear. Locating/reaching for PDA Driver is attempting to locate a PDA by reaching for it in order to use it or to answer it while the vehicle is in gear. Operating PDA Driver is using(looking at, using stylus,or pressing buttons)while the vehicle is in gear. Viewing PDA Driver is only looking at a PDA, no stylus or button presses,while the vehicle is in gear. 1'ehicle-Related Secondary Task Adjusting climate control Driver is looking at and/or reaching to adjust the HVAC system while the vehicle is in gear. Adjusting the radio Driver is looking at and/or reaching to adjust the radio/stereo system while the vehicle is in gear. Inserting/retrieving cassette Driver is inserting or retrieving a cassette while the vehicle is in gear. Inserting/retrieving CD Driver is inserting or retrieving a compact disc while the '"' . 132 vehicle is in gear. Adjusting other devices integral Driver is looking at and/or reaching to adjust another in- to vehicle dash system while the vehicle is in gear. Adjusting other known in-vehicle Driver is looking at and/or reaching to adjust another in- devices vehicle system(i.e.,XM Radio)while the vehicle is in gear. Dining Eating with a utensil Driver is eating food with a utensil while the vehicle is in gear. Eating without a utensil Driver is eating food without utensil while the vehicle is in gear. Drinking with a covered/.straw Driver is drinking out of a covered container(travel mug) or covered container with a straw while the vehicle is in gear. Drinking out of open cup/ Driver is drinking out of an open cup or container that can container be easily spilled while the vehicle is in gear. Smoking Reaching for cigar/cigarette Driver is reaching for cigar/cigarette/pipe while the vehicle is in gear. Lighting cigar/cigarette Driver is lighting the cigar/cigarette/pipe while the vehicle is in gear. Smoking cigar/cigarette Driver is-smoking the cigar/cigarette/pipe while the vehicle is in gear. E.ctinguiching cigar/cigarette Driver is putting the cigar/cigarette out in an ashtray while the vehicle is in gear. Daydreaming Lost in thought Driver is haphazardly looking around but not at any single distraction. Looked but did not see Driver is looking in the direction of a conflict but does not react in a timely manner. Driver may also exhibit a surprised look at the moment of realization. External Distraction 133 Looking at previous crash or Driver is looking out of the vehicle at a collision or a highway incident highway incident that has happened recently. Pedestrian located outside the Driver is looking out of the vehicle at a pedestrian who may vehicle or may not pose a safety hazard(generally not in the forward roadway). Animal located outside the Driver is looking out of the vehicle at an animal that may vehicle or may not pose a safety hazard(generally not in the forward roadway). Object located outside the vehicle Driver is looking out of the vehicle at an object of interest that may or may not pose a safety hazard. Objects may or may not be in the forward roadway. Construction zone Driver is looking out of the vehicle at construction equipment that may or may not pose a safety hazard. Personal Hygiene Combing/brushing/firing hair Driver is grooming or styling hair while the vehicle is in gear. Driver may or may not be looking in a mirror. Applying make-up Driver is applying makeup while the vehicle is in gear. Driver may or may not be looking in a mirror. Shaving Driver is shaving facial hair while the vehicle is in gear. Driver may or may not be looking in a mirror. Brushing/flossing teeth Driver is brushing or flossing teeth while the vehicle is in gear. Driver may or may not be looking in a mirror. Biting nails/cuticles Driver is biting nails and/or cuticles. Driver may or may not be looking at nails and/or cuticles. Removing/adjusting jewelry Driver is removing/adjusting/putting on jewelry while the vehicle is in gear. Removing/inserting contact Driver is attempting to remove or insert contact lenses lenses while the vehicle is in gear. Otter Driver is cleaning/adjusting/altering something on their person while the vehicle is in gear. Driving-related Inattention to Forward Roadway Checking center rear-view mirror Driver is observing traffic in rear-view mirror while moving forward or stopped,but the vehicle is in gear(i.e., wok 134 stopped at an intersection). Looking out left side of Driver is looking out the left side of the windshield while windshield(not in direction in the vehicle is either moving forward or stopped,but is in motion) gear. This is not marked if the driver is making a left turn. Looking out right side of Driver is looking out the right side of the windshield while windshield(not in direction in the vehicle is either moving forward or stopped,but is in motion) gear. This is not marked if the driver is making a right turn. Checking left rear-view mirror Driver is observing traffic in left rear-view mirror while moving forward or stopped,but the vehicle is in gear(i.e., stopped at an intersection). Looking out left window Driver is observing traffic in left window while moving forward or stopped,but the vehicle is in gear(i.e.,stopped at an intersection). Checking right rear-view mirror Driver is observing traffic in right rear-view mirror while moving forward or stopped,but the vehicle is in gear(i.e., stopped at an intersection). Looking out right window Driver is observing traffic in right window while moving forward or stopped,but the vehicle is in gear(i.e.,stopped at an intersection). Looking at instrument panel Driver is checking vehicle speed/temperature/RPMs while vehicle is moving or stopped,but is in gear. 135 APPENDIX B: COPY OF QUESTIONNAIRES DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Subject ID# Please answer each of the following items. I. What is your age in years: 2. Gender: Male Female 3. What is your highest level of education? a. Didn't complete high school b. High school graduate c. Some college d. 2-year college degree/trade school e. 4-year college degree f. Masters degree g. Professional degree h. Doctorate degree 4. What is your occupation: 5. What group do you identify yourself with a. Latino/Latina b. African-American c. Caucasian d. Middle Eastern e. Pacific Islander f. Asian g. Other 6. How many years have you been driving? 7. What type of driving do you usually do?(please indicate all that apply) a. Around town driving b. Commuting on freeways c. Commuting on other main roads d. Short distance travel(50-200-mile round trip) e. Middle distance travel(201-500-mile round trip) f. Long distance travel (>500-mile round trip) 137 DRIVING HISTORY—SUBJECT INTERVIEW In the past year, how many moving or traffic violations have you had? What type of violation was it? (1). (2). (3). (4). (5). In the past year how many accidents have you been in? For each accident indicate the severity of the crash (select highest) a. Injury b. Tow-away (any vehicle) c. Police-reported d. Damage (any), but no police report Using the diagram indicate each of the following: Category, Configuration, Accident type Accident 1 Accident 2 Accident 3 Accident 4 Accident 5 Accident Severity Accident Category Accident Configuration Accident Type Comments: Amok 138 HEALTH ASSESSMENT To the Participant:Please note that your responses to the following questions will in no way affect your ability to participate in the study. Your honest answers are appreciated 1. Do you have a history of any of the following? a. Stroke Y N b. Brain tumor Y N c. Head injury Y N d. Epileptic seizures Y N e. Respiratory disorders Y N f. Motion sickness Y N g. Inner ear problems Y N h. Dizziness,vertigo,or other balance problems Y N i. Diabetes Y N j. Migraine,tension headaches Y N k. Depression Y N I. Anxiety Y N m. Other psychiatric disorders Y N n. Arthritis Y N o. Auto-immune disorders Y N p. High blood pressure Y N q. Heart arrhythmias Y N r. Chronic fatigue syndrome Y N s. Chronic stress Y N If yes to any of the above,please explain? 2. Are you currently taking any medications on a regular basis? Y N If yes,please list them. 3. (Females only)Are you currently pregnant? Y N 4. Height 5. Weight lbs. 139 DULA DANGEROUS DRIVING INDEX Please answer each of the following items as honestly as possible. Please read each item carefully and then circle the answer you choose on the form. If none of the choices seem to be your ideal answer, then select the answer that comes closest. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. Select your answers quickly and do not spend too much time analyzing your answers. If you change an answer, erase the first one well. 1. 1 drive when I am angry or upset. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 2. I lose my temper when driving. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 3. I consider the actions of other drivers to be inappropriate or"stupid." A.Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 4. I flash my headlights when I am annoyed by another driver. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 5. I make rude gestures(e.g., giving"the finger,"yelling curse words)toward drivers who annoy me. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 6. 1 verbally insult drivers who annoy me. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 7. I deliberately use my car/truck to block drivers who tailgate me. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 8. I would tailgate a driver who annoys me. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 9. 1 "drag race" other drivers at stop lights to get out front. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 10. I will illegally pass a car/truck that is going too slowly. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 11. I feel it is my right to strike back in some way, if I feel another driver has been aggressive toward me. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 12. When I get stuck in a traffic jam I get very irritated. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 13. 1 will race a slow moving train to a railroad crossing. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 14. I will weave in and out of slower traffic. 140 A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 15. I will drive if I am only mildly intoxicated or buzzed. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 16. When someone cuts me off, I feel I should punish him/her. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 17. I get impatient and/or upset when I fall behind schedule when I am driving. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 18. Passengers in my car/truck tell me to calm down. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 19. I get irritated when a car/truck in front of me slows down for no reason. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 20. I will cross double yellow lines to see if I can pass a slow moving car/truck. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 21. I feel it is my right to get where I need to go as quickly as possible. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 22. I feel that passive drivers should learn how to drive or stay home. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 23. I will drive in the shoulder lane or median to get around a traffic jam. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 24. When passing a car/truck on a 2-lane road, I will barely miss on-coming cars. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 25. 1 will drive when I am drunk. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 26. I feel that I may lose my temper if I have to confront another driver. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 27. I consider myself to be a risk-taker. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 28. I feel that most traffic "laws"could be considered as suggestions. A. Never B. Rarely C. Sometimes D. Often E. Always 141 SLEEP HYGIENE QUESTIONNAIRE Using the following rating scale,to what extent do you currently experience the following? None Moderate Severe Daytime sleepiness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Snoring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Difficulty Falling Asleep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Difficulty Staying Asleep I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Difficulty Waking Up 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Daytime Sleepiness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Obtain Too Little Sleep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Read through the following questions carefully and answer each as accurately as possible: 'ng 1.When you are working: what time do you go to bed a.m./p.m.and wake up a.m./p.m. 2.When you are not working: what time do you go to bed a.m./p.m.and wake up a.m./p.m. 3.Do you keep a fairly regular sleep schedule? Yes No 4.How many hours of actual sleep do you usually get? 5.Do you consider yourself a light,normal,or heavy sleeper? 6.Do you feel uncomfortably sleepy during the day? never every day more than once per week once per week a few times a month once a month or less 7.Do you ever have an irresistible urge to sleep or find that you fall asleep in unusual,/ inappropriate situations? never every day more than once per week once per week a few times a month once a month or less 8.Do you usually nap during the day(or between major sleep periods)? Yes No ANN • 142 9.Do you drink caffeinated beverages(coffee.tea,Coca-Cola,Mountain Dew,Jolt Cola)? Yes No 10.If yes,how many cups/glasses per day? 11.How often do you drink alcohol? never every day more than once per week once per week once a month or less 12.Do you smoke cigarettes,cigars,pipe or chew or snuff tobacco?Yes No 13.If yes,how often? PRIMARY SLEEP DISORDERS 14.Have you ever been diagnosed with or suffer from any of the following sleep disorders? Narcolepsy Yes No Sleep Apnea Yes No Periodic Limb Movement Yes No Restless Leg Syndrome Yes No Insomnia Yes No 143 DRIVER STRESS INVENTORY Please answer the following questions on the basis of your usual or typical feelings about driving. Each question asks you to answer according to how strongly you agree with one of two alternative answers. Please read each of the two alternatives carefully before answering. To answer, circle the number which expresses your answer most accurately. Example: Are you a confident driver? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very Much 1. Does it worry you to drive in bad weather? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Much Not at all 2. I am disturbed by thoughts of having an accident or the car breaking down. Ainok 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Rarely Very Often 3. Do you lose your temper when another driver does something silly? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 4. Do you think you have enough experience and training to deal with risky situations on the road safely? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 5. I find myself worrying about my mistakes and the things I do badly when driving. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very rarely Very often Amok 6. I would like to risk my life as a racing driver. 144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 7. My driving would be worse than usual in an unfamiliar rental car. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 8. I sometimes like to frighten myself a little while driving. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 9. I get a real thrill out of driving fast. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 10.I make a point of carefully checking every side road I pass for emerging vehicles. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Much Not at all 11.Driving brings out the worst in people. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 12.Do you think it is worthwhile taking risks on the road? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 13.At times,I feel like I really dislike other drivers who cause problems for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 145 14.Advice on driving from a passenger is generally: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Useful Unnecessary 15.I like to raise my adrenaline levels while driving. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 16.It's important to show other drivers that they can't take advantage of you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 17.Do you feel confident in your ability to avoid an accident? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 18.Do you usually make an effort to look for potential hazards when driving? I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 19.Other drivers arc generally to blame for any difficulties I have on the road. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 20.1 would enjoy driving a sports car on a road with no speed-limit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 21.Do you find it difficult to control your temper when driving? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 146 22.When driving on an unfamiliar road do you become more tense than usual? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 23.I make a special effort to be alert even on roads I know well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 24.I enjoy the sensation of accelerating rapidly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 25.If I make a minor mistake when driving,I feel it's something I should be concerned about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 26.I always keep an eye on parked cars in case somebody gets out of them,or there are pedestrians behind them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 27.I feel more anxious than usual when I have a passenger in the car. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 28.I become annoyed if another car follows very close behind mine for some distance I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 147 29. I make an effort to see what's happening on the road a long way ahead of me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 30. I try very hard to look out for hazards even when it's not strictly necessary. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 31. Are you usually patient during the rush hour? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 32. When you pass another vehicle do you feel in command of the situation? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 33. When you pass another vehicle do you feel tense or nervous? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 34. Does it annoy you to drive behind a slow moving vehicle? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 35. When you're in a hurry, other drivers usually get in your way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 36. When I come to negotiate a difficult stretch of road, I am on the alert. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all , 148 37.Do you feel more anxious than usual when driving in heavy traffic? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 38.1 enjoy cornering at high speeds. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Very much 39.Are you annoyed when the traffic lights change to red when you approach them? I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 40.Does driving,usually make you feel aggressive? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very much Not at all 41.Think about how you feel when you have to drive for several hours,with few or no breaks from driving. How do your feelings change during the course of the drive? a) More uncomfortable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No change physically(e.g.,headache or muscle pains) b) More drowsy or sleepy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No change c) Maintain speed of reaction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Reactions to other traffic becomes increasingly slower d) Maintain attention to road- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Become signs inattentive to road-signs 149 LIFE STRESS INVENTORY Please read through the following events carefully. Mark each event which occurred within the past year. Death of spouse or parent Foreclosure of mortgage or loan Divorce Change in responsibilities at work Marital separation or separation from Son or daughter leaves living partner Trouble with in-laws/partner's family Jail term Outstanding personal achievement Death of close family member Mate begins or stops work Personal injury or illness Change in living conditions Fired from job Marriage/establishing life partner Marital or relationship reconciliation Change in personal habit Retirement Trouble with boss Change in health of family member Change in work hours or conditions Pregnancy Change in residence Se\difficulties Change in schools Gain of new family member Change in church activities Business readjustment Change in recreation Change in financial state Change in social activities Death of close friend Minor loan(car,TV,etc) Change to different line of work or study Change in sleeping habits Change in number of arguments with Change in number of family get- togethers spouse or partner Change in eating habits Mortgage or loan for major purchase Vacation (home,etc.) Christmas(if approaching) 151 APPENDIX C:DATA REDUCTION VARIABLES I.Vehicle Number Comment: Each vehicle will be assigned a vehicle number. Information will originate in the raw data stream. FORMAT: Integer value. 2.Epoch Number The Epoch file number is arranged by vehicle identification number,date and time. The first three numbers represent the vehicle identification number,the next two numbers represent the year(Ex.03 for 2003),the next two numbers represents the month(Ex.03 for March),the next two numbers represent the day of the month,the next four numbers represent the time in military time. The last six numbers are the epoch ID. 002 03 02 28 1209 000000 Comment: Each valid driving performance trigger will be assigned to an epoch. An epoch will consist of 1 minute of video prior and 30 seconds of video after the initial onset of a trigger. If a second trigger occurs within this 1.5-minute segment,the epoch will extend to include a full one minute prior to the onset of the initial trigger and 30 seconds after the onset of the last trigger. 3. Event Severity—A general term referring to all valid triggered occurrences of an incident, near-crash,or crash that begins at the precipitating event and ends when the evasive maneuver has been completed. Invalid trigger—Any instance where a trigger appears but no safety-relevant event is present. Non-subject conflict-Any safety-relevant event captured on video(incident,near-crash.or crash)that does not involve the driver. Non-conflict-Any event that increases the level of risk associated with driving,but does not result in a crash,near-crash,or incident,as defined below. Examples include:driver control error without proximal hazards being present;driver judgment error such as unsafe tailgating or excessive speed;or cases in which drivers are visually distracted to an unsafe level. Proximity Event-Any circumstance resulting in extraordinarily close proximity of the subject vehicle to any other vehicle,pedestrian,cyclist,animal,or fixed object where,due to apparent unawareness on the part of the driver(s),pedestrians,cyclists or animals,there is no avoidance maneuver or response. Extraordinarily close proximity is defined as a clear case where the absence of an avoidance maneuver or response is inappropriate for the driving circumstances (including speed,sight distance,etc.). 153 Crash-Relevant- Any circumstance that requires a crash avoidance response on the part of the subject vehicle. Any other vehicle,pedestrian, cyclist, or animal that is less severe than a rapid evasive maneuver(as defined above), but greater in severity than a"normal maneuver"to avoid a crash. A crash avoidance response can include braking, steering, accelerating, or any combination of control inputs. A "normal maneuver" for the subject vehicle is defined as a control input that falls inside of the 99 percent confidence limit for control input as measured for the same subject. Near-crash - Any circumstance that requires a rapid, evasive maneuver by the subject vehicle, or any other vehicle, pedestrian, cyclist, or animal to avoid a crash. A rapid, evasive maneuver is defined as a steering, braking, accelerating, or any combination of control inputs that approaches the limits of the vehicle capabilities. As a guide: subject vehicle braking greater than 0.5 g, or steering input that results in a lateral acceleration greater than 0.4 g to avoid a crash, constitutes a rapid maneuver. Crash - Any contact with an object, either moving or fixed, at any speed, in which kinetic energy is measurably transferred or dissipated. Includes other vehicles, roadside barriers, objects on or off the roadway, pedestrians, cyclists or animals. Comment: Initial coding step. Invalid events result in no further coding. Non-subject and non- conflicts will only result in a brief narrative written, but no other coding. Other coding choices will determine which specific subset of variables that will be coded. Specified at early onset of data reduction software. Ask 4. Trigger Type (C-N-I) The triggers were specific data signatures that were specified during the sensitivity analysis performed after 10 percent of the data were collected. The specific data signatures that were used to identify valid events are as follows: Lateral acceleration - Lateral motion equal or greater than 0.7 g. Longitudinal acceleration - Acceleration or deceleration equal or greater than 0.6 g. CI button —Activated by the driver upon pressing a button located on the dashboard when an incident occurred that he/she deemed critical. Forward Time To Collision (FTTC) - Acceleration or deceleration equal to or greater than 0.5 g coupled with a forward TTC of 4 seconds or less. All longitudinal decelerations between 0.4 g and 0.5 g coupled with a forward TTC value of<4 seconds and that the corresponding forward range value at the minimum TTC is not greater than 100 feet. Rear Time To Collision (RTTC) - Any rear TTC trigger value of 2 seconds or less that also has a corresponding rear range distance of< 50 feet AND any rear TTC trigger value where the absolute acceleration of the following vehicle is greater than 0.3 g. Side object detection—Detects presence of other vehicles/objects in the adjacent lane. Lane change cut-off— Identifies situations in which the subject vehicle cuts in too close either behind or in front of another vehicle by using closing speed and forward TTC. 44.16, 154 Yaw rate —Any value greater than or equal to a plus AND minus 4-degree change in heading (i.e.,vehicle must return to the same general direction of travel)within a 3-second window of time. 5.Driver Subject Number(C-N-I-B) All primary drivers'subject number will be a 3-digit number followed by the letter"A." Any secondary drivers should be given the same 3-digit number followed by the letters"B,""C,"and so on. 6. Onset of Precipitating Factor Using video frame numbers,the reductionists will determine the onset of the precipitating event(i.e.,onset of lead-vehicle brake lights for a lead vehicle conflict). 7.Resolution of the Event Using video frame numbers,the reductionists will determine when the evasive maneuver(or lack thereof)has been executed and the level of danger has returned to normal. EVENT VARIABLES 1.Event Nature(C-N-I) This variable specified the type of crash,near-crash,or incident that occurred. The reductionists chose from the following variables that were modified from GES variables"Manner of Collision"and"Most Harmful Event." 1—Conflict with a lead vehicle 2=Conflict with a following vehicle 3=Contlict with an oncoming traffic 4=Conflict with a vehicle in adjacent lane 5=Contlict with a merging vehicle 6—Conflict with a vehicle turning across subject vehicle path(same direction) 7=Contlict with a vehicle turning across subject vehicle path(opposite direction) 8—Conflict with a vehicle turning into subject vehicle path(same direction) 9=Conflict with a vehicle turning into subject vehicle path(opposite direction) 10 Conflict with a vehicle moving across subject vehicle path(through intersection) II=Contlict with a parked vehicle 12—Conflict with a pedestrian 13=Conflict with a pedal cyclist 14=Conflict with an animal 15=Conflict with an obstacle/object in roadway 16=Single vehicle conflict 17=Other 18=No known conflict(for RF sensor trigger) 99=Unknown conflict 155 2.Incident Type(Coded for Crashes and Near-Crashes only) 1=Rear-end,striking 2=Rear-end,struck 3=Road departure(left or right) 4=Road departure(end) 5=Sideswipe,same direction(left or right) 6=Opposite direction(head-on or sideswipe) 7=Violation of stop sign or signal at intersection 8=Straight crossing path,not involving sign/signal violation 9=Turn across path 10=Turn into path(same direction) 11=Turn into path(opposite direction) 12=Backing,fixed object 13=Backing into traffic 14=Pedestrian 15=Pedalcyclist 16=Animal 17=Other(specify) 99=Unknown 3.Pre-Event Maneuver(GES Variable Vehicle 1 Maneuver Prior to Event) Amok This represents the last action that the subject vehicle driver engaged in just prior to the point that the driver realized impending danger. Note that the variables in italics are those GES variables that were expanded. la=Going straight,constant speed lb=Going straight ahead,accelerating Ic=Going straight,but with unintentional"drifting"within lane or across lanes 2=Decelerating in traffic lane 3=Accelerating in traffic lane 4=Starting in traffic lane 5=Stopped in traffic lane 6=Passing or overtaking another vehicle 7=Disabled or parked in travel lane 8=Leaving a parked position 9=Entering a parked position 10=Turning right II =Turning left 12=Making U-turn 13=Backing up(other than for parking purposes) 14=Negotiating a curve 15=Changing lanes 16=Merging 17=Successful corrective action to previous action A'o► 156 18a=Maneuvering to avoid an animal I 8b=Maneuvering to avoid a pedestrian/pedalcyclist 18c=Maneuvering to avoid an object 18d=Maneuvering to avoid a vehicle 97=Other 99=Unknown Source/comment:GES Variable V2I,Movement Prior to Critical Event. Also,very similar to VA PAR%Variable 19/20. FORMAT:Integer value as listed above. 4.Judgment of Vehicle 1 Maneuver Prior to Event This variable provided additional information about the pre-event maneuver as to whether this maneuver was either safe or legal. 1 =Safe and legal 2=Unsafe but legal 3=Safe but illegal 4=Unsafe and illegal 99=Unknown 5. Precipitating Factor(GES Variable V26,Critical Event) The driver behavior or state of the environment that begins the event and the subsequent sequence of actions that result in a crash,near-crash,or incident, independent of who caused the event(driver at fault). The precipitating factor occurs outside the vehicle and does not include driver distraction,drowsiness,or disciplining child while driving. A.This Vehicle Loss of Control Due to: 001=Blow-out or flat tire 002=Stalled engine 003=Disabling vehicle failure(e.g.,wheel fell off) 004=Minor vehicle failure 005=Poor road conditions(puddle,pothole,ice,etc.) 006=Excessive speed 007=Other or unknown reason 008=Other cause of control loss 009=Unknown cause of control loss B.This Vehicle Traveling: O l 8a=Ahead,stopped on roadway more than 2 seconds 018b=Ahead,decelerated and stopped on roadway 2 seconds or less 021=Ahead,traveling in same direction and decelerating 022=Ahead,traveling in same direction with slower constant speed 157 010= Over the lane line on the left side of travel lane 011 = Over the lane line on right side of travel lane 012 = Over left edge of roadway 013 = Over right edge of roadway 014 = End departure 015 = Turning left at intersection 016=Turning right at intersection 017= Crossing over(passing through) intersection 019= Unknown travel direction 020a = From adjacent lane (same direction), over left lane line behind lead vehicle, rear-end crash threat 020b = From adjacent lane (same direction), over right lane line behind lead vehicle, rear-end crash threat C. Other Vehicle in Lane: 050a =Ahead, stopped on roadway more than 2 seconds 050b= Ahead, decelerated and stopped on roadway 2 seconds or less 051 = Ahead, traveling in same direction with slower constant speed 052 =Ahead, traveling in same direction and decelerating 053 =Ahead, traveling in same direction and accelerating 054 =Traveling in opposite direction 055 = In crossover Agio 056 =Backing 059 =Unknown travel direction of the other motor vehicle Another Vehicle Encroaching into This Vehicle's Lane: 060a = From adjacent lane (same direction), over left lane line in front of this vehicle, rear-end crash threat 060b = From adjacent lane (same direction), over left lane line behind this vehicle, rear-end crash threat 060c = From adjacent lane (same direction), over left lane line, sideswipe threat 060d = From adjacent lane (same direction), over right lane line, sideswipe threat 060e =From adjacent lane (same direction), other 061a = From adjacent lane (same direction), over right lane line in front of this vehicle, rear-end crash threat 061b=From adjacent lane (same direction), over right lane line behind this vehicle, rear-end crash threat 061c =From adjacent lane (same direction), other 062 = From opposite direction over left lane line. 063 = From opposite direction over right lane line 064 = From parallel/diagonal parking lane 065 = Entering intersection—turning in same direction 066 = Entering intersection—straight across path 067 = Entering intersection—turning into opposite direction , 158 068=Entering intersection—intended path unknown 070=From driveway,alley access,etc.—turning into same direction 071 =From driveway,alley access,etc.—straight across path 072=From driveway,alley access,etc.—turning into opposite direction 073=From driveway,alley access,etc.—intended path unknown 074=From entrance to limited access highway 078=Encroaching details unknown E. Pedestrian,Pedalcyclist,or other Non-Motorist: 080=Pedestrian in roadway 081 =Pedestrian approaching roadway 082=Pedestrian in unknown location 083=Pedalcyclist/other nonmotorist in roadway 084=Pedalcyclist/other nonmotorist approaching roadway 085=Pedalcyclist/or other nonmotorist unknown location 086=Pedestrian/pedalcyclist/other nonmotorist—unknown location F.Object or Animal: 087=Animal in roadway 088=Animal approaching roadway 089=Animal unknown location 090=Object in roadway 091 =Object approaching roadway 092=Object unknown location 099=Unknown critical event 6. Evasive Maneuver(GES Variable V27 Corrective Action Attempted) The subject vehicle driver's reaction to the precipitating factor. 0=No driver present 1—No avoidance maneuver 2=Braking(no lockup) 3=Braking(lockup) 4=Braking(lockup unknown) 5=Releasing brakes 6=Steered to left 7=Steered to right 8=Braked and steered to left 9=Braked and steered to right 10=Accelerated 11=Accelerated and steered to left 12=Accelerated and steered to right 98=Other actions 99=Unknown if driver attempted any corrective action 159 7. Vehicle Control After Corrective Action (GES Variable V28—Coded only for near-crashes and crashes): 0 =No driver present 1 =Vehicle control maintained after corrective action 2 =Vehicle rotated (yawed) clockwise 3 = Vehicle rotated (yawed) counter-clockwise 4 = Vehicle slid/skid longitudinally—no rotation 5 = Vehicle slid/skid laterally—no rotation 9 =Vehicle rotated (yawed) unknown direction 20 = Combination of 2-9 94 = More than two vehicles involved 98 = Other or unknown type of vehicle control was lost after corrective action 99 = Unknown if vehicle control was lost after corrective action. Contributing Factors 1. Driver Behavior: Driver 1 Actions/Factors Relating to the Event(VA PAR%Variable 17/18) This variable provides a descriptive label to the driver's actions that may or may not have contributed to the event. 0 =None Amok 1 =Exceeded speed limitf. 2 = Inattentive or distracted 3 =Exceeded safe speed but not speed limit 4 = Driving slowly: below speed limit 5 =Driving slowly in relation to other traffic: not below speed limit 6 = Illegal passing (i.e., across double line) 7 = Passing on right 8 = Other improper or unsafe passing 9 = Cutting in, too close in front of other vehicle 10 = Cutting in, too close behind other vehicle 11 = Making turn from wrong lane (e.g., across lanes) 12 =Did not see other vehicle during lane change or merge 13 = Driving in other vehicle's blind zone 14 =Aggressive driving, specific, directed menacing actions 15 = Aggressive driving, other, i.e., reckless driving without directed menacing actions 16 = Wrong side of road, not overtaking 17 =Following too close 18 = Failed to signal, or improper signal 19 = Improper turn - wide right turn 20= Improper turn - cut corner on left turn 21 = Other improper turning 22 = Improper backing, did not see s'""t 160 23=Improper backing,other 24=Improper start from parked position 25=Disregarded officer or watchman 26=Signal violation,apparently did not see signal 27=Signal violation,intentionally ran red light 28=Signal violation,tried to beat signal change 29=Stop sign violation,apparently did not see stop sign 30=Stop sign violation,intentionally ran stop sign at speed 31 =Stop sign violation,"rolling stop" 32=Other sign(e.g.,Yield)violation,apparently did not see sign 33=Other sign(e.g.,Yield)violation,intentionally disregarded 34=Other sign violation 35=Non-signed crossing violation(e.g.,driveway entering roadway) 36=Right-of-way error in relation to other vehicle or person,apparent recognition failure(e.g.,did not see other vehicle) 37=Right-of-way error in relation to other vehicle or person,apparent decision failure(i.e.,did see other vehicle prior to action but misjudged gap) 38=Right-of-way error in relation to other vehicle or person,other or unknown cause 39=Sudden or improper stopping on roadway 40=Parking in improper or dangerous location,e.g.,shoulder of Interstate 41 =Failure to signal with other violations or unsafe actions 42=Failure to signal,without other violations or unsafe actions 43=Speeding or other unsafe actions in work zone 44=Failure to dim headlights 45=Driving without lights or insufficient lights 46=Avoiding pedestrian 47=Avoiding other vehicle 48=Avoiding animal 49=Apparent unfamiliarity with roadway 50=Apparent unfamiliarity with vehicle,e.g.,displays and controls 51=Apparent general inexperience driving 52=Use of cruise control contributed to late braking 53=Other,specify 2.Driver 1 Physical/Mental Impairment(GES Variable D3:Driver Physical/Mental Condition) 0=None apparent =Drowsy,sleepy,asleep 2=Ill,blackout 3a=Angry 3b=Other emotional state 4a=Drugs-medication 4b=Drugs-Alcohol 5=Other drugs(marijuana,cocaine,etc.) 6=Restricted to wheelchair 161 7=Impaired due to previous injury 8=Deaf 50=Hit and run vehicle 97=Physical/mental impairment—no details 98=Other physical/mental impairment 99=Unknown physical/mental condition Source:GES D3,Driver Physical/Mental Condition. Element 3 expanded to separate anger from other emotions. Element 50 not applicable. Coded in General State Variables: Driver's General State,Causal/Contributing Factors,and Precipitating Event. FORMAT: 16-bit encoded value(s)as listed above. 3.Driver 1 Distracted By(GES Variable D7:Driver Distracted By) This variable was recorded if the reductionists observed the drivers engaging in any of the following secondary tasks 5-10 seconds prior to the onset of the precipitating factor. For a complete definition of these tasks,see Appendix D. 00=Not Distracted 15=Cognitive distraction 97=Lost in thought 01 =Looked but did not see /►, 15a=Reading 15b=Talking/singing without obvious passenger I 5c=Dancing to the radio 15d=Reading 03=Passenger in vehicle 3a=Passenger in adjacent seat 3b=Passenger in rear seat 3c=Child in adjacent seat 3d=Child in rear scat =Object/Animal/Insect in Vehicle 4a=Moving object in vehicle(i.e.,object fell off seat when driver stopped hard at a traffic light) 4b=Insect in vehicle 4c=Pet in vehicle 4d=Object dropped by driver 4e=Reaching for object in vehicle(not cell phone) 5=Cell phone operations 05a= Talking/listening 06a=Dialing hand-held cell phone 06b=Dialing hand-held cell phone using quick keys �►. 162 06c=Dialing hands-free cell phone using voice activated software 06d=Locating/reaching/answering cell phone 17=PDA operations 15a=Locating/reaching PDA 15b=Operating PDA I5c=Viewing PDA 16=In-vehicle system operations 7=Adjusting climate control 8a=Adjusting the radio 8b=Inserting/retrieving cassette 8c=Inserting/retrieving CD 9=Adjusting other devices integral to vehicle(unknown which device) 9a=Adjusting other known in-vehicle devices(text box to specify) 12=External Distraction 12a=Looking at previous crash or highway incident 12b=Pedestrian located outside the vehicle I 2c=Animal located outside the vehicle 12d=Object located outside the vehicle 12e=Construction zone =Dining 13a=Eating with a utensil 13b=Eating without a utensil 13c=Drinking from a covered container(i.e.,straw) 13d=Drinking from an uncovered container =Smoking 14a=Reaching for cigar/cigarette 14b=Lighting cigar/cigarette 14c=Smoking cigar/cigarette 14d=Extinguishing cigar/cigarette 18.Personal Hygiene 18a=Combing/brushing/fixing hair 18b=Applying make-up 18c=Shaving 18d=Brushing/flossing teeth 18e=Biting nails/cuticles 18f=Removing/adjusting jewelry 18g=Removing/inserting contact lenses 18h=Other 19.Inattention to the Forward Roadway 163 19a=Left window 19b=Left rear-view mirror 19c=Center rear-view mirror 19d=Right rear-view mirror 19e=Right passenger window 3a.Time Distraction Began Reductionists entered the video frame number corresponding to the time at which the driver became distracted or began to engage in the distracting task, 3b.Time Distraction Ended Reductionists entered the video frame number corresponding to the time at which the driver disengaged from the distracting task or the driver's attention returned to the forward roadway. 3c.Outcome(of Incident)Impacted Reductionists also marked whether they believed that the secondary task that was present at the onset of the precipitating factor impacted the severity or the outcome of the event. Note that all distraction analyses conducted in this report only used those secondary tasks that were marked `yes'or'not able to determine'. 1 =Yes 2=No 3=Not able to determine 99=Unknown 4.Willful Behavior Reductionists marked this variable when they believed that the driver was aware or cognizant of their poor behavior. There were 3 options,written in sequential order of increasingly willful or aggressive behavior. 1 =Aggressive driving 2=Purposeful violation of traffic laws 3=Use of vehicle for improper purposes(Intimidation/weapon) 99=Unknown Source/comment: This variable came from the Light/Heavy Vehicle Interaction Study Taxonomy. 5.Driver Proficiency Reductionists marked this variable when it was believed that the driver was generally unaware of their poor driving behavior. There are 4 options,written in order of decreasing levels of proficiency(the last is the most drastic measure of poor driving proficiency). 1=Violation of traffic laws 2=Driving techniques(incompetent to safely perform driving maneuver) 3=Vehicle kinematics(incompetent handling the vehicle) Auk 164 4=Driver capabilities(incompetent on what maneuvers are safe and appropriate) Source/comment: This variable came from the Light/Heavy Vehicle Interaction Study Taxonomy. 6. Driver 1 Drowsiness Rating(Coded for Crashes and Near-Crashes only) An observer rating of drowsiness will be assigned for the 30 seconds prior to the event based on review of driver videos. For drowsiness levels above a criterion level of and ORD of 60 or above,a manual calculation of PERCLOS will be measured by the analyst. This variable will be coded for all crashes and near-crashes(Wierwille and Ellsworth, 1994). 7.Driver 1 Vision Obscured by(GES Variable D4:Vision Obscured by) Reductionists will ascertain to the best of their ability whether the driver's vision was obscured by any of the following: 0=No obstruction 1 =Rain,snow,fog,smoke,sand,dust 2a=Reflected glare 2b=Sunlight 2c=Headlights 3=Curve or hill 4=Building,billboard,or other design features(includes signs, embankment) 5=Trees,crops,vegetation 6=Moving vehicle(including load) 7=Parked vehicle 8=Splash or spray of passing vehicle[any other vehicle] 9=Inadequate defrost or defog system 10=Inadequate lighting system 11 =Obstruction interior to vehicle 12=Mirrors 13=Head restraints 14=Broken or improperly cleaned windshield 15=Fog 50=Hit-and-run vehicle 95=No driver present 96=Not reported 97=Vision obscured—no details 98=Other obstruction 99=Unknown whether vision was obstructed 8.Vehicle Contributing Factors(GES Variable V12,Vehicle contributing factors) Reductionists will determine if any of the following contributed to the severity or the presence of an event. 165 0=None 1 =Tires 2=Brake system 3=Steering system 4=Suspension 5=Power train 6=Exhaust system 7=Headlights 8=Signal lights 9=Other lights 10=Wipers 11 =Wheels 12=Mirrors 13=Driver seating and controls 14=Body,doors 15=Trailer hitch 50=Hit and run vehicle 97=Vehicle contributing factors,no details 98=Other vehicle contributing factors 99=Unknown if vehicle had contributing factors Environmental Factors:Driving Environment I.Weather(GES Variable A20I,Atmospheric condition and VA PAR%Variable 4) - Reductionists will determine the type of weather using the video and record as part of the data reduction process. 1 =Clear 2=Cloudy 3=Fog 4=Mist 5=Rainine 6=Snowing 7=Sleeting 8=Smoke dust 9=Other 99=Unknown 2.Light(GES Variable A191,Light Condition and VA PAR%Variable 7) Reductionists will determine the type of ambient light conditions are present using the video and record as part of the data reduction process. 1=Dawn 2=Daylight 3=Dusk 4=Darkness,lighted 411114. 166 5=Darkness,not lighted 99=Unknown 3.Windshield Wiper Activation Analysts will determine the windshield wiper activation through video reduction. 0=Off 1 -On 99=Unknown 4.Surface Condition(VA PAR%Variable 5) Reductionists will determine the type of surface condition at the onset of the precipitating factor and record as part of the data reduction process. I =Dry 2=Wet 3=Snowy 4=Icy 5=Muddy 6=Oily 7=Other 99=Unknown 5.Traffic Density(Level of Service) Reductionists will determine the level of traffic density at the time of the precipitating factor and record as part of the data reduction process. 1=LOS A: free flow 2=LOS B: Flow with some restrictions 3=LOS C: Stable flow,maneuverability and speed are more restricted . 4=LOS D: Unstable flow—temporary restrictions substantially slow driver 5=LOS F: Flow is unstable,vehicles are unable to pass,temporary stoppages,etc. 6=LOS F: Forced traffic flow condition with low speeds and traffic volumes that are below capacity. Queues forming in particular locations. 99=Unknown Driving Environment: Infrastructure 1.Kind of Locality(VA PAR%Variable 8) Reductionists will determine the kind of locality at the onset of the precipitating factor and record as part of the data reduction process. 1 =School 2=Church 167 3=Playground 4=Open Country 5=Business/industrial 6=Residential 7=Interstate 8=Other 9=Construction Zone(Added) 99=Unknown 2.Relation to Junction(GES Variable A9) Reductionists will determine the whether the precipitating factor occurred near a roadway junction and record as part of the data reduction process. Non-Interchange Area 00=Non-Junction 01 =Intersection 02=Intersection-related 03=Driveway,alley access,etc. 04=Entrance/exit ramp 05=Rail grade crossing 06=On a bridge 07=Crossover related 08=Other,non-interchange area �+ 09=Unknown,non-interchange 20=Parking lot[Added] FORMAT:Integer value as listed above. Interchange Area I O=Non-Junction 11=Intersection 12=Intersection-related 13=Driveway,alley access,etc. 14=Entrance/exit ramp 16=On a bridge 17=Crossover related 18=Other location in interchange area 19=Unknown,interchange area 99=Unknown if interchange 3.Trafficway Flow(GES Variable Al 1) Reductionists will determine the whether the roadway was divided at the time of the precipitating factor and record as part of the data reduction process. I=Not divided 2=Divided(median strip or barrier) ow% 168 3=One-way traffic 99=Unknown 4.Number of Travel Lanes(GES Variable Al2) Reductionists will determine the number of travel lanes at the time of the precipitating factor and record as part of the data reduction process. 1= 1 2=2 3a=3 lanes in direction of travel(divided or one-way trafficway) 3b=Undivided highway,3 lanes total,2 in direction of travel 3c=Undivided highway,3 lanes total,1 in direction of travel 4=4 5=5 6=6 7=7+ 99=Unknown 5.Traffic Control(VA PAR%Variable I) Reductionists will determine whether there was a traffic control device present and record as part of the data reduction process. 1 =No traffic control 2=Officer or watchman 3=Traffic signal 4=Stop sign 5=Slow or warning sign 6=Traffic lanes marked 7=No passing signs 8=Yield sign 9=One way road or street 10=Railroad crossing with markings or signs 11 =Railroad crossing with signals 12=Railroad crossing with gate and signals 13=Other 99=Unknown Source: VA PAR%Variable 1. Coded in General State Variables:Road/Traffic Variables. FORMAT:Integer value as listed above. 6.Alignment(VA PAR%Variable 3) Reductionists will determine whether there what the road alignment was at the onset of the precipitating factor and record as part of the data reduction process. 1 =Straight level 169 2=Curve level 3=Grade straight 4=Grade curve 5=Hillcrest straight 6=Hillcrest curve 7=Dip straight 8=Up curve 9=Other 99=Unknown DRIVER STATE VARIABLES I.Driver I Hands on Wheel(C-N-I-B) Reductionists will the number of hands the driver had on the steering wheel at the time of the precipitating factor and record as part of the data reduction process. 0=None I =Left hand only 2=Both hands 3=Right hand only 99=Unknown 2.Occupant Safety Belt Usage(C) INN Reductionists will determine whether the driver had a seatbelt fastened at the time of the precipitating factor and record as part of the data reduction process. 1 =Lap/shoulder belt 2=Lap belt only 3=Shoulder belt only 5=None used 99=Unknown if used. 3.Driver 1 Alcohol Use(GES Variable V92) Reductionists will determine whether drivers were using alcohol or under the influence of alcohol at the time of the precipitating factor and record as part of the data reduction process. la=Use observed in vehicle without overt effects on driving I b=Use observed in vehicle with overt effects on driving lc=Use not observed but reported by police l d=Use not observed or reported,but suspected based on driver behavior. 2=None known 99=Unknown 4.Fault Assignment 1=Driver I (subject vehicle) 2=Driver 2 Auk 170 3=Driver 3 4=Driver 4 5=Driver 5 6=Driver 6 7=Driver 7 8=Driver 8 9= Driver 9 10=Driver 10 11 =Other(textbox) 99=Unknown 5.Observer Rating of Drowsiness(ORD) For crashes and near-crashes,reductionists rated the driver's drowsiness on a scale of 0-100. The procedure for measuring ORD was developed and first used by Wierwille and Ellsworth (1994). This scale is broken down as is shown in Figure C-1. Not Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Drowsy Drowsy Drowsy Drowsy Drowsy Figure C-1. The observer rating of drowsiness scale where not drowsy is equal to 0 and extremely drowsy is equal to 100. Reductionists were instructed to watch the driver's face and body language for a period of time prior to the trigger. As described by Wierwille and Ellsworth(1994),signs indicative of drowsiness include rubbing face or eyes,facial contortions,moving restlessly in the seat, and slow eyelid closures. Reductionists were trained to look for these signs of drowsiness and make a subjective but specific assessment of the level of drowsiness. After watching the video data,reductionists employed a rating scale to record an ORD level. Please note that for a driver to be considered"'drowsy"in all of the analyses in this report,the ORD rating needed to be 60 or higher. The specific drowsy behaviors that reductionists used to rate a driver's drowsiness level were as follows: • Not Drowsy:A driver who is not drowsy while driving will exhibit behaviors such that the appearance of alertness will be present. For example,normal facial tone,normal fast eye blinks,and short ordinary glances may be observed. Occasional body movements and gestures may occur. 171 • Slightly Drowsy:A driver who is slightly drowsy while driving may not look as sharp or alert as a driver who is not drowsy. Glances may be a little longer and eye blinks may not be as fast. Nevertheless,the driver is still sufficiently alert to be able to drive. • Moderately Drowsy:As a driver becomes moderately drowsy,various behaviors may be exhibited. These behaviors,called mannerisms,may include rubbing the face or eyes,scratching,facial contortions,and moving restlessly in the seat,among others. These actions can be thought of as countermeasures to drowsiness. They occur during the intermediate stages of drowsiness. Not all individuals exhibit mannerisms during intermediate stages. Some individuals appear more subdued, they may have slower closures,their facial tone may decrease,they may have a glassy-eyed appearance,and they may stare at a fixed position. • Very Drowsy:As a driver becomes very drowsy eyelid closures of 2 to 3 seconds or longer usually occur. This is often accompanied by a rolling upward or sideways movement of the eyes themselves. The individual may also appear not to be focusing the eyes properly,or may exhibit a cross-eyed (lack of proper vergence)look. Facial tone will probably have decreased. Very drowsy drivers may also exhibit a lack of apparent activity and there may be large isolated(or punctuating)movements, such as providing a large correction to steering or reorienting the head from a leaning or tilted position. • Extremely Drowsy:Drivers who are extremely drowsy are falling asleep and usually exhibit prolonged eyelid closures(4 seconds or more)and similar prolonged periods of lack of activity. There ma)be large punctuated movements as they transition in and out of intervals of dozing. 6.Average PERCLOS(Percentage Eyes Closed)(C,N) For crashes and near-crashes where the driver's observer rating of drowsiness is above a criterion level an ORD of 60,the average PERCLOS value for the 30 seconds pre-event period will be obtained through video reduction. 7. Driver 1 Eyeglance Reconstruction(C-N) Eyeglances for the previous 30 seconds will be classified using the following categories and described as a timed,narrative sequence of the following numbers: 1 =Center forward 2=Left forward 3=Right forward 4=Left mirror 5=Right mirror 6=Left window 7=Right window 8=Instrument panel 9=Passenger 10=Object I I =Cell Phone 12=Other Comment: The analysis will include a recording of time the driver's eyes were not"on the road,"i.e.,straight ahead,forward right,or forward left. When possible,eyeglances will be characterized in greater detail than the general directions and areas listed above,e.g.,when 172 known,the specific object of regard will be noted in the narrative. For the instrument panel,for example,specific components such as the radio/CD will be noted in the narrative. When applicable and possible,the eyeglance reconstruction will also include an assessment of driver reaction time to a stimulus,e.g.,braking reaction time following a potential crash-precipitating event. Driver/Vehicle 2 1.Number of other Vehicle/Person(s) Reductionists will identify the number of vehicles in the immediate environment and then record the following variables. 2.Location of other Vehicle/Persons Reductionists will identify the location of vehicles in the immediate environment with respect to the subject vehicle and then record the following variables. A=In front of subject vehicle B=In front and to the immediate right of the subject vehicle C=On the right side of the subject vehicle,closer to front seat of the vehicle. D=On the right side of the subject vehicle,closer to rear seat of the vehicle. E=Behind and to the immediate right of the subject vehicle. P=Behind the subject vehicle G=Behind and to the immediate left of the subject vehicle. H=On the left side of the subject vehicle,closer to the rear seat of the vehicle. I=On the left side of the subject vehicle,closer to the front seat of the vehicle. ,I=In front and to the immediate left of the subject vehicle. 3.Vehicle/Person 2 Type (Modified version of GES Variable V5,Body Type) Data reductionists will record what type of vehicles that are in the subject vehicle's immediate surroundings. 1=Automobile 14=Sport Utility Vehicles 20=Van-based truck(minivan or standard van) 30=Pickup truck 50=School bus 58a=Transit bus 58b=Greyhound bus 58c=Conversion bus 64a=Single-unit straight truck:Multistop/step van 64b=Single-unit straight truck:Box 64c=Single-unit straight truck:Dump 64d=Single-unit straight truck:Garbage/recycling 64e=Single-unit straight truck:Concrete mixer 64f=Single-unit straight truck:Beverage 64g=Single-unit straight truck:Flatbed 173 64h=Single-unit straight truck:Tow truck 64i=Single-unit straight truck:Other 64j=Single-unit straight truck:Unknown 64k=Straight Truck+Trailer 66=Tractor only 66a=Tractor-trailer:Enclosed box 66b= Tractor-trailer:Flatbed 66c=Tractor-trailer:Tank 66d=Tractor-trailer:Car carrier 66e=Tractor-trailer:Livestock 66f=Tractor-trailer:Lowboy trailer 66g=Tractor-trailer:Dump trailer 66h=Tractor-trailer:Multiple trailers/enclosed box 66i=Tractor-trailer:Multiple trailers/grain 66e=Tractor-trailer:Other 93=Other Large Construction Equipment 8=Motorcycle or moped 9a=Ambulance 9b=Fire truck 9c=Police 10=Other vehicle type I I =Pedestrian 12=Cyclist A1, 13=Animal 99=Unknown vehicle type 4.Vehicle 2 Maneuver(GES Variable V2I,Movement Prior to Critical Event) Reductionists will record what the other vehicle's actions were just prior to the onset of the precipitating factor. 1=Going straight ahead 2=Making right turn 3=Making left turn 4=Making U-turn 5=Slowing or stopping 6=Starting in traffic lane 7=Starting from parked position 8=Stopped in traffic lane] 9=Ran off road right 10=Ran off road left 11 =Parked 12=Backing 13=Passing 14=Changing lanes 15=Other 16=Accelerating in traffic lane 17=Entering a parked position ^► 174 18=Negotiating a curve 19=Merging 99=Unknown 5. Driver/Vehicle 2 Corrective Action Attempted(GES V27,Corrective Action Attempted) Reductionists will record the corrective action attempted for each vehicle immediately surrounding the subject vehicle. 0=No driver present 1=No avoidance maneuver 2=Braking(no lockup) 3=Braking(lockup) 4=Braking(lockup unknown) 5=Releasing brakes 6=Steered to left 7=Steered to right 8=Braked and steered to left 9=Braked and steered to right 10=Accelerated 11 =Accelerated and steered to left 12=Accelerated and steered to right 98=Other actions 99=Unknown if driver attempted any corrective action Coded: From PAR%and/or video. Source:GES V27,Corrective Action Attempted. Coded in General State Variables: Driver/Vehicle 2. FORMAT:Integer value as listed above. 6.Driver/Vehicle 2 Physical/Mental Impairment(GES D3,Driver Physical/Mental Condition) Reductionists will mark only for those crashes that a police accident report form is collected from the subject. 0=None apparent 1=Drowsy,sleepy,asleep 2=Ill,blackout 3a=Angry 3b=Other emotional state 4=Drugs and medication 5=Other drugs(marijuana,cocaine,etc.) 6=Restricted to wheelchair 7=Impaired due to previous injury 8=Deaf 50=Hit-and-run vehicle 97=Physical/mental impairment—no details 98=Other physical/mental impairment 175 99=Unknown physical/mental condition 7. Driver 2 Actions/Factors Relating to Crash/Incident(VA PAR/Variable 17/18) Reductionists will code this for crashes and near-crashes only for each vehicle immediately surrounding the subject vehicle. 0=None 1=Exceeded speed limit 2=Inattentive or distracted(coded in previous variable) 3=Exceeded safe speed but not speed limit 4=Driving slowly:below speed limit 5=Driving slowly in relation to other traffic:not below speed limit 6=Illegal passing(i.e.,across double line) 7=Passing on right 8=Other improper or unsafe passing 9=Cutting in,too close in front of other vehicle 10=Cutting in,too close behind other vehicle 11 =Making turn from wrong lane(e.g.,across lanes) 12=Did not see other vehicle during lane change or merge 13=Driving in other vehicle's blind zone 14=Aggressive driving,specific,directed menacing actions 15=Aggressive driving,other,i.e.,reckless driving without directed menacing actions 16=Wrong side of road,not overtaking • 17=Following too close 18=Failed to signal,or improper signal 19=Improper turn:wide right turn 20=Improper turn:cut corner on left turn 21 =Other improper turning 22=Improper backing,did not see 23=Improper backing,other 24=Improper start from parked position 25=Disregarded officer or watchman 26=Signal violation,apparently did not see signal 27=Signal violation,intentionally ran red light 28=Signal violation,tried to beat signal change 29=Stop sign violation,apparently did not see stop sign 30=Stop sign violation,intentionally ran stop sign at speed 31 =Stop sign violation,"rolling stop" 32=Other sign(e.g.,Yield)violation,apparently did not see sign 33=Other sign(e.g.,Yield)violation,intentionally disregarded 34=Other sign violation 35=Non-signed crossing violation(e.g.,driveway entering roadway) 36=Right-of-way error in relation to other vehicle or person,apparent recognition failure(e.g.,did not see other vehicle) 37=Right-of-way error in relation to other vehicle or person,apparent h 176 decision failure(i.e.,did see other vehicle prior to action but misjudged gap) 38=Right-of-way error in relation to other vehicle or person,other or unknown cause 39=Sudden or improper stopping on roadway 40=Parking in improper or dangerous location,e.g.,shoulder of Interstate 41 =Failure to signal with other violations or unsafe actions 42=Failure to signal,without other violations or unsafe actions 43=Speeding or other unsafe actions in work zone 44=Failure to dim headlights 45=Driving without lights or insufficient lights 46=Avoiding pedestrian 47=Avoiding other vehicle 48=Avoiding animal 49=Apparent unfamiliarity with roadway 50=Apparent unfamiliarity with vehicle,e.g.,displays and controls 51 =Apparent general inexperience driving 52=Use of cruise control contributed to late braking 53=Other,specify 177 APPENDIX D:ANOVA TABLES Table D-1. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Driver Age). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Age Attention Category 1 1371.7638 1371.764 7.07 0.0091 Table D-2. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Male Driver's Age). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Age/Male Attention Category 1 294.02362 294.0236 1.63 0.2066 Table D-3. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Female Driver's Age). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Age/Female Attention Category I 1031.7459 1031.746 4.9 0.0328 Table I)-4. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Years of Driving Experience). Source of Variation j df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Experience Attention Category 1 1482.5217 1482.522 7.6 0.0069 Table D-5. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Number of Traffic Violations). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Violations Attention Cates 1 18.324647 18.32465 4.9 0.029 179 Table D-6. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Number of Accidents). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Accidents Attention Category I 0.1762382 0.176238 0.08 0.7764 Table D-7. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Number of Illnesses). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Illness Attention Category 1 0.2442525 0.244252 0.12 0.7337 Table D-8. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Daytime Sleepiness Rating). Source of Variation elf SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Daytime Sleepiness Auk Rating Attention Category 1 16.615563 16.61556 3.61 0.0602 Table D-9. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Number of Hours of Sleep). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* _ Dependant Variable: Number of Hours of Sleep Attention Category 1 0.0491863 0.049186 0.05 0.8157 Table D-10. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Life Stress Score). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Life Stress Score Attention Category 1 9824.6815 9824.682 0.8 0.3754 AMIN 180 Table D-11. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Aggression Attention Category 1 123.64634 123.6463 0.57 0.4526 Table D-12. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness Driver Behavior Questionnaire. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Dislike of Driving Attention Category 1 32.855265 32.85527 0.31 0.5785 Table D-13. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness Driver Behavior Questionnaire. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Hazard Monitoring Attention Category I 362.16148 362.1615 2.66 0.1057 Table D-14. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Thrill-seeking Attention Category 1 262.34811 262.3481 0.98 0.325 Table D-1S. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Drowsiness Proneness Attention Category 1 202.42993 202.4299 1.15 0.2868 181 Table D-16. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness and the Dula Dangerous Driving Questionnaire. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: DDDI Attention Category I 117.71573 117.7157 0.94 0.3344 Table D-17. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness the Dula Dangerous Driving Questionnaire. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Negative Emotion Attention Category 1 15.387279 15.38728 0.66 0.4181 Table D-18. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness the Dula Dangerous Driving Questionnaire. Aimoks Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* ra.v Dependant Variable: Aggressive Driving Attention Category 1 2.8125107 2.812511 0.19 0.6652 Table D-19. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness the Dula Dangerous Driving Questionnaire. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Risky Driving Attention Category _ 1 24.275174 24.27517 1.29 0.2587 182 Table D-20. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory. Source of Variation _ df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Neuroticism Attention Category 1 734.107 734.107 2.75 0.1004 Table D-21. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Extroversion Attention Category 1 976.01176 976.0118 7.03 0.0093 Table D-22. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Openness Attention Category 1 537.18718 537.1872 4.03 0.0473 Table D-23. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Agreeableness Attention Category I 941.01129 941.0113 8.26 0.0049 183 Table D-24. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Conscientiousness Attention Category 1 554.77672 554.7767 6.62 0.0115 Table D-25. T-test summary table for Driver Attentiveness. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Channel Capacity Attention Category I 0.4384058 0.438406 0.1 0.7526 Table D-26. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the Waypoint Performance- Based Test. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Ark Dependant Variable: Preventable Near- Crash/Crash Risk Attention Category I 1.0471015 1.047101 2.05 0.1555 Table D-27. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the Waypoint Performance- Based Test. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Expected#of Moving Violations in the Next 5 Years Attention Category 1 0.0036232 0.003623 0.01 0.9299 INN 184 Table D-28. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the Waypoint Performance- Based Test. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Expected Seat Belt Use Attention Category I 0.0664504 0.06645 0.57 0.4539 Table D-29. T-test summary table for driver attentiveness for the Useful Field of View Performance-Based Test. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: UFOV Attention Category 1 5.9753086 5.975309 1.39 0.2404 Analysis of Variance Tables for Driver Attentiveness Table D-30. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Driver Age). Source of Variation df SS MS I F value p value* Dependant Variable: AgeAttention Categor 2 2538.22963 1269.11481 6.77 0.0017 Table D-31. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Years of Driving Experience). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Experience Attention Category 2 2858.6439 1429.322 7.69 0.0008 185 Table D-32. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Number of Traffic Violations). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Violations Attention Category 2 38.949862 19.47493 5.54 0.0052 Table D-33. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Number of Accidents). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: 1 Accidents Attention Category 2 19.292393 9.646197 4.88 0.0094 Table D-34. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Daytime Sleepiness Rating). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Auk Daytime Sleepiness Rating Attention Category 2 35.005781 17.50289 3.8 0.0255 Table D-35. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness(Hours of Sleep). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Hours of Sleep Attention Category 2 1.1631296 0.581565 0.65 0.5258 Table 1)-36. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire(Aggression). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Aggression Attention Category 2 123.14055 61.57028 0.29 0.7522 ,,N*, 186 Table D-37. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire(Dislike). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Dislike of Driving Attention Category 2 37.498264 18.74913 0.17 0.8405 Table D-38. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire(Hazard). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Hazard Monitoring Attention Category 2 791.19383 395.5969 2.9 ! 0.0594 Table D-39. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for Driver Behavior Questionnaire(Thrill-seeking). Source of Variation df _ SS MS F value _ p value* Dependant Variable: Thrill-seeking Attention Category 2 224.13074 112.0654 0.41 0.6661 'Table D-40. ANOVA summary table for Driver Attentiveness Driver Behavior Questionnaire(Drowsiness). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Drowsiness Proneness Attention Category 2 63.21934 31.60967 0.18 0.8377 187 Table D-41. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the Dula Dangerous Driving Inventory(DDDI). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: DDDI Attention Category 2 368.34603 184.173 1.52 0.2238 Table D-42. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the Dula Dangerous Driving Inventory(NE). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Negative Emotional Attention Category 2 116.1119 58.05595 2.64 0.0762 Table D-43. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the Dula Dangerous Driving Inventory(AD). Amok Source of Variation df SS - MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Aggressive Driving Attention Category 2 4.8314514 2.415726 0.16 0.8501 Table D-44. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the Dula Dangerous Driving Inventory(RD). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Risky Driving Attention Category 2 46.012434 23.00622 1.21 0.3033 188 Table D-45. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the Useful Field of View. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: UFOV Attention Category 1 23.945798 11.9729 2.47 0.0887 Table D-46. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory(N). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Neuroticism Attention Category 2 544.88275 272.4414 1.05 0.3549 Table D-47. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory(E). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Extroversion Attention Category 2 531.03909 265.5195 196 0.1461 Table 1)-48. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory(0). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Openness Attention Category 2 258.81916 129.4096 0.96 0.3853 189 Table D-49. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory(A). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Agreeableness Attention Category 2 819.18283 409.5914 3.77 0.0261 Table D-50. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory(C). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Consciousness Attention Category 2 486.96632 243.4832 3.05 0.0512 Table D-51. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the waypoint performance-based test(channel 1). ANN Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* �.w Dependant Variable: Channel Capacity , Attention Category 2 6.0800916 3.040046 0.7 0.4968 Table D-52. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the waypoint performance-based test(per). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Preventable Near- Crash/Crash Risk , Attention Category 2 0.791 1188 0.395559 0.79 0.4588 Ark 190 Table D-53. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the waypoint performance-based test(mvr). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Expected#of Moving Violations in the Next 5 Years Attention Category 2 0.0735243 0.036762 , 0.08 0.9262 Table D-54. ANOVA summary table for driver attentiveness for the waypoint performance-based test(scatbelt). Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Expected Seat Belt Use Attention Category 2 0.1220738 0.061037 0.54 0.5835 Analysis of Variance Tables for Chapter 6 Table D-55. ANOVA summary table for cyeglance for total time eyes off the forward roadway. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Total Time Severity 3 _ _175.797 58.599 33.36 <.0001 Table 1)-56. ANOVA summary table for eyeglance for number of eyeglances. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Number of Glances i Severity 3 127.34777 42.44926 22.02 <.0001 191 Table D-57. ANOVA summary table for eyeglance for length of longest glance. Source of Variation df SS MS F value p value* Dependant Variable: Length of Longest Glance Severity 3 134.75325 44.91775 34.94 <.0001 olook 192 Traffic Safety Evaluation of Video Advertising Signs Alison Smiley, Bhagwant Persaud, Geni Bahar, Calvin Mollett, Craig Lyon, Thomas Smahel, and W. Leslie Kelman Road authorities arc under increasing pressure from advertisers to allow scrolling text,roller bar,or static billboard signs.The effectiveness of video advertising in the right-of-way but are understandably concerned video advertising in attracting drivers'attention is no doubt linked to about whether video signs constitute a driving hazard.At the City of its attributes of movement and brightness,which make it more likely Toronto's request,a comprehensive assessment of traffic safety impacts to be noticed by drivers. In addition,video advertising may retain related to such signs was carried out in a series of studies involving three driver attention longer because of the continuous stream of changing downtown intersections and an urban expressway site.An on-road eye images,which are potentially more interesting to look at than static fixation study was carried out to determine if drivers look at video adver- images.Given the greater attention-attracting qualities of video adver- tising signs.Conflict studies were conducted to determine if there were tising signs, road authorities are understandably concerned about more conflicts on intersection approaches with visible video signs than on whether these signs constitute a driving hazard. those without such signs.A before-and-after sign installation study of Although there is much concern about the impact of roadside ad- headways and speeds on the urban expressway was carried out.Crashes vertising,there have been few studies in this area,and most of them were compared before and after sign installation at the expressway and are dated and deal with static billboards rather than video advertising, three intersection sites.Finally,a public survey was conducted to deter- which could be expected to be much more distracting(2).A review of mine if video advertising was perceived to affect traffic safety.On the basis five such studies,all carried out between 1961 and 1965,concluded of the eye fixation study and the public survey data,it is apparent that video that the signs did not contribute to accidents(3):two studies showed advertising can distract drivers inappropriately and lead to individual no effect,two studies that did find an effect were subsequently dis- crashes.However,the evidence from other studies was not consistent credited,and one found an effect but did not separate the conflicts and suggests that for the particular signs studied,overall impacts on arising from entering and exiting commercial premises from the traffic safety are likely to be small.Further studies,especially prospec- distracting effect of the signs themselves. tive ones with larger crash data sets,are required to be certain about the At the request of the city of Toronto,a comprehensive assessment findings.A comparison between this study and an earlier one suggests that of traffic safety impacts related to video advertising signs was car- there are large differences in driver distraction depending on the place- vied out in a series of five studies,each intended to answer specific ment and the environment in which the sign is seen.Further studies are questions,as follows: required to determine factors that minimize driver distraction. • Study 1,eye fixation.Driver's eye movements were recorded as Road authorities are under increasing pressure from advertisers to they drove past video signs located at three downtown intersections allow commercialization of the right-of-way as one method of devel- and along an urban expressway.This study addressed two questions: Do drivers look at video advertising signs and if so,how frequently and oping revenue streams to offset budget constraints. In Toronto, Canada,numerous applications have been made for the right to erect for how long?Do these glances occur at the expense of glances at video advertising signs at downtown intersections and along urban traffic-related signs and signals,the speedometer,or rearview mirrors? • Study 2,conflicts.A conflict analysis was undertaken at two expressways. An on-road eye movement study of 61 commercial signs along the downtown portion of the Gardiner Expressway had of the downtown intersections,comparing conflicts on approaches raised concerns about distraction due to video advertising(1).Signif- where the video sign was visible(hereafter referred to as the video icantly more glances and,even more important,significantly more approach) with those on approaches where it was not (hereafter glances that lasted'/4 s or longer were made to video signs than to referred to as a nonvideo approach).The question addressed was, Does the distraction from video signs lead to an increase in conflicts that might indicate a deterioration in safety? A.Smiley and T.Smahel,Human Factors North Inc.,118 Baldwin Street,Toronto, • Study 3,headways and speeds.Measures of headway and speed Ontario M5T 1 L6,Canada.B.Persaud and C.Lyon,Department of Civil Engineering, were obtained from loop detectors on an affected section of an Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street,Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, Canada. urban expressway before and after the installation of a video sign. G.Behar,FRANS Consulting Inc.,100 York Blvd.,Suite 300,Richmond Hill,Ontario L4B 1JB,Canada.C.Mollett,Regional Municipality of York,17250 Yonge Street, A control section was used for comparison purposes.The question Newmarket,Ontario L3Y 6Z1,Canada.W.L.Kelman,Transportation Services, addressed was,Does this distraction increase the frequency of short City of Toronto,100 Queen Street West,23rd Floor,East Tower,Toronto,Ontario time headways or increase speed variance? M5H 2N2,Canada. • Study 4,crashes.Collision frequencies and patterns on the video Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, approach were compared with those on the nonvideo approach before No.1937,Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,Washington, and after the installation of video signs for the three downtown inter- O.0,2005,pp.105-112 sections.In addition,collision frequencies and patterns were analyzed 105 106 Transportation Research Record 1937 before and after sign installation for the video sign visible from the "-""Ge m "' St. ° E. •`+. Don Valley Parkway(DVP).This study addressed the question,Are )_ n • c there indications of changes in collision patterns or frequency'' i i ��_�"� - ; ad A cnuu o*v cyan[Park Niel • Study 5,public survey.A survey at three downtown inter- t G r i °l v t„ q sections determined whether the public perceived video advertising ti 7 - J (. to have a negative effect on traffic safety. r;j 1, do. a L_ �,,sar8 q'envt"*s�_ r i rv�fr a STUDY SITE DESCRIPTIONS � I a N i a ai i There were to study sites.including three downtown intersections t it I '�t 'a eeu+ and one section on an urban expressway,for which video advertising Ai: I r Pe t.•. Im, A -' poor q sign were visible The three downtown intersection sites were all four-leg signalized L kR y x y-5:,b ,1.. 0}ps a , 1' �. intersections with two approach lanes in each direction and a posted a S-., Val f King \ .�\§, ao I. speed of 50 km/h.In each case the video sign could be observed ,..�' '+,:..r�'n y?3eM-�"� , on two of the four intersection approaches but not on the other two. ANY:',. z�. �- Figure I illustrates the site at Bay and College Streets. -V e The DVP site is a divided,controlled-access urban expressway,with Ptt4r i 8 ` three lanes per direction,paved shoulders,and a median barrier.The F.g an E. 35-0/to. '%'i,- posted speed limit is 90 km h There is a video sign located off the freeway,which is the only commercial sign visible to northbound ypi _. / �\ traffic.The driver's view of this sign i intermittently partially or fully u rm &�'Worts blocked from view by buildings and overpasses.The best sign visibil- - ity occurs during a 5-to 7-s period before the driver passes the sign. Figure 2 is a map of the sign location and the affected DVP segment. - - I 'liable 1 shows the distance aid titeeover 14hich each video sign was � visible as well as the distance and time or which the images on each video sign could be seen clearly enough to identify them,that is,they ! were legible. _ STUDY 1:EYE FIXATION The aim of the first study was to provide evidence concerning whether FIGURE 2 Location of DVP sign and effected DVP segment. drivers looked at video advertising signs and if they did,how that affected their visual search related to other aspects of driving.The reasoning behind the study was that direct evidence of dnver distrac- tion would be required to substantiate any claim of changes in head- Methodology ways,speeds,conflicts,and crash frequencies as a result.Smiley et al. provide a full report on this study(4).The methodology and results Driver eye movements were recorded by using a head-mounted are summarized in the following sections. EL-MAR Vision 2000 eye tracking system for 16 subjects,aged 25 to 50 years,as they drove along the DVP past the single video sign and then through the three downtown intersections on both video and none idea approaches.Subjects drove a passenger vehicle equipped 7 • _ with a second brake and were accompanied by a driving instructor and 3 researcher.To avoid influence on eye movement behavior,subjects ✓ were not told the true purpose of the experiment,only that the study = \�' _ pjpi. would examine eye movement behavior in a variety of driving envi- a . 1 <j r ; _ m ronenG in Toronto.The study was conducted during the summer in 11 • dry conditions in the daytime between the hours of 1000 and 1400.The _ v 9 'i final data sample included eye movement recordings from 69 inter- 7 I section approaches and 14 passes of the video sign on the DVP.Only • tr _ -i. wx glances that occurred white the vehicle was in motion were measured. A y t Ja < t .. I . Li,. Results P r The eye movement study indicated that the four video signs studied At FIGURE 1 Video approach on Bay Street northbound toward attract driver attention in that the probability of a driver's looking at College Street,Toronto[circle indicates location of video sign]. the sign on a given approach was almost I in 2.The average glance Smiley,Perseus.Behar,Mellett,Lyre.Smahel,and Kelman 107 TABLE 1 Video Advertising Sign Legibility Time Distance Time Legible Visible at Intersection Direction Legible at Steed Limit Distance Visible Speed Limit Yonge and Blanc EB' 190 in 13.45 260 in 18.7s (51)kinlh) SB 180 m 13.0 5 400 in 28.8 s Bay and College NB' 125 m 9_0 s 200 in 14.4 s (50k m/h) WB 150 m 10.8s 2ISm 15.Is Spading and Dundas SB• 190 m 13.4 s 690 in 49.7 s (50 km/h) WB 180in I3.0 s 660 m 47.5 s DVP(90 kmPo) NB' 450 in'• I8s 820m•• 33s EB=eastbound,SB=soulhbound.NB=northbound,WB=wcsibound. 'Direction of travel for eye basking analysis. "Jegmcnis on which sign was observed by overpasses were excluded. length was 0.5 s,similar to those found in studies of traffic signs.In to the line of sight.Both findings indicate greater safety for video sign some cases glances at video signs were made unsafely,that is,at short glances. headways(1 s or less),for long durations(1.47 s),and at large angles The most distracting sign,as indicated by the proportion of subjects (up to 31 degrees)off the line of sight.Considering all four video signs, who looked at it and the total number of glances made to it,was the about one-fifth of the glances lasted longer than 0.75s,the time that sign at Bay and College Streets(see Figure lL This finding was despite is considered to be equivalent to minimum perception—reaction time the fact that this sign was visible for the shortest time---about 70%of to the slowing of a vehicle ahead.A total of 38%of the headway the time available at the other two downtown intersections.It was measured during glances at video signs were less than I s.Almost also smaller than the other signs.and subjectively the content was less one-fourth of the glances were at 20 degrees or greater off the line entertaining.However,it was mounted lower,closer to the driver's of sight.Since perception—reaction time to an unexpected event can line ofsight(2 degrees off the line ofsiglu vertically as compared with take on the order of0.75 to 1.5 s,glances at video signs at such angles 5 degrees for the other signs),and was in a relatively less cluttered and headways could result in drivers'not detecting the slowing of environment,making it much more conspicuous.However,it was the vehicle ahead,a frequent event in congested downtown and DVP further off the line of sight horizontally than the other two intersection traffic,and not stopping in time.However,it must be noted that for signs(6 degrees versus 3 and 4 degrees),which would have been the particular signs and sign placements in this study,glances at static expected to discourage glances.Nonetheless it attracted the most signs(billboards and bus shelter ads)were made at even larger angles glances and at the is iciest angles. and more frequently at shorter headways than those at video signs. Furthermore,the longest glance recorded was for a static sign. Although drivers looked at the video signs on almost half the occa- STUDY 2:CONFLICTS signs that they were present,the majority of glances were looking ahead at traffic,76°%o.The nest most prominent category was traffic If video signs distract drivers.it may be possible to observe an increase signals and street name signs(7%)followed by pedestrians on the in the number of conflicts recorded on approaches with a video sign sidewalks(or distant from the road),who did not present a potential compared with those without such signs.Conflict studies were con- conflict with the driver(69.0).Although there was a greater proportion ducted at two of intersections at which observations were made of glances at commercial signs(static billboard plus video signs)on of driver eye fixations:Bay and Collage Streets and Yonge and Bloor the video approach,this finding appeared to he due mainly to the lack Streets.Conflicts were examined in relation to three types of behavior of billboards on the nonvideo approaches at two of the three inter- as drivers approached the intersection: sections.At the intersection of Yonge and Bloor Streets,a billboard that was visible on the nonvideo approach had been placed on the reverse side of the video sign and was roughly'equivalent in size to • Braking without good cause. the video sign.Although the video sign was on the sae side of the • UUnwarranted lateral lane displacements,and m road as the driver,the billboard was on the opposite side,and thus • Delayed start on green. drivers had to look further off the line of sight to see the billboard. Despite this larger angle on the nonvideo approach,the billboard All of these behaviors potentially lead to sudden decreases in received almost twice the number of glances received by the video sign headways,which in turn can lead to rear-end or sideswipe collisions. on the video approach. No evidence was found that glances at video signs reduced the pro- portion of glances at traffic signs or signals.There was a trend toward Methodology a greater proportion of glances at mirrors or speedometers on the video approach.From the few occasions on which there were potential con- At each intersection,there were two video and two nonvideo flicts with pedestrians and cyclists,there is no evidence that drivers approaches.The basis for selection of two approaches for comparison on the video approach were less likely to detect them. was that they were as geometrically similar as possible,so that differ- Glances at video signs as compared with those at static commercial enccs in conflict rates could be attributed to the presence of the video signs were associated with longer headways and were made closer sign and would not be influenced by differences in geometry. 108 Transportation Research Record 1937 Observers were placed on the video and nonvideo approaches at a station.The sign was activated in.April 2001.The before-and-after '7 distance of about 70 to 30 m from the intersection,which provided months compared were them outs aclear view of vehicles approaching each intersection These observers counted and recorded the number of brakings(without I. May 2000 compared with May 2001 (immediately after good cause)and lateral lane displacements in the center lane.(Because activation)and of the use of the curb lane for loading and unloading passengers, 2. May 2000 compared with May 2002(one year after activation). which could have compromised the reliable detection of conflicts, only vehicles in the center lane were observed.) For each set of data.20-s averages of speed,flow,occupancy,and As a control for exposure,the total number of vehicles eligible to average vehicle length in the median lane(Lane I)were calculated. be counted if braking or unwarranted displacements took place was Observations during congested periods were removed since congested also counted so that the proportion of vehicles engaged in these beltav- operation would be unlikely to be affected by the sign.Congested fors on each approach could be recorded.In order to assess delayed periods were identified on the basis of low speed(<60 km/h),high starts on green,flee time(rain the commencement of the green signal occupancy(>30%1.or both.Periods with bad or missing data were until the front wheels of the fifth vehicle in the queue crossed the stop also removedi line was measured,both for the video and nonvideo approaches.From initial observations,the sample sizes were large enough to detect a Results difference larger than 10%had such di tTerences been present.Obser- vations and measurements were conducted on weekdays in off-peak Before-and-After Speed daytime periods during clear and dry weather conditions. and Occupancy Comparisons Four observers worked I5-min shifts followed by a I5-min rest break and rotated between the approaches.This schedule ensured that Before-and-after comparisons of average speed,occupancy,and their each observer received adequate rest and stayed alert throughout the standard deviations were made by calculating the ratio of the after- data collection process.To avoid bias,the observers and their super- period measure to the before-period measure,adjusted for changes visor were blind as to the actual purpose alike study.They were told in these measures at the control site(i.e.,the southbound detector that the city was interested in gaining a greater understanding of station).Thus a ratio of more than I indicates an increase in a mea- driver behavior at signalized intersections. sure after sign installation.and vice versa.The results indicate a minor decrease in mean speed(i.e.,ratio<I)for most flows when May 2001 and May 2002(after installation)arc compared with May 2000 Results (before installation).This finding was accompanied by a correspond- ing increase in mean occupancy for these same comparisons and �� At Yonge and Bluer Streets,there was a signilicantly higher incidence, an increase in the standard deviation of speed for most flow levels by 60%.of drivers who applied their brakes without good cause on (i.e.,ratio>1).A decrease in speed may be anticipated to improve the video compared with the nonvideo approach(19%versus 12%). safety;however,the increase in mean occupancy(i.e.,decreased In contrast,there was no significant difference at the p<0.05 level headway)and increased speed variance would likely lead to a decrease in the extent of unwarranted lateral lane displacements or in the time in safety. it took for the fifth vehicle in a queue to cross the stop line after the commencement of green.At Bay and College Streets,no significant differences at the p<0,05 level were found for any of the three Proportion of High 26s Flows in Time Period observed behaviors. For the morning and afternoon peak periods and the northbound and Since the video and nonvideo approaches were geometrically aim- southbound directions separately,the average flow and proportion of flat and had similar speeds and pedestrian activity,the only reason that 20-s flows above a certain level(2,340 v h These could be found for increased braking on the video approach at Yonge p )were computed. and Bloor Streets was the presence of the video sign, arc indicators of dangerous headways(inverse of flow,i.e_<1.5 ).s). The results indicate an increase in the proportion of northbound(video approach)high flows when May 2001 and May 2002 are compared STUDY 3:HEADWAYS AND SPEEDS with May 2000.However,this increase was matched by an increase in this measure for the southbound(nonvideo)direction unaffected It video signs distract drivers.it may be possible to see the results on by the sign and so could not be attributed to the sign. speeds and headways between vehicles on an affected segment.Some The results of the speed-flow-occupancy analysis are inconsistent distracted drivers might slow,resulting in greater speed variability, and therefore inconclusive.The results of high-flow(short-headway) or might allow unsafe headways to develop when they fail to detect analysis do not support the indications from the speed and occu- the slowing of the vehicle ahead To test this hypothesis,speed,flow pancy analysis of a possible deterioration in safety and operations. (vehicles per hour passing a point),and occupancy(the percentage of The negative impacts suggested by the speed and occupancy analy- time that the point is occupied by a vehicle)were compared before sis are also not supported by the results of the collision analysis and after installation of the video sign visible from the DVP. presented next. Methodology STUDY 4:CRASHES Data were collected from one mainline traffic detector station in the If drivers are distracted by video signs,they may slow or they maybe northbound lanes of the DVP,from which the video sign could be seen, delayed in responding to the vehicle ahead,resulting in an increase /a► and compared with data from a detector station suitable as a control in collisions,particularly rear-end collisions.Collision frequency and in the southbound lanes,roughly opposite the northbound detector pattern data were analyzed for the three downtown intersections with Smiley,Persaud,Behar,Meilett.Lyon,Smahel,and Kelman 109 video signs and for the DVP section on which a single video sign is cited is the exponent of that ratio and is also stated in terms of a per- visi610 cent increase or decrease.For example,an effect of 1.006 indicates a percent increase of I00(I.006-I).or 0.6%. Downtown Intersection Sites with Video Signs Results Methodology Table 2 shows total,injury,and rear-end collisions before and after The methodology employed for the three downtown intersection sites sign installation on the affected(video)and comparison(nonvideo) was a before-and-after study using the approaches on which the signs approaches,together with the average effect for the three intersections arc not visible to control for changes in safety that may be unrelated considered together.Overall,there was no effect on total collisions to the video sign.The before and after periods for each location were (0.6%increase on video approaches).There was a nonsignificant as follows: 43.2%increase in injury collisions.For rear-end collisions there was a nonsignificant 12.9%increase on approaches where the video sign Into-section Befit,Period Alter Period was visible.None of the results is statistically significant(p>0.05) Yonge-Bloor Jan.1996 to Nov.1999 Jan 2000 to Oct.2002 because of the small sample size of collisions. Bay-College Jan 1996 to Dec.2000 Feb.2001 to Oct.2002 Considering collisions at individual intersections,results at two Spadina Ave.- Jan.1996 to Nov.2000 Jan.2001 to Oct.2002 of the three intersections(Spadina-Dundas and Bay-College)are Dundas St. indicative of an increase in rear-end as well as total collisions on the Construction records were reviewed.and they indicated no sig- video compared with the nonvideo approach.The former is statistically nificant activity during the analysis period that may have affected significant(p<0.02,effect not shown).However,the results at the the results. third intersection,Yonge and Bloor,show an nonsignificant decrease Collisions were identified as related to the video approaches if in total and rear-end collisions. at least one vehicle in the collision originated on either of those Further analysis of the Yonge and Bloor Streets sign was cameo out approaches.All other collisions were assigned to the comparison with an expanded database that added the intersection collisions to (nonvideo)approaches. those classified as midblock for which at least one vehicle was heading The empirical Bayes methodology was used to properly account toward the intersection.The motivation for this analysis was that the for the effects of traffic volume changes by using safety performance sign at the Yonge and Bloor Streets intersection,because of its height, fractions that relate crash experience to the average daily traffic(ADT) may encourage looks from a greater distance back from the inte r- entering an intersection.These safety performance functions were section than the sign at Bay and College Streets.(Indeed,a.subsequent available from previous studies done by the city.The methodology for analysis of the angle and distance at which the glances were made combining data to get an average effect over the three intersections confined this supposition.)The further analysis did not maternally was the weighted log odds ratio-Significance tests at the 5%level alter the conclusions in that the effects were in the same direction were performed on the log odds ratios calculated.The average effect (increase or decrease)when the within-block effects were compared TABLE 2 Total,Injury,and Rear-End Collisions Before end After Sign Installation Affected Approaches Companson Approaches Collisions Collisions Months Months Intersection Before ARer Direction Before After Direction Before After Total collisions Bluer and Yonge 47 34 SB;EB 32 21 NB WB 26 29 Bay and College 60 21 NB',WB 28 11 SB',EB 13 4 Spadina and Dundas 59 22 SB;WB 43 23 NB;EB 38 14 Average effect'=1.006(0.6%increase-p-value=0.9681-statistically insignificant) Injury collisions Bloat and Yonge 47 34 SB;EB 9 10 NB',WB 6 6 Bay and College 60 21 NB;WB 13 7 SB:EB 5 3 Spadina and Dundas 59 22 SB:WB 9 8 NB,EB 10 3 Average efFect•=1.432(43.2%increase-p-value=0.1806-statistically insignificant) Rear-end collisions Bloat and Yonge 47 34 SB;EB II 6 NB;W'B 12 15 Bay and College 60 21 NB;W'B 2 6 SB;EB 3 3 Spadina and Dundas 59 22 SB;WB 12 9 NB;F.B 12 3 Average effect.=1.129(12.9%increase-p-value=0.6527-statistically insignificant) `The average effect is for all three intersections combined.It is the exponent of the weighted log odds ratio. 110 Transportation Research Record 1937 with those effects based on the city-classified intersection-related standard errors and are insignificant at the 5%level except for those collisions. for total collisions using the southbound Queen to Dundas segment as the comparison group.As mentioned earlier,this is not the most DVP Before-and-After Crash Analysis appropriate comparison group in that it includes a ramp diverge,a feature not present on the video segment. Methodology The methodology employed to analyze before-and-after collision data STUDY 5:PUBLIC SURVEY was a before-and-after study using a comparison group to control for changes in safety that may be unrelated to the video sign.Safely Methodology performance functions were not available to do a formal empirical Bayes analysis as was done for the downtown intersections.The before A questionnaire was designed to survey the public with respect to their period was January 1996 to March 2001.The after period was May opinions on the safety of video advertising signs.A total of 152 per- 2001 to October 2002. sons were surveyed.94 men and 58 women.Of the total.37 wore 18 The video segment is northbound on the DVP from Eastern Avenue to 29 years old,90 were 30 to 55 years old,and 23 were over 55.(Ages to I60 m north of Queen Street with the sign located as shown(see for two subjects were not recorded.)Participants were approached at the three downtown n Figure 2).Three different potential nonvideo,southbound DVP com- parison segments were used:Queens to Dundas,Eastern to Queen,and Eastern to Dundas.The most appropriate is Eastern to Queen since Results the other two include the Eastern-Richmond exit diverge,which is likely to increase collision frequency. With respect to the impact of video signs on driver attention to pedes- Collisions identified by the city as interchange-related and those scions or cyclists.6°h of those surveyed said that these signs have a that did not occur on the DVP but were not identified as interchange negative effect.With respect to video advertising signs in the down- (i.e.,those that occurred on ramps or on overpasses)were excluded town area,59%said that as a driver,their attention is drawn to such from the analysis.Because of the short after period and the small signs and 49%of those indicated a negative effect on driving safety. number of collisions.the analysis only considered changes in collisions With respect to these signs on the Gardiner Expressway,59%said that overall and did not separate out individual collision types,as was as a driver,their attention is drawn to these signs and 44%of those done in the analysis of the downtown intersections. indicated a negative effect on driving safety. With respect to restrictions on video advertising in the interest of Results traffic safety,86%of subjects said there should be such restrictions. Participants were offered sample restrictions,including`not on ugh- As can be seen from Table 3,total collision frequency remained ways, 'not at intersections,"'light level at night,"and-other."Of the unchanged and there was a negligible increase in injury collision total,73%said that video signs should not he placed at intersections: frequencies on the video approach based on the most comparable 62%said the signs should not be on highways. section,that is,the comparison between Eastern and Queen. Given the small sample,a surprising number of drivers had expe- There were large decreases in collisions on the video approach rleoced near-collisions nine out of 152 and two had experienced based on the two other comparison groups,but the effects have large rear-end collisions that they associated with video advertising signs. TABLE 3 Before-end-After Collision Analysis of DVP Segment Possibly Affected by Video Sign for Total Collisions and Injury Collisions Ratio of After to Before, "Effect"for Atrtected Before Period After Period Normalizing for Segment Using Specific Collisions Collisions Differences in Comparison Group (Ian.1996 to (May 2001 to Before and.After (standard error) Mardi 2001) Oct.2002) Period Length (is-value) Section Total Injury Total Injury Total Injury Total Injury NB affected 50 16 10 4 0.700 0.875 na n.a segment SB comparison 140 41 39 10 0.975 0.854 0.682 0 864 (Eastern to (0.253) (0.481) Dundas) (0.20881 [0.77721 *Ss comparison 62 19 II 3 0.621 0.922 1.000 1.093 (Eastern to (0.423) (0.631) Queen) [1.0001 [0.88311 SB comparison 78 22 28 7 1.241 1.114 0.628 (Queen to (0.355) Dundas) [0.29461 Shaded results are statistically significant(P<0.051. •Mast appropriate collision companson. Smiley.Persai d,Sahara Mellott,Lyon,Smahel.and Kelman 111 Participants were asked to rate various driver distractions on a scale the line of sight vertically as compared with 5 degrees for the other of I to 7(I=not at all distracting,7=very distracting to drivers). signs),and was in a relatively less cluttered environment,making it Video advertising signs wcrc rated at 3.7,higher than billboards(2.1) much more conspicuous. but close to the same as road construction(4.0)and lower than in-car While glancing at the Bay and College Streets sign,one subject cell phone use(5.6)in terms of distraction looked at an angle of 31 degrees while traversing the intersection ft would be difficult to detect the slowing ofa vehicle ahead while looking at such an angle. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Conflict studies were made at two downtown intersections.Only one conflict measure showed a si enificant difference between the video A wide range of methods was used to address the question of whether and nonvideo approaches,however,the effect was sizeable.At Yonge drivers are distracted from the driving task by video advertising signs and Bloor Streets,the incidence of drivers applying their brakes and whether that distraction has subsequent impacts on headways, without good cause was significantly higher(by about 60°r%)on the speeds.conflicts with other vehicles,and crashes video approach.There were no statistically significant increases in With respect to whether drivers were distracted while their vehicles conflicts at the Bay and College Streets intersection,despite the fact were in motion eye movement results suggest that a substantial pro- that this sign appeared to attract a higher proportion of glances.longer portion of drivers will look once or more at a given video advertising glances.and glances at wider angles than the sign at Yonge and Older sign,on average half at the downtown-intersection signs and a third at Streets. the sign on the DVP.Clearly,some video signs are more distracting The results of the collision analysis for the downtown intersections than others.An earlier study of commercial signs on the Gardiner were insignificant and inconsistent.Also.the direction of effect did Expressway(/)in Toronto(see Figure 3)found that one of the video not support the conflict study analysis in that collisions decreased on signs attracted on average 5.1 glances per exposed subject,consider- the video approaches after sign installation at the Yonge and Bloor ably inner that the 0.9 glance per exposed subject for the DVP video Streets intersection. sign.The longest glance at the Gardiner Expressway video sign lasted For the DVP segment affected by the video sign there was no con- 3.2 s compared with 1.1 s for the DVP sign.Compared with the DVP sistency between the results for the two sets of ana:ysex conducted sign,the Gardiner Expressway video sign was visible and legible for (headway-speed-occupancy and collision). considerably longer(84 s versus 38 s visibility and 24 s versus 18 s The results of the public survey showed that 65%of those-surveyed legibility at the speed limit of 90 kin/h),had an uninterrupted view, perceived a negative impact of video signs on safety due to driver and,most important,was on a curve so that it appeared close to the distraction.Given the small sample,a surprising number of closers had center of the driver's line of sight for about 24 s during the approach. espenencedtiear-collisions(nine out of 152)and two had experienced The number of glances per individual video sign was small,and rear-end collisions that they associated with video advertising signs. so statistically significant differences in lookine behavior were not Video advertising signs were rated close to the-same as road con- found.The most distracting sign as indicated by the proportion of stn:cuon in terms of distraction.This finding a a concern given that subjects who looked at it,the total number ofglances made to it,and road construction is associated in many studies with an increase in the fact that it attracted glances farthest ott the driserene of sight crashes(S). was the sign at Bay and College Streets.This finding was despite the fact that this sign was smaller than the other two signs,had subjec CONCLUSIONS ti vely less interesting content,was farther off the line of sight hori- zontally than the other two intersection signs(6 degrees versus 3 and On the basis of the five studies reported here and the amalgamation 4 degrees),and was visible toe the shortest time(9 s at the speed limit with the results of an earlier study of eye movements fora video sign or about two-thirds of the time available at the other two downtown on the Gardiner Expressway,it cannot be concluded at this time that intersections).In teems of attention-attracting advantages,this sign was video advertising signs are either safe or unsafe The eye fixation study, mounted lower,was closer to the driver's line of sight(2 degrees off which was corned out with a relatively safe group of drivers in the daytime,showed that on average,with respect to number and duration �nn _ of glances,advertising signs were responded to in a similar manner to traffic signs Nonetheless,there were individual examples or unsafe s '*•*t c - behavior associated with glances at signs, $ i .3 kY),.. '* 'S The conflict studyshowed evidence of unsafe behavior at one of .fir . i A - the two intersections studied.Although the collision study also round '"any t -' -4f`^x- -c. evidence of unsafe behavior,the negative impacts were not found at � v.%s"j' y a•"°r '�. 1 ` the same intersection where conflicts were significantly higher for the _ tij'' -% video approach. 111159 '` The headway-speed-occupancy and collision analyses for the DVP segment that was affected by the video sign show nonsignificant and inconsistent impacts on safety.Longer alter periods would be desirable ay•• s - for a more reliable examination of changes in collision frequency. The public survey indicated that a majority of drivers believed that -- video signs negatively affect driving safety,a surprising number ` given the size of the sample that had experienced near-collisions or collisions that they attributed to distraction by video signs. FIGURE 3 Distracting video sign 15.1 glances per exposed Although the evidence is by no means clear cut in one direction subject)westbound on Gardiner Expressway,Toronto Ill. or the other,it is intuitively obvious that any distraction during the 112 Transportation Research Record 1937 driving task within a busy environment increases the level of risk. Department of Public Health Sciences,University of Toronto,who i�rtx On the basis of the eye fixation study and the public survey data,it is reviewed the statistical analysis;to Daan Beijer,who assisted with the apparent that video advertising can distract drivers inappropriately, methodologies involved in data extraction;and to members of the leading to individual crashes.However,the evidence from the head- Ethics Committee of Human Factors North who worked on a volunteer way and speed,conflict,and crash studies was not consistent as to the basis to review this protocol:Ron Heslegrave,Ursula Torch.Adrienne traffic safety impact,suggesting that for the particular signs studied, Schmitt,Sheilagh O`Connel,and Glen Nelson. overall impacts on traffic safety are likely to be small.Further study with larger crash data sets are required to be certain.In addition,a prospective before-and-after safety study may be more definitive in REFERENCES that it would be possible to compare before-and after-installation conflict rates and to try to better control for the effects of changes in I.Heijer.D.D.Driver Distraction due to Roadside Advertising Department safety due to ocher factors. of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,University of Toronto,2002. A comparison between this study and an earlier one suggests that 2.Beijer,D.,A.Smiley.and M.Eizrnman.Observed Driver Glancy Behan- ior at Roadside Advertising.In Transportation Research Record-Jour- there may be laree differences in driver distraction dependent on the nal of the Tronsportotimt Research Board No.1899.Transportation placement and environment in which the sign is seen.Therefore,it Research Board of the Nar,onel Academies.Washington,D.C.,2004. was recommended that the city adopt a cautious approach to allowing pp.96-103. additional video signs at this time.Further eye fixation studies are 3.Andreassen,D.C.Traffic Accidents and.4dvertising Signs.Internal Report required to determine design and placement factors that keep driver AIR-000-'_13.AusrcaGan Road Research Board,198�. 3.Smiley,A.,T.Smahel,and hl.Eizenman.Impact of Video Advertising distraction to a minimum. Signs on Driver Fixation Pendant.In Transportation Research Record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board.:No.1899.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.Washington.D.C..2004, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS pp.76-83. 5.Hall,I.W.,and V.M.Lorenz.Characmnstico ofConstruct:on-Zone Asi- This research was funded by the Transportation Services Division of deny.In Transportation Research Rncwd71i0.TRB,National Research the Transportation Department,City of Toronto.Special acknowl- Council.Washington,D.C.,1989,pp.20-27. edgement is made to Steve Kodama,Traffic Data Center and Safety Bureau,project manager,for his help and guidance;to Mary Chipman, The User Information Systems Committee sccnsared puorcetmn of this caper. RESEARCH REVIEW OF POTENTIAL SAFETY EFFECTS OF ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS ON DRIVER ATTENTION AND DISTRACTION FINAL REPORT September 11, 2001 Submitted to: Office of Real Estate Services and Safety Core Business Unit Federal Highway Administration From: Human Centered Systems Team Office of Safety Research and Development Federal Highway Administration • Technical Report Documentation Page 1.Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient's Catalog No. 4.Title and Subtitle 5.Report Date Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction. 6. Performing Organization Code 7 Author(s) 8.Performing Organization Report No. J.Farbry,K.Wochinger,T.Shafer,N.Owens,and A.Nedzesky 9 Performing Organization Name and Address 10.Work Unit No.(TRAIS) Science Applications International Corporation 8301 Greensboro Drive McLean,VA 22102 11.Contract or Grant No. 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.Type of Report and Period Covered Federal Highway Administration Office of Real Estate Safety Core Business Unit 400 7`n Street,SW 14.Sponsoring Agency Code Washington,DC 20590 15.Supplementary Notes COTR:Thomas Granda,HRDS and Lannie Graham HEPR. 16.Abstract This report is a research review of potential safety implications of electronic billboards(EBBs)on driving safety. The review covers the interval from a similar review published in 1980 to the present. The present review focuses on the safety aspects of EBBs and does not examine aesthetic issues. Included are a review of research on driver performance in the presence of EBBs and contacts with federal and state officials to describe state regulatory practices concerning EBBs. An account of tri-vision signs is a part of the state review. Knowledge gaps are identified based on the literature review and these gaps support the development of a set of research questions and related research findings. Research questions are divided into roadway characteristics such as curves,interchanges,and work zones;EBB characteristics such as exposure time,motion and legibility; and driver characteristics such as familiarity and age. Related research findings on the legibility of Changeable Message Signs(CMSs)are also included. 17.Key Word 18.Distribution Statement Electronic Billboard,Tri-vision,Driving Safety,Driver Distraction,Advertising,Changeable Message Sign, Conspicuity,Legibility. 19.Security Classif.(of this report) 20.Security Classif.(of this page) 21.No.of Pages 22.Price 43 Form DOT F 1700.7(8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized ii Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard,specification,or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers'names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document. iu Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Background and Objectives 3 1.2 Structure of the Report 3 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4 2.1 Types of Electronic Billboards 4 2.2 State Regulations and Policies on Electronic Billboards 5 2.2.1 Introduction 5 2.2.2 Sources of Information 5 2.2.3 State Regulations and Practices 6 2.2.4 National Alliance of Highway Beautification Agencies 7 2.2.5 State Outdoor Advertising Regulations 8 2.2.6 Concerns about Electronic Billboards 8 2.3 Reports on Billboards and Safety 8 2.3.1 The Wachtel and Netherton Report 8 2.3.2 Wisconsin DOT Report 9 2.3.3 The Curriden Article 10 2.4 Potential Safety Factors 10 2.4.1 Distraction 10 2.4.2 Conspicuity of Displays 11 2.4.3 Legibility 13 2.5 The Driver 15 2.5.1 Driver Age 15 2.5.2 Driver Familiarity with Route 17 2.6 Measures of Effectiveness 17 2.6.1 Surrogates 17 2.6.2 Current Measurement of Distraction 18 3 SYNTHESIS 20 4 RESEARCH N EEDS 21 4.1 Roadway Characteristics 21 4.2 EBB and Tri-vision Sign Characteristics 23 4.3 Research Findings in Legibility 25 4.4 Driver Characteristics 28 4.5 Other Potential Driver Distractions 29 4.6 Future Research 29 4.7 Research Methods 30 5 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 31 REFERENCES 41 ... iv Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Advances in display technology and decreases in cost have created interest to expand the deployment of high resolution and dynamic imaging. The introduction of such technology to billboards,where static displays of advertising have been the standard,raises questions on the effects that electronic billboards(EBBs)may have on drivers'attention. The Office of Real Estate Services and the Safety Core Business Unit in the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)requested the FHWA Office of Safety,Research and Development to review literature related to the safety implications of EBBs,present findings,and recommend a research plan to address knowledge gaps. This project follows earlier work sponsored by the FHWA in 1980 and compliments driver distraction studies relative to in-vehicle displays currently underway. Based on conversations with government staff and examination of state regulations,the literature review summarized state billboard regulations and policies relevant to EBBs and tri-vision signs. The review then encompassed billboard-related crash analyses and potential safety factors such as distraction,conspicuity,and legibility. Due to the limited amount of research regarding external distraction in drivers,internal distractions,such as in-vehicle information systems and cellular telephones,were used as surrogates when investigating how potential distractions affect the driver. As the literature review identified and summarized potential safety effects of EBBs and tri-vision signs,many questions became evident. The synthesis section organized these questions into knowledge gaps. The identified knowledge gaps have been categorized into the areas of •••., roadway geometry characteristics,EBB and tri-vision sign characteristics,and driver -— characteristics. Since this effort was purely a review of existing literature,no formal research was completed;the purpose of the remainder of the research review was to build upon the identified knowledge gaps. Each of the gaps was analyzed and preliminary research plans were proposed. Included in each plan are associated goals and proposed research questions. When possible,relevant research findings in which the research questions were based upon were identified. Roadway characteristics that were recognized for future research in the knowledge gap section include horizontal and vertical curves,intersections,work zones,and EBB billboard spacing. EBBs and tri-vision sign characteristics and their proposed research questions are related to an EBB's message content and comprehensibility,exposure time,motion,and sign maintenance. Finally,research questions related to driver characteristics are directed to age and route familiarity. 2 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Objectives Advances in outdoor display technology,and decreases in cost,support an interest in expanding deployment of high resolution and dynamic imaging in outdoor advertising. This raises questions on the effects that electronic billboards(EBBs)and other dynamic signs such as tri- vision signs may have on driver distraction. The purpose of this report is to present a review of the literature on the safety implications of electronic billboards,to identify knowledge gaps in the findings of the review,and to develop a research plan to address the knowledge gaps. The Office of Real Estate Services(ORES)and the Safety Core Business Unit in the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)requested the FHWA Office of Safety,Research and Development to review literature related to safety implications of EBBs,present findings,and recommend a research plan to address knowledge gaps. The scope of this review was limited to safety issues. This project follows an earlier work sponsored by the FHWA in 1980 and complements studies of in-vehicle driver distraction currently underway. The general approach in the present review was to identify information about potential safety implications of EBBs. Factual data regarding billboard safety were sought through a review of existing research literature and information obtained from government staff. Because driver distraction is of interest in other areas of research,such as cellular telephone use and in-vehicle visual information equipment,the present report examines these areas for possible cross- fertilization results. The report concludes with a set of research questions and research findings that are directed to the safe design of dynamic billboards. 1.2 Structure of the Report The Literature Review in Section 2 defines EBBs and tri-vision signs,provides a survey of state practices,and reviews research on EBBs and related distraction research. The Synthesis in Section 3 provides a list of knowledge gaps that were identified in the literature review. Section 4 proposes research in the format of research questions and presents related research findings that are directed to understanding driver behavior in the presence of EBBs and tri-vision signs. The report also contains an annotated bibliography and appendices. 3 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction .aae 2 LrrERxTLRE REVIEW The literature review researched two types of information to understand the safety implications of electronic billboards. One research effort examined current state practices in the regulation of EBBs to determine,for example,the features of those displays at which the regulation is directed and the consistency of regulation among the states. The other type of information was derived mostly from research studies that had the objective of understanding driver behavior in the presence of electronic billboards and/or tri-vision signs. Information of the latter type can provide a source for informed state planning. The review begins with a description of electronic billboards,tri-vision signs.and a discussion of the relationship of these two display types to changeable message signs used for transmitting roadway status information. The next section describes the results of the review of current state practices on billboard regulation and this is followed by the review of research studies. 2.1 Types of Electronic Billboards Technology has advanced sufficiently for billboards to provide dynamic and realistic views much like color television. The advanced EBB has the capability to present multiple views and objects that have realistic motion. In contrast,tri-vision signs provide one of three views with rotating cylinders and generate mechanical motion or movement. Since both the EBB and tri- vision sign incorporate components that display motion,some of the issues associated with EBBs are also associated with tri-vision signs. These two types will be compared in functional terms. For the purpose of the present report,the definition of an EBB is a programmable display that oft, has the capability to present a large amount of text and/or symbolic imagery. Some EBBs present images in realistic motion and in a large variety of colors. The tri-vision sign is defined as a display device capable of presenting three separate images sequentially by rotating triangular cylinders. Appendix A shows examples of EBBs and a tri-vision sign. The EBB consists of several visual characteristics. EBBs present high-resolution color images, complex visual arrangements,rich variation in color,and a vast amount of images. Operational characteristics include electric power and remote control though a computer terminal. The EBB screen display elements are typically arranged in a matrix. The shape of the EBB is usually rectangular,but irregular shapes are possible. An example is the EBB on the NASDAQ Marketsite's Tower in New York City's Times Square. This EEB wraps around the corner of the building.mmm The NASDAQ video screen is eight stories high and covers 10,736 square ft with light-emitting diodes(LEDs). The EBB can vary in complexity. Whereas some EBBs display motion,fine detail,and a rich variety of color,other EBBs provide a simpler image. This image is often composed of a short sequence of words in which each letter is defined by a small number of matrix elements such as a 4x6 matrix or a 5x7 matrix. The elements are typically light emitting(i.e.,LEDs or incandescent)and presented against a dark background. This simpler version of the EBB shares features of the display used by governmental agencies for presenting information to drivers. This display is referred to as a changeable message sign(CMS)in this paper. The CMS typically employs a matrix technology to provide variable messages displays. Other equivalent terms currently used for this sign are variable message sign(VMS)and,to a lesser extent,dynamic message sign(DMS). The permanent CMS is found mounted above the roadway whereas a ..a portable CMS is usually mobile and is located on the shoulder of the roadway. 4 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction Whereas the EBB can display a vast number of images,the tri-vision sign is more limited. The typical tri-vision sign is composed of a series of vertical or horizontal cylinders each of which has a triangular cross section. Each partial rotation of the group of triangular cylinders produces a different image. A single tri-vision sign typically displays,at any given time,one of three images. Although the final composite image does not provide motion,there is still movement due to the transition from one image to another as the cylinders rotate. This movement can act as an attention-getting feature that attracts the driver's attention to the display. One such feature present during the rotation is the partial viewing of two images in transition,where one image advances as the other retreats. Another feature is the change in reflective qualities among the different sides of the triangular cylinders during the transition. 2.2 State Regulations and Policies on Electronic Billboards 2.2.1 Introduction This section of the literature review pertains to the regulation of EBBs across the United States. A review of existing states'regulations and policies is presented first since it is believed that this will provide the reader with an understanding of how EBBs fit into various states'outdoor advertising policies. Each state's regulations generally derive from the 1965 Highway Beautification Act(I-IBA). A detailed history and overview of the federal outdoor advertising control program,which includes the HBA,can be found on the FHWA's ORES web site: http://www.Ihwa.dot.gov/realestate/oacprog.htm. A review of state outdoor advertising regulations revealed that common billboard guidelines governing EBBs and tri-vision signs do not exist. While states generally have consistent regulations governing static billboards, regulations covering EBBs and tri-vision signs vary widely. Implementation practices differ significantly from state to state. A broad spectrum of regulations exists,ranging from lenient control to the prohibition of outdoor advertising. 2.2.2 Sources of Information Federal and state Department of Transportation(DOT)personnel provided information regarding state regulations and policies. The information pertained to whether states regulate EBBs,and if so,in what manner. The sources of information are described briefly as follows: • State Outdoor Advertising Regulations. Efforts were made to obtain the most current billboard regulations nationwide. These regulations were collected from various sources, such as the state DOT directly,a state's website,or from the National Alliance of Highway Beautification Agencies'(NAI-IBA)website. Overall,regulations were obtained from 44 states. • Personal Communication. In addition to obtaining state documents,the researchers contacted states and FHWA division offices. Since a supporting contractor was to be directly contacting state DOTs,an introductory e-mail message was sent from FHWA Headquarters to each Division Office to notify the FHWA Division Office and the state DOTs of the contractor's role. The FHWA contractor contacted state personnel who were knowledgeable of their state's billboard regulations. The telephone calls were of an unstructured nature,and their purpose was to determine if local constituents had submitted comments or complaints about EBBs,and if research had been conducted on EBBs in the state. 5 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction FHWA Division Offices. Nine FHWA Division Offices were contacted. FHWA's ORES recommended some of the selected Division Offices and others were selected randomly. State DOTs. Some state DOT personnel were contacted at the suggestion of their local FHWA Division Office while other states were selected randomly. Ten state DOTs were contacted by telephone. National Alliance of Highway Beautification Agencies(NAHBA). In the early 1990s,a group of individuals responsible for directing or managing their state's outdoor advertising program formed the NAHBA. The Alliance meets regularly to discuss new developments in technology,upcoming legislation,and ways to improve or stream-line regulation of outdoor advertising,junkyards,landscaping,and visitor centers. Additionally,NAHBA maintains a website that contains outdoor advertising regulations of numerous states and the federal government. A NAHBA meeting was held in Washington,D.C.,in late January 2001. Two members of the research team and their FFIWA contracting officer technical representative met with NAHBA members after the formal meeting had ended. Representatives of Florida,Kentucky,Missouri,Oklahoma,and Utah were present. The meeting served a purpose similar to the telephone calls,except that it allowed a more interactive conversation in more detail. NAHBA provided the responses from an informal email questionnaire pertaining to EBBs and a tri-vision sign survey to the research team. These are presented in a Amok subsequent section of this report. 2.2.3 State Regulations and Practices In a July 1996 memorandum to FHWA Regional Administrators,the ORES provided additional interpretation of advertising technology to the individual states regarding off-premise changeable message signs. An off-premise sign is a sign that disseminates information that does not directly relate to the use of the property on which the sign is located. ("Changeable message signs are acceptable for off-premise signs regardless of the type of technology used,if the interpretation of the State/Federal agreement allows such signs,"page 1,paragraph 2,sentence 4 of the memorandum). In a July 1998 memorandum,the ORES reaffirmed their policy that off-premise signs using animated or scrolling displays that are dependent on flashing,intermittent,or moving lights were not conforming signs. This decision was made after careful review of a videotape showing the full-motion EBB erected in Scottsbluff,Nebraska. It was concluded that such signs raise "significant highway safety questions because of the potential to be extremely bright,rapidly changing,and distracting to motorists,"(page 1,paragraph 4,sentence 1 of the memorandum). A majority of states have a policy regarding the lighting of billboards,and through this policy, states regulate EBBs. While common themes are present in most lighting regulations,each state's laws have unique wording. As an example,the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department's Outdoor Advertising Policy,l2I Regulations for Control of Outdoor Advertising on Arkansas Highways,as authorized by Arkansas Act 640 of 1967 and Highway Commission Minute Order No.77-6,section III,subsection D,Lighting states: .. 6 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction A. Lighting Signs may be illuminated,subject to the following restrictions: 1. Signs,which contain,include,or are illuminated by any flashing,intermittent,or moving light or lights are prohibited,except those giving public service information such as time,date,temperature,weather, or similar information. 2. Signs which are not effectively shielded as to prevent beams or rays of light from being directed at any portion of the traveled ways of the Interstate or Primary highways and which are of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or to impair the vision of the driver of any motor vehicle,or which otherwise interferes with any driver's operation of a motor vehicle are prohibited. 3. No sign shall be so illuminated that it interferes with the effectiveness of,or obscures an official traffic sign,device,or signal. 2.2.4 National Alliance of Highway Beautification Agencies Tri-vision Sian Survey. A 1999 survey sponsored by and presented at the annual NAHBA conference reviewed the tri-vision sign advertising regulations of every state and Washington, DC. The following results show that a majority of states are addressing current advertising technologies in their outdoor advertising regulations. At the time of the survey: • Nine states had specific regulations governing signs, • Nine states had regulations on tri-vision signs that were either being drafted or in pending legislation, • Fifteen states had regulations regarding moving parts and/or lights, • Nine state had no regulations on tri-vision sign,and • Six states as well as Washington,DC,prohibited tri-vision signs. Table 1 provides a summary of tri-vision sign exposure dwell times and transition times that were presented in the 1999 NAHBA survey. Table 1. Timing Boundaries of Several Tri-Vision Sign Policies. Timing Boundaries =Average Maximum Minimum Minimum Exposure Dwell Time(sec)I 7.32 10 4 Maximum Transition Twirl Time(see) 2.16 4 Source:NAHBA 1999 Conference. t Minimum Exposure Dwell Time:For billboards that change messages,(e.g.,tri-vision sign or CMSs),the exposure time can be defined as the minimum amount of time,in seconds,that a message must be shown. Some minimum exposure times have been derived from analytical calculations(based on speed limit and the number of faces of a billboard that can be seen)while other minimum exposure times have come in the form of recommendations from outdoor advertising suppliers or have been based upon engineering judgment. 2 Maximum Transition Twirl Time The transition time is the amount of time,in seconds,that is required for a billboard(such as and EBB or tri-vision sign)to automatically change messages. Many states have set a maximum transition time for this change. The maximum was originally determined by taking into account the mechanical constraints of older tri-vision signs and attempting to limit the amount of visual distraction caused by a sign's transition. Due to advances in technology,transitions executed by a full-motion video billboard are virtually instantaneous. Electronic Sign Data. In early February 2001,NAHBA asked its membership to answer four questions regarding EBBs. One question relevant to this research is:"Do you have a definition 7 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction of an electronic sign?" Of the 20 responses that were received,five states had a definition,14 did not have a definition,and one state was in the process of rewriting its definition. 2.2.5 State Outdoor Advertising Regulations A review of statutes was conducted to identify state prohibitions on specific characteristics of signs. This review is presented in Appendices B and C. The results indicate,in part,that of 42 states: • Thirty-six states had prohibitions on signs with red,flashing,intermittent,or moving lights, • Twenty-nine states prohibited signs that were so illuminated as to obscure or interfere with traffic control devices,and • Twenty-nine states prohibited signs located on interstate or primary highway outside of the zoning authority of incorporated cities within 500 ft of an interchange or intersection at grade or safety roadside area. Additional information on other sign characteristics includes insufficient shielding of light, timing limits,and sign location relative to traffic control devices. 2.2.6 Concerns about Electronic Billboards Numerous states have attempted to identify a relationship between EBBs and safety by using traffic conditions as a surrogate measure. The states of Nevada,Utah,Texas,New York,New Hampshire,and Massachusetts reported no evidence of increased traffic safety problems after the .w installation of electronic information displays in their city centers and along their highways. Additionally,five state DOT personnel were asked if a crash relationship with EBBs existed in their states;the responses were that a relationship between crashes and EBBs was not identifiable. However,one belief is that EBBs are typically on congested roadways where drivers have time to look at the sign,so it is difficult to determine if the EBBs cause crashes,let alone traffic congestion. 2.3 Reports on Billboards and Safety Determining the effect of roadway commercial advertising billboards on safety is a difficult endeavor for several theoretical and methodological reasons. First,crash frequency is often used as a measure of safety,yet crashes occur relatively infrequently,so changes in frequency may be subtle and are not easily attributed to particular factors. In addition,distraction effects may interact with other factors,such as weather. Furthermore,crash reporting procedures differ across jurisdictions and may not refer to billboard distraction as a factor in the crash. Additionally,drivers may be unlikely to identify distraction as the cause of a crash for liability reasons. Regardless of these difficulties,researchers have examined the effects of billboards on safety. The results are mixed and inconclusive,as shown below. 2.3.1 The Wachtel and Netherton Report The safety and aesthetics of commercial electronic variable message signing were reviewed by the FHWA in 1980t3>and are summarized below. Part of that effort included a review of published studies on the safety effect of roadside advertising signs,including several field and 8 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction laboratory studies from 1951 to 1978 on non-electronic advertising billboards,and one analysis in 1976 of an electronic advertising sign in Boston. The Minnesota Department of Highways concluded from a field study in 1951 that an increase in commercial billboards would result in an increased crash rate. A 1951 field study conducted by Iowa State College concluded that more crashes caused by driver inattention occurred on road segments that contained billboards. The Michigan State Highway Department in 1952 found that advertising signs did not correlate with the roadway's crash experience,except for illuminated (neon)signs,which did correlate with an increased crash rate. A 1961 study of California Route 40 concluded that road segments with billboards experienced significantly more crashes than segments without billboards. A 1967 field study compared the crash history of three locations in Chicago before and after the installation of three illuminated,commercial changeable message signs. Crash rates did not change at two of the sign locations,but the third sign location showed an increase of crashes. The third sign had alternating lights,showed several advertising messages,and was illuminated by bright white lights. The rapid increase in crashes led state highway officials to request that blue lights replace the white lights.(;) The Tele-Spot sign in Boston was an off-premise commercial electronic sign. The sign was visible from the Central Artery in the midst of complex on-and off-ramps,regulatory signs,and guide signing. The Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Board conducted an analysis of traffic crashes three years before and two and a quarter years after sign installation. The analysis showed an overall reduction in the Average Daily Traffic(ADT)and crashes along the expressway,but on the areas of the expressway from where the Tele-Spot was visible,the crash reduction was 10 percent less than the overall reduction. The Board regarded the 10-percent difference as an indication that the Tele-Spot sign was a distraction and a safety risk,and consequently revoked the license for the sign.( ' 2.3.2 Wisconsin DOT Report The Wisconsin DOT examined the crash rates on Interstate 94 eastbound and westbound adjacent to the Milwaukee County Stadium141. The analysis compared the crash rates three years before and three years after the installation of a variable message advertising sign. The sign, installed April 13,1984,displayed sporting scores and advertisements,and changed images an average of 12 frames per minute. The purpose of the comparison was to assess whether the presence of the sign correlated with a change in the crash history of I-94. To determine crash rate,the Wisconsin DOT inventoried crashes that occurred on the segment on 1-94 from where the sign was visible,categorized them into side-swipe and rear-end crashes,and determined the ADT from an automatic traffic recorder. The crash rate was derived from the equation: crash rate per million vehicle miles=crash frequency/(length of segment)*ADT*106) Eastbound Segment. The crash rate for the three years before installation was 3.12 crashes per million vehicle miles traveled(VMT). The three-year crash rate after installation was 4.25 crashes per million VMT. The increase in crash rate after installation was 1.13 crashes per million VMT,or 36 percent. Specifically,the rate of increase for sideswipe crashes was 8 percent,and the rate of increase was 21 percent for rear-end crashes. 9 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction Westbound Segment. The crash rate before installation was 2.91 crashes per million VMT,and 3.53 per million VMT after installation,an increase of 0.62 crashes per million VMT or 21 percent. The rate of increase was 35 percent for both sideswipe crashes and rear-end crashes. The Wisconsin DOT concluded from its analysis that the variable message sign had an effect on traffic safety,notably an increase in the rate of sideswipe crashes. In addition,the report concluded that the greater increase in crashes for the eastbound segment was due to the orientation of the sign towards eastbound traffic. (This sign was removed 16 years after it had been installed,when the Milwaukee County Stadium was demolished. A similar sign was installed on the new stadium.) 2.3.3 The Curriden Article A recent court case in Texas arose from a crash in an airport caused by a driver reading an electronic sign that listed departure and arrival times,and gate information. The driver stopped his vehicle to read information on the sign. A second vehicle swerved around the stopped vehicle and side swiped a vehicle in the adjacent lane,resulting in a three-vehicle crash. Two drivers were injured in the crash and sued the airline that owned the EBB. A jury found that the EBB was the indirect cause of a multiple vehicle crash at the airport and returned a negligence verdict against the airline. The airport subsequently removed the EBB.>5> 2.4 Potential Safety Factors 2.4.1 Distraction The review of crashes presented previously suggests that EBBs may be associated with a higher crash rate under certain conditions. If this possibility is verified through further research,then it can be asked whether these crashes are a result of driver distraction in which the distracting stimulus is the EBB. Distraction can be a framework in which to view EBBs and safety. The safety consequences of distraction from the driving task can be profound. Treat et aLt6>found that driver inattention and improper lookout increase the likelihood of crash occurrence and are major factors underlying the causes of crashes. According to Wang,et al.,l'1 an analysis conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA)of causal factors of crashes showed that distraction by sources extemal to the vehicle accounted for 3.2 percent of the crashes. The extemal sources included people,events,and non-specified objects. The NHTSA analysis did not identify the extemal objects,nor did it identify billboards as among the sources of distraction. However,the data suggest that,on occasion,external stimuli can be sufficiently distracting to drivers,causing or resulting in a crash. Distracting Stimuli. One type of distracting stimulus is the unexpected event that results in an involuntary reaction. This type of stimulus is unanticipated and produces a surprise or orienting response—the person will redirect his or her attention to the new event to identify it and assess its significance. Such a stimulus may be an event that is not typical for that time or place,e.g.,a flash of light,movement or sound. A more subtle form of distracting stimulus can be one in which the stimulus has a less surprising quality,and thus presents more time for the driver to decide whether to attend to the stimulus and how much attention to direct to the stimulus. Domeimt8>documented that this has been has been 10 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction a problem for pilots. In some situations,a pilot will occasionally attend more to a secondary task and neglect the primary task of flying the plane,sometimes resulting in a crash. Although the task of flying is obviously different from driving,there may be lessons to be learned for drivers. NASA is currently conducting research on ways to avoid this type of air crash. It may prove useful to check the progress of this research to see whether NASA research results have implications for driver distraction. Some of the research questions involve understanding how people know when to return their attention to a task,as well as identifying the limits of switching between tasks. Measures of Distraction. For this project,driver distraction is characterized as deterioration in driving performance,the primary task,while attending to a second,non-driving task. The second task is subordinate to the driving task. An example of a non-driving task is operating an audiocassette system or using a cellular telephone. When the safe operation of the vehicle is degraded by the performance of the second task,the second task is defined as a"distractor." Safe operation or control of the vehicle is recorded with measures of effectiveness(MOE)for driving. These measures include lateral deviation of the vehicle and maintenance of appropriate speed,as indicated by headway measures. Lack of control indicated by excessive lateral deviation or inappropriate speed could result from distraction,sleepiness,inability to see the road because of weather or lighting,poor perception of road geometry requirements,or other reasons. Since there are multiple factors that can contribute to lack of vehicle control,the design of a distraction study must take into account these other factors and ensure that they do not confound the design and allow misinterpretation of the data. Lateral deviation can be measured by analysis of variability in steering wheel position,and/or varying distance of the vehicle from a lane marking on the road. When measuring lateral deviation,a certain amount of variability in deviation is expected. Greater-than-normal lateral variation may indicate a degree of lack of vehicle control. An example of lateral deviation occurs during the performance of a non-driving task such as the selection,orientation,and insertion of an audiocassette into the cassette player while performing the primary task of negotiating a curve. If the cassette operation is performed in the same manner and at the same rate as when the vehicle is motionless,there is a high likelihood of lateral deviation. This scenario of cassette operation would be an example of a distracting task. Another measure of safe vehicle control is the maintenance of appropriate speed. One driving behavior that would lead to improper speed is the selection of a more or less constant speed (speed invariance)when nearby vehicles change speed. This could result in an unsafe headway condition. Lack of safe control due to improper speed selection could be due to reasons similar to those listed above for lateral deviation. Another behavior measured by speed is the slowing of a vehicle to view an item external to the vehicle. Braking for emergencies may also be considered for a measure of distraction. 2.4.2 Conspicuity of Displays To what degree does an external,conspicuous stimulus unrelated to driving distract a driver from the driving task? This question is basic to the notion that a billboard may degrade driving performance by diverting attention away from the driving task. If a billboard degrades driving performance,it may be useful to identify the components of the billboard that can distract drivers. Some possible distracting components of a display are motion,complexity,and II Research Review of Potential Safety Effects p/Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction illumination. If such qualities are relevant to distraction,do they act alone or do they interact with each other? To the extent that these qualities are identifiable,it may be possible to understand their effect on distraction. A brief review conducted by Hughes and Cole(9)identified the physical properties of a conspicuous object. Important properties that contribute to conspicuity include object size, object contrast with its immediate background as well as the complexity of the background. An additional property is"the boldness of the graphics used to display a message." According to Cole and Hughes,1t01 conspicuity consists of two types:attention conspicuity and search conspicuity. Attention conspicuity is the"...capacity of an object to attract attention, and...might be measured by the probability of the object being noticed when the observer has not had his or her attention directed to its likely occurrence." Search conspicuity is"...the property of an object that enables it to be quickly and reliably located by search." Cole and Hughes suggest that eye movement that is responding to a stimulus in the peripheral visual field can be used to infer attention conspicuity in the visual mode. Such movement may be a"quasi- reflex eye movement that is related to human defense reaction.'t 1°) Theeuwes(11)challenged the view that conspicuous objects attract attention automatically. Instead,drivers will attend to the driving task and not a distractor. His past research showed that subjects ignored salient objects that were irrelevant to a search task. In a subsequent study, participants were instructed to locate a task-related stimulus(a blue sign)in a video taken from the driver's perspective. Distracting stimuli(e.g.,a pedestrian in an orange jacket)were present in some experimental conditions,but not others. The results indicated that when the target stimulus,or blue sign,was in an expected location,the presence of the distractor had no impact. Awe— However,when the target was in an unexpected location,thus increasing the search time,the - presence of the distractor increased the time required to locate the target above that due to expectation effects. The visual environment affects the conspicuity of objects. Since drivers obtain travel related information by searching the visual environment for a target,such as a street sign,outdoor advertising can compete with targets of driving-related information. The concept of"visual noise"refers to non-target objects in an environment and can be used to determine a sign's conspicuity in a particular environment. Akagi et al(12)state that"Objects causing visual noise can be defined as objects that hinder drivers'field of view,such as billboards and buildings along roadsides." This study reported that increases in the visual noise(i.e.,the number of signs in a roadway location)correlated with longer search time required for drivers to locate a target sign. In a study performed by Hughes and Cole(9)regarding the conspicuity of roadside objects, drivers reported"all the objects or things that attracted their attention"as they drove through 20 km of residential streets and arterial roads. Afterwards,they observed a film of the same route, taken from the driver viewpoint. Advertising displays accounted for 13.7 percent of reports in the driving study and 10.2 percent in the laboratory study. Driving related objects(road,traffic control devices(TCDs),vehicles,and people)accounted for 51.4 percent of reports in the driving task and 57.9 percent in the laboratory study. Other non-driving task elements included immediate and general roadway surroundings. Advertising elements were reported equally on arterial and shopping center routes,and more so than on residential streets. However,in 12 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction residential streets,drivers directed more attention to non-driving related elements. This suggested a possible spare attention capacity. A field study by Luoma(13)analyzed driver eye fixations on roadside advertisements during a 50 km drive in Finland. Results indicated that accurate perception of advertisements was associated with longer fixation times(2.3 sec)than the times for pedestrian markings and speed limit signs (0.4 sec to 0.5 sec). The author concluded,"...long fixation times indicate that the characteristics of roadside advertisements related to information ergonomics are poor.'lu) Information ergonomics is the practice of providing information in the most efficient way,such that viewers can access the information quickly and clearly. Roadway Context. Determining whether billboards influence driver behavior would require understanding the roadway context of a billboard. For example,roadway factors such as the angular distance of a billboard,billboard placement and volume characteristics of an intersection, may influence driver responsiveness to visual stimuli and the experience of workload. In this sense,information on the effect of the roadway context on driving performance should assist in defining appropriate billboard locations. Research on driver search behavior in high and low volume intersections by Rahimi,Briggs and Thom(14)in 1990,suggests that higher volumes of traffic affect driver eye and head movements. The research indicates that the greater visual complexity associated with the high volume intersection required drivers to search the environment more than in the low volume intersections. It can be conjectured that additional visual stimuli,such as billboards,may add additional demand to driver workload in high-volume intersections. 2.4.3 Legibility One event that can be considered a distraction occurs when a driver passes a sign where the text has poor legibility. The weakness in legibility may be due to poor character font design, improper spacing of letters,or other factors. However,if the information is of sufficient interest, the driver may try to read all of the text anyway. Such a decision could take time away from the driving task thus increasing crash risk. If on the other hand,the sign had text that met legibility standards,less effort would be required to read the sign. Although this situation is a more subtle distraction than that due to perceived motion in a sign,it still could present potential for crash risk. Legibility information is available for CMSs. Although the CMS is restricted to providing roadway related information,its legibility requirements may be relevant to the design of the simpler EBB Luminance and Luminous Contrast. Garvey and Mace(15)examined CMSs to identify the features that contribute to their visibility. Both field and laboratory studies were employed following a review of the literature. Of particular interest in this report are the requirements for lighting,such as the luminance value and contrast ratio necessary for legible viewing. The study discussed requirements for displays such as LEDs,fiber optics,lamps,flip discs,and reflective discs. The authors provide guidelines that are aimed at improving the visibility of all CMSs, regardless of technology. Minimum luminance values were recommended for CMS visibility. These values are based on the 85`h percentile driver accommodated at 198 m(650 ft). Age and position of the sun were two of the most significant factors when determining minimum luminance. Values are presented for drivers in two age ranges(16-40 and 65 or older). When the CMS is backlit(sun behind and 13 Research Review.fPotential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver attention and Distraction above CMS)or under washout conditions(low sun shining directly on CMS),1000 cd/m2 is recommended for both age groups. This value accommodates less than 50 percent of older drivers at any luminance level with extreme sun angles. When the sun is directly behind the CMS,few if any people will be able to read the characters under any luminance level. When the sun is overhead the 65 years and over group still requires 1000 cd/m2,but only 850 cd/m2 are required for the younger group. During overcast or rain,600 cd/m2 is required for the older group and 350 cd/m2 for the younger. For the nighttime condition,both groups require a luminance of 30 cd/m2. According to Garvey and Mace,(15)there should be a minimum luminous contrast between the unlighted and lighted elements on a CMS;a maximum luminous contrast was not provided. Contrast orientation should always be positive,that is,the characters should be lighted against a dark or less luminous background. A negative contrast is likely to result in a 25 percent shorter legibility distance. Contrast luminance for a CMS was determined with the formula: L,—Lb Lb where: Lt=luminance of a character module with all of the elements"on" Lb=luminance of a character module with all of the elements"off." The minimum acceptable contrast luminance is 5,and the optimal contrast luminance varies from 5 to 50. A summary of existing literature on sign visibility performed by Kuhn,Garvey and Pietrucha,(t6) examined the two main research areas of sign detection;that is,sign conspicuity and sign legibility. The emphasis was on the more familiar and traditional sign rather than electronic signs. It is likely,however,that the design of an electronic sign would benefit from some of this information. A series of visibility guidelines for on-premise signs was presented. (An on- premise sign disseminates information that directly relates to the use of the property on which it is located.) Later research by Kuhn(17)compared lighting methods(external illumination, internal illumination with opaque background,internal illumination with translucent background and neon)under day and night conditions to examine sign visibility features. Claus and Claus(183 addressed the issue of startling types of signs,such as those employing "flashing or animation to catch attention." These authors discuss different types of motion or movement. One of these is"...jumping arrows,or rapidly chasing or flashing lamp borders... (that)should perhaps be limited to midways and to rows of theater marquees." They did allow for other pictorial sequences that may be more acceptable as well as alternating displays such as the time and temperature display. Alphanumeric Characters and Their Spacing. The design or selection of font type and the spacing between characters(letters),words and sentences are critical in achieving effective legibility of signs,especially when legibility is defined by the distance at which a sign can be read. Garvey&Mace(I5)provided draft guidelines for the design of the elements and characters that compose a word and word groupings on a CMS,in which the character font is composed of 14 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction light emitting elements. To achieve effective legibility,a number of features are considered. It is important to address each of the features,since they interact with each other. For example,to design an upper case character font,use a 5 x 7 matrix of light emitting elements. However,with a small matrix of this size,it is well to avoid thickening of a line in a character(e.g.,as in an"I" or"T")by adding another row or column of elements because the legibility distance is shortened by about 25 percent. Font design for exterior signs should be simple without serifs. Additional information was provided on the height of the character,the proportion of the character or width-to-height ratio, and stroke width of the character. Further information was provided on the spacing between letters,between words and between lines of characters. Signs with light emitting elements have special characteristics. Light emitting elements provide high contrast between characters and background and thus provide superior performance over reflective signs at night. However,the light intensity requires careful adjustment. According to Garvey and Mace,t1s1 high contrast produced by lighted elements at night can"create halation or in-adiation,blurring letters with wide stroke widths." Messaee Leneth. A series of studies was performed by McNees and Messer09t to evaluate urban freeway guide signing. A study relevant to EBB issues examined the reading time required for guide signs. Study variables included"bits"(i.e.,the amount of information on each panel)and number of sign panels. A typical sign panel contained an exit number,exit direction,cardinal direction,route number,and two destinations. It also included symbols such as a shield,and directional arrows. Examples of bits of information were: "I-395,""Washington,D.C."and "South." Each sign panel had,on average,six bits of information. The display time of the sign simulated the total time a driver would have available to read a guide sign in a typical freeway environment. The display times provided for reading the signs represented three traffic conditions:"extreme"(2.5 sec display time),"minimum"(4 sec display time),and"desirable"(6 sec display time). Median reading times for these conditions were: 1.7 sec(extreme),2.0 sec (minimum),and 2.9 sec(desirable). The results indicated that the time used to read the signs was dependent on quantity of information per sign as well as time available to perform the task. Based on these results,the authors concluded that the information content of a highway guide sign should not exceed six bits of information per panel. 2.5 The Driver 2.5.1 Driver Age The analysis of distraction should consider the effect of driver age. If a significant portion of the driving population is more susceptible to distraction,then research on the relationship between distraction and safety should recognize this susceptibility. Such research could provide information about age-related differences regarding visual capability or reaction times that are relevant to driver reaction to EBBs. Both older drivers and young/inexperienced drivers are examined in this discussion. The highway safety community recognizes that the probability of crash involvement varies with driver characteristics,most notably age. Highway data analysis demonstrates that the young driver and older driver populations have high crash involvement,and elevated injury and fatality rates. According to the Transportation Research Board's Special Report Number 229,2°)the high involvement rate of older drivers in crashes is second only to the rates of young drivers 15 Research Review of Potential Safety Effectygfflectronic Billboards on Driver..4 ttent,on and Distraction Experience and age may be important factors to consider in the evaluation of the effects EBBs have on safety. The research literature provides a firm foundation for stating that age and experience need to be considered. If EBBs are ultimately found to have a high degree of attention conspicuity—that they compel drivers to attend to them—then it is reasonable to expect that populations such as older or inexperienced drivers,who have less attention to spare,will be placed at greater risk by EBBs. The Older Driver. According to Barr and Eberhard,(21)the safety and mobility of older drivers, generally defined as 65 years of age and above,are highly relevant to transportation planning. Because of an increasingly aged population,the number and proportion of older drivers are rising. By 2020,Waller1221 has estimated that 17 percent(50 million people)of the United States population will consist of people 65 years and older,compared to 12 percent in 1988. The proportion of older adults licensed to drive is increasing. For example,in 1980,60 percent of older adults(at least age 65)were licensed drivers,compared to 70 percent in 1989. These data point to the need to include older drivers in research programs on roadway safety,including the evaluation of EBBs and distraction. Older drivers have a high crash risk per mile(22) They are involved in a disproportionate number of fatal crashes and multi-vehicle crashes where they were the responsible party,(23.24)and are over-represented in crashes that involve turns,merges,and yielding the right of way.(25) Recent studies performed by Ball and Owsleyt261 point to cognitive demands as influential factors in driving. Visual processing speed and the ability to handle selective and divided attention demands may have the greatest impact on crash rates. An increase in age did not directly contribute to crash involvement. However,an increase in age correlated with lower processing speed and decreased attention. The fact that attention and visual processing speed degrade with age may be symptomatic of the increasing inability of older drivers to encode and process all but the most important information in the driving environment. The Younger Driver. The young driver(16 to 24 years old)is more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers of other ages,and a driver under 23 years of age is 2.5 times more likely to be killed in a crash than drivers 25 years and older,according to the NHTSA.1271 Whereas the young driver crash risk on a per-mile driven basis is greater than the crash risk of other drivers, their risk decreases on the continuum from 16 to 24 years old,according to Lemer et al.t2 Incidents involving younger drivers are attributed to age and experience-related factors. Widely recognized age-related factors reported by Decina et aI.t291 include risk-taking and alcohol consumption. Experience-related factors include the psychomotor,perceptual,and cognitive skills required for steering and maintaining speed,driving during high risk periods(such as at night),inefficient or inappropriate scanning behavior,poor hazard recognition,and poor driving judgment and decision-making. The young driver demonstrates poorer coordination of separate driving tasks and tends to concentrate on one aspect of performance,such as maintaining lane position.t291 According to Moumat et al.,t301 the visual scanning behavior of a young driver is less effective than that of mature drivers because the young driver tends to focus more closely in front of the vehicle. Furthermore,Miltenburg and Kuikent3 r 1 report that the inexperienced driver is likely to have attention drawn to irrelevant but"attention-getting"objects. The aforementioned research suggests that the young driver may be more vulnerable to distractions than the more mature 16 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic illboards on Driver Attention and Distraction driver. The data indicate that the young driver has weak situational awareness and relatively poor focus on the driving task itself. Thus,distracting stimuli,inside or external to the vehicle, may adversely affect the young driver. 2.5.2 Driver Familiarity with Route Commuters and visitors require different information while traveling. The familiar driver requires more information on traffic conditions and incidents,whereas the visitor requires more navigational and guidance information. A field study of driver visual search and scan patterns performed by Mourant et aL001 showed that drivers'visual fixations on traffic,road and lane markers,and bridges and road signs decreased as the drivers became more familiar with the routes. One conclusion from these data is that drivers who are familiar with a roadway may be less likely to attend to familiar signs,including EBBs. Thus,differences between visitors and commuters in visual attention to commercial signs may be a relevant variable in assessment of distraction effects of EBBS since more eye-catching displays may be needed to attract the commuter. 2.6 Measures of Effectiveness 2.6.1 Surrogates Commercial EBBs are designed to"catch the eye"of drivers. Their presence may distract drivers from concentrating on the driving task and the visual surrounds. Research in other areas share a concern about driver distraction and may be applicable to the question of EBBs and driving performance. Investigations of driver distraction and safety have notably focused on two cases:cellular telephone use while driving,and in-vehicle information displays. In each case, the application of a new technology raised concerns about driver distraction. The following sections highlight research in these areas. Cellular Telephone Use in Vehicles. The number of cellular telephone users reported by Cain and Bums1321 in 1998 was 63 million,and at a growth rate of 40 percent per year,the NHTSAt331 estimates that the number of users will reach 80 million by 2000. The increase in the number of cellular telephone customers,in combination with high-profile crashes involving cellular telephone use,has raised public awareness of the safety aspects of in-vehicle telephone use and led to legislative initiatives aimed at restraining telephone use in vehicles. Crash Risk Analyses. Redelmeier and Ticshirani1341 performed an epidemiological study of crash risk associated with cellular telephone use linked customer telephone bills to crash records maintained at the New York Collision Reporting Center to identify telephone use at the time of a crash. The study concluded that cellular telephone use quadrupled the risk of a crash during the call. Another epidemiological study performed by Violanti 351 found a 34 percent increase in risk of crash among vehicles with celluar telephones. Application to EBBs. Using cellular telephones while driving imposes at least three tasks:first, manually manipulating the telephone,which could affect control of the vehicle;second,glancing at the telephone,which requires looking away from the roadway;and third,engaging in conversation,which may disrupt concentration. The relevance of information on cellular telephone use to EBBs lies in visual(glancing)and cognitive(mental engagement)behaviors. Viewing EBBs or using a telephone requires drivers to look away from the roadway for some 17 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction period. Similarly,reading a sign could disrupt a driver's concentration,just as engaging in a telephone conversation might. According to Cain and Burris,l3�1 hands-free telephone use carries about the same risk observed in hand-held use,and a NHTSA report1331 cites that a telephone conversation is a factor in crashes more frequently than dialing. Cain and Burris1331 believe that the type of conversation is significant in determining crash risk,and McKnight and McKnight(36)believe that complex and intense conversations the riskiest and simple conversation relatively risk-free. Thus,becoming mentally preoccupied can be as distracting to a driver as manually operating a telephone or glancing away from the roadway. In-vehicle Information Systems. Advances in communications technology have enabled the development of electronic devices that display traveler-related information to drivers in transit. Such devices can potentially redirect(or distract)a driver's attention from the primary task of driving. An examination of in-vehicle distractions may contribute to an understanding for potential out-of-vehicle distractions such as EBBs. The presence of in-vehicle devices that provide traveler-related information,such as turn-by-turn directions,has raised questions regarding the amount of time taken away from the driving task by the information display. One concem is that a driver will underestimate the amount of time required to use the device,take longer than expected,thus taking too much time away from the driving task. This is similar to the concem in which a driver spends too much time looking at a stimulus external to the vehicle. In order to measure visual distraction associated with the use of in-vehicle devices,a methodological approach was developed based on eye glances. This method calculates the total number and average duration of eye glances required to operate specific in-vehicle devices. Data compiled from research in the late 1980's defined the average time for a single glance and the average number of total glances required to use a variety of devices. Devices were the speedometer,mirrors,standard radio,climate controls,smoking/lighting,fuel gage,heating/air conditioner,map,and others. For example,using the radio required 1.20 sec of glance time and 3.5 total glances,and reading the map required 1.70 sec of glance time,and 5.0 total glances. Wierwille and Tijerina(37)performed one investigation into this issue that compared exposure levels for in-vehicle devices to number of crashes associated with the use of these devices. Exposure was the number of glances,multiplied by the time for a single glance,multiplied by the frequency of use. When the variety of in-vehicle devices was examined in light of both number of crashes and their exposure,a linear relationship resulted such that the greater the exposure,the greater the number of crashes. This study suggested that the"...relative number of accidents is directly related to visual resource allocation for in-vehicle tasks." The data regarding amount of time used for in-vehicle devices reported in this study may be a useful starting point for estimating the maximum amount of time that a driver can attend to a distraction outside the vehicle. 2.6.2 Current Measurement of Distraction It would be beneficial to measure the effect that EBBs have on driver distraction. Such measures for EBBs and other stimuli external to the vehicle have not yet been developed. However,there is one approach being developed for in-vehicle information systems that,with some refinement, may serve as a measure of EBB distraction. 0.41 18 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction Olsson and Bumsi381 describe a peripheral detection task(PDT)that is designed to measure visual distraction and driver mental workload. This study included measures of reaction time and correct detection rate for drivers who were asked to report the presence of an LED dot shown briefly at slightly different locations on a windshield while:1)driving on country roads and a motorway and 2)performing a secondary task while driving. The dots were projected l 1- 23 degrees to the left of the straight-ahead view and 2-4 degrees above the horizon. This location approximates the visual angle that corresponds to a pedestrian or some roadside signs. Statistically significant results indicated that a CD manipulation task and a backwards counting task required a longer performance time and resulted in fewer correct detections than the baseline driving task. Since these drivers missed more targets when performing a secondary task and because it took longer to report the targets that were spotted,the PDT may be useful in assessing the distractibility of in-vehicle systems. The authors briefly discuss the necessity of defining a criterion such as a percentage correct detection rate and/or reaction time that would define driver distraction. If the PDT can be applied to in-vehicle systems,it may also be applicable to stimuli external to the vehicle such as EBB and tri-vision signs. It would be necessary to adapt the methodology from an in-vehicle task to a vehicle-external stimulus and to define a criterion for distraction. The PDT procedure might also be employed in addition to the driver performance measures described above,i.e.,measures of lateral deviation and speed selection. 19 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction 3 SYNTHESIS The objective of the literature review was to identify and summarize the potential safety effects of EBBs on driving behavior. The present discussion examines the results of that review. One of the initial sections of the review sought research reports that directly approached the safety effects of EBBs on the driver by examining crash rates related to the EBB;unfortunately, this subject is not well documented. In most instances,researchers were not able to verify that an EBB was a major factor in causing a crash. Only one study since the 1980 review and one lawsuit were identified. After presenting research that directly addressed the relationship of EBBs to crashes,the literature review examined research regarding distraction,conspicuity,and legibility. Studies were identified that verified that:an increase in distraction,a decrease in conspicuity,or a decrease in legibility may cause an increase in the crash rate. While all of the identified research was transportation related research,only the legibility research examined electronic signs(e.g., CMSs). There is indication that individual differences in age and driving experience may be important considerations in driver distraction,and are relevant to understanding driver responses to the external environment. Furthermore,research regarding driver familiarity of their route demonstrated that visual fixations on roadway signs decreases as route familiarity increases. This research may show that there is a difference between commuter and visiting drivers. While the surrogates that were identified in Section 2.6.1 are not related to EBBs,it is believed that the planning that is performed in these fields is useful to this review. Research concerning rr in-vehicle distractions caused by cellular telephones and navigation display was reviewed in an attempt to associate conditions in which driver distraction can be identified and to determine how a driver may react. Further review of these fields is warranted at a later date. At this point,it appears that there is no effective technique or method appropriate for evaluating the safety effects of EBBs on driver attention or distraction. Crash studies can show that EBBs may increase the crash rate,but research regarding driver familiarity can argue that commuter drivers may not even look at an EBB. This example is nicely illustrated by the Milwaukee County Stadium's variable message advertising sign. A before and after crash analysis showed an increase in the crash rate after the installation of the sign,but not to the point to warrant its removal and the sign remained in-place for 16 years. The literature review identified research that addressed particular characteristics of an EBB. For example,distraction,conspicuity and legibility research performed on CMSs is relevant to the contrast and luminance of an EBB. The following section of this document takes EBB research to the next level. It presents a research plan that will allow for a more complete understanding of the potential safety effects of EBBs on driver attention and distraction by pulling together the information that has been gathered from unrelated studies and recommend a research plan to help answer the knowledge gaps. 20 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction 4 RESEARCH NEEDS The synthesis of the review indicated several areas in which more information would contribute to a better understanding of the safety implication of EBBs and tri-vision signs. These areas are expanded into research recommendations in this section. Each of these recommendations or research questions presented in this section reflect a concern for driving safety. To obtain information regarding the influence of EBBs or tri-vision signs on driving performance,it is necessary to examine these displays in a variety of situations. For instance,it is possible that driving performance would be affected on curves but not on tangent road segments. The depiction of motion on a screen may be disruptive to driving whereas a static screen may not. The primary objective of the research to be proposed is to determine whether there are conditions under which EBB or tri-vision signs constitute a driving concern as indicated by crashes or other form of degraded driver performance. If such conditions are identified,then additional research may be required to gain a detailed understanding of the issue. These research goals will be identified as Research Questions. Information that was available in an area that may support EBB safety was identified as Research Findings. This information primarily focuses on text issues,particularly with the legibility of letters and words;information regarding symbols or graphics was not identified. Since the identified research was not performed in an EBB context,it may be worthwhile to replicate selected research findings in conditions based on EBB requirements. Thus,some of the findings will be followed by research questions. The issues described below have been researched to varying degrees. Some questions,such as the effect of a motion-based display on driving safety,have not been fully researched yet. Other issues,such as minimum exposure time for a display,have been addressed by states with little or no research basis. Questions on legibility have been addressed,but in a context for providing traffic information to drivers. The research questions fall into three general areas of highway safety:the roadway,EBBs and tri-vision signs,and the driver. The section on EBBs and tri- vision signs is presented in two parts:the first addresses relatively global aspects of the billboard such as motion phenomena and exposure time. The second part addresses the more detailed issues of individual letters and words. 4.1 Roadway Characteristics Different roadway characteristics exert varying demands upon driver attention and skill. Particular roadway configurations and their characteristics may be more or less suitable for EBBs,and are important to consider when evaluating the safety effects of EBBs. The roadway characteristics listed below have special considerations relative to the issue of distraction and safety. • Horizontal and Vertical Curves. Compared to tangents,curved roadway segments require more adept handling from drivers. Thus,any distraction presented by an EBB may be larger in conditions when the driver is experiencing greater demands. Research Questions-Curves: Is driver performance affected adversely by the presence of EBB or tri-vision signs on vertical curves,horizontal curves or even at a tangent segment? What is the role of vehicle speed and posted speed in this question? What effect does the radius of the curve,or other features of the horizontal curve,have in this 21 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction situation? Does vehicle speed change on a tangent segment in the presence of an EBB or tri-vision sign? • Interchanges and Intersections. Demands made upon the driver increase at interchanges and intersections. For example,at highway interchanges,drivers execute multiple tasks,including controlling lateral position in their lane,maintaining appropriate headway and speed,and navigating through traffic as they merge or turn At intersections,drivers are required to attend to multiple sources of potential conflicts,such as pedestrian crossings,changing traffic control devices,and turning maneuvers. Potentially distracting stimuli,including EBBs,may be particularly disruptive to drivers under the increased demands associated with interchanges and intersections. Current federal and state statutes prohibit the placement of roadside signs and displays near interchanges and intersections. EBBs offer a potential for driver distraction similar to or greater than conventional billboards,and should be considered to be subject to the same restrictions on placement near interchanges or intersections. Current state statues and regulations employ different values ranging from 152 to 305 m(500 to 1000 ft). The effects of EBBs and tr-vision signs on driver performance should be examined to determine if performance deficits are observed. Research Questions-Intersections: Will an EBB or a tri-vision sign located near an intersection contribute to degraded driver performance? If driving performance is found to be degraded,then what should be the distance between this type of display and the intersection? Research Questions-Interchanges: Will an EBB or a tri-vision sign located near an +� interchange contribute to degraded driver performance? If driving performance is found to be degraded,then what should be the distance between this type of display and the interchange? • Work Zones. Drivers traveling in work zones need to be alert for changing traffic patterns,sudden stops,workers,pedestrians,and work equipment. Although drivers should reduce their speed in these zones,they often do not reduce speed sufficiently. This has resulted in special efforts by states to encourage safer driver behavior in such zones. Whatever the reason for current selection of improper speed in a work zone,it is possible that the presence of an EBB or tri-vision sign would aggravate the problem. Research about the effects of EBBs in work zones on safety should be performed,since the presence of additional visual distractions may elevate the risk of driver distraction and unsafe driving. Research Questions—Work Zone:Will an EBB or a tri-vision sign that is located near a work zone promote unsafe driving? What constitutes close proximity to a work zone and how should the work zone dimensions be defined relative to the EBB? • Distance between EBBs/Tri-vision Signs. Drivers may not direct sufficient attention to the driving task if EBB or tri-vision signs are too close to each other. Federal and state regulations address conventional billboards on this factor. Due to the greater conspicuity of EBBs relative to conventional billboards,it may be useful to reexamine the minimum distance between EBBs and tri-vision signs. 22 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction Research Question—Distance Between EBB/Tri-vision Signs: Define an appropriate distance between EBBs and/or tri-vision signs that ensures driving safety. 4.2 EBB and Tri-vision Sign Characteristics Research on EBBs should be directed toward the characteristics of EBBs,including placement, visual movement,and luminance. Research should include the characteristics of EBBs listed below. • Message Content and Comprehensibility. If a driver attempts to read a display(either text or graphic)that is difficult to read due to factors such as excessive information, unfamiliar terms,and/or poor choice of word order,then the driver may not devote sufficient time to the driving task,thus raising a safety concern. Research Finding-Amount of Information: An analysis of the amount of information on static guide signs recommended that a sign panel should present no more than six bits of information. Examples of a"bit"of information provided by McNess and Messer(19) include"I-395,"Washington,D.C."and"South." Research Question-Amount of Information: This finding should be replicated in an EBB and/or tri-vision sign context. The terms and symbols used in the context of a roadway environment may present somewhat different results due,perhaps,to familiarity of terms. Another feature that is different is the use of pixels on EBB displays versus the painted signs in the roadway study. Research Questions —Quantity of Text: The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),139>Section 2E-21(applicable to CMSs for use on freeway and expressway mainlines),states that a CMS should display no more than three lines of text. Further, there should be a maximum of 20 characters per line. An analysis of these numbers for the simpler EBB displays,in conjunction with analyses of exposure times,may be useful. The acceptable amount of information in the pictorial and/or dynamic display,both EBB and tri-vision sign,could be determined at the same time. In these situations,other display components such as graphics,motion and/or exposure time should be examined in conjunction with quantity of information. • Exposure Times. The time intervals associated with the display of an image and the transition between images may be important to safe driving and effective driver understanding of the display. The design of an EBB or tri-vision sign message will be more effective when the time constraints for the driving task and the required time for effective message transmission are considered together. A related factor is the length of the transition interval between messages or images. Transition time can be important during the rotation of elements on a tri-vision sign due to the visual effects of the rotation. Transition in an EBB can be almost instantaneous. The minimum exposure time for a display and maximum time for display transition have been provided by some states. Research Questions—Exposure Time: What factors determine the interval length for the safe display of a message? How can specific display times be determined? (For CMSs, the MUTCD 2000,(39)Section 2E-21 states that"The entire message cycle should be readable at least twice by drivers traveling at the posted speed,the off-peak 85`h- percentile speed,or the operating speed.") 23 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction rs Research Questions—Transition Time: What is a safe transition time between messages? During the transition,should the display be completely dark? Should a transition interval between motion displays be a different time than a transition interval for static displays? • Motion and Other Image Components. Some stimuli are particularly effective in attracting attention. It is not always clear which feature(s)of a complex stimulus is the most compelling. Motion is a highly likely candidate for an effective attention grabber. Motion can be provided in a billboard display in at least two ways. An EBB display provides motion when its lighted elements or pixels present an image in apparent movement across the display. An example is a high-resolution picture similar to a television image or video. Another example would be a text message sliding in from the side,top,or bottom. A tri-vision sign provides mechanical motion when its triangular elements rotate to present an alternate image. In this case,the motion is provided during a transition between displays. The motion component of an EBB or tri-vision sign may be more of a distraction than message content or pictorial arrangement. This possibility exists because a motion requires time and if a driver wants to see the entire movement for some inherent interest,then the driver will focus more on the motion display and less on the driving task. Note that the MUTCD 2000,t39>Section 2E-21 states that,`Techniques of message display such as fading,exploding,dissolving,or moving messages shall not be used"for a CMS. Research Questions—Motion Effects: To what extent will motion in an EBB or tri-vision sign contribute to degraded driver performance? What are the relevant dimensions of motion(e.g.,presence vs.absence;low,medium or high speed;constant speed vs. ... variable speed;constant direction of moving item vs.change in direction)? How might motion interact with the content in a display to affect driver performance? Is the length of the interval during which motion occurs an important factor? Contexts to be considered for this research may include interchanges,intersections,curves,different vehicle speeds,and various TCDs including traffic signals. Research Questions—Other Image Components: How should the components of the image,or their combination,(e.g.,motion,color,message content,amount of information)be examined to determine which are most likely to be particularly distracting? Or is the distractibility of these comporents conditional to the specific situations? • Maintenance. Poor maintenance of an EBB or tri-vision sign can affect driving safety. If the letters and words become difficult to perceive due to scratched protective covers or because elements are not functioning due to wear,drivers interested in the expected message may devote too much attention to interpreting the characters. One phenomena requiring maintenance that may be unique to programmed light emitting elements is the condition in which some of the lighted pixels in a display fail to illuminate,thereby removing part of the word. In the same display,other pixels that should be off are lighted instead. In some cases,the display presents a sort of abstract design that may be engaging for its own sake. Depending on the particular instance,the message becomes difficult if not impossible to read,thus lengthening the time that a driver attends to the display. 24 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction Research Questions-Maintenance: Define the features of a sign that,if not maintained properly,contribute to driver safety issues. Develop criteria for achieving a minimal level of sign maintenance including a schedule and process for monitoring and repairing the sign. 4.3 Research Findings in Legibility This section focuses on Research Findings that appear relevant to the use of text and graphical information on EBBs. These findings resulted from research on CMS displays that are used to transmit roadway information to drivers. The degree to which these findings are relevant may depend on the visual similarity between the EBB and the CMS. The CMS has a similar appearance to the simpler version of the EBB that was described in Section 2.1. Recall that the simpler version was characterized as employing a small character matrix for light emitted letters that are located on a dark background panel. It typically presents a limited number of words. The resemblance between CMS and EEB is likely to become less,however,with an opportunity for employing motion,a variety of colors,and higher resolution matrices. Such differences emphasize the need for research into EBB legibility. The present Research Findings are provided here as a starting point for that research. Illegible letters,words and images promote longer reading times. This can result in a longer time for driver attention to be diverted away from the driving task. Because EBB letters are presented in a different medium than those in the more familiar mad guide sign,they require special attention. The letters and numerals on a CMS or EBB are often formed from a group of lighted pixels or elements that are arranged in a rectangular matrix. The font or design of the letter is constrained by the number and arrangement of elements. The resulting font is different than the familiar fonts seen on paper and painted surfaces in several respects. First.the latter family of fonts can take on a large variety of styles that take advantage of the flexibility of the brush or the dexterity of the type designer. Many of the simpler EBB displays,on the other hand,currently use a basic font matrix composed of few elements(e.g.,4x6,5x7). This small number of elements severely limits the variety of font styles available and results in a relatively crude font style. Second,note that the discrete elements in the small matrix present a discontinuous letter`stroke"that is not present in the traditional medium,that is,the eye can perceive a separation between the light elements if the sign is not too distant. Third,the EBB matrix is represented by elements that emit light compared to the black print that is read under light. Fourth,the EBB matrix is viewed in both night and day conditions whereas the traditional printed page is viewed and read under only lighted conditions. Due to factors such as these,it is important to have research that directly addresses the legibility needs of the lighted pixel element display. A recent summary of legibility data is available for CMSs on the roadway and was compiled by Garvey and Mace(t5) This information was compiled from a field survey of in-use CMSs, laboratory experiments and static field studies,and a partially controlled dynamic field study. From these results,the authors developed recommendations for CMSs. Information selected from these recommendations is presented in this section as research findings that may be useful for EBB design. Note,however,that this information was developed for CMSs and may not be directly transferable to an EBB due to differences in how they are used. EBB signs may have different requirements than the CMS and this may lead to different findings when researched. 25 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction Thus,information on CMS legibility should be considered only as approximate reference data for EBB design. This section addresses only the legibility of letters and numerals that are composed of matrix elements for the simpler EBB. The legibility of pictures and other non-text graphics is not addressed. Legibility features that are addressed below include luminance,contrast,matrix size, letter size and proportion,and letter and letter group spacing. • Luminance. In the determination of minimum luminance values for CMS signs,driver age and sun position relative to the CMS are important factors. Research Finding—Minimum Luminance: Recommended minimum luminance values (cd/m2)for CMS visibilityt provided by Garvey and Mace(l5)are shown below: Table 2. Recommended Minimum Luminance Values(cd/m2)for CMS Visibility. Sun Behind Sun}OnSign . Sun Overhead Overcast/Rain 'r Nighttime Young Driver 1000 1000 850 350 30 (16-40) Older Driver 10002 10002 1000 600 30 (65*) Source Garvey and Mace 051 856 percentile driver accommodated at 198 m(650 ft). 2 Will accommodate less than 50 percent of drivers at 198 m(650 ft)at any luminance level with extreme sun angles. Luminance levels for night were recommended to be between 30 and 150 cd/m2. Research Question—Luminance In Inclement Weather: An important consideration for night viewing of an EBB is whether or not heavy moisture conditions such as fog,snow, or rain are present. These conditions may have a diffusing effect on luminance such that a sign with normal luminance may have altered contrast in fog conditions. It would be useful to define maximum luminance in fog conditions and various glare thresholds for young and older drivers. • Contrast and Contrast Orientation. Clear discrimination of letters from their background is a basic requirement for seeing the letter and reading the text. Research Finding—Contrast Luminance: A ratio of an effective range of contrast luminance for CMS letters against their background is between 5 and 50(15). Five represents a relatively low contrast between letter and background. Fifty indicates a high contrast. Research Finding—Contrast Orientation: Light text letters on a darker background are preferred. A black background or colored background is acceptable115) • Matrix Size. The design of individual letters and numerals for the simpler EBB is based on a matrix of rows and columns in which each matrix element contains one"pixel." Each pixel can be selected to emit light or not emit light. The number of rows and 26 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction columns in a matrix is established to support the design of a character(letter or numeral). The size(number of rows and columns)of the character matrix is often the same for the design of all letters in the alphabet unless a continuous line matrix or full matrix is available. A given letter or numeral is defined by which pixels in the matrix are illuminated. In the 5 x 7 font discussed by Garvey and Mace,(I 5)an"I"is defined with 7 vertical pixels and an"M"is defined with a combination of 18 vertical and diagonal pixels. One issue for displays with larger pixels is to select a matrix with sufficient rows and columns to provide a legible character. If there are too few rows and/or columns,the design of the character font will result in a character that is difficult to recognize and read. If the size becomes overly large,space could be wasted for no noticeable increase in legibility. Maintenance may also increase due to an increasing number of lighted pixels. Research Finding—Matrix Definition: A 5 x 7 matrix that used a single stroke font was found to be one of the most effective matrix sizes for characters used on a CMS.(15) The researchers recommended against using a double stroke font. One example of a double stroke font is defined by using two columns of pixels to form a vertical element in a letter such as"F"or"H." The researchers report that double fonts yield legibility distances about 25 percent shorter than regular fonts. Research Question—Matrix Definition: As indicated by the researchers,various legibility factors are difficult to examine apart from each other. While the single stroke 5 x 7 matrix appears to be a generally robust minimum matrix size,it would be useful to replicate this finding for the simpler EBB context when analyzing other legibility factors. • Letter Size and Proportion. The overall proportion of a letter and its components,as well as its height is an important determinant of the distance at which a letter can be recognized. The selection of these dimensions and proportions should consider a number of factors including posted speed and driver age. Research Finding-Letter Height: Letter heights have been researched. For instance,a letter height of 457 min(18 in)was recommended for a CMS on roadways with an 89- km/h(55-mi/h)speed limit. This value is intended to accommodate drivers over 60 years ofage1f5) Research Finding-Letter Width-to-Height Ratio: Width-to-height ratio should be at least 0.7 for a CMS. Legibility distance increases as much as 10 to 15 percent as the width-to-height ratio is increased from 0.7 to 1.0. Note,however,that this results in a corresponding increase in the width of a letter on the CMS(I5) Research Finding-Stroke-Width-to-Height Ratio: A stroke-width-to-height ratio of no more than 0.13 is recommended for the CMS letter. Factors that enter this ratio are driver age,time of day,luminous intensity of the pixel element and amount of moisture in the air. For example at night,halation or irradiation can occur with light emitting elements at night that results in blurring of elements and letters. The distance at which a letter is legible will decrease by as much as 10 percent as stroke width ratio approaches 0.295) Research Question—Letter Height:The distance at which characters should be legible for roadway information functions may differ from the commercial requirements of the 27 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction simpler EBB. The EBB requirements for letter height and proportion should be defined and examined with other relevant factors that determine letter height in an EBB context. • Spacing Between Letters and Letter Groups. The degree of separation between letters influences their legibility. If they are too close,the letters appear to run together and require longer recognition time. This is particularly true at night for letters composed of light emitting elements. Because of the high contrast,luminous letters of the CMS tend to blur together more readily than the letters on standard signs. As a result,the separation between light emitted letters should be greater. Research Finding—Inter-Letter Spacing: For CMS signs that do not allow proportional spacing between letters,research indicates an inter-letter spacing of one-half the letter height tt 5) Research Finding-Inter-Word Spacing: For CMS signs that have an inter-letter spacing of one-half the letter height or have proportional spacing,research indicates an inter-word spacing of the height of the letter. For inter-letter spacing 3/7 the letter height or less, inter-word spacing can be equal to 5/7 the letter height.(t5) Research Finding—Inter-Line Spacing: An inter-line spacing of 70 percent of letter height is suggested for CMS signs with more than two lines of text. Twenty percent of letter height should be adequate for the separation between two lines of text. The 70 percent separation is important for providing legibility for the middle line when there are three lines of text('5) Research Question—Spacing: Commercial signs may employ different features than .w. used in the research referred to in this section. For instance,if a higher resolution matrix were used to present a commercial logo symbol or lower case letters,then the requirement(s)for letter separation may change. Such features may benefit from further research. 4.4 Driver Characteristics Research on distraction effects of EBBs should include the variables of driving skill and vulnerability to distraction. A primary driver characteristic that can be studied in this regard is driver age,especially since driver-related cognitive and physiological variables including reaction time,visual acuity,and attention-sharing capacity correlate with age. Using young and older drivers as a"design"driver may yield lower and/or upper limits of parameters in EBB and tri-vision sign variables. For example,since older drivers have greater sensitivity to glare than do younger drivers,including older drivers in research on sign glare is important when determining limits to sign luminance. • Young Drivers. The literature review conducted in Task 2 showed that young drivers are slower to detect traffic hazards,especially if the hazard is distant or emerging,and that young driver"situation awareness"of the roadway is less integrated and less sensitive to context. Of particular importance to the present report are indications that young drivers may have difficulty handling distracting events that compete for attention, whether the source is in-vehicle or external to the vehicle. Research Question—Young Drivers: Research should determine whether young drivers are more likely to demonstrate degraded driving performance in the presence of EBBs i.n, 28 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distractio,t and tri-vision signs and if so,to what extent. This factor could be present in most,if not all,of the studies described above. • Older Drivers. Cognitive and visual deficits increase the difficulty of the driving task for older individuals. For example,the speed of visual processing and the capacity to allocate attention in divided attention tasks decline with age. Yet,each of these attributes underlies driving performance. Research on the older driver should focus on their driving performance in comparison to other age groups when they are exposed to EBBs and tri- vision signs in roadway configurations of higher driving task difficulty. Research Question—Older Drivers: Research should determine whether older drivers are more likely to demonstrate degraded driving performance in the presence of EBBs and tri-vision signs and if so,to what extent. This factor could be present in most,if not all,of the studies described above. 4.5 Other Potential Driver Distractions In the literature review,research was presented on other types of stimuli that may distract a driver. These are the cellular telephone and the in-vehicle information display. • Although research in cellular telephone and in-vehicle information displays does not currently appear to have direct application to EBBs or tri-vision signs,these analyses are ongoing and may still provide insights into the nature of driver distraction,the definition of distraction thresholds and approaches to minimizing distraction for safe driving. Research Question—Monitoring of Other Driver Distraction Research: Continue to follow the results of research on driver distraction,particularly in the area of cellular telephones and in-vehicle information displays to determine what may be learned,either in general principles or specific information,that is applicable to addressing potential distractibility from EBBs and/or tri-vision signs. Will the peripheral distraction task be a useful tool in assessing the distractibility of stimuli external to the vehicle? What modifications need to be made to make it applicable for both research and perhaps,even, evaluation of proposed billboards? 4.6 Future Research A wide range of research questions for EBB and tri-vision signs has been addressed above. The general approach to these issues has been to establish under which conditions,if any,EBBs and tri-vision signs are most likely to affect driving safety. The area for which the most potentially applicable research is currently available is legibility. Other areas such as length of exposure time have received attention through state regulation. Some research areas such as whether motion in a display has any potential safety effect on driving seem to have received practically no attention. Since there are several potential research areas,approaches to efficiency in the analyses are useful. When planning future research on EBB and tri-vision sign safety questions, criteria may be developed that prioritize the questions. Such criteria might include a determination of which questions are the most urgent,the availability of existing field data for analysis,and the possibility of performing laboratory research. A second approach examines the possibility of combining research questions in one study. Thus,after prioritization,it could be useful to determine which issues should be investigated independently versus in an integrated manner. 29 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction 4.7 Research Methods This section briefly describes several research methods that may be applicable for the candidate research topics. • Documentation Analysis. Two variations of this method are described. In the Before and After method,data(e.g.,crashes)from a site without an EBB or tri-vision sign are compared to the data from the site after sign installation. If the latter number of crashes was substantially greater than the former,and there are no other significant changes to the site(i.e.,change in volume,average speed,new construction,etc.)during the comparison times,then one can argue that the sign was associated with increased crashes. A variation of this approach compares the site of interest to a control site during the same period. This method compares data from an EBB or tr-vision sign site to data at a comparable,control site without a sign. • Field Study. Field studies normally have observers collect data on driver and vehicle behavior at the site(s)instead of performing an analysis of documentation. If there were a substantial difference in quantity of behaviors,there would again be reason to argue that the EBB was associated with changed driver behavior. When this type of study is compared to the study of documentation,this study usually has more controlled conditions of observation as well as the advantage of examining more behaviors(e.g., swerving,braking)than just crashes. The analysis of documentation,however,is more likely to provide a greater number of crashes since the data collection period is likely to be longer. • Test Track. Another method shares some of the advantages of a field as well as a ... laboratory study. A simulation of infrastructure elements such as pavement and signs is avoided. The dynamics of the vehicle is not a problem. In addition experimenter can control instructions to the driver,provide signs and objects of any design,repeat trials, and control presentation of stimuli. The use of a test vehicle in this situation could avoid crashes with other cars while allowing observation and documentation of lane keeping, speed,and other behaviors. • Simulation. A laboratory study allows the researcher to examine specific conditions by simulating scenarios with a combination of hardware and software. The fidelity of the simulation can vary depending on the kind of research question being asked. The fidelity will also depend on the type of apparatus available to study the research question. Lane deviation,change in speed,and crashes can be measured in the laboratory. An advantage of the laboratory is the capability to provide a realistic context for the study that does not expose the participant to actual danger. .w. 30 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction 5 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY The following annotated bibliography summarizes three research papers on the possible distraction effects of systems that are located inside the vehicle. The references cited and summarized herein represent a sample of the extensive research literature on possible driver distraction from in-vehicle systems. This section briefly describes several studies that were evaluated in the present research effort,but were not included in the literature review itself. 1. Gellatly,A.W.,and Kleiss,J.A.(2000)."Visual Attention Demand Evaluation of Conventional and Multifunction In-vehicle Information Systems."In:Proceedings of the lEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress.Joint International Ergonomics Association 14`h Triennial Congress and Human Factors and Ergonomics Society'44`h Annual Meeting July 29,2000-August 4,2000. This paper presents the results of a study of driver responses to executing conventional in-vehicle tasks and to operating a novel re-configurable,multifunction information system inside the vehicle. Six older and six younger drivers operated an instrumented test vehicle along a two-lane divided highway. Visual scanning behavior and driving task performance were measured while the research participants executed conventional tasks(e.g.,climate control,audio control,and cellular telephone use)and advanced/future tasks(e.g.,e-mail,navigation,audio,voice and video communications). The results showed that drivers completed all the tasks by means of a series of 1-1.5 sec glances to the in-vehicle display/control systems. Mean glance frequency increased linearly with mean task completion time,but mean glance duration remained constant over the range of mean task times observed. Mean task completion times were about twice as long for the re-configurable,multifunction information system as for the conventional in-vehicle devices. Certain driving task variables were correlated with mean task completion time. Both speed variability and lane variability(peak lateral acceleration)increased linearly as a function of mean task completion time. Although variability within the driving lane increased with task time,lane departure did not. Thus the research participants tended to stay in the lane,but exhibited more aggressive lateral position adjustments as the in-vehicle tasks became more complex and took longer. Overall,the data revealed a decrement in driving performance as the in-vehicle tasks took more time to complete. Therefore one design goal for any in-vehicle display/control device should be to minimize overall task completion time. 2. Rockwell,T.H.(1988)."Spare Visual Capacity in Driving—Revisited."In:A.G.Gale, M.H.Freeman,C.M.Hasleman,P Smith and S.P.Taylor(Eds.),Vision in Vehicles II. North Holland:Elsevier Science Publishers. This paper summarizes a series of studies on in-vehicle visual sampling. The data were collected from 106 research participants in over 200 highway trips ranging in duration from 45 minutes to 1 hour. The studies measured off-road glances made by the drivers while completing a variety of in-vehicle tasks. Over 6,000 off-road glances were recorded. The in-vehicle tasks consisted of checking the speedometer,adjusting all three mirrors(left,right and rear-view),adjusting the stereo system(volume and tuning controls)and using a touch-screen CRT display. While the mean number of glances varied considerably from 1 glance to 40 glances,depending on the task, the average glance durations were extremely consistent,ranging from 1.27 to 1.42 sec for stereos and mirrors. Older drivers tended to require 20 percent more glances to execute a given command than younger drivers. Traffic density and highway geometries had a substantial effect on average glance duration. While driving in dense traffic at high speeds on curves with short 31 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction headway distances,participants exhibited average glance durations that were 20 percent shorter for both stereo and mirror tasks. Thus glance durations are affected more by the requirements of the driving task than by the requirements of the in-vehicle task. As concerns the design of in- vehicle display/control devices,good design will be reflected more by a smaller number of glances than by shorter glances at the device. 3. Wierwille,W.G.(1993)."Visual and Manual Demands of In-car Controls and Displays." In:Smith and Solame(Eds.),Automotive Ergonomics.New York:Taylor and Francis. This chapter synthesizes a series of different studies by different researchers on the visual demands of in-vehicle tasks. Five types of tasks are defined,ranging from almost automatic manual only tasks,such as setting the directional signal lever,to complex visual-manual tasks, such as interacting with a navigational map display. A time-sharing model was developed to describe how drivers gather in-vehicle information. The model results in a driving strategy where short glances are made away from the driving task until the necessary in-vehicle information has been gathered. These in-vehicle glances tend to be between 1.0 and 1.6 sec. After each glance,the driver returns to the visual driving task. Compensatory visual sampling strategies have been demonstrated in studies where an apparatus periodically blocked the driver's forward view of the road for brief periods. In addition,forward view of the road increases with increasing traffic,a more difficult roadway or strong crosswinds. As concerns the older driving population,for a given in-vehicle task,single glance times and the number of glances into the vehicle both increase with age. The transition time between the forward view and the in-vehicle view also increases with age. Several remedies are suggested to minimize the visual load of in- vehicle tasks. These include the use of heads-up displays,virtual image displays and displays located near the top of the vehicle instrument panel. Other remedies include the use of auditory displays and training on improved visual sampling techniques. Designers of in-vehicle displays and controls are urged to minimize the demands of in-vehicle tasks. Some suggestions include avoiding clutter and improving labels and legends. Two areas are identified where future research is needed:1)expansion and refinement of models of in-vehicle task performance and 2) better guidelines for in-vehicle task communications. 32 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS UNL .... I.}N L UNL L.. .� . Incandescent Light Sign • •044 •••• •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• •••• • Incandescent Light Sign LED Sign 33 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects.jElectronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction F i#t9Ik 41:0 1 - a4lu i ,Fh I Tri-vision Signs a x • } !!! Video Color LED 34 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction APPENDIX B: OUTDOOR ADVERTISING:STANDARD DEFINITION Most states define the term"sign"using the following standard definition. States will vary specific wording,but this definition reflects the concept most states use. "Sign"means any outdoor advertising sign,display,device,notice,figure,painting,drawing, message,placard,poster,billboard or other thing which is designed,intended or used to advertise or inform any part of the advertising or informative contents of which is visible from any place on the main-traveled way or any portion of an interstate highway or primary highway." Definition exceptions: Some states use the term"outdoor advertising device." California adds"light or other thing." Colorado adds"or other contrivance." Florida—sign includes"any combination of structure and message." Idaho adds"light device." Massachusetts adds"whether fixed or movable." As was noted in the literature review,few states define the term"electronic billboard." However,the definition above,with the catchall phrase"or other thing"appears broad enough to include electronic billboards in the standard definition of the term"sign." Statutory Prohibitions: The following list summarizes the statutory prohibitions identified during the review of state statutes and regulations. These prohibitions appear to apply to the standard"sign"as defined above,and are not directly targeted towards electronic billboards. • Moving Parts/Animation: Eleven states prohibit moving or animated parts in signs,unless the signs are a public service announcement. A few'states make an exception for movement related to the changing of a sign. • Red/Flashing Lights: Thirty-six states prohibit signs that include a red,flashing,intermittent, or moving light,unless it is a public service display. • Glare: Thirty-six states prohibit signs that are not sufficiently shielded to prevent beams or rays of light from causing a glare or vision impairment that affects driver vision. • Interfering with Traffic Control Devices: Fifteen states include language prohibiting the placement of signs that obscure or interfere with TCDs. Twenty-nine states include language that prohibits signs that are illuminated in such a way as to obscure or interfere with TCDs. • Timing Limit Twelve states include some type of timing limit for the viewing of signs. Of these,only eight apply to EBBs or other types of signs with changing messages. • Sign spacing: Twenty-nine states include spacing requirements for location of signs on interstate or primary highway systems. Twenty-one include similar limits on sign spacing along other state highways. Twenty-two include limits on the spacing of directional signs along interstate or primary highway systems. 35 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction .0mt • Language Usage: A number of states prohibit the use of wording that implies a traffic control or highway emergency(for example,use of the word"Stop"). Several states also prohibit the use of TCD signs or symbols(such as the eight-sided stop sign)in signs. Potential Issues: Based on this review of state statutes,the following are issues that embody the statutory and regulatory prohibitions adopted by states for conventional signs,and that may pertain to EBBs: • Red,flashing,intermittent or moving lights, • Glare, • Use of TCD symbols and words, • Illuminated or placement interfering with a TCD, • Spacing,and • Timing Limits. Of the potential issues,timing limits may be the one issue where additional or expanded research would have the most significant benefit. The results of the state statutory review are shown in Appendix C. 36 Research Review off'otential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction APPENDIX C: RESULTS OF STATE STATUTORY REVIEW , , Zj�✓� 5,•s '.c :SttfdiSfktiY�iil`y'sRcTiYeneei tbY'oadl 1d"fiNldelines"„ _. ,y -'- ,,, .., Prohibitions on ...with red, ...that are not ...that are ...that are so ...located on interstate ...other state ...directional signs ...timing limit Signs... flashing, sufficiently placed so as illuminated as to or primary highway highway says— may not be located intermittent,or shielded to to obscure or obscure or outside of zoning 300 ft limit within 200 ft of an moving lights, prevent beams or interfere with interfere with authority of interstate,or unless it is a rays of light from traffic traffic control incorporated cities intersection at grade public service causing a glare control devices within 500 ft of an along the interstate display or vision devices interchange or system or other impairment that intersection at grade freeway,or within affects driver or safety roadside rest 2000 ft of a rest or vision area scenic area nr parkland °A klYgfalai+-°ve.„ ;Yea°.''•-;; '°-ire$,_ :,d;;a .Yes. ,::-,. Yes.,,, - ,, '' Yes,°^ a,. Yes., s,13,1 ="' . .. Alaska M :1;" Yes:._ „Yes»vi 001A;0,,. "Yes -, Yes e.: .,F:`.'' Arkansas Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ia*,,,A1" tYes i tY*,� ' k Yes _ ;Yes k ,..Yes Yes e ;#see-inesgage r+0. =''W,,., ffc.- - a tplay`rl sea ,rr 4' .f ;r. I v, a 'i cfnessa0 longs Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NOTE prohibits signs which have a moveable advertising face permitting any change in sign content or sienna e -0,'.: ,..Yes'-',,-? ,7 vim ......3^_i- . Yes -.:`'•. Ycdi.. Yes Yes. a: .,:'; eV: '.. Florida Yes Yes 1500 ft on Interstate 1000 ft on federal and nma highway j„". ic.�t ..fi' w of I ,t, Si Yes Yes Yes Conditions'Message '5' s S ti* 2 "" 4 y, x* 1l trt,3;'r,4 ssik`ed[orate sgt i0 x r- ,�k Y+"�`i x�r Ot r ,�: M :.„r-� ;Changed ng3 see or 'h ti oR r r r - w, 500 111awm& i - FyI vt z r $ r$ ''s . '� Lt=4defa6lf4ee7dng,stg,f "' �: "+p t f .v v " - -w� GG `" ,, fVnebOn aeurs Ndb S k Lyk^ 5 r� f 4i a` ' {"- k� 4,+ .+ �r"�'�.dt F fay ,1` -, K , I's t 37 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction Hawaii Yes • Xes between displays Yes Exposure time is rt ronmleastaIn a pa main `. `l long enough at �#t s �, k y,.. a .pxy pubttn/aoemc areas a`,,;1ltRrt foY'stgn Ole Ys ti � 9 t� � �4A" Ljhssa r 1 Q 0 ft from ae �r `tabs bte and; T io�tegrotiange or ra;tproa 'aotpl>reb paibin„ fitt t .s�; F F +. r _a£.r,r s';�s�ss-xsar.�.. ?�.,a.., k..^ • �.,F:idn,t ,,, Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes o" 7 § i Yeu Yes s gn a a11sea mmtmbm df3{tlay ten ce for' <a* [ransties :aa: -sue`" Indiana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NOTE-.Prohibits animated or moving arts Kentucky Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Total message displayed within 10 Prohibits animation sec,with each and movement segment having a display time of 2 sec except for movement including change on and off of the sign time J it r *'k ^�+C , r - v s �x Signs must be readily a` ,K x "31 x "'w..t? ' ;-y a v#iewed fol'sttme,of massy'wr`1 dP'i 3 ;mom x y s1 a` r ,, a ritzy "5"seefr7`d("e w#.a a roadway at posted ::speed lumt 4 Yee',,- ..:Nis - -Yes,' Ycs . • ..,.. Massachusetts Not more than 3 rotating or alternate NOTE-.Prohibitions messages may be displayed on a sign appear to be adopted by reference incorporating federal regulations 38 ) Research Review of Potential Safety Effects_of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction L ,z, lI a �� . c� Yet Yes 'Yes Mississi i Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes350 ft .:n�,`1 �. ' .,:ar,. r z s�rgT; a F+?ac',': ;aid. ''& .x. r,' -"+a�,; q:. t w .. 3 r t a`< ,,�w.. '-'!MlWat ":'k,� i . .': ,;ksF--d; ..Y{ya,� s:,�:r`,'a}L-.'z: °4;"' �' 5 � '. -r`' .a= .:.YCS. .i3`;;.. .�,.�; ' ;.vi,., x:Yi '��{., h",r.. Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes R . .,. ..�.,y ... 5,ry,a. AY:.., ,. 'S;'s',r" .dl... "K. '`l.'.�gj. °,"l:",4i :a,. !i t .:1. <y.4 •'s. .a e3 .: „ ',•`4-a yy..;. :.F, 41.. ,...,0., wise{4•^?,a...' ,F � �el�''�y '3.,:.d �'J' o. .�!� �,°n. rA �:V.,,..4,., ,, ,,A«,rv`::` ^« ,u,`r3r'• yym '...�XV .r..�..5. d.�W„Rs. .X��N.,".a��.;.`E� [ ,"�' '�? 'i a :i 3 '', .v�. :: ,t. ;h =,>�.F :4,vi 3 .a6,',:F« ::l�.'...a �>. .�,. •sir n%�p '� �` g. ,a L � '� ��`.:dvf.��^,��"? 45' � � :�M >q�.F fr e,A' � �'��.� •'�' .^ >. �?H' � sY31 �_ ,.��;4, � nn�.,. t"",., .s, ',�:�, A"••�• �r �i�u 47;...H•dY?. �tg y,s,- �'`�' F 4WD{ .d'• 5¢ t TF' _« F n.�, " •s,'¢ ° 3 ,.4,• .n« c 1 n`�.9 .•t"t F d{,9 a r" aA 't u`u; ` .�' ' '�.,, tt : - ';'. p 'W,,; p x '°v':,,t,;;',1, i':•L�.' ,..?iy,t'ar: ri''`.„§, -arB+iG", ^^:.- .5 0� � '�F'�M-R � `i4' �xd '.49.'b,• .^i�y,,5ry, „�4 8 {• nA• '•�,' " iEv�pi:,`y:, ���., Swr �:. -4.• 4"�"• °?ra�. 23,. `�;�,`� ^'��� �.1: <.,fiF,f,`,:i`'>`' �� "s�;° tom' ,.^h. `��'•..., �; `F. 'n" "3' ��,,e,'b'o 1 >9. ,2, k 9`n, _',e',°"i4-'ly.;;e-.�. -3� t. . „ --, .,'^e. �sq..,7 ,Nut: d _ ',+-"':^fEt�`G� 2g' ¢, s''jr? K✓x,"d .�`,: ,a. . Yes 4.4 "tip 'd „ 0 a Yes z 1y da fiNebraska zi� as \ � Xl �. .4't. 4a y ._ A: , :, x t a�, . , � O .g,. , ' 4 c s •• t rau ff I. New Mexico Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NOTE:Prohibits animation or moving parts ,"'�ky"; v -.'" Aix. . �, S..{ x r s' 'f>ri , fir* .' s Y- 11 �;`" bS. . �' � G a Yas Itil ',.$ tiit - "{: s a,,: d" '1 � .x 4v"t' .,,, tf'nu '„r `r,,. Y ,• :: k r. ;. ''i -▪ a { ,:a '�A �, ys"�•ziy€f �iy���`'�•z � �'. ,,�' '� s n ....� :a titri� �,{�ii.` 5'� e . • 5 '�` 8 •,, ° \, _J' n 2 c=`a it i'� m:\eii z '' .,l ▪ ,1 «a.:'S-` New York Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NOTE: Prohibits animation or moving parts except for public service announcement. 4'Nriire �� _'' "m „ti , fl - "-.. `"�3' ,es . .._ «_ 39 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction North Dakota Yes Ycs Yes Yes Yes 4 �t � i 4, .# :' L a :. es:" is g �° xr e. b ^("" r t tk f .. t�t h�ixy 4 Oklahoma Yes Yes Y Yes Yes ' .=a r -Yes<' Penn�l a a Y �, Yes Y Y Yea ., Yes �pgS"G1ind `' #kr <r"f Yes t Yes 750 ft Yes 250 ft 3' IfS r y s E tt e fit "Pd�ts South Carolina Yes Yes 1'cs Yes 1'es �V iewing time 5 seC from roadside when traveling at speed limit T$Al e3he�, ? Yes. :- . YeSr,:e Yes Yes 1000:Et; Yes 500 ft Yes Texas NOTE No statutory literature included in tile i*ti Si to v c Ec.. s ka `" virq°Vtr a Y Y s Yes Y n too t n r ga- des .-IfsiBaml as✓. ti ' * Washington,DC Cheoge"tuaepf$sec:. A e Ir rc a "r s A I- fi. wdho}n v ngep a t „� ;. � �a s .approtai ,�' a, .. �-Gf.a4g,, ;x»;� Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (R ` . Yes ,=:c< °fj"x .,Yes *' 'Yes .. Yes ..0 t " j f f fdtb�' 75 ?de 79':` .28 • - .21'` 22 ' ,a , NOTE:Ten(10)states prohibit animation or moving parts except on public service announcements. 40 t Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction R EFERENCES 1. Craford,M,Holonyak,N.,and Kish,F.,Jr.(2001). "In Pursuit of the Ultimate Lamp." Scientific American,284,pp.62-67. 2. Arkansas Highway Department(1967). Regulations for Control of Outdoor Advertising Policy. Little Rock,Arkansas Highway Department. 3. Wachtel,J.and Netherton,R.(1980). Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage. Report No.FHWA-RD-80- 051. Washington,D.C:Federal Highway Administration. 4. Wisconsin Department of Transportation(1994). Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message Sign Study. Wisconsin,USA:Internal Report,Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 5. Curriden,M.(2000). "Juries That Take Action Beyond the Law Have Deep Roots." The Dallas Morning News. Obtained from the World Wide Web: http://www.dallasnews.com/juries/101414 jurytwo_25buss.htmI 6. Treat,J.R.,Tumbas,N.S.,McDonald,S.T.,Shinar,D.,Hume,R.D.,Mayer,R.E.,Stanisfer, R.L.,and Castellan,N.J.(1979). Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents. Washington,DC:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 7. Wang,J.,Knipling,R.and Goodman,M.(2000). "The Role of Driver Inattention in Crashes:New Statistics from the 1995 Crashworthiness Data System." Obtained from the August 2000 Driver Distraction Internet Forum sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on the World Wide Web. 8. Domheim,M.A.(2000). "Crew Distractions Emerge as New Safety Focus." Aviation Week and Space Technology, 153(3),pp.58-60. 9. Hughes,P.K.and Cole,B.L.(1986). "What Attracts Attention When Driving?" Ergonomics,29(3),pp.377-391. 10.Cole,G.L.and Hughes,P.K.(1984). "A Field Trial of Attention and Search Conspicuity." Human Factors,26(3),pp.299-313. 1 1.Theeuwes,J.(1996). "Visual Search at Intersections:An Eye-Movement Analysis." In: A.G.Gale,I.Brown,C.Haslegrave,and S.Taylor(Eds.),Vision in Vehicles: VI. New York: North Holland Press,Elsevier Science Publishers. 12.Akagi,Y.,Seo,T,and Motoda,Y.(1996). "Influence of Visual Environments on Visibility of Traffic Signs." Transportation Research Record,No. 1553,pp 52-58. Washington,DC: National Academy Press. 13.Luoma,J.(1988). "Drivers'Eye Fixations and Perceptions." In:A.G.Gale,M.H.Freeman, C.M.Hasleman,P.Smith,and S.P.Taylor,(Eds 14.Rahimi,M.,Briggs,R.and Thorn,D.(1990). "A Field Evaluation of Driver Eye and Head Movement Strategies toward Environmental Targets and Distractors." Applied Ergonomics, 21(4),pp.267-274. 15.Garvey,P.M.and Mace,D.J.(1996). Changeable Message Sign Visibility. Report No. FHWA-RD-94-077. Washington,D.C: Federal Highway Administration. 41 Research Review of Potential Safety Etrects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction 16.Kuhn,B.T,Garvey,P.and Pietrucha,K.M.(1997). "Model Guidelines for Visibility of On- Premise Advertisement Signs." Transportation Research Record,No.1605,Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press. 17.Kuhn,B.T.(1999). "The Impact of Illumination on Typical On-Premise Sign Visibility." ITE Journal,4,p.64. 18.Claus,R.J.,and Claus,K.E.(1971). Visual Environment:Sight,Sign and By-Law. New York:The MacMillan Company. 19.McNees,R.W.,and Messer,C.J.(1981). Evaluating Urban Freeway Guide Signing. Report No.FHWA/TX-81/5+220-3,Washington D.C: Federal Highway Administration. 20.Transportation Research Board(1990). Safety Research for a Changing Highway Environment.Publication No.ISBN 0-309-05056-1,SR 229. Washington,DC: Transportation Research Board,National Academy Press. 21.Barr,R.A.,and Eberhard,J.W.(1991). "Special Issue Preface." Human Factors,33(5),pp. 497-498. 22.Waller,P.F.(1991). "The Older Driver." Human Factors, 3(5),pp.499-505. 23.Cerrelli,E.(1989). Older Drivers,the Age Factor in Traffic Safety. Publication No.DOT- HS-807-402,Washington,DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 24.Maleck,T.L.and Hummer,J.E.(1986). "Driver Age and Highway Safety." Transportation Research Record,No.1059,Washington,DC:National Academy Press. Arw. 25.National Research Council(1988). Transportation in an Aging Society(Vols.]and 2). Washington,DC:Transportation Safety Board,National Academy Press. 26.Ball,K.,and Owsely,C.(1993). "The Useful Field of View Test: A New Technique for Evaluating Age-Related Declines in Visual Function." Journal of American Optometric Association,64(1),pp.71-79. 27.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(1993). Addressing the Safety Issues Related to Younger and Older Drivers: A Report to Congress. Washington,DC:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 28.Lerner,N.D.,Tomow,C.E.,Freedman,M.,Llaneras,R.E.,Rabinovich,B.A.,Steinberg, G.V. In press.Preliminary Investigations of Highway Design Countermeasures to Aid Drivers with Limited Experience:Literature Review and Crash Data Analysis. FH WA-RD- 99-XXX Washington,DC:Federal Highway Administration. 29.Decina,L.E.,Gish,K.W.,Staplin,L.and Kirchner,A.H.(1996). Feasibility of New Simulation Technology to Train Novice Drivers. Publication No.DTNH22-95-C-05104, Washington,DC:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 30.Mourant,R.R.,Rockwell,T.H.,and Rackoff,N.J.(1969). "Drivers'Eye Movements and Visual Workload." Highway Research Record,No.292.,Washington,DC:National Academy Press. 42 Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver.4 tiention and Distraction 31.Miltenburg,P.G.M.and Kuiken,M.J.(1991). "The Effect of Driving Experience on Visual Search Strategies." In:M.J.Kuiken and J.A.Groeger,(Eds.), Feedback Requirements and Performance Differences of Drivers. Haren,the Netherlands:Traffic Research Centre, University of Groningen. 32.Cain,A.,and Burris,M.(1999). Investigations of the Use of Mobile Phones While Driving. Florida,USA:Center for Urban Transportation Research,University of South Florida. 33.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(1997). Traffic Safety Facts 1996:Young Drivers.Washington,DC:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 34.Redelmeier,D.A.and Ticshirani,R.J.(1997). "Association between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions." The New England Journal of Medicine,336(7),453- 458. 35.Violanti,J.M.(1996). "Cellular Phones and Fatal Traffic Collisions." Accident Analysis and Prevention,30(4),pp.519-524. 36.McKnight,J.,and McKnight,A.S.(1991). The Effect of Cellular Phone Use Upon Driver Attention. Landover,MD:National Public Services Research Institute. 37.Wierwille,W.W.and Tijerina,L(1998). `Modeling the Relationship between Driver In- Vehicle Visual Demands and Accident Occurrence." In:A.G.Gale,I.Brown,C.Haslegrave and S.P. 38.Olsson,S.and Burns,P.C.(2000). `Measuring Driver Visual Distraction with a Peripheral Detection Task" Obtained from August 2000 The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Driver Distraction Internet Forum on the World Wide Web. 39.Federal Highway Administration(2000). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Washington,DC:Federal Highway Administration. 43 , . . / ... , . .. ._._..._.. . . . ..... , ._._-- • • . .• . .. 1-,5-. .°7 . . . . . . . - • . , : . . . • . ' •. .. - . '.- -y(Jo/In-S.0r, . . . . .. • .. • _ ..,... , .. : ti::COIJNT:';:,!....,:-•'-_:i,c.:-"•.' •-••.: ::-...i:-:.:,'.,.'::: : : . 2:: ;v:....•-• ..'..:...;::: •:.,. :::...-•-:: ::••.2...•.: •,::•..i•.- iVrIVWALM..!,-•ti.f.'-'•,.••,,t, .§1,-ogivoy--,'..:: ::,,..c.--..-,:-.,,.- ,„-. . . ..,::. : .:: :; ,.-..,.::i.,:.:.,: ........, .. .,.,,.- 4-44::,t/6tir.mzgA -44.: -.‘,-'::"-:?,';-::::-.":--:'..„',:::::'.:. ':%;':',?::::', .' ;..-• ; : ';': ;; :::::.:...,:,','$.• ?:-;::;;;;.;11:.'-:::-;i,:: :VAt1;!: -T1?..:--.:',:: 1.' ,'v.::::-..'...:'.:: '.. ::..;:,:-''1'*':';-..:.;"..,.,: ',;;'.:'":"5•;:':;-.- '....!-•..'...-„:'...:4-,:•::'„. .....'.,.... '...:''':',''- • ,':;',•:._. .',:-'.•,.....I, :'..., •; ":',•',,.5",..t.....:•,-'.."......',..,....:•:•"%....'::•-••: ',$::,/i '. ' i. k7r.14T14 . ' ..••'''.ii:Mt.spia•.:4 Cils .t..: :..‘.,-;-:-......;:-.r.-A:1,?: ,..ti....!...,:r..7...,,:' ''?:'''''...:-.:'..''''':'''' ''."-:•••••' .-'''''4)': ''' . 11 '.,':',-.•;.,,,.;....',`-• ,..s:!..:''..,..'::;•.:--'..'..?.:-::-.1;i!...-........':(1.•,-...,-..,:::::1'. .... -'-......'',.''.,.:....':.::;[.. . Y,''.''''''..,'. ,','''zi,:/'." ''.-..::-.:-.:. ....•••:‘'.:'...',.':,?..',-',.:',..‘-'',:',..i.....-..!,.;-'....,'. ......•:•.::-..;',:'.'.`..'.',:,:, ';',.,‘,..`::-..:',.'..,..;.2..'...,..',..-,... .'f.:..:..J:1-'!''.',...Yi'..','-'-t...,. .*.,.•:',,.,:.''..... *.,..,••'.','. r- ,.,,,,„,!„.,...., ..,,,,..,...,,,,„-..„,....,,,...:..,:,..... .,.. .....,,..:-...e.,. ':1,7!:1;:y-;:-:::'1.'::.-;',..;.-:- ,,,,.!'..,: .:":;'::,::;.'.-.,..:7 :-.....:.:...::,..;.:';-.;...,..-,':Z.C."..!'cS:.;--".,:.--1:-.c";'?::..;''•.'-'!"'`.'.'• :.-.. ".".,:-..,..-,"';" '•:-. ;:. F.;',,,'.:',.•':,. -•;%."!;',.'.:.::','...- -... •-•.,:',..,•':...,;,,'•,-,.,..1;•,,,L•,:::,(.T;,:'",,,),"-:".:.,3j.,;.-:•••'2!'.."."-.,•••••.:....1-',',?,:':,•-i:',',•?,:,•:,1,":•;.V;,,,1!„.••,•,;.':,;3.‘:-..3'.:-.'.`4'..;.',-.3:i!,:".'•.!;ZA.V.:'•••••':'?.....'r-,•••••••"-.1'-.•'••:''‘••: •',"‘Q''',3,--.1.V.:!,&'.:':i:,'.g;?.;'.,Y•,••••;',,'•-, '•,i,..•;"::".....'•if;'''',.:',f,..,••;• ..•:.•,;;:,):••'4',;,:-.,..•••",:‘,- ,•!•?;•.',:•..„,„:'''',i.'4,t?-!,•;•••,, ,';'•';':•:-,4"!?••, i.•.•,-...•'2'''';',....,..''.;,...; .7.'4;-:'''/.":.jj'::::,;7.'". '.•.'.-;:::. ::',...-;'''',A: ''-.;;:::1'...".::::.:':':?.::;';':::::1-0.T',.....::::.`.::.; ;;:::::i..-":!, '..;'[.c'.1.7':;;..;:.::,.,_";t:CHVN41:04-.';),';'...j:::::-;','-'j.I::, .';..,:;ii!'cl'...0.'g;.::',,[::.. '.,-:'•.-'-:':...,:.-!".::::::::'..- . .*:,-,::,:..4k.:C.';'''.:i:::::.'ii:l.'1."...'•;......::::: ..,...„..i:',';:-.;:,.,:fi,',..;;4.:::'.-0...'1%.,-A:::.:;,--;' ,-1-'-;'N',',':c:::;',. ..;,T. .•;;;.i?:?:.:...'...'. ....•,,,.::',..'.. .:4',-.-':":-....:4.'?',,,7.:1.',.4,:'...,:.:.::,.',...-.!::::'.'.....Y4:',....::::::::::. •.,.,.44:_..,,,,'..:t.-.,,,,-;.:.. ...,,:: ..:,.....::::,,,,,,l,::-....i,-,,,,..,-...;-..-:,...-.-..,.,,0...,-,,,i.--1 ,-.z-,,,',.,.;::,.......:,....,,,..,....-..,;;,::,..:-..,...,..1.:,,-,,-,..,,,,,,:,,.4f,-‘,.:1.....a,i-t.,..J.:'..:-,.:,.,..,- ...„-,. -2,.. '..''''.,'V,'i,...-:::,'SC':',zi4.',,Z-•,:.''',,,....:':.!i.l.':;.';`::.:"n:4.,,',4,....1:?-4:',.',':.:V.:.'-';;. i.::1 '''4* ii.,::-.f....t,";... ,'..-:;.`.,Y4,2-.'ic.:.'.....'-',.i,`-..4.4.)-:.!..?;:.i,,'-'..,,i':...:-.:;,: ':;:;...-:--.,;7:....',-.,.:3'„E,..::-.' .4-0'...:,:',i-z;_.f',4.-.t4::::;..::,:,,-.;-......,-;;;:i!.,,: :1,•::124R;1'.:1,t5,'Z...:.:,-.:1,?...1,.:,::,;',1'it..,'q Niit',A'!•;•;;:i!,'.g:if, ••;,;4..-i'',0,,i.;;:;:•;.;,.;•,',$k"."i',".",•!,V;;:g.{:.•::.••;•i-;'":-......:'L'.;";•-•;,.;C :1•.1 k.,/,,,,..•-!,; f111)1•3',•••,,.,."..,;,:•ti.:N7,:;',,.-45}:,•:,,-.11,1'.4,•••,::!•-'.-,'•,;;-•'''..7'.1',7::::::::!'-?"';''' '::,i3.<,1;',.'•,•3;1:.,4,•,,-;,,.:';..'1,f0i..,4:.k3,11,!...i.,_,'.,?..,.'?,.,.!•,.•-".3::...,-,.1:...";,,-,,..3!-,..,..-;;•,.,',1,:,,;;,:•,.',",1',:,. ...,,,,,../.,_1,3,.)...':!'i!.c,..:",,..i.'_,;:,,„...5:,:,..•'''.7idii. _.7.:41,41w;.i......;4,..;:far:,?,:.•,.-j,:,-i.;,;#._..;*,::;,..3.; .;•.7'..',`',.:'-•,.:,•.•••-.•..::•.'2.:':••• .,•,-,••q. 'P-il.,-',1•'3,:ii.,'",i'.....-:".•"'•;_;,''';';',,,3t,3,3',g ',••-2i.-1'.`"1.-'-',"•.'i';'•.`i. i• -.3..,-,'" •,;-:-"•,k,4,1);_.-.--Zi!... .`.:'....'--. -----. - - . - ., g . ,v,,,,..,,,,,:„..i.,,,,,,:,..,,,,,,,,..,,,::,,.:.,,„„„,„:„.„ ,„,,,,,.,.... _,,/,_,_..v.„,,,i. „..4._„..,...... ,„,.....2.,,....,...,...._...,,...,,,....,„,., .t.„ . .. , ..• ,_.,•,..... ,,,_,..,,,,,,,_„.4,,,,,,,_:•,„:,,,i,.„.c.,....._..... ..:.....:::,....„.,:,,..i.„..: _ ,,,,.._ __.:, ,:,..,„_,i.c._,..:,.., ,:itt,,,,....7''',-4','2''.7:.,..',"..:,(t1.4.:',.;.'),.fe,,Zip'.,;p!..;<;:,;.'',..j.:.,y.::.:'..'...,4.,1"..-::,..: ',',--,-;,.;...r..;.,..-:.:i'.:.4:-?•;--7,..'ge;:',..-',0''''2...::....;.::.,3:M',';:4Y., . ''''-;7,,ft'.'3.Z;?<:',1'..,‘_,,,'.'..s,,'.:S..--t,P)!Y.i.-.- '' 744??1`,.':,..'',;.-,::,:..;1;'::',i,,,,..,ry,:,,_,, t .......,/„.,..\,.,,,. W:),14-.. .'i''''i..4..:..:17.e.'!'2Y.-5.--Z?;6•;i: r• .-0-,A.-''.:'.;-.;,:.',:.,‘:'.';',:.'1,-fi'j't.W.Y,-17-:'n):1':'-...i::r:.i.:;..,,'4'.--;. :,‘•:'''''-'-';'''''':1:‘..::,N7.3-4"...'S.''''',' ''..'..i..:....''..:::.f,.i:',..6Vri./A'z'ir..iik...':`,',:145i- ,-.1,:. ' '..!b' )P661.,...,‘Z.:','''''' l''''',?:...''''''''';'•',':,,'-:..;'•; 7:T't;V;C,:i... ',...f.." .f.:: ',....;:::• ,.,1'-,fr.r. '::).:' 47.;P.:.,-1 , 1'..(:...i..ir.,'',..'7.;6':'.?..it...?..,tig.')'.'.',..-..•'.. ,,.:';','1?,...,;'.4!-,. ij.',':.;-,IT ..?-',:', Y.,: .::.: '.'4,!:',.i;,...;i:.:;.,,.7.:;.;.f.'.: 74'::f!:;';',LT2'...,:::!:':::::.....:7i.. '?"..00.;;',1'.qi'l-:.:': .T1::‘,';';:.St ..1.,;.1.."':;'1:5'.','`i:::'. ..i.;',Y,:',....;.,..';'' Qi:%-',,,_''',V?:.41,-:,j.k-:.':7-••••'...").....P'3:71.•••••:-;,•:?.'''.'",•::•i::-...!;;;,',.;',.•.:;;•...',''t•.-s.',•;'4,,,,??.:.,;••,:e.,:.71:•!•,_c 3-7.,,,f,-,'•,,;:;,,i..,•,..?,',: i.,,, ,,..`•:-,:',.,!,, ; ..-::•,,,•,...'..•;; '.',.'F.•.'.',.`,s'•-'W'!.',:4:i:.':'171'..1..•i•.."';',-:','.r.-E1-...::::`,.:1•:.!.''''...:fq..•!, l';...•,,,,:,,..:•:•••••':;•-•:'•' . )...i.1.?.`;S'!''',i'.7.K-.., •-•:-.•..'.-.V•••.:',..,..2,,•••..‘••.••:;,;•;'-'::-..•;,j.,i,::::::..',W.,,,,•:...; •"... ..::,;i.-•.,•,,.,;.,.,•.; '''"',TI.:1.•''-W"''''',":,.;:t4•••'e!-37-•'...,::.:,' 7.1'ti .:,•:',..;N";13.!.17• ••••-;•.'•:••'-''-•;'":-I,,‘..'•. .1,Z,''..::...',':',,,::',......,•,'.'..•3..?,.:-...:•,:);,::::::•• •••''-,, "••.....-:31i.'.•..4,•:.,.;..Q.?;,:m1;',.:::•:,:„.•,,':,.,i:,. .:,..,,,,,:::,,:, •,..0.;i2:3....:4,'-'4"f•••• ....''' ' ‘.;,•2;.Y.•=•'...::',•.C.''.;..- i•-••,•4••••'.',"--/••••.•••'•-•':;':';‘,•':•...i.-..`•;'...''.',;',t•-.;••• . '2;•';1••*-1 •:1•,,'.:;;'":....,,?':f•:,:-;';';',,,;4'',.:!-:',:'..r,i, i::::: '':,:'.I.':':-.:;';:;:'... :..1V; .•.i..",,-;.::." : - itiltii.''•".4''.••'-':':'.;'...:-:?i•-•,1.•;•-f'‘i..:::'.."' •.' ::. •-•- :•-•• ;, ...'' =•f••;;'•••"••;• .:.;•"::....•',!•-• .....,"::21,g-::ilkl:',':".:•iigINiff..4ili`V4P bnt•••• •-'"','•••'''''''''-'..'"'-''... •''''.,•'''''''-'''''"• '•' ' '••'';•:•''11• ::..1::::.:.'.•,-;.::•-•:•.-:•'•••,4• ,• !•:: '''..':•3:''''•'!:•••.':',.'"Z'Ci",'...:. •;••".•":•'-•;„•'..-'•!:•.:•-••., :',:,:-;•.•:.'....c!-, .:'''.:•••:•;•:-,..,•:!-•;.,•-•,-.3....:;3`::,"..-.:•.4:.' '.."‘,••,;.'F.,..7:-•,•'.!•-...'.ri':•.''.;' :• ,.••-• -.-'.',.:.--:',,• ":••••••,''''''';'.''A'-':•:•:••;-;',..,:•••,.••_,.,,,t'-'f...:'-'-,•;fisr...•-•;-:.,.1:;•-•:;:c-'...,'-."-••' fib'ittilAtfqt"W-;:',;,...,;::;'. .: ' '.• •-•"":...::',•-:'•-:. .•• . :•,, '''‘-` W '''-•'''':'••;,..,.7.•=,-...,•:.1•••- ,." . •,-.:',,'.'.' ', '.• ' - pi44.1 Oitd4ittlfik,0.,-..-:-'-' -• '• ' i-',. -; • . •,.1.: -...,. . .. Results: The crash rate is a statistic that accurately describes the safety and performance of a facility by considering both the traffic volumes of the study segment and the accident frequency.An increase in side-swipe or rear-end crashes could indicate that the sign had an effect on traffic moving through the two study segments. It is possible that many crashes occurred because motorists looked at the new sign off in the distance and,as a result, momentarily drifted into an adjacent lane. The study segment roadways are somewhat S-shaped(eastbound more than westbound). The results of the crash analysis are tabulated below. The analysis uses the following equations to indicate percentage increase or decrease: 1984 effect: (RuuiR1/4*.)/Rb4i,„*100 3-year after effect: (R,y Rb„fo,)/Rb „*100 The 1984 single year average percentage increac-or decrease illustrates the initial effects of the sign and the 3-year after percentage increase or decrease shows the long term effects of the sign. EASTBOUND SEGMENT No, w Total Analysis RATE %INCREASE/DECREASE 3 year prior average 3.12 MONISKVAVONNIVX, 1.984 single year average 4.46 +43% J ` 3 year after average" . .4.25 +36% Side-Swipe Analysis RATE %INCREASE/DECREASE 3 average yearprior 0.75 9 _ . 1984 single year average . 1.35 +80% 3 year after average 0.81 +8% Rear-End Analysis RATE %INCREASE/DECREASE 3 year prior average . 1.31 'aerr 1984 single year average 2.1 +60% 3 year after average 2.27 +21% 2 WESTBOUND SEGMENT Total Analysis RATE %INCREASE/DECREASE 3 year prior average 2.91 ,,4 . ` 1984 single year average 2.56 -12% 3 year after average 3.53 +21% Side-Swipe Analysis RATE %INCREASE/DECREASE 3 year prior average 0.52 ilaaffitaW 1984 single year average_ 1.16 +123% 3 year after average 0.7 +35% Rear-End Analysis RATE %INCREASE/DECREASE• I 3 year prior average 1.39 f..., a ` 1 1984 single year average 0.99 -29% 3 year after.average 1.87 +35% Conclusions: It is obvious that the variablemessage sign has had,an effect on traffic,most notably in the increase.of the_side-swipe crash rate. The eastbound segment was impacted dramatically in both the short and:long-term. The reason for this is that the sign is orientated such that it is more readable to eastbound traffic than westbound traffic. Comparing the annual study crash rates to the annual Wisconsin urban interstate crash rates illustrates the effect of the sign, especially in the eastbound direction.If the sign had no effect on traffic,most likely the segment crash rates would have followed a trend similar to the urban interstate,but at a higher overall rate. Crash rates may be lower in the westbound due to the merging area created by westbound I-94 traffic originating from northbound and southbound USH 41.Observation reveals that merging traffic'meters'or causes traffic to slow down as it enters the area. As a result, traffic in the majority of the westbound study segment tends to be less congested once it passes through the more constrained operational area to the east.The eastbound segment appears to be an area of more uniformly distributed congestion. The Milwaukee County Stadium variable message sign changes images on an average of 12"frames per minute.Signs operating at a faster display rate with similar horizontal and vertical grading in the area are possible to have an equal or greater impact on traffic. It may be beneficial to introduce traffic responsive variable message signs into the area. Signs could function at rates proportional to traffic flow and density in the viewing area. Money,time and lives could be saved. 3 • 1 Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message Sign Study Need for Study: The Department has been looking for a process to analyze the immediate and long-term effects of variable message signs advertising along roadways.The term advertising refers to signs that display non-traffic related information. With the introduction of highly sophisticated signs,which can distract motorists,the Department seeks statistics showing how less advanced signs have impacted traffic in the past. These statistics will be the basis for justification into further study.Regulating the use of complex messages,which may demand motorists' attention and as a result, decrease the level of service and increase the number of crashes in that area,could possibly be a recommendation. Facility Studied: The study area consists of I-94 eastbound and westbound adjacent to Milwaukee County Stadium namely: from just east of Hawley Road to just west of the Stadium Interchange(Figure 1). This range was determined through field analysis. The area consists of all places where the variable message sign can be viewed by a motorist and/or passengers at various traveling speeds ranging from 30 to 55 miles per hour. Time Period Studied: - • The Milwaukee County Stadium message sign began operation on April 13,1984.In order to obtain valid results, the time period studied was January 1,1981 to December 31,1987; three years prior to operation and three years after. Process of Investigation: • Annual crashes were inventoried and classified by type for the study area using spot maps maintained by the WISDOT Freeway Operations Unit. The crashes were then broken into percentage(%)by crash type.Average daily traffic(ADT)counts from the automatic traffic recorder (ATR)N 40.0002, located immediately west of Mitchell Boulevard,maintained by the WISDOT Planning Unit,were obtained and converted into average yearly traffic(AYT). Annual crash rates for each segment were calculated by type using the following equation: crash rate=accident frequency/(length of test segment*AI'T*10) units = #of crashes per million vehicle miles • Refer to Tables 1-4 for data collected and calculated. Figures 3 and 4 are illustrations representing the relationship between crash rates and years studied for each segment. • Figure 4 shows a graphical comparison of crash rates within the study area versus the state-wide urban interstate crash rate. • • TABLE , STADIUM VARIABLE:MESSAGE SIGN STUDY NUMBER OF CRASHES BY TYPE EASTBOUND SEGMENT Year REAR—END SIDE—SWIPE FIXED OBJECT OTHER TOTAL 1981 16 11 10 4 41 1982 16 5 5 5 31 1983 13 10 5 7 • 35 ii e .Uv £� k �-@ y �8 .$ qq4£ c 1984 : 25 16 • at 4 b 53 VIlitt.&M.Zis,. a k€xara:<�,+A,'IS Ta<.f,oASSINAUMP RIV RMIA,spy .V.5. :F. .. 1985 21 8 7 5 41 1986 30 13 4 8 55 1987 33 9 12 7 . 61 TOTAL*OF CRASHES BEFORE 1984 f s�� r ��`� lOT TOTAL#OF CRASHES AFTER 1984 ,a}�'^gg.,...`�frarx WESTBOUND SEGEMNT Year REAR—END SIDE—SWIPE FIXED OBJECT OTHER TOTAL 1981 13 7 11 3 34 1982 17_ 3 8 1 29 1983 g 18 8 7 4 37 .�'�.` {sg'L r rlaNC S'Y.�.'� 'ktmasm -''m, oesi ni b's 6u• - t:,: i 19841 121 141 41 1t 31 < ;,. ` OINE x t#` 010 M Stieganta;VO „ a,._ ,:3t E•.�na' 1985 18 9 9 • 9 45 1986 30 9 7 2 48 1987 22 . 8 6 3 39 TOTAL#OF CRASHES BEFORE 1984 = e sa.C.y 4OQq TOTAL#OF CRASHES AFTER 1984' „`'„E £3 ,,,2` • I. 5 TABLE 2 STADIUM VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN STUDY PERCENTAGE(%) OF CRASHES BY TYPE EASTBOUND SEGMENT Year REAR-END SIDE-SWIPE FIXED OBJECT OTHER 1981 39.0 26.8 24.4 9.8 1982 51.6 16.1 16.1 16.1 1983 37,1 28.6 14.3 20.0 1984 47.2 30.2 15.1 7.5 1985 51.2 19.5 17.1 12.2 1986 54.4 23.6 7.3 14.5 1987 54.1 14.8 19.7 11.5 WESTBOUND SEGMENT Year REAR-END SIDE-SWIPE FIXED OBJECT OTHER 1981 38:2 20.6 32.4 8.8 1982 58.6 10.3 27.6 3.4 1983 48.6 21.6 18.9 10.8 '�vM s r.'g`iTf t In l+ik 4 l p os a.4 4ri sus fo- N 1' 'x a,5.'���c.£��d.,,.�. a.. 'Sc„i.,«�..s „a...•aa..:�..s`3 t;.�,t- �€'.,., ��n e......,. ,3 1984 I 387I 4521 1291 3.2 . t i g IMAV ° MMIMA` M ga d Sete I ey 1 1985 40.0 - 20.0 . 20.0 1 20.0 1986 62.5 18.8 14.6 4,2 1987 56.4 20.5 15.4 7.7 TABLE 3 • STADIUM VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN STUDY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC(ADT)FROM ATR#40-0002 LOCATION:Immediately west of Mitchell Boulevard NOTE:ADT consists of 7 day average. • EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 1981 51,716 51,566 • 1982 51,494 51,776. . 1983 53,524 53,720 1984 54,293 . .55,326 1985 53,653 55,312 1986 55,943 57,984 1987 ' 58,410 •57,285 • . AVERAGE YEARLY TRAFF/C(AYT) EASTBOUND. • WESTBOUND . 1981 18,876,340 18,821,590 • 1982 18,795,310 18,898,240 • 1.983 19,536,260 19,607,800.. 1984 19,816,945. 20,193,990 1985• • 19,583,345 . 20,188,880 1986 20,419,195 21,164.,160 1987 21,319,650 , 20,909,025 • • • •• • • • • 7, • • TABLE 4 STADIUM VARIABLEMESSAGE SIGN STUDY CRASH RATE Note:units are accidents/million vehicle miles EASTBOUND SEGMENT " Year REAR-END SIDE-SWIPE FIXED OBJECT OTHER TOTAL 1981 1.41 0.97 0.88 0.35 3.62. 1982 1.42 0.44 0.44 0.44 '2.75 1983 1.11 0.85 0.43 0.60 2.99 fcs S ;�ii!`rs igni 03 '{#nt'afteaa�. R S,M M `z r 4IMe,:$e£ y,.,.aa.,:;:;IR. _,zM,a.:. <.ws„<; 19841 2.10 1.35 0.671 0.34 4.46 c:r,'.^# I'•'rR1ke� $£;'!i MSAMM j! 6a s,e+. a"r <? E,.,)P rkFan.�.��:;xt +, �< e°r, is.o 0160",.<a €M.4M:, 1985 1.79 0.68 0.60 0.43 3.49 1986 2.45 1.06 0.33 0.65 • 4.49 1987 2.58 0.70 -0.94 0.55 4.77 PRE-1994 AVERAGE CRASH RATE AV8 2 POST-1984 AVERAGE CRASH RATE °v k,s ,. .. 2g WESTBOUND SEGMENT Year REAR-END SIDE-SWIPE FIXED OBJECT OTHER TOTAL.- 1981 1.15 0.62 0.27 0.27 3.01 1982 . 1.50 0.26 0:09 0.09 2:56 1983 1.53 y 0.68 • 0.34 0.34 3.15 �����? ul L�£ a5 £��'! y�.t.<�.��1p ka xi §' . 2, 3^'.ro 3 g7niatf mot k mw 1984 0.99 t 1.161 0.08 0.081 2.56 S < VOMAWASMANIA MM.`. . .,a;t+. 3s,3'gate KF.;.s s S .,I:zh Yk<..o,le 1985 1.49 0.74 I 0.74 0.74 3.71 1986 2.36 0.71 0.16 0.16 3.78 • 1987 1.75 0.64 •0.24 0.24 3.11 • PRE-1994 AVERAGE CRASH RATE 3�,�;i's '°t . POST-1984 AVERAGE CRASH RATE.ki.. k. r,......txz FIGURE STADIUM VARIABLE . MLS.SAGE-SIGN. STUDY CRASH RATE. BY TYPE(EASTBOUND SEGMENT) . Note: the unit of crash rate is # of.crashes per million vehicle miles. ..............._.......................................................... ..:.:.:..:.:.::..:..._: : ::........... ...........:..::.;..:.:.:.:.;.:.:............... "-REAR-END . . . - . . ...... ..... .:.. - 3 .,....................... .. ...... -......................,:.: .:.:..:....:.:.....::.:.:.:. ..:.........................:....:.....:....:....:;.,....... -I-SIDE-SWIPE::............................................... ............................................... .::::::::.::::::::.::::::.::::::.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :::::::::::::-: ..:-:....................................... FIXED OBJECT U ...............................::::::.:::::::::::::::-...........::::::�::::::::�::::::::::_.................. .............. ................................................ OTHER . 19.81 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 - 1.987 YEAR .,s :9 ' . FIGURES STADIUM VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN STUDY CRASH RATE BY TYPE(WESTBOUND SEGMENT) Note: the unit of crash rate is # of crashes per million vehicle miles. • - 4 -,,,,...,E,,,z!:::.!!!.............;,,.;::::................................,..,::„.1:.j.:T...,,!:1:5,1,,,,..,:,,11..1.i.i.i'l:,:,,:l'i'i'l,,,;;,!:;;!1!,,,,,,,1...:".i•Fi':::11.:,....,....1,,i'..iil,i!1:,,i111,,,,!:.............................................................................................................................................................................................................i.,.,'.....1!1:;,...i,:iil;...... 3 ............................. . = - . ,::.: ...:'..: �REAR-END ;:::::::::::: :: ::::: ::::.::::�: :-::::;:::::::::_:::::::: :;: ::,:;::::::::::::::;::::: :: : :::: ::,=:::.:::::::: ::.:.:::_::: :::::::: SIDE-SWIPE *FIXED OBJECT ........... ............. ...................._: ER rt ........: ...............::..::.:.:.::::::::.:..:..........:::::...... TOT L:: : :.._: : :: ::::: .::::::: : ::- : :::- .. ;.........::::. ::.:::: : ::::... :.....1981 1982 1984 1983 1985 . 1986 1987 YEAR • 14tl Nr,o?Ny®.Q,�� • • c iita Wisconsin Department of Transportation §�oe4,,..00's MEMORANDUM DATE: December 19,1994 TO: John Corbin,Freeway Operations Engineer • FROM: Todd Szymkowski,Freeway Operations • SUBJECT: Milwaukee County Stadium variable message sign study As requested,I have prepared a study showing the traffic impacts that the variable message sign located at County Stadium has created since installation.It started operation on the Brewer's opening game in 1984.Therefore,1984 has been designated the test year. For accurate results,Information pertaining to the study was collected three years prior and three years after the beginning of operation. In 1984,side-swipe crashes increased 123%in the westbound study segment of 1-94.In the three year after analysis,crashes increased 36%in the eastbound study segment.The • first signifies the immediate effects and the latter highlights the long-term effect of the • sign. • • If you have any questions or wish to meet or discuss,please contact John Corbin(414)- 227-2150 or me at(414)-227-2153. • • • • • • Copies: Bob Packee Ron Sonntag Ed Friede Steve•Young Dick Lange Stu Mathias Kristi Sebastian • Mark Morrison ' ' Jay Obenberger • • • Dr70 - . - • . . ' . • . . •I .' ....1,. .1 . . . . --__ •i _4_______126 ...________ _________2.::,. . ..::I.:',: , :..,.' H.;',A'4'.•'''"!'.4-)'.:' • ' ,I - i 5rga7/io (i, .119X-Rd0L--.: „....y, . tvq1 s. ;-.., .. , . -• ..• . ., . ,i. • J . „•_-, -,i*:.:.. -,:;•„.,....„.7., . AIOW ''''ell i• . 1 40, . I • !I 1 I • OC/qt, Kofv(71-r-r frffli,' . 7--p-p. • • "4,,I,I0'1 i •1:‘,1 , t•'•i ' '--•"••"• ---.•' - • ...,----- ,---- ..x.N.••••"!% I 4.. . ,., , . . . ' . igICO i I . .• . g-ii- 555- - (Z 17:._ . -•• '.,:.,:j-.---1 '+-"v , ,i• • • . ,. . :i i'--(3 I 4)-‘57•576---)2i7-. ;2: :I . . . .1 ; ....,,-i - . • ;• . --I--- . . . ------ti . — k 1981 1 It a iZ3s • • Z2pp ` 2134 G74 2i3� 71 314 I • �U 7479 `' - 47S x 1, • . • 3in?I di).- 2ZZo' qol Icy 5+1 11,1`1 - 1\a1 3 DV) L • 5p • • 783 067 Qol tiQq 2Zu �• a J c 47 1143 qg • • • • •• . i-- \ • .4.401 rig., ikkbb-mi....1 ! ! .‘i ' 31�5l, tub Lqt� Q 1p1° • b , ON r oltlr..,..� • • it! •wci �� o 'O' , • ►si.11% • 24�S ` yr .vrii24)16 �xis:�raiii Zii7 ile w 9 950 • 233eIy • Z,00 • • 1a 1 221a • 913 1 a• : . 1137 l $4� ,�I¢ i . �9 2 ga • 4K67 50 is {1,9 s�tP 34 gZ+ 23 S2 • I(00 §�� �+�1 goo vv. Zo95 4 Zo Z �1 qqa • ZZ1�� 1�9� 3/ 3 2309 • 11 41 t. 35 gag .17g1 • • Zf�, 1 - S 15$ 123 4. 74 z9S�Z I 25 _ 54 z� } o$ COUNTY STADIUM ��v Z qB 2° Z4E • y96 ti�a I��9ca Zt is INTERCHANGE ' i Q /AB7 1 4_ S 257-4- ) - • 42--) 9 7 S 5 ll/2 • r Fri • 23 ksrFa (6744 s S 2gbD . /732 Po. 23/r •(?F 23d7 267 - )• 23'ea• $'S t 379D. Fo 2S5Z gE 36-2 • FD 2777 Cd /77 . d Rips- • �! 2323 5 7 /5"8 126 a R• 6?r5" zs4 Fv /37g ?7 497' '11 OF,. • 5� 2�--�r�n R (o '! /zl ¢C9) ��o �w�f S S • i 2�9z g6 of Fp - /D 79'6- � b- - 0 7 4 i 821 FE- Im6uthyd U o fay Mr- `6` = 41 •• fro /7-/¢ 6.5 2oa g s5. ' 198r Lt/B ' 220 2.7r . Fa 200 0 • SS, 6;74 • For • Cabo . Po. 71 .F Sob • er 2B2g SS Iz6-i t5 . F /o5:.s •ec-- ZZ2ti .Fcr, 133 I• SS 677 1-0 lsal _ 2513� .s s 2i 4 g • SS �I 2ors • s$ • 3//3 • j_.` I/63. • • 3fr r 5/D7, 1489 Ft— /50f . 21-& let 2I1 E7 0 s 9 la= 2szs P� memo 13bZ D SI.D€Swi Pr -SS 7 Gg _ x ba .1 Fc /1 /'2/, RE - 0 : 3 =v: . = n 6-4/ g - 3 4 �_ ¢5/ .�S --- - ay _ __— • • 1982 I 1recce r rot y0B9 WIG, -y076 • qII ao9t • • 398 Ba zoBG 2Sillsz yoo652 . 4 S 161 v PG' • 14-78 r 638 171 125° 4}v 3oa Q, 4 049 Ira 6oS 03 Y8,S3. 3 . 2(0- 1z3 2058 ,1c. • a 0'3 tr 6 9+ a 2177 a 173. • c t x 746 o cb,, • jzr v 191r° e,, a r531r y�15 N )Bv0 92 a r ` )9 w 7j23 0 lki \ i ' 3 o y349 1� �I1t. 3(�u c 2319 �o _ a Jr AN. ��e�w•�...�' tiLgo9 57 i lam` lg8. 2.155 s �1Z b1 ' w I�r p+4 F 1 4je �`�v , ,1 �r . 507 �N rii�':iisi� �tlTlT • t 7,"""--1-"1-rit . to i • 056 BD 1091 ao77 1903 zk3 +34 z3r4 gib 710. 143, G 1437' 09 S rat �jc 1'4h •198'I 1330 1 III 1e23 y9 N 11 1413 46- 19Z6 • �947 1-03 1g53 • 7247 1951 arcs •03 1858 %As, 0S 1'F✓G • 2oe5 i96A4- • L 1 47 COUNTY STADIUM. INTERCHANGE ' 1 ) j • If ytom •r5 1Sf! FCO • E I 45- s • /436- Mss RE g 4- • •' i / 7-¢ . . -1,48y 6 7 . . ; • i . . I . 24,65- pF . • 1 E • • j� r cc� • z • 47 OE s S - ►;. 70 e F o _ - 46 • _ r I • • • /8z3. . o Ttfr'� /9 tie. OS5 - 2/ RE . i . -2.71v • • R 2287 RE - /0 7/ R C _.__ • , __. f2�3 P . • • II • 9PZ-- • - !i W gSS Rom. 2153 F •74q 6¢4- o I7(99 � • i Io z r—T • l • 2814 .F o _ 4.3 12,36Z �l 24 3) 4 = l • • .2/77 'FB v = . o . ,.�. i' /q7b TR 701-AL 2-9 792 : c� . i 423 II I ' - ss . . • � IZ/ pF_F-- • . g-82 4scs II . 3 4-9 17E • ./aiq { E 22s74E — - Z 404 E.—=-- 23 —ice . • No-M F °.s y 4M„, �y. -----v ahN-r �O��] , • N N N N Y�yJ e—'n N n \vo -Soi NNO ./ w a'tPMNS .. P�N P I c Mo-r�R, _ i =:� „,on,C P a �N 1/17 ,diAlilif4111.r ` ',1‘---`:-°— V '',t1"''''",, co co AVMNaVd ANO1S' %1101 l� dN C� • li .0.1 . b4)6 ti V my;N .43 ,-.--- sr'1--vg. 4 • 4 rn c,N�__f t%`f�_ Pi: ti • �_ Ili`I m .Oa SS33OV AtTV13W33 ,� P P N 'nMN r-m N}9 N ft N::N ,li N3mm �e rai � N�v A�N�M • I I � 1 983 — j 8 8 e CerB e54-1 .moo F C lz4Zsv9036 /29 393 F (37,n _R E 8qv 55 Co / 75 S '/9s �� i z zi o a zs� o • /09'' 0 247 /1o3 tb R� _ /3 1113 P� 55 = It to • 2216 S5 /44 o ' 7A R 7z4 cc /976 • 1e,030 890 RE l�69 R E 2702 � -- 79?b R� g • 43/ -•-• • -ye-5---/ Fc) _2073 71.7 • /732_ )721 /045- .( s /t7e,k /781 .0 S-57 eqi -. • •50-if • 3/6-i -F 0 ftE 2 O. • 2,67/ 4C-Z 15?.4. iR '3/ /37/ RE /eft? •.F'Q), .. • /724 s s = 4 B /5-3i -7 • • 14/6- cp ••-= 4- (337 5.5 1-c) rL4,7 tg.zçj . gyr• • X6s.5 • • 11 X- Ez) 1771 RE- I boi3 /29e (SS __if • • • mo5- . • ` 33& a399 - • 1984 3331 3331 ' 1 `34s8 Is24 ;13 1b51 !40`� 3153 142, 0 341 go( 8�� 2138 2229 • • rg Q a143 I 2b ° 1905.2(82 • 3931D •3 1153f,o 97 /b! 2• S ¢ 4�� a!,8 r�s4 +rva 0. 44 l0 7 9f8 cc 341 �2 111)8q d ! eb s4� 4 ��43 Io99 0 14�8 r ,� ililre% ° m rip‘ ""kamar f9L 4i , • I (.) r 1 glol so , ,...,, ¢ /ae.cn �� I � ,.., wii„,„,.. ..... AP C �. . . , lilt. rir , ., ..,„ �y 1009 _ in 009 • \ . is qj1 �fD 2�5q q I: 544. 1q7' 13 3� 99� 4'ZI J196 252? "0. 145" b24 • 9 41 13( 18'a� z5o4 zv1 \I\ ' g? 2533 3649 • �p0 "' "5� sz32 to z 3 4ti qn4 �3 u27 9SS 29 os 246g 3393 . 864" _z4''lg _I Idr^ 1853 1t772 35� 3bb4. gy >)ol 1yrl 0 q2 364 COUNTY STADIUM 403 IzBI Zyiq INTERCHANGE 1 • • EM F° d 1 I / 98 4 • Tb = 53. :•f / 62 & - �� • 233to fe. . 11 /5-73, SS .23 o II z.0 53 g . 9$7.; • Q 22z 3 F- 2 • • 93 n p 2242 S. 224i. 5S . 6t� SS :2 .553 3 R 1 . 4e) 4 . . . 1;) • 04- ss • z4,0, .• - ) . I ' . fo grade ' s a 14423 . o - .41- "Lo. • /78 5 S fo 932, F0 . 5e2I' R - /971 PEE- /Z 7/ . . • zs--2? - _23.1 5 ?137 C074 • � 326 Z � bit? Re • s (9• 9S 55-F . 75-o • 17 ► here . 55 • .2497. PC 1 s 4iz3? - 5 S ----- _ fb v • /j �J - / 7 �`fi' IVA /s 7 55 S` - I 2y8� E S 22 9 2 o 2/2 re� 2zSl� 6-0 S z/43 I g / 5 . 1a63 1977 55 - if1o7 55 79q ate_ t- 1 4- 147 C Fe) = (738 Fo z I /Atgl' 55 _ .v. oft, 470 1 ro = 31 zo7z5s I �2�Sq ,PE G6,71 1578 5S 97— 120- _ 107 SS 230 FO qg /19,t4 m S�hep _ to tin Po- '�^Vw NrO O °J -- t-.➢y.h — 1 -8 M C-T T crl--• l9 /. �__xr�_rn T rt..]to a(fi n <--?p S C1 il . r. I' T • C,�a -• _ ; D r i �� ---------------- 41 IL.. 1 �'a1 P d' `} q W ��-�Hv+O n <7 N N N F Z xI%' I{l6Y]I�l%I N,�. ��} �rfo�4 • •��- sn z z , aa72111111.11111110r , �eMtr o h-N3�v'd-MyNr�N . `� Ln Sir - 0_„, re_,.,, T o Fes~ co • 4+w�r <� of,,,,,,N?:o'1tlM�iitld "Jas. ��� . \ • 7"‘Dr( N.`9 F • m5 o-���9 98�r�i" �n r^- • $i^,.ma�oi-��— ' m rn . • �� • it. aN<� fs � Iii )e �$ ))�y 0 . . . . . �„ .. • . . .r, . i i C"---- �� ,ov k r 'cal SS30cV A81/13W3.3 T • o m �I rn . I5 ! rig g4l n 3gP7 /92 6/0 0 O loreb co _ vos� /35-4 73z , 5-s (441 t ' PZv- o , 176-2 I" r5 RE lei 7z- RE z8s¢ RE- F o 3/�� � 2g47- 5o -. 2/8/ 43v F'E 2931 RE `3 9 42- f-'O .% pJ5 5.5 r - 0l6 26s3 eb 55 l7Z0 RE f • 2gg 5- 1' E /4 49 Iz e� �S = 8 iikk i 2 132 F O 3 8/8 o 55 S .55 1-17,) rA1_.. 4i9 I _ -(23 a pz-f3t) 23 4% 0, i• • I GvB • 36--7- /3z4 E 2 7/06 312& S • • 3370 . 1651, © _ - • /282ff • . /Zoe ,Fo 2z,/ f 744 RE /53& 'Ms / ^ • 43/ CD'• . 2r37_ 46 55 267 :SS - 2 ¢5- ' (5 30a, lc), 2 • -Q 2653—•-RF S087 • • . 2z16- R E 7377 RE. . - _ • 192.E /439 930� o 73/ - • .(P74 F0 • 667. . • W078 S� 37B( F = /8 • 33Yf• s G _ . . q . . j 3376 �F6 0 -- . 16,1 A O . 0 • M . y� l7a3 T-cy AL_4 5 • r_ l _..co - (366- CD Y 1986 29�° t Z�1( t zas3 z51/ • 1S03 3`Y° 3Zo5 24 \ 306° 1344 VW 3093 53; y3b9 Z99(O 1663. 154L 34faS -1y, . 3 30 /00° 1154 394•• gl ' •q�l ¢ • .L �� <, „:...........„ a -ie��� . r ; .11 ,A • • 1 try/1/!f/1'>r— G °• aa x/'' Y . i4 1Zror31 • . z,690 30;��., 3533. qf9 (Z7o 45S zo65 35 i • ''g tz4S 13Z? 64 riot ' °86 Z°`,• o 6k� ,�dr4 •• COUNTY STADIUM 3¢IB 36!? ybo4 q3 zt*v 3 qm 3 14r¢ yoS3 4003 004 • INTEf9CNANGE t86; 2474 26<Q z°6.z 66' E ‹ g o • ss -s• (÷-; 0 •- 8 11 . / 9g6 ° ______ii ES tom 31,;1 r&--- j 1 - . ?gig 4 q4 g&� 11 • . .-l' .0 • 3 /8 li __.,.2 -0. je6- - - g.76-70, Pe- . •7073 S ST/ --•• I/ 5-5 . ta•75 S. . . r9q 7 _ 14-64 . . • • • 64' d - ' . • 1814, • lI 25& O . S5 : /8) a 2-2 e pjL ,22S"3 f-E • — 1 3-2G,r7 . . .o6 2. _S 5 • ii • (I' J ss • • 215"7 R R . 4023 .SS • . .-264 . R • . • 10 83. .S . • . )6-¢ Jo S . 1 - 24-4-Z D 236/-9 .ss • 1 • 2 47gr *0 8 •. 1 26e6 07 a . ; • 6 7Zr � . 3g b S 1-1 azr .� - • . _S417 - : • • .. . . . 2 6 1 EI g, 0 • - " 4 . 1?--. . H . .5 -P3 1735- 0 • • . : . 6•4'1 C.o • 171 :6 _ _ 2&A3___.. R _�____...,__ g°sk. 1 ____ _ — sc et) , o z U • / ' ;/ &' - 43 _ l'/z9 5S gg 5 Fo Sit& PE' 130 s4- Fo Ell/ 6-• 3y32 �C 247 0 3S RE lz�� . g74a !2 8-7 &S 35-3 D 138z 330/. 52c. ge 26 g • - 1 ,o • .73 .5z H ��F31 RR- /6 37 .45 52-10 gr. 2-4a7 z�7 z pe- (' -g /097 Il/p Ss 367-2. . fs RE 2.135' SS g it? g 139/ R6"-- -646s • laic S 5 2 S`l Z . Fo Zs yo l L7Z I / I • g �s • 4•x N m N N N a��f� Nsatd-- rnvm.sv-n� o�oms rOOFOm+ mv+�N ��ro f4a ('1 t^NNN Nsd..� .N�.. o N .i• '- _$ Nm /.. • -`=,`° F F 0-1:.,�• 9,,^ N�mhN0�orRlvd.m�' C — Th-<1-No-Jnmmt-r`''Kd liVA ` S� c^NN p _,441 ` Q /r . i1 ti ssrrloissv � w� zz a.� �o- . nN JBYM O .., � mn wFSr`^ N W . ,Oo_ r . . 1n N_ 5 'a' s'-na o C,m COii- r0• vmt m.•nn AVM)4dVd ) OlS r\111 . ,t\n,n t• `1'd 6 ron n9�� .e� 'ti'rmw—�''°ar�N n�N-..t= t^ . • 1111i\ .. yil • e n 9R+�r- S o ��� �?N N 0 m • v.N'�.'�°n �`I� mo.P.o9 .N w.N.1 V J :1 h O N t{�. •qa S5300V ,A221V13W30 • •�C p N • A 9.0 `�i ` • • mN 0 �! N� _ �� ppM ay- N0NN •`.�� N N d p,4 .i� / 957 1140 0 7777 gla �a • 17Af FD 28Z3 P" hS F6 /0 7 Fv • 3(0.33 S5 /301 Fb . . /5-7 Z 3 eqp, .F-6- zSa7 . . / 87 ge- • . 1/ (2f:& •25- z PLC •2612 FE) 3/83 0 . 2-787 -74 7 5 S 876 i 33 1°9? . 814 E ss = 9 /67g g = 7 r7� s s lie- g-E �� - • F • /624 01 i&frY •0 l& 2/SS i2 22/3 eE 24l¢ 22:2,4 �— • zi 2o4- . 37.7Z (5& �2�� 3 8(/ Re- /4-4 • 386 -i s s zip Fb . 45- •; z27 5S 837 0 /0 3 8 S S [47 1175- 3024, R.E- �... J20' s o52. r2-6 ---I f 29-53 t✓& r4- R6 • j • • qq / 9�7 �,6 g o c ! y Z' 38 (1E- j .- 2693.-7 O /47d • •. 713 //sg s Pc 37D Fy • /Z57 b /33o 1775— /24/ ' 3,fr ASS . /bow j' ab97 SS 40 qq 5 5 2-Z4 s s zo57 — -I //& • . E" 7 3 55 ll3 7 Fo ZloZ_ Fo �g6 • 271 EE = Z1- - i 5_5 ` Htos P - f� /Soh Fo. = SfZ , V = p . 4L7/ = 3 9 OP Fo. • 2.77 ger e6" _ ZbZ 3r53 �S -zg 5s 2_4•/2a- IZ� • - • Illuminating the Issues SCRUB Digital Signage and PUBLIC Philadelphia's Green Future VOICE ICE by Gregory Young PUBLIC SPACE In the world of outdoor advertising,successive technological and stylistic advancements have prompted cities and states to rethink their signage regulation and policy. There has been much controversy regarding the potential safety hazard posed by digital signage. Many studies show that such signage can lead to driver distraction and traffic delays (Wachtel,2009). This research,and the resultant outcry from activists and concerned citizens,has led some policymakers to regulate distracting,electronic signage displays. There has been relatively little research,however,regarding the environmental and energy-consumption issues raised by this new technology. The Basics of Digital Signage and Energy Consumption First,what exactly is digital signage? Digital signage packages consist of three key pieces:player,extender(s),and display. The player is essentially a computer,equipped with software to generate the displayed content. Players are typically mounted behind the screen,and must be kept cool(via internal or accessory fan)and must be easily accessible for repairs or rebooting. These player/fan arrangements typically consume between 200 and 300 Watts1 while running,slightly more than a home dishwasher. Depending on the relative location of the player to the screen,there may be a need for a video extender, essentially a cable which connects the player to the screen. This brings us to the most important component of any digital sign:the screen,or,in industry parlance,"the display." There are three main categories of digital display: LCD,plasma,and LED. Watt—a unit of power which measures the rate of energy conversion.It is defined as one joule per second. The kilowatt(kW)is equal to one thousand watts. For a sense of perspective,one kilowatt of power is approximately equal to 1.34 horsepower.A small electric heater with one heating element can use 1.0 kilowatt.If that heater is used for one hour,it will have used one kilowatt hour. LED is the name used for Light Emitting Diode (aka LED)boards,commonly used in small to medium sized on-premise electronic advertising2. They are the overwhelming preference for large off-premise;digital billboards;designed for long- distance impact,they are often up to 1200 sq.ft.in 2ji;f size(20'x60'). According to the U.S.Department of Energy,LEDs produce more light(in lumens per watt)than incandescent bulbs,and their efficiency is not affected by shape and size,unlike 'Mr��— '� traditional fluorescent light bulbs or tubes. - Proponents of digital signage tout the"greenness" of LEDs;lower wattage and greater luminance; than the more traditional fluorescent, State Rd.&Academy Rd.,Philadelphia incandescent,or halogen bulbs. Off-premise LED sign These claims overlook one key bit of common sense:whereas traditional,static signage is illuminated by two or three"inefficient"lamps at nighttime,digital signs are comprised of • .rte hundreds,if not thousands,of-green"LED bulbs, each using between 2-10 watts,lit twenty-four a hours a day. For instance,a 14'x48'LED c, � billboard can have between 900 and 10,000 diodes. Considering this simple fact,intrinsic to digital billboard design,it is no surprise that overall .• - ` - energy consumption of digital signage exceeds - r E-. that of static signage,and makes bulb-to-bulb 3051 Front St.,Philadelphia comparisons irrelevant in this context. Off-premise LED sign Additionally,with all digital display types,the players which control the changeable images and the fans required to cool them must be taken into account,as they too increase energy consumption. Adding auxiliary equipment,such as extenders,further increases the power demand. 2 On-premise or accessory signage is defined as a business establishment's on-site advertisements. r Off-premise or non-accessory billboards/signs are those which advertise a business or product not sold at the signs'location. Roadside billboards are a popular form of off-premise advertising. °Luminance is a measure of the perceived brightness of a light-emitting surface,such as a digital sign. Its unit of measure is candela per square meter(c/m),informally referred to as"nits." 2 Determining the exact power consumption for a digital billboard is difficult;usage is dependent upon many variables,including size,resolution(how close pixels arc spaced, aka diode density),how many LEDs are in each pixel,the color capabilities of the board (tri-color or full color),the image being displayed and time of day(daytime operation requires more power than nighttime operation,as the lit image must compete with the brightness of the sun). Despite these difficulties,we have compiled an objective chart of consumption rates. Our information was provided by a variety of sources,ranging from manufacturers,fellow researchers,advocacy groups,and independent meter readings. Approximate Annual Energy Usage for Billboards Static vs. LED 350,000 300,000 ----250,000 200,000 I I = 150,000 , , , 100,000 I I I 50,000 0 static slat static Average LED Barco Lighthou AGX 14'x 40 EraLED ThirkSig Oplec Billboard bulboard billboard Us Billboard LED se dgtlal LED Series n LED Displays (4) (L A. (Johns°home (L A. LVP205 14'x 49&board P20 LED Halide Reading n acoual Reading 6 (Johns°Billboard Lamps.) reacing) I billboard n actual calculat reading) ed LED units generate heat,and cannot function well in heat which reduces the unit's life expectancy. As a result of the tremendous amount of heat generated in LEDs,and the additional impact of hot weather on the signs, an air conditioning unit is incorporated to cool the components.The energy drawn from the grid is highest during the summer months when the heat from the sun coupled with the heat generated by the higher brightness of the LED unit requires increased demand on the air conditioning system installed for cooling the LED unit. This energy use corresponds directly with maximum peak demands from businesses and residences. Utility companies now provide a discount for homeowners if they can disconnect their air conditioners from the grid during the peak load demands.There is no discussion or plan that we are aware of to disconnect LED air conditioners or darken signs during periods of high demand. If traditional billboards continue to be replaced by LED signs,the growing draw of energy during peak hours could negate the efforts of Utility companies to reduce demand during peak times. 3 Rates of Energy Consumption Product t e Annual Usage, Annual YP kWh* cost** Unillumintated Static Sign 0 $0 Noventri"green"player 35 $4.80 Noventri PC based player 1,752 5240 Corn Digital 42"LCD Display 2,103 $288 Hewlett-Packard 47"LCD Display 2,737 $375 Salescaster Corp.76"x12"LED sign(8-color) 4,380 $600 Static Billboard(4)Halide Lamps-calculated 7,008 $960 LED Authority 36"x60"LED sign(full color) 8,760 $1,200 Average US home 11,040 $1,512 LED Billboard(L.A.Reading) 61,032 $8,361 Barco LED 73,584 $10,081 Lighthouse LVP2056 92,715 $12,792 AGX digital 14'x 48'billboard 117,866 $16,148 14'x 48'LED Billboard(Florida actual reading) 162,902 $22,318 EraLED Series P20 Billboard 249,690 $34,208 ThinkSign LED 248,993 $34,112 Optec Displays LED 323,773 $44,357 *Energy Usage(((24))((365))/1000 **Average costs per kWh=$.137(Metro Area) 4 In many applications---such as television/computer display,general lighting,and small electronics---LCD,plasma screen,and LED technological advancements have proven more energy efficient than their predecessors,but research indicates that out-of-home advertising is simply not an appropriate or responsible application for digital technology. Accessory Signage Energy Consumption, Static vs. Digital 9000 15000 7600 2. 6000 t 5000 a000 d 3000 C Q W E20M I— � C C loco CoU 0 Unillumintated Noventri"green" Noventrl PC based Corn Digital 42'LCD Hewlett.Packard 47' Salescaster Corp. LED Authority Static Sign player player Display LCD Display 76"c12"LED sign(& 36'o60'LED sign Sign Type color) (full color) 5 Sign Brightness Measuring Sign Brightness Apart from energy consumption,there are the important issues of light trespass and light pollution,which cause distraction,obscure stars in the night sky,and,like any other form of pollution,disrupt ecosystems and cause M\‘'‘gNCE adverse health effects for humans and wildlife alike.Light trespass'is measured in two ways: luminance or illuminance. Luminance (measured in nits6)quantifies surface brightness,or the amount of light an object j 4,lc. gives off.Illuminance(measured in footcandles7)quantifies that amount of light which falls onto an object. This sign(above)gives off light. Its Luminance is measured in nits. By either measure,digital signage can create significant problems. 'During daylight,an unlit static billboard will have a brightness which "fits in"with its surroundings;it will not cause fL a excessive distraction because of excessive �UM�NgNC,E luminance"(Carhart,2010,p.4). But,to capture drivers'attention.digital signs must be set to very high luminance levels,as they are essentially competing with the sun,which has a This sign(above)is being lit by a light source. luminance level of 6,500 nits. If this extreme Its Illuminance is measured in footcandles. brightness is not modulated to fit nighttime conditions,vve face issues including very high energy consumption during the day,light pollution in the evening,and potential driver distraction at all times. The OAAA(Outdoor Advertising Association of America)has guidelines to address brightness limits,but they are not mandated. 5 Light trespass occurs when unwanted light enters one's property,for instance,by shining over a neighbor's fence.A common light trespass problem occurs when a strong light enters the window of one's home from the outside 6 Nit—term used to describe a metric unit of luminance. It it is defined as candela per square meter(cd/m'). The unit is based on the candela,the modern metric unit of luminous intensity;and the square meter. Footcandle—Unit of light density incident on a plane(assumed to be horizontal unless otherwise specified),and measurable with an illuminance meter,a.k.a,light meter. a 6 Observed and Recommended Levels of Brightness Information Source Product type Luminance (surface brightness) (CLuginbuhl study) Typical Ambient Roadway Illumination 1 Nit (G tuginbohl study) Typical Floodlit Billboard approximately 100 Nits _ .98%were under 150 Nits,83% Digital Billboards:New Regulations for New Technology by TcadltlonalN lit static billboards were under 100 Nits(Arizona Drew Carhan Study);124 Nits average(New York Study) IESNA recommendations Recommendations for Digital Billboard luminance 250 Nits(day),125 Nib(night) 300.350 Nib suggested(study Outdoor Advertising Association 01 America Ilan Lewin Study) Pe commendations for Digital Billboard luminance based on light trespass li readings) Hewlett-Packard(Specifications) 47'LCD Digital Signage Display 500 Nib Corn Digital(Specifications) 132'&42"LCD Posters 500 Nits(32") 700 Nits(42"( Urhart study Daytime sky(sunny) 5)0067,000 Nits Virginia Tech Transportation Inst. The Sun 6,500 Nits Semen Top Technology Co.,Ltd(specifications) seires PH12(14'x48'full-color LED billboard 18,000.Nib EraLED(Specifications) Series P20 full-color LED billboard(assorted sizes) I8,500 Nits ProVIDEO Billboard Panels(specifications) Series 1515-4,14'x48'full-color LED billboard 11,000.Nib Ogles Displays(specifications) model 1248,14'x48'full-color LED billboard 11,000.Nits Optes Displays(specifications) (model 2040-5,14'x48'full-color LED billboard 11,000.Nits Limiting Sign Brightness Proposed limits on sign brightness have caused much debate. Research provided by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America(IESNA)states that drivers should be subjected to points of brightness no greater than 40 times the average brightness level of their general surroundings;this proportion is known as the contrast ratio. "As roadway lighting and automobile headlights provide ambient nighttime lighting levels of about one nit,this implies signage should appear no brighter than about 40 nits','(Luginbuhl,2010, p.1). Surprisingly,the IESNA's own recommendations for signage luminance suggest limits between 250-1400 nits---greatly exceeding their stated maximum contrast ratio of 40:1. The OAAA,has deemed 300-350 nits an acceptable level of night brightness.However, their guidance is based on the use of the IEEE standard for light trespass(IESNA-TM-1 1- 00),when,for reasons of traffic safety and glare in drivers'eyes,it should have been based on IEEE's standard for roadway sign lighting(IESNA RP-19-01). Traditionally floodlit static billboards rarely exceed 100 nits;experts on both driver distraction and light pollution recommended that,as a means of compromise,the new technologies should not exceed this value. In many areas,including Philadelphia, brightness levels are currently unregulated,and many manufacturers publicize their signs'capabilities to reach up to 11,000 nits. 7 Sign Brightness I0000 1 — Z 11 so. cu 0) V 4000 r-... .__.....—._.. _ C b000 J I 0 Typical Ambient IESNA IESNA Hewlett Packard al.Corn Digital at LCD The Sun &,CEO 10'a4g'LED ProVIDEO I4a4g'LED Roadway Recammendationz Recommendations ICD Patters Poa[ers billboard llull-color) billboard lbulltoabr) (Dark) (8045O Digital signage advocates mention the horizontal louvers8 included in many billboards as an effective measure to prevent light pollution. In reality, these louver systems were designed primarily to shade each diode from sunlight(thus increasing their prominence), ..ue not to limit nighttime glow.8 As Luginbuhl states in "Lighting and Astronomy," horizontal light(that which is emitted between 0°and roughly±20°,and not restricted by horizontal louvers)contributes even more to skyglow than light emitted at higher angles. The effects of lower-angle lightinb---such as that used to captivate approaching drivers-- -are visible over a much broader area(Carhart,2010). A better option is to simply operate signs at less than maximum brightness. Not surprisingly,sign brightness and energy usage are directly related;beyond reducing light pollution and distraction, lowering luminance reduces total power consumption. One manufacturer experimented with running their digital displays at half-brightness; they were able to reduce power usage by nearly 40%,while maintaining full sign readability (Noventri,see in chart). Another option for reducing unnecessary brightness(and thus power usage) is to equip signs with sensors which automatically lower light output in accordance with atmospheric conditions. For example, sign brightness would mechanically be dimmed during dusk,early morning hours,or during cloudy or overcast weather. Again,OAAA does have guidelines for dimming,but they are not mandatory. 8 A louver is a slat that is angled to keep out rain,direct sunshine,etc.The angle of the slats may be adjustable or fixed. 'Retrieved from http://www.optec.com 8 Materiality and Recyclability Life Span Light Emitting Diodes have a lifespan of 100,000 hours.According to Bryant,this equates to roughly eleven years for LED billboards,compared to the fifteen years for traditional static billboards. At that point,the diodes will be operating at 50%of their prime brightness.Of course,considering the return on investment that the sign owner has received by that time,he or she will likely not hesitate to replace the sign quickly (Bryant,2008). As these large digital displays and their associated digital players increase in popularity,will we soon face an abundance of difficult to recycle,discarded technology? Tech no-Waste Obsolete technology is a valuable source for secondary raw materials,if treated properly; if not treated properly,it can be a source of toxins and carcinogens. Rapid industrial advancement,decreasing initial cost,and even planned obsolescence could result in a fast-growing surplus of"techno-waste"(Morgan.2006). LED's,plasma and LCD screens,and digital players and extenders are recyclable,but their de-manufacturing and reuse is not always mandated or monitored. In the US,the main federal law governing solid waste is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976;as far as electronics are concerned, it covers only cathode ray tubes(televisions and computer monitors popular before LCDs,plasma and LEDs), though state regulations may differ,according to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Volumetrically,digital signage does generate more waste to be recycled than the paper,vinyl sheets,and plywood or canvas facing of static billboards,but lacks the potentially toxic adhesives. fit' Y _04Lram: Technological Graveyard:A massive collection of now-obsolete Cathode Ray Tube televisions- Could digital signage one day face a similar fate? 9 Future Technological Innovation Digital display types have become increasingly energy efficient since their inception, a trend that will likely continue. While early generations of LED lamps could produce only 20 lumens per watt(compared to about 15 lumens/watt for incandescent), current models can achieve over 100 lumens/watt (Klipstein, 2009). More energy efficient players are also in development, including a model that uses only 4 watts of electricity, the equivalent of a single small light bulb. As technology continues to progress, there is hope that digital signage may one day be a truly green option, but we are not there today. Solar Power Solar power is one promising advancement recently used in the installation of a 6,000 sq. ft. digital billboard in Times Square which is fully powered by solar panels and photovoltaic solar modules, and illuminated by floodlights. It consumes no additional electricity. According to Cooley's Commercial Graphics, manufacturer of the solar sign, "These lightweight systems could be installed on some portion of the 450,000 billboards currently in the United States. Each of these billboards would generate clean renewable energy to either power the billboard lighting system or would be sold back to local utility companies through net metering or feed in tariffs programs" (Connor 2010). A similar program has been implemented in San Francisco, and successfully generates up to 3.4 kilowatts of excess energy, distributed to local utility customers.1° Some are skeptical, however; an industry insider states, "illuminating signage via solar power poses 44110* a significant hurdle, because harvesting and processing solar energy is relatively inefficient,"and estimates that approximately only 20% of energy collected could be retransmitted as sign illumination (Aust, 2007). While these green advancements are laudable, they are climate-dependent, and their high initial costs make them unlikely for mainstream usage without government mandates or incentives. Carbon Footprint Average 2008AirTravel Average 2008 Average 2008 (Total US Commercial air travel by travel by Digital optec Billboard travel for 2008/Census passenger car: passenger car: (LA. Displays Estimate of total US calculated for calculated for Reading) LED population) small car SUV Average Home Total annual emissions(tons) 0.93 2.48 6.59 8.28 45.77 242.82 No.of trees to offset per year 4.66 12.38 32.96 41.4 228.87 1,214.10 1°(2007,December 3). Retrieved from http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/12/03/pges-green-campaign-gets- so l ar-powere d-bi l lboard/ 10 Economic Feasibility and Return on Investment ki Off-Premise,Non-Accessory Billboards ) ) I In addition to their environmental impacts,we looked into t the profitability of digital billboards,and received mixed results. Although LEDs are expensive,manufacturers frequently claim that cost is recouped over time and in reduced energy usage and maintenance costs. For off-premise advertising,the initial investment in a digital sign is large---$250,000-$500,000(Goldstein,2008)---but future overhead for the advertising company is low,as graphics can be remotely changed and replaced. Often,they are also able to rent out the advertising space for a higher premium than on static billboards. Space on a digital billboard rents at the same rate,or higher,as a comparably sized static billboard,even though each ad will be featured only intermittently,sharing space with up to eight other advertisements in the rotating lineup.This means huge profit increases for the outdoor advertising companies,and a quick return on investment. Digital billboards provide operators with an average of$14,00o per month in rent(typically from multiple advertisers),compared with$1,00o to$2,00o per month for traditional billboards,which serve only one advertiser(Goldstein,2008)."Total revenue from the outdoor digital signage equipment market in the United States, • including hardware,software,installation,and maintenance,grew by about 33%in 2009, a trend that is expected to continue. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that in 1996 there were over 400,000 billboards on federally controlled roads,which generated revenues in excess of$1.96 billion(Schueller,n.d.). On-Premise,Accessory Signs On-premise advertising appears to be less cost-effective. The initial cost of installing a digital signage network has not been recouped by many of the operators interviewed,to say nothing of the dramatic increase in energy expenditures when compared to static signage(Noventri,2010). Additionally,the burden of providing frequently-changing content falls on the operator;many small businesses simply do not have the creative staff or technical knowledge to create changeable graphic displays. Despite uncertain profitability for on-premise signs,market statistics and lay observation Point to the growing popularity of digital signage,both off-premise and on-premise. In the absence of guaranteed profits,their chief selling point is their uniqueness---the fact that they"stand out." However,as this type of advertising becomes more mainstream, and the market becomes saturated,how long can simple novelty justify its high financial and environmental costs? "Sales prices reflect market averages in Bangor,PA.Rates may vary with location. • 11 Current Trends • How big of a problem do unregulated energy consumption and luminance levels pose? Right now,only a small fraction of American outdoor advertising is digital. This number is growing,however,and the trend shows no sign of slowing. Rapidly-dropping prices for large LED screens have led to a growing increase in the number of digital signage installations. Today,there are nearly 800 of these digital billboards in the U.S.It's a small number compared with 450,000 traditional billboards across the country, but it's growing fast.The Outdoor Advertising Association of America,an industry trade group, projects that the number of digital billboards in the U.S.will expand at a rate of several hundred per year (Goldstein, 2008). Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, an industry powerhouse, says it is expanding its digital billboard business in markets such as Los Angeles,Chicago and Philadelphia(Hau,2007). Philadelphia is home to an estimated 1,800 billboards, including a handful of digital signs—the effects of widespread conversion from static to digital would raise significant safety and environmental issues. Digital Signage: Growing Presence 2500 j 2000 as 1500 in no loan 0 v 500 n Z 0 Year 2007 2008 2009 projected 2012 Rapid Growth:The number of digital billboards is increasing at an increasing rate in the US, as evidenced by the above graph. On-premise digital signage has shown an even more dramatic increase in popularity(Urazbaev,2009). 12 ounomm 0 How Does Philadelphia's Current Zoning Code Regulate Electronic Signage? Simply put,it doesn't address the technology.Signage regulation within the - Philadelphia zoning code(Section 14- 1604)was passed in the early 1990s and does not specifically address electronic outdoor advertising. The code for on- - .r premise signage(storefront signage)is • •oc..• equally devoid of controls on electronic • •v • / signage,opening an opportunity for these s• r. kinds of signs in all commercial districts. 4 - • A leader in the outdoor advertising industry,Clear Channel,has embraced the 'T digital trend. The company has revamped ; ) - if several of its existing static billboards to LED format along the I-95 corridor in Philadelphia. In order to proceed with the conversions,Clear Channel sought the• approval of Philadelphia's Department of Pink dots denote Philadelphia's current Licenses and Inspections(L&I),which inventory of digital billboards(10 total), concentrated along 1-95 and the granted permission for the conversions to Schuykill Expressway take place with few requirements.This interpretation was made in spite of clear language in the code prohibiting an outdoor advertising sign from carrying more than A • J' two messages at one location. Under L&I's current interpretation of the code, any billboard that is 500 feet or more away from residentially zoned property may be '•• �:'�i converted to electronic as of right. If this �•Y . "",. interpretation remains in place,this could :.t f'' r translate to hundreds of converted : electronic billboards—the only factor moderating conversions right now is the (continually decreasing)expense involved. 0 13 CIO Examples from Other Cities To date,no known city has passed limits on sign energy usage,but about one quarter of states in the U.S.prohibits moving or animated signs,and roughly one third have specifications for dwell time ranging from four seconds to several minutes. Most states prohibit flashing red lights and anything that causes a glare or vision impairment. Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania A proposed amendment to Pittsburgh's zoning code states that no electronic sign may exceed.3 foot candles illumination above ambient light level to prevent distraction and interference with traffic signals.As discussed earlier in this paper,OAAA recommends foot candles in its guidelines but the usefulness of this measurement has been questioned and nits is the preferred measurement for detecting brightness and glare emitted from digital signs). Additionally,Pittsburgh's amendment sets a dwell time of at least ten seconds,and prohibits animation of any kind.12 Concord,New Hampshire Some cities and states have banned electronic message boards outright,including Concord,New Hampshire. There,the ban on electronic message centers was upheld on appeal to the First Circuit Court,on grounds that the ban promoted both traffic safety and community aesthetics(Carpentier,2009).13 • Panama City Beach,Florida In the absence of a cohesive state or federal policy,residents and policy makers in Panama City Beach,Florida decided they could not allow digital signage to continue to proliferate unfettered. They drafted a set of restrictions on sign size,placement and brightness which have been incorporated into the City Code."The specifications make regulation seem like an exact science,when it's really just public and private actors negotiating acceptable limits,"voices one critic.While imperfect,it sets a valuable precedent for regulation because the proposed ordinance limits the amount of light digital signs can emit,their illumination must be measured and monitored by an instrument widely available and specially designed for this purpose. Tulsa,Oklahoma The study"Digital Billboard Recommendations and Comparisons to Conventional Billboards"recommends billboard brightness of 342 nits for an average sized(10'6"x 36')billboard under average ambient lighting conditions(Lewin,2008).14 In response to these recommendations,the Planning Commission of Tulsa,Oklahoma recommended a limit of 300 nits for all signage,but this was raised to 500 nits before becoming law,due to pressure from the outdoor advertising industry. 'x The Pittsburgh Code,Title Nine,Zoning Code,Article VI,Chapter 919,Signs. "Naser Jewelers,Inc.v.City of Concord,2008. WL 162521(C.A.1 N.H.1/18/2008) '4 n.b.This study was funded by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America. Q 14 Municipalities that ban or limit digital billboards STATE CITY/COUNTY ACTION TAKEN Alaska (state) Ban Arizona Gilbert Ban Arizona Pima County Moratorium California Los Angeles Moratorium California San Francisco Ban Colorado Denver Ban Florida Largo Ban Florida Pinellas County Moratorium Florida St.Petersburg Ban Georgia Atlanta Moratorium Hawaii (state) Ban Maine (state) Ban Michigan (state) Considering Moratorium Minnesota Minnetonka Moratorium Minnesota Oakdale Moratorium Minnesota (state) Considering Moratorium Missouri Lake St.Louis Ban Missouri St.Louis Moratorium Montana (state) Ban INorth Carolina Durham Ban Rhode Island (state) Moratorium Tennessee Knoxville Ban Texas Amarillo Ban Texas Austin Ban Texas Dallas Ban Texas El Paso Moratorium Texas Ft.Worth Ban Texas Galveston Ban Texas Houston Ban Texas San Antonio Moratorium Vermont (state) Ban III 15 • Policy Recommendations: Electronic Signage and Philadelphia's Future Philadelphia is currently in the process of a complete overhaul Carbon Footprint of its zoning code and 120 comprehensive plan,bringing the city into the present and 1,100 preparing for its future. A a recently released draft of the z 80 updated code does aim to control digital advertising,but more(and better)regulation is a 40 needed;the draft focuses on g off-premise advertising,and is 9 20 particularly relaxed regarding Ili min on-premise electronic message boards. digital billboard typical home typical car static billboard uwe voln a.m rung Co*,Cere.n..r..CI* For the purposes of controlling light pollution and energy consumption,the distinction • between on-premise and off-premise signage is of little relevance;as such,we offer similarly cautionary restrictions for both sign types,from a traffic safety perspective,on— premise signs may be worse. They can be bigger,closer to the roadway,have motion and animation(Wachtel,2009). Our first issue with the draft is one of semantics:currently,the draft specifically regulates any sign with action or motion,animation,rotation,scrolling,flashing or color changes, or upon which illumination is not maintained at a constant stationary intensity and/or color,as a means(we assume)of regulating digital signage in general. We anticipate that this language could create the opportunity for misinterpretation;electronic and digital message boards are not necessarily flashing/animated/intermittent,as they are capable of the display of static,yet still excessively bright,imagery. Advertising companies often specifically describe their digital signage as"static,"as a way to circumvent inexplicit regulation such as this. We suggest revising the zoning language to include any and all digital signage,defined as any sign capable of displaying words,symbols,figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means,15 not just those that are animated,flashing,or intermittent,which can be subjective descriptions. 15 From Oklahoma City Municipal Code,2007,Chapter 3,Article V,Section 3-82. 16 The current draft states that off-premise digital billboards are not to be located within 500 feet of an entrance or exit ramp to any major highway,or within 200 feet of any intersection of the street or highway on which it is intended to advertise to. For off-premise signage,the proposed code cox prohibits flashing signs,signs with intermittent �yo TYVIrM illumination,or signsmechanically or with I'LEM MA ; RON_PIIRIlPBL[_ - electronically changing messages within 500 ft.of ®1�= any residential district. It also prohibits them from facing any residential district within 1,000 ft. For - �Y 9'9-- ,.-- on-premise digital signage,these distances are - lowered to 150 ft.and 300 ft.,respectively. 16'"&Washington,Philadelphia We recommend that this regulation be expanded On-premise LED sign and increased;best practices from the Australian states of Queensland,Victoria and New South Wales,South Africa and The Netherlands illustrate the rigor with which the situation of electronic advertising must be assessed before it can be deemed safe for motorists and other road users. Among the considerations these governments require in assessment of the placement of outdoor advertising are:traffic speed on the adjacent roadway,sign content,legend height, vicinity of official traffic control devices,type of street or interchange,sign brightness, hold time,sign content,the potential that an advertisement will be mistaken for a traffic control device,the amount of information communicated,the concision and legibility of the advertising message,and an advertising structure's obstruction of key sightlines. These best practices are detailed in the attached Appendix D,Excerpt from 2009 AASHTO Report.(Wachtel) According to the present draft,signs may be illuminated,but the illumination shall be focused upon the sign itself,so as to prevent glare upon the surrounding areas,and digital billboards must have a luminance level appropriate to the ambient environment in keeping with the standards set forth by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America(IESNA). These regulations are too vague;we propose specific limits to prevent light trespass and light pollution.As such,the illumination projected from any use shall at no time exceed 0.1 footcandle onto a residential use,and 1.0 footcandle onto a non-residential use.This should apply to light emitted from any form of signage,on- premise or off-premise. We also propose specific luminance limits of 100 nits for nighttime conditions,applicable to all digital signage.(Lebenbuhl) C 17 e Additionally,there must be prescribed methods for determining compliance with the aforementioned illuminance and luminance limits. Again,illuminance measures the amount of light which falls onto an object;luminance measures the amount of light an object gives off. To gauge light trespass on neighboring properties,illumination shall be measured(in footcandles)at any time and from any point on the receiving property line using an illuminance light meter. While an illuminance meter is a practical device with which to measure light trespass,inherent sign brightness is best measured using a luminance meter,which is capable of directly measuring the surface brightness of signs. Luminance meters are quite costly;sign owners should be financially responsible,by means of permit fees,for any and all equipment/operational costs needed to ensure that their luminance levels remain in compliance with aforementioned limits. Luminance limits between the full sunlight limit and the nighttime limit may also be specified for overcast or foggy days. Regulations should require an automated control of sign luminance based on current ambient lighting conditions. To further control light pollution,off-premises digital signs shall be extinguished automatically no later than 11:00pm each evening until dawn. Signs for establishments that operate or remain open past 11:00 p.m.may remain on no later than one half hour past the close of the establishment. Where new digital signage construction or digital conversions are permitted,there should • be a"trade-off'policy,based on power consumption. For every square footage of digital signage an outdoor advertising company installs,via new construction or conversion, they must remove a specified amount of square footage of their existing static signage,in order to maintain or reduce their carbon footprint. Such a policy has been implemented in many cities and states. Finally,obsolete or otherwise discarded digital signage,and all accessory components,must be fully recycled at the expense of the manufacturer. Conclusion Our research and the resultant policy recommendations could not come at a better time, as digital signage figures prominently on several hot-button issues regarding Philadelphia urban development. For example,the Market East corridor of Philadelphia is in great need of renewal and rethinking;the look and feel of the"new"Market East is a very controversial topic. Councilman Frank DiCicco's Outdoor Advertising Bill 100013 takes away the city's ability to regulate signage and will allow massive outdoor advertising signs including LED digitals and rooftop billboards along Market Street between 7th and 13th Streets,transforming Market East into a garish thoroughfare reminiscent of the Las Vegas Strip. Paul Levy,president and CEO of the Center City District and a key player in the revitalization of Market East,is amenable to the sorts of eye-catching wraps,digital and LED signs,though he says the city must make sure they stimulate development. • 18 limitimmow © "Building owners shouldn't get to throw up a giant ad on a tiny decrepit storefront. They should only be able to profit from these signs---and thus generate tax revenue for the city---if they renovate their properties in line with city standards and fill them with people"(Rubin 2010). Over the past ten years,many studies of digital signage have focused on the issue of driver distraction and road safety.These studies have been conducted in many countries (e.g.U.S.,U.K.,Australia,South Africa,The Netherlands,Norway,and others)and they have used a variety of research methods,including simulator and laboratory investigations,opinion surveys and focus groups,on-road studies in instrumented vehicles,and longitudinal analysis of summaries of traffic collision reports.With only two exceptions,those recent studies performed by government agencies,universities,and non-profit traffic safety organizations,have found a detrimental effect on driver distraction(or other measures of traffic safety)in the presence of billboards.The only studies that have reported no adverse safety impact of digital billboards have been those sponsored by the outdoor advertising industry. And we use the word"reported"advisedly.That is because,in one case,despite the study authors reporting no distraction from digital billboards,the actual data collected clearly showed such an adverse impact.And,in the other case,despite the study authors reporting that the presence of digital billboards had no effect on traffic crashes,the authors have been challenged by experts,both in peer review and in public forums,for ® using improper statistical methods-with the results that their reported conclusions are unjustified and should be retracted. The Federal Highway Administration is nearing completion of its own on-road research study looking at levels of driver distraction as measured by eye movements in the presence and absence of digital billboards.This report is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2011. Higher electricity consumption,increased light pollution,and recyclability issues should make us pause and question the growing popularity of digital signage. As America at last embraces sustainability and Philadelphia strives to become the"greenest city in America,"is a proliferation of digital signs along our highways and storefronts sending the right message? 0 19 • About the Author: Gregory Young,LEED AP is an architectural designer and urban planner active in Philadelphia,Pennsylvania. A recent graduate of the University of Pennsylvania(School of Design),his research was generously supported by a grant from the Samuel F.Fels Fund. Policy recommendations were made in collaboration with SCRUB:Public Voice for Public Space. SCRUB is a Philadelphia-based non-profit,founded in 1990 with the mission to promote healthy,vibrant and beautiful public spaces throughout all of Philadelphia using advocacy,public awareness,community mobilization and legal action. Visit httpJ/www.publicvoiceforpublicspace.org/for more information. • • 20 References ABl Research. (2009,March).U.S.digital signage market to grow by one third in 2009. Retrieved from http://www.abiresearch.com/press/ Aust,S.(2007,September 13). Earth signs--light fare. Signweb.com. Retrieved from http://www.signweb.com/content/earth-signs-light-fare?page=0,I Baumann,S.(2010,June 16).Caution:Flashing signs. News Herald. Bryant,J.(2008,January 5).The digital signage insider.Message posted to wirespring.com Buchanan,NI.(2008,April 30).Giz explains:Plasma TV basics.Gizmodo.corn. Retrieved from http://gizmodo.com/385708/giz-explains-plasma-tv-basics Carhart,D.(2010,May). Digital billboards:New regulations for new technology.Illinois Coalition for Responsible Outdoor Lighting. Retrieved from httpJ/www.illinoislighting.org/billboards.html Carpentier,J.(2009,October 29). A planner's view of electronic message centers.Signweb.com. Retrieved from http://www.signweb.com/content/a-planner's-view-electronic-message-centers-1?page 0,0 Connor,S.(2010,June 2)Times Square billboard goes solar.Signweb.com.Retrieved from http J/www.signweb.com/content/times-square-b illboard-goes-solar Garvey,P.M.and Mace,D.M.(1996).Changeable message sign visibility.Publication No.FHWA-RD-94- 077. Federal Highway Administration,Federal Department of Transportation Washington,D.C. • Goldstein,S.(2008,March I). Bright lights,big impact.Inc.com.Retrieved from httpi/www.inc.com/magazine/20080301/brinht-lights-big-impact.html Hau,L.(2007,August 20).Billboards go digital.Forbes.com.Retrieved from httpi/www.forbes.com/2007/08/20/clear-channel-digital-biz-media-cx_Ih_0820bizclear.htm I Klipstein,D. (2009,December 21). Why LEDs can be 10 times as efficient as incandescents in some applications but not in general home lighting.Retrieved from httpJ/members.misty.com/donflede.html Lewin,I. (2008).Digital billboard recommendations and comparisons to conventional billboards. Retrieved from http://www.polcouncil.org/polc2/DigitalBillboardslanLewin.pdf. Liquid crystal display.(2010,May 21).In Wikipedia,The Free Encyclopedia.Retrieved 19:05,June 27, 2010,from httpi/en.wikipedia.org Luginbuhl,C.B.(2009). Lighting and astronomy.Walker,C.E.,and Wainscoat,R.J.,Physics Today, 62:32. Morris,M. (2008,April).Digital signs:Context matters.Zoning Practice,issue 4. Morgan,R.(2006-08-21). Tips and tricks for recycling old computers.SmarIBacom. Retrieved from httpJ/www.smartbiz.comlarticle/articleprint/1525/-I/58.Retrieved 2009-03-17. Noventri. (2010).Off-White paper. Retrieved from http://www.noventri.com/eco/pdf/Off- White_Paper.pdf O 21 Nystedt,D.(2008,August 8).Wall Street beat:Time to put off buying LCD TVs and displays. New York Times.com. Retrieved from httpl/www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_852573C40069388048257498001 F B EC6.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Pennsylvania Outdoor Lighting Council. (2010,February). Model outdoor lighting ordinance for inclusion in zoning ordinances. Retrieved from httpJ/www.polcouncil.org/polc2/MLOZoning_2010 FEB.PDF Rubin,D.(2010,February 18).Some illumination on lighted signs needed.The Philadelphia Inquirer. A5. Schueller,R.(n.d.).How products are made:Volume 5:Billboard.Retrieved from http://www.madehow.coni/Volume-5/Billboard.html Urazbaev,N.(2009,Oct.2).Is digital signage ready for media buyers? Message posted to broadsign.com. U.S.Department of Energy. (2008,October 27).Comparing LEDs to traditional light sources. Washington,DC:U.S.Government Printing Office.Retrieved from http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/bu ildingsissl/comparing.htm 1 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.(2010).Final rules on cathode ray tubes and discarded mercury- containing equipment. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/electron/crt.htm. Wachtel,J.(2009).Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs.Report No.20-7(256).Washington,DC:National Cooperative Highway Research Program. • • 22 Scenic America leader fights LED billboards Page 1 of 1 Inside Neishborhoods: post-gazette.coM LOCAL/ NEIGHBORHOODS / CITY city East West North South Washinston Westmoreland Scenic America leader fights LED billboards Thursday,February 17,2011 By Joe Smydo,Pittsburgh Post-Gazette The head of an organization committed to preserving the nation's "visual character" is in Pittsburgh today to urge city officials to keep a firm hand on the spread of LED billboards. Mary Tracy,executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Scenic America,will speak on the South Side at a public meeting about new LED billboard regulations proposed by the city.The meeting--organized by Ms. Tracy's local counterpart, Scenic Pittsburgh--begins at 2 p.m. at Conservation Consultants Inc., 64 S. 14th St. Ms. Tracy and Mike Dawida,executive director of Scenic Pittsburgh,said Pittsburgh's proposal includes some reasonable restrictions. With more improvements, Mr. Dawida said,the city's regulations could be a national model for other municipalities struggling with LED billboards that are becoming ever more numerous,larger and brighter. The billboards are a form of pollution and a distraction to drivers who should be keeping their eyes on the road,Ms.Tracy said. "We're hard-wired to look at the brightest light in the sky,"she said. The city's proposal,which has not yet been put before city council,would limit an electronic billboard's size to 1,200 square feet.The proposal also would limit how bright images can be and prohibit the display--images or text--from changing more than once every 60 seconds. Ms. Tracy and Mr. Dawida said they'd prefer the city ban the billboards,something a handful of states have done. Otherwise, they said,they favor policies promoting the fewest,dimmest and smallest billboards possible. Joanna Doyen,Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's spokeswoman, said the proposed regulations reflect a need to balance pollution concerns and development needs.A vibrant city, she said,needs some billboards. The push for new regulations emerged partly from the debate over a partially completed billboard on the Grant Street Transportation Center. Though a round of legal wrangling ended in June,when Commonwealth Court upheld a Common Pleas Court ruling and zoning board decisions rejecting the sign, it has not been taken down. Mr. Dawida and Ms.Tracy said the city's proposal still would allow hundreds of new electronic billboards citywide, including the possibility of a"Vegas-like strip"on the North Shore. And they said signs in high-profile parts of the city could be seen from the city's scenic overlooks. City planning director Noor Ismail said such comments "might be an overgeneralization." Ms. Ismail said the planning commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed regulations Feb.22 and could request changes after that.Eventually,she said,the regulations will be sent to council for a vote. Joe Smydo:ismlydoapost-gazette.com or 412-283-1548. First published on February 17,2011 at 12:00 am http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11048/1125967-53.stm 3/23/2011 Driven to Distraction-Electronic Billboards Called Another Driving Distraction-Series... Page 1 of 3 HOME PAGE I TODAY'S PAPER[VIDEO 1.MOST POPULAR I TAM TOPICS 1 Subsolbe to The Times Lop In Register Now TimesPeopte s.�Jfr''"�'e'e h ye"e Search Al NYTimes.corn NO f$C%CKING • :K-JJ Technolo WORLD US. N.Y./REGION BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE IIEELTII SPORTS OPINION ARTS STYLE TRAVEL JOBS REAL ESTATE AUTOS Search Technology Inside Technology Bits Personal Tech a -, Internet Start-Ups Business Computing Companies Blog a Digital Canna C•npnsnes ALL PRODUCTS DRIVEN TO DISTRACTION Digital Billboards,Diversions Drivers Can't Escape "e Mnat Y.r h1pOC Log In With fKebook ring on nypmes corn * Privacy Polity I W iers This, 3•Z•*A What's Popular Now� raw .�f.5�2l111 Coe Beck ® Tribes With Flags rIll Contemplates 0- Staging His Own WI Channel I Breaking News Alerts by E-Mail . -_ S.,uD to De notified when important news'raks • - w� Pnvacy Policy Subscribe to Technology RSS Feeds _o n sre mes Technology News Bits Slog A digital b,llboard.the rust one in the Sens Yawn above.is located along 1,5 m Detrod and can be seen from great internee Sun.Ups Personal Tech distances Safety advocates say me vgns can distract motonats.much like cellphones and P C i s.and posvbly contrbute euamess Coopemea Pogue's Posts to traffic a¢idents Computing ay MATT RICHTEL PUNlsned Nerd,zolo MOST POPULAR-TECHNOLOGY Safety advocates who worn'about the dangers of distracted driving RECOMMEND E MNLED SLOGGED VIEWED • have a new concern beyond cellphones and gadget-laden dashboards: TITTER t. Judge Rejects Google's Deal to Digitize Books digital roadside billboards. COMMENTS a. Some Worry That Success of Apple is Tied to Japan (214) 3- For Consumers,Little to Cheer in AT&T Deal These high-tech billboards marry the SIGN IN To E. 4. Bits:E-Textbooks Get a Lift From Publishers Driven to Distraction glow of Times Square with the MAR p. Bits:Slozilla Releases New Version of Firefos Browser Arudesin this series examine the immediacy of the Internet.Images PRINT 6. BlackBerry to Match Apple on the Price of Its Tablet danger of driven using cellphones changeto eight seconds,so and ocher electronic deuces,and every sixg SINGLE PAGE 'I- Bits:Amazon to Open Android App Store as Apple efforts to deal with the problem. advertisers can flash timely messages Sues Previous Andes in the series s —like the latest headlines,coffee deals REPRINTS 8. Open Networking Foundation Pursues New Standards Enlarge This image at dawn,a cheeseburger at lunchtime 5 sharp Scrutiny for Merger of AT&T and T-}Iobdr SHARE to. State of the Art:A Clever End Run Around the Stovie- or even the song playing on a radio streaming Gremlins -a-- I station at that moment. ED co to Complete Lst. The billboard industry asserts there is HELMS „ ?• no research indicating they cause y-; 1. , _ crashes,and notes that the signs do not use video or - eN- - animation.• But to critics,these ever-changing,bright billboards areini i - ye- "television on a stick"and give drivers,many of them A' _ ; already calling and texting,yet another reason to take their 1 eyes off the road.►-`- ' • ,,, o ,,,,ee Abby Dart,executive director of Scenic hlichigan,a What aid makes sense for A digral billboard along I-75 Some of nonprofit group trying to block construction of new digital Japan? Sr.vgns flange mer images every billboards in the state,calls the signs"weapons of mass ALSO IN OPINION s x to eight seconds g p Some animals are more equal than others distraction"and says they can be more dangerous than Saving Amenra's national forests • Readers'Comments phones. altlMaeeen OPINION http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/technology/02billboard.html?_r=1 3/23/2011 Driven to Distraction - Electronic Billboards Called Another Driving Distraction - Series ... Page 2 of 3 Readers shared their thoughts "You can turn off your phone,"she said."The billboard gets ADVERTISEMENTS on this article. your attention whether you want to give it or not." Read Al Comments(214). uptim<s.corn! Exclusive offers delivered to your inbox Last Thursday,Michigan lawmakers held hearings on w.K,tirn:eed legislation,the first of its kind,that would impose a two- year moratorium on the construction of new billboards.Minnesota's legislature is scheduled to hold hearings this month on a similar moratorium.As digital billboards begin to pop up around the country,questions about whether to regulate the emerging Lxir.(us, a ui, 1 nytimes.com/ technology are being asked in other states as well,and by federal officials. delivered tc yOur inbox timeslimiled The Federal Highway Administration has been conducting a study,which it says will be completed this summer,that uses eye-trackers inside cars to see whether drivers who have volunteered for the study look at the digital billboards,and for how long.The agency also Ads by Google what's this/ has organized a tour this spring to take researchers to various cities around the world to Billboard Advertising Find the best billboards anywhere in the USA at one source study how other nations are regulating digital billboards. einoutaoor corn;milboards In the United States,onlyabout 2,000 of the nation's Employee Program for employees Safe Driving the industry expects there to be tens of thousands of them,as many as 15 percent of its Techniques www BusinessOnverSafety corn overall inventory. LED Sion Animations The signs are typically used in busy traffic areas,where advertisers are willing to pay a Professional LED Sign Animations Free Quote Fast and Affordable premium for them.A digital billboard costs$25O,OOo to$300,000,roughly half what it www.SignPrcgrammers.com did five years ago,but much more than the$5,000 to$50,00o for a traditional billboard. Advertise on N'eTFMs.eom- Space on the digital signs fetches a premium in part because up to six advertisers can share RELATED ADS What are Related Ads? a single location.Traditional billboards fetch a wide range of monthly rents(from$t,000 ,Billboard costs to S5,000 depending on location and audience)and the digital versions cost the same or a .Billboard Prices bit more,but the industry benefits by selling that space at that price to more than one advertiser. ,Digital Signage Dnving 1111 I Rather than settling the matter,existing research about digital billboards leaves room for .Outdoor Billboards debate on the danger. One 200 j study,from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute,which used in-car cameras to study motorists,found that digital billboards did not change driver behavior more than ordinary billboards. But critics note that the study was financed by the billboard industry and that it was found to be biased by reviewers who rejected it for publication in 2008 by the Transportation Research Board,a Congressionally chartered agency. Even the researcher who led the Virginia Tech institute project,Suzanne Lee,while defending her science as sound,said that the potential for drivers to be distracted by the new billboards—and digital signs that use video and animation—should be investigated further. "If we don't study this,and get on top of it right now while the capabilities are expanding, every roadway will be filled with flashing lights and video,"said Ms.Lee. For decades,the Federal Highway Administration has provided regulations to states governing free-standing billboards that prohibit them from having"flashing,intermittent or moving light or lights." 1 2 NEXT PAGE e This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction:March 3,2010 A picture caption on Tuesday with an article about concerns that digital billboards may be a distraction to drivers described incorrectly the billboards shown.While the billboard at the far right was digital,the others were conventional billboards;the photograph did http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/technology/02billboard.html?_r=1 3/23/2011 Aft Driven to Distraction - Electronic Billboards Called Another Driving Distraction - Series ... Page 3 of 3 not show"a succession of digital billboards." A version of this artiae appeared in punt on March 2.2010,on page Bt of the New York edition. COMMENTS SIGN IN TO E- MAIL PRINT SINGLE PAGE REPRINTS PI! ,Click here to get 50%off Home Delivery of The New York Times. Related Articles FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES MEDIUM;On Its Face.Billboard Screams Message of Art(September 28,2008) THE CAUCUS:Eves on the Primary,Hands on the Wheel(January 19.2008) THE WEEK;After Teenager's Death,Change in Road Promised(March 18,2007) Billboards That Know You by Name(January 29. 2007) INSIDE NYTIMES.COM _0 N.Y i REGION• HEALTH• MC'.'ES. OPINION i DINING&WINE. OPINION• 1 b . ff ' '� ti - Editorial: A W► .1r. t= ' I Nucleated ` •—e- •Y'L �jn*`� '? . . t y Century 9.i y, r' I',ri;r `, • ° This month marks the +, • t 1,1, Aft : .__ tooth anniversary of > \ �• n t •--- _ Ernest Rutherford's 1't 1111: � _ model of the atom. I A Dispute Over Where East How Sports May Focus the An Artist's New Film Is a Eat,Pray.Smear: Letters:How to Prepare for and West Begin Brain Palestinian Story Celebrating Phagwah the Next Disaster ill Home World I I S N V I Region Business Technology pence Heath orts Opinion Ails t le Travel ebs Real Estate Autos Back to Top COpynght 2010 The New York Times Company Pnvacy Terms of Service Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Advertise Site Mao http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/technology/02billboard.html?_r=1 3/23/2011 Judge strikes down deal allowing digital billboards I L.A. NOW I Los Angeles Times Page 1 of 6 Subscribe/Manage Account Place An Ad LAT Store Jobs Cars Real Estate Rentals More Classifieds Custom Publishing • iJOLAnQele 1 -el) LOCAL LOCAL U.S. WORLD BUSI?LESS SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT HEALTH LIVING TRAVEL OPINION SHOP Weekly Ad L.A.NOW POLITICS CRIME EDUCATION O.C. WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS ENVIRONMENT OBITUARIES FINDLOCAI. IN THE NEWS: ELIZABETH TAYLOR I TOKYO TAP WATER I LIBYA BARRY BONDS I LAKERS-SUNS L 4.WEATHER !Search Q L.A. N O` A , From the metro staff of the Los Angeles Times and... L.A.Times on Facebook Uke 45K SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA—THIS JUST IN KTLARNEWS SArN DIEGO Sign Up Create an account or log in to ---------...—.—_.— ------------..--...---- ---...__..._...-----...---....—_.__....._ see what your fnends are Crime I Government I Medical marijuana I Education I Prop 8 I Traffic I Westside recommending. «Previous I L.A.NOW Home I Next a if Elizabeth Taylor:The eyes had it 2,593 people shared this. Judae strikes down deal allowing digital billboards Elizabeth Taylor I A life in movies November 5,2009 I 6:51 pm It (o) © (24) *Comments(8) 237 people shared this. Ajudge has formally invalidated a 2006 settlement between the city of Las Angeles and two -- ' companies,CBS Outdoor and Clear Channel Outdoor,that granted them special rights to convert as many as 84o billboards to a digital format,among other changes. em The settlement was negotiated by former City Atty.Rocky Delgadillo after the two companies sued the ad"e,5s a"' city over its billboard regulations. Another billboard company,Summit Media,challenged the settlement last year,arguing it was illegal because the city allowed the companies to make sign changes barred under city law. In a written ruling this week,Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Terry A.Green said he agreed with Summit.He found that the city acted beyond the scope of its authority when it allowed the two companies to convert their conventional wood-and-vinyl signs to the bright digital signs that have infuriated neighborhood groups and prompted complaints from drivers. Summit had asked Green to invalidate all the permits issued to the companies as a result of the settlement—raising the possibility that the digital signs would have to be removed.But Green wrote in his ruling that revocation of permits was an administrative issue for the city. "With the protections of the settlement agreement gone,the city's administrative hearings would no longer be a futile exercise and the city must apply its codes equally to all,"the judge wrote."Citizen challenges to the billboards could be made on an individual basis,with the merits of each determined About L.A. Now independently." L.A.Now is the Los Angeles Times'breaking news He said the city's elected officials were in the best position"to make these determinations and to section for Southern California.It is produced by decide what standards are to be applied." more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times' Metro section,reporting from the paper's City Councilman Paul Koretz has already asked the council to let Green's ruling stand and require downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as companies to convert their digital signs back to conventional billboards. bureaus in Costa Mesa,Long Beach,San Diego, San Francisco,Sacramento,Riverside,Ventura "Unless there's a legal reason preventing us from doing so,I'd like to see us start taking down some of and West Los Angeles. these digital billboards,"Koretz said. Have a story tip for L.A.Now? A spokesman for the city attorney's office said lawyers were reviewing the ruling and planned to Please send to newstips@latimes.com advise council members of their options.Representatives of Clear Channel Outdoor and CBS Outdoor Can I call someone with news? said they planned to appeal. Yes.The city desk number is(213)237-7847. Summit's attorney,Anthony P.Alden,said the ruling was a victory for the people of Los Angeles. Meet the L.A.Now team "We're confident that city officials will now do the right thing and revoke the permits for the existing i RSS twirler facebook digital signs—and insist that the signs be promptly turned off and removed,"Alden said. —Maeve Reston at Los Angeles City Hall California Public Records » Email:newstips@latimes.com More in:Development,Government,Los Twitter:@latimescitydesk @lanow Angeles,Westside Facebook:latimescitydesk1111111111. ADS BY GOOGLE . .. ,,. .. . . , n ,, nnes 111 1• 1 , •1 1 1 - ..1 - .L _.. 1 .. P• '111'141 IN 1 1 Judge strikes down deal allowing digital billboards I L.A. NOW I Los Angeles Times Page 2 of 6 Digital Signage Players Help keep government open and honest—share Medius Digital Signage Media Player w/Intel Core is Processors. your documents. www.nowmicro.com com Billboard Advertising Find the best billboards anywhere in the USA at one source emeoutdoor.com/billboards @latimes/metro-staffers i -71 LATimescitydesk On screen,Elizabeth Taylor could make simple clothes look Verify your Comment fantastic.A fashion appreciation: • http://lat.ms/fToCs3 3 minutes ago•reply Previewing your Comment 4 ShaneGoidmacher Mike Genest,ex- .* adviser to GOP 5:"There is a case to be made that we might need to keep these Posted by: I taxes at a higher level for a while" io miouns ago reply This is only a preview.Your comment has not yet been posted. LATimescitydesk Cal State to cut enrollment,faculty,staff and more: Post Edit http://lat.ms/dJAf9g n n,in°teS ago•reply Your comment could not be posted.Error type: L Vourno Bloomberg:Sam Zell files Your comment has been saved.Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the court papers seeking to fight claims on author.Post another comment Trbune deal:htta://t.co/dBliLiU . The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image.Please try again. As a final step before posting your comment,enter the letters and numbers you see in the image Wednesday Thursday Fnday below.This prevents automated programs from posting comments. Having trouble reading this image?View an alternate. "10di, $f4 e 4t Rain Rain Chance of Rain 59°147• 61°149• 63°1 17• Continue In Case You Missed It... "BG fault Studying theaheadof Santhe And'Bigreas R Post a comment 'f1- One' If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board,but you may not participate. - Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form. Comments are moderated,and will not appear until they've been approved. x Face-transplant recipients and how they heal If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account,please Sign In Name: Erotic massage parlors E-mail Address: proliferate in L.A. communities URL: ❑ Remember personal info? eePif!t. Illegal immigrants disguised as Marines fail Comments: to cross border 3 .m , Recent Comments On:Lead detective in Mel Gibson case wanted Oksana Grigorieva charged with extortion Extortion-extortion-extortion...Sorry no Preview Post other way to describe what she did.And just because lawyers were involved doesnt mean its not extortion... --Karen Comments(8) On:Chris Brown's rampage unlikely to bring criminal charges,but could affect Rihanna restraining order http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/j udge-strikes-down-la-settlement-that-let-fi... 3/23/2011 Judge strikes down deal allowing digital billboards I L.A. NOW I Los Angeles Times Page 3 of 6 This is so stupid!Im not will never condone I've got one of those billboards shining right into my living room.Take them all down!! what Chris Brown did to Rhianna but who wouldnt get mad about something that they And thank you to Councilmember Koretz for pursuing the issue. would like to leave in... Posted by:Carol I November os,2009 at o7:01 PM LDM On:Protesters gather at Villa Park City Hall,decry anti- Agreed!These are pointless wastes of energy and need to be taken down immediately. Muslim comments by councilwoman Jon William Caloia,you are an idiot.You take a complicated equation and boil it down to Posted by:Jon I November o5,zoo9 at o9:24 PM grade-school math.Not all Muslims are terrorists _ or evil.What... It's funny how lawmakers are going after everything that could possibly distract a driver,right down joepen to car radios,yet letting companies put up those billboards,whose whole reason for existence is to distract drivers.The intended purpose of any billboard is to distract drivers.But that's okay because it's a corporation trying to make money,apparently. Categories Posted by:JMM I November 06,2009 at 01:5o AM 2013 los angeles mayor's race amusement parks angeles forest animals antelope valley antonio villaraigosa arnold schwarzenegger arts and architecture athletes auto It's about damned time!— accidents aviation barack obama beach/coast/ocean beaches bell beverlyhills books bottleneck burbank Posted by:Mike Martin I November o6,2009 at 435:43 AM l california zoo california highway patrol california wildfire maps california's war dead camppendleton celebrity census/demographics central charlie sheen chris brown Thank you Paul Koretz?Are you kidding?Koretz had nothing to do with this case and doesn't know and rihanna coachella valley coast guard coliseum what he's talking about.This case was about an illegal backroom deal made by Rocky Delgadillo and colleges and universities crime alerts crime and Jack Weiss to rape the City's ability to regulate billboards and do a favor for their campaign contributors.It took a real City Attorney to sort this mess out,and the thanks belong to having an Courts daryl gates data desk deaths independent City Attorney in office,not some termed-out ex-Sacramento career politician. development drunk driving dwp eagle rock earthquakes eastside education elections entertainment Posted by:Armando I November o6,2009 at o7:48 AM environment film fires food and drink free clinic gardena school shooting glendale government grapevine grim sleeper guns harbor health high desert • Good.Those things are a distraction hazard for drivers,and therefore a threat to pedestrians as well. hollywood homeless homicide report immigration They should all be taken down. imperial county inglewood inland empire jerrybrown jose gomez kern county koreatown ktla news l.a. Posted by:Joanne I November o6,2009 at 12:00 PM archdiocese labor Takers victory parade lapd lax/airports lindsay lohan linking l.a. local government long beach los angeles los angeles county los angeles LA,the Green city county coroner los angeles county district attorney los angeles county fire department los angeles fire department Posted by:Fed Up November 07,zoo9 at 08:22 AM los angeles march zott elections los angeles sheriffs department los angeles unified school district lottery lucerne valley mapping marine corps massage parlors Billboards are distraction for drivers and pedestrians,and sometimes cause of accident. mccourt medical marijuana mel gibson metrolink michaeljackson military mojave desert racing morning Posted by:essay service I March 03,2011 at 11:02 PM scoop mountain communities mudslides music northeast l.a. northern california northwest county obituaries octuplets orange county paramount pasadena photography politics politics and elections pomona valley prisons&jails religion riverside county roman polanski rose parade sailing same-sex marriage and prop 8 sari bernardino county san bruno fire san diego county san fernando valley san francisco san gabriel valley san joaquin valley sandybanks santa barbara santa darita valley santa monica santa monica mountains science shootings south bay south l.a. south los angeles southeast southern california moments sports state budget steve lopez subway surfing swine flu talk back taxes television times/usc poll traffic transportation travel tsunami ucla use utilities Ventura county verdugos water weather web/tech welfare westside - wildfires wildlife 11111 httn://latimesblo s.latimes.com/lanow/2009/1 1/i udae-strikes-down-la-settlement-that-let-fi... 3/23/2011 -.raw iMIIM=111111 . Courting a digital disaster Page 1 of 1 post-gazette.coM OPINION / PERSPECTIVES Courting a digital disaster Pittsburgh should ban bright-light billboard blight Thursday,March 03,2011 By John F.Rohe If you like makeovers,you could be in for a surprise. Last week,another leading magazine,the Economist, found Pittsburgh the nation's "most livable city." Meanwhile, Pittsburgh's Planning Commission was reviewing a proposed ordinance to allow brightly illuminated digital billboards when separated by 500 feet of street frontage. Why might we be concerned? Because this would irretrievably alter the livability of our city. Pittsburgh's skyline,the views and our scenic amenities are now up for sale. Each digital billboard consumes the energy of about 30 homes and the billboard industry calmly assures us they do not distract drivers.At the Planning Commission meeting, industry representatives even asked for permission to change digital messages every few seconds. Imagine motorists receiving giant text messages every few seconds along the side of a road. Winston Churchill observed, "We shape our[places] and thereafter they shape us." The art of place-making is about making a place worthy of affection. As luck would have it,today's Pittsburgh had a head start on livability. Its lush hillsides, historic architecture,quaint neighborhoods and natural amenities communicate a pride of place. Where might any of us more likely pick up a piece of litter?Next to an enduring historic structure or under a colossal digital isik billboard? Which setting might enable our children or grandchildren to know they are home when returning from their `„ travels? Which setting honors us as citizens,and which reduces us to mere consumers? In thoughtful communities,outdoor advertisers must communicate on a compact scale without billboards.They compete on a smaller but level playing field. Their messages still get out,and when they cannot erect intrusive,garish signage, they strive for attractive landscaping. The community as a whole benefits. When advertisers compete for beauty over beastly,we derive attractive signage in attractive settings.This extra effort assures there are no losers. Advocates for massive,energy-intensive signs would rather not have to think more creatively,and their lack of ingenuity threatens to transform our most livable city. Underprivileged communities are often the most vulnerable. Billboard proliferation undermines hope for historic and scenic restoration in precisely the places most at-risk. Stray lighting from billboards also promises to obscure the last glimmer of night sky,depriving urban youth of this star-gazing experience. Advertisers generally pay to support the medium for their message.They pay for the production of newspapers and magazines,TV and radio programs. Billboard advertisers,on the other hand,do not pay for the roads. They do not pay for the cars. They do not pay for the gas. Their claim to a sliver of land turns us into a captive audience on our tax-funded roads in our personal vehicles.And there is no DVR or mute button to avoid their messages. Please contact Scenic Pittsburgh at www.scenicpittsbur2h.org for more information. John F.Rohe is vice president of philanthropy for the Colcom Foundation,which supports environmental and cultural initiatives(www colcomfdn orq). First published on March 3,2011 at 12 00 am httn•//unxnxr nnetRQ'7wff s rnm/r n/l 1(11')/1 1')O121 1 A0 /' /'1/11 1 Jacksonville's new battle over billboards I jacksonville.com Page 1 of 6 jacksonville.com Business - Jacksonville's new battle over billboards Jacksonville has an ordinance dealing with the roadside signs ... but now they're going digital. Posted:February 20,2011-1.00am Back Photo-1 of 2 Noxt By David Bauerfein Whether you love them or hate them,billboards have retreated dramatically from Jacksonville's aiory Sew Wide Seidl landscape since an anti-billboard movement swept the city in 1987. . r� �\ Back then,roughly 1,500 billboards stood alongside highways and roads.Today,Jacksonville has SUPER C�STq{E � .; 1e'"^"M 523 billboards. • • . . cA4JL-rrs.cpsoci But the uneasy truce between billboard opponents and the industry has been broken lately by something no one envisioned when the years-ago petition drive propelled the billboard rollback. J� . • • �'•` Digital billboards,which electronicallychange messages,have emerged as the leadingedge of the Ct4 � 9 9 9 9 9 • outdoor advertising industry's growth.Clear Channel Outdoor wants to go digital in Jacksonville. • �i'. Billboard opponents say they might sue if Clear Channel builds any digital billboards. Tracey Arpen,co-founder of Scenic Jacksonville,said digital billboards undermine the headway made by billboard restrictions.In a letter to Mayor John Peyton,Arpen said it would be a"giant step - backward in the city's 25-year fight against visual pollution." gar— 1� • . Clear Channel counters digital billboards fit squarely within the settlement agreement hammered out • _ in 1995 to resolve legal challenges brought by billboard companies.The city's general counsel's office —" initiallysaid digital billboards aren't allowed,but after Clear Channel reapplied,a different attorney DON BURK/The Times-Union g PP This traditional billboard on Atlantic Boulevard could go said digital is permitted. digital If Clear Channel Outdoors gets its way The dispute has renewed many of the anti-billboard arguments made by Scenic Jacksonville, previously known as Capsigns,when its petition drive put tough restricticrs on the ballot.The City Charter amendment won 59 percent support from voters. Bill Brinton,a lawyer representing Scenic Jacksonville,said preventing digital billboards from being built in Jacksonville will ultimately help the city's overall economic growth. • 1 , "It's a far different city today than it was in 1987,"he said of the visual appearance along roads."The bottom line is that beauty is good for business.People are attracted to bring business to cities that are beautiful and not cluttered." Digital billboards have become a growing part of Clear Channel's business.Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. reported$2.8 billion in revenues in 2010,a 4 percent increase from the previous year. The company reported"strength across our U.S.operations,especially our digital boards"and added"expanding our digital footprint"will be a key part of its strategy Clear Channel is the dominant outdoor advertising company in Jacksonville.Other billboard companies such as Lamar Advertising and CBS Outdoor also offer digital billboards in other cities. Michael Munz,a spokesman for Clear Channel,said the billboard industry is evolving by using digital technology.The electronic signs enable Clear Channel and other billboard companies to change a billboard's sign repeatedly during the day,thereby rotating advertisements paid for by many customers. He said billboard opponents have exaggerated the visual impact of digital billboards by comparing them to gigantic television screens. "They're trying to create an atmosphere of thinking that digital billboards are more than what they are,"Munz said."They are not videos.They are not moving pictures." He compared it to a motorist driving past a standard billboard in the morning and seeing an advertisement,which workers later take down by hand and replace with a fresh ad seen by the driver on his way home.The only difference,Munz said,is digital billboards make that change electronically. An advertisement might be on the digital billboard for eight seconds,for instance,and then change electronically to another ad for eight seconds,and then change again.In between changes,the advertisement is static. I Subscription http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-02-20/story/jacksonvilles-new-battle-over-billboards 3/23/2011 Jacksonville's new battle over billboards I jacksonville.com Page 2 of 6 (ofl i To get approval for digital billboards,Clear Channel is using a provision of the settlement agreement that gives companies a limited ability to"rebuild and relocate"some billboards.That option is available when companies exceed the minimum number of billboard removals.At that point,companies get credit for additional removals.The equivalent of a replacement billboard can be built for each 1.5 or two billboards removed,depending on the type of road for the new billboard. The settlement agreement doesn't specifically say whether digital billboards are allowed,a reflection of the fact that digital billboards have emerged only in recent years.Clear Channel installed its first digital billboard network in Cleveland in 2005. City lawyers said in December there's nothing in the agreement prohibiting Clear Channel from going digital,provided other regulations are met. But Brinton argues that interpretation defies common sense.He said Clear Channel could"rebuild"digital billboards only if it already has digital billboards in Jacksonville. So far,the dispute hasn't gone beyond dueling legal interpretations.Even though it's an election year,Scenic Jacksonville isn't replaying 1907 when the group rallied support for a petition drive that netted thousands of signatures,enough to get a City Charter amendment on the ballot. The ramifications of that vote continue to dictate where motorists will find billboards in Jacksonville.For instance,the 1995 settlement agreement bans billboards from new roads,a prohibition covering Florida 9A and Branan Field-Chaffee Road.When Florida 98 is built in Southeast Jacksonville,it will likewise be billboard-free.Butler Boulevard,a heavily traveled road that would be ripe temtory for billboards,has none. Scenic Jacksonville also targeted removal of billboards in downtown and in places where billboards blocked the view of the river. In places where replacement billboards are allowed,they must be at least 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet from an existing billboard,depending on the type of road. "Wth all the regulations,ifs becoming very hard to find a place to put a new billboard."said Larry Donahue,a building code enforcement supervisor who tracks the location of billboards. The clock is ticking on Clear Channel Outdoct's ability to rebuild billboards,digital or otherwise.The settlement agreement says the company has that option through 2014.After that milestone,billboard companies would no longer get credits to replace billboards removed through the normal course of attrition,such as the company losing a property lease for an existing billboard. david.bauerei n@jacksonvil le.com, (904)359-4581 Share I I Email I Pnnt 4NA Subscribe to The Florida Times-Union Comments(23) By Humbug 10220/11•08.41 am You've already achieved a 3-to-1 numencal reduction in billboards.How many more ways can you think of to restrict business opportunities in this city?Work at that hard enough and we could become the Detroit of the South.In fact, have a look at downtown for a preview. •Drastic budget cuts are needed to overcome drastic increases made over the last few years.-Humbug LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments FUG AS onirsaIVE By Bill adnton 102,20/11-12.16 pm Recognizing the aesthetic harm caused by the presence of billboards across their urban and rural landscapes,four states have now prohibited billboards entirely,including Hawaii,Alaska,Maine and Vermont.All of the billboards have now been removed in Hawaii,Vermont,and Maine. There have never been any billboards in Alaska,where the interest in aesthetics was so strong in Alaska that a statutory provision was enacted on March 4.1999 through a statewide citizens'ballot initiative,providing'.'It is the intent of the people of the State of Alaska that Alaska shall forever remain free of billboards_' Beverly Beach,Florida lust celebrated the removal of its last billboard(a Clear Channel billboard). Trees along Jacksonville's roadways are being cut down to improve the view of billboards.See YouTube at http.1/wvnv.youtubecom/watch?v--FT7IAO1 wuyo The most prevalent advertising on billboards in Jacksonville is brand advertising for fast food,with McDonald's leading the way(such as the recent advertising campaign promoting the McRib sandwich.etc),along with branding for Taco http://jacksonville.com/business/201I-02-20/story/jacksonvilles-new-battle-over-billboards 3/23/2011 Jacksonville's new battle over billboards I jacksonville.com Page 3 of 6 Bell,Subway and Krystal,and for personal injury lawyers(adding to ads that wrap our buses,appear on our phone books,and dominate the radio and television air waves). Consider the damage to the landscape as our trees are cut down to better improve the view of an ad for a fast food brand or for a personal injury lawyer.Cities across the nation are stopping new construction and working to reduce and/or eliminate billboard blight.There are over 200 billboard faces on Clear Channel billboard structures that should have been removed in 1992,but are still up.Billboards were to have been downsized to 300-square feet by the mid- 1990's but many are still oversized at over 600-square feet throughout Jacksonville. Beauty is good for business.Jacksonville benefits by eliminating eyesores and by landscaping its highways,not by adding blight(sky spam)and cutting down cur trees and stopping highway landscaping. Cities are saying"no"to digital billboards,such as Durham,N.C.and St.Louis, Missouri. Today in Jacksonville,Clear Channel Outdoor(the world's largest billboard company)has at least four registered lobbyists and a public relations firm pushing for a"yes"to digital billboards.The issue in Jacksonville is whether we are willing to shift into reverse and step on the gas and go backwards. I sure hope not. Bill Brinton LOGIN or REGISTER t0 post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By Leslie Pierpont 102/20/11-12:57 pm I heartily second Mr. Brinton's comments.Jacksonville's billboard free roadways-JTB,9A are a pleasure to drive compared to most of our roads.In 1987 the voters wanted billboards removed.The City Council needs to listen to the voters,not the lobbyists,and vote against these light polluting,electricity wasting,distracting electronic billboards. LOGIN of REGISTER tO post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By jbd 102/20/11-01:33 pm I can only imagine three parties that want the billboards: 1.The billboard company 2.The advertiser 3.The owner of the property lease That's three entities and Jacksonville SMSA has a population of approximately 1.3 million people. Where is the issue?Eliminate ALL billboards....they are INCREDIBLY unattractive. LOGIN Or REGISTER to post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By vito2 102/20/11-02:00 pm Mr Brinton,count us at two more voters who applaud your work on behalf of Scenic Jacksonville.I've lived here since 1973 and remember well the initial efforts to reduce the size and number of billboards in the city.We'll continue to stay in touch with our council members to fend off any expansion in the current limitations. LOGIN Or REGISTER t0 post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By I want the Truth 102/20/11-02:05 pm No electronic billboards is good for business. For starters,it keeps more potential customers alive.The whole point of billboards is to distract your attention away from the road to read the ad.Any distraction from driving is dangerous and should be minimized.An electronically changing billboard is more distracting,not minimized.Common sense.They are also not good for business because small businesses will not be able to afford this advertising,only national brands and chains.Not to mention that new businesses are likely not to locate to Jacksonville which allows its natural beauty to be so detrimentally affected Has anyone thought about how much it is going to cost the taxpayer when one of these has to be taken down for road widenings7 After all we are a growing city.Research shows that a billboard company has claimed 1 electronic billboard's taking value at 11 million.I don't know about you,but as taxpayer,I don't want to be at risk for paying anything near that! LOGIN Or REGISTER t0 post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE C' By Rachel C.102'2C/11-CJ 59 pm [Clear Channel's spokesperson]said that billboard opponents have exaggerated the visual impact of digital rr• , -n- _ n---• _—i'ni 1 nn nn /1')/)1111 Jacksonville's new battle over billboards I jacksonville.com Page 4 of 6 billboards.... Mr.Munz,why don't you take a look at this video.hop.//vow youtube.com/watch?v=CG8UVfikulg.and then get back to us?Or.how about this one:http:/hxww.youtube.com/watch?v=ykRoWCF7WB08NR=t? ^V� The fact is that,regardless of whether you love them or hate them,digital billboards do have a significant impact on their surroundings. No one is"trying to create an atmosphere of thinking that digital billboards are more than what they are, as Mr.Munz states.What opponents of digital billboards in Jacksonville are trying to do is to get Clear Channel to stop pretending that digital billboards are less than what they are. These are cash cows for the sign industry,which is why(as Bill Brinton noted)Clear Channel has thrown so much into the push for digital billboards in Jacksonville.Think about it taxpayers fund the construction of roadways,and sign companies come along and erect billboards to exploit those publicly-funded roadways for private gain.And digital billboards can be anywhere from 5 to 8 times more profitable for the sign companies. (BTW.I am not suggesting that private gain is a bad thing.For those of you who may think that opponents of digital billboards are anti-business,nothing could be further from the truth.Successful opposition of the digital billboard proposal here would mean that local businesses'advertising dollars(t)would not leave Jacksonville to fill the pockets of the largest billboard company in the world,and(2)could be better spent elsewhere.] LOGIN Or REGISTER to post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE Byfrenchla 102R0'tt-0326 pm Digital Billboards do nothing for positive growth in Jacksonville.These things are distracting a huge safety hazard for drivers and pedestrians.Our beautiful St Johns River and the beach are what we want to see.Lets follow Hawaii, Vermont.Alaska.and Maine's footsteps on keeping more ugliness away from our city As stated previoulsy,only the billboard company,the property lease owner,and the advertiser benefit We do not have the attractons that Vegas does,so why should we copy the look. Please promote a more scenic Jacksonville.Digital Billboards-Not good change and definitely"not in my backyard." LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments FLAG as OFFENSIVE By uncluttered_streets I O2/20/11-04:23 pm Good grief.it sounds like the city is in serious need of a new attorney who understands who the client is and how to read a contract Upgrading a non-digital billboard into a digital billboard falls under the"rebuild"section of the agreement?Please--a class of first graders could tell you that a digital billboard isn't the same as a non-digital billboard,Just show them a video and ask.That would be like upgrading a S100,000 home into a million dollar home and calling It a"rebuild".Did the JAX city attorney work for Clear Channel at one time or will he/she be going to Clear Channel after leaving the city?Surely city council can overrule this wrong-headed legal opinion with a little common sense and reading of the plain language--it says what it means and means what it says.Also does Mr.Munz live in JAX or does he think he gets to determine what the city looks like from his Clear Channel"spokesperson"office in the sky?The people voted--do they have to do it again to make the council and mayor understand what they meant? Maybe we should put that before the first graders too. Coals or REGISTER to post comments mesas OFFENSIVE By 10d 102/2W11-04:35 pm Uncluttered streets well said,Mr.Munz is in the frequent habit of making statements on subjects about which he knows nothing with only his client's interest at heart.He does,indeed,live here but is not what I'd call a concerned citizen. LOGIN Or REGISTER to post tnmments FLAG As OFFENSIVE By uncluttered_streets 102/20/11-05.12 pm Sounds like he's concerned about what's best for his year-end bonus rather than what's best for the city Ifs sad that most corporations and businesses do their best to abide by the laws they work under and the contracts they sign.But the billboard guys(not only Clear Channel)are another breed-greed drives them and they run amok all around the world.No different from strip club and junk yard owners or water and air polluters as far as I'm concerned.Wonder how they sleep at night?The quality corporate and business leaders ought to nun them out of town. LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments FLAG as OFFENSIVE By Jbd102/20/11-051epm http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-02-20/story/iacksonvilles-new-battle-over-billboards 3/23/2011 Jacksonville's new battle over billboards I jacksonville.com Page 5 of 6 Uncluttered streets,you hit the nail on the head re Munz. LOGIN Or REGISTER to post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE 410 By Bill Brinton 102/20/11-10:21 pm Wth regard to Clear Channel Outdoors reported"$2.8 billion in revenue"this past year and its reported strategy to "expand its digital footprint'(with Jacksonville now part of that strategy),I am reminded of Charles Kuralt's speech in Baltimore in May 1997(shortly before his death on the Fourth of July that same year) His closing remarks(including that ordinary Americans want a beautiful country): "I think we've grown smarter.I believe we are going to see the mountain billboards fall and the vistas of the Blue Ridge Parkway newly protected and new initiatives taken against the acid rain from the west that is the new threat to the trees and lakes.It's given the soil on the top of Mount Mitchell,our highest hill and the highest one east of the Mississippi, it's given that soil a pH halfway between lemon juice and battery acid.I think that's going to change,never again will an ugly condominium be built on one of those mountain ridges because now it's against the state law. One could go cn and on listing the determined efforts going cn in a hundred,a thousand American places We do need legislation.But the way it's really going to have to be done is place by place and one place after another by the people who live there.After traveling over all these years to every corner of every state over and over again,I see,we ail see of course what Thackery saw in his American journey of 1856:"A sort of triumphant barbarism,"he wrote."A sordid greed everywhere and an extravagance equally astounding.All profits of all businesses immensely high."We all know what he meant,but America does not belong to the franchisers and the developers and spoilers who do not give a damn about their country.The!and is ours. Ordinary Americans,I am persuaded of this with all my heart,ordinary Americans want a beautiful country.We are proud of the amber waves of grain and the purple mountains'majesties.And we are not powerless.We can have,we really can,the land Amadas and Barlowe had seen-the Goodliest Land Under the Cope of Heaven." Bill Brinton LOGIN Or REGISTER to post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By Let's.do.better 02/20/11-10:49 pm Billboards are not attractive;are considered visual pollution.Our most beautiful places in America forbid billboards for that reason(I'm referring to our National Parks).Same for four of our most beautiful states(Hawaii,Maine,Vermont, and Alaska).Are we not proud of our native beauty here in Jacksonville?Let's not add more visual pollution to our city. Let's Do Better LOGIN Or REGISTER to post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By gwenna I 0221/11-08:46 am Personally,I would like to see ALL billboards illiminated.They are ugly and are the equivelent of litter to me,an eyesore and a serious distraction to all the neccessary signage already used in traffic control.It has gotten so bad that it is hard to spot needed signage in the trash pile of billboards jammed into the mix I'm particularlly irritated with the led changing signage.May are too bright at night and cause traffic holdups when you havew that one driver in front of you that either cannot read faster that a 5 year old can type or has to sit at the intersection until they have read the entire turnover of sales on the drug store sign.We are flooded with tv and print adds at every turn to the point that I don't even watch tv anymore I think it's time to give our land scape back. LOGIN Or REGISTER to post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By Joe_102/21/11-10:12 am I don't really see the problem with billboards in general. I usually just tune them out as I go by And it's not like most areas of Jacksonville are particularly scenic LOGIN Or REGISTER to post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE • By PoPo946 1 02/21/11-12:21 pm The folks who put up and maintain the standard manual billboards.What are they going to do if the signs are all electronic' There you go,more jobs lost "Uncle Ted want's you" LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE httn://iacksonville-com/business/2011-02-20/storv/iacksonvilles-new-battle-over-billboards 1/21/201 1 Jacksonville's new battle over billboards I jacksonville.com Page 6 of 6 By VoiceOfReason 102/21/11-03:54 pm Get rid of all of them. Then start working on the signs people throw up at all of our intersections and medians The City wouldn't have near • the financial problems it has(claims to have)today if it would start fining all the people using city property to advertise fixing your garage,buying your ugly house,or replacing your roof. LOGIN Or REGISTER to post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By dknighton 102/21/11-05.08 pm For what it's worth,we have the digital billboards in Cincinnati,and they are much nicer than the regular type When a spot changes.you don't get that nasty,paper hanging everywhere look that is a real eyesore.Let them replace a few The difference is huge. David Knighton LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By seek!02/21/11-09:20 pm Anyone have real data of the safety concerns?I have a really hard time believing that folks are driving off the side of the road because of what's on a billboard for 8 seconds Don't try to twist that into it-if you don't like them,you don't like them.No reason to pull what you think may happen into the argument LOGIN or REGISTER to past comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By ElMundo j 02/21/11-11:42 pm I remember actually voting with the do-gooders to ban or reduce billboards back in the 80's.I wouldn't normally have voted that way because I felt it went too far(I don't remember the specifics).But the billboard industry and their hired political hacks like Michael Munz were so over the tcp with their campaign and what ridiculous dishonest and misleading arguments:hey made,caused me to just vote against them because they were so irritating Looks like it is sizing up the same way again. And this means absolutely nothing if the well connected like the railroad and the NFL franchisee can persuade(buy off) saw, the authorities so that they do not have to follow the same rules as the less well-connected. LOGIN Or REGISTER to post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By Charfiel Horse 102/22/11-12:19 am EIGHT SECONDS???Where do they get eight seconds from?Check the ordinance on digital signage It states that the message cannot change more often than, I think,three minutes. I could be a little off but it is minutes,not seconds If these signs change every few seconds it would be as distracting'AND DANGEROUS'as watching television while driving,which is illegal,or TEXTING which should be illegal. Charliel Horse LOGIN Of REGISTER tO post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By LadyBlahBlah 102t22/11-02:43 am Drivers aren't looking at billboards,they are too busy texting LOGIN Or REGISTER to post Comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-02-20/story/jacksonvilles-new-battle-over-billboards 3/23/2011 Jacksonville Planning Commission favors 3-minute limit for changing messages on signs ... Page 1 of 3 Jacksonville com Business Jacksonville Planning Commission favors 3-minute limit for changing messages on signs Commission: Frequent change distracts. Posted:February 10,2011-6.55pm By David Bauerlein The Jacksonville Planning Commission on Thursday favored setting a three-minute limit on how F►tpt=M" frequently messages can change on electronic signs operated by businesses,nonprofit agencies and I churches. The commission's recommendation differs sharply from the more lenient eight-second restriction proposed in a bill that is pending before City Council. Commissioners heard 20 speakers speak for and against the bill.Business owners who use the signs and companies that install them said eight seconds is a reasonable regulation,allowing signs to beam out ads and announcements without distracting drivers and causing accidents. DON BURN/The Times-Union Jacksonville allows electronic signs.but they cannot change messages more frequently than every three Opponents of the bill said allowing messages to change every eight seconds will make roads less t minutes.But cityte officialso sayae's wording makes it impossible safe because thepoint of switchingmessages is to catch the eyes of passingmotorists.Theyalso to enforce, 9 Y argued it would create a visually messy appearance along commercial thoroughfares. Even after spending hours debating the legislation,including a special workshop two weeks ago, commissioners had difficulty coming to a decision. "We've heard a lot and it all comes down to a judgment call by us,"commission Chairman Marc Hardesty said. The commission initially rejected on a 4-2 vote a motion that would have set the limit at 45 seconds and prohibited signs from scrolling messages.Scrolling involves continuously rolling a line of text across the screen. A second motion to set the limit at three minutes and ban scrolling passed on a 5-1 vote. Jacksonville presence Electronic signs are used throughout the city.They can cost tens out thousands of dollars but have gained favor because they stand out from traditional signs.The messages are easily programmed by computer and most of the signs change messages faster than the eight-second limit being proposed by the bill pending before council. The bill also would affect messages on digital billboards,which are not currently in Jacksonville but could be built if Clear Channel Outdoor follows through on its application to build digital billboards. The city planning department supports the bill with the eight-second rule.City planners point to a Federal Highway Administration memorandum about the acceptable frequency of message changes for roadside electronic signs.The memorandum uses a standard of four to 10 seconds,with eight seconds being recommended as the limit. "If eight seconds is good enough for the Federal Highway Administration,then it's certainly good enough for Jacksonville,"said Karl Sanders,an attorney who represents Clear Channel Outdoor. Supporters of the three-minute limit said it would clear up confusion over what the city's existing sign ordinance requires.City officials for years interpreted the ordinance to have a three-minute limit,but the wording of the ordinance makes it impossible to enforce that interpretation on sign owners, according to the planning department. Speakers in favor of a three-minute rule said businesses could change messages 20 times an hour and 480 times a day,enough for them to communicate with motorists. david.bauerlein@jacksonville.corn, (904)359-4581 Share I I Email I Subscription Offer http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-02-10/story/jacksonville-planning-commission-favo... 3/23/2011 Jacksonville Planning Commission favors 3-minute limit for changing messages on signs... Page 2 of 3 Subscribe to The Fmrka Tunes-Union Comments(8) 3 By 0u8131 02/1 t/11-0048 am Thank goodness FYI-the 3 minutes rule in JAX is extremely comparable to most other cities. That's something that the advocates for the 8 second rule forgot to mention. "Oops' "You dress good,you look good.You look good,you feel good.You feel good.you play good.You play good,they pay good".-Delon Sanders LOGIN O REGISTER Io post comments F.0 AS OFFENSIVE By MrsH 102/11/1 I•09:10 am I don't care one wit what other cites are dcing.What I do care about is the Nanny mentality of government.I don't care if the message is up for B seconds or 24 hours If it works for the business then it is doing the job and the dam politician should get out of the way.If the sign is not doing the job then the businesses will go with something else.As for the safety issue of having these signs cycle one way instead of another,if you are driving a vehicle and are acting recklessly by paying attention to a sign then you are the problem...not the sign.Shall we outlaw children in the car? Children are very distracting when they cry and fuss Shall we outlaw any phones in the car,because the beeping of the phone is a distraction even if you don't pick it up and answer it?Shall we out law the T.V's in the back of SUV's and vans because the flickering light is a distraction? The problem is with the driver not the sign. LOGIN or REGISTER tO GO41 GOmmerVs FU0 AS OFFENSIVE By altarego 102/1 to I-10:00 am @MrsH-Your tirade fails to address the second point of the argument.Aesthetically,the signs are bad enough. • Having them change in rapid succession tums our communities into the Las Vegas strip.I,for one.am thankful that the issue is being addressed LOGIN or REGISTER to post connects FUG AS OFFENSIVE By backtothefuture 102/11/11-12:12 pm OK let's tackle some real distractions and annoyances on the road.How about BOOM BOX CARS,what a pain,you can hear them 1/2 mile away and when your eta light it vibrates right thru you,and forget about emergency vehicles, you can hardly hear them with the boom boom nearby you.What about sign holders on the side of the mad and people and bums collecting at comers.Also where are the addresses on the buildings,there aren't any.Come-on JAX lets make this a better place to live. P S.We also need more police and two sheriffs for this enormous city LOGIN Or REGISTER is post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By JackeonvllteFreak 102/11/11-01:25 pm I don't ever notice those signs anyway. I'm too busy sending teat messages while I drive by them LOGIN or RESISTER 10 post comments FLAG OS OFFENSIVE By Rachel C.1 02/1 r/11-07.18 pm GIN,rplGn Typical misrepresentations by the outdoor advertising industry,and the City bought into them.The FHWA Memo on which Sanders and the planning department rely pertains solely to off-premises commercial digital billboards along federally maintained roadways.The memo recommends minimum standards for the regulation of these signs (including a minimum dwell time of 4 to 8 seconds),but it also recommends minimum spacing standards(which,of course.Sanders and the planning department ignore).Also of note is the statement by the FHWA in the memo,"This guidance does not prohibit States or local governments]from adopting more restrictive requirements_"The Planning Ark, Commission did the right thing by showing some backbone and standing for the City's interests in the face of intense vr' http://jacksonville.con/business/2011-02-10/story/Jacksonville-planning-commission-favo... 3/23/2011 Jacksonville Planning Commission favors 3-minute limit for changing messages on signs ... Page 3 of 3 pressure from the world's largest billboard company.Check the City's website,and you will see that Clear Channel Outdoor has four lobbyists working the issue(not to mention the PR firm they hired).In fact,it was Clear Channel who brought the 8-second proposal to the City Council in the first place. Clear Channel representatives,as well as other sign companies,appear to be conflating the issues associated with the regulation of on-site and off-site signs in an effort to secure financial benefit at the expense of the safety and appeararfce of our City's roadways.Opponents of this bill are not anti-electronic signage,nor are they anti-business. They don't want to see our City get bullied into allowing digital billboards,the way so many other cities have been.And they want to see responsible regulation of signs that are designed to be distracting to drivers. LOGIN Or REGISTER t0 post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE By Rachel C.102/11/11-07:21 pm Val • P.S.Thank you for your(worthless)contribution to the debate. BTW,are you aware that your comment doesn't make sense?Whether the City sets the dwell time at 8 seconds or at 3 minutes,the City will still be regulating the signs.It's the government's job. LOGIN Or REGISTER to post comments FLAG AS OFFENSIVE • I . • • http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-02-10/story/jacksonville-planning-commission-favo... 3/23/2011 Neighbors oppose billboard on Coral Way intersection - West Miami-Dade - MiamiHeral... Page 1 of 3 SERVICES SUBSCRIPTIONS DIGITALNEWSPAPER PLACE AN AD MIAMI.COM MOMSMIAMI.COM MIAMIHERALD.COM ELNUEVOHERALD.COM © C I Current:61° /63° Weather Forecast West Miami-Dade iT What's this? Select your community or Select from a map Welcome Guest Login Register View or Submit VIDEO STORIES PICTURES CLASSIFIEDS EVENTS FORUMS Posted on Thursday,02.17.11 A A email print comment reprint ®hiniHsr ld 0 web Search powered byYM10015EA 1 Search 13hare WEST MIAMI Top Searches:Obituaries I Horoscopes I Lottery I Calendar Neighbors oppose billboard on Coral Way T__i , CDPE intersection L,ke furnished unitsstaning at 51600 A group of West Miami neighbors protested a proposed digital billboard sign on the 4. . • —_ .and unfurnished at 5950 corner of Southwest 24th Street and 65th Avenue—saying the lights from the t '"s�'-'-"Click arcall305.503.0550 electric sign would annoy neighbors and hurt property values. {,.�� BY JOSE CASSOLA RyerWQrd Upload and share your own. JCASSOLAgMIAMIHERALD.COM You can share related videos and photos. One group of West Miami homeowners is not a fan of digital billboards in the city. `* Submit Video P,ctures At Wednesday's City Commission meeting, YOUR DYER commissioners rejected a proposal to install a digital billboard sign on the corner of Southwest 24th Street HERE and 65th Avenue but not before a handful of neighbors protested the potential placement of the sign. Advertise Your 'l-scatDuriiness. The 12-foot by 25-foot sign was to be installed 40 feet above the ground on the property of a dentist office listing•or event on at 6567 SW 24th Street.Although the area is zoned commercial to accommodate several professional theflyerboard.- offices in the vicinity,the neighborhood is mostly residential. - - Residents in the affected area complained the lighting from the sign,which rotates several digital Local advertising by PaperG advertisements,would spill onto their properties at night and lessen the value of their homes. "I don't want this sign in my backyard,"said homeowner Karen Delgado,whose home is one block behind Advertise Here Target your message and reach West Miami customers! the proposed sign."These billboards are intrusive and we don't need them.The light will affect us in the Only S49.95 a month evening." More West Miami-Dade Homeowner Leon Rozio,who also lives in the neighborhood,agreed. Valuables taken from car while owner pumps gas "I understand these signs can bring in money to the city,but not at the expense of the quality of life of its in Dural residents,"he said. West Miami police to try 12-hour shift FIU sorority crowns new'Miracle Man' A representative for the applicant,Clear Channel Communications,assured the commission the dual- FIU puts on stage production of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice faced LED board would only illuminate traffic going east and west on Southwest 24th Street and not the Happy Campers:Miami-Dade spring break camps adjacent properties.The applicant also offered to lower the sign 10 feet.The commission still denied the Cool-de-Sac now open at Dolphin Mall request. More Though the commission voted against the sign on Coral Way,commissioners did approve a similar sign to be placed on the corner of Southwest Eighth Street and 57th Avenue. Mayor Eduardo Muhina said the sign on Eighth Street"is in a much more commercial area,while the one on Coral Way was closer to residents In November,commissioners approved an ordinance amendment that would allow digital billboards to be installed along commercial corridors in the city.Under the ordinance,no sign should be posted within 1,500 feet of an existing billboard. Officials agreed the signs would be an opportunity for the city to generate additional revenue. "I don't care for these signs just as much as these residents,but we have a responsibility to bring in recurring revenue to West Miami,'Vice Mayor Juan Blanes said."This is just one solution to avoid impacting residents with more tax or garbage fee increases." httn"//www miamiherald cnm/7(11 1/O7/1 7/7(177(lief1/neiahhnrc-nnnnce-hillhnarrl-nn html 1/T1/7(11 1 Neighbors oppose billboard on Coral Way intersection-West Miami-Dade-MiamiHeral... Page 2 of 3 y_rrr=sbso sj Inmost -depth nen. EtK IthogibRO_ INA50%off reglrr laVi &Mewl yy C, .sue AROSE NOW!$20 onus pint 0 amt. Q won., Like Join the discussion The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this apparsnly M sere intwmaeon,expnercas and obsenaeons about what's in Me news. Sane of the comments may be repented elsewhere in the eta or in the newspaper.We encourage lively,open debate n the issues os the day,and ask that you retain from profanity,hate speech,personal comments and remarks that are off point Thank you kr taking ths tame to offer year thoughts. We have introdwd a new cotonenerg system called Discus for ow articles This allows readers the option of apntt in using tear Facebaok Twitter,Chums or costing MiamiHnwd corn usemame and pasewrd. Read more about the new commenting system on MlamiHeald.com. 2 Comments Moo Mew COMMENT Login •• Type your comment here. • Post as... Real-time updating is enabled.(Pause) SHOWING z COMMENTS Son by oldest first Ail an11929 Billboards tit right in with the third world look 02/1220111018PM 2hkes Lye Reply ® 111 Lisa Harris Billboards don't really produce revenue for citizens.Billboard lees are rot that high,they don't pay extra property taxes,and there a no evidence that business revenue goes up.If you take the detrimental effect of 011boards,then you end up with a net negative.Lisa Hams,Scenic Alabama. 02/12201 t 11.58 PM Like Reply MI Sw.cribe by email a sSa I twat Coupons SHOCKINGS2S C,SI rn How To Invest I ridiculously huge Inv nip Simplify The Stock capon a day.Get 50- Auto Insurers are Market.Follow an 90%off your city's SCARED you will learn Expert Trader Today. best, this secret. www.TheSlreetcom www.Groupon cum Olows,BrealonViewo AdS by Yahoo, Site map Around Town Calendar The Exchange On The Web •All News • Restaurants B Bars •Today's events •Forums •Contact Us •Police Reports •Obltuanes • School •Tar Phobos •Real Estate Saba • Events • Sports •You-Videos •City at SweetwMer •Sdnd Neon •Classifieds • Clubs and Meetings •Login �rea� •Schod Into • Kids and Family •Register •Music •About the Community News Network •Mew Otter Camreaien http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/17/2072060/neighbors-oppose-billboard-on.html 3/23/2011 Neighbors oppose billboard on Coral Way intersection-West Miami-Dade-MiamiHeral... Page 3 of 3 •Ads and Theater •MiamiNrYdcam I Peres M Ad • ®Real '®My Yahoo NowslattimI Widgets!Mobile'Alert'Tattler Mat The Mina HwnMI Merl the MCCIac y Canary!Terms of Use a Privacy Statement!Caroc&on•I Contact Us I Adratisa Partners:TM Mimi Hall I El No.w Hank,'Newspaper A Edo:Mimi WAN I Miami Harald Nan I CBS4 WFOR-TV I Mara Cowan 2011 Mmsa idm WCtMroll row. • • http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/17/2072060/neighbors-oppose-billboard-on.html 3/23/2011 Digital billboard debate heats up—again-Wayne County,NY-Wayne Post Page 1 of 2 WAY N EPOS T.COM Breaking News Elizabeth Taylor:A lifetime in movies,a movie-like life Digital billboard debate heats up—again By Sue Higgins,staff reporter GateHouse News Senice Posted Feb 19,2011 @ 06.45 AM tr Macedon,N.Y.—At the urging of Mayor Jim Hoteling,two developers who proposed a two-acre land swap with the village in exchange for the right to construct a digital billboard an village-owned property have returned. At a public hearing Feb.9.residents,including a former village board member.spoke cut against the plan,which was first debated in 2009 and ultimately rejected. "What has changed?"asked former trustee David Sliney.'Not one of about too village residents who attended an informal meeting at Gravino Park in July of eoo9 spoke in favor of the billboard." He added that the"Walt Disney-type sign",proposed for Route 3t in front of the village sewer treatment plant,could have negative impact on the community. What has changed,Hoteling said,is there are two new faces on the board and one favors the billboard. • The two new members are Dave Kelly and Marcy Frey.Kelly supports the billboard plan,which is being proposed by Robert Palmiere and Robert Reitano,while Frey did not state her position at the hearing. Town Councilman Dave Maul told the board they are representatives of the people. "The majority of you maybe in favor(of the billboard),but it's not about what you want(personally),"he said. Trustee Ron DeMena asked Palmiere why he would again bring the billboard/land swap project proposal before the board. Palmiere said someone had called him,saying he wanted to talk. When Hoteling indicated he was the one who initiated the contact,DeMena requested a postponement on the vote to"rectify procedural arrangements,'because he was unaware of how the project resurfaced. Additionally,most of the concerns raised a year and a half ago were reiterated at the hearing.They included traffic safety, enrironmental impact and the aesthetics of the sign in light of village beatification efforts,as well as the condition of the land that would be swapped. "Everyone knows there's trash under the land,"said Jim Beckenbach,one of the leaders of One Macedon,which headed a recent unsuccessful effort to have the village dissolved. Rubber brought in by Garlock when the land was a dump was found under the surface,said Palmiere,who also said he spent $40,000 on environmental engineers who found only the robber and newspapers—and nothing hazardous. Beckenbach questioned whether anything could be built on the land. "It's a buildable property,but you have to get down to the bedrock,"Palmiere said. The land proposed in the swap is adjacent to Gravino Park and has been for sale since eoo6,with no takers. 'You are all panting to get the land,"said Sliney."Wouldn't it be appropriate to let the public know what you would do with it?" It's the last piece of commercial property in the village,Hoteling said. "At least two or three of us would like to see it developed commercially;he said. Trurtee Kelly suggested a grocery store. With Walmart just down Route 31,that idea was questioned by Maul. "What makes you(the board)think you can find a buyer or a purpose for the land better than someone who's in the business of doing this?'he said. Trustee Frey asked Palmiere if he would sell the land to the village without any swap,but there was no reply. Became of DeMena's concerns,vote on the proposal was postponed for 3o days,with the trustee expressing is displeasure with events leading up to the public hearing. "Due process,as far as I am concerned,has not been addressed,"he said."Postponement will give the Village Board a chance to do http://www.waynepost.com/latestnews/x2089515771/Digital-billboard-debate-heats-up-ag... 3/23/2011 Digital billboard debate heats up—again-Wayne County,NY-Wayne Post Page 2 of 2 the necessary interchange with the town and for each village board member to become informed.Information wasn't delivered to Based on comments at the meeting,it appears the developers may not even want a vote. 3 "Lamar Advertising Company(who would erect and maintain the digital billboard)doesn't want any more negative publicity,"said Palmiere."I'm not trying to be a hard nose,but we may want to pull the application' Town and county officials am opposed to the project as well. In a letter to the village dated Feb.8,the Town Board"unanimously disapproved the project."The letter noted that the county Planning Board also opposed it. Reasons for opposition include the application's inconsistency with provisions of town code to reduce billboards;the"substandard" size of the lot that would be created to enable construction of the sign;that the sign would create a distraction to traffic;that the transfer of property in public use would"contravene state law,"as well as multiple environmental concerns. Comlieht anti tame Port.Some churls resened Popular Videos Parents want Did Bullying Force Iowa tornado Federal Reserve Obama.US Will Lawrence Taylor charges against Missing Girl to Run caught on tape pulls in record Turn Over Control Sentenced to Six Rutgers students Away? $81.7 billion profit of Libya Effort Years Probation Commentsta1 4 lade orRpErttu not a comment: Privacy Polity I Terms d Service I About our Ads Wayne Post I Wayne Canty.NY 14522 Copynget D2506-2011 GateHm:se Media,loc.Some Rgvts Reserved Original coaent available for nonrammerual use under a Creative Commons license.except where noted SEO by eLoc Misting I Advertiser profiles I RadarFrog Merchant Directory http://www.waynepost.com/latestnews/x2089515771/Digital-billboard-debate-heats-uv-aa... 3/23/2011 Town is fighting to keep NJ Transit billboard plan off track-NorthJersey.com Page 1 of 1 NorthJerseyecom Town is fighting to keep NJ Transit billboard plan -A off track u,uaf/III I II/lll NIC00fUrr0.ar advertisement Friday,February 18,2011 master plan as the NJ Transit cannot conflict Neiohoor News(Boonton Edition) with the town's master plan." CORRESPONDENT In last Monday's meeting of the mayor and Both the Claiming Board attorney and town Board of Aldermen,Mayor Cyril Wekilsky attorney have been working on stopping reported that he and the Board are trying to state statute from overriding the local. stave off a 37-foot sign's construction on NJ Transit property off Route 287.A local Boonton Main Street has also been seeking ordinance prohibits billboard signs from support to keep the sign from being built. being set up on Main Street,but since NJ Having written letters to state representatives Transit is a public agency,the town itself and to the transit company,the non-profit cannot keep the sign from being built. organization hopes its efforts will help dissuade them from putting up the sign. Even when state statute overrides local over public agencies,NJ Transit is only required to To the organization's relief,Alderman come before a Planning Board for a review. Patricia Bujtas told how other government Then there is a 45-day period after NJ officials have helped. Transit makes a presentation during a review. "Senator Bucco,"she said,"had already sent a letter to intervene on our behalf." The mayor hopes that during that time,the power of the public and support from elected The next meeting of the Board of Aldermen officials will be enough to prevent the transit' will be held on Monday,March 7. s plans. "We've tried everything,"the mayor said."We' ve talked to legislators about the town's Advertisement PR ICEA Cll;VIN� - O FF ITS GO TIME!EVERYONE MSRP I I C� � TOWARDS DR PURCHASE of aNT raw row•UNCO W•MERCURY•suam VEHICLEr �— / - r I cvs® . , ® w tiff 11 _1711R/CRU FORD.ner MUST BE MIMEO AT TIME OF PURCHASE — ‘• Print Powered By(al ForrnatDynamics httn-//www nnrthiersev.com/news/116454453 Town is fehtine to keen NJ Transit bill... 3/23/2011 I Salt Lake City leaders want to ban electronic billboards Deseret News Page 1 of 2 Deseret News Salt Lake City leaders want to ban electronic billboards Published:Monday, March 21, 2011 5:01 p.m. MDT SALT LAKE CITY—What happens in Salt Lake City...well,it generally doesn't require a slogan about secrecy. Utah's capital city isn't Las Vegas,and city leaders want to make sure it stays that way. That's part of the reason Mayor Ralph Becker is asking the City Council to ban electronic billboards and prevent existing roadside advertising from converting to ads with changing images and flashing lights. "The image of the city should not be that of Las Vegas,"said Frank Gray,Salt Lake City's director of community and economic development. Traditional billboards already fail to provide motorists entering the city with the type of welcome city leaders would like,Gray said.The potential for those billboards to be converted into signs with unsynchronized flashing images would be even further from that ideal,he said. "That's not the image that any of us want for this beautiful city and for what the city represents to the state as its capital,"Gray said. On Tuesday,the Salt Lake City Council will discuss proposed zoning changes that would ban electronic billboards and provide criteria for those already operating in the city.The council also plans to set a public hearing on the issue for April 5. City officials say there are six electronic billboards in the city,though the permitting of three of those is in dispute.City leaders hope to work out an agreement with Reagan Outdoor Advertising Inc.that would allow those signs to continue to operate but only change images once every 24 hours.If not,the issue could end up in court,Gray said. "There's some question about whether those(three electronic billboards)were put up in a legitimate fashion,"he said. Messages left for Reagan Outdoor Advertising President Dewey Reagan were not immediately returned Monday. Permits for electronic billboards have been withheld by the city since October,when Mayor Becker first initiated the request to regulate them.The regulations apply only to"off-premise advertising,"such as billboards along roadways,not storefront signs. "It's the mayor's intent to establish a citywide ban on electronic billboards,"said Art Raymond,Becker's spokesman. Electronic billboards are becoming more common across the nation because often they're more visible, and companies can lease the sign space to more than one company at a time. In addition to problems with public perception,city officials say the electronic billboards cause safety concerns. The Federal Highway Administration has been conducting a study to analyze driver distraction and traffic concerns that may be related to electronic billboards.Results from the second phase of that study are expected this month. E-mail.'jpage@desnews.corn http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/705369131/Salt-Lake-City-leaders-want-rn-han- 'in")/',nt t Scenic America::Alternatives to Billboards Page 1 of 1 Normal version Alternatives to Billboards Billboards are not essential because more efficient alternatives do exist.The most common are logo signs and tourist-oriented direction signs (TODS).With the available alternatives,billboards are unnecessary. Logo signs and Tourist-Oriented Directional Signs(TODS)are small,business directional signs that have proven to be successful in regions across the country.Both supply passers-by with needed tourist and services information without marring the area's visual quality.Logo signs and TODS displays are smaller and less obtrusive than billboards and generally cut advertising costs for roadside businesses. Logo signs advertise gas,food,camping,and lodging at nearby highway exits and already exist on interstates in at least 44 states.TODS appear on non-interstate highways to supply information about local tourist attractions, such as distances and directions. A 1990 study sponsored by the US Department of Agriculture found that the annual direct economic impacts of TODS in Oregon and Washington exceeded$25 million,with secondary impacts topping$53 million.The benefit/cost ratio of the TODS program was nearly 2500 to 1 in Oregon and 1000 to 1 in Washington. Small,hand-held electronic devices have been developed that conveniently supplies travelers with city-to-city directions and interstate services,provide another alternative and a glimpse of future technology. John Paul Nichols,Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Cendant Hotels,commented in a recent interview that"...terrestrial billboards...are becoming a thing of the past...my little handheld(electronic)device can find every hotel in the United States;I don't need to wait for a billboard.The cell phone will alert me to my hotel preferences,not some sign I will find by accident." • Fry urges sensible billboard policies in California Scenic America president Kevin Fry visited both California's capital and its largest city recently to advocate for strong,responsible billboard control at the state and local level. In Sacramento,Fry provided testimony to the State Assembly Committee on Judiciary in support of AB109,a bill proposed by committee chairman Mike Feuer(D-Los Angeles),that would impose a two-year moratorium on digital billboards statewide,pending the outcome of ongoing federal research into whether or how digital signage can be operated safely. Click here for more... • httnr//www.scenic.ore/billhoards/backeround/alternatives?prints 3/23/2011 Scenic America::Billboard Control is Good for Business Page 1 of 2 Normal version Billboard Control is Good for Business "Billboards contribute a minuscule amount to our economic well-being,but they impose a high cost. They detract from Colorado's attractiveness to tourists and from the pleasant surroundings for our residents." --The Honorable Richard Lamm,former Governor of Colorado More than 700 communities nationawide prohibit the contstruction of new billboards. Why?Because billboard control improves community character and quality of life--both of which directly impact local economies.In fact, despite billboard industry claims to the contrary,communities and states that enact tough billboard controls enjoy strong ecnomic growth. While some signs are necessary to provide direction and index our surroundings,most billboards merely contribute to visual clutter. Fore example,on one section of road in Hampton,Virginia,there were so many signs that a driver going 45 miles per hour would need to read 1,363 words per minutes just to understand all the information. That is five times the normal reading speed of a stationary person! The billboard industry often claims that controlling oudoor advertising will turn even the most dynamic locale into an economic ghost town. In fact,the undeniable aesthetic improvements to a community that come from controlling billboards actually helps the eecnonomy. A five-year study of 35 cities by the Mississippi Research and Development Center concluded,"The way a community looks affects how both residents and visitors feel about it. An attractive community has a better chance at industry,including tourism." Moreover,billboards are both a symptom and a cause of urban blight. Pointing out the problems of a heavily traveled,low-income neighborhood,the Wilmington[North Carolina]Journal noted:"Nothing points out the lack of Adok concern for Dawson Street and its citizens more than the numerous billboards that line both sides of the street. Billboards outnumber trees,and abut up against homes and churces...destroying the privacy of both..." Fewer Signs-It's a Sign of Growth Communities can thrive without billboards. Why?Because most billboards have no connection to the local economy. They advertise either national brands or out-of-state products and services. In addition,while billboard owners often pay little or no local taxes on the actual boards,they enjoy high profit margins of 15-50 percent on every billboard face they own. Billboard industry naysayers claim that businesses such as gas stations and eating and drinking establishments would be financially devastated by reducing or eliminating their outdoor adverstising. On the contrary,in cities and towns such as Williamsburg,VA,Raleigh,NC,and Houston,TX,the period following implementation of stricter billboard controls and/or bans on new billboard construction was marked by steady growth of sales in those industries. . In Williamsburg,VA,sales for eating and drinking establishments grew from$48 million in 1988 to$81 million in 1992,three years after billboard controls were toughened. In 1991 alone,total retail sales rose 44 percent despite an ongoing recession. . In Raleigh,NC,sales for eating and drinking establishments rose from$243 million in 1989,before billboard control,to$307 million in 1992,after controls were introduced,a rise of about 20 percent. . The total retail sales in Houston,TX,grew over 100 percent from$9 billion in 1981,the year after the Houston City Council prohibited new billboard construction,to about$19 billion by 1992. For eating and drinking establishments alone,the total rose from$908 million in 1981 to$2.1 billion in 1992. That year, the City Council strongly approved a new ordinance with amortization provisions to further reduce the number of billboards. http://www.scenic.org/billboards/background/business?print=y 3/21/201 1 Scenic America::Billboard Control is Good for Business Page 2 of 2 Billboard Control is Good for Tourism Billboard control is especially important for communities that depend on tourism. According to the Travel Industry Association of America,travelers spent 5541 billion nationwide in 1999. The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors reported that natural beauty was the most important criteria for adults choosing a site for outdoor recreation. The more a community does to enhance its unique natural,scenic,historic,and architectural assets,the more tourists it attracts. Consider the following: ▪ Vermont took down its last billboard in 1975. From 1976-1978,tourism revenues increased by over 50 percent. According to Christopher Barbieri,President of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce,"Although there was some initial sensitivity that removing billboards might hurt tourism,it has had the opposite effect. Tourism is up for all businesses large and small." . Vermont Country Store founder Lyman Orton said:"The billboard ban provided not only a level playing field for all of us,it opened the roadways to scenic vistas and created more than compensating publicity. The absence of billboards in Vermont is the best billboard for all of the tourist business." . Many prime tourist nations prohibit new billboard construction even as their tourism revenues keep rising: Palm Springs and Big Sur,California;Key West,Florida;Martha's Vineyard,Massachusetts;Kitty Hawk and Nags Head,North Carolina;South Padre Island,Texas;Santa Fe,New Mexico;Aspen and Boulder, Colorado;Holland,Michigan;and Portland,Oregon. . Alaska,Hawaii,Maine,and Vermont all prohibit billboards statewide and still draw people from around the world to their scenic wonders. The Hawaii Department of Transportation commented that"Tourism is important to the economy of our state and the state's business community understands the need to protect and preserve the beauty of the islands." • .x .8cen1C.o[Sib1llbOHtd3/b8ckgfot 1 71Q .,I. 'f.k'71'11 Scenic America::Billboards&Economic Growth Page 1 of 1 Normal version Billboards Hamper Economic Growth • Billboards make a few people a lot of money.Unfortunately,however,they do serious economic harm to communities. Billboard Blight Stunts Economic Development Uncontrolled,billboards and signs overwhelm us with competing advertisements.Sign clutter,like a room full of screaming kids,so distracts the consumer that no message gets through clearly.Having smaller and fewer signs enables businesses to do a f better job selling their wares at lower cost. Many cities and states rely on natural beauty and visual quality to attract businesses and tourists.Billboards intrude on the landscape of America and devalue our nation's greatest asset its natural beauty.Four states ban billboards completely:Alaska, Hawaii,Maine,and Vermont.All of these states depend on tourism and have recognized that sign control helps attract tourists'dollars and benefits local economies. Areas like Boulder,CO,and Fairfax County,VA,which ban billboards,have strong economies and reputations as great places to live.Billboard control also means less • chance of billboards going up in sensitive areas—historic districts,residential neighborhoods,and near parks,churches and schools. Billboards Lower Property Values No one wants a billboard in their back yard.Recently,in • places as diverse as Scranton,PA,Perth Amboy,NJ,Greene County,VA,and Ft. Lauderdale,FL,homeowners have been outraged by new billboards towering over their . t - homes,blocking their views and lowering their property values. IlltV W I • http://www.scenic.org/billboards/background/econ_growth?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America::Billboards&Public Health Page 1 of I Normal version Billboards Endanger Our Health and Safety While some may think billboards are harmless,their negative effects on our health and our safety have been documented. Sign Overload Causes Negative Mental and Physical Effects In too many places,main commuter roads are cluttered with strip malls,billboards and garish on-premise signs.A recent Texas A&M University study is the first to determine that this type of sprawl contributes to commuter stress. After being subjected to stressful situations,the subjects took simulated commutes along either of two kinds of roads:blighted by billboards,sprawl,and strip development,or unspoiled and rural in character.Stress levels declined quickly for those driving rural roads,but remained high for those exposed to strip developments. Stressed drivers experienced higher blood pressure,heart rate and respiration,and increased eye movements and facial muscle activity. Billboards Encourage Minors To Abuse Alcohol: Unlike other advertising media,billboards are an ambush media that can't be turned off.The billboard industry won't,however,regulate itself in any meaningful way.What's more billboards are constantly visible to children. City after city has found most billboards are located in low-income,minority neighborhoods,and that most billboards in those neighborhoods advertise alcohol.A Baltimore,MD,study in the early 1990s revealed that three out of four billboards were located in the city's minority neighborhoods.Of those billboards,75 percent advertised alcohol and tobacco products. Other studies in Chicago,Detroit,Louisville,Atlanta,and elsewhere reveal similar trends.Alcohol and tobacco • advertisers are leading users of billboards according to the most recent Advertising Age figures.Of 1993's top ten billboard users,eight are tobacco or alcohol companies.In the first quarter of 1995,tobacco was the leading category of products advertised on billboards. Billboards are a Safety Hazard: Even the Outdoor Advertising Association of America boasts,"You can't zap it.You can't ignore it" Billboards are designed to distract motorists'attention from the road.It's no surprise that a 1980 Federal Highway Administration study found a positive correlation between billboards and accident rates.Moreover,federal and state courts have long cited traffic safety as a legitimate basis for billboard regulation. • http://www.scenic.org/billboards/background/public_health?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America::Billboards&the Environment Page 1 of 1 Normal version Billboards Degrade the Natural Environment 0 As a Vermont business owner recently said,"I do not think the short-term gain[billboards]would bring to my business are worth the permanent degradation to our scenic roadsides or the insult to our citizens and visitors who have come to expect more of us."Appreciating natural beauty is the first step towards conserving our scenery and protecting our natural resources. Billboards Divorce Us From Our Natural Heritage Attractive communities and unspoiled scenic vistas are critical to our quality of life.Both encourage us to appreciate and maintain beauty and the natural environment. Each new billboard that is constructed tarnishes our communities and despoils our countryside.Moreover,each new billboard reinforces the perception that ugliness is the price of progress--that our quality of life depends on destroying the very resources we most value.This false choice serves only those who benefit from blight,and it encourages us to accept the destruction of all scenic,environmental,and historic resources except those specifically set aside for protection.It encourages us to believe that only parks and protected districts,and not the places where we live and work and play,deserve our care. Billboards Destroy Trees Thousands of trees are destroyed each year to improve motorists views of billboards.Although billboards are located on private land adjacent to the right-of-way,some states allow billboard companies to cut trees on publicly-owned land,paid for with taxpayer dollars.In a short-lived tree-cutting effort in Georgia,more than 347 tree-trimming permits were filed with the DOT in less than 6 months.Fortunately,the Georgia Supreme Court recently ruled that policy unconstitutional.According to a 1986 report by the U.S.General Accounting Office,over • 1100 trees were cut in Louisiana so that billboards at just two different sites were visible from a nearby highway. O http://www.scenic.org/billboards/background/environment?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America::Fighting Against Tree Cutting Page 1 of 1 Normal version Fighting Against Tree Cutting A few pointers on protecting trees from the billboard industry. It is important to make this issue as simple and understandable as possible. There are no shades of gray here;this is simply an effort by the billboard industry to be allowed to destroy publicly owned trees for their private gain. That's the issue in its entirety. The billboard industry tries to obscure this by calling what they do"vegetation control." However,the truth is that the"vegetation"is not out of"control"; what the industry is doing is cutting--in some cases clear-cutting--publicly owned trees for their own benefit. Always refer to this practice as"tree- cutting"so that people know what is at stake. The Federal Highway Administration does not endorse tree-cutting. A 1990 memorandum of understanding from FHWA clearly states that they have rescinded their previous memo allowing tree-cutting and that states should end their tree-cutting agreements or programs. Political pressure from the billboard industry has since caused FHWA to hedge on this issue and to say that,while they no longer endorse tree-cutting as a practice,right-of-way maintenance is a state concern. A long string of court decisions makes clear that billboards have no"right to be seen." The billboard industry wants the public to think that billboards have a"right to be seen"--that is,that allowing • . trees to grow in front of billboards violates the rights of the billboard owners. A `' • long string of court decisions makes clear that there is no such right,including a North Carolina Court of Appeals decision,Adams Outdoor Advertising v.NC Department of Transportion,from September 21,1993. • The destruction of publicly owned trees on the public right-of-way for the benefit of a narrow private interest has been found to be illegal. 3I31 In Georgia,the Supreme Court ruled in 1995,that allowing the destruction of publicly owned trees on the public right-of-way for billboard visibility violated the --- state's constitution,because it constituted a gratuity to a private interest without providing a substantial benefit to the state or its citizens. Allowing tree-cutting may in fact violate the law regarding the use of the public highway. The Code of Federal Regulations states:"All real property,including air space,within the right-of-way boundaries of a project shall be devoted exclusively to public highway purposes." Clearly,allowing tree-cutting for no reason other than private(billboard industry)benefit is illegal. While FHWA does not interpret the law this way,it could serve as a useful argument for you. C htto://www.scenic.org/billboards/background/tree cutting?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America::Opinion Polls:What Americans Really Think Page 1 of 2 Normal version Opinion Polls: Billboards are Ugly, Intrusive,and Uninformative Each year,more than 200 communities seek tighter billboard control--the surest sign that citizens are fed up with billboard blight.Though the industry claims billboards are essential providers of important information,polls reveal that they most people see them as ugly, 01.1111/111 intrusive,and uninformative. Between 1957 and 1977,at least eight polls found 70%or more of respondents to = THIS VIEW be anti-billboard.In the 1990s,people in Florida,Rhode Island,New Hampshire, rdi '- Texas,Michigan,and Missouri all agree that billboards are litter on a stick.In fact, y �o_iio_a_� �1 virtuallyeverycrediblepot that's been done reveals one fact:Americans do not like r+u'W` billboards. Billboards Degrade Scenic Beauty,Communities • Where do people want to live,work,and visit?Places of great natural beauty and distinctive community character. And most people agree billboards degrade natural beauty and community character. • By a 10 to 1 margin,Floridians prefer reducing the number of billboards over further increases. . 64%of the citizens in New Hampshire oppose to billboard advertising on highways,with 53%of total respondents strongly opposing billboards. . 62%of Rhode Islanders state that billboards make state roads less attractive,as opposed to 31%who simply felt it made no difference. . 96%of Houstonians believe it important to make major improvements in beautification of the city,and . 79%of Houstonians support maintaining or strengthening the city's ordinance removing ALL billboards by 2013. . 69%of Missourians believe that fewer billboards would make their state more attractive to tourists,while just 26%disagreed. We Need Fewer Billboards,Not More Public patience with new billboard construction is wearing thin across the country.In fact,although the number of billboards along our roads increases by thousands annually,most Americans believe we already have either too many billboards or the right number.Almost no one supports the rapid rate of billboard growth we're currently experiencing. . Michigan residents favor a ban on new billboard construction by a 60%-32%margin;moreover,more than 90%of Michigan residents believe the state has too many billboards or the right amount of billboards (versus just 2%who want more). . The Rhode Island public opinion survey discovered two-to-one support for a ban on new billboards. . 81%of residents of Houston,TX,favor their existing ordinance banning new billboard construction. . New Hampshire residents favor a ban on new billboards by a 56%to 29%margin. . In Missouri,the margin of opposition to new billboard construction is 78%to 15%. Tree-Cutting for Billboard Visibility Outrages Americans There are many things taxpayers are willing to pay for.Cutting trees along public rights-of-way to improve billboard visibility is not one of these things. . A 1994 survey of Missouri found that a whopping 80%oppose the state law allowing the cutting of trees on http://www.scenic.org/billboards/background/opinion?print=y 3/23/201 I Scenic America::Opinion Polls:What Americans Really Think Page 2 of 2 public rights-of-way in front of billboards. . 80%oppose tree cutting to improve visibility of existing billboards in New Hampshire. r' . 75%of Floridians oppose tree cutting to allow billboards to be seen.Michigan residents oppose tree cutting by a 63%-33%margin. Americans Get Very Little Information From Billboards Though billboard operators like to portray billboards as providing essential information,in fact,most people get little or no useful information from billboards.72%of those surveyed in a Rhode Island study responded that they received either very little or no useful information about products and services from billboards. In Florida,the margin of those who derived more information from official information(LOGO)signs more than billboards for useful information about restaurants,gas stations and other roadside services was 63%to 16%. In Missouri,the margins were 68%to 18%in favor of LOGO signs. Conclusion:It's Time to Take Aim at Billboard Blight The hundreds of communities that fight billboards each year clearly reflect the will of the people.In virtually every reputable poll,significant majorities of Americans oppose billboard blight.The support for billboard control spans education levels,race,and gender;and it knows no geographic boundaries.People,in other words,are tired of watching their scenic roadsides transformed into oversized Yellow Pages. NOTE: Polls were:EPIC MRA September,1997 Survey,questions commissioned by Michigan United Conservation Clubs;"An Analysis of Attitudes Concerning Billboards in the State of Rhode Island for Scenic Rhode Island,"by Fleming and Associates,February,1990;"Survey on Outdoor Advertising,"for Florida House of Representatives, Transportation Committee,by Institute for Public Opinion Research,Florida International University,October, 1995;"Public Attitudes Toward Billboards in New Hampshire,"for New Hampshire Dept.Of Transportation,by University of New Hampshire,July,1994;"Statewide Public Opinion Poll on Billboards,"for Scenic Missouri,by E. Terrance Jones November, 1994;"Assessing Public Opinion Regarding Billboards in the Houston Area,"for Scenic Houston,by Telesurveys Research Associates,August,1996. 11, httn://www.scenic.ore/billhoards/backeround/onininn7nrint=v 301/W11 1 Scenic America :: The Trouble with Tri-Vision Page 1 of 3 Normal version The Trouble with Tri-vision Billboards Tri-vision billboards are an even greater traffic hazard than traditional static billboards. There have not been any empirical or field studies of the impact of billboards or tri-vision signs on traffic safety in more than twenty years. However, given tri-vision signs' proven abilities to distract drivers, regulators should be guided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declaration that: "No empirical studies are necessary for reasonable people to conclude that billboards pose a traffic hazard, since by their very nature they are designed to distract drivers and their passengers from maintaining their view of the road." -- Major Media of the Southeast v. City of Raleigh, 621 F.Supp.1446, 1451 affd 792 F.2d 1269 (4th Cir. 1986), cert denied, 107 S.Ct. 1334 (1987). . Tri-vision billboards contribute to light pollution e Tri-vision billboards tend to be more brightly and more persistently-lit than regular billboards, thereby increasing billboards' contribution to local light pollution. e Tri-vision billboards are expensive to remove . Tri-vision billboards tend to be more expensive than regular billboards to build and thus, in places which prohibit amortization of billboards, they are more expensive to remove. . Tri-vision billboards damage scenic quality Tri-vision billboards, because of their size, the lighting required, and their substantially greater bulk, can be even more devastating to scenic quality than ordinary billboards. Tri-vision billboards are dangerous Finally, again because of their size and greater bulk, the structures of tri-vision billboards are more dangerous than ordinary signs. In fact, on July 29, 2002, a 35,000-pound tri-vision billboard under construction in Snellville, Georgia, collapsed, killing three workers and seriously injuring a fourth. What are Tri-vision Billboards? tai:vAltea ,..ram ,' Tri-vision billboards, also known as variable message signs, are mechanical advertising displays with three or more separate faces that can be programmed to move in several ways at different time intervals (Kagan's, 2000). Tri-vision billboards use small, low-wattage motors powered by the same connections to utility lines that ordinary billboards use for illumination. Like all billboards, tri-vision signs clutter the natural landscape, obscure city skylines, and devalue residential property values. Why Do Billboard Companies Like Tri-Vision? Despite the more expensive and more highly skilled construction processes required, from a billboard operator's perspective, tri-vision signs possess certain advantages. Ad for ad, tri-vision billboards are more efficient. They use less space and material than ordinary billboards. Tri-vision billboards are also more cost-effective. For each lease of property, support structure, utility connection, permit, and marketing campaign, the operator gets three or more ads instead of one. As a result of this efficiency, billboard companies are able to charge less to advertise on tri-vision signs than on regular billboards. For example, the cost to advertise on tri-vision billboards (18'x48' and 10'x32') provided by Stokely, an outdoor advertising company in Tulsa, OK, is $1,500 --$1,800 per face, per month (i.e. $4,500 -- $5,400 for the entire sign). The cost to advertise on the ordinary billboards of the same size provided by the http://www.scenic.org/billboards/background/tri vision?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America::The Trouble with Tri-Vision Page 2 of 3 same company is$1,500--$2,000 per month. Tri-vision billboards are very effective at taking more drivers'vision off the road and onto the ads. According to a survey published in 2000 in The Business of Outdoor&Out-of-Home Advertising,91 percent of respondents claimed to have noticed tri-vision billboards versus only 18 percent noticing static,one-faced displays. Why Should Scenic Conservationists Be Concerned About Tri-Vision? Scenic conservationists have five primary objections to tri-vision billboards: . If static billboards are a traffic safety hazard,tri-vision billboards are even more so. There have not been any empirical or field studies of the impact of billboards or tri-vision signs on traffic safety in more than twenty years. However,given tri-vision signs'proven abilities to distract drivers,regulators should be guided by the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declaration that: "No empirical studies are necessary for reasonable people to conclude that billboards pose a traffic hazard,since by their very nature they are designed to distract drivers and their passengers from maintaining their view of the road." - -Major Media of the Southeast v.City of Raleigh,621 F.Supp.1446,1451 affd 792 F.2d 1269(4th Cir. 1986),cert denied,107 S.Ct.1334(1987). . Tri-vision billboards tend to be more brightly and more persistently-lit than regular billboards,thereby increasing billboards'contribution to local light pollution. . Tri-vision billboards tend to be more expensive than regular billboards to build and thus,in places which prohibit amortization of billboards,they are more expensive to remove. . Tri-vision billboards,because of their size,the lighting required,and their substantially greater bulk,can be even more devastating to scenic quality than ordinary billboards. . Finally,again because of their size and greater bulk,the structures of tri-vision billboards are more dangerous than ordinary signs. In fact,on July 29,2002,a 35,000-pound tri-vision billboard under construction in Snellville,Georgia,collapsed,killing three workers and seriously injuring a fourth. How do States Regulate Tri-Vision? As is often the case,technology has outpaced regulation in the billboard game,particularly where tri-vision signs are concerned. In 2001,the Federal Highway Administration used a literature review to assess the impact of tri- vision on traffic safety. The results were inconclusive. Approaches to regulating tri-vision vary from state to state. Some prohibit them. For example: Delaware: "The following directional signs are prohibited: (f)Signs which move or have any animated or moving parts." (CDR 85-200-001(2002)). New Mexico: "No sign may be erected or maintained which 10.6 Moves or has any animated or moving parts." (18 NMAC 21.5.10(2002)). New York: "Signs prohibited (7)signs which move or have animated or moving parts,except those giving public service information such as time,date,temperature,weather or similar information;..."(17 NYCRR§150.4(2002)). Other states control how fast the signs change. For instance: Arkansas: "...(1)The slat twirl time shall be two(2)seconds or less. (2)The slat dwell time shall be eight(8)seconds or more. "(001 00 CARR 005(2002));and htw://www.scenic.org/billboards/background/tri vision?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America::The Trouble with Tri-Vision Page 3 of 3 Florida: "A permit shall be granted for an automatic changeable facing provided:(a)the static display time for each message is a minimum of six seconds;(b)the time to completely change from one message to the next is a maximum of two seconds;(c)the change of message occurs •- simultaneously for the entire sign face...." (14-10.004,F.A.C). Finally,still other states include specifications concerning glare and an increase in permit fees to reflect the number of faces,rather than the more billboard industry-friendly number of structures. For example: Nevada: "A commercial electronic variable message sign,including,without limitation,a tri-vision sign,may be approved...if the sign does not contain flashing,intermittent or moving lights,does not cause a glare on the roadway and the following conditions are met: ...(c)A tri-vision sign must contain a mechanism that will stop the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs...." (NAC 410.350 (2002)). Iowa: "The annual renewal fee for each permit,...is as follows: ...For tri-vision signs,the area shall be calculated by multiplying the area of the face by three." (761 IAC 117.6(306C)(2002)). How Should States Regulate Tri-vision Billboards? Ideally,along with all other billboards,states and municipalities should prohibit new construction. Where political realities dictate otherwise,Scenic America recommends the following measures: • Place tight restrictions on lighting of tri-vision and other electronic signs . Minimize the number of ad changes per minute. Since the greater the number of changes,the more distracting the sign,no more than five changes per minute should be permitted. . In places with cap-and-replace ordinances,require that at least three signs as large or larger than a ++ standard tri-vision sign be taken down for every new tri-vision sign. . The FHWA and state departments of transportation should fund field and other empirical studies. The FHWA's literature review on the impact of tri-vision on traffic safety is not based on current empirical data. Conclusion The regulation of tri-vision and other electronic billboards is neither a simple issue nor one which most communities have yet had to face. In fact,some rural states such as Wyoming and North Dakota don't have any tri-vision or electronic billboards despite allowing them. Recent literature reviews show neither a good statistical database nor anything resembling consensus on regulatory approaches. Scenic America concurs with the FHWA that more research must be done on the issue,particularly on the impact of tri-vision on traffic safety and scenic landscapes. Regardless,we believe that strict regulation is appropriate. Scenic America strongly recommends that all communities ban construction of all new billboards,including tri- vision signs. This is the only measure proven to control all forms of billboard blight in more than 750 communities nationwide. aa, http://www.scenic.org/billboards/background/tri_vision?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America::Scenic Arizona V.City of Phoenix Page 1 of 2 Normal version Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix An appellate proceeding with national implications is pending before the Arizona Court of Download the Appeals.Oral argument were heard on Thursday..September 30,2010 at Mesa High Related Documents School. Press Release The appeal pits Scenic Arizona,Inc.and the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix, Inc.against American Outdoor Advertising,Inc.(AOA)and the City of Phoenix Board of Scenic America Adjustment over permits issued for electronic billboards.It is a high profile case in many Amicus Brief respects: Appendix part 1 ▪ Due to the important public interests at stake,the case has drawn the attention of amicus curiae(friend of the court)briefs from the national Sierra Club,Inc.and Appendix part 2 Scenic America,Inc.(in support of Scenic Arizona and a Phoenix neighborhood coalition).An amicus curie brief has also been filed by Clear Channel Outdoor,Inc. Clear Channel (CCO),the world's largest outdoor advertising company(in support of digital Amicus Brief billboards). . The Sierra Club and Scenic America represent the interests of scenic conservationists,whose cause has been taken up over the years by diverse interests ranging from Stewart Udall and Lady Bird Johnson to William F.Buckley and Dr.Seuss. . Given the public interests involved in aesthetics and highway safety,the Sierra Club and Scenic America expect that the appellate court will reach the merits of the case.Unlike a federal court proceeding,the court may consider the public interest in reaching the merits of such a case.This is especially true where the violation of the Arizona Highway Beautification Act(AHBA)or federal regulations under the Highway Beautification Act(HBA)would otherwise go unaddressed. . The case has also drawn an unusual court order directing the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)to file a brief to explain its position,even though ADOT is not a party to the appeal.The directive that a non-party file an amicus brief is highly unusual in any appeal.This gave the ADOT the opportunity to address the merits of the case and,quite frankly,reveal its failure to follow the law. . The appendix to the Sierra Club,et al.'s amicus brief reveals the internal debate in the summer of 2007 at the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)that led the agency to a sudden change in its longstanding interpretation of what constitutes an"intermittent"change-from once a day to more than 7,000 times a day. . It is noteworthy that FHWA's current administrator,Victor Mendez,headed the ADOT until 2009.It is also noteworthy that the Secretary of the Office of Homeland Security,Janet Napolitano,was the Arizona Governor from 2003 to 2009,and as Governor she vetoed a legislative effort to change state law to allow digital billboards and the state law was never changed thereafter. . It is also noteworthy that the U.S.Transportation Secretary,Ray LaHood,has made distracted driving an important issue,and that he"maintains that distracted driving continues to be an epidemic in the U.S." The key points of the appeal include: Standing:AOA and CCO maintain that the appellants Scenic Arizona and Neighborhood Coalition lack"standing" to challenge the local permitting of AOA's digital billboards along the adjoining interstate highway.In challenging the appellants'standing,AOA and CCO seek to prevent the appellate court from reaching the merits of the case, even though the case is one involving an issue of great public importance that is likely to recur. Merits:Digital/LED billboards with intermittent lighting are highly profitable to the billboard industry,because they draw the attention of passing drivers to an array of internally illuminated messages changing intermittently at a rapid rate.For thirty years,the State of Arizona interpreted state law to preclude electronic billboards from changing more than once per day.Indeed,this was likewise the interpretation given to the prohibition on intermittent lighting by the FHWA.CCO chose to completely ignore the issue of customary use that was addressed in the Sierra Club amicus brief,while AOA acknowledged that customary use for lighting is in the federal agreement and the state statute.The merits rest upon a matter of law where the term"intermittent"is framed by the exceptions and by three decades of consistent interpretation given to customary use.To quote the late Congressman Jim Wright from debate over amendments to the HBA,"the law clearly says customary use." httn•//www..ccenic.oru/billboards/case studies/scenic arizona v city of phoenix?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America::Scenic Arizona v.City of Phoenix Page 2 of 2 FHWA,however,failed to enforce federal law and regulations,and a proliferation of electronic billboards began to appear in isolated locations in several states.By the time that FHWA realized the growing extent of the problem,it was faced with an acknowledgment that its own lack of enforcement would pose a problem once the agency began to follow the law. Through the mechanism of a"guidance memorandum"the agency sought to dodge that problem by saying that it would not challenge a state's interpretation that would allow changes ranging at intervals of 4,6 and 8 seconds (or,in other words,by saying that it would not do its job).The problem for FHWA is the fact that the prohibition on "intermittent"lighting allows for exceptions such as a change in display of the time,the temperature,or the date. The FHWA cannot legally ignore the fact that the exceptions frame the definition of the term"intermittent,"but, unless and until challenged in court,that is precisely what FHWA has been doing and will continue to do. To many,the FHWA has become another federal agency that is more than"cozy"with the industry that it is supposed to regulate.To give it deniability for authorizing such illegal displays,FHWA has been careful to state that its"guidance memorandum"does not have the force of law.Yet the billboard industry repeatedly holds up the memorandum as legal justification for its actions and asks the states to allow light emitting diode signs that change rapidly throughout the day. The Sierra Club has identified in the appendix to its amicus brief three internal FHWA emails,each of which speaks volumes. . On August 7,2007,the Federal Highway Administration,Kentucky Division,communicated with FHWA officials about the growing problem with LED-screen billboards: Our Division has received ambiguous assistance from Hqtrs. The program office appears to prefer a"soft" position in remedying the deviations from applicable regs and statutes.My concern is that industry is playing serious hardball to roll back billboard controls and FHWA seems unable to understand the strength of the effort...It would be desirable to have a clear nationwide FHWA position that strongly advocates for the integrity of the letter and intent of the law. . The responding memorandum recited that,for further guidance,a state could contact the Office of Real Estate Services c/o Catherine O'Hara,and instructions for doing so were provided at the end of the memorandum.A FOIA request sent to FHWA on October 1,2007 yielded the following statement by Catherine O'Hara in August 2007: To me,any illuminations which go on or off more than once a day are intermittent lights. . Aware of the"more than once a day"or"once each day"(see Amicus App.71,85)context for interpretation of the term"intermittent,"another FHWA staff member revealed his difficulty maneuvering around this problem in his September 24,2007 internal memorandum to Gloria Shepherd,who signed the September 25,2007 Guidance Memorandum: I am having a tough time with coming up with a clear way to define the term"intermittent"(used in all or most Fed/State agreements).I am still playing with it,and any suggestions are welcome.I do think we need some explanation. The scenic organizations are going to hit us hard on that point,and any lawsuits might turn on that word. . See Amicus App.71-73,and 93(Gloria Shepherd response to FOIA Request,with FHWA counsel email dated September 25,2007)(emphasis supplied).There was no way for FHWA to deal with the issue other than to just ignore the same in the guidance memorandum and await a lawsuit over a state-federal agreement where the outcome would"turn on that word."FHWA's counsel obviously knew that the term "intermittent"would be defined by the exceptions. http://www.scenic.org/billboards/case_studies/scenic_arizona_v_city_of phoenix?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America::San Francisco voters reject sign district Page 1 of 1 Normal version San Francisco voters reject sign district The voters of San Francisco have rejected a proposal to create a sign district along one of their most historic corridors The efforts of San Francisco Beautiful were essential in defeating Prop D,which would 6 ¢ have allowed large digital signs along a stretch of Market Street, 9f Hi Voters also embraced Prop E.which will prohibit additional advertising on public spaces } i V in San Francisco. http://www.scenic.org/billboards/case_studies/san_francisco_rejects_sign_district?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America::Vermont-Proud to be Billboard Free! Page 1 of 1 Normal version ww. Billboard Control Case Study:Vermont "Whereas,billboards and other forms of outdoor advertising are becoming a matter of increasing concern to many resident..." So began the joint resolution of the Vermont State Assembly in 1967,when it created the Committee to Study Outdoor Advertising,which included future U.S.Senator Jim Jeffords. It held public hearings,conducted research and reviewed the relevant law on outdoor advertising. According to the Committee's report,"Our scenic resources...have contributed much to our economic development by attracting tourists,...residents,and new industries and cultural facilities....[T]he scattering of outdoor advertising throughout the state is detrimental to the preservation of these resources,and consequently to the economic base of the state." In 1968,Vermont prohibited new billboards and provided an amortization period of five years to remove existing billboards. By 1974,Vermont felled its last billboard. In 1997,the state commissioned an independent study of outdoor advertising to review the success of the billboard ban and to assess other forms of advertising. Public opinion polls and studies echoed the 1967 report. The study stated that traveler information solutions must maintain Vermont's quality environment,continue to prohibit billboards,and prevent sign clutter. Twenty-five years have passed and Vermont is as proud as ever to be billboard-free! Download pdf version r http://www.scenic.org/billboards/case_studies/vermont?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America :: New Safety Report Urges Major Restrictions on Digital Billboards Page 1 of 1 Normal version New Safety Report Urges Major Restrictions on Digital Billboards A major report has been issued that for the first time recommends policies to improve the safety of digital billboards by severely limiting appropriate locations for the signs and establishing new criteria governing sign behavior, including the frequency with which the brightly illuminated electronic images should be allowed to change. Written by renowned human-factors expert Jerry Wachtel, the report, Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs, was produced as a project of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Scenic America believes that state and local policies related to digital billboards should be based in the public interest, and not exclusively in the interests of the outdoor advertising industry, as has been the case in most localities until now. Decisions about sign locations, illumination levels, and the frequency with which advertising images rotate, are too often based on the desires of the billboard companies and are not rooted in concerns about aesthetic or traffic-safety impacts. This report gives state and local officials guidance on how to incorporate the public interest into policy decisions by laying out recommendations for sign behaviors and locations based on well-established human-factors principles and the evidence that has emerged from a large compendium of national and international research studies. Among the report's recommendations for reducing the inherently distracting effects of these brightly illuminated, constantly changing signs, are: . prohibitions on digital billboards in locations where there are large demands on the driver's attention, such as intersections, stretches of highways with on- and off-ramps, or other complex driving environments; . requirements that no more than one digital billboard be visible at any time; and, . standards for the frequency of image rotations that ensure that most drivers are only subjected to one message change. Currently, for instance, most jurisdictions allow image changes every 4-10 seconds, depending on state and local laws. The report calls for image rotation rates to be be determined for each individual sign by a formula that divides the distance from which the sign is visible by the speed limit of the road. That means, for example, that on a highway where the speed limit is 60 mph and the sign is visible from a mile away, the image could change every 60 seconds; on a commercial street with a 40 mph limit and with the sign visible from a quarter mile, the image could rotate every 23 seconds. A separate Federal Highway Administration research project on the safety of digital billboards is currently underway, with preliminary results expected at the end of this year and a formal report in early 2010. The NCHRP report may be downloaded in PDF format here. httn://www.scenic.orebillboards/digital billboard safety report?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America :: Montana Activists Clamp Down on Billboard Blight Page 1 of 1 Normal version Billboard Control Case Study: Montana Three groups in Montana found strength in numbers by forming a coalition, SAVE Scenic Montana. The coalition succeeded in getting a state law enacted in 1995 that significantly reduces billboard blight in Montana. The law limits billboard height to 30 feet(previously unlimited); limits size to 672 sq. feet(down from 1200 sq. feet); requires billboards to be on the same side of the road as the business that qualifies the area as unzoned commercial or industrial, with a limit of two billboards in these qualifying areas; and requires that the permit fee cover the cost of administering the program. SAVE Scenic Montana did their homework, researching the laws of other states, and contacting state DOTs and Scenic America for information. The coalition worked with media to educate the public and put the issue on the political radar screen. The coalition also maintained an active presence in Helena, keeping the pressure on their legislators, and worked hard to inform the governor of the problems associated with billboards. As a result, the Governor formed a task force that ultimately helped force the passage of the bill. After their win, the activists developed the following list of goals: 1) improve billboard control; 2) start a state scenic byways program; and 3) set up advertising kiosks along Montana highways to give local businesses a less-obtrusive form of advertising. Download in pdf format http://www.scenic.org/billboards/case_studies/montana?print=y . 3/23/2011 Scenic America::Scenic America urges sensible billboard policy in California Page 1 of 1 Normal version Scenic America urges sensible billboard policy in California Scenic America president Kevin Fry visited both California's capital and its largest city recently to advocate for strong,responsible billboard control at the state and local level. In Sacramento,Fry provided testimony to the State Assembly Committee on Judiciary in support of AB109,a bill proposed by committee chairman Mike Feuer(D-Los Angeles),that would impose a two-year moratorium on digital billboards statewide,pending the outcome of ongoing federal research into whether or how digital signage can be operated safely. Fry praised the bill for"calling a time-out"to allow the studies to be completed,before more digital billboards proliferate along state and local roadways,potentially endangering California's families and visitors."Until now,"Fry explained,"decisions about digital billboard regulations have been based entirely on the interests of the outdoor advertising industry and nothing else.Existing policies are designed to maximize profits,not protect the public.This bill corrects that imbalance by requiring the state to wait for research to be completed so that the public interest—for the first time—can be factored into policy decisions." Calling the bill"the only rational and prudent thing"to do in the face of considerable evidence that digital billboards are distracting to drivers,Fry urged legislators to approve AB109.The bill was approved by the Judiciary Committee but now goes to the Assembly's Committee on Governmental Organization,where it is expected to meet stiff opposition. California residents wishing to express their support for Feuer's bill are urged to go here to send an email to their assemblyperson. From Sacramento,Fri flew to Los Angeles and testified on March 18 at a public meeting of the city's planning commission,which was scheduled to vote on a new and controversial sign code.Citizen activists,led by the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight and supported by Scenic America,have put increasing pressure on the city to address its dysfunctional billboard regulations and history of catastrophically bad code enforcement,which has led to infamous levels of visual chaos on LA's streets and trouble in the courts. The new code would ban digital billboards and so-called"supergraphics,"which are enormous signs that drape building facades throughout most of the city,but contains major loopholes that may undermine the purported goal of reducing sign blight.The new code would allow as many as 21 special sign districts where the rules can be broken,as well as"comprehensive sign programs,"which can be used by developers to place large billboards on big developments. In his testimony,Fry criticized the sign district proposal,saying that given the large number of potential districts, "the seeds are planted for further dysfunction."The best approach,he said,was to actually enforce the existing ban on all new billboards and not to create sign districts and exceptions for developers,which invite more signage into the city,not less.Noting that"the city has already been cited by the courts for inconsistency,"Fry warned that the sign district provisions"will write those very inconsistencies into the law itself."Fry concluded by asking the commission,"If a visitor came back to the city in two years or five years,would they see more signs or fewer signs?I fear that with the plan as drafted,the answer is almost certainly more." On the day of the hearing,the commission was unable to get a majority to support or reject the code,and a week later voted to approve it with a compromise amendment that mandates that for every new sign that goes up in a special district,one needs to come down.In spite of this change,Scenic America remains opposed to the large numbers of sign districts and the inherent potential for further political interference,and is concerned that unless the language is strengthened to require that the old signs come down before the new ones go up,the sign companies will continue to game the system,as they have for decades,and blight will continue unabated. http://www.scenic.org/billboards/california_billboard policy?print y 3/23/2011 Scenic America::Tools for Sign Control Page 1 of 2 Normal version Fighting Back:Tools for Sign Control William F.Buckley,a noted conservative commentator once wrote"If a homeowner desires to construct a huge Coca-Cola sign facing his own homestead rather than the public highway,in order to remind him,every time he looks out his window, that the time has come to pause and be refreshed,he certainly should be left free to do so. But if he wants to face the sign toward us,that is something else. Communities and states are fighting back against billboards.Despite industry efforts,many communities have managed substantial victories which provide hope and examples for those pursuing billboard reform. Policy Tools for Billboard&Sign Control Ban On Billboards Hundreds of communities have banned billboards completely,as have Vermont,Hawaii,Alaska,and Maine.Each of these states has prospered in business and tourism,and attributes part of the success to billboard bans. According to the Vermont Travel Division,tourism is up for all businesses large and small. Banning New Billboard Construction In recent years.hundreds of cities like Houston,San Diego,and Little Rock have banned the construction of new billboards.This prevents the billboard problem from getting worse,protects new roads from becoming blighted, and helps billboard-free communities stay that way. Amok Billboard Removal d� Though federal law prohibits the use of amortization on Interstate and federal-aid primary highways,Raleigh and Durham,NC,have successfully used amortization to reduce visual pollution on local roads.The billboard industry has challenged these ordinances in the North Carolina and United States Supreme Courts,but both ordinances have been upheld. One of the largest cleanups of visual pollution undertaken by an American city will remove over 1000 billboards in Jacksonville,FL.The city and a local grassroots organization recently reached settlement agreements with 10 separate billboard companies. Some cities use an exchange ordinance to diminish visual blight.Exchange provisions require billboard companies to remove one or more existing nonconforming billboards before they erect a new,conforming billboard in another location.While not generally desirable,a carefully targeted exchange ordinance can remove billboards from"visually sensitive"areas like historic districts,downtown cores,town gateways,and areas with scenic mountain or ocean views.Mobile,AL,successfully removed billboards from its historic district with this approach. Amortization and Signage The most effective way to remove signs is by passing an ordinance that requires the removal of all billboards in your community by a given time, typically five to seven years.This is a process known as amortization.Most states allow amortization,and you should pursue this option for billboard removal if it is permitted in your state. After your community has secured a ban on new billboards it should enact legislation to promote alternatives to billboard blight such as logo signs and tourist-oriented directional signs(TODS).Logo signs and TODS display only essential traveler information and are smaller,less obtrusive,more affordable and easier to read than billboards.Logo signs advertise gas,food,camping,and lodging at nearby highway exits.TODS are used on non- interstate highways and supply information about local tourist attractions,such as distances and directions. http://www.scenic.org/billboards/background/tools?print=y 3/23/2011 Scenic America::Tools for Sign Control Page 2 of 2 Community Based Tools for Billboard&Sign Control Education Informing people of the value of billboard control,especially its beneficial effect on local economies and tourism spending,is one of the best ways to build community support for fighting billboard blight.Studies have repeatedly shown that scenic areas and beautiful communities are the places where people most want to live,work,and visit. Some common types of educational outreach include speaking to community and business groups,publishing articles in your local newspaper,and holding community workshops. Voluntary Beautification projects are a good way to fight billboard blight,build civic pride,encourage investment,and attract tourism.Volunteer efforts to reclaim beauty and restore local character encourage citizens to take pride in their area by refusing to use billboards for commercial or public service advertising;urging landowners near roadways and commercial centers not to permit billboards on their property;and establishing an awards program to recognize people that have worked to rid their community of billboard blight. Incentive-Based Incentives can provide significant motivation for improving local appearance and encouraging people to fight billboard blight.Small grants to community groups undertaking beautification projects,low advertising rates on billboard alternatives like logo signs or tourist-oriented directional signs,ar,i tax breaks for landowners that agree to keep their property billboard free can make a big difference in how a community looks. Get more information in Fighting Billboard Blight--a detailed acticn guide fcr citizens and public officials. htm://www.scenic.ore/billboards/backeround/tools?nrint=v 3/23/201 1 Scenic America::Digital Signage Energy Report Page 1 of 1 Normal version Digital Signage Energy Report As digital signage continues to proliferate around the country,a new report examines the technical, environmental,economic and regulatory issues surrounding this emerging technology. Click on the links in the box at the right to download the report. j Report downloads: The full report(2mb)is at the top and relevant excerpts from the report are listed Full report below that. Although much attention has been paid to the driver safety impacts of digital Excerpts: signage,there has been relatively little research regarding the environmental and Digital sign basics energy-consumption issues raised by this new technology. Sign brightness tal sign regulation This paper,for the first time,provides citizens and regulators with a solid starting EEconom9s of digital signs point for exploring those issues and sets the ground for further discussion. Environmental impacts The paper was authored by Gregory Young.LEED AP,an architectural designer Additional materials: and urban planner active in Philadelphia,Pennsylvania. A recent graduate of the University of Pennsylvania,his research was supported by a generous grant from i 2009 AASHTO Report the Samuel F Fels Fund,and performed in collaboration with the Philadelphia- based organization SCRUB the Public Vcice for Public Space. irk http://www.scenic.org/billboards/digital_signage_energy_report?print=y 3/23/2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Billboards Called Source of Distraction at Safety Summit WASHINGTON,D.C.,October 1,2009-Traffic and safety leaders from around the country are in Washington,DC this week at a distracted driving summit convened by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The purpose of the summit is to identify the sources of driver distraction and create an action plan for mitigating those sources and making roads as safe as possible. Presenter Dr.John Lee of the University of Wisconsin said that billboards can be a cause of motorist distraction outside of vehicles.Dr.Lee also said that while the issue of digital_ billboard distraction is an active topic of FHWA research,prior studies on the issue have found that they can be a source of distraction. In fact,a recently completed review of prior studies found: "Of those research studies that have addressed driver distraction and roadside billboards,nearly every empirical study undertaken since 1995...has demonstrated that there is an adverse relationship between distraction and digital billboards." Scenic America president Mary Tracy agreed that billboards should be included along with other distractions such as cell phone conversations and texting. "There is a growing and sound body of scientific evidence that has confirmed the intuitive notion that a digital billboard--essentially a giant TV-on-a-stick that change ad copy as much as every six seconds--poses an unnecessary safety risk to drivers,"Tracy said. "State and local government officials need to protect the public safety and either prohibit or strongly restrict digital signs,"she said. "We applaud Secretary LaHood for taking the leadership on an issue that has long been swept under the rug due to industry pressure and private interests." Contact: Max Ashburn,Director of Communication,at 202.638.1839,or ashbumscenic.org. More information on billboards and driver safety can be found at the Scenic America website,www.scenic.org. Scenic America 1250 I Street NW Suite 750 Washington,DC 20005 Scenic America is the only national nonprofit organization dedicated solely to preserving and enhancing the scenic character and visual quality of America's communities and countryside. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of2011 (An ordinance amending certain land use provisions of Title 21A(Zoning)of the Salt Lake City Code) An ordinance amending certain sections of Title 21A(Zoning)of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00064 to provide additional clarity and efficiency in land use regulation. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearing on December 8,2010 to consider a request made by Salt Lake Ciq'Mayor Ralph Becker(petition no.PLNPCM2010-00064)to amend the text of certain sections of Title 21A (Zoning)of the Salt Lake City Code to provide further clarity,and efficiency in land use regulation; and WHEREAS,at its December 8,2010 hearing;the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code identified herein;and .;,` WHEREAS,after a public l eari tg on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests, NOW,THEREFORE,,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.36.020.B. That section 21A.36.020.Bof theSalt Lake City Code(Zoning:General Provisions:Conformance with Lot and Bulk Controls),including Table 21A.36.020B therein,shall be,and hereby is,amended to read as • follows: B. Obstructions In Required Yards:Accessory uses and structures,and projections of the principal structure,may be located in a required yard only as indicated("X")in table 21A.36.020B of this section.No portion of an obstruction authorized in table 21A.36.020B of this section shall extend beyond the authorized projection. Dimensions shall be measured from the finished surface of the building or structure. TABLE 21A.36.020B—OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS' "` Front And Corner Side Rear Side Yard ](ard Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Yards -\ Accessory buildings subject to the X3:''' '`- ''`X. provisions of chapter 21A.40 of this title, pp and located at least 1 foot from the side { property line except for the FP and FR districts where no accessory building is permitted in any yard.Accessory buildings shall be at least 10 feet from a principal residential building on an adjacent lot. I a - — Arbors and trellises not to exceed 12 feet in ` • ,'iX ' X X height or 120 square feet in residential t districts.This requirement shall also apply to nonresidential districts unless otherwise' ' ,' s authorized. _ _ _ Architectural ornament not elsewhere ! X X X regulated projecting not more than 4 inches Awnings and canopies,xtending not more X X X than 2'/2 feet into.front,corner side,or side yards and not morethan 5,feet into rear yards allowed in residential districts only Balconies projecting not more than 5 feet X r 1, P` Basketball hoo and backboard on or X i X X adjacent to permitted driveways Bay windows which are 1 story high,not X X X more than 10 feet long,project 2 feet or less and are located not less than 4 feet from a lot line — r Below grade encroachments2 X I X X I r Breezeways and open porches i X Central air conditioning systems,heating, X X ventilating,pool and filtering equipment,the outside elements shall be located not less than 4 feet from a lot line.Structures less , than 4 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this ,;4 title. Chimneys projecting 2 feet or less into the X Aef'""''t° X. yard must be located not less than 2 feet r ' from a lot line. �. �„ � �Decks(open)2 feet high or less i X L X I ' I X Eaves,not including gutters projecting 2 feet X'' `X i X or less into the yard.4 foot eave may project into a 20 foot yard area. Fallout shelters(completely underground),,, X conforming to applicable civil defense ) regulations and located not less than 4 feet from a lot line e. ;.- - - -- Fences or walls subject to applicable height X X r X restrictions of chapter 21A.40 hi.this iitle Fire escapes projecting 4 feet or.less X Flagpoles: Residential distric'ts: I permanent flagpole X 7X X per street frontage ,:Ngnresidential districts:3 flagpoles per r X X X street` `.'., frontage Subject to provisions of table 2IA.36.020C of this section Grade changes of 2 feet or less except for the X X X FP and FR districts which shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010P of this title.(All grade changes located on a 1 property line shall be supported by a retaining wall.) Ground mounted utility boxes subject to the X X X provisions of section 21A.40.160 of this title Ham radio antennas subject to provisions of f X, subsection 21 A.40.090D of this title r;� Y=. — _ — Landscaping, including decorative berms 4 X X yiv : X feet or less in height with no grade change along any property line, provided that if such f landscaping obstructs the visibility of an 'S � <f 3 intersection the city may require its pruning s il„ i or removal. p j i- _ _._ ,._ - 1 Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and k ,'' X poles) I tt Parking, carports and covered parking spaces) ; X except as otherwise expressly authorized,by ', �` table 21A.44.050 of this title "{_, . .- Patios on grade �F , k X X j X Patios on grade (attached,,covered and -+-- r i X unenclosed) maintaining minimum 15 foot • setback from the rear property line Porches (attached, covered and unenclosed) X projecting 5 fee for less Recreational (playground) equipment I i X v Refase dumpster i X fi 1 -. 1v Removable ramp for persons with X X disabilities (when approved as a special ) _ exception) Satellite dish antennas X X Signs, subject to the provisions of chapter X t X X 21A.46 of this title Steps and required landings 4 feet or less X X X above or below grade which are necessary for access to a permitted building and located not less than 4 feet from a lot line Swimming pools(measured to the water X j X line),tennis courts,game courts,and similar uses shall not be located less than 10 feet . from a property line. ' Window mounted refrigerated air X X X F. X conditioners and evaporative"swamp" coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line.Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner units and"swamp"coolers � I less than 2 feet from the property line shall f be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title. Window wells not over 6 feet in width and ^ ( X X X projecting not more than 3 feet from structure Notes: 1."X"denotes where obstructions are allowed... 2.Below grade encroachments(eri'croachmenti which are completely below grade where the surface grade remains intact and where the below-grai e'ehcroachment is not visible from the surface)into required yards shall be treated as a routine and uncontested matter in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 21 A.14 of this title. 's 3.The accessory structure shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on theproperty. r - e SECTION 2,Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.46.110.A.3.b. That section•21A.46.110.A.3.b of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Signs:Sign Regulations for Downtown Districts),including the table therein,shall be,and hereby is,amended to read as follows: b.Delta Center Sports Arena Located on the Block Between South Temple and 100 South between 300 and 400 West Streets: STANDARDS FOR THE DELTA CENTER SPORTS ARENA LOCATED ON THE BLOCK BETWEEN SOUTH TEMPLE AND 100 SOUTH BETWEEN 300 AND 400 WEST STREETS Maximum Limit On !Height Of Number Of Combined 'Freestanding Minimum Types Of Signs Maximum Area Signs Permitted •Number Of {Signs' Setback2 Permitted! Per Sign Face Per Sign Type �Stgns3 lSee note 1 May extend Awning/canopy 1 square foot 1 per first floor 1 None_ 6 feet from signs per linear foot door/window ,.r„ face of of storefront r Y building but (sign area only) - i not within 2 'f feet from n ' back of curb6 1` ``_ See note 1 a Canopy, drive- '{ 40%of canopy-1/4, ,17,per canopy None through face if signage.,,t l,'face isoft2faces, 20%of canopy ! I face if signs are 4 on 4 faces i 12 feet 5 feet Construction sign 64:;s'quare feet 1 per storefront None See note 1 n/a Flat pigh(general 4 square feet 1 per building { None buil`dingu \ rr per linear foot face orientation) `) of building ` 4 faces { See note 1 I n/a r Flat sign 2 square feet 3 per business None ;, (storefront per linear foot storefront ;; { orientation)4 of each store I frontages See subsection. '„-See Marquee sign Subject only to 1 per storefront None 21A.46.0700� subsection subsection of this chapter;`..' 21 A 46.070 21 A.46.0700 of `, ) 'E O'of this this chapter t x,;, chapter 20`feet '; None Monument sign 1 square foot 1 per street H sign per ` per linear foot frontage j street of street frontage frontage 8 square feet None r Nameplate, 3 square feet r 1 per building None { building _ 12 feet 5 feet New development 200 square feet 1 per street None - ! sign frontage j 45 feet f None, but Pole sign 1 square foot j 1 per street i 1 sign per shall not per linear foot '---frontage street extend of street frontage across a frontage;200 property line square feet maximum fora single business, 300 square feet maximum for multiple businesses :: w 8 feet [5 feet Political sign 32 square feet r—No limit t 1-done 4 feet r 5 feet Private directional 8 square feet Ilimit ' None sign 6 square feet [None Public safety sign j 8 square feet No limit `''s gone 8 feet None Real estate sign 32 square feet:Y•-,.kperstreet None frontage See note I 7n/a Roof signs 4 square feet- I per street None per linear foot'" frontage of buildingface I or 6 square feet per linear foot of building face ' on buildings taller than 100 feet No limit n/a Window sign 25%of total No limit None frontage window area per use 90%of 1:'' total frontage -' window area (interior or exterior)for Delta Centerenter Sports Arena events,not to exceed 3 months in duration for each calendar year' Notes: I.For height limits on building signs,see subsection 21A.46.070J of this chapter. 2.Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3.The total number of signs permitted from the sign types combined. ok 4.Storefront flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. '"" ` 5.A single-tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct 1 larger sign. 6.Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 7.Verbiage and/or corporate logos are limited to on premises advertising of Delta Center Sports Arena events only and are limited to 10 percent of the window coverage. SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.46.120.E.4.b. That section 21A.46.120.E.4.b of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulatia for [' s` 4-, c ; Special Purpose Districts), including the table therein, shall be, and hereby is,amended to read as k- `aa. fins follows: 4= b. Standards For Tthe Franklin Quest Baseball Stadium Ballpark Located on the Southeast Corner of 1300 South and West Temple:,Flasigns,;`construction signs, political signs, real estate signs, new development signs, vwndow signs, public safety signs, and nameplates shall comply with the table-far.:standards for the PL, PL-2 and I districts. °' The design, materials, and colors for all`sigris must be compatible with the Ballpark on the corner of 1300 South and West Temple Franklin Quest baseball stadium ,. subject to the approval of the Salt`Lake City urban design committee. tiPl Types Of ifi Height Of Signs Maximum:Area ,-Freestanding Minimum Number Of Signs Permitted Permitted 1Per.Sign Face, Signs' ISetback2 ` Awning J '1 q are foot per See note 1 May extend 6 1 per first floor door/window r signs linear foot of feet from face of and not to extend beyond 1 laWnir g'` building,2 feet foot on each side of the door ", !from back of or window width ;i curb face5 Monument,TS'160 square feet of 8 et 10 feet riper building frontage — `signs3 4) > (total sign face area 'Including a base. The base shall be 125% of the sign !height ! -- Pole signs ?180 square feet per 30 feet [No sign [1 pole sign which allows 4 (triangle (gross sign face. 540 !projection over sign panels per sign face, l of frame square feet for the 'the property line which may be an electronic structure) !structure changeable copy sign4 and I logo sign(12 total signs ,for the triangular pole sign) Private square feet of feet !2 feet behind 2 per driveway approach and directional !total sign face area � property lines as necessary for pedestrian signs' including a base. direction The base shall be 25%of the sign height ,L. Notes: t' !.For limits on the height of building signs,see subsection 21A.46.070J of this chapter., 2.Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3.Modified from the standards for the PL,PL-2 and I districts and required for the ballpark stadium overlay district. 4.Electronic changeable copy signs shall only be permitted on arterial street frontages.Electronic changeable copy signs/panels shall not exceed 50 square feet. 5.Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property-line. SECTION 4.Amending text of Salt Lake City Code`section 21A.62.040. That section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Definitions),shall be,and hereby is,amended, in pertinent part,to add the following definition of"pitched roof'to be inserted in alphabetical order into that section: PITCHED ROOF:The covering on the top of a structure,serving to protect against rain, snow,sunlight,wind,and extremes of temperature,having a minimum pitch or slope of a twp foot(2')rise over a twelve foot(12')run. SECTION S:Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.62.040. That section g 21A.62.040 of,the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Definitions),shall be,and hereby is,amended, ti. in pertinent,parr,to amend the definition of"fraternity/sorority house"as follows: FRATERNITY/SORORITY HOUSE:A building which is occupied only by a group of university or college students who receive lodging and/or meals on thepremises in exchange for compensation,and are associated together in a fraternity/sorority that is officially recognized by the university or college and that has a national affiliation,and who r e from the lodging undlor meals o 4I,e p ..f r compensation. SECTION 6.Amending text of Salt Lake City Code chapters 21A.24,21A.26,21A.28, 21A.30,21A.31,and 21A.32. That chapters 21A.24,21A.26,21A.28,21A.30,21A.31,and 21A.32 of the Salt Lake City Code,shall be,and hereby are,amended to remove the text and tables of sections 21A.24.200;21A.26.090;21A.28.050;21A.30.060;21A.31.060;and 21 A.32.150 in their entirety. The codifier is instructed to replace the omitted text and tables of each of the sections identified herein with the parenthetical,"(omitted)". SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on thedate of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of 2011. • CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action': Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) RECEIVED 1-1 2 :2 I FRANK B.GRAY M C etWitigilIW SCAN Lt musk DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT C%CANNEDBW:� DEPUTY OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DATE: /i 7_s .Y DE LA MAAR E-S•SCNAEFER ROBERT FARRINGTON,JR. DERV DIRE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL p l (� � Od �� Date Received: JMJ 2 5 2011 David E eritt,Chie of Staff -� Date Sent to City Council: BY at 2s 2010 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 24,2011 Jill Remington-Love,Chair FROM: Frank Gray,Community&Economic Development Department Director RE: PLNPCM2010-00064,Zoning Ordinance Fine Tuning—February 2010 STAFF CONTACTS: Lex Traughber,Senior Planner,at(801)535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The City adopted a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in April 1995.At that time, it was understood that adjustments to the Zoning Ordinance would be necessary once it had been implemented and people had an opportunity to work with it. Salt Lake City intermittently processes fine tuning ordinance adjustments to provide code maintenance for the City's ordinances. Overall,the framework and structure of Salt Lake City's zoning regulations and development standards are sound and do not require wholesale restructuring. However,at times,code changes are processed due to land use policy changes adopted by the City or because of State enabling regulation changes. It would be beneficial for Salt Lake City to make minor code revisions that lead to a greater ease of use and understanding. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404 P.O.BOX 145486,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH B4114-54E16 TELEPHONE:801.535.6E30 FAX:501.535-6005 WWW.b LCDOV.cOM/CEO Amendments to the City Code selected for Fine Tuning processing meet the following objectives: • Improves the clarity and usability of the Zoning Code without changing the intent behind the specific regulation in question,and clarifies wording that may be open to interpretation; • Addresses ongoing problems with administration of the existing Code language,and may result in a minor policy change of low significance; • Implements the City's Comprehensive Plan;and • Provides ordinance consistency with existing policies and objectives. Analysis: Item 1. Chapter 21.A36—General Provisions,Table 21 A.36.020B—Obstructions in Required Yards: Allow an accessory structure in the side yard setback where said structure is located wholly behind the primary structure. This provision would allow an accessory structure to be located behind the primary structure on a given parcel,but not necessarily within the rear yard setback unless otherwise precluded by the specific zoning district. Item 2. Chapter 21 A.46—Signs,Section 21 A.46.110(A)(3)(b)—Sign Regulations for Downtown Districts:Change the"Delta Center"sub-section title and the"Standards for the Delta Center"sign overlay to a generic sub-section title and standards for the sports arena located on the block between South Temple and 100 South between 300 and 400 West Streets. Item 3. Chapter 21A.46—Signs,Section 21A.46.I20(E)(4)(b)—Sign Regulations For The UI, PL,PL=2,I And OS Districts:Change the name"Standards for the Franklin Quest Baseball Stadium"sign overlay to"Standards for the Sports Stadium located on the southeast corner of 1300 South and West Temple." Item 4. Chapter 21A.60—List of Terms,Section 21A.60.020—List of Defined Terms: Pitched Roof-If a definition for"Pitched Roof'is adopted as recommended in"Item 6"below,and included in"Chapter 21A.62—Definitions,"reference should be made to this defined term in Chapter 21A.60—List of Terms. Item 5. Chapter 21A.62—Definitions,Section 21A.62.040—Definitions of Terms:Clarify in the definitions chapter that fraternities and sororities must have a national affiliation in order to be considered as a fraternity or sorority as it pertains to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. This text amendment would provide consistency with the current regulations of the University of Utah,which requires a national affiliation in order to become a Fraternity or Sorority of the University. Planning Staff recommended this clarification,however,the Planning Commission chose to exclude this change in their recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission was concerned with potential legal issues based on a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance for a fraternity or a sorority to have national affiliation. Petitions PLNPCM2010-00064,Zoning Ordinance Fine Tuning—February 2010 Page 2 of 4 Item 6. Chapter 21A.62 —Definitions, Section 21A.62.040 —Definitions of Terms: Create a definition for"Pitched Roof' to be a roof with a minimum of a two foot (2') rise over a twelve foot (12') run, and add "Pitched Roof' to the alphabetized list of defined terms. Item 7. Eliminate the "Summary Tables of Yard and Bulk Requirements" for the various use district chapters throughout the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Chapter 21A.24 —Residential Districts, Table 21A.24.200 Chapter 21A.26 —Commercial Districts, Table 21A.26.090 Chapter 21A.28 —Manufacturing Districts, Table 21A.28.050 Chapter 21A.30 —Downtown Districts, Table 21A.30.060 Chapter 21A.31 —Gateway Districts, Table 21A.31.060 Chapter 21A.32 — Special Purpose Districts, Table 21A.32.150 In the past, the summary tables have not been routinely amended and updated, as necessary, to reflect the specific changes to the lot and bulk regulations for various zoning districts. In addition, the summaries found in the tables are not always specific enough to accurately portray the regulations. In other words, they are simply a summary and not a comprehensive table. Comprehensive zoning information is located in each Chapter (Residential, Commercial, Manufacturing, etc) noting all the development standards for any particular zone. Rather than have summary tables that are codified in the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore, more difficult to change when inaccuracies are found, the Community and Economic Development Department will use summary tables to help citizens and applicants in a more concise way, but the tables will not be codified. Master P/an Considerations: The proposed text amendments are essentially a matter of house keeping. The purpose of the proposal is to correct minor oversights in prior Zoning Ordinance revisions, eliminate conflicting information, and to provide clarity for current, perhaps ambiguous, Zoning Ordinance language. The proposed text revisions are for the purpose of maintaining, updating, and clarifying the Zoning Ordinance, and as such, are consistent with adopted City planning documents including Master Plans. PUBLIC PROCESS: An Open House was held on April 15, 2010. Notice of the Open House was sent to Community Council Chairpersons, business groups, and those whose names are on the Planning Division's list serve. Notice was also posted on the City's website. There were no comments received from the public related to the proposed text modifications. On December 8, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended that the petition be forwarded to the City Council for approval. The Planning Commission recommended a modification to Planning Staffs recommendation as noted in Item 5 above. Petitions PLNPCM2010-00064,Zoning Ordinance Fine Tuning—February 2010 Page 3 of 4 RELEVANT ORDINANCES: • State Law,Section 10-9a-204,Notice of Public Hearings and Public Meetings to Consider General Plan or Modifications •21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments—Amendment criteria and findings are outlined on pages four and five of the staff report which is included in the transmittal packet (Attachment 5B—Staff Report—December 9,2009). •21A 24—Residential Districts •21A.26—Commercial Districts •21A.28—Manufacturing Districts •21A.30—Downtown Districts •21 A.31—Gateway Districts •21A.32—Special Purpose Districts •21 A.36—General Provisions •2l A.46—Signs •21A.60—List of Terms •21 A.62—Definitions Ask Petitions PLNPCM2010-0006-1,Zoning Ordinance Fine Tuning—February 2010 Page 4 of 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A) NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND MEETING NOTICE POSTMARK Newspaper Notice—November 24, 2010 Mailed Notice—November 24, 2010 B) STAFF REPORT December 8, 2010 C) AGENDA AND MINUTES December 8, 2010 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY February 15,2010 Petition delivered to the Planning Division. March 1,2010 Petition assigned to Lex Traughber. March 17,2010 Routed proposed text changes to City Departments/Divisions for review and comment. April 15,2010 Planning Staff held an Open House. November 23,2010 Planning Commission agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites. November 24,2010 Newspaper notice published for the Planning Commission meeting on December 8,2010. December 8,2009 Planning Commission held a public hearing December 9,2010 Planning Staff requested an ordinance from the City Attorneys Office. January 5.2011 Received ordinance from the City Attorneys Office. January 12.2011 Planning Commission ratified the minutes from their December 8,2010,public hearing. January 18,2011 Transmitted to Community&Economic Development. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending certain land use provisions of Title 21 A(Zoning)of the Salt Lake City Code) An ordinance amending certain sections of Title 21A(Zoning)of the Salt Luke City Code pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00064 to provide additional clarity and efficiency in land use regulation. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearing on December 8,2010 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker(petition no.PLNPCM2010-00064)to amend the text of certain sections of Title 21A (Zoning)of the Salt Lake City Code to provide further clarity and efficiency in land use regulation; and WHEREAS,at its December 8,2010 hearing,the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code identified herein;and WHEREAS,after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests, NOW.THEREFOR]..he it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.020.11. That section 21 A36.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:General Provisions:Conformance with Lot and Bulk Controls),including'fable 21A.36.020B therein,shall be.and hereby is.amended to read as follows: B. Obstructions In Required Yards:Accessory uses and structures,and projections of the principal structure,may be located in a required yard only as indicated("X")in table 21 A.36.020B of this section.No portion of an obstruction authorized in table 21 A.36.02013 of this section shall extend beyond the authorized projection. Dimensions shall be measured from the finished surface of the building or structure. TABLE 21 A.36.020B—OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS' Front And Corner Side Rear Side Yard Yard Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Yards Accessory buildings subject to the X' X provisions of chapter 21A.40 of this title, and located at least 1 foot from the side property line except for the FP and FR districts where no accessory building is permitted in any yard.Accessory buildings shall be at least 10 feet from a principal residential building on an adjacent lot. Arbors and trellises not to exceed 12 feet in X X X height or 120 square feet in residential districts.This requirement shall also apply to nonresidential districts unless otherwise authorized. Architectural ornament not elsewhere X X X regulated projecting not more than 4 inches Awnings and canopies,extending not more X X X than 21/2 feet into front,corner side,or side yards and not more than 5 feet into rear yards allowed in residential districts only Balconies projecting not more than 5 feet X Basketball hoop and backboard on or X X X adjacent to permitted driveways Bay windows which are I story high,not X X X more than 10 feet long,project 2 feet or less and arc located not less than 4 feet from a lot line Below grade encroachments` X X X Breezeways and open porches X Central air conditioning systems,heating, X X ventilating,pool and filtering equipment,the outside elements shall be located not less than 4 feet from a lot line.Structures less than 4 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21 A.52.030 of this title. Chimneys projecting 2 feet or less into the X X yard must be located not less than 2 feet from a lot line. Decks(open)2 feet high or less X X X Eaves,not including gutters projecting 2 feet X X X or less into the yard.4 foot cave may project into a 20 foot yard area. Fallout shelters(completely underground), X conforming to applicable civil defense regulations and located not less than 4 feet from a lot line Fences or walls subject to applicable height X X X restrictions of chapter 21 A.40 of this title Fire escapes projecting 4 feet or less X Flagpoles: Residential districts: 1 permanent flagpole X X X per street frontage Nonresidential districts:3 flagpoles per X X X street frontage Subject to provisions of table 21 A.36.020C of this section Grade changes of 2 feet or less except for the X X X FP and FI:districts which shall he subject to the provisions of subsection 21A 24.010P of this title.(All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall.) Ground mounted utility boxes subject to the X X X provisions of section 21A.40.160 of this title Ham radio antennas subject to provisions of X subsection 21 A.40.090D of this title Landscaping, including decorative berms 4 X X X feet or less in height with no grade change along any property line, provided that if such landscaping obstructs the visibility of an intersection the city may require its pruning or removal. Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and X poles) Parking, carports and covered parking spaces X except as otherwise expressly authorized by table 21A.44.050 of this title Patios on grade X X X Patios on grade (attached, covered and X unenclosed) maintaining a minimum 15 foot setback from the rear property line Porches (attached, covered and unenclosed) X projecting 5 feet or less Recreational (playground) equipment X Refuse dumpster X Removable ramp for persons with X X X disabilities (when approved as a special exception) Satellite dish antennas X X Signs, subject to the provisions of chapter X X X 21A.46 of this title Amok Steps and required landings 4 feet or less X X X above or below grade which are necessary for access to a permitted building and located not less than 4 feel from a lot line Swimming pools(measured to the water X X line),tennis courts,game courts,and similar uses shall not be located less than 10 feet from a property line. Window mounted refrigerated air X X X conditioners and evaporative"swamp" coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line.Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner units and"swamp"coolers less than 2 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title. Window wells not over 6 feet in width and X X X projecting not more than 3 feet from Structure Notes: I."X"denotes where obstructions arc allowed. 2.11clow grade encroachments(encroachments which are completely below grade where the surface grade remains intact and where the below grade encroachment is not visible front the surface)into required yards shall be treated as a routine and uncontested matter in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter A.14 of this title. l'he accessory structure shall be located wholly behind th rimarc structure on the property. SECTION 2.Amending text of Salt Lake CM'Code section 21A.46.110.A.3.b. That section 21A.46.I 10.A.3.b of the Solt Lake City Code(Zoning:Signs:Sign Regulations for Downtown Districts),including the table therein,shall be,and hereby is,amended to read as follows: b.DeAo- 'enter Sports Arena Located on the Block Between South Temple and 100 South between 300 and 400 West Streets: STANDARDS FOR TI IF:p4-.LT.A CENT-ER SPORTS ARENA LOCATED ON THE BLOCK BETWEEN SOUTH TEMPLE AND 100 SOUTH BETWEEN 300 AND 400 WEST STREETS Maximum Limit On Height Of Number Of Combined Freestanding Minimum Types Of Signs "Maximum Area Signs Permitted Number Of Signs' Setback2 Permitted Per Sign Face Per Sign Type Signs3 See note 1 May extend Awning/canopy 1 square foot 1 per first floor None 6 feet from signs per linear foot door/window face of of storefront building but (sign area only) not within 2 feet from back of curb`' See note 1 n/a Canopy, drive- 40% of canopy 1 per canopy None through face if signage face is on 2 faces; 20% of canopy face if signs are on 4 faces 12 feet 5 feet Construction sign 64 square feet I per storefront None See note 1 n/a Flat sign (general 4 square feet 1 per building None building per linear foot face orientation) of building face5 See note 1 n/a Flat sign 2 square feet 3 per business None (storefront per linear foot storefront orientation)4 of each store frontage5 See subsection See Marquee sign Subject only to 1 per storefront None 21 A.46.0700 subsection subsection of this chapter 21A.46.070 21 A.46.0700 of O of this this chapter chapter 20 feet None Monument sign 1 square foot 1 per street 1 sign per per linear foot frontage street of street frontage frontage 8 square feet None Nameplate, 3 square feet 1 per building None building 12 feet 5 feet New development 200 square feet 1 per street None sign frontage 45 feet None, but Pole sign 1 square foot 1 per street 1 sign per shall not per linear foot frontage street extend of street frontage across a frontage;200 property line square feet maximum for a single business, 300 square feet maximum for multiple businesses 8 feet 5 feet Political sign 32 square feet No limit None 4 feet 5 feet Private directional 8 square feet No limit None sign 6 square feet None Public safety sign 8 square feet No limit None 8 feet None Real estate sign 32 square feet I per street None frontage Sec note I n/a Roof signs 4 square feet 1 per street None per linear foot frontage of building face or 6 square feet per linear foot of building face on buildings taller than 100 feet No limit it/a Window sign 25%of total No limit None frontage window area per use 90%of total frontage window area (interior or exterior)for Delta Center Sports Arena events,not to exceed 3 months in duration for each calendar year' Notes: t_For height limits on building signs,see subsection 21 A.46.070J of this chapter. 2.Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3.The total number of signs permitted from the sign types combined. 4.Storefront flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. .�... 5.A single-tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct 1 larger sign. &Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 7.Verbiage and/or corporate logos are limited to on premises advertising of Delta Center Sports Arena events only and are limited to 10 percent of the window coverage. SECTION 3.Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.46.120.E.4.b. That section 21 A.46.120.E.4.b of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Signs:Sign Regulations for Special Purpose Districts),including the table therein,shall be,and hereby is,amended to read as follows: b. Standards For Tthe Fra klin Quest Baseball Stadium Sports Stadium Located on the Southeast Corner of 1300 South and West Temple:Flat signs,construction signs, political signs,real estate signs,new development signs,window signs,public safety signs,and nameplates shall comply with the table for standards for the PL,PL-2 and I districts. The design,materials,and colors for all signs must be compatible with the Sports -, Stadium on the corner of 1300 South and West Temple Franklin-Quest--baseball stadium subject to the approval of the Salt Lake City urban design committee. Maximum Types Of Height Of Signs Maximum Area Freestanding Minimum Number Of Signs Permitted Permitted Per Sign Face Signs' Setback' Awning I square foot per See note I May extend 6 I per first floor doorAvindoss° signs linear foot of feet from face of and not to extend beyond I awning building,2 feet foot on each side of the door from back of or window width curb face5 Monument 60 square feet of 8 feet 10 feet I per building frontage signs'^ total sign face area including a base. The base shall be 25%of the sign height Pole signs 180 square feet per 30 feet No sign I pole sign which allows 4 (triangle gross signs face.540 projection over sign panels per sign face, I of frame square feet for the the property line which may he an electronic structure) structure changeable copy sign'and I &a-zu logo sign(12 total signs for the triangular pole sign) Private 8 square feet of 4 feet 2 feet behind 2 per driveway approach and directional total sign face area property lines as necessary for pedestrian signs' including a base. direction The base shall be 25%of the sign height Notes: I.For limits on the height of building signs,see subsection 21 A.46.070J of this chapter. 2.Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3.Modified from the standards for the PL,PL-2 and I districts and required for the Franklin Que t-baseball sports stadium overlay district. 4.Electronic changeable copy signs shall only be permitted on arterial street frontages.Electronic changeable copy signs/panels shall not exceed 50 square feet. 5.Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. SECTION 4.Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.62.040. That section 21 A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Definitions),shall be,and hereby is,amended, in pertinent part,to add the following definition of"pitched roof'to be inserted in alphabetical order into that section: PITCHED ROOF:The covering on the top of a structure,serving to protect against rain. snow.sunlight.wind.and extremes of temperature.having a minimum_pitch or slope of a twp foot(2')rise over a twelve foot(12')run. SECTION 5.Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.62.040. That section 21 A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Definitions),shall be,and hereby is.amended, in pertinent part,to amend the definition of"fraternity/sorority house"as follows: FRATERNITY/SORORITY HOUSE:A building which is occupied only by a group of university or college students who receive lodging and/or meals on the premises in exchange for compensation,and arc associated together in a fraternity/sorority that is officially recognized by the university or college,—and who-rece -fren3-the frsstevi3ita-/sorority lodging and-'ar-tneals tan the-premises-ferc rsation. SECTION 6. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code chapters 21A.24, 21A.26. 21 A.28, 21 A.30, 21 A.3 l, and 21 A.32. That chapters 21 A.24, 21 A.26, 21 A.28, 21 A.30, 21 A.31, and 21A.32 of the Salt Lake City Code, shall be, and hereby are, amended to remove the text and tables of sections 21A.24.200; 21A.26.090; 21A.28.050; 21A.30.060; 21A.31.060; and 21A.32.150 in their entirety. The codifier is instructed to replace the omitted text and tables of each of the sections identified herein with the parenthetical, "(omitted)". SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2011. oink CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) SALT LAKE CITY ORDNANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending certain land use provisions of Title 21A(Zoning)of the Salt Lake City Code) An ordinance amending certain sections of Title 21A(Zoning)of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00064 to provide additional clarity and efficiency in land use regulation. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearing on December 8,2010 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker(petition no.PLNPCM20I0-00064)to amend the text of certain sections of Title 21A (Zoning)of the Salt Lake City Code to provide further clarity and efficiency in land use regulation; and WHEREAS,at its December 8,2010 hearing.the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code identified herein;and WIIEREAS,after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests. NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake Cite Code section 21A.36.020.B. That section 21 A.36.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:General Provisions:Conformance with Lot and Bulk Controls),including Table 21A.36.020B therein,shall be,and hereby is,amended to read as follows: 13. Obstructions In Required Yards:Accessory uses and structures,and projections of the principal structure,may be located in a required yard only as indicated("X")in table 21 A.36.020B of this section.No portion of an obstruction authorized in table 2IA.36.020B of this section shall extend beyond the authorized projection. Dimensions shall be measured from the finished surface of the building or structure. TABLE 21A.36.020B —OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS' Front And Corner Side Rear Side Yard Yard Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Yards Accessory buildings subject to the X3 • X provisions of chapter 21A.40 of this title, and located at least 1 foot from the side property line except for the FP and FR districts where no accessory building is permitted in any yard. Accessory buildings shall be at least 10 feet from a principal residential building on an adjacent lot. Arbors and trellises not to exceed 12 feet in X X X height or 120 square feet in residential districts. This requirement shall also apply to nonresidential districts unless otherwise ,,,, authorized. a4 Architectural ornament not elsewhere X X X regulated projecting not more than 4 inches Awnings and canopies, extending not more X X X than 21/2 feet into front, corner side, or side yards and not more than 5 feet into rear yards allowed in residential districts only Balconies projecting not more than 5 feet X Basketball hoop and backboard on or X X X adjacent to permitted driveways Bay windows which are 1 story high, not X X X more than 10 feet long, project 2 feet or less and are located not less than 4 feet from a lot line Below grade encroachments2 X X X Breezeways and open porches X Central air conditioning systems,heating, X X ventilating,pool and filtering equipment,the outside elements shall be located not less than 4 feet from a lot line.Structures less than 4 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21 A.52.030 of this title. Chimneys projecting 2 feet or less into the X X yard must be located not less than 2 feet from a lot line. Decks(open)2 feet high or less X X X Eaves,not including glitters projecting 2 feet X X X or less into the yard.4 foot cave may project into a 20 foot yard area. Fallout shelters(completely underground), X conforming to applicable civil defense regulations and located not less than 4 feet from a lot line Fences or walls subject to applicable height X X X restrictions of chapter 21 A.40 of this title Fire escapes projecting 4 feet or less X Flagpoles: Residential districts: 1 permanent flagpole X X X per street frontage Nonresidential districts:3 flagpoles per X X X street frontage Subject to provisions of table 21A.36.020C of this section Grade changes of 2 feet or less except for the X X X FP and FR districts which shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010P of this title.(All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall.) Ground mounted utility boxes subject to the X E X . X provisions of section 21A.40.160 of this title Ham radio antennas subject to provisions of X subsection 21A.40.090D of this title Landscaping, including decorative berms 4 X X X feet or less in height with no grade change along any property line, provided that if such landscaping obstructs the visibility of an intersection the city may require its pruning or removal. Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and X poles) Parking, carports and covered parking spaces X except as otherwise expressly authorized by table 21A.44.050 of this title Patios on grade X X X Patios on grade (attached, covered and X unenclosed) maintaining a minimum 15 foot setback from the rear property line Porches (attached, covered and unenclosed) ! X projecting 5 feet or less Recreational (playground) equipment X Refuse dumpster X Removable ramp for persons with • X X X disabilities (when approved as a special exception) Satellite dish antennas X X Signs, subject to the provisions of chapter X E X X 21A.46 of this title Steps and required landings 4 feet or less X X X above or below grade which are necessary for access to a permitted building and located not less than 4 feet from a lot line Swimming pools(measured to the water X X line),tennis courts,game courts,and similar uses shall not be located less than 10 feet from a property line. Window mounted refrigerated air X X X conditioners and evaporative"swamp" coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line.Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner units and"swamp"coolers less than 2 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 2lA.52.030 of this title. Window wells not over 6 feet in width and X X X projecting not more than 3 feet from structure Notes: 1."X"denotes where obstructions are allowed. 2.iSelon grade encroachments(encroachments which are completely below grade where the surface grade remains intact and where the below grade encroachment is not visible front the surface)into required yards shall be treated as a routine and uncontested matter in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 21A.14 of tins title. 3.The accessory structure shall he located wholly behind the primary structure on the property. SECTION 2.Amending text of Salt Lake Cih'Code section 21 A.46.110.A.3.b. That section 21 A.46.1 I0.A.3.b of the Salt Lake Cite Code(Zoning:Signs:Sign Regulations for Downtown Districts),including the table therein,shall be,and hereby is,amended to read as follows: b. Sports Arena Located on the Block Between South Temple and 100 South between 300 and 400 West Streets: STANDARDS FOR THE SPORTS ARENA LOCATED ON THE BLOCK BETWEEN SOUTI l TEMPLE AND 100 SOUTH BETWEEN 300 AND 400\VEST STREETS Maximum Limit On "Height Of 1 Number Of 'Combined Freestanding Minimum ;Types Of Signs iMaximum Area ;Signs Permitted Number Of ;Signs' Setback' ;Permitted !Per Sign Face Per Sign Type 'Signs' See note 1 May extend Awning/canopy i 1 square foot 1 per first floor None 6 feet from signs i per linear foot door/window face of I of storefront building but i i (sign area only) not within 2 feet from back of curb6 See note 1 n/a Canopy, drive- = 40% of canopy 1 per canopy None through face if signage • face is on 2 faces; 20% of canopy face if signs are on 4 faces 12 feet 5 feet ' Construction sign 64 square feet 1 per storefront None • See note l n/a Flat sign (general 4 square feet 1 per building None building per linear foot face : orientation) i of building faces See note 1 n/a Flat sign 2 square feet 3 per business None (storefront i per linear foot storefront orientation)4 of each store frontage' See subsection See Marquee sign i Subject only to 1 per storefront None 21 A.46.0700 subsection subsection of this chapter 21A.46.070 = 21A.46.0700 of 0 of this this chapter chapter 20 feet None Monument sign 1 square foot 1 per street 1 sign per per linear foot • frontage street of street frontage frontage 8 square feet None Nameplate, 3 square feet 1 per building None building 12 feet 5 feet New development ' 200 square feet 1 per street None ! sign ' frontage 45 feet None, but Pole sign ', 1 square foot • 1 per street 1 sign per shall not per linear foot frontage street extend of street frontage across a ! frontage; 200 property line square feet maximum for a single business, 300 square feet maximum for multiple businesses 8 feet 5 feet Political sign 32 square feet No limit None 4 feet 5 feet Private directional 8 square feet No limit None sign 6 square feet None Public safety sign 8 square feet No limit None 8 feet None Real estate sign 32 square feet 1 per street None frontage See note 1 n/a Roof signs 4 square feet 1 per street None per linear foot - frontage of building face ' or 6 square feet per linear foot of building face on buildings taller than 100 feet No limit n"a Window sign 25%of total No limit None frontage window area per use 90%of total frontage window area (interior or exterior)for Sports Arena events,not to exceed 3 months in • duration for each calendar year' Notes: I.For height limits on building signs,see subsection 2IA.46.070.1 of this chapter. 2.Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. _.The total number of signs permitted from the sign types combined. 4.Storefroat flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. 5.A single-tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct 1 larger sign. 6.Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 7.Verbiage and/or corporate logos are limited to on premises advertising of Sports Arena events only and ..�... are limited to 10 percent of the window coverage. SECTION 3.Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.46.120.E.4.b. That section 21A.46.120.E.4.b of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Signs:Sign Regulations for Special Purpose Districts),including the table therein,shall be,and hereby is,amended to read as follows: b. Standards For the Sports Stadium Located on the Southeast Corner of 1300 South and West Temple:Flat signs,construction signs,political signs,real estate signs,new development signs,window signs,public safety signs,and nameplates shall comply with the table for standards for the PL,PL-2 and I districts. The design,materials,and colors for all signs must be compatible wills the Sports Stadium on the corner of 1300 South and West Temple subject to the approval of the Salt Lake City urban design committee. Amok Maximum Types Of Height Of Signs Maximum Area Freestanding Minimum Number Of Signs Permitted Per Sign Face Signs' Setback' Permitted Awning 1 square foot per See note 1 May extend 6 1 per first floor doodwindow signs linear foot of feet from face of and not to extend beyond 1 awning building,2 feet foot on each side of the door from back of or window width curb face' Monument 60 square feet of S feet 10 feet 1 per building frontage signs" total sign face area including a base. "the base shall be 25%of the sign Insight Pole signs 180 square feet per 30 feet No sign 1 pole sign which allots 4 (triangle gross sign face.540 projection over sign panels per sign face,1 of frame square feet for the the property line which may be an electronic structure) structure changeable copy sign'and 1 logo sign(12 total signs for the triangular pole sign) Private 8 square feet of 4 feet .2 feet behind 2 per driveway approach and directional total sign face area property lines as necessary for pedestrian signs' including a base. direction The base shall be 25%of the sign height Notes: I.For limits on the height of building signs,see subsection 21A.46.070J of this chapter. 2.Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3.Modified from the standards for the FL,PL-2 and I districts and required for the sports stadium overlay district. 4.Electronic changeable copy signs shall only be permitted on arterial street frontages.Electronic changeable copy signs!panels shall not exceed 50 square feet. 5.Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. SECTION 4.Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.62.040. That section 21 A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Definitions),shall he,and hereby is,amended, in pertinent part,to add the following definition of"pitched roof'to be inserted in alphabetical order into that section: PITCHED ROOF:The covering on the top of a structure,serving to protect against rain, snow,sunlight,wind,and extremes of temperature,having a minimum pitch or slope of a tvp foot(2')rise over a twelve foot(12')run. SECTION 5.Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.62.040. That section 21 A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Definitions),shall he,and hereby is,amended, in pertinent part,to amend the definition of"fraternity/sorority house"as follows: FRATERNITY/SORORITY HOUSE:A building which is occupied only by a group of university or college students who receive lodging and/or meals on the premises in exchange for compensation,and are associated together in a fraternity/sorority that is officially recognized by the university or college. SECTION 6.Amending*text of Salt Lake Cite Code chapters 2lA.24.21 A_26.21A.2S. 21A.30.21A 31_and 2IA.32. That chapters 21A 24,21A.26,21A.2S,21A.30.21A31,and 21 A.;2 of the Salt Lake City Code,shall be,and hereby are,amended to remove the text and tables of sections 21 A24 200;21 A 26.090;21 A.2S.050;21A.30.060;21 A.3I.060;and 21 A.32.150 in their entirety. The codifier is instructed to replace the omitted text and tables of each of the sections identified herein with the parenthetical,"(omitted)". SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Ark Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR APPROVED As TO FORM Salt I.eke Clty Attuneys Office CITY RECORDER .42a/ By. Pitd C Car dmm�e,(SEAL) Bill No. of2011. Published: 0.44 Ii II :MITI'-=1 bni5-c]-Online re-7onine Pine lSmne I'1A'PCN12010-000G4.DOC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering petition PLNPCM2010-00064,a request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker to analyze and adjust the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance(Title 21) to provide for clarity and efficiency of use as part of a code maintenance program. The subject Petition addresses several minor fine tuning text amendments that would apply citywide if adopted by the City Council. As part of their study,the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing,anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 City&County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file,please call L,cx'fraughber at(801)535-6184 between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m..Monday through Friday Or via e-mail at lex.trauehber slceov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters,and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions,requests.or additional information,please contact the Planning Division at(801)5 35-7757;TDD(S01)535- 6021. KEVIN JONES PETE TAYLOR ANGIE VORHER EAST BENCH CHAIR SUNNYSIDE EAST JORDAN MEADOWS CHAIR 2500 SKYLINE DRIVE 933 SOUTH 2300 EAST 1988 SIR JAMES DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84116 GORDON STORRS ELLEN REDDICK RANDY SORENSON FAIRPARK CHAIR BONNEVILLE HILLS CHAIR GLENDALE CHAIR 159 NORTH 1320 WEST 2177 ROOSEVELT AVENUE 1184 SOUTH REDWOOD DR SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SLAT LAKE CITY UT 84104 PHILIP CARLSON ESTHER HUNTER BILL DAVIS SUGAR HOUSE CHAIR UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD BALL PARK CHAIR 1917 EAST 2700 SOUTH 1049 NORRIS PLACE 332 WEST 1700 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TERRY THOMAS VACANT WESTPOINT CHAIR FOOTHILL/SUNNYSIDE CHAIR 1840 STALLION LANE SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84116 D.CHRISTIAN HARRISON JIM JENKIN DOWNTOWN CHAIR GREATER AVENUES CHAIR 336 WEST BROADWAY,#308 PO BOX 1679 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84101 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84110 DEWITT SMITH GARY FELT LIBERTY WELLS EAST CENTRAL CHAIR 328 EAST HOLLYWOOD AVE P.O.BOX 521809 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84152 LISETTE GIBBONS MIKE HARMAN YALECREST CHAIR POPLAR GROVE CHAIR 1764 HUBBARD AVE 1044 WEST 300 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 BEVERLY NELSON RON JARRETT FEDERAL HEIGHTS ROSE PARK CHAIR 26 SOUTH WOLCOTT STREET 1441 WEST SUNSET DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84116 PAMELA PEDERSEN EAST LIBERTY PARK KATHERINE GARDNER SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DIST. CAPITOL HILL CHAIR 440 EAST100 SOUTH 606 DE SOTO STREET SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY,UT.84103 MARK 6RINTON THOMAS MUTTER WASATCH HOLLOW CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD 1869 LOGAN AVE COUNCIL CHAIR SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 228 EAST 500 SOUTH#100 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 Downtown Alliance Attn:Carol Dibble Bob Farrington,Director Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce Downtown Merchants Association 175 East 400 South#600 175 East 400 South,Suite#600 10 West Broadway,Suite 420." Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Sugar House Merchants Association Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Vest Pocket Business Coalition C/O Barbara Green PO Box 1805 PO Box 521357 Smith-Crown Salt Lake City,UT 84110 Salt Lake City,Utah 84152-1357 2000 South 1 100 East Salt Lake City,Utah 84106 Westside Alliance C/O Neighborhood Housing Services Maria Garcia 622 West 500 North Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Amok Updated I0/05/04 K DC 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A. Newspaper Notice and Postmark Newspaper Notice — November 24, 2010 Mailed Notice — November 24, 2010 Remit to:P.O.Box 704005 ZheYenitfakeZribune MEDIA9tIe Deseret News West Valley City,UT 84170 Order Confirmation for Ad#0000637360-01 Client PLANNING DIVISION PayorCustomer PLANNING DIVISION Ad Content Proof Actual Size cn11 u[E Oar PLANNING Client Phone 801-535-6184 Payor Phone 1501-535-6184 20,6•61 1ON ZONING ORDMUCE REV u616Dkcn HAR,G Aecountn 9001394298 Payor Account 9001394298 On Wedneuloy,Decem. der 8, 2010, co 5:45 Plus.,rye Saar lake City Address PO BOX 145480 Payor Address PO BOX 145480 Plannln9 Commisaon wart hold us SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5455 USA SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5455 rake comment antie hands con. side. Peralen PINPCM2010.00064, a Ordered Byrequest by Sub Lake City Acct.Exec ym R<d^h Becker r Fax Ayze o d adjuzr,he EMail everett joycegsICgov.Corn Lex jyaldez Sae Laxe(Cee Zonin21) g °rainporide for clarlry and effkle 0[or me as parr Total Amount $76.25 1 a< le m< pprogran, lhensiubVacr z6hrr n klror,m r<< Payment Amt $0.00 al maser fine tuning Tear Sheets Proofs Affidavits endmenrs,ha ould apply carywde If Plops.Amount Due $76.25 0 0 1 tutuy the City Council, 41 persons In,erez'ed Payment Method PO Number PLNPCM2010-00064 en `ppmrresent.,1116eul.Ye <n y heard in thismu ace Confirmation Notes: Porno I,.n,_�n-1d 1�. Room 326 of Fhl Sah Text lake Cry cm,Cou',ce Build Building,451 South Same Sneer. Annear,park- Ad Type Ad Size Color ing,°Isere`,11011,are I'o Legal Liner 1.0 X 57 Li <NONE> 'b°11L°"r.iclm P2,71no Product Placement - snnId non,�a u .I G��I s3��6 zzci�'_.,rf noseret News:: Legal Liner Notice-099E ,ro ,�, cur eduled Date(s): 11/24/2010 'fl2Ierprerer ucin w c+Itlul. Fai I' _r tali. Product Placement ",chime remil'I.ra I.6x ir6,13,er 6,{Kit 535, sltrjb.coma: Legal Liner Notice-0998 161'50T crew''-P Scheduled Date(s): 11/24/2010 Product Placement utahlegals corn:: utahlegals.corn Scheduled Date(s): 11/24/2010 11/1012010 1:01,21PM 1 7. PLNPCM2010-00064, Fine Y uninq Zoning Amendments - A request by .aalt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker to analyze and adjust the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) to provide for clarity and efficiency of use as part of a code maintenance program. The subject Petition addresses several minor fine tuning text amendments that would apply citywide if adopted by the City Council. (Staff contact: Lex Traughber at 801.535.6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com). The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices,room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information,Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports,and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17;past meetings are recorded and archived,and may be viewed at www.slctv.com INFORMATION TO APPLICANTS AND CITIZENS 1. Attendance:Applicant or representative must be present during tl will not be reviewed. 2. Decision Making Process:Planning Commission will review one c .ceive information from the applicant,professional staff,adjoining neighbors and citizens.After reviewing the case,the Planning Coma. .oerate on the case in executive session.No additional testimony will be accepted during the executive session,unless requested by the Commiss)u.....,clarification purposes.The Planning Commission will make their decision by making a motion,second,discussion and majority vote by the Commission. 3. Appeals process:Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Planning Commission may appeal that decision to the Salt Lake City Land Use Appeals Board within thirty(10)days after the Planning Commission final decision. 4. Meeting notices:Meeting notices are made available 12days in advance.If persons wish to submit written comments they should be directed to the Pl::,nning Commission or Planning Staff member indicated at least 7 days in advance to enable the Commissioners to consider those written comments.Comments should be sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Commission PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City,UT 84114-5480 1111114 Physical Address:451 S State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 '0 " NOTE: Please turn off cellular phones during the meeting.We comply with o!I ADA guidelines-People with.disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting.Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning Commission Secretary at 535-6171 regarding this agenda or ADA accommodations.TDD 535-6220. — -Salt-Lake City Planning Commission -- 451 S State Street, Room 406 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 5480 Sic ;• ;_; ;,__,_a . .._ RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED li NOTICE OF HEARING ri )i'..... ism Salt Lake City Planning UivIsu_ni 4.51 S Staie Street, Room 406 Pp Box 145480 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 5480 SALT LAae CITY PANNING COMMISSION MELTING ING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,December 8, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.or immediately following the Work Session The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00p.m. in Room 126. Work Session: 5:30 in Room 326. The Planning Commission will hold a work session from approximately 5:30-6:30. During the Work Session the Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on pending projects,discuss project updates and minor administrative matters. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. Mayor Ralph Becker to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss various matters including his Vision for a Green City 2. Clarion Associates will discuss the progress of the Sustainable City Code Initiative project(Staff contact: Cheri Coffey at 801-535-6188 or cheri.coffey@slcgov.com. 3. Discussion about proposed changes to Outdoor Advertising regulations (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801-535-6182 or doua.dansie@slcoov.com o Approval of Minutes • Report of the Chair and Vice Chair • Report of the Director o Public Hearing 6:30 or immediately following the work session 1. PLNPCM2O10-00610: Mark Miller Conditional use for auto sales- A request by Mark Miller Toyota to expand its current facility located at approximately 730 South West Temple. The property is zoned D-2 Downtown Support District in City Council District 4, represented by Luke Garrott (Staff contact: John Anderson at 801-535-7214 or john.anderson@slcgov.com). 2. PLNPCM2O10-00672 Harmon's Grocery Store Planned Development - A request by Harmons Grocery for a planned development of a grocery store at approximately 1706 E 1300 South in the CN (Neighborhood Commercial),zoning district and in City Council District 6, represented by JT Martin. The planned development request includes modifications to building and parking setbacks, fence regulations and sign regulations. (Staff contact: Elizabeth Reining at 801-535-6313 or elizabeth.reining@slcgov.com). 3. PLNPCM2010-00561 Neff Rezoning. A request by Jeremy Neff for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone property located at approximately 163 West 1700 South from Community Business to General Commercial in order to bring the property and-its use into conformance with the zoning district and to match the zoning of the adjacent property which is also owned by the applicant. The proposed zoning district is CG (General Commercial) and is located in Council District 5, represented by Jill Remington-Love. (Staff contact: Maryann Pickering at 801-535-7660 or maryann.pickerinn@slcgov.com). 4. PENP-CM2010700at4:.Phillips_Conditional Use_for_an_office/Reception_Center_in Landmark_site__A - request by Bonnie Phillips for a conditional use to allow a reception center at approximately 1229 East South Temple. The purpose of the proposal is to allow space for small gatherings and meetings that foster respectful dialogue, understanding and community discussions. The property is zoned Special Development Pattern SR1-A and is located in Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff contact: Ray Milliner (801)535-7645 or ray.milliner@slcgov.com). 5. PLNPCM2010-00300 Sentry Electric Fence Security Systems Text Amendment - A request by Michael Pate for Sentry Security Systems to amend Chapter 21A.40.120 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The amendment Gvould add language to regulate the use of electric security fences in Manufacturing and Commercial zones. Changes would be City wide. (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at 801-535-7645 or ray.milliner@s!cgcv.corn). 6. PLNSUO2010-00692, Mt. Olivet/Roland Hall ® St. Mark's School Subdivision - Guy I<roesche, Stoel & Rives, LLP, representing Rowland Hall - St Mark's School, is requesting subdivision approval of the property located at approximately 1443 E. Sunnyside Avenue. Proposed are two (2) parcels; one (1) parcel of approximately 13.087 acres in size (the"RHSM Parcel"), and one (1) parcel of approximately 28.446 acres in size (the "Revised Mt. Olivet Parcel"). This subdivision request is a result of City Council action amending the East Bench Master Plan and rezoning the subject property from Open Space (OS) to include Institutional (I) for the RHSM parcel pursuant to Salt Lake City Ordinance number 21 of 2006. The subject parcel is located in City Council District Six represented by J.T. Martin. (Staff contact: Lex Traughber at 801.535.6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT , n,„„, Salt Lake City Code Maintenance • . x: Fine Tuning Zoning Text Amendments lit PLNPCM2010-00064 ▪ /fl , Planning and Zoning Division December 8, 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant: Mayor Ralph Becker Request Staff: Lex Traughber (801)535-6184 Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker is requesting that the Planning Lex.Traunhbertti slccov.com Commission analyze and adjust the Zoning Ordinance to provide for clarity and efficiency of use as part of a code maintenance program. The following Tax ID: N/A minor fine tuning text amendments are proposed: Current Zone: N/A 1, Chapter 21.A36--General Provisions,Table 21A.36.020B- Obstructions in Required Yards: Allow an accessory structure in the Master Plan: City-wide side yard setback where said structure is located wholly behind the primary structure, Council District: City-wide 2. Chapter 21A.46=Signs,Section 21A.46.110(A)(3)(b)-Sign Lot Size: N/A Regulations for Downtown Districts:Change the"Delta Center"sub- section title and the"Standards for the Delta Center"sign overlay to a Current Use: N/A generic sub-section title and standards for the sports arena located on the block between South Temple and 100 South between 300 and 400 Applicable Land Use West Streets. Regulations: 3. Chapter 21 A.46-Sims,Section 21 A.46.120 C b Review Standards: p b (�)(4)( ) 21A.50.050-Standards for General 21A.46.120(E)(4)(b)-Sign Regulations For The UI,PL,PL-2,I And Amendments OS Districts:Change the name"Standards for the Franklin Quest Baseball Stadium"sign overlay to"Standards for the Sports Stadium Affected Text: located on the southeast corner of 1300 South and West Temple." 21A.24-Residential Districts 4. Chapter 21 A.60-List of Terms,Section 21A.60.020-List of Defined 21A.26-Commercial Districts 21A.28-Manufacturing Districts Terms: Add"Pitched Roof"to the alphabetical list of defined terms. 21A.30-Downtown Districts 5. Chapter 21A.62-Definitions,Section 21A.62.040-Definitions of 21A.31-Gateway Districts Terms:Clarify in the definition that Fraternities and Sororities must 21A,32-Special Purpose Districts have a national affiliation in order to be considered as a Fraternity or 21A.36-General Provisions 21A.46-Signs Sorority as it pertains to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. 21A.60•-List of Terms 6. Chapter 21A.62-Definitions.Section 21A.62.040_.Definition of 21A.62-Definitions Terms:Create a definition for"Pitched Roof'to be a roof with a minimum of a two foot(2')rise over a twelve foot(12')run. Notification 7. Eliminate the"Summary Tables of Yard and Bulk Requirements"for • Notice mailed on November 23, the various use district chapters throughout the Zoning Ordinance as 2010 • Agenda posted on the Planning . follows: Division and Utah Public Meeting I Notice websites November 23, Chapter 21 A.24- Residential Districts,Table 21 A.24.200 2010 PI-NPCN92010-00064,Fine Tuning Caning Test Amendment Published Dale: December 8,2010 1 • • Newspaper Notice November 24, Chapter 21A.26—Commercial Districts, Table 21 A,26.090 AL.*, 2010 Chapter 21A.28—Manufacturing Districts, Table 21A.28.050 Attachments: Chapter 21A.30—Downtown Districts, Table 21A.30.060 Exhibit A—Proposed Ordinance Chapter 21 A.31 —Gateway Districts, Table 21 A.31.060 Amendments Chapter 21A.32—Special Purpose Districts, Table 21A.32.150 Exhibit B—Dept/Division Comments Staff Recommendation Based on the findings listed in the staff report, it is the Planning Staff s opinion that overall the project generally meets the applicable standards and therefore, recommends the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Background Project Description The City adopted a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in April 1995. At that time, it was understood that adjustments to the Zoning Ordinance would be necessary once it had been implemented and people had an opportunity to work with it. Salt Lake City intermittently processes Fine Tuning ordinance adjustments to provide code maintenance for the City's ordinances. Overall, the framework and structure of Salt Lake City's zoning regulations and development standards are sound and do not require wholesale restructuring, However, at times,code changes are processed due to land *"lloo use policy changes adopted by the City or because of State enabling regulation changes. It would be beneficial for Salt Lake City to make minor code revisions that lead to a greater ease of use and understanding. Amendments to the City Code selected for Fine Tuning processing meet the following objectives: • Improves the clarity and usability of the Zoning Code without changing the intent behind the specific regulation in question, and clarifies wording that may be open to interpretation; • Addresses ongoing problems with administration of the existing Code language, and may result in a minor policy change of low significance; • Implements the City's Comprehensive Plan: and • Provides ordinance consistency with existing policies and objectives. Proposed Code Changes The Salt Lake Planning Division is processing specific adjustments to the Salt Lake City Code. The minor Fine Tuning text amendments being processed with this petition are discussed below. Item 1, Chapter 21,A36 —General Provisions, Table 21A.36,020B—Obstructions in Required Yards: Allow an accessory structure in the side yard setback where said structure is located wholly behind the primary structure, Discussion: This provision would allow an accessory structure to be located behind the primary structure on a given parcel, but not necessarily within the rear yard setback unless otherwise precluded by the specific zoning district, ''"'"" PLNPCM2010-00064,Fine Tuning Zoning Text Amendment Published Date: December 8,2010 2 Recommended Code Changes: Indicate in Table 21A.36.020B that accessory structures are allowed in the side yard setback. Make reference to an additional footnote to the table indicating that an accessory structure that is proposed to be located in a side yard setback must be wholly located behind the primary structure on the property. Item 2. Chapter 21A.46—Signs,Section 21A.46.110(A)(3)(b)—Sign Regulations for Downtown Districts: Change the"Delta Center"sub-section title and the"Standards for the Delta Center"sign overlay to a generic sub-section title and standards for the sports arena located on the block between South Temple and 100 South between 300 and 400 West Streets. Discussion:The name of the actual arena has changed and may change again in the future. Rather than providing a specific building name in the Zoning Ordinance,it is proposed to describe the building and its location. This action will prevent the need for future text amendments as they relate to the arena. Recommended Code Change: Modify the text of Section 21 A.46.110(A)(3)(b)to eliminate the reference to the Delta Center and include text to refer to this particular building as the sports arena located on the block between South Temple and 100 South between 300 and 400 West Streets. Item 3. Chapter 21A.46—Signs,Section 21A.46.120(E)(4)(b)—Sign Regulations For The UI,PL,PL-2,I And OS Districts:Change the name"Standards for the Franklin Quest Baseball Stadium"sign overlay to "Standards for the Sports Stadium located on the southeast corner of 1300 South and West Temple." Discussion: The name of the actual baseball stadium has changed and may change again in the future. Rather than providing a specific building name,it is proposed to describe the building and its location. This action will prevent the need for future text amendments as they relate to the stadium. Recommended Code Change: Modify the text of Section 21 A.46.120(E)(4)(b)to eliminate the reference to the Franklin Quest Baseball Stadium and include text to refer to this particular building as the sports arena located on the block between South Temple and 100 South between 300 and 400 West Streets. Item 4. Chapter 21A.60—List of Terms,Section 21A.60.020—List of Defined Terms: Pitched Roof. Discussion: If a definition for"Pitched Roof'is adopted and included in Chapter 21A.62—Definitions, reference should be made to this defined term in Chapter 21 A,60—List of Terms, Recommended Code Change: Add"Pitched Roof'to the alphabetical list of defined terms. Item 5. Chapter 21A.62—Definitions,Section 21A.62.040—Definitions of Terms:Clarify in the definitions chapter that Fraternities and Sororities must have a national affiliation in order to be considered as e Fraternity or Sorority as it pertains to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Discussion: This text amendment would provide consistency with the current regulations of the University of Utah,which requires a national affiliation in order to become a Fraternity or Sorority of the University. Recommended Code Change: Revise the definition for"Fraternity/Sorority House"in Chapter 2IA.62— Definitions,by adding text to the definition language that requires a national affiliation in order to become a Fraternity or Sorority of the college or University. PI.KPCM2010-00064,Fine Tuning-/.nnicg'int Amendment Published Dale December A,2010 3 Item 6. Chapter 21A.62 —Definitions, Section 21A.62.040—Definitions of Terms: Create a definition for "Pitched Roof' to be a roof with a minimum of a two foot(2') rise over a twelve foot (12') run, and add "Pitched Roof' to the alphabetized list of defined terms, Discussion, The lack of this definition in the Zoning Ordinance has been an ongoing issue in determining the height of a structure, especially as it relates to the height regulations for single-family and two family zoning districts. Recommended Code Change: Adopt the following definition for"Pitched Roof" for Zoning Ordinance clarification purposes: PITCHED ROOF: The covering on the top of a structure, serving to protect against rain, snow, sunlight, wind, and extremes of temperature, having a minimum pitch or slope of a two foot (2') rise over a twelve foot(12') run. Item 7. Eliminate the "Summary Tables of Yard and Bulk Requirements" for the various use district chapters throughout the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Chapter 21A.24— Residential Districts, Table 21A.24.200 Chapter 21A.26—Commercial Districts, Table 21A.26.090 Chapter 21A.28—Manufacturing Districts, Table 21A.28.050 Chapter 21A.30—Downtown Districts, Table 21A.30.060 Chapter 21A.31 — Gateway Districts, Table 21A.31.060 Amok Chapter 21A.32—Special Purpose Districts, Table 21A.32.150 Discussion: In the past, the summary tables have not been routinely amended and updated as necessary to reflect the specific changes to the lot and bulk regulations for various zoning districts. In addition, the summaries found in the tables are not always specific enough to accurately portray the regulations; in other words they are simply a summary and not a comprehensive table. Comprehensive zoning information is located in each Chapter (Residential, Commercial, Manufacturing, etc) noting all the development standards for any particular zone. Rather than have summary tables that are codified in the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore more difficult to change when inaccuracies are found, the Community and Economic Development Department will use summary tables to help citizens and applicants in a more concise way, but the tables will not be codified. The Building Services Division asserts that the tables should remain in the Code in their correspondence dated October 27, 2010, They indicated that the tables are often used as a handout for the public to relay zoning information. Planning Staff supports having convenient handouts for the public, but asserts that the handouts should consist of"complete" information, as opposed to a summary, and furthermore should be accurate, Incomplete and inaccurate information distributed to the public has little benefit for any of the parties involved in such an exchange, The most complete and accurate information to distribute to the public would be the actual adopted Zoning Ordinance text, Planning Staff therefore recommends that the codified "Summary Tables"be eliminated, and summary handouts developed for distribution to the public. Summary handouts could then be changed and updated to reflect City Council action as often as necessary, Recommended Code Change.' Eliminate these tables in their entirety. PLNPCM2010-00064,Fine Tuning Zoning Text Amendment Published Date: December 8,2010 4 Comments Public Comments An Open House was held on April 15,2010. Notice of the Open House was sent to Community Council Chairpersons,Business Groups,and those whose names are on the Planning Division's list serve. Notice was also posted on the City's website. There were no comments received from the public related to the proposed text modifications. City Department Comments The Planning Division routed a request for Department/Divisions comments on March 17,2010. Several comments were received and are attached for review(Exhibit B). In general,there were no concerns for the proposed changes. The Building Services/Permits Office requested a subsequent review of the proposed ordinance language in their original comments dated April 2,2010. Follow-up review and comments dated October 27,2010,noted the desire to have the"Summary Tables of Yard and Bulk Requirements"remain in the ordinance for ease of distribution to the public. Analysis and Findings Options Approval: If the Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets the standards of the ordinance as discussed below,the petition should be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Denial: If the Planning Commission finds that the proposal does not meet the standards of the ordinance as discussed below,the petition should be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of denial. Continuation: If the Planning Commission finds that additional information or further revision is needed in order to make a decision,then a final decision may be postponed with specific direction to Planning Staff regarding the additional information or revision required for the Planning Commission to take future action. Findings Section 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments.A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. A. In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment,the City Council should consider the following factors: PLNPCM2010.00064,Plc,Tuning Zoning Teel Amendment Published D,'e:December 8,2010 5 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policie,, ,,, of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Discussion: The proposed text amendments are essentially a matter of house keeping. The purpose of the proposal is to correct minor oversights in prior Zoning Ordinance revisions, eliminate conflicting information, and to provide clarity for current, perhaps ambiguous, Zoning Ordinance language, Finding: The proposed text revisions are for the purpose of maintaining, updating, and clarifying the Zoning Ordinance, and as such are consistent with adopted City planning documents. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; Discussion: Chapter 21A.46, addressing"Signs", is the only chapter among the various proposed text revisions that includes a"Purpose Statement". Section 21A,46.101 reads as follows: Purpose: The regulations of this chapter are intended to: 1, Eliminate potential hazards to motorists and pedestrians by requiring that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that promotes the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City; 2, Encourage signs which, by their good design, are integrated with and harmonious to the buildings and sites, including landscaping, which they occupy; - 3, Encourage sign legibility through the elimination of excessive and confusing sign displays; 4, Preserve and improve the appearance of the city as a place in which to live and to work, and create an attraction to nonresidents to come to visit or trade; 5. Allow each individual business to clearly identify itself and the nature of its business in such a manner as to become the hallmark of the business which will create a distinctive appearance and also enhance the city's character; 6, Safeguard and enhance property values; 7, Protect public and private investment in buildings and open space; and 8, Permit on premises signs as provided by the specific zoning district sign regulations included in this chapter, (Ord. 13-04 § 22, 2004: Ord, 88-95 § 1 (Exh, A), 1995) Finding: The proposed text amendment to refer to the Delta Center and the Franklin Quest Baseball Stadium by their location, rather than a sponsor, furthers the specific purpose statements for Chapter 21A.46 — Signs. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and PLNPCM2010-00064,Fine Tuning Zoning Text Amendment Published Date: December 8,2010 6 Finding:The proposed text amendments do not affect any overlay zoning districts. Any specific development proposal would have to comply with applicable Overlay Zone requirements. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current,professional practices of urban planning and design. Analysis: The framework and structure of Salt Lake City's zoning regulations and development standards are sound and do not require wholesale restructuring. Ilowcver,at times code changes are processed due to land use policy changes adopted by the City or because of State enabling regulation changes. It would be beneficial for Salt Lake City to make minor code revisions that lead to a greater ease of use and understanding. Finding: The proposed changes are a matter of code maintenance and as such implement the best current,professional practices of urban planning and design. PLNPCp12010.00004,Fire Tuning Zoning Tex!Amcndmem Published Date.December S,2010 7 • Petition PLNPCM2010-00064, Proposed Ordinance Amendments Chapter 21.A36—General Provisions,Table 21A.36.020B—Obstructions in Required Yards: TABLE 21A.36.020B—OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS' Front And Corner Side Rear Side Yard Yard Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Yards — — --- Accessory buildings subject to the provisions of X3 X g chapter 21A.40 of this title,and located at least 1 foot from the side property line except for the FP and FR districts where no accessory building is permitted in any yard.Accessory buildings shall be at least 10 feet from a principal residential building on an adjacent lot. Arbors and trellises not to exceed 12 feet in height or X X X 120 square feet in residential districts.This requirement shall also apply to nonresidential f districts unless otherwise authorized. Architectural ornament not elsewhere regulated X X X F: projecting not more than 4 inches • Awnings and canopies,extending not more than 21/2 X X X feet into front,corner side,or side yards and not more than 5 feet into rear yards allowed in residential districts only Balconies projecting not more than 5 feet l X Basketball hoop and backboard on or adjacent to X X X permitted driveways Bay windows which are 1 story high,not more than r x X X 10 feet long,project 2 feet or less and are located not less than 4 feet from a lot line 1 .401,010, 1 Below grade encroachments2 X X X Breezeways and open porches r X -- Central air conditioning systems, heating, ventilating, X X pool and filtering equipment, the outside elements shall be located not less than 4 feet from a lot line. a Structures less than 4 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according Ei to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title. 1 —-- Y Chimneys projecting 2 feet or less into the yard must X X be located not less than 2 feet from a lot line. Decks (open) 2 feet high or less X X r X Eaves, not including gutters projecting 2 feet or less X r X X a into the yard. 4 foot eave may project into a 20 foot yard area. 1 Fallout shelters (completely underground), X [.' conforming to applicable civil defense regulations E ,"4*and located not less than 4 feet from a lot line l Fences or walls subject to applicable height X X X restrictions of chapter 21A.40 of this title I r - Fire escapes projecting 4 feet or lessr X Flagpoles: l: Residential districts: 1 permanent flagpole X X X ' per street frontage 1 - 1 Nonresidential districts: 3 flagpoles per street X . X X frontage Subject to provisions of table 21A.36.020C of this section Grade changes of 2 feet or less except for the FP X X ( X and FR districts which shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010P of this title. i- (All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall.) r . [.Iz:�-ztzz.-s. -+ =lzw`' ,i� gi`-= --.,—E-----..s,-ica.' 5,-�3i-`s u=•,_-=-a;_ x. i-�.7«.-,e3.�. ,,.,:. n ti--_Y=t. 2 Ground mounted utility boxes subject to the r X X X provisions of section 21A.40.160 of this title Ham radio antennas subject to provisions of P X subsection 21 A.40.090D of this title Landscaping, including decorative berms 4 feet or X X X less in height with no grade change along any property line,provided that if such landscaping • obstructs the visibility of an intersection the city may require its pruning or removal. Laundry drying equipment(clothesline and poles) X Parking,carports and covered parking spaces X except as otherwise expressly authorized by table 21A.44.050 of this title Patios on grade X X r X Patios on grade(attached,covered and unenclosed) X maintaining a minimum 15 foot setback from the rear property line r__ — — — — Porches(attached,covered and unenclosed) X projecting 5 feet or less k Recreational(playground)equipment X Refuse dumpster X Removable ramp for persons with disabilities(when X X X approved as a special exception) Satellite dish antennas r X X Signs,subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.46 of X X X this title • Steps and required landings 4 feet or less above or X r X X below grade which are necessary for access to a permitted building and located not less than 4 feet from a lot line Swimming pools(measured to the water line),tennis X 1 X e Cs.2iS v�.,..a. "icx �..°4 'S'?'A•.'{.'�'o`s.S'_. �f�s�r..-.:.X3:_ � _..,.1-_,�. .vim ._....1'L -...s.. 3 courts, game courts, and similar uses shall not be located less than 10 feet from a property line. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and X X X evaporative "swamp" coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner units and "swamp" coolers less than 2 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title. Window wells not over 6 feet in width and projecting X X X not more than 3 feet from structure • Notes: 1."X"denotes where obstructions are allowed. 2.Below grade encroachments(encroachments which are completely below grade where the surface grade remains intact and where the below grade encroachment is not visible from the surface)into required yards shall be treated as a routine and uncontested matter in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 21A.14 of this title. 3.The accessory structure shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on the property.. Chapter 21A.46 — Signs, Section 21A.46.110(A)(3)(b) — Sign Regulations for Downtown Districts: Amok b. Delta Center Sports Arena Located on the Block Between South Temple and 100 South between 300 and 400 West Streets: STANDARDS FOR THE DELTA CENTER SPORTS ARENA LOCATED ON THE BLOCK BETWEEN SOUTH TEMPLE AND 100 SOUTH BETWEEN 300 AND 400 WEST STREETS Number Of Limit On Maximum Signs Combined Types Of Maximum Height Of Permitted Number Signs Area Per Freestanding' Minimum Per Sign • Of Signs' Permitted Sign Face Signs' Setback' Type Awning/canopy 1 square foot See note 1 May extend ; 1 per first None signs per linear •6 feet from floor foot of face of door/window ' storefront building but • (sign area not within 2 only) feet from back of curbs • ` `' s'a''E -.-'-.'s"'-" -v_�x.'s`*' s_ c-X,':=x -_..�.`4".�, :a � 4 Canopy,drive- 40%of See note 1 n/a 1 per None through canopy face canopy face if signage is on 2 faces; 20%of S .canopy face if signs are on 4 faces Construction 64 square : 12 feet 5 feet 1 per None sign feet storefront Flat sign 4 square feet See note 1 n/a 1 per None (general per linear building face building foot of orientation) building faces Flat sign 2 square feet' See note 1 n/a 3 per None (storefront per linear •business orientation)` foot of each storefront store frontages 1 i Marquee sign Subject only See See 1 per None to subsection subsection subsection storefront 21A.46.070O 21A.46.070O 21A.46.070O •of this of this chapter,of this chapter chapter Monument 1 square foot 20 feet None 1 per street 1 sign per sign per linear frontage street foot of street , frontage frontage Nameplate, 3 sq uare feet 8 square feet None 1 per None building building r New 200 square 12 feet 5 feet 1 per street None development feet frontage sign Pole sign 1 square foot 45 feet None,but 1 per street 11 sign per per linear shall not frontage street foot of street extend frontage frontage;200 across a j square feet property line maximum for a single business, 300 square 5 feet maximum for multiple businesses Political sign 32 square 8 feet 5 feet No limit None feet Private 8 square feet 4 feet 5 feet No limit None directional sign Public safety ',[8 square feet 6 square feet None No limit None 5 sign Real estate 32 square 8 feet None 1 per street None sign feet frontage t Roof signs 4 square feet! See note 1 n/a 1 per street None per linear frontage foot of • building face r' or 6 square feet per linear foot of building face r, �+ on buildings taller than 100 feet Window sign 25%of total No limit n/a No limit None frontage i window area per use 90% , of total frontage window area (interior or exterior)for Delta-Gen-ter Sports Arena • events, not to exceed 3 months in duration for each calendar year 6 Notes 1.For height limits on building signs,see subsection 21A.46.070J of this chapter. 2.Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3.The total number of signs permitted from the sign types combined. 4.Storefront flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. 5.A single-tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct 1 larger sign. 6.Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 7.Verbiage and/or corporate logos are limited to on premises advertising of Delta Dater Sports Arena events only and are limited to 10 percent of the window coverage. Chapter 21A.46—21A.46.120(E)(4)(b)—Sign Regulations For The UI,PL,PL-2, I And OS Districts b.Standards For Tthe-Franklin Quest Baseball Stadium Sports Stadium Located on the Southeast Corner of 1300 South and West Temple:Flat signs,construction signs, political signs, real estate signs,new development signs,window signs,public safety signs,and nameplates shall comply with the table for standards for the PL, PL-2 and I districts. The design,materials,and colors for all signs must be compatible with the Sports Stadium on the corner of 1300 South and West Temple Franklin Quest baseball stadium subject to the approval of the Salt Lake City urban design committee. Maximum Types Of Maximum Height Of Signs Area Per Sign• Freestanding Minimum Number Of Signs Permitted Face Signs' Setback' Permitted Awning 1 square foot See note 1 May extend 6 1 per first floor signs per linear foot feet from face door/window and not of awning of building,2 to extend beyond 1 feet from foot on each side of back of curb the door or window faces width Monument •60 square feet 8 feet 10 feet 11 per building frontage t signs' of total sign • • face area .including a base.The base shall be 25%of 'the sign height Pole signs 180 square feet 30 feet No sign 1 pole sign which (triangle per gross sign '� projection allows 4 sign panels I frame (face, 540 over the per sign face, 1 of structure) square feet for property line 'which may be an the structure ! electronic changeable •• w., • copy sign°and 1 Buzz logo sign(12 total • signs for the triangular • pole sign) 'Private 8 square feet of 4 feet 2 feet behind 2 per driveway directional total sign face property lines approach and as signs' area including a necessary for base.The base pedestrian direction shall be 25%of the sign height Notes. 1.For limits on the height of building signs,see subsection 21A.46.070J of this chapter. 2.Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3.Modified from the standards for the PL,PL-2 and I districts and required for the F-ranktin-Qaeot-basebal4 aports stadium overlay district. 4.Electronic changeable copy signs shall only be permitted on arterial street frontages.Electronic changeable copy signs/panelsshall not exceed 50 square fee!_ 5.Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. Chapter 21A.60—List of Terms, Section 21A.60.020—List of Defined Terms: Add"Pitched Roof'to the alphabetical list of defined terms. Am. Chapter 21A.62—Definitions,Section 21A.62.040—Definitions of Terms: FRATERNITY/SORORITY HOUSE:A building which is occupied only by a group of university or college students who receive lodging and/or meals on the premises in exchange for compensation,and are associated together in a fraternity/sorority that is officially recognized by the university or college,and that has a national affiliation.;-and who receive from-the fraternitytsorority lodging and/or meals on-the premises for compcn atien. Chapter 21A.62—Definitions,Section 21A.62.040—Definition of Terms: PITCHED ROOF:The covering on the top of a structure,serving to protect against rain, snow,sunlight,wind,and extremes of temperature,having a minimum pitch or slope of a twp foot(2') rise over a twelve foot(12')run. Eliminate the"Summary Tables of Yard and Bulk Requirements"for the various use district chapters throughout the Zoning Ordinance as follows. Chapter 21A.24—Residential Districts,Table 21A.24.200 --� 8 i 1l4.0e°I!I Ilt a4a r,/ vt'jul"alii�, rf rr, t to„.a,••rr Date Task/Inspection Status/Result Action By Comments 2/12/2010 Staff Assignment In Progress Coffey,Cheri Target April 28 PC meeting 2/19/2010 Staff Assignment Assigned Traughber,Lex 2/19/2010 Staff Assignment In Progress Traughber,Lex 3/17/2010 Planning Dept Review In Progress Traughber,Lex 3/17/2010 Staff Assignment Routed Traughber,Lex 3/16/2010 Engineering Review Complete Drummond,Randy The Engineering Division has no concerns regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments, 3/24/2010 Transporation Review Complete Walsh,Barry March 24,2010 Lex Traughber,Planning Re:PLNPCM2010-00064,Zoning Ordinance Fine Tuning Amendments The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are as follows: The Eight Items submitted do not reflect any direct Impact to the Public Transportation roadway system or required on site transportation issues. Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young,P.E. Randy Drummond,P.E. Peggy Garcia,Public Utilities Ted Itchon Fire Larry Butcher,Permits File 3/30/2010 Zoning Review In Progress Brown,Ken The Zoning review comments are;Once the language for each of the proposed changes has been drafted,Building Services Dept,would like to review the language to see how it affects the Issuance of permits and also,to help In verifying that there are no conflicts with other city ordinances. 4/1/2010 Public Utility Review Complete Stoker,Justin We support all of the proposed amendments without any concerns or comments. 4/2/2010 Zoning Review Complete Brown,Ken The Zoning review comments are;Once the language for each of the proposed changes has been drafted,Building Services Dept.would like to review the language to see how it affects the issuance of permits and also,to help In verifying that there are no conflicts with other city ordinances. __�_ Traughber,Lex .�. From: Brown,Ken Sent: Wednesday,October 27,2010 10:08 AM To: Traughber,Lex Cc: Norris,Nick;Butcher,Larry;Hardman,Alan;Michelsen,Alan;Stonick,Anika Subject: RE:PLNPCM2010-00064 Zoning Ordinance Fine Tuning Amendments Categories: Other Lex, I have circulated this proposal around this office and have the following comments; Chapter 21.A36-General Provisions,Table 21A.36.020B-Obstructions in Required Yards: No comments. Chapter 21A.46-Signs,Section 21A.46.110(A)(3)(b)-Sign Regulations for Downtown Districts: No comments. Chapter 21A.46-Signs,Section 21A.46.14-0p(4 b)—Sign-Regulations-€or-Downtown Districts: The correct reference should be 21A.46.120(E)(4)(b)-Sign Regulations For The UI,PL,PL-2,I And OS Districts: No other comments. Chapter 21A.60-List of Terms,Section 21A.60.020-List of Defined Terms: No comments. ^" Chapter 21A.62-Definitions, Section 21A.62.040-Definitions of Terms:Pitched Roof. Larry Butcher would like to see"having a minimum pitch or slope of a one two foot(4 2')rise over a twelve foot (12')run."This would be more in line with the building code requirement of using material designed for flat roofs on slopes less than two foot(2')rise over a twelve foot(12')run. Eliminate the"Summary Tables of Yard and Bulk Requirements'for the various use district chapters throughout the Zoning Ordinance as follows: There are people in this office that would like to see these Tables remain since they are a desirable handout for property owners,designers and architects which summarize several requirements in one place.Of course this would mean that we have to make an effort to assure that the information is current with the information provided elsewhere in the ordinances. From:Traughber,Lex Sent:Wednesday,October 20,2010 12:49 PM To:Brown,Ken Cc:Norris,Nick Subject:RE:PLNPCM2010-00064 Zoning Ordinance Fine Tuning Amendments Ken, You had requested to see the draft changes for this petition prior to going to a hearing. Attached is draft of the proposed ordinances changes if you want to look at them. If you have suggestions for changes,please let me know as soon as possible. If you have no comments,let me know that as well. I'm taking this to the PC in Dec,so if you could get back to me in the next couple of weeks that would be great. Thanks, Lex Traughber Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S. State Street, Room 406 P.O. Box 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480 Telephone:(801)535-6184 Fax: (801)535-6174 From:Brown,Ken Sent:Tuesday,March 30,2010 1:22 PM To:Traughber,Lex Subject:PLNPCM2010-00064 Zoning Ordinance Fine Tuning Amendments Please see that attached Building Services comments. Ken Brown Senior Development Review Planner SLC Building Services Dept. 451 State St.Room 215 Mailing Address PO Box 145471 Salt Lake City,Ut 84114-5471 801-535-5179 801-535-7750(Fax) 2 SALT LA e t CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MELa:CMG AGENDA In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,December S,2010 at 6:30 p.m.or immediately following the Work ee,>s_o.s The field trip is scheduled to leave of 4:00 Dianev vr119 Le served to the Planning Commissioners and Stay:at 5:00p.m.in Cocci 126. wort(Session: 5:30 in Room 326. The Planning Commission will hold a work session from approximately 5:30-6:30. During the Work Session the Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on pending projects,discuss project updates and minor administrative matters.This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. Mayor Ralph Becker to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss various matters including his Vision for a Green City 2. Clarion Associates will discuss the progress of the Sustainable City Code initiative project(Staff contact:Cheri Coffey at SO1-535-6188 orcheri.coffey5slcgov.com. 3. Discussion about proposed changes to Outdoor Advertising regulations(Staff contact: Coeg Canoe at SO1.-535-6182 or doua.dansie(rvsleggv.cnm Approval of Minutes Deport of the Chair earl Vice Chair Report of the Director • Public Hearing 6:30 or immediately following the woe.:ca__,on 1. PLNCCP120i0-O0610:PlarS hillier Conditional @ace,or auto seine A request by Mark Miller Toyota to expand its current facility located at approximately 730 South west Temple.Tire property is zoned D-2 Downtown Support District in City Council District 4,represented by Luke Garrott(Staff contact:John Anderson at SO1-535-7214 or juhn.andersonCuslcgo'v.co:n). 2. rLPoGact 42O10-fl0622 E-Iarrnon's Grocery Store Eaianned Iaeve:ar'ment-A request by Harmons Grocery for a planned development of e grocery store at approximately 1706 E 1300 South in the CM(Neighborhood Cornmorr_ial)zoning district and in City Council District C,represented by JT Martin. The planner)development request includes modifications to building and parking setbacks,fence regulations and sign regulations. (Staff contact: Elizabeth Reining atS01-S35-631.3 or c'inalseth.r iniiu i.-slcgc.v.com). PLNIPCi4211R0-005631 Neff Idexoraircu. A request by Jeremy Neff for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone property located at approximately 163 west 1700 South from Community Business to General Commercial in order to bring tire property and-its use into conformance cite the zoning district and to match the zoning of the adjacent property which is also owned by the applicant. The proposed zoning district is CG(General Commercial)and is located in Council District 5,represented by Jill lent ngton-Leve. (Siaff contact: Maryann Pickering at 801-535-7660 cm maryann.pickei inci@s'cgov.com). a, 1 1-.,n. - ^.Co,adiciona I-utter ran_Iiti c/1:...vcmicl.unCer,'_r rn_n.b-indacit:I;ette A_.. ,. _a�.JI_�(.��2t�d'�-�I I�9 �97 eG_ .....e � _ . request by Bonnie Phillips fora conditional use to allow a reception center at approximately 1.229 Last South Temple. The purpose of the proposal is to alloy,'space for small gatherings and meetings that foster respectful dialogue,understanding and community discussions. The property is zoned Special Development Pattern SR]_A and is located in Council District 3,represented by Stan Penfold. (Stall contact:Ray Milliner (1-01)535-7645 or ray.millinercDslcgov.com). ,,. EiIMPr.l1201.tl 11C if10 P orairy Electric Pen_.. :v,nsucis. --A request by Michael Pate for Sentry Security Systems to amend Chapter 21.A.40.120 of tire Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.The ❑menclment Mulct add language to regulate the use of electric security Ponces in Manufacturing and Commercial zones.Changes would be City wide. (Staff contact: Ray f1illiner at 8012535-7645 or r ay.milliner©slcgov.co!n). 1'9.f. ,rl'd24120-f069v,s4':.Elba, /Po.+igrsel.tail CJn,c _,I n t .1:.,,sl;oieiv—Guy Kroesehe,Stool R. Rives,LIP,representing Rev:land I loll-St Mark's School,is requesting subdivision approval of the property; located at approximately 1443 G.Sunnyside Avenue. Proposecl are tsco(2)parcels;one(I)parcel of appro;Jrcutely 1.3.087 awes in size(the"RI ISM Parcel"),and one(1)parcel of approximately 28.446 acres in sine(the"I:evise I Mt.Olivet Parcel").Tills subdivision request is a result of City Council action amending the East Bench Plaster Plan and rezoning the subject properly from Open Space(OS)to include institutional(I) for the l2HSPl parcel pursuant to Salt Lake City Ordinance number 21 of 2006. The subject parcel is located in City Council District Six representecl by J.T.Martin.(Staff contact: lux Traugirher at 801.535.6154 or lex.hraughbcr;-slcgcv.coni). 7. PLNPCP- 2O O-OOU64, Fine iraniiriei Zoninri Amendments - A request by .aalt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker to analyze and adjust the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) to provide for clarity and efficiency of use as part of a code maintenance program. The subject Petition addresses several minor fine tuning text amendments that would apply citywide if adopted by the City Council. (Staff contact: Lex Traughber at 801.535.6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com). The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices,room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff plannerfor information,Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports,and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17;past meetings are recorded and archived,and may be viewed at www.slctv.com INFORMATION TO APPLICANTS AND CITIZENS 1. Attendance:Applicant or representative must be present during tl will not be reviewed. 2. Decision Making Process:Planning Commission will review one c ,ceive information from the applicant,professional staff,adjoining neighbors and citizens.After reviewing the case,the Planning Comn. .oerate on the case in executive session.No additional testimony will be accepted during the executive session,unless requested by the Commissiu.. ctarification purposes.The Planning Commission will make their decision by - making a motion,second,discussion and majority vote by the Commission. 3. Appeals process:Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Planning Commission may appeal that decision to the Salt Lake City Land Use Appeals - Board within thirty(10)days after the Planning Commission final decision. 4. Meeting notices:Meeting notices are made available 12days in advance.If persons wish to submit written comments they should be directed to the Plznning Commission or Planning Staff member indicated at least 7 days in advance to enable the Commissioners to consider those written comments.Comments should be sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Commission PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City,UT 84114-5480 Physical Address:451 S State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 offthemeeting. n e l t' nlL��._D. g i d`}• People A NOTE: Please turn cellular phones during \e�. comply v, h-v.:.;=._r";�,i..i., l�r,es.. with di,sab;lities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting.Accommodations may'include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning Commission Secretary at 535-6171 regarding this agenda or ADA accommodations.TDD 535-6220. - -----salt LakeCity-PlanningCommission 451 S State Street,Room 406 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114 5480 a .w we f RETURN SERVICE.REQUESTED NOTICE OF HEARING , ,, t t 0 J 'iu 5 � i� 7n1Q IAL r -i-i ?a UAL 1-tljlR 0i Salt Lake City Prranning uivisiu,t 451PO BoY 4 S State St80reet, Room 406 145 a114 54-80 Salt Lake City, Utah 8 ' •i :••:••,•J1•'•-•:^' llI1i Fl F.1tl!1ti-lFS}Ili`1IItl1l tSl Sl lit it It Fl ill 3,i} l!IIl1ii ll 8:o8:4q PM PLNPCM2o10-00064, Fine Tuning Zoning Amendments -A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker to analyze and adjust the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance(Title 21)to provide for clarity and efficiency of use as part of a code maintenance program. The subject Petition addresses several minor fine tuning text amendments that would apply citywide if adopted by the City Council. Chairperson Fife recognized Lex Traughber as staff representative. Mr.Traughber stated that this was a petition to clarify and make more efficient the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance as part of a code maintenance program. He stated that the seven items listed on the front of the staff report were all inclusive. 8:oq:28 PM Questions from the Commissioners Commissioner Woodhead asked about number five,and was interested in the definition of fraternities and sororities. She directed the question to council, and stated that the notion zoning for fraternities and sororities depended on their national affiliation seemed to be questionable. She wonder if it would have been better to worded to say that it applied to fraternities and sororities that are recognized by the University of Utah, as opposed to requiring that an organization of people actually be nationally recognized to have access to zoning. Planning Director Sommerkorn agreed that it could be that way,but it was one of the requirements of the University of Utah,that the fraternities and sororities are nationally affiliated. Commissioner Woodhead stated that she felt the University of Utah could do in terms it recognized as a "student club"would be different than who could be discriminated against with regard to zoning. Mr. Sommerkorn stated that he understood her point. Chairperson Fife asked for clarification, asking if the wording should be changed that the student fraternities and sororities be recognized by the University of Utah. Land Use Attorney Nielson stated that there have been groups that had asked the University of Utah for recognition as a fraternity or sorority. The group would have been something that would have typically been viewed as a fraternity or sorority, including a rugby club that did not require that its'members be students of the University, and a religious organization that may not have required an enrollment requirement that the University would not be able to regulate or oversee. In those cases,the University did not accept them as fraternities or sororities. Mr.Traughber added that the University of Utah required national affiliation to recognize a group as a fraternity or a sorority. Mr. Norris stated that there were a number of ordinances that address fraternities or sororities. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, December 8, 2010 Page 17 Commissioner Woodhead wondered if it was necessary in order to create some sort of freedom of association risk. Land Use Attorney Nielson asked if Commissioner Woodhead was concerned that a chapter that wanted to start could regulated by the school,but not necessarily have a national affiliation. Commissioner Woodhead agreed,stating that she was concerned about the City's interest. She compared the sororities and fraternities to businesses stating that the comparison could be made that businesses could be required to have a national affiliation,or had to be owned locally. She felt this could be a variation of that. Land Use Attorney Nielson stated that he understood her concern and stated that they were valid. Planning Director Sommerkorn stated that there were requirements in the Ordinance that stated it has to be a University approved, and a University regulated Commissioner De Lay made the point that this ordinance did not include the area surrounding Westminster College. Planning Director Sommerkorn stated that the Ordinance was specific to the area surrounding the University of Utah. Land Use Attorney Nielson stated that fraternities and sororities are specialized uses that are related to the educational institution. He believed that some of the examples of non enrolled persons do not fall within the distinction. Amok Commissioner McHugh asked if the recommendation was to strike or change item number five. Land Use Attorney Nielson stated that the City Attorney's office does not make recommendations on policy issues. 8:16:35 PM Public Hearing No one chose to speak 8:16:41 PM Close of Public Hearing 8:16:5o PM Motion Commissioner De Lay made the motion in regard to PLNPCM2oio-00064, Fine Tuning Zoning Amendments I move to approve based on the findings of the staff report recommend a positive recommendation on items 1,2,3,4,6 and 7 and a recommend of further review of item number 5 Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, December 8, 2010 Page 18 Commissioner Luke seconded the motion. 8:17:58 PM Vote: Commissioners Drown,Dc Lay,Gallegos,Hill,Luke,Wirthlin,and Woodhead all voted"aye"Commissioner McHugh voted"no". The motion passed. S:1q:'14 PM Meeting adjourned This document,along with the digital recording,constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held on December 8,2010. Angela Hasenberg Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,December 8,2010 Page 19 Remarks: , Petition No: PLNPCM2010-00064 By: Salt Lake City Planning Division Fine Tuning I� I I d Date Filed: February 15,2010 Address: Citywide Remarks: �! Petition No: PLNPCM2010-00064 By: Salt Lake City Planning Division Fine Tuning 'li� III li li I lil I d 1 III I! II II Date Filed: February 15,2010 I! �I Address: Citywide >� }01, pull'ILOjD-uLL&L � Petition Initiation r. "" Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: File From: Wilf Sommerkorn,Planning Director /u,✓ji Date: February 15,2010 CC: Frank Gray,Community and Economic Development Director;Mary De La Mare-Schaefer,Community&Economic Development Department Deputy Director; Pat Comarell,Assistant Planning Director;Cheri Coffey,Planning Manager;file Re: Fine Tuning Bundle-February 2010. In accordance with a letter signed by Mayor Ralph Becker on November 4,2009,which authorizes the initiation of various petitions to implement the ongoing Code Maintenance program for the Fine Tuning elements of the City's Zoning Code,this memo identifies the next bundle of Fine Tuning Amendments to the Zoning Code which the Planning Division will process. The issues to be addressed include the following: 1. Clarify which decision making bodies hear appeals of administrative decisions,including those of administrative hearing officers. The Planning Commission hears appeals of administrative hearing officer decisions for conditional uses and conditional building and site design review projects and the Board of Adjustment hears appeals of administrative decisions,including those of administrative hearing officers,for special exceptions or interpretations or where it is not otherwise specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Section 21A.16.010 a. The purpose of the administrative hearing was initially intended to streamline the process. The City Council allowed for administrative hearings of various types of requests including conditional uses,special exceptions and subdivisions. Where there is an appeal relating to a decision on a specific type of request,the appeal should be heard by the decision making body which has the ultimate decision making authority and expertise to decide on those types of requests. The Planning Commission has the decision making authority for conditional uses and conditional building and site design review requests. The Board of Adjustment has the decision making authority for special exceptions and interpretations of the zoning ordinance. e Page 1 2. Specify that appeals of administrative decisions,including those of an administrative hearing officer,must be made within 10 days of the notice of decision rather than 30 days. Section 21 A.16.030 A a. In 2009,the City Council adopted an ordinance which decreased the appeal period from 30 days to 10 days for various types of decisions. The administrative decisions, including those of the administrative hearing officer,was inadvertently missed in the earlier amendments. The proposed amendment would make all of the appeals timeframes consistent. 3. Clarify that Fraternities and Sororities must have a national affiliation in order to be considered as a Fraternity or Sorority as it pertains to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. (Section 21A.62.040) a. This amendment would be consistent with the current regulations of the University of Utah,which requires a national affiliation in order to become a Fraternity or Sorority of the University. 4. Create a definition of a pitched roof to be a roof with a minimum of a one(1)foot rise over a twelve(12)foot run. (21A.62) This has been an ongoing issue with determining the height of a structure, especially as it relates to the height regulations for single-family and two family zoning districts. 5. Change the name'Standards for the Franklin Quest Baseball Stadium"sign overlay to 'Standards for the Sports Stadium located on the southeast corner of 1300 South and West Temple.' (Section 21A.46.120) a. The name of the actual baseball stadium has changed and may change again in the future. Rather than providing a specific building name,it is proposed to describe the Amik, building and its location. 6. Change the name'Standards for the Delta Center"sign overlay to"Standards for the Sports Arena located on the block between South Temple and 100 South between 300 and 400 West Streets. (Section 21A 46.110.b) a. The name of the actual arena has changed and may change again in the future. Rather than providing a specific building name,it is proposed to describe the building and its location. 7. Eliminate the summary tables of the specific zoning districts from the zoning ordinances. (Various throughout use district chapters). a. In the past,the summary table has not been amended to reflect the specific changes to the lot and bulk regulations for various zoning districts. In addition,the summation found in the summary table is not always specific enough to accurately portray the regulations. Rather than have a summary table that is codified in the Zoning Ordinance and more difficult to change when inaccuracies are found,the Community and Economic Development Department will use a summary table to help the citizens and applicants in a more concise way,but the table will not be codified. 8. Clarify that an accessory structure is allowed in the side yard setback where it is located wholly behind the primary structure. (Table 21A.36.020B) G Page 2 a. This would allow an accessory structure to be located behind the house,but not necessarily within the rear yard setback unless otherwise precluded by the specific zoning district. As part of the process,the Planning Division will follow the City adoption processes including citizen input and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council where applicable. o Page 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 5, 2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director RE: Resolution authorizing the Director of the Community and Economic Development Department to execute grant and cooperative agreements with the Federal Transit Administration(FTA)on behalf of Salt Lake City, as they relate to the grant award for the Downtown Streetcar Alternatives Analysis COUNCIL PROCESS: The Council will hold a briefing on this issue at the April 56 work session. If the Council is comfortable moving forward, the resolution can be scheduled for consideration at a future formal meeting. If the Council adopts the resolution, the Director of CED will be authorized to sign the grant documents on behalf of the City. The Administration has provided a resolution for Council consideration authorizing the Director of the Community and Economic Development Department (CED) to sign the official grant application documents with the Federal Transit Administration(FTA) on behalf of Salt Lake City, as they relate to the future grant award for the Downtown Streetcar Alternatives Analysis. A. In December 2010,the FTA indicated to Salt Lake City that they would be awarded a$470,000 Alternatives Analysis Grant,to be used to conduct an Alternatives Analysis for the proposed Downtown Streetcar. The notification of award is not the actual grant award itself. B. The City is now required to file the Official grant application documents with the FTA in order to receive the funds. The resolution for CbUnoi.l.consideration would authorize the Director of CED to sign the official grant application documents on behalf of the City to keep the grant application process moving. C. If the FTA accepts the grant application,the City could see grant funds as early as the Summer of 2011. D. Once the FTA grants the funds, the City will follow up with a budget amendment to receive and authorize expenditure of the actual grant funds. E. The Grant requires a 20% match from the award recipient. The City Council,acting as the Board of the Redevelopment Agency, approved$126,457 to cover this local match requirement using RDA Funds at the March board meeting. F. See attached transmittal for full details on the scope and project plan for the alternatives analysis for the Downtown Streetcar. The Administration has also prepared an overall streetcars briefing for the Council,to be scheduled in an upcoming Council meeting. They will discuss public process,funding,and operating options for both the Sugar House and Downtown Streetcar lines. G. The Wasatch Front Regional Council included the Downtown Streetcar Alternatives Analysis in their list of projects,lending credibility to the City's application. 1 h:"-.?, 3 i SCANNED TO: SLC COUNCIL OFFICE SCANNED BY: AI '�'(gilt F yann DATE: FRANK B.GRAY RALPH BECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 8,ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT w"DR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR M A.•Y DE DEPOT/DIRECTOR HAEFER RECEIVED ROBERT FARRINGTON,JR. DEPUTE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL MAR 0 4 2011 Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: Cal 0.4 j u l l David Ev ritt,Chief of Staff Date Sent to City Council: t t I n I ZOI( TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Jill Remington-Love,Chair FROM: Frank Gray,Community&Eco mic _ Development Department Director RE: Authorizing Resolution for the Federal Transit Administration Fiscal Year 2010 Discretionary Livability Funding Opportunity: Alternatives Analysis Program STAFF CONTACTS: Matt Dahl,Project Manager,Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City RECOMMENDATION: To approve a resolution authorizing the Director of the Department of Community and Economic Development to execute grant and cooperative agreements with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)on behalf of Salt Lake City associated with the FTA's Fiscal Year 2010 Discretionary Livability Funding Opportunity: Alternatives Analysis Program for the implementation of an alternative analysis to explore alignments and operating concepts for a streetcar in downtown Salt Lake City. DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: The FTA has approved the City to submit a grant request of $470,000.The FTA's Alternatives Analysis Program requires an applicant cost-share of 20 percent of the total project cost.The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City(RDA)is making a financial commitment of$126,457 for the cost-share.The RDA is in the process of preparing a resolution for adoption by the Board of Directors of the RDA for the financial commitment for the cost- share. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404 P.O.BOX 14548S,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5486 TELEPHONE:BO1-535.6230 FAX:801.535-6005 www.s�c OOv.cOH/ccD DISCUSSION: The FTA stipulates for grantees to submit an Authorizing Aga. Resolution to the FTA prior to filing a grant application.The "•• purpose of conducting an Alternatives Analysis is to further explore the alignments and operating concepts for a streetcar in downtown Salt Lake City.To complete the Alternatives Analysis, Salt Lake City will: • Engage in a partnering session with the Utah Transit Authority and the regional offices of the FTA to promote open communication throughout the project. • Convene the Streetcar Technical Advisory Committee and continue to involve downtown stakeholders in all stages of the planning process. • Prepare a Purpose,Need,and Detailed Evaluation Criteria. • Further explore and refine a range of logical alignment alternatives to promote mobility and redevelopment in a cost effective manner. • Develop ridership forecasts for each alternative emphasizing the complementary nature of existing transit -"• (bus and light rail)in downtown. • Develop an operating scenario for each alternative. • Understand and maximize the revenue generation associated with the predicted development surrounding the streetcar as a source of funding a local match. • Carry out a decision-making process to determine a Locally Preferred Alternative. • Refine the alternative and prepare an implementation plan for success. Issue Origin: Not applicable. Analysis: Not applicable. Master Plan Considerations: Not applicable. PUBLIC PROCESS: Not applicable. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Not applicable. RE: FTA Fiscal Year 2010 Discretionary Livability Funding Opportunity: Alternatives Analysis Program Page2of2 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 Resolution authorizing the filing of applications with the Federal Transit Administration,an operating administration of the United States Department of Transportation,for Federal transportation assistance authorized by 49 U.S.C.chapter 53,title 23 United States Code,and other Federal statutes administered by the Federal Transit Administration. WHEREAS,the Federal Transportation Administrator has been delegated authority to award Federal financial assistance to Salt Lake City for a transportation project; WHEREAS,the grant or cooperative agreement for Federal financial assistance will impose certain obligations upon Salt Lake City,and may require Salt Lake City to provide the local share of the project cost; WHEREAS,Salt Lake City has or will provide all annual certifications and assurances to the Federal Transit Administration required for the project; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, as follows: 1.That the Director of the Department of Community and Economic Development is authorized to execute and file an application for Federal assistance on behalf of Salt Lake City with the Federal Transit Administration for Federal assistance authorized by 49 U.S.C.chapter 53,Title 23,United States Code,or other Federal statutes authorizing a project administered by the Federal Transit Administration.(If the Applicant is requesting Urbanized Area Formula Program assistance authorized by 49 U.S.C.§5307, either alone or in addition other Federal assistance administered by the Federal Transit Administration),the resolution should state whether the Applicant is the Designated Recipient as defined by 49 U.S.C.§5307(a)(2),or whether the Applicant has received authority from the Designated Recipient to apply for Urbanized Area Formula Program assistance. 2.That the Director of the Department of Community and Economic Development is authorized to execute and file with its applications the annual certifications and assurances and other documents the Federal Transportation Administration requires before awarding a Federal assistance grant or cooperative agreement. 3.That the Director of the Department of Community and Economic Development is authorized to execute grant and cooperative agreements with the Federal Transit Administration on behalf of Salt Lake City. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of .2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION The undersigned duly qualified City Recorder,acting on behalf of Salt Lake City,certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted at a legally convened meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, held on ,2011. [Seal] City Recorder (Date) C .•.'s t% ell 1 / •••• / 1 -, ••.......• Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar Alternatives Analysis Program Application (49 U.S.C. 5339) July 12, 2010 • --- .t.----..,'-,,,,,..s, ,.... - ,' 7 .- ,,--t -- - . ... ,',.. • , ..,‘,c . f . 4, 11- . . - ••• -- - -'' • .' --' r • - .. . •iroP,Z. I .4....--..4z,t; —.;-,- iit, e ,. isq., ,• ...... 4 g 4 414 it 411P t ,-'''-'2,..' ...,4t1..t.f le i •--,.. la A ,,,,,... ,,7110 pow<. .:,-....,,, 1.14.6.1._ .1i-"-- oil * . --i - wn ---.- , fi,•____. g .t 4,1. 1 )1 ., 1 .----;•,•;','f-'7'' ' ‘. A.' -- -...„-- -.-.... ... , . se. ',- , --_ 1 =1;6 : .f 0 A. Description of Alternatives Analysis • Salt Lake City(the City)is currently undergoing a radical transformation of its downtown, taking multiple measures to create a livable and sustainable city,including adding new opportunities for mobility and a varied housing stock.A city of approximately 180,000 residents, Salt Lake City serves as an urban seat of the Western United States,and is a concentrated job center for the Wasatch Front Region,which has a population of over one million residents. Salt Lake City is the capital city and commercial and industrial center for the State of Utah.In its efforts to become the preeminent sustainable capital city in the Intermountain West,Salt Lake City is actively engaged in providing a safe and efficient multi-modal transportation system for the movement of people and goods and for the vitality of the community as evidenced by the recent approval of its downtown transportation master plan by the city council.Mayor Ralph Becker of Salt Lake City has pledged support and resources to the development of a Downtown streetcar line.The Redevelopment Agency(RDA)of Salt Lake City has formed and led a Technical Advisory Committee comprised of representatives from Salt Lake City's Transportation,Engineering,Housing and Neighborhood Development(HAND),Planning, Sustainability and Environment(Sustainability),and Economic Development(ED)divisions,as well as the Utah Transit Authority(UTA),to plan this alignment.The Utah Transit Authority is an active partner in this project,providing technical and planning assistance.Their role as an ongoing partner to study downtown streetcar options has been assured in a letter dated July 9, 2010. The City has continuously reached out to major stakeholders in the Downtown area,and has • received support for the concept from the Chamber of Commerce,the Downtown Alliance,the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,the University of Utah,and several Community Councils. A feasibility study of the streetcar is currently underway which includes a preliminary analysis of route options.The purpose of conducting an Alternatives Analysis(AA)is to further explore the alignments and operating concepts for a streetcar in downtown Salt Lake City.To complete the AA,Salt Lake City will: • Engage in a partnering session with UTA and the regional offices of the Federal Transit Administration(FTA)to promote open communication throughout the project. • Convene the Streetcar Technical Advisory Committee and continue to involve downtown stakeholders in all stages of the planning process. • Prepare a Purpose and Need and detailed evaluation criteria for the project. • Further explore and refine a range of logical alignment alternatives to promote mobility and redevelopment in a cost effective manner. • Develop ridership forecasts for each alternative,emphasizing the complementary nature of existing transit(bus and light rail)in downtown. • Develop an operating scenario for each alternative. • Understand and maximize the revenue generation associated with the predicted development surrounding the streetcar as a source of funding a local match. • Carry out a decision-making process to determine a Locally Preferred Alternative(LPA). • Refine the alternative and prepare an implementation plan for success. • Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 1 July 12,2010 B. Applicant Information Name: Salt Lake City Corporation Address: 451 South State Street,Room 404 P.O.Box 145518 Salt Lake City,UT 84114-5486 Congressional District: Utah,Congressional District 1 Contact Information : Matt Dahl Project Manager 451 South State Street,RM 418 P.O.Box 145518 Salt Lake City,UT 84114 matthew.dahl@slcgov.com (801)535-7245(Fax) (801)535-7239(Phone) Applicant Services: Salt Lake City Corporation is a municipal government that O provides a wide range of services for the businesses and 181,743 residents within its city boundaries. Municipal services provided by the City include police,fire,recreational activities,libraries, water,sewer,storm water,airports,public improvements, highways and streets,planning and zoning,and general administrative services. Grant Amount Requested: $477,822(Federal share) — , 5ATlACEGIT1 C. Evaluation Criteria er: r l Description of Study Area.Transportation Problems and .r Needs The study area encompasses the downtown of Salt Lake City from " ' .r y "'1" 500 East to 600 West,and from South Temple Street to 900 South. y8` 5 The study area is shown in Figure 1.Founded as a pioneer " .1 settlement in 1847,and made diverse by the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869,many neighborhoods,originally u2 '1` anchored by the city's extensive trolley network,shown here,have IF •:- remained intact as a reflection of an historic era.Architecture in the city is diverse and ranges from carefully preserved turn of the century warehouses to sleek new high-rises.A collection of unique historic neighborhoods still exists:Old Greektown, • Chinatown,the Granary District and the Depot District are all reflective of the rich history of the Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 2 July 12.2010 City, provide a unique canvas for redevelopment,and were once served by streetcar.As the O Capital City,Salt Lake City is home to several unique attractors,shown on Figure 1.The combination of these unique attractors,Salt Lake City's function as a job center,and the continuous redevelopment taking place in the City indicate there is an evident need to study additional surface transportation options to enhance mobility between the neighborhoods within the City. Further detail about the study area and its problems and needs is provided below. • Morning and evening commute patterns to downtown Salt Lake City bring thousands of cars to the area every day.The resulting congestion does not support the City goals for a livable,walkable,and sustainable city.Parking demand is high,and parking is often located in surface lots situated on premium downtown real estate.Downtown is the major job center in the state,with approximately 65,000 jobs housed within the study area. Ninety-five percent of workers traveling to downtown arrive from outside of the downtown area. In order to encourage transit travel to the downtown for work purposes,and to reduce the amount of parking needed to accommodate workers in the downtown,additional distribution is needed to transport those arriving by commuter rail to job-dense areas of the City. • Downtown Salt Lake City is one of the major tourist attractions in the state.With 3,000 hotel rooms in the downtown and a hotel occupancy rate of 75%,the downtown is a major tourist and convention destination. The Salt Palace Convention Center hosts numerous events,with over 300,000 room nights linked with conventions annually. Transit options that are easily accessible and easy to understand would encourage visitors to travel around the city without a car and to reduce congestion and parking demand in the downtown core. • • Downtown is a major transfer point for travelers on commuter rail and light rail.The Salt Lake City Central Station,located at 300 South and 600 West,is an important transfer hub to commuter rail,light rail,and bus,as well as Greyhound and Amtrak. Although light rail service transports passengers from the commuter rail station or from the south to many areas of Downtown,the alignment is out of direction or too distant from their destination for some.Bus routes within the City are part of routes that serve longer distances or are express service that only operate in the peak direction during the peak hour.Short trips within the City on a bus are therefore not straightforward.As mass transit options improve to reach downtown,there must be a solution for travelers to circulate within Downtown. Figure 2 shows the existing transit service to,and within,Downtown. • Downtown is quickly redeveloping and rebalancing jobs and housing.Over the next five years,more than$1.5 billion will be invested in Salt Lake City's Central Business District (CBD).This investment includes the largest project ever developed in the CBD;City Creek Center,with over 750 residential units in five residential towers and over 730,000 square feet of new retail spread over 20 acres.Recently completed development projects in the downtown include 630,000 square feet of office space,over 450 new residential units,and 180 hotel rooms. Project Area Plans for the Granary and Depot Districts(shown in Figure 4)completed by the RDA demonstrate the intention to develop the west and southwest portions of the city. • Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 3 July 12,2010 • In the Granary District,the City owns eight acres property that will shortly be ready for redevelopment.This property sits just across the street from the LEED Platinum Certified Artspace development,which is located at 400 West 800 South within the Granary District. Ready for occupancy in summer 2010,Artspace will include 102 units of affordable housing,and 50,000 square feet of commercial and retail space devoted to supporting the arts industry. Artspace is more than a quarter mile from an existing light rail transit station, and is not served by bus. The City and its Redevelopment Agency are undertaking additional projects and plans to enhance the city's attraction as a cultural center.A plan for a Downtown Arts and Cultural District includes:a new 2,400 seat performing arts center;renovation of existing historic theaters with over 800 seats;approximately 1,000 new hotel rooms;200 residential units; up to 1 million square feet of corporate office space;and extensive revitalization of ground floor retail space. Another significant project under consideration is the development of a Convention Center Hotel.Planned for Downtown Salt Lake City,this hotel will have more than 800 rooms to support the Convention Center. Adjacent to and east of the Salt Lake City Central Station,plans have been prepared to catalyze development in the Depot District of Downtown.The RDA has completed an innovative development strategy that includes the reconfiguration of the area's 10-acre O blocks,dividing them into smaller blocks to create a more walkable and transit-oriented community.A mixed-use approach to development has been adopted,and enhanced transit is a key factor to making this area a success. • A downtown streetcar is included in Phase 3 of the Wasatch Front Regional Council's Long Range Plan. • Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 4 July 12,2010 SALT LAKE CITY STREETCAR e Figure 1 Slil(Xl'.4rcci w ®►II11®15_•Ity ' `� . ,ro i F1 (Ida- - ,O;i. '�'1 -! ems` - fb" Wit... r- lei ?_ i. .L. 3 .,:" .+'- I{= "—` . e.1-�"Lar. '..Ze sue.•�. r pal i..�-.', i,,e��i -V , }_ i Jon South� aiEN �Qf``IID-AD!'!,T 'a� ,} e. he'd � NNE: ,' ►- -- Noro fir. i .Y• _ •_ - ti � PLACES OF INTEREST LEGEND dy I LET Cave Cer 9 Cav Creek Development =I'tu ° '.LDS Blame=College 10 I ermedd Hub CO---IRIA' 3 temple Square 1l.Gallium Center 4 Joseph Smith tkmorid Budding 12.Pioneer Park ® Phew of Mama 5 Gateway 13 Bask Gate College 6 EnegSolutlonr.4mno 14 Seat.EL.liu/eton Sae Courthaae Clark Planetarium 15.City&County Building S.Salt Palace Convencon Center 16 Sait Lair Coy Library Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 5 July 12.20 II) SALT LAKE CITY STREETCAR Figure 1 Donntown Transit Service r s 1 sew-ialmNsaSilim aI 11 '' . ?" ®ae1aa:aaaaaa 1 1 ,- Nt1 ®� / aa®aa®aaaaaa- � , s a ®11!11 1 ., i _ .; ga®a®aaaaaa erl f(//J�j I �•t ,;� N . -. tt• -1 •Sh '1u ,~ --u- ,,.: ,- •:.,,---:'lir •. 0 ... ., „ > cAJq .1 l . u. A'- a -m: • rj ; m"r __J _ 1 i z, 5Ja 1544NHEADWAYS..u` *iKrth , Ial ' ali , 2 nI... ' ti E Ee • 'E i. 1 t f.- -cp 5 s"L- "1-t-.S-.-.1O F'47,-l1l-o10`T.r h' 15-MIN HEADWAYS r •s f ;i -:gP,t3„y2_, i 'S tg' -T--a i di% �r, '=ti..,. Nif pi�gg� L- ;;e_`lt-pNti c l 4�.; ®14, -a1aI llEtrl61 i ia•1:. >` l ill; a\'' ' '' -' ir Iggigi ,i : IBC' { '• -.fisa1BaT .:r:% 11 z „- 2a"e n-:':.4- `p 1 -- -Commuter Rail•••••• Proyared TRLC--Ryan,"Bur CC � TR iy Sbtloru'.Existing TRAY Loco Bur Over the last two years,the concept of a downtown streetcar has been developed by City staff, with support from the Mayor and City Council.The goals of the project are to enhance and accelerate walkable,transit-oriented redevelopment and to provide non-automobile-oriented, local circulation for workers,residents,and visitors.Guiding principles behind this initiative include: • Advancing City land use goals • Catalyzing increased development and leveraging that development to pay for the project • • Expandability beyond an initial project to a larger system serving more areas of the City Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 6 July 12,2010 • Building transit ridership in Salt Lake City,as well as in the larger UTA bus and rail network • Avoiding investment in temporary routing • Avoiding redundancy with light rail,spacing the projects appropriately for comfortable walking distances • Functioning as a circulator,as distinct from the"mid-range"and"long-haul"distances served by light rail and commuter rail lines • Assuming that the light rail system downtown will be"built out"consistent with the Downtown in Motion plan with new track along 700 South,400 West and 400 South completing a downtown loop There are multiple possibilities within this Study Area for an initial project alignment that advances the goals and conforms to the guiding principles.Previous studies support this concept, including:the Downtown in Motion plan(adopted 2008);the Downtown Streetcar Analysis report prepared by the Salt Lake City Planning Division in 2009;and the goals and objectives of the Gateway Specific Master Plan.Supporting relationships are described below: • Downtown in Motion—Describes the completion of two loops of TRAX to provide a foundation of rail transit circulation in Downtown.The plan also describes the completion of an inner loop through Downtown.Lastly,the plan recommends further study of streetcar access to Downtown from surrounding neighborhoods not served directly by TRAX. • Planning Division—The 2009 study identifies priorities for Downtown streetcar • development and provides a basis for analysis of two alignments in Downtown.The study recommends,as a first priority,the development of 400 West for streetcar development. • Gateway Specific Plan Goals and Objectives—States that the Gateway District,which is located within the Downtown,should include"...the development of a diverse mixture of uses that complement Downtown,encourage a variety of housing opportunities,and facilitate the enhancement and revitalization the neighborhood." Conceptual Alternatives This study is focused on identifying the single most viable initial circulator project for serving Downtown Salt Lake City.The initial segment should have"stand-alone"functionality,but also be positioned to grow outward into a larger network that would ultimately connect each of the city's neighborhoods with the downtown.Each conceptual alignment is shown on Figure 3. 200 South Option Beginning on its western end at the Salt Lake City Central Station,this line runs one block east on 300 South,then turns north on 500 West and runs one block north.Turning east again,the line runs east on 200 South to a terminus at 500 East.A number of engineering issues will need to be addressed in this alignment and will bear on its cost estimate. Potential issues include whether or not the streetcar shares track with light rail in the one block where they would be co- located,details of track location within the right-of-way,and location of the terminus. e Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 7 July 12,2010 The focus of this alignment is to serve the existing built environment,while accessing a substantial amount or redevelopment potential.Connectivity between the existing Downtown core,nearby urban neighborhoods in City Center East and the Avenues,and the Central Station transit hub are the greatest strengths of this alignment. Granary Option Beginning on its northern end at the intersection of 400 West and 200 South,this line would proceed south until reaching 900 South,where it would turn east and connect,two blocks further, to the 900 South TRAX station. The predominant engineering issue for this alignment is the functional and physical coordination with the intended addition of light rail track on 400 West for the ultimate Downtown loop concept.Additionally,400 West,from 600 South to 900 South, is in poor condition and lacking basic infrastructure. The construction of the streetcar through this area would require significant improvements throughout the right-of-way. This alignment is focused on the large amount of redevelopment potential lying along this corridor.Much of this alignment travels through the Granary Redevelopment Area of the RDA (shown on Figure 4). City policies support fostering expansion through high-density development southward and westward from Downtown with this goal in mind.The City owns a significant amount of property in this corridor,which should help facilitate its policy of Downtown expansion. Hybrid Option Cot Beginning at its southern end,this alignment would follow the same route as the Granary Option described above until reaching 300 South. At that point,this route turns east for three blocks, until reaching West Temple,where it turns north for two blocks.Upon reaching 100 South,the line turns east for three blocks,terminating at the intersection of 200 South and 200 East. Engineering issues include the light rail coordination question noted in the Granary Option and details in the locations of the terminus. The 200 South Option is fundamentally about serving the existing built environment and the Granary Option is principally a development catalyst,which results in this option serving both objectives. Its configuration also seeks to more directly serve the Salt Palace and the massive addition to the CBD now being built in the City Creek project,as well as aligning with the highly walkable environment that currently exists on 300 South. A shorter version of the hybrid alignment,terminating at 800 South and using a single ballasted track in the median of the street for the southern-most four blocks,is also being studied. Depot District Option The Depot District Option provides direct access into the planned redevelopment area within the Depot District. The benefit of this option is the support for the redevelopment plans created by the RDA for this district,as well as the City's master plans. Many of the parcels in this district are owned by the RDA. This conceptual alignment would connect with either the 200 South alignment,the Granary Alignment,or potentially serve as a link to both. This alternative would also provide the most direct access to the Intermodal Hub,and the daily trips that arrive at this Ostation by all modes.Preliminary ridership analysis using the WFRC travel demand model has Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 8 July 12,2010 shown strong attraction between the Hub and areas along 200 South further east in the Study Area. SALT LAKE CITY STREETCAR Figure?Alignments g'e'.'4n.,, ... a,r.r.r�4. :.eur 11 13� /Z4r :",FIE ImEkeii11 iilEiOiF ®' i ®rANVIII®IIIINa®®MRD 7 1 South Te 1 ��• � t� �r. ;c �r e � � x �.M3� 1.1 e'er -.i ua'� w-L3YL a�.il ...':� '*'r^ rt-:,,,, 4 ,.. J K N • �l� t r r_ M1y�de e-it gm,. t � � 'fir I•`- 'NU- Je _�, ;I ' cui - , z ;f F=it.sMI#= Oo .2IARA-IS n a MUNI . Egi 6 s ' Ili isaca.. �= � am _ 1 ita .,,,... _. _,,,,,.. ....R............. „ ,___„.4 I -N 200 South Alig me,, Hvbnd 4lignment Depot Evennon C-61 Gra.",Alignment Hybrtd Short Alignment NJ 0 Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 9 July 12,2010 SALT LAKE CITY STREETCAR Figure 4 Relationship of.alignments to RDA Districts i"" V«alurn,r:.ialr.are:.:�r.i _ , I in M ir '"e-Pliimillnivai4c . EgnanaMENENEMI l .!+--- fligi-ili_!ii lialtimenui A - EnianiiiiiinliFigrag ;• tig-'491 1 .1-jUi,:, ...-. :;:lii=.to-'i f,p7—..--;1;IfillinliMMOSSINCIEP ill . ....4. �_31': ++sue Y iRr-e „ •tYA{ ! DEPOT CBD ,�. .• . a++a, . �a.�:_- >. „ ► ,.tit '-" - ,► r ; isi / ;1• 2005o h'K +, -' � t i�� t,�w.�. �",i Invtirq400.s7ja,- , 1 "..',.,-'F,t---'1,- ;.-•0,. ,Taingt - T '''Culi4 ..-0-r. .. 06116-iimiidoeci.. ' - . sr „.1.4 , mh. mr7r.„4,7c...wilszta_„..vig;sirig4 ,„-.-. ...,,,,-,.........3i...., O `u L,'_L. WEST TEMPLE 05 �?tiig4 Eks GRANARY GATEWAY �"` ��' � <^� '.:.1-:..E '4.:',.. 3. ''r;'Er.raiSrfaridali, "Ct/ttSag alai.11 -6--" ' A;17kt!':7-'1,4,.'. .0.11- Suwzsimemg, 7-:' ''- ; , 1 113�yy 1 '^ ^¢� `?gar° aii gga 41==1•?00 South Alignment°HybridAlignment Depot Ette,uion 0 MEMGrmurvAlig nnn[ 1111111 Hybrid Short Alignment L I RD i T.'?Pistricrs Preliminary Evaluation Criteria To address the transportation problems and needs of the study area, Salt Lake City selected a set of criteria by which to assess the alternative alignments being considered for the Downtown Streetcar. The following criteria are intended to guide the selection of an optimum streetcar alignment, ensure a positive outcome for the project, and address the FTA's six livability principles. Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 10 July 12,2010 0 Access to Employment Centers O The Downtown Streetcar should enhance the reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services, and other basic needs, as well as expand business access to workers, tourists, and residents that live within Downtown Salt Lake City(Downtown) and the larger regional transit network. To achieve this outcome, it is important that the streetcar alignment be within close proximity to existing and future job centers. The Alternatives Analysis will quantify the number of workers within '/ mile of each alternative being considered. The total number of employees counted within this geographic area will be the basis for ranking alternatives using this criterion. Applying the Employment criterion will ensure that the fmal outcome of the Alternative Analysis addresses the following Livability Outcomes: 1) Provide More Transportation Choices: The Streetcar should provide greater transportation choices for commuters and reduce the vehicle miles accrued by Downtown workers. 2) Enhance Economic Competitiveness: The Downtown Streetcar should enhance workers' reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services, and other basic needs. 3) Value Communities and Neighborhoods: By serving Salt Lake City's Downtown workers, the optimum alignment will also assist Downtown's existing businesses attract employees and shoppers interested in the pedestrian-friendly environment that streetcars have been shown to create in other communities. Access to Major Destinations CP The Downtown Streetcar should enhance the unique characteristics of Downtown Salt Lake City by improving access to major destinations and attractors in the Downtown. To achieve this outcome,the selected alternative should circulate pedestrians among Downtown's major destinations. The AA will identify and quantify the number of major destinations, such as shopping malls, convention centers, and college campuses within close proximity to the alternative alignments. The basis for ranking the alternatives will be each alternative's proximity to Downtown's major destinations, and the impact this access has on ridership potential. The Access to Major Destinations criterion will ensure that the final outcome of the AA addresses the following Livability Principles: 1) Provide More Transportation Choices: The Streetcar will act as a Downtown circulator that increases the area's walkability and decreases the need to make multiple trips with an automobile. This will reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gases,while promoting healthy lifestyles. 2) Enhance Economic Competitiveness: The final alignment will be more likely to act as a circulator that connects workers, residents, and visitors with reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services, and other basic needs. This connectivity should result in more pedestrians in Downtown. 3) Value Communities and Neighborhoods: By acting as a circulator and connection to the regional transit network for people who utilize Downtown Salt Lake City's major Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 11 July 12,2010 destinations,the Downtown Streetcar will promote a healthier,safer,and more walkable community. Activation of Developable Land The Downtown Streetcar should catalyze development and redevelopment of blighted or underutilized land in Downtown.This should be accomplished by the streetcar's ability to generate demand for transit-oriented development along its alignment.To effectively serve the anticipated demand,the selected alternative should be in close proximity to land that has potential to be developed or redeveloped.The basis for ranking the alternatives will be the number of developable acres within two blocks of each alignment.Using the Developable Land criterion will ensure that the final outcome of the AA addresses the following Livability Principles: 1) Promote Equitable,Affordable Housing:Downtown Salt Lake City allows for the construction of multi-family housing throughout most of its geography. By encouraging infill development along the streetcar line,there is a significant likelihood that the variety of housing choices in Downtown Salt Lake City will be expanded. By the nature of being next to the streetcar,these households will have increased mobility and the option to use the streetcar in lieu of a car. 2) Support Existing Communities:The Downtown Streetcar is anticipated to catalyze development and redevelopment of blighted or underutilized land in Downtown Salt Lake City;this is verified through a series of workshops and focus groups held with the local development community.Close proximity to available land is pivotal to capitalizing on the anticipated demand for new development. 3) Value Communities and Neighborhoods:By encouraging infill development,blight removal,and development of underutilized land,the streetcar will improve the Downtown Area and increase the walkability of the neighborhood. Access To Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Owned Property The RDA owns several parcels throughout Downtown that are either blighted or underutilized, and thus prime for development. The RDA works with private sector developers to develop its property holdings in accordance with the Master Plans of Salt Lake City and RDA project area plans and goals.The RDA views the Downtown Streetcar as a positive tool for encouraging the development of transit-oriented projects that incorporate good urban design.To achieve this outcome,the selected alternative should be in close proximity to RDA owned property.The basis for ranking the alternatives will be the amount of RDA owned property within two blocks of the alignments.Using the Access to RDA Owned Property Criterion will ensure that the final outcome of the AA addresses the following Livability Outcomes: I) Provide More Transportation Choices:The streetcar will act as both a catalyst for development and an expansion of the transportation options available to the workers, tourists,and residents interested in accessing the newly developed property. Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 12 July 12,2010 2) Promote Equitable,Affordable Housing:The RDA will encourage a mix of uses in the development of its properties,including moderate-to high-density residential buildings. Additionally,in executing the City's Master Plans,the development of the RDA-owned land will require a mix of home-ownership and income requirements.By nature of being next to the streetcar,these mixed ownership and income level households will have increased mobility and the option to use the streetcar in lieu of a car. 3) Support Existing Communities:The Downtown Streetcar should catalyze redevelopment of blighted or underutilized land owned by the RDA and located in close proximity to the selected alignment.This should be accomplished by the streetcar's ability to generate demand for transit-oriented development along its alignment. 4) Value Communities and Neighborhoods:By encouraging infill development,blight removal,and development of underutilized land,the streetcar will improve the Downtown Area and increase the walkability of the neighborhood. Private Sector!P3 Potential It is important that the selected streetcar alignment have a high likelihood to leverage significant private sector investment in the project.The AA will look into the potential for private developer participation in the streetcar project,in connection with the development of specific properties. Such participation may include direct financial contributions or improvements that enhance the pedestrian environment along the alignment.Also being considered is the willingness and ability of the benefitting neighborhoods to contribute to the project through an assessment district.The basis for ranking the alternatives using this criterion will be an assessment of the potential private sector investment.Using the Private Sector/P3 Potential criterion will ensure that the final outcome of the AA addresses the following Livability Principle: 1) Coordinate Policies and Leverage Investment:If Federal funding is utilized to construct the downtown streetcar,this criterion will ensure the funding leverages the greatest amount private and locally generated income. Potential Yield from Tax Increment Financing and Other Locally Generated Funds Locally generated funding will be critical to the successful design and construction of the Downtown Streetcar.The AA will look into the potential that each alignment has to generate public funding.While all options will be considered,the analysis will particularly focus on the funding that can be generated through tax increment financing in RDA project areas,parking revenue,and special assessments.The basis for ranking the alternatives using this criterion will be an evaluation of the potential to access the largest amount of locally generated funds, weighted against the potential that the funding will be realized. Using the Potential Yield from Tax Increment Financing and Other Locally Generated Funds criterion will ensure that the final outcome of the AA addresses the following Livability Principles: 1) Coordinate Policies and Leverage Investment:If Federal funding is utilized to construct the Downtown streetcar,this criterion will ensure the funding leverages the greatest amount of locally generated public revenue for the project. Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 13 July 12,2010 Compatibility with Existing Plans The selected alternative will need to be compatible with the City's Downtown Transportation Plan,Community Plans and other City Plans. The basis for ranking the alternatives using this criterion will be to identify how or whether each alternative alignment detracts,implements,or augments the Downtown in Motion Plan,the Downtown Master Plan,Gateway Specific Plan, and the Central Community Master Plan.The selected alternative will not detract from the plan and,optimally,would augment or enhance the plan.Using the Compatability with Existing Plans criterion will ensure that the final outcome of the AA addresses the following Livability Principles: 1) Provide More Transportation Choices:The relevant master plans call for well-coordinated and varied modes of transportation to serve the populations within their specific geographies.Provided the selected alternative implements or augments the Downtown in Motion Plan,the inevitable result would be an increase in the number of safe,reliable, economical transportation choices for the workers,residents,and tourists in Downtown. 2) Enhance Economic Competiveness:One of the objectives of the Downtown In Motion plan,the Downtown Master Plan and The Gateway Specific Plan is to support regional commerce downtown.If the Streetcar implements or augments these plans,it will also support regional commerce,expanding business access to wider markets. 3) Support Existing Communities:A goal of the Downtown in Motion plan is to,"be supportive and compatible with Salt Lake City's vision of Downtown and Downtown land uses,activities,and businesses.Provided the selected alternative implements or augments the Downtown in Motion plan,it will also likely support the existing Downtown community. 4) Value Communities and Neighborhoods:The relevant master plans are intended to guide the development of their respective geographies.While in the case of the Gateway District, the plan was intended to take the area from brownfields to a downtown support district,the Downtown and Central Community Master Plans are intended to capitalize on the areas' strengths and improve in areas where needed.If the streetcar acts as a catalyst for developing the available properties and improving the transportation options in accordance with the Master plans,it will in effect enhance the unique characteristics of'the community that the neighborhood chose to support in the drafting of the master plans. Ridership While all of the criteria are important in determining which alignment should be selected, ridership is the key to the success of accomplishing all of the streetcar project's objectives.To determine the current and future ridership,an in depth ridership analysis will be conducted.The determining factor in ranking the alternatives utilizing this criterion is the number of potential riders each alignment is anticipated to generate. The alignment with the highest projected ridership will be a strong contender for the Locally Preferred Alternative.Using the Ridership criterion will ensure that the final outcome of the AA addresses the following Livability Principles: Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 14 July 12,2010 1) Provide More Transportation Choices:The alternative with the highest number of riders will effectively be the route that gives the most people a new mode of transportation. The rider's choice to utilize the streetcar means that they have determined that it is the safest, most reliable,and/or most economic option available to them. Cost and Cost Effectiveness Salt Lake City will consider the cost of each alternative relative to the ridership developed above. Using this criterion will address the following Livability Principles: 1) Coordinate Policies and Leverage Investment:If Federal funding is utilized to construct the Downtown streetcar,this criterion will ensure that financial resources are being used wisely,possibly reducing the amount of capital that could be required for leveraging of investments. 2) Enhance Economic Competiveness:A lower cost project could reduce the total amount of tax increment needed to support this project thereby improving the economic gains of local businesses and landowners within the TIF districts. Public Support Salt Lake City will include an extensive public involvement process as part of the AA. The public involvement process will include meeting with City staff,elected officials,and community stakeholders,as well as holding public meetings and open houses.The Public involvement will culminate with the Salt Lake City Council adopting a Locally Preferred Alternative.In addition to being prudent to consider public input,using public support as a criterion for selecting an alignment increases the likelihood that the alignment will result in enhancing the health,safety,and walkability of Downtown. Using the Public Support criterion will ensure that the final outcome of the AA addresses the following Livability Principle: 1) Support Existing Communities: One of the best ways to support existing communities is to incorporate the opinions of its residents into selecting the optimum alignment.Through the public involvement portion of the AA,the alignment that enhances the unique characteristics of the community,if the community values those characteristics,should rise to the top. Technical Capacity of the Applicant to Carry Out the Proposed Work Successfully Salt Lake City's role as the capital,commercial center,and regional transportation hub for Utah has required the City to develop an experienced and specialized staff,which has successfully completed a variety of complex projects,including alternatives analysis and corridor studies. Representatives from Salt Lake City's Community and Economic Development Department and Transportation,Engineering,Planning,HAND,and Sustainability Divisions,as well as the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority,will participate in the management and oversight of the AA through the Technical Advisory Committee.The RDA will Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 15 July 12,2010 manage this study with oversight from the Technical Advisory Committee.This Committee has met for nearly two years as the primary planning body for the anticipated Downtown Streetcar. Most recently,the Technical Advisory Committee has overseen the preparation of a Downtown Streetcar Feasibility Study. This work has allowed the specialized City staff members to familiarize themselves with streetcars generally and their potential benefits in Downtown Salt Lake City specifically.This expertise will make the Committee well prepared to oversee the work of a qualified consultant.The City has performed this role for several transit investments, including light rail,commuter rail,and station improvements.the actual work of the AA. Salt Lake City's Technical Advisory Committee will consist of individuals from various City Departments with experience executing projects that address the FTA's six Livability Principles. 1) Salt Lake City Transportation:Salt Lake City Transportation will have two representatives on the Alternatives Analysis Technical Committee(AATC). These representatives will include the Transportation Division Director and the Transportation Planning Engineer. Salt Lake City Transportation has participated in the AA for the Sugar House Streetcar,a transit project in its early design stage.Additionally,Transportation staff worked with the residents and business owners in Salt Lake City to develop the Downtown in Motion plan. 2) Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City: The RDA has a long history of participating in transportation projects that benefit its redevelopment project areas.The RDA has contributed to the planning and construction of one light rail station on an existing track and the construction of several extensions of the UTA's Light Rail System.In addition to working on transportation projects,the RDA has managed a variety of commercial and housing projects,as well as the installation of utilities and other infrastructure.The RDA will be represented on the Technical Advisory Committee by its Executive Director and a Project Manager. 3) Salt Lake City Planning Division: Planning is responsible for development of the Master Plans that govern the land use and zoning along the alignments being considered. A Senior Planner who has overseen the development of one or more of the Downtown Master plans and is thoroughly familiar with the goals and objectives outlined in the plans will represent Planning on the Technical Advisory Committee. Planning's involvement will ensure that selected Streetcar alignment will be compatibility with the City's master plans. 4) Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division: Housing and Neighborhood Development(HAND)oversees the City's affordable housing programs, including low-interest housing rehabilitation loans,first-time home-buyer programs, housing development gap financing for affordable and special needs projects,and federal grants programs.HAND's representative on the Technical Advisory Committee will help ensure that expertise in the promotion of equitable and affordable housing is available to assist in the execution of the AA. 5) Salt Lake City Sustainability and Environment Division:A representative of the Sustainability Division will participate on the Technical Advisory Committee and will provide input on sustainability,environmental,and energy conservation issues. Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 16 July 12,2010 6) Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department: The Community and Economic Development Department(CED)is the administrative section of City government that manages the Transportation,Economic Development,Planning, Engineering,and HAND Divisions. Representation on the Technical Advisory Committee by CED's Deputy Director will ensure a holistic view is taken when utilizing the Selection Criteria during the AA. The Deputy Director has extensive experience working with the public to get input on capital projects or to address community issues. 7) Salt Lake City Engineering Division: Salt Lake City Engineering is responsible for developing the City's capital projects and managing the City's rights-of-way. Engineering has partnered with UTA to manage the construction of segments of the regional light rail system that have passed through Salt Lake City. Engineering staff will provide expertise in the engineering,capital costs,and right-of-way related to each alignment. 8) Utah Transit Authority: UTA and Salt Lake City have had a long and successful history of partnering on rail transit projects in Salt Lake City. Over the past 15 years,UTA and the City have partnered to design and construct light rail,commuter rail,and streetcar projects within the City through a series of successful Interlocal Agreements. As the regional transit agency providing various modes of transit in and around Salt Lake City,UTA's representatives will have extensive experience in the development and execution of transportation related alternatives analyses and the construction of capital projects. Potential Impact on Decision Making 'm* Salt Lake City's Mayor,City Council,and RDA Board of Directors have been very supportive of building a streetcar in Downtown Salt Lake City.The City and the RDA have devoted over $430,000 for current planning and future design,construction,and operation of the Downtown Streetcar.Current activity includes hiring a transit consultant to perform a streetcar feasibility study for Downtown,the results of which are due in early fall 2010. Demonstrating that the City and region are working together to pursue a Downtown Streetcar, the AA will provide valuable direction for how to proceed with the development of the Streetcar. As a sign of the value the RDA has given to completing the AA,its 2010-2011 Budget includes the necessary funding to cover the City's portion of the AA if the FTA approves this grant application. Furthermore,varied representation on the Technical Advisory Committee will provide the means for translating the findings of the AA into action items for the City.Implementation items may include:the Planning Division reviewing and revising the zoning along the selected alignment to ensure compatibility and transit orientation;the RDA working with private developers to develop RDA-owned land along the alignment and form assessment districts to support construction and operations of the streetcar;and HAND working with non-profit developers to build affordable housing along the alignment. Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 17 July 12,20I0 D. Work Plan for Alternatives Analysis The following work plan will be performed to complete an Alternatives Analysis and select a Locally Preferred Alternative. Task I—Project Management/Study Initiation Clear communication and a transparent process will guide the project management task. At the outset,significant time will be devoted to establishing communication protocols that last throughout the project.The following sub-tasks will be completed: • Develop a Project Management Plan,which will include a refined work scope,schedules, budgets,quality control,and invoicing. • Prepare a draft table of contents to utilize as a guide for subsequent deliverables. • Conduct bi-monthly Streetcar Committee meetings. • Facilitate a partnering session between the City, UTA, and FTA to ensure open communication. • Administrative record Task 2—Data Collection and Project Understanding Since documenting existing conditions is critical to the Purpose and Need Statement,quantitative and qualitative documentation of the existing and future conditions of the Study Area is given considerable focus and effort at this phase of the work program.A substantial amount of a land use and transportation analysis has been conducted for downtown Salt Lake City. This study's data will form part of the base of information to be used for alternatives development and analysis. Using input from the AA Study Area's existing and future condition analyses,information from the review of past studies,and discussions with the City Committee members,the Consultant will define and recommend the Study Area boundaries.New Starts criteria define the study area to be a!!-.,mile buffer around corridors and station areas.The Consultant will formalize the definition of the study area and present it to FTA-Headquarters staff for concurrence at the proposed FTA project progress meeting.The Consultant,with City approval,will prepare a GIS- based study area map for presentation and for ongoing AA demographic and land use analyses. GIS will be used to produce high quality communication graphics showing the existing and future conditions throughout the study area. Data gathered in completion of the Downtown in Motion Plan,previous studies,and in previous subtasks in this analysis will be utilized to develop an understanding of existing and future transportation conditions in the study area. The evaluation of existing conditions will include, but not be limited to:an analysis of roadway characteristics;traffic volumes;existing and planned public transportation routes;service levels and headways;ridership;support facilities; parking utilization and supply;and demographics.The results of this analysis establish the existing condition against which the alternatives can be compared. Identifying programmed and planned improvements is a key element in forecasting future study area conditions and potential circulator conflicts.The Consultant will obtain this information Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 18 July 12.21)10 from City,regional and local agencies.Street and intersection improvements will be mapped using various local data sources.The agencies will be asked to identify any planned improvements that should be included in the 2040 baseline system—those that are virtually certain of completion by 2040 will be included in the baseline,others will be included in the list of potential improvements to be considered for the corridor. Task 3-Public Involvement The AA will continue the public involvement efforts that have been initiated during the Feasibility Study. Sub-tasks will include: •Develop a thorough public involvement plan individualized for each neighborhood in the project area. •Provide education to the Technical Committee and policy groups as well as to the public at key milestones,including the verification of purpose and need,explanation of criteria and methodology,and extensive discussion about the federal livability initiatives. •Hold focus group meetings with stakeholders,some as a follow-up to previous meetings during the feasibility study stage. Task 4—Purpose&Need Statement&Draft Project Criteria This task is critical to each subsequent task because it outlines the reason for studying a transportation improvement and the measures by which to analyze the effectiveness of altematives to meet the needs of the communities.Sub-tasks will include: • Understanding the market demand for travel and transit to and within downtown Salt Lake City. The team will use the traditional four-step model in the Wasatch Front Regional Council(WFRC)Travel Demand Model to answer the following questions and determine the strongest markets for travel and transit:Who will be traveling where in the 2040 planning horizon?How strong is the attraction between origins and destinations? What mode will travelers choose in 2040?What are the attitudinal factors that drive decision- making?What market and environmental factors drive decision-making? • Drafting a Purpose and Need statement based on the definition of transportation problems associated with future conditions as well as community input on what is needed.This statement will guide decision-making through the life of the project. • Devoting adequate time to developing draft project criteria.Using the criteria described in the previous section of this document,the criteria will also incorporate elements from the federal process,the Regional Transportation Planning process and the Transportation Project Prioritization Process for Salt Lake County.The graphic below shows a sample approach to screening criteria. • Preparing an initiation package for FTA that summarizes the Purpose and Need for the project and the evaluation criteria. Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 19 July 12.2010 Screening Criteria Level)Screening orT¢roan.., ,¢r7 Level 2 Screening :nnurary i 3a �or cCcm'.t Long t„T.sana.es ; Q Levellac a i 3d �� N:yM1t Co aia•Yy-LiM Use Level 3 Screening 4. Ua oue�ic:uppnrt e�elrrrmJ ,c.�n rcLevel2 snna..cns piterneiise Cost-RW,sl:,NeleL..iy LardU a Berle eas raM<Jp.nut Lent Use Flmeliui use �uNced Telly lV MaLtve 3 anJ Nee.f Level 1 Task 5—Alternatives Identification Alternatives will be developed to meet the purpose and need for the project,and will be screened based on the previously established criteria.At this middle level of screenin„the long list of alternatives will be narrowed to final alternatives for detailed analysis and evaluation.The conceptual alternatives described above will serve as the basis for the further development of alternatives for consideration.Operational concepts will be developed for each alternative.At this stage,a long list of alignments will be judged against the purpose and need and criteria above to select final alternatives for evaluation. Task 6—Alternatives Screening and LPA Selection The team will narrow alternatives through the screening process to a short list of transit alternatives that may vary in operational characteristics and alignment.At this level of analysis, the team will prepare detailed information about each alternative,including: • Task 6A:Analysis of potential station locations and potential for positive land use effects at these locations.In addition to using the WFRC accepted travel demand forecasting model,Salt Lake City will also use off-modeling techniques to evaluate the relationship between changes in land use and its effect on ridership.This model considers density, design,distance and diversity(D-factors)to assess ridership at a station level. • Task 6B:Analysis of transit and traffic integration,and roadway issues associated with the alternatives working with UDOT,the County,and the City to consider the traffic impacts of the proposed alternatives. • Task 6C:Conceptual Engineering-Advance the engineering design to a conceptual(5- 10%)level of design.The design work developed for the downtown route during the initial streetcar feasibility study will be utilized as a base for the refinement of the alignment alternatives.Elements of the engineering design will include track,roadway, structural,utility,drainage,and systems elements,as well as the following: e Determination of alignment and configuration,including termini layout,crossover locations and station/platform locations. c Generate typical sections for each alignment segment. o Identify associated changes to traffic circulation,lane assignments and pedestrian movements. Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 20 July 12,2010 o Identify anticipated impacts to adjacent properties,relocation of loading zones and accesses. o Identification of potential impacts to existing private and public utilities. o Identification of two or more viable sites for a maintenance facility. o Identification of all right-of-way needs • Task 6D: The Consultant will develop a detailed construction cost estimate(capital and operating)using the standard Federal Transit Administration cost categories for each of the alternatives.Under this task a preliminary environmental screening will also be completed. A preliminary screening of potential environmental impacts,particularly noise and air quality,will be completed.Impacts that will be studied include air quality,noise, vibrations,traffic,energy consumption,cultural and historic resources,storm water management,environmental justice,land use,and other significant environmental,social and/or economic impacts.In addition,anticipated areas of concern to residents and businesses along the corridor will be identified and addressed through the public involvement process. The identification of cultural resources and the evaluation of impacts on historically significant structures will also be an important consideration and a Level I screening will be completed during the Alternatives Analysis. Task 7—Evaluation and Selection Salt Lake City will work collaboratively to select a Preferred Alternative and advance this Alternative through the City's adoption process. oak Task 8-Funding and Operational Plans In recognition that local funding will be necessary,advance the discussion and development of the overall funding strategy for the project.Develop the finance options considered in the feasibility study to potential scenarios for funding the local portion of capital and operating costs. In concert with funding is the determination of the operational entity of the system and the business model associated with it. Task 9—Documentation Salt Lake City will document the process and outcomes of the study in a draft and final Alternatives Analysis report,following the FTA guidance on preparation of such documents. Downtown Salt Lake Coy Streetcar 21 July 12.2010 Preliminary Budget Task Cost 1. Project Initiation S 20,400 2. Data Collection $ 23.800 3. Public Outreach S 44,200 4. Purpose and Need and Criteria Development 5 81,600 5. Development of Alternatives S 68.000 6. Screening of Alternatives Included in sub-tasks below 6A.Ridership S 85,000 6B.Operations $ 34,000 6C.Conceptual Engineering S 68,000 6D.Cost Estimating S 81,600 7. Evaluation and Selection $ 27.200 8. Funding and Operational Plans S 30,600 9. Documentation S 27,200 10.Grant Administration S 5.679 Total Project Cost S 597,279 Salt Lake City Matching Funds(20°/) S 119,457 Downtown Salt Lake City Streetcar 22 July 12,2010 Housing Authority of Salt Lake City Appointment: Alfonsa Price INTRODUCTION: Mayor Becker is recommending Alfonsa Price a resident of District Three, to be appointed to the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. If appointed Ms. Price will serve a term through October 1, 2015 and will be filling a vacancy on the board. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Currently, Ms. Price is a client of the Housing Authority on Section 8 Housing. She holds a position as an on-site resident assistant and is aware of the issues and obstacles facing clients. She believes the board lacks communication with clients and would like to take part in finding a solution. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objections to this appointment,please let Amber know by Monday, March 7, 2011. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY: Housing Authority commissioners are not required to reside within Salt Lake City. Current commissioners,include: Chairman David Mansell, Utah Homes; Commissioner George"Buzz"Welch,University of Utah;Commissioner Philip Bernal, SL County Department of Public Works; Commissioner Valda Tarbet, Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, Commissioner Jennifer Bruno, Salt Lake City Council Office and Commissioner Michael Clara,Utah Transit Authority. BOARD STRUCTURE: The Housing Authority is created and governed in accordance with Utah law. Recently,the Housing Authority by-laws changed. It may now be comprised of seven rather than five commissioners who are appointed to serve five-year terms.The mission of the Housing Authority is to provide low-income housing to Salt Lake City.The Housing Authority can purchase,lease and improve real property; establish and revise rents in its housing projects;and identify unsafe, unsanitary or overcrowded housing within its area of operation. 11/25 10 U6:34PM HP LASERJE1 SAX 5U13ZZ1Lb1 p.Uz APPLICATION Salt Lake City Boards&Commissions OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 451 S.STATE STREET,ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114-5474 NOTE: PLEASE ATTACH YOUR RESUME. Name: 9i/ /7 S.1 _ I / ./1 c-/r'-'� Home Address: Str et ��Ciity Zip Council District Phone: !mil - --G� __ -_-- Home Work Mobile E-Mail Address Occupation: -57/72—,..-,- — S/e%::2G�7J /5i7�,�/` �_r` Committee(s),Board(s),Commission(s)or Authority in which you are interested: Housing Authority Reasonea for your interest in this particular committee/board/commission or authority: /f„,97/9A">/ .05tdir 1 v e7 ii, //r29 (---)7G c4,P7 /Tr�P 7/ 7. /z9.�r.-5-?`io t> � as s/;r4/ /Jr�� Gc�,es cr /�,L_3 - 7t`��� -tr .. .,7 />grid e" 9 -Z`2"-%, Are you currently serving on any other City committees?If so,which com m ittee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? NZ' Have you had previous contact with the Housing Authority? f-'� If so,when,and the circumstances? ,-HIV 42--71-'/Y42Z` —o C2.1/ t j7'7' e.J 8 /��/9. •,�, .¢2j �t `7 7`' �J� e 5- (OVER) / 11:'Z8;1U U6:34PM HP LASERJET FAX 8U13ZZ1SS1 -.w p.U; M Community Service/Activities(past and present): ,e ism fir-- i�Fi,Z`= �'>9 ��� ter... r s -74,2 o,1t�y - ' ,� /,o, �,e 7- pVG .Rio Professional Activities: _ Civic/Professional rganization mberships: f� .4., Ethnic Group(to assure fair and equal representation-answer optional): -,17Q41-r Other ertinent Information: '�' J/ — //� U rcl —,5Zi1/S�C r /l ;f ` Gc�.t l�., Please list three references and phone numbers: 1) l .e.P7/// /Z G&l'-c f"Z 2),Z1.9 . , . /� ),/— p %d 7, 3) L1£� -�«d K/-(3-Zy DATE://- 9/81 SIGNATURE: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: April 5,2010 SUBJECT: CDBG/ESG/HOME/HOPWA Briefing AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director Karen Halladay,Budget and Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Housing and Neighborhood Development AND CONTACT PERSON: LuAnn Clark OPTIONS - ALLOCATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT BLOCK (CDGB) FUNDS Salt Lake City has not received notification from US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) regarding the CDBG allocation for fiscal year 2012. Although the amount of the allocation is unknown, the deadline for the Council's decisions regarding the City's One-Year Action Plan for CDBG, Emergency Shelter Grant(ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) funds is the April 26th Council Meeting. The Council received recommendations from the Mayor on March 1st,and held a public hearing on March 22nd to receive public input. Staff has forwarded all correspondence and comments to Council Members that the office received,and has also included written comments that have been received since the Council's public hearing. tsiven the uncertainty of total funding award,the Council may wish to consider the below options when allocating CDBG funds this fiscal year. In general,the Council may want to make allocations tentative until the actual grant amount is known. Estimated Council Considerations Allocation Option 1 -No $4,421,626 • Allocate$4,421,626 on a tentative basis subject to the amount of Reduction/Tentative funding actually received by the City. (May require a follow-up Allocation discussion once funds are actually received.) • Instruct all street design,street construction,sidewalks,parks, planning,and public service building improvement projects to hold off on spending funds until final federal allocation is known. • Identify City or capital projects that are typically more stand-alone and one-time in nature,and could be funded in future years. Option 2-10% Reduction in $3,979,463 • Allocate$3,979,463 on a tentative basis subject to the amount of the Tentative Allocation funding actually received by the City. (May require a follow-up (Mayor's Recommendation) discussion once funds are actually received.) • Instruct all street design,street construction,sidewalks,parks, planning,and public service building improvement projects to hold off on making plans to use resources until final federal allocation is known. Option 3-25% Reduction in $3,316,219 • Allocate$3,316,219 on a tentative basis subject to the amount of e Tentative Allocation funding actually received by the City. (May require a follow-up ,ivlayor's Recommendation) discussion once funds are actually received.) • If the cut is less than 25%,the Council could reconvene later in the year to allocate remaining funds. Page 1 •Instruct all street design,street construction,sidewalks,parks, planning,and public service building improvement projects to hold off on making plans to use resources until final federal allocation is known. �-'\ Option 4-50%Reduction $2,210,813 •Allocate$2,210,813 on a tentative basis subject to the amount of funding actually received by the City. (May require a follow-up discussion once funds are actually received.) •If the cut is less than 50%,the Council could reconvene later in the year to allocate remaining funds or could allocate funds now on a tentative basis. •Instruct all street design,street construction,sidewalks,parks, planning,and public service building improvement projects to hold off on spending funds until final federal allocation is known. Option 5-Establish Funding •Establish funding tiers and allocate funds from worst case to best Tiers Based on Various case scenario. Scenarios •Staff Note: Because the tiers are somewhat arbitrary;one approach to resolve this is to delineate the tiers at the funding levels listed in the above options-50%,25%or 10%. The Council may wish to identify its funding priorities and make tentative adjustments to the Mayor's recommendation if the Council's priorities are different than those recommended by the Mayor. The Council received recommendations from the Mayor,and held a public hearing to receive public input. KEY ELEMENTS On Tuesday,March 1,2011,the Mayor presented recommended budgets for the use of the fiscal year 2011-12 I federally allocated Community Development Block Grant(CDBG),Emergency Shelter Grant(ESG),HOME „....4.,, Investment Partnerships Program(HOME),and Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS(HOPWA). Tht, .., exact amount of funding was not known at the time of the Mayor's presentation;it remains unknown at the time of this staff report. Federal government officials have proposed HUD reductions,including CDBG,as a way to reduce the federal budget deficit. As a result of the uncertainty,the Mayor presented three possibilities: 1)no reduction to the CDBG allocation-$4,421,626,2)a ten(10)percent reduction to the CDBG allocation-$3,979,463,and 3)a twenty-five(25)percent reduction to the CDBG allocation-$3,316,219. In addition to the above amounts,an additional$330,084 is available for recapture. The Mayor's recommendations do reallocate recaptured funds to other projects. A summary of the options,FY 2012 Possible CDBG Grant Scenarios Table,can be found in the Analysis of FY 2012 Funding Recommendations section of this report. Council Members have a copy of the Mayor's recommendations,including project descriptions and details, funding requests by organization,the funding level recommended by the Community Development Capital Improvement Project Advisory Board(CDCIP)or Housing Trust Fund Board,and the Mayor's recommended funding level based on the full and reduced HUD allocations. Five-Year Consolidated Plan(2010-2015)-Last year,the Administration prepared a new Five-Year Consolidated Plan and Citizen Participation Plan. HUD requires these plans to be updated every five years. The plan establishes goals,objectives and strategies that Salt Lake City(HAND)will use to administer the HUD grant programs,as well as identifying target areas. The Administration updated the plan with input from local nonprofits,residents,and other City departments. The updated plan induded many of the same goals and strategies as the last version of the plan,with two additions. Parks goals were expanded to include Trails,and energy efficiency projects were added as a goal in the Housing category. Page 2 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 'he City Council has the following policies with respect to the CDBG,FSC,HOME,and HOPWA programs. the Council may wish to reevaluate its policies to reaffirm or revise them. 1. The Council will not consider awarding CDBG,ESG,HOME or HOPWA funding to any organization unless an application for funding was received. This allows the City to meet federal requirements that all programs/projects funded are the subject of a public participation process. 2. Due to limitations of future CDBG funds by the federal government,it is the intent of the City Council that administrative and operational support not be increased for existing programs and not be provided to new programs absent extenuating circumstances. New funding requests and programs are identified as such in the "Previous Grants"column of the Council's log books. 3. It is the intent of the City Council to only consider CDBG-eligible projects and programs located within the City's jurisdictional limits for funding. Exceptions have been made in the past for organizations that are located outside Salt Lake City boundaries,but provide services to residents of the City. During prior-year briefings on the Council's CDBG,ESG,HOME and HOPWA policies,Council Members raised several policy issues. 1. During the FY 2007 budget process the Council expressed an interest in giving priority to projects that have been identified for CDBG funding in the 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan that had been recently adopted. This statement could be added to the other policy statements.There are multiple instances of projects that have been generally identified in the CIP 10-Year plan. These are identified starting on Page 11 of this report. The plan is scheduled to be updated again in 2011. 2. Council Members had expressed a concern that CDBG projects are funded for design,but never get funded for construction. Aside from two street design requests(neither recommended to be funded),three planning requests(two recommended to be funded),the Public Services category,and the Administration category,all of the CDBG funding requests are for"bricks and mortar"construction/renovation projects. 3. Council Members expressed an interest in knowing what percentage of the recommended budget was allocated to administration or operating costs,versus one-time"bricks and mortar"or capital projects. By CDBG statute,no more than 15%of the grant allocation,can go towards the"Public Service"category(for salaries and administration activities of non-profits serving the SLC community). In FY 2012's funding recommendation,the Administration has recommended allocating 13.7%towards this category(this assumes a 10%cut funding scenario. In the 25%cut funding scenario,the recommended allocation reaches the 15%cap). Other non-bricks-and-mortar categories include Administration,Contingency,Street Design,and some Housing. A total of 19%of the funding allocation is going towards these other categories(in the 10%cut funding scenario. In the 25%cut funding scenario,22%is recommended for these categories). 4. Council Members raised some questions about CDBG allocations being used to fund projects submitted by proCity departments rather than from community or neighborhood groups. There is no requirement or restriction from HUD regarding the allocation of CDBG dollars to projects initiated by the administering agency. CDBG funding could be considered a way to augment the City resources in order to accomplish community goals and objectives. A Council Member has noted that other municipalities in Utah have used their CDBG allocation to pay for projects and administrative costs that can otherwise be funded by municipal general funds. The Council may wish to note that if the grant award from the federal government has a cut greater than 25%,the"Administration"category would need to be cut in order to keep it within the 20% 010 maximum. Council Members asked whether the Council could commit multi-year funding in order to finance large projects. While a current Council cannot legally bind a future Council by appropriating future CDBG allocations(and because annual CDBG allocations are dependent on the Federal budget),the Council has Page 3 some tools with which to plan for the financing of major projects. First,the Council can indicate its intent, which is not binding,to fund a project over a period of years. The Council did this in 1998 and 1999 with the construction of the Central City Senior Center,funding half of the project in 1998 and half of the project in 1999. The City simply"holds"the first allocation until the entire budget is appropriated for construction. Second,the Council can utilize Section 108 loans to fund large CDBG-eligible projects. A Section 108 loan is similar to Motor Fuel Excise Tax(MFET)bonding,in that it borrows against future CDBG allocations,like the City has borrowed against future Class C allocations. The City must be able to prove that the City could finance the project and pay back the loan in the event that future CDBG funding became limited. The Council and Administration utilized this funding mechanism in 1989 in order to purchase a property (the Canterbury Apartments)for the non-profit arm of the Salt Lake City Housing Authority,as they were at risk of defaulting on some bonds,which they used to purchase some rental properties. The purchase of the building was deemed to be in keeping with the community development and housing objectives of the CDBG program. In this instance,the City borrowed against a portion of 5 years of future CDBG funding, purchased the Canterbury and financed repairs at the Ben Albert Apartments.The rents from the Canterbury and CDBG funds were used to pay off the Section 108 loan. The properties have now been deeded by the City to the Housing Authority. The City made this policy decision for two purposes:1)to contribute to community housing development; and 2)to solidify the Housing Authority's bond situation,since to default would have reflected negatively on the City's bonding ability. ANALYSIS OF FY 2012 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONSI Y^ The following information is a brief summary of the proposed 37th Year CDBG,ESG,HOME,and HOPWA budgets(Fiscal Year 2011-12). The summary includes an analysis of the recommended budgets and indicate' where the proposed budgets differ from previous budgets or may not be consistent with previous policy directives adopted by the Council. Council staff has attached the recommendations that were provided during the Mayor's address,as well as a comprehensive description of each project that applied for funding. Community Development Block Grant Program- The Administration received applications for$8,846,220 in 376.Year CDBG funding(down from$7,797,850 in the 36th year). HUD awarded Salt Lake City$4,078,388 in Fiscal Year 2010-11,slightly more than last fiscal year. The Administration is proposing to augment HUD's award with$330,084 in funding reallocated from prior years. Due to the uncertainty of the HUD allocation for the 2011-12 year,the Mayor presented three funding scenarios for the Council's consideration. The first scenario assumes that CDBG estimated funding will not be reduced. The second scenario assumes a reduction of ten(10)percent. The third scenario is based on a twenty-five(25)percent reduction. There is a$1.1 million dollar difference between the no reduction scenario and the twenty-five(25%)reduction in funding. This year,the Mayor's CDBG recommendations are presented for each of these possibilities. The total budget is likely to be between$4.8 million and$3.6 million. Depending on the amount of CDBG funding allocated to Salt Lake City,between forty-one(41)percent and fifty-four(54)percent of funding requested will be met. In addition to the Mayor's recommendations,the Council may want to study and consider other possibilities. Page 4 Table -FY 2012 Possible CDBG Grant Scenarios (based on possible federal budget reductions) Scenario Estimate Amount of Grant Reallocated Total Percent of Funding Award (Includes Prior Funds Total Requests Estimate CDBG and Available Funding Stimulus Funds) Request (Amounts) Met 100%(No Cut) $8,846,220 $4,421,626 $330,084 $4,751,710 54% 10%Reduction Scenario $8,846,220 $3,979,463 $330,084 $4,309,547 49% 25% Reduction Scenario $8,846,220 $3,316,219 $330,084 $3,646,303 41% 50% Reduction Scenario $8,846,220 $2,210,813 $330,084 $2,540,897 29% Table-CDBG Funding Awarded and Allocated Over the Past Fifteen Years Years in Fiscal Year Grant Award Reallocated Total Program Funds 37 FY 2012 Unknown $330,084 Unknown 36 FY 2011 $4,078,388 $718,225 $4,796,613 35 FY 2010 $4,045,953 $521,759 $4,567,712 34 FY 2009 $4,045,953 $563,192 $4,609,145 33 FY 2008 $4,211,888 $518,468 $4,730,356 32 FY 2007 $4,207,623 $523,361 $4,730,984 31 FY 2006 $4,649,907 $378,138 $5,028,045 30 FY 2005 $4,891,000 $400,000 $5,291,000 29 FY 2004 $4,937,000 $198,465 $5,135,465 28 FY 2003 $4,854,000 $163,800 $5,017,800 27 FY 2002 $5,031,000 $300,000 $5,331,000 26 FY 2001 $4,791,000 $249,279 $5,040,279 25 FY 2000 $4,840,000 $150,000 $4,990,000 24 FY 1999 $4,810,000 $4,810,000 23 FY 1998 $4,999,000 $220,000 $5,219,000 22 FY 1997 $5,145,000 $5,145,000 Table - CDBG Historic Funding Levels (Amount Awarded from HUD) CDBG Historic Funding Levels (amount awarded from HUD) $6,000,000 $5,000,000 --- $4,000,000 — $3,000,000 — j 'i ! r 4 II PIi1Ii $Z,OOo,00o - -II— , II 1 $1,000,000 — IIII 1 -lest _ker _ker _As: _ker -leaf -lest -lit -,leas -last -le; -lZt -lent -leaf -let titi�a ti�a ti�� tip tibr ti`�r tier ti°r rpr ^')~yc 3ti;' `6P5� ��r 3gr rbbr Page 5 The CDBG budget is divided into the major categories.A comparison of overall requests and proposed funding for each category is as follows(note that the Mayor has recommended two funding scenarios-one assuming a 10%cut and one assuming a 25%cut): Funding Summary by Category-CDBG Allocation-FY 11-12 Mayor Mayor(10%cut %of Mayor(25% %of Request CDCIP scenario) total scenario) total Housing $1,300,000 $1,220,000 $1,220,000 29% $1,120,000 32% Street Design 82,000 - - 0% - 0% Street Construction 646,000 425,673 342,300 8% 309,825 9% Sidewalks 400,000 200,000 150,000 4% 150,000 4% Parks 3,116,010 944,900 847,100 20% 407,100 12% Public Services 957,299 605,000 555,500 13% 523,500 15% • Public Service Building Improvements 1,425,265 444,491 344,491 8% 228,141 6% Planning 100,000 90,000 40,000 1% 30,000 5% Percent for Art 3,000 5,000 30,000 1% 30,000 1% City Administration 680,471 680,471 660,471 16% 660,471 19% Contingency - - 50,000 1% 51,091 1% Total Recommended $8,710,045 $4,615,535 $4,239,862 $3,510,128 'CDCIP-Community Development and Capital Improvement Projects Citizen Advisory Board Mayor's Funding Recommdation Breakdown by Category Presented for 10%Reduction Scenario FY 2011-12 Public Se,vice Building Pubis Services Improvements Plmming 1% Paiks ! 20% Percent for Art /_City Administration Sidewalks 4% Street Construction 890 Contingency 1% Street resign 0% Housing 29% The following sections detail the major categories,including any differing recommendations between the Mayor and CDCIP board. Page 6 1111 Housing The City received five applications for 37th Year CDBG Housing funding in the amount of$1,300,000. The below table presents the Mayor's recommended allocation for housing,and includes any item(s) where ending level varies between the Mayor's recommendations or the CDCIP Board's recommendations. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor— Mayor— # Project Name Recommendation 10% 25% Scenario Scenario r Total Housing Category $1,300,000 $1,220,000 $1,220,000 $1,120,000 Items where funding recommendations differed: 3 Housing and Neighborhood $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 Development Division reet Design wo applications were received for street design projects for a total amount of$82,000. The CDCIP Board and dministration did not recommend funding for either the Glendale Street Reconstruction ($32,000) or the ensington and Roosevelt Avenues ($50,000) street design projects. reet Construction e City received two applications totaling$646,000 for this category,which funds street improvements inDBG-eligible areas. The CDCIP Board and Mayor recommend funding of$246,000 for the Glendale Street construction project (Navajo Street from Glendale Drive to 1300 South). The below table presents the ayor's recommended allocation for Street Construction, and includes any item(s) where funding level varies. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor— Mayor— # Project Name Recommendation 10%Scenario 25%Scenario Total Street $646,000 $425,673 $315,810 $309,825 Construction Category Items where funding recommendations differed: 1 ADA Accessibility $400,000 $179,673 $69,810 $63,825 Ramps The 10-Year CIP plan contemplates an estimated$2,000,000 per year (from CIP general fund dollars) for local street reconstruction-for non-specified local streets. Engineering submits funding requests for both CIP and CDBG processes in order of need. The Mayor's total amount recommended for Street Construction is$315,810 (in the 10% cut scenario. In the 25% cut scenario, the Mayor recommends$309,000). Sidewalks The CIP 10-Year Plan calls for$900,000 per year in sidewalk replacement(to be matched with$700,000 per year in Special Improvement District funds). There is one application from City Engineering for CDBG- funded general sidewalk replacement. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor—10% Mayor—25% # Project Name Recommendation Scenario Scenario Total Sidewalk Category $400,000 $200,000 $150,000 $150,000 Items where funding recommendations differed: 1 Sidewalk Replacement $400,000 $200,000 $150,000 $150,000 Program "irks i nere are eleven requests for the park category funding,for a total amount requested of$3,116,010. The CDCIP Board and the Mayor recommend$300,000 in funding for the Jordan River Parkway Trailhead at 1000 Page 7 • North. The below table presents the Mayor's recommended allocation for Parks,and includes any item(s) where funding level varies. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor— Mayor— # Project Name Recommendation 10%Scenario 25%Scenario Total Parks Category $3,116,010 $944,900 $847,100 $407,100 Items where funding recommendations differed: 1 Cottonwood Park Sprinkler $440,000 $440,000 $440,000 $0 Irrigation System 4 Fifth Avenue and"C"Street $598,000 $0 $67,100 $67,100 NEW Tennis Courts(Design and Engineering Fees) 7 600 East Island Irrigation $204,900 $204,900 $40,000 $40,000 NEW System Rebuild and Central Control Public Services The Administration received applications for$957,299 this fiscal year from thirty-seven organizations. According to HUD guidelines,the maximum amount that can be spent per year on public services expenses is 15%of the total award,plus program income. The Mayor's recommended allocation of$555,500 is just under the allowable cap of 15%(13.7%),in the 10%cut funding scenario. In the 25%cut funding scenario,the Mayor's recommendation of$523,500 reaches the 15%cap.The Council cannot exceed the 15%cap,and if the grant award was finalized much lower than 25%,the Council would be required to cut funding from that category regardless of balancing expenditures overall. The"Public Services"category includes requests from agencies and organizations for operational or administrative support for programs that provide community services. While federal Community IDevelopment Block Grant regulations allow a certain amount of funds to be spent for the expansion and improvement of community services,the original intent of the program was to revitalize neighborhoods. Past Councils have maintained a policy not to increase administrative or operational funding for existing programs or to grant operational funding for new programs absent extenuating circumstances.This decision has been in consideration of the programs original intent and in light of limited CDBG funding from the federal government. In a few instances,the Mayor and CDCIP have recommended that agencies receive increased operational and administrative funding,and have indicated that these recommendations were based on extenuating circumstances. The Council may wish to note that cost of living or inflationary increases have not been considered into CDBG funding allocations within recent years. The below table presents the Mayor's recommended allocation for Public Services,and includes any item(s)where funding level varies. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor— Mayor— # Project Name Recommendation 10%Scenario 25%Scenario Total Public Services $957,299 $605,000 $555,500 $523,500 Items where funding recommendations differed: 4 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 Community-based Mentoring Program bill 5 Boys and Girls Clubs of GSL $38,864 $20,000 $20,000 $18,000 Capital West Club Page 8 . i Continued: Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor- Mayor- # Project Name Recommendation 10%Scenario 25%Scenario Total Public Services $957,299 $605,000 $555,500 $523,500 Items where funding recommendations differed: 6 Boys and Girls Clubs of GSL $31,169 $15,000 $15,000 $13,000 • Youth With a Voice • Lied • Sugar House • Capital West 9 Children's Service Society $50,815 $25,000 $20,000 $20,000 Parents as Teachers Program 10 Community Action Program $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 Housing Outreach Rental Program 11 Community Action Program $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $23,000 Northwest Neighborhood Center Food Pantry 12 Community Action Program $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 Home Tenant Maintenance Project 13 Community Health Centers $75,000 $75,000 $65,000 $63,000 Healthcare Program 14 Crossroads Urban Center $16,500 $16,500 $16,500 $14,500 Emergency Food Pantry 15 Donated Dental $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $28,000 Community Dental Project 16 English Skills Learning Center $28,000 $10,000 $7,000 $7,000 English Language Instruction 17 Family Support Center $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,000 Crisis Nursery 19 Indian Walk-In Center $29,900 $5,000 $0 $0 NEW Food Pantry 22 Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,000 24 Peer Court $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 25 Rape Recovery Center $40,000 $35,000 $35,000 $33,000 Sexual Assault Crisis Intervention Services 26 The Road Home $126,000 $120,000 $112,000 $110,000 Community Shelter Services 30 University Neighborhood $8,320 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Partnerships Hartland Partnership Center 31 Utah Food Bank $6,500 $6,500 $0 $10,000 $0 NEW Senior Food Box Program 32 UT Health and Human Rights $10,000 $10,000 $9,000 Project Case Management and Administrative Support 33 Wasatch Community Gardens $40,800 $0 $15,000 $15,000 Developing Sustainable Community Gardens 35 Wasatch Homeless Health Care $46,668 $40,000 $40,000 $35,000 Fourth Street Clinic Outreach 36 YMCA $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $9,000 $40,000 After School and Summer Enrichment Program 37 YWCA $50,000 $47,000 $40,000 Page 9 Public Services Building Improvements The Administration received seventeen applications for Public Services Building Improvements totaling $1,425,265. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor- Mayor • - Project Name Recommendation 10%Scenario 25%Scenario Total Public Services Building $1,425,265 $444,491 $304,491 $228,141 Improvement Category Items where funding recommendations differed: 7 Community Foundation for the $89,488 $70,000 $70,000 $0 Disabled/Columbus Community Center 8 Dual immersion Academy $6,350 $6,350 $6,350 $0 NEW 13 Odyssey House $40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 Women and Children's Center 16 University Neighborhood Partners $175,000 $175,000 $75,000 $75,000 NEW Note: Last year, the Council allocated $233,732 towards the Salt Lake City School District (SLCSD) - Community Learning Center. This year,neither the CDCIP nor the Mayor have recommended funding of the additional$500,000 requested by the SLCSD. Planning Three applications for$100,000 were submitted for CDBG funding consideration within this category. The below table presents the Mayor's recommended allocation for Planning, and includes any item(s)where funding level varies. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor- Mayor- # Project Name Recommendation 10%Scenario 25% Scenario Total Planning Category $100,000 $90,000 $40,000 $30,000 Items where funding recommendations differed: 1 Glendale Park Improvements $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 NEW 2 Centro Civico Mexicano $10,000 $0 $10,000 $5,000 NEW 3 Census Data Extraction $40,000 $40,000 $30,000 $25,000 NEW Percent for Art The percent for art budget requested was$3,000. The Mayor recommended increasing this to$30,000 under both of the reduced funding scenarios,while the CDCIP board recommended$5,000. Last year's allocation was$25,000. Administration For City Administration requests, CDCIP recommended $680,471, the total amount of the request. The Mayor under both reduction scenarios recommended$20,000 less for a total allocation of$660,471. The Council may wish to note that this line item has remained at this level for a number of years. Page 10 Contingency Each year the CDBG budget includes a line item for project contingency. This is to provide funding for projects that are less than 10% over budget. If the contingency budget runs out, the Administration has the ltion of returning to the Council for an additional appropriation. The contingency allocation for FY 2012 is recommended by the Mayor to be roughly$50,000 . The CDCIP Board did not recommend funding the contingency. Last year the Council allocated$60,000. 0-The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the current construction cost environment. CIP 10-Year Plan Projects The following are projects identified in the CIP 10-Year Plan that are have funding requests for the current year's CDBG cycle: 1. ADA Physical Access Ramps-$400,000 requested (Street Construction, #1). The 10-Year Plan recommends$400,000 per year to address this issue. However it lists the funding source as"General Fund" (meaning CIP) and not CDBG. Both CDCIP and the Mayor recommended funding this request. The Mayor has recommended$69,810/$63,825 (10%cut/25%cut) while CDCIP has recommended $179,673. 2. Street Reconstruction- $246,000 requested (Street Construction, #2). Though the 10-Year Plan does not identify Navajo Street specifically,it does recommend $2 million per year in"Local Street Reconstruction," from CIP or CDBG sources. Both CDCIP and the Mayor recommended full funding of#2(Navajo Street from Glendale o 1300 South- $246,000). The typical amount allocated in the CIP budget for Street Reconstruction is$1,000,000,although the Administration has not yet made their FY 2012 CIP funding recommendations. 3. $400,000- Sidewalk Replacement Program (Sidewalks, #1) -The 10-Year plan recommends$900,000 per year from"General Fund" to address Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement. The request from SLC Engineering was for$400,000.The Mayor has recommended$150,000 (regardless of cut scenario) while CDCIP has recommended$200,000. Historically CDBG has funded this category in the amount of $300,000 on average,although it has been less for the last two years. 4. $440,000 request for irrigation at Cottonwood Park- Irrigation Automation City-wide (Parks#1). The 10-Year Plan calls for$250,000 every other year to centralize and automate irrigation city-wide in City Parks ($1.35 million total from CDBG,$1.55 million from General Fund CIP). Cottonwood Park is not specifically referenced. The Mayor and CDCIP Board both recommended full funding of this request, although the Mayor recommended not funding this project in the 25% cut scenario. 5. $300,000-Jordan River Parkway Trailhead at 1000 North (Parks #2). The 10-Year Plan recommends "TBD" Trail Improvements and Enhancements in the amount of$250,000 every other year. The Mayor and CDCIP Board recommended funding this request in full. 6. $623,750 request for Westpointe Park-ADA Playground Improvements (Parks#5). The 10-Year Plan recommends funding of$100,000 every other year (from the General Fund,not necessarily CDBG) to complete ADA improvements in various parks. Westpointe Park is not specifically referenced. Neither the Mayor nor CDCIP Board recommended funding this project. 7. $598,100 request for Fifth Avenue and C Street Tennis Courts/$228,300 request for Fire Station Tennis Courts-273 North 1000 West-Tennis Courts Improvements (Parks #4 and #6). The 10-Year Plan recommends funding of$200,000 from CDBG, every other year starting in FY 2012,for rebuilding and replacing"to be determined" tennis courts in CDBG eligible areas. The Plan also calls for the general fund CIP to allocate$100,000 every other year for this purpose. The Fifth Avenue courts are specifically referenced in the Plan to be paid for with general fund dollars in FY 2015,although the amount in the plan ($150,000)falls short of what is needed. The Mayor recommend funding for design and engineering of the Fifth Avenue Courts project($67,100),although the CDCIP Board did not. Page 11 Neither the Mayor nor the CDCIP Board recommended funding for the Fire Station Tennis Courts located at 273 North 1000 West. 8. $12,000 request for Jordan Park dog off-leash area- Dog Off Lease Parks- (Parks #10) -The 10-Year 111 Plan calls for$50,000 in FY 2012 to make improvements to existing parks to allow for dog off-leash areas. Neither the Mayor nor CDCIP Board recommended funding this request. 9. $350,000 request for restrooms at the Glendale Tennis Complex- Parks Restrooms Improvements - (Parks #11). The CIP 10-Year Plan calls for$180,000 every other year in the last five years of the plan, to go towards "to be determined" new and upgraded restroom facilities in City parks. The Glendale Tennis Complex is not specifically referenced. Neither the Mayor nor the CDCIP Board recommended funding this request. Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG) - This program is designed to improve the quality of existing emergency homeless shelters,make available additional emergency shelters,meet the costs of shelter operation and provide certain essential social services to the homeless. The Administration received ten applications for a total of$385,000 in ESG funding. The City estimates that it will receive$179,115 from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development this year. Total funding for past eleven years is as follows: Year Allocation Reallocated Total FY 2011 $180,140 $11,858 $191,998 FY 2010 $180,140 $3,433* $183,573* FY 2009 $181,475 $4,450* $185,925* FY 2008 $181,475 - $181,475 FY 2007 $178,855 - $178,855 FY 2006 $178,884 - $178,884 FY 2005 $180,593 - $180,593 FY 2004 $166,000 - $166,000 FY 2003 $171,000 - $171,000 FY 2002 $169,000 - $169,000 FY 2001 $171,000 - $171,000 FY 2000 $172,000 - $172,000 FY 1999 $191,000 - $191,000 *Rounded A limited number of agencies in Salt Lake City operate programs that are eligible for ESG funding. Both CDCIP Board and the Mayor recommended funding for all applicants except the South Valley Sanctuary (a ew applicant to the program). The Mayor recommended less funding than the CDCIP Board did across the board because by the time the Mayor reviewed the applications,the City realized that it would receive about 12,000 less money than originally thought. The Administration and staff can brief the Council on the rograms and the intended uses of the funds during the work session. Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) - The purpose of the HOME program is to provide funding for the expansion of decent, safe, sanitary and fordable housing for very low-income people. Total HOME funding over the past years is as follows: Year Allocation Reallocated Total FY 2011 $1,376,867 $440,042 $1,816,909 FY 2010 $1,236,465 $500,772 $1,737,237 FY 2009 $1,236,403 $600,000 $1,836,403 FY 2008 $1,279,714 $361,596 $1,641,310 Page 12 FY 2007 $1,292,136 $370,000 $1,662,136 FY 2006 $1,373,848 $14,015 $1,387,863 FY 2005 $1,455,036 - $1,455,036 FY 2004 $1,453,020 - $1,453,020 FY 2003 $1,354,000 - $1,354,000 FY 2002 $1,350,000 - $1,350,000 FY 2001 $1,215,000 - $1,215,000 FY 2000 $1,209,000 $151,800 $1,360,800 FY 1999 $1,122,000 - $1,122,000 FY 1998 $1,046,000 - $1,046,000 FY 1997 $1,071,000 - $1,071,000 FY 1996 $1,048,000 - $1,048,000 The City received HOME applications totaling$2,367,195 from eight agencies. The City will hopes to receive $1,234,751 from HUD this year in HOME funds, to combine with$113,000 in reallocated funds,for a total funding amount available of$1,347,751 (almost$500,000 decrease from last year's funding cycle). The Mayor and Housing Trust Fund Board recommended funding for all applicants except for Salt Lake CDC (#3). When the Housing Trust Fund Board reviewed the applications, the grant award was expected to be higher. To accommodate the unexpected budget cut,the Mayor's recommendations reflect across the board slight cuts in recommendations,rather than focusing the full cut on one entity. The Administration and staff can brief the Council on the programs and the intended uses of the funds, during the work session. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) - The purpose of the HOPWA program is to provide housing assistance and supportive services for low-income persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. The HOPWA Grant program provides assistance through formula allocations to eligible States and metropolitan areas. The Salt Lake City/Ogden Metropolitan Statistical Area 'MSA) has qualified to receive funding from year 2005-06 due to the number of HIV/AIDS cases in the MSA, ith two counties added this year,Tooele and Summit. The grant amount this year is$387,189,combined with an additional$13,224 in available funds,for a total of$400,413. The City participates on a Statewide HIV/AIDS Housing Steering Committee to ensure all applications are consistent with the needs identified in the strategy for the MSA. The Steering Committee updated the State HIV/AIDS housing Plan in June 2001,with revisions planned for this year. The City has also met with all entities within the MSA to coordinate their recommendations and determine the services needed in their areas, as well as how best to perform community outreach. There were eight requests for$538,838 in funding.The Board and the Mayor concurred on all funding recommendations for a total of$400,413. The Board and Mayor also made recommendations for what options to pursue if the funding is less than anticipated(hold the Utah AIDS Foundation at a funding level of$9,413,and spread the rest of the cut proportionally among the remaining entities). American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) - A former program, the American Dream Down payment Initiative (ADDI) has been eliminated. Funds typically awarded were rolled into the HOME allocation. This federal program, ADDI,was new in 2004. The Obama Administration decided to roll the ADDI funds into HOME funds, as the HOME program allows for the same types of uses as ADDI does,and communities can still allocate these funds towards downpayment assistance and homeownership. BACKGROUND The annual appropriations of CDBG,ESG,HOME,and HOPWA are distributed to Salt Lake City by the U.S. epartment of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). In 1995,Salt Lake City submitted a five-year consolidated plan for the CDBG, ESG and HOME programs,which defined how Salt Lake City planned to use its housing and community development resources to meet policy objectives. Each year thereafter, the Mayor Page 13 proposed a one-year action plan,or budget for these programs. The City Council then made the changes deemed necessary and finalized the one-year action plan for submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). In FY2000-01,FY 2005-06,and again in FY 2010-11,a new five-year consolidated plan was prepared by the Ci and adopted by the Council for submission to HUD,in addition to the one-year budget for each program. The Consolidated Plan is available for review by Council Members. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Frank Gray,Mary De La Mare Schaefer,Luann Clark,Sandi Marler,Sherri Collins,Lehua Weaver,Sylvia Richards,Gina Chamness and Gordon Hoskins • SCANNED i u: SCANNED SY: T(•�\*�F(��'y1 I/ DATE: 1�1 /c FRANK B.DRAY SI 1�4_J1 1 OJtR� l� 1 RALPH BECKER G,R[CTOM REC ENT OF COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR eLA[1,1 R E.R OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR RECEIVED Y DE LA MARE-SCHAEFE R/A N 21 2011 ROBERTC FF O ARRI cDOON,SlaC Ce:NCIL OFFICE JAN 1 8 2011 1 ,, CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: 01 1 R`IAl David r entt,Chief of Staff Date Sent to City Council: 7,1 17AI TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 11,2011 Jill Remington-Love,Chair FROM: Frank Gray,Community Economic Development Department ' ector SUBJECT: Appropriation Resolution adopting the One-year Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Funding,HOME Investment Partnerships Program Funding,Emergency Shelter Grant(ESG)Funding,and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS(HOPWA)Funding for Fiscal Year 2011-12 and Approving Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark,Director,Housing and Neighborhood Development Division,at 535-6136,or luann.clark@slcgov.com ACTION REQUIRED: That the City Council: 1. Schedule Mayor Becker's funding recommendation presentation for March 1,2010; 2. Schedule the required public hearing for March 22,2011;and 3. Adopts the One-year Action Plan as outlined in the attached resolution for CDBG,HOME,ESG,and HOPWA funds. DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: Grants funds from the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2011-12 DISCUSSION: Issue Origin:Salt Lake City(City)is a direct entitlement that receives Community Development Block Grant funds(CDBG),HOME Investment Partnerships funds(HOME),Emergency Shelter 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404 P.O.BOX 145486,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5486 TELEPHONE:BO1-535-6230 FAX:B01.535-6005 www.BLCDDV.cOM/DCD Grant funds(ESG)and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS funds(HOWPA)from the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). Analysis: Salt Lake City usually receives the allocation amounts approved for all grants from HUD.However,this year Congress has adopted a continuing resolution until March of 2011,and not a final budget. HUD will not be able to announce the allocation amounts for each of the grant programs and their recipients until a final budget is adopted or a continuing resolution is adopted for the full year. Due to the late adoption of the federal budget,we are submitting a draft resolution without the appropriate dollar amounts included for fiscal year 2011-12. As soon as the City receives the allocation amounts,a new resolution will be prepared and submitted to the City Council for their review and consideration. The City Attomey's Office has preliminarily reviewed the draft resolution and will approve the final resolution before it is transmitted for Council review. A copy of the One-year Action plan for all grants will also be attached to the resolution after the City Council has made final funding decisions. The Community Development Capital Improvement Board and the Housing Trust Fund Board have reviewed all applications and their funding recommendations will be finalized by the end of January 2011. The Boards will be using an estimated amount of funding for each grant,based on the total budget adopted for HUD. Each Board will also include recommendations on projects that should receive more or less funding if the final allocation amounts are different from our estimates. The advisory boards'recommendations will then be forwarded to the Mayor for his review and consideration. Recommendation:The Administration is recommending that the City Council set March I, 2011,as the date the Mayor will present his funding recommendations to the City Council and March 22,2011 as the public hearing date. A copy of the Mayor's funding recommendations,as well as the appropriate board's recommendation,will be provided at the time of the Mayor's presentation. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Council will hold a Public Hearing on March 22,2011,to hear from the public and applicants regarding recommendations for funding. The Council will then meet at a future time to adopt the resolution with the Council's final funding decisions. This proposed schedule will help meet the federal deadlines of May 15,2011. An open house will be held on January 10,2011,allowing the public an additional opportunity to review and provide input on the projects the City may fund with its federal dollars. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: None Resolution Adopting Annual Action Plan Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. _ OF 2011 APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ONE-YEAR ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR 2011-2012 THAT INCLUDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM FUNDING, EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT FUNDING, AND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS FUNDING AND APPROVING INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is entitled under 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 91, et al., to receive 2011-12 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds, Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 91, et al; and WHEREAS; in order to receive said funds, the City is required to adopt a Five-Year Consolidated Plan, a Citizen Participation Plan, and a One Year Annual Action Plan Update to the Five-Year Consolidated Plan; and WHEREAS, HUD has not released the final allocations for the 2011-2012 program 1111/ year and the City is required to submit the appropriate documentation to HUD by May 15, 2011; and WHEREAS, for the purposes of meeting said requirement the City will use the following estimated amounts: CDBG - $_ ; HOME - $ ; HOPWA - $ ; and ESG - $ ; and WHEREAS, the City will also reprogram $ recaptured from prior year CDBG allocations; $ from prior year HOME allocations; $ from prior year HOPWA allocations; and $ . from prior year ESG allocations; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the people of Salt Lake City that the City file an application with HUD for said funds in accordance with 24 CFR Part 91 ; and WHEREAS, all pre-submission requirements as set forth in 24 CFR Part 91 have been accomplished by the City, including a public hearing held on March 22, 2011 to consider the proposed 2011-12 One Year Annual Action Plan update to the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan, and the publication of a proposed list of 2011-12 CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA projects to be funded in order to encourage public review and comment on those projects; and WHEREAS, the City Council does now meet this April 26, 2011 to adopt the 2011- 12 One Year Action Plan for CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. That the City hereby adopts the 2011-2012 One-Year Action Plan for CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 2. That the Mayor, as the official representative of the City, is hereby authorized to submit the City's One-Year Action Plan for CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds together with such additional information and certifications as may be required under 24 CFR Part 91 to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 3. That the Mayor, as the official representative of Salt Lake City, or his designee, is hereby authorized to sign and execute the HUD Grant Agreement and any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other public entities resulting from and consistent with the HUD Grant Agreement, subject to final approval as to form by the City Attorney. 4. That in the event the allocated amounts released by HUD differ from the estimated amounts included within this resolution, the Council will adopt a new resolution indicating such different amounts. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this April 26, 2011 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIR APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake Ci Attor lej s Office D to / I B ATTEST: ' Date: CITY RECORDER • Resolution adopting Annual Action Plan Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT "A" Attachments hereto, shall include the 2011-12 One Year Annual Action Plan Update to the Salt Lake City 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan and Funding Recommendations for the CDBG Program, Funding Recommendations for the HOME Program, Funding Recommendations for the HOPWA Program, and Funding Recommendations for the ESG Program. The 2011-2011 One-Year Annual Action Plan was presented to the City Council on March 1, 2011 when the Mayor made his funding recommendations and adopted by the City Council on April 26, 2011. Resolution adopting Annual Action Plan Page 3 of 3