HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-14 YPC PacketCity of Yakima Planning Commission
PUBLIC HEARING
City Hall Council Chambers
Wednesday January 8, 2014
3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
YPC Members:
Chair Ben Shoval, Co -Chair Dave Fonfara, Al Rose,
Scott Clark, Paul Stelzer, Bill Cook
? E'�' � illyM".AE
City Planning Staff:
Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Director/Planning Manager; Jeff Peters, Supervising
Planner; Chris Wilson, Assistant Planner; and Rosalinda Ibarra, Administrative Assistant
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Staff Announcements
Agenda
Election of Chairman and Vice -Chair for the Yakima Planning Commission
Audience Participation
Study Session - Follow-up to the.Billbqards &Digital Signs Workshop
Public Hearing - Text Amendment to YMC 15 Related to Marijuana
Other Business
Adjourn
Visit uv w „ 1� ins< ria a; lnice Pl'ir,��nft under Quick Links for additional information.
V ,lama
0
CITY OF YAMMA
YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP/PUBLIC HEARING
City Hall Council Chambers
SIGN -IN SHEET
HEARING DATE: Wednesday JanuM 8, 2014
Mark X on item of interest
ZIP
NAME
ADDRESS
CODE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
Marijuana Billboards &
Hearing Digital Si ns
9
4 Z
ep
'Of
J61, Of
5i
x
A 40
9 G -So �c 3 42- �-�D PaA-T-- \-,a- C=_kl
XOkyo��C)A(& Qkvc,(�%A!
7
0
0
q
,z
v
is vy�l u PO C CV
Luo
V-,
CA)
\_1 a V_t_ ovl_ a-- V1 q
Yakima Planning Commission Sign -In Sheet — 01/08/2014
M
Mark X on item of interest
Marijuana BUlboards &
Hearing Digital Signs
NAME
ADDRESS
zip
CODE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
JM CMA
It kvri u,m k UWA I "I Well
6M
f7r 4io
:5 7
J
6�,o_ C�o CA-LLAO
L
Yakima Planning Commission Sign -In Sheet - 01/08/2014
1-n
p.yakhJI'pa iw 11.9 X11
CITY OF YAKIMA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Public Hearing before the City of Yakima Planning Commission
Regarding Production, Processing and Retailing of Marijuana
RITIC01411111 ill' FILE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Yakima will
conduct an open record public hearing to receive comments regarding the production,
processing and retailing of marijuana within the City of Yakima. The Planning
Commission will consider a proposed amendment to Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal
Code banning the production, processing and retail sale of marijuana within the City of
Yakima.
Said public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 8, 2014 at 3:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at City Hall located at 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington.
All interested parties are invited to attend this hearing. Written comments may be
submitted to the Planning Commission in two ways: (a) Send a letter via regular mail to
"Planning Commission, City of Yakima Planning Division, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima,
Washington 98901"; or (b) Email your comments to: ask. plannin akimawa. ov
Include in the email subject line, "Marijuana." Please reference file number TXT#006-13
also include your name and mailing address.
Dated this 23rd day of December, 2013.
Rosalinda Ibarra
Community Development Administrative
Assistant
YbMma
tog
�Ivhr 1,111minhdratdon O?M 2,i1"5' ."ms�uzusa, 5099 '� 57,5-6183, ii) flee �q qua replw��b�sRa��aa;aa^ i�tli�°iij����rko,aaru�wasl' ^ryo a wro�°^���u ryP��d�, ",*rv�S;.1
�a ��
FORTHr,,
TEXT AMENDMENT — MARIJUANA — YMC TITLE 15
URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE (TXT#006-13)
Yakima Planning Commission
Open Record Public Hearing
January 8, 2014
EXHIBIT LIST
Applicant: City of Yakima Planning Division
File Numbers: TXT#006-13
Site Address: Citywide
Staff Contact: Steve Osguthorpe, AICP, Community Development Director
Table of Contents
Memorandum to Yakima Planning Commission from City Legal Dept (dated 12/18/2013)
(a) (Proposed Draft) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to City
Council.
(b) (Proposed) Ordinance amending YMC 15.01.035 regarding marijuana production,
processing and retailing.
(c) Initiative Measure No. 502.
(d) Chapter 314-55 WAC, regulations adopted by the Washington State Liquor Control
Board implementing Initiative 502.
(e) City of Yakima Ordinance No. 2013-148, enacting moratorium.
(fi) Resolution No. 2013-142, adopting Findings of Fact in support of moratorium enacted
per Ordinance No. 2013-148.
(g) Memorandum to City Council dated October 2, 2013 regarding Initiative 502.
(h) Memorandum dated August 29, 2013 from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the
Deputy Attorney General, regarding marijuana enforcement in states of Colorado and
Washington.
(i) Letter from City Attorney dated December 10, 2013 to Washington State Attorney
General's Office.
(j) "White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries," submitted by California Police Chiefs
Association Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries (April 22, 2009).
(k) Materials dated November 4, 2013 in support of medical marijuana facilities, submitted
to City Council by MCS of Central Washington.
W�O ll. THµ
LEGALR (ON) dFm LE
DEPARTAMNT
200 South Thud Shwe Yakima, washmgbon 96901 (509P5-6M 0 Fac (509)5 6160
December 18, 2013
TO: City of Yakima Planning Commission
Steve Osguthorpe, AICP, Director, Community Development Department
FROM: Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Marijuana — Public Hearing — Record Documents
A. Introduction.
On January 8, 2014, the Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing
to consider a proposed amendment to the Yakima Municipal Code. The proposed
amendment wound prohibit the production, processing and retailing of marijuana within
the City of Yakima.
B. Procedural Background.
On October 8, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-048 imposing a six-
month moratorium on the acceptance of applications for, and issuance of licenses and
permits for, marijuana production, processing and retailing within the City of Yakima. At
a public hearing on November 5, 2013 concerning the adoption and scope of the
moratorium, the City Council approved the moratorium as originally enacted and
adopted findings of fact supporting such enactment (Resolution No. 2013-142). Under
the terms of the moratorium ordinance, the moratorium will expire on midnight, May 6,
2014 or upon adoption of municipal code provisions pertaining to the regulation of
marijuana production, processing and retailing within the City of Yakima.
The City Council vote to adopt the moratorium on October 8, 2013 was approved by a 4
— 3 vote. Those voting in favor expressed a preference to develop zoning and land use
regulations to allow marijuana production, processing and/or retailing within the city.
Those voting against expressed a preference that the City of Yakima prohibit the
production, processing and retailing of marijuana within the city.
Memorandum to Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
December 23, 2013
Page 2
On or about November 5, 2013, following a public hearing on the moratorium, the City
Council took another vote on the issue. At this meeting the vote was 4 — 3 to develop
code amendments to ban marijuana production, processing and retailing within the City
of Yakima.
C. Proposed Amendment to Yakima Municipal Code.
In response to the direction of the City Council, staff has prepared a proposed
ordinance. The proposed ordinance amends YMC 15.01.035 to read as follows (shown
in legislative format):
15.01.035 Illegal Uses Prohibited.
A. General. No use that is illegal under local, state or federal law shall
be allowed in any zone within the city.
B. Specific -App lication Medical 'l arlivana Dispensaries and Collective
Gardens. Until such time that this code is amended to provide specific
provisions and land use controls allowing and regulating dispensaries of
cannabis and/or collective gardens for the production, distribution and dispensing
of cannabis for medical uses, all as further defined and set forth in Chapter
69.51A RCW and E2SSB 5073, Laws of 2011 of the State of Washington, such
uses are not allowed in any zone within the city. For purposes of this section,
"dispensary" means any person, entity, site, location, facility, business,
cooperative, collective, whether for profit or not for profit, that distributes, sells,
dispenses, transmits, packages, measures, labels, selects, processes, delivers,
exchanges or gives away cannabis for medicinal or other purposes.
We I
•• -• -• ••- • _ • s w • _ . r
r • _ERM�
.ice - w i +a s•'-ORe,WillMR I
The preexisting portion of the code language was added in 2012 to address medical
marijuana dispensaries and collective gardens. The effect of the code provisions was
to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries and collective gardens within the City of
Yakima. The proposed amendment keeps the prior language but adds a specific
subsection prohibiting marijuana production, processing and retailing within the City of
Yakima.
Memorandum to Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
December 23, 2013
Page 3
D. Reasons for Amendment.
The rationale supporting the proposed amendment is stated within the preamble to the
proposed ordinance, the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of
the proposed ordinance, and in the briefs and letters included within the record~ The
rationale can be summarized as follows:
(a) Marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The memorandum issued by
the U.S. Attorney General's office on August 29, 2013 did not change the law,
but only announced the decision of the U.S. Attorney's Office to exercise
prosecutorial discretion with regard to enforcement of the federal law within
the States of Colorado and 'Washington. The U.S. Attorney" Office reserved
the power to prosecute in any instance where it felt the efforts of the states fell
short of "robust regulation," where a threat exists for the illegal distribution to
minors, or where a threat of interstate distribution of marijuana was
encountered.
(b) The City of Yakima has been granted constitutional authority to enact
legislation regulating landuses within its jurisdiction so long as such local
legislation is consistent with the general laws (Constitution Article 11, Section
11).
(c) Nothing in Initiative Measure No. 502 ("Initiative 502") decriminalizing
possession, use and delivery of specified amounts of marijuana and
authorizing the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) to develop
and implement regulations for the licensing of marijuana production,
processing and retailing expressly or impliedly preempts the City of Yakima
from exercising its land use regulatory authority, including the ban of
marijuana production, processing and retailing within city limits.
(d) The prohibition of marijuana production, processing and retailing within
the City of Yakima does not contravene the purposes of Initiative 502, and
does not alter the provisions of Initiative 502 that authorize the WSLCB to
designate the maximum number of marijuana retail outlets in each county. If a
local ban is enacted by the City of Yakima, the number of retail outlets
allocated by the 'I+ SLC13 to the City of Yakima become "at large" retail
locations, At large retail outlets can be located in the unincorporated county or
any other city not allocated a number of retail outlets, all in accordance with
the provisions of Initiative 502.
(e) While Initiative 502 contains restrictions prohibiting location of marijuana
production, processing and retail outlets within 1,000 feet of public schools„
Memorandum to Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
December 23, 2013
Page 4
public parks, public libraries and other protected uses, it does not contain
restrictions prohibiting location of marijuana licensed facilities within residential
districts, community recreational trails, or private parks, facilities and areas
that serve the public.
(f) Studies reporting secondary effects associated with analogous medical
marijuana dispensaries in other cities and counties include reports of murders,
robberies, burglaries, drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering, heavy foot and
vehicle traffic, increased noise, odors, health hazards such as proliferation of
molds; See, "White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries," California Police Chiefs
Association's Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries (April 22, 2009) was
issued ("°CAPCA White Paper"); Citr of Riverside v. inland Empire Patients
Health and Welfare Center, 56 CalAt 729, 756, 300 P.3d 494 (2013).
(g) Initiative 502 does not require that any city allow the location of any
marijuana production, processing or retailing facility within its jurisdiction.
Regulations adopted by the WSLCB implementing Initiative 502 specifically
state that any license issued by the WSLCB does not constitute approval of
the location of the licensed facility within any city. Such uses are subject to
the land use regulations of the city.
E. Record Documents.
The following documents are presented as part of the record in this matter:
(a) (Proposed Draft) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Recommendation to City Council. These are subject to the Planning
Commission's review and revision.
(b) (Proposed) Ordinance amending YMC 15.01.035 regarding marijuana
production, processing and retailing.
(c) Initiative Measure No. 502.
(d) Chapter 314-55 WAC, regulations adopted by the Washington State
Liquor Control Board implementing Initiative 502.
(e) City of Yakima Ordinance No. 2013-148, enacting moratorium.
(f) Resolution No. 2013-142, adopting Findings of Fact in support of
moratorium enacted per Ordinance No. 2013-148.
Memorandum to Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
December 23, 2013
Page 5
(g) Memorandum to City Council dated October 2, 2013 regarding Initiative
502.
(h) Memorandum dated August 29, 2013 from U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of the Deputy Attorney General, regarding marijuana enforcement in
states of Colorado and Washington.
(i) Letter from City Attorney dated December 10, 2013 to Washington State
Attorney General's Office.
0) "White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries," submitted by California Police
Chiefs Association Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries (April 22, 2009).
(k) Materials dated November 4, 2013 in support of medical marijuana
facilities, submitted to City Council by MCS of Central Washington. (Omitting
copy of City of Spokane Ordinance No. C-35037 creating new and amended
municipal code provisions regulating medical marijuana collective gardens and
land uses for production, processing and retailing of recreational marijuana.
Reference is made to Spokane Municipal Code Chapters 10..49 and 10.50,
which are available for view on the City of Spokane's web site.)
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA
Public Hearing: January 8, 2014
Proposed Regulation of Marijuana )
Production, Processing and Retail ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
Uses in City of Yakima ) OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER, having come before the Planning Commission of the City of Yakima
(hereafter "Planning Commission") upon public hearing on January 8, 2014, and the
Planning Commission having considered the record herein and all evidence and
testimony presented, hereby makes the following
1. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 8, 2014
pursuant to notice duly published, all in accordance with applicable procedures of
the Yakima Municipal Code and state law.
2. No objection was made to any member of the Planning Commission hearing and
deciding all issues in this matter.
3. On November 6, 2012, the voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative
Measure No. 502, ("Initiative 502"), now codified within Chapters 69.50, 46.04,
46.20, 46.21 and 46.61 RCW, which provisions (a) decriminalized possession
and use of certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (b)
amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of intoxicants to
include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (c) authorized promulgation
of regulations and issuance of licenses by the Washington State Liquor Control
Board ("WSLCB") for the production, processing and retailing of marijuana.
4. Congress has previously enacted the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention
and Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, to create a
comprehensive drug enforcement regime it called the Controlled Substances Act,
21 U.S.C. § 801-971. Under the Controlled Substances Act (also "CSA"),
Congress established five "schedules" of controlled substances. Controlled
substances are placed in specific schedules based upon their potential for abuse,
1
their accepted medical use in treatment, and the physical and psychological
consequences of abuse of the substance. See 21 U.S.C. § 812(b).
5. Marijuana is currently listed as a "Schedule I" controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §
812(c), Schedule I(c)(10). For a substance to be designated a Schedule I
controlled substance, it must be found: (1) that the substance "has a high
potential for abuse"; (2) that the substance "has no currently accepted medical
use in treatment in the United States"; and (3) that "[t]here is a lack of accepted
safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." 21
U.S.C. § 812(b)(1). The Controlled Substances Act sets forth procedures by
which the schedules may be modified. See 21 U.S.C. § 811(a).
6. Under the Controlled Substances Act, it is unlawful to knowingly or intentionally
"manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture,
distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance," except as otherwise provided in
the statute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Possession of a controlled substance, except
as authorized under the Controlled Substances Act, is also unlawful.
7. The United States Supreme Court has held in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1,
125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed. 2d 1 (2005). that Congress was within its rights and
powers under the Commerce Clause to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I
controlled substance pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act, and that, under
the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal Controlled
Substances Act will prevail over any conflicting state law.
8. WAC 314-55-020(11) promulgated by the WSCLB under the authority of Initiative
502 describes the license permit process and includes the following limitation:
(11) The issuance or approval of a license shall not be construed as a
license for, or an approval of, any violations of local rules or ordinances
including, but not limited to: Building and fire codes, zoning ordinances,
and business licensing requirements.
9. Pursuant to Article 11, § 11 of the state Constitution, the general police powers
granted to cities empower and authorize the City of Yakima to adopt land use
controls to provide for the regulation of land uses within the city and to provide
that such uses shall be consistent with applicable law.
10. One of the primary purposes of the Growth Management Act is to empower cities
planning under the Act to develop and adopt land use controls reflecting the local
needs of the community. As provided in RCW 36.70A.010: "It is in the public
2
interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector
cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning."
11. The Planning Commission finds and determines that Initiative 502 does not
preempt the City of Yakima from exercising and administering its constitutional
and statutory land use regulatory authority to either allow and regulate land uses
within the city limits, or to prohibit and ban such uses.
12. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the prohibition of marijuana
production, processing and retailing as defined by Initiative 502 and regulations
promulgated thereunder is consistent with federal law and not in conflict
therewith.
13. The Planning Commission finds and determines that prohibiting within the City of
Yakima the production, processing and retailing of marijuana, as set forth in
Initiative 502 and its implementing regulations, will maintain adequate access in
areas in the vicinity of the city for marijuana production, processing and retailing
for residents within the City of Yakima, and is consistent with the provisions of
Initiative 502 and its implementing regulations.
14. The Planning Commission finds and determines that documented secondary
effects associated with analogous medical marijuana dispensaries in other cities
and counties include murders, robberies, burglaries, drug dealing, sales to
minors, loitering, heavy foot and vehicle traffic, increased noise, odors, health
hazards such as proliferation of molds; See, "White Paper on Marijuana
Dispensaries," California Police Chiefs Association's Task Force on Marijuana
Dispensaries (April 22, 2009) was issued ("CAPCA White Paper"); City of
Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Welfare Center, 56 Cal.4t" 729
756, 300 P.3d 494 (2013).
15. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the prohibition of marijuana
production, processing and retail uses within the City of Yakima is the only
effective means to protect residential districts, recreational facilities, families and
children within the City of Yakima.
16. The Planning Commission finds and determines that Section 15.01.035 of the
Yakima Municipal Code should be amended to prohibit marijuana production,
processing and retailing, as defined in Initiative 502 and its implementing
regulations, within the City of Yakima.
17, The Planning Commission finds and determines that the prohibition of marijuana
production, processing and retailing is subject to the authority and general police
power of the city to develop specific and appropriate land use controls regarding
3
such uses, and the City Council reserves its powers and authority to
appropriately amend, modify and revise such prohibition to implement such land
use controls in accordance with applicable law.
18. The Planning Commission finds and determines that such amendments
authorized herein are not intended to regulate the individual use of marijuana as
authorized by Initiative 502.
19. The Planning Commission finds and determines that Title 15 of the Yakima
Municipal Code should be amended as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, to add a new subsection to YMC
15.01.035 providing that no use that is illegal under local, state or federal law
shall be allowed in any zone within the city, and that such amendment
specifically applies to prohibit, within the City of Yakima, the production,
processing and retail sale and distribution of marijuana, all as specifically defined
and described in Initiative Measure No. 502 and Chapter 314-55 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC), as now existing or hereafter amended.
20. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the proposed amendment
as set forth in Exhibit "A" does not regulate, and is not intended to regulate,
individual possession, consumption and use of marijuana as authorized pursuant
to Initiative Measure No. 502, codified within Chapters 69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21
and 46.61 RCW, which possession, consumption and use shall be subject to the
provisions of such state statutes and enactments.
21. Any Finding of Fact, or portion thereof, hereafter determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be a Conclusion of Law shall be construed as a
Conclusion of Law without derogation of any other Finding of Fact.
Having made the above Findings of Fact, the Planning Commission makes the following
1. The Planning Commission has jurisdiction to receive all evidence and testimony in
this matter, and to make these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Recommendation concerning all issues herein.
2. There being no objection to any member of the Planning Commission proceeding to
hear and consider all matters herein, any and all objections arising or alleged to
arise out of the appearance of fairness doctrine or provisions related to conflict of
interest are hereby deemed waived.
4
3.. All procedural requirements pertaining to notice, scheduling and conducting the
public hearing have been met and are satisfied.
4. All procedural requirements pertaining to amendment of Title 15 of the Yakima
Municipal Code have been met and are satisfied.
5. The proposed legislation as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto consists of a
proposal to adopt legislation by ordinance relating solely to governmental
procedures and contains no substantive standards respecting use or modification of
the environment, and is therefore categorically exempt from threshold determination
and EIS requirements under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to
WAC 197-11-800(19).
6. The adoption of the proposed legislation as set forth in Exhibit "A" constitutes an
exercise of the general police and regulatory powers of the city as authorized by, but
not limited to: Washington State Constitution Article 11, Section 11; Chapter 35.22
RCW, and RCW 35.22.195; Charter of the City of Yakima, Article I; and the Yakima
Municipal Code.
7. The exercise of the city's general police and regulatory power to adopt the proposed
legislation is specifically authorized by and consistent with Initiative 502 as adopted
and codified within the Revised Code of Washington and Chapter 314-55 WAC,
including but not limited to WAC 314-55-020(11).
8. The adoption of the proposed legislation is not in conflict with, nor preempted by, the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513,
84 Stat. 1236, or the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801-971.
9. The adoption of the proposed legislation is not in conflict with, nor preempted by,
Initiative 502 as adopted and codified within the Revised Code of Washington, and
Chapter 314-55 WAC.
10. The adoption of the proposed legislation constitutes a land use control rationally and
reasonably related to control documented secondary effects arising from
unregulated marijuana dispensaries and collective gardens. The city is entitled to
rely on facts, reports and studies of prepared by other jurisdictions when analyzing
secondary effects associated with marijuana. See, e.g., City of Renton v. Playtime
Theaters, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 925 (1986).
5
11. Under the current application of federal law prohibiting the production, dispensing,
possession and use of marijuana, and the provisions of state law decriminalizing
production, possession and use of marijuana as authorized by Initiative 502 as
adopted and codified in the Revised Code of Washington, no clear precedential
decisions of any court with jurisdiction have been issued, nor federal legislation
passed, addressing the conflict between applicable federal law and state law
decriminalizing use, possession, production, processing and retailing of marijuana.
In the absence of such clarification, the city is at risk of being found to have aided
and/or abetted a violation of applicable federal law by adopting and implementing
any regulatory scheme that could be construed to constitute an authorization of
conduct in violation of federal law. The adoption of the proposed legislation
constitutes an exercise of the city's general police powers to prohibit any such
marijuana production, processing and retail use, sale and distribution in any zone of
the city, thereby adopting local regulation not in conflict with either state or
applicable federal law. In the event any court of competent jurisdiction issues a
decision with precedential effect for courts of the State of Washington, or in the
event subsequent legislation is passed, removing any conflict between federal and
state law, the city has authority under its general police and regulatory powers to
adopt subsequent legislation to impose and implement appropriate controls for the
land use regulation of marijuana production, processing and retailing.
12.The Planning Commission concludes that the adoption of the proposed legislation
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" will prohibit only the production, processing and
retailing of and for marijuana within the City of Yakima, and will not prohibit the
individual use, possession or consumption of marijuana authorized in accordance
with, and subject to the provisions and restrictions of, Initiative 502 as adopted and
codified in the Revised Code of Washington.
13.Any Conclusion of Law, or portion thereof, hereafter determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be a Finding of Fact shall be construed as a Finding of Fact
without derogation of any other Conclusion of Law.
Having made the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Planning
Commission hereby renders its
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
The Planning Commission of the City of Yakima, having received and considered all
evidence and testimony presented at public hearing, and having received and reviewed
11
the record herein, hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Yakima
APPROVE the proposed legislation attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 8t" day of January, 2014.
M
Ben Shoval, Chair
7
ORDINANCE NO. 2014 -
AN ORDINANCE amending Section 15.01.035 of the Yakima Municipal Code
prohibiting production, processing and/or retail outlets and sales of
marijuana in all zones of the city; and terminating moratorium
implemented pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-048.
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, the voters of the State of Washington
approved Initiative Measure No. 502 ("Initiative 502"), now codified within Chapters
69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21 and 46.61 RCW, which provisions (a) decriminalized
possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (b)
amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of intoxicants to include
driving under the influence of marijuana; and (c) authorized promulgation of regulations
and issuance of licenses by the Washington State Liquor Control Board ("WSLCB") for
the production, processing and retailing of marijuana; and
WHEREAS, Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236„ to create a comprehensive drug
enforcement regime it called the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801-971.
Under the Controlled Substances Act (also "CSA"), Congress established five
"schedules" of controlled substances. Controlled substances are placed in specific
schedules based upon their potential for abuse, their accepted medical use in treatment,
and the physical and psychological consequences of abuse of the substance. See 21
U.S.C. § 812(b); and
WHEREAS, marijuana is currently listed as a "Schedule I" controlled substance,
21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule 1(c)(10). For a substance to be designated a Schedule I
controlled substance, it must be found: (1) that the substance "has a high potential for
abuse"; (2) that the substance "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the
United States"; and (3) that "[t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or
other substance under medical supervision." 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1). The Controlled
Substances Act sets forth procedures by which the schedules may be modified. See 21
U.S.C. § 811(a); and
WHEREAS, under the Controlled Substances Act, it is unlawful to knowingly or
intentionally "manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture,
distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance," except as otherwise provided in the
statute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Possession of a controlled substance, except as
authorized under the Controlled Substances Act, is also unlawful; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has held in Gonzales v. Raich,
545 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed. 2d 1 (2005). that Congress was within its rights
and powers under the Commerce Clause to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I
controlled substance pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act, and that, under the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal Controlled Substances Act will
prevail over any conflicting state law; and
WHEREAS, WAC 314-55-020(11) promulgated by the WSCLB under the
authority of Initiative 502 describes the license permit process and includes the following
limitation:
(11) The issuance or approval of a license shall not be construed as a
license for, or an approval of, any violations of local rules or ordinances
including, but not limited to: Building and fire codes, zoning ordinances,
and business licensing requirements;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, § 11 of the state Constitution, the general
police powers granted to cities empower and authorize the City of Yakima to adopt land
use controls to provide for the regulation of land uses within the city and to provide that
such uses shall be consistent with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, one of the primary purposes of the Growth Management Act is to
empower cities planning under the Act to develop and adopt land use controls reflecting
the local needs of the community. As provided in RCW 36.70A.010: "It is in the public
interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate
and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning;" and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that Initiative 502 does not
preempt the City of Yakima from exercising and administering its constitutional and
statutory land use regulatory authority to either allow and regulate land uses within the
city limits, or to prohibit and ban such uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the prohibition of
marijuana production, processing and retailing as defined by Initiative 502 and
regulations promulgated thereunder is consistent with federal law and not in conflict
therewith; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that prohibiting within the City
of Yakima the production, processing and retailing of marijuana, as set forth in Initiative
502 and its implementing regulations, will maintain adequate access in areas in the
vicinity of the city for marijuana production, processing and retailing for residents within
the City of Yakima, and is consistent with the provisions of Initiative 502 and its
implementing regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that documented secondary
effects associated with analogous medical marijuana dispensaries in other cities and
counties include murders, robberies, burglaries, drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering,
heavy foot and vehicle traffic, increased noise, odors, health hazards such as
proliferation of molds; See, "White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries," California Police
Chiefs Association's Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries (April 22, 2009) was issued
("CAPCA White Paper"); City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Welfare
Center, 56 CaIAth 729, 756, 300 P.3d 494 (2013); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the prohibition of
marijuana production, processing and retail uses within the City of Yakima is the only
2
effective means to protect residential districts, recreational facilities, families and children
within the City of Yakima; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yakima finds and determines that
Section 15.01.035 of the Yakima Municipal Code should be amended to prohibit
marijuana production, processing and retailing, as defined in Initiative 502 and its
implementing regulations, within the City of Yakima; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the prohibition of
marijuana production, processing and retailing is subject to the authority and general
police power of the city to develop specific and appropriate land use controls regarding
such uses, and the City Council reserves its powers and authority to appropriately
amend, modify and revise such prohibition to implement such land use controls in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that such amendments
authorized herein are not intended to regulate the individual use of marijuana as
authorized by Initiative 502 ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held and conducted an open record
public hearing on January 8, 2014, all pursuant to notice and applicable procedures of
the City of Yakima, and has adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of
its recommendation for adoption of the above-described amendments, which Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein
by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held and conducted a public hearing on
January 21, 2014 and considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the
record herein, and all evidence and testimony presented; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that approval of such
amendments is in the best interests of residents of the City of Yakima and will promote
the general health, safety and welfare; now, therefore
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts as its own, and approves, the
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the Planning Commission
adopted by the Planning Commission following its public hearing on January 8, 2014, all
as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
gection 2. Section 15.01.035 of the Yakima Municipal Code is hereby
amended to provide as follows:
15.01.035 Illegal Uses Prohibited.
A. General. No use that is illegal under local, state or federal
law shall be allowed in any zone within the city.
3
B. S ecific Application — Medical Marhuana Dispensaries and
Collective Gardens. Until such time that this code is amended to provide
specific provisions and land use controls allowing and regulating
dispensaries of cannabis and/or collective gardens for the production,
distribution and dispensing of cannabis for medical uses, all as further
defined and set forth in Chapter 69.51A RCW and E2SSB 5073, Laws of
2011 of the State of Washington, such uses are not allowed in any zone
within the city. For purposes of this section, "dispensary" means any
person, entity, site, location, facility, business, cooperative, collective,
whether for profit or not for profit, that distributes, sells, dispenses,
transmits, packages, measures, labels, selects, processes, delivers,
exchanges or gives away cannabis for medicinal or other purposes.
NMI am M no
Section 3. Except as amended herein, Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code
shall remain unchanged.
Section 4. The moratorium adopted and imposed on October 8, 2013
pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-048 shall terminate upon the date this ordinance
becomes effective in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 below.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its
passage, approval, and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this 21St day of January, 2014.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Publication Date:
Effective Date:
0
Micah Cawley, Mayor
C ()ull II /N1.1,Y Ph"I"E I SOMI^ lirT DEP RTAEW FOR rim,
129 Norlh Sectond Yakima, 141awhinglon 98901 R ECORD / I" a LE
Phone (509)575-611 �a GFetx (5 19) 576��6576
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Osguthorpe, AICP, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Public Workshop - Billboards & Digital Signs
Date: January 8, 2014
As follow-up to our December 11 Public Workshop on billboards and digital signs I have
prepared the attached summary of public comments, which includes both oral testimony
at the workshop, and written testimony submitted prior to and after the workshop. As
you will see, suggestions varied widely, particularly regarding regulations of billboards,
but most people favored some regulation of digital signs. Based upon the comments,
the following approaches might be considered (I have addressed billboards and digital
signs separately):
Billboard Options:
1. Retain the status quo — change nothing.
This option would reflect the input of the billboard industry, which claims that
there is no need to put any further restrictions on billboards because (a), the
industry is one of the most highly regulated industries in America, (b)
billboards are highly regulated in Yakima and they can't put billboards up
everywhere the code allows them, (C) Since 2009 only one billboard has
been installed and one billboard converted to digital, (d) the industry
regulates itself as far as illumination goes, and (e) that it already complies
with an 8 -second rule.
2. Retain the status quo but impose digital regulations including brightness of
illumination and rapidity of message change.
This option would likely be acceptable to the billboard industry because at
least one industry rep. states that his company already complies with
intensity limitations and already limits the rapidity of message changes.
However, this requires further discussion to determine if the standards the
industry imposes on itself are the standards that would be acceptable to the
City. (See staff comments below).
ftlduna
Code Adnuniviration (509)575-6126 Planning �5050) 575 083 , I,mm�� µ SM � w ��:a�� a � b,ru, ° r� m,> � a � �,°�u,,� u N y �w,",C
business community. The impact of this option to the billboard industry would
be the same as Option 4, but it would be potentially more burdensome to
existing businesses in the city that currently rely upon off -premise signage
other than billboards.
6. Allow mobile billboards.
This was the request of one individual. These are currently not permitted in
the manner the individual requesting them desired, in part because they are
considered off -premise signs and off -premise signs are specifically excluded
from some of the zoning districts this individual hoped to advertize in, and
also because they are not defined under any specific sign type (e.g., free-
standing sign, wall sign, temporary sign, etc).
Staff observations pertaining to the above billboard options:
Staff appreciates the fact that the industry has self-imposed standards that facilitate
consistency and predictability in how billboards are operated. Staff suggests that the
Commission carefully evaluate how those standards are worded and interpreted by the
industry to ensure that they align with the Commission's understanding of such
standards. For example, the industry's definition of what constitutes a changing
message is apparently different than what staff considered during its inventory of
billboards. When staff reported that the billboard on Valley Mall Blvd. and Longfibre
Road contained 13 changeable messages, Peter Grover of Metro Outdoor Advertising
responded that it does not contain 13 messages because the rules of Outdoor
Advertising Association of America (OAAA) limit messages to 8. He said there might be
loops that bring it back around to different copy from the same advertiser, but that there
were no more than 8 advertisers. However, my report did not enumerate how many
businesses placed the ads; only on the number of changing messages because the
concern was the amount of messages a driver can read without being unduly distracted.
There were 13 changing messages documented for that sign.
Another example of the industry interpreting standards different than what we might
expect is how it interprets a "static" or "non -animated" billboard. When referring to Metro
Outdoor's billboard on Nob Hill Blvd and So. 1"' Street, Mr. Grover stated that this digital
billboard conforms to OAAA"s limit of 8 seconds between "advertisers". However, the 8
seconds devoted to single advertisers are not 8 -second pauses; they are 8 seconds in
full -motion with pictures, lines of text and graphics appearing and changing rapidly.
These full -motion ads on Metro Outdoor's billboards are consistent with the following
statements from Metro's web page:
Under hti :lfwww.metrooratdoorlle.coin/aboutus.htrnl
(The following language is under the "About Us" tab):
"Metro Outdoor was formed in 2005 with headquarters in: Phoenix,
Arizona have also brought to Yakima the latest in, Digital
technology and are operating the only full moiiondisplay
This display, ► :N at West Noib Hill and South 1 st Street, is like
Under hitt ://www.n,ietrooutdog[llg.coLldi italshowcase.html
(The following language is under the "Digital Showcase" tab):
"The only Full Motion Billboards on
Private Land in the USA!"
"2 Digital Displays to Keep your message moving!"
"Metro's full motion digital display is the latest in LED technology and is
one of only a few in the United States. It provides for faster time to
market, better custorner targeting and the flexibility to change your copy
quickly and frequently."
"With up to twice the brightness as our competitors and better resolution,
the conventional billboard has been transformed into the perfect high-tech
electronic outdoor display. Not only is our digital technology full color and
large format, it also has many distinct advantages including displaying full
motion animation and in effect, combining specialized television
commercials with outdoor advertising into one unique advertising
medium."
"Metro's high profile digital display location at West Nob Hill Blvd. and
South 1 st St. in Yakima. "
[See full motion display graphic of this referenced sign on cited
web page]
"Metro's 2nd high profile digital display is on Valley Mall Blvd. across from
Costco and Toyota!"
[See full motion display graphic of this referenced sign on cited
web page]
As the above language from Metro's webpage indicates, the intent behind the 8 -second
rule versus the way it is interpreted and applied can be significantly different.
Regarding brightness of illumination, staff has received comments from individuals living
in Terrace Heights that the Nob Hill Blvd and So. 1 "t Street billboard can be seen
changing messages from their homes. Mr. Grover stated at the public workshop that
this billboard meets industry's standard for brightness and that he could not dim it any
further without turning it off. It might therefore be useful for commission members to
view the sign at night and determine if its brightness reflects an acceptable standard.
Metro's webpage states that this sign has "up to twice the brightness as our competitors"
It might therefore be helpful to compare the brightness of this digital sign to those of
other companies.
2
Finally, regarding comments on permit activity for billboards, it is true that the City issued
one permit for a new billboard since 2009 and one for a digital update. However, the
City issued 10 billboard permits since 2008 and issued a total of 15 permits since 2006.
Nonetheless, it is not clear when most billboards were actually installed since we have
no record of permits for 62% of existing billboards in the City. It appears that many have
been installed without permits.
Additional Billboard Considerations. In addition to options reflecting the verbal
testimony at the public workshop, the following options might be considered in response
to written comment:
a. Suzanne Noble suggested that we allow billboard messages only if a scene
of Yakima landscape were displayed on a second billboard. This option
would likely be difficult to enact due to issues pertaining to regulation of
content. In the alternative, Ms. Noble stated that she favors not providing any
more billboard space, finding that they are annoying, unpleasant and difficult
to avoid. Options 3 — 5 would achieve Ms. Noble's stated preference.
b. Heather Lowe asks that we enact an ordinance that bans digital billboards,
reduces existing billboards, and affords strict management of on -premise
sign. Options 4 & 5 would achieve Ms. Lowe's request, as would an
amortization clause for existing billboards.
Digital Sign Options:
The feedback on digital signs focused primarily on the technical issues of brightness and
timing between messages, and this came from billboard and sign industry
representatives. Based upon industry input, the following options might be considered:
Digital Signs:
1. Retain the status quo — change nothing.
This option would reflect the input from the billboard industry attesting that
they adequately regulate themselves in terms of brightness and changing
of messages.. However, the industry does suggest that rules may be
necessary to similarly regulate on -premise signs.
2. Adopt standards that limit the brightness and intensity of illumination and that also
regulate the timing of message change and animation.
This option would reflect the input of the billboard industry attesting that
there is no need to put any further restrictions on billboards because of
self-imposed regulations, but that on -premise signs should meet a
standard at least as restrictive as billboard industry standards.
5
Staff observations pertaining to the above 4i ital sii options:
Option 1 would reflect primarily the input of Jean Owens. She was the one individual
who expressed concern over adoption of additional regulations on businesses. Most
speakers seemed comfortable with the idea of regulating both the intensity and motion of
digital signs and this seemed to be a common theme amongst those who spoke.
However the degree to which they would be regulated would require more discussion
and analysis. Specifically, it appears that there are divergent ideas on what constitutes
an animated sign and how the timing between advertisements would be regulated. As
the above staff comments pertaining to digital billboards demonstrates, the industry may
interpret "8 seconds between messages" quite differently than we might otherwise
assume. Commission members may wish to drive by the digital billboard on North 1St
Street just beyond J Street and compare its change of messages to that of Metro's sign
on Nob Hill Blvd and So. 1 St Street. The No 1 St Street billboard has completely static ads
with no motion and no animation. It's only change is the instantaneous transition from
one ad to another.
We should also ensure that everyone is on the same page in terms of how we define
maximum brightness. For example, James Carpentier, representing the International
Sign Association (ISA) informed me that measuring illumination with NITs is now
obsolete and suggested instead that illumination be measured in foot-candles, whereas
Peter Grover stated that the billboard industry still measures in NITs. Mr. Carpentier
offered to have a digital sign brought in to help illustrate different brightness levels. Staff
believes that this would provide a more sure way of determining an acceptable
brightness levels. We might also be able to compare illumination by both NITs and foot-
candles. Mr. Grover stated that his digital billboard is reduced down to 350 NITs at
night, but Mr. Carpentier stated that the suggested 0.3 foot-candles is equivalent to 320
NITs, meaning that Metro's sign would have to be somewhat dimmer to meet ISA's
recommended standards. It is unclear how significant those differences are without an
actual demonstration. I can contact Mr. Carpentier to see if he is still willing to do this if
the Commission would like to pursue that option. However, that would require an
evening meeting so we would need to adjust our schedules accordingly.
Additional Digital Sign Considerations. As part of his verbal testimony at the public
workshop, David Servine referenced and stated support for the written comments
submitted by James Carpentier. Mr. Carpentier offered the following recommendations.
a. Adopt a 0.3 foot-candle standard for regulating brightness. He states that this
is equivalent to -320 nits or less of an all -white EMC (electronic message
center) background at night.
b. Require that all EMC's be equipped with a sensor or other device that
automatically determines the ambient illumination and is programmed to
automatically dim.
c. Adopt a definition for digital sign as follows: "Digital Sign - A sign that is
capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be
electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means."
d. Do not enact any color or text -only restrictions
e. If we enact a hold time for EMCs keep them in the 3 to 4 second range.
Transition time for fade in and out should not exceed 1 second.
C0
f. Maintain separate and distinct regulations for on -premise and off -premise
signs.
g. Consider positive economic impacts of EMCs on the business community.
Option 2 would facilitate Mr. Carpentier's recommendations, provided that the actual
figures adopted under Option 2 were in line with the figures he recommends.
Some additional things the Commission may wish to consider in terms of digital signs
that were not discussed during the workshop include the following:
a. The number and size of di ital si ns ermined. Some jurisdictions limit the
number and size of digital signs. We can refer to the spreadsheet I provided
at the last meeting for examples. It should be noted that James Carpentier
suggested that the City allow 75% or 100% of a freestanding sign to be
digital.
b• Appropriate zones for digital signs, Some jurisdictions either do not allow
digital signs in residential and other sensitive zones, or they limit sign text in
those zones to monochrome display or dark background only.
c. Method of disolaving-AbilgL signs. The Commission may wish to discuss
whether digital signs should be incorporated into a static sign or allowed to be
displayed independently. There is no identifiable trend with other jurisdictions
on this one way or the other, but it may be something to consider.
d• lei ital Si res as an Incentive. Allow digital signs as an incentive to forgo
other forms of temporary promotional exterior signs such as banners. Since
digital signs have become such a common form of promotional advertising,
the idea would be to allow digital signs in lieu of banners and other forms of
temporary exterior signs. This could clean up much of the "visual clutter" that
occurs when temporary signs start to dominate commercial streetscapes, and
might compensate to a degree for the some of the visual impact that digital
signs themselves create.
e. Porro of Mess e Transition. What ever time period is defined for each
message (e.g., 8 seconds), the quickness of the change can be startling,
particularly as we see more and more digital signs in a confined area, each
changing at different time. This could be mitigated by having signs messages
transition with quick fade-ins rather than instantly appearing. A good way to
illustrate this is to refer to the "entrance" options in a PowerPoint
presentation. You are given the option to have a message "appear", which
occurs instantly, or "fade" which has messages come in less abruptly. The
'Very fast" speed in PowerPoint is almost instant, but takes the abruptness
out of the appearance.
Conclusions:
The Commission intentionally decided at its November 13 meeting to not pursue any
specific course of action until we could first solicit public input and explore various
options. We received valuable written comments and valuable feedback at the
December 11 public workshop, but attendance at the workshop by both business owners
and general citizens was light. Staff received comments that its timing was too close to
the holidays. I therefore recommend that the Commission continue to receive feedback
during all proceedings in the same manner as we did with the cell tower issue. We will
look for other means of notification to both businesses and residents as we discussed at
7
the November 13 Planning Commission meeting. However, we'll need to focus fairly
quickly and begin developing a specific course of action to meet the moratorium
deadline. I recommend that the Commission begin at this next meeting (January 8) to
provide some preliminary direction to staff so that we can start drafting actual code
language and get the SEPA process going right away. To facilitate this process, it might
be helpful to discuss digital sign regulations first since they could be a common
component to both on -premise signs and billboards.
Attachments:
Spreadsheet of Billboard and Digital Sign Regulations in Washington Cities
Summary of Comments from the December 11, 2013 Workshop
Letter of James Carpentier dated December 10, 2013 (referenced during the public
workshop)
Billboard / Digital Sign - Regulations in Washington Cities
Billboards
Prohibit Off-
Allow New
Allow Digital
E
Allowed
Prohibit New
premise Signs
Billboards Only
Prohibit Digital Digital Design Restrictions
Only with
Eliminate Existing
City / Jurisdiction
with Size/ Location
Billboards
(including
with Relocation
Billboards / Signs
Reduction
Billboards By
Restrictions
billboards)
Permit
Provision
Amortization
Ellensburg
✓ TC zone only, CUP
One digital sign per frontage,
required, 288 sq.ft.
3 sq.ft. max, 64 sq.ft. max.
m
for public use.
I
3 -second rule applies.
10 -seconds pause for entire
message.
Grandview
✓ 3
3 i
F 3
Kennewick
E
✓
✓
_ ✓ Must meet size,
area, height and
electrical
requirements by
specified date_
Moses Lake
/
50 sq.ft. max. size.
Illumination limit - 8,000
nits daytime; 1000 nits
C
nighttime.
10 -second rule.
No white back round F
3
Pasco
I
✓ (with exceptions
p
for directional signs)
3
1 Pullman
i
✓
a
W
Richland
j
✓
✓
Selah
:
✓
I ✓ 1
Spokane
✓
Illumination limit - .3 foot-
F [3
candles. 2 -second rule
applies. Limited to 50% of
1
l
l
allowable signage.
I
Prohibited in CBD zone.
[
Spokane Valley
./
✓
✓ 1
Sunnyside
Totally discretionary
✓ (with very limited
with no guaranteed
exceptions) j
11
right. 200 sq.ft. max -
Prohibited along
F
designated entryways.
\\apollo\Users\sosgutho\Momtoria\Billboards\Spreadsheet of City
Regulations - Revised 01.02-14.doc
Page 1
Billboards
Prohibit Off-
Allow New
Allow Digital
Allowed
Prohibit New
premise Signs
Billboards Only
Prohibit Digital
Digital Design Restrictions
Only with
Eliminate Existing
City Jurisdictionwith
with Size/ Location
Billboards
(including
Relocation
Billboards Signs
Reduction
Billboards By
Restrictions
billboards)
Permit
Provision
Amortization
I Toppenish
Allows digital only if no
more than 40% of sign face.
No moving images, 5000
nits day. 500 nits ni ht�
Union Gap
✓
00
Walla Walla
✓(No changing
Allows electronic text only
message centers)
Wenatchee
✓Lyimnited to 60 sq.ft.
(Effectively)
@ 30 feet tall or 100
SCIA. @ 8 ft. tall.
Yaldma
V MI, M2, CBD, GC
and RD zones. 35 ft.
tall, 500 ft. spacing.
Auburn
✓
Illumination limit - 8,000
nits daytime;
0 nits nighttime.
500
L5 second rule applies, 5
second scroll allowed.
(Allowed for non-
j 4 minute rule applies.
commercial use only)
8 hour rule applies. No
Motion or animation. I
Limited to text only.
U
Bellingham
Bothell
✓
Bremerton
Burien
1 Limited to 50% area of free-
standing sign.
Centralia
✓
V (90 days)
Des Moines
✓
Illumination limit - 5,000
nits daytime;
500 nits nighttime.
L
2 -second rule applies.
No animation.
Page 2
Billboards
Prohibit Off-
Allow New .
.
. .
Allow Digital
Allowed
Prohibit New
premise Signs
Billboards 0nly��
a■m .a■�
Design Restrictions
Only with.
Eliminate Existing
City /Jurisdiction
with mm Location
a■b_6
AAS
with Relocation
Billboards Signs
Reduction
Billboards By
Restrictions
billboards)
Permi!Pm
m
,
Amortization
1
a ve e
-
§ w eremoval
..
}Everet
grade, lo'«any
._
separation, mm
_conform9 .
.
�_m m� .
.
:�lk� _� by
.
m��,�
.
remove/conform
|�
�
�
km G$
.
�
Federal Way
�—
—
.
�
Fife
..
\
.
✓
.
.
:
�
� Gig N� «
.Kent(prohibition
.
ff- �
applies moff-
.
.
premise
_� e�
2 .
.
.
..
_
�
7
Lakewood
.
.
��
e &—
mm_:aka
|\
rule applies. +« J ka
.
,
i
�
_,m»Dimming
�
;
.
��+mom � * .
ace
✓
-
Qminute
s
c/fir
[Pork Angeles
» c and Industrial§
— .
;!
.
.
.. .
# second rule app .
.
.
Zoney
;
.
.1000E
pm&
}
;
Port D*�}
.
✓
.
✓
✓wlSA
\
¥
Poulsbo
.
.
|
I h9liP
.
—
zsecond 6eapp.
:
i� n
Page
Page 4
Billboards
Prohibit Off-
Allow New
Allow Digital
Allowed
Prohibit New
premise Signs
Billboards Only
Prohibit Digital
Digital Design Restrictions Only with Eliminate Existing
City / Jurisdiction
with Size/ Location
Billboards
(including
with Relocation
Billboards / Signs
Reduction Billboards By
Restrictions
billboards)
Permit
Provision Amortization
F Sea Tac
✓
✓
[
Illumination limit - 8,000 ✓ `
nits daytime;
i
500 nits nighttime.
€
1.5-second rule applies.
Requires dark background.
Seattle
✓ (subject to removal
✓ (except under
✓ (within 660 feet of
✓
✓ (billboards)
2 second rule, with 20 E
clause).
removal clause).
1 highways)
second pause.
Sequim 1
✓
—
[
e
;Shelton
(exceptfor f
C
10-acre
shopp=ng
i center) ;
Shoreline
✓
✓
20-second rule applies No
v
moving messages.
a+
Tacoma
✓ (subject to removal
✓ (except under
✓
✓
3
clause).
removal clause).
Vancouver
✓
✓
4 / 8 second rule applies. f
3
Illumination limit - 8,000
E
nits daytime; 3
1000 nits nighttime.
Requires ambient light
monitor
Woodinville
✓
✓
✓ (Allowed only in
32 sq.ft. max. Single color
i
Public/Institution
only (warm tone).
Zone)
4 second rule applies.
Legend — Cities highlighted in yellow are those that permit the typical billboard without any requirements for mitigation (e.g., no requirements to remove existing billboards to allow new billboards), and without
limiting factors such as the fully-discretional, no guarantee
provisions of Sunnyside.
Of those jurisdictions that allow billboards, Yakima and Grandview are
the least restrictive in terms
of required spacing,
lack of illumination restrictions, and the number of zones in which billboards are permitted
Page 4
Summary of Comments
- Billboards and Digital Signs -
The following is a summary of oral comments provided at the December 11, 2013
public workshop on billboards and digital signs:
Jean Owens (Local business owner & Selah resident) — Stated that she is appalled that
the city is taking up this kind of time on this issue, and that she didn't think the city would
try to consider regulating the signs. She asked if the city did any research or had any
statistics on the safety aspect of signs.
David Serving (International Sign Association & Yakima resident) — Spoke of the
importance of digital communication in this day and age, stating that it's impossible to
avoid. He spoke in support of recommendations in a letter submitted by James
Carpentier (letter is separately attached).
Fred Nelson (County Resident and Business Owner) — Stated his desire to use a mobile
billboard to advertize his out of town business in Yakima and expressed frustration that
he was told that the current code did not address them and that they were therefore not
allowed.
Neil Schreibeis (LaMar Advertising — Post Falls, Idaho) — In reference to map provided
by staff, Mr. Schreibeis stated that the locations on map, though perhaps available, are
unlikely to ever be built due to restrictions by land owners, restrictions on visibility,
location of buildings, visibility from other properties,, including other signs or other view
blockages, and also amount of advertisers that want to be on billboards. Discussed
what we're limiting if we regulate. He states that they pay taxes on every single
structure, as well as rent to landowners, and that advertisers receive benefit because it
gets people into their business. He referenced OAAA (Outdoor Advertizing Association
of America) study that stated that when billboards were reduced, 3 out of 4 businesses
that advertized on those billboards lost business. Ben Shoval, Planning Commission
Chair then asks Mr. Schreibeis to speak to standards of lighted billboards. Mr.
Schreibeis then discusses the issue of dimming technologies. Ben asks him if those are
standards his company adheres to. Mr. Schreibeis also states that they provide Amber
Alerts and other public messages.
Tom Knaub (LaMar Advertizing, Chelan, WA resident, local office) References some of
the cities in Steve's spreadsheet that limit digital signs to monochrome color. He states
that if we restrict color we should remember that people who pay for those adds want
people to be looking at those ads and a monochrome add will be much less attractive
than an ad with a full color range. He states that the brightness is something we'll be
more interested in than the color.
Peter Grover (Metro Outdoor Advertizing, Scottsdale Arizona) — Referred to the last city
Council meeting when he gave a "significant report on status of billboards in the town
and stated that between he and his father, they had leased about 90% of billboard
locations in Yakima. States that we have in place a very restrictive code, stating that the
locations on the map Steve provided are impossible. He states that existing code with
existing zones and spacing is very restrictive, stating that they are one of the more
regulated industries across the whole country and that they are still highly regulated here
in Yakima and that they can't run around putting billboards wherever they feel like
putting them. He provided permit numbers since 2009: Pole signs — 103, wall signs
176, cell towers 17, new billboard permits in that time — 1. Since 2010, he added one
new digital billboard. He says that Metro self regulates themselves as far as illumination
goes. States that he still goes by NITS to regulate illumination and that his manufacture
is WatchFire, and that at the brightest sun, brightest time of day it will be 7500 NITS.
Says that it night it drops down to 350 NITS. Says he's one step aside from turning the
thing off. Says they also follow OAAA spacing between advertisers — saying that its 8
seconds and says that on -premise advertisers (e.g., Mel's Diner) are going "berserk" all
hours without any brightness levels. States that the problem around town is that a lot of
on -premise signs don't have auto -dimming on them and no restrictions on when copy
changes. In reference to Steve's spreadsheet about different communities, he states
that he could provide a spreadsheet representing Eastern Washington that is more
favorable — that it's just a different view point. States that option to remove a static
billboard to allow a digital would impact his business because he only has 10 signs
around town. He notes that Oregon required that because the Oregon Supreme Court
ruled that their sign regulations were totally illegal, they had no sign regulations in place
for some time so people installed signs everywhere, and they are no trying to play catch
up to remove the signs installed during the no -code period. He concludes by saying that
Yakima has a good code, they've been responsible, and that Yakima is not over -built
with billboards. He says that if he could recommend anything, it would be to adopt what
OAAA is already doing, which is to adopt the 8 second rule for text change and also the
auto dimming, and to apply same standards to on -premise signs. States that his signs
go off at midnight and back on a 5:00 a.m. \
Larry Oliver (Eagle Signs, Yakima County business) — Mr. Oliver says that process has
omitted common sense. Says that Eagle also uses WatchFire units — that they're one of
the main industry standards and one of the best out there. Says another one is
Daktronics. Says that dimming with WatchFire is done automatically and that we just
need to get back to customer and say, "tone it down". Says that a lot of it is that there is
no showing even his own customers that it can be done. Says that we don't want to take
away advertising to customers. If they can't make money, they won't be out there. Also
says he's upset when he sees the map staff prepare, saying that you won't see a
billboard at every location — its not common sense. Ben then asks if the auto dimming is
already built into sign. He states that it is. Ben asks if the 8 second rule would be an
issue for his customers, He states that he's not sure, that its up to the customer He
said an add every second is not readable, and references timing in relation to speed
limit. Dave Fonfara asks if he were to make a recommendation, it might be the auto
dimming and the appropriate level of brightness. He confirmed yes, he would have no
problem with that and said he thought the customers would agree to that too.
Jesse Oliver (Eagle Signs, Yakima County business) — Says that restricting business is
not a good idea in his mind — that we shouldn't be taking these rights away from people
trying to create revenue.
Anna. Marie DuFault (County resident, Yakima city office) — Part of Coalition, Safe
Yakima Valley with a Drug -Free Community interest. Expressed concerns of advertising
alcohol and addictive products and the fact that we could not regulate text to avoid these
ads. Concerned that the more alcohol ads young people are exposed to, the more likely
2
they are to drink. Says that the very first thing that welcomes you to the City of Yakima
is a hydroponics store that is not even a local business — its in Ellensburg — and it's a
modified pot leaf that is being advertized for that store. Says that what we know about
businesses selling alcohol products is that for every tax dollar they bring in, there are 10
dollars of social costs. She states that we need to be mindful of the implications of
advertising products that are associated with domestic violence and substance abuse
issues. She said that they are trying to discourage underage drinking and that we need
to balance the community perspective for our young people.
Barbara Cline (local City of Yakima architect) — Says that her comments are for both
types of signs, and that her comments will be more subjective than technical because
she's not in the sign industry. States that as a design professional, she's very much
aware of what the appearance of the built environment says about our community. Says
she want to be proud of Yakima, but wants to make comments about how she perceives
the built environment relative to signs and billboards. She states that signage is
marvelous when it comes to wayfinding — that is the basic purpose of signage. Says
signage is great if it's advertising local interests, whether business or activity, so there is
an appropriate use of signage in that regard. She also noted that when signage is being
reviewed, some towns are looking at Dark Sky compliance and suggests that is
important to consider as we discuss signage now. States that she doesn't want Yakima
to be out of date with trends that are occurring in other parts of the country and the state.
So as we try to make ourselves more beautiful, she notices from the provided list that
more and more towns are limiting off -premises signage. Also states that it's interesting
that the media states that 1/3 of signs in Yakima are local interest. Says that when
people come to Yakima.., they need to know about Yakima and not everybody else.
States that location, scale and color are extremely important factors relative to
wayfinding. Also states that visual chaos is something she's aware of. She says that
people travel to places they find desirable and the idea of visual chaos comes into play.
She also notes that in some cases neighboring property values are driven down
depending on type of signage occurring around them and that in some cases economic
development is being discouraged because the overall environment has become so
chaotic that it's not pleasant for people to be there. Says she's not necessarily in favor
of more regulation, but that this is an area where more regulation is going to have to be
put into play in order to make the visual environment more beautiful. You take North
First Street and eliminate all that signage — look at the rich ridge behind it. "This is
Yakima, that's what I want to look at"
The following is a summary of written comments submitted to the City on
billboards and digital signs:
James Car entier (International Sign Association and Northwest Sign Council, Mesa,
Arizona) — Letter of December 10, 2013 - Suggests that we adopt a 0.3 footcandle level
and that we adopt automatic dimming capabilities on all permitted EMC's (Electronic
Message Centers). Recommends that we allow 75% or 100% of freestanding signs to
be digital; Recommends that a definition for a digital sign be included in the definition
section of the sign code. His recommended definition is "Digital Sign —A sign that is
capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or
mechanically changed by remote or automatic means." Further recommends that we:
not enact any color or text -only restrictions; enact hold times for EMC's in the range of 3
to 4 seconds, with a transition for fade not to exceed 1 second; limit illumination to 5,000
3
nits daytime and 500 nits evening, not enact requirements for dark backgrounds.
Finally, he recommends that we maintain separate and distinct regulations for on -
premise and off -premise signs.
Suzanne Moble (Yakima resident) — e-mail comments dated December 9, 2013 —
Shared idea of imposing a requirement that billboard messages be accompanied by a
sponsored image on a billboard of a beautiful view of Yakima's surrounding landscape.
If that wouldn't work, she suggests a matching billboard for a non-profit group. She
states she is also in favor on not providing any more billboard space. She states that
billboards are a commercialization of the common space, and that they are "annoying,
unpleasant and difficult to avoid. She states that having a giant billboard in one's face is
worse than radio or N or newspaper ads.
Heather Lowe (Volunteer of Keep Washington Beautiful). She states that the key
question is "what kind of city does Yakima want to be known as; what character, what
experience do you want visitors to savor; and what quality of life do you want for workers
and residents? She states that it takes commitment to high standards to be known as
an outstanding destination. She describes our tourism opportunities (e.g., wineries,
agriculture) She states that digital billboards pose a major visual and environmental
pollution threat to Washington State, and notes that once digital billboards go up, they'll
never come down,. She notes that land values decline, safety hazards become
municipal liabilities, and the threat of lawsuits against the city rise. She emphasizes that
the only benefit of a digital billboard I to the advertising company in increased revenue
and profits. She asks that we enact an ordinance that bans digital billboards, reduces
existing billboards, and affords strict management of on -premise sign.
In a follow-up e-mail copied to the City from Heather Lowe dated December 12, 2013,
she expresses concern that industry representatives were there to speak out because
"they are paid to travel, noting their out-of-state business connections. She also
questioned the Planning Commission Chair's comments to the press regarding hurting
business and limiting property rights, stating that this in not a neutral view.
Barbara Cline (Yakima architectural firm) — Ms. Cline reiterated the comments she gave
at the December 11 workshop stating emphatic support of prohibiting off -premise signs
and also prohibiting new billboards. She stated that Yakima will feel like it continues to
be behind the times if we don't pay more attention to the quality of the appearance of our
built environment. She stated that the chart outlining the regulations from Washington
cities overwhelmingly showed the number of cities that prohibit new billboards and off -
premise signs, noting decreased property values, discouraged economic activity and
visual chaos as good reasons for those bans.
Andrea Prentice (Yakima resident). In reference to Yakima Herald article of December
12, Ms. Prentice states that we should have strict regulation on billboards, and that many
Washington small cities have such regulations, including outright bans. Says she
agrees with Barbara Cline that such advertising detracts from the community and causes
"visual chaos."
.19
December 10, 2013
City of Yakima
Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commission,
IM
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
On behalf of the International Sign Association (ISA) and the Northwest Sign Council (NWSC), I would like
to submit our organization's comments with regard to Introductory Discussion of billboards and digital
signs. The International Sign Association (ISA) is a 2000 -member trade association, the members of
which are manufacturers, users and suppliers of on -premise signs and other visual communications
products from the 50 United States and 60 countries around the world. ISA supports, promotes and
improves the visual communications industry, which sustains the nation's retail, distribution, service and
manufacturing industries. ISA and the NWSC work actively with officials and business owners
throughout the northwest to assist jurisdictions with creating reasonable and effective sign regulations.
ISA recommends that staff, City Council, and other involved stakeholders should consider the
following resources as part of their information -gathering and ordinance -writing processes. In
preparation for this meeting we took the liberty to review the sign code for, legal issues and best
practices.
For purposes of organization, I have organized my comments into three categories of feedback. The first
grouping is recommendations or on= remisesi n re alations. The next category are Comments on
the Memorandum dated Qecember 11 2013 and the last category is Changes Recommendpdas nest
Practices in Drafting a i n fprdinance.
In 2008, ISA hired a lighting expert (and a former president of the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America) to develop recommendations for self-regulating industry standards to address concerns
about EMC brightness. These standards are compliant with IES TM -11-00 ("Light Trespass: Research,
Results, and Recommendations"). In summary:
oEMC tThe difference between thp nff and
- �•
wwrog pax coo g » ink oeysdugns ca i g
M
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
We believe that the 0.3 foot-candles standard (which is typically equivalent to —320 nits or less
of an all -White EMC background at night) is proven to be an appropriate method for regulating
brightness.
We recommend that the City allow 75% or 100% (versus what staff has suggested 30% or 50%)
of the freestanding sign to be digital. This allows for additional design flexibility and is
supportive of Yakima's business and institutions such as churches, convention centers, sports
facilities or entertainment centers that would choose the flexibility of a digital sign as their
primary sign .
Rhe n,it on for diaitalsion or ILeLectronic meso a center
We recommend that a definition for an digital sign be include in the definition section of the
code.
Digital Si n — A si n that is ca able of dis la in words s mbols fi ures or images that can be
electronically or meghh2annijca!N chap ed b remote or auteamatic means.
Comments on the Memorandum dote' December 12 2013 by Stere ids othor e
No mention is made of the economic considerations for digital or electronic message centers. Please see
the attached study by the University of Cincinnati that has information on the economic impacts of
EMCs on a hotel chain, banks and auto dealership. We suggest that the positive economic impacts of
EMCs on the business community be a part of the discussion when regulating EMCs. Note the attached
study "The Economic Value of Signs."
Other Comments on the Bulleted points under Digital Signs page 1, comments by Steve Osguthorpe are
indicated by (SO) NWCS/ISA comments are in bold italics:
Allow 30% to 50% of freestanding sign to be used for digital signs (SO)
nrw N sq.ns Mg, mtoosgns,•Ar"g''
We recommend that the City consider 75% or 100% as recommendeabove. INTERNATIONAL li vie that tpOCIATION
unreasonably limit the sign area to 30% or 50% would severely limit the amount of information that
can be displayed on a digital sign at one time. The bottom line with the allowable % of digital sign is,
how business friendly (includes other uses institutional or churches) does Yakima want to be?
Limit digital signs in sensitive areas to monochrome text only with a dark harkorniind MO)
We recommend that the City not enact any color or text only restrictions. This could infringe
on court established free speech requirements. With our recommended brightness restrictions
EMC signs will not exceed the brightness of other sign types.
• Limit text change to 1.5 seconds fade in, and retain image for 8 seconds (OS).
We recommend that if the City is to enact hold times for EMCs that they be in the range of 3 to
4 seconds. The transition time for fade in and out should not exceed 1 second.
• Limit illumination to 5,000 nits daytime and 500 nits evening.
This standard is outdated since it is based upon the maximum LED brightness limitations from
over 10 years ago. The daytime standard is not needed with the automatic dimming
requirement. If digital signs were limited to 5,000 nits they could not be properly viewed in full
sunlight. Our recommended brightness limitations are typically around 300 nits substantially
less than the 500 nits that are suggested.
• Require background to be darker than text (OS).
We recommend that the City not enact any color or text only restrictions. This could infringe
on court established free speech requirements. With our recommended brightness restrictions
EMC signs will not exceed the brightness of other sign types.
Maintain separate and distinct re ulations or on- remise and Iw remise si ns..
The current sign code for Yakima has distinct and separate regulations for on premise and off premise
signs. We strongly recommend that all of the regulations for on -premise and off -premise signs be
maintained as entirely separate sections of the sign ordinance. This will ensure correct administration of
these sections and minimize any confusion of the regulations for on -premise and off -premise signs.
Again, ISA and the NWSC recommends that the Planning Commission, staff, Council, and other
involved stakeholders should consider these suggestions to the language of the proposed ordinance.
Thank you for your time and consideration to the ISA recommendations to the proposed regulations.
ISA and local sign company representatives would be pleased to offer any additional assistance in
understanding issues involved in the regulation of on -premise digital signs, including a demonstration of
brightness.
Sincerely,
James Carpentier AICP
Manager, State and Local Government Affairs
� n,wslgn ori II u,,y;i +ai°p,
Billboard / Digital Sign - Regulations in Washington Cities
\\dpdto\U sen\soseuth,,\Moratoria\I3i 11 boards\Spreadsheet of City Revulztions - Revised 01.02.14,10
Page 1
Billboards
Prohibit Off-
Allow New
Allow Digital
Allowed
Prohibit New
premise Signs
Billboards Only
Prohibit Digital
Digital Design Restrictions
Only with
Eliminate Existing
City / Jurisdiction
with Size/ Location
Billboards
(including
with Relocation
Billboards / Signs
Reduction
Billboards By
Restrictions
billboards)
Permit
Provision
Amortization
Ellensburg
✓ TC zone only, CUP
One digital sign per frontage.
required, 288 sq.ft.
3 sq.ft. max, 64 sq.ft. max.
max.
for public use.
3 -second rule applies.
10 -seconds pause for entire
message.
Grandview
✓
Kennewick
✓
✓
✓ Must meet size,
area, height and
electrical
requirements by
specified date.
Moses Lake
✓
50 sq.ft. max. size.
Illumination limit- 8.000
p
nits daytime; 1000 nits
bL
nighttime.
G
10.second rule.
�
No white background
r3
Pasco
✓ (with exceptions
for directional signs)
Pullman
✓
W
Richland
✓
✓
Selah
✓
✓
Spokane
✓
Illumination limit -.3 foot-
candles. 2 -second rule
applies. Limited to 50% of
allowable signage.
Prohibited in CBD zone.
Spokane Valley
✓
✓
✓
Sunnyside
Totally discretionary
✓ (with very limited
✓
with no guaranteed
exceptions)
right. 200 sq.ft. max.
Prohibited along
designated entryways.
\\dpdto\U sen\soseuth,,\Moratoria\I3i 11 boards\Spreadsheet of City Revulztions - Revised 01.02.14,10
Page 1
Page 2
Billboards
Prohibit Off-
Allow New
Allow Digital
Allowed
Prohibit New
premise Signs
Billboards Only
Prohibit Digital
Digital Design Restrictions
Only with
Eliminate Existing
City / Jurisdiction
with Size/ Location
Billboards
(including
with Relocation
Billboards / Signs
Reduction
Billboards By
Restrictions
billboards)
Permit
Provision
Amortization
Toppenish
✓
Allows digital only if no
more than 40% of sign face.
No moving images, 5000
0
nits day, 500 nits night
p
Union Gap
✓
Walla Walla
✓
✓
✓ (No changing
Allows electronic text only.
message centers)
Wenatchee
✓ Limited to 60 sq.ft.
(Effectively)
@ 30 feet tall or 100
W
sq.ft. @ 8 ft. tall.
Yakima
✓ Ml, M2, CBD, GC
and RD zones. 35 ft.
tall. 500 ft. spacing.
Auburn
✓
Illumination limit- 8.000
nits daytime;
500 nits nighttime.
1.5 second rule applies, 5
second scroll allowed.
Bellevue
✓
✓ (Allowed for non-
4 minute rule applies.
✓
commercial use only)
8 hour rule applies. No
motion or animation.
c
Limited to text only.
Bellingham
✓
✓
Bothell
✓
o
c.
v
Bremerton
✓
✓
✓
Burien
✓
✓
✓
Limited to 50% area of free-
standing sign.
Centralia
✓
✓ (90 days)
Des Moines
✓
Illumination limit- 5,000
nits daytime;
500 nits nighttime.
2-second rule applies.
No animation.
Page 2
Page 3
Billboards
Prohibit Off-
Allow New
Allow Digital
Allowed
Prohibit New
premise Signs
Billboards Only
Prohibit Digital
Digital Design Restrictions
Only with
Eliminate Existing
City / Jurisdiction
with Size/ Location
Billboards
(including
with Relocation
Billboards / Signs
Reduction
Billboards By
Restrictions
billboards)
Permit
Provision
Amortization
Everett
✓ 20 ft. above street
✓ Requires removal
✓
grade, 1000'
of any
separation, subject to
nonconforming
removal clause.
billboard owned by
that company, and
remove/conform
when sold.
Federal Way
✓
✓
Fife
✓
Gig Harbor
✓
✓
Kent
✓
✓ (prohibition
applies to off -
p
premise only)
°
r
Lacey
✓
✓
G
Lakewood
✓
✓
✓
ro
Marysville
✓
No animation. 20 second
rule applies. 30% of sign
area max. Dimming
v
p
mechanism required.
Mill Creek
✓
Olympia
✓
✓
(3 minute rule (very
limited).
Port Angeles
✓ CA and Industrial
30 second rule applies.
Zones only.
1000 ft. spacing.
Port Orchard
✓
✓
✓ (billboards)
✓
Poulsbo
✓
✓
Puyallup
✓
2 second rule applies.
Renton
✓
Page 3
Legend —Cities highlighted in yellow are those that permit the typical billboard without any requirements for mitigation (e.g., no requirements to remove existing billboards to allow new billboards), and without
limiting factors such as the fully -discretional, no guarantee provisions of Sunnyside.
Of thosejurisdictions that allow billboards, Yakima and Grandview are the least restrictive in terms of required spacing lack of illumination restrictions, and the number of zones in which billboards are permitted
Page 4
Billboards
Prohibit Off-
Allow New
Allow Digital
Allowed
Prohibit New
premise Signs
Billboards Only
Prohibit Digital
Digital Design Restrictions
Only with
Eliminate Existing
City / Jurisdiction
with Size/ Location
Billboards
(including
with Relocation
Billboards / Signs
Reduction
Billboards By
Restrictions
billboards)
Permit
Provision
Amortization
Sea Tac
✓
✓
Illumination limit- 8,000
✓
nits daytime;
500 nits nighttime.
1.5 -second rule applies.
Requires dark background.
Seattle
✓ (subject to removal
✓ (except under
✓ (within 660 feet of
✓
✓ (billboards)
2 second rule, with 20
clause).
removal clause).
highways)
second pause.
Sequim
✓
✓
G
0
p�
Shelton
✓
✓
✓ (except for
1 nacre
shopping
center)
Shoreline
✓
✓
20 -second rule applies. No
G
moving messages.
Tacoma
✓ (subject to removal
✓ (except under
✓
✓
clause).
removal clause).
Vancouver
✓
✓
4 18 second rule applies.
Illumination limit- 8.000
nits daytime;
1000 nits nighttime.
Requires ambient light
monitor
Woodinville
✓
✓
✓ (Allowed only in
32 sq.ft. max. Single color
Public/Institution
only (warm tone).
Gone)
4 second rule applies.
Legend —Cities highlighted in yellow are those that permit the typical billboard without any requirements for mitigation (e.g., no requirements to remove existing billboards to allow new billboards), and without
limiting factors such as the fully -discretional, no guarantee provisions of Sunnyside.
Of thosejurisdictions that allow billboards, Yakima and Grandview are the least restrictive in terms of required spacing lack of illumination restrictions, and the number of zones in which billboards are permitted
Page 4